Do people really think that political parties deeds centuries ago matter?

[giblets]

Wow...I don't have a source. Down here everybody just knows this. I come from an old family...all of my grandparents were born in the 1800's (one in 1883 and his father fought in the war of northern aggression). I grew up hearing unbelievable stories by today's standards. Blacks had very little economic opportunity and all the money was still controlled by whites. Even now, that is mostly the case...treatment like that is no longer tolerated though (Thank Goodness!).

Two stories I heard that have always stuck with me: One was the hanging of a black man after he had supposedly tried to make a pass at a white girl. He was a laborer on a large traveling construction crew. The white supervisors caught hi, beat him, and hung him. It apparently got no notice from anyone. The second is from the same construction gang where one of the white supervisors used to like to make the blacks "dance" by firing bullets at their feet. Slavery simply took a different, and in some cases darker, turn after the war. In many ways, it really didn't start to end until the Civil Rights Act.

Both of these stories are terrible but they don't indicate that blacks were unable to leave the farms where they were sharecroppers and seek employment elsewhere- making their situation somewhat better than slavery. And as I understand it there was substantial migration.

[MRT144]

Almost all opposition came from the south regardless of party. Not only that but ben projects a 1300 basis point difference 1700 basid point difference in 1964 to be indicative of politics now.

[Ben Kenobi]

Almost all opposition came from the south regardless of party. Not only that but ben projects a 1300 basis point difference 1700 basid point difference in 1964 to be indicative of politics now.

It is odd that you would blame the south in a thread stating that 'deeds centuries ago', should no longer matter.

In any case, I blame Democrats. Folks like Woodrow Wilson who not only espoused, but constructed policies designed to accentuate Jim Crow. Or was Wilson a Republican too?

[kentonio]

Wow...I don't have a source. Down here everybody just knows this. I come from an old family...all of my grandparents were born in the 1800's (one in 1883 and his father fought in the war of northern aggression). I grew up hearing unbelievable stories by today's standards. Blacks had very little economic opportunity and all the money was still controlled by whites. Even now, that is mostly the case...treatment like that is no longer tolerated though (Thank Goodness!).

Two stories I heard that have always stuck with me: One was the hanging of a black man after he had supposedly tried to make a pass at a white girl. He was a laborer on a large traveling construction crew. The white supervisors caught hi, beat him, and hung him. It apparently got no notice from anyone. The second is from the same construction gang where one of the white supervisors used to like to make the blacks "dance" by firing bullets at their feet. Slavery simply took a different, and in some cases darker, turn after the war. In many ways, it really didn't start to end until the Civil Rights Act.

So let me get this right, the South champion the cause of slavery with slaveholding being seen as a god given right even to those who do not hold slaves themselves. The general populace aid in capturing escaped slaves, and support the slave argument at every turn. They then lose a hugely bloody war and the rights of blacks are established by the federal government. Southern politicians then regain power and cut down the rights of the blacks that were earned in seas of American blood, and set in motion another 100 years of oppression.

And you come away with the lesson that the North were the bad guys?

[kentonio]

DP

[Elok]

Indeed. The break down always has been conservatives voted against it and liberals voted for it. Conservatives are always on the wrong side of history. Always.

The very idea of a "wrong side of history" is deeply problematic--does society always change for the better, and not the worse, or are societal changes good by definition because the changed society gets to write the history books?

[giblets]

The very idea of a "wrong side of history" is deeply problematic--does society always change for the better, and not the worse, or are societal changes good by definition because the changed society gets to write the history books?

THE ARC OF HISTORY IS LONG BUT IT BENDS TOWARDS AWESOMENESS OKAY?

[Ben Kenobi]

The very idea of a "wrong side of history" is deeply problematic--does society always change for the better, and not the worse, or are societal changes good by definition because the changed society gets to write the history books?

Indeed, I find it amusing that everyone here assumes their side will obviously come out on top.

[Captain ******* Kirk]

I honestly don't get this thread; Jim Crow wasn't that long ago in the greater scheme of things. You're better than this, MRT.

[PLATO]

And you come away with the lesson that the North were the bad guys?

They were. Come to Tennessee and I will take you on the tour and you can see the truth yourself. I will happily show you where events took place and the type of people and families they happened to. The North's cause was good...the North's army was not. If you still believe all that you continually talk about after the tour, I will never argue again...but I am not worried.

[PLATO]

the wrong side of history.

Learning your sound bites from Sean Hannity these days?

[Sava]

Yes. War sucks. Maybe you shouldn't have seceded.

Try to do it again. Please.

[Hauldren Collider]

EDIT: NVM, kentonio I thought you were responding to the plato post, not the ben post.

[SlowwHand]

By centuries ago, to you mean like the Crusades?

[Alfred Mondale]

They were. Come to Tennessee and I will take you on the tour and you can see the truth yourself. I will happily show you where events took place and the type of people and families they happened to. The North's cause was good...the North's army was not. If you still believe all that you continually talk about after the tour, I will never argue again...but I am not worried.

This is silly. Do you think the Southern army was "good"? Pretty much every army up to the end of WWI consisted mostly of uneducated, conscripted, men who were used as cannon fodder and who didn't care about the underlying cause of the war. The south knew what the cost of failure would be if they lost.