Two interesting maps - Obama's votes and the cotton plantations

[nino_savatte]

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.

It wasn't referred to as the Great Migration for nothing. Are you suggesting that very few blacks made the journey northwards between 1890 and 1970? Because that patently isn't true. Do you really not know or understand the reason why so many (an estimated 7 or 8 million) migrated north or are you winding me up?

Here's one very real reason why. Tell me which northern states actively lynched blacks in large numbers, merely for looking in the wrong direction, s'il vous plaît.
http://dbs.ohiohistory.org/africanam/page.cfm?ID=9411

Remember most whites were small farmers.

They weren't subjected to Jim Crow laws nor were they lynched simply for being in possession of the 'wrong skin'. I don't recall reading of poor whites being told that they couldn't eat in a 'whites only' diner; or being told that they must sit at the back of the bus; or piss in separate toilets. It didn't happen.

The period in the aftermath of the Civil War that lasted until the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes was, and continues to be called, "Reconstruction". That isn't a revisionist myth, that's the truth.

Don't lecture me on myths.

Oh and it was my father and grandmother who escaped...not my mother and father (I actually said my father and his mother).

 

[nino_savatte]

Here's some more...but you're dismissive of "Googled" stuff, aren't you? Hard cheese, baby.

We did not disfranchise the negroes until 1895. Then we had a constitutional convention convened which took the matter up calmly, deliberately, and avowedly with the purpose of disfranchising as many of them as we could under the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments. We adopted the educational qualification as the only means left to us, and the negro is as contented and as prosperous and as well protected in South Carolina to-day as in any State of the Union south of the Potomac. He is not meddling with politics, for he found that the more he meddled with them the worse off he got. As to his “rights”—I will not discuss them now. We of the South have never recognized the right of the negro to govern white men, and we never will. We have never believed him to be equal to the white man, and we will not submit to his gratifying his lust on our wives and daughters without lynching him. I would to God the last one of them was in Africa and that none of them had ever been brought to our shores. But I will not pursue the subject further.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/55/

Just so that you know who said this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tillman

Yep and it comes from Wikipedia...and it has been properly referenced.

I shan't be entertaining any more excuses or apologies from you. You've had your chips.

 

[N_igma]

but by a group of organized criminals called the Republican party.

And you profess to take no bias in your account of post-emancipation South?

That was just in the north. And even democrats were won over to the idea of getting better roads and stuff.

Well the reason Southern states got round to the idea of better roads was to improve networks between rural and urban areas to stimulate industrial and commercial profit so the landowner could benefit. Plus that happened well later than Reconstruction, the Good Roads Movement only got off the ground around 1908 after the abolition of the convict lease system in most Southern states (bar Alabama).

There was loyalty to the whites, and to the country.

Sure you might have got some demented, deranged fools who felt loyal to a group of people who murdered, raped and harrassed their people but these people belong in bedlam not in the polling booth. In all seriousness, do you know why freed black people actually voted for the Democrats in post-emancipation South? It was to stave off attack from planters and to keep their labour contracts, they were even handed protection passes if they voted for the Democrat ticket, all this is documented evidence.

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.

How foreign were the Republican party? What about the thousands of blacks who broke free and fought on the Union side? What about Sherman's march to the sea? Slaves in the plantations were very much aware of the political situation and who the Republican party where and who Lincoln was. You come from the old school of thought that thinks blacks were a pawn and a passive force in this period of history, merely stuck between the fight between white Democrats and Republicans, you couldn't be further from the truth my friend.

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):

Yes, black members of the Union league did attack black people who voted for the Democrats.

[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.

You expect me to reply to this load of bollocks?

 

[dilute micro]

It wasn't referred to as the Great Migration for nothing. Are you suggesting that very few blacks made the journey northwards between 1890 and 1970? Because that patently isn't true. Do you really not know or understand the reason why so many (an estimated 7 or 8 million) migrated north or are you winding me up?

Here's one very real reason why. Tell me which northern states actively lynched blacks in large numbers, merely for looking in the wrong direction, s'il vous plaît.
http://dbs.ohiohistory.org/africanam/page.cfm?ID=9411



They weren't subjected to Jim Crow laws nor were they lynched simply for being in possession of the 'wrong skin'. I don't recall reading of poor whites being told that they couldn't eat in a 'whites only' diner; or being told that they must sit at the back of the bus; or piss in separate toilets. It didn't happen.

The period in the aftermath of the Civil War that lasted until the presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes was, and continues to be called, "Reconstruction". That isn't a revisionist myth, that's the truth.

Don't lecture me on myths.

