Nathan Bedford Forrest

[Fisherking]

The Man was controversial.

We know he was an exelant war leader.

The Fort Pillow incident lead many to think he was a firm Raciest, though he was cleared by Union Forces after the war of any War Crimes.

His early membership in the Clan, when it was still spelled with a C and not a K, also points to this.

At that time however, it was still an organization to restore the rights of Southern Whites against the occupation and political control of the North.

In his two year term as leader he ordered the disbandment of the organization, in 1869.

During an interview after the War with the Cincinnati Commercial, Bedford was quoted as saying: “ When I entered the army I took forty-seven Negroes into the army with me, and forty-five of them were surrendered with me. I told these boys that this war was about slavery, and if we lose, you will be made free. If we whip the fight and you stay with me you will be made free. Either way you will be freed. These boys stayed with me, drove my teams, and better confederates did not live”.

Some of these men were also fighting members of his elite Guards Company which were hand picked for their fighting ablities.


Forrest and the Slave Trade
From his beginnings as a young farmer at the age of 13, Bedford Forrest continued to clear land around his widowed mother’s farm. It was “a life of poverty, toil and responsibility,” but with the help of his siblings, the farm grew and returned increased profits, permitting Bedford to purchase additional land for more crops. As Forrest matured into his early 20’s, he was tutored in the business world by an uncle and other relatives and sharpened his business acumen on his crop and land deals.


North Mississippi was still the frontier in the 1840’s but its proximity to the growing city of Memphis provided a ready market for Forrest’s produce and increased his land business. Forrest soon expanded his vocation by joining in his uncle Jonathan’s livery stable and horse-trading business, and he and his brothers became accomplished horsemen as well. In 1845, at the age of 24, Bedford married Mary Ann Montgomery and settled in Hernando, MS, a mere 20 miles south of Memphis.

In 1851, as the Forrest farm holdings increased, as did his income, Bedford could afford to employ slave labor to work the expanding farmland. The scope of his business, too, now having outgrown Hernando, Forrest moved to the bustling, booming river port of Memphis. There he dealt in cotton, in plantations, in livestock and, as an offshoot to his other business, he now found it economically expedient to get into another accepted commerce: the slave-trade business.

“It is said Forrest was kind to his negroes; that he never separated members of a family, and that he always told his slaves to go out in the city and choose their own masters. There is no instance of any slave taking advantage of the permission to run away. Forrest taught them that it was to their own interest not to abuse the privilege; and, as he also taught them to fear him exceedingly, I can believe the story. There were some men in the town to whom he would never sell a slave, because they had the reputation of being cruel masters.”
One of his regular customers was a Negro slave-trader from Kentucky, who routinely bought and sold over 1200 slaves in a year.

Testimony is unanimous that besides the ordinary good business practice of looking after the physical well-being of the slaves he bought and sold, he went to lengths to keep families together, and even to reunite them, so as to avoid the painful separations that were too common in the days of the rapid expansion of cotton planting in the lower Mississippi River region; and that frequently he was besought by slaves to purchase them, because of his reputation for kindness and fair treatment.

“First With the Most”, Robert Henry, pg. 23-27


Nathan Bedford Forrest Racist?
Forrest's speech during a meeting of the "Jubilee of Pole Bearers" is a story that needs to be told. Gen. Forrest was the first white man to be invited by this group which was a forerunner of today's Civil Right's group. A reporter of the Memphis Avalanche newspaper was sent to cover the event that included a Southern barbeque supper.
Miss Lou Lewis, daughter of a Pole Bearer member, was introduced to Forrest and she presented the former general a bouquet of flowers as a token of reconciliation, peace and good will. On July 5, 1875, Nathan Bedford Forrest delivered this speech:

http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/08/06/nathan-bedford-forrest-and-racial-reconciliation/

Nathan Bedford Forrest again thanked Miss Lewis for the bouquet and then gave her a kiss on the cheek. Such a kiss was unheard of in the society of those days, in 1875, but it showed a token of respect and friendship between the general and the black community and did much to promote harmony among the citizens of Memphis.
1. J.H. Sears, Charles Kelly Barrow "Black Southerners In Confederate Armies" (Pelican, 2007)


When Forrest died in 1877, in Memphis, the funeral procession was over two miles long and was attended by over 10,000 area residents, including 3000 black citizens paying their respects.

