Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
True. But since my state doesn't have clean hands, I'm certainly not going to start a thread on their dirty ones. See how that works?
Nor did our Danish poster, which brings us back to your seeming belief that one shouldn't comment on a topic if one's country or ancestors may have had dirty hands a century and a half ago. It seems like a rather limiting viewpoint for a history forum.
It's not your proximity to places where whites once believed that slavery was a "positive good" that contaminates you, it's your belief that keeping millions of black Americans in an additional hundred years' of virtual bondage through terrorism was justified.
American blacks in 1877 were no more "ignorant" and "illiterate" than the Famine Irish of the 1850s or the millions of immigrants who would flood into the US from eastern and southern Europe beginning in the 1880s.
Let's see, a preamble such as "Well, I realize that my own country, Denmark, doesn't have clean hands on the entire slavery issue, given how we were notorious for some of the most brutal practices ever on our little Caribbean islands, but...." might be in order. Because failure to acknowledge Denmark's use of slaves is pretty much a defacto example of my statement.
.
I see. So then, anyone from Texas who is opposed to the death penalty and wishes to provide a post arguing against it, is required to begin "Even though I am from Texas where they brag about how frequent and efficient their executions are,......whatever."
No one from Australia may offer an opinion on the fate of the native Americans without first confessing that Australia's whites mistreated the aborigines. People living in Germany today must apologize for the Nazis before offering opinions on subjects such as euthanasia or slave labor.
I'm originally from Florida, do I need to apologize for the voting ineptitude of the people of that state before I venture any opinions on electoral reform?
Let's hope that we don't catch you posting anything without including all of the possible apologies, disclaimers, confessions and repudiations of poor ancestral behavior.
So, where do you live, where did your ancestors originate? We need this information to keep you accountable.
Listener made a comment upthread about how disenfranchising and forcing blacks into virtual slavery in the late 1800s was justified because they were ignorant, illiterate, and resentful of white ex-slaveholders. That's "the black problem" he's referred to in this thread.
I disagreed, and called it what I thought it was, a racist statement.
Here's the quote I disagreed with, the part is bolded:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307
Ha! Hold your breath, Brother!
Scroll up and read the caustic comments like....it was a white problem, who couldn't handle seeing black people not at the very bottom and resorted to violent means to mainatin politcal power......
The South was stuck with 4 million uninformed, illiterate, angry and resentful people who had spent their entire lives imprisoned and who now had the right to vote. And there are those who refuse to understand why they should not be allowed to take over political office and run things once they were out of prison.
I believe the ending of slavery was clumsily done and resulted in a situation that put the entire United States at peril. If it had not been handled by the South as it was, then the modern South would resemble Zimbabwe or Congo, and would have sucked resources from the North even more than was the case.
Listener made a comment upthread about how disenfranchising and forcing blacks into virtual slavery in the late 1800s was justified because they were ignorant, illiterate, and resentful of white ex-slaveholders. That's "the black problem" he's referred to in this thread.
I disagreed, and called it what I thought it was, a racist statement.
Of course the statement was racist, for example the South, without deserving their service was represented in the Congress and the Senate by exceptionally abled African American representatives who like Obama made the fatal mistake of offering a kind hand to their detractors.
Blanche Bruce a former slave who taught and attended Oberlin College was elected and served his full term in the Senate and was elected by his peers to be the presiding officer of the body.
Hiram Revels, an alumi of Knox College, served in the U.S. Senate and urged amnesty and reconciliation for disenfranchised former rebels.
The list could go on but I would suggest that anyone doubts the accomplishments of the men of color who served in the nations Congress should pick up a copy of Capital Men by Phillip Dray.
Or just take the word of Congressman James G. Blaine who wrote;
"The colored men who took their seats in both Senate and House were as a rule studious, earnest, ambitious men, whose public conduct would be honorable to any race."
Or just take the word of Congressman James G. Blaine who wrote;
"The colored men who took their seats in both Senate and House were as a rule studious, earnest, ambitious men, whose public conduct would be honorable to any race."
I agree with the idea you are expressing in your post, however I would caution anyone from employing James G. Blaine as a source. While Speaker of the House, Blaine had become involved in a scandal where he was accused of accepting bribes from railroad interests, one of which had purchased a large amount of otherwise worthless stock which Blaine was holding. Blaine had denied it all vehemently and appeared to be vindicated at the time.
