Yankee Myth # 5 - Race Relations In The Old South

[SouthernByGrace]

YANKEE MYTH # 5

Race Relations In The Old South

OPENING COMMENTS

   No other issue in American History has been abused more than the history of African servitude in the South. People who dare to speak about slavery in a light other than that demanded by the Yankee myth makers will find themselves an outcast from modern "politically correct" society.
   From every part of Northern society there poured forth lies and distortions about the nature of Southern slavery and about the South in general. To the average person in the North, the South was a place of wicked, lazy, and ignorant people. A false notion of life down South was advanced as reality. This notion made it easy for the people of the North to rationalize any evil behavior in order to "save" the nation from Southern influence. All this was being done even though the North was as much involved in the slavery issue and was just as guilty of the actions the South had been accused of perpetrating. This hypocritical action of the Yankee Abolitionist killed any hope for Southern emancipationists in their efforts to bring a peaceful end to slavery. The Abolitionist view of the South magnified the cultural differences between the North and South until it became possible for the North to view Southerners as less than civilized human beings.

"... we jes' went on peaceful an' happy til de war come an' rooted ebery blessed thing up by de roots."
Charles Stewart, former slave, as cited in Harper's Magazine, "My Life as a Slave," Vol.LXIX, No. CCCCXIII, October 1884


   In this Yankee myth, let's take a look at the life and contributions of black men and women of the Old South. In doing so, I will call upon expert witnesses of life in the "slave days." I will include quotes from an official United States Document, The Slave Narratives, which I have mentioned a couple of times here on GBO. The narratives were obtained by the United States government during the Great depression. Testimonies from some of the last surviving slaves of the Old South will be used to give us an idea of their life under slavery and after Yankee-induced freedom. (Remember, the North wouldn't allow for any form of training of the slaves, to prepare them for freedom.) To collaborate their testimony I will also quote from the Official Records: War of the Rebellion, the official report of the United States relating to the War for Southern Independence. In the research of the slave narratives, I have noted an overwhelming body of evidence (more than 80%) in which only positive statements were made about the relationship between slaves and masters. Contrary to what most Yankees, as well as popular novelists and journalists, would have everyone believe, this relationship was very close and mutually respectful. Those who report on life at the mercy of brutal masters and the horrors of slavery are reporting, as evidenced here, on cases that were definitely in the minority (20% or less). I do not deny the brutality that happened in those cases, as they are backed up with evidence. My point here is to demonstrate that it was not anywhere near the level of what the Yankee myth makers have portrayed. In fact the cases of brutality and abuse are an extremely small minority.
   In looking at life under the slave system, Southerners do not pretend that such life was always good, or that masters were always just. Yes, there were cases of mistreatment and abuse by some masters. Just as there are some cases of sexual abuse of children by some parents. But just because we see abuse by some, that does not indicate that all or a majority are responsible for such activities. As we would not condemn all parents because some are abusive, neither would we accuse all slaveholders of intentional cruelty because a few were abusive. Those who trade in the sensational have cast a vile shadow upon many noble and decent people by blaming all for the sins of the few.
   
   In the following excerpts we can see how the ex-slaves tell us of their feelings toward slavery, Yankees, freedom, and the Confederacy. These are direct quotes and I have included the language as spoken by them and recorded by the interviewers.

SLAVERY

Simon Phillips, AL
"People has the wrong idea of slavery days. We was treated good. My massa never laid a hand on me the whole time I was wid him... Sometime we loanded da massa money when he was hard pushed."

D. Davis, Marvell, AR
"... de fust of ebery week he [the master] gib each an' ebery  man or family a task fer to do dat week an' atter dat task is done den dey is fru fer dat week an' dey can tend da patches whut he would gib dem for ta raise whut dey want on, an' whut da slabes raised on dese patches, whut-sum-eber (whatsoever) hit would be, taters or cotton or whut, dey own it, an' dey could sell it an' hab da money for deyselves ta buy whut dey want."

Elijah Henry Hopkins, Little Rock, AR
" I was fed just like I was one of the [master's] children. They even done put me to bed with them. You see, this discrimination on color wasn't as bad then as it is now. They handled you as a slave but they didn't discriminate  against you on account of color like folks do now. In slavery times, a poor white man was worse off than a nigger." (Direct quote)

YANKEES AND FREEDOM

Hannah Irwin, AL
"I suppose dem Yankees wuz alright in dere place, but dey neber belong in de South. Why, Miss, one of 'em axe me what wuz dem white flowers in de fiel'? You'd think dat a sojur wid all dem decorations on hisself woulda knowed a fiel' a cotton! An' as for dey a-settin me free! Miss, us niggers on de Bennett place wuz free as soon as we wuz bawn! I always been free!"

