Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


Civil War gave Us Apartheid! - Other Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Wed Sep 10th, 2008 06:35 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
1st Post
5fish
Member


Joined: Sun Jul 13th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 141
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

 

Did the civil war achieve its lofty goal of ending slavery and bringing freedom to Black Americans(Freedmen)?


Like WWI did not achieve its lofty goal of ending war, our civil war failed at achieving true freedom for Black Americans. By 1879, Black Americans were being regulated into being second class citizens, by 1890 were living in an "separate but equal" world being enforced by "Jim Crow laws".


Was it all in vain the sacrifices 600,000 souls lost in our civil war? Their sacrifice along with Black Americans(Freedmen) sold out to Embittered Southern White interest to preserve harmony within the union in the years following the Civil war.

The Civil War did not end slavery as to change it to Apartheid.



 Posted: Wed Sep 10th, 2008 06:47 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
2nd Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Did the civil war achieve its lofty goal of ending slavery and bringing freedom to Black Americans(Freedmen)?

You assume that was the goal. The orgins and causation of the war have been argued since 1861.

Like WWI did not achieve its lofty goal of ending war...

The "goal" off WW1 was not to end war. While Wilson had some hopes for the League of Nations, that's not even close to saying the goal of the war was to end war. Totally non-sensical statement.

 By 1879, Black Americans were being regulated into being second class citizens, by 1890 were living in an "separate but equal" world being enforced by "Jim Crow laws".

 How is this the fault of the Civil War? The people that came after the war perhaps, but that's different.


The Civil War did not end slavery as to change it to Apartheid.

HUH?? You do understand the definition of apartheid right? You think that's going on here, now? That's an insult to millions of black South Africans who know what the word means.



 Posted: Wed Sep 10th, 2008 07:30 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
3rd Post
5fish
Member


Joined: Sun Jul 13th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 141
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

javal1 wrote: Did the civil war achieve its lofty goal of ending slavery and bringing freedom to Black Americans(Freedmen)?

You assume that was the goal. The orgins and causation of the war have been argued since 1861.

 


Javal1 , It may not have been the original goal but it became a driving force by the end of the war.


Like WWI did not achieve its lofty goal of ending war...

The "goal" off WW1 was not to end war. While Wilson had some hopes for the League of Nations, that's not even close to saying the goal of the war was to end war. Totally non-sensical statement.

 

Yeh, Javal1, but everyone remembers "The war to end all wars" -Wilson- just supporting Wilson's dream. 


 By 1879, Black Americans were being regulated into being second class citizens, by 1890 were living in an "separate but equal" world being enforced by "Jim Crow laws".

 How is this the fault of the Civil War? The people that came after the war perhaps, but that's different.


 

Javal1, The people that fought in that war were the people who gave segregation. They chose harmony of the union over principles. Many tried to do the right thing but were forted and labeled Scalawags, Carpetbaggers and Radicals...
The Civil War did not end slavery as to change it to Apartheid.

HUH?? You do understand the definition of apartheid right? You think that's going on here, now? That's an insult to millions of black South Africans who know what the word means.


 

Javal1, Apartheid is legal system of racial segregation which many would consider harsher then our American segregation but the two systems achieved the purpose they were intended to do, to oppress another race. I see no insult....

Last edited on Thu Sep 11th, 2008 10:54 am by 5fish



 Posted: Sun Sep 14th, 2008 02:52 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
4th Post
5fish
Member


Joined: Sun Jul 13th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 141
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Have you ever thought what Lincoln role would have been in reconstruction. He had no problem limited the rights of Freedman in voting, owning property, schooling and was willing to give States wide girth on the issue of Freedmen in the south. Our Saintly President may not seem so saintly if he had stayed in office during those years, based on today values.

It seems. It was the radicals in congress. Who had the modern vision of equality for the Freedmen of the south. Not honest Abe...

Even with Lincoln in charge Apartheid would have come to the Freedmen anyway.

Last edited on Sun Sep 14th, 2008 02:53 pm by 5fish



 Posted: Mon Sep 15th, 2008 12:05 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
5th Post
Wrap10
Member


Joined: Sat Jul 28th, 2007
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 97
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Lincoln had to operate within what was and what was not realistically possible. But what was probably not realistically possible in the 1860's was racial equality. It's possible that the country would have moved closer to that goal with Lincoln as president during Reconstruction than was actually the case. And in fact I think that's a pretty good bet. But it's not something we can really know.

A book that might give some insight on how Lincoln may have approached Reconstruction is one called Lincoln and Black Freedom, by LaWanda Cox. It's been several years since I read it, but much of it deals with Lincoln's approach to reconstruction in Union-held Louisiana during the war. Cox refers to Lincoln's whole approach as being "the art of the possible." Chances are he would have taken a similar approach in post-war Reconstruction, if he had been given the chance.

Perry



 Posted: Tue Sep 16th, 2008 02:24 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
6th Post
CleburneFan
Member


Joined: Mon Oct 30th, 2006
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 1021
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Speaking of apartheid, I did happen to visit South Africa during apartheid. I did see some sights that reminded me of the 1950s south, but I saw some really eye-opening things too. Apartheid was much more blatant. For instance, we walked through a Johannesburg park with a sign prominently displayed that only whites were permitted to use park equipment such as swings and sliding boards and drinking fountains. Non-whites could walk through the park, but not use any of its amenties. It has been many years, but it doesn't seem as if the words were "whites" and "non-whites." It seems as if the words were different, but that is essentially what they meant.

