Forbidden History: The distraction of racism and the great American lie

Great, thouroughly researched post AirSpoon!

I've posted before in some immigration posts about the history of the Irish, Germans, Italians, Jews and Poles when they came here during the immigration boom. Its well documented that in Chicago, regardless of who you were, you were unwelcome in another ethnicities neighborhood (I believe the quote was "God help the Pole that walked into a German bar on those streets, or the Italian in an Irish bar, or the Jew that walked into any bar"). Even the free blacks moved out of a neighborhood when the "dirty Irish Catholics" moved in.

I'm interested in what some of ATS's African-American members have to say from their perspective.

Originally posted by dalepmay
reply to post by airspoon

 

I wrote a long piece about my views on racism in America, and made it into a youtube video. Basically I think we are being force fed the idea of racism to keep us from uniting against the government. Check it out: www.youtube.com...

Absolutely correct! The fascist globalist criminals that want us to be divided into smaller more manageable cattle. Seriously fascists were not born last Thursday. They know we are apathetic,greedy,predatory,selfish,self-serving,arrogant,lustful and envious as they are.Only these people are 50-100 times more pathologically psychopathic and ruthless because of the corruption of power/money/resources. They think they are invincible and/or gods and were are the dumb cattle scabbing over the soured slop troth of bread and circus and in the mud of materialism/consumerism. They use racism to blow up their programmed consumer cattle's ego's so they can then attack other expendable selfish cattle. End result: They win and eat your ass and you lose and get turned into a spare ribs and porterhouse.Wake up. They know how to manipulate(pretty much pimp them) people by feeding their ego.

Salmon P. Chase was a Rothschild mole in Lincoln's cabinet. The Rothschild wanted to take over the government via the federal reserve inc. FIAT money scam. Lincoln was murdered because he got in their way to take over all north American money systems.

hidhist.wordpress.com...

Rothschild banksters funded both sides of the war.

www.smashtheman.com...

War criminal and evil bankster J.P. Morgan sold cheap faulty weapons that barely worked to the union costing thousands their lives because of then exploding in their hands and misfiring. He knowingly sold the weapons AFTER test firings proved they were unusable.Made millions in by today's currency rates but that was pure evil.

www.j-bradford-delong.net...

Robber Baron criminals like Vanderbilt , James Gould and Carnegie owned the main infrastructure of this country
that's fascism. Pure and simple and the parties that own them now STILL own them not you.

gettingtruth.wordpress.com...

The Saudi's own $800 billion of our government. That's not counting China or Russia.They are also the 2nd largest shareholder in FoxNews/Newscorp. MSNBC/GE is a war arms contractor so I guess its fair and balanced.

It doesn't matter really. Were cattle to them. They know we are stupid and arrogant and use our petty vices to sow discord amounts the dumb animals/consumer robots.Race and Ego make things VERY convenient for the fascist banksters and globalists.Its too easy.

Does a slaughterhouse give a flying f--- what shade of fur a cow is? But I bet they want the cattle to be as proud of their Gucci diamond studded steel confinement cage as possible. Think about it.They don't want to cattle to get "smart" and revolt on their soulless parasitic asses.

Originally posted by airspoon

Grrr. I typed out a long and thought out response to your question, then ATS crashed on me (as it seems to do all of the time).

Not a problem, happens to me often so I completely understand.

Anyway, I'm not about to retype all of that so I'll keep it short and simple.

I believe that slavery was on its last legs anyway, regardless of whether the EP was introduced or if the CSA would have won. I also feel that the South was right in wanting to secede. I believe that the USA winning the war, was the beginning of the end for the American experiment and pointed us in our current trajectory.

I, for the most part, knew this but I wanted to see if I shared the same views as you do, and of course, as I suspected, I do.

Slavery was a political propaganda tool to rally the people behind Lincoln's cause to hold a federal union together. I do believe that if the confederate states had won their independence it would offer an alternative for the people of the northern states to pick from. This being the main reason Licoln feared the confederates due to their potential to grow in strength. Not to mention the loss of tax revenue.

Its such a tragedy that France and England bought Lincoln's bluff.

HMM let me see 1.4% of americans owned slaves. OK so that 1.4 % suddenly morphed into the complete repressive situation before the civil rights movement. SO the Jim Crow laws just appeared ? Strange fruit just appeared hanging from trees and burnings and lynchings just happened. And suddenly a sectoion of ATS's membership decided quite recently to debate in the gloriously wide eyed manner of the truly skanky and duplicitous to claim thereis nother wrong with the N word.

So next week I can presume that we will be justifying aww or just down playing what rape or will it be incest?

Your section on slavery is completely erroneous because it is a straw man arguemenent that has been repeated. You ignore white supremacy . and perhaps the whole jim crow system and institutional racism and police brutality in the 60s or was that the fault of black people as is everything else.

Have you ever spoken with any black Americans?

Racist parroting/rally/validation thread. Boring.Ignore.

reply to post by tiger5

HMM let me see 1.4% of americans owned slaves. OK so that 1.4 % suddenly morphed into the complete repressive situation before the civil rights movement.

No, that had nothing to do with slavery. It had everything to do with class the perceived fear behind what wasn't known. Many Southern whites feared crime and poverty and were worried about their communities being degraded. It's not a justification but it is reality.

What was taking place in the first half of the 19th century, had nothing to do with what was taking place in the mid 20th century, save for maybe the same perceived caution of class, exaggerated into race. Furthermore, what was taking place in the mid 20th century (in the South) is just the extreme version of what is taking place in our current times, with the roles reversed, of course.

Strange fruit just appeared hanging from trees and burnings and lynching's just happened

Not much is different today, save for the role reversal. Remember the "Jenna Six", what about the New Haven firefighters? The LA riots? All of this is brought about by the false perception of racism that is interjected into our society. Just as I explained in the OP, the blacks are angry because they are told that whites are their problem and the whites are angry because of the injustices due to the "race-card issues". You can hardly blame either side.

If I was told from birth that "so-and-so" group was the root of all evil and my biggest problem, especially if "so-and-so" group was constantly apologizing, I would be angry too and probably have no other choice than to believe it. On the other hand, if I were to lose my job, just because of my skin color or if savages beat my child to within an inch of his death, yet a lynch-mob came after my son and the perps got off scot free, then I too would be angry. It's this purposed divide in our races that is breeding racism. The above paragraph can be easily switched between races, as both instances pertain to each race at different time periods.

So next week I can presume that we will be justifying aww or just down playing what rape or will it be incest?

If it was downplayed, it done by your own mind. We have to deny ignorance, not embrace it and I'm not going to ignore the truth because someone doesn't have the mental fortitude to both acknowledge and accept it. You can either swallow the truth and drive on, or ignore it and wallow in the drunken stupor that is common place.

Your section on slavery is completely erroneous because it is a straw man arguemenent that has been repeated

It is not a straw man argument, as it is more than relevant to what's happening today. It gives a justification to racial policies such as Affirmative Action or race-card justice.

You ignore white supremacy

No, I don't. In fact, I bring it up in the OP without naming it. You can either go on ignoring the truth or you can try and better understand it. Just because the truth may not fit with someone's world-view, doesn't mean that it isn't the truth. Furthermore, it isn't just white supremacy, as it is black supremacy too. Both "races" have their racial hate groups and while it isn't politically correct to bring up the black racial hate groups, it seems to garner extra points when you bring up the white racial hate groups. Both are prevalent, though the black hate groups seem to be accepted because it is all part of the divide and conquer, white apologists agenda.

This is all born from the divide before us. The divide that is based on inaccuracies and exaggerations. I've explained too many times why I believe that both groups have their extremists among them, both in this post and the OP so I won't do it again but maybe you should reread in an objective manner instead of allowing your emotions to dictate what you get from it.

and perhaps the whole jim crow system and institutional racism and police brutality in the 60s or was that the fault of black people as is everything else.

Kin of like it is today, only a little less extreme and far more accepted (and widespread too)? Unfortunately, when a white loses his job to a black on the basis of skin color, a poor white family doesn't get the assistance they need due to their skin color or a violent black assailant gets off scot free from a racial attack on a white, it doesn't get reported and if does, the news is slanted in favor of the black.

Take the New Haven firefighters for instance. The only reason why that even made the news, is because of Sonia Sotomayor was being nominated to the Supreme Court and she had previously ruled in favor for discrimination. What happened to the firefighters is happening every single day in thousands of instances all across the US, many are far more discriminatory.

