BS: slavery, poverty and culture

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: greg stephens
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 06:16 PM

great stuff, all this "reparations" and "the sins of the fathers ahall be visited on the children". But what precisely is it going to mean in practise when they start sorting the legislation out? I am white, born in England. My son is married to a woman in Virginia who is black. So, in relation to any potential kids , who exactly is going to pay what, and to whom?

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Mar 04 - 07:09 PM

I'm indignant that the Radical[sic] Republicans, the party of Lincoln who held the majority of power in Texas for over 9 years, refused to ratify it...

I think you're a bit confused about the 14th Amendment; in addition to defining citizens and the rights of citizenship in Section 1 it reaffirms the prohibition of voting by participants in the Rebellion in Section 2 and in Section three disqualifies former Confederates from holding office.

Right you are- if it's posted on someone's website, it's got to be the true and complete story- not just a 'sound-bite' for promoting a State by a George Bush state agency or a bowdlerized and over-simplified entry in a Readers' Digest-type condensed cyber-encyclopedia.

You're just confirming what I've said by quoting meaningless and distasteful anodyne phrases -likely originally drawn from those very Jim Crow histories- like Reconstruction brought great lawlessness...

If you're at all interested in the actual facts & the complete story, I could suggest a few sources. Curiously enough, a place to start would be the bibliography in T. J. Stiles Jesse James: Last Rebel of the Civil War NY, Knoph, 2002. The book deals in part with the situation in Missouri; similar to the Texas experiences. The works he cites in the bibliography cover most of the South. Also take a look at Eric Foner's Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution 1863-1877 & check out the bibliography there, too. Then we'll talk-

Enjoy-

Greg

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Strick
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 10:40 AM

Greg, I paused from posting a while to think about this. I admit I had much to learn. I'm not mad, I'm not trying to be offensive, I'll do my best not to be pompous or bombastic as I know I can be.

I clearly see two distinct lines of argument on this. Tell you what, I'm willing to admit that Southern accounts of The Reconstruction emphasize their grievences against the North and downplay their own inequitites if you'll admit the posibility, just the posibility that Northern accounts written during the Civil Rights movement might, just might, focus on the South's inequities and soft sell the South's grievences against the North. I won't even insist on call what was written long after the fact revisionist history.

Here's what I mean. In 1867 Texas completed the requirements that Lincoln set down for readmission to the Union (interesting point, if you can't secede why do you have to be readmitted?) and President Johnson certified the state was ready. Congress, dominated by the Radical Republicans, voided the agreement and imposed new conditions on readmission often described by both sets of historians as far more harsh. That much is accepted as fact. What about a comparison of the two views on some salient points?

The Test Oath was imposed as a requirement for voting which lead to the events I quoted above. Northern accounts describe the Test Oath as "a simple oath of loyalty" to the Union that Southerners refused to take. In fact, it was an oath that stated the swearer had not served in the Confederate army or any government position under the Confederate states. It wasn't a test of a willingness to be loyal to the Union from that point on which most Texans would have accepted, it was a test to determine who to punish for supporting secession. The result was that the majority of white Texans were disenfranchised causing no little discontent. After the oath was imposed, despite the fact Blacks only 30% of the population in Texas, they represented 55% of the registered voters (rough statistics, but I can quote sources). The 14th Amendment only came into play later and the clauses you cite were a moot point given the Test Oath. They're also generally used as evidence of the shift from Lincoln's conciliatory view of reunification to the punative view of it driven by the Radical Republican controlled congress. They were seen as part of the problem. Jim Crow had nothing to do with the North's thirst for vengence against the South.

Northern accounts talk about the KKK in Texas during the Reconstruction. Treatment of black was harsh and generally unjust, but, in fact, the Klan never made it to Texas until it's revival in the 1920s. It's closer to the truth to say that the Army was not able to counter the rampant lawlessness both accounts describe. As a result vigilante groups who sprang up across the state. I don't doubt their justice was harsh. The Marshal Law imposed by the military several times and was harsh, too (the prisoners at Guantanamo are under Marshal Law as a comparison). I also don't doubt that they tried to suppress or take revenge on Blacks, but still they were never affliated with the Klan or what it came to represent much later on. Calling these groups "the Klan" is same as someone in the 50s calling labor activists in the 1880s and 90s communists. Pure demagoguery. Whatever I say this isn't a pretty part of the South's history. On the other hand, the Army could do little to curb lawlessness and if the US had had the wisdom to follow the British path to eliminating slavery, most of it could have been avoided. Both the North and South are to blame for that failure.

