U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
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 01-29-2016, 08:56 PM
 
11,049 posts, read 4,242,652 times
Reputation: 5232

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
A huge change in politics in the deep South took place when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. After he signed the bill into law, he remarked that the Democratic Party could write off the entire South for at least a generation. Then he signed the Voting Rights Act the following year. Southern Democrats broke away and formed the "Dixiecrats." Remember George Wallace?

It always strikes me as strange that those same southern states that hate federal government "meddling" are happy to accept so much from the federal government in the form of government assistance, and then complain that the federal government has conditions and regulations for the use of the money sent to the states.

funny, the same LBJ who was a racist and in the 50's as head of the Senate was against any civil right legislation? the President that got us into the mess in Vietnam? the President that signed the biggest welfare state expansion that has hurt more blacks and minorities making them slaves to the system and poor?


why is it so wrong that Americans distrust a big federal government? and if anybody is against a big welfare state they must be racist?


All the Dixiecrats and George Wallace are DEAD! ......we are in 2016.....new generations and new problems......stop using the Civil Right Acts of 1964 to keep selling for political votes a big federal government and somehow the federal government can solve all of our problems.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-30-2016, 07:08 PM
 
Location: Baja Virginia
2,798 posts, read 2,562,166 times
Reputation: 3977
I always come to City-Data for intelligent discussion of sensitive racial issues, said nobody ever.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2016, 11:35 PM
 
2,251 posts, read 903,142 times
Reputation: 2244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
so racism by a few started since 1860 and just in the South?



clueless!! Our country was founded of a mistrust of a big federal central government. That's why we had a war against King George and that's why in the constitution our founding fathers limited the powers of the federal government and didn't trust a big federal government controlled by a few elites.

The problems of the government today has NOTHING to do with Trump. We don't have a 20 trillion dollar debt, a dysfunctional and inept federal government and endless wars because of limited government.....the opposite.


Many people distrust the federal government for legit reasons.....look how the federal government treated the Natives Americans and the land they stole from them, that wasn't the South, that was the FEDERAL government run by Northern politicians overreaching their powers under the constitution. Hoover and the FBI spying on Americans and violating their constitutional rights for decades, that came from the Federal government. The treatment of Japanese-Americans and putting them in camps like prisoners without due process and violating their constitutional rights did not come from the South, it came from the federal government by orders of a liberal democrat President.....the list is long!


The Democrat party has a loooong dark history for you to blame all of our problems just on the Republican party or just the South. Racism existed since our colonies days from North to South, East coast to the West Coast.

The federal government "meddling" has a mix record which mostly is negative.

I agree that the federal government treated the Indians horribly, but you let the South off way, way, way too easily. Your statement is that Northern politicians dominated the federal government and were responsible for this. That is only partly true. Andrew Jackson, who presided over the "Trail of Tears" travesty was a Southerner. Southerners dominated the White House and the Supreme Court and had equal represention in the Senate prior to the Civil War. African-Americans had made significant progress in terms of being able to obtain federal jobs under various Northern Presidents only to see that reversed when a Southerner, Woodrow Wilson, arrived in the White House.

Yes, African-Americans were oppressed in the North as well, life was a bed of roses nowhere in the US for African-Americans, this is true, but they were treated far, far worse in the South. Read about the Tulsa and Rosewood riots, the abuses of the convict labor system, longstanding Southern opposition to the enactment of a federal antilynching law, etc. Georgia once went fifty years without convicting a single white person of murdering a black person, a streak that only ended in 1913 when, under heavy pressure from national media coverage, it reluctantly prosecuted a wealthy land owner for the murder of several of his African-American workers. Between 62 and 153 African-Americans were massacred in Colfax, Louisiana in 1873. When did a comparable tragedy occur in the North?

There was oppression in all regions of the country, but for some reason it was just on a whole other level in the South.

Since World War II the role of the federal government has been almost entirely positive. It is hard to imagine how justice could have been obtained without it. Even today many Southerners have not reconciled themselves to the new state of affairs. It still boggles my mind that military intervention was required to get kids into the high school that they should have had a right to attend all along, and how mixed race proms and integrated country clubs have been controversial right up until this day and age. A KKK high official, David Duke, was winning statewide elections in Louisiana in the 1990s. In how many Northern states would he have stood even half a chance? Google the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission and do some research on that topic. How often do you notice white people actually getting angry when you start discussing how poorly the African-Americans were treated, or they start using terms like "white guilt", in a derogatory and/or dismissive way? I am white, and I see that a lot. And that sort of attitude is much more prevalent among people from the Southern states. They also try to deny that the Civil War was principally over slavery when a simple perusal of the articles of secession of various states, the speeches and statements of various high ranking Confederate officials, and a Google search of Southern newspaper editorials of the time make it very clear what the war is over, usually with language and a directness that is shocking to a modern reader.

