Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: The Emancipation Proclamation Lie

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    The Emancipation Proclamation Lie

    The Emancipation Proclamation Lie

    Why does the Immigration Department insist on asking the question who freed the slaves and saying it was Lincoln? Do you think Lincoln was in a position to free the slaves in the South? Perhaps he was but that was never settled in court and it was the matter of Civil War, in part. He did not free the slaves in the North where he actually was legally entitled to make such a Proclamation. This kind of management of public perception is almost considered wise by people when they learn that it is not true. They say things like 'We need our heroes'.

    If we need to lie about liars and racists or otherwise keep our heads in dark places and eat what mushrooms eat, how will we address the opportunities to stop fighting over the One Pie? How will we make more pies on other planets and who will own those planets or get the gene therapy to extend life to a potential of 900 years? Who thinks that sentient robots with human brain contents dumped therein (Stanford 1999) will be better workers and who will have jobs? Why work at any job that can be done by a robot? Has our education system been creating thinkers who can create the vast potential inherent in new technology and space colonization?

    When General Fremont freed the slaves in Missouri he was upbraided by Lincoln and rather than telling lies about Lincoln freeing slaves I think the schools and Immigration Department should have people read the Lincoln-Douglas debates where he makes it clear that he is a racist. I know some people try to say Fremont did not free the slaves so I will give you a quote from people I agree with and a link to the information you might want to check into.

    "'The property, real and personal, of all persons in the State of Missouri who shall take up arms against the United States, and who shall be directly proven to have taken active part with their enemies in the field, is declared to be confiscated to the public use, and their slaves, if they have any, are hereby declared free.'

    It has been stated by some of the papers that in thus pronouncing the emancipation of the slaves of rebels General Fremont was only carrying out the Act known as the Confiscating Act passed by Congress at the extra session. An examination of that act will, however, show that its provisions do not warrant the step taken by the General." (1)
    Last edited by R_Baird; 12-24-2015 at 06:58 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Abe Lincoln - Racist - The Lincoln/Douglas Debates (1858)
    Submitted by Galileo on Mon, 07/20/2009 - 15:13
    Daily Paul Liberty Forum

    Abe Lincoln (Fourth Joint Debate at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858);

    "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.

    And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife.

    My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men."

    I don't know what you think, but I find this disgusting. Lincoln is not speaking in the Middle Ages, he is speaking in a free state in 1858, long, long after the Enlightenment had begun, and after almost all of the Western world (Brazil & the American South excepted) had freed their slaves. He is speaking in a time of Industrial Revolution, a time when society was accumulating a massive amount of wealth never known before in the annals of history, which allows people to be more generous to their fellow man.

    I find it interesting that Lincoln is best known for three famous writings; The Emanication Proclamation, the Gettysburg Address, and the Lincoln/Douglas Debates. Of these, the only extended tract is the Lincoln/Douglas Debates.

    It is a shame that everyone has heard of the Lincoln/Douglas Debates, but hardly anyone seems to have read them.

    The mass media likes to go after Thomas Jefferson, but Jefferson lived in a time when slavery was still everywhere.

    And you won't find anything, absolutely nothing, in the massive extant writings of James Madison, even remotely approaching the filth of Lincoln.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 12-24-2015 at 07:01 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    And we are taught that America is the land of the free and that it was taxation which lead to the War of Independence or Revolutionary War. What a crock!

    Slavers Claim To be Slaves - Taxation

    The United States of America was planned by elite members of secret societies. One of those elites was Francis Bacon whose utopian book actually used what was being done in Peru as a model. Indeed you will have to read a lot more books to know that these elites were involved in the Americas since before the time of Moses but suffice it to say we have forensic analysis or Peruvian cocaine in Egyptian mummies and genetics to go along with data galore from all disciplines of science. The US Founding document has a pre-cursor Constitution from over a century earlier in the Iroquois Confederation. There were Masons with traders in America who had been here before Columbus and there was an elite group of Indians who belonged to one of their offshoots called The Mediwiwin Society. Haplogroup X genetics shows us that the Sioux are white and the Sioux are related to the Iroquois and at one time they both were the Megwi and before that they were Hopewell, Adena and Poverty Point Phoenician traders back to the time of Stonehenge if not before.