Cora Gillam, AR
"I tell you lady, if the rough element from the North had stayed out of the South the trouble of Reconstruction would not have happened... they tried to excite the colored against their white friends. The white folks was still kind to them what had been their slaves. They would have helped them get started. I know that. I always say that if the South could of been left alone to adjust itself both white and colored would have been better off."

Betty Curlett, Hazen AR
"When Mars Daniel come home [from the war] he went to my papa's house and says, 'John, you free.' He says, 'I been free as I wanner be whah I is.' He went to my grandpa's house and says, 'Toby, you are free!' He raised up and says, 'You brought me here from Africa and North Carolina and I goiner stay wid you as long as ever I get sompin to eat. You gotter look after me!' Mars Daniel say, 'Well I ain't runnin' nobody off my place as long as they behave.' Purtnigh every nigger set tight til he died of the old sets. Mars Daniel say to grandpa,'Toby, you ain't my nigger.' Grandpa raise up and say, 'I is too!' "

THE CONFEDERACY

Gus Brown, Richmond, VA
"The Yankees didn't beat us, we wuz starved out!... I am a Confederate veteran..."

Sam Ward, Pine Bluff, AR
"I never did care much for politics, but I always been for the South. I love the Southland."

James Gill, Marvel, AR
"... all dem good times ceasted atter a while when de War come and de Yankees started all dere debbilment [devilment]. Us was Confederates all de while... But de Yankees, dey didn't know dat we was Confederates...

  The statements of these former slaves clearly show that many blacks very actively supported the Southern cause during the war.  The modest statements of these people speak volumes about how they felt about there position in life at that time. Elijah Hopkins made the statement that, "In slavery times a poor white man was worse off than a nigger." It is clear from this statement that this slave did not feel as if he were at the Bottom of Southern society.
   The Abilitionist concept of Southern society placed the master on top and the slave on the bottom of society. Remember in an earlier post, I wrote of the social ladder and the social circle? In reality, the structure of Southern society was not vertical, but rather circular. Each person could feel as if he or she were a little ahead of someone else in society. The white master felt better off than the white middle class, the slave felt better off than the poor white, and the white felt better off than the slave. Each group sensed that there was a group ahead and behind them in society as if they were standing in a circle. This allowed each group to respect another group without the fear of losing its place in society. Thus arose the closeness that has been reported by the Yankee about antebellum Southern Society.

Subsequent parts to this discussion will include the following segments; each in a separate post in this thread:
* Northern treatment of Southern blacks.
* Jefferson Davis' view of slavery.
* Black child in the Confederate White House.
* Blacks' defense of the South
* Bill Yopp - former slave and Confederate soldier 

DEO VINDICE

[Ga.windbreak]

Great idea for a thread SBG.

I will say some things that, I feel, some will take as a justification or excuse for slavery. That is why I've put the first quote where it is because, I feel if we are ever to get past this judgement of eachother we have to know where it started in our history, IMHO.

http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-02-06.htm

One of the things we have to recognize is that slavery existed virtually everywhere. It existed throughout the Mediterranean, for example. Slavery was thousands of years old by the time the colonists in America established slavery. There was no need to justify slavery because the Spanish had slaves; the Portuguese had slaves. In other words, slavery was part of the normal state of affairs of the colonizing nations. It was part of their world.

Not only was it thousands of years old it encompassed people of all colors and beliefs.

After a while, slavery became identified with Africans. Blackness and slavery went together in the popular mind. And this is why we can say that race is a product of the popular mind, because it was this consciousness that blackness and slavery were bound together, that gave people the idea that Africans were a different kind of people.

Think of the early 17th century planter who wrote to the trustees of his company and he said, "Please don't send us any more Irishmen. Send us some Africans, because the Africans are civilized and the Irish are not." But 100 years later, the Africans become increasingly brutalized.

Our founding fathers had a real chance to break free from the European influence when they wrote the words "All men are created equal" but they blew it big time because of the practice of slavery. Its been a battle ever since. Then we come to the popular notion put forth by the winner of the war that freeing the slave, (Black man) that the Southern white wanted to have remain a slave, was the major/only reason for it. Then you add the reconstruction aftermath and the systematic separation of the races, not only the African but also the Indian and anyother race seen to be a threat to the U.S., and here we are today.

[SouthernByGrace]

Some good points, Gw.

"...all men are created equal."

We cannot look at this phrase as it relates to us today. In order to understand how people in the 19th century perceived this we have to go back to the Founding Fathers, many of whose children lived through the War for Southern Independence; Robert E. Lee being the son of "Light Horse" Harry Lee, for example. Even as described through the eyes of Jefferson Davis, knowing his deeply religious beliefs.

