[Dixielandjazz] Lil Armstrong (remark about passport listing divorce of L...

Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:23:53 EDT

--part1_5b.2ee80b16.2ac9e2a9_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 9/30/02 10:48:36 AM Central Daylight Time, 
charliehooks@earthlink.net writes:

> 
> on 9/28/02 2:41 AM, Artwoo@aol.com at Artwoo@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > A further stretch could be a holdover from the "Runaway Slave" laws
> > that were prevalent in both the North and South. These laws were repealed 
> in
> > the North by Congress in 1864 (note the Civil War started in 1861) but
> > obviously remained in the South until General Lee surrendered.
> 
>     This entire business of North/South freeing the slaves and keeping the
> slaves--is all much misunderstood even by some American "historians" and
> completely misunderstood by foreign writers.  Let me explain just a bit:
> 
>     It is said that "Lincoln freed the slaves."  He did free them, but only
> in the South where he had (at the time) no jurisdiction.  HE DID NOT FREE
> THE SLAVES IN THE NORTH, where he did have jurisdiction, and said, when
> asked, that he would not do such a thing to his friends.

    Was the Emancipation Proclamation before or after Secession?  Did he 
specify   that it only for the 'South?'

>     `In other words, freeing the Southern slaves was a Northern war measure:
> it was hoped that they would rise up against their masters and aid the
> Northern cause (which they did not do).  This "Emancipation Proclamation"
> ran only in the South, not in the North.  It had absolutely nothing to do
> (except in the febrile minds of anti-slavery advocates) with "seeing the
> evil of slavery" or with thinking slaves equal to their masters or with any
> other of the feel-good warm motives attributed by modern liberals.

I don't know where you are getting this except perhaps in the febrile minds 
of pro-slavery advocates.  The Emancipation Proclamation had everything to do 
with ending the evil of slavery.  'Thinking slaves as equal to their masters' 
was not a factor, ending slavery was the prime interest.

>     "I am told that the Northern states were not as progressive as was
> advertised. Some speculate that the War between the States was more about
> competitive trade issues and less about human rights."
> 
>     Whoever told you that was smarter than the politically correct
> historians!  The "human rights" issue existed only in the minds of
> anti-slavery propagandists.

       This is patently untrue.  I can assure you that the 'human rights' 
issue was predominent in minds of most 'Northerners.'  Private letters, 
newspaper columns and editorials, church sermons, songs and on and on show 
that ending slavery was the prime concern along with preserving the union.  

>     No one, and I mean NO ONE!, at the time regarded black slaves as in any
> way the equal of their masters!  Lincoln sat down in his office with the
> great "black" (mixed race) Douglass and told him straight out: "Your race
> and mine will never be able" to mix and be neighbors.   Lincoln thought the
> best solution for "the Negro Problem" was a return to Africa, and he
> supported the Liberian movement--a return to Africa of those who chose to
> go--and where they named the place "Liberia", insituted slavery with
> themselves as the masters, and enslaved other Africans!

You seem to be mixing to different things here, ending slavery and black 
slaves being the 'equal' of their masters.

>     "[Armstrong's band] would travel all night because the town
> where he played would provide a place for him to perform, but not allow him
> to sleep there...sounds like the Baby Jesus being refused a place to 
> sleep."
> 
>     Yes, his band and many others.  And it was this kind of unfairness that
> brought many of us kids in the South to turn against apartheid during the
> 50s.  But "like the Baby Jesus"?  Umm.  Going a bit far, I'd say.  Even
> Louis would say...!  They were just ordinary black folks undergoing the
> transition from down to up, like Jews contended with out of Egypt, etc.

>     Realize, please!:  Many black gentlemen survived this transition period:
> Duke Groner, Andy Johnson, Jimmy Johnson, Joe Johnson--the list is
> interminable!  Out my front window now the light sears green leaves all
> a-trimble, but all these men, as boys, must have looked out their front
> windows back in the twenties and seen the same: the light doesn't care and
> neither do the leaves about color or race or anything to do with men. It
> just IS.  And we just ARE.

   I remember Joe Johnson telling me that he grew up in the only black family 
in a Connecticut town.  No serious problems.  He had problems adjusting as he 
found himself in the black world.  

   That was an interesting diatribe, Charlie, but I think that you are off 
the mark on a few things.

   Jim Beebe

--part1_5b.2ee80b16.2ac9e2a9_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>In a message dated 9/30/02 10:48:36 AM Central Daylight Time, charliehooks@earthlink.net writes: 
 
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> 
on 9/28/02 2:41 AM, Artwoo@aol.com at Artwoo@aol.com wrote: 
 
&gt; A further stretch could be a holdover from the "Runaway Slave" laws 
&gt; that were prevalent in both the North and South. These laws were repealed in 
&gt; the North by Congress in 1864 (note the Civil War started in 1861) but 
&gt; obviously remained in the South until General Lee surrendered. 
 
