Jump to content

Racism in the South


Claws

Recommended Posts

I responded to your post because, despite the fact that you said you wanted to stay off the Civil War, you took some parting shots at Forrest which needed to be answered. Forrest is, in many ways, a figure worthy of study and of admiration. He was completely self-made and rose to the highest ranks of society. He suffered from the failings of many of his day, but he was not the demon some try to make him out to be. For more on him, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest

Very good points, Riverside. Robert E. Lee is another example of a Confederate worthy of admiration despite his stance on slavery. This was a man who once stopped in the middle of a battle to place a bird that had been shot dead out of a tree back in its nest. He was even spotted after the war giving a Union Lieutenant who was down on his luck a few extra dollars. He later told his friend, who was watching him that it didn't matter, they were both humans and Americans now.

The entire situation of slavery itself very much parallels feudal Europe. You had the peasants and slaves that worked the field for a landowner in exchange for food, living quarters, etc. There were some benevolent masters and some cruel masters, but they weren't all evil. The big difference between the two is that a European who's family were serfs 800 years ago and a man whose family were wealthy landowners in that same period are probably not as distinguishable as black man whose ancestors, chances are, were slaves and a white man whose ancestors were plantation owners.

Though the racism as we know it today probably developed in part from the bitterness towards the Radical Reconstruction that forced the South to do things about race. Had Lincoln not been assassinated and/or his plan put into place, which was much more lenient than that of the Radicals in Congress, chances are we probably wouldn't have quite as many problems with racism as we do today.

Lincoln was a man whose first interest was preserving the nation and doing his job. The Emancipation Proclamation, though I think it was also something of a tactical move against the South to help keep Great Britain from aiding it (they didn't want to look like they supported slavery), would have come sooner or later in some form as the US matured and emerged on the world stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 164
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Though the racism as we know it today probably developed in part from the bitterness towards the Radical Reconstruction that forced the South to do things about race. Had Lincoln not been assassinated and/or his plan put into place, which was much more lenient than that of the Radicals in Congress, chances are we probably wouldn't have quite as many problems with racism as we do today.

Lincoln was a man whose first interest was preserving the nation and doing his job. The Emancipation Proclamation, though I think it was also something of a tactical move against the South to help keep Great Britain from aiding it (they didn't want to look like they supported slavery), would have come sooner or later in some form as the US matured and emerged on the world stage.

On the first point that would not explain why similar, if not worse racial, problems have existed in the North. I use the term racial problems because the term "racism" as it is being used here implies that is all the fault of Whites and I simply refuse to believe that.

It's easy to blame one's problems today on events that happened 140+ years ago because the people of that time can't defend themselves in an argument such as that. I personally think claims made by some that their lives are bad because the USA once allowed slavery is simply dull, and I am sure that most people are tired of hearing about it. I would be much more interested to hear how these parties are going to do something to improve their future instead of constantly complaining about the far off past.

On the point about Lincoln, you are correct. Here is one of his quotes that you may be interested in.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At work Monday a co-worker of mine from Jackson Miss. said that in history class there was no mention of slavery. I found that a little troubling. His words were "It is like slavery never exsisted according to Mississppi". All I said was WOW I am glad I grew up in NC. I know it is not the most liberal or cosmopolitan of states but at least I learned about slaves, slave states, the politics of the time, the reasons why the southern states seceeded and the heroes and villains of the civil war and the reclamation. It also helped that there was real history to tap in to in Fayetteville. There is a confederate armory, hospital and Gen. Sherman burned the city on his way to Raleigh(I think).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy to blame one's problems today on events that happened 140+ years ago because the people of that time can't defend themselves in an argument such as that. I personally think claims made by some that their lives are bad because the USA once allowed slavery is simply dull, and I am sure that most people are tired of hearing about it. I would be much more interested to hear how these parties are going to do something to improve their future instead of constantly complaining about the far off past.

I agree and disagree. Personally, I have no interest in complaining about past events, its just a waste of time. But a black person's life is definitely more difficult due to institutionalized racism in this country. If everything were really equal, as it should be, we wouldn't be need constitutioanl amendments and affirmative action programs and the like. Surely you understand that slavery and past racial inequalities have had a negative impact on the black community. While it is true that many in the black community use the past as a crutch, there are many more African-Americans that are positively contributing to society regardless of how unfairly they have been treated. I hope that people reading this thread understand the definition of racism: (discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race). While up north, I observed that people of certain ethnic backgrounds stuck together. I don't think thats racism, one is naturally drawn to others of similar backgrounds and beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire situation of slavery itself very much parallels feudal Europe. You had the peasants and slaves that worked the field for a landowner in exchange for food, living quarters, etc. There were some benevolent masters and some cruel masters, but they weren't all evil.

Regardless if the master was good or bad, I'd prefer to be free than to have a master at all and I can't see the point behind that statement.

I use the term racial problems because the term "racism" as it is being used here implies that is all the fault of Whites and I simply refuse to believe that.

racism - discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race

I can't recall slaves treating slave owners as inferior beings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless if the master was good or bad, I'd prefer to be free than to have a master at all and I can't see the point behind that statement.

It was more or less just to (re)establish the fact that not all masters were the cruel men some make them out to be. But what you say about being free I can very much agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't recall slaves treating slave owners as inferior beings.

That is true and it is not called racism either. The word is slavery. Please read what I posted. I said racism "as it was being used here".

This constant equating of racism to slavery, which has nothing to do with what is going on now, only goes to make problems worse because it is the same thing as saying. "Because Whites held Slaves 2 centuriss ago, then White's of today are responsible for the problem's in Black people's lives". Sorry I don't buy that.

Whenever this is done, Whites will turn their backs on Blacks, and Blacks get more resentful. Not a recipe for improving the relations between both races.

You can't change the past, only the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure there's some other non-controversial way to honor her legacy. And why must we always do it with street names? Can we think outside of the box sometimes? Rename a park with some generic name, or a square, or a monument, or something other than a street name after her; there are several ways to do this and please everyone (or at least everyone who actually cares).

I don't think Atlanta should have anything to do with naming something after Rosa Parks. Her legacy began in Montgomery, not Atlanta. Maybe Montgomery should name it's city bus system after her using her last name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Atlanta should have anything to do with naming something after Rosa Parks. Her legacy began in Montgomery, not Atlanta. Maybe Montgomery should name it's city bus system after her using her last name.

Then what's up with just about every major American city having something named after MLK (Columbia included)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

King was probably the most instrumental person, forever altering race relations in America, as we know it today. I know everyone likes to say slavery ended about 150 years ago, but its been less then 40 (only a generation or two), since the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s, finally targeted over 100 years of institutionalized racism, that had just as much a negative effect, as slavery did, on the black community.

Though Rosa Park's legacy began in Montgomery, her choice to finally stand up to the Jim Crow laws of that era, pretty much jump started the Civil Rights Movement. Thus, it can be argued that she was just as important (as King) to a movement that changed, not only Montgomery, but the entire country (including Atlanta). So if Atlanta or any other city would like to honor Mrs. Parks, I don't see what the problem is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, that monumental event in Montgomery was only one event in her civil rights career. She continued to be active and speak out against racial injustices after moving to Detroit, and she also traveled in order to get her message out to a broader audience. That said, I'm not sure how we can limit her contributions as only being significant to one small city in Alabama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fort Pillow was defended by black soldiers (and some whites), not civilians. They were involved in the battle and were killed as were the white combatants. As for the alleged massacre, (1) both sides dont agree on the details of what happened and ( 2 ) there is no evidence that Forrest ordered the killing of prisoners. In battle, Forrest was as tough as they come, but no one has evidence that he ordered the killing of people who had surrendered. This is simply not true. In fact, an examination of the battle by Sherman found no fault with Forrest's conduct.

Forrest did work as a slave trader (among other jobs) before the War, but this was a LEGAL profession. Anyway, no one was honoring his service as a slave owner, they were honoring his service as a Confederate General. In fact, most military historians place him in the top ranks of all Generals in the War and he was completely untrained in warfare. He was an America military genius regardless of his pre-war profession. After the War, he did help found the KKK but left the KKK when it became too violent for him. The original KKK, by the way, was largely designed to get rid of the carpetbagger Yankees, who were robbing the South, and was not the same group as the early 20th century KKK.

I responded to your post because, despite the fact that you said you wanted to stay off the Civil War, you took some parting shots at Forrest which needed to be answered. Forrest is, in many ways, a figure worthy of study and of admiration. He was completely self-made and rose to the highest ranks of society. He suffered from the failings of many of his day, but he was not the demon some try to make him out to be. For more on him, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest

RiverGator, I agree with everything that you said. I was only trying to bring up reasons that Historic Figures that may be Honorable to some are anathema to others. That no man, no matter who it was cannot be questioned under a different light. I do not personally have anything bad to say about Forrest and I do think that there are reasons to admire and study him. I have more than a passing knowledge about him. I, as is often done on this blog, simplified my mention of Forrest because of the amount of interest in historical figures is periphery to the topic. I only say that I try to be fair and take everyone's feelings into account. And any Conferate Officer is going to draw a great deal of ill feeling from a large segment of our population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.