Todd Nicholls
Warren Chamberlain
On another post what is Dan Sullivan's sources for this: "This is superficial and one sided. It dishonestly ignores important factors. It talks about how blacks got the vote, but ignores the fact that Southern whites who supported the confederacy (which is most of them) lost their right to vote. It ignores the fact that most of these early Republican Congressmen were former slaves who couldn't read or write, and were managed by Northern carpetbaggers who manipulated them to help them steal Southern land from the defeated South. It also conceals the fact that Civil Rights legislation got more support from Republicans than from Democrats generally." Dan's recent comments about the Civil War and Lincoln come off as reactionary do you agree?
https://slate.com/.../how-black-politicians-affected-life...
SLATE.COM
Proof That Black Politicians Helped Freedpeople During Reconstruction
Proof That Black Politicians Helped Freedpeople During Reconstruction
1
- ·
Reply
- ·
Remove Preview
- · 2d
- ·
Edited
Todd Nicholls
Warren Chamberlain
this is a good rebuttal to Dan Sullivan's statement:
https://slate.com/.../the-many-black-americans-who-held...…
See More
SLATE.COM
South Carolina’s Forgotten Black Political Revolution
South Carolina’s Forgotten Black Political Revolution
- ·
Reply
- ·
Remove Preview
- · 2d
Dan Sullivan
Eric Foner is the nation's #1 civil-war revisionist historian, and Slate is woke pseudo-journalism. The article actually rebutted nothing I had said; it merely glossed over the truth.
It is a fact that most whites lost their right to vote for supporting the confederacy, and that most blacks, including many office holders, were illiterate. They were "managed" by northern "carpetbaggers" who used them to plunder the South.
This is what caused lasting racial tensions that do not exist in countries that abolished slavery peacefully and equitably, some long after we abolished it here.
1
Todd Nicholls
When the war ended, the Confederate currency became worthless, and many landowners put their lands up for sale to obtain money. Northerners were oftentimes the only buyers who could pay the purchase price. When slavery ended, land values plummeted so the owners did not receive much for their land when it was sold. Those who retained their land were, as before the war, required to pay property taxes. And as before the war, if they failed to pay those taxes, the land was sold.
Todd Nicholls
Dan Sullivan
Some black politicians were already well-educated, others dedicated their efforts to learning the political process to best represent their interests and that of their constituents. Black voters paid attention to political matters and understood which issues were important to them. Even those voters who had no education or literacy skills could, and did, exhibit mature appreciation for civic matters.
The belief that all Southern blacks, even all slaves, were childlike and ignorant--subject to easy manipulation--is a relic of white supremacist thought.
Dan Sullivan
You are parroting a narrative, a relic of left-supremacist thought. Nobody said slaves were childlike and ignorant. You just had to make that up that to attack anyone who questions your narrative. What I said is that they were illiterate, and that is because most of them were not allowed to read and write.
Your narrative also tells the lie that whites were resentful that blacks could vote, and ignores the real cause of resentment, which is that most whites could not vote.
It is also a lie that whites lost their farms merely because confederate money was worthless. They lost their farms because the North set the slaves free without compensation, but enforced the mortgages to Northern Banks, even if the mortgages had been taken out to buy slaves, and even if slaves were collateral.
You only know one side of the story, and even that side is based on half-truths.
Warren Chamberlain
Dan Sullivan
"left-supremacist thought.'???????
Warren Chamberlain
Dan Sullivan
"Your narrative also tells the lie that whites were resentful that blacks could vote, and ignores the real cause of resentment, which is that most whites could not vote."
I do not remember learning that when I went to school.
Dan Sullivan
Exactly,
Warren Chamberlain
, you did not learn about the excesses of Reconstruction grinding down the South. Northern schools didn't teach it, so it must not have happened.
"The Republicans intended to prevent political activity of ex-Confederate soldiers and supporters by requiring all voters and officials to swear they had never supported the Confederacy. Given the temporary disenfranchisement of the numerous Confederate veterans and local civic leaders, a new Republican biracial coalition came to power in the eleven Southern states during Reconstruction. Southern conservative Democrats were angered to have been disenfranchised....