Oh and it was my father and grandmother who escaped...not my mother and father (I actually said my father and his mother).

Yeah I wondered why you said your mother and father hehe . I thought maybe you're older than I figured.

No nino, the 'reconstruction' as it's taught in schools and books is a myth. There was no intention of helping the defeated south or the black man. You're totally out to lunch if you think so. The proof is all there if you care for it. The revisionists HAVE to cover that up. They can't afford the truth. Their remedy is to say the intent on the part of the US government was good but some of the people involved were corrupt. Not hardly nino. Keep in mind the formula for understanding US history preferred by the establishment who work so hard to make everything Red White and Blue is to cut it off into sections. That way a thinking person can't link things together. In other words, the reconstruction is told without the benefit of knowing the background on the people who ran the thing. Knowing this - a person AT THAT TIME could even predict what was going to happen.

You continue on and on about southern Jim Crow as if it was unique. Yes it was bad. But do you care about what brought it about? Huh? You time after time couldn't care less. This is when you shut your eyes and cover your ears. Not taking any fault away from the southerners who did it but there was more to it than people want to acknowledge.

 

[dilute micro]

Here's some more...but you're dismissive of "Googled" stuff, aren't you? Hard cheese, baby.



Just so that you know who said this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tillman

Yep and it comes from Wikipedia...and it has been properly referenced.

I shan't be entertaining any more excuses or apologies from you. You've had your chips.

Not just googled stuff nut books as well when it hides all the facts. Like I've said before - tell the whole story. Not the one in our school books.

( Nino, anything on wikipedia can be said to be properly referenced )

Sure there was racism in the south and people like Tillman - I've never denied that. But like I'll say many times more - tell the whole truth - and accept it.

 

[dilute micro]

And you profess to take no bias in your account of post-emancipation South?

Just tell the truth - the whole truth. Then make up your mind. But it should worry you when the people who's word you cling to leave you ignorant of things.

Well the reason Southern states got round to the idea of better roads was to improve networks between rural and urban areas to stimulate industrial and commercial profit so the landowner could benefit. Plus that happened well later than Reconstruction, the Good Roads Movement only got off the ground around 1908 after the abolition of the convict lease system in most Southern states (bar Alabama).

Dude you're so far out there... I was talking about the north and the republican party of which you seem totally in the dark on.

Sure you might have got some demented, deranged fools who felt loyal to a group of people who murdered, raped and harrassed their people but these people belong in bedlam not in the polling booth. In all seriousness, do you know why freed black people actually voted for the Democrats in post-emancipation South? It was to stave off attack from planters and to keep their labour contracts, they were even handed protection passes if they voted for the Democrat ticket, all this is documented evidence.

Oh of course the 'Sambo'. No surprise you take the position the 'official' version spins on it. The official US history tells a story - you might find surprising - that makes itself smell like a rose. Without actually saying so outright it tells a story of how the poor slave black man was a simpleton Sambo but who would eventually be bestowed the gift of thought and self will - by who? - by the US government of course. Makes for good shoring N_igma. But that version has a lot of huge gaps. Walk down this road some more - you'll see.

Don't forget the Klan too. They were part of the political tug-o-war against the black man.

How foreign were the Republican party? What about the thousands of blacks who broke free and fought on the Union side? What about Sherman's march to the sea? Slaves in the plantations were very much aware of the political situation and who the Republican party where and who Lincoln was. You come from the old school of thought that thinks blacks were a pawn and a passive force in this period of history, merely stuck between the fight between white Democrats and Republicans, you couldn't be further from the truth my friend.

Here you show your critical lack of knowledge on the most key part. Do your homework and find out how foreign the Republicans were. They were only a small northern party whose political interests were entirely northern. I've been into this before. I'll go further into detail if you want.

Uh what about the slaves who were 'liberated' and literally dragged off to forced to fight for the US? What about the bridges Sherman would destroy behind his army to get rid of the blacks following his army couldn't use to wash their clothes and cook their food? You're right about the slaves knowledge of politics. But you're wrong about where I'm coming from. I know for a fact I have a better understanding of the black man then than you do. That's pretty much the way the educational establishment has it.

You expect me to reply to this load of bollocks?

It's the truth N_igma. It's not bullocks. IT'S THE US GOVERNMENT - CONTROLLED BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY .....telling the truth on itself. But to answer your question - no I don't expect you to.

 

[N_igma]

It's funny because no historian I've read or anyone on this thread has said Reconstruction was a success yet you feel compelled to tell us how bad it was. Why is that?

 

[nino_savatte]

Yeah I wondered why you said your mother and father hehe . I thought maybe you're older than I figured.

