The Dark Side of the Civil Rights Movement

Luke Wolfe


The dominant narrative of the civil rights movement is a story about selfless Whites fighting Southern injustice. Usually the movement is presented as made up of devout Christians and freedom fighters, struggling against the prejudices of ignorant Southern Whites. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is the civil rights movement was plagued by the same forces that plague any setting where Whites and Blacks intermingle: violence, theft, criminality, resentment, and sexual dominance.

White civil rights workers who left the North to organize resistance to Southern segregation approached their jobs with religious fervor. One White woman captures this spirit: “There is no doubt in my mind this is worth dying for. … This love is growing every day and will continue to expand and expand until it defeats all hate all over the world” (Rothschild, 1982, p. 133). Please note the woman’s messianic mentality: she wants to defeat hate “all over the world.”

White civil rights workers were shocked to discover that local Blacks in Mississippi resented and resisted White domination of the civil rights movement. Grassroots Blacks wanted local, Black control of civil right organizations and sought to ensure White men and women were in a subordinated, powerless position (Rothschild, 1982, p. 132). Blacks believed Whites were smug and acted superior to Blacks (Watson, 2010, p. 267). On the other hand, White civil rights workers came to view Blacks as essentially lazy and stupid (Watson, 2010, p. 267). White volunteers were greeted with suspicion and mistrust.

Many civil rights organizations broke up because of racial and gender differences. For example, at a Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) conference in Waveland, Mississippi, many attendees walked out because of the brutal hostility between Whites and Blacks (Watson, 2010, p. 268). White civil rights attendees spoke about race with a candor that would get them prosecuted for hate speech in Europe today. They referred to Blacks as “bullshitting Negroes” (Watson, 2010, p. 268). For their part, Blacks simply refused to take orders from White people (Watson, 2010, p. 268). The rancor between Whites and Blacks culminated with SNCC expelling all White members from the organization (Watson, 2010, p. 269).

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the civil rights movement for White women volunteers was “the sexual test” (Rothschild, 1982, p. 137). Black male staffers used their position of power to force White women to have intercourse with them (Rothschild, 1982, p. 137). This was very common. Two volunteers described it as a “rite of passage before women could be considered serious workers” (Rothschild, 1982, p. 137). As one author reports “Every Black SNCC worker with perhaps a few exceptions counted it a notch on his gun to have slept with a White woman — as many as possible” (Watson, 2010, p. 230). What was the result of this racial fraternization? Venereal disease spread throughout the ranks of the SNCC and the Council of Federated Organizations (COFO) (Watson, 2010, p. 230).

Blacks viewed liberated White women from the North as easy. Because Northern White women wore makeup, earrings, and low-necklines, Black civil rights workers viewed them as promiscuous (Watson, 2010, p. 230). Female White civil rights workers sometimes lived up to their Black colleagues’ expectations by having sex with as many Black men as possible. Mary King recalls how White women “Fluttered like butterflies from one tryst to another” (Watson, 2010, p. 230).  Many White women slept with Black men because they felt guilty for racism and wanted to prove loyalty to Black men (Rothschild, 1982, p. 137).

For their part, Black men were filled with hostility towards White women. Trainers for civil rights organization warned White women about the hostility Blacks felt for them (Rothschild, 1982, p. 138). Blacks would often physically and verbally abuse White women (Rothschild, 2010, p. 139). Blacks took great delight in having sex with White women in the back of their cars in White areas of Jackson, Mississippi (Rothschild, 1982, p. 139). At times White women were also assaulted and raped by Black males in the movement (Rothschild, 1982, p.139). Sometimes one Black would beat and attempt to rape up to three White women at once (Rothschild, 1982, p. 139). When White women complained about this treatment, they were simply sent home and the Black male received no punishment whatsoever (Rothschild, 1982, pp. 138–139). As one White woman wrote, “It’s quite obvious that they’re after a White woman. … I’m quite disillusioned about that” (Rothschild, 1982, p. 138). One White worker explains a Black staff member’s animosity towards White women: “he had a real deep-seated emotional hatred … and bitterness against White people. So that he hated most of the girls who were White, and most of the guys who were White, but he took out his hatred on the girls (Rothschild, 1982, p. 139).

