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.
Emancipation isn't the same as citizenship. And citizenship isn't the same as equality. Brazil freed their slaves, but Brazil wasn't a democracy. In Brazil, the freed slaves remained at the bottom of a racial caste-system. They could not vote, they could not become jurors, or politicians, or anything else. They had no power, thus they were no threat.
Alexis de Tocqueville explains pretty clearly that slavery was a terrible economic system that kept the south poor, and that was decades before the Civil War. The reason southerners didn't free the slaves is not because they didn't want to, but because they were afraid to. As Thomas Jefferson said, "We have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other."
Most southerners feared that the slaves would become criminals, or would try to kill white people if they were freed. And if they were made voters, politics would become nothing but a racial headcount. And in areas where blacks were the majority, blacks would rule whites. They believed the inevitable outcome of emancipation would be a race-war, because they did not believe whites would tolerate black-rule.
Had the Confederacy won, they still would have abolished slavery, but they would not have given blacks a right to vote, or made them legally equal. At least not in the beginning. But although this sounds like a bad thing, it isn't.
Many people noted in other threads that most "mixing" happened before the abolition of slavery. Had slavery(IE white-supremacy) lasted another hundred years, the south would have been an entire nation of mulattoes. Instead, slavery was abolished and there was 100 years of Jim-Crow. Why?
When whites were legally superior to blacks, the south was integrated because whites had nothing to fear. Jim-Crow was thus a reaction to black equality, not emancipation.
Right I agree with this. I still think they would've did what they had done after Reconstruction and finding themselves among so many freed blacks instituted segregation too. That's not to say the South was worse and the North better. I'm not saying either was bad or good per se, but differently situated.
Just my opinion, but I don't think it's right to go back 160 years in the case of Lincoln or 240+ years in the case of Washington and try and dissect what society or politics was like back then. Yes, it was not fair or right by today's standards, but that the point. They didn't live by today's standards; they lived and made decisions according to the standards of the time.
It's also not fair to try and vilify men that were instrumental in founding this nation and calling them racists. They were not racists, per se. They just lived in a society and a time in history that was much different than the one we live in today. The general accepted attitude among most intelligent people is to learn from history, not destroy it.
This nation has come a long way in racial equality in the last couple of centuries. There are still things that need to get better, but that doesn't mean that the past or the people should be forgotten or dragged through the mud for the decisions they made.
Right I agree with this. I still think they would've did what they had done after Reconstruction and finding themselves among so many freed blacks instituted segregation too.
What was the purpose of segregation? Why wasn't there segregation until after emancipation? Was there Jim-Crow-style segregation in non-democratic countries?
What was the purpose of segregation? Why wasn't there segregation until after emancipation? Was there segregation in non-democratic countries?
I don't know how fair it was to say there was no segregation in the South before emancipation. There were about the same number of free in South as the North a few 100k, and the other 90%, almost 4 million or so enslaved. That sort of served the purposes of segregation.
I don't know how fair it was to say there was no segregation in the South before emancipation. There were about the same number of free in South as the North a few 100k, and the other 90%, almost 4 million or so enslaved. That sort of served the purposes of segregation.
Segregation really only occurred in democratic countries. There was no Jim-Crow segregation in Brazil before or after slavery was abolished. In non-democratic slave countries miscegenation was the norm. In non-democratic slave countries virtually everyone is of mixed-race.
Had slavery continued another hundred years, there would be no white people left in the south. Had the south not been a democracy, and had the south freed blacks without making them legally equal, the south would have become Brazil.
Segregation was always worse in the North than in the South. No where was segregation more extreme than in the largest city of Lincoln's home state of Illinois, Chicago.
It wasn't freeing blacks that made segregation necessary, it was making them equal under the law.
Segregation really only occurred in democratic countries. There was no Jim-Crow segregation in Brazil before or after slavery was abolished. In non-democratic slave countries miscegenation was the norm. In non-democratic slave countries virtually everyone is of mixed-race.
Had slavery continued another hundred years, there would be no white people left in the south. Had the south not been a democracy, and had the south freed blacks without making them legally equal, the south would have become Brazil.
