Origins Of U. S. Racial Tolerance--The Southern White Owners Freeing Slaves!

[mascale]

Donald Trump has correctly(?) identfied Kenya as being somewhere in Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, The Carolinas or Louisiana. Now, after years of the Obama Administration: Millions know that Trump is wrong. It is really in Honolulu(?), somewhere near the Pacific Ocean(?), probably near Somalia(?)! At any rate, no one white is from there(?)and in reality, some colored guy's health plan is what is holding back the stock market, even now(?)!

Militants know that even this, in the link, of course: Is not True. There could not have possibly been nearly one half million free blacks in the United States at the start of the Civil War. Slaveowners were all white, and MLK Jr., actually delivered a speech, once, at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D. C.(?)! There had to have been more than 8% of families owning slaves. White people owned slaves, and there were more white families than what is in the link. Anyone knows, better, what Hollywood shows(?)! (Then there is what Hollywood actually knows! These people were major rich(?)! And so they know how that came about(?)! Hollywood is about learning, even now. . .in this century, too!)

American Civil War Census Data

The four million slaves at the start of Lincoln's widely celebrated attempted genocide--of white people--is widely conceded accurate, if not noted in that particular kind of context(?). Mostly, in fact, even militants tend to concede that the four million slaves were not involved in the conflict. Some of the freed property assets were involved in the conflict.

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington had liberated their own black slaves, in their wills. Those heirs had already been short-changed, out of their particular inheritance! Mostly, Liberals don't discuss that, especially at the Ivy League(?), even at a time like this! Surely now, in America: Other heirs can concede that even now there are too many stocks, and too many bonds, and too much real estate--and too many lawsuits surrounding the Michael Jackson estate! Generally, of course: The liberals do not discuss any of that, especially at the Ivy League--Unless it is in the context of the Fed going bankrupt(?)!

Hollywood does understand about Freedom! We are discussing liberals, here: Who know about assets!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Lands of Many Nations now know enough about Firewater--to be sellling it back, along with gaming!)

 

[g5000]

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote the best treatise on race relations in the United States ever.

It is important to make an accurate distinction between slavery itself and its consequences. The immediate evils produced by slavery were very nearly the same in antiquity as they are among the moderns, but the consequences of these evils were different. The slave among the ancients belonged to the same race as his master, and was often the superior of the two in education 31 and intelligence. Freedom was the only distinction between them; and when freedom was conferred, they were easily confounded together. The ancients, then, had a very simple means of ridding themselves of slavery and its consequences: that of enfranchisement; and they succeeded as soon as they adopted this measure generally. Not but that in ancient states the vestiges of servitude subsisted for some time after servitude itself was abolished. There is a natural prejudice that prompts men to despise whoever has been their inferior long after he has become their equal; and the real inequality that is produced by fortune or by law is always succeeded by an imaginary inequality that is implanted in the manners of the people. But among the ancients this secondary consequence of slavery had a natural limit; for the freedman bore so entire a resemblance to those born free that it soon became impossible to distinguish him from them.

The greatest difficulty in antiquity was that of altering the law; among the moderns it is that of altering the customs, and as far as we are concerned, the real obstacles begin where those of the ancients left off. This arises from the circumstance that among the moderns the abstract and transient fact of slavery is fatally united with the physical and permanent fact of color. The tradition of slavery dishonors the race, and the peculiarity of the race perpetuates the tradition of slavery. No African has ever voluntarily emigrated to the shores of the New World, whence it follows that all the blacks who are now found there are either slaves or freedmen Thus the Negro transmits the eternal mark of his ignominy to all his descendants; and although the law may abolish slavery, God alone can obliterate the traces of its existence.

The modern slave differs from his master not only in his condition but in his origin. You may set the Negro free, but you cannot make him otherwise than an alien to the European. Nor is this all we scarcely acknowledge the common features of humanity in this stranger whom slavery has brought among us. His physiog- nomy is to our eyes hideous, his understanding weak, his tastes low; and we are almost inclined to look upon him as a being intermediate between man and the brutes.32 The moderns, then, after they have abolished slavery, have three prejudices to contend against, which are less easy to attack and far less easy to conquer than the mere fact of servitude: the prejudice of the master, the prejudice of the race, and the prejudice of color.

I see that in a certain portion of the territory of the United States at the present day the legal barrier which separated the two races is falling away, but not that which exists in the manners of the country, slavery recedes, but the prejudice to which it has given birth is immovable. Whoever has inhabited the United States must have perceived that in those parts of the Union in which the Negroes are no longer slaves they have in no wise drawn nearer to the whites. On the contrary, the prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known.

In the South, where slavery still exists, the Negroes are less carefully kept apart; they sometimes share the labors and the recreations of the whites; the whites consent to intermix with them to a certain extent, and although legislation treats them more harshly, the habits of the people are more tolerant and compassionate. In the South the master is not afraid to raise his slave to his own standing, because he knows that he can in a moment reduce him to the dust at pleasure. In the North the white no longer distinctly perceives the barrier that separates him from the degraded race, and he shuns the Negro with the more pertinacity since he fears lest they should some day be confounded together.

Thus it is in the United States that the prejudice which repels the Negroes seems to increase in proportion as they are emancipated, and inequality is sanctioned by the manners while it is effaced from the laws of the country.

But in the midst of all these causes the same result occurred at every step; in general, the colonies in which there were no slaves became more populous and more prosperous than those in which slavery flourished. The farther they went, the more was it shown that slavery, which is so cruel to the slave, is prejudicial to the master.

But this truth was most satisfactorily demonstrated when civilization reached the banks of the Ohio. The stream that the Indians had distinguished by the name of Ohio, or the Beautiful River, waters one of the most magnificent valleys which have ever been made the abode of man. Undulating lands extend upon both shores of the Ohio, whose soil affords inexhaustible treasures to the laborer; on either bank the air is equally wholesome and the climate mild, and each of them forms the extreme frontier of a vast state: that which follows the numerous windings of the Ohio upon the left is called Kentucky; that upon the right bears the name of the river. These two states differ only in a single respect: Kentucky has admitted slavery, but the state of Ohio has prohibited the existence of slaves within its borders.35 Thus the traveler who floats down the current of the Ohio to the spot where that river falls into the Mississippi may be said to sail between liberty and servitude; and a transient inspection of surrounding objects will convince him which of the two is more favorable to humanity.

Upon the left bank of the stream the population is sparse; from time to time one descries a troop of slaves loitering in the half-desert fields; the primeval forest reappears at every turn; society seems to be asleep, man to be idle, and nature alone offers a scene of activity and life.

From the right bank, on the contrary, a confused hum is heard, which proclaims afar the presence of industry; the fields are covered with abundant harvests; the elegance of the dwellings announces the taste and activity of the laborers; and man appears to be in the enjoyment of that wealth and contentment which is the reward of labor.36

The state of Kentucky was founded in 1775, the state of Ohio only twelve years later; but twelve years are more in America than half a century in Europe; and at the present day the population of Ohio exceeds that of Kentucky by two hundred and fifty thousand souls.37 These different effects of slavery and freedom may readily be understood; and they suffice to explain many of the differences which we notice between the civilization of antiquity and that of our own time.

Upon the left bank of the Ohio labor is confounded with the idea of slavery, while upon the right bank it is identifies with that of prosperity and improvement; on the one side it is degraded, on the other it is honored. On the former territory no white laborers can be found, for they would be afraid of assimilating themselves to the Negroes; all the work is done by slaves; on the latter no one is idle, for the white population extend their activity and intelligence to every kind of employment. Thus the men whose task it is to cultivate the rich soil of Kentucky are ignorant and apathetic, while those who are active and enlightened either do nothing or pass over into Ohio, where they may work without shame.

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 18

 

[JakeStarkey]

mascale, go take a history course, please.

 

[mascale]

DeTocqueville's analysis pre-dates the 1861 commencing, Lincoln era, by about 30 years. bDeTocqueville is of the 1830's. Mainly there is focus on color, even in the passages cited. Then there is the association of "brutish," with the color. Then there is the observation that mostly the usual "ghetto" kind of separation--between the colors--was evident even two hundred years ago. People tend to group with people like themselves, even in Europe.

Basically, however, in the United States: They spoke neither French nor Spanish(?)!

Since the OP is about race--for example, blaming business conditions on some black's health plan--then see how even 10/29/2013, even Boehner of Ohio saw a business open, once, that had employees in it. Conclusion: That is how bad things are. The employer is concerned about health costs. Instead of putting that in a book, like a liberal, The Republicans put that in a press conference. Someone, somwhere, may actually have seen it, just today. The message was not about the open business. The message was about the black guy's health plan.

That would tend to support DeToqueville's first noting a kind of "ghetto" separation. That does not focus on the black dude's mastery of the Presidential concept. That requires Tolerance, which DeToqueville failed hmself to address. (1) The slaves were African of origin. (2) Owners had noticed that they were not subhuman. (3) Owners had freed them. (4) DeToqueville seems not to have spent a lot of time dealing with the specific skills of the newly freed blacks at the time. 8% of families, maybe owning slaves in Kentucky: Would not seem to anyone, evidence of a complete denigration of employment.

Any "sociology" in DeToqueville is more some basis of something recently French Revolution, after Napolean, of the time. Where, for example, would it be more likely to find a skilled black freed slave--in Kentucky or in Ohio? Would a former owner have found it better to have sub-contracted skilled work to a former slave, who would then sign-up for ObamaCare(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Young warriors now find skills on Lands of Many Nations: Far different from older concept of just doing burglary of "Seven-Elevens!")