    "... John Dickinson of Pennsylvania claimed in the wake of the Stamp Act of the 1760s, that 'Those who are taxed without their own consent, expressed by themselves or their representatives, are slaves.' Because England had taxed the American colonies without their consent, Dickinson continued, 'We are therefore-SLAVES.' The argument that Britain sought to make Americans slaves in the mid-eighteenth century was a gross exaggeration, but Americans used the term metaphorically to impress Britain with the seriousness of their opposition to the loss of liberty. Dickinson's words carried a great irony when he wrote them in 1768, because he was the largest slaveholder in Philadelphia at the time, and his slaves were bound by chains much stronger than metaphors." (1)

    Britain had legislated an end to slavery or effectively had started the ball rolling to this end through Lord Mansfield's court decision. The nobles of America who were often Royals from their native country where their families still held power, are obviously not to be trusted when they say they are 'slaves' for any reason whatsoever. The Louisiana Purchase and the setting of the 49th Parallel as the northern border of the US are important pieces in the establishment of the country that now heads the New World Order but which is a mere continuation of the Romano-Bruttii plot to increase their control or Empire.

    So many people who you may regard as heroes are not very heroic at all. I have had to face this issue in regards to many of my family or ancestry. It is not all that different today than it was when Andrew Jackson promised blacks their freedom and they fought alongside his men in the Battle of New Orleans. He then called James Roberts (a black man who fought valiantly) 'presumptuous' for reminding him of his promise. People need a real lesson in ethics if there is to be any actual change or Peace and Harmony on earth.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 12-24-2015 at 07:04 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    "The Jesuit priest John H. Surratt, proven to be the ring leader in the death of President Lincoln was untouchable. In the affidavit of Henri De Sainte Marie, Aims Report, House of Representatives, 39th Session Congress, Page 15, Ex. Document No. 9., he says: 'I believe he is protected by the clergy and that the murder is the result of a deep laid plot, not only against the life of President Lincoln but against the existence of the republic, as we are aware that priesthood and royalty are and always have been opposed to liberty.'(Henri De Sainte Marie, Rufus King, Minister Resident)

    Al, as you know in the Secret Treaty of Verona it says in Article 1: 'The high contracting powers being convinced that the system of representative government is equally as incompatible with the monarchical principles as the maxim of the sovereignty of the people with the divine right, engage mutually, to the system of representative governments, in whatever country it may exist in Europe, and to prevent its being introduced in those countries where it is not yet known.'

    After the 1213 Charter made the Pope Contracting party, he and the monarchs of Europe declared in this treaty that representative governments were an enemy to the Catholic Church and the monarchies of the earth. As we know the monarchy of England retains its claim to America, but not without intervening and destroying the 1787 Constitution. The third prong of their attack was the Bank of England, taken over by the Rothschilds money after Britain's bankruptcy. The Rothschilds put in place the Bank of the United States and later the Federal Reserve, which was born in the Bank of England. Where did the Rothschilds get their huge gold reserve? {Nathan Rothschild supplied the King of England with the good news that Wellington had won at Waterloo. The Rothschild/De Medicis/Templar Papal passport of old had built the best spy network. He was then allowed by his Royal cousin to William of Hesse [Illuminati founding member] to trade with this inside knowledge and make an ENORMOUS fortune while bankrupting many other good lords and ladies.}It seems like their banking house just suddenly appeared in the 1700's. In 1850 in the preface of The Negation Of God, M. About said: '....the Rothschilds who would borrow money from the Pope at six per cent interest'...

    The tremendous amount of capital it took to bankroll many of the countries the Rothschilds loaned to only existed in Rome. The above is a matter of history, but is never taught and is allowed to disappear from all but old history books, lost forever, thanks to the advent of television." (7)

    Rufus King was Ambassador to England and attached to the British Royal Court after that term was over. I guess some of his family came north to Canada around this time and called themselves United Empire Loyalists as my Aunt Ruth used to tell us about her grandmother's family. Yes, they are Kings and related to Rufus. After his time in England he then returned to the US and ran for President. I believe he would have learned a great deal during his time with Pierre Dupont de Nemours but I was shocked to see his name mentioned in conjunction with the Treaty of Verona. I can not for the life of me understand why the Rothschilds (Who were the De Medicis Popes) are so convinced there is only One Pie and why the Physiocrats like Dupont and then Jefferson worked so hard to make a total free market that advantaged only the few who already had huge capital from ancient times.

