Tragedy and Myths of the Black Culture in America Over Time
These days it seems that 90% of people believe (since they were indoctrinated in government schools) that the North held the moral high-ground in invading the South to free the slaves. Nothing could be further from the truth. IF it were so, one would have seen a majority of blacks more north after their freedom but this was just not the case. Those that did go north before, during and after the Civil War kept going to Canada before they found true freedom.
In addition, one must understand that there was a slavery reason for secession (the South was indeed wrestling with this issue more before the abolitionists started harassing them publicly in the 1840s onward.) in that the South knew first hand the ability of the blacks to be able to transition toward being free whereas the North never really interacted with blacks on a day-to-day basis. The Northern cities of Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland had hardly any blacks in the 1800s. The South was moving at its own pace toward the abolition of slavery. The radical Republicans of the North (white supremacists in actuality since they did not want the blacks to come North and compete for white people's jobs) preferred like Abe Lincoln to deport blacks to a country more suited to their race.
However, once the South seceded, the war happened due to something other than slavery. It was pure economics that changed the minds of Northerners and the federal government alike. While Northern press talked peace in December 1860 when SC seceded and again in Jan/Feb 1861 when six more states seceded.
(NOTE: secession in 1860 was an accepted option for a majority of people since in 1794 Rufus King, a Northerner first proposed it for New England in his dialog with Thomas Jefferson as well as again in 1803 after the Louisiana Purchase and in 1814 during the War of 1812 the North being the less powerful section of the country seriously thought about secession).
The decision by Lincoln and his cabinet in April 1861 to use war as the solution to the "revenue" problem AND to keep the Republicans in control took a month to sort out with Lincoln being pro-war the whole time, in spite of his quote from 1840s that said:
"Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right — a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Abraham Lincoln
- Speech in the United States House of Representatives (12 January 1848)
One needs to know that in early March 1861 there was only two people on Lincoln's cabinet that was pro-war, by April 1861 after hearing the press talk about economic concerns as well as Lincoln's "where would the government get its revenue?" chief worry the cabinet agreed that a war against the "insurrection" in the South would be the best bet to save the Republican party (publicly this was an effort to "save the Union" which in fact forever changed and killed the union that was achieved in 1782)
Basically, the invasion of the South was done for very different reasons than why the South seceded from the Union.
So what was it like in the North for the blacks (both free and slave since all 13 colonies except one allowed slavery in 1776)? What follows are some examples:
"... In the general laws of Massachusetts (compiled in accordance with a resolution of February 22, 1822) it is provided: “That no person being an African or Negro, other than the subjects of the emperor of Morocco” – (and certified citizens of other States) “shall tarry within the Commonwealth for a longer time than two months.”
In case of such prolonged stay, if after warning and failure to depart, “it shall be made to appear that the said person has thus continued in [Massachusetts] . . . he or she shall be whipped, not exceeding ten stripes, and ordered to depart, and if he shall not so depart, the same process shall be had and inflicted, and so toties quoties.” In March, 1788, this was one of the “perpetual laws of the Commonwealth.”.." ( from http://circa1865.org/2014/10/27/prejudices-of-the-northern-states/ )
"... Both Indiana (1816) and Illinois (1818) abolished slavery by their constitutions. And both followed the Ohio policy of trying to prevent black immigration by passing laws requiring blacks who moved into the state to produce legal documents verifying that they were free and posting bond to guarantee their good behavior. The bond requirements ranged as high as $1,000, which was prohibitive for a black American in those days. Anti-immigration legislation passed in Illinois in 1819, 1829, and 1853. In Indiana, such laws were enacted in 1831 and 1852. Michigan Territory passed such a law in 1827; Iowa Territory passed one in 1839 and Iowa enacted another in 1851 after it became a state. Oregon Territory passed such a law in 1849.[8] Blacks who violated the law faced punishments that included advertisement and sale at public auction (Illinois, 1853).
The evidence seems to support the theory that these rules were not uniformly enforced. But they were invoked against "troublesome" black residents, or they could be used against whole communities, as in Cincinnati, when white citizens found the increase in black population had reached an unacceptable level. They served blacks as grinding reminders of apartheid intentions and legal subjugation, and they offered white authorities and Northern mobs a cloak for harassment and violence.
Exclusion ordinances often were advanced by self-professed friends of the freemen who foresaw only tragedy in attempts of the races to share the land. Robert Dale Owen, speaking in Indiana in 1850, asked if any decent person desired "the continuance among us of a race to whom we are not willing to accord the most common protection against outrage and death." The writers in such cases seem honestly troubled by the plight of free blacks. The rhetoric hardly is an exaggeration: during the constitutional debate in the state that year, one speaker had frankly acknowledged, "It would be better to kill them off at once, if there is no other way to get rid of them. ... We know how the Puritans did with the Indians, who were infinitely more magnanimous and less impudent than the colored race."
