Treacle Toes
Time
That is probably the most important factor.
Two interesting maps - Obama's votes and the cotton plantations
- Thread starter embree
- Start date
That is probably the most important factor.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
You're rather fond of using mollification tactics to cover for the fact that slavery and Jim Crow were both wrong and evil. Indeed, free blacks in the antebellum period weren't as 'free' as you have previously claimed. They could not vote and if men dared to look in the direction (whether or not it was imagined or real) of a white woman they were lynched. Free Blacks were also forbidden to read (especially in the aftermath of the Nat Turner Rebellion of 1830). That's a fact.
If the South was so damned good, then why did so many blacks leave during the Great Migration northwards? This a question that you have always avoided.
So how about a link then? Exactly how many '"freedmen" voted for the pro-slavery party?
You're always trying to make the South look better than it actually was.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
The UK women's vote kept the Tories in power for successive govs...
But it was the Tories who gave women the vote. They were also a party of reform in the 19th century, whereas the Liberals were quite happy to continue with the practice of shoving children up chimneys.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
gorski
customised free radical
It was strictly calculated - nowt to do with "progressive politics" and "reform" in that sense, though...
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
I disagree, the Tories were a party of reform and this has to be viewed against the background of the 19th century. It was the Tories (the Radical wing) who introduced laws to limit the use of children in work, not the Liberals.
And conveniently LA is not on the two maps - I'd really like to see a version showing the WHOLE of the US.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
I figured as much – and confidence abounds of course.
I actually thought you might had taken a history class or 2 on it. What you need to understand is the reconstruction was/is a hot potato. You might not be aware but the history of the whole war is controversial and so is the reconstruction, especially the reconstruction because it reveals the hypocrisy in one of the main reasons the winners of that war say if was fought. The way things work when the conflict requires and the winners sit down to write the books to tell a counterfeit story of what they just did is that they tell some things - they can tell some things but need to be spun - and they have to leave some things out completely. The reconstruction is full of things swept under the rug. What's amazing is the hypocrisy of it all is stares you right in the face but people want to believe the fairy tale version of a country that fought a war for benevolence and instituted that good will afterward instead of what ACTUALLY happened.
And is it strange that it satisfies already prejudiced minds with this garden oasis of benevolence situated between the theft of northern Mexico, constant war with the natives who were inconveniently on our land and taking up space and who didn't have an honest bone in their body
, cultural and population uh... management - and a drummed up war with Spain which resulted in claiming territories all over the world? But ahhhh! - the black man the US truly cared about - why in just 90 years in the 1950's they'd let them fight side by side with white soldiers in Korea. Who can accuse the US for being false? Someday they’ll get around to that 40 acres and a mule. You can believe the Foner et al revisionist school but you’re being lied to. It’s from the same Grima version that is supposed to leave us to believe pure bullshit - bullshit that produces the oddest iconic symbolism like the north and south soldiers shaking each other’s hands. It’s supposed to validate and exonerate a dirty US and it does that beautifully. But hey, you're free to believe whatever you want.
Let me offer a rare thought for these parts - YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
Sorry but that’s the best I can do about that cartoon I mentioned. It’s been translated from German to English. The ‘death to colored democrats’ line was popular back then. The report here was 1878.
I’ve gotta run some errands today but I’ll be back with the facts on the reconstruction and to answer questions. You should know that much by now. At least that.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Why leave it there? How about the Mexican-American Wars? The many Indian Wars? The occupation of Haiti? Or even the US's role in WWI where it supplied both sides with raw materials and armaments?
Then there's Bleeding Kansas; the Chinese Exclusion Act; William Walker and so the list goes on...
Or is it the case that Reconstruction is your single biggest concern/obsession?
gorski
customised free radical
Well, I have to disagree, too: they simply saw that they could not stem the tide [not their work - the "change"!!!!], so they sat down and calculated. These interests were pushed for by their political opponents!
It would be interesting to see the child labour issues in detail, though: slavery was abolished when it became a hindrance to development [of profit margins] etc.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
They were still reformist as compared to the Liberal Party, who were not.
I get the feeling that you have not considered the political mentality of the 19th century, where the only people allowed to vote were those men who owned property....that was until the Reform Act of 1867, which gave working men the vote.
gorski
customised free radical
That is exactly what I am taking into account: they would not even consider it [ever!!!] had there not been a strong surge from below - women, slaves, abolishing of census and onwards! This was not their work!