I see Northern accounts claim that the fact that Texas was producing more cotton after The Reconstruction shows it actually had a positive impact on the economy. Hardly. Remember Texas was not Georgia and only a small portion of the state had been devoted to cotton farming before the war. It was still mostly frontier with much of population living as subsistance farmers on the barter system. With Reconstruction, all debts and taxs had to be paid in hard currency. Of course, there wasn't any since most if not all of the specie in the state had gone into the war and the blockade prevented any from coming in. There was no Federal Reserve to make sure that banks were solvent and had enough money to keep the economy working. The economy collapsed. Eventually most of the eastern portion of the state turned to their only possible cash crop, cotton, even in the parts of the state not suited to it. Wheat production in the Red River Valley was wiped out because it didn't pay. Even then the shift to cotton came slowly with considerable difficulty since cash was required to buy seed and pay the large amounts of labor required. Small landholders were forced out completely or moved further west where, fortunately there was another "cash crop", wild Spanish cattle.

I could go on, but it won't matter. You're probably not going to agree and I'm looking forward to another stinging reply with advice on which histories to read. Sorry, but frankly it's easy to see both verions of the truth have their own bias, the South trying to overlook its abuse of Blacks and the North trying to overlook its lust for revenge for the war.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 11:52 AM

Are there lessons for the present and the future in this focus on what happened in the 1860s and 1870s?

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Strick
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 12:06 PM

I'm sure there are many. Pride and inflexibility on both sides prevented a compromise that might have prevented a great tragedy on many fronts. Grievences, just or otherwise, can fuel hate that lasts for generations, even centuries, long after the real causes are understood or lost to memory altogether.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 07:05 PM

William Wiberforce

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Strick
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 07:20 PM

Ah, my kind of religious bigot exactly.

William Wilberforce

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Strick
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 07:35 PM

Sorry, my link may look redundant, but it's to a short biography of Wilberforce.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 09:25 PM

Hullo, Strick-

I'm not mad, I'm not trying to be offensive, I'll do my best not to be pompous or bombastic as I know I can be.

Nor I.

if you'll admit the possibility, just the possibility that Northern accounts written during the Civil Rights movement might, just might, focus on the South's inequities and soft sell the South's grievances against the North.

I've no problem admitting that there's inherent bias in anything written by anyone at any time. Part of the human condition. But I'm suggesting you check some sources that were written both before "the Civil Rights Movement" (By which I assume you mean the late '1950s and 1960's) and since- a LOT of excellent stuff has come out in the last 20 years or so that has not yet made it into popular reference works or text books. Point is to see which way the preponderance of the evidence leads & go with that.

I won't even insist on call what was written long after the fact revisionist history.

Please don't. I wasn't going to get into this, but you brought it up, and it makes my teeth ache. "Revisionist History" is a meaningless redundancy, a bugaboo raised by certain types in an attempt to discredit that with which they don't agree without having to resort to factual discourse. History is necessarily written "after the fact" and all historical writing that's well done is by nature "revisionist", in that it is constantly being revised to incorporate new and/or more complete information, often to lessen prior observed bias & give a better picture of the past. All history is also an 'interpretation' to a greater or lesser degree- the historian doesn't have time travel available as a research tool. So playing the "Revisionist History" card is a ploy and usually an act of desperation. Earns ya no points with me.

The Test Oath ...wasn't a test of a willingness to be loyal to the Union ... it was a test to determine who to punish for supporting secession. The result was that the majority of white Texans were disenfranchised causing no little discontent.

This is going to sound flippant, but I can't help it- what precisely did they expect after taking up arms, attacking the government of the United States, and involving the country in a war that caused more casualties than all U.S. wars before or since?? To be sent to bed without their suppers? Surely these were people of some intelligence who did not expect their actions to have no consequences, and it does their memories no service for them to be infantilized by succeeding generations. One of the more maddening aspects of this whole situation to this day is that a lot of folks are still in denial and refuse to accept any responsibility after more than a century. (Not directed at you personally)

Jim Crow had nothing to do with the North's thirst for vengence against the South.

"Nothing to do with?" I was sort of with you up to this point, but this statement is nonsense. If you think about it a bit, I think you'll agree with me.

Northern accounts talk about the KKK in Texas during the Reconstruction.

"They" may (and I have no idea what accounts you're referring to), but I don't believe I did.

Calling these groups "the Klan" is same as someone in the 50s calling labor activists in the 1880s and 90s communists. Pure demagoguery.

Call 'em by any name you want, but White Supremacist groups were regularly killing Blacks, Republicans (both domestic Texan and Yankee varieties) & "Northern Sympathizers" and "collaborators". This is amply documented. KILLED. LYNCHED. SHOT DOWN IN THE STREET. Not 'treated harshly', not "generally unjust'. Took place before the Federal troops were sent in, took place again once the troops were withdrawn. This occurred throughout the States of the former Confederacy- I don't mean to single Texas out. Also, the Klan of the immediate post-Civil War period was considerably MORE vicious than that of the 1920's, not less.