I do agree with you that the federal government has a long and often sordid history of civil rights abuses. So do our state and local governments. Americans should ALWAYS be vigilant!

The South has much to be proud of, but not in the area of race relations. It's treatment of African-Americans has been brutal, far worse than in any other part of the country, and that is something that it should be honest about.

Last edited by robertbrianbush; 01-31-2016 at 01:00 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2016, 12:27 AM
 
2,251 posts, read 903,142 times
Reputation: 2244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
funny, the same LBJ who was a racist and in the 50's as head of the Senate was against any civil right legislation? the President that got us into the mess in Vietnam? the President that signed the biggest welfare state expansion that has hurt more blacks and minorities making them slaves to the system and poor?


why is it so wrong that Americans distrust a big federal government? and if anybody is against a big welfare state they must be racist?


All the Dixiecrats and George Wallace are DEAD! ......we are in 2016.....new generations and new problems......stop using the Civil Right Acts of 1964 to keep selling for political votes a big federal government and somehow the federal government can solve all of our problems.
The idea that the creation of a safety net somehow enslaves people is a false narrative. The programs initiated by LBJ have been a boon to many struggling people. What would the suffering in the Great Recession,when millions of jobs were lost, have been like without the safety net put in place by LBJ? The USA is not at full employment, we do not have enough full-time jobs to give one to everyone who wants or needs one. There is no labor shortage and until there is one a safety net will be needed for those who can't be provided with a job. Do some people abuse the system, yes. But you can't ignore the many who have genuinely needed assistance because some might be cheating, or hrow them out on the streets and let them starve. A safety net is part of what makes capitalism and free enterprise work.

Last edited by robertbrianbush; 01-31-2016 at 01:02 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2016, 08:46 PM
 
Location: Mid Atlantic USA
12,438 posts, read 11,255,526 times
Reputation: 5610
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewDropInn View Post
You mean back when there were laws that kept MILLIONS of black Americans from voting?

Tell us more.


He speaks the truth that millions of Southerners won't say in public. Nothing has changed in the mindset of those people in decades.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2016, 09:21 PM
 
11,049 posts, read 4,242,652 times
Reputation: 5232
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertbrianbush View Post
I agree that the federal government treated the Indians horribly, but you let the South off way, way, way too easily. Your statement is that Northern politicians dominated the federal government and were responsible for this. That is only partly true. Andrew Jackson, who presided over the "Trail of Tears" travesty was a Southerner. Southerners dominated the White House and the Supreme Court and had equal represention in the Senate prior to the Civil War. African-Americans had made significant progress in terms of being able to obtain federal jobs under various Northern Presidents only to see that reversed when a Southerner, Woodrow Wilson, arrived in the White House.

Yes, African-Americans were oppressed in the North as well, life was a bed of roses nowhere in the US for African-Americans, this is true, but they were treated far, far worse in the South. Read about the Tulsa and Rosewood riots, the abuses of the convict labor system, longstanding Southern opposition to the enactment of a federal antilynching law, etc. Georgia once went fifty years without convicting a single white person of murdering a black person, a streak that only ended in 1913 when, under heavy pressure from national media coverage, it reluctantly prosecuted a wealthy land owner for the murder of several of his African-American workers. Between 62 and 153 African-Americans were massacred in Colfax, Louisiana in 1873. When did a comparable tragedy occur in the North?

There was oppression in all regions of the country, but for some reason it was just on a whole other level in the South.

Since World War II the role of the federal government has been almost entirely positive. It is hard to imagine how justice could have been obtained without it. Even today many Southerners have not reconciled themselves to the new state of affairs. It still boggles my mind that military intervention was required to get kids into the high school that they should have had a right to attend all along, and how mixed race proms and integrated country clubs have been controversial right up until this day and age. A KKK high official, David Duke, was winning statewide elections in Louisiana in the 1990s. In how many Northern states would he have stood even half a chance? Google the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission and do some research on that topic. How often do you notice white people actually getting angry when you start discussing how poorly the African-Americans were treated, or they start using terms like "white guilt", in a derogatory and/or dismissive way? I am white, and I see that a lot. And that sort of attitude is much more prevalent among people from the Southern states. They also try to deny that the Civil War was principally over slavery when a simple perusal of the articles of secession of various states, the speeches and statements of various high ranking Confederate officials, and a Google search of Southern newspaper editorials of the time make it very clear what the war is over, usually with language and a directness that is shocking to a modern reader.

I do agree with you that the federal government has a long and often sordid history of civil rights abuses. So do our state and local governments. Americans should ALWAYS be vigilant!

The South has much to be proud of, but not in the area of race relations. It's treatment of African-Americans has been brutal, far worse than in any other part of the country, and that is something that it should be honest about.



