Blacks in detroit now stealing FIRE HYDRANTS!!

[DonGlock26]

THE MASTER RACE:

Look at all those SPLC millionaires.

 

[drudge X]

THE MASTER RACE:

You do know that these idiots are irrelevant in this era, right? There are about 3000-8000 left and various factions compete with one another. The irony is blacks are doing them a favor and achieved the unthinkable (blacks killing blacks) that the KKK can only dream about since its founding day.

 

[StatesRightsForever]

You do know that these idiots are irrelevant in this era, right? There are about 3000-8000 left and various factions compete with one another. The irony is blacks are doing them a favor and achieved the unthinkable (blacks killing blacks) that the KKK can only dream about since its founding day.

The KKK is a govt agency, you fool. Every time the govt wants to stir up hatred of whites they pay the KKK to have a rally.

 

[jacksonlamb]

In his 1858n debate w stephen douglas , abraham lincoln told us there is no living with blacks.

www.historyonthenet.com/abraham-lincoln-quotes-on-democracy

I will say that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they can not so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Lincon certainly changed his mind by the time the 13th Amendment passed Congress and was sent to the states.

 

[jacksonlamb]

The KKK is a govt agency, you fool. Every time the govt wants to stir up hatred of whites they pay the KKK to have a rally.

What you wrote above "

The KKK is a govt agency, you fool. Every time the govt wants to stir up hatred of whites they pay the KKK to have a rally" proves your brain is jelly,

 

[EdwinAMartin]

Was it because Democrats refused to recognize freed slaves as citizens?

From your link:

At its inception, the Homestead Act did not include African Americans because it referred to citizens (Hernandez-Truyol & Day, 2001; Lanza, 1990).2 To partly deal with this issue, Congress passed the Southern Homestead Act of 1866, which explicitly stated that applicants could not be discriminated against based on color (Lanza, 1990).

As previously noted, African Americans were excluded from the Homestead Act due to the requirement of citizenship. Yet, there was no explicit exclusion of African Americans, which was likely an intentional omission due to changing political sentiments held by Republicans (Edwards, 2019). The course of the war engendered a transformative shift in Republican viewpoints regarding race and rights. The enlistment of Black men into military service marked a significant turning point, sparking a concerted effort, which W. E. B. Du Bois termed a “general strike” against both the Confederacy and slavery. With the advent of emancipation, Republicans championed full citizenship, voting rights, and economic empowerment through land ownership for African Americans (Du Bois, 1935). Party members advocated for land ownership opportunities commensurate with White citizens under the 1862 Homestead Act. The adoption of such ideas was exemplified by General William Sherman's Field Order No. 15 during the Civil War, which earmarked 400,000 acres of rebel-owned plantations in the coastal South for resettling freed slaves. News of such experiments spread, and by the end of the war in 1865, rumors circulated that the federal government intended to provide “forty acres and a mule” to freed slaves (Foner, 1988).

Northern War Democrats backed Lincoln. Republican support was momentary and short lived; SOME REpublicans supported those efforts, most dumped as soon as it was feasable. Most of their political campaigns throughout the war and after were strong white nationalist platforms keeping blacks out of the new territories, and they did. They created the 'Southern homestead Act' instead. The carpetbaggers wanted that cheap labor to stay in the South. Sherman's field order was revoked after the war in most states. He ordered it to reduce the numbers of blacks following him around during the war.

The only real abolitionist in Lincoln's Cabinet was William Seward, and he opposed going to war and later refused to support the few land grants made. The Republicans killed the Freedman's Bureau after carpetbaggers complained blacks were more interested in subsistence farming than working on the cotton plantations, so the Republicans started backing policies that drove blacks off their small plots and forced them into share-cropping rackets. Later on President Grant refused to enforce the 15th Amendment in several southern states.

"Forty Acres and a mule'" was a slogan, not a reality outside of South Carolina and parts of another state. Joseph Davis had the most progressive policies re the family's Davis Bend plantation. He sold it to his slaves for $100K, to paid off in installments on easy terms, and directs in his will that they were to be cut a lot of leeway when times were bad and they couldn't pay the full debt due, but after his death his family didn't honor his request. He was fan of Robert Owen.