    I think it is Bill Moyers who wonders out loud in the Royal Bush Corporate world of the 21st Century about how it is that the people are putting up with no capital gains taxes or reductions thereof; while the arms, drugs and corporate behemoths of all types grasp government handouts or legal loopholes absolving them of responsibility for crimes they commit. The observation B. F. Skinner made about 'positive reinforcement' like Medicare and other bureaucratic boondoggles that take us away from helping each other, are actually reducing the freedoms or rights from the days when we were mere serfs or sharecroppers, deserves consideration even if he was a pervert and control freak.

    So few people care as they enjoy their Veuve Cliquot and Gucci. The funny thing is this - if we threw off the One Pie of Malthus and started resource utilization with full technology and no nations or armies we would all be richer and no one (other than a few criminals and churches) would have to give up their ill-gotten gains.

    These few words from the author of The Jefferson Bible and the separation of church and state show just how much he knew about the media (includes pulpit and schools) and the way it deceives and subverts any real thinking.

    "Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery."
    Thomas Jefferson

    Jesse James had more than a gun. Cecil Rhodes' had more than a psychic vision. You will probably think this group you read about is some form of evil, or bad act. It may have been a very important group in the final analysis, and you will have to go a lot further than these words I give you before you will know why that is true.

    Was Colonel House a member of the FOGC? You can judge. Is it just an American Rosicrucian group? No, it operated (maybe still does in Thelemic societies) in 99 places around the world. It may have had a presence in the Golden Dawn and certainly it had an influence there.

    This link does not know a great deal but what it says is important.

    Much of what Henry Makow is all about I oppose. He does tell some truth and you should read this. He does not seem to know that Lincoln was a member of the Rosicrucian Council of Three which was a major part of the formation of groups like the FOGC. All of them are collectively known as the Freemasonic Order of the Golden Centurion - a centurion is derivative from one hundred, but the final member of these '99' groups is a demon. In order to have one hundred groups you would have all these demons with one final demon or boogeyman.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 01-31-2016 at 12:28 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    The black woman was especially abused or enslaved. Women in general were not emancipated until far later - some say they still are without equal rights.

    Needless to say Abraham's harems and the church which proclaimed women as chattel or worse have much to answer for. They are, as the following link describes, telling lies!!!! I think their assets should be seized and the Diocese of Boston never should have been allowed to declare for re-organization rather than pay their victims what the courts said they should (just one of many examples).

    "To listen to the Church's current views on the subject of sexual abuse of children, one could easily form the opinion that the Church has always been opposed to sexual activity below the age of 16, or even older. In fact when the Church had control of these matters the age of consent to sexual relations was 7 (though marriage contracts were voidable up to the age of 12 for a girl and 14 for a boy).

    A marriage between a grown man and a little girl was as good as any other in the eyes of the Church8. For dynastic reasons toddlers could be, and were, married to each other in church, though the civil courts would grant a divorce if one of the parties later objected.9.

    Here is the basic canon law:

    Betrothals cannot be contracted before the seventh year. For they can be contracted only with consent, which requires each party to understand what they agree to. (Decretum gratiani, Case 30, q II)10.

    But the Church would sometimes uphold marriages below the age of seven, for example in one case a man had married a girl under the age of seven, and had then left her to marry her cousin. Pope Eugene provided the following decision:

    "A young man, who took a girl not yet seven years old in marriage, appears not to have consummated the marriage he entered, due to age or some other human disability.

    In doubtful matters, we are to follow the safer course. So, because she was called and possibly is his wife, we command you that he be divorced on the grounds of ecclesiastical propriety from the girl's cousin, whom he afterwards took".
    (Decretals of Pope Gregory IX , Book Four, Title I Betrothals and Marriages, C. 3.)