No nino, the 'reconstruction' as it's taught in schools and books is a myth. There was no intention of helping the defeated south or the black man. You're totally out to lunch if you think so. The proof is all there if you care for it. The revisionists HAVE to cover that up. They can't afford the truth. Their remedy is to say the intent on the part of the US government was good but some of the people involved were corrupt. Not hardly nino. Keep in mind the formula for understanding US history preferred by the establishment who work so hard to make everything Red White and Blue is to cut it off into sections. That way a thinking person can't link things together. In other words, the reconstruction is told without the benefit of knowing the background on the people who ran the thing. Knowing this - a person AT THAT TIME could even predict what was going to happen.

You continue on and on about southern Jim Crow as if it was unique. Yes it was bad. But do you care about what brought it about? Huh? You time after time couldn't care less. This is when you shut your eyes and cover your ears. Not taking any fault away from the southerners who did it but there was more to it than people want to acknowledge.

The period after the Civil War and the presidency of Hayes was called what, dilute? It's a simple question. What would you rather the post-war period be called? 'The Early Postbellum Period as viewed from a southern (read white) perspective''?

The rest of the paragraph is a screed and you presume that I have bought into some myth or other. You clearly haven't bothered to read my posts, rather, you have read what you want to read...though what you seem to be reading isn't what I've been typing.

Your final paragraph is a knee jerk rant. Jim Crow laws were peculiar to the southern states and were a decisive factor in black flight from the south between 1890 and the 1970's. Just get over it.

 

[nino_savatte]

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.

Whose post are you reading? It isn't any of the ones that I've posted.

 

[butchersapron]

I think you're slowly winning him over nino.

 

[nino_savatte]

So dilute, are you going to respond with the same nonsense about economics?

 

[dilute micro]

It's funny because no historian I've read or anyone on this thread has said Reconstruction was a success yet you feel compelled to tell us how bad it was. Why is that?

It's about the the intentions. There was never any real attempt to do right by anyone. That's the difference. The revisionists don't tell a story of reconstruction about how the Republicans hijacked the government and use that power to stuff their bank accounts.

 

[dilute micro]

The period after the Civil War and the presidency of Hayes was called what, dilute? It's a simple question. What would you rather the post-war period be called? 'The Early Postbellum Period as viewed from a southern (read white) perspective''?

The rest of the paragraph is a screed and you presume that I have bought into some myth or other. You clearly haven't bothered to read my posts, rather, you have read what you want to read...though what you seem to be reading isn't what I've been typing.

Your final paragraph is a knee jerk rant. Jim Crow laws were peculiar to the southern states and were a decisive factor in black flight from the south between 1890 and the 1970's. Just get over it.

Uh... so you're only talking in terms of a word for it? You know what I'm talking about.

I don't know what you've bought into nino. To be frank I expect an open mindedness from you and especially people who haven't been brainwashed since preschool with crap like the pledge of allegiance. I know you grew up in the US - or something like that - but still.

 

[scifisam]

Is the West coast no longer part of the US, then?

 

[nino_savatte]

Not just googled stuff nut books as well when it hides all the facts. Like I've said before - tell the whole story. Not the one in our school books.

( Nino, anything on wikipedia can be said to be properly referenced )

Sure there was racism in the south and people like Tillman - I've never denied that. But like I'll say many times more - tell the whole truth - and accept it.

My sources are legit - Internet, Google or not. Believe it or not, you can find reputable sources on the Internet and dismissing anything that comes from the net is simply dishonest.

 

[nino_savatte]

Uh... so you're only talking in terms of a word for it? You know what I'm talking about.

I don't know what you've bought into nino. To be frank I expect an open mindedness from you and especially people who haven't been brainwashed since preschool with crap like the pledge of allegiance. I know you grew up in the US - or something like that - but still.

The period in question is referred to as Reconstruction. Your first paragraph demonstrates a tendency to read what you want to read or, if all else fails, make it up.

You're dishonest and insincere.

 

[N_igma]

It's about the the intentions. There was never any real attempt to do right by anyone. That's the difference. The revisionists don't tell a story of reconstruction about how the Republicans hijacked the government and use that power to stuff their bank accounts.

So basically what you're saying is that the exploitation of blacks by the Republican party in the South to get rich is more important and more heinous a crime than the lynchings, harrasment, rape and torture of blacks carried out by members or affiliates of the Democratic party? Strange outlook on life you have there sonny jim.

 

[nino_savatte]

It's about the the intentions. There was never any real attempt to do right by anyone. That's the difference. The revisionists don't tell a story of reconstruction about how the Republicans hijacked the government and use that power to stuff their bank accounts.