[Strike For The South]

One mans shaky foray into intergration does not excuse the south

[Fisherking]

Having trouble forgiving your self on that score?

You can’t change much that dead people did, can you?


Putting it all on the South is also a mistake.

During the war there were several time that the Union Army “got rid of contraband” (slaves) because they were too much trouble.

Their treatment in the North was not much better than in the South and while they may not have had the race laws the South had it didn’t make much difference.

[Strike For The South]

Having trouble forgiving your self on that score?

You can’t change much that dead people did, can you?
I carry the weight of my family like anyone else. One only needs to look at the ghettos of Memphis or Atlanta today and see the legacy we wrought. Granted these days it mostly stems from exploitation from the unscrupulos who twist facts to there own end but it most be noted the systemic aperthaid of the South allowed these people to be exploited


]Putting it all on the South is also a mistake.

During the war there were several time that the Union Army “got rid of contraband” (slaves) because they were too much trouble.

Their treatment in the North was not much better than in the South and while they may not have had the race laws the South had it didn’t make much difference.

Ah yes the first line of defense from the aplogist. de jure and de facto make all the difference in the world. I know the majority of Northeners were far from being cuddley to blacks but the south made institiutions out of these insecurties, unimagineable to the north and west

One only needs look at Emmit Till to see what happens to a colored boy who doesn't know his place in the south

I would love to debate Jim Crow and it's legacy with you. I know you know what you're talking about but I'm not entirely sure the scholarly tone of the monastery is the place to do it

[PanzerJaeger]

Forrest was undoubtedly a racist, as most white European or European-descended people were at the time. However, the hate filled and violent image of racism most people know of today is a product of more recent times. Racism was such common sense for so long in many parts of the world that it necessitated no special hatred. It just was.

Forrest practiced a kind of paternalistic racism that was common both in the South and in European colonies, but is not often talked about today. George Washington and so many 'great Americans' did the same. Slaves and whites lived and worked so closely together that in many cases the slaves were seen as extended family - almost like permanent children. The classic image of the slave driver, whip in hand, violently punishing slaves for not working harder is largely myth. There were some enormous, industrial farms in the South where such activity took place, but it was not the normal slave/master relationship.

Was this right? Certainly not. Does it permanently tarnish Forrest's image? Not in my opinion. I believe in judging historical figures by the standards of their times, and Forrest should be no exception. He was a benevolent slave holder and a very early adopter of the notion of black equality in the South. Although he was most definitely a product of his times, he didn't appear to have any real hatred in his heart towards black people.

Interestingly, it could be said that many Southerners were far more hate-filled and violently racist in the 1960's than their ancestors were in the 1860's. Much of that can be traced to Radical Republicanist post-war policies that pitted Southern whites against blacks.

[Strike For The South]

Interestingly, it could be said that many Southerners were far more hate-filled and violently racist in the 1960's than their ancestors were in the 1860's. Much of that can be traced to Radical Republicanist post-war policies that pitted Southern whites against blacks.

One needs only look at when the stars and bars are introduced to state flags to see how true this statement is.

Of course it all goes back towards blacks knowing there place in the world

[Brandy Blue]

Great post Fisherking. It makes me think that I may have misjudged Forrest Gump's ancestor. However, there is a part of your post that leaves me puzzled.



“It is said Forrest was kind to his negroes; that he never separated members of a family, and that he always told his slaves to go out in the city and choose their own masters. There is no instance of any slave taking advantage of the permission to run away. Forrest taught them that it was to their own interest not to abuse the privilege; and, as he also taught them to fear him exceedingly, I can believe the story. There were some men in the town to whom he would never sell a slave, because they had the reputation of being cruel masters.”


First, "It is said" is not exactly a citation that inspires confidence. Who are you saying said that someone else was saying this and how do they know?

Second, what does it mean that Forrest taught his slaves to fear him exceedingly? What did he do to them that made their fear of him exceed the fear that other slaves felt of their masters?