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This entire business of North/South freeing the slaves and keeping the 
slaves--is all much misunderstood even by some American "historians" and 
completely misunderstood by foreign writers.&nbsp; Let me explain just a bit: 
 
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; It is said that "Lincoln freed the slaves."&nbsp; He did free them, but only 
in the South where he had (at the time) no jurisdiction.&nbsp; HE DID NOT FREE 
THE SLAVES IN THE NORTH, where he did have jurisdiction, and said, when 
asked, that he would not do such a thing to his friends.</BLOCKQUOTE> 
 
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Was the Emancipation Proclamation before or after Secession?&nbsp; Did he specify&nbsp;&nbsp; that it only for the 'South?' 
 
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; `In other words, freeing the Southern slaves was a Northern war measure: 
it was hoped that they would rise up against their masters and aid the 
Northern cause (which they did not do).&nbsp; This "Emancipation Proclamation" 
ran only in the South, not in the North.&nbsp; It had absolutely nothing to do 
(except in the febrile minds of anti-slavery advocates) with "seeing the 
evil of slavery" or with thinking slaves equal to their masters or with any 
other of the feel-good warm motives attributed by modern liberals.</BLOCKQUOTE> 
 
I don't know where you are getting this except perhaps in the febrile minds of pro-slavery advocates.&nbsp; The Emancipation Proclamation had everything to do with ending the evil of slavery.&nbsp; 'Thinking slaves as equal to their masters' was not a factor, ending slavery was the prime interest. 
 
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "I am told that the Northern states were not as progressive as was 
advertised. Some speculate that the War between the States was more about 
competitive trade issues and less about human rights." 
 
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whoever told you that was smarter than the politically correct 
historians!&nbsp; The "human rights" issue existed only in the minds of 
anti-slavery propagandists.</BLOCKQUOTE> 
 
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This is patently untrue.&nbsp; I can assure you that the 'human rights' issue was predominent in minds of most 'Northerners.'&nbsp; Private letters, newspaper columns and editorials, church sermons, songs and on and on show that ending slavery was the prime concern along with preserving the union.&nbsp; 
 
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; No one, and I mean NO ONE!, at the time regarded black slaves as in any 
way the equal of their masters!&nbsp; Lincoln sat down in his office with the 
great "black" (mixed race) Douglass and told him straight out: "Your race 
and mine will never be able" to mix and be neighbors.&nbsp;&nbsp; Lincoln thought the 
best solution for "the Negro Problem" was a return to Africa, and he 
supported the Liberian movement--a return to Africa of those who chose to 
go--and where they named the place "Liberia", insituted slavery with 
themselves as the masters, and enslaved other Africans!</BLOCKQUOTE> 
 
You seem to be mixing to different things here, ending slavery and black slaves being the 'equal' of their masters. 
 
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "[Armstrong's band] would travel all night because the town 
where he played would provide a place for him to perform, but not allow him 
to sleep there...sounds like the Baby Jesus being refused a place to sleep." 
 
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Yes, his band and many others.&nbsp; And it was this kind of unfairness that 
brought many of us kids in the South to turn against apartheid during the 
50s.&nbsp; But "like the Baby Jesus"?&nbsp; Umm.&nbsp; Going a bit far, I'd say.&nbsp; Even 
Louis would say...!&nbsp; They were just ordinary black folks undergoing the 
transition from down to up, like Jews contended with out of Egypt, etc.</BLOCKQUOTE> 
 
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Realize, please!:&nbsp; Many black gentlemen survived this transition period: 
Duke Groner, Andy Johnson, Jimmy Johnson, Joe Johnson--the list is 
interminable!&nbsp; Out my front window now the light sears green leaves all 
a-trimble, but all these men, as boys, must have looked out their front 
windows back in the twenties and seen the same: the light doesn't care and 
neither do the leaves about color or race or anything to do with men. It 
just IS.&nbsp; And we just ARE.</BLOCKQUOTE> 
 
&nbsp;&nbsp; I remember Joe Johnson telling me that he grew up in the only black family in a Connecticut town.&nbsp; No serious problems.&nbsp; He had problems adjusting as he found himself in the black world.&nbsp; 
 
&nbsp;&nbsp; That was an interesting diatribe, Charlie, but I think that you are off the mark on a few things. 
 
&nbsp;&nbsp; Jim Beebe</HTML>

--part1_5b.2ee80b16.2ac9e2a9_boundary--