For another instance, we have the "Jenna Six", a brutal attack that was racially motivated on a white child. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson organized a modern-day lynching that ultimately sprung the violent criminals from any kind of trouble and made the victim (a child) out to be the one who "shouldn't have been white". A whole gang of thugs (16-17 year olds) targeted this young child (I believe around 13 or 14) simply due to his skin color and beat him so bad that he has permanent damage, yet because the victim was white and the thugs were black, they got off. The media just couldn't believe that the Sheriff arrested the black thugs. It was a classic example of the race card being played. Meanwhile this poor kid who didn't do anything (other than unfortunately being born white in this day in age) had to suffer as his aggressors were let off due to their skin color. This sort of thing happens all of the time too.

God forbid that a white commit a crime against a black, even if it isn't a crime and instead self defense. He will be lynched (the modern day equivalent), yet it is open season on whites, as apparently we have been oppressing everyone else for so long (LOL). This is in spite of the fact that my family or my ancestors haven't oppressed anyone. Why is it okay to generalize whites, but you can't do the same with blacks? Saying that whites have oppressed the world is just as racist as saying that blacks are criminals.

Now, of course it is like this for a reason, as it allows us to be divided. We are lead (by the nose) to this pond. We are in effect driven here by our false and lop-sided history. Blacks are sincere in playing the race-card and for the most part, I don't feel that they are just trying to "get over". They have after all been told and indoctrinated to believe that most unfairness is due to racism and in fact, we have all been told that. Whites on the other hand are angry due to the injustices that we see against us and blaming us for the world's ills. I'll say this again because it's more than important, blaming whites for the world's ills is just as racist as blaming blacks for the world's crime or blaming Jews for the world's debt.

We are purposefully lead to believe that all whites are evil and racist, even if we don't know it and we are the cause of black suffering. Such a notion is foolish. My family didn't get any perks because of our skin-tone and life wasn't any easier for us than anyone else. In fact, arguable life was much harder since we weren't privy to the same programs and because we can be denied a job or promotion if a black is competing with us for it, even if s/he isn't as qualified.

So again, I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist, only that it is instigated by falsehoods. It is seeded to us and it grows from the false perceptions that we are indoctrinated to believe.

Have you ever spoken with any black Americans?

Lol, are you kidding? Not only do I have African Americans in my family (not blood, obviously) but my best friend and battle-buddy is African American. I grew up as one of the only whites and the only Jew in my neighborhood and school (probably around 95% black and 5% white). What has that got to do with anything?

This thread was not meant to excuse anything that happened in our past, only get to the truth of it. Put it into perspective so that we can get past all of this petty racism that is dividing us, while the elites are conquering us. Lets deny ignorance together.

Racism is bread from ignorance so we can't even begin to look past racism until we can learn the truth from our past. I'm Jewish and while I was brought up learning about how the Jews were targeted in Germany (and everywhere else in the world), it wasn't until I was able to deny that ignorance and learn that Jews made up only a small percentage of the innocense who suffered and died at the hands of the Nazis. Furthermore, through objective research and eduication, I learned why this happened, that put into a much clearer perspective.

Of course I was raised learning one thing so at first, I couldn't help but to allow the ignorance to fester and win. I was angry with everyone who even suggested other than what is commonly believed by those who rewrite history. I was told and had been indoctrinated to accept that anyone who disagrees with what we thought we knew, then they were anti-semites and because that's all I knew, ignorance flourished and I labled anyone who dare challenge the acepted view, as an anti-semite. I felt is was a personal assault on myself.

However, I finally was able to deny ignorance and take an objective look at my surroundings and the history that lead up to my birth. I was suprised to see that certain trains of thought were politically motivated and it was this ignorance that was breeding the discontent that I was told happened by those who challenge it.


--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


It's good that you bring these facts to peoples' attention, airspoon. I thank you, and give you a star and flag.


Let me take this opportunity to introduce ATS to one of my personal heroes, H.K. Edgerton.

H. K. Edgerton is a black Southern heritage activist and former president of the NAACP's Asheville, North Carolina, branch.

Edgerton runs a website, Southern Heritage 411, which provides Southern viewpoints such as that there was and remains a feeling of brotherhood between black Americans, slave and free, historically and at present, and research on Black Confederate participation in the American Civil War. Edgerton is a strong pro-Confederate advocate working against what he considers to be racially-divisive politics and historical misinterpretation. He continues as a popular public speaker at many pro-Southron heritage events.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...