Anyway, I'm not really that impressed that the slaves did not take advantage of the chance to flee. My impression is that it was often easy for slaves to run away but hard to remain at large. If a black person was not in the community where he or she was known and had no proof of being free, then it was assumed that that person was a slave and should be sent home. If Mark Twain is to be believed (yes a writer of fiction, but a keen observer of antebellum south) a black could simply be enslaved by whoever caught him or her, in the absence of proof of freedom or of any owner. Bit hard to find a job under those circumstances, don't you think? I suspect that many slaves did not run away simply because they had nothing to run to.

Still, you raise interesting points. The loyalty of his black troops speaks volumes, as does his willingness to quit the clan and address a proto-civil rights group. Did they still do lynchings back then? Could be he was laying his life on the line?

[Fisherking]

Brandy Blue;

I found that I had not cited the source for that section. I have now but I have not read the book.

I think that the fear was caused, as implied, that they could be sold to bad masters.

Memphis was an excellent place for a slave looking to escape, because of the river traffic headed north. But at the same time, people would be more content to continue in the world they knew than to take a leap into the unknown.



Strike;

What PJ says regarding racial tensions is accurate to a point. It was also a political tool. And even today it continues to be used.

I would not debate the rights and wrongs of what happened in the past. It is pointless, and today we see it in a much different light.

No one can honestly justify rights and liberties for themselves and deny those to others. I am sure I could point out ongoing wrongs in that regard, but this is about Forrest.



He did take a big risk in addressing the group. Further, the kiss on the cheek was no small gesture. That would have been huge, and as you see it was reported in the News Papers. His popularity and position are most sure to have suffered on account of it.

Also the number of Blacks attending his funeral is amazing. It would not be an easy or even an expected thing of the time, for them.

Believe it or not, he remained a figure of admiration in the Black Community of Memphis until the 1960s at least.

[Strike For The South]

[

Strike;

[QUOTE]What PJ says regarding racial tensions is accurate to a point. It was also a political tool. And even today it continues to be used.

Correct


I would not debate the rights and wrongs of what happened in the past. It is pointless, and today we see it in a much different light.It is not pointless when the decisons reverberate


No one can honestly justify rights and liberties for themselves and deny those to others. I am sure I could point out ongoing wrongs in that regard, but this is about Forrest.

Another Johnny come lately. Just another man who burned the entire forrest for the first 70 years of his life and then went around making superfical gestures for the last 5.



He did take a big risk in addressing the group. Further, the kiss on the cheek was no small gesture. That would have been huge, and as you see it was reported in the News Papers. His popularity and position are most sure to have suffered on account of it.

A white man kissing a black woman is old hat, white plantion owners sired tens if not hundereds of thousands of black babies and no one batted an eyelash. Now show me WEB DuBois kissing the wife of a governer and I'll show you progress. The entire southern identity (black and white) is very much wrapped up in protecting teh women folk. No where is this more apparent than the dynamic between black men and white women


Also the number of Blacks attending his funeral is amazing. It would not be an easy or even an expected thing of the time, for them.

Believe it or not, he remained a figure of admiration in the Black Community of Memphis until the 1960s at least.

Perhaps, but another superfical gesture which does not hold a candle to the forming of the KKK

[Brandy Blue]

Fisherking: Thanks for the clarifications.

Strike: Yes you could dismiss Forrest as a johhy come lately and that is true as far as it goes. However, issues like racism don't just go away. They require repentence and forgiveness. Repentence and forgiveness can both be very costly, and I don't think its something to be sniffed at. At first only a few individuals had the courage to cross the line and admit that they were wrong. Over the generations more and more whites have been able to admit to the injustice of slavery and things that happened and still happen afterward. So progress is made. Its too late for DuBois to kiss the governor's wife, but maybe some day something along those lines will happen.

What I'm saying is that there's no point in scoffing at baby steps. That's where it has to start.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I believe in judging historical figures by the standards of their times
That's fine, I'll judge Forrest by the standards of abolitionists of the time.

Oops, that's pretty inconvenient.

[PanzerJaeger]

That's fine, I'll judge Forrest by the standards of abolitionists of the time.

Oops, that's pretty inconvenient.

Yes, you could judge him by the standards of a northern movement actively suppressed in the South. You could also judge him by the standards of the Qing Dynasty, or even Tsarist Russia.

