Talk:Red Shirts (United States)

Untitled

This is a good start, but it might be useful to organize it a bit with headings. Also, the red shirt was used as a paramilitary uniform in Mississippi in 1875, and it was imported to South Carolina along with the rest of the Mississippi Plan the next year. I'll have to check the sources for this in my entry on the Red Shirts in Richard Zuczek, ed. Encyclopedia of the Reconstruction Era (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2006). Someone told me once, though I've not been able to find documentation of this, that the Red Shirts in Mississippi chose that particular uniform in honor of Jefferson Davis's unit in the Mexican War, who wore red shirts (and white pants, I think). That seems plausible and a lot more likely than the Garibaldi connection, for which I have never seen any contemporary evidence, only very post-hoc comments after the 1930s. In fact, given that there is the Mississippi connection and then the North Carolina adoption of the Red Shirt uniform and tactics in the 1898 election, we might want to change the title of this entry to get rid of "South Carolina," as that is too limiting. Bruce E Baker 23:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You can add Red Shirt pages for each of the states that have an organzition because the Red Shirt organization in South Carolina was not tied to any other state and the sole focus of the red shirts in South Carolina was the redemption of the state in the 1876 election.

The book Hurrah for Hampton!: Black Red Shirts in South Carolina during Reconstruction says that a connection with Garibaldi could have existed, however remotely. In all the books I listed in the Reference section, they all mention that the red shirts derived their color from mocking Oliver Morton, so that is the most likely origin of the red in the red shirts of South Carolina.Gamecock 01:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

References Dated and POV

Adding more contemporary historians would be useful for attaining NPOV, as this is not supposed to be an apologia for the Red Shirts. Needs citations throughout and more balanced references. James K. Hogue at UNC is one of contemporary historians who have seen the insurgent paramilitary organizations as integral to the continuation of the Civil War (by other means) and ending of Reconstruction.--Parkwells (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

back to "private militia" from "rifle club"

The meme of referring to the Red Shirts or White League as "rifle clubs" appears to have started with a cite to 1898 Wilmington Race Riot: Debunking the Myths, Red Shirts: A History. Compared the version of history there with Wilmington Insurrection of 1898. Red Shirts were a private militia, not a "rifle club". Naaman Brown (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

African-American Red Shirts were placed in a prominent position for the procession.

The sentence "African-American Red Shirts were placed in a prominent position for the procession." Seems to imply there were African American members of the Red Shirts. That does not seem to be correct. Geo8rge (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It may not fit with expectations, but it seems an unlikely thing for anybody to make up. Race relations in the South (as elsewhere) have always been more complex than many people are comfortable with, and easy categories are usually invalid. Does Geo8rge have direct evidence to cast doubt on the account? Jdcrutch (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

corruption of the Reconstructionist

The article incorrectly states that the Red Shirts repressed Republican and Black voters when in fact they stopped the corruption of the Reconstructionist in that they were voting in both Republican and Democratic polls. I cite Edgefield, S.C. when the Red Shirts stopped the Black Republicans from over running the Democratic polls by a military show of force in the streets of Edgefield during the Gubanotorial elections. This lead to the S.C. constitutional crisis that caused S.C. to actually have two sitting Governors at the same time. President Grant refused to get involved and the issue was put before the S.C. Supreme court to settle. The Supreme court, with the Chief Justice being a former slave of Wade Hampton's, voted in a split vote to uphold Wade Hampton as the rightful Governor of S.C. thereby effectively ending the carpetbaggers reconstructionism in S.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.83.222.50 (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like the usual anti-Reconstruction POV. Got any sources, anonymous one? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Article Needs Careful Revision, Review for Balance

I'm not qualified to do more than proof-read the article, but it's so full of linguistic errors and sloppy construction that I suspect more substantive errors as well. For example, the text had "raft" for "wrath", and asserted that Southern women wove shirts and other garments, which I changed to "sewed" (you weave cloth, not garments, and it's rather unlikely that post-bellum Southern women were equipped to weave red flannel on the scale necessary to supply hundreds or thousands of garments to the Red Shirt campaigners).