Here he is discussing the Confederate flag at the South Carolina state capital:




Here is Mr. Edgerton displaying the Confederate Battle Flag in public, which I'm sure was very confounding to see for many people.




And here giving a spirited public lecture.





There was a lot of racism during our bid for independence, and it's no less regrettable in this circumstance than it would be in any other. But we should remember that it was on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, and this war was not fought to free the slaves. The war was started to "preserve the Union." Lincoln made comments to the extent of, if the South seceded, who would pay for the government? South Carolina had already threatened secession years earlier over high tariffs being forced on them by the federal government, which they refused to pay. As pointed out in the OP, the vast majority of Southerners were NOT slave-holders, and even the people who were slave-holders often defy conventional wisdom. There were also free black men fighting on both sides of that war.

The biggest mistake of the South during that entire war, as has been often pointed out by many others, is that they didn't abolish slavery before the feds abolished them on their behalf. Obviously they should have abolished slavery, they should have never started the practice in the first place. The feds didn't abolish slaves in the North with the Emancipation Proclamation though, only in the South.

Lincoln and Grant were more racist than Robert E. Lee, who shocked his church by going up to the altar to pray next to a black man after the war was over, something that was unheard of at that time. Grant and Sherman were both slave owners and Sherman was in court constantly on charges of abusing them. Lee believed slavery was wrong and that it would come to an end when God willed it, in his view.


There is so much that is wrong about that war, that is taught as fact, it's hard to know where even to begin.

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
The reason Lincoln waited until late 1862...was he wanted to build on momentum from a Union victory...there were few precious victories of any consequence prior to Antietam...and even then, it was a draw at best.

Exactly. Lee invaded Maryland, was fought to a draw, went back to Virginia to resupply and regroup, and this was the closest thing to a victory the Feds would receive until Gettysburg. Up until that point it was a completely lopsided war, all campaigns driving the Feds back out of Virginia into Washington. This is what gave Lee the opportunity to invade the North in the first place, which he thought could provide a big enough victory for the South to get Great Britain in on the war on the Confederate side. When Lincoln brought slavery into the mix and tried to paint the war as being over slavery, Great Britain wanted nothing to do with it.

After the Emancipation Proclamation, many Federal troops asked captured Southerners why they fought so hard for slavery.

The common Southern response was of course, they weren't fighting for slavery, they were fighting for independence.


Most of the states that seceded didn't do so until Lincoln called for them to assemble troops to invade South Carolina. That's when most of the Southern states put their foots down, and said no, we're not doing this. Virginia actually held a popular vote, and the Virginian people by majority voted to secede. The governor acted on this and before the Feds knew it, Virginia was ripping up railroad lines and Washington had no way to even get to South Carolina anymore.

Yeah.....with regards to the OP im still not very keen on jews though.

My only problem with this thread is that you claim the slaves signed contracts by marking their X. This is true, but you miss the point that most if not all wouldn't have known what they signed (since the contracts were in European languages). I also somehow doubt the slave traders would have made a big point on explaining how far away america was, the conditions they would be traveling in, how they would be treated when they got there, how much they would be paid, and all the other things you might want to know.

reply to post by tiger5


Just think the Jim Crow laws were started by the democrats and the KKK was started by the democrats. The world is a joke.

Funny I started something like this and never got many stars or flags. ATS really seems to despise me.

Originally posted by airspoon

"Whoever wins the battle, writes the history" --proverb

Not any kind of yankee proverb (ah aaah) : just a quote from Robert Brasillach, who just happened to be your casual french fascist writer :

L'histoire est écrite par les vainqueurs.
Robert Brasillach, Les Frères ennemis (1967)

Pretending a french writer's quote to be an anglo-saxon proverb : one more allegory of how sick the yankee weltanschauung (this is a german word) is... Taking fascist crap for wisdom, and like an apocalyptical Leviathan, silently digesting this pseudo-wisdom in order to then make out its very own crap.

Cheers, - et à votre très-américaine santé, Monsieur Cuiller de l'Air...

reply to post by bonnieprince


First of all, not all slaves were given the oppurtunity to sign a contract, not even half. Most slaves were either accused criminals (political or not) in Africa, or the losing side of warring tribes. With that being said, some were voluntary, signing the contracts.