On the other hand, you could abandon such universalist nonsense and look at the actual community in which he was born, raised, and lived. In that community, slavery was justified and reinforced by religious, government and social authorities and institutions. Forrest was certainly not progressive in his early life, but he also did not operate outside of the accepted social norms of his culture.

[Fisherking]

Forrest died in his 50s. He was not terribly old even by the standards of the day.

He frequently said of words of praise for the Black Soldiers who served with him.

Kissing a black woman in public was certainly not old hat. It made him real enemies, and it was still remembered a hundred years later. Not nearly so much by the Black Community as by the bigots.

He had the respect and some degree of admiration from the Black Community in the Greater Memphis Area before he was invited to speak, obviously.

He was once a slave trader, a Confederate General, had been accused of atrocities against Blacks, and the former leader of the Clan. Yet he was admired and respected by the very people who should have hated him most.

Why is that?

There has to be much more than what we have in a scanty historical record.

He also had the moral courage to speak to a group striving to upset the racial structure in the 1870s.

You may wish to look upon it lightly but in doing so you are neglecting the significance of such a step.

Was he showing contrition for past acts, or did he simply recognize that Blacks were every bit as good as anyone else?

[Strike For The South]

Did he think, towards the end of his life, that chattell slavery and wonton acts of terrorism was a bad thing, probably. Would he ever call a black man sir or let one date his kin? LO freaking L

There is so much gray area between Equality and Slavery. Simply becuase he made amends does not mean anything other than he belived blacks should be elevated above animals. Which is how most Southerners thought up until the 70s

This of course becuase white people in our superior wisdom need to bring these savages along

Don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining

[Brandy Blue]

Looks to me like we've got to the point where we are arguing about whether the glass is part empty or part full. At that point there's not much to add. I think we can all agree that the guy could have been worse, but he could have been better too. Its up to you which part of that statement is more important.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Yes, you could judge him by the standards of a northern movement actively suppressed in the South. You could also judge him by the standards of the Qing Dynasty, or even Tsarist Russia.

On the other hand, you could abandon such universalist nonsense and look at the actual community in which he was born, raised, and lived. In that community, slavery was justified and reinforced by religious, government and social authorities and institutions. Forrest was certainly not progressive in his early life, but he also did not operate outside of the accepted social norms of his culture.

He certainly deserves a medal for that!

Why can't we judge him by the standards of suppressed southern abolitionists?* Or is the community one is raised in an acceptable moral standard for one's actions?

*Also it speaks volumes that abolitionism, which was and remains morally correct, was suppressed in a supposedly free society! The south shall rise again indeed!

[PanzerJaeger]

He certainly deserves a medal for that!

Why can't we judge him by the standards of suppressed southern abolitionists?* Or is the community one is raised in an acceptable moral standard for one's actions?

*Also it speaks volumes that abolitionism, which was and remains morally correct, was suppressed in a supposedly free society! The south shall rise again indeed!

One wonders whether a thread about George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, or Martin Luther King Jr. would elicit such a reaction. :inquisitive:

[Strike For The South]

One wonders whether a thread about George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, or Martin Luther King Jr. would elicit such a reaction. :inquisitive:

Probably not but he was a confederatE!~;)

Forrest was a damn fine general, personal lives to me don't matter as much. IDC King was [in the company of professional women] from Bhrmingham to Montgomery that is inconsequential to me

Of course I do not agree that there was some undercurrent "acceptance" of blacks

That borders on insanity

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

One wonders whether a thread about George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, or Martin Luther King Jr. would elicit such a reaction. :inquisitive:

If the thread was about the morality of the actions undertaken by those persons I would hope so. The thread isn't about saying Forrest was a talented leader and leaving it at that.

[PanzerJaeger]

If the thread was about the morality of the actions undertaken by those persons I would hope so. The thread isn't about saying Forrest was a talented leader and leaving it at that.

Not to sidetrack, but I'm just interested. Would you judge George Washington to be an immoral man?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Not to sidetrack, but I'm just interested. Would you judge George Washington to be an immoral man?
In which aspect of his life?

[PanzerJaeger]

In which aspect of his life?