These people read this phrase, not as we do today, but in the light of their fathers (founders) in that saying, "all men are created equal," they did not mean this to be taken literally, but that all men had equal rights under the law, and in the opportunities afforded them, but they could not be equal in society. Once a black man was free and educated, he was able to conduct business as well as his former master, to own property and thrive. Society saw him differently once he had this status.
I use blacks in this example simply because it relates to this thread so easily. In reality, poor whites were treated in the exact same way, if not worse. A poor white man could no more disgrace a wealthy one and get away with it than a black man could. The whole thing revolved around the social aspects of 19th century living. The Golden Rule applied here more than people know. Everybody had a place in the social circle and they were expected to stay in their place unless their circumstances changed, then their place changed.
Of course, today we read "...all men are created equal," and it IS taken literally, because society changed.

[Ga.windbreak]

We cannot look at this phrase as it relates to us today. In order to understand how people in the 19th century perceived this we have to go back to the Founding Fathers,

I agree 100%. I feel we really do a disservice to our forefathers by the fact that most jump to the assumption that slavery and racism were one and the same in the 17th thru the mid 19th century. That clearly is NOT the case. They walked to the beat of a different drummer. Dueling was legal back then, a whole different mind set, if you will. One man almost beat another to death with his cane on the floor of Congress while others were called out. Most today would run for cover or hide in the closet!

[Gary G]

I really enjoyed your posts gentlemen! I went back and read them again. It sparked a memory from memory from years ago. I was the principal of a rural junior high school. We had a young black boy move down here from up north. He was very disruly and undisciplined. I suspended him for a rule violation and told him that he must bring his parents with him to be readmitted. His great grandmother came with him next day. I told her what he had done and she replied that he had been a problem for her too. These were her words, "sometimes he acts just like a wild african". Now this expression puzzled me, but I didn't say anything.

A couple weeks later and we went through the same thing again. So, I got the chance to ask the g-grandmother about this expression. She said that she was raised by her grandmother, that her grandmother had been a slave, and she got the expression from her. It seems that the slaves born here would refer to the slaves that came off a boat as being wild africans sometimes. It seems, their opinion of them wasn't very high when they acted up. Anyway, this was a very nice woman and she didn't express any resentment of slavery that I could perceive and as some do today. She didn't express slavery as a confrontational relationship. That being the case, I expect that her way of seeing things came from her ex-slave grandmother. I enjoyed being around her.

I also found out that this old lady had walked over three miles to come and talk with me. She had to be eighty years old. I saw to it that she never had to do that again.

[SouthernByGrace]

Great story, Gary.
From everything I've read and from the elderly people I've talked to, I have come to the conclusion that Southern racism exists today simply because it was incited after the War for Southern Independence by the Yankees. They were able to turn some blacks against whites and that hate or distrust has been handed down from generation to generation. I feel like that Southern blacks who are decent, hard working people are descended from those who remained close to whites after the war. And by maintaining those close ties, such as described in the Ex-Slave Narratives, whites were more open to helping them in their lives as free people. They were in a much better position to learn the much needed social skills to eke out a descent living. Would you want to help a former slave who constantly disrespected you? I would be a lot less likely to give a helping hand to somebody like that.

SBG

[SouthernByGrace]

PART 2

NORTHERN TREATMENT OF SOUTHERN BLACKS

   The former Alabama slave, Hanna Irwin, clearly points out her feelings about the Yankee invader : "I suppose dem Yankees wuz alright in dere place, but dey neber belong in de South." Many believe that the Yankee was the great liberator of the black people. Yet, according to the Official Records: War of the rebellion, nothing could be further from the truth. What the Yankee brought to the blacks was not liberation, but thievery, rape and murder.
   In a letter from J.T.K. Howard to J.W. Brook, who subsequently forwarded it to United States secretary of war Simon Cameron, Hayward described how Northern troops were "...committing rapes on the negroes and such like things... These things are not exaggerated by me,... and no punishment, or none of any account, has been meted out to them." In Alabama, Yankee colonel John B. Turchin allowed his men to do as they pleased in the town of Athens. The official records show he allowed his men to "...plunder and pillage the inhabitants...They attempted an indecent outrage on her [the mistress of the plantation] servant girl. A part of this brigade went to the plantation... and quartered in the negro huts for weeks, debauching the females. Several soldiers committed rape on the person of a colored girl..." Colonel Turchin's acts were so appaulling that he was court-martialled and convicted for his crimes on July 7, 1862. Clearly his conviction had no ill effect upon his career as a Union officer. One month after his conviction, he was offered a promotion to the rank of Brigadier General of United States Volunteer Troops. He served in that capacity until Oct. 4, 1864. Even after the fall of Richmond, General Grant was notified that "A number of cases of atrocious rape by these men [Yankees] have already occurred. Their influence on the colored population is also reported to be bad."
   Throughout the Official Records we can find reports of such activity by the Yankee "liberators." Not only did the blue-coats commit heinous acts upon the black women of the South, but their actions against the black men were equally hideous.
   It seems to be in vogue today to talk about Black Union soldiers. What is not often told is how many of these men were compelled to become soldiers. In a letter from Gen. John A. Logan (U.S.) to Gen. Grant, Logan states, "A major of colored troops is here with his party capturing negroes, with or without their consent. ...They are being conscripted." In May of 1862 Secretary of the Treasury Salmon Chase received the following message.  "The negroes were sad... Sometimes whole Plantations, learning what was going on, ran off to the woods for refuge... This mode of [enlistment by] violent seizure is repugnant." The next day at the same plantation the following was reported:

On some plantations the wailing and screaming were loud and the women threw themselves in despair on the ground. On some plantations the people took to the woods and were hunted up by the soldiers... I doubt if the recruiting service in this country has ever been attended with such scenes before.