What you seem to be thinking is that I am defending the Libs somehow. Quite the opposite is the case, actually. There are other options for the analysis...
What you seem to be thinking is that I am defending the Libs somehow. Quite the opposite is the case, actually. There are other options for the analysis...
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
What you seem to be thinking is that I am defending the Libs somehow. Quite the opposite is the case, actually. There are other options for the analysis...
Er, no that is not what I am even suggesting. All I am saying is that one has to view the nature of reform against the backdrop of the 19th century.
More recently they legalised abortion.
N_igma
Epistemic nuisance
I figured as much – and confidence abounds of course.
What's amazing is the hypocrisy of it all is stares you right in the face but people want to believe the fairy tale version of a country that fought a war for benevolence and instituted that good will afterward instead of what ACTUALLY happened.
And is it strange that it satisfies already prejudiced minds with this garden oasis of benevolence situated between the theft of northern Mexico, constant war with the natives who were inconveniently on our land and taking up space and who didn't have an honest bone in their body
But ahhhh! - the black man the US truly cared about - why in just 90 years in the 1950's they'd let them fight side by side with white soldiers in Korea. Who can accuse the US for being false? Someday they’ll get around to that 40 acres and a mule. You can believe the Foner et al revisionist school but you’re being lied to. It’s from the same Grima version that is supposed to leave us to believe pure bullshit - bullshit that produces the oddest iconic symbolism like the north and south soldiers shaking each other’s hands. It’s supposed to validate and exonerate a dirty US and it does that beautifully. But hey, you're free to believe whatever you want.
Let me offer a rare thought for these parts - YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
Sorry but that’s the best I can do about that cartoon I mentioned. It’s been translated from German to English. The ‘death to colored democrats’ line was popular back then. The report here was 1878.
I’ve gotta run some errands today but I’ll be back with the facts on the reconstruction and to answer questions. You should know that much by now. At least that.
Woah that is an impressive diatribe. First of all, I do not believe the Northern Republican Party were angels or were the panacea to all freedmen's problems. Secondly, freedmen politicized themselves through the Union Leagues which were Republican affiliated during the early years of Radical Reconstruction, yet the North abandoned the movement as a result of white intimidation which manifested itself through the Klan, Knights of the White Camelia etc etc. The Presidential election of 1876 was the nail in the coffin of black Reconstruction (don't want to get into the specifics). If you think I'm making the North out to be angels then you've another thing coming.
Foner actually makes some very valid points regarding reconstruction especially in comparison to the Carribean plantations and how they evolved during emancipation, but if you want to read the daddy of Reconstruction era books I suggest you read W.E.B. DuBois's-Black Reconstruction 1860-1880, it's a mammoth book but it will shatter all the pro-Southern shite you espouse on this board.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
And what do you take me for? I do my homework.
DuBois doesn't shatter anything. It's more of the same formula - exonerating raw aggression. You buy it hook line and sinker because you don't allow yourself to know any better. Why bother with "pro-Southern shite" - why the truth couldn't be there could it? Had there been any validity to the north's purposes for the war the reconstruction wouldn't be as dangerous as it is. But the reality is - it's on stage - in the spotlight. It can't be allowed to fail. It has to be right otherwise the reasons for the war will be revealed to be nothing more than a glutton rampage for power and money - and that is too a hard pill to swallow. The US has to be the bastion of liberty and freedom and all others wanting. Btw, you're invited at any time to um...... correct me where I'm wrong on my "pro-southern" diatribe. There's always time ride past the peanut gallery and talk with you. Stop making yourself scarce.
N_igma
Epistemic nuisance
And what do you take me for? I do my homework.
Btw, you're invited at any time to um...... correct me where I'm wrong on my "pro-southern" diatribe. There's always time ride past the peanut gallery and talk with you. Stop making yourself scarce.
What the hell are you on about lol?
First of all have you read anything by DuBois?
Secondly, no one said Reconstruction was a success and it's perceived success was not needed as a justification for the war. It had moderate success from about 1867-1870 but was a total failure otherwise.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
Actually wouldn't you rather like to know what you're talking about?
Why so much confidence in your opinion if it leads you to say something as ridiculous as - "In the 1860's a freed black person wouldn't dream of voting for the Democrats." ? Well - yes they did. What you don't seem to realize is those revisionists are not telling you everything.Yes I've read him and more...btw.
But you've made a claim about it shattering all the "pro-southern shite" I espouse on this board - and I'm going to give you a chance to back it up. So - what exactly does it shatter, N_igma?
