This matter will never be settled. There was some virtue and some evil on both sides, even if I consider the North's position to be somewhat (but certianly not completely) more virtuous. There are very good arguments that: 1. The North did not want the South to be able to choose manufactured products from both Great Britain and the North, but wanted the economy to link the mostly agraculturual south exclusively (almost) to an industrialized north. 2. If the North's treatment of south had proceded as planned by Lincoln and not gone into a more retrubitive mode after his life was ended, the lives of the black in the South would have been far better, and Jim Crow would probably not have existed or not have existed in as virulent a form. The arguments about right and wrongs in the "Civil War" or "War between the States" will go on forever. I think we should be friends and concentrate only on the effect on railroading. e Ever visit Newfoundland on July 14th, Loyalty Day, where the great George Washington is a traitor and Benedick Arnold a hero. But USA people are still welcomed there in friendship.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Tim Burton QUOTE: Originally posted by easter Somehow the words,"One nation, under God ,indivisible ,with liberty and justice for all," didn't apply here.Easter. That's because that was a saying made up by a socialist well after all death of the Founding Fathers. Jim Crow would have never been an issue if the North would have let the South free the slaves in the same manner that the North did. One that wouldn't economically destroy the South. The North was hypocrites, they allowed years to remove slaves from the population and send them south before the Slaves were freed, but instead they wanted the South to dump it ASAP regardless of the cost to whites or blacks. A great example is the Seccesion Papers by MS. It isn't until 2/3 of the way through that they start really complaining about slavery (only the abuse of the agreements of the North), and they say. QUOTE: It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists. It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better. The Abolition movement wasn't peaceful in the slightest and in the second part they complain that the North had no response on how to release them fairly to benefit everyone. http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Mississippi_causes.htm Pretty much, ever Seccesion complained about the double standard or the lack of compassion about how to justly free the slaves. I personally believe that the North and the South would have been much better if the North would have looked to help the South Emancipate the slaves rather than force them to free them. Had the freed them like Britain did, there would have been disaster. Had Britain not paid off both owners and slaves it would have been utter chaos rather than just the mess it was. Georgia's biggest complaint in it's declaration is the lack of enforcement of the "full faith and credit" clause. And let's not forget the free states passed laws in order to keep blacks out of their states, they didn't want them, whereas the south treated free blacks well. So much so, that even Tocqueville commented about the racial tranquility in the south.
QUOTE: Originally posted by easter Somehow the words,"One nation, under God ,indivisible ,with liberty and justice for all," didn't apply here.Easter.
QUOTE: It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists. It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.
--David
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH QUOTE: Originally posted by agentatascadero P Benham mentions Jim Crow combines with baggage in the middle and passengers on both ends. So P, I have never heard or seen reference to such a car. Perhaps you could cite your source. i can concede that perhaps an individual baggage car was so configured, but no such fleet has ever existed in America, and I have travelled in the south in Jim Crow America. In the 1967 issue of TRAINS which had an article about the Georgia Railroad's barnchline mixed trains, there is in fact a photo in the article which shows a Jim Crow combine so configured.
QUOTE: Originally posted by agentatascadero P Benham mentions Jim Crow combines with baggage in the middle and passengers on both ends. So P, I have never heard or seen reference to such a car. Perhaps you could cite your source. i can concede that perhaps an individual baggage car was so configured, but no such fleet has ever existed in America, and I have travelled in the south in Jim Crow America.
QUOTE: Originally posted by csmith9474 QUOTE: Originally posted by passengerfan I have a list of the lightweight streamlined "Jim Crow" cars that I will dig out after tax season ends. I think many will be surprised by some of the railroads that operated these type cars in named streamlined trains. Most every railroad that operated passenger trains in Jim Crow states had partitioned cars. That is a big list.
QUOTE: Originally posted by passengerfan I have a list of the lightweight streamlined "Jim Crow" cars that I will dig out after tax season ends. I think many will be surprised by some of the railroads that operated these type cars in named streamlined trains.
QUOTE: easter: Does the Blue train still run???
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter