WI: Union Punishes Most Confederate Leadership After the US Civil War?

Athelstane

Consider what Shelby Foote said of what Forrest's granddaughter had to say about this, just a few years before she died.

When Foote told her that the ACW produced two original geniuses, her grandfather & Abraham Lincoln, she drew quiet, and said: "Well, you know, Mr. Lincoln was never very well thought of in our household..." This, some 130 years later.:rolleyes:

Yes, I remember that Foote interview...

Memories and resentments lasted long in that neck of the woods.
 
Dumb question, but what accounted for the deep seated irrational hatred of blacks by whites? Looking back it's baffling and disturbing to me that one group of people could hate another group that hadn't done anything to them and just wanted to continue their lives. The way white people have treated black people historically, you'd think it was blacks that enslaved whites and enacted Jim Crow laws.


No one can ever forgive those he has wronged.

FTM, in the last year or two before the Civil War, they got into the most hysterical panic about the supposed danger of slave revolts, though none came even close to happening. Rationality was at a discount on that particular subject.
 
Last edited:
Of course, based on the registered voters rolls in the 1950s, for these rednecks (sorry, but the word fits here) just ONE voting Black was one too many. Even President Eisenhower, no champion of civil rights himself, was absolutely appalled when he was first shown the rock bottom levels of Black voter registration in the South, and how so many Southern counties had absolutely no Black registered voters whatsoever, despite having a larger population ratio of Blacks to Whites in some of those counties.



Though for a generation or so post-1877, they did tolerate substantial numbers of Blacks voting - just as long as it wasn't enough to actually carry a state. They trod warily for quite a long time (maybe longer than they really needed to) before going for full-blown disfranchisement.
 
Dumb question, but what accounted for the deep seated irrational hatred of blacks by whites? Looking back it's baffling and disturbing to me that one group of people could hate another group that hadn't done anything to them and just wanted to continue their lives. The way white people have treated black people historically, you'd think it was blacks that enslaved whites and enacted Jim Crow laws.

1) Dey's afta our White Women!
2) Dey's afta our jobs!
3) Dey's got no rights we's bound to respect!
4) If you ain't betta than a n----- you ain't nuthin!
5) Der's some who's gots it better den me! A White Man!
6) Dey's the Sons a' Cain!
7) Dey's don't know dey's place!
8) Dey's think dey can vote, like as if dey's was White or sumthin' (a)
9) We knows what happened the LAST time dey's got too uppity! (b)

a) Many Southern Whites were willing to surrender thdere own franchise, if it meant keeping ALL Blacks from voting.

b) I'll give you three guesses what that means, but you'll only need one:rolleyes:

1-9 are just those that come out of my mind right off the bat.

Why all this? In truth, hate has no reason, or any true cause. Not at a distance of a 150 years. Hate has goals, mostly revenge goals. But revenge is never satisfied. You could capture the murderer of you own child, put him in a torture chamber for the next 50 years, but not one day will pass with you gaining any sense of self-satisfaction. Because nothing will bring your child back.:(

No one can ever forgive those he has wronged.

Poignant statement.:cool: Is it yours? I'd say its more a matter of never TRUSTING those you have wronged. Because you will always know that payback is a bitch.
 
Though for a generation or so post-1877, they did tolerate substantial numbers of Blacks voting - just as long as it wasn't enough to actually carry a state. They trod warily for quite a long time (maybe longer than they really needed to) before going for full-blown disfranchisement.

Sounds like the US military (particularly the Navy and US Marines) completely disenfranchising Blacks by 1900. The Navy IIRC had no Blacks but stewards/cooks by 1941, and the USMC was all White!:mad:
 
Poignant statement.:cool: Is it yours? I'd say its more a matter of never TRUSTING those you have wronged. Because you will always know that payback is a bitch.


No it's not mine.

I first ran into it in an historical novel (on a totally different theme) which I read about fifty years ago.

I also recall a different version in (iirc) the 1980s tv comedy Yes Minister (or possibly its sequel Yes Prime Minister) "No one ever trusts anyone that they've cheated".
 
No it's not mine.

I first ran into it in an historical novel (on a totally different theme) which I read about fifty years ago.

I also recall a different version in (iirc) the 1980s tv comedy Yes Minister (or possibly its sequel Yes Prime Minister) "No one ever trusts anyone that they've cheated".

It was "Yes, Prime Minister". In one of the early episodes, Jim had to deal with one of the two contenders for the prime ministership AFTER he had forced him to drop out of the running. Seems "Eric", the Chancellor of the Exchequer, (1) couldn't keep his pants up (2), so Jim would eventually transfer him to Northern Ireland.:p

1) At least they avoided "Duncan", the Foreign Secretary, who seemed to be 50% Richard Nixon and 50% Boss Tweed.:D See his files in the Fraud Squad, Inland Revenue, Special Branch, Secret Auditor's Report from the Bank of England...:(

2) See Eric's files in the Special Branch, MI-5's interview with his driver, reports on relationships with certain women of questionable moral character, including the "Shady Lady from Argentina":rolleyes:, not to mention mistresses from East Germany and Yugoslavia. What, wasn't Red China using "swallows"?
 
Top