And the southern Democrats put Jim Crow laws into place as both a form of revenge and an expression of white supremacy.

 

[nino_savatte]

So basically what you're saying is that the exploitation of blacks by the Republican party in the South to get rich is more important and more heinous a crime than the lynchings, harrasment, rape and torture of blacks carried out by members or affiliates of the Democratic party? Strange outlook on life you have there sonny jim.

That's pretty much what he's saying, isn't it? He'll come back with some more purely money-based 'arguments' to explain why we should give more latitude to the KKK or the The Black Legion...the boys couldn't help it.

 

[dilute micro]

The period in question is referred to as Reconstruction. Your first paragraph demonstrates a tendency to read what you want to read or, if all else fails, make it up.

You're dishonest and insincere.

Nino, as obvious as it may be to anybody else the term 'reconstruction' is a misnomer. It's propaganda.

Is that too difficult?

 

[nino_savatte]

Nino, as obvious as it may be to anybody else the term 'reconstruction' is a misnomer. It's propaganda.

Is that too difficult?

That may be the case but the period in question is called "Reconstruction". There is no other name for the period.

 

[dilute micro]

So basically what you're saying is that the exploitation of blacks by the Republican party in the South to get rich is more important and more heinous a crime than the lynchings, harrasment, rape and torture of blacks carried out by members or affiliates of the Democratic party? Strange outlook on life you have there sonny jim.

No you'd just have to learn more about it. Do you really believe it was only white people or white democrats doing the lynchings? Look again. There is a reason the south had been described up to then as less racist than the north. And then the precipitation of all the lynchings (most against ex-union soldiers) and eventually Jim Crow. An honest look at the past can't leave out that racism itself was stirred up by northerners, a la Jim Jones, in order to sway them to do whatever they wanted.

Some northerners even admitted it like General Donn Piatt, a friend of president Lincoln, “All race antagonism came from the carpetbaggers using Negro votes to get their fingers into the Treasury”

Strange how revisionists authorities on 'reconstruction' want to leave out things.

 

[dilute micro]

That may be the case but the period in question is called "Reconstruction". There is no other name for the period.

You're just getting ornery.

 

[nino_savatte]

During Reconstruction freed slaves began to leave the South. One such group, originally from Kentucky, established the community of Nicodemus in 1877 in Graham County on the high, arid plains of northwestern Kansas. However, because of several crop failures and resentment from the county's white settlers, all but a few homesteaders abandoned their claims. A rising population of 500 in 1880 had declined to less than 200 by 1910.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/aaohtml/exhibit/aopart5.html

Oddly enough, dilute will refer to the Internet when it suits. However it's a different matter if anyone else refers to documents on the Net. Isn't that right, dilute?

I would also like to point out that something had to be done in south after the war. Leaving it to its own devices was not an option for the Federal government. At any rate, whites got their revenge at the end of the period and subjected blacks to degradation and humiliation. This revenge was only limited to blacks and those whites who supported equal rights.

 

[nino_savatte]

You're just getting ornery.

You're being evasive.

 

[nino_savatte]

No you'd just have to learn more about it. Do you really believe it was only white people or white democrats doing the lynchings? Look again. There is a reason the south had been described up to then as less racist than the north. And then the precipitation of all the lynchings (most against ex-union soldiers) and eventually Jim Crow. An honest look at the past can't leave out that racism itself was stirred up by northerners, a la Jim Jones, in order to sway them to do whatever they wanted.

Some northerners even admitted it like General Donn Piatt, a friend of president Lincoln, “All race antagonism came from the carpetbaggers using Negro votes to get their fingers into the Treasury”

Strange how revisionists authorities on 'reconstruction' want to leave out things.

You're being selective in an attempt to make some spurious claim that the south "couldn't help it".

It's odd how some self-styled historians want to highlight certain fragments of history in an attempt to denigrate the suffering of those at the hands of white supremacists - innit?

 

[nino_savatte]

With the passage of the Reconstruction Acts of 1867, the meaning of emancipation came to include --
crucially -- political participation and the democratization of America. The Acts required the defeated
Southern States to adopt new constitutions, acceptable to Congress, as a condition for re-entry to the
Union. The Acts also required that eligibility to vote for delegates to these State constitutional
conventions not be denied “by reason of race or color” and that the resulting constitutions guarantee
racially non-discriminatory suffrage. The result was that in the next elections, nearly half the voters in the
South were black; indeed, black voters at that moment constituted a majority of the electorate in states
like Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina (initially, thousands of whites were
ineligible because of their roles in the Confederacy while other whites refused to participate).18
Economic intimidation was rampant and often immediate; in Giles= home town, for example, an employer
noticed one of his laborers in line to vote and fired him on the spot.19 Yet black voter turnout was
stunningly high, approaching 90 percent in many elections.20 As Eric Foner puts it, A[r]arely has a
community invested so many hopes in politics as did blacks during Radical Reconstruction.


