 |
| |
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:30
|
|
At the risk of being trolled, insulted and shouted at by neo-Confederates on Apolyton, I decided to take the plunge -- again. 
1) Yes, Slowwhand is obviously right in that a minority of white Southerners owned slaves in antebellum America.
But this is only part of the truth -- an oversimplification. This very minority of the planter elite managed throughout antebellum American history, to minimize changes towards more democratic reprsentative state governments -- the same progress being made in the Northern states was not as strong as in the Southern states. The planter elite established and maintained their form of underrepresentation around the interest of preserving their economic and political power over the people. And part of their plan was to preserve and even expand slavery.
And remember that this minority of slave owners by 1860, owned four million blacks as slaves -- a huge number of people held in life-long bondage.
2) Slowwhand was stating only part of the truth in regards to the Ku Klux Klan -- of course Ku Klux Klan members were resentful of Northerners and Southern Unionists ruling the different Southern states after Radical Reconstruction took over from Presidential Reconstruction.
And yes -- the Ku Klux Klan started out at a more low-key level through bullying and scare tactics against blacks and Southern Unionists rather than outright political terror and violence.
However, the Ku Klux Klan grew out of its original function. It changed into a political terrorist organization for the Democratic party during Reconstruction. Ku Klux Klan members disrupted ballot voting through intimidation, physical assaults, murder, and ballot box stuffing -- and other clubs and individuals on their own, carried out similar acts. The Ku Klux Klan by this time was bent on restoring white supremacy as they knew it, through racial violence and political terror.
3) There were "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags" who were corrupt throughout Reconstruction -- these specific individuals never deserved any political offices they held. Instead of attempting to improve the conditions of their respective state, these corrupt politicians sucked the resources and what little money was available, away from essential programs, for their own selfish gains.
However, there were other "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags" who sincerely wanted to improve the state governments of the South. They wanted to do away with the old regime that relied on undemocratic forms of representation in order to preserve the economic interests of the planter elite. Instead, these "carpetbaggers" and scalawags envisioned more democratic forms of representation in the Southern states that would include all men regardless of race.
These individuals also sought to establish public schools, new hospitals, stronger enforcement against voting/ballot fraud, and poor houses that would benefit Southerners of both races.
4) The failure of Reconstruction came about due to a multitude of factors, some which include:
a) political and racial violence through organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan
b) those individual "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags" who were actually corrupt and greedy -- don't lump the legitimate state politicians with the corrupt ones
d) the waning interest of an increasing number of Republican party leaders in the issues of racial equality in favor of economic issues, and the disgust with the seemingly endless charade in the Southern states -- so the Republicans began in the late nineteenth century to embrace white supremacy in the spirit of reconciliation and reunion with white Southerners
The failure of Reconstruction cannot fall onto only one group of people, nor can it all be shoved onto the South for its failure -- it's more complicated than that, as I alluded to above.
Oh, one last thing -- because I TRY my best to be objective about the history of the Civil War and Reconstruction, does not mean that I hate white Southerners.
So please, no need to insult me because you disagree with what I have stated above.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
So, why was it ever instituted in the first place, then? |
It made economic sense at the time, particularly in large plantations dominated by one or two crops. Slaves could be quartered on a small part of the land, they could grow food crops for themselves and the overseers and owners, and be trained for most other jobs on the plantation, such as taking care of horses, smithing, etc. The women and kids could work in the house and the kitchen.
As the area economy moves more to manufacture and commerce, land to house and feed them isn't readily available unless it becomes an add on to the main business, and it's more expensive to buy and maintain slaves than it is to just dupe immigrants off the boats and let them worry about the food and housing side of it as well. Or if you're in coal mining, you just pay 'em in scrip usable only at your company stores, but make them do the food and shelter thing on their own time.
edit - most of the initial "slaves" in the North American colonies were white - bonded servants scraped out of debtors prisons, etc., but they had a tendency to die off too quickly to be worth the cost of passage over here - I've seen some archaological papers suggesting mortality among bonded and indentured servants in the fields in 17th century plantations was between 50 and 80% per year.
Last edited by MichaeltheGreat on 05-09-2003 at 19:34
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-09-2003 08:35
|