   Not since they experienced the degradations of the slave hunter in Africa had this race of people known such treatment. And all of this was being done by those who pretended to be friends of the slaves! Even after the blacks were placed in the Union army, they were treated worse than they had been on the plantation. A black soldier named Sam Marshall was arrested for trying to visit his family. The following is an account of what happened to him.
"About a dozen of the soldiers did escort him... they tied him to a tree, and stripping him to the waist, lacerated his back with a cowskin, the marks of which Sam will carry to his grave."
Over in Virginia, Gen. Innis N. Palmer (U.S.) wrote gen. Butler in 1864 the following:
The negroes will not go voluntarily, so I am obliged to force them... The matter of collecting the colored men for laborers has been one of some difficulty... They must be forced to go... this may be considered a harsh measure (not to mention illegal), but we must not stop at trifles.

This letter clearly shows how the Yankees had to resort to force in order to obtain the black soldiers they wanted. This attitude, as displayed in the letter, reveals what little respect these Union men had for the rights of the black men or for legality of any type. Once the Constitution, and the rights it is designed to protect, are disregarded, it becomes very easy to be a tyrant, and this is as true today as it was during The War For Southern Independence.
   The preceding statements are but a very few which can be cited as proof of Northern disregard for the rights of Southern blacks. For a complete review of the brutal activities of the United States forces throughout the South, against not only the blacks but also against white civilians, I would suggest reading The Uncivil War: Union Army and Navy Excesses in the Official Records. Its information is derived from the Official Records: War of the Rebellion, the official report of the war generated by the federal government.
   As I have already said, the relations between master and slave varied widely throughout the South. Unfortunately, most people are taught only about the "Simon Legree" or "Uncle Tom's Cabin" type of relationship. Human nature being what it is, no doubt there were some such men in the Old South AND in the North. But what about the other side of the story? What about the Masters who did their utmost to care for and to improve the lives of their slaves?
Jefferson Davis was just such a slave master.

That will be up next, as Part 3 in our review of... Race Relations of the Old South

DEO VINDICE

[littlecanoe]

You fella's have brought up some interesting points concerning how each group of people in the south viewed each other and how there was a system in place.  This is hard for us to understand in our modern day when the "all men are created equal" statement has come to mean something quite different than originally intended.

I'm reminded of a conversation that I've previously referenced concerning the idea that the Rich Slave Owners of the south had to deceive the poor whites to fight in their war.  I'm now led to wonder how much negative propaganda led northern lads to fight for something that was a might different than what they had been led to believe.  You never here that point mentioned in polite circles do you?

[Graybeard]

I grew up in the "separate but equal" phase of the deep south in the late 40s and 50s.

In those days blacks rode at the back of the bus but still on the same bus we did and if the bus was really crowded it was not so uncommon to have blacks and whites next to each other on the bus in either front or back. They weren't turned away without a ride if no seats near the back were vacate nor were whites if none in the front were open.

We had separate schools, separate restrooms and separate drinking fountains. They had their hang outs and we had ours. It actually all worked out pretty well until some damn yankees came down and started stirring things up.

We didn't socialize but we all got along pretty well when in the company of others. I don't think we ever used the word RACE in those days other than when one of us tried to outrun another either on foot or our bicycles. We understood the color of our skin was different but really didn't think of it as race only a color difference. Folks got along or it sure seemed that way to me.

There sure weren't gangs and gang wars and turf battles and drugs like there is totay back then.

[SouthernByGrace]

How correct you are, littlecanoe.
As you can tell from the letters from the Northern generals to their superiors, the notion they had of slaves rising up to overthrow their masters never happened. I have read personal letters from everyday soldiers saying the same thing. In fact, several of them actually say "We have been totally misled as to the conditions of these people. They seem to actually share a close bond with their masters, almost a kinship. The women throw themselves on the ground weeping and wailing at the mere mention of us taking them from the plantation. The whites seem genuinely concerned for their welfare. This is not in keeping with what we have been told, no sir, not in the least. We were led to expect nothing less than the slaves running up and demanding that we take them with us, and the truth is, they refuse to go."
Each one is not verbatim to this but they all say the same thing. And you are right. We are never told of these kinds of things. No one can show me a single letter or document where the Southerner is trying to fight to keep slavery in place. On the other hand, there are almost an infinite number of them mentioning gaining their Independence and/or preserving their rights. And just as many talk about the Defense of their State, and their Families, but Never to protect slavery. Not One.
It stands to reason, that if the North wanted to run their propaganda machine Against the South, they would run it at full throttle and use it from every angle possible to convince their troops of their "righteous might."
There are those on this forum (not you, lc) who would berate such evidence as one-sided and not being "studied" from both sides. To them I would say, "I just gave examples of both sides to this story, each coming from the people that were there. Where is YOUR evidence?"

