PDA

View Full Version : Two Quotes from Two Great men



TennCav
05-16-2007, 09:35 AM
People can say what they want about what northerners and southerners thought about slavery, but this is a bit of insight into two men of the WBTS and what they thought. Now, let's compare quotes from two men of those days. The first of our comparisons wrote: (quote):

"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 from 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." (End of quote).

Now for the second quote:

"I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to elevate every man - to depress none. (Applause.) I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going. I have not said anything about politics today. I don't propose to say anything about politics. You have a right to elect whom you please; vote for the man you think best, and I think, when that is done, you and I are freemen. Do as you consider right and honest in electing men for office. I did not come here to make you a long speech, although invited to do so by you. I am not much of a speaker, and my business prevented me from preparing myself. I came to meet you as friends, and welcome you to the white people. I want you to come nearer to us. When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment. Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I'll come to your relief." (End of quote).

Tell me who you think wrote which quote. To me,the first man seems racist and the second the first civil rights advocate.


Slavery was not the right thing in my opinion, but it was world wide. Not something we started. It is something we added in this country for the better of man kind. That is a point lost most of the time, considering that slavery still exists in the world today.
"Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I'll come to your relief." That is a quote that we should all live by.













If you did not already know, the first quote was made by, Abraham Lincoln, the second by Nathan Bedford Forrest. Read a complete essay here on Nathan Bedford Forrest http://www.monumentalbattlefields.com/index.htm

Malingerer
05-16-2007, 10:03 AM
Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, speaking with regard to the several filibuster expeditions to Central America: "I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason -- for the planting and spreading of slavery."

sbl
05-16-2007, 10:34 AM
Peter,

You might enjoy this book...


http://www.amazon.com/War-Nicaragua-William-Walker/dp/0816508828

The War in Nicaragua (Paperback)
by William Walker (Author)



Paperback: 431 pages
Publisher: Univ of Arizona Pr; Reprint edition (February 1985)
ISBN-10: 0816508828
ISBN-13: 978-0816508822

Malingerer
05-16-2007, 11:15 AM
Thanks Scott,
Looks like a great read.

tompritchett
05-16-2007, 01:54 PM
I recognized the Lincoln quote and heard about Forrest's post-war pro-civil rights activities but had never been able to track down any solid evidence. Thanks for the link.

TennCav
05-16-2007, 02:11 PM
The is a copy of his full speach on our web site also.
http://forrestsescort.com/polebearers.html

tompritchett
05-16-2007, 02:20 PM
The is a copy of his full speach on our web site also.
http://forrestsescort.com/polebearers.html

Forrest is definitely someone that I want to do more research on. A very interesting character, a very aggressive commander, and a military leader well before his time. IMHO, he would do very well as an commander in today's mechanized warfare.

bob 125th nysvi
05-16-2007, 07:07 PM
Tell me who you think wrote which quote. To me,the first man seems racist and the second the first civil rights advocate.

That like anything else context and audience are as important if not more important than words.

For example if you look at translations of Hitler's speeches when he was trying to get elected he doesn't talk about war and the final solution. He talks about jobs and making Germany strong and secure.

Speeches you will hear in this presidential cycle.

It is not what a person says that matters it is what he does. And Forrest was CERTAINLY no civil rights activist.

Jerry Ross
05-16-2007, 08:31 PM
Scott B.Leach,
Thanks for posting about "The War in Nicaragua" .I have heard about William Walker's trip there about 10 years ago. I did not know there was abook about it.

My family bought part of his Farm in Stewart County TN .I now have a cabin that was on that farm in my yard .We call it" the Walker Cabin". The Walker Family is still around although most of them are very old.

Jerry Ross
Clarksville TN

Malingerer
05-17-2007, 05:40 AM
Using a speech by a former slave dealer and the man most directly reponsible for the Fort Pillow massacre and the founder of the KKK may not be the way to go here. Lincoln was certainly no saint, but compared to Forrest... well history has already rendered that verdict.

TennCav
05-17-2007, 06:11 AM
Using a speech by a former slave dealer and the man most directly responsible for the Fort Pillow massacre and the founder of the KKK may not be the way to go here. Lincoln was certainly no saint, but compared to Forrest... well history has already rendered that verdict.
The KKK was not founded by Forrest, he was asked to join. Also with any research at all and you will see that it was not the same clan of today. That being so, Forrest also ordered the clan disbanded when it started down a road he thought was not a good one. Look into the modern clan and for years in its beginnings you will see they flew the American flag., and considered them selves true Americans, it was much latter that some started using a Confederate flag that then started the uproar we have today such as the drawings in the post The reasons the Confederate battle flag is condemned.
Fort pillow was no massacre other then in the union headlines. As in most of Forrest battles a surrender was offered and the fort told if they did not, no quarter would be given and when the confederates went in the men in the fort continued to fight. More white soldiers were killed that day then black. The Union attempted to put Forrest on trial for Ft. Pillow but could not convict him.
If the confederacy would have won he would have been looked upon as a hero in the same way that Sherman. Sherman is considered a butcher in the south. But it was war and Sherman in my opinion operated that way. Each side looks at the great generals of the war differently, and a lot of times the judge on myths and do not really look into the history of a man. But then again this is America and we are all entitled to our opinions, be them right or wrong.

Sgt_Pepper
05-17-2007, 08:24 AM
Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, speaking with regard to the several filibuster expeditions to Central America: "I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason -- for the planting and spreading of slavery."

One thing usually left out of the story of the Alamo is that the doomed defenders intended to introduce slavery into the Texas territory.

Malingerer
05-17-2007, 08:32 AM
The KKK was not founded by Forrest, he was asked to join. Also with any research at all and you will see that it was not the same clan of today. That being so, Forrest also ordered the clan disbanded when it started down a road he thought was not a good one. Look into the modern clan and for years in its beginnings you will see they flew the American flag., and considered them selves true Americans, it was much latter that some started using a Confederate flag that then started the uproar we have today such as the drawings in the post The reasons the Confederate battle flag is condemned.
Fort pillow was no massacre other then in the union headlines. As in most of Forrest battles a surrender was offered and the fort told if they did not, no quarter would be given and when the confederates went in the men in the fort continued to fight. More white soldiers were killed that day then black. The Union attempted to put Forrest on trial for Ft. Pillow but could not convict him.
If the confederacy would have won he would have been looked upon as a hero in the same way that Sherman. Sherman is considered a butcher in the south. But it was war and Sherman in my opinion operated that way. Each side looks at the great generals of the war differently, and a lot of times the judge on myths and do not really look into the history of a man. But then again this is America and we are all entitled to our opinions, be them right or wrong.
Jim,
With all due respect, the overwhelming evidence suggests that at best, Forrest failed to control the rage of his men and tacitly allowed his men to slaughter the garrison long after they surrendered. This evidence comes from the letters of Forrest's own men. Of course, this type of occurance was not limited to Fort Pillow - there are scores of instances in which Confederate soldiers boasted of their killing of Black prisoners including Olustee, the crater, Plymouth, and Saltville. But given Forrest's history of race relations I'm not certain that I would trot him out as an example of the model Southern citizen. Additionally, the North never tried to put Forrest on trial - that's sheer fantasy.
Your most humble and obedient servant,

TennCav
05-17-2007, 09:27 AM
This is a union report on what went on, I don't see this Lieutenant saying any thing of a massacare at the time. In fact he explains several things that many claimed that Forrest men did, such as burning the barrecks out side the fort. As for when I said " The Union attempted to put Forrest on trial for Ft. Pillow but could not convict him." I may be wrong on this fact. I'm looking for where I found this. We are human though and now and then make a mistake. Lincoln did have it investigated.


Numbers 16. Report of Lieutenant Daniel Van Horn, Sixth U. S. Colored Heavy Artillery, of the capture of Fort Pillow - Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol. 32, Part 1, pp. 569-570
HDQRS. SIXTH U. S. HEAVY ARTILLERY (COLORADO,
Fort Pickering, Memphis, Tenn., April 14, 1864.

COLONEL: I have the honor to submit the following report of the battle and capture of Fort Pillow, Tenn.:

At sunrise on the morning of the 12th of April, 1864, our pickets were attacked and driven in, they making very slight resistance. They were from the Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry

Major Booth, commanding the post, had made all his arrangements for battle that the limited force under his command would allow, and which was only 450 effective men, consisting of the First Battalion of the Sixth U. S. Heavy Artillery, five companies of the Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, and one section of the Second U. S. Light Artillery (colorado, Lieutenant Hunter.

Arrangements were scarcely completed and the men placed in the rifle-pits before the enemy came upon us and in ten times our number, as acknowledged by General Chalmers. They were repulsed with heavy loss; charged again and were again repulsed. At the third chargee Major Booth was killed, while passing among his men and cheering them to fight.


The order was then given to retire inside the fort, and General Forrest sent in a flag of truce demanding an unconditional surrender of the fort, which was returned with a decided refusal.

During the time consumed by this consultation advantage was taken by the enemy to place in position his force, they crawling up to the fort.

After the flag had retired, the fight was renewed and raged with fury for some time, when another flag of truce was sent in and another demand for surrender made, they assuring us at the same time that they would treat us as "prisoners of war."

Another refusal was returned, when they again charged the works and succeeded in carrying them. Shortly before this, however, Lieutenant John D. Hill, Sixth U. S. Heavy Artillery, was ordered outside the fort to burn some barracks, which he, with the assistance of a citizen who accompanied him, succeeded in effecting, and in returning was killed.

Major Bradford, of the Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry, was now in command. At 4 o'clock the fort was in possession of the enemy, every man having been either killed, wounded, or captured.


There never was a surrender of the fort, both officers and men declaring they never would surrender or ask for quarter. [emphasis added, ed.]

As for myself, I escaped by putting on citizen's clothes, after I had been some time their prisoner. I received a slight wound of the left ear.

I cannot close this report without adding my testimony to that accorded by others wherever the black man has been brought into battle. Never did men fight better, and when the odds against us are considered it is truly miraculous that we should have held the fort an hour. To the colored troops is due the successful holding out until 4 p. m. The men were constantly at their posts, and in fact through the whole engagement showed a valor not, under the circumstances, to have been expected from troops less than veterans, either white or black.

The following is a list of the casualties among the officers as far as known: Killed, Major Lionel F. Booth, Sixth U. S. Heavy Artillery (colored); Major William F. Bradford, Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry; Captain Theodore F. Bradford, Thirteenth Tennessee Cavalry; Captain Delos Carson, Company D, Sixth U. S. Heavy Artillery (colored); Lieutenant John D. Hill, Company C, Sixth U. S. Heavy Artillery (colored); Lieutenant Peter Bischoff,* Company A, Sixth U. S. Heavy Artillery (colored). Wounded, Captain Charles J. Epeneter, Company A, prisoner; Lieutenant Thomas W. McClure, Company C, prisoner; Lieutenant Henry Lippettt, Company B, escaped, badly wounded; Lieutenant Van Horn, Company D, escaped, slightly wounded.

I know of about 15 men of the Sixth U. S. Heavy Artillery (colored) having escaped, and all but 2 of them are wounded.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, &c.,

DANIEL VAN HORN,
2nd Lieutenant Company D, Sixth U. S. Heavy Artillery (colored).

Lieutenant Colonel T. H. HARRIS,
Assistant Adjutant-General.

TennCav
05-17-2007, 10:12 AM
I'm not the correct person to carry this debate. I only suggest that there are many opinions out there based on myth and not the facts. Look at history, and even today. Things are twisted to benefit the winning side of any war. The spin masters of today are great at it. What really is the truth? We can only wish we would have been there to have seen for our selves.

tompritchett
05-17-2007, 10:32 AM
I'm not the correct person to carry this debate. I only suggest that there are many opinions out there based on myth and not the facts. Look at history, and even today.

I suspect that Forrest may be one of the most misunderstood personalities of the war worth of further and detailed research as there are many pre-conceived notions and strong opinions out there that may or may not cloud one's objectivity.

goatgirl
05-17-2007, 03:30 PM
Using a speech by... the founder of the KKK may not be the way to go here.

Can you supply a documented source, please?

goatgirl
05-17-2007, 03:58 PM
What realy is the truth? We can only wish we would have been there to have seen for our selves.

Here is the next best thing - someone who was almost there. ;)

An elderly back man, Nelson Winbush, says he would have fought by his grandfather’s side in the 7th Tennessee Cavalry led by General Nathan Bedford Forest. Nelson Winbush did not learn his heritage the way we do - through books. He learned it from a Negro who had “been there done that.”

Here is one of Mr. Nelson’s quotes:

"I have difficulty in trying to apply today's standards with what happened 150 years ago ...That's what a lot of people are attempting to do. I'm just presenting facts, not as I read from some book where somebody thought that they understood. This came straight from the horse's mouth, and I refute anybody to deny that."

The entire article http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1085357/posts

Trooper Graham
05-17-2007, 05:24 PM
http://www.scvcamp469-nbf.com/nathanbforrestlink.htm

TennCav
05-17-2007, 05:46 PM
The Confederacy....its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery . . . is his natural and normal condition." Alexander H. Stephens, 1861
So Malingerer bassed on the quote you use in so signiture one would have to say that the corner stone of the US is Slavery and the last I remember reading that was not so. But I seam to remember reading that slavery was here way before the confederate states where.
As for your other statement that
"well history has already rendered that verdict. The only verdict made is that that wish to twist history in its favor. Again the for runners for CNN and its version of history.

VA Soldier
05-17-2007, 06:42 PM
I know that a undergraduate is not considered an authority on anything, but I have spent the past few years writing and researching and reading and learning not only about history but the process in which history is written.

The one thing that has been shown to be abundantly clear is the fact that history is not static. As time goes on we lose information, but as well gain information. Every year people find information previously lost to us. As things are writing and proved, discoveries are made that "re write history" New information has come out about many people and the former heroes of this nation have been sullied by the "truth" and villains have been vindicated by it.

History will render a verdict, but a temporary one at best

D A Jackson

TennCav
05-17-2007, 07:11 PM
History will render a verdict, but a temporary one at best


Amen to that.

bob 125th nysvi
05-17-2007, 07:57 PM
the corner stone of the US is Slavery.

As far as prewar agricultural exports we concerned it certainly is so and agricultural exports were the majority (in value) of America's foreign trade (read COTTON).


But I seam to remember reading that slavery was here way before the confederate states where.

True but they were the only states to continue to endorse its usage on a wide scale (And yes I know there were slaves north of the Confederacy) in many states it had been outlawed. At one time slavery was legal in all the colonies but over time it became economically unsound in many of them so it was easy to eliminate.

bob 125th nysvi
05-17-2007, 07:59 PM
History will render a verdict, but a temporary one at best.

just people try to change the interpetation of history by selecting or ignoring facts that suit their beliefs.

But sooner or later the facts are plain to see for all who care too look.

And history is facts not interpetations.

VA Soldier
05-18-2007, 05:02 AM
history is facts not interpetations.

History is the study of the Past.

Unfortunatley, a time machine has yet to be invented, so for many periods of history there are gaps in the record of what actually happened. While new discoveries are being made every day which slowly lifts the fog of time over an event, historians have, and always will use their knowledge to make inferences to cover those gaps.

The historian will draw on other infromation from other sources of a similar nature and time to do this, but they are at best educated guesses.

Having just completed a senior thesis on an event that has left very little in the way of primary sources I can atest to the difficulty in relating an event when there is almost nothing in the historical record about the event. I had to draw on many sources to more or less guess and interpret what happened to the best of my ability. I am still doing research and may find something that completely blows my thinking out of the water, but thats ok, that is the process of History, of studying the past. Some people use historical events like the Bible, they pull and quote to suit their needs, but the honest historian, be him/her public, private, professional, or amateur, will never discount the facts, but may very well have to work with a limited number of them.

And as far as interpretations, all Historians interpret, they have too, if they didn't history books would be just jumbled conglomerations of facts almost useless except in instances where so much in the way of primary sources exist as to form an almost complete picture, but most events, the lesser known events, that rely on scraps of newspaper articles or personal journals, would read like a phone book.
If we relied just on the facts, imagine how that would impact reenacting, we make guesses at every event, we guess on what they would have been doing, how they would have acted, items they may have had. We make infrences on all that is left from the historical record, from letters written home, from newspaper accounts, from the official records, while that is a lot of information, it does not begin to cover all the people of that era.

We are living historians, we do our best to show people what life was like back then based on what we know, but because we were not raised back then, did not live back then, and can not see what actually transpired back then, we will never know all the aspects of life back then.

D. A. Jackson

TennCav
05-18-2007, 07:21 AM
here is a great article on DENYING the PAST http://www.slavenorth.com/denial.htm
The North was no different then the south when it came to slaves. Several Slave states were in the union and several others did make it illegal, but allowed people to retained slaves over a certain age as "apprentices for life" until the 13th Amendment. Lincoln had no intension of freeing slaves until it came to a point that the north was in danger of losing and then only freed slaves in southern states to hurt them. Why not all states? Because the north wanted their slaves. Again it is more history that if people looked more into, rather then blame the south for slavery, we would find out the real reasons of the war. People today continue to blame the south because they need an excuse for their problems. It’s the easy way out. This countries past is just that, no one here is affected by that. For some of the southern sates that a being force to apologize for slavery is ridiculous. The south was not the reason for slavery. If any one should apologize it should be the U.S. Government and then I think that is ridiculous. We have no one to apologize to, they are all dead. It is all HISTORY

hanktrent
05-18-2007, 08:31 AM
Lincoln had no intension of freeing slaves until it came to a point that the north was in danger of losing

That's sure not what southern writers were saying in 1860/61. From their viewpoint, Lincoln and his political cronies were anti-slavery, and there was a distinct difference between the north and the south when it came to slavery, because the south needed and wanted it, while the north didn't want it and would fight if necessary to make the whole country free.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

tompritchett
05-18-2007, 09:41 AM
Unfortunatley, a time machine has yet to be invented, so for many periods of history there are gaps in the record of what actually happened. While new discoveries are being made every day which slowly lifts the fog of time over an event, historians have, and always will use their knowledge to make inferences to cover those gaps.

Another complication is that the information available to the historian is not always in total agreement, especially when it involves recollections made years later or official reports where the author may have reasons to avoid total candor.

tompritchett
05-18-2007, 09:44 AM
Why not all states? Because the north wanted their slaves.

I would suggest that Lincoln did not try to free all the slaves because he feared doing so would drive the remaining slave states, such as Kentucky and Delaware, out of the Union.

hanktrent
05-18-2007, 01:20 PM
Why not all states? Because the north wanted their slaves.
I would suggest that Lincoln did not try to free all the slaves because he feared doing so would drive the remaining slave states, such as Kentucky and Delaware, out of the Union.

I agree with Tom's articulation of it above. But ironically those two sentences show how you can change the spin, while being literally correct.

Yes, the "north" (i.e. some Union-allied states like Kentucky, Delaware, etc.) "wanted their slaves."

But using the word "north" rather than specifying the border slave states, implies that all northern states wanted slaves equally. And saying "wanted their slaves," implies that all northern states wanted slaves simply for the sake of having slaves.

If they wanted slaves, Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Massachusetts, etc. could have re-legalized slavery within their own borders. Instead, I'd say what they generally wanted was for the African-American "problem" to just disappear, from the south, from within their own borders, everywhere.

But "the north" was willing to accept slavery in some states, in exchange for political and military support, until the war was won. After that, they made it clear that slavery was going to be gone, everywhere.

So yes, I'd say "the north" (that is, the free northern states) "wanted" slavery, but only because they figured that allowing it for a while longer would bring an end to it in the longer run. And the slave border states did, of course, "want" slavery, though they might be less apt to consider themselves representative of "the north."

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

TennCav
05-18-2007, 01:50 PM
The last northern state to abolish slavery was New Jersey in 1804, although the laws of that state retained slaves over a certain age as "apprentices for life" until the 13th Amendment. New Jesrey was not a boarder state at all, they did not want to piss off any slave owners in their state. The big money wanted their help, Yes they did away with buying new slaves, but Still a slave state none the less.

hanktrent
05-18-2007, 02:34 PM
The last northern state to abolish slavery was New Jersey in 1804, although the laws of that state retained slaves over a certain age as "apprentices for life" until the 13th Amendment. New Jesrey was not a boarder state at all, they did not want to piss off any slave owners in their state. The big money wanted their help, Yes they did away with buying new slaves, but Still a slave state none the less.

If that's kinda in response to what I said, I think it illustrates my point. Most states in the north had decided on their own, a generation or two before the Civil War, to gradually and peacefully give up slavery, and the transition was successfully underway. Thus showing they didn't "want their slaves" with the same continuing vigor that the south and the border states did.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

TennCav
05-18-2007, 09:01 PM
I cant base this on facts, becuase I have not found where I have seen it before, but I remember reading that the southern states were talking with England before the war about doing away with slavery also. The modern age of farming was working its way in an the need for slaves was on the way out. for the north and the south.

Malingerer
05-22-2007, 05:34 AM
So Malingerer bassed on the quote you use in so signiture one would have to say that the corner stone of the US is Slavery and the last I remember reading that was not so. But I seam to remember reading that slavery was here way before the confederate states where.
As for your other statement that The only verdict made is that that wish to twist history in its favor. Again the for runners for CNN and its version of history.
Jim,
I use that quote on my signature line because, as a Southerner, I refuse to flinch from looking at my own past squarely in the eye. I don't need some PC, whitewashed version of history - I'll take it warts and all. Yes, slavery was here long before the Confederacy came into existance, but only the Confederacy made slavery the cornerstone of its existance. The founders of the Confederacy were proud of their commitment to slavery - they said so on scores of occaissions. Now, of course we see slavery as a negative. Thus, the current Confederat apologist - PC line of reasoning (such as it is) goes something like this: slavery was bad; my ancestors wouldn't fight for something bad; the war therefore, must not have been about slavery. And, if that line dosent work then we go after the hypocracy of the North and its leaders. Fine, they were hypocties. That still does not negate the fact that the Confederacy was founded principally as a refuge for slavery. I just don't have a problem with that.

tompritchett
05-22-2007, 08:21 AM
upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man;

As a native born Southerner, I would also like to point out that the above attitude was still prevalent throughout much of the South well into the latter part of the 20th Century. If you do not believe me, ask an older member how he or she would feel about one of their children marrying a black and, if they are against such a union, ask them why. I know first hand from watching my older siblings react to one of my nieces having a child who was obviously fathered by a black. It does not bother me but I can not say the same for them. And for those of you who are wondering why I am displaying my family's "dirty laundry" in public, I ask you why do you consider this to be "dirty laundry" unless somewhere inside you still do believe the above quote to be at least partially true.

Malingerer
05-22-2007, 08:49 AM
As a native born Southerner, I would also like to point out that the above attitude was still prevalent throughout much of the South well into the latter part of the 20th Century. If you do not believe me, ask an older member how he or she would feel about one of their children marrying a black and, if they are against such a union, ask them why. I know first hand from watching my older siblings react to one of my nieces having a child who was obviously fathered by a black. It does not bother me but I can not say the same for them. And for those of you who are wondering why I am displaying my family's "dirty laundry" in public, I ask you why do you consider this to be "dirty laundry" unless somewhere inside you still do believe the above quote to be at least partially true.
I think you and I have had this discussion before. I'm 48 and grew up in Mississippi - so I witnessed first hand much bad behavior (some of it downright evil) on the part of my fellow Whites with regard to Blacks. My own father refused to speak to me for months after I admitted to voting for a Black political candidate back in the 80's (and that's just a tiny piece of my own dirty laundry). I, for one, am quite willing to face my own history, my region's history and that of my nation head on without any filters. I don't need any romanticism to get me through the day.

tompritchett
05-22-2007, 09:22 AM
I think you and I have had this discussion before.

We have discussed the point to the extent that I believe that we are both on the same wavelength for the most part. I was just merely adding to your point by illustrating just how deeply the idea of racial superiority had permeated into our society, in some cases even with some into this century.