The same theme comes to play when people like you talk about how "no black man would have fought for the south". Well - yes they did, free and slave - volunteered even. What leads people to believe otherwise? What leads people like you to be so confident that you can make silly statements and believe them? It's certainly not knowledge of actual events. It's really only a story told by people who need to cover up the truth. Now be a sport and stop pretending - TELL ME what it shatters?
dilute micro
esse quam videri
Just a fyi, N_igma, all these revisionists historians you've read are trying to, in their way, preserve what they see as the 'greater good' in the principles and ideologies of 'America'. Whether they actually believe that is another matter. It's really hard for me to believe that a sane individual no matter how deluded they are in their ideas can't possibly have the realization at some point that it's empty. I tend to not believe there should be any benefit of doubt given to them. They have to know the truth - but they can't face it.
The reconstruction wasn't the story the educational establishment puts in the books - the one about lifting the black man from his lowly position. That's bullshit. It was a vindictive free-for-all by the Republican party - who at the time had control of the army and the US government. The whole intent was money and more money for the Republicans and anyone who did what they said - except for ordinary black people of course. The republican party was FOUNDED on the belief that government is a tool to help you make money. The more power a government has the better able it is to get you that money.
To this very day we see the same thing with them. It doesn't work very well to sell the public on helping big business come election time. So what do we hear - helping small business. But let me ask this - how many small business lobbyists ever meet with our senators and congressmen? They try to make us believe they care about mom-n-pop shops in our home towns but hey, what about Wal-Mart who bulldozes them out of existence?
The reconstruction wasn't the story the educational establishment puts in the books - the one about lifting the black man from his lowly position. That's bullshit. It was a vindictive free-for-all by the Republican party - who at the time had control of the army and the US government. The whole intent was money and more money for the Republicans and anyone who did what they said - except for ordinary black people of course. The republican party was FOUNDED on the belief that government is a tool to help you make money. The more power a government has the better able it is to get you that money.
To this very day we see the same thing with them. It doesn't work very well to sell the public on helping big business come election time. So what do we hear - helping small business. But let me ask this - how many small business lobbyists ever meet with our senators and congressmen? They try to make us believe they care about mom-n-pop shops in our home towns but hey, what about Wal-Mart who bulldozes them out of existence?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Nice try but it's too easy for someone (particularly you) to use "revisionism" as a defence or a means of attack. But here, you're merely dancing around the subject while insisting that your version of history is the only valid one.
I can recall when you used the name of Booker T Washington to illustrate a rather tenuous point about the political capital of black people. As most blacks realise, Washington was a gradualist who was never keen on the idea of African-Americans advancing themselves through study and was more keen on blacks working with their hands. He also had a rather appropriate soubriquet too: The Great Delayer.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
And how many of those did so of their own volition? You see, if the south was so good - and this is a question that you continue to avoid - then why did so many leave in great numbers for the North or Canada?
after all the South had done for them!
dilute micro
esse quam videri
Talking strictly 'fighting men' it was in the thousands that's all that can be said for sure. It was less than those that were conscripted - the same as for white men. People forget that white men were forced to serve too. That's what the draft was for. Nobody knows exactly how many white men served in the confederate army either. The initial black volunteers that volunteered in large numbers were turned down or handed a shovel or an axe. There was a mildly racist position from white southerners, especially the leadership, that wanted to win the war on their own. They didn't want a future of indebtedness to the black man for their independence and just as any group of men like on a ball team they had confidence that they could do it by themselves.
Anyhow blacks were put into the ranks under the radar of Richmond and in every Southern army there are records to show it, incidentally most of these records are from northern soldiers and in the US government Official Records. There was a general fear of large numbers of armed slaves in the south too. The thing about that was that should the south win these slaves wouldn't be slaves any longer. In other words an instant emancipation. But before you go off on the racism thing consider that only the Confederate army paid blacks that served, such as musicians, the same as whites. If racism was so hopelessly profuse in the south like Hollywood has you to believe then why wouldn't the south want to pay black men less? The US certainly saw no reason to pay black men the same as whites and didn't. And what was wrong with integrated units? Both north and south had black only units but only the south had integrated soldiers. And don't even get me started on native americans.
Why southern soldiers didn't write about it is a mystery. One thing that is true of soldiers is that they tend to write about unusual things. Either they didn't see it as unusual or the racism was such that they didn't want to mention it. I think it was both. We see that true with the northern army as well and also with solidly documented black confederate soldiers (militia) like the Louisiana Native Guard (all volunteer) who were never put into action because of the governor.
