Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-01-2015, 05:52 AM
 
95 posts, read 81,167 times
Reputation: 35

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7 View Post
Yes, I believe the Jim Crow laws were moral and legitimate because the majority
of former plantation workers were not ready to assimilate. It wouldn't have done
them any good to force blacks and whites to live totally non-segretated after the
War Between the States. Blacks were better off living separately for some time,
although I do agree that in following decades the time to start overturning them
arrived.
You know, I didn't even have to read your second paragraph. Your remarks make it clear that I have been arguing with a racist...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-01-2015, 06:09 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
5,725 posts, read 11,688,679 times
Reputation: 9828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7 View Post
Yes, I believe the Jim Crow laws were moral and legitimate because the majority
of former plantation workers were not ready to assimilate. It wouldn't have done
them any good to force blacks and whites to live totally non-segretated after the
War Between the States. Blacks were better off living separately for some time,
although I do agree that in following decades the time to start overturning them
arrived.
Concerning my comments on slavery in America which have drawn some sharp
over-generalized criticism, if you are of the opinion that slavery brought no
benefits or even relative happiness to any slaves then you're just plain wrong
and need to do more research. Of course there were slaves that were abused
just like there were slaves which were treated as family members.
I would wonder what that poor negro in the photograph did to warrant those
lashes. How do you know he wasn't a murderer ?
Jim Crow laws lasted well into the 20th century, and impacted far more people who were never on plantations. And thanks to poll taxes, literacy tests, and other barriers, blacks were denied a voice in changing these laws. It seems to me that one can only believe this to be moral and legitimate if s/he sees blacks as inferior, as you apparently do.
Here's an example of a Jim Crow law:
“It shall be unlawful for a negro and white person to play together or in company with each other in any game of cards or dice, dominoes or checkers.”
—Birmingham, Alabama, 1930
Sixty-five years after the end of the Civil War - moral and legitimate?

As far as wondering what the poor negro in the photo had done to warrant those lashes, well, at least you have made another poster on this thread seem comparatively smarter. Your predictable response to this will do the same.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2015, 10:05 AM
 
5,347 posts, read 7,184,843 times
Reputation: 7158
The civil war was fought for economic reasons. The south didn't want to give up slavery even though going into a more industrialized system would be faster and make more money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2015, 10:07 AM
 
9,981 posts, read 8,565,402 times
Reputation: 5664
My posts are not being accurately understood, so I will not continue to post in this thread anymore.
I am not a racist and do not appreciate being called one or having my thoughts misrepresented.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2015, 11:25 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
5,725 posts, read 11,688,679 times
Reputation: 9828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7 View Post
My posts are not being accurately understood, so I will not continue to post in this thread anymore.
I am not a racist and do not appreciate being called one or having my thoughts misrepresented.
Sorry, bub, but you get judged on what you say and do, not what you intend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2015, 11:32 AM
 
95 posts, read 81,167 times
Reputation: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradPiff View Post
The civil war was fought for economic reasons. The south didn't want to give up slavery even though going into a more industrialized system would be faster and make more money.
What you suggest makes no sense on many levels. What makes you think that one can convert an agriculture based economy to an industrial one "fast"? JSYK, the economic realities of America in that era have nothing to do with the pervasive immorality of the time. It took over a 100 years for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2015, 12:01 PM
 
2,666 posts, read 2,222,144 times
Reputation: 5008
I'm glad the Civil War turned out the way it did, BUT...

Lincoln's words are pretty and lofty. But they are meaningless. States are abstract constructs founded upon abstract ideals and principles. States are undone or saved from undoing only by the superior application of force. States are nothing more than the realization of a social compact that is agreed upon as a foundation for citizenry to live in harmony and mutual benefit, for the best conduct of their life activities.

f the Union had lost, Lincoln's words would have been meaningless and moot. Nobody would have cared a whit about his legalities. His legalities were good only in as much as the society which created them were able to enforce them. Human legalities are ALWAYS temporary. They come and they go. But they ALWAYS exist.