"The oath was a key factor in removing many ex-Confederates from the political arena during the Reconstruction era of the late 1860s. To take the Ironclad Oath, a person had to swear he had never borne arms against the Union or supported the Confederacy: that is, he had 'never voluntarily borne arms against the United States;' had 'voluntarily' given 'no aid, countenance, counsel or encouragement' to persons in rebellion; and had exercised or attempted to exercise the functions of no office under the Confederacy. A farmer who sold grain to the Confederate Army would be covered.[citation needed] The oath was detested by ex-Confederates, some called of whom it 'The Damnesty Oath....'[2]
"The historian Harold Hyman says that in 1866, northern Representatives 'described the oath as the last bulwark against the return of ex-rebels to power, the barrier behind which Southern Unionists and Negroes protected themselves.'[3]
"The first Supplemental Reconstruction Act (March 23, 1867) required an oath of past loyalty in order for any man in the South to vote. The local registrar had to swear that he had never held office under Confederacy, nor given aid or comfort to it. They also had to take the ironclad oath.[4]
"In 1867, the US Supreme Court held that the federal ironclad oath for attorneys and the similar Missouri state oath for ministers, teachers, and other professionals were unconstitutional because they violated the constitutional prohibitions against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.[5][6][7]
"In March 1867, Radicals in Congress passed a law that prohibited anyone from voting in the election of delegates to state constitutional conventions or in the subsequent ratification who was prohibited from holding office under Section 3 of the pending Fourteenth Amendment:[8] Those exclusions were less inclusive than the requirements of the Ironclad Oath. The exclusions allowed the Republican coalitions to carry the elections in every southern state except Virginia. The Republican-dominated legislatures wrote and enacted state new constitutions that applied to all state officials and could not be repealed by an ordinary vote of the legislature.
"The Republicans applied the oath in the South to keep political opponents from holding office or (in some states) from even voting.[9] Hyman says, 'most Southerners, even good Republican supporters, were disfranchised by the ironclad oath's blanket provisions rather than by the Fourteenth Amendment's highly selective disabilities.'[10]
"Perman emphasizes that the Republican ascendancy in the South was 'extremely precarious' because the electorate had been defined by Congress, and 'many potential opponents had been disfranchised, while others have simply refused to participate in what they regarded as a rigged election.'[11] Perman argues that while the Radicals had controlled the state constitutional conventions, they increasingly lost power inside the Republican Party to conservative forces, which repudiated disfranchisement and proscription. Voters in Texas, Virginia, and Mississippi voted down the new constitutions even though many opponents were disfranchised. The result was that by 1870 in every state except Arkansas, the Republicans dropped the restrictions against ex-Confederates and supporters, such as the Oronclad Oath. In Arkansas the Republican split, which led to an armed conflict called the Brooks–Baxter War.[12]
"In 1871, Congress modified the oath to permit all former rebels to use the 1868 formula to swear to 'future loyalty.' US President Ulysses S. Grant vetoed the law, but Congress passed it.[13]
"Voting restrictions on former Confederates varied by state during the rest of the Reconstruction era. Few were disenfranchised in Georgia, Texas, Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Alabama and Arkansas banned only those ineligible to hold office under the Fourteenth Amendment. Louisiana banned newspaper editors and religious ministers who had supported secession or anybody who had voted for the secession ordinance but allowed them to vote if they took an oath for Radical Reconstruction, a much more lenient avowal than that required by the Ironclad Oath.[14] In states with disenfranchisement, the maximum was 10–20% of otherwise-eligible white voters; most states had much smaller proprtions disenfranchised.[15] In the South, the most support for the Ironclad Oath came from white Republicans from the Hill Counties, where they needed it to gain local majorities.[16]
"In May 1884, President Chester Arthur signed the law repealing the remaining Ironclad Oaths and jurors' test oath statutes.[17]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironclad_Oath#Reconstruction
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Ironclad Oath - Wikipedia
Ironclad Oath - Wikipedia
1
Warren Chamberlain
Dan Sullivan
There are a lot of things they did not teach us in public school.
Dan Sullivan
The point is that the left-wing narrative suppresses anything that does not vilify the South. Did you know that Jefferson predicted secession in 1796, listing a number of reasons that had nothing to do with slavery?
Warren Chamberlain
Dan Sullivan
We did not learn a lot about the other side of the story either. The history of slavery.
1
Dan Sullivan
Well, what they are teaching today is dishonest.
