How ex-Confederates spread racist attitudes far and wide after the Civil War

NBC News / Comcast ^ | June 21, 2023 | By Curtis Bunn (D-NBC)

[DiogenesLamp]

And Jackson was a son of the South. MANY Southerners fought for the Union.

Are you referring to Andrew Jackson? Yes, he was against secession, but he had nothing to do with the Civil war.

[cowboyusa]

To me, Lincoln was a bungler . Jackson would have won the war in 4 months.He is also the ONLY President to retire the Debt. Him Polk, Washington and Reagan tip my list.

[cowboyusa]

But the Southerners of the Jacksonian school stayed loyal to the Union. They are under- talked about in Civil War discussions.

[TTFlyer]

Yep.

[no-to-illegals]

Interpretation of who owns whom is always the point of a spear or the barrel of a firearm ….. two sheep, and a wolf

[SauronOfMordor]

The Left has to put themselves through all sorts of contortions in order to explain why “enormous racial disparities” continue to exist after 60 years of affirmative action in employment and education.

It is intolerable sacrilege to consider there may be genetic differences which lead to statistically significant differences in performance.

[SunkenCiv]

• Black Men Are Being Jailed 'Years' for 'Same Crimes' as Hunter Biden: Rep. Wesley Hunt [06/21/2023]
• Killer Mike Says New Gun Laws Will Hurt Black People, Wants Safety Training Instead [06/21/2023]
• Minnesota mother says state is abusing law to go after her son on gun charges [06/21/2023]
• Tulsa Police Chief: Might be Time to Trade Some Freedom for Gun Control [06/22/2023]
• Dad fatally shoots intruder accosting young daughter in backyard on Father's Day: police [06/21/2023]
• DOJ fires Black immigration judge in the ongoing purge of Trump hires [06/21/2023]

[Grimmy]

Presentism bullcrap.

What we today call racism was in that time the “settled science”. The Science of the Blood.

It was held as a scientific fact that there were hard coded differences between the races and that the “white race” was superior in every way.

Racism existed everywhere.

It didn’t need anyone to spread it.

[spincaster]

The way they act ,it seems they all want to go back, to tribe and loin cloth mentality. 85% are animals.

[x]

Of the "hoi polloi" this is true, but of the "elite" "robber baron" class, this is not true. The elite wanted government money and government laws to help them make money.

They got what they wanted, though: a national market and a protective tariff. They were contented. The progressive push came from the malcontents. They did find some allies among the rich. That's how the two party system works -- people with money could bet on either side -- but if you owned a textile mill or an iron foundry, you were probably contented with post-Civil War conditions and didn't want much more government.

The Hamiltonian view of government is that it should be used as a tool to increase the prosperity of businesses. That government should not be neutral, but activist in favor of business and industry.

Or, Hamilton's view was that the country should foster national prosperity and national unity, not an unworthy goal, by encouraging business. It was people who didn't want the Hamiltonian protective tariff who gave us the income tax and truly big government. For the most part they were Democrats. FDR was a great admirer of Jefferson, and Wilson became one over time. This messes up the neat view of history as big government Hamiltonians versus small government Jeffersonians, but there it is.

Yes, the New York City government was run by Democrats in this era, but the corruption they engendered tended to be of the local variety, not the national variety.

I said as much. The federal government wasn't splashing much money around before FDR. Except during wartime, we weren't taxed that much, so there wasn't that much money for the federal government to spend. When the spigot was turned on in the New Deal, the urban Democratic machines lapped it up, and they -- or the new political machines that replaced the old political machines -- have been doing so ever since.

History books can give a distorted view of history. Out of ten college grads 100 years ago, something like nine probably went to work in business, industry, or the professions and kept out of politics. One of the ten might go into politics or journalism or become a "social justice warrior," and that's the one who makes it into the newspapers and into the history books.

Out of people who didn't go to college, even fewer made it into the history books, so this can give you a skewed view of what elites or the rich as a whole were thinking and doing. The current situation where colleges are basically indoctrination factories and grads all get their opinions from the liberal media didn't apply a century ago.

In other words, plenty of people whose families made money in the 19th and early 20th century weren't looking for more government. Of course, there are always things to criticize about the rich. If they're not callous about other people's suffering, they're bothering them with their "concern," and vice versa, but they aren't a scapegoat or an alibi for everything the country does wrong.

[x]

Don’t know why we need another of these Hate the South threads but I guess some freepers need their dose of Wokeism.

Look around. Articles are posted to provoke a reaction against them.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Of the "hoi polloi" this is true, but of the "elite" "robber baron" class, this is not true.
The elite wanted government money and government laws to help them make money.
The Hamiltonian view of government is that it should be used as a tool to increase the prosperity of businesses.
That government should not be neutral, but activist in favor of business and industry."

