Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
map
35 views
Skip to first unread message
Hugh Lawson
Apr 28, 2012, 4:03:56 PM4/28/12
to
All you need to do is look at this map to see why northerners supported
the destruction of the CSA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_south_census.png
But that leaves a question. Why didn't the secessionists foresee how
strong the opposition would be?
Here are some ideas I have run across.
Experience in the Napoleonic wars (Spain, Russia) convinced some of them
that the region was too big to be conquered.
The secessionists feared that slavery might be undermined soon if the
slave states remained in the Union.
The political tension of the late 1850s had many longing for some kind
of release.
Others?
slotrot
Apr 29, 2012, 3:34:17 PM4/29/12
to
supported
the destruction of the CSA"
You'll have to be a bit more explicit.
the destruction of the CSA"
Hugh Lawson
Apr 29, 2012, 4:25:29 PM4/29/12
to
slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:
> Looking at that map certainly doesn't show me " why northerners
> supported
> the destruction of the CSA"
> You'll have to be a bit more explicit.
Here are some of my thoughts.
> Looking at that map certainly doesn't show me " why northerners
> supported
> the destruction of the CSA"
> You'll have to be a bit more explicit.
The Mississippi-Ohio River system exits through New Orleans. Riverine
transport was still important then.
The map shows how close the CSA southwest was to the farther west
territories. This would be a strategic concern if the CSA survived.
The CSA would play politics with the western territories.
Although four slave states did not secede, there was a possibility
that if the CSA endured, they might some day do it.
"The South" covered a huge expanse of space. This would be lost to the
USA just at the moment when the northerners were finally achieving
dominance in the USA.
I think there is needed more inquiry into practical reasons why
northerners were so united. They backed the union. What did they expect
it to do for them?
I think this must be examined by inspecting the opinions of the northern
opinion leaders, just as it has been done for decades with the
secessionis opinion leaders.
Why did/do they want to be in a national political community with a
population that so many of them held/hold in low regard? Perhaps they
didn't want to, but doing without "the south" posed too many other
inconveniences for them. What were those inconveniences?
scott s.
Apr 29, 2012, 11:10:11 PM4/29/12
to
Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:87sjfms...@dell-desktop.xx.yy:
Are you familiar with Chandra Manning's "What this cruel war was over"?
My reading of it is that she does see elites as attempting to form
opinion, but in many cases opinions of ordinary people were formed
first, and eventually forced elites to listen to if not adopt them.
In the case of the north, she argues a particular strong effect on
average person of the second great awakening in the northeast, and
by settlement patterns this influnece spread west to the old
northwest. For Manning, the importance of the second great
awakening is that it created a religious fervor for the United States
as an instrument of God/Christ on earth and the idea of American
Exceptionalism. In this way, maintenance of the Union wasn't about
economic power or territorial expansion, rather destruction of the
union was a denial of God's supremacy and plan for man. Viewed this
way, the common folk of the north would ponder why the south would
violate God's law, and conclude it the work of Satan. As northern
troops entered the south, reports of conditions in the south began
to filter northward. The northern soldier came to see southern life
as depraved, unworthy of God, and in considering the cause of this
latched onto slavery. Thus slavery was wrong, not because of its
impact on the African (though this was problem) but because it
corrupted white southern society, turning it away from God and
His plan for America. As the war continued ending slavery
became coupled to unionism.
scott s.
.
news:87sjfms...@dell-desktop.xx.yy:
My reading of it is that she does see elites as attempting to form
opinion, but in many cases opinions of ordinary people were formed
first, and eventually forced elites to listen to if not adopt them.
In the case of the north, she argues a particular strong effect on
average person of the second great awakening in the northeast, and
by settlement patterns this influnece spread west to the old
northwest. For Manning, the importance of the second great
awakening is that it created a religious fervor for the United States
as an instrument of God/Christ on earth and the idea of American
Exceptionalism. In this way, maintenance of the Union wasn't about
economic power or territorial expansion, rather destruction of the
union was a denial of God's supremacy and plan for man. Viewed this
way, the common folk of the north would ponder why the south would
violate God's law, and conclude it the work of Satan. As northern
troops entered the south, reports of conditions in the south began
to filter northward. The northern soldier came to see southern life
as depraved, unworthy of God, and in considering the cause of this
latched onto slavery. Thus slavery was wrong, not because of its
impact on the African (though this was problem) but because it
corrupted white southern society, turning it away from God and
His plan for America. As the war continued ending slavery
became coupled to unionism.
scott s.
.
Hugh Lawson
Apr 30, 2012, 6:55:34 AM4/30/12
to
"scott s." <75270...@csi.xcom> writes:
[ snip ]
I think you may misunderstand my question.
Why insist on union with a population you don't like? I understand that
the north wanted union. But why?
Why, when they held such negative opinions of the population of the
south, did the northerners want to be in national political community
with those people? Why glorify a union with people you despise? They
didn't like the blacks, abhorred the idea of living near them; they
didn't like the common whites, and they didn't like the elite.
Describing God-talk doesn't answer this, for if the northerners had
decided separation was a good idea, they would have found preachers to
explain why God requires separation, and the history books would be
different.
It's as if a man forces a woman to live with him, even as he holds her
in disdain, disapproves her manners, holds her customs in contempt,
finds nothing positive about her, and thinks her too stupid to merit
equal position in conversation with himself, though he makes her come to
the dinner table and listen to his invective against her.
Compared with this the secessionists were quite rational. They saw that
they Republican party wanted to get rid of slavery, and they reckoned
this would destroy their wealth and power, and in uncontrollable
ways. So they wanted a firewall between themselves and the north. That
was what the CSA was for.
[ snip ]
I think you may misunderstand my question.
Why insist on union with a population you don't like? I understand that
the north wanted union. But why?
Why, when they held such negative opinions of the population of the
south, did the northerners want to be in national political community
with those people? Why glorify a union with people you despise? They
didn't like the blacks, abhorred the idea of living near them; they
didn't like the common whites, and they didn't like the elite.
Describing God-talk doesn't answer this, for if the northerners had
decided separation was a good idea, they would have found preachers to
explain why God requires separation, and the history books would be
different.
It's as if a man forces a woman to live with him, even as he holds her
in disdain, disapproves her manners, holds her customs in contempt,
finds nothing positive about her, and thinks her too stupid to merit
equal position in conversation with himself, though he makes her come to
the dinner table and listen to his invective against her.
