Talk:Hiram R. Revels

Wubilishous (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)wubilishous== What was he? == First the writer says that he was a "mixed" judged person, then promptly declares that he was the "first black man" to be elected to the Senate. The second statement contradicts the earlier statement. I am perplexed. GhostofSuperslum 12:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * one drop rule - Back then and even still today by some definitions, any person with any Black ancestry is considered Black. CJ 18:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Revels lived his entire life as a black man. He never claimed Lumbee ancestry, nor is it in any of the scholarly biographies of Revels. There really is no serious debate on this among the experts.Verklempt (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Crownjewel82 is correct. American race law regarding "blackness" is stricter than Nazi race law regarding "Jewishness." Nazi race law only went back two generations in determining who was Jewish -- Jewish great-grandparents didn't count. Under American race and general custom people with any visible sign of African ancestry -- Smokey Robinson, Halle Berry, Beyonce, Mariah Carey, Lena Horne, Dorothy Dandridge, Sally Hemmings, Barack Obama -- are considered "black" regardless of the actual percentage of African ancestry they have. President Obama is 50% white but he is perceived as "black." His daughters are 25% white, and they are perceived as "black." Therefore, even though Revels was apparently at least 75% white (Caucasian) under American race law he would have been perceived as "black," and therefore counts as a "first" in African-American history. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC))

Disregard what you read about this man. Statistics must be retooled here. Hiram Rhodes Revels was indeed the first notable American politician of color, but he was RED, not black. I am a Lumbee Indian of the same tribe as Mr. Revels. In fact, my entire maternal line sprang from him. Revels, through and through. Revels is an extremely common name in the lands of the Lumbee. there are certain surnames that mark one as being Indian. Whites do not possess these surnames, nor do blacks. They are Revels, Oxendine, Chavis, Locklear, Lowry, and Demory. There are more, I'm just not listing them. My point is, these surnames are INDIAN and you do not see them in white or black populations. The Lumbee Nation is over 40,000 strong and deserving of complete political autonomy. This man was not black at all, although due to primitive racial ideas at the time, most Native Americans of his tribe were classified wrongly. In those days it was possible even for siblings to be separated into slaveowner and slave classes, all based on the color of their skin. This issue has been a confusing one in North Carolina from the very beginning, among this tribe of Indians. It is entirely possible for siblings --originating from the same set of parents -- to have radically different skin tones. Blue eyes and blonde here, blacker than midnight in a mineshaft there. Both are from the same parents. So, in North Carolina during these times, it was possible that your kid brother could in time become your property. This was the world that Hiram Rhodes Revels was born into. He was an Indian, not an African-American, and this issue MUST be corrected. Indeed, I will see that it is.

Now, to address that fool below who posits that Mr. Revels was not a Lumbee, and who has the gall to mutter something about "experts" (who are these experts by the way? Do they have names? How do we know they exist, and that they are true "experts"?) and all that, I have this to say. I have been to the courthouse and seen the birth documents. These documents are available for all to view, expert or not. Not only are the birth details there but also property transactions and other data. For generations preceding Hiram's, the number and type of free people in the household were also documented. For example, are you free-colored? Free other? What kind of free person are you? These data are included in the public record. Experts my rear end. The public record is the only expert you need. I know the names of Hiram Rhodes Revels's siblings. It's all there in black and white, and I can tell you that he was a Lumbee Indian. His ancestors went on to establish my maternal line of Revels in Robeson County, North Carolina. I have never once, in my entire life, ever met a single African-American person named Revels. Not saying they don't exist, just that if they do exist, it is an exceedingly rare surname in that population. Bullocks to him being black, this man was Native American, and I swear to God and Sonny Jesus if I have anything to do with it -- and I am a young, highly intelligent man who intends to live a VERY long and successful life -- then this account of history will be CHANGED to reflect the TRUTH. Birth certificates are unreliable here, because of the ambiguity of this race. They were either labeled black or white. Mr. Revels, like everyone else in my family and tribe, was Indian. And I suppose it doesn't matter what other people say. I know for a latent fact because he founded my maternal line. Everyone on my mother's side is a Revels.