I see Northern accounts claim that the fact that Texas was producing more cotton after Reconstruction shows it actually had a positive impact on the economy

I can't speak to this point as I have no knowledge, but as you've stated it it does sound like a bogus claim to me.

Of course, there wasn't any [hard currency] since most if not all of the specie in the state had gone into the war [snip]... The economy collapsed.

And the North is somehow responsible for the State of Texas bankrupting itself by prosecuting a war that it chose to join and enthusiastically participated in? I'm confused...

I'm looking forward to another stinging reply with advice on which histories to read.

Well, I hope I've disappointed you at least a little bit.
I don't mean to tell you which histories to read. I suggested you refer to the extensive bibliographies in the two works I mentioned and use them as a resource listing or guide to select for yourself some works of interest. Lot of good material out there. Might just give you a bit of a different perspective.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 10:01 PM

Fir another interseting contemporary perspective, Tony Horwitz's "Confederates in the Attic" is a grusomely deatiled account of just how little progress has been made in the minds of many Southerners toward "getting over it". Unfortuantely, having lived 25 years in Richmond, Va. I am accutely award of these folks feelings...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Strick
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 10:20 PM

It's a waste of time, but let me clarify some points that you refer to.

"The Test Oath ...wasn't a test of a willingness to be loyal to the Union ... it was a test to determine who to punish for supporting secession. The result was that the majority of white Texans were disenfranchised causing no little discontent."

Two points. First, nature of the oath is misrepresented in more recent histories both to hide that punishment was being inflicted and to imply that Southerners deserved whatever mild misfortunes they suffered (just like some of you comments) since they were unwilling to take a simple step to become loyals citizens again. That simply wasn't true, it was a catch-22. Second, the imposition of the oath not only disenfranchised men who had been able to vote in elections immediately after the war, it was the first signal that the North intended reverse the conciliatory policy Lincoln put forward and actively punish the South. Say what you will, it was no way to make them love the North.

"Jim Crow had nothing to do with the North's thirst for vengence against the South."

The Jim Crow laws came after the war and the Reconstruction. How could they be the cause of the North's treatment of the South before they were enacted? Were you thinking the North's resentment over the slavery issue itself? Really? For the first couple of years of the war the North insisted the war was not fought over slavery, only to maintain the Union. This was the period of draft riots and Copperheads. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation electrified the nation, but that was well into the war, was meant more to prevent Britain entering the war on the South's side and, as I'm sure you knew only affected slaves in the Southern states, not the Union states that were slavery was still legal. Most of the war, the war had nothing to do with slavery -- unless you say Lincoln is a liar.

"Of course, there wasn't any [hard currency] since most if not all of the specie in the state had gone into the war [snip]... The economy collapsed."

No, the North was only responsible for intentionally imposing policy that they knew would have harsh economic consequences and allow the legal looting of the property of those of the defeated. Coming as it did, as a form of punishment, again you can't expect the Southerners to love the North.

Say what you will about the non-existant "Klan" in Texas, they started to try to control the lawless element the Army did little or nothing to put down. If you're surprised that once the North openly started punishing the South for the war, retaliated against anyone they could reach who symbolized what the North was doing, well, you don't understand what's happening in Palestine or happened in Northern Ireland. They considered themselves freedom fighters, too. Yes, I know there's more to it than that, but that's how they saw themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 11:11 PM

Let's set a few things straight here while we're at it. The South seceded the Union. It was not illegal to do so. This makes the CSA at the time of the start of the civil war a soveriegn state in its own right. Yes, the CSA took arms against the Union Army which invaded the CSA at Bull Run in Virginia. I'm not sure I remember who fired the first shot. But if it was the CSA troops then they were well within their rights to defend their "country". We needed less provocation than that to attack Iraq. Also there were attacks by people like John Brown that greatly angered the southerners to beigin with. Brown was not a legal representative of any governmental agency. He was an out and out vigilante bent on doing what he thought was God's Will. Sounds alot like someone else we know.

Two - Lincoln illegally arrested and held for the duration of the war, people identified as sympathizers and gave them no trial whatsoever. Kinda like we're seeing now. The state of Maryland and in paricular the city of Baltimore was placed under martial law for the duration of the war. This is understandable as the Union would hardly want the capital to be surrounded by CSA territory but it was still wrong.

Three - Throughout the war the North siezed and garrisoned troops in private homes owned by citizens of the CSA. This was one of the greatest insults as we had language forbidding this in the constitution.

Four - The destruction wrought by Sherman and his troops was not necessary and resulted in a south that was crippled for years after the war badly lagging behind in industrial development because of the destruction of the railroads and burning of the crops and farmhouses and buildings needed to harvest the next crop if they could get it to grow.

The fact that Gen. Robert E. Lee kept the troops from going guerilla at the end of the war, a situation that we now confront in Iraq shows that the CSA was not the evil demon that we have been lead to believe.