Not content with mere legislation, Illinois, Indiana, and Oregon had anti-immigration provisions built into their constitutions. In Illinois (1848), in clause-by-clause voting, this clause was approved by voters by more than 2 to 1. Most of the opposition to it came from the northern counties of the state, where blacks were few. In Indiana (1851), it was approved by a larger margin than the constitution itself. In Oregon (1857), the vote for it was 8 to 1. The Illinois act stayed on the books until 1865. The Black Codes dealt with more than just settlement. Oregon forbid blacks to hold real estate, make contracts, or bring lawsuits. Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and California prohibited them from testifying in cases where a white man was a party.
Indiana's anti-immigration rule was challenged in the case of a black man convicted for bringing a black woman into the state to marry her. The state Supreme Court upheld the conviction, noting that, "The policy of the state is ... clearly evolved. It is to exclude any further ingress of negroes, and to remove those already among us as speedily as possible." There was no legal segregation in Indiana's public schools: none was necessary. The white citizens of the state would keep the schools racially pure more thoroughly than any legal provision could. A court upheld the white-only Indiana public schools in 1850, finding that, in the eyes of the state, "black children were deemed unfit associates of whites, as school companions."..." (from http://slavenorth.com/exclusion.htm )
".. When war raged for freedom, how was it then? In September 1862, General [John] Dix proposed to remove a “number of [Negro] contrabands” from Fortress Monroe to Massachusetts. To this Governor Andrew replied: “I do not concur in any way, or to any degree in the plan proposed” [and that you will be deprived] “of the strength of hundreds of stout arms, which would be nerved with the desperation of men fighting for liberty.”
But the Negro, despite all the invocations to do so, had never offered to fight for liberty; did not then offer. At that time no Negro had ever sat upon a jury; none trained in the militia; none trained in the militia of Massachusetts. Why should the Negro be ambitious to die for Massachusetts?
The war governor proceeds: “Contemplating, however, the possibility of such removal, permit me to say that the Northern States are of all places the worst possible to select for an asylum . . . I would take the liberty of suggesting some Union foothold in the South.”
In this same month, the adjutant-general [Dix] inquired of the army of the West: “What is to be done with this unfortunate race . . . You cannot send them North. You all know the prejudices of the Northern States for receiving large numbers of the colored race. Some States have passed laws prohibiting them to come within their borders . . . look along this river (the Mississippi) and see the number of deserted plantations on its borders. These are the best places for these freed men.”
Ever, as with the constancy of natural causes, exercised in some other man’s house, on the banks of some far-off, ancient river. On these terms who would not be an altruist?
“In the State where I live,” said John Sherman, on April 2, 1862, “we do not like Negroes. We do not disguise our dislike. As my friend from Indiana (Mr. Wright) said yesterday, “The whole people of the Northwestern States, are, for reasons, whether correct or not, opposed to having many Negroes among them, and that principle or prejudice has been engraved in the legislation of nearly all the Northwestern States.”.." ( from http://circa1865.org/2014/10/27/prejudices-of-the-northern-states/ )
I do hope there is a book forthcoming that will critique the North's view of the black race over time. What we do know post Civil War is that the Freedman's Bureau was formed to give the Republican Party political power in the South AND to keep the blacks (their new ally) there as well so they would NOT migrate north.
By the 1960s it was the Democratic Party that allied with the blacks with the Great Society programs that left the black culture forever dependent on that political party and a solid voting block.
Why does all this make a difference today? With finally some noise from the political marxists/liberal/progressive wing FOR secession in places like CA, OR and WA ... maybe we can finally see more clearly what was honorable in the Southern tradition when they went beyond nullification and towards secession in the midst of tyranny in early 1861. We can learn from this effort and avoid making some of the same mistakes (like being tricked into firing first). Ultimately it seems that even southern secession towards yet another government was not a viable solution, but it was an attempt to give the constitution built in 1787 and version 2.0 attempt at this experiment of a Republic. Maybe city-states can be the wave of the future as any existing state has a mix of cultures that are not very compatible.
At the end of the day we find ourselves 150 year post "black freedom from slavery" in this country but STILL saddled with horrible race relations no matter how one measures it. The black culture has been used, and used again, and used again and no longer can the majority critically think on its own. There has only been a transition from them being a slave on the cotton plantation toward being a slave on the government plantation.
Government can't fix moral issues because they are immoral at its root. In history, only grassroots efforts based on what Jesus accomplished toward there being no difference between Jew or Greek, slave or free has ever really made a big impact that changed the then known world of the Roman Empire and again in the Middle Ages (in spite of what we hear in education circles that these were dark, dark times). Are we seeing the stage set for a version 2.0 of this? Time will tell :)
[pardon all the rabbit trails .. your mileage may vary]
No comments:
Post a Comment