Black civil rights workers did more than sexually and physically abuse White workers. Sometimes they actually tried to kill them. One White worker complained about a Black predator who attacked numerous White women. The Black attacked her with a hatchet. The woman describes the attack in her own words: “He was holding a hatchet, and he said, ‘I’m going to whup you good.’ And I said, ‘Go right ahead.’ So he started hitting me over the head with the hatchet, and I put my hand up. And the hatchet had a case around it, but the case didn’t cover the blade part, and the blade hit my hand, and my hand got cut open. That’s really what happened” (Rothschild, 1982, p. 140). What was the White woman’s response to this abuse? She blamed White people for the Black’s behavior: “His emotional disturbance is a result of what the White people have done to him” (Rothschild, 1982, p. 141). Most White women didn’t complain about violence or rape in order to help the movement succeed (Rothschild, 1982, p. 142). One has to ask the question: if Blacks will do these things to White people that travel across the country to help them, what will they do to those of us who just want to be left alone?

The unbridled sexual interest Black males displayed for White females caused deep rifts in the civil rights community. Black women gravely resented the attention Black males gave to White women (Watson, 2010, p. 267). As one Black woman noted, “the Negro girls feel neglected because the white girls get the attention” (Watson, 2010, p. 267).

Blacks would often drink and abuse White women workers (Rothschild, 1982, p. 144). Sometimes brave northern Whites would join in the abuse of White women (Rothschild, 1982, p. 144). One woman describes what it was like: “They’d pour out all their hatred — racial hatred — at us. It was just so painful. It tore me up inside” (Rothschild, 1982, p. 144). What is amazing is these women volunteered to work in the South and stayed throughout the abuse!

A few brave White women did complain of the abuse — anonymously. Ruby Doris Smith Robinson submitted a list of abuses for the SNCC staff to rectify at a staff retreat in 1964. The leadership callously mocked the paper. Stockely Carmichael’s response was especially telling: “The position of women in SNCC should be prone” (Rothschild, 1982, p. 146).

Blacks also indulged in a petty criminality that left many White volunteers shocked. One White worker wrote (Rothschild, 1982, p. 73):

Staff and volunteer discipline has broken down so far that the state headquarter has had several race riots, white workers are often subject to severe racial abuse and even violence from negro workers, staff and volunteers have assaulted fellow workers, cashed checks (for their own personal use), clothes and supplies have been stolen totaling several thousands of dollars. Negro workers are frequently played-up-to and looked-down-on by White workers; juvenile delinquency sometimes appears to have taken over certain offices. … Many workers drive cars as fast they can, figuring COFO will pay their fines and get them a lawyer no matter what they do. Former SNCC staff going to Tougaloo steal and act rowdy in the Jackson office, etc …

This quote could be from any Black-dominated space: a school, a prison, or a mayor’s office.

The civil rights movement was awash in racial resentment, violence, and sexual abuse. The abuse continues today in schools, streets, and jails across the nation – and the world. If Northern volunteers, who fervently believed in their cause, couldn’t make multiculturalism work, it will not work when normal people implement it. Multiculturalism began in failure. It is ending in failure. We shouldn’t stake our case against multiculturalism in terms of racial dominance, but in terms of free association. We should treat Black and Brown people the way we want to be treated: let them run their communities as they see fit and we can do the same. There is universal desire for sovereignty across all communities and ethnicities. Thus, identitarianism is a universalism.


References

Rothschild, Mary Aickin. (1982). A case of black and white: Northern volunteers and the Southern freedom summers, 19641965. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Waton, Bruce. (2010). Freedom summer. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

24 Comments to "The Dark Side of the Civil Rights Movement"

  1. Andrea Ostrov's Gravatar Andrea Ostrov
    February 20, 2017 - 7:19 am | Permalink

    If Africans Africanized Africa, why wouldn’t they Africanize the West?
    Africans Africanize because they are Africans.

    It’s like, since Europeans Europeanized Europe, they also Europeanized other parts of the world.

    Europeans Europeanize. Africans Africanize.

    If there is an deserted island and if Europeans were to go there, they would Europeanize it because they are European. The New World isn’t part of Europe, but Europeans who arrived there Europeanized much of it.

    If Africans were placed on the island, they would Africanize it. Haiti and Detroit are not part of Africa, but they’ve been Africanized(after having once been Europeanized) by African-Americans.

    There is Europe and Africa as geographical areas.
    But there is also Europeanization and Africanization as socio-economic-cultural processes.

    So, if all Africans were sent to Europe and if all Europeans were sent to Africa, Africans in Europe will go about Africanizing Europe while Europeans in Africa will go about Europeanizing it.
    Consider what Anglos and Dutch did with South Africa. They Europeanized it… but now that Africans took over, they are Africanizing it(just like Zimbabweans Africanized Zimbabwe after kicking out the whites).

    The dynamics between Europeanization and Africanization has been a major theme in US history.

    There was a time when Detroit was nearly all white. It had been Europeanized. But then, blacks took over and they Africanized it. And these processes are largely driven by genetics, especially since the 60s when blacks decided to stop emulating white standards and do their own ‘thang’.

    Can a people be ‘Africanized’ or ‘Europeanized’. Yes, whites can imitate blacks and become ‘Africanized’: uninhibited, loud, abrasive, aggressive, quarrelsome, and cantankerous like rappers. And blacks can imitate whites and become ‘Europeanized’, like Obama and others.
    When there are just few blacks among whites, they come under pressure to imitate Europeanization. But as black numbers swell, they feel more natural being ‘Africanic’ and begin to shift into Africanization mode and act more more disorderly than orderly, especially since they don’t fear the white man who is deemed weaker and slower.

    While it is true that dirt and climate affected genetics over 10,000s of years, the racial genetics in their current state remain constant across different landscapes. So, European genetics will make Europeans Europeanize even none-European places, and African genetics will make Africans Africanize even non-African areas.

    Upon contemplating the state of Africa and Africanized parts of the world, is it a good idea to open your world to Africanization? Having Africans in your nation isn’t just a case of Africans-in-your-nation. What you get is the process of Africanization of your nation.

    Look at St. Louis, Baltimore, Cleveland, and Chicago. Compare the Europeanized areas and Africanized areas.

    Maybe blacks should be called Africanizers. All lifeforms are active and transformative. Their genes energize them to alter the environment in accordance to genetic tendencies.
    The kind of pressure depends on genes. Different genes apply pressure on their holders to act differently.

    Europeanization-genetics is constructive. Even when Europeans destroy things, they are getting rid of old thing to create new things(often of higher value). It is creative destruction.
    Africanization-genetics is destructive. When blacks destroy something, it is gone and nothing new or better replaces what had been. It is destructive destruction.

    So, blacks in America should be called Africanizers or Africanizing-Americans.

  2. Andrea Ostrov's Gravatar Andrea Ostrov
    February 20, 2017 - 7:24 am | Permalink

    The problem is NOT slavery per se. It is blacks.

    Had those blacks been brought over as free laborers, they would have caused the same problems.

    Suppose the US had brought over 300,000 white slaves and 300,000 black free laborers(as immigrants).
    Which group would be causing more problem today?
    The descendants of white slaves or descendants of black free laborers?
    Probably the blacks.

    Or consider another alternative.
    Suppose the US had brought over 300,000 Chinese slaves.
    Would their descendants be causing much trouble for whites?
    No. Because Chinese are smaller and weaker than whites, white men would retain manly pride as top athletes and studs in the nation. There would be no Chinese Muhammad Ali’s, Jesse Owens’, and Michael Jordans.
    And since Chinese men have weak voices, they never would have produced MLK and all those Magic Vocal Negroes. Whites wouldn’t have been spellbound by Chinese Charisma(because Chinese got no charisma).
    Also, as Chinese are shorter and smaller-donged than whites, Chinese men would not be a sexual threat to white men. If anything, white men would be doing white women AND yellow women who prefer white stud to yellow dork. (Indeed, one of the main reasons why so many Asian women want to emigrate to the West is to gain access to superior manlier men, white or black. Having been exposed to globalist culture that prizes black athletes and white Hollywood actors, the short and geek Asian men are no longer appealing to Asian women who see their own men as inferior and unworthy to be their lovers and husbands. As for Asian fathers, it seems they want to offer their daughters to superior non-Asian men so that they could brag to their friends that THEIR daughter married a superior white guy than some asian loser boy. It’s like Amy Chua’s father was first resistant to her marrying some white/Jewish guy but was soon beaming that his girl married a superior man than some yellow dork).

    So, the real problem was NOT slavery but race. Whites brought over blacks.
    Look at Europe. It is taking in free immigrant blacks, but they cause the same problems that blacks cause in the US.

    Blacks commit more crime. Also, because blacks are stronger and faster, they take over sports and gain ‘hero’ status and turn white boys into wussy cucks. Also, they got stronger voices, so they win in music and dance. Also, they got bigger dongs, so white women got jungle fever and go with Negroes, and this leads to the Afro-colonization of white wombs that produce blacks who beat up white boys and hump more white girls.
    The lesson to learn from this is NEVER BRING PEOPLE WHO ARE STRONGER AND HAVE BIGGER DONGS THAN YOUR OWN RACE INTO YOUR NATION.

    Whites should have brought over white slaves or Asian slaves.
    But whites brought over black slaves. The real problem was not slavery per se but RACE. Whites brought over the stronger and more aggressive race. Had 300,000 black free-folks been allowed into the US, their descendants would have caused the same problems, same dangers, and same anxieties to the white race that the descendants of 300,000 black slaves did.
    Look at blacks in America. Slavery ended long long ago, and blacks even got absolute equality under the law.

    But racial problems go on. And more and more black dudes beat up weaker white dudes. And more and more white girls get infected with jungle fever from listening to rap, watching football, having sex with high school black athletes, and watching cuck-porn from a young age, all of which inform white girls that black men are racially-sexually-athletically superior to slow, flabby, and wussy ‘white boys’. And some of the white fathers of these girls invite black mandingos to do their white wives on their own beds.

    People say the SIN of slavery is the reason for the racial problem. But isn’t genocide worse than slavery? The G-word has often been used to describe the plight of American Indians. So, one could argue that the sin against Indians was far worse. But where is the Big Problem with Indians in the US?

    • February 20, 2017 - 12:00 pm | Permalink

      “But whites brought over black slaves.” No. Jews brought them over.

      I’m sure the article (apart from Jew censorship) is true, as far as it goes. But there’s no quantitative element. How much of this happened?

      There’s also no discussion of money. Presumably the northern whites were paid. If not, why wouldn’t they just give up and go home? Uncompromising realism in needed imho.

    • Red Balloon's Gravatar Red Balloon
      February 20, 2017 - 3:25 pm | Permalink

      Whites didn’t bring over the black slaves. Jews did. Early on in America, when it was still the colonies, plenty of white slaves were sent over. England would send over the criminals & other undesirables. Read “They Were White and They Were Slaves” by Michael Hoffman.

    • Forever guilty's Gravatar Forever guilty
      February 20, 2017 - 10:17 pm | Permalink

      “black men are racially-sexually-athletically superior to slow, flabby, and wussy ‘white boys’.”

      Oh. that’s funny..

      And gorillas are “racially-sexually-athletically superior” to black men.

    • Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
      February 21, 2017 - 4:12 am | Permalink

      It’s a myth that Black men are stronger and have “bigger dongs” than White men. A quick google scholar search will prove the fallacy of this silly remark. Much of your argument, at least as I see it, serves to discredit and humiliate Whites. Whites biggest sin is their credulity, used against them by the Usual Suspects. The Jew Edward Bernays, nephew of Freud, was the granddaddy of propaganda and mass mind control, setting the wheels in motion in the 1920’s which have been turning ever since. Whites have had their thinking processes jew-fiddled with for four generations and in the process we have lost ourselves, neither Jewish or Black ‘superiority’ playing any role in this travesty, this destruction of the greatest race of people.

      • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
        February 21, 2017 - 9:12 pm | Permalink

        There is a very easy way to escape that destructive Jewish mind control : simply turn the TV off !

        • Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
          February 22, 2017 - 2:42 pm | Permalink

          Turn off the t.v? This is the 21st century, age of the internet and no one of consequence watches t.v. However, the textbook publishers, media, think tanks, advertisers, google, facebook.you tube, congress and EU are all on the same page as Bernays.

        • February 25, 2017 - 8:05 am | Permalink

          I’ve just noticed Trump has excluded the Guardian, the New York Times, Politico, CNN, BuzzFeed, the BBC, the Daily Mail and others from some briefings.

      • Lou's Gravatar Lou
        February 22, 2017 - 8:39 pm | Permalink

        I have been in enough mens locker rooms to attest to the fact, BBC is not a rumor.

  3. Paul Harrison's Gravatar Paul Harrison
    February 20, 2017 - 8:55 am | Permalink

    Very interesting article, but it omits the Jewish angle and the Communist angle. Jews funded the movement and most of the white leaders were Jews, I would wager. The three murdered civil rights workers often alluded to, Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney, comprised two Jews and a black. Many of the white/Jewish girls were eager to have sexual relationships with black men, which, I have read, caused considerable resentment on the part of the black women. We had a local group calling themselves Black Panthers in my college town. They befriended my white roommates and would come to our apartment from time to time, where they would proceed to raid the refrigerator and steal things. They were gruff and bullied us and I was the only one who viewed their behavior as unacceptable. I did my best to hide it but they could see in my eyes that I had a pretty low opinion of them and would hector me over my white guilt. Communists played a large role in organizing the movement and Rosa Parks was reportedly prepped for her famous refusal to sit in the back of the bus. The Communists had their own agenda which was not always helpful to the blacks. The flare-up of violence in Northern Ireland around the same time was partly caused by Marxists who had got control of the IRA attempting to copy the “creative confrontation” strategy of the Americans, in which a march is planned so as to make violence predictable, and then ‘spin’ the violence in the media. Unfortunately the Marxists had let the arsenal go to rust and so were purged by grizzled Catholic veterans of earlierconfrontions (the “Provos.”) Now that Ireland is going atheist alongside the rest of the EU the IRA’s days of relevance are likely over. Those were surreal times. Returning to the American movement, I wouldn’t blame the blacks so much for abusing the whites, since in many ways the whites were inviting the abuse. As for black and white living together, southern whites generally got on well with blacks prior to the Movement. Southern fraternities featured black bands almost exclusively and listened to black music in preference to white hippie music. George Wallace and others were largely right about the role played by “outside agitators” in stirring up trouble. Similarly, the violent acts of BLM street soldiers are mainly to be blamed on Soros, the Ford Foundation, and other manipulators behind the scenes, though at this point an ongoing state of enmity between black and white is more or less taken for granted on all sides.

    • T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
      February 21, 2017 - 9:03 am | Permalink

      “. . .and most of the white leaders were Jews. . .”

      One cannot be White and jew. . .jews want Whites dead.

  4. Gilbert Huntly's Gravatar Gilbert Huntly
    February 20, 2017 - 9:18 am | Permalink

    Common sense is SEGREGATED – as is a sane and orderly society. Quit apologizing, white people!

  5. Bob's Gravatar Bob
    February 20, 2017 - 9:24 am | Permalink

    Could you imagine a feature film coming out of (((Hollywood))) that portrayed the aspects of the “civil rights” movement outlined in this article? How differently would Whites view the “civil rights” movement and race relations if they were exposed to these truths?

    Not worry, no such film will ever come out of (((Hollywood))). Instead we will continue to be treated with the myth of the evil white southerners and their abuse of the innocent negro. You would think that looking around at such “free” black cities as Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, etc., would disabuse Whites of any romantic notions about the “innocent negro”.

  6. John's Gravatar John
    February 20, 2017 - 10:22 am | Permalink

    Check out what British politician George Galloway says about the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa and who was behind it

    And here’s something that I think is a huge step forward. Tucker Carlson interviewed a film maker, Ami Horowitz, who made a documentary about the migrant crime wave in Sweden.

    And now Brian Kilmeade said on Fox and Friends that Fox News is going to take a microscope to what’s happening in Sweden.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/were-missing-the-point-carlson-fox-friends-smack-medias-reaction-to-trumps-sweden-admission/

    • ex South African's Gravatar ex South African
      February 22, 2017 - 12:38 am | Permalink

      I have documents in my possession, with newspapers prints (South Africa was very German friendly up to this stage, from here onward insulting reports appeared against Germany’s past, and cartoons which ridiculed war veterans in the German South african community who wanted to share their experience with fighting communism with the South Arican military), which describe the moment the South African politicians decided to cooperate military with Israel, it send a signal of creating a rift in the White unity by estranging the German South Africans, something the country could ill afford at a time it was under a heavy international siege.

      Shortly afterward the publication ‘Did six million really die?’ was put on the list of banned literature, after a hefty court case.

      • ex South African's Gravatar ex South African
        February 22, 2017 - 12:53 am | Permalink

        I just remembered that exactly at this time the South African Broadcasting Services decided to screen the series ‘The World at War’ with the ‘Genocide’ episode.

        If you google ‘South Africa screening the World at War’ and ‘South Africa did six million really die’ you will find some entries and sample text from books, which describe the controversies of the time. I found no website which describe those events in South Africa.

      • Kai Wesselchak's Gravatar Kai Wesselchak
        February 23, 2017 - 12:33 pm | Permalink

        Exactly. No way in hell we can trust (((Ami Horowitz))).

  7. John's Gravatar John
    February 20, 2017 - 10:40 am | Permalink

    Civil rights campaigner the Rev Ralph Abernathy was the man who cradled King the day he was killed by an assassin’s bullet in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1968.

    But in 1989, Abernathy — who succeeded King as the movement’s leader — incurred the eternal wrath of his allies and accusations of a Judas-like betrayal after he confirmed that long-standing rumours about his old friend’s rampant sexual appetites were true.

    In his autobiography, Abernathy said King — whose 1953 marriage to Coretta Scott produced four children — had a ‘weakness for women’.

    King, a pastor from the age of 25, ‘understood and believed in the Biblical prohibition against sex outside marriage,’ said his friend. ‘It was just that he had a particularly difficult time with that temptation.’

    And that was putting it mildly. Abernathy related an extraordinary story that indicated King spent the last night of his life enjoying the attentions of not one but two lovers, followed by an encounter with a third woman whom he knocked sprawling across his motel room bed.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2407403/Sex-tapes-FBI-smears-double-life-human-saint-The-Martin-Luther-King-story.html

  8. John's Gravatar John
    February 20, 2017 - 11:12 am | Permalink
  9. John's Gravatar John
    February 20, 2017 - 11:14 am | Permalink
  10. Sir Tristram's Gravatar Sir Tristram
    February 20, 2017 - 1:00 pm | Permalink

    “The intense dislike which the Southern whites manifested for the Freedmen’s Bureau was due in general to their resentment of outside control of domestic affairs and in particular to unavoidable difficulties inherent in the situation. Among the concrete causes of Southern hostility was the attitude of some of the higher officials and many of the lower ones toward the white people. They assumed that the whites were unwilling to accord fair treatment to the blacks in the matter of wages, schools, and justice. An official in Louisiana declared that the whites would exterminate the Negroes if the Bureau were removed. A few months later General Fullerton in the same State reported that trouble was caused by those agents who noisily demanded special privileges for the Negro but who objected to any penalties for his lawlessness and made of the Negroes a pampered class. General Tillson in Georgia predicted the extinction of the “old time Southerner with his hate, cruelty, and malice.” General Fisk declared that “there are some of the meanest, unsubjugated and unreconstructed rascally revolutionists in Kentucky that curse the soil of the country… a more select number of vindictive, pro-slavery, rebellious legislators cannot be found than a majority of the Kentucky legislature.” There was a disposition to lecture the whites about their sins in regard to slavery and to point out to them how far in their general ignorance and backwardness they fell short of enlightened people.

    The Bureau courts were frequently conducted in an “illegal and oppressive manner,” with “decided partiality for the colored people, without regard to justice.” For this reason they were suspended for a time in Louisiana and Georgia by General Steedman and General Fullerton, and cases were then sent before military courts. Men of the highest character were dragged before the Bureau tribunals upon frivolous complaints, were lectured, abused, ridiculed, and arbitrarily fined otherwise punished. The jurisdiction of the Bureau courts weakened the civil courts and their frequent interference in trivial matters was not conducive to a return to normal conditions.

    The inferior agents, not sufficiently under the control of their superiors, were responsible for a great deal of this bad feeling. Many of them held radical opinions as to the relations of the races, and inculcated these views in their courts, in the schools, and in the new Negro churches. Some were charged with even causing strikes and other difficulties in order to be bought off by the whites. The tendency of their work was to create in the Negroes a pervasive distrust of the whites.

    The prevalent delusion in regard to an impending division of the lands among the blacks had its origin in the operation of the war-time confiscation laws, in some of the Bureau legislation, and in General Sherman’s Sea Island order, but it was further fostered by the agents until most blacks firmly believed that each head of a family was to get “40 acres and a mule.” This belief seriously interfered with industry and resulted also in widespread swindling by rascals who for years made a practice of selling fraudulent deeds to land with red, white, and blue sticks to mark off the bounds of a chosen spot on the former master’s plantation. The assistant commissioners labored hard to disabuse the minds of the Negroes, but their efforts were often neutralized by the unscrupulous attitude of the agents.

    As the contest over reconstruction developed in Washington, the officials of the Bureau soon recognized the political possibilities of their institution. After midyear of 1866, the Bureau became a political machine for the purpose of organizing the blacks into the Union League, where the rank and file were taught that reenslavement would follow Democratic victories. Nearly all of the Bureau agents aided in the administration of the reconstruction acts in 1867 and in the organization of the new state and local governments and became officials under the new regime. They were the chief agents in capturing the solid Negro vote for the Republican party.

    Neither of the two plans for guiding the freedmen into a place in the social order–the “Black Laws” and the Freedmen’s Bureau–was successful. The former contained a program which was better suited to actual conditions and which might have succeeded if it had been given a fair trial. These laws were a measure of the extent to which the average white would then go in “accepting the situation” so far as the blacks were concerned. And on the whole the recognition of Negro rights made in these laws, and made at a time when the whites believed that they were free to handle the situation, was remarkably fair. The Negroes lately released from slavery were admitted to the enjoyment of the same rights as the whites as to legal protection of life, liberty, and property, as to education and as to the family relation, limited only by the clear recognition of the principles of political inferiority and social separation. Unhappily this legislation was not put to the test of practical experience because of the Freedmen’s Bureau; it was nevertheless skillfully used to arouse the dominant Northern party to a course of action which made impossible any further effort to treat the race problem with due consideration to actual local conditions.

    Much of the work of the Freedmen’s Bureau was of only temporary benefit to both races. The results of its more permanent work were not generally good. The institution was based upon the assumption that the Negro race must be protected from the white race. In its organization and administration it was an impossible combination of the practical and the theoretical, of opportunism and humanitarianism, of common sense and idealism. It failed to exert a permanently wholesome influence because its lesser agents were not held to strict accountability by their superiors. Under these agents the alienation of the two races began, and the ill feelings then aroused were destined to persist into a long and troubled future.”

    -Walter Lynwood Fleming, from Sequel of Appomattox. A Chronicle of the Reunion of the States, Volume 32 In The Chronicles Of America Series. 1919.

  11. anarchyst's Gravatar anarchyst
    February 20, 2017 - 2:48 pm | Permalink

    It turns out that those whites of the 1950’s (myself included) that protested against forced integration were right, all along…
    Blacks were doing much better when they had their own institutions, businesses, social organizations, residential areas, etc.
    It was communists and other society destroyers (the “chosen” and other northern-based “carpetbaggers”) who are directly responsible for our present racial and social ills.
    I grew up during the first “civil-rights” era and have a decidedly different “take” on this whole “civil-rights movement” era. In fact, I saw for myself, what went on during those turbulent times.
    Despite the lies and fabrications by the so-called “mainstream media” the “civil-rights marches” in the South were not peaceful “gatherings” that were met with dogs and fire hoses, but were violent black confrontations that actually set back the “cause” of TRUE “civil-rights”. .
    The so-called “civil-rights” demonstrations were waves of lawlessness that disrupted the lives of peaceful citizens. There were many black citizens in these areas that were against these “outsiders” coming there to cause trouble. These “civil-rights” marchers committed crimes, rapes, robberies and other crimes, and trashed the areas they were protesting in. I WAS THERE . . . Of course, the cameras were turned off during the episodes of violence. . .then just as now, the news media could not “let a crisis go to waste” . . .
    It was mostly ACLU, $PLC and ADL types that riled things up. . .and then later on “melted into the woodwork” only to become “civil-rights” attorneys, race hustlers and poverty pimps.
    One incident comes to mind–the death of Mrs. Viola Liuzzo–Mrs. Liuzzo was a Detroit housewife who traveled to the “deep south” (without her husband) to run around with “freedom riders” at night–this was a recipe that was asking for trouble. What business did she have running around with blacks at night in the South while she had a family in Detroit?? Why did she put herself “in harms way”??
    I WAS THERE during the “civil-rights” disturbances and witnessed the misbehavior of these “civil-rights” groups (that never got reported). . .
    Of course, the “victors” write the history. To the victors–how does it feel now that those you pushed and supported are now turning on you??
    The so-called “news media” had an agenda then as it does now. White-on black crime (although relatively rare) is ALWAYS described as a “hate crime” where as black-on-white crime is NEVER described as a “hate crime”. . .Actually, ALL crimes are “hate crimes” . . .

  12. Junghans's Gravatar Junghans
    February 20, 2017 - 5:04 pm | Permalink

    The deluded White morons, Negro lovers and race-mixers of that Era are still at it today, and the race defilement of Whites is now worse than ever. It is surreal how racially stupid so many suburban Whites still are today, despite the constant and chronic Negro outrages. The (((media))) still has way too many Whites ethnically dumbed down, in race denial, and in utter intellectual slavery. The disgusting drumbeat of race-mixing propaganda never ceases, and the state sponsored system of dysgenics continues to erode the White race everywhere. The Obama Era really did a lot of damage, (((as was intended))), but will the implicit White identity of the new Trump Era lead to what is absolutely essential, a new state of explicit White racial identity.

Comments are closed.