And think about this as well. The Union army was the first to deploy snipers who by many accounts were not used to take out leading officers and such but against common troops in camp far from the lines and not participating in the battle. The former I would consider a necessity of war. The latter I consider cold blooded murder. Today if an Iraqi or Al quaida or Taliban should do so it would be considered terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 11:23 PM

CC:

Some excellent points!

The first shots were fired at Fort Sumter, held by Union forces, by the Secesh side.

And it was indeed arguably illegal to secede from the Union, having once subscribed to the Articles f Confederation and the Constitution, I would think. IANAL, of course, but I think there was a lot of debate ontheissue at the time.

I don't know about you but my impression of the CSA itxelf was never demonized; I have always thought highly of Lee and of those who fought for him.

A

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Mar 04 - 11:51 PM

OK, I see we've unfortunately got to the irrational anecdotal facts-be-damned foaming at the mouth neo-Confederate confabulate what happened a century ago with current events out-and-out unadulterated bullshit stage of the "discussion".

A little knowledge is verily a dangerous thing.

Bye, Y'all-
Greg

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 06:52 AM

Why take sides in such an indignant way all this time later? No doubt there was injustice towards white southerners, but does it begin to measure up to the injustice done to black Americans over two hundred years and more, and the damage this has done to your whole history?

Getting angry about the past is pointless. Trying to find ways to undo the way the distortion caused by a republic founded on the acceptance of slavery, and the damage caused in the process of trying lie with that legacy and its consequences - that's what surely matters.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 07:42 AM

I'm not at all angry or indignant, Kevin. Saddened, if anything.

When idiocies get tossed out like slavery was still legal in the Northern States in 1863 and the Klan was an agency of law enforcement; with Lee keeping the troops from "going guerilla" (tell that to the folks in Missouri!) & John Brown gratuitously thrown in for good measure,-and those evil, evil Yankee snipers!- its pointless to continue.

I can't teach a complete course here on basic 19th Century U.S. History; not my job to make up for an inadequate education.

Strick- RE: Jim Crow Laws you are of course absolutely correct in that these date from the 1880's. I was using the term Jim Crow in its broader sense to encompass Southern subversion/negation of Federal legislation through local action- which began immediately following the war. I should have been clearer about what I meant.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Strick
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 10:35 AM

Greg, not all the slave states seceded. Look up any good discussion of the Emancipation Proclaimation and it should explain why it was worded the way it was. If it's a really good discussion, you'll get the quotes from all of Lincoln's speeches denying the war was about slavery and explaining why he waited so long to reverse himself. And using your logic to set the bounds of the "Klan", the Molly McGuires were card carrying Communists. To quote Lincoln, calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so.

I've learned a lot from this (some which I knew all along but don't want to admit), but Greg, I don't think you've re-examined your position at all. You're saying some things that are simply wrong, too. Think about it, OK?

BTW, I assume McGrath was speaking more to me. My original point was not to defend the South but to point out that the anger still exists. You've helped explain part of that anger: each side only remembers the part that makes them angry. At the end of the war, the South was promised a conciliatory Lincoln and it got a vindictive Congress. Recent Northern versions of Reconstruction are consistent with the view you've stated: those bad things didn't really happen and if they did, they just got what they deserved. Anyone would be mad at that. Long remembered anger must be a universal condition. Each time I was in the Republic of Ireland I received the "800 years of oppresive English occupation" at least four times.

McGrath, it's a complex issue and I realize that historically the South has a lot to answer for. But not only the South, the North helped make much of this tragedy (muscial interjection, remember the song "Molasses to Rum to Slaves"?). Next Greg will be telling us that there was no defacto, economic segregation in the North but if there had been it wasn't so bad, and anyway, the blacks brought it on themselves by being poor. The riots in the Detroit ghetto were an illuision and the worst riots opposing school desegregation did not take place in Boston. We imagined it.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 10:51 AM

regarding the quartering of troops: the particular amendment reads:

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

This does not prohibit the quartering of troops - merely states it must be done within the law - whatever that shall be.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Strick
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 10:56 AM

Oh, and Greg, now that I'm slowly pulling my head out of my ass, I do regret some of the cheap shots I've taken.

(and you won't believe what I just did...)

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 11:46 AM

Greg, not all the slave states seceded

No shit??? Really??? Boy, I do SO appreciate being patronized.
But, as you've noted, they were Southern slave states(or if you prefer, "Border States"). Your point being????

Next Greg will be telling us that there was no defacto, economic segregation in the North but if there had been it wasn't so bad...

Now you really are acting the asshole, Strick. Putting words in my mouth is an old, tired, underhand, childish ploy.

-Were Blacks treated like shit in the North in the middle of the 19th century? Of course they were- the whole country was a racist society.

-Was this treatment anything remotely comparable to the treatment of Blacks under chattel slavery? Of course not.

