<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:st1 = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY
style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none; FONT: 10pt verdana; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>FOR THE FOURTH TIME, I AM NOT DEFENDING SLAVERY AND I AM
NO ADVOCATING FOR ITS RETURN. I thought this was clear. My
original post was only meant to point out the misunderstandings, mangling and
quotations out of context of the original pamphlet. I don't "advocate"
owning another person. The stake I have is convincing anyone that the
condition in the South in and around 1860 was not what many believe. I
want to see history told accurately, and this has largely not been the case in
modern classrooms.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>The posts on this subject addressed at me have become
overwhelming to the point at which I cannot answer them all. So, I will be
selective.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Ted Ryan</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=mghuskey@msn.com href="mailto:mghuskey@msn.com">Melynda Huskey</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=coffeemonkey100@hotmail.com
href="mailto:coffeemonkey100@hotmail.com">Ted Ryan</A> ; <A
title=sunilramalingam@hotmail.com
href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">Sunil Ramalingam</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, August 31, 2004 11:53
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Re: Earlier
question</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Dear Ted,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It was indeed illegal to marry across "racial" lines in the antebellum
South. In fact, slaves could not contract legal marriages at
all. As recently as 1970--the year the U.S. Supreme Court heard Loving v
State of Virginia--interracial marriages were forbidden by law in
several states. Anti-miscegenation laws were part of a vast
apparatus of state-sponsored racism in the U.S., significant traces of which
persist to this day.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>R. L. Dabney, who is quoted frequently and with approbation by
the authors of *Southern Slavery as It Was* has this to say about
inter-racial marriage:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=style3 style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT
face="Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'; LETTER-SPACING: 0.1pt">The
most solemn and urgent duty now incumbent on the rulers of
</SPAN><st1:State><st1:place><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'; LETTER-SPACING: 0.1pt">Virginia</SPAN></st1:place></st1:State><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'; LETTER-SPACING: 0.1pt">,
is to devise measures to prevent the gradual but sure approach of this final
disaster. The satanic artificers of our subjugation well knew the work which
they designed to perpetrate: it </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'; LETTER-SPACING: 0.3pt">is
so to </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'; LETTER-SPACING: 0.1pt">mingle
that </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'; LETTER-SPACING: 0.3pt">blood
which flowed </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'">in <SPAN
style="LETTER-SPACING: 0.1pt">the</SPAN></SPAN><FONT size=3> </FONT><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">veins
of our Washingtons, Lees, and Jacksons, and </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'; LETTER-SPACING: -0.05pt">which
con</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Bookman Old Style'; LETTER-SPACING: 0.1pt">­secrated
the battle f<SPAN style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">ields </SPAN>of the
Confederacy, with this sordid, alien taint, that the bastard stream shall
never again throb with independence enough to make a tyrant tremble. These men
were taught by the instincts of their envy and malignity, but too infallibly,
how the accursed work was to be done. They knew that political equality would
prepare they way for social equality, and that, again for amalgamation.
(The Negro and the Common School.)</SPAN></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Not exactly a harmonious or intimate vision of black-white relations, is
it? And since white slave owners not infrequently raped the black women
they "owned" and sold their own children, not a very truthful one, either.
(You might consult Mary Chestnut's diary on that point: she lived at
that time, and as a white woman in a Confederate, slave-owning family, it was
a particularly sore point for her.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The question I'm really puzzled by, though, is this one: why defend
slavery? What possible reason could anyone have for trying to make a
case for ownership of another human being? What stake have you got, Ted,
in trying to convince me--or anybody--that white slave owners were kind to the
human beings they owned as personal property?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Melynda Huskey</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt Arial">----- Original Message -----</DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt Arial; COLOR: black"><B>From:</B> Ted
Ryan</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt Arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, August 31, 2004 5:26
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt Arial"><B>To:</B> Sunil Ramalingam</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt Arial"><B>Cc:</B> vision2020@moscow.com</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt Arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Vision2020] Re: Earlier
question</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>As before, paraphrasing and taking out of
context does not adequately describe the pamphlet as a whole. I don't
know if race relations have ever been better. I didn't make that
claim. As far as learning more from the text, ask the authors. I
wouldn't have even worded it the way they did, but I do believe that the
relationships between slave and master were generally good.