What DiogenesLamp describes vaguely as "government money and government laws", more specifically amounted to:

1. Protective tariffs.
   These were supported by every Founder, including Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, along with Hamilton.
   The issue was never the existence of tariffs, but rather the amounts charged on each commodity.
   These were originally around 13% overall, under Pres. Washington, rising to over 25% under Pres. Madison after the War of 1812, then to 48% under Pres. Monroe in the Tariff of 1824.

   By 1824, the theoretical benefits of protective tariffs were clashing with the practical costs imposed on foreign necessities and luxuries.
   And contrary to what DiogenesLamp wants us to believe, opposition to ever higher tariffs came not only from Southerners, but also from many New Englanders.
   Support for protective tariffs came from Mid-Atlantic, Mid-Western and western Upper South states.

   Support also came from the most important political figure of his time -- Tennessean, Andrew Jackson.
   Jackson wanted the extra revenues from high tariffs to pay off the national debt.
   And thus: the highest ever 1828 "Tariff of Abominations", which peaked at nearly 60% overall and caused a Nullification Crisis with threats of SC secession.

   My point here is: this was not 100% about Northerners wanting Federal bounties.

2. Federal spending
   For national defense (i.e., forts, ships, weapons), infrastructure (i.e., roads, canals, harbors bridges & lighthouses), hospitalizations and pensions.
   These were then, and are today, sometimes claimed to be skewed to benefit "the North" versus other regions.
   In reality, such spending, being controlled by Congress, was remarkably balanced-out over time, based on each region's populations and elected representatives.
   So Southerners' complaints that they were being outvoted should be balanced by realizing that they were already overrepresented in Congress (by ~20%) due to the 3/5 of slaves rule.

3. The National Bank
   Much was made then, and even today over the old National Bank, but the reality is the US seemed to get along just fine after Pres. Jackson abolished it in 1836.
   I, for one, don't understand what all the fuss was about.

DiogenesLamp: "There is a good argument that urbanization is inherently socialist and desirous of large taxation and heavy spending.
Yes, the New York City government was run by Democrats in this era, but the corruption they engendered tended to be of the local variety, not the national variety.
It's like the difference between a street gang and the Mafia."

I think even DiogenesLamp realizes that's pure nonsense.
In reality, Big City Democrat political machines, such as New York's Tammany Hall were critical to Democrats' election successes beginning with at least the election of 1800, when New York's Aaron Burr got Democrat Thomas Jefferson elected over Federalist John Adams.
Tammany Hall made Aaron Burr Jefferson's Vice President.
That is not just "street gang", it's not even the Mafia, rather it's Democrats doing what Democrats have done since nearly Day One of our Free Republic -- allying globalized Big Business interests with Big City immigrant voters.

[DiogenesLamp]

To me, Lincoln was a bungler . Jackson would have won the war in 4 months.He is also the ONLY President to retire the Debt. Him Polk, Washington and Reagan tip my list.

For most of my life I never cared much for Jackson because of his betrayal of the Indians in that Trail of Tears thing, and he was also a slave owner.

But in recent years I have come to learn more about him and now I find him a much more interesting character and one whom I perceive to have been very prognostic on issues affecting the Country.

I have also come to admire his sheer chutzpah in confronting his enemies, doing whatever he thought was best, and his will power in forcing it to happen.

Jackson headed it off in the 1830s and he governed in such a way that nobody had to wonder what would happen if you tried to secede from him. He told Calhoun what would happen.

He was one of our more colorful presidents and one who wouldn't take sh*t from anyone.

[DiogenesLamp]

They got what they wanted, though: a national market and a protective tariff. They were contented. The progressive push came from the malcontents. They did find some allies among the rich.

And does that not sound like the present situation today? Corporations are falling all over themselves to please the malcontents because they are allied with them against the normies of the nation. The Bud Light fiasco is an example of this stuff, but virtually all the major national companies are doing the same thing.

Wealthy men in Massachusetts allied themselves with John Brown.

It was people who didn't want the Hamiltonian protective tariff who gave us the income tax and truly big government.

If the tariff system was seen as unfair, a taxation system can be argued at least to be "more fair." DC always wants more money and from any source.

FDR was a great admirer of Jefferson, and Wilson became one over time. This messes up the neat view of history as big government Hamiltonians versus small government Jeffersonians, but there it is.

I've read that FDR became a Democrat because he worked for some prominent official that was a Democrat. If I recall correctly, his Republican family was aghast at the time. His Cousin Teddy was of course a Republican.

I said as much. The federal government wasn't splashing much money around before FDR. Except during wartime, we weren't taxed that much, so there wasn't that much money for the federal government to spend. When the spigot was turned on in the New Deal, the urban Democratic machines lapped it up, and they -- or the new political machines that replaced the old political machines -- have been doing so ever since.

People of that era had a different view about money and federal spending, and it took awhile for people to actually start believing that government spending was no big problem. Of course the bureaucrats loved it, and they came to have a stronger hold on DC with each passing year. Now they pretty much run it and you can't pry them out of it.

