Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Most impressive Battalion; less than a half hundred major incidents spread across pretty much the entire north in 70 odd years. Does that equal more than a hundred lynchings on black men in one year in TN or the actions of the White League in 1870? Just asking apparently you believe so. How about holding an entire race down in the mud so those who thought themselves better than he could stand on his back.
Racism was common throughout the US and you know very well I've said that often, no matter how much you choose to ignore it... a search will find my words for you to take out of context. The difference between the North and the South; a black man could be beaten or hanged just for looking at a white man "wrong" and god forbid the black man should not know his place... could get him killed. Take a look at WW2 and the treatment of black GI's... then again US soldiers are soooo loved in the South by the Lost Cause crowd.
Look at the public record of Selma or Montgomery AL, Columbia & Charleston SC etc. How many lynchings, beatings, whippings and outright murder of black men and women can you find? Now go spend some time in the bottoms of any city in SC, Georgia, etc and ASK the old people what they recall from the "good ole days." Do you see a concious effort by the authorities and general populace to keep black people in a second class socio economic place... almost akin to slavery. But as you so eagerly defend slavery as not that bad... I don't expect you to see such.
Silent racism does not equal pleasent or even terribly liveable and it is a stain that is only being washed away in this generation, despite the best efforts of those who espouse the Lost Cause and everything it stood/stands for.
The brutal racism is gone from the south and even most of the silent racism is gone, again despite the best efforts of some.
To quote a better man than you or I. "If you can only hold your head up by holding someone else down; you haven't got much to hold up."
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
But as you so eagerly defend slavery as not that bad...
I don't recall defending slavery at all...where do you get your info?
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Laws are necessary for a GOVERNMENT to establish segregation. That's what the southern states did, and what Plessy v. Ferguson was all about. If you can't provide the laws, then the comparison you tried to make is as bogus as the rest of your posts. But we all knew that anyway.
Regards,
Cash
What is bogus is your attitude.
The comparison I made was segregation inwhatever form it arises.
Your statements on the subject are as hypocritically absurd and useless as this "law"-
Massacusetts 1894: Barred school segregation [Statute]
No person shall be excluded from a public school on account of race, color, or the religious opinions of the applicant.
80 Years Later "On June 21, 1974, Massachusetts Federal Court Judge Arthur Garrity ruled that the Boston School Committee 'intentionally brought about and maintained racial segregation.' His ruling was based on school committee records that documented ongoing resistance to desegregating schools when the school committee alone had the power to decide who went to any given school. In the two years leading up to the ruling, protests and demonstrations revealed white resistance and racial tension in a city that had long considered race a southern issue.
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Only if one considers a respect for truth in history to be bogus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
The comparison I made was segregation inwhatever form it arises.
That is not an honest statement. You're the one who brought Plessy v. Ferguson into this. Plessy v. Ferguson involved STATE ACTIONS, which are done through laws.
Your right about the phrase "cornerstone of...". It's right there, written for all Americans to see.
Most Americans aren't taught about the North's role in slavery, clouding the truth and blaming slavery on the South.
The truth is that at this time in history we (Americans) suffered from racism. White supremacy was the "way" and any person of color - red, black, brown, or yellow was considered inferior. As I recall this lasted about 100 years.
However, I don't think Lincoln wanted a war, so I don't think he provoked it...He started it just by being elected.
More precisely, Lincoln's election was merely the agreed upon excuse, use by southern separatists of the first seven seceding states to initiate their conspiracy to secede from the Union.
What is bogus is your attitude.
The comparison I made was segregation inwhatever form it arises.
Your statements on the subject are as hypocritically absurd and useless as this "law"-
Massacusetts 1894: Barred school segregation [Statute]
No person shall be excluded from a public school on account of race, color, or the religious opinions of the applicant.
80 Years Later "On June 21, 1974, Massachusetts Federal Court Judge Arthur Garrity ruled that the Boston School Committee 'intentionally brought about and maintained racial segregation.' His ruling was based on school committee records that documented ongoing resistance to desegregating schools when the school committee alone had the power to decide who went to any given school. In the two years leading up to the ruling, protests and demonstrations revealed white resistance and racial tension in a city that had long considered race a southern issue.
What is it you think you are saying with the above?
BTW, I was a Political Science student at a Boston college when all that was going on. I read and saw the accounts of the protests and disturbances as current events, as well as having them discussed in my State & Local Government classes at the time. I can even say I knew one or two of the protestors (on the anti-busing side, not the Louise Day Hicks side). So just be clear in explaining what you think you see here, and I'll gladly let you know if it is close to what was going on in Boston at the time. Since we also covered in class other school busing situations and hot topics of the day, I can compare and contrast this to what was going on in the South at the time if you'd like to put this in perspective. Just be open and frank with us: give us your own thoughts, clearly and distinctly, as to what you think you see here. Don't be shy: use your own words instead of snipping quotes.
Why are you still including that Sherman quote in your signature? You know it is a complete misrepresentation, taken completely out of context, and that you are deliberately showing it to mislead others. That is pretty silly, when you have been shown the complete letter and had it pointed out to you unmistakably. All it can do now is make you look like a deliberate deceiver.
Battalion,...
Most Americans aren't taught about the North's role in slavery, clouding the truth and blaming slavery on the South.
So it is 1860, there are 15 slave states in the Union, they are all south of the Mason-Dixon Line, and every other state has outlawed the practice of slavery within its borders. The slaves of the New England states, NY, NJ, and PA have all been freed by their state's laws. The international slave trade has been ruled illegal by the United States, largely at the insistence and by the power of the vote of the North. The voters of the North seem more and more determined to bring slavery to an end across the nation -- and that is exactly what the Southerners seem so upset about.
Is that what you mean by "the North's role in slavery"? If not, what do you mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
...However, I don't think Lincoln wanted a war, so I don't think he provoked it...He started it just by being elected.
It didn't have much to do with "Lincoln" being elected. The Fire-Eaters in the South had decided a Republican President (any Republican at all) would be sufficient cause for secession. Abraham Lincoln was actually almost unknown nationally until the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, dimly remembered as a failed one-term Congressman from almost a decade before, still considered a long-shot candidate when he arrived at the 1860 Republican Convention.
Yet in 1858 we can find Southern Fire-Eaters discussing how they could split the Democratic Party in order to ensure a Republican victory in 1860. They didn't care which Republican, because they intended to use the election to whip up sentiment for secession in the South by fanning the fears of the people.
Your right about the phrase "cornerstone of...". It's right there, written for all Americans to see.
Where?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
Most Americans aren't taught about the North's role in slavery, clouding the truth and blaming slavery on the South.
Factually incorrect strawman.
It was the confederates who seceded in order to protect slavery. They started a war to protect slavery. The so-called "country" they built was officially founded on the cornerstone of slavery and white supremacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
The truth is that at this time in history we (Americans) suffered from racism. White supremacy was the "way" and any person of color - red, black, brown, or yellow was considered inferior.
Another strawman, since nobody's said anything different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
As I recall this lasted about 100 years.
More than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
However, I don't think Lincoln wanted a war, so I don't think he provoked it...He started it just by being elected.
Texas2nd
Huh? He started it by being elected? If it weren't for that "evil Lincoln" getting himself elected?
How about laying the blame for starting the war with the guy who started the war by ordering the firing on Fort Sumter--Jefferson F. Davis.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
