3 ms·

How do you explain the South's century of aggressive open racism after the civil war in your "it was just economic" theory? It was about slavery, racism was DE

How do you explain the South's century of aggressive open racism after the civil war in your "it was just economic" theory? It was about slavery, racism was DEEPLY involved in US slavery, and racism and racists didn't just go away after the civil war. Sometimes it's as simple as people say it is, over and over and over in their defense of slavery and their post-Civil-War racist laws and propaganda. You don't need to try to save their reputations. Let them be remembered as the assholes they were.

qiskit 4y ago
> How do you explain the South's century of aggressive open racism after the civil war in your "it was just economic" theory? "Is your assertion that racist white northerners fought a war against racist white southerners to free black people?". What about racist white northerners and racist white southerners confused you? > You don't need to try to save their reputations. Let them be remembered as the assholes they were. Saving their reputation by calling them racist white southerners? You do realize that some northern states had slaves too during the civil war. And the emancipation proclamation only freed the slaves in the south. If you want to learn what the civil war was really about go look into why west virginia seceded from virgina. Do you think west virginians were less racist than the rest of virginians? Or do you think it was economic?
- majormajor 4y ago
  History makes it pretty clear that southerners were, on the whole, much more openly and institutionally racist than northerners both before and after the Civil War. The ones that seceded said it was about slavery. Many times. You don't believe them. Why? Why do you care enough to claim that you know their motives better than everyone else? West Virginia split because they didn't want to go along with Virginia's secession. That's something that happened after the cause, not something that can tell you the cause, though! Maryland and Delaware were less dominated by the slave-holding interests. Its not that interesting.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  > Do you think west virginians were less racist than the rest of virginians? Or do you think it was economic? It was economic in the sense that slavery was not central to West Virginia's economy, but was central to not-West Virginia's economy. A map makes this pretty apparent[0]. The argument isn't that the was was about racism, but about slavery. Those are often related, but aren't precisely the same. [0]: https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3881e.cw1047000/ https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3881e.cw1047000/
piethesailorman 4y ago
- majormajor 4y ago
  "aggressive racism wasn't really seen in the south before the Civil War" is absurd and only supportable if you don't consider the treatment of the slaves. There was a ton of brutality, and you're sitting here saying there wasn't any aggression. It's not dissimilar to the US wars in the middle east: The North toppled an evil government, freed some people, but didn't finish the job. So assholes ended back up in charge. They couldn't go quite as far, or quite go all ISIS, they had to settle for just the KKK, because it was all one country again, but somehow the losers didn't lose all that much in the long run.
  - piethesailorman 4y ago
    - tptacek 4y ago
      Nehemiah Adams? Really? Gross.
      - piethesailorman 4y ago
        tptacek 4y ago
        "Seriously", "you're citing a 19th century weirdo against over a century of historical research on the treatment of slaves, virtually all of which repudiates that weirdo", comma, "gross". Further, "I'm not a proponent of slavery" is a sequence of words that loses a lot of its power when it follows a direct assertion that people may have been better off under slavery, as not only Nehemiah Adams believed, but you, from your own comment, also seem to as well? "Black slave families were closer and more stable(parental seperation rates) than they are now". Gross! The principle of charity is a thing, but there are limits to charity.

qiskit 4y ago

> How do you explain the South's century of aggressive open racism after the civil war in your "it was just economic" theory? "Is your assertion that racist white northerners fought a war against racist white southerners to free black people?". What about racist white northerners and racist white southerners confused you? > You don't need to try to save their reputations. Let them be remembered as the assholes they were. Saving their reputation by calling them racist white southerners? You do realize that some northern states had slaves too during the civil war. And the emancipation proclamation only freed the slaves in the south. If you want to learn what the civil war was really about go look into why west virginia seceded from virgina. Do you think west virginians were less racist than the rest of virginians? Or do you think it was economic?

majormajor 4y ago
History makes it pretty clear that southerners were, on the whole, much more openly and institutionally racist than northerners both before and after the Civil War. The ones that seceded said it was about slavery. Many times. You don't believe them. Why? Why do you care enough to claim that you know their motives better than everyone else? West Virginia split because they didn't want to go along with Virginia's secession. That's something that happened after the cause, not something that can tell you the cause, though! Maryland and Delaware were less dominated by the slave-holding interests. Its not that interesting.
joshuamorton 4y ago
> Do you think west virginians were less racist than the rest of virginians? Or do you think it was economic? It was economic in the sense that slavery was not central to West Virginia's economy, but was central to not-West Virginia's economy. A map makes this pretty apparent[0]. The argument isn't that the was was about racism, but about slavery. Those are often related, but aren't precisely the same. [0]: https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3881e.cw1047000/ https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3881e.cw1047000/

piethesailorman 4y ago

majormajor 4y ago
"aggressive racism wasn't really seen in the south before the Civil War" is absurd and only supportable if you don't consider the treatment of the slaves. There was a ton of brutality, and you're sitting here saying there wasn't any aggression. It's not dissimilar to the US wars in the middle east: The North toppled an evil government, freed some people, but didn't finish the job. So assholes ended back up in charge. They couldn't go quite as far, or quite go all ISIS, they had to settle for just the KKK, because it was all one country again, but somehow the losers didn't lose all that much in the long run.
- piethesailorman 4y ago
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Nehemiah Adams? Really? Gross.
    - piethesailorman 4y ago
      - tptacek 4y ago
        "Seriously", "you're citing a 19th century weirdo against over a century of historical research on the treatment of slaves, virtually all of which repudiates that weirdo", comma, "gross". Further, "I'm not a proponent of slavery" is a sequence of words that loses a lot of its power when it follows a direct assertion that people may have been better off under slavery, as not only Nehemiah Adams believed, but you, from your own comment, also seem to as well? "Black slave families were closer and more stable(parental seperation rates) than they are now". Gross! The principle of charity is a thing, but there are limits to charity.