    Pope Hormisdas writing to Bishop Eusebius indicated that a father cannot insist on who an adult son should marry, he can decide who an infant son should marry:

    "But if the son is not yet an adult, and his will cannot be discerned, his father may give him to whomever he wishes in marriage, and when the son reaches maturity, he must fulfill this entirely".
    (cited in the Decretals of Gregory IX , Book Four, Title II C1..)

    There was also a special exemption for powerful nobles, who could marry off their children for dynastic reasons at any age - even new born babies. The euphemism for this was a marriage "for the sake of peace". Here is the relevant law:

    Two prepubescents, or a prepubescent and one older, are not to be married, except for the sake of peace. (Decretals of Gregory IX , Book Four, title II C. 2.)

    Other interesting cases include one where a man married a young girl, but then took her mother as a wife (the question being which to recognise as the legal wife) and another one where a man has had sexual intercourse with a wife aged under 12 (the question being whether the sexual intercourse has sealed the marriage bond)11

    In general the rule was that children could be betrothed at seven. When they reached puberty (ie the age of 12 for girls and fourteen for boys) they were allowed to accept or reject the arrangement, as long as they had not already had sexual intercourse.

    Prepubescents contracting betrothal may not be separated before puberty, but after puberty they may if they reject the betrothal, unless they have had carnal intercourse.
    (Decretals of Gregory IX , Book Four, Title II C. 8)

    Here is a specific case:

    From Your Fraternity's letter we gather that a certain girl of twelve was sworn and betrothed to a certain boy of nine or ten. With the passing of time, by the will of her parents rather than her own, as she asserts, she was taken to the home of the boy's father, and there, protesting and resisting, as you say you have heard from her lips, and forced by the arguments and the threats of the parents, she stayed for a year or more. Then she left and returned home. Admonished by her mother, and later by you, as you assert, she completely refused to return to him, asserting that she did not, and still does not, want him as a husband. She now asks permission to marry another. The boy, as you letter says, had not yet reached the age of fourteen, nor did he ever have access carnally to the girl. Therefore, we reply to Your Discretion as follows: If the girl is warned zealously by you to wait until the boy completes his fourteenth year of age, and will not wait in accord with your warning, you may, by our authority, give her the liberty and permission to take another man as husband, in accord with what has been stipulated.
    (Decretals of Gregory IX , Book Four[/B], Title II C. 11)

    Many Christian sources now claim that Christian child marriage was always very rare and restricted to great noble houses. We know that this is not true through several sources. Although child marriages were not always recorded, divorces were recorded by the courts - and since we know of countless thousands of child divorces, we can safely assume that there were more marriages than divorces by a significant factor. We also have have written evidence that contemporaries took child marriage for granted. In Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, Juliet was just 13. Her mother, who was 26 refers to her almost an old maid.