Segregation was always worse in the North than in the South. No where was segregation more extreme than in the largest city of Lincoln's home state of Illinois, Chicago.
It wasn't freeing blacks that made segregation necessary, it was making them equal under the law.
I don't think so. Slavery existed and not much democracy for around 200 years in the South and it wasn't very mixed. I think the percentage was pretty steady and wouldn't have changed much in another 100 years. There are a lot of different reason Latin America is more mixed than British America from the start besides slavery and democracy. In America where there is no shortage of women from their own group, they're going to preferential mate within their group like its always been and will be regardless.
Slavery existed and not much democracy for around 200 years in the South and it wasn't very mixed. I think the percentage was pretty steady and wouldn't have changed much in another 100 years. There are a lot of different reason Latin America is more mixed than British America from the start besides slavery and democracy. In America where there is no shortage of women from their own group, they're going to preferential mate within their group like its always been and will be regardless.
As you pointed-out, people want to be around people like themselves. The only reason whites and blacks were together during slavery is because whites were reaping a benefit. Without slavery whites and blacks would have no reason to be together. Thus slavery is what brought whites and blacks together. But once together, living in the same houses, working side-by-side. Your children being raised by black nannies, playing with black children, etc. And white men holding a position of wealth and power over young black female slaves.
This is the dynamic that led to so many mulattoes being created in the 100 years before the Civil War, and so few in the 100 years after the Civil War.
Slavery is integration. Had slavery continued, there would have been no segregation. The only reason America was a "white" country up until the 1950's was because of European immigration. Without European immigrants, blacks would have been 50% of the population by 1860. America was as white as it ever was in 1920, right before immigration was closed until 1965.
Had the south seceded, it would have become Brazil. No industry, only slavery, and all of the mulattoes that inevitably follow.
As you pointed-out, people want to be around people like themselves. The only reason whites and blacks were together during slavery is because whites were reaping a benefit. Without slavery whites and blacks would have no reason to be together. Thus slavery is what brought whites and blacks together. But once together, living in the same houses, working side-by-side. Your children being raised by black nannies, playing with black children, etc. And white men holding a position of wealth and power over young black female slaves.
This is the dynamic that led to so many mulattoes being created in the 100 years before the Civil War, and so few in the 100 years after the Civil War.
Slavery is integration. Had slavery continued, there would have been no segregation. The only reason America was a "white" country up until the 1950's was because of European immigration. Without European immigrants, blacks would have been 50% of the population by 1860. America was as white as it ever was in 1920, right before immigration was closed until 1965.
Had the south seceded, it would have become Brazil. No industry, only slavery, and all of the mulattoes that inevitably follow.
Black and white Southerners were not going to intermix anymore than they ever did, slavery or segregation or not. The percentage of mulattos in the slaveholding states was 12% in 1860. That was never going to change much.
Rather than comparing southern states to Brazil and Latin America, think of South Africa or any other white Anglo founded countries or colonies. Until a mostly post WWII political construction, they would always see themselves as constituting their country and weren't about to give up their autonomy and be cultural dissolved away.
I don't know how fair it was to say there was no segregation in the South before emancipation.
Men are together by force and self-interest.
Throughout history, society was always the rich over the poor. Masters over slaves. Which is why there was nothing to hold the Native-Americans together, or the Amish. Without some wealthy ruling-class to own everything and force people together, everyone would break apart into little tribes.
Thus it is this master-slave dynamic which is the nature of society. The nature of civilization. Every decent philosopher has noted that slavery is civilization. There has never been, and there could never be a civilization that doesn't depend wholly on the forced labor of the masses, either by the whip, or by threat of starvation. With slaves either providing their services directly, or indirectly through taxes.
Civilization is the only thing that brings diverse peoples together. Without civilization there is no diversity.
This master-slave dynamic is what brings in immigrants. The immigrants are basically a kind of slave class that works for the benefit of the rich. And as long as the rich can reap massive profits, they will continue to import more and more. You could even say that inequality is the driver of immigration. Without inequality there would be no immigration.
