Comments on: Will the Real Weary Clyburn Please Stand Up

By: Robert Moore

Robert Moore — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:23:57 +0000

Chris, Your comment about the pensions in N.C. pretty much parallels mine about those found in Virginia. Clearly the “black Confederate” issue has been and continues to be blown way out of proportion, with the purpose of downplaying the Confederacy “fighting for slavery” issue. For those people, there is no time to pause and examine the facts on this matter. A “black Confederate” is found, reinvented as a “black Confederate soldier,” and honors are hastened along to serve a “purpose.” We are in the midst of yet another tier of “mythification” of the Lost Cause.

By: Kevin Levin

Kevin Levin — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:26:47 +0000

Chris, — Thanks for sharing this information. It clearly adds a great deal to understanding the context of Clyburn’s pension application. Clyburn was clearly not a soldier in the Confederate army.

By: chris meekins

chris meekins — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 04:23:50 +0000

I dread entering this discussion if only because it is too close to home. For full disclosure I am a former coworker of Mr. Ijames.
Setting all else aside, I thought this point should be made.
NC first began assisting the Confederate soldier during the war (widows and orphans money)and immediately after the war the General Assembly [GA] (1866) issued artificial limbs. Petitions on behalf of soldiers began coming to the GA in short order. The first major pension act passed in 1885. It set what soldiers and what disabilities could be awarded pensions - including such things as real property exemptions for those who owned too much. Again petitions to the GA added men who did not fit into the 1885 act categories. Another major revision came in 1901. 1901 opened up the pension to more soldiers and more widows. Minor revisions continued to occur (mostly to favor widows) over the ensuing years until finally in the 1927 revision the law included a section for a class B pension to "compensate former slaves who could prove they had been servants of soldiers, or who could prove they had served in some support capacity."

Point would be: if this man were a soldier in the eyes of the government he would have been qualified under some of the previous provisions of the pension act(s). That he did not receive a pension, nor believe himself eligible for a pension, until after the 1927 class B provision should tell us all that neither the government nor WC himself considered that he was eligible for a pension as a soldier.

Call me simple but that, to me, seems case closed.

By: TF Smith

TF Smith — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:29:57 +0000

Kevin -

Sorry, not trying to invoke Godwin here, but merely making the point that oppressed populations (as opposed to proxies like the Sikhs and Gurkhas or those liberated, like the men who made up the USCT) rarely appeal to their oppressors as likely candidates for being armed, trained, and organized as particularly loyal or effective soldiers; hence the lack of Armenian units in the Ottoman army, Chinese/Korean in the IJA, etc...

By: Kevin Levin

Kevin Levin — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:25:27 +0000

Anon, — Interestingly, there is no mention of a daughter in the pension file. Thanks so much for pointing that out.

By: Kevin Levin

Kevin Levin — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:53:15 +0000

Ed and TF, — Please stay on topic. This is not a post about the relationship between Jews and Hitler’s Germany.

By: Ed

Ed — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:49:59 +0000

To tf smith:

Your statement, "Black Confederate" is about as historically valid as "Jewish Nazi."

Bryan Mark Riggs' book "Hitler's Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story Of Nazi Racial Laws And Men Of Jewish Descent In The German Military" he estimated as many as 150,000 German soldiers, sailors, and airmen of at least partial Jewish descent.

Foolish Boy:

I did a book search with Google and from 1850-1870 "foolish boy" is used 620 times. From 1980-2000 it is used 775 times. Reading some of the passages, it appears the term is used in the same manner today as it was in the past.

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:56:14 +0000

This article states Weary's daughter (who was supposed to attend the "Weary Clyburn Day" festivities) was born in 1921 and he applied for a pension in 1926. Any mention of her in the pension application, or just the "foolish boy"?

By: Patrick L

Patrick L — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:56:28 +0000

Piggybacking on David’s comment, not only does “master” clearly show WC to have been a slave, but the order of the words is significant too. Services to the master come before services to the Confederacy. His service to the Cause was only grammatically and historically possible through his service to his master.

By: David Langbart

David Langbart — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:39:08 +0000

I think the phrase “that his services were meritorious and faithful toward his master, and the cause of the Confederacy.” The reference to “his master” clearly implies slave status.

By: toby

toby — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:14:34 +0000

"foolish boy" .... there is an archaic use of "fool" as synonymous with "child", so "a foolish boy" may mean "a young boy" i.e. he has a family to raise.

It may also mean "childish" or "simpleton", and refer to his mental state.

Clearly, our use of the word "fool" comes from this meaning.

By: tf smith

tf smith — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 05:35:36 +0000

"Black Confederate" is about as historically valid as "Jewish Nazi."

The SCV are self-deluded lunatics.