The article needs to be reviewed for balance as well. Inflammatory characterizations ("the gang of lawless men") and uncritical reliance on partisan sources (the New York Times in that period was a Republican paper, dedicated to supporting Republican-party hegemony, not a "newspaper of record"--see New_York_Times#History) raises doubts as to the article's impartiality.

The history of Reconstruction is extremely complex, and has long been subject to distortion by competing partisan mythologies. An encyclopedia needs to cut a careful path through a minefield of passions and prejudices on all sides, not provide a platform for one or another set of partisan interpretations. Jdcrutch (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Bias: Red Shirt apologism

Reading the article as it currently stands, the section attached to the 10th citation needs to either remove the pro-Red Shirt bias, which is particularly jarring in a section about the unlawful revolt against the Republican-Populist coalition and intimidation of African-American officeholders, or to rewrite it as quotations from the cited source. As it is, non-quoted material, presumably drawn from the source and then rewritten in the author of the section's own words, smacks of bias and detracts from the article. The bit about the Red Shirts just wanting to make everyone remember their identities, when contrasted to using intimidation to win an election and to remove elected officeholders, is particularly jarring and takes the reader out of the article; it doesn't read like a page in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.242.129 (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree - I came to the talk page to complain about the section that sites the 10th citation. Just a last name and a year? That's what most of this article is based on? This should be flagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.33.90 (talk) 05:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Red Shirts (Southern United States)

The Red Shirts were not "white supremacist" groups, as they had black members <Drago, Edmund L. (1998). Hurrah for Hampton!: Black Red Shirts in South Carolina during Reconstruction. University of Arkansas Press. ISBN 1-55728-541-1.> The proper title would be "Democrat" groups, as they were formed to aid in the election of Democrat candidates to local and state political offices. The entry needs to be changed if Wikipedia wants to be correct.

KAvin (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be deliberately misinterpreting Drago. While I haven't read the book, I did read a review in a scholarly journal. Eldred E Prince Jr reviewed the work in the The Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol. 79, No. 2 (Fall, 2000), pp. 235-237. He describes Hampton's efforts to disguise his movement as the restoration of home rule as "a thinly veiled attempt to reestablish white supremacy." Blacks were recruited to the Red Shirts in order to "blunt charges of racism" -- Drago says there were numerous reasons why a few hundred did join, but apparently does not claim that the Red Shirts weren't interested in restoring white supremacy. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

PS An additional review in The Journal of American History, Vol. 87, No. 1 (Jun., 2000), pp. 233-234 is by Michael W. Fitzgerald. He states of the blacks recruited by the Red Shirts that Drago's description is consistent with historians who treated them as "dupes". Drago describes them as "short-sighted or naive."Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

PS (again) A review in The Georgia Historical Quarterly Vol. 83, No. 4 (WINTER 1999), pp. 777-779 by John David Smith concludes with a reminder that "there always was a small minority within the black community that supported white supremacy." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The Drago source is partially available on Google Books [1] and my review of it agrees with North Shoreman's conclusions. It is accurate to describe these groups as white supremacist, and creates a WP:SYNTH problem to do otherwise. I'll add also that use of "Democrat" in this manner is not appropriate. agtx 18:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

So, since history doesn't conform to your beliefs in the 21 Century, then it is what, "your job" to make sure the facts are denied and the propaganda gets spun as "fact". The fact is that for a group to in fact be a "white supremacist" group, then the race of ALL members must be "white" also..that is just a FACT. Many of the blacks that served in Hampton's Red Shirts post war, had served in/with Hampton's Legion during the WBTS, that is also a FACT that you two are seeming to sacrifice to keep to the rewrite of history. History didn't always play by the rules, as has already been stated on this page, but I guess its easier to ignore the facts than actually admit that everything isn't "black and white"...pun intended.

Also, I would like an explanation from agtx on how calling these groups "Democrat" paramilitary organizations is wrong, since they were formed across the Southern states to insure Democratic candidate's elections to office, and not, as you seem convinced(despite evidence to the contrary), to set up "white supremacist" enclaves. This fact is even represented further in this entry, that Red Shirts were forme for the purpose of defeating Republican candidates, and getting Democrats elected. Read the entire entry, its near the top.

