Lynchings in the US in 19th & 20th centurys (1 Viewer)

[valmy33]

Actually no, it is a dazzlingly beautiful structure. Frankly, my comment about Napoleon was a bit tongue and check. Without Napoleon, there would have been no Sharpe.



Yes the Civil War thing just keeps on ticking in this country. I only get involved in these discussions generally when someone tries to make the South out as ogres, which is simply not correct. The best I can say is that is was a very sad time in our history.

Interestingly I am very interested in the Napoleonic period and it is the main focus of my figure collection. What I did not like about him was his horrible inclination to waste large numbers of men in battle. Of course, he didn't consider it a waste since he won most of them but let's just say he wasn't exactly frugal with his soldiers. I do see your point though, no doubt those wars made France rather unpopular in most of Europe. Happy collecting.

Napoleon has betrayed the values of the Republic :


He became imperator instead of to create a real republic like in the United States.
He restored slavery

He made the duke of Enghien shoot

He gave up two times his army
Egypt and Russland

Surely a great man

 

[tdubel]

I think it best to leave it with the observation that many people do not see General Forrest the same way you do Tom and move on.

Damian,
I don't think I have taken particular offense, so kind of don't understand your comment??? If I sound offended or angry or adversarial b/c I have stated simple facts which can be found in historical research, that unfortunately is the problem of typing instead of talking. As with any subject out there, there is a lot of misinformation, people (we) in general, should simply do the research ourselves and then decide. Too many times, folks simply choose to believe everything they hear, which as I hope we can all agree, is simply wrong most of the time!

I just continue to find it unfortunate at the portrayal of every Southern leader as an Ogre (thanks Bill, that is a true statement of fact!). It amazes me the amount of crap information out there on the Civil War, just sad statement of folk's understanding of history.

TD

 

[damian]

Damian,
I don't think I have taken particular offense, so kind of don't understand your comment??? If I sound offended or angry or adversarial b/c I have stated simple facts which can be found in historical research, that unfortunately is the problem of typing instead of talking. As with any subject out there, there is a lot of misinformation, people (we) in general, should simply do the research ourselves and then decide. Too many times, folks simply choose to believe everything they hear, which as I hope we can all agree, is simply wrong most of the time!

I just continue to find it unfortunate at the portrayal of every Southern leader as an Ogre (thanks Bill, that is a true statement of fact!). It amazes me the amount of crap information out there on the Civil War, just sad statement of folk's understanding of history.

TD

Tom let us all just agree to disagree on old Nathan Bedford Forrest.

 

[Jay]

Damian,
I don't think I have taken particular offense, so kind of don't understand your comment??? If I sound offended or angry or adversarial b/c I have stated simple facts which can be found in historical research, that unfortunately is the problem of typing instead of talking. As with any subject out there, there is a lot of misinformation, people (we) in general, should simply do the research ourselves and then decide. Too many times, folks simply choose to believe everything they hear, which as I hope we can all agree, is simply wrong most of the time!

I just continue to find it unfortunate at the portrayal of every Southern leader as an Ogre (thanks Bill, that is a true statement of fact!). It amazes me the amount of crap information out there on the Civil War, just sad statement of folk's understanding of history.

TD

I don't think every Southern general, soldier, or civilian during the Civil War was ogre, monster, or anything else. Far from it. And at the same point, no doubt there were Union generals, soldiers, etc, who were. The difference is, the South was fighting to keep slavery. Slavery, or more particularly freedom, led eventually to lynching, which was the original topic of this discussion. As much as states' rights is frequently given as the reason for the war, the general issue that Southern states wanted was their rights to own slaves.

 

[Scott]

"...My concern is when "they" may decide I should not have a weapon to defend my family should the need arise...."


Well if you vote and participate in our government the "they" is you. Some folks think that's "too hard."

 

[tdubel]

I don't think every Southern general, soldier, or civilian during the Civil War was ogre, monster, or anything else. Far from it. And at the same point, no doubt there were Union generals, soldiers, etc, who were. The difference is, the South was fighting to keep slavery. Slavery, or more particularly freedom, led eventually to lynching, which was the original topic of this discussion. As much as states' rights is frequently given as the reason for the war, the general issue that Southern states wanted was their rights to own slaves.

This is why this topic is hard to discuss and causes hard feelings throughout the US. Huge disagreement with what you wrote and that friends is why this will never end. The Civil War is a complex topic and its not as cut and dry in all respects as the statement you make here. To me that is an irresponsible statement, to you, you believe it. We have reached the same point that most reach in this discussion.

TD

 

[tdubel]

Tom let us all just agree to disagree on old Nathan Bedford Forrest.

Damian,

No worries on this end, I don't know your full opinion on Forrest, but if you care to share, please pm me, I am curious.

Tom

 

[Spitfrnd]

I don't think every Southern general, soldier, or civilian during the Civil War was ogre, monster, or anything else. Far from it. And at the same point, no doubt there were Union generals, soldiers, etc, who were. The difference is, the South was fighting to keep slavery. Slavery, or more particularly freedom, led eventually to lynching, which was the original topic of this discussion. As much as states' rights is frequently given as the reason for the war, the general issue that Southern states wanted was their rights to own slaves.

Jay, I must disagree with this later observation as well. I submit it was a lot more complicated than that. Yes, as in most wars, there were some monsters on both sides and at this point who had the greatest number is a tad irrelevant but I suspect we might not agree about that either. Suffice it to say bigotry, where ever found is never helpful and something I hope our civilization eventually outgrows.

 

[jazzeum]

With Jay's latest posting, I see this thread potentially heading downhill. I am with Tom and Bill that it's a bit more complicated than just saying that "A" leads directly to "B."

Regarding Bedford Forrest, he had many sides, some good and some not so good. Fort Pillow was not to his credit but speeches espousing brotherhood and equality among the races, which he gave in 1875 are.

Many of us adore Lincoln but in race relations he too had a learning curve. At various points in his early life and even when he was running against Douglas said that blacks could never be the white man's equal and when he was a practicing lawyer once defended a slaveowner.

All this is too show that we all have many sides and not everything is always clearcut as it sometimes is made out to be.

 

[tdubel]

With Jay's latest posting, I see this thread potentially heading downhill. I am with Tom and Bill that it's a bit more complicated than just saying that "A" leads directly to "B."

Regarding Bedford Forrest, he had many sides, some good and some not so good. Fort Pillow was not to his credit but speeches espousing brotherhood and equality among the races, which he gave in 1875 are.

Many of us adore Lincoln but in race relations he too had a learning curve. At various points in his early life and even when he was running against Douglas said that blacks could never be the white man's equal and when he was a practicing lawyer once defended a slaveowner.

All this is too show that we all have many sides and not everything is always clearcut as it sometimes is made out to be.

Nice Brad, a very learned and accurate post. Much appreciated.

Tom

 

[Rutledge]

Couple of points to make.

My ancestors did, in fact, own slaves. Probably quite a few of them. Yet oddly, I feel no guilt, or shame. They made their decisions in the time in which they lived, and I dont believe I have the right to judge them.

Im also a direct descendent of a signer of the Declaration of Independence. If I ever tell someone that, I do so as a point of interest, nothing more. No one owes me anything for it, and I expect nothing more or less than to be valued (or not) for the person I am, not my long dead relative. And that is the way it always works.

Also, the decision to own slaves in the south was purely an economic one. Those that sit on their high horse and look back with judgement and disdain on people who lived in other times under very different circumstances do so without much understanding of the human condition, in my opinion. That is not meant to imply that I am defending or justifying slavery. Its just that when someone passes moral judgement on those who did own slaves, and yet not on the Bostonians/northerners who ripped the africans from their families for transport across cruel seas to sell at open auction for profit, well, I dont see a hill of beans of difference.

In addition I dont think its reasonabe to compare "the souith", in entirety, to NYC. Apples should be compared to apples (Atlanta to NYC, for example), with pun intended, seems fairer.

 

[jazzeum]

This is a wild guess but was your ancestor who signed the Declaration William Rutledge of South Carolina?

 

[tdubel]

Couple of points to make.

My ancestors did, in fact, own slaves. Probably quite a few of them. Yet oddly, I feel no guilt, or shame. They made their decisions in the time in which they lived, and I dont believe I have the right to judge them.

Im also a direct descendent of a signer of the Declaration of Independence. If I ever tell someone that, I do so as a point of interest, nothing more. No one owes me anything for it, and I expect nothing more or less than to be valued (or not) for the person I am, not my long dead relative. And that is the way it always works.

Also, the decision to own slaves in the south was purely an economic one. Those that sit on their high horse and look back with judgement and disdain on people who lived in other times under very different circumstances do so without much understanding of the human condition, in my opinion. That is not meant to imply that I am defending or justifying slavery. Its just that when someone passes moral judgement on those who did own slaves, and yet not on the Bostonians/northerners who ripped the africans from their families for transport across cruel seas to sell at open auction for profit, well, I dont see a hill of beans of difference.

In addition I dont think its reasonabe to compare "the souith", in entirety, to NYC. Apples should be compared to apples (Atlanta to NYC, for example), with pun intended, seems fairer.

Good post, I think this is a healthy discussion from all points of view. I always feel when I go into a discussion, I can not only educate but be educated and I thank you for your post.

TD

 

[Rutledge]

This is a wild guess but was your ancestor who signed the Declaration William Rutledge of South Carolina?

You are quite the detective, Brad. Just about correct, too, however it was Edward Rutledge for South Carolina. He and I share first and middle names.

Thanks Tom.

 

[Napoleon1er]

Read "Blood Done Sign My Name"

 

[Rob]

Very interesting discussion on this thread. However I do believe its possible to deplore slavery and the outrage of one human being owning another without being 'on a high horse' . Just because it is in the past does not mean we cannot accept that certain things were wrong and will always be wrong and inhumane. In this country in the past we used to hang draw and quarter people in public, I think its safe to say it was a disgusting practice as was slavery.

I also think we should be careful when we try and write it off as 'well thats what felt right in those days', does anyone here think in a hundred years time people will say the same of the Holocaust, me neither.

However I am just putting this out there as I have really enjoyed all the opinions, its great to be able to talk about difficult subjects without hurling abuse at each other.

Rob

 

[Combat]

Very interesting discussion on this thread. However I do believe its possible to deplore slavery and the outrage of one human being owning another without being 'on a high horse' . Just because it is in the past does not mean we cannot accept that certain things were wrong and will always be wrong and inhumane. In this country in the past we used to hang draw and quarter people in public, I think its safe to say it was a disgusting practice as was slavery.

Rob

Rob-
I think what you say is very true. Although most people in this country in the 19th century may not have believed in the notion of racial equality - at least not in our modern sense - many did appreciate that slavery was wrong on a moral level. Or at least that there was a moral issue with slavery. In fact, it had been outlawed almost everywhere else in the world by the time of our Civil War. It was a topic debated by our Founding Fathers even a hundred years before that. It's an uncomfortable and not very flattering topic so there is a tendency to explain it away with justifications like people just didn't know any better. However, that is not supported by the historical reality.

What happens is that there is a modern sensitivity or desire to say what happened in the past happened in the past. Why raise disagreeable subjects that may reflect poorly on our country? I tend to agree with that only to the extent that no one living today had any responsibility for what went on in the 1800's. Nor should they feel any guilt about it. However, where things start to get murky is when we try explaining away the actions of our ancestors because we simply don't want to cast any dispersions on them. Everyone is taught to be patriotic and it's very difficult to be objective or at least not overly sensitive when discussing negative aspects of your own history. For example, if we were discussing the potential evils of British colonialism I have a feeling there would be similar sensitivities among our British members.

 

[Rob]

Rob-
I think what you say is very true. Although most people in this country in the 19th century may not have believed in the notion of racial equality - at least not in our modern sense - many did appreciate that slavery was wrong on a moral level. Or at least that there was a moral issue with slavery. In fact, it had been outlawed almost everywhere else in the world by the time of our Civil War. It was a topic debated by our Founding Fathers even a hundred years before that. It's an uncomfortable and not very flattering topic so there is a tendency to explain it away with justifications like people just didn't know any better. However, that is not supported by the historical reality.

What happens is that there is a modern sensitivity or desire to say what happened in the past happened in the past. Why raise disagreeable subjects that may reflect poorly on our country? I tend to agree with that only to the extent that no one living today had any responsibility for what went on in the 1800's. Nor should they feel any guilt about it. However, where things start to get murky is when we try explaining away the actions of our ancestors because we simply don't want to cast any dispersions on them. Everyone is taught to be patriotic and it's very difficult to be objective or at least not overly sensitive when discussing negative aspects of your own history. For example, if we were discussing the potential evils of British colonialism I have a feeling there would be similar sensitivities among our British members.

Yes I agree Doug, no one alive now can have any guilt about the era of slavery etc, that would be absurd, the same as few living Germans can be held responsible for the crimes of the Nazi's.It is to the everlasting credit of the people in your country who stood up to defeat slavery and also to all who worked so hard to reunite the US so it could grow into that it is today.

And as for the evils of the British Empire I totally agree, I am well aware of the dark side of it and of course this country's involvement in the slave trade, which if memory serves the government only apologised for a few years back. I too regret but can't have guilt about it. We have talked before about the bombing of all cities during WW2, that is at least something we can almost reach back to with relatives etc, none of these subjects are easy but all I find fascinating.

I started this thread because when I was a kid in school we learned about Trafalgar,Waterloo,Hastings, Charge of the Light Brigade and both World Wars of course, but never really learnt any of the darker things the Brits did. When I came across the extent and brutality of the lynchings I wondered if it was treated in the same way at school for you guys.

Rob

 

[Currahee Chris]

Rob

I recall learning about slavery and perhaps heard the word "lynching" and knew what it meant in Junior high school (7th or 8th grade- 13 years old) but it really wasn't discussed at home. I don't really recall slavery being sugar coated or "corrected" like I fear might be happening with my kids. I remember it being discussed more as a context or environment in a way as to really highlight the actions of certain people- Harriet Tubman, Lincoln, etc- almost like you hear about Schindler- "He was a nazi but used his influence to help the jews he could"- catch my point?

 

[uksubs]

I have recently discoverd a part of History that I knew little about and has shocked me somewhat. I'd always thought of 'Lynchings' as the act of breaking someone out of prison and hanging them from the nearest tree. However from what I've been reading this is what happened to the 'lucky' ones!.

I honestly had no idea of the sheer brutality and sickening violence carried out at these events. Torture, mutilations, amputations and finally burning alive were common. One of the most famous, brutal and well organized Lynchings was visited upon one Henry Smith an ex slave who apparently confessed to the truly brutal killing of a young girl, Mytle Vance, whose father Smith had a grudge against. After going on the run he was hunted down and amid much celebrating and excitement was brought back to Paris Texas to face a hideous death. Having been paraded around the town tied to a chair on a float, he was taken out to scaffold erected on a prairie outside the town.

Tied to the scaffold and stripped to the waist he was for some fifty minutes burned all over his body with Red hot Irons by members of his victims family. Then having his eyes burnt out and an Iron placed down his throat and still breathing the scaffold was set on fire.

What shocked me is that there are a series of photos of this event including one in which family members are burning his feet and legs with hot Irons.This man was one of thousands killed like this, black and white, over the decades.

What I wanted to ask my American friends is this, did you learn about these Lynchings as you grew up, were they discussed openly or was it a taboo subject swept under the carpet so to speak.

I understand the Lynchings started after the Civil War when great tension existed.

Would appreciate an American view on this.

Rob[/QUOT
Thanks for posting that Rob , done American history at school but was never told stuff like that