Compared with this the secessionists were quite rational. They saw that
they Republican party wanted to get rid of slavery, and they reckoned
this would destroy their wealth and power, and in uncontrollable
ways. So they wanted a firewall between themselves and the north. That
was what the CSA was for.
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
Apr 30, 2012, 12:32:22 PM4/30/12
to
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:55:34 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I don't believe that before the war the North had as low an opinion of
the South as you think. And the North knew that a great many in the
South were opposed to secession. Although a more daunting task, I
think restoring the Union was as natural them as retaking Arizona
would be to us today if the Republican wingnuts now controlling its
state legislature were to try to declare impendence, something I
wouldn't put beyond them. It has already occurred to me that Arizona
is too small to be a country and too big to be an insane asylum.
wrote:
the South as you think. And the North knew that a great many in the
South were opposed to secession. Although a more daunting task, I
think restoring the Union was as natural them as retaking Arizona
would be to us today if the Republican wingnuts now controlling its
state legislature were to try to declare impendence, something I
wouldn't put beyond them. It has already occurred to me that Arizona
is too small to be a country and too big to be an insane asylum.
Hugh Lawson
Apr 30, 2012, 1:21:42 PM4/30/12
to
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:
> I don't believe that before the war the North had as low an opinion of
> the South as you think.
Read Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, by Eric Foner. Read the speeches
> I don't believe that before the war the North had as low an opinion of
> the South as you think.
of Charles Sumner. For that matter read any US history textbook. The
(white) south is the villain in a heroic story about the excellence
and virtue of the non-south.
Then find out something of what "the north" thought about the prospect
of blacks moving close to them; what they thought of the southern plain
folk; and the planter class.
Even today you read northerners writing that they just can't stop
themselves from thinking that southern accents indicate stupidity. These
people are being honest I think. Why would any rational being confess
such a weakness if he didn't sense that it enjoyed general approval?
Moreover, you yourself have shown that you need to keep the South "On
the hook".
The only favorable statement I have heard any number of northerners
say about the South is that their manners are better. But this grudging
praise is immediately cancelled by the observation that these manners
are hypocritical. In general, their opinion is that southerners are
evil, except when virtuous northerners stand over them with sticks.
I was in denial about this until I started reading this newsgroup.
> And the North knew that a great many in the
> South were opposed to secession. Although a more daunting task, I
> think restoring the Union was as natural
names more accurately the mission of the US armies. "Restoring the
union" was the mission of Reconstruction.
> them as retaking Arizona
> would be to us today if the Republican wingnuts now controlling its
> state legislature were to try to declare impendence, something I
> wouldn't put beyond them. It has already occurred to me that Arizona
> is too small to be a country and too big to be an insane asylum.
where visible minorities are scarce. Eventually the Hispanics in
Arizona will act politically and change the balance of power, just as
happened in Texas just after WWII. Then the white-bread Yankees will
move over and make room.
Americans don't give up bigotry because Americans are nice, humane,
tolerant people. They do it because the others find ways to sting the
bigots. See the Catholics and Jews in the northeast US.
HL
slotrot
Apr 30, 2012, 2:41:47 PM4/30/12
to
On Apr 30, 1:21 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sounds like a pity-party to me. We hear of all these "industries"
springing up and perhaps this is just another "Southern lost cause"
industry, trying to cash in on the South feeling agrieved and sorry
for itself. At least that's the way you make it sound, Hugh. I don't
for a minute believe you would be a typical spokesperson for how the
South feels. Atypical perhaps. Do Southerners try to cash in on the
over-done Southern homeliness, accent, and fried chicken? If you
want to feel good about yourself, stop feeling sorry for yourself
(referring of course to those feeling agrieved).
springing up and perhaps this is just another "Southern lost cause"
industry, trying to cash in on the South feeling agrieved and sorry
for itself. At least that's the way you make it sound, Hugh. I don't
for a minute believe you would be a typical spokesperson for how the
South feels. Atypical perhaps. Do Southerners try to cash in on the
over-done Southern homeliness, accent, and fried chicken? If you
want to feel good about yourself, stop feeling sorry for yourself
(referring of course to those feeling agrieved).
Hugh Lawson
Apr 30, 2012, 4:48:35 PM4/30/12
to
[ snip ]
It's a question. What was the Union good for, in northern eyes?
Let's make the comparison again. When the secessionists decided the
Union was no longer good for their interests (slavery, etc.), they
opted for independence from the US.
Why did the northerners want to be in a political union with people they
described in most unfavorable terms? (blacks, poor whites, traitors, and
slave-rapers, as O'Hara put it)
It seems that political union with that population was NOT positively
attractive to northerners. Instead, the union was _strategically_
necessary to create an independent US at all.
And they wanted the territory where that population lived to remain
under US control, a requirement for "dream of manifest destiny" as you
once put it. That was inconsistent with the existence of the CSA; so
they destroyed it, and crushed the wealth and power of the
"slave-rapers".
Isn't this kind of statecraft the subject of much of the history of the
world? Is that what's wrong?
It's a question. What was the Union good for, in northern eyes?
Let's make the comparison again. When the secessionists decided the
Union was no longer good for their interests (slavery, etc.), they
opted for independence from the US.
Why did the northerners want to be in a political union with people they
described in most unfavorable terms? (blacks, poor whites, traitors, and
slave-rapers, as O'Hara put it)
It seems that political union with that population was NOT positively
attractive to northerners. Instead, the union was _strategically_
necessary to create an independent US at all.
And they wanted the territory where that population lived to remain
under US control, a requirement for "dream of manifest destiny" as you
once put it. That was inconsistent with the existence of the CSA; so
they destroyed it, and crushed the wealth and power of the
"slave-rapers".
Isn't this kind of statecraft the subject of much of the history of the
world? Is that what's wrong?
slotrot
Apr 30, 2012, 7:57:08 PM4/30/12
to
On Apr 30, 4:48 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why is it wrong for the Union wanting the union to remain intact? I'm
not certain, but in an obtuse fashion you would seem to be comparing
the U.S. Civil War with the likes of Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc, all the
nations at war or supported by the U.S.and its allies. You are either
with us, or your against us. Where have we heard that before.
not certain, but in an obtuse fashion you would seem to be comparing
the U.S. Civil War with the likes of Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc, all the
nations at war or supported by the U.S.and its allies. You are either
with us, or your against us. Where have we heard that before.
Hugh Lawson
Apr 30, 2012, 9:53:26 PM4/30/12
to
slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:
> Why is it wrong for the Union wanting the union to remain intact?