Also, Tom, I HAVE read Drago's book and I know what it says. I don't need someone else to "interpret" it for me. As a WBTS reenactor from South Carolina who had ancestors that fought in Hampton's Legion and were members of his Red Shirts in Sumter, Richland, and Clarendon counties after the war, I think I may just know a little about the subject.

I have not "intentionally misinterpreted" Drago's work, and I take offence at your insinuation that I have. Perhaps it is YOU that have "misinterpreted" what the term "white supremacist" actually means, and what qualifiers are required to designate a group with that title.

KAvin (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

For our purposes, the reviews of the book in reliable sources are of much more value than your opinions. Drago admits that the Red Shirts pursued white supremacy -- you can't show that he agrees with your take. Your geographic location, ancestry, and hobby have no bearing on the value of your unsupported opinion. Three people have reverted your attempt to alter the article and nobody has come forth to agree with you. If you continue your one person crusade w/o obtaining consensus it will be treated as edit warring. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@KAvin: Although I also disagree with your removal of "white supremacist," I am equally concerned with your use of "Democrat" as an adjective. That usage, as I'm sure you know, is pejorative and is generally used by members of opposing parties when they want to disparage Democrats. Your use of the term in that manner suggest that your edits have a certain point of view. Your comments above are also troubling. You say that things are "just a FACT," but you don't provide any sources or basis. Instead you tell us to trust you because you claim to have certain experience. The classic New Yorker cartoon sums up the problem with that. We don't know who you are or what kind of experience you have—that's why we use reliable sources instead of claimed personal knowledge. agtx 06:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@agtx, I am sorry you feel that my use of the qualifier "Democrat" is "perjorative" and some how inflamatory, for that is not my intention at all. I use the term "Democrat" as a qualifier because these groups were formed by Democrat politicians(Hampton) and sympathizers, whose goal, as stated in the entry itself was "They had one goal: the restoration of the Democrats to power by getting rid of Republicans". This is just one of the basis for my inclusion of the phrase "Democrat" in describing the Red Shirts. It has nothing to do with todays political parties, but instead has to do with the parties of the pre 20th century South. I am sorry you misunderstood my using the qualifier "Democrat" when describing the Red Shirt groups, but since there were black members, and the organizations were not exclusively "white" organizations, I feel that "Democrat" is a more apt description of them than "white supremacist". This has nothing to do with my political beliefs, as that is not what is on discaussion here. That is simply your assumption of what I believe. I contend that the qualifier "white supremacist" is wrong, and disenfranchises the hundreds of black members of these oraganizations and their goal of self rule instead of further occupation by Northern politicians through the Republican party.

KAvin (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tom (North Shoreman), So, in your words I have to have a "consensus" of folks who refuse to ignore historical fact to undo the errors that you support in this entry?? Okay. I will attempt to get a "consensus" for you, but I'm afraid I will have to go outside this group of editors to find an unbiased group that bases their edits on facts that you deem acceptable. KAvin (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up that you intend to violate wikipedia policy. See WP:MTPPT which states:

"Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, remain civil, and seek comments from other Wikipedians or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Tom. I too can quote the "rules". Here's one for you: "Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.". Labeling an organization with black members as "white supremacist" is not, I repeat not, a "neutral point of view". Don't worry I didnt go to my "friends and family" to support my position that the entry is wrong. I went to historical organizations and a few professors that have done extensive research on the subject of Red Shirts and post WBTS politics in the nation, but particularly the Southern states. I suppose it will be up to you whether you find these people as "acceptable" for your "consensus".

I have a question for you. Are you saying that the Red Shirt organizations did not have black members? If this is your statement/belief, I would like to have your proof of this, since the references on the actual entry itself would contradict your opinion. I manatain they were not "white supremacist" organizations, as their rolls of membership would show that that is an incorrect assumption. In reading this talk page, this subject has already been covered once before in 2010, so I really do not understand your and @agtx insistance that this incorrect qualifier remain. Unless of course, correct information is not the goal of "our purposes here".