If I were to go to China and sign a contract in their language, I would still be held liable for the outcome of the contract. It is my responsibility, as an adult, to understand what I am signing, regardless of language. Furthermore, these were human beings like us, not primitive beings like cave men. Although their culture was much different, they still had the thinking capacity that we enjoy today. There is no reason to believe that they didn't understand the Americas were far away. For instance, they new that the ocean was vast and they probably knew that they had to cross the ocean to get to their destination, after all they most likely understood that they would have to get on the big ship to cross that ocean.

There really isn't much evidence to suggest that those who volunteered were tricked in any way (in most cases). Now, whether they were or weren't tricked is left up to interpretation but for the most part, their isn't nothing to suggest that this was the case.

Although we have been lead to believe that all or most slaves were brutally beaten and treated like dogs, most really weren't. Of course it happened and that's a shame that it did, but such cases were the exception, not the rule. For the most part, they were treated better than we treat horses and while that still isn't that good, it's much better than the picture that's painted for us.

In some cases, slaves were purchased and released, given their papers as "free blacks". In other cases slaves who were fortunate enough to be voluntary were released early as a reward for good work or some other reason. In fact, many notable Americans were known to release either their slaves or the their slave's children. Still others were treated like an extension of the family. Of course, on the other end of the equation, some were treated really bad and/or beaten but I suspect that happened much less than slaves that were freed. Of course, we never hear any of this from those who influence our learning institutions and therein lies the problem.

I'm not for second suggesting that any of this is justified, though I am suggesting that it has been blown out of proportion and exaggerated for certain political agendas. We hear about the worst cases of the worst and many "untruths" all together. Maybe it's a good thing that it's exaggerated as to ensure that we don't repeat that evil time in history, though I never think that ignorance is warranted and thus true history should always prevail in our education.

--airspoon


reply to post by 3210123


Lol, you think that particular proverb was coined in the 20th century? The saying has been marinated by the warmth of breath since Herodotus gave birth to history itself.

--airspoon

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
Overall, you make some good points. However, I have to disagree with part of your thesis...slavery was an integral part of the start of the Civil War.

It was slavery that caused Legislative and Congreessional conflicts over laws covering the new territorries gained from Mexico after the Mexican War.

It was slavery and the decsision to let new states/territories determine if they would be free or slave that caused so much contention not only in Congress, trying to maintain an unstable equilibrium, but also in the states themselves...which broke out into hostilities and electorial fraud....aka Missourri/ Kansas Border Wars of the late 1850s -1860.

It was States Rights... an essential one being the right to have Slavery, which caused the initial Confederate Congress in Mobile, Alabama in 1860 to push secession.

It was slavery and the fear of a slave revolt that crystalized the anti abolitionist movement in the border states of NC, Va, Tenn, and Ark.... via the "Nat Turner" Laws that came about inj the 1840s-50s...which essentially limited the rights and movement of "free negroes and colored slaves."

It was slavery that pushed Lincoln to victory...although he did not want to disband the practice, he did want to prohibit it's growth and expansion. Further, by being elected...he galvanized the seccession movement by calling for local state millitias to quelch the seccessionist rebellion of slavce holding states...forcing states that were hesitantly pro union...like NC...to side with the deep south and slave states.

It was slavery that actually doomed the south, for while its white men were fighting a losing war of attrition, the slaves could not be utilized enough...even considering them as soldiers was negated by their being slaves...what do you offer a slave in return for service...freedom. Thus, undercutting the very practice you are trying to defend.

Further, racism was and is very alive. In 1830, there were 8 free negroes that owned slaves in the whole state of NC.... there were over 30,000 free negroes in NC, and over 331,000 slaves. Their plight varied..but they were slaves never the less...and after the advernt of restrictive laws...even free slaves were oppressed and some even forced back into slavery, or faced overburdening fines for the simplist infractions. Even slave owners were fined and penalized if they couldn't keep there "property under control."

On the other hand, becoming a free negroe after the Emmancipation Proclomation of 1862, was no great thing. Many blacks raced north or nacross enemy lines, only to find discrimination and oppression even greater... even the more so if they had had a "merciful master" back south. So many "freed negroes" were running back saouth in 1864, Union Commander US Grant declared that any "colored" heading south beyond the battle lines was to be shot on sight.

During the summer of 1864, when the war dragged on across the wilderness of Va, riots and civil turmoil was so bad, and empathy towards freed blacks so great, that some were even hung up on the gas light poles of NY City.