littlecanoe, I am proud of you for taking a serious interest in learning the truth of all this. I've seen you look at our thought provoking posts and really study them from every angle. Your conclusions are your Own and not anything any of us have tried to "convince" you of. As for me, that is my full intention, to have someone such as you look at the facts and come to their own realizations of what Really happened back then and how it still affects Southerners to this day.
Any man would have a hard row to hoe, going against first hand testimony from the very people that lived it, on both sides, as mentioned here. What these men wrote about is not conjecture. It is the truth accidentally being preserved. Truth is Absolute by nature. If any part of it is changed, it is no longer the truth.



DEO VINDICE

[SouthernByGrace]

You bring up a very good point, Graybeard. I graduated high school in 1984, well after the "separate but equal" thing, but a very interesting memory I have is that, even though we were integrated, in the classes where we chose our own seats (they weren't assigned) the blacks re-segregated themselves within the same classroom. It was as if it was a natural occurrence to us. We mingled with them, took shop together, worked side by side in chemistry class, etc., but in other classes, they separated from us without thinking about it. We all got along really well. There is always going to be a bad apple in every bunch, white and black, but none of us ever related that to race.
A couple of black guys come to mind who really stood out from the rest, who were best friends and almost like brothers. They both joined the military after graduation and everybody we went to school with refers to them as two of the finest people they know, me included. Race had nothing to do with it, other than the human race. We were raised not to see it any other way.
My generation, just like yours, we always got along really well until somebody from up North came down and started stirring things up.

Perfect example:
   I live only a few minutes from Louisville, GA, which was Georgia's first capital. Right smack in the middle of town, between the streets, there still stands the original Slave Market House, built in the early 1700's. It is a wooden structure that closely resembles a picnic shelter at a State park. To say it is truly an Historical showpiece would be an understatement. The fact that a wooden structure from that era has been meticulously preserved in its original setting is a matter of profound pride of everybody for miles around, white and black. Everyone sees it as a part of their heritage.
   About 25 years ago, a young black man (in his early 30's) who was born in Louisville, but had moved to New Jersey as a child, returned for his first visit since leaving. He took in the sites as most "tourists" do. But he immediately took exception to the Market House. He became so outraged that such a thing still existed and the local blacks weren't "up in arms" about it. He went on and on about how it was a degrading reminder of their past and he actually started a campaign to have the Market House removed. Not to be moved to a museum but to be destroyed! He brought in Northern lawyers and Northern Legislators to aid him in his efforts. He petitioned the local city counsel and county commissioners, and even the State of Georgia to have the Market House destroyed. The locals told him that since he was not a citizen of Louisville or the state of Georgia, he had no say so in the matter. The State had a stronger position on it, the fact that the Market House was listed on the Registry of Historic Landmarks, it couldn't be touched, without removing it from that distinguished list, which would require a State Legislative Act. (There has Never been a listing removed in the State's history) To say the least, racial tensions were running high. Several younger black residents were starting to agree with him.
   Finally, after about two months, a group of elderly black citizens of Louisville and Jefferson County called a meeting with this man. They spent about 5 hours behind closed doors with him. In that time, they were able to convince him of the historical importance of the Market House. One woman, who was 102 years old, explained to him that her father was sold to a local farmer from this very slave market and it was the only structure where he had been that still existed. Others gave similar touching stories of why this structure HAD to remain. Many recalled visiting the Market House on special occasions to remind themselves of just how far they had come. They explained to him that they had never been offended by the Market House, just the opposite. They were very proud of it because it was a part of who they are. They made this man so ashamed of denying his true heritage that within weeks, he started a preservation society to PROTECT the Market House!
   The moral of the story is, this young man had not been taught of his heritage while living up North. He had been taught to revile any semblance of slavery and not to accept it as part of his people's past. The local elders showed him that if he erased any part of his heritage, what was left was not worth remembering. He went from being outraged at the site of the Market House, to embracing it as a true piece of History. He now openly declares his Pride in his Southern heritage.
And it was a handful of local Blacks who saved the Market House.

DEO VINDICE

[Ga.windbreak]

Which just goes to prove the old addage "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Great stories Greybeard and SBG. lc you are coming right along; I join with SBG in saying that we are happy you are among us.