1) You and I disagree of the role of the federal government. The constitution is there for a reason and you can't be for a big federal government when your party is in power because what happens when a party you opposed is in power and they have all that power.?


2) Actually I disagree that that Southerners dominated the White House and the Supreme Court and had equal represention in the Senate prior to the Civil War. The reason they declared their independence was because of the opposite.


3) I have studied the Civil War and Lincoln speeches and the actions of the Northern politicians before the Civil War and the Civil War wasn't about slavery. Lincoln and the Northern politicians could care less about slaves or whatever the South wanted to do with slaves as long that the taxes kept going up North and the federal government kept control of lands in the South and kept the Union together.

4) Just read Lincoln Speeches while he was in Congress and when he became President. Go check out the Corwin Amendment of 1861 that was supported by Lincoln and the majority of the politicians in the North who passed it in the House and the Senate without the Southerner votes (they left the Union) it pretty much declared SLAVERY a constitutional right forever for the states and the federal government couldn't interfere. It said:

Quote:
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State
a few historians believe Lincoln co-authored that bill in the background so he can give a carrot to the South so they would stay in the Union and avoid a war, the South left anyway. So the differences wasn't about slavery. Its always about money/taxation and control!....the same reasons Washington and Jefferson went to war with the British Crown, it was about taxes and control. Lincoln who was a textbook tyrant and federal government didn't want another independent nation next to them competing in stealing the lands in the WEST from the Natives and give up control in the South.

5) When 98% of the people of the South didn't own slaves and still fought in the bloodiest war in our history you have to look deeper why they were fighting. They believe it was a war of aggression and independence of Northern troops invading their land, burning towns, burning their crops, confiscation of property without due process, violation of freedom of speech and due process and shooting and killing civilians.


2 wrongs don't make it a right, slavery was wrong but the North and Lincoln could care less about slavery, Lincoln was a big racist himself and didn't send white boys to die because he wanted to save the slaves, that's just a lie......what Lincoln did to the people in the South who the majority didn't have slaves was brutal. Something the public schools don't cover because its an embarrassment that our favorite President in our history could be such a tyrant against people who only wanted to be INDEPENDENT.

Of course people in the South who are proud will take offense when they lived what happened and past it to their generations and political correctness changed history that paints Lincoln into this national Hero that saved black slaves when he was not.


This is just a few quotes from Lincoln what he felt about African Slaves and African people:

In 1858, he said,“…I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”
Lincoln was, indeed, a white supremacist. In his 1858 debate with Sen. Steven Douglas, Lincoln maintained, “And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Debating Douglas in 1858, Lincoln declared the following: “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.”

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

“I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand He felt the birth of mixed race children would cause family life to “collapse.” He said, “Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white maby the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.”


There are more quotes....what gets people upset in the South is the hypocrisy and double standards they applied to them for centuries when the North and their favorite President were as racists as the South and even worse because it was a "quiet" racism not in your face which is the worst kind. If a Southern leader said the same things Lincoln said, no way we would have statues, memorial, schools, bridges, cities and a coin after him. There would be an outcry to take it down like the Confederate Flag but they don't. They re-write history and Lincoln is still the favorite President in our country.

You have Hillary Clinton and Republicans quoting they admire Lincoln and their favorite President......I'm like really? with all his racists and white supremacy quotes and believes? Lincoln makes Trump look like the Pope.


and that's what gets people upset in the South......the hypocrisy!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2016, 06:43 AM
 
Location: *
9,892 posts, read 3,070,740 times
Reputation: 2739
Quote:
Originally Posted by karen_in_nh_2012 View Post
Was looking for some photos to use in a class this week and found this link ...
20 Haunting Photos Of Segregation In America . Thought some of you might find it interesting.

The first photo breaks my heart.
Those photos truly are heart-breaking. & from a not so distant past. There's a Jim Crow Museum in Michigan:

Jim Crow Museum: Home

Gut-wrenching stuff.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2016, 08:41 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: NYC
46,070 posts, read 45,091,273 times
Reputation: 14963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
This is just a few quotes from Lincoln what he felt about African Slaves and African people:

In 1858, he said,“…I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”
Lincoln was, indeed, a white supremacist. In his 1858 debate with Sen. Steven Douglas, Lincoln maintained, “And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
You could also find quotes of personal views that read rather differently. His public statements were probably more racist than his personal views, since being non-racist wouldn't be "politically correct" for the time. No, I'm not arguing he wasn't without prejudice.

How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor or degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy

Abraham Lincoln's 1855 Letter to Joshua Speed

Quote:
There are more quotes....what gets people upset in the South is the hypocrisy and double standards they applied to them for centuries when the North and their favorite President were as racists as the South and even worse because it was a "quiet" racism not in your face which is the worst kind.
Why is quiet racism worse? A racism that legally prevents blacks from accessing services and legally treating them as second-class citizens is much worse, IMO.