I can go on...but what is the point. Again, I feel you have some valid points, but racism has been an integral part of Americas history for better or worse and still defines us as a nation...

vist a white or black church on Sunday morning...why is there even a need for such nomenclature? Vist a barber shop....restuarants...VFW Posts...in a town I live near...there are two...one for whites and one for blacks. Look at cultural and social events...go to beaches...lakes...swimming areas....segregation is there, if only voluntarily...segregation and racism exists both ways. Across all groups, classes, regions...it is there. And will be for a long time.

Couldn't have said better myself. This country has racism and intolerance ingrained into it's being. And all those examples that you had like go to the beach or church etc., tells us that our people have a long way to go before its fixed. Bill Maher made a comment a few years ago on this subject on his HBO show and he made a comment that was the crux of the whole matter. He said that this racism would be solved if everyone started screwing each other. The crowd in the audience didn't go quiet but as a collective there was few laughs and mostly just quiet but not being quiet. The point of this is something that has been with civilizations for millenia, and that is the classic hatred of ANOTHER RACES MAN HAVING SEX WITH THE OTHERS WOMAN. That is the whole problem with this game in this country and in some others. It's been around for a long time. You see as animals their are Alpha males and Beta males even in females, humans have this also but we try to ignor it. But as a Alpha male of your race you expect to get a female of your race and the Beta has to fight with the others to entice a female to his embrace. But if your a male of another race and are going out with a female of another, then you look at yourself Alpha or Beta male saying what is wrong with me. Why is "my female" going out with that male from another race. It's a sick joke on all of us because we have these problems because of the hatred or interracial relationship, even the blacks and others have people like this.

But they couch it in codewords and stuff. Like crime or ridicule etc. etc.. Even the black female hate this because she is saying the same thing as the white male, what is wrong with me that he see that other female desireable. It cuts into your chances in getting a female or mate and that is where on some level of tribalism they go beserk. Ask yourself this, what is wrong with interracial relationships. You will always get the answer that it's because of the kids, that is BS don't believe it. Many of us whites and or blacks would be very suprised who is in our family tree if we truly where told the truth. Also if it is about the kids, why don't you care about the other races. It's because the issue in the US and other places is with BLACK MEN with other women, and thats it. They bleed the same as us and they have the same body parts just like us.

This sick joke is going to come to an end, and when it does we will finally see how much energy we expended trying to destroy another people because of hidden issue that many of us have in regard to others. As for the distraction of racism and the great american lie, there was a lie to be sure. The lie is what you hear in church or school or home etc.. And that is WE are better than THEM.

"Many of our forefathers were not slave owners. It's something like 1.4% of Americans who actually owned slaves, with a good portion of those slave owners being free blacks so the numbers of white slave owners is actually less than or around 1% of the entire white public of the United States. The common claim is that whites benefitted at the expense of blacks and that this has given white people an advantage over blacks that is even realized to this day. Such a statement couldn't be more inaccurate. Not only were blacks slave owners and some whites were slaves, but blacks were also slave traders (almost exclusively in Africa), selling most slaves to the Europeans at African ports. I'll repeat, white slave owners were a very minute population, barely even registering on the scale here in America. In fact, most Americans could have cared less about slavery as they had their own problems to worry about. Also, as most Americans at that time were devout christians, they believed that if the slaves were to be released they would not be able to conduct themselves in an order to prosper in society and please god. This was at a time when Americans didn't have much leisure and so focused on putting food in their own families mouths. The majority of Southerners either didn't agree with slavery because of employment issues or didn't care due to their own problems and even if they did care, it wouldn't matter as slavery was an elitist venture. Most Northerners couldn't care one way or another and if they did care, it was in support of slavery due to their religious views and notion that Africans were being converted from paganism to Christianity. "

Are you kidding me? So you are telling me that it was the blacks who owned the majority of the slaves? I'm just wondering if you could check your source and validate it. Also, I would think that the data could be skewed because these were former slaves who bought the rights to their own families ie children, wife etc.

"It's something like 1.4% of Americans who actually owned slaves". Where did this figure come from? Is it something like 1.4% or 10.4%. It sounds like you're not sure what leads me to think you haven't clearly did your research.

The paper is a good first draft, but needs much work.