    The children of Henry II had been married in babyhood, and the Council of Westminster (1175) conceded that these could be valid marriages "pro bono pacis" (for the sake of peace), A few examples of Christian child marriages - taking just supposed saints the greatest nobles whose dates can be easily confirmed - are:
    •Saint Theophanes Confessor was married at the age of twelve around 770
    •Eleanor of Aquitaine was fifteen when she married Louis VII of France in 1137.
    •Theodora Comnena was thirteen when she was married King Baldwin III of Jerusalem in 1158.
    •Agnes of France was twelve when (already widowed) she was married to Andronicus Comnenus, Byzantine Emperor in 1182.
    • Sancha of Aragon, aged 8 was betrothed to Raymond VII of Toulouse in March 1211.
    •the Treaty of Meaux-Paris 1229, included a requirement for nine year old Joan of Toulouse to marry nine year old Alphonse of Poitiers (they were betrothed in the same year, and their marriage ceremony took place in 1239)
    •Eleanor of Castile was twelve when she married the fifteen-year-old future Edward I of England on 1 November 1254
    •Saint Elizabeth of Portugal was twelve when she married to King Denis of Portugal in 1281.
    •Margaret Countess of Tyro, was married at the age of twelve to eight-year-old John Henry of Luxembourg, a younger son of King John of Bohemia, in 1300
    •Saint Clara Gambacorta was married at the age of twelve in 1374 and widowed at the age of fifteen.
    •Saint Rita of Cascia was twelve when she was married to Paolo Mancini in 1393 against her will, and delivered her first child as the same age.
    •Isabel of France was eight when she married Richard II of England in 1396.
    •Blanche of England was eight years old when her marriage contract was signed on 7 March 1401. The formal marriage ceremony between Blanche and Louis III, Elector Palatine, took place just over a year later, shortly after her tenth birthday.
    •Philippa of England was married at the age of twelve to Eric of Pomerania on 26 October 1406
    •Bianca Maria Sforza was not quite two years old when she married her first cousin Philibert I, Duke of Savoy in January 1474. She was a widow at the age of ten.
    •Bianca of Savoy, Duchess of Milan, was thirteen when she was married to Galeazzo II Visconti in 1350) (and fourteen when she gave birth to a son)
    •Lady Margaret Beaufort Margaret was married to John de la Pole when she was no more than three years old. (A Papal dispensation was granted on 18 August 1450 because the spouses were too closely related.). Three years later, the marriage was dissolved. She was twelve when she married 24-year old Edmund Tudor on 1 November 1455. Edmund died soon afterwards leaving her a seven-month pregnant thirteen-year-old widow.
    •Caterina Sforza was betrothed aged nine to Girolamo Riariomarried in 1473. The marriage was consummated four years later.
    •On 26 February 1491, a matrimonial arrangement was drawn up between eleven year old Lucrezia Borgia and the Lord of Val D'Ayora. It was annulled less than two months later in favour of a new contract engaging Lucrezia to Don Gaspare Aversa, count of Procida. Pope Alexander VI called off Lucrezia's engagement and arranged for her to marry Giovanni Sforza, a member of the house of Sforza, who married thirteen year old Lucrezia on 12 June 1493 in Rome.
    •Claude of France was promised to the future Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the age of four, but the arrangement fell through. She was later betrothed to her cousin Francis, Duke of Angoulême, and married him aged fourteen, in 1514.
    •Catherine de Vivonne, marquise de Rambouillet was married at the age of twelve to Charles d'Angennes in 1600"

    Last edited by R_Baird; 12-24-2015 at 06:50 AM. Reason: add color

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    I have made it clear that things were worse for the average black slave once they were supposedly made free. They had to supply their own food and shelter in a place where it was hard to find a person who did not hate them and blame them for the destruction caused b the war. Their former owners could now bargain to get their hardest workers to do the maximum, for the minimum, and then they set out to limit the freedoms via state laws, and ramped up the lynchings and raping agendas. In my own lifetime I could argue things were still worse for the average black person.


    Jim Crow was the colloquial term for forms of systematic discrimination employed by whites against African Americans from the second half of the nineteenth century through the first half of the twentieth. The expression insinuates the legal components of the color line (e.g., Jim Crow laws), but also encompasses the cultural and symbolic conventions of hierarchical race relations.


    The roots of Jim Crow lay deep in the American landscape of slavery. Despite its jocular allusion to a persona, Jim Crow articulated ideologies of black inferiority, which, wrapped in racist rhetoric, signified white supremacy, the control of virtually every aspect of black public life, and access to black private life. As shorthand for the malice of race relations in America, Jim Crow lived out a “strange career,” the historian C. Vann Woodward (1908–1999) wrote. “Jim Crow … did not assign the subordinate group to a fixed status in society. [It was] constantly pushing the Negro further down” (Woodward [1955] 2002, p. 108).

    The scholar W. E. B. Du Bois (1868–1963) used the term “the veil” in reference to the barrier separating blacks and whites. Penetrable but immovable, the veil provided African Americans with a view outward, while limiting the ability of whites to see into black society. “Within and without the somber veil of color,” Du Bois wrote of black life in The Souls of Black Folk (1903), “vast social forces have been at work,—efforts for human betterment, movements toward disintegration and despair, tragedies and comedies in social and economic life, and a swaying and lifting and sinking of human hearts which have made this land a land of mingled sorrow and joy, of change and excitement and unrest” (pp. 181–182). Behind the veil, then, African Americans engaged in the discourse and action of daily life, often unconcerned with white life. Here, they forged lively communities, built strong institutions, and nurtured generations of activists who took part in the long civil rights movement to “destroy Jim Crow.”