-Does the lousy treatment of Blacks in the North somehow mitigate or excuse slavery? Infantile suggestion.

Lincoln's speeches denying the war was about slavery

Lincoln was a politician, not a saint, and one of the more skillful politicians the U. S. has ever seen. His speeches need to be read with this in mind: remember the "House Divided" speech?. Try reading his letters (several published collections) of the time, which give an entirely different impression, as they weren't for public consumption. Of COURSE the war was "about slavery". The states that seceded did so over the issue of slavery.The Southern economy was BASED on slavery.The "Bleeding Kansas" atrocity was over the extension of slavery. The idea that the war had nothing to do with the issue of slavery is nonsensical on its face.

Recent Northern versions of Reconstruction are consistent with the view you've stated: those bad things didn't really happen...

Bogus. Absolutely and categorically wrong. One example of many? The work by Foner I mentioned. Suggestion: try reading at least one of these books before you tell us what they say.

At the end of the war, the South was promised a conciliatory Lincoln and it got a vindictive Congress.

The "Saintly Old Abe willing to forgive and forget and the Evil Old Radical Republican Congress oppressing the poor South" fairy tale- aside from being an overly simplistic 'explanation' of a vastly more complex issue & which completely ignores the major role Johnson played in the controversy- was and is a fabrication written into those late 19th /early 20th century Jim Crow/White Supremacist "histories" as a sop to "reconciliation" and to Southern "redemption". The fact that it IS a fabrication is amply documented in some of the works you denegrate unread.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 02:29 PM

Who's angry?
I'm just pointing out some facts that are realevant to the discussion at hand. I have yet to call anyone an asshole or dismiss their whole argument out of hand or lable them neo-confederates.

As far as I know there are no legal documents which were written up to say that a state could not secede.

I am not defending the institution of slavery. I already stated bad, evil, etc. But even Greg here states that the southern economy was based on slavery. How can you take away the base of anyones economy and think they aren't going to fight back?

The first landside shots of the war were bull run (at least that's what the NAt'l park service says.

Gen'l Lee surrendered his forces at appamatox. Had he and all of his forces run away and kept their arms the North would have had to route them all out and continue suffering assaults like we face now in Iraq.

The garrisoning of soldiers in Southern homes in the time of the war is like us seizing houses in Iraq. I'm sorry that I submitted something askew to what the actual verbage reads. It was still an indecency as far as the southerners were concerned.

The problem here lies in the fact that this terrible time in our history has been watered down to be about the evil southern slave holders fighting to keep their slaves and the saintly Union troops who fought with no other reason than to free them. This is what is, to use a previously used term "bullshit".

To pare it down to this issue is to ignore everything that occured before the war and drove the southern states to secede from the Union.

More facts: When Lincoln wanted to free the slaves via the emancipation proclomation the congress, with no southern representation at all, barely passed it.

There were riots in New York and other cities because of the draft of northern citizens to fight the CSA.

There were riots in Northern cities because the citizenry believed that freeing the slaves meant that they would head north and take their jobs.

I am only pointing out the facts that others would rather ignore or gloss over so that anyone reading this post gets the full picture of the tragedy of slavery and the tragedy of the American Civil War.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 02:37 PM

not only the South, the North helped make much of this tragedy

That's certainly I've always understood it. The match was lit by the Founding Fathers.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Strick
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 02:41 PM

"The match was lit by the Founding Fathers."

To a fuse set by... but aren't we tired of this yet? It's so easy to lay blame to the past even if we can't agree on the details and what each of us believes is only part of the truth. History is a tougher subject than some folks let on.

CC, I think Greg was merely affirming (if somewhat gracelessly) my acknowledgement that some of my comments were out of line. We can't refight this war here.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 04:09 PM

The point isn't to attach blame to people who are long gone for things that happened long ago. It's to learn from mistakes, and to recognise how things can go disastrously wrong when we are starting new enterprises, and the effects can carry on and get worse.

Kipling said it well:

That which is marred at birth Time shall not mend,
       Nor water out of bitter well make clean;
A11 evil thing returneth at the end,
       Or elseway walketh in our blood unseen.
Whereby the more is sorrow in certaine—
Dayspring mishandled cometh not againe.

To-bruized be that slender, sterting spray
       Out of the oake's rind that should betide
A branch of girt and goodliness, straightway
       Her spring is turned on herself, and wried
And knotted like some gall or veiney wen.—
Dayspring mishandled cometh not agen.

Noontide repayeth never morning-bliss—
       Sith noon to morn is incomparable;
And, so it be our dawning goth amiss,
       None other after-hour serveth well.
Ah! Jesu-Moder, pitie my oe paine—
Dayspring mishandled cometh not againe!