The Civil War was only partially about slavery, although there were millions of ordinary people who opposed it on moral grounds, including some in the South. There were even some slaveowners like George Washington who freed their slaves on moral grounds, as did Benjamin Franklin (yes, he once owned about 12 slaves, while George and Martha jad over 300, which made them extremely wealthy indeed by the standards of that time.) There were also millions of people at the time of the Civil War who supported the North because it was against slavery--and by that time (1860) there were over 4 million slaves and 500,000 free blacks. The latter had no voting or citizenship rights at all outside of a few New England and were not even allowed to reside in other states at all, like Indiana, Iowa, Illinois and Orgeon.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1857 in the Dred Scott case that blacks were not citizens or even human persons, but property, and they did not receive US citizenship until the 14th Amendment in 1868.


Well, it's pretty obvious that most blacks would oppose slavery and resent how they were being treated: I think anyone can see that. Even the Southern slaveholders knew that, and were surprised that more blacks didn't take their revenge when they could.

I would also say that Jefferson Davis and the other Confederate leaders were PARTIALLY right when they said the Civil War was not all about slavery, and that there were also economic issues involved. They were partially right that the leaders of the North at the elite levels were not all that concerned about blacks, but rather their own economic advancement. Their plan was that the US should became an urban, industrial capitalist power, which it certainly did after 1865--in a major way. The South was controlled by planter aristocrats and they had always been standing in the way of these plans, so in many ways Davis was right that the North was the revolutionary party and the South was conservative, just trying to keep things the way they were.

Well, they lost, partly because they simply lacked the railroads, ships and factories that the North had. They lost really badly, too, and did not get up again for 100 years, nor did the leaders of the North want them to. There was no Marshall Plan for the South after 1865, not even for the 4 million freed slaves.

Davis and the other Southern planter aristocrats knew that the Whig-Federalist types, of whivh Lincoln was one, had always wanted a national bank like the Bank of England that would support capitalism and industrialization. They wanted a ptrotective tariff for industry, of which the South had little at that time. The planters knew that their exports might be injured by it while it would drive up the costs of the items they imported. The Northern leaders of rising capitlsim also wanted more federal money to support industry, railroads and other internal improvements, but on the whole the South was agrarian and ruled by a planter aristocracy that did not want to go in that direction.

For the common white people of teh South, who did not own slaves, they really didn't have a dog in this fight. In fact, the parts of the South where slaves were few like West Virginia or eastern Tennessee or the mountains of Kentucky and Arkanas tended to stay "neutral" or openly sided with the North. Think of Andrew Johnson of Tennesee, former senator and governor, who hated the big planters and proudly stated that he supported the lower class whites and small farmers. He stayed loyal to the North as did his section of Tennessee and ran as Lincoln's vice president in 1864. This is just one example among many, although it is also true that Johnson was racist against blacks and not to eager to grant them civil rights and voting rights.

The Southern planters who ran the Democratic party at that time were strongly opposed to industrial capitalism, though. Anyone who read their writings in the 1830s-1850s could see that they just didn't like the banker-tariff-industry party, in part because it was a threat to slavery, but also to their culture, their way of life and economic and political power. So they went down to defeat in fighting against it, although as everyone knows, the North abandoned blcaks to their fate in the 1870s, which meant about 100 more years of segregation and loss of voting rights. Like I said, I just don't think blacks were a high priority for the banker-manufacturer types who ran the Republican Party in the North, and also ran the federal governmnet most of the time from the 1860s to the Great Depression.

That was definitely an age of Big Business most of the time, although we've just been through 30-40 more years like that, in which the banks and corporations got their way most of the time. That didn't end very well, either. it never does. I'd say that overall, the common people got the short end of the stick most of the time, which is nothing new in history. That's the way it always is in most times and places.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
reply to post by airspoon

 

It's good that you bring these facts to peoples' attention, airspoon. I thank you, and give you a star and flag.


Let me take this opportunity to introduce ATS to one of my personal heroes, H.K. Edgerton.

H. K. Edgerton is a black Southern heritage activist and former president of the NAACP's Asheville, North Carolina, branch.

Edgerton runs a website, Southern Heritage 411, which provides Southern viewpoints such as that there was and remains a feeling of brotherhood between black Americans, slave and free, historically and at present, and research on Black Confederate participation in the American Civil War. Edgerton is a strong pro-Confederate advocate working against what he considers to be racially-divisive politics and historical misinterpretation. He continues as a popular public speaker at many pro-Southron heritage events.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...