That's your question. I don't care about it.
> Why is it wrong for the Union wanting the union to remain intact?
I asked why they _wanted_ to be in a political union with a population
they described (and still do) in such disparaging terms?
Perhaps they didn't *desire* a political union with them, as a positive
good, but as a necessary evil: in the first instance to creating an
independent United States. It may have been difficult to do that
without the southern colonies.
And later to keep the territory inhabited by the southern population
under US sovereignty, as a necessary move to main US dominance in the
western hemisphere.
Those are two reasons that help explain forcing a union with a
population they disliked.
> I'm not certain, but in an obtuse fashion you would seem to be
> comparing the U.S. Civil War with the likes of Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc,
> all the nations at war or supported by the U.S.and its allies. You
> are either with us, or your against us. Where have we heard that
> before.
The only person I know ever in this newsgroup to compare anybody with
Iraq was Davis, in his "Saddam Huey" series of posts, numbering perhaps
in the thousands. Davis was an extreme south-basher, the Mito Minister
of his day, and "Hugh" was Davis's target.
HL
slotrot
May 1, 2012, 4:40:56 AM5/1/12
to
On Apr 30, 9:53 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
OK, I don't care about your question(s) either. Have a great day.
Hugh Lawson
May 1, 2012, 10:03:28 AM5/1/12
to
slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:
[ snip ]
> OK, I don't care about your question(s) either. Have a great day.
All I mean is this: American history is written with the presumption
that the Union position and its supporters were in the right, that
destroying the CSA and enforcing US supremacy over the territory the CSA
claimed was a Good Thing.
You asked me if it's wrong for people to feel that way. I just don't
have any interesting thoughts about that. Most Americans, including me,
have been taught that view. Almost everybody assumes that one purpose of
school history instruction is to communicate that way of thinking.
That's why the books are written that way.
I don't have any objection to people having such feelings. I'm contented
to be American, and have no desire to break apart the United States. Do
you see what I mean? I can answer your question, slotrot, but the
answer is rather uninteresting.
It happens though, that because I'm southern my thoughts about
the civil war and loyalty to the US, are unlinked emotionally to a
disdain for "the South". That makes me different from many others who
have been active posters here.
hl
[ snip ]
> OK, I don't care about your question(s) either. Have a great day.
that the Union position and its supporters were in the right, that
destroying the CSA and enforcing US supremacy over the territory the CSA
claimed was a Good Thing.
You asked me if it's wrong for people to feel that way. I just don't
have any interesting thoughts about that. Most Americans, including me,
have been taught that view. Almost everybody assumes that one purpose of
school history instruction is to communicate that way of thinking.
That's why the books are written that way.
I don't have any objection to people having such feelings. I'm contented
to be American, and have no desire to break apart the United States. Do
you see what I mean? I can answer your question, slotrot, but the
answer is rather uninteresting.
It happens though, that because I'm southern my thoughts about
the civil war and loyalty to the US, are unlinked emotionally to a
disdain for "the South". That makes me different from many others who
have been active posters here.
hl
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
May 6, 2012, 8:11:31 PM5/6/12
to
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:21:42 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I was referring specifically to the attitude of the North toward the
South prior to the war. The North's opinion of the South certainly
took a major hit during the war, one that lingers to this day.
I do not agree that the Union was restored by Reconstruction; it was
restored by force of arms. Reconstruction restored the South to full
and equal participation in the Union.
You keep insisting on maintaining that there was this entity called
the CSA which was totally distinct from the South. That's simply
untrue and I cannot help but wonder what your motive is. It seems to
me that it is to get the South off the historical hook, in some sense.
Something like a billionaire who blames his misdeeds on a corporation
he controls as though he has nothing to do with it.
wrote:
South prior to the war. The North's opinion of the South certainly
took a major hit during the war, one that lingers to this day.
I do not agree that the Union was restored by Reconstruction; it was
restored by force of arms. Reconstruction restored the South to full
and equal participation in the Union.
You keep insisting on maintaining that there was this entity called
the CSA which was totally distinct from the South. That's simply
untrue and I cannot help but wonder what your motive is. It seems to
me that it is to get the South off the historical hook, in some sense.
Something like a billionaire who blames his misdeeds on a corporation
he controls as though he has nothing to do with it.
Hugh Lawson
May 6, 2012, 9:08:26 PM5/6/12
to
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:
>
> I was referring specifically to the attitude of the North toward the
> South prior to the war.
You just don't know any better.
>
> I was referring specifically to the attitude of the North toward the
> South prior to the war.
> The North's opinion of the South certainly
> took a major hit during the war, one that lingers to this day.
believed.
> I do not agree that the Union was restored by Reconstruction; it was
> restored by force of arms. Reconstruction restored the South to full
> and equal participation in the Union.
composed in one aspect of the American people, and in the other aspect
of the states.
> You keep insisting on maintaining that there was this entity called
> the CSA which was totally distinct from the South.
beings they are.
The CSA was a pretended government. The South is a region. The CSA had
a congress, a president, and army, etc. The South has none of these. It
is the region, with contested boundaries, within which the CSA tried to
exercise sovereign power.
The second thing to do is, with historical beings, to identify their
temporal scope. CSA: 1861-1965. The South: before the revolution-up to
the present.
> That's simply untrue
False. The CSA is a dead pretended government, and the South is a
living region. Dead institutions are different from living regions.
> and I cannot help but wonder what your motive is.
should know.
> It seems to me that it is to get the South off the historical hook, in
> some sense.
Somehow it makes you feel good to think this way, and you resist my
efforts to help you give up your illusions.
> Something like a billionaire who blames his misdeeds on a
> corporation he controls as though he has nothing to do with it.
Those inapt metaphors confuse many.
HL
Hugh Lawson
May 7, 2012, 8:05:12 AM5/7/12
to
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:
> You keep insisting on maintaining that there was this entity called
> the CSA which was totally distinct from the South. That's simply
> untrue and I cannot help but wonder what your motive is.
I am trying to understand northerners, their point of view wrt to what
> You keep insisting on maintaining that there was this entity called
> the CSA which was totally distinct from the South. That's simply
> untrue and I cannot help but wonder what your motive is.
they think of as "the South". This inquiry was set off years ago by my
amazement at the attitudes they display here. As long as I have been
posting here there has been somebody expressing the attitudes of mito
minister. Having somebody call me "Saddam Huey" in thousands of posts, and
having others make all kinds of accusations, concentrated my thoughts on
why people would do this.
Several years ago, I stopped using "southern army", and limited myself
to "confederate army", rebels and so on, just to see if it could be
done. I had a slipup now and then, but it has now become my normal
usage. It seemed likely that non-southerners (aka northerners) would
resist adopting this usage. But would they explain why they resisted?
You don't want to explain. Slotrot doesn't want to explain. (Slotrot is
Canadian, but he looks at US affairs from a non-southern point of view.)
Instead, you declare yourselves to just understand the situation, and
declare that there is something psycho or deceptive about me for even
raising the question. There has to be a cause for your lack of
curiosity.
I *am* curious.
HL
slotrot
May 7, 2012, 10:28:59 AM5/7/12
to
On May 7, 8:05 am, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
In all these years you have been searching for answers, have you come
up with any?
I look at US affairs as foreign affairs, from a Canadian historical
perspective. I, personally, think the fact people were kept in
servitude, whipped, raped, kept uneducated, made to work at back-
breaking labour for a few scraps and some shelter, would answer some
of your questions on northern thinking. Perphas the abolitionists
rhetoric and the treatment of abolishionists by the "South" had some
play in the mindsets of northerners. Or maybe people in the north and
elsewhere who hated slavery and all that went with it, believed what
they were being told by the politicians at that time. Both northern
and southern politicians must have had some affect on the thought
process of citizens in both areas as each was able to raise an army to
fight for whatever it was they believed in; slavery, freedom, and/or
the Union. You made be looking for a simplistic answer to your
question when there isn't one. That's the conservative way of
thinking, black or white, no grey area. (There must be a metaphor
there. Not intended.)
up with any?
I look at US affairs as foreign affairs, from a Canadian historical
perspective. I, personally, think the fact people were kept in
servitude, whipped, raped, kept uneducated, made to work at back-
breaking labour for a few scraps and some shelter, would answer some
of your questions on northern thinking. Perphas the abolitionists
rhetoric and the treatment of abolishionists by the "South" had some
play in the mindsets of northerners. Or maybe people in the north and
elsewhere who hated slavery and all that went with it, believed what
they were being told by the politicians at that time. Both northern
and southern politicians must have had some affect on the thought
process of citizens in both areas as each was able to raise an army to
fight for whatever it was they believed in; slavery, freedom, and/or
the Union. You made be looking for a simplistic answer to your
question when there isn't one. That's the conservative way of
thinking, black or white, no grey area. (There must be a metaphor
there. Not intended.)
Hugh Lawson
May 7, 2012, 12:45:23 PM5/7/12
to
slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:
> In all these years you have been searching for answers, have you come
> up with any?
Indeed I have. The works of Jennifer Rae Greeson, David Jansson, and
> In all these years you have been searching for answers, have you come
> up with any?
Susan Mary Grant I have often cited as instructive. The most profound
single piece on this I have read is Edward Ayers's essay, "What we talk
about when we talk about the South."
> I look at US affairs as foreign affairs, from a Canadian historical
> perspective. I, personally, think the fact people were kept in
> servitude, whipped, raped, kept uneducated, made to work at back-
> breaking labour for a few scraps and some shelter, would answer some
> of your questions on northern thinking. Perphas the abolitionists
> rhetoric and the treatment of abolishionists by the "South" had some
> play in the mindsets of northerners. Or maybe people in the north and
> elsewhere who hated slavery and all that went with it, believed what
> they were being told by the politicians at that time. Both northern
> and southern politicians must have had some affect on the thought
> process of citizens in both areas as each was able to raise an army to
> fight for whatever it was they believed in; slavery, freedom, and/or
> the Union. You made be looking for a simplistic answer to your
> question when there isn't one. That's the conservative way of
> thinking, black or white, no grey area. (There must be a metaphor
> there. Not intended.)
army must be called "the southern army"?
What you are saying above is that the Union was right. But that is not
an answer to the question I posed.
Hugh Lawson
May 7, 2012, 1:23:36 PM5/7/12
to
Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com> writes:
> slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:
>
>
>> In all these years you have been searching for answers, have you come
>> up with any?
>
> Indeed I have. The works of Jennifer Rae Greeson, David Jansson, and
> Susan Mary Grant I have often cited as instructive. The most profound
> single piece on this I have read is Edward Ayers's essay, "What we talk
> about when we talk about the South."
Let me add _Patriot Fires: Forging a New
> slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:
>
>
>> In all these years you have been searching for answers, have you come
>> up with any?
>
> Indeed I have. The works of Jennifer Rae Greeson, David Jansson, and
> Susan Mary Grant I have often cited as instructive. The most profound
> single piece on this I have read is Edward Ayers's essay, "What we talk
> about when we talk about the South."
American Nationalism in the Civil War North_, by Melinda [no
relation;-)] Lawson.
Here is a publisher blurb:
http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/lawpat.html
What is of especial interest is this
"Lawson shows how citizens and organizations constructed a new kind of
nationalism based on a nation of Americans rather than a union of
states—a European-styled nationalism grounded in history and tradition
and celebrating the preeminence of the nation-state."
This is not an entirely new idea. Historians of US nationalism observed
long ago that the civil war era American nationalism changed from the
union-of-states idea to the to the idea of a spiritual-bond among an
American national people. David Potter observed that the secessionists
by seceding left the North the power to define their own purposes as the
national purposes. This helped me understand how it came to be that so
many northerners see themselves as "more American", while they applied
notions of foreign-ness, the exotic, to the South.
slotrot
May 7, 2012, 4:00:19 PM5/7/12
to
On May 7, 12:45 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
Did I say that the Union was right? Do I "insist" the the Confederat
army etc, etc" .
I think you are mistaken.
army etc, etc" .
I think you are mistaken.
Hugh Lawson
May 7, 2012, 10:17:38 PM5/7/12
to
That's the way I understood you.
> Do I "insist" the the Confederat
> army etc, etc" .
I thought you did.
HL
> Do I "insist" the the Confederat
> army etc, etc" .
HL
Hugh Lawson
May 7, 2012, 11:16:17 PM5/7/12
to
slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:
>> > I, personally, think the fact people were kept in
>> > servitude, whipped, raped, kept uneducated, made to work at back-
>> > breaking labour for a few scraps and some shelter, would answer some
>> > of your questions on northern thinking. Perphas the abolitionists
>> > rhetoric and the treatment of abolishionists by the "South" had some
>> > play in the mindsets of northerners. Or maybe people in the north and
>> > elsewhere who hated slavery and all that went with it, believed what
>> > they were being told by the politicians at that time.