His presidency, his occupation, and his home life.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

His presidency,
That's going to be really difficult to make an overall judgement on, especially since skimming wikipedia reveals a lot of stuff I didn't even know started with him (or at least his administratrion). I wish the Whiskey Rebellion had succeeded though.


his occupation
Which one? I don't have a real problem with country gentlemen (except that it meant owning other human beings at that time and place). Generals are mostly bad news, insomuch as they are a critical (and large) cog in the machinery of war. And he was also a politician, which I similarly have a problem with, though the machinery is that of state instead of war.


and his home life.
I don't really know enough to say.

[PanzerJaeger]

Allow me to approach this from a different angle. Each of those areas of his life was heavily impacted by his tacit approval and active participation in the practice of slavery.

Would you judge him to be an immoral president, an immoral farmer, and an immoral patriarch?

[OvidiusNasso]

Sorry if I am posting on a dead thread but somebody has to say this plainly and clearly.

Nathan Bedford Forrest was possibly the best general and worst rascist of the civil war. His massacre at Fort Pillow only spared people who looked dead after being wounded by the confederates, and some of the black soldiers who he wanted to use as slave labor.

After the Civil War he was an unrepentant evil-doer who as founder of the Klan (I am not going by semantics on C vs K) really made massive set backs to how things might have been in all Southern States.

However I am glad this thread found the evidence it did however massively distorted and misinterpreted that evidence was.

In his last years Nathan Bedford Forrest became a Born again Christian and a penitent. It was during this period when he started to (surprisingly) actively support integration, actively oppose the Klan, and actually interacted with the Black Community. The answer is repentance makes people change if it is genuine, Forest's change was total and he became a whole new person.

Those last years have created confusion about who he was ever since, the Northern Press loved Forest for his last years, and trying to make other Southerners follow in his footsteps started to engage in myth making about him as a good person in a bad cause. In reality he was a bad person in a bad cause who received (in his mind at least) a call from God to change later in life.

Unfortunately Forest died in his 50s, before he had too much of a chance to reverse his lifes work so despite changing his legacy is entirely negative and should be considered the Klan, although had he lived longer his legacy would be radically different.

Always remember that repentence is not a myth, and condemning does not always mean the same thing in all contexts. The day Forest died he had very little if anything in common with the Wizard of the Saddle who existed during the civil war.

[Fisherking]

The Northern Press abandoned the cause of Blacks as soon as the war ended. It no longer served the agenda and they and the Irish Catholics were the villains of the age.

Forrest’s new found fervor for religion would have had little or nothing to do with his promotion of Black rights and suffrage. These were unacceptable to almost all white Americans, be they southerners or northerners.

Racism was not incompatible with religion of the time and was preached from the pulpit across the land. In the north many states refused the right to vote to blacks and while they may have wanted them free they also wanted them far away from themselves.

Forrest was cleared of charges over the Ft. Pillow Incident after the war, by a Union Court. Much was made of it during the war by the press but it was a good propaganda vehicle, just as the allegied scalpings at Pea Ridge by Indian troops.

His detractors prefer to cherry pick the bad without remembering any of the rest. He is remembered as being the first Grand Wizard of the Klan but not for disbanding it during his tenure. In fact he is often been said to have founded it, which is untrue.

To write off his championing black rights as having found God is just another silly notion. We too often color the past through the lens of the present. This gives you a very distorted picture.

[Strike For The South]

No Irish need apply is overblown

[Fisherking]

No, it isn’t. You were as likely to be lynched in the north for being Irish Catholic as for being an uppity black in the south.

Patty was grabbed off the boat and sent to the army during the war as a way to get rid of him.

After the war Irish and Blacks were not allowed in the various Veterans Groups.

At the same time they were preaching abolition in the north they were also preaching hate against the Irish.

There is a new book I am planning to read on the Civil War. Review: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/books/review/book-review-america-aflame-how-the-civil-war-created-a-nation-by-david-goldfield.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1&sq=book%20review&st=cse&scp=3

I understand it is very well researched and while I am not so interested in what might have been the causes of the war are covered in great detail.