In the eternity of time, the Constitution is a speck of sand in an ocean. And it's "legality" is about as meaningful as a speck of sand in an ocean of sand. Just ask Jefferson Davis, if you can, about the value of his Confederate legalities. They mean about as much as the paper money he issued.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2015, 12:12 PM
 
2,666 posts, read 2,222,144 times
Reputation: 5008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7 View Post
Yes, I believe the Jim Crow laws were moral and legitimate because the majority
of former plantation workers were not ready to assimilate. It wouldn't have done
them any good to force blacks and whites to live totally non-segretated after the
War Between the States. Blacks were better off living separately for some time,
although I do agree that in following decades the time to start overturning them
arrived.
Concerning my comments on slavery in America which have drawn some sharp
over-generalized criticism, if you are of the opinion that slavery brought no
benefits or even relative happiness to any slaves then you're just plain wrong
and need to do more research. Of course there were slaves that were abused
just like there were slaves which were treated as family members.
I would wonder what that poor negro in the photograph did to warrant those
lashes. How do you know he wasn't a murderer ?

Nonsense. The Jim Crow laws were NOT legitimate or moral at all. They were a clear violation of the Constitution, and it was only the blatant cowardice of the federal government - ironically enough, after the blood of half a million men had been shed to solve the problem - that prevented the Jim Crow laws from being immediately overturned. The South was permitted to continue acting for another 100 years as if they had won the war and nothing had happened. And they were permitted to blatantly violate the rights of people whenever they pleased and abuse the laws and institutions of government to enforce an unlawful police state atmosphere.

The plantation owners FEELINGS should have been irrelevant. They needed to get used to the idea of LOSING the war. Not being allowed to continue on as if they had won the war.

It doesn't matter a whit if slavery had any benefits. Not even if every slave had been happy to be a slave. Not even then. Slavery was immoral, evil and just plain bad from an economic sense. The ONLY benefit there was to slavery was the benefit it provided to the Southern one percenters who wanted to live in their little Antebellum neo-feudal fantasy land, driven by bad religion and pure selfish narcissism.

The entire concept of slavery was a stain on the ideals of this nation's founding. And the founding fathers committed a grave and ultimately suicidal mistake in allowing slavery to exist in the new nation. They were cowards for doing so. And they ONLY turned their backs because they realized it wouldn't affect them personally. They knew the bill would be passed on to the next generation in line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2015, 12:14 PM
 
2,666 posts, read 2,222,144 times
Reputation: 5008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7 View Post
My posts are not being accurately understood, so I will not continue to post in this thread anymore.
I am not a racist and do not appreciate being called one or having my thoughts misrepresented.

Technically, you may not be a racist. But you are morally and ethically challenged and woefully inadequate to the task of justifying your cause. You seem locked into an abstraction of argument that precludes you from feeling any sort of humanity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2015, 12:57 PM
 
7,577 posts, read 5,304,781 times
Reputation: 9443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7 View Post
Yes, I believe the Jim Crow laws were moral and legitimate because the majority of former plantation workers were not ready to assimilate.
Assimilate into what? You seem to think that slaves were kept in some sort of quarantined existence, totally unaware and apart from the greater communities in which they lived. You demonstrate little recognition that slaves worked in and around the greater community on a regular basis, interacting with that community on a daily basis, they did not need a period of so-called assimilation.

Quote:
It wouldn't have done them any good to force blacks and whites to live totally non-segretated after the War Between the States.
Oh, but it would have done poor whites folks a world of good. By working side by side with their freed black neighbors they would have learned that they had far more in common with each other than the former slave holding oligarchy that exploited the economic lives of both. Combined together in their own self-interest they together would have fought for better working conditions, better tenet contracts, actual trade unions and education. By keeping poor whites poor, but under the illusion that they as long as they were white they were still better than a rich Negro, the white oligarchs (See today's Republican Party) were able to maintain their lifestyle while stifling real economic development in the south.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:45 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top