In his report to the SCV’s National Leadership Conference Adjutant-in-Chief Steve Ritchie noted the following:
Adjutant Ritchie then announced what he claimed would be a controversial fact, that there is no national constitutional requirement for proof of lineage/descent from a Confederate veteran for membership in the SCV. The membership packet required at national SCV headquarters includes a completed application, a check and preferably a type written summary of the applicants information but no paperwork for descent documentation is required by national headquarters. Membership records are kept as hardcopies at SCV National headquarters. SCV National does no genealogy verification. The application requires camp officer signatures to substantiate membership satisfaction and camp requirements vary. Compiled service records are sometimes illegible or inaccurate and many were lost during the War especially when towns were burned and razed such as in Sherman’s march. Additional resources include the American Civil War Research database and Broadfoot’s records of Confederate veterans. UCV and pension records are additional resources. He highlighted that how an ancestor was separated or location of his burial may be unknown and don’t get hung up on those details when completing the application.
You have to wonder why this point was raised and whether it will lead to changes in recruitment policy on the local level. Dispensing with the lineage requirement in what is clearly the most vocal Confederate heritage organization would certainly make it easier to fill the ranks and even branch out to welcome the descendants of all those loyal black soldiers, who we can’t quite match up with wartime records. Apparently, we can blame Sherman for the lack of records. At the same time it could undercut the organization’s own claims to authority based largely on their lineal descent. We will have to see how this plays out.
It is not hard to understand the flurry of support for colonization during the Civil War. Notwithstanding the opposition of radical abolitionists, colonization presupposed emancipation, and whenever talk of emancipation arose, so too did talk of colonization. The more difficult question to answer is why it came to so little. In the modern world, wars of unification, especially civil wars inflamed by ethnic nationalism, commonly lead to forced population transfers and sometimes genocide. The Civil War in the United States was certainly a war of national unification, and the Republicans exhibited more than their fare share of ethnic nationalism. Nor was the idea of forced expulsion unheard of in the United States. Most Republican policymakers were old enough to remember the brutal “removal” of the southeastern Indians during Andrew Jackson’s administration. And during the Civil War itself the Union army forcibly expelled some ten thousand whites from their homes in Missouri. The same army systematically uprooted tens of thousands of slaves from their plantations to relocate them in areas safe from the reach of their former masters. And yet not a single emancipated slave was involuntarily “removed” from the United States in the wake of emancipation. (p. 281)
Oakes goes on to suggest an explanation, but for now I am going to leave you with just the excerpt.