[Dee]

I read this the other day, but cannot remember where. It is said that Jackson owned slaves, but did he? Also, Jackson contributed EVERY WEEK, money to aid in a Bible study for blacks. Also, did not Lee FREE his slaves (all of them) several years BEFORE the war?
I grew up in the 50s and 60s. As children we played together. My grandmother, and mother, picked cotton next to blacks while us kids played under the shade of the cotton wagons.
It was the public schools that taught us there was a difference, with federal government provided history books. The federal government has held out the hand of UNTRUTH since the 1860s that it, the federal government is SOLEY RESPONSIBLE for setting the black free.
When the northern reconstructionist came down to TAKE CHARGE of the south for the benefit of the industrialized north, it FED THE NOTION to the black, that the southerner was a rouge, and the northerner was a freedom fighter, when it was quite the opposite.

[Ga.windbreak]

Dee I know from writings from RE Lee's personal slaves that they were freed some 10 years before the war. Having said that his wife inherited slaves from her father when he died (in 1857) and Lee kept them for the 5 years that the will called for so that he could give his children (her father's grandchildren) a better life. They were freed at the end of the 5 year period stipulated by that will.

As for Jackson, he may have, but I know that you are right in stating that he aided in a Bible study group for Blacks and was very much for their being given their freedom.

Right again, it seems that the feds, black and white, make to much money because of pitting us against eachother to ever let it die. Its up to each of us to kill it.

[littlecanoe]

Gents,

I appreciate the kudo's but I'm just a fella that likes to know why.  I used to drive my dad crazy with that.  Even after my 2nd year.  I've always wanted to know what makes things tick.

It was only a few years ago that I started rethinking the War issue.  I started wondering where we started losing our states rights and quickly realized that the dear Mr. Lincoln, that most revered son birthed not 50 miles from where I sit, was likely responsible for beginning or maybe just accelerating that erosion. 

You guys have greatly aided in my education and I encourage you to post as much as you can.  Give me more on the old ways and relations.

However, please contribute to the post I've just started on modern/post modern relations.  It can add depth to discussions through the depth of what time reveals.

[Ga.windbreak]

Gents,

I appreciate the kudo's but I'm just a fella that likes to know why.  I used to drive my dad crazy with that.  Even after my 2nd year.  I've always wanted to know what makes things tick.

It was only a few years ago that I started rethinking the War issue.  I started wondering where we started losing our states rights and quickly realized that the dear Mr. Lincoln, that most revered son birthed not 50 miles from where I sit, was likely responsible for beginning or maybe just accelerating that erosion. 

You guys have greatly aided in my education and I encourage you to post as much as you can.  Give me more on the old ways and relations.

However, please contribute to the post I've just started on modern/post modern relations.  It can add depth to discussions through the depth of what time reveals.

lc do you not think they are one and the same? Ask yourself this, which area of the country has the most trouble? I read somewhere the other day that hate crimes against whites was the second largest target group in the U.S. according to the FBI.

If blacks were truly mistreated as slaves why did/do we get along so well in the Southern states?

[littlecanoe]

Well,  I'd say LA.  West coast.  Is there another state/city where race riots have been such a recurring problem?

A great question to explore would be when did racial tensions become a problem?  Is there a point in history where some catalyst made this an issue or was it a slowly building pressure?  Were these tensions regional or sub-regional?

[Graybeard]

From my perspective race problems only began when in the 50s and then on into the 60s the outsiders came down to the south and stirred up problems that didn't exist before. Until then it seemed to me at least there was no such thing as racial problems or trouble. Oh from time to time individuals were a problem but not on the scale it moved to after the outsiders stirred things up. I think if you need a specific name and time it would be Martin Luther King and his rise to power.

[ironglow]

  Having been born and for the most part brought up in the North, I must admit that there are many that do not know about the real history of which you speak; but not all (by a long shot) believe that way. Consider how even today, there are some who decided to study and probe beyond the "party propaganda" and use reasoning power to find out about the candidates in the last election..then, there are many who get their total information from places like "Saturday Night Live".
   I have lived in the South (mostly Texas) for about 6-7 years in the mid 50s and the 60s to early 70s. I found it remarkable that the people of the South for the most part worked side by side regardless of race, whereas the North did not have overt racism, they deftly practice ignoring the blacks among them as much as they could. One very different demographic;  unlike the South, the black population of the North is almost totally in urban settings.
   There was some overlap among races before "the War on Poverty messed things all up. With the "War on Poverty", it soon became evident that keeping Dad around the house was an "expensive luxury". With Dad out of the house Mom collected a bigger check, and since the Dad felt he was no more than a heavy anchor on the family..he shook off any ideas of "personal responsibility"..the govt already considered him that way anyway, so "if you have the name, may as well play the game"..is apparently what many believed.
  Things went from bad to worse with no father figure and soon there was virtually no way out of the ghetto.
  The South is unjustly treated by some, but many have travelled enough to know better.
   Personally, I think one thing which produced great anger in the South, was the private black armies that were raised by carpetbaggers and used in a bullying manner. Perhaps the Klan was birthed by these cruelties..
   Just my $.02 , you can keep it or junk it!.