Non-whites weren't just Africans. It also included the popluation of Indians and Pakistanis there. It also included anyone who was of mixed heritage.

We took a picture of the park sign, but someone came up to us and told us angrily that it was forbidden to photograph such signs.

Among other incidents, we saw a group of African school boys walking in single file by the side of the road. Their Caucasian teacher had a type of riding crop or similar instrument. He was snapping it at the boys. Perhaos  they did not maintain the proper pace. It troubled me greatly to witness this outright mistreatment of school boys.

Of course, we did not and could not have seen the worst of apartheid in a three-day trip, but it was open enough that we did have a few experiences with it.

Last edited on Tue Sep 16th, 2008 02:25 am by CleburneFan



 Posted: Tue Sep 16th, 2008 03:53 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
7th Post
susansweet
Member


Joined: Sun Sep 4th, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 1420
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Fan, I have read about the white musician Johnny Clegg who wanted to learn Zulu music. It was against the law for him to associate with the Zulus in South Africa. The only way around it was to get a degree in Sociology so he could study Zulu music. He did that . Eventually he formed a mixed race group Jaluka and recorded with them and Savuka after apartheid was "dropped". He stopped when one of his band members was killed.



 Posted: Tue Sep 16th, 2008 05:21 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
8th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Of course, we did not and could not have seen the worst of apartheid in a three-day trip, but it was open enough that we did have a few experiences with it.

Having had the misfortune of being born in an area where the negro (note the obsolete sobriquet) was extremely rare, I can recollect seeing only one or two until I went to college. Even then I was totally unaware of "apartheid" in this country until Dr. King began his pressure. (It wasn't until later that I learned the college had a limit on the numbers of negroes and Jews it would admit.)

So you all will please forgive me if I ask what was the difference between apartheid and the contemporary treatment of the black in America? I'm figuring that in South Africa, it was very much government policy, and in America it was ignored. How wrong is that perception? Not kidding! I lived through it being completely oblivious to actuality.

And I wasn't paying attention when the South Africa business went down.

Just a musing question.

ole



 Posted: Tue Sep 16th, 2008 10:24 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
9th Post
CleburneFan
Member


Joined: Mon Oct 30th, 2006
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 1021
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Ole, I would say that one big difference was that in the 1950s South, there was at least a veiled attempt at the "separate but equal" philosophy. In South Africa there was no such attempt to disguise outright segregation, repression and belittlement of those considered inferior. Apartheid was institutionalized and part of governmental laws and regulations. In the short time I was there I saw several events of undisguised physical abuse of non-whites by whites. It turned my stomach.

Apartheid was unapologetic and was applied throughout South Africa not just regionally. There definitely can be an argument however that at one time in the South we had a situation that resembled "mini-apartheid", but African-Americans were free to leave and migrate to the north for better work and somewhat better treatment.  

I do remember drinking fountains in West Virginia marked "white" and "colored." In movie theaters, the balcony was for blacks not whites.  Public restrooms were likewise marked "white" and "colored" and may resturants and hotels would not serve balcks. As late as the 1960s, public schools were segregated in South Florida and I don't think we had an African-American on our football team at the University of Florida until my senior year and none on the basketball team.

 

 



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Tue Sep 16th, 2008 06:45 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
11th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Bama46 wrote: I find it facinating that all this talk about America focuses on the south.

 
Every once in a while a cornstalk grows in the bean field. It is very noticable, standing above those beans. However it is still a bean field.
 
 
HankC



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Wed Sep 17th, 2008 03:49 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
13th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Bama46 wrote: Why is it that only the stereoype southern redneck is seen as the racist.



Probably because the greater part of Southern History for just about a century  concerns white supremacy, racial segregation and separation and the struggle for civil rights.

 

Yes, it also occurred in other places, but just as there were casualties in the Gettysburg campaign outside of  Adams County, Pennsylvania, what gets the most attention are the 51,000 there.

 

 

HankC



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 04:34 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
15th Post
5fish
Member


Joined: Sun Jul 13th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 141
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

As my brother has said "if you think about it most of the people who fought to end slavery would be consider racist today on their views of race". He points out that their opinion on race would match up with what is considered racist today. Our nation opinion on race has morph greatly over the decades since the Civil War.

Many consider reconstruction a failure but it did plant the seeds that would later be used to bring justice to children of the Freedmen. Evil usual wins the first rounds and loses the bout with truth in the last rounds.

Last edited on Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 08:13 pm by 5fish



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Wed Sep 24th, 2008 01:13 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
17th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

many consider reconstruction a failure because it planted the seeds of the racial problems that we suffer from today.
Reconstruction didn't "plant" the seeds. It simply allowed them to grow. They were there before and they're still here.

ole



You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Wed Sep 24th, 2008 03:09 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
19th Post
susansweet
Member


Joined: Sun Sep 4th, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 1420
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Oh NO Ole and Bama are agreeing again !!!!!!!



 Current time is 02:41 pm
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.3763 seconds (12% database + 88% PHP). 36 queries executed.