Davis Bend, Mississippi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

Northern War Democrats backed Lincoln. Republican support was momentary and short lived; SOME REpublicans supported those efforts, most dumped as soon as it was feasable. Most of their political campaigns throughout the war and after were strong white nationalist platforms keeping blacks out of the new territories, and they did. They created the 'Southern homestead Act' instead. The carpetbaggers wanted that cheap labor to stay in the South. Sherman's field order was revoked after the war in most states. He ordered it to reduce the numbers of blacks following him around during the war.

The only real abolitionist in Lincoln's Cabinet was William Seward, and he opposed going to war and later refused to support the few land grants made. The Republicans killed the Freedman's Bureau after carpetbaggers complained blacks were more interested in subsistence farming than working on the cotton plantations, so the Republicans started backing policies that drove blacks off their small plots and forced them into share-cropping rackets. Later on President Grant refused to enforce the 15th Amendment in several southern states.

"Forty Acres and a mule'" was a slogan, not a reality outside of South Carolina and parts of another state. Joseph Davis had the most progressive policies re the family's Davis Bend plantation. He sold it to his slaves for $100K, to paid off in installments on easy terms, and directs in his will that they were to be cut a lot of leeway when times were bad and they couldn't pay the full debt due, but after his death his family didn't honor his request. He was fan of Robert Owen.

Davis Bend, Mississippi - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Still quoting from your link...

The more radical faction of the Republican Party, led by individuals like Pennsylvania's Thaddeus Stevens, sought substantial land redistribution for emancipated slaves (Foner, 1988). However, this vision faced political resistance. Following President Lincoln's assassination in 1865, Andrew Johnson, a southern Democrat, assumed the presidency and had little interest in broadening Black political or economic influence (Stampp, 1967). Under President Johnson, land reform experiments like General Sherman's were rolled back, as were proposals to make the Freedmen's Bureau a vehicle for carving up and redistributing former Confederate plantations. To Johnson and more moderate Republicans, land reform threatened to violate the sanctity of private property and the fundamentals of American capitalism—a threat they saw as particularly pronounced if the beneficiaries were Black (Foner, 1988).

Despite these setbacks, the more radical wing of the Republican Party aimed for a compromise that would still extend land opportunities to freed slaves. First, they rectified the exclusion of African Americans by securing citizenship rights with the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 1868 ratification of the 14th Amendment. However, recognizing the geographical divide between the predominantly southern Black population and western lands, Indiana Republican Congressman George W. Julian championed the Southern Homestead Act in 1866 (Riddleberger, 1955). This legislation eased concerns about private property rights by allocating 46 million acres of public land in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi through the same homesteading framework established in 1862 (Edwards, 2019). Former slaves were given priority in settling these lands.

Republicans envisioned that the public lands under the Southern Homestead would accommodate the nearly 4 million freed slaves through 80-acre plots for each family (Edwards, 2019). Unfortunately, the Southern Homestead Act found limited realization on the ground (Edwards, 2019). Prior attempts to subdivide Confederate plantations, such as General Sherman's Field Order, stirred controversy due to their infringement upon private property and because they redistributed prime, fertile, and productive farmland to freed slaves. The 46 million acres reserved by the Southern Homestead Act were largely situated in forested or swampy terrains, characterized by poor soils ill-suited for row-crop agriculture (Gates, 1996; Shanks, 2005). Further complicating the situation, the bill's text did not exclusively allot these lands to freed slaves (Shanks, 2005). Initially, eligibility was restricted to Unionist southern Whites and former slaves. Yet, many African Americans remained bound by annual wage-labor contracts negotiated by the Freedmen's Bureau, consequently making them ineligible (Edwards, 2019). Subsequently, the eligibility scope expanded to include former Confederates in 1867, further affecting Black participation (Edwards, 2019).

The Southern Homestead Act remained for only a decade and probably exerted little impact on African Americans—the group it aimed to assist (Shanks, 2005). Its shortcomings shaped African American history, setting the stage for sharecropping, tenant farming, and the Great Migration (Edwards, 2019). Sharecropping, specifically, perpetuated a system wherein many African Americans remained reliant and landless, with limited prospects for improving their social and economic status (Hunte, 1992). In contrast, the 1862 Homestead Act remained in force until 1976, albeit becoming largely dormant by the 1930s.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

Still quoting from your link...

The more radical faction of the Republican Party, led by individuals like Pennsylvania's Thaddeus Stevens, sought substantial land redistribution for emancipated slaves (Foner, 1988). However, this vision faced political resistance. Following President Lincoln's assassination in 1865, Andrew Johnson, a southern Democrat, assumed the presidency and had little interest in broadening Black political or economic influence (Stampp, 1967). Under President Johnson, land reform experiments like General Sherman's were rolled back, as were proposals to make the Freedmen's Bureau a vehicle for carving up and redistributing former Confederate plantations. To Johnson and more moderate Republicans, land reform threatened to violate the sanctity of private property and the fundamentals of American capitalism—a threat they saw as particularly pronounced if the beneficiaries were Black (Foner, 1988).

Despite these setbacks, the more radical wing of the Republican Party aimed for a compromise that would still extend land opportunities to freed slaves. First, they rectified the exclusion of African Americans by securing citizenship rights with the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 1868 ratification of the 14th Amendment. However, recognizing the geographical divide between the predominantly southern Black population and western lands, Indiana Republican Congressman George W. Julian championed the Southern Homestead Act in 1866 (Riddleberger, 1955). This legislation eased concerns about private property rights by allocating 46 million acres of public land in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi through the same homesteading framework established in 1862 (Edwards, 2019). Former slaves were given priority in settling these lands.

Republicans envisioned that the public lands under the Southern Homestead would accommodate the nearly 4 million freed slaves through 80-acre plots for each family (Edwards, 2019). Unfortunately, the Southern Homestead Act found limited realization on the ground (Edwards, 2019). Prior attempts to subdivide Confederate plantations, such as General Sherman's Field Order, stirred controversy due to their infringement upon private property and because they redistributed prime, fertile, and productive farmland to freed slaves. The 46 million acres reserved by the Southern Homestead Act were largely situated in forested or swampy terrains, characterized by poor soils ill-suited for row-crop agriculture (Gates, 1996; Shanks, 2005). Further complicating the situation, the bill's text did not exclusively allot these lands to freed slaves (Shanks, 2005). Initially, eligibility was restricted to Unionist southern Whites and former slaves. Yet, many African Americans remained bound by annual wage-labor contracts negotiated by the Freedmen's Bureau, consequently making them ineligible (Edwards, 2019). Subsequently, the eligibility scope expanded to include former Confederates in 1867, further affecting Black participation (Edwards, 2019).

The Southern Homestead Act remained for only a decade and probably exerted little impact on African Americans—the group it aimed to assist (Shanks, 2005). Its shortcomings shaped African American history, setting the stage for sharecropping, tenant farming, and the Great Migration (Edwards, 2019). Sharecropping, specifically, perpetuated a system wherein many African Americans remained reliant and landless, with limited prospects for improving their social and economic status (Hunte, 1992). In contrast, the 1862 Homestead Act remained in force until 1976, albeit becoming largely dormant by the 1930s.

So? Read a book and find out how little of all that was actually enforced. You just posted stuff that agreed with what I said. Nobody said they were getting good land, or even implied it.

Another Fun FAct:

Out of the infrastructure spending, only 15% was designated for the South after the war, and most of that went to one railroad. The fed's only kept about 6,000 troops in the entire South, excluding Texas, which was still in the midst of indian wars. Southern Republicans got little funds from northern Republicans to do anything with. They passed several enforcement acts but nothing in the way of money to implement them, ie. it was mostly just feel good noise.

 

[ding]

So? Read a book and find out how little of all that was actually enforced. You just posted stuff that agreed with what I said. Nobody said they were getting good land, or even implied it.

Another Fun FAct:

Out of the infrastructure spending, only 15% was designated for the South after the war, and most of that went to one railroad. The fed's only kept about 6,000 troops in the entire South, excluding Texas, which was still in the midst of indian wars. Southern Republicans got little funds from northern Republicans to do anything with. They passed several enforcement acts but nothing in the way of money to implement them, ie. it was mostly just feel good noise.