[SouthernByGrace]

Some very good points there, ironglow.
And Welcome to the "War Room", as I call it.
It is good to see Northerners who have seen for themselves some of what we talk about here. Just as you found it remarkable to see Black & White Southerners working side by side, this is an everyday thing for us and we can't imagine it any other way.
As we are so fond of saying down here in the deep South, Come on in and stay a while. 
You never know, we might make a Yankee transplant outta you yet.
Thanks for joining us. Hope to see you here more often.

[Graybeard]

The mention of the clan by Ironglow brings to mind another great misunderstanding of that group of folks. In my early days in the late 40s and early 50s the clan was quite prominant locally and folks who "didn't do right" had a real justified fear of them.

It wasn't a black or white thing for the most part in those days it was a more of a vigilante thing where if you did bad by your family or the community they'd give you a warning. If a man was a wife beater or abused his kids or was a drunk and too sorry to work he'd be paid a late night visit and have a cross burned in his yard.

If was not a wise thing to do to ignore a cross burned in your yard. It was your ONE warning to get your act together as the next visit you'd get some serious physical reminders of your proper place in life. It wasn't that uncommon that they'd next pull a man out and use leather straps on him. It didn't generally take a third visit for folks to get the message.

Yes later the clan did get involved in race relations but really NOT until after the northerners came down and stirred things up. Until then it was as likely a white man as to be a black they paid a visit to.

I recall vividly one night I was next door at the neighbor's house across the street from my house. We were the last two houses on a dead end street. Anyone coming down that street ended up turning around in our driveway. There must have been 100 or more of them all dressed in white with their hoods on came down to the end of the street and took their turns turning around there in our driveway and the area between the two houses across from us. We were the only three houses on that side of the ditch with a wide bridge to cross to get to us.

I never did hear who they had visited that night or for what reason but there was only one black family in that entire community and they had not gone up there so it wasn't a black family they paid a visit that night.

[SouthernByGrace]

Graybeard, my father used to tell us the exact same thing about the Klan. He always made it clear that the "original" reason for the Klan was to make sure a man who was abusing his family or who wouldn't work to support them was punished for it. The man was taught a lesson for his laziness and he learned the hard way that his wife and children weren't punching bags.

My father also made it clear to us that the "original" Klan was NOT a racist organization. Like you said, it was just as likely to be a white man being taught the "lesson" as a black man. He said that, as a young man, he had only seen one black man get paid a visit, while he had witnessed 8 or 10 white men have their "knowledge" increased.
He told us that an older man who had been a friend of his in his younger years, had told him about a few men from Chicago that had joined the local Klan and things changed almost overnight. This man didn't agree with targeting black men just because they were black, he wanted to stick to the original methods, which paid no attention to race. The Northerners eventually took over the whole thing and men like my father's friend were forced out. My father said the man died believing the old ways were right and proper, and the new ways were evil at its worst.

So it sounds like if the same things happened in Georgia that happened in Texas, and around the same time, I have to agree with you, that it was the Northern element that brought the race issue into play, and not the Southerners.

[williamlayton]

I will disagree, again.
The clan was formed too keep the freed slaves in line and separated.
I know most would like too view this as isolated, but  it was not.
Worked side by side, sure, I have dug ditches, laid plank road, and ate and played with them. I was always taught that they were not equal in any way too a white person. treat them respectfully too a point but never let them feel they are equal or too show any equality.
This comes from those who were Alabama and Georgia.
Now you folks can deny it too the grave but I don't think you are treating this conversation honestly.
It, these feelings, mores, and attitudes came directly form the era we discuss.
Were they segregated too the South. No! It was a general attitude that any of any other region of the world were of less in worth than you. Wop, Spic, Check, Dago were and still are terms, not of endearment, aimed at another group.
This was the makeup of this melting pot nation. It was the same in Europe.
this was the dilemma of OUR society and it was pulled in all directions. It came too a head with slavery--the rest of the population being somewhat able too sperate by regions.
IMO. This slavery thing came too a head when Lincoln determined that all men had the right too quit a job and move on if he so desired.
He knew not or had not a plan too handle it but his solution was as much a question when he said "root hog or die."
Blessings

[Graybeard]

WL I really don't know what your problem is but the problem is YOURS.

Are you really so blinded by the liberal BS crap fed you in college or do you just not understand what the world really is/was like? Your line is growing old here.

Perhaps in your tiny little part of the world it once was as you say tho I suspect your memory is just clouded on that from those drugs you so freely admit using long ago. But the world as you see it is not the real world. You NOT us are the one lacking honesty in your postings and ranting of the yankee version of history.