Think of "mail-order brides". This is just another master-slave dynamic. The rich over the poor, inequality. If Asians weren't poor, they would never lower themselves to such degrading behavior. And why do white men want them? Because they are a submissive and dependent, and thus tantamount to a slave.
The moment slavery was abolished in the south, the master-slave dynamic disappeared. There was no longer anything for whites to gain from integration with blacks, so they demanded separation. It wasn't until industrialization took hold in the south that the master-slave dynamic returned. The integration of the south has only ever been the rich profiting off of the poor. Thus they imported slaves, and now they import millions of immigrants, and hire them to work for them for pennies on the dollar, so that they can live in luxury while doing no work.
The moment they cease to profit off immigrants is the moment there will cease to be immigrants. The moment there ceases to be slaves, is the moment there ceases to be integration. But so long as there is integration, so long as people are living in close-proximity, you're going to have mixing. And the master(the rich) will inevitably abuse his wealth to take advantage of poor and weak women, whether consensual or not.
You say you were happy with what happened from 1860 till 1960, but not from 1960 till today. But would you have felt the same way at the time? Would you have been indifferent to millions of impoverished Irish, Italians, Jews, and Eastern Europeans flooding this country, with their higher crime-rates, many who couldn't speak English? And why did they come here anyway? What is the difference between then and now?
Moreover, if the south had always been more integrated, why is it that the North are the ones who ended segregation? Why is the North the ones who are trying to force open the borders even today? What is the real evil here? What are you really opposed to?
Throughout history, society was always the rich over the poor. Masters over slaves. Which is why there was nothing to hold the Native-Americans together, or the Amish. Without some wealthy ruling-class to own everything and force people together, everyone would break apart into little tribes.
Thus it is this master-slave dynamic which is the nature of society. The nature of civilization. Every decent philosopher has noted that slavery is civilization. There has never been, and there could never be a civilization that doesn't depend wholly on the forced labor of the masses, either by the whip, or by threat of starvation. With slaves either providing their services directly, or indirectly through taxes.
Civilization is the only thing that brings diverse peoples together. Without civilization there is no diversity.
This master-slave dynamic is what brings in immigrants. The immigrants are basically a kind of slave class that works for the benefit of the rich. And as long as the rich can reap massive profits, they will continue to import more and more. You could even say that inequality is the driver of immigration. Without inequality there would be no immigration.
Think of "mail-order brides". This is just another master-slave dynamic. The rich over the poor, inequality. If Asians weren't poor, they would never lower themselves to such degrading behavior. And why do white men want them? Because they are a submissive and dependent, and thus tantamount to a slave.
The moment slavery was abolished in the south, the master-slave dynamic disappeared. There was no longer anything for whites to gain from integration with blacks, so they demanded separation. It wasn't until industrialization took hold in the south that the master-slave dynamic returned. The integration of the south has only ever been the rich profiting off of the poor. Thus they imported slaves, and now they import millions of immigrants, and hire them to work for them for pennies on the dollar, so that they can live in luxury while doing no work.
The moment they cease to profit off immigrants is the moment there will cease to be immigrants. The moment there ceases to be slaves, is the moment there ceases to be integration. But so long as there is integration, so long as people are living in close-proximity, you're going to have mixing. And the master(the rich) will inevitably abuse his wealth to take advantage of poor and weak women, whether consensual or not.
You say you were happy with what happened from 1860 till 1960, but not from 1960 till today. But would you have felt the same way at the time? Would you have been indifferent to millions of impoverished Irish, Italians, Jews, and Eastern Europeans flooding this country, with their higher crime-rates, many who couldn't speak English? And why did they come here anyway? What is the difference between then and now?
Moreover, if the south had always been more integrated, why is it that the North are the ones who ended segregation? Why is the North the ones who are trying to force open the borders even today? What is the real evil here? What are you really opposed to?
I'm opposed to the immigration Act of 1965. If not its real intent its effect is to socio-politically and culturally wipe out traditional American culture with something less desirable. I'm opposed to policies and interest groups who are just trying to replace the culture under the guise of "equality" and "inclusion".
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.
