Minority Rights in a Victorious Confederacy?

[TFSmith121]

1) Yep and 2) Yep

1) Anything

2) Nothing

But remember, this was in the times of the Roger Taney Supreme Court. And the Celia Case was only two years before the Dred Scott bombshell.

1) Yep and 2) Yep...

And yet (cold comfort to Celia) she at least got a trial, and a fairly aggressive defense. The border states were different, and this is an example of it.

If she had killed her rapist in Mississippi or Alabama or Georgia, she probably would have been lynched on the spot, as soon as they found his remains.

Best,

 

[usertron2020]

1) Yep and 2) Yep...

And yet (cold comfort to Celia) she at least got a trial, and a fairly aggressive defense. The border states were different, (1) and this is an example of it.

If she had killed her rapist in Mississippi or Alabama or Georgia, she probably would have been lynched on the spot, (2) as soon as they found his remains.

Best,

1) N-o-o-o-t quite. Kentucky frex enforced the "One Drop Rule" as ferociously as anyone, if not more. And there's the whole "didn't pass the 13th Amendment until the Bicentennial" thing for the Bluegrass State.

2) Agreed

 

[TFSmith121]

Okay, some of the border states were different...

1) N-o-o-o-t quite. Kentucky frex enforced the "One Drop Rule" as ferociously as anyone, if not more. And there's the whole "didn't pass the 13th Amendment until the Bicentennial" thing for the Bluegrass State.

2) Agreed

Okay, some of the border states were different...

Best,

 

[Johnrankins]

1) N-o-o-o-t quite. Kentucky frex enforced the "One Drop Rule" as ferociously as anyone, if not more. And there's the whole "didn't pass the 13th Amendment until the Bicentennial" thing for the Bluegrass State.

2) Agreed

To be fair to KY I think part of the reason it was passed so late was 1) The 13th amendment was already the law of the land and so made its passage symbolic and not urgent. 2) A lot of people in KY probably figured it already passed long before. 3) A combination of the two caused people not even to think of it as other things were on their mind.

 

[The Uchronian]

To be fair to KY I think part of the reason it was passed so late was 1) The 13th amendment was already the law of the land and so made its passage symbolic and not urgent. 2) A lot of people in KY probably figured it already passed long before. 3) A combination of the two caused people not even to think of it as other things were on their mind.

I'm inclined to agree with you on that, TBH. Kentucky always was more moderate than most of the other Southern states, by and large.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

South Carolina is something of a special case, as it had an reactionary extremist streak to it for much of its early history.

South Carolina was the most paranoid about slave revolts and abolition because it had the largest proportion of blacks. Everything else followed from that.

South Carolina provoked the first and second secession crises, the second of which of course led to the Civil War. It was also the last state to allow direct election of presidential electors, sometime in the 1860s after the Civil War.

South Carolina switched to popular voting for electors as part of Reconstruction. The last time its electors were chosen by the legislature was 1860.

So Tillman may have been a reactionary extremist, but unfortunately that was par the course for 1800s South Carolina.

Tillman was an ironclad white supremacist. That did not make him a reactionary in other matters. He came to power as the leader of the "poor whites" (or non-rich whites) against the traditional plantation elite.

He was a white supremacist. He orchestrated the 1895 constitutional convention, which achieved the de facto disenfranchisement of blacks without explicitly contradicting the Fifteenth Amendment.

But it was also during his administration that South Carolina established a teachers' college for blacks - not exactly a reactionary policy.

 

[The Uchronian]

South Carolina switched to popular voting for electors as part of Reconstruction. The last time its electors were chosen by the legislature was 1860.
Tillman was an ironclad white supremacist. That did not make him a reactionary in other matters. He came to power as the leader of the "poor whites" (or non-rich whites) against the traditional plantation elite.

One thing you have to understand, though, Rich, is like certain other Southern politicos of the era, he was an opprotunist, and much more so than your normal politician. Like Ted Bilbo, he knew how to play the game, and people lapped it up. Chances are, though, he actually didn't give two shits about the people he was representing(which wasn't exactly uncommon, unfortunately, even amongst Yankee politicians).

He was a white supremacist. He orchestrated the 1895 constitutional convention, which achieved the de facto disenfranchisement of blacks without explicitly contradicting the Fifteenth Amendment.

That alone made him a reactionary, Rich. He even went so far as to advocate mass murder of "uppity" blacks at one point.

But it was also during his administration that South Carolina established a teachers' college for blacks - not exactly a reactionary policy.

Which *may* be true, but this would really be a historical fluke more than anything else.

 

[Delta Force]

I'm reading a book about how Nazi pseudoscience seeped into German academia. While discussing the development of scientific racism there's a brief mention of how the Confederacy promoted European researchers who came to conclusions that they could spin to promote white supremacy. It's possible the Confederate government could distort anthropology, biology, and a host of other scientific fields to try to promote their agenda. Just imagine how the Confederacy would implement eugenics...

 

[usertron2020]

South Carolina was the only state in the Union that had a Black majority. I don't remember if the ratio was 3:2 or 2:1, but it was high. If Santo Domingo and Nat Turner was on the minds of every White Southerner, then White South Carolinians had such visions in their nightmares. I don't know this for a fact, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if SC was the first state in the Antebellum South to make legally mandatory that all adult White males carry firearms at all times when traveling.

Emboldened for effect.

South Carolina was the most paranoid about slave revolts and abolition because it had the largest proportion of blacks. Everything else followed from that.

Is my royalties check in the mail?

I'm reading a book about how Nazi pseudoscience seeped into German academia. While discussing the development of scientific racism there's a brief mention of how the Confederacy promoted European researchers who came to conclusions that they could spin to promote white supremacy. It's possible the Confederate government could distort anthropology, biology, and a host of other scientific fields to try to promote their agenda. Just imagine how the Confederacy would implement eugenics...

They were already doing this in the Antebellum South.

 

[sloreck]

Lamarckian racial theories were deeply embedded in southern thinking. As an example, more so than almost anywhere else, southern physicians subscribed to the theories that diseases presented differently in blacks as opposed to whites, as well as the fixed intellectual and moral "deficiencies" of blacks. Of course this applied to other "races" such as Slavs, Jews, Orientals, "Latins", etc. however differences amongst "white" races were minimal compared to those between whites and blacks, or whites and "yellow" races.

 

[Space Oddity]

Don't forget the effort to prove that runaway slaves were mentally ill. A sarcastic Northern doctor suggested it was due to a magnetic imbalance in them that appeared to be cured once they reached Canada, with the only lasting side-effect being a resistance in most subjects to ever going south again...

 

[TFSmith121]

Subtle 19th Century humor...

Subtle 19th Century humor...is the best kind.

Best,

 

[Fiver]

South Carolina was the only state in the Union that had a Black majority. I don't remember if the ratio was 3:2 or 2:1, but it was high.

In 1860, about 60 of the population of South Carolina was black. Mississippi also had a black majority, they were 55% of the population. Nearly half of the population of Louisiana was black. About 45% of the populations of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia were black.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

Chances are, though, he actually didn't give two shits about the people he was representing...

If he had no actual political convictions, then he wasn't a reactionary, was he?

Quote:
He was a white supremacist. He orchestrated the 1895 constitutional convention, which achieved the de facto disenfranchisement of blacks without explicitly contradicting the Fifteenth Amendment.
That alone made him a reactionary, Rich.

Nonsense. Teddy Roosevelt approved (privately) of black disenfranchisement in the South. Was he a reactionary? Cecil Rhodes pushed the effective abolition of the Cape Colored franchise. Was he a reactionary?

There is a great difference between racism and opposition to any change in the existing social order. Hitler was a violent racist, but also a proponent of radical social and cultural change.

He even went so far as to advocate mass murder of "uppity" blacks at one point.

Rhetoric. All white supremacists threatened violence in defense of white power. White power was to be maintained at any price, and they said so, but that's not the same as advocating murder for its own sake.

Quote:
But it was also during his administration that South Carolina established a teachers' college for blacks - not exactly a reactionary policy.
Which *may* be true...

Is true. You can look it up.

Well, more or less true. The bill which established "Colored Normal Industrial Agricultural and Mechanical College of South Carolina" (now SC State U.) as the first land-grant college for blacks passed in March 1896. Tillman had then been elected to the Senate (in 1895). However, he remained the political boss of South Carolina until his death in 1918 and he supported the bill.

... but this would really be a historical fluke more than anything else.

No, it was a definite policy of South Carolina at a time when Tillman was the Boss. It didn't just happen.

 

[The Uchronian]

Really, Rich?

If he had no actual political convictions, then he wasn't a reactionary, was he?

Individual reactionaries can be quite good at playing political games when they need to, Rich. Look at Ted Bilbo in Mississippi for example. He played the game beautifully. But that didn't change the fact that he was still reactionary to the core. Just like Tillman.

Nonsense. Teddy Roosevelt approved (privately) of black disenfranchisement in the South.

Not true. Roosevelt may have been indifferent to the Jim Crow problem, that may be true, but he certainly wasn't one of its cheerleaders, privately or otherwise(he was, in fact, opposed to lynching. That alone should tell you something). Now, granted, he *did* make some concessions to Southern politicos whilst in the White House. Which is unfortunate, yes, but such was the times(even FDR had to give in on some things, from time to time. Doesn't mean he wholeheartedly approve of every little thing the Dixiecrats did.). But he was nowhere near the likes of Ben Tillman & and other racial reactionaries of the era.

There is a great difference between racism and opposition to any change in the existing social order. Hitler was a violent racist, but also a proponent of radical social and cultural change.

They are not the exact same, no, but they have often gone hand in hand(particularly with more extreme forms of racism & other prejudices, mainly); Hitler was a reactionary as well(in fact, how could his extreme anti-socialist rhetoric NOT be reactionary?). And, speaking of him, quite a few of the more hardcore German conservatives supported him, by the way(yes, it may be true that some of the more moderate conservatives may have been genuinely off-put by his extremism. That's not in doubt).

Rhetoric. All white supremacists threatened violence in defense of white power. White power was to be maintained at any price, and they said so, but that's not the same as advocating murder for its own sake.

And I never ONCE said or implied that they were the exact same, Rich, and you know that as well as I do. Please, do actually try to read what I wrote next time.

And frankly, I hate to break this to you, but I'm afraid your highly selective, and rather outdated, views of how one defines "reaction", alone, tells me that you're not exactly on the up and up here, in this regard.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

Quote:
Nonsense. Teddy Roosevelt approved (privately) of black disenfranchisement in the South.
Not true. Roosevelt may have been indifferent to the Jim Crow problem, that may be true, but he certainly wasn't one of its cheerleaders, privately or otherwise(he was, in fact, opposed to lynching. That alone should tell you something).

True.

H. L. Mencken had an essay on Roosevelt in Selected Prejudices. He noted that Roosevelt the great crusader and warmonger was completely silent in 1914 when Germany was invading Belgium and mass-murdering Belgian civilians. He put it down to Roosevelt's pro-German sympathies and cod-Nietzcheanism - Roosevelt liked violent aggression and couldn't bring himself to denounce Germany.

So some years ago, I went through Roosevelt's collected letters from 1914, to see what I could find of his actual views. I don't recall what I found on that subject.

What I did find was a letter in which he stated that pure nominal democracy was impossible in the American South, because, well, there was a majority of people there incapable of voting responsibly. I don't recall his exact wording, and IIRC he didn't refer explicitly to blacks - but it couldn't be taken any other way.

I'm pretty sure it was in this book: The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, Elting E. Morison (Editor), 1954. There's a copy in the Northeastern Illinois University library, and I probably looked it up when I was going there, twenty years ago.

The fact is that the scandals of Reconstruction, as trumpeted by Redeemer propagandists, persuaded most Americans that blacks were not really fit for citizenship, at least not where they would be a majority. That's why Republicans pretty much abandoned the cause of black suffrage in the South after 1876. They did nothing about it in the McKinley-Roosevelt era, when they controlled the Federal government, nor in the 1920s, another era of control.

Roosevelt was typical on this subject.
​

Incidentally, Roosevelt and Tillman were allies on the issue of railroad regulation.