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.
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.
Thanks very much for your thoughtful responses here, I appreciate. The reason why I asked this one is that some folks here & elsewhere tend to go on & on about 'that's what gets people upset in the South......the hypocrisy!' when there are very few people who claim white supremacist belief systems were confined to the South. When they were very obviously present North, South, East & West.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scratchie
What am I missing? Is there some reason to think it was ratified?
Again, I'm not sure why some folks bring up the Corwin Amendment when it was never ratified? Perhaps they think it lends credence to their assertions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by scratchie
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.
I agree it's a hypothetical & also agree slavery is firmly entrenched in the history of the United States of America. I don't think it makes sense to deny it. Why also deny that slavery was the primary cause of the American Civil War? What purpose does it serve to whitewash?
Quote:
Originally Posted by scratchie
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.
Yup, I agree with you there too. All of the testamentary documents of the time, including The Declaration of Causes made by the seceding States, The Constitution of the Confederate States of America, speeches, newspapers editorials & articles, et cetera could not be any clearer. They didn't deny it then, why do some folks deny it now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by scratchie
Um, we're against it? Is this a trick question?
Sorry! I didn't express this one clearly! I just wonder why civil rights for all American citizens took so long? & then think about the active resistance to civil rights demonstrated directly following the ACW & how, as you've said, those beliefs were codified into law through Jim Crow.
I don't think things were as bad then as people like to make it out to be. The overwhelming majority of people were just going about their daily routine, not lynching or burning crosses on people's yards. The media likes to use shock effect to blow things out of proportion. Black people lived better in the fifties than they do today. Segregation still exists today and will always exist, humans naturally gravitate towards what is familiar. Mixing the races only leads to more racism and problems.
I think if people were getting equal treatment then I don't see much wrong with separate but equal. There are some people who would have those who liked country and western music going to the opera and vice-versa. They seem to want to dictate.
I don't think things were as bad then as people like to make it out to be. The overwhelming majority of people were just going about their daily routine, not lynching or burning crosses on people's yards. The media likes to use shock effect to blow things out of proportion. Black people lived better in the fifties than they do today. Segregation still exists today and will always exist, humans naturally gravitate towards what is familiar. Mixing the races only leads to more racism and problems.
The "Them was the good ol' days before everything went to hell in a handbasket! crowd speaks up...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulsterman
I think if people were getting equal treatment then I don't see much wrong with separate but equal. There are some people who would have those who liked country and western music going to the opera and vice-versa. They seem to want to dictate.
There never is equality in state-enforced separation. You end up with well-funded schools, for example, for the children with the right skin color, and under-funded schools for the children with the wrong skin color.
Oh, not allowed non-whites to vote? Forcing them to the back of the bus? Attacking them with clubs and dogs when they peacefully march? Bombing their churches? Lynching them? That's nothing like musical preferences. The comparison is absurd, and seems intended to minimize the brutality of Jim Crow.
You mean back when there were laws that kept MILLIONS of black Americans from voting?
Tell us more.
I'm an outsider so not au fait with American history but I seem to remember reading that for a time white people in the south were not allowed to vote. This was after the Civil War.
The "Them was the good ol' days before everything went to hell in a handbasket! crowd speaks up...
There never is equality in state-enforced separation. You end up with well-funded schools, for example, for the children with the right skin color, and under-funded schools for the children with the wrong skin color.
Oh, not allowed non-whites to vote? Forcing them to the back of the bus? Attacking them with clubs and dogs when they peacefully march? Bombing their churches? Lynching them? That's nothing like musical preferences. The comparison is absurd, and seems intended to minimize the brutality of Jim Crow.
Think you are getting me wrong. I am talking about the concept of separate but equal. I can see nothing wrong with that.
Example. If a black person goes into a black restaurant and gets served the same brand of coffee as those in a white restaurant I don't see anything wrong with that.
For a while the black police in London were going to form their own police Union. I don't know if it ever happened but the point is they were wanting to be separate from the existing Union.
I'm an outsider so not au fait with American history but I seem to remember reading that for a time white people in the south were not allowed to vote. This was after the Civil War.
Following the civil war the head of every household had to sign a loyalty oath to the United States in order to reclaim property, and to vote after having voluntarily renounced their citizenship as citizens of the Confederacy.
I am talking about the concept of separate but equal. I can see nothing wrong with that.
Example. If a black person goes into a black restaurant and gets served the same brand of coffee as those in a white restaurant I don't see anything wrong with that.
I suppose if the debate is based upon such trivialities as coffee, in theory I can understand your point. Of course the only problem is that the issue is a bit more complicated. One of the more salient arguments before the Supreme Court in the case of Brown vs Board of Education was the psychological harm that "separate but equal" conferred upon the minds of young children.
I suppose if the debate is based upon such trivialities as coffee, in theory I can understand your point. Of course the only problem is that the issue is a bit more complicated. One of the more salient arguments before the Supreme Court in the case of Brown vs Board of Education was the psychological harm that "separate but equal" conferred upon the minds of young children.
Roman Catholic schools as far as I am aware are 'separate but equal 'and no fuss is raised about it. I don't know what effect this has on the minds of the young children in their schools but they seem to do well in the education stakes. Many of them are lawyers,politicians etc
When I was at school we got 'hand me down ' books which usually had backing of wallpaper on them to make them last longer.This was done by the people who had used them before or if they were showing signs of wear got a new covering from those receiving them. There was no library in the school I went to, but I believe there was in the Grammar Schools.
The "Them was the good ol' days before everything went to hell in a handbasket! crowd speaks up...
There never is equality in state-enforced separation. You end up with well-funded schools, for example, for the children with the right skin color, and under-funded schools for the children with the wrong skin color.
Oh, not allowed non-whites to vote? Forcing them to the back of the bus? Attacking them with clubs and dogs when they peacefully march? Bombing their churches? Lynching them? That's nothing like musical preferences. The comparison is absurd, and seems intended to minimize the brutality of Jim Crow.
I'm an outsider so not au fait with American history but I seem to remember reading that for a time white people in the south were not allowed to vote. This was after the Civil War.
That's no excuse. Going back to Reconstruction is irrelevant. Even that later voting rules prevented some poor Whites from voting is no excuse/
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.