Are you arguing against the link YOU provided?

Continuing on from your link...

Beyond the political and social barriers to homesteading, African Americans faced investment, equipment, and housing cost barriers. Homesteading was largely inaccessible for African Americans given these upfront costs. Additionally, there were short- and long-term challenges faced by homesteaders (predominantly Whites) given the agricultural boom-bust cycles from 1870 to 1940. Consequently, the lasting implications of the Homestead Acts, including whether homesteading was an effective means of building wealth in US history for the average Americans, are by no means evident.

The Homestead Acts remain among the most transformative policies in US history in terms of migration, settlement, and agricultural expansion (Cunfer, 2005; Webb, 1959). Still, the land allocated under these acts did not guarantee economic stability or upward mobility for homesteaders (Limerick, 1987; Worster, 2004). Ultimately, most land allocated under the 1862 Act was on the Great Plains, which was not well suited for the European-American agricultural system due to the aridity of the Plains. That is, 160 acres was often insufficient to establish successful long-term farming enterprises that met expectations of economic prosperity and growth for individuals and families (Powell, 1878; Worster, 2004). This meant, while the land was free, homesteading was an expensive and risky investment.

First, homesteaders had to pay the cost of migration. Then, homesteaders needed a house, plow, water well, fences, seeds, and draft animals to have a chance at successful harvests (McFerrin et al., 2012; Shanks, 2005). These initial expenses were as much as $1000 (approximately $17,500 in 2020 dollars) (Limerick, 1987) and, looking forward, annual costs versus revenues remained precarious (Webb, 1959).9 Although African Americans became legally eligible to homestead in terms of federal legislation, in practice, homesteading was often inaccessible to African Americans given the upfront costs (Shanks, 2005). While there is no detailed national data on homesteads by race to validate this statement empirically, it is notable that today the most homesteaded states are among the states with the lowest percent of African Americans. As of the 2020 census, the nine most homesteaded states (Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Oklahoma, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Kansas) were 6% African American, despite being 14% of the overall US population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020).

For homesteaders, the uncertainty and challenges of homesteading mostly did not recede after initial success or a few successful harvests. Instead, difficulties maintaining and living off a homestead often unfolded over years and decades. Climate and environmental conditions played a key role in the overall and long-term success of homesteads and were important to the geopolitical landscape in 1862. The Great Plains were the agricultural frontier that the Homestead Act eventually transformed. The states with the highest percent of their land claimed by homesteaders were all Great Plains states (Edwards et al., 2017). Because of aridity and volatile climate, these states were not the most favorable to agricultural production (Hansen & Libecap, 2004; Webb, 1959).10

The natural challenges facing homesteaders were understood by the mid-19th century as it was not a coincidence that US settlement reached the plains after the east and west coasts were settled (Webb, 1959).11 Yet, by the late-19th and early-20th century environmental realities were downplayed in favor of more optimistic notions on the habitability of the plains for US settlers, including the idea that plowing endogenously created additional precipitation and the Dryfarming Doctrine, which argued that moisture could be saved in the soil, allowing small farms to endure any dry period (Libecap & Hansen, 2002). After centuries of relative obscurity for settlers of European heritage, including the bourgeoning United States, the Great Plains were increasingly settled by homesteaders, plowed, and integrated into the global market economy by the 1870s. Settlement and agricultural expansion continued, with some exceptions, until roughly the 1920s.

Proving up (meeting the requirements to receive ownership of the land) was a difficult task, with only 50% of homesteaders receiving ownership (Shanks, 2005). Typical failure and abandonment rates were punctuated by periods of widespread farm failures. A drought in the 1890s led to the first large homestead bust in which crop and farm failures induced an exodus of homesteaders (Libecap & Hansen, 2002). This episode foreshadowed the 1920s and 1930s and highlighted views such as those of John Wesley Powell (then Director of U.S. Geological Survey) that 160 acres was insufficient for an American family west of the 100th meridian (Powell, 1878; Worster, 2004).