    As a period of history, the “Jim Crow era” can be set off by two significant decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court, each determining the constitutionality of racial segregation. On one end, Homer Plessy v. John H. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896) sanctioned racial segregation and discrimination with the doctrine of “separate but equal,” arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment “could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either.” On the other end of a timeline, Oliver Brown, et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al. 387 U.S. 483 (1954) outlawed racial segregation in public schools arguing that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” Brown opened the door to question and to challenge other forms of racial inequity.


    Jim Crow far exceeds the temporal markers of Supreme Court decisions, reaching back to the mid-nineteenth century and beyond the modern civil rights movement. Moreover, although Jim Crow is associated mostly with the intractable South, similar patterns, indeed its cultural origins, can be found in the North. The term was being used by the mid-nineteenth century by African Americans and abolitionists to describe the unfair practice of directing black passengers to separate substandard railroad cars. Jimcrow or jimcrowing referred to the injustice of segregating blacks to lesser facilities.

    The term Jim Crow originated in American popular culture, specifically in a stage performance, a mocking imitation of a black plantation slave by Thomas Dartmouth “Daddy” Rice (1808–1860), a white entertainer. In the tradition of minstrelsy, Rice blackened his face with burned cork or black wax, wore ragged clothes as a costume, shuffled as he danced, and sang:
    Come listen all you galls and boys I’s jist from
    Tuckyhoe, {This is Tuckahoe Creek - and the place I say Thomas Jefferson fathered Frederick Douglass in my book Tuckahoe Mud.}
    I–m going to sing a little song, my name’s Jim
    Weel about and turn about and do jis so,
    Eb–ry time I weel about I jump Jim Crow.

    A popular little ditty, “Jump Jim Crow” was a centerpiece of an emerging American popular culture. Popularized, the character Jim Crow and his stage counterpart Zip Coon—an urban dandy from the North—caricatured African Americans as foolish, dim, lazy, sneaky, incompetent, untrustworthy, dishonorable, and without the strength of character required to be an American citizen and white. These degrading stereotypes, infused by distortion and propaganda, provided a substantial base on which to create a rationale for slavery: that African Americans required close supervision, and that only under the control of whites could such people be restrained.

    Jim Crow entered a new phase after the Civil War (1861–1865) with enactment of the Black Codes. At the end of the war, in the political chaos that followed Abraham Lincoln’s death in 1865, Confederates claimed southern legislatures and passed laws that restricted the freedom of freedpeople. Replicating slavery in all ways except name, the Black Codes required blacks to accept unfavorable work contracts, limited their mobility, and denied them citizenship rights. As traditional powers collapsed at the beginning of Reconstruction, African Americans claimed and exercised the citizenship rights guaranteed by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments. Southern whites viewed this new societal arrangement as a corruption of race and gender relations that historically favored white males.

    At the end of Reconstruction, when power returned to white southerners, distorted descriptions of Reconstruction governments signified whites– resentment for their losses and provided the tinder for racial fires to burn through the turn of the century. Referring to black political participation as “Negro rule” or “Negro domination,” and distorting the work of Reconstruction legislatures as corrupt and immoral, white politicians determined that black power would neither continue nor return. By the end of the nineteenth century, every southern state and community had forged a set of constitutional amendments, legislation, or legal maneuvers to disfranchise African American men by force of law and intimidation. Almost every school was racially segregated and disparate in condition. Consistently, blacks were employed in the most difficult jobs for the lowest of wages.

    As the color line itself solidified at the turn of the nineteenth century, Jim Crow imposed on black people clear tactical disadvantages: restricted economic possibilities, narrow educational opportunities, inadequate housing options, high rates of death and disablement, persistent unemployment, and unrelenting poverty. Inasmuch as Jim Crow represented the race problem described by Gunnar Myrdal (1898–1987) in his 1944 treatise The American Dilemma, it was Jim Crow that created the race quandary; whites constructed the obstacles African Americans confronted, while also blaming them for their conditions, denying them access to the resources of problem solving, and daring them—under threat of violence—to complain, protest, or advance.

