Posted on 06/25/2006 9:55:57 AM PDT by EveningStar
I have never defended slavery. Never had to because the war was not about slavery. I have just made it a point to bring to the forefront the knowledge that all the social problems that plague the South can be placed on Reconstruction and it's fallout.
I shall slap you silly!
Multiple times.. one of my favorite of all time.
Only foolish people claim there was no racism in the North. Even more foolish ones claim there was none in the South.
I experienced both regions and there is no doubt that Blacks were better off going North since the institutional impediments were less there. Plus, in the North the racism was much less intense without the hatred of the South. There were few, if any, Northern politicians who openly campaigned on Black hatred. In the South there were few who DIDN'T.
Spoken by someone who learn it from his/her liberal professors.
Mitchell's history is more truthful and factual than a boatload of Zinn.
Pardon my French, but you don't know what the shit you are talking about.
Slavery has always been un-economical in the long run. It's a lazy, shorted-sighted, and exploitive way to run a business and economy. The industrial revolution wouldn't have had much impact, as slavery was a product of a wrong mindset, rather than technological shortcomings. Even today, in the Information Age illegal labor is being invited into the country to do the "work Americans won't do."
OK,granted,there WERE abuses during Reconstruction.There WERE corrupt black politicians and white scalawags who used the Freedmen for their own personal gain and agenda,similiar to how liberals and CBC types play the black citizenry like pianos today.
But do you actually expect me to suspend all logic and believe that had the North NOT imposed Reconstruction in SOME form,the white South would have granted the freed slaves even GRADUAL full civil and human rights and not imposed the JIm Crow tyranny upon them?I simply cannot believe that blacks would have been voluntarily made full and equal citizens of Dixie without having certain terms imposed on them,painful as it might have been to those who truly believed it was some divine right for whites to rule over blacks.
I think you said one time you were from New Orleans.Can you honestly tell me that even well into the 1970's that there was not wholesale discrimination based on skin color in that town?
Cause if you DON'T,have I got a few New Orleans stories of my own for you!
You never asked me any such question just about Semmes. What question did you INTEND to ask me? I am aware of the claims about Texas but have seen no evidence. It would not be allowed to split without Congressional approval though of that there is no doubt since it is a Constitutional issue explicitly addressed long before Texas existed.
I have no more interest in celebrating those who committed Treason against the United States anymore than George Washington, James Madison or Alexander Hamilton would have. The idea that the CSA stood for anything but sheer Tyranny is absurd.
LoL there is NO doubt about that.
So you're telling me the Dan Ryan in Chicago was not specifically placed where it was because Daley wanted to keep "certain elements of the population" in their place.
Never mind the fact that Chicago has long been known as a racist place, Daley himself at one point participated in a teen club that would brutally assault any black person that crossed into the neighborhood, yeah, really beacon of tolerance Chicago is.
Or let's take Boston shall we, I can remember watching this on T.V. as a kid, public school integration went well in Boston didn't it, there were no riots, no police escorting of buses, and the N.A.A.C.P in Boston didn't get firebombed either. Wait a minute, I just said that things which did happen did not happen, wow, how could I be so blind.
Or that Italian neighborhood in New York, I forget where it was, where the black kid crosses over into it, so some white teenagers beat him to death, and this was fairly recently, think it was like a decade ago.
Really, the North has no claim to say that they were better than the South, and I'm surprised that you as a native Southerner would say the north was better on race. Exactly where in the South are you from, cause about the only way those contradictions make sense, is if you're from some place like Birmingham or Jacksonville, which are still so ridigidly segregated that it defies explanation.
Moby Dick is difficult because it is so deep and philosophical totally unlike GWTW. But both the novel and movie of GWTW are worth reading and seeing. It is really the movie which defines GWTW though.
His profile says Arkansas.
And I suspect it was a trailer park in the Ozarks.
Speaking of Mayor Daley,there was a book out a few years ago that presented pretty strong evidence that his"teen club"was very active in the brutal Chicago race riot of 1919 that killed scores of blacks,and a number of whites as well.
Great column. BUMP!
I see absolutely no similarity in illegal immigrants working for wages, not as slaves at all, and then sending billions of dollars back to Mexico every year. Slaves could hardly do that.It has been reported that $13.3 billion was sent to Mexico by illegal immigrants and Mexican-Americans last year and that the amount this year will far exceed that. That money is now Mexico's second-highest source of foreign income after oil exports.
I said I have lived in New Orleans, which I have, I am from Mobile, however, and we have had a very good record on race relations, certainly better than Chicago or Boston.
And yes I do believe that rights would have been coming, because as I said before, the poor white population of the post-war had a habit of being well, in behavioral mode of agitation. They were agitators. Blacks would work for less money, they demanded less benefits from employers. Given who the Bourbons were, blacks would have been given complete franchise relatively quickly because they would have had the votes to counter act the poor whites who were hollering for social programs. As it turns out, that's how post-Reconstruction pre-Crow politics played out.
LOL
Poor whites before the War were the lowest of the low as even GWTW amply shows. They had few political rights as Slaver control was complete. Most could not even vote. Illiteracy high educational opportunities low to non-existent. Both crippled the war effort. Prior to the time in the 1890s you speak of a Reign of Terror had taken place against Blacks attempting to maintain their political rights. Political meetings in cities like New Orleans and Memphis attacked and attendees killed.
I don't particularly care whether the principle sources of oppression came from the CSA soldiers or their officers at different times.
Republicans did indeed care about Blacks and it was ONLY they who protected them as the Democrats tried (North and South) to allow their rights be taken from them. Lincoln's death was a severe blow against common people Black or White.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.