Racism: pre Civil War or Radical Reconstruction

So you are saying post civil war was worse?

Do imagine you were a slave and your master came and raped and impregnated your wife.

You can't stop him.

He might even sell your wife and your kids.

Before the civil war you had no rights.

After the civil war you could leave.

Which one is better?

quote:

---

So you are saying post civil war was worse

---

No, I'm saying that white resentment to loss of rights during Reconstruction could have caused more damage from the white perspective. Thus, post Reconstruction treatment of blacks was much worse than it could have been.

Few years back I visited Alcatraz there was a sign that read-

"There are more black males currently incarcerated in the United States, than were slaves in 1850."

quote:

---

I think you're missing my point. There's no way a former slave could have come out of slavery without a certain hatred for whites. There are two sides to the coin, though.

---

What does hatred have to do with anything?

You are asking about which was worse before or after the civil war?

There isn't some meter that measures hatred, you have only to look at the political, regulatory and economic laws of the time.

Black people couldn't vote, were limited by the laws on what type of property they could own and were mostly prohibited from education.

So what are you going on about? People felt badddddddddddddd?

Mah feeeelingz were hurt, mama!

It seems like it was worse for one group before and after the civil war and it's not even close.

Slavery as an act is much worse

We are dealing with effects of Jim Crow more now than anything else.

quote:

---

White privilege

---

quote:

---

You are asking about which was worse before or after the civil war?

---

No, I'm asking which created racism to a greater degree. I think the answer is different for the two groups.

quote:

---

There are more black males currently incarcerated in the United States, than were slaves in 1850."

---

Yet I bet if you offered to send those in prison to Africa where they would be freed from jail, many would opt to stay in jail here.

Thanks John Wilkes Booth. No, but seriously. Small history lesson:

Lincoln was much more relaxed in his restrictions to restore states to the Union. 10% of citizens that voted in the election of 1860 had to sign an oath saying "I will be Loyal to the Union". JWB kills Lincoln, and Andrew Johnson takes over. He was a plantation owning white southern Democrat, and restored fellow white southern Democrats into being able to vote and hold offices. These former CSA soldiers rose to power and used laws to suppress freedmen rights. The US Congress rejects Johnson's plan and the 80% Republican (anti-slavery) Congress puts the military in charge of the state. They change the oath to say "I have always been loyal to the Union. Not being able to sign this oath, it disenfranchised the WSD's. Louisiana was under military control for 10 years.

TL;DR - White southern Democrats, when in power, would use laws to suppress freedmen's rights. When not in power, they used violence and voter intimidation.

That being said, I think the previous 250 years of slavery did more damage to race relations in the south. But the fact that there wasn't a full "social reconstruction" for 100 years hurt the south much worse.

quote:

---

Thanks John Wilkes Booth. No, but seriously. Small history lesson

---

I'm aware of this. In fact, it's a big reason for the thread. I don't think that the Jim Crow era would have been nearly as severe had Lincoln's 10% Plan been implemented.