That just brings back up the question, well if these slave-rapers were
>> > I, personally, think the fact people were kept in
>> > servitude, whipped, raped, kept uneducated, made to work at back-
>> > breaking labour for a few scraps and some shelter, would answer some
>> > of your questions on northern thinking. Perphas the abolitionists
>> > rhetoric and the treatment of abolishionists by the "South" had some
>> > play in the mindsets of northerners. Or maybe people in the north and
>> > elsewhere who hated slavery and all that went with it, believed what
>> > they were being told by the politicians at that time.
so wicked, then why cherish a political union with them? The same
question arises with respect to the disparaging views of the South
today, why take pride in a victory that locked the northerners in a
political union with the evil south?
The strangeness of this may explain why they think of the south as an
alien population located in the US. They wanted the US to control the
territory, for strategic purposes, but they didn't like the population
that lived there, so they regarded the population as exotic, foreign.
Perhaps this doesn't seem strange to them; perhaps they learn this in
school before they are mature enough to reason on it. Since I didn't
learn to believe that the south is "exotic", it seems strange that
somebody else would. Hence I seek explanations.
So perhaps it isn't a rational thing, but more a result of the
northerners' "identity". They want to believe in an innocent, good
America, but to them the southern population is wicked, stupid, talk
wrong, and so on. So those wicked ones, concentrated in the South, must
not really be Americans, but some alien human growth, who stubbornly
refuse to blend in.
Southerners who don't fit this pattern they classify as exceptions, who
have been influenced by the North. That's how Horwitz, the author of
Confederates in the Attic, explained it in an interview once. I don't
know if he was just baiting southerners, or really believes this.
slotrot
May 8, 2012, 6:32:11 AM5/8/12
to
On May 7, 11:16 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
I can't believe you think there was to be some sort of "political
union" between north and south as a result of the war. Your
assumption is they are equal "partners" which belies the reason for
the war, IMHO.
There was no desire for a partnership, political or otherwise. It was
a singular movement to establish "one nation under God", OWTTE. The
catalyst for war was provided by the Southern politicians wishing to
protect their unusual/peculliar institution of slavery. It was the
Southern politicians seeking a political separation hoping to be
treated as an equal partner on the American continent. The North
wanted nothing of it. No separation, no equal anything. All for one
and one for all.
union" between north and south as a result of the war. Your
assumption is they are equal "partners" which belies the reason for
the war, IMHO.
There was no desire for a partnership, political or otherwise. It was
a singular movement to establish "one nation under God", OWTTE. The
catalyst for war was provided by the Southern politicians wishing to
protect their unusual/peculliar institution of slavery. It was the
Southern politicians seeking a political separation hoping to be
treated as an equal partner on the American continent. The North
wanted nothing of it. No separation, no equal anything. All for one
and one for all.
slotrot
May 8, 2012, 6:36:58 AM5/8/12
to
On May 7, 10:17 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't care what you or anyone else calls that army; Confederate or
Southern. It's a silly little argument over semantics.
I gave you some reasons that I thought may have generated some
animosity towards the South, or whatever you want to call it. I
don't think I expressed an opinion of what I considered who was right
or wrong. But if you wish, I think the Union was right. If I had
been growing up in the North at that time, I would probably have
supported the Union cause.
Southern. It's a silly little argument over semantics.
I gave you some reasons that I thought may have generated some
animosity towards the South, or whatever you want to call it. I
don't think I expressed an opinion of what I considered who was right
or wrong. But if you wish, I think the Union was right. If I had
been growing up in the North at that time, I would probably have
supported the Union cause.
Hugh Lawson
May 8, 2012, 7:44:20 AM5/8/12
to
slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:
[ snip ]
> But if you wish, I think the Union was right. If I had
> been growing up in the North at that time, I would probably have
> supported the Union cause.
I don't think about "supporting the union cause". I think about the war
as a historical development to understand. I don't try to align my
feelings about America today with feelings about the war.
I try to avoid seeing people today as being in some way representives of
a continuing union or rebel "spirit". To me that is magical thinking,
unhelpful.
To me the whole thing is way in the past, with little to teach us about
the present. Studying the civil war makes nobody wiser or more
beautiful.
I focus on the US as it is, and focus my political notions on what it
might become.
HL
[ snip ]
> But if you wish, I think the Union was right. If I had
> been growing up in the North at that time, I would probably have
> supported the Union cause.
as a historical development to understand. I don't try to align my
feelings about America today with feelings about the war.
I try to avoid seeing people today as being in some way representives of
a continuing union or rebel "spirit". To me that is magical thinking,
unhelpful.
To me the whole thing is way in the past, with little to teach us about
the present. Studying the civil war makes nobody wiser or more
beautiful.
I focus on the US as it is, and focus my political notions on what it
might become.
HL
Hugh Lawson
May 8, 2012, 7:55:20 AM5/8/12
to
slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:
> I can't believe you think there was to be some sort of "political
> union" between north and south as a result of the war.
I think you would do better to explain what you think. This captures
> I can't believe you think there was to be some sort of "political
> union" between north and south as a result of the war.
nothing I have said.
> Your
> assumption is they are equal "partners" which belies the reason for
> the war, IMHO.
projection on me of what you have been taught southerners are like?
I think Madison got it right. There exists an American people. As a
political community, they have a dual aspect, as a whole with the US
governmental institutions, and as they are distributed into states.
There is no such thing as some of the Americans being less American than
the others.
slotrot
May 8, 2012, 9:27:09 AM5/8/12
to
On May 8, 7:55 am, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
Actually, I have never been taught what southerners are like. You
mistake my educational system for yours.
mistake my educational system for yours.
slotrot
May 8, 2012, 9:25:56 AM5/8/12
to
On May 8, 7:55 am, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
Of course it does. You think the north wanted a political partnership
with the south. Did you make a mistake when you wrote that?
with the south. Did you make a mistake when you wrote that?
slotrot
May 8, 2012, 9:55:29 AM5/8/12
to
"That just brings back up the question, well if these slave-rapers
were
so wicked, then why cherish a political union with them?"
Just for clarification.
were
so wicked, then why cherish a political union with them?"
Hugh Lawson
May 8, 2012, 10:25:50 AM5/8/12
to
slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:
> Actually, I have never been taught what southerners are like. You
> mistake my educational system for yours.
OK. I can fix the question.