In 1876, when Blaine was running for president, one of his former clerks surfaced with a series of letters which proved that Blaine had been accepting payoffs for political favors. Blaine again tried to go the denial route, but was embarrassed when the letters each contained the notation, in Blaine's handwriting, "Kindly burn this letter."
This of course handed the Democrats an enormous weapon in what was already one of the most personally abusive presidential elections in our history. (Blaine's opponent was Cleveland who had the child out of wedlock scandal hanging on his neck) The Democrats finally settled on a simplistic poem which went:
Anyway, when your source has the nickname "The Continental Liar", there may be some credibility issues.
That is not to say that Blaine was lying when he made the statement you employed, just that his reputation for truth telling was not all golden.
I agree with the idea you are expressing in your post, however I would caution anyone from employing James G. Blaine as a source. While Speaker of the House, Blaine had become involved in a scandal where he was accused of accepting bribes from railroad interests, one of which had purchased a large amount of otherwise worthless stock which Blaine was holding. Blaine had denied it all vehemently and appeared to be vindicated at the time.
In 1876, when Blaine was running for president, one of his former clerks surfaced with a series of letters which proved that Blaine had been accepting payoffs for political favors. Blaine again tried to go the denial route, but was embarrassed when the letters each contained the notation, in Blaine's handwriting, "Kindly burn this letter."
This of course handed the Democrats an enormous weapon in what was already one of the most personally abusive presidential elections in our history. (Blaine's opponent was Cleveland who had the child out of wedlock scandal hanging on his neck) The Democrats finally settled on a simplistic poem which went:
Anyway, when your source has the nickname "The Continental Liar", there may be some credibility issues.
That is not to say that Blaine was lying when he made the statement you employed, just that his reputation for truth telling was not all golden.
So, basically what you are saying, is that his behavior was generally run-of-the-mill, and what we would expect of any politician...
Of course the statement was racist, for example the South, without deserving their service was represented in the Congress and the Senate by exceptionally abled African American representatives who like Obama made the fatal mistake of offering a kind hand to their detractors.
Blanche Bruce a former slave who taught and attended Oberlin College was elected and served his full term in the Senate and was elected by his peers to be the presiding officer of the body.
Hiram Revels, an alumi of Knox College, served in the U.S. Senate and urged amnesty and reconciliation for disenfranchised former rebels.
The list could go on but I would suggest that anyone doubts the accomplishments of the men of color who served in the nations Congress should pick up a copy of Capital Men by Phillip Dray.
Or just take the word of Congressman James G. Blaine who wrote;
"The colored men who took their seats in both Senate and House were as a rule studious, earnest, ambitious men, whose public conduct would be honorable to any race."
Your list and your comments have nothing to do with any black men who were forced to exist under Mississippi's stringent Black laws which forbid their education or freedom, once enslaved. A notable exception to that rule in Mississippi would be William Johnson, born in 1909 who was freed by his owner/father and became a wealthy businessman in Natchez. I do not know how it was that Johnson was freed, but he was.
At any rate none of this has anything to do with the many black men who, once elected to office, were unable to perform the duties of that office due to their being illiterate.
Your list and your comments have nothing to do with any black men who were forced to exist under Mississippi's stringent Black laws which forbid their education or freedom, once enslaved. A notable exception to that rule in Mississippi would be William Johnson, born in 1909 who was freed by his owner/father and became a wealthy businessman in Natchez. I do not know how it was that Johnson was freed, but he was.
At any rate none of this has anything to do with the many black men who, once elected to office, were unable to perform the duties of that office due to their being illiterate.
Illiterate people should not hold office.
If William Johnson was born in 1909, then he would not have been a slave.
Listener made a comment upthread about how disenfranchising and forcing blacks into virtual slavery in the late 1800s was justified because they were ignorant, illiterate, and resentful of white ex-slaveholders. That's "the black problem" he's referred to in this thread.
I disagreed, and called it what I thought it was, a racist statement.
Here's the quote I disagreed with, the part is bolded:
I still don't see where he said blacks were being held in virtual slavery and that was justified. I think your stretching things a bit to fit your argument. He said recently freed illiterate slaves should not hold office. That's what he said..
I would argue that an honest illiterate black man was far better than a literate white crook but that's not really the point. Your trying to make Listener out to be a racist because he doesn't believe as you do..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