As to your questions about the text itself, those are not for me to
answer. Ask the authors. Whether it was legal to marry outside
your race in those days, I don't know. However, being able to marry
outside of your race does not, in and of itself, make race relations any
better. And again, if it was illegal to marry outside your race than
it was wrong. There is no such distinction for marriage.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ted Ryan</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=sunilramalingam@hotmail.com
href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">Sunil Ramalingam</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=coffeemonkey100@hotmail.com
href="mailto:coffeemonkey100@hotmail.com">coffeemonkey100@hotmail.com</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, August 31, 2004 4:43
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Earlier question</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=RTE>
<P>Ted,</P>
<P>I realize that the word 'superior' was not used in that sentence in the
pamphlet. You appear to be claiming that by paraphrasing, I changed
the meaning of the quoted section. Please explain how my use
of it changes its meaning. I don't think it does. If you think
I'm wrong, please explain how. My point is this: I think the authors
are claiming that race relations have never been better than they
were in the antebellum South. If this is not their claim,
then I would like to be corrected; if you can explain why I'm wrong, I'd
appreciate it.</P>
<P>I'm not trying to get into a discussion about multi-racial
relationships per se; I'm not attempting to compare the Northwest or the
West to other parts of the U.S. My only point there is that today
people of different 'races' are able to legally marry anywhere in the U.S.
I very much doubt that was legal in the anti-bellum South. Am I
wrong?</P>
<P>Sunil<BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: "Ted Ryan" <coffeemonkey100@hotmail.com>
<DIV></DIV>>To: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam@hotmail.com>
<DIV></DIV>>CC: <vision2020@moscow.com>
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Earlier question
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:56:09 -0700
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I was taking issue with the word superior, a word not used
in the pamphlet. As far as the condition of multi-racial
relationships, that is highly dependent on geography. There
would be a lot of people in other parts of the country that would tell you
(and have told me) that the relations are non-existent in some
places In my limited experience, the Northwest is entirely
different than many other parts of the country, so our perception is not
necessarily representative of the whole.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I would like to read some material that supports your
point, "But I am also saying I think they - and you - are wrong when you
make the claim that race relations in the South were harmonious and
mutually intimate." I lot of modern historians might agree, but
what do those that lived it have to say?
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Ted Ryan
<DIV></DIV>> ----- Original Message -----
<DIV></DIV>> From: Sunil Ramalingam
<DIV></DIV>> To: coffeemonkey100@hotmail.com
<DIV></DIV>> Cc: vision2020@moscow.com
<DIV></DIV>> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 12:40 PM
<DIV></DIV>> Subject: Re: Earlier question
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> Ted,
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> You say I am putting words in the mouths of
the authors. OK, let's look at the quote I was discussing:
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> 'there has never been a multi-racial society
that existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the
world.'
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> That's what they published. I then
wrote:
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> 'In other words, race relations in that period
were superior to those of any other time and place, which I take to
include our present time.'
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> I don't think that I'm putting words in
anyone's mouth with my paraphrase. If I'm mistaken in this,
please tell me how. You say, 'They did not say that "race
relations in that period were superior to those of any other time and
place".'
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> I disagree with you. I think that's
exactly what they said. What else did they mean by the
statement I quoted at the top of this post?
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> Yes, I am making the assumption that they
would include the US at the time of the publication of the pamphlet; if
this is an incorrect assumption, can you point to anything in the pamphlet
that shows I should not make this assumption? Mind you, I'm not
saying we live in a multi-racial paradise today, but I am prepared to say
that as a society we have improved a great deal. But I am also
saying I think they - and you - are wrong when you make the claim that
race relations in the South were harmonious and mutually intimate.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> Sunil
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> >From: "Ted Ryan"
<coffeemonkey100@hotmail.com>
<DIV></DIV>> >To: "Sunil Ramalingam"
<sunilramalingam@hotmail.com>
<DIV></DIV>> >CC: <vision2020@moscow.com>
<DIV></DIV>> >Subject: Re: Earlier question
<DIV></DIV>> >Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:41:54 -0700
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >Sunil,
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >Look, you had time to ask the question in
the first place, you had time to ask me why I hadn't answered and now I am
guilty of stealing you away from your work and your family. You
have not given any tone to the conversation that has made it
pleasant. If this is so difficult for you why post in the first
place? I did not accuse you of hostility due to your work load;
until you told me you had work to do, how am I supposed to know?
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >I can certainly appreciate family time and
encourage you to partake, but don't get upset when you ask me to answer a
question that was not visible in the first place and even after finding
it, was not easy to decipher. The statements out of the slavery
pamphlet WERE taken out of context and given the delicate nature of the
subject can be misused outside of the whole text. This has
already occurred in this forum, and I fear, you are doing the same thing.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >You have already started putting words in
the mouths of the authors. They did not say that "race
relations in that period were superior to those of any other time and
place" Even what they did say doesn't mean that there are no
race relations that are good right now. Condoning a
multi-racial marriage would have been wrong then and it is wrong
now. Like any marriage, if is entered into as it should, race
has no bearing. I am glad that you are happily married and
enjoy your children. My wife and I have good friends that are a
multi-racial couple, and they exemplify the kind of relationship we should
all have with those different then us.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >Stop for a moment to read and consider
what the authors of that book actually said, not what you think they said.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >I will chase down those references and
send them to you.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >Ted Ryan
<DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>_____________________________________________________<BR>List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities
of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR
clear=all>
<HR>
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : <A
href="http://explorer.msn.com">http://explorer.msn.com</A><BR>
<P></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>