But on to your BIG QUESTION, nino. How many slaves out of nearly 4 million did leave in "great numbers"? Huh? At any time even? Only an estimated 500k left plantations. The overwhelming majority stayed right where they had always been. Even the voting map in this thread shows that.
Remember that one hope of the Emancipation Proclamation was to incite a rebellion of the slaves in the south where it would have been unstoppable. It didn't happen because the Lincoln administration had no true understanding of the state of relationships in the south. They were actually surprised nothing happened. The fact that that was one intent of the emancipation has been uh... conveniently lost over the years.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
How on earth can you not see who has actually 'revised' the past? How on earth can anybody not see the holes and the incongruity of what we're told is the 'truth' about all this?
You know should I get the gumption I wont 'dance' around anything concerning this.
But I do want to tell you I appreciate what I think has been an attitude change from you towards me. And I certainly want to return that respect. Even if we disagree on this I think you know I'm not just some half-cocked yahoo cheering my favorite team which is often the case.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Wtf are you talking about? An inescapable fact remains: the lot of black people was very poor from the end of Reconstruction until 1966; my father and his mother were two of thousands of blacks who escaped the south.
This is not revisionism, this is the truth.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
That's a good question but the answer is in all the details of what was going on then. I cannot stress enough that the whole thing going on at the time was the takeover of the government - not by a political party - but by a group of organized criminals called the Republican party. That's all they were. The whole thing was about centralizing power to better help them make money. All that was done by nationalizing the banking system, subsidizing industry and remaining in power by government funded programs to get votes by 'improving' the lives of the people with building roads and bridges and whatever by a patronage system. Sometimes the greed would overpower the officials and they'd steal so much government money the whole project would fall through.
That was just in the north. And even democrats were won over to the idea of getting better roads and stuff. The same thing was going on in the south during reconstruction. It was completely lawless. This was mostly the fault of the Republican party but also just northerners who came down to get in on the scheme. The blacks were used to get votes plain and simple. The goal was to keep them occupied and pacified but to get them to 'vote' Republican. Keep in mind that Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota and Kansas refused to allow blacks to vote and shot down attempts in 1867 and 1868. Voting wasn't about civil rights, never was.
There were different reasons why blacks would vote democrat. There was loyalty to the whites, and to the country. Another was just out of spite towards the foreigner Republicans that didn't really care about them and weren't really doing anything for them. But for whatever reason they did try to vote democrat and all hell broke loose. And this even when promised land and stuff. The Republican controlled US army let the Union Leagues do the dirty work. Blacks would attack black democrats and while dressed up as the Klan - not taking anything away from the klan but that was the way things were. Everything just went insane. It got so bad that even the US congress did an investigation of it in 1870. Their report (with the given racism of the day):
"[Union Leagues] hatred of the white race was instilled into the minds of these ignorant people by every art and vile that bad men could devise; when the negroes were formed into military organizations and the white people of these states were denied the use of arms; when arson, rape, robbery and murder were things of daily occurrence; when the great mass of the most intelligent whites were disenfranchised and the ballot was put into the hands of the negro by the government in Washington...when even the courts and Federal officers, who were by Congress absolute rulers and dispensors of what they called justice, ignored, insulted and trampled upon the rights of the ostracized and disenfranchised white men while the officials pandered to the enfranchised negro on whose vote they rallied, in short, when the people saw that they had no rights which were respected, no protection from insult, no security even for their wives and children, and that what little they had saved from the ravages of war was being confiscated by taxation ... many of them took the law into their own hands and did deeds of violence which we neither justify or excuse. But all history shows that bad government will make bad citizens."
To tell you how sick Republican control was in the south even the northerners protested against it. The New York Times called them a "gang of thieves". Some also retracted their vote on the 14th amendment out of protest. “We shall treat the South as a defeated enemy.” – US congressman Thaddeus Stevens. Yeah if only.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
Your mother and father out of how many? Yes the lives of blacks were bad having been on the bottom of the totem pole to begin with - but so were the conditions for whites as well. Remember most whites were small farmers.
Understand it took 100 years for the south regain the economic relationship it had to the north before the war. Much of this was due to the plunder of the south. Nino, there was no "reconstruction". That in itself is a revisionist myth. If you want I'll list some examples.
Similar threads