History books can give a distorted view of history. Out of ten college grads 100 years ago, something like nine probably went to work in business, industry, or the professions and kept out of politics. One of the ten might go into politics or journalism or become a "social justice warrior," and that's the one who makes it into the newspapers and into the history books.

Yup, though I think the "progressive era" spurred a lot more activism and a desire to use writing as a tool for politics. Upton Sinclair comes to mind.

The current situation where colleges are basically indoctrination factories and grads all get their opinions from the liberal media didn't apply a century ago.

I think it had a lesser effect, but it was still present a century ago.

In other words, plenty of people whose families made money in the 19th and early 20th century weren't looking for more government.

Well this is true, but doesn't encompass the entire scope of what was going on. I recall reading an account of what happened when some famous wealthy man, (might have been JP Morgan, or Rockefeller, I've forgotten) was confronted by the actions of Teddy Roosevelt and he remarked that Teddy was being rude. If he wanted something from him, he should have had his man talk with my man and we would have worked something out. (or words to that effect.)

This account was a window into how these people had become accustomed to doing business with the Government. Also the Union busting showed a lot of connivance between governments and corporations.

If they're not callous about other people's suffering, they're bothering them with their "concern," and vice versa, but they aren't a scapegoat or an alibi for everything the country does wrong.

I see them as a profile of the type of people who tend to stir up unnecessary trouble. Countless writers have noticed the tendency of the rich to meddle in everyone else's affairs, and often just make things worse.

[mo]

“”And the “ex-Confederates” are all Democrats....”

BINGO!!!!

[x]

And does that not sound like the present situation today?

Everything in the past sounds like the present situation to you. You see the similarities, but you don't see the differences.

Corporations are falling all over themselves to please the malcontents because they are allied with them against the normies of the nation.

Then a century ago was very different from today, because the "normies of the nation" also voted for FDR. Most of the country did. There's been conflict between people who think themself sophiscated and the rest of the country for a century, but it didn't become a major force in politics until recently. That conflict wasn't around in 19th century America, and certainly wasn't a force in our politics. I suspect you'd like to see the slaveowners as the "normies" of their day, but most people rightly don't.

If the tariff system was seen as unfair, a taxation system can be argued at least to be "more fair." DC always wants more money and from any source.

But before the income tax there were limits to how much money the federal government could take it. Opening the door to an income tax because you didn't like the tariff was opening the door to massive federal spending (and borrowing).

I've read that FDR became a Democrat because he worked for some prominent official that was a Democrat. If I recall correctly, his Republican family was aghast at the time. His Cousin Teddy was of course a Republican.

Many in TR's branch of the family didn't like FDR, especially TR's children (TR Jr. was supposed to be the heir apparent), but FDR's father was a Democrat. I believe he died before FDR entered politics, but I don't think he or FDR's mother had trouble with his party choice.

I think the "progressive era" spurred a lot more activism and a desire to use writing as a tool for politics. Upton Sinclair comes to mind.

Sure. 1900-1910 was a little like the 1960s -- the country was in the mood for experimentation -- but the late 19th century and the 1920s were different and more conservative eras. New England was still rockribbed Republican and conservative until FDR. Even during the Progressive Era, progressivism had more supporters in the West and Midwest than in the East (there were even Southern progressives).

I recall reading an account of what happened when some famous wealthy man, (might have been JP Morgan, or Rockefeller, I've forgotten) was confronted by the actions of Teddy Roosevelt and he remarked that Teddy was being rude. If he wanted something from him, he should have had his man talk with my man and we would have worked something out. (or words to that effect.)

That was Morgan.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I've read that FDR became a Democrat because he worked for some prominent official that was a Democrat.
If I recall correctly, his Republican family was aghast at the time.
His Cousin Teddy was of course a Republican."

x: "Many in TR's branch of the family didn't like FDR, especially TR's children (TR Jr. was supposed to be the heir apparent), but FDR's father was a Democrat. "

TR and FDR were 5th cousins.
Teddy's family were all Republicans, Franklin's were always Democrats.
I have long suspected that one reason Teddy Roosevelt threw the 1912 election was to help his young Democrat 5th cousin Franklin's political career.
Whether intended or not, Franklin was brought onto Woodrow Wilson's administration as an Undersecretary of the Navy, in charge of, among other things, naval intelligence and code breaking.

Franklin Roosevelt was typical of Democrats going all the way back to Thomas Jefferson, in a long list of ways.
Among them was his opposition, while out of power, to excessive government spending under Republican President Hoover.
Then, once in power, FDR's federal spending made Hoover look like a piker -- typical Democrat.

Teddy Roosevelt's family was from Sagamore Hill in Oyster Bay, near the Long Island Sound.
They were Republicans.
As a young boy, Teddy watched Lincoln's funeral procession in Manhattan.

Franklin Roosevelt's family was from Hyde Park on the Hudson River about 100 miles north of New York City.
They were Bourbon Democrats.
As a young boy, Franklin's dad took him to meet Democrat President Grover Cleveland.