Despite underlying climatic challenges for homesteaders and high failure rates, from 1870s to 1910s the Great Plains underwent rapid land-use change (Cunfer, 2005). Several factors contributed to the speed and completeness of the transition from grassland to agriculture in the Great Plains: the amount of land allocated and subsequently plowed under the Homestead Act, periods of relatively high precipitation and little drought, the mechanization of farm equipment, the ease at which the treeless plains could be plowed, the suitability of the plains for wheat (in non-drought years), and, eventually, surging global wheat demand during World War I (Alston, 1983; Hurt, 1981; Olmstead & Rhode, 2002; Webb, 1959). These factors led to the conversion of one of the world's largest grasslands into a region dominated by wheat agriculture within a few decades (Cunfer, 2005; Worster, 2004).

The economic integration of the Great Plains, promoted by the Homestead Act, started to unfurl as Russian wheat reentered the global market after the end of World War I, driving wheat prices down 64% between June 1920 and December 1921 (Genung, 1940). Collapsing prices made farm debt hard to pay for many and led to extensive foreclosures (Alston, 1983). Despite these difficulties, wheat yields remained high, and the non-farm economy grew rapidly through the 1920s. These factors changed in 1929 when investment, consumption, production, and the stock market began a steep downward trend culminating with the Great Depression (Bernanke, 2000; Eichengreen, 1992; Romer, 1993).

At the same time, a drought that would persist through 1939 swept across the United States (Sichko, 2021). Non-coincidentally, the drought centered on the semi-arid and drought-prone Great Plains, then populated by millions of homesteaders. The drought had devastating consequences including towering dust storms fueled by “the Great Plow Up” and widespread, repeated, crop failures throughout the region. Many farmers abandoned their property during the 1930s in a mass environmental migration (Hornbeck, 2020; Long & Siu, 2018; Sichko, 2021). Nonetheless, most people stayed and more sustainable agricultural practices (subsidized and orchestrated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, including the Soil Conservation Service) took hold starting in the mid-1930s (Cunfer, 2005).

The challenges of establishing a lasting homestead at the turn of the 20th century complicated straightforward interpretations of the 1862 Homestead Act as a wealth building vehicle in US history. Given current data and literature, it is not clear that land allocated under the Homestead Act improved the circumstance of the average homesteader. This lack of clarity is representative of a broader opaqueness concerning the implications of homesteading for primarily White settlers. It is conceivable, however, that African Americans would have had higher economic gains compared to Whites because their baseline wealth was much lower, and they had fewer outside options. This view is supported by higher success rates among Black homesteaders as discussed in the next section.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

Are you arguing against the link YOU provided?

So that's how you're going to try and hide the fact that most of it agreed with what I said?

Since you have nothing, here's a book for those in the peanut gallery who have an interest in real history;

Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution: 1863-1877

Re my last posts, Chapter 9 is the most relevant, "The Challenge of Enforcement". The Grant admin just abandoned enforcement altogether. Northern Republicans had no interest in helping southern Republicans, while mouthing a lot about 'rights'.

Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 (New American Nation Series) by Eric Foner; Henry Steele Commager; Richard B. Morris: Fair Hardcover (1988) First Edition. | BooksRun

Free Shipping - ISBN: 9780060158514 - First Edition. - Hardcover - HarperCollins (edition First Edition) - 1988 - Condition: Fair - Dust Jacket Included - With dust jacket. The item might be beaten up but readable. May contain markings or highlighting, as well as stains, bent corners, or any...

www.abebooks.com

 

[EdwinAMartin]

The Homestead Acts remain among the most transformative policies in US history in terms of migration, settlement, and agricultural expansion (Cunfer, 2005; Webb, 1959). Still, the land allocated under these acts did not guarantee economic stability or upward mobility for homesteaders (Limerick, 1987; Worster, 2004). Ultimately, most land allocated under the 1862 Act was on the Great Plains, which was not well suited for the European-American agricultural system due to the aridity of the Plains. That is, 160 acres was often insufficient to establish successful long-term farming enterprises that met expectations of economic prosperity and growth for individuals and families (Powell, 1878; Worster, 2004). This meant, while the land was free, homesteading was an expensive and risky investment.

3 million applications. only 30,000 of them were black applicants.

 

[ding]

So that's how you're going to try and hide the fact that most of it agreed with what I said?

What am I hiding? I'm posting information from the link you provided.