If Fredrick Douglass thinks he's worth celebrating or commerating that's more than often to not condemn him for racism:

Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow-countrymen against the Negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery. The man who could say, “Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war shall soon pass away, yet if God wills it continue till all the wealth piled by two hundred years of bondage shall have been wasted, and each drop of blood drawn by the lash shall have been paid for by one drawn by the sword, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether,” gives all needed proof of his feeling on the subject of slavery. He was willing, while the South was loyal, that it should have its pound of flesh, because he thought that it was so nominated in the bond; but farther than this no earthly power could make him go.

..., we saw our brave sons and brothers laying off the rags of bondage, and being clothed all over in the blue uniforms of the soldiers of the United States; under his rule we saw two hundred thousand of our dark and dusky people responding to the call of Abraham Lincoln, and with muskets on their shoulders, and eagles on their buttons, timing their high footsteps to liberty and union under the national flag; under his rule we saw the independence of the black republic of Haiti, the special object of slave-holding aversion and horror, fully recognized, and her minister, a colored gentleman, duly received here in the city of Washington; under his rule we saw the internal slave-trade, which so long disgraced the nation, abolished, and slavery abolished in the District of Columbia; under his rule we saw for the first time the law enforced against the foreign slave trade, and the first slave-trader hanged like any other pirate or murderer; under his rule...

Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln | Teaching American History

Immediately after his second inaugural address, Lincoln asked Douglass what he thought of his speech; Andrew Johnson near the beginning of his presidency through Douglass out of his office along with racist comments.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2016, 02:27 PM
 
Location: *
9,892 posts, read 3,070,740 times
Reputation: 2739
Whenever there are threads which even tangentially refer to the American Civil War, I always seem to be left wondering about certain things.
  1. Do some folks consider themselves to be Confederate-Americans? In the hyphenated sense, as in Italian-American, Greek-American, Mexican-American, et cetera. As in referring to their Confederate-American heritage?

  2. Do some folks think white supremacist belief systems were evidenced solely in the Confederate States?

  3. Do some folks think the Corwin Amendment was ever ratified by the United States of America? An interesting side-bar:

    The Corwin Amendment was ratified by:
    • Ohio — May 13, 1861[22] (Rescinded ratification – March 31, 1864[23])
    • Maryland — January 10, 1862[19][24] (Rescinded ratification – April 7, 2014[25])
    • Illinois — February 14, 1862[15] (questionable validity)[a]

    In 1963, more than a century after the Corwin Amendment was submitted to the state legislatures by the Congress, a joint resolution to ratify it was introduced in the Texas House of Representatives by Dallas Republican Henry Stollenwerck.[27] The joint resolution was referred to the House's Committee on Constitutional Amendments on March 7, 1963, but received no further consideration.[28]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment


  4. If not for institutionalized slavery, would there have been cause for an American Civil War? As in institutionalized slavery was the sine qua non reason for the American Civil War. In other words, slavery refers to the indispensable & essential action, condition, or ingredient without which the ACW does not happen.

  5. Jim Crow extended white supremacist belief systems, including segregation, status quo 'separate but equal' et cetera for at least 100 years after the Civil War. I guess I'm wondering about peoples' thoughtviews on this.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2016, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Baja Virginia
2,798 posts, read 2,562,166 times
Reputation: 3977
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
Do some folks think white supremacist belief systems were evidenced solely in the Confederate States?
Why would anyone think that? What is undeniable is that white supremacist beliefs were inherent in American slavery and those beliefs were codified into law in the South.



Quote:

Do some folks think the Corwin Amendment was ever ratified by the United States of America? An interesting side-bar:

The Corwin Amendment was ratified by:

Ohio — May 13, 1861[22] (Rescinded ratification – March 31, 1864[23])
Maryland — January 10, 1862[19][24] (Rescinded ratification – April 7, 2014[25])
Illinois — February 14, 1862[15] (questionable validity)[a]


What am I missing? Is there some reason to think it was ratified?
Quote:
If not for institutionalized slavery, would there have been cause for an American Civil War? As in institutionalized slavery was the sine qua non reason for the American Civil War. In other words, slavery refers to the indispensable & essential action, condition, or ingredient without which the ACW does not happen.
On the one hand, that sort of hypothetical is impossible to answer. Slavery was such an inherent part America's history that it's impossible to predict what the country would have been like without it.

On the other hand, defense of slavery was one of the primary stated motives for secession by South Carolina and numerous other states, so in this alternate history where slavery was never established in America, presumably those states never would have had cause to secede in the first place.


Quote:
Jim Crow extended white supremacist belief systems, including segregation, status quo 'separate but equal' et cetera for at least 100 years after the Civil War. I guess I'm wondering about peoples' thoughtviews on this.
Um, we're against it? Is this a trick question?
Rate this post positively 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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, 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