The KKK in Oldham County (Jackson: closing, ordinance, rated)

[kat750]

I want to apologize to stx for how crappy i came off. My argument does still stand though.

[tomocox]

Originally Posted by Off Topic

A few random thoughts. I didn't see stx's comment as being anti-Oldham county, nor do I remember him having a vendetta against Oldham County. What I got from his post was that he was somewhat surprised it happened in OC, which is a compliment in a way. I'm not surprised if this happens in Mississippi but I am when it happens in this area.

My feeling is that the Klan presence in OC is practically non-existent. This seems to be a very isolated occurance, which is one reason it made so much news.

As to Confederate Acres, the one I know about is a little older subdivision, probably built back in the 70's by my guess. So we have had a little progress since then and I'd be very surprised if any developer today would have a subdivision with roads names Mananas Drive or Five Forks Drive or Missionary Ridge Drive. (Although in a way, it seems to me he was probably more of a Civil War fan than a Confederacy fan -- Five Forks was a huge Confederate defeat, so much so that sometimes it is called the "Waterloo of the Confederacy." A neo-Confederate would never have named a street Five Forks.)

I think a lot of these names are left over from previous times when we were not so enlightened. Also, I did run a map search for Jeff Co and did not see a Robert E. Lee Drive.

For all you who are revisionist historians, the American Civil War was not about Slavery. It was about states rights. Slavery was just the catalyst or the focal point. I understand it is hard to separate, but the Confederacy was not about wanting to break away from the Union, but rather a final resort to keep Washington from controlling every point of our lives.

Because of the Union victory one of the bad results is a federal government which says that the same plumbing standards that work in Hilo HI should be the ones used in Bangor ME.

Today, I feel that many black Americans and the official Democrat party platforms want the pre-civil war plantation civilization to be like the Phoenix raising from the ashes of the civil war.

I think it is an insult to all minorities, no matter their skin color, to suggest they are needy. Few people know that the Tuskeegee Airmen never lost a bomber due to enemy fighter damage during WWII.

People of Oldham County typically know and respect people of color, we don't try to cage or handcuff them by imposing limitations to personal achievement.

[rnc76]

Originally Posted by tomocox

For all you who are revisionist historians, the American Civil War was not about Slavery. It was about states rights. Slavery was just the catalyst or the focal point. I understand it is hard to separate, but the Confederacy was not about wanting to break away from the Union, but rather a final resort to keep Washington from controlling every point of our lives.

I never understand this argument. You even contradict the state's rights argument rights argument in the next sentences. You say the war was about state's rights and slavery just happened to be the catalyst and focal point. What is the difference? The principle "right" that the south was trying to protect was the "right" to enslave certain people. Were there other "rights" the south was trying to protect? Obviously. But as you said, slavery was the catalyst and the focal point.

By the way, Kentucky was never part of the Confederacy (Louisville and Northern NY were generally considered very pro-Union) and you weren't alive during the Civil War. If you want black people to stop living in the past, then talking about the Civil War in terms of "our lives" seems a little hypocritical.

[Off Topic]

Originally Posted by tomocox

For all you who are revisionist historians, the American Civil War was not about Slavery. It was about states rights.

Dude, that's a very bad argument forwarded by people who don't read history or who are advancing a political agenda. I'll agree that the Civil War was about states rights so long as you agree the state's "right" in question was the protection and expansion of slavery.

I personally challenge you to read the articles of secession by the confederate states themselves and come to any other conclusion. All they do is mention slavery, time and time again. A few periphery issues are mentioned, like tariffs, but can any of us see them going to war over tariffs? You can find the articles here:
Slavery Cause

No one can read those articles with an open mind and come to any other conclusion. Or you can just look at the words of some confederates themselves.

Henry L. Benning, Georgia politician and future Confederate general, writing in the summer of 1849 to his fellow Georgian, Howell Cobb: "First then, it is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections."

Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860: "Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it."

Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?" (And by property, we all know what he meant.)

Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, referring to the concept that all men are created equal: "Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth
(Called the "Cornerstone" speech, since Stephens open states that slavery is the cornerstone of the Confederacy.)
Modern History Sourcebook: Alexander H. Stephens (1812-1883): Cornerstone Address, March 21, 1861

From the Confederate Constitution:
Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 3: "The Confederate States may acquire new territory . . . In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the territorial government."

And finally, from Confederate General John Gordan: "(I)t is fair to say that had there been no slavery there would have been no war."

The Confederates themselves knew darn well what the war was about, and we should at least have the courage to admit the same thing, as distasteful as it may be.