Here he is discussing the Confederate flag at the South Carolina state capital:

Here is Mr. Edgerton displaying the Confederate Battle Flag in public, which I'm sure was very confounding to see for many people.

And here giving a spirited public lecture.

There was a lot of racism during our bid for independence, and it's no less regrettable in this circumstance than it would be in any other. But we should remember that it was on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, and this war was not fought to free the slaves. The war was started to "preserve the Union." Lincoln made comments to the extent of, if the South seceded, who would pay for the government? South Carolina had already threatened secession years earlier over high tariffs being forced on them by the federal government, which they refused to pay. As pointed out in the OP, the vast majority of Southerners were NOT slave-holders, and even the people who were slave-holders often defy conventional wisdom. There were also free black men fighting on both sides of that war.

The biggest mistake of the South during that entire war, as has been often pointed out by many others, is that they didn't abolish slavery before the feds abolished them on their behalf. Obviously they should have abolished slavery, they should have never started the practice in the first place. The feds didn't abolish slaves in the North with the Emancipation Proclamation though, only in the South.

Lincoln and Grant were more racist than Robert E. Lee, who shocked his church by going up to the altar to pray next to a black man after the war was over, something that was unheard of at that time. Grant and Sherman were both slave owners and Sherman was in court constantly on charges of abusing them. Lee believed slavery was wrong and that it would come to an end when God willed it, in his view.


There is so much that is wrong about that war, that is taught as fact, it's hard to know where even to begin.

Read this article and you will see that this guy and others elevators don't go all the way up to the top of the building.

www.splcenter.org...

Historically, it's interesting to find that the one part of the South where the planters supported Lincoln and the Republican Party was in Louisiana--and they were some of the largest planters in the South, and some of the very richest.

That's because they liked tariffs, quotas and import restrictions against foreign sugar, which the US has always had, so they backed the party of high tariffs. Cotton, rice and tobacco did not have such tariffs, however, and a constant problem in the US was how to sell the surplus overseas since it produced far too much of these items for its domestic needs. Even some of the Southern leaders were rightfully worried that their section depended too much on a few exports like these and called for diversification--people like Charles Dew.

Louisiana was also unusual in that it had a French or Latin ideas about color, unlike the rest of the United States, which meant there was a special caste of mulattos, quadroons and octaroons in-between blacks and whites, as was the case in all the French and Spanish colonies, but almost never in British North America. House servants might be part of this caste, as well, and one of the big secrets of the planter class was that these were sometimes "relatives" of the family in some way, although this was not talked about openly.

Louisiana is the one place where some free blacks might rise into the planter class and own slaves themselves, as was Charleston and Mobile. Those places had all been more influenced by France, Spain and the culture of the West Indies when it came to race, unlike most of the US.

In the old South, some masters would allow slaves to hire their own time and buy their freedom, as well as that of their families. That's why on the records books you might see the free blacks "owned" slaves: they were often wives, children and family members who had been "sold" to them. Some of the more humane masters might do that for a very nominal price, like a dollar or something. Everyone understood that these were not real slaves in that sense, and I think this was most common in the Upper South states like Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina. Once again, slaves were were somehow "related" to the master's family would have a better chance of getting easier treatment like this.

reply to post by 3210123

 

Lol, you think that particular proverb was coined in the 20th century? The saying has been marinated by the warmth of breath since Herodotus gave birth to history itself.

--airspoon

edit on 14-9-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)

Your american lolisms are simply the farts of a history whore. Warm breathes, for sure.

One other thing that is true: Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson had both been opposed to slavery and secession before the Civil War, and Virginia did not leave the Union at the same time as South Carolina and the Deep South because there had always been more opposition to secession there. It only joined the Confederacy after the war had already started, and then the western part of the state seceeded from the rest of Virginia and joined the North. The small farmers in the west had never cared for the big planters who usally ran the state. Lincoln knew that he could pick up the support of people like these, because of their class resentments against the aristocrats--people like Andrew Johnson. In many Upper South states, there was actually a civil war within the Civil War at this time.

In North Carolina, a governor was even elected in 1863, Zebulon Vance, who was more or less on the Union side and did not want to continue the war, since scession had never been particularly popular in many regions of that state. That's why Lincoln told Sherman's armies to go a lot easier on North Carolina than they had on South Carolina, since there were many known Unionists there--perhaps even a majority of the white population.