Kounter Klan

[EAF602Whizz]

Reading about the Jim Crow laws a few minutes ago naturally made my blood pressure rise slightly and the thought occurred to me that, like the European victims of Nazi camps the black population of the Southern states seem to have largely accepted their fates. I know there wasn't much point in complaining but why do you think there was never any attempt at organised resistance until much later? Is it perhaps a combination of fear of reprisal and the fact that the black population was deliberately barred from education?

Would the early formation of some sort of black panthers type movement have been too ASB? I was thinking about the lynchings for example. What if an anti KKK faction retaliated tit for tat? Civil war in the southern states? I like the idea of black robes and hoods instead of white.

Any thoughts

www.reverbnation.com/billypryce

 

[EAF602Whizz]

That daft huh?

 

[Elfwine]

The problem is that the Klan is supported by the majority of white southerners, including law enforcement.

Even when supported is a strong word, it isn't exactly opposed.

Any black Kounter Klan is going to generate a lot of anti-black hostility, which will be...ugly.

Out of proportion to the scale of what it is doing, I should say.

 

[Peabody-Martini]

Henry Rollins had an idea of how to get rid of the Klan once and for all. His idea was to infiltrate a parade/march with a large group of men who were gay and/or of color. At a prearranged time, with national media exposure, they would whip off the hoods and start making out with each other.

 

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

President Grant kept the troops in the South but when the next President withdrew them, there was probably no stopping Jim Crow through armed force (there could have been political means if the Abolitionist movement had been kept alive in some form). However, beginning in the 1950s there was some pretty effective action against the Klan. Like the Lumbee Indians in NC who surrounded a Klan cross-burning, made war whoops and fired guns in the air--the Klan fled. Then, in Monroe NC the Klan was going to take a car caravan through the black community. Robert F. Williams, a Korea war vet, organized other black vets and they armed themselves. Again, the Klan fled. And the Deacons for Defense, an armed self-defense group based in Louisiana, also kept the Klan at bay. Ironically, it was J. Edgar Hoover, notorious racist that he was, who crushed the Klan groups of the 1960s when Lyndon Johnson told him to do so. He did it rapidly and effectively since he already had them infiltrated.

 

[Johnrankins]

President Grant kept the troops in the South but when the next President withdrew them, there was probably no stopping Jim Crow through armed force (there could have been political means if the Abolitionist movement had been kept alive in some form). However, beginning in the 1950s there was some pretty effective action against the Klan. Like the Lumbee Indians in NC who surrounded a Klan cross-burning, made war whoops and fired guns in the air--the Klan fled. Then, in Monroe NC the Klan was going to take a car caravan through the black community. Robert F. Williams, a Korea war vet, organized other black vets and they armed themselves. Again, the Klan fled. And the Deacons for Defense, an armed self-defense group based in Louisiana, also kept the Klan at bay. Ironically, it was J. Edgar Hoover, notorious racist that he was, who crushed the Klan groups of the 1960s when Lyndon Johnson told him to do so. He did it rapidly and effectively since he already had them infiltrated.

You're not going to be able to pull that off pre-WWII. The Nazis movement started making racism unrespectable after the war. If the Blacks try it right after the Civil War they get put down hard! The North will be less tolerant of Black terrorists than White ones.

 

[EAF602Whizz]

So no tit for tat reprisals before WW2 because the response will be hideously disproportionate. I read recently that although black people made up just under 10 percent of the US population in 1920, they made up almost 90 percent of the population in Mississipi. That's what made me think that a small (I wouldn't use the word terrorist in this case) group might be able to effectively create fear in the white community. They would have to be selective in their targets, attacking only those known to have commited crimes against the black population or those who are vocal supporters of the Klan and the worst aspects of segregation.
I think such a move might escalate not entirely unfavourably towards the blacks while it might draw the attention of the government in the North to their plight.

 

[Cryptic]

So no tit for tat reprisals before WW2 because the response will be hideously disproportionate. I read recently that although black people made up just under 10 percent of the US population in 1920, they made up almost 90 percent of the population in Mississipi.

Blacks never made up 90% of the population of Mississippi. The author may have been confused with clusters of rural counties, particularly along the Mississippi River in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Lousiana where blacks were / are a strong magority. Even then, I doubt they had 90% of the population in these counties (maybe 60-70%).

