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.
This was during the time that anti- Lynching bills began to surface. By 1927 the writing was on the wall and that after five years of failures times were a changing. African Americans were leaving the south in droves and seeing some prosperity in the north. The commission on racial cooperation was established in 1918. Just like today It wasn't all the government that was promoting change but society at large and that struck fear into the KKK, they could no longer work inside politics to keep the status quo from the march of time.
It was the people who did it, The NAACP not Congress. Congress came after the fact, just like the Civil Rights Act and in this instance Congress failed to do anything.
Blacks going north had a lot to do with transportation and lack of industry in the South. The south is poorer than the north, for everyone no doubt. The poorest move, that's usually what happens. 1910 89% of the black population was in the south, 1920 85%, 1930 79%, and 1940 77%.
So because of all that they built a monument in South Dakota? I'm not feeling it.
So because of all that they built a monument in South Dakota? I'm not feeling it.
Everywhere southerners relocated to and built communities they wanted those monuments, even in Brazil. The one in Pierre was built by a single individual who had a lot of money to fund it with. They are symbolic of the days when white men (and not women) ruled America.
So, you believe it's ok they supported slavery and owned over 300 black people each?
That actually sounds kind of racist.
Nope, those numbers are wrong in Washington's case. (The figure I recall is 123 that he himself owned, the others were inherited use (during her life) from his wife's first marriage, & some rented. It's in a previous entry. & his widow did manumit them, about a year after Washington's death.) With Jefferson, it's hard to tell - his domestic economy was a mess - it's the reason he records he didn't manumit all his slaves - he couldn't afford the loss of assets, nor could he figure a way to keep the plantation(s?) going without slavery.
I guess you don't know this, but England eliminated slavery decades before the US, so it could be argued that Washington's actions perpetuated slavery in this land for an extra generation.
You're really wriggling to get off the hook.
& so for the sake of the Black slaves in the UK colonies (that later became the US), the Colonies should not have risen in Revolution against the UK? I'll note that for the next turn of the wheel, or the next iteration in the multiverse, whichever comes first.
Jefferson in fact had cited the UK's promotion of slavery as one of the reasons for the Declaration of Independence, but it was stricken for political reasons, as I recall. Jefferson had the wit to be deeply concerned about slavery in the US - as noted by various quotes of his in this thread.
Washington manumitted his slaves, his widow honored the will about a year after his death. Washington was also increasingly concerned about the impact of slavery upon the political/economic development of the US, but again, for political/policy reasons, he didn't want to disrupt the delicate republic in its infancy.
Respectfully, this isn't a matter of belief. While I'm sure there is some historical debate about what all of the causes were that led to the Civil War, the war was primarily about the institution of slavery. I'm no academic historian, but that much is certain. And you're right -- not every Southerner owned slaves, but most supported the institution and benefited economically in indirect ways. Furthermore, they didn't want to be on equal footing with the former slaves.
It is a matter of belief as it is a matter of interpretation and emotions. The civil war was a very complex one and yes for the wealthy plantation owners and businessmen of the day who no doubt had control over politics, not allowing slavery in the newly acquired territories was there main concern as it greatly affected their continued finances. There were many other issues as well but money, power and economics was the bottom line for both sides. Even Lincoln initially was not going to end slavery in the established states but used slavery to try to put a stop to the secession.
Not only did not every southerner own slaves (numbers from 2-25%) but very few did, at the same time northerners also owned slaves. It was not out of altruism that northerners moved away from slavery, it was again economics, the need for slave labor diminished with industrialization yet textile businesses in the north had a vested interest in seeing slavery flourished in the southern states.
Quote:
Again, respectfully, I don't see how this is relevant here. In OUR history, black Americans were enslaved by white Americans.
It was happening around the world and these black americans were captured and sold into slavery by their own people and they were sold to other countries as well. It is not something white americans did specifically to black Africans it was the way of the world at that time. Should I take personally that in colonial America women were second class citizens without the same rights and privileges and protections as men, that married women were pretty much owned by their husbands? Or should I understand that was just how the world was at the time, everywhere.
Quote:
But these symbols are not celebrated for that reason. These Confederate statues are symbols of heroism in the South. Why would you erect a statue of a man that fought for the institution of slavery if not to celebrate the accomplishments of that man? You don't erect a statute of a person or proudly display a symbol of something that represents the opposition of the very thing you claim we should be celebrating -- the end of slavery.
Would you erect a statue of Hitler in a public square or embed the Swastika in a state flag in celebration of the end of the Holocaust?
These symbols are not "celebrated", and they are symbols of heritage not heroism. Again it is not seen as a man (men) who fought for slavery. When war ensues people take up arms more often not fully comprehending the exact catalyst or what is really being fought and often it is complex and muddled. Why did our military leaders and soldiers go to war in Vietnam? Korea? WWI, WWII? Do you condemn the soldiers for fighting, the military leader for doing their job? We still honor those who fell regardless of the true catalyst of war which we often never clearly knew.
As for your analogy, was it Robert E. Lee that created slavery and single handedly ordered the the capture and enslavement of people? A better analogy is statues of WWI and WWI. Even after the cold war some statues of east German leaders remain and why do we allow Lenin's statue to be displayed in the USA. Isn't communism bad?
Quote:
I agree with the first part, they haven't been treated well countrywide since the end of the war, and perhaps slavery would have come to an end on its own. However, that does not change the fact that confederate military leaders represent the opposition to the end of slavery, an institution that is the direct cause of the attitude towards black Americans in the years since.
You want to back up your statement that slavery is the direct cause of racism? Were/are Americans not racist against others as well, Native Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Irish, Hispanics. What was the cause of that? What of the many other countries who engaged in the African slave business.
Quote:
Perhaps what matters most here is the perspective of the oppressed. What is a Confederate symbol to an African American? It represents the rape, murder, and torture of black Americans at the hands of white Americans. These historical monuments should not be symbols of pride. If people want to appreciate the history and appreciate the historical lesson to be learned from them, then that can be done, in a museum.
I'm sorry, the perspective of the oppressed. Who is being and how are they being oppressed by historical events hundreds of years ago. They are oppressed by statues of military figures? All people have a one time or another had ancestors who were oppressed. You did not comment on the other "victims" of oppression, Native Americans, Japanese, women.
The only person who has even suggested removing statues of slave owners is the dimwitted president who is so clueless that he has no idea what the controversy over confederate statues even entails.
He is unfortunately an ignorant man who knows nothing about US history and embarrasses himself every time he opens his big mouth.
Correct.... for now. When the Confederate statues are all down and streets and schools are all renamed, they will move on to demanding that Stone Mountain be blasted away, Confederate Cemeteries be erased, and any Confederates memorials be removed from Civil War Battlefield Parks. Going after the Founding Fathers who owned or supported slavery will follow that.
Basically perpetually offended victims need to have a target upon which to focus their grievances. It is just human nature.
Kind of reminds me of what Pol Pot wanted for Cambodia.
Start again from Year Zero.
[quote=green_mariner;49201517]Washington and Jefferson did own slaves. However, they didn't fight a war with the explicit purpose to keep slavery.
So in your eyes they get a free pass from criticism and abuse because they only "owned slaves" as long as they did not fight a war to keep them?.Why did they have slaves in the first place if they were so righteous in your opinion?.
No you didn't ,be honest becuase if you did you would ask should we through out the US Constitution becuase it was written by "slave owners" who all so didn't think women were smart enough to vote but I see you don't want to discuss that ???
Do you believe the sole purpose of the Constitution is to honor those men?
Really?
You don't seem to know much about US law or how our government was set up.
Don't forget we also need to rename all the places named after them, starting with Washington DC and Washington state.
Erasing history does not change it, all it does is shut down learning about and discussing what happened.
Yep.
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.
No, see previous