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Strick
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 04:29 PM

Oh, McGrath, that's so easy to understand and I must say so difficult to do when you're one of the people who was raised in cultures that have carried their mutual grievences across generations. Even if you see the wisdom of and it swallow the bitterness that always there, how do you reach those who have no interest in putting that past behind?   Even fairly civilized people who don't realize they have these feelings, too often find they're lying close to the surface as you've seen here. When we have to face them every day, past grievences and hatred have a tendency to renew themselves in mistrust, duplicity and violence in the present.

It can be overcome, but if that were that common, think of the number of the world's problems we wouldn't be facing anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 04:30 PM

I'm sorry but perhaps I'm a little touchy here. I can't celebrate my German heritage without someone pointing out the Nazi's. I can't talk about my state of birth or of any of the beautiful things here down south without someone deciding to bring up slavery or racism.

There was alot more overt racism when I lived up north than there is down here in the armpit of the south.

When I told a fellow worker that I would be transferred to Wilmington, NC she said that she would never go down there, that her family would be in danger down there (she is the child of a mixed marriage).

Surprise, surprise, I saw more mixed couples in Wilmington, NC than in all of Baltimore, MD. We only had one murder in five years of living there. Don't even bother to look at the murder statistics in Baltimore over the same time period.

I'm not saying that there isn't racism, but a lot of people don't give the south a chance, and thereby deny themselves some pretty great things, because of slavery and jim crow. It happened, it's behind us. And the racism that remains is just as much at home in Kennebunkport Maine as it is in Montgomery Alabama. Let's remember that Archie Bunker was not portraying a southerner!

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 04 - 04:36 PM

And remember too that Archie Bunker was an Americanised version of a Londoner, Alf Garnett. Paying too much heed to the faults of other people is a great way of taking our minds off our own.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 05:34 AM

Bigots are at home anywhere and cross all boundaries. Alf/Archie will be recognised in any nation. Link to The Bigot's Song.

http://www.geocities.com/doireanne/bigotsong.html

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: GUEST,satchel
Date: 24 Mar 04 - 11:18 PM

I'm not going to get into the details of the problematic arguments in this thread, but there are a few things worth reconsidering.

Since race is America's national bogeyman, it is only natural that reconstruction has many competing interpretations. The problem is that most of the "common knowledge" or "heritage" on the subject has developed from wrongheaded historiography (look it up) from the early 20th century.

It has taken scholars the better part of 60 years to try and put things right. This is revisionist history--all history is revisionist. So is medicine, areonautics, electronics, etc. and I've yet to hear a complaint about "revisionist dentistry."

Greg F. is fighting a valiant but losing battle against a phalanx of people who are satisfied with getting their history from soundbits, grandfathers and uncles, and celebratory "heritage" peddlers and reenactors.

McGrath, this is important because the level of misinformation about reconstruction deeply affects policy and feelings to this day, as clearly evidenced by this thread.

There is plenty of evidence and refereed scholarship that convincingly disproves all of the legends--scholarship that examines Andrew Johnson's presidency, his relationship with Congress, the Radical Republican reactions, the social history of the south, and the racism of the north.

Most folks would be terribly offended if an amateur told them how to do their jobs--just think about how pissy the plumber gets when you keep offering helpful "suggestions" during the job. Professional historians have to listen to this every day. Why? People are reluctant to reexamine their cherished heritage, even in light of the most overwhelming of evidence.

Trust the pros, folks. If things were really as simple as most of us think, everyone would have an advanced degree in history. Things are NEVER as easy as they seem.


READ READ READ--Stampp, Era of Reconstruction. Foner--Reconstruction. Woodward--Strange Career of Jim Crow. Dray--At the Hands of Persons Unknown. Williamson--Crucible of Race

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 01:51 AM

Some would say that the birth of 'spin' came with the written word. That 'spin' and written history - are one and the same.

Which historian are we to trust? If you read enough of them you wiil usually will find one with a view of history that will suit. We all have personal agendas - even if we are not aware that we do.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: nelagnelag
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 03:29 AM

Wow, thanks for such a great discussion. Look what happens when I go away for a few days... :)

I just will throw in a few interesting random facts, I tried to read 90% of the discussion...

You might find the autobiography of Gordon Parks very interesting regarding the living legacy of slavery and bigotry. Plus, he was an amazing guy. Reading that makes it clear that all of this "old" history really is only very barely dead, if at all.

Also, I am interested to know that one of the bosses of the C&O canal venture, which was built by very poor Irish labor (is that fundamentally different from slavery?) was a quaker, who were known for their help on the underground railway. I'm just wondering a little if the "moral high ground" was actually based on wealth and education that was available in the north. There are a lot of good books about the Underground Railroad that are pretty enlightening, by the way, also about the racism that existed even in the north. One gets the feeling that if it weren't for the industrial wealth in the north, all of this moralizing would have disappeared.