Would the early formation of some sort of black panthers type movement have been too ASB? I was thinking about the lynchings for example. What if an anti KKK faction retaliated tit for tat? Civil war in the southern states? I like the idea of black robes and hoods instead of white.

Any thoughts

Any such counter Klan would need the support of some local whites. The only areas where this was feasible was in Louisiana (creole concept) and in Appalachia where the local white population was split amongst Confederate and Union supporters.

Many of the post war family feuds in Appalachian Kentucky, North Georgia and Tenessee were partially caused by differing loyalties during the war. Likewise most of the pro union or pro confederate loyalties were due to family rivalries rather than national political views. For example, the Hatfields and Mc Coys fought (probably with varying degrees of dedication) on opposite sides during the war.

Some whites in both these areas could support a limited black counter Klan post war either out of personal conviction, or simply as a means to pursue local grudges against other white rivals.

 

[mowque]

Reading about the Jim Crow laws a few minutes ago naturally made my blood pressure rise slightly and the thought occurred to me that, like the European victims of Nazi camps the black population of the Southern states seem to have largely accepted their fates.

Um, what?

 

[EAF602Whizz]

Um that: http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/what.htm

Obviously I'm no expert. I just stumbled on this site because I was curious about the whole Jim Crow, a subject I know little about. I was shocked by what I read and wondered about organised resistance. Interestingly there were widespread race riots in 1919 and of course at various other times. These seem to have been instigated by whites however and took the form of pogroms similar to those the Nazis organised in the 30s, i.e. burning property and wrecking business premises owned by blacks, beatings, lynchings and so on.
Makes you wonder why some people didn't acquire some rope of their own to even some scores.



My stuff: www.reverbnation.com/billypryce

 

[MerryPrankster]

So no tit for tat reprisals before WW2 because the response will be hideously disproportionate. I read recently that although black people made up just under 10 percent of the US population in 1920, they made up almost 90 percent of the population in Mississipi. That's what made me think that a small (I wouldn't use the word terrorist in this case) group might be able to effectively create fear in the white community. They would have to be selective in their targets, attacking only those known to have commited crimes against the black population or those who are vocal supporters of the Klan and the worst aspects of segregation.
I think such a move might escalate not entirely unfavourably towards the blacks while it might draw the attention of the government in the North to their plight.

I think Mississippi was 55-45 black-white or something like that. If blacks represented 90 percent of Mississippi, there was no way the whites would be able to control them without help from other states.

 

[mowque]

Makes you wonder why some people didn't acquire some rope of their own to even some scores.

Mostly since whites had the power backing of the entire establishment.

If you want a interesting but depressing book on Jim Crow


Slavery by Another Name. The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II, is an excellent work.

 

[MerryPrankster]

snip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hayes_Pond

Here's the Lumbee takedown of the Klan. I thought there was a lot more violence than there actually was.

 

[EAF602Whizz]

Sorry Mowque, I just realised you were highlighting the bit about accepting their fate. Maybe not the best way of putting across what I meant. I meant proper paramilitary style action against their oppressors seems to have been completely absent at that time. Given the scale of oppression and the size of the black minority I think something could have emerged out of it that would have made a mark on history.

 

[EAF602Whizz]

Passive resistance or a strike by black workers I suppose would just have meant more murders and police clubbing heads. I'll check out that like Prankster. Thanks for the replies.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Sorry Mowque, I just realised you were highlighting the bit about accepting their fate. Maybe not the best way of putting across what I meant. I meant proper paramilitary style action against their oppressors seems to have been completely absent at that time. Given the scale of oppression and the size of the black minority I think something could have emerged out of it that would have made a mark on history.

There was a black uprising against Jim Crow involving a courthouse occupied by black insurgents being bombarded with cannon.

After the black rebels broke, the local whites spent the next day or so literally hunting them with dogs.

That was one reason why it was absent. Plus during the Jim Crow period, Southern states had laws intended to keep blacks (and poor whites as well) from owning guns--some of the whites at the time even flat-out admitted this.

However, it's not like, when violence broke out, they just sat there and let themselves be murdered:

http://www.lurj.org/article.php/vol3n2/riot.xml

 

[EAF602Whizz]

Now that cheered me up. . Lumbee Indians rule the Klan.

Still that was in 1958 when things were generally going against the white supremacists. I still like the idea of a 1920s black terror targetting the Klan and Jim Crow enthusiasts.