[Strike For The South]

I would love to see some evidence of these Irish lynchings

I would also love to see some evidence of actual "No Irish Need Apply" signs in America, not England

I'll wait

[Louis VI the Fat]

I would also love to see some evidence of actual "No Irish Need Apply" signs in America, not England


I'll wait



https://img41.imageshack.us/img41/8849/ninaq.jpg



No Irish Need Apply - Brooklyn.


owned


OwNeD


Texas
ka powned

PWWNEDD1



Well, not really. Alledgedly, it is the only 'No Irish Need Apply' sign ever found. 'NINA' is a vastly overblown myth: http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/no-irish.htm (http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Erjensen/no-irish.htm)

[Strike For The South]

No, it isn’t. You were as likely to be lynched in the north for being Irish Catholic as for being an uppity black in the south

I want this substantiated

The revisionism for the pecuilar institution is truly lolz worthy

[Centurion1]

kikes, koons, and katholics.

kkk motto. more blacks were lynched because blacks are easier to recognize. Irish catholics experienced plenty of hate dont worry. The tenement rows were no picnic. An irish catholic wasn't elected president until the 1960's and he was from one of the most prominent political families in the country.

Irish catholics were plenty persecuted. Not to mention slavs. My mother grew up in a southside chicago polish neighborhood. And she was Croatian. This was also the 1960's. WASP hatred runs deep.

[Strike For The South]

Oh, ok I'll take your word for it.

LOL

No I won't

I can produce 10 Emmit Tills by simply using google fu. That alone should render any sort of equvialincy to a halt

[Fisherking]

Well, if you can google then why ask?

You should be able to find enough on the topic, though it is an embarrassment to the nation and most is not covered in-depth.

The so-called anti-draft riots in NY were an off shoot of this as well as vigilantly movement and much of the violence around the labor movement.

[Strike For The South]

Well, if you can google then why ask?

You should be able to find enough on the topic, though it is an embarrassment to the nation and most is not covered in-depth.

The so-called anti-draft riots in NY were an off shoot of this as well as vigilantly movement and much of the violence around the labor movement.

No I can google Emmit Till not Paddy O'Paddy


African Americans were also seen as the cause of the Civil War and any who fell into the clutches of the mobs were beaten, tortured and/or killed, including one man who was attacked by a crowd of 400 with clubs and paving stones, then hung from a tree and set alight

That's from wikipedia, I'm not entirely sure if this is attempnt at eqivulancy or just a bit of ignorance on your part.

Either way I would still love any shred of evidence from the historography that violence toward the Irish was 1/100 of what it was toward blacks. Once again

I'll wait

[Fisherking]

The Irish were often referred to as "Negroes turned inside out and Negroes as smoked Irish." A famous quip of the time attributed to a black man went something like this: "My master is a great tyrant, he treats me like a common Irishman."

Riots often involved Blacks and Irish.

Here are a few but there are lots more if you want them.


1829: Charlestown, MA Anti-Catholic Riots

1831: Providence, Rhode Island

1835: Five Points Riot

1835: Five Points Riot


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Nativist_Riots

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United_States

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4634670


I left out the German ones. These were against Southern German Catholics by the way, and sometimes instigated by North German Lutherans.

[Strike For The South]

And in another famous quote of the time "Black people are getting the shaft" (see how that works)

Once again those 5 points riots (both in the 1830s and 60s) were the IRISH abusing the blacks, Gangs of New York is not the best historical reference.


You can drudge up 4 clay footed historical examples in the entirety of American history.

I can produce more postcards with lynched black men on them. Hell I can even narrow it down to Tennesse, Texas, Alabama, or Mississippi which is your favorite state?



We don't do pictures of mutilated corpses here. The picture can be found at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Washington_lynching. Beware of the gruesome nature of the photograph. - LVI

HELLO FROM WACO


"This is the barbeque we had last night. My picture is to the left with a cross over it. Your son, Joe."

[Fisherking]

If you wish to believe that Black men were the only oppressed people in American History then facts won’t make any difference.

Their abuse began primarily with the Civil War and Reconstruction. The very worst cases were Florida, Brownsville, Texas, and Oklahoma. Two of those states missed your list.

Also after the Civil War came the period of Indian extermination. People remember Little Big Horn but forget Sand Creek, Battle of the Washita, and Wounded Knee.