KAvin (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Just letting you know I turned this over to dispute resolution, as I am required to do. Here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Red_Shirts_.2528Southern_United_States.2529.23Red_Shirts_.28Southern_United_States.29

KAvin (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You need to do a better job of quoting from WP:NPOV. It clearly states:

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

In fact, reliable sources overwhelmingly recognize that the old Confederacy in general and South Carolina in particular intended to reinstate white supremacy. You have failed to provide any reliable sources that deny this. You take one fact (the existence of a few blacks in the Red Shirts) and draw your own conclusion -- that this makes it impossible that the larger group was striving for white supremacy. When you find a reliable source (better check out Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sourcesand read in its entirety) that draw the same conclusion you do, then you have a case for including this as an alternative view.

As far as your direct question, you would know what the answer is you read more carefully my comments based on the scholarly reviews I provided.

BTW, indent your signature when you indent the rest of your text. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Testy are we, Tom? I have read up on your posts and see that you have a pattern of deleting entries that don't "agree" with your interpretation of history, particularly if that position doesn't concur with your statements/assumptions that ALL Southern Americans, and any endeavours they may undertake, are steeped in the racist subjugation of people of the black race. That is by definition "bias" on your part. I assumed that Wikipedia was an open forum for information, and not a way for certain people to push their particualr predjudices on a subject as the one and only "fact". I have provided a rescource that is referenced in this very entry to show that the "white supremacist" qualifier is incorrect. Unfortunately, that reference was not enough for you, so you continue with the smarmy bullying over facts you don't agree with, so I just refered it to Dispute Resolution. I must say that this experience with you and agtx has really shown me alot about what exactly Wikipedia is, and its not what it is "sold as" per say. Have a good one.

KAvin (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC) Is this acceptable, Noth Shoreman?

@ KAvin Stay on topic. No personal attacks! --‎G. L. Talk 14:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@GLOBALIST_LIBERTARIAN I'm not sure who, nor how, I supposedly "attacked" someone; but that was not my intent, despite being attacked myself. Sorry if I have "offended" anyone.::::::::KAvin (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

As the issue of Drago's book has been raised by an IP, I'll also add Reconstructing Democracy: Grassroots Black Politics in the Deep South after the Civil War by Justin Behrend who writes that " Drago’s introductory essay focuses on black Democrats in South Carolina during the 1876 election to counter the perception of the black community as monolithic and to emphasize the long history of black conservatism. His argument, that black people aligned with the Democratic Party because they were conservatives, however, is unconvincing. Sizeable numbers of black men joined Hampton’s campaign, but Drago was unable to determine how many were forced or coerced during the exceedingly violent election campaign." In other words, black membership of the Red Shirts doesn't disprove that the Red Shirts weren't white supremacists. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment:Should the term "white supremacist" in the lede sentence be replaced with the qualifier "Democratic"?

The consensus is against the proposal as non-neutral. Cunard (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the qualifier "white supremacist" in the lede sentence be changed to "Democratic" to avoid confusion that may lead a reader to assume that the Red Shirts only goal was to establish "white supremacy", rather than to defeat Republican candidates and get Democratic politicians elected?KAvin (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I strongly dispute the wording of this RFC, which is not neutral. In any event, the page currently has two reliable sources that state directly that the Red Shirts were "white supremacist" groups. There are zero reliable sources that support the view that the proposer puts forth in the RFC. The discussion above on this page and at the (failed) dispute resolution have made clear that the proposer's view requires significant WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. agtx 21:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

agtx, I am already familiar with your bias on this subject, but please explain to all of us how the wording is "not neutral"?? I simply explained the reason why I believe it needs to be changed. I tried to reach a compromise through mediation, but you and another wouldn't have it, so I only see it as having "failed" due to your inability to compromise, not mine. But please, do explain how this Rfc is "not neutral".KAvin (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The accusations in this comment are out of line, and I won't respond. agtx 19:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

agtx, you may feel they are "out of line", but they are true, nonetheless. One look at your talk page will show that you are very much a "Wiki Nazi". I hate to break it to you, but its behaviour like yours that turns people off of Wikipedia. Its a shame really.KAvin (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Agtx - If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, WP:RFC guidance is to ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template.