And finally, I note that - not only did George Washington have slaves, but when one escaped he very actively tried to get her back. Washington was hailed as a hero ever since his involvement (with very dubious success) in the French and Indian war, so one wonders if negative stories about him were subconsciously or otherwise suppressed in a fledging nation starved for heros of its own. (read- "George Washington, indespensible man", though not much there about slaves, read that elsewhere)

That is, there was a huge demographic class distinction in the colonies early on. Signers of the decl. of indep, etc, were the donald trumps and bill gates, etc. of the day, not little old you or I.

best,
G

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: nelagnelag
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 03:40 AM

Oh,

and this organization is one of the major ones dealing with modern slavery, based in the USA. This article is about the connection between chocolate and slavery. The quote at the top gives you pause. We have a bunch of nestle chips in our cupboard, and nestle, I'm fairly sure, gets their chocolate from Africa...

http://www.freetheslaves.net/slave_stories/drissa.html

The biggest org. internationally is anti-slavery international.

www.antislavery.org

best,
G

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 06:50 AM

"I've yet to hear a complaint about "revisionist dentistry."

That's a comment worth sticking in a Mudcat book of quotes.

And I wasn't suggesting tta ciorrect ing misinfirmation isn't important, but that getting over-excited about the past is a mistake. The importan thing is to learn from the past, and apply the lessons we learn to to the present and the future - obviously, if we have the facts wrong in thr first place, the lessons we learn from them are going to be skewed.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 10:25 AM

That 'spin' and written history - are one and the same.

It ain't necessarily so. ( to keep things musical )

Which historian are we to trust?

Simple. Preponderance of verifiable evidence. Best us humans can do.

[NB: Read the footnotes; that's why they're there. If they're NOT there, be suspicious. Then read the sources footnoted. Then read other works on the same subject & repeat the above.]

No-one said being well-informed is easy. Like anything else, if it's gonna be worthwhile, its gonna take some effort.

Have fun-

Greg

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Strick
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 11:51 AM

But Greg, it's not the facts that are in question too much of the time even if there's really any way of knowing all of the relevant ones. It's the interpretation of those facts that raises hackles.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 12:27 PM

According to the Nat'l Park system, the C&O railroad was built by Irish Laborers because the work was so dangerous and the slaves were more expensive and therefore shouldn't be risked. This is what I was told. Don't know if there is anything to back it up.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: nelagnelag
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 02:08 PM

Hmm, that says a lot about the value of human life.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 02:25 PM

it's not the facts that are in question too much of the time

Sadly much of the time, yes, it is. vide much of the foregoing 'discussion', for example.

And I dunno there, Satchel- I would bet Grover Norquist & his fellow travellers could find fault with 'revisionist dentistry'.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Strick
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 02:51 PM

But take some examples to the contrary, Greg. It's a fact that many Southerners who had voted in the 1866 election were prevented from voting in later years by the Test Oath. It's interpretation that says this was due to their refusal to take the Oath (and an erroroneous one given the actual oath itself) and an as to whether or not that partcilar version of the Oath was justified by the circumstances.

Vigilante organizations (even that word is an interpretation) commited acts of violences against Northern sympathizers and blacks. Why the did so is open to interpretation. They say that they were supressing lawlessness that the Army wouldn't or couldn't control. You say they were racist murderers. Problem is both are probably true. On the other hand the assertion that these groups were part of the KKK is an opinion and one not supported by any factual evidence, as the groups were distinct and cannot be shown to interacted much less merged.

See what I mean? Not being pedantic, just pointing out that a lot of things people call "facts" aren't.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 07:15 PM

Sorry, Strick, but no; I still can't make it out. I agree that its not pedantry, but it sure smells like sophistry.

Example: Why each individual 'vigilante' took it upon himself to murder mostly unarmed Black folks, Union sympathizers, etc. is
probably not susceptible of ultomate "proof". That doesn't make the victims any less dead, be it Texas in 1866 or Mississippi in 1963. The motivational questions may pose intriguing sidelights, but they don't materially alter the larger picture of pervasive white supremecist violence, or the successful attempts to effectively nullify Federal legislation through violence and intimidation of a class or classes of the Southern population.

The term 'vigilante'- def.:a member of a volunteer, extra-legal group taking summary action to suppress what they percieve to be crime- is particularly apt and exact. What's your problem with it?

Its interestingg that you keep bringing up the straw horse of the "Klan in Texas" business despite the fact that I - and no-one else in this thread that I can find- ever said there WAS!

Still, your claim there was no 'official'KKK in Texas during reconstruction( which I WILL check on and get back to you) doesn't make the victims of white supremecist violence there any less dead, either.

I'm honestly afraid that you've lost me completely with the paragraph on the Test Oath/Ironclad Oath/ whichever oath you're going on about.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 07:28 PM

Isn't the truth of it that the whole of the United States was responsible for what went wrong in the hundred years after the end of the Civil War so far as decency and civil rights was concerned?