> Actually, I have never been taught what southerners are like. You
> mistake my educational system for yours.
Are you projecting upon me traits that you believe characteristic of
southerners in general?
slotrot
May 8, 2012, 10:37:09 AM5/8/12
to
On May 8, 10:25 am, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
What??? Actually, I have never given a thought to "characteristics of
southerners in general". Maybe if I watched more Disney movies.
southerners in general". Maybe if I watched more Disney movies.
Hugh Lawson
May 8, 2012, 10:51:34 AM5/8/12
to
slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:
> Of course it does. You think the north wanted a political partnership
> with the south. Did you make a mistake when you wrote that?
I never said the north wanted a political partnership with the south.
> Of course it does. You think the north wanted a political partnership
> with the south. Did you make a mistake when you wrote that?
Here is what I did. I said that they wanted to restore the union. The
north and the south do not exist as political entities in the federal
union.
This necessarily involved a union of their own population with the
population living in the South, all together as the American people.
Now the question I asked is, why did they want a union of themselves
with the southern population(s), which they held in low regard? Even
today the disdain in which the southern population is held is
universally recognized.
Many Republicans, upon victory, did not want to accept the
southern populations AS THEY WERE, as fellows in the federal union. They
wanted these populations to be drastically transformed in their minds
and values. Sometimes historians call this the "regeneration" project
in reconstruction. It was the road not taken, because the Republicans
could not assemble a northern consensus to support it.
I'm sure you've read some Francis Parkman. Here is what he wrote in 1863:
"It was a strange union that linked us to the South, and one that can
never be renewed until we have thrust regeneration, total and absolute,
into the innermost being of our adversary." [Quoted in Daniel Aaron, The
Unwritten War, p. 52]
Do you see that he does not want reunion with the southern population as
it is? He wants what we'd call today a thorough brainwashing. Thaddeus
Stevens even daydreams about somehow getting rid of most of the
ex-rebels, and replacing them with another more virtuous population.
Hugh Lawson
May 8, 2012, 11:05:48 AM5/8/12
to
section. However as I explained elsewhere restoring the union requires
incorporating the southern populations in the American population. (Well
either that or treating them as a colonial possession.)
So, why, in view of their disapproval of the southern populations, did
they want to force them into union as part of the American people?
This question I never had thought of before reading this newsgroup. I
have changed my thinking since I stared reading Awcusa, because of what
I have read here.
As I asked O'Hara, why do you cherish the 1865 victory that forced you
into political union with people you don't like?
Hugh Lawson
May 8, 2012, 11:09:15 AM5/8/12
to
slotrot
May 8, 2012, 12:10:54 PM5/8/12
to
that "political union" and/or partnership, you refer to.
I believe that horse has to be a member of the cat family as it seems
this is the ninth time you are beating it to death.
As they say in Quebec, "An oeuf is an oeuf!!"
Hugh Lawson
May 8, 2012, 12:58:42 PM5/8/12
to
slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:
>> So, why, in view of their disapproval of the southern populations, did
>> they want to force them into union as part of the American people?
>>
>> This question I never had thought of before reading this newsgroup. I
>> have changed my thinking since I stared reading Awcusa, because of what
>> I have read here.
>>
>> As I asked O'Hara, why do you cherish the 1865 victory that forced you
>> into political union with people you don't like?
>
> Is that rhetorical? It can't be directed at me because I'm not in
> that "political union" and/or partnership, you refer to.
You read it right. It is an example. We had these posters here who
>> So, why, in view of their disapproval of the southern populations, did
>> they want to force them into union as part of the American people?
>>
>> This question I never had thought of before reading this newsgroup. I
>> have changed my thinking since I stared reading Awcusa, because of what
>> I have read here.
>>
>> As I asked O'Hara, why do you cherish the 1865 victory that forced you
>> into political union with people you don't like?
>
> Is that rhetorical? It can't be directed at me because I'm not in
> that "political union" and/or partnership, you refer to.
expressed extreme disdain for "the South", and yet they rejoiced in a
victory that linked them politically in the same nation with the
despised population.
Why did they want to be in a national community with a population they
abhorred?
To me that seems an obvious question.
HL
Hugh Lawson
May 8, 2012, 1:01:37 PM5/8/12
to
slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:
> I believe that horse has to be a member of the cat family as it seems
> this is the ninth time you are beating it to death.
So ignore me.
> I believe that horse has to be a member of the cat family as it seems
> this is the ninth time you are beating it to death.
slotrot
May 8, 2012, 1:09:55 PM5/8/12
to
slotrot
May 8, 2012, 1:11:34 PM5/8/12
to
On May 8, 12:58 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
Beaten, not despised. Beaten, not linked politically.
C'est finis.
C'est finis.
Hugh Lawson
May 8, 2012, 1:16:30 PM5/8/12
to
slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:
> I believe that horse has to be a member of the cat family as it seems
> this is the ninth time you are beating it to death.
I post to see if anybody has intelligent criticism, not because I hope
> I believe that horse has to be a member of the cat family as it seems
> this is the ninth time you are beating it to death.
to persuade anybody.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
May 17, 2012, 3:33:29 PM5/17/12
to
On Thu, 10 May 2012 05:11:02 -0700 (PDT), MITO MINISTER
<cigarm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 8, 11:51 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"...It was the road not taken, because the Republicans
>could not assemble a northern consensus to support it..."
>
>Reconstruction failed because of Southern White Terrorism. You are a
>lying sack of shit and you belong in jail!
Grant sent in the US Army and pretty much put the kibosh on the KKK,
but there was no stomach in the North for continuing to occupy the
South and in the end the Republicans sold the blacks down the river in
exchange for winning one disputed presidential election, and they've
been doing it ever since.
I'm writing simplistically about complicated events, of course, but
essentially truthfully. The North had it in its power to make
Reconstruction work but failed miserably because in the not-so-long
run it did not have the political will to stand up to white resistance
in the South, KKK and otherwise. Nor was it anxious to have large
numbers of blacks moving to the North.
<cigarm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 8, 11:51 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
>could not assemble a northern consensus to support it..."
>
>Reconstruction failed because of Southern White Terrorism. You are a
>lying sack of shit and you belong in jail!
Grant sent in the US Army and pretty much put the kibosh on the KKK,
but there was no stomach in the North for continuing to occupy the
South and in the end the Republicans sold the blacks down the river in
exchange for winning one disputed presidential election, and they've
been doing it ever since.