The truth is that any group that stood out or didn’t fit the mold was beaten down. Racial Violence in California began against the Irish and only finished up with Blacks and Mexicans.

You give the impression that you think the only time it happened was against blacks and it is the only one that matters.

That seems rather Bigoted to me.

[Strike For The South]

If you wish to believe that Black men were the only oppressed people in American History then facts won’t make any difference.

Their abuse began primarily with the Civil War and Reconstruction. The very worst cases were Florida, Brownsville, Texas, and Oklahoma. Two of those states missed your list.

Also after the Civil War came the period of Indian extermination. People remember Little Big Horn but forget Sand Creek, Battle of the Washita, and Wounded Knee.

The truth is that any group that stood out or didn’t fit the mold was beaten down. Racial Violence in California began against the Irish and only finished up with Blacks and Mexicans.

You give the impression that you think the only time it happened was against blacks and it is the only one that matters.

That seems rather Bigoted to me.

Never did I say only

I only took issue with Southerrn Black Opperison=Northern Irish Oppresion

That is a falsehood

[Fisherking]

Just because you don’t know of it does not prove it false.

Much of it is not just out in the open, as today it is not a stigma to be Irish.

Many tenement fires were arson, much of the violence of the labor movement was because the Irish were seen to be behind it.

At the same time many leaders of the abolitionist movement were preaching and demonstrating to end slavery they were also espousing hatred for the Irish and the threat of Catholicism.

As a nation, we are products of our English heritage. Hatred and oppression of Irish Catholics was brought with the colonists. If you thing it magically disappeared with independence, your wrong.

I think that if you take a close look at the social situation in the north from the 1830s to the 1890s you will discover some very ugly truths.

Besides it is not a matter of north-south. Both were oppressed in both regions, as were Indians.

Just because it is not as well documented or available on-line does not make it false.

The Discovery Channel did a series on it around 2000. There are several books on the subject. You might try reading “How the Irish Became White”.

[PanzerJaeger]

Just because it is not as well documented or available on-line does not make it false.

Without commenting directly on the 'the blacks versus the Irish: who had it worse in 19th century America' debate, I very much agree with this. The internet is surprisingly bare when it comes to many aspects of history. 'Wiki/Google or it didn't happen' is a poor standard, especially considering the inordinate amount of attention the black experience in America receives. I'm sure I could find thousands more links to Harriet Tubman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Tubman) than Chief Looking Glass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Looking_Glass), but that has little bearing on the historical significance of their actions, but instead their significance in contemporary culture. Both delivered their people to freedom under very trying circumstances, yet Tubman gets a full, well sourced wiki whilst poor Looking Glass gets barely more than a stub.

[Strike For The South]

And Just becuase you say it is, does not make it so.

The Irish were no where near oppresed as the blacks were, a little discrimination does not make a case

[Fisherking]

Lynching of Blacks didn't start until the Civil War, in the north and reconstruction in the south.

The Irish of the time had less worth. They weren't someone else's property and they were Catholic which seemed to panic the Protestants at that time.

We are not talking about a little discrimination either. We are talking about burnings, lynching, tar and feathers and other acts of violence.

If you can't read the material or if you just don't want to believe it then fine. I don't care what your hang-up are.

There is enough information in the recommended reading if the links and list of events don’t satisfy you if you dig into it.

Right now you just have your mind made up that it couldn’t be so. If that is what you wish to think, no amount of facts are going to convince you otherwise. You have to do the research if you want to know.

[Centurion1]

If you wish to believe that Black men were the only oppressed people in American History then facts won’t make any difference.

Their abuse began primarily with the Civil War and Reconstruction. The very worst cases were Florida, Brownsville, Texas, and Oklahoma. Two of those states missed your list.

Also after the Civil War came the period of Indian extermination. People remember Little Big Horn but forget Sand Creek, Battle of the Washita, and Wounded Knee.

The truth is that any group that stood out or didn’t fit the mold was beaten down. Racial Violence in California began against the Irish and only finished up with Blacks and Mexicans.

You give the impression that you think the only time it happened was against blacks and it is the only one that matters.

That seems rather Bigoted to me.

Don't forget asians in california. Oppressed irish from the east and oppressed chinese from the west meeting together to form a railroad and a pile of dead bodies.