    Jim Crow laws segregated not only public venues but also restaurants, restrooms, hospitals, churches, libraries, schoolbooks, waiting rooms, housing, prisons, cemeteries, and asylums. Customary signs noting “colored” and “white” or “white only” marked off the southern landscape, dividing public conveyances, public accommodations, and birth, residence, and death. Purportedly equal, these circumstances usually were unequal. Laws regulated not only segregation but also social relations. In most states, blacks and whites could not marry by law, or socialize by custom. According to a Maryland law, “all marriages between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a person of negro descent, to the third generation, inclusive … are forever prohibited, and shall be void.” Blacks and whites could not compete against each other, whether at checkers or college sports. A Mississippi law read, “any person guilty of printing, publishing or circulating matter urging or presenting arguments in favor of social equality or of intermarriage between whites and negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”

    That Mississippi law still was being followed in the very late 20th Century.

    “Happiness is nothing more than good health and a bad memory.” — Albert Schweitzer
    Last edited by R_Baird; 04-07-2016 at 02:26 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    As we continue I trust a person who has lived under the pall of education in this world is choking on what they just read about zip coon and the fear-mongering of religions. One of the really big fears southern gentlemen had was the penis of black men was bigger (when flaccid) and the possible attraction that white women might have because of it. You should look up how Jack Johnson fought against the legal system, in the 20th Century! Follow that with Paul Robeson (see thread) who was close to Jack.


    Jim Crow could be fluid, amorphous, and nuanced. Because the laws and practices of Jim Crow varied from place to place, the scheme was confusing, and African Americans were careful to learn the racial etiquette of the locales to which they traveled. In addition, different groups of African Americans, rural and urban, women and men, and people of varying classes, experienced Jim Crow in different ways. Inasmuch as women and men faced differential limitations of Jim Crow, civil rights and women’s movement activist Pauli Murray (1910–1985) coined the term Jane Crow to describe sex discrimination against women, and race and sex discrimination against black women. African Americans could not always unify against Jim Crow because segregation could benefit some to the detriment of others. Black colleges thrived, for example, but most segregated public elementary and secondary schools struggled with inadequate resources to prepare students for higher education.

    Finally, protests or challenges to Jim Crow often proved futile, given law enforcement’s complicity in the structure. From emancipation to the turn of the century, the Ku Klux Klan operated as a paramilitary arm of the Democratic Party in the South. The Klan, nightriders, red shirts, and other white terrorists intimidated African Americans with personal attacks, school burnings, and lynchings. African Americans rarely served as policemen, sheriffs, or deputies before the late 1940s. During the 1950s and 1960s, the connections between municipal and state governments, law enforcement, and racial violence were well known by officials and citizens alike. White officers were known to harass black people, disrupt black neighborhoods, and assault black women. Arrested for inflated charges, denied satisfactory counsel, and serving harsh sentences, African Americans were further disadvantaged in the courtroom. Rarely did they receive good counsel, nor could they serve on juries. When black lawyers could appear in the courtroom to argue cases, white judges and juries rarely listened. All-white juries decided against black defendants, even in the most obvious cases of innocence, but rarely convicted white defendants, despite evidence of guilt. African Americans—including the innocent—suffered the harsher punishments of extended jail time, forced farm labor, and peonage. Even women could be placed on the chain gangs working the roads and tracks across the South.

    Extralegally, Jim Crow justice was rough. According to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), between 1889 and 1918 over 2,500 African Americans were lynched: captured and viciously murdered by mobs. Ostensibly, accusations of rape provided the reason for lynching, yet rarely were these cases validated. A form of social control and vengeance, lynching followed when a black person stepped out of line, did not demonstrate enough deference, acted out of antagonism, committed assault or manslaughter as self-defense, or spoke out of turn. Through the first half of the twentieth century, furthermore, riots flared as an expression of white antagonism, among them the Wilmington Riot of 1898, the Atlanta Riot of 1906, the East Saint Louis Riot of 1917, and the Tulsa Riot of 1921. In each of these and other conflagrations, whites expressed their racial rage by entering black neighborhoods to assault men, women, and children, and by burning down homes, schools, and churches. African American veterans in uniform also were targets of random attack, subject to vengeance for wearing a symbol of American citizenship.