By the way, the fact that this debate rages over his ethnic background says a lot about the truth of the official record. In other words, things that are universally accepted as fact are not challenged this fervently. Right? So, if the question were neatly settled, then this discussion would not exist. Put that in your peace pipe. And by all means, smoke it. Incidentally, all of this information is also available in texts owned by the University of North Carolina library system for those brave enough and dedicated enough to find and research them. These texts will yield the full story of Hiram's family history, and the texts will definitively illustrate this great man's vast Indian heritage. People will discourage you from investigating your Indian heritage because of the volatile data that will result from your searches. This historical revision is only one such example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.238.141.69 (talk • contribs) 2011-06-14T17:29:54‎ – Please sign your posts!


 * Racial designations became more strict after the Civil War, as whites sought to reassert white supremacy. It was in the late 19th c. that they disfranchised blacks in the former Confederacy, and in the 20th c. that VA and some other states put the "one drop rule" into law, and even changed existing records (in VA) in which people identified as Indian. In fact, people of 3/4 or more white ancestry were considered legally white in VA in the antebellum years. Legal cases often depended on whether they satisfied obligations of citizenship, and how their neighbors viewed them, as documented by Ariela Gross; some entered white society, as did their descendants (as did 3 of the 4 Jefferson-Hemings children, and some of the descendants of Madison Hemings as well.)


 * The kicker was that children of slave mothers were born into slavery, under a principle, partus sequitur ventrem, which most colonies incorporated into slave law (VA did in the 17th c.), saying that children took the social status of their mother. This was part of what caused the association of slavery, African descent, and otherness- thereby people associating those with any African ancestry as "other". (Also, early in colonial history, all but English were considered foreigners and there were no means of naturalization). But, there were numerous free black families started in VA before the Rev War by unions between white women and African men, slave, indentured servant or free, as documented by Paul Heinegg, in his Free African Americans in VA, etc., available online. The children of the white women were born free. (If illegitimate, they had to serve as indentured servants for a period into their 20s.) Such free people of mixed race became the ancestors of numerous free black families (people of color) in VA, the Carolinas, MD, and Delaware in the early 19th c., and they migrated to frontiers in KY and TN, and further, as time went on.


 * In Revels' case, the question is how he identified. Fayetteville was an area with a majority African-American population, and there is no indication that Revels or his father identified as Native American, although he may have had some ancestry (as well as European). The writer above does not seem to think Revels' mother's ancestry counts, but she was listed as a free person of color or free black. Revels organized units of the USCT; he was a minister in the AME Church - these activities contributed to how he was and is perceived. Some of Revels' ancestors may have contributed to lines who later identified as Lumbee in Robeson County. Different branches of different families are identified in different ways.--Parkwells (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

He was, by definition, mixed. Anna (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Name
Was his name Rhodes or Rhoades? This link from the NC State Library says "Rhoades"; obviously, the german article was named after it. I would like to move it to the correct name and would be thankful for information. --Scooter (this one)  12:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Rhodes" appears to be correct, The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress and other primary sites seem to have that spelling. I suspect the NC State Library has made an error. - SimonLyall (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any detail on why he was given that middle name? Thanks Anna (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Democrat in 1874?
Does anyone know why he became a Democrat in 1874? The article references a letter he sent to Grant, but he never resigns as a Republican, he seems to be elected into Democratic offices. -PatPeter 00:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Many typos and informal usage
I see "bro" instead of "brother" repeatedly and other things I am not sure about "basically wife"? Is this common-law or what? This article should be brought up to reasonable standards. --Jrm2007 (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Common name
Regarding the move of this page, Hiram R. Revels (40%), Hiram Revels (40%), and H. R. Revels (16%) are the only iterations of Revels's name that constitute over 5% of references to him on newspapers.com. Star Garnet (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)