If there is any doubt in anyone's mind, I further challenge them to read Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War written by a Southerner who first set out to prove that the war was not about slavery. After reading the words of the secessionists themselves, he concludes that without question, slavery was the cause of the civil war.
Amazon.com: Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War (Nation Divided: New Studies in Civil War History): Charles B. Dew: Books

[missymomof3]

I don't understand for the life of me why Louisville is made to look so innocent when it comes to slavery.

On wikipedia: Louisville had one of the largest slave trades in the United States before the Civil War and much of the city's initial growth is attributed to that trade. The expression "sold down the river" originated as a lament of Kentucky slaves being split apart from their families and sold in Louisville and other Kentucky locations to be shipped via the Ohio River down to New Orleans to be sold yet again to owners of cotton and sugar field plantations.[26][27] In 1820, the slave population was at its height at nearly 26% of the population, but by 1860, that proportion had dropped to 7.8%, even though this percentage still represented over 10,000 people.[28] Louisville was the turning point for many enslaved blacks since Kentucky, although it was to be a border state in the Civil War, was nevertheless a slave state and crossing the Ohio River, called the "River Jordan" by escaping slaves, could, barring capture by bounty-seeking slave-catchers, lead to freedom in the North via the Underground Railroad.[29]

As far as the civil war, Kentucky "joined" the Confederacy AFTER the fact when Confederate soldiers were hailed as heroes and elected to office while union soldiers weren't: on Kentucky in the Civil War : With the return of Kentucky’s Confederate veterans after the South's defeat, the state entered upon a long period of championing the "Lost Cause." To have worn the Confederate gray made one a hero almost overnight, whereas those who wore Union blue and wished to run for political office kept silence as to their wartime service, as it was to be a definite political liability rather then an asset for the remainder of the nineteenth century. Kentucky's heart and soul went out in sympathy to the prostrate South. Confederate veterans were in the ascendancy, politically from 1867 until the mid-1890's. The heritage of Virginia asserted itself more ardently than it had done during the War. It has been said aptly that Kentucky waited until after Appomattox to secede.

[Off Topic]

Originally Posted by missymomof3

I don't understand for the life of me why Louisville is made to look so innocent when it comes to slavery.

Excellent and accurate points. Our ancestors had a direct hand in this atrocity and we should not shrink from admitting that.

In no way does that imply any personal liability on any of us. In fact, I think it is just the opposite. Ignoring or minimizing or using inaccurate revisionist historical arguments about slavery is when we act dishonorably.

Good post.

[missymomof3]

I also found this which sounds to me like the KY government was afraid that the state WOULD succeed if allowed http://spider.georgetowncollege.edu/...11/fr-cope.htm:

The governor, Beriah Magoffin, was an advocate of secession. Opposing him was an anti-secession majority in the legislature. When the States of the Deep South began their exodus, a special legislative session was called by Magoffin to promote a sovereignty convention. This was defeated by Unionist legislators who feared a convention might result in Kentucky secession. Unionists opposed a referendum on the convention call because without it there was no danger of the state's seceding. An affirmative vote on the referendum, conversely, suggests secession sympathies. Delegates from the seven coastal plain (Jackson Purchase) counties all favored the referendum, while those from central (Pennyroyal and Bluegrass) counties opposed the referendum. Cumberland Plateau counties were evenly divided on the question.8




At this early stage of the secession crisis, it may now be noted that Kentucky Unionists had blocked a statewide referendum. Their counterparts in Tennessee, while unable to accomplish such a block, were nonetheless heartened when the state's electorate spurned an opportunity to convene a sovereignty convention

[missymomof3]

Originally Posted by Off Topic

Excellent and accurate points. Our ancestors had a direct hand in this atrocity and we should not shrink from admitting that.

In no way does that imply any personal liability on any of us. In fact, I think it is just the opposite. Ignoring or minimizing or using inaccurate revisionist historical arguments about slavery is when we act dishonorably.

Good post.

Thank you kindly hun.

[Off Topic]

Originally Posted by missymomof3

Thank you kindly hun.

And I don't think admitting our role means reparations are proper or that we should feel ashamed or anything like that. But you have to at least face the truth, even when it is unpleasant.

I'd add a reputation point to you, but you're already so far ahead of me that I have an inferiority complex!

[missymomof3]

Originally Posted by Off Topic

And I don't think admitting our role means reparations are proper or that we should feel ashamed or anything like that. But you have to at least face the truth, even when it is unpleasant.

I'd add a reputation point to you, but you're already so far ahead of me that I have an inferiority complex!

Honey look at the differences in number of posts! LOL I "talk" alot more than you

My family wasn't even IN Louisville during the antebellum or civil war, we were in Brandenburg and surrounding areas and Bardstown.