Please note though as to sources that Kavin seems to indicate at least one in the prior TALK, and even a basic Bing of "Red shirts democrats" or look at the history of Carpetbaggers and Scalawag is turning up views of Red Shirts that are not a white-supremacist focus. As the "paramilitary arm of the Democratic party" (Encyclopedia of the Reconstruction Era in Two Volumes by Zuczek); as having black members (Congressional Serial Set or Hurrah for Hampton! by Drago, or Climbing Up to Glory! by Jenkins) or as first an anti-Yankee group doing election fraud that all parties did in that era (Wicked Charleston, Volume 2 by Jones). Markbassett (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - white supremacy was the goal; supporting candidates of one party and opposing those of another was merely a technique. During this era, the white supremacist did not hesitate to create third parties, "independent" movements, etc. if that seemed like the most useful tactic at the time. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Orangemike, then how does that explain the formation of all black Red Shirt groups by black Democrats? Are you suggesting that these blacks wanted "white supremacy"???KAvin (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually you've had this explained to you before when we talked about the Drago book which you rely on and misinterpret. Eldred E Prince Jr reviewed the work in the The Florida Historical Quarterly, Vol. 79, No. 2 (Fall, 2000), pp. 235-237. He describes Hampton's efforts to disguise his movement as the restoration of home rule as "a thinly veiled attempt to reestablish white supremacy." Blacks were recruited to the Red Shirts in order to "blunt charges of racism" -- Drago says there were numerous reasons why a few hundred did join, but apparently does not claim that the Red Shirts weren't interested in restoring white supremacy.

An additional review in The Journal of American History, Vol. 87, No. 1 (Jun., 2000), pp. 233-234 is by Michael W. Fitzgerald. He states of the blacks recruited by the Red Shirts that Drago's description is consistent with historians who treated them as "dupes". Drago describes them as "short-sighted or naive."

A review in The Georgia Historical Quarterly Vol. 83, No. 4 (WINTER 1999), pp. 777-779 by John David Smith concludes with a reminder that "there always was a small minority within the black community that supported white supremacy." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Tom, I have quoted two sources that you say were not good enough "for our purposes", and you have already proven your bias on this subject by quoting the same sources you have before and stating I have "purposely misinterpreted" the Drago book, simply because it calls your, and your scources, interpretaions of actual historical facts into question. You then solidified your bias by maligning and insulting myself and other historians that do not hold the view on this particular subject that you feel they should. I honestly feel that there is nothing that can be gained from your input on this subject. KAvin (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The sources and interpretations you rely on, KAvin, are not reputable nor widely accepted by actual historians of this movement and this era. That's not Tom's bias, that's the judgment of scholarship. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Both - it's not one or the other, it was both. And I'd say marking it as historical should occur before either, so suggest paraphrase it as '19th-century white-supremacist elements of the Democratic party' Markbassett (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The urgency of including the word "Democratic" in the first sentence is not at all clear since it is already mentioned in the second sentence as well as the second and third paragraphs. It is clear however that eliminating "white supremacist" from the first sentence eliminates it completely from all three paragraphs of the lead despite the fact that it is mentioned throughout the body of the article. There are numerous sources to support the fact that restoring white supremacy was the primary goal of the Democrats. In addition to the sources already contained throughout the article, I have introduced other scholarly sources stating pretty much the same thing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• Both - per Markbassett and the user's suggested wording '19th-century white-supremacist elements of the Democratic party'.CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No opposition to this in principle, but the wording sounds really clunky to me. How about "The Red Shirts or Redshirts were Reconstruction-era white-supremacist paramilitary groups aligned with the Democratic Party in the Southern United States." Then we leave the next sentence as it is, so the reader gets a date in the 19th century. agtx 16:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I still don't understand why removing any qualifier before "paramilitary" is a "bad thing", since both "white supremacist" and "Democratic" are covered in the body of the article? I have tried to find a "common ground" to fix this issue, but have been met with a fanatical "defense" from a couple of editors that "white supremacist" stays, and that is the ONLY acceptable remedy to this situation. I still haven't been told exactly why a change is detrimental to the article by anyone who has opposed my edit.KAvin (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Agtx - that line is a bit long and slightly wrong chronology. The Redshirts occur 1870s and 1890s, which is after the Reconstruction era. I'll also offer that Democrat or election-fixing should have more precedence and prominence in article as (1) their primary actions were about elections of Democrats and (2) to reflect a WP:DUE weight aspect that their influencing of elections for Democratic side are said in all the sources I've seen, but 'white-supremacist' is only said in some. I suspect that label and 'paramilitary' to be a recentism from a limited selection of POV - or it may be editors confusing the article mentions of the Jim Crow from Democratic Redeemer and Democratic progressive governments as if those were the actions of Redshirts. Markbassett (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose --- called here by bot. The wording of the RfC is not neutral, seeming to lean toward removing the phrase to "avoid confusion" but this is not the question. The phrase is useful and good there and ought not to be removed. SageRad (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose replacing "white supremacist" with "democratic" - yes, they were anti-republican and pro-democrat, but their raison d'etre was, essentially, support for white supremacy. Obviously it should be put in context - note that they were democrats, and that the democrats were the party of white supremacy in the south during this time - but putting the "democrat" aspect before the racist aspect is putting the cart before the horse. Summoned by bot. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
• No, it's a ridiculous proposal, and as others have noted the wording of the RfC itself is non-neutral.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per SageRad, Fyddlestix and Volunteer Marek — OwenBlacker (Talk) 07:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC) via the feedback request service
• opposeChange would be of no benefit to this article, violating the WP requirement for neutral language and avoiding agenda pushing, which surely this change would be. Hmains (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Summoned by bot. Reasons for opposition are well stated above, not the least of which is NPOV language.Wzrd1 (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One Goal

A sentence in the 3rd paragraph of the lead says, "They had one goal: the restoration of the Democrats to power by getting rid of Republicans, which usually meant repressing civil rights and voting by freedmen." It is sourced to pp. 74-80 in Lehmann,s book redemption. However what the source actually says is, "Well-financed terrorists ... were engaged in what seemed to be a planned campaign to unseat the Republican Party, and undo Negroes' civil rights and voting rights, by means of violence against its officeholders and voters." I'm going to change the language to be more in keeping with the original source. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Black membership

Although the IP is wrong, the Red Shirts did have black members and we should mention it.

"Wade Hampton had long called on South Carolinians to view their southern world as both biracial and white supremacist. Speaking in 1866 to one of the earliest organizations of Confederate veterans, Hampton encouraged his former comrades to remember their duty to the freed-man: “As a slave, he was faithful to us; as a freedman, let us treat him as a friend.” Refusing to recognize that Afro-Carolinians could exhibit agency of their own, Hampton viewed them as either loyal friends or Republican pawns. He maintained a tight web of paternalism and control over the former slaves of the Hampton family and believed that other southern whites should do the same. Within this context black voting became acceptable. White supremacist paternalism, Hampton believed, could control these votes just as it could control other aspects of blacks’ lives. He told a biracial audience in Abbeville, “We want your votes, we don’t want you to be deprived of them.”Never Surrender

Confederate Memory and Conservatism in the South Carolina Upcountry.[2] Doug Weller talk 15:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"Charleston. Besides thousands of ecstatic white supporters, the crowd included hundreds of black supporters—men, women, and children. Hampton hoped to retain the support of these African Americans, while yet delivering some of the most bombastic, spread-eagle white supremacist rhetoric of the nineteenth century. Hampton predicted that while other races either accommodated or submitted to white leadership, the white man will go on bearing the flag of civilization and Christianity until the last trump shall sound from Heaven. ... Hampton’s promises to protect black Carolinians in 1878 were, if anything, more emphatic than those of 1876. Yet they were always couched in the assumptions of white supremacy. Hampton’s brand of white supremacy was a peculiar one, though—one that modern readers often find puzzling if not dishonest. In Hampton’s very next sentence to his Charleston audience, for example, he offered the “other race” goodwill and even the hope of partnership with the “superior” race: “You can, my colored friends, have your share of South Carolina—you can have all the share that any citizen has—you can aid in choosing its rulers, and if you show yourselves worthy, honest and capable, you can become office-holders yourselves. But you can do it only in one way, and that is by joining this strong, grand old Democratic party. [Cheers.] We hold out the hand of fellowship to you. ... We will try to aid you, my colored friends, in every way.” Hampton then went on to boast of his efforts in behalf of black education.2 It was also a version of white supremacy that not only boasted of, but demanded, honesty and generosity from the stronger race." Wade Hampton: Confederate Warrior to Southern Redeemer [3]

"Recognizing that "Hampton never envisioned allowing blacks to exercise any real authority in shaping the ideology of the Democratic Party" (p. 48) , Drago nonetheless falls short of providing an explanation for the participation of blacks in the general's "Red Shirt" campaign. On the one hand, he undervalues the degree to which Democrats used blacks as po- litical pawns and how whites manipulated and intimidated blacks, especially economically, to support their overstates the importance of those blacks fails to uncover the motivations for their behavior. Drago 's book thus pays insufficient attention to the relationship be-tween white racism and black agency... Though we probably will never know how much of Hampton's black support was voluntary, Drago 's book is an important reminder that there always was a small minority within the black community that supported white supremacy."Reviewed Work(s): Hurrah for Hampton! Black Red Shirts in South Carolina DunngReconstruction by Edmund L. Drago Review by: John David SmithSource: The Georgia Historical Quarterly, Vol. 83, No. 4 (WINTER 1999), pp. 777-779Published by: Georgia Historical Society

"party. I never have got ten cents out of the party."26 Wade Hampton had long called on South Carolinians to view their southern world as both biracial and white supremacist. Speaking in 1866 to one of the earliest organizations of Confederate veterans, Hampton encouraged his former comrades to remember their duty the freedman: "As a slave, he was faithful to us; as a freedman, let treat him as a friend." Refusing to recognize that Afro-Carolinians could exhibit agency of their own, Hampton viewed them as either loyal friends or Republican pawns. He maintained a tight web of ternalism and control over the former slaves of the Hampton family and believed that other southern whites should do the same. Within this context black voting became acceptable. White supremacist paternal- ism, Hampton believed, could control these votes just as it could control other aspects of blacks' lives." "Religion, Gender, and the Lost Cause in South Carolina's 1876 Governor's Race: "Hamptonor Hell!"" Author(s): W. Scott Poole Source: The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Aug., 2002), pp. 573-598

Copies of the JSTOR articles available by email. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Poor support for the claim to be a white supremacist group

The article uses two, rather poor quality, source to support the claim that the Red Shirts where a "white supremacy" group. The first is an article from "The Washington Post". The other is a short blurb on a website. Both places the Red Shirts are mentioned once and neither makes any justification for the association. Having black members does indicate that maybe this white supremacy thing, wasn't really that important to them. An actual reliable source that justify the association, would be nice. A source that is older than either of the ones already used, would be better than any that's younger.

There has also been a cleansing of political affiliation, where it has been changed several places, that the Red Shirts where used by the Democratic party (changed to political conservatives) against the Republicans (changed to progressives). Where ever "Conservative" can be seen as the "good guys", it seems to have been erased from the article entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.107.15.50 (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your tags as it is ridiculous to call the Washington Post and the PBS "poor quality" sources. Further, the Red Shirts were synonymous with white supremacy. It appears in the first paragraph of their SC Encyclopedia article. It was the entire point of the organization. They were conservatives. Moreover, as the article stands now, none of your concerns of political "cleansing" are present. The word "Democrat" appears in association with the Red Shirts five times in the article's lede. As for your concern regarding "conservatives" not being seen as the "good guys," the conservatives in this case (the Red Shirts) were trying to preserve white supremacy and the power of the the planter class. It is not analogous to the present-day use of the term which you are clearly upset about. Muttnick (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm tempted to revert your changes because you have not justified why the sources are high quality in this context. I can make high quality comments on a topic that I know something about and absolutely stupid comments on something else. Just because one source is a good source in general, does not mean any particular contribution is. I still uphold my claim that there has been a political cleansing -- not thoroughly, but still present. Please clarify why the sources are good source on this one topic. If you can't, could you please reintroduce the tags that the sources are poor quality or simply replace them with better sources. I am not upset about any terms, merely that the sources used to justify using the term are very poor sources.

I have added new sources of better quality. Feel free to adjust what you see as political cleansing. Regards. Muttnick (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The new source is of exactly the same quality as the two previous and adds nothing to this article. It still makes no justification of he claim at all and simply make it out of hand.