Take off those rose colored glasses.

[Ga.windbreak]

I disagree, well of course you do, that is nothing new here. As Greybeard just pointed out your line is growing old here. You seem to not want to bring anything to these post but negativity without any substance.

No! It was a general attitude that any of any other region of the world were of less in worth than you. Wop, Spic, Check, Dago were and still are terms, not of endearment, aimed at another group.

I've never heard any of this name calling save from the lips of a Northerner/racist. Why bring it up here other than to hurt feelings and upset others?

You seem to think you know the true feelings of the KKK from the 1860's on, have you been a member?

[Dee]

You guys are wasting your time on william. He is unreachably right. If you don't agree with him, then you are wrong. This like the Bible Study is beginning to look like "a good place to be from" because of william. He is nothing but contention. You will NEVER make a point with him. It is like you didn't make one. I am growing tired of the distraction.
I believe him to be an example of Proverbs Chapter 18 verse 6. He never seems to get it, and he never seems willing to drop it. He wants the last lick, and he gets it.
If you ignore him, his posts come up on someone else's, and you have to go back and read'em to understand what's going on. If you don't ignore them, then you have to wade thru his and everyone else's trying to weigh in on his non-sense. It never ends.
It is the Bible Study forum with different topics. Never ending condescending redundancy.

[ironglow]

  Hey guys;
     I should like to defend William here..  Being as he doesn't see something as I or someone else does, doesn't mean he is evil or even wrong.
 We all have different experiences in life and different ways of relating them. Perhaps William saw some things I didn't, so that is where we may differ.
   Here again, in the Bible study being monitor of the site, he does start some threads, which keeps the board going good. I have found him to be one of the least dogmatic, least argumentative individuals on the board. At least, that is my opinion.
  Having done some woods-walking and plinking with Wm, I find him to be a gentleman. I wish we could all sit down for a cup of Joe some time, I just believe these small differences would largely disappear.
   Still, I must admit there are many things I like about the South, which leads me to ask;..Can I on this board safely admit that I have admiration for Robert E. Lee, Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Stonewall Jackson.. all three, each in their own way?

[SouthernByGrace]

Hey ironglow, and MERRY CHRISTMAS !!

You ain't talking about OUR William are you?   Naahh... can't be...

   Nobody here has ever said William is Evil OR Wrong. All we have ever asked of him is to show source material of ANY kind, OTHER than his opinion, which he refuses to do. What wl sees or believes is of no relevance here without references from where he gets his information. If he wants to start a few threads on opinions, let him. I'd get in on 'em. But wait, if he did that, he couldn't always be the only one who is right. Because with opinions, nobody's right OR wrong. I don't think he could handle That.   
   Wait a minute... William... not argumentative?  I never knew That?! I guess everyone else in this forum is delusional, at best, if that's the case... Ah-Hemmm... have you ever read any of his posts here?
   I'd Love to get together with everyone here for a cup of Joe one day, but with OUR William, I could stick a thermometer in the coffee to see how hot it is, to discover it was boiling at 212*, and he would argue that the coffee itself wasn't really hot, it was just the water molecules were a little excited, and I'd be wrong for ever thinking such a thing like a cup of coffee could actually be hot. ... and all while I'm SHOWING him the thermometer... ... but he studied it somewhere, but he don't know where, but he did, and that makes him right, and me (and everyone else) wrong. Shame on me for doing him like that...   I need to just put my thermometer back up.   I mean, his OPINION is sooo much more convincing that my PROOF. What was I thinking?
   Yes, you can safely admit here that there are certain things you admire about Anyone, including Ole Dis-Honest Abe. Not Every bone in his body was corrupt and evil... just Most of 'em.


MERRY CHRISTMAS William... Sincerely,
SBG

[Ga.windbreak]

ironglow,
To my knowledge no one here dislikes or has bad feelings for wl and I have said the same to him. I get the feeling that he doesn't believe that this is so and I say that because of the change in his attitude right after our disagreement about Sherman. I, personally, enjoy a good spirited debate and we used to have them, wl and I, but of late he has made it a personal thing and that is wrong.

As SBG says start some opinion threads, I have asked that of him also. Yet I see none? All I see of late is I'm right and you are wrong and it is clothed in a condescending manner.

Will the real wl come on down, we want you back, Merry Christmas. wl

Now back to the show!!

[williamlayton]

HUMMMM.
I have told the truth. You do not believe and ask refrence. I have told you that you need too dig it out as I have done . I have given you facts that, with the net today, you an acesss the same information I have had too go to libraries and dig out.
I have done personal interviews with folks around this part of the world. I have oral history from my grandparents of that era.
Now, and I am sure this will get deleted, you boys may want too believe that race relations in the old South and thru the 1950's was OK and they were happy with their lot---That is not the truth.
Blessings