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 07:50 PM

"Hmmmmmm", Bobert wonders to himself, "bunch of white folks arguing over what happened a long time ago while million of desendents rot in housing projects from one city to the next across America?"

Yeah, the discussion is very much necessary but is of little value if it does not effect change in those folks who still suffer from the affects of "slavery, poverty and culture"...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Strick
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 09:05 PM

Bobert, who told you that Greg and I were affected by "slavery, poverty and culture" too? Just not the affects you're thinking of.

Greg F, this is the Greg F I exchanged some posts with earlier in this thread? I'm suprised at some of your questions. My examples in the previous post weren't meant to represent anything you said, but are legitimate examples of what I'm trying to say, that the facts are less trouble than how different people interpret them. That ex-Confederate soldiers were prevented from voting (after being eligible in one election) is fact. The explanations why they were prevented from voting (stubborn refusal or Northern malice) are interpretations.

I worried about vigilante because if what you say is true, that gives them more credit than they deserve. Vigilante committees were common across the West where ever there was lawlessness. Sherman described being on a vigilante committee when he was in California in his autobiography. As one historian noted, you couldn't expect any man hardy enough to survive the Civil War to sit just accept lawlessness just because there was no law handy. Of course he was talking about the Territories further west in later years, not Texas, but it's the same thing.

BTW., what makes you so sure that they hanged "mostly unarmed Black folks, Union sympathizers, etc."? I don't think either of us know that for a fact. The reports I've seen from West Texas speak only of desperados and bandits. I don't know that I'd trust reports from the Army or Union sympathizers in local government to be objective either. Maybe newspaper reports of the time, but there weren't many papers in the state. I don't doubt they committed atrocities, but I don't think the record is clear either.

The KKK? I found enough reports calling them the Klan and you called them the Klan in response to one of my posts, but the facts I seen don't support that and it would be a convenient way possible to put the most negative characterization on the oganizations, wouldn't it.

I really wasn't trying to rehash this, though. I'll let it rest. All I was trying to say was that, even with the same facts in front of us, we wouldn't be able to agree on intepreting them. That's the big problem.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 09:50 PM

Of course he was talking about the Territories further west in later years, not Texas, but it's the same thing.

Well, Strick, there ya go again. Ya see, its NOT the same thing. And that's a fact.

you called them the Klan in response

I'd be grateful if you'd show me where I identified a Texas group
as being "The Klan". You keep falling back specifically on the Texas situation; I'm talking about the whole former Confederacy.


even with the same facts in front of us, we wouldn't be able to agree on intepreting them I thinwe'd finnd more points of convergence than difference if we agreed to apply the 'preponderance of evidence' test.

Bobert: RE: the discussion... is of little value if it does not effect change in those folks who still suffer from the affects of "slavery, poverty and culture".

Couldn't agree more- and while a substantial segment of the population remains in denial about their own history I don't think much headway will be made in the direction both of us would like to see.

Kevin- ALL of the U.S. most certainly, but the situation was influenced by world economic factors as well. Palmerston's government supported the Confederacy, as did most of Lancashire, for economic reasons. Cheap U.S. cotton- produced by slave labor prior to 1865 and by what was slave labor in all but name after 1865- enriched many a mill owner in the Black Country. A complicated situation.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Strick
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 10:06 PM

Greg, you're wrong (IMHO), but certainly determined.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Mar 04 - 10:26 PM

Well, danged, if ya can't beat 'um join 'um...

Okay, 'bout 20 yeaes ago I was pokin' thru the Main Strret Sation in Richmond, Va. At one time it was the only train station in Richmond, Va. and had been closed since the 50's. In the basement I found a log of accidents and perhaps some not-so-accidents that occured on the lines within a 50 miles radius of Richmond.

There are several entries that go something like "Male Negro, approximately 25 years old found dead on tracks, 30 miles northweat of Richmond..." Hmmmmm? LIke black folk so stupid to fall asleep on RR tracks???

Welcome to Jim Crow/KKK America......

Anyone want proof, PM me, I'll send you a copy ....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 05:29 AM

But the responsibility for colluding in repression of former slaves in the former Confederacy and beyond for the next century rested on the whole of the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 06:31 AM

No, I blame that Scotsman, Napoleon.........

We all feel our share of blame. That is why we all feel better if we can shift some of it.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 07:48 AM

But the responsibility for colluding in repression of former slaves in the former Confederacy and beyond for the next century rested on the whole of the United States.

Yes. Absolutely. Just as there were individuals North and South who attempted- unsuccessfully as it turns out- to prevent that repression.

Bobert-
Like to all them Colored folks what tried to swim them Southern lakes and rivers with chains wrapped round'em. Jus' plain stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: slavery, poverty and culture
From: el ted
Date: 26 Mar 04 - 10:38 AM

Post number 100, I thank you.