    For these reasons, Jim Crow presented a formidable opponent—one that could divide its victims against themselves. Numerous leaders stepped forward to speak to the quandary of race relations. Booker T. Washington (1856–1915) advised black men to shift their focus from electoral politics to economics, to take up the trades, farming, and domestic and service work in order to build character and capital. While Washington supported industrial education, Du Bois recommended that the most talented of black folk be trained in the liberal arts so that they could emerge as leaders of the race. Ida B. Wells-Barnett (1862–1931), a fearless antilynching campaigner, took up the mantle of agitation, advising African Americans to protect themselves and to leave the South altogether.

    The question of migration as a form of protest dominated black discourse and action after emancipation, and as the century turned, a trickle of black southerners, mostly women, began to leave the land for the cities of the South and the North. They laid the groundwork for what was later called the Great Migration, when millions of African Americans left the brutalities of the South for the possibilities of the North. Black migrations were fueled by several factors. African Americans hoped to escape the tyranny of the South, especially economic oppression. The importunate character of sharecropping pressed families to give up the land for the city. There, however, they found new sets of barriers to employment or improved living conditions. Nevertheless, as the war economies expanded and European immigration slowed, African Americans found employment in the industries and the trades. Black people also migrated to find personal freedom not available to them in the South. African American women, for example, migrated to escape the persistent danger of public sexual assault by white and private assault by black men. As migrants within the South, women also laid the foundations upon which black southern communities were built, and it is here that the war against Jim Crow took place.

    In urban areas, African Americans upbuilt communities from small settlements of freedpeople into dynamic neighborhoods of homes, institutions, and organizations. Although segregated, schools instilled a sense of race pride and responsibility in children. Churches served multiple roles, as community, political, and recreational spaces. Teachers, professors, undertakers, doctors, lawyers, and nurses served to uplift the black community. Held in high esteem, they presented not only models to emulate, but also a daily reminder of black accomplishment despite Jim Crow. National organizations like the NAACP, the National Negro Business League (NNBL), and black fraternities and sororities all functioned to improve the quality of life for African Americans. Founding segregated YWCAs, YMCAs, Boy’s Clubs, Boy Scouts, and Girl Scouts, adult African Americans supervised the development of young people with an eye toward the demands of citizenship. Indeed, although historians have called the early years of Jim Crow “the Nadir,” the lowest point in African American history, the period also was the zenith of the black press, black business, black church organizations, and the black women’s club movement as African Americans set about the work of race progress.

    Still, the disadvantages of Jim Crow far outweighed the advantages, and beginning in the 1930s, African Americans took up a number of civil rights crusades. The NAACP, for example, began the battle against educational inequality, with the support of local branches. Local communities also engaged in “don’t-buy-where-you-can’t-work” campaigns, denying their dollars to businesses that did not employ black people. Veterans returned from a war against racism expecting to be accorded citizenship rights commensurate with their sacrifices. Turned back at the courthouses, they launched voting rights campaigns. By the 1940s, several events signaled that the demise of Jim Crow had begun. In Texas, the Supreme Court decision in Smith v. Allwright, Election Judge, et al. 312 U. S. 649 (1944) ended the all-white primary, opening the southern electoral process to black voters. In 1948 President Harry Truman (1913–2003) signed Executive Order 9981, desegregating the armed forces. Finally, the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education sounded the end of constitutionally sanctioned Jim Crow in public schools, making way for African Americans to demand the integration of all public facilities and accommodations.

    Just as Jim Crow was not a strictly definable historical period, the struggle against it was protracted. Using forms of direct action, nonviolent protests, and demonstrations, civil rights activists of the 1950s and 1960s were determined to break the back of Jim Crow, and they were successful, at least as far as the legal arena was concerned. Inasmuch as Jim Crow was a milieu that permeated culture and ideology historically, the struggle against American apartheid continues."

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts