Alan Singer wants a public school curriculum that focuses on slavery's impact on the northern U.S.
I just bet he does.
Posted on 03/17/2006 8:50:53 AM PST by High Cotton
Teaching about the slave trade "is the right thing to do," Wright said. "Absent South Carolina, the biggest importer of slaves was New York City."
The New York Historical Society recently presented an exhibition on slavery in New York that featured documents, paintings, video and sculpture.
In lower Manhattan, a long-lost burial ground where thousands of slaves and free blacks were laid to rest during the 18th century was recently declared a national monument by President Bush.
Slavery was abolished in New York in 1827, but when the American Revolution began in 1776, the only city with more slaves than New York was Charleston, South Carolina.
Oyster Bay eighth-grader Fiona Brunner said she was amazed to find out there were slaves buried near Oyster Bay.
"You always think that happened so far away, only in the South, and a lot of it was right here in our town," she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Walkin' in "high cotton"
This is very pleasing to see that this is being taught. I am in the middle of a grad class where the professor is painting the South as a bunch of mean spirited heathens that their only goal in life was to have slaves and beat up people to make them agree with them.
Read the book, "American Mobbing" and you will see where he gets most of his information. :)
Sounds like your professor is a moron.
Well then in the middle of your grad class, ask him about this article and get his input..... If nothing else, you will have educated the other members of your class.
Alan Singer wants a public school curriculum that focuses on slavery's impact on the northern U.S.
I just bet he does.
I emailed this to him. We have had war in this class. He doesn't know how to take me but I have documentations and now this...OH life is good. LOL
The corrupt democrat machine, Tammany Hall, seized power in NY in 1855 and ruled for the next 70 years. Slavery could not exist without Tammany Hall's approval.
It may be a start but don't worry, yanks will be along shortly to 'correct the truth' and explain how this is revisionism and in actuality a young abe took up wearing a stove top hat to cover his halo...
I just bet he does.
The enemy of my enemy may not be my friend, but he may be useful in this one instance.
>>>The corrupt democrat machine, Tammany Hall, seized power in NY in 1855 and ruled for the next 70 years. Slavery could not exist without Tammany Hall's approval.
I don't think Tammany Hall had much to do with this. Slavery was abolished in New York in 1827
Tell me what other information you need to counter the profs claims.
If you ever go to Charleston, SC there's a great place called High Cotton!
Slavery was supported by both the Northern and Southern democrats. The great civil rights republican party was formed to keep them from spreading slavery.
""You always think that happened so far away, only in the South, and a lot of it was right here in our town," she said."
And THAT is the problem - half-truths and sins of omission. Current-day Yankees who basically rule the education establishment (and essentially, the New England view has been the ultimate controller in the country - see how many people think Pilgrims were the 1st settlers in what is now the US, and that Thanksgiving is only from them) often don't even know, much less permit their captive students to know, that EVERYONE in the US/United Colonies/colonies had slavery. Only MA by the time of the Constitution did NOT have slavery. NJ only banned it c. 1830s or so (and apparently, alot of people didn't like that).
So, it wasn't just Southerners who had slaves, or who hated the idea of losing it. I think the big difference was that in the South, there were fewer people to start who managed to have huge tracts of land, built "plantations" (in the wealthy sense we all think of), and needed more of those slaves than did the merchants, lawyers and tiny land-owners in the North, who had too many neighbors to even HAVE large enough holdings that would be hard to manage w/o help (never mind, planting almost useless as a business because of ROCKS everywhere). So, their need for help was less, and it probably didn't phase as many people that slavery would be outlawed.
Worse is the perception given that Northerners liked blacks better. Northerners like most really couldn't care less, nor did alot want to associate with blacks any more than did Southerners. It was purely about slavery, not about race, really.
He cited an 1877 passage from the diary of Harris Underhill, reporting on a visit to the family homestead near Oyster Bay: "On this farm are buried sixty slaves which once belonged to the Underhills."
From the article.
1) "I don't want you kids to demonize the South. We here in the North were no angels. Judge yourself and your ancestors first before you go putting down people who live in Alabama or Mississippi."
2) "You kids think your hands are clean. You think the rednecks in the South did all the bad stuff. Well, those stupid hillbillies did do a lot of bad stuff. An awful lot. But, hey, your ancestors were no angels either. You kids are guilty as hell. Reparations are the least you can do for blacks, seeing as how involved your families were in the slave trade. Now, do your duty, step up, feel guilty, and vote to increase government spending on inner cities."
Gotta love you quoting GEORGE! :D
BTTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.