- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/1/14 at 7:22 pm to Navtiger1
Maybe no Klan. But I hope hou realize that Jim Crow was the law in each state and racial segregation was codified in detail by local and state governments.
If slaves were freed I suspect some version of Jim Crow was inevitable. I can't see slavery suddenly ending and the next day blacks are given equal treatment under the law.
If slaves were freed I suspect some version of Jim Crow was inevitable. I can't see slavery suddenly ending and the next day blacks are given equal treatment under the law.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 7:42 pm to doubleb
The states of Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky were laying out plans for gradual assimilation. Your assumptions concerning Jim crow are still based off of the states being forced to emancipate as opposed to doing it on their own.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 7:56 pm to doubleb
quote:
Maybe no Klan. But I hope hou realize that Jim Crow was the law in each state and racial segregation was codified in detail by local and state governments.
Well there almost certainly wouldn’t have been a Klan since it was started first in response to carpet baggers and then transformed into a very powerful anti-black organization. I don’t think the hatred and anti-black sentiment would have been nearly strong enough to create the at one time 3 million plus member Klan without the war.
Yes I know Jim Crow was the law in both the North and South. I also agree that some form of Jim Crow would have followed the freeing of slaves. I said in my post it would not have been a quick process. I don’t know that what would have followed would have been as bad or as long standing as Jim Crow, that is something we would never know. So no I do not believe it would have been a next day thing. I said it would be a very painful assimilation in the short term for freed slaves. But I think the acceptance and assimilation would have taken far less than 150 years if the process had been accomplished through legislation rather than war. Many southerners who probably had no ill will or an opinion regarding slaves before the war and reconstruction ended up having hate and animosity after the war because they blamed blacks for their condition after the war. The war brought an abrupt end to an awful institution, but I think it created a horrible aftermath that still lingers today.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:03 pm to sugar71
quote:
Most of these Slaves your idiot Author liks to cite as proof of the 'happy slave' in the 1936-38 Narratives were Children like the 9/10 year old Booker T Washington who had vague memories of slavery.
I took most of the subjective literature written before 1950 with a grain of salt. Many of the first historians of the Civil War were southerners who invented this "Lost Cause" mythology as a way to help their damaged psyches cope with the aftermath of the war. There are far too many Americans out there who believe every plantation was just like Tara from Gone with the Wind.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:19 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
There are far too many Americans out there who believe every plantation was just like Tara from Gone with the Wind.
And there are far too many Americans who believe every plantation was run by raping, beating, murdering, foaming at the mouth evil whites.
The truth is the life of slaves ranged from Roots to Gone with the Wind. Some were treated pretty well while others were treated worse than livestock. There was no good in the institution and I don't know anyone who would argue slavery was right or good. But the narrative from both sides is probably wrong in most respects. The degree of treatment of slaves varied greatly from one slave owner to another.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:38 pm to RollTide1987
Roll, so any book written before 1950 is wrong, but the modern books full of Northern propaganda/slant are correct? Books written by people who experienced that time period are not to be beleived? Or only books books from that period written by yankees credibile? People like you an sugar have blinders on in my opinion. The War Between the States was a complicated time that can not be condensed into a simple North good South bad package. There were good guys and bad guys on both sides. You do not know the motivation of every soldier who served.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:54 pm to dwr353
quote:
Roll, so any book written before 1950 is wrong, but the modern books full of Northern propaganda/slant are correct?
Not every book. There are quite a few books out there from the 1910s, 1920s and 1930s that are very informative - particularly histories written by foreign military observers. But the truth is, it wasn't until Bruce Catton in the 1950s that historians began to challenge the Lost Cause mythology that had been developing since the immediate aftermath of the conflict.
quote:
The War Between the States was a complicated time that can not be condensed into a simple North good South bad package.
Your mistake is thinking that I believe this.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:05 pm to RollTide1987
If so, I stand corrected on that part.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:31 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
I took most of the subjective literature written before 1950 with a grain of salt. Many of the first historians of the Civil War were southerners
There were plenty of northerners writing their version as well and for someone who doesn't have blinders on you sure toe the northern revisionist line.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:39 pm to bencoleman
quote:
There were plenty of northerners writing their version as well and for someone who doesn't have blinders on you sure toe the northern revisionist line.
Tell me what is revisionist about the so-called "northern version" of the Civil War?
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:40 pm to doubleb
quote:
Maybe no Klan
I thought the Klan was originally Southerners who refused to quit fighting and continued to fight a gorilla war against Northern reconstruction efforts.
It was founded on warfare, the racial piece was not the original intent.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:41 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Tell me what is revisionist about the so-called "northern version" of the Civil War?
He has been throughout this thread
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:43 pm to bencoleman
quote:
Your assumptions concerning Jim crow are still based off of the states being forced to emancipate as opposed to doing it on their own.
His assumptions have at least some basis in facts as yours are purely theoretical.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 9:49 pm to goatmilker
quote:
His assumptions have at least some basis in facts as yours are purely theoretical
apparently, you haven't been reading my posts. Please tell me what I have posted that is theoretical and I haven't seen him post much of anything other than some outrageous statement about the south never giving up their slaves without being forced.
Posted on 4/3/14 at 6:42 am to bencoleman
quote:
happen to be fifty one years old and I remember my childhood just fine. So your dumb fricking argument doesn't hold water. Just like the stat you posted that said 49% percent of a states population were slave owners. So how about you Go frick Yourself you lying sack of shite. If
I wouldn't't admit my age & then post something so ignorant. You didn't disprove my assertion that you are an idiot with it.
It's not my problem you wish to find the proof positive your ilk would like to find in slavery because of a few hundred Slave Narratives retold 70-80 years later by Seniors who were children at the time.
It's not my problem that you cannot understand perspective .
Ariel Castro Kidnapped 3 women & abused them sadistically for 10 years in his basement. Castro's 7/ 8 year old daughter cried herself to sleep every night begging to go back to her 'happy' household.
In 70 -80 years I doubt if that child's twisted memory of her 'happy' home with the 3 women being locked upstairs ,raped, beaten to miscarriage , pistol whipped ,not allowed outside',etc.. Would be of equal value to the ADULTS in that house.
Jaycee Dugard's children(who loved & wanted to visit the Garridos in jail) will have fond memories of their childhood with their sex slave Mother abused & living imprisoned in squalor in a tent in Garridos backyard. I bet their childhood recollections in 70.80 years won't square up with Jaycee Dugard's ADULT perspective.
Most Historians who study these 70-80 year old recollections of Mostly Children understand this & read many of these Narratives accordingly. It takes Authors ,like your Precious piece of Neo-Confederate Propaganda ,to use/abuse some of these people recollections as some proof of the benign nature of slavery.
Booker T Washington was the age of most of these WPA Slaves & admits he barely remembers his childhood nor understood what was going on around him. .A few fond memories of him playing, Mother sneaking him food, doing menial tasks,Celebrations by adults(that confused him) after Slavery ended.
Posted on 4/3/14 at 7:13 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Apples and Excrement comparison. Your points regarding the childhood memories of septuagenarians are solid. Your continued insistence that 25-49% of Southerners were rich enough to have owned slaves is absolute rubbish.
You need to take up this issue with the U.S. Census of 1860 which confirms undeniably the stats of 49% (Mississippi)HOUSEHOLD slave ownership in 1860.(Plus the 46% S.C.etc... & so on).
I gave you the links & you can easily get access to the census & slave schedules if you wish since you refuse to accept the links from the University of Virginia archives I posted. Sorry the facts disprove the myths you have bought into about Slavery. Not everyone who purchased a slave in 1860 was filthy stinking rich nor did they all own dozens or hundreds.
EX Slaves who were obviously not stinking rich tried sometimes successfully after saving for several years to purchase loved ones . They certainly weren't Rich. Not all slaves costs Thousands of dollars & some were sold for as little as $50(The average price being around $400-450 in 1860 I believe ).
Again I wasn't totally dsmissing the 1936-38 WPA slaves narratives nor there value, but most serious Historians put them in perspective considering the vast majority were Children(in 1865) recalling 71-80ish year old stories of youth. Some have twisted many of these WPA Narratives.
This post was edited on 4/3/14 at 7:25 am
Page 17 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News