From Pildes, R (2000) Democracy, Anti-Democracy, and the Canon. p7

No revisionism here.

 

[dilute micro]

Oddly enough, dilute will refer to the Internet when it suits. However it's a different matter if anyone else refers to documents on the Net. Isn't that right, dilute?

I would also like to point out that something had to be done in south after the war. Leaving it to its own devices was not an option for the Federal government. At any rate, whites got their revenge at the end of the period and subjected blacks to degradation and humiliation. This revenge was only limited to blacks and those whites who supported equal rights.

Who are you talking to? I thought you were talking to me.

Nino, let me just put it like this - as long as you cling to 'official' record - which has to use the most pitifully weak evidence - the truth will mop the floor with you all day long.

First lets get this straight - there didn't have to be a reconstruction. We're talking about one of the wealthiest places in the world at that time. In all the countries of Europe and the Americas the CSA ranked 3rd. Sure any country that has fought a war would be depressed but it surely didn't need the US government's help.

Neither did it need it socially. Understand nobody in North America was more racist than the northerners. The only chance the black man had was for southerners to address the problem of social inequality. You, having been taught propaganda against southerners, might think that is silly but you've been kept from the truth. Remember the problem here was a foreign one for the northerner it wasn't for the southerner who would have to live with the decisions that were made. The first reaction you have when you hear this is that the north was the better of the two - but think again.

That "equal rights" shit is another perfume drenched myth.

The north had their own Jim Crow before the southern states ever did. They emancipated their slaves but only to allow them to be sold to southerners or in the Caribbean. A good many northern states didn't allow blacks to vote. If they did then many times they'd pass another law to eliminate the black man from being qualified to register. They would have segregated churches and public transportation. Remember we're talking about a people and a culture where historically it was unacceptable for a white person to be seen speaking with and shaking the hands of a black person in public. They were never a friend of the black man the same as they were never a friend of the native american. How many northerners protested the depiction of the heroic US cavalry putting down the rebellious wild savages in modern films from the 1930's to the 50s or 60's?

Also remember the 'Reconstruction' Act wasn't passed until after the failure of the passing of the 14th amendment - of which it was a reaction to - which came after the successful passage of the 13th amendment.

 

[dilute micro]

You're being selective in an attempt to make some spurious claim that the south "couldn't help it".

It's odd how some self-styled historians want to highlight certain fragments of history in an attempt to denigrate the suffering of those at the hands of white supremacists - innit?

No nino, don't spin what the revisionists would rather keep out of your sight.

 

[nino_savatte]

Who are you talking to? I thought you were talking to me.

Nino, let me just put it like this - as long as you cling to 'official' record - which has to use the most pitifully weak evidence - the truth will mop the floor with you all day long.

First lets get this straight - there didn't have to be a reconstruction. We're talking about one of the wealthiest places in the world at that time. In all the countries of Europe and the Americas the CSA ranked 3rd. Sure any country that has fought a war would be depressed but it surely didn't need the US government's help.

Neither did it need it socially. Understand nobody in North America was more racist than the northerners. The only chance the black man had was for southerners to address the problem of social inequality. You, having been taught propaganda against southerners, might think that is silly but you've been kept from the truth. Remember the problem here was a foreign one for the northerner it wasn't for the southerner who would have to live with the decisions that were made. The first reaction you have when you hear this is that the north was the better of the two - but think again.

That "equal rights" shit is another perfume drenched myth.

The north had their own Jim Crow before the southern states ever did. They emancipated their slaves but only to allow them to be sold to southerners or in the Caribbean. A good many northern states didn't allow blacks to vote. If they did then many times they'd pass another law to eliminate the black man from being qualified to register. They would have segregated churches and public transportation. Remember we're talking about a people and a culture where historically it was unacceptable for a white person to be seen speaking with and shaking the hands of a black person in public. They were never a friend of the black man the same as they were never a friend of the native american. How many northerners protested the depiction of the heroic US cavalry putting down the rebellious wild savages in modern films from the 1930's to the 50s or 60's?

Also remember the 'Reconstruction' Act wasn't passed until after the failure of the passing of the 14th amendment - which came after the successful passage of the 13th amendment.

More excuses and apologies. Like it or not, the south needed to be reformed, allowing it to continue as it had was not an option.

I see you've also taken to nitpicking in an attempt to evade the truth Well done.