I'm writing simplistically about complicated events, of course, but
essentially truthfully. The North had it in its power to make
Reconstruction work but failed miserably because in the not-so-long
run it did not have the political will to stand up to white resistance
in the South, KKK and otherwise. Nor was it anxious to have large
numbers of blacks moving to the North.
Hugh Lawson
May 18, 2012, 10:18:28 AM5/18/12
to
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:
> Grant sent in the US Army and pretty much put the kibosh on the KKK,
> but there was no stomach in the North for continuing to occupy the
> South and in the end the Republicans sold the blacks down the river in
> exchange for winning one disputed presidential election, and they've
> been doing it ever since.
>
> I'm writing simplistically about complicated events, of course, but
> essentially truthfully. The North had it in its power to make
> Reconstruction work but failed miserably because in the not-so-long
> run it did not have the political will to stand up to white resistance
> in the South, KKK and otherwise. Nor was it anxious to have large
> numbers of blacks moving to the North.
Several things went wrong. (Here I'm only dealing with the northern
> Grant sent in the US Army and pretty much put the kibosh on the KKK,
> but there was no stomach in the North for continuing to occupy the
> South and in the end the Republicans sold the blacks down the river in
> exchange for winning one disputed presidential election, and they've
> been doing it ever since.
>
> I'm writing simplistically about complicated events, of course, but
> essentially truthfully. The North had it in its power to make
> Reconstruction work but failed miserably because in the not-so-long
> run it did not have the political will to stand up to white resistance
> in the South, KKK and otherwise. Nor was it anxious to have large
> numbers of blacks moving to the North.
side; everybody understands that southern white desire to subordinate
the blacks posed the problem.)
1. A weak 15th Amendment. A strong 15th Amendment would have enacted
manhood citizen suffrage, and set minimum enforcement provisions, while
empowerting congress to enact others as needed. But this path was
rejected, in the discussion of the 15th in Congress. In the US belief
in democratic, universal suffrage was declining in the late 19th
century, not growing, but this is usually not stressed in general
accounts of US history.
2. A series of devastating federal court judicial decisions drastically
limiting the scope of the 14th and 15th amendments. But these decisions
aroused no outrage, AFAIK.
Examples:
Civil Rights Cases
United States v. Cruikshank
Plessy v. Ferguson
3. The increasing power of the northern Democrats, who were the more
racist party in the North. They race-baited the Republicans and the
Whigs before them. Joined by southern Democrats they gave the Democrats
a majority in the House of Representatives most of the time from 1877 to
1897. This blocked the Republicans from improving civil rights laws as
a result of learning by experience.
4. A change of party principles in the Republican party, away from the
free soil, free labor, ideas of the Civil War era, and toward the idea
of the Republicans as the party of prosperity and good business: sound
money, repression of socialism, protective tariff, pensions for union
vets, and identification with Protestantism. With these new ideological
developments, the black vote in the South looked like more of a
liability. See books by Nancy Cohen and Heather Cox Richardson.
5. When the Republicans regained uncontested control of the federal
government from 1997 to 1911, this happened just when radical anti-black
racism peaked in the US (approximately the period 1895-1920 or so).
Accompanying these developments was an increasing belief that
Reconstruction had been a "mistake", and a desire to forget that Radical
Reconstruction had ever happened. Northerners focused more on the ACW
as a war for the union, and less on it as a war for emancipation. I
don't believe that this was the result of a desire to get along with
white southerners. If you follow the list above, you can see that the
northerners had many skeletons in their own closet. When W.E.B DuBois
published his book on reconstruction in the 1930s it went almost
un-noticed.
HL
Hugh Lawson
May 18, 2012, 9:14:04 PM5/18/12
to
Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com> writes:
[ snip ]
> 4. A change of party principles in the Republican party, away from the
> free soil, free labor, ideas of the Civil War era, and toward the idea
> of the Republicans as the party of prosperity and good business: sound
> money, repression of socialism, protective tariff, pensions for union
> vets, and identification with Protestantism. With these new ideological
> developments, the black vote in the South looked like more of a
> liability. See books by Nancy Cohen and Heather Cox Richardson.
Nancy Cohen
http://tinyurl.com/cd4fe6m
Heather Cox Richardson
http://tinyurl.com/bwwgdqk
Brooks Simpson's Reconstruction Presidents clearly explains the politics
of Hayes's decisions, in relation to northern politics.
[ snip ]
> 4. A change of party principles in the Republican party, away from the
> free soil, free labor, ideas of the Civil War era, and toward the idea
> of the Republicans as the party of prosperity and good business: sound
> money, repression of socialism, protective tariff, pensions for union
> vets, and identification with Protestantism. With these new ideological
> developments, the black vote in the South looked like more of a
> liability. See books by Nancy Cohen and Heather Cox Richardson.
http://tinyurl.com/cd4fe6m
Heather Cox Richardson
http://tinyurl.com/bwwgdqk
Brooks Simpson's Reconstruction Presidents clearly explains the politics
of Hayes's decisions, in relation to northern politics.
Hugh Lawson
May 20, 2012, 11:41:12 PM5/20/12
to
Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com> writes:
It's easy to see that the treatment of the freedmen after reconstruction
was unjust. All you have to do is describe what was done to them. Now
why wasn't the injustice curbed?
Was this beyond human ingenuity? Well, no. We can see from the outcomes
of ending slavery, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 that it is possible to pass effective, enforcible laws.
So why were they not passed? One reason is the political balance of
power in Congress.
In the period 1877-1897 the Republicans usually controlled the Senate.
But, the Democrats usually controlled the House of
Representatives.Because Democrats in that era never
voted in favor of civil-rights bills, this meant that to pass one
required the Republicans to control both the Senate and the
House.
So, when did the Republicans control the House of
Representatives? It appears that they controlled the House for
only three 2-years sessions:
1881-1883 Note: this term, Senate was evenly balaced
1889-1891
1895-1897
In this twenty-year period, the Republicans controlled the House for
only six years. And for the first two-year term the Senate was evenly
balanced. That's one reason why it was hard to pass laws enforcing
voting rights. Democrats voted consistently against such laws. AFAIK no
Democrat, not even one, ever voted in favor of a civil-rights law in the
period after Reconstruction.
See:
http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/congress.htm
(If you spot errors I made, please identify them.)
After the 1896 elections, this changed. From 1897 until 1911,
the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Why did they
not pass civil-rights laws?
This issue has surely been confronted squarely by some historian,
but I haven't the scholarship yet.
Perhaps the reason was federal court interpretations of
the 14th and 15th Amendments.
We can look later at those devastating court interpretations.
It's easy to see that the treatment of the freedmen after reconstruction
was unjust. All you have to do is describe what was done to them. Now
why wasn't the injustice curbed?
Was this beyond human ingenuity? Well, no. We can see from the outcomes
of ending slavery, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights
Act of 1965 that it is possible to pass effective, enforcible laws.
So why were they not passed? One reason is the political balance of
power in Congress.
In the period 1877-1897 the Republicans usually controlled the Senate.
But, the Democrats usually controlled the House of
Representatives.Because Democrats in that era never
voted in favor of civil-rights bills, this meant that to pass one
required the Republicans to control both the Senate and the
House.
So, when did the Republicans control the House of
Representatives? It appears that they controlled the House for
only three 2-years sessions:
1881-1883 Note: this term, Senate was evenly balaced
1889-1891
1895-1897
In this twenty-year period, the Republicans controlled the House for
only six years. And for the first two-year term the Senate was evenly
balanced. That's one reason why it was hard to pass laws enforcing
voting rights. Democrats voted consistently against such laws. AFAIK no
Democrat, not even one, ever voted in favor of a civil-rights law in the
period after Reconstruction.
See:
http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/congress.htm
(If you spot errors I made, please identify them.)
After the 1896 elections, this changed. From 1897 until 1911,
the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Why did they
not pass civil-rights laws?
This issue has surely been confronted squarely by some historian,
but I haven't the scholarship yet.
Perhaps the reason was federal court interpretations of
the 14th and 15th Amendments.
We can look later at those devastating court interpretations.
Wiregrass Willie
May 21, 2012, 10:45:53 AM5/21/12
to
On Sun, 20 May 2012 23:41:12 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>It's easy to see that the treatment of the freedmen after reconstruction
>was unjust. All you have to do is describe what was done to them. Now
>why wasn't the injustice curbed?
Of all the proper ways to handle abolition, the Federal government
never did consider a single one.
>In the period 1877-1897 the Republicans usually controlled the Senate.
I learned a little trivia recently while reading Kenneth Stampp's book
"Era of Reconstruction 1865-1877"
Once Reconstruction was over, the South actually gained political
power. Due to blacks being counted as a whole person rather than
3/5ths, the South picked up 15 seats in Congress after the 1870
census.
>But, the Democrats usually controlled the House of
>Representatives.Because Democrats in that era never
>voted in favor of civil-rights bills, this meant that to pass one
>required the Republicans to control both the Senate and the
>House.
Best I can tell, the people of the North never did not want blacks
to have full rights. And they were Republicans. They wanted
blacks to have the vote in the South. But only because they thought
it would hurt the white Southerners.
The chief Republican (Honest Abe) had promised the North early on that
they did not have to allow blacks to move North. By 1870, the North
was beginning to worry that they may have been lied to.
>Perhaps the reason was federal court interpretations of
>the 14th and 15th Amendments.
>
>We can look later at those devastating court interpretations.
Ah, yes. Plessey v Ferguson.
Actually I think keeping blacks less than citizens was a non-partisoan
issue in the 19th century.
I have a theory -- unproven -- that somewhere after the CW, the
government got together and agreed to let the Court decide any
unpopular issue -- so the politicians in the White House and the
Congress would not have to. They are still at it.
wrote:
>Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>It's easy to see that the treatment of the freedmen after reconstruction
>was unjust. All you have to do is describe what was done to them. Now
>why wasn't the injustice curbed?
never did consider a single one.
>In the period 1877-1897 the Republicans usually controlled the Senate.
"Era of Reconstruction 1865-1877"
Once Reconstruction was over, the South actually gained political
power. Due to blacks being counted as a whole person rather than
3/5ths, the South picked up 15 seats in Congress after the 1870
census.
>But, the Democrats usually controlled the House of
>Representatives.Because Democrats in that era never
>voted in favor of civil-rights bills, this meant that to pass one
>required the Republicans to control both the Senate and the
>House.
to have full rights. And they were Republicans. They wanted
blacks to have the vote in the South. But only because they thought
it would hurt the white Southerners.
The chief Republican (Honest Abe) had promised the North early on that
they did not have to allow blacks to move North. By 1870, the North
was beginning to worry that they may have been lied to.
>Perhaps the reason was federal court interpretations of
>the 14th and 15th Amendments.
>
>We can look later at those devastating court interpretations.
Actually I think keeping blacks less than citizens was a non-partisoan
issue in the 19th century.
I have a theory -- unproven -- that somewhere after the CW, the
government got together and agreed to let the Court decide any
unpopular issue -- so the politicians in the White House and the
Congress would not have to. They are still at it.
Hugh Lawson
May 21, 2012, 8:05:57 PM5/21/12
to
Wiregrass Willie <wiregrass_...@yahoo.com> writes:
[ snip ]
reconstruction.
[ snip ]
> Best I can tell, the people of the North never did not want blacks
> to have full rights. And they were Republicans. They wanted
> blacks to have the vote in the South. But only because they thought
> it would hurt the white Southerners.
Well, I think the northerners were thinking defensively. Once it became
clear to Republicans that they could control without the black vote in
the ex-rebel states, then protecting black political rights seemed less
urgent.
> Ah, yes. Plessey v Ferguson.
Plessey was in the 1890s. The federal courts started much earlier than
that. I'll get a presentation together on that.
HL
[ snip ]
> I learned a little trivia recently while reading Kenneth Stampp's book
> "Era of Reconstruction 1865-1877"
>
> Once Reconstruction was over, the South actually gained political
> power. Due to blacks being counted as a whole person rather than
> 3/5ths, the South picked up 15 seats in Congress after the 1870
> census.
On the power-politics side, this was an important cause of radical
> "Era of Reconstruction 1865-1877"
>
> Once Reconstruction was over, the South actually gained political
> power. Due to blacks being counted as a whole person rather than
> 3/5ths, the South picked up 15 seats in Congress after the 1870
> census.
reconstruction.
[ snip ]
> Best I can tell, the people of the North never did not want blacks
> to have full rights. And they were Republicans. They wanted
> blacks to have the vote in the South. But only because they thought
> it would hurt the white Southerners.
clear to Republicans that they could control without the black vote in
the ex-rebel states, then protecting black political rights seemed less
urgent.
> Ah, yes. Plessey v Ferguson.
that. I'll get a presentation together on that.
HL
0 new messages