I am sure it will have some effect on this election. I do not think it will be as great as the media thinks it will be. The converse is that more blacks will be voting this election than ever before so any racist votes will be cancelled out pretty handily. I think that most poor white folks are worried more about whether or not a black president will find ways to help bring them out of poverty too and not just assist poor blacks than judge him simply because he is black. I think this is the oldest issue in America regarding race and the economy that affirmative action, while it has made great strides, sometimes ignores the poorest white people who did not deserve to slip through the cracks. I think Obama is wise to promote economic plans rather than race-based plans.

I hope my position came across clearly.

shows that the strategy you speak about is working.

There always have been, and always will be racists. But we absolutely do not need them to build a winning coalition in Virginia (think Gov Wilder, and 2008 primary), and we do not need them to build a winning coalition in America.

You make a great point, and I do think we have our work cut out for us in Appalachia and convincing Appalachian voters that Obama is the best choice. I think we can do that by focusing on economic, environmental, and energy issues.  

The British Governors in the Colonies quickly figured out that the way to keep the whites and blacks from teaming up to fight the British was to make slavery hereditary, and based on skin color. That way the whites could look down on the blacks and have some way to feel like they were lucky instead of seeing how they were being exploited.

No more Bacon's Rebellions! If only the REAL history of the United States were being taught in schools whites would realize that they've been had.

Slavery was a means of exploiting cheap labor and had little to do with race, especially in its earliest forms that pre-dated the colonization of the western hemisphere.  The system of African slaves and their decendents in the western hemisphere actually resulted in racism towards people of African descent.  I could cite several books that document this societal evolution; the best by far is Kenneth Stampps' "The Pecular Institution."

BTW, African slavery in Great Britain was also hereditary until it was abolished there in 1833.

Rebecca, with all due respect, your explanation of slavery is similar to Jimmy the Greek's explanation of why black athlele's tend to be more successful.  I'm not sure what real history of the United States needs to be taught that you are refering to.

Blacks participated in Bacon's Rebellion. At that time (the 1600s) they could become free and own other slaves. Often Quakers treated them as equals in their services.

This was before slavery was made hereditary in Virginia by governor Berkeley. Look it up. I read about all of this last week while researching my genealogy.

BTW, about this time the Quakers were put on notice that they could either go to jail or move to North Carolina. My ancestors moved to North Carolina to escape the persecusion. From there they got on a wagon train as soon as possible and traveled to Northern Mississippi.

From the Resource Bank:

"Bacon's Rebellion demonstrated that poor whites and poor blacks could be united in a cause. This was a great fear of the ruling class -- what would prevent the poor from uniting to fight them? This fear hastened the transition to racial slavery."  

Coupling it with racism was social and was not always the case in Virginia in the early 1600's. See my post below on Bacon's Rebellion.

Your reading of Berkeley and Bacon's Rebellion is interesting.  True, both Europeans and African-descended slaves participated, side-by-side.  The Europeans were virtual slaves themselves, bonded (or indentured) servants who sold their freedom for passage to the new world.  In some cases, the transaction was not totally voluntary.  Often the very poor in England were kidnapped off the streets, smuggled to the colonies, and sold off (or bonded).

Yes, Berkeley responded to the end of Bacon's Rebellion by imposing hereditary slavery, but the term is misleading.  What Berkeley did was to end the practice of bond inheritance where the offspring of bonded servants could be held for payment of the indenture, a common practice as bond owners compounded the indenture through a variety of means, such as charging for housing and food.  This reinforced that African slaves were chattel in perpetuity, as opposed to indentured servants.  And, it provided European servants an assurance that their indenture was not perpetual.  Therefore, the Europeans no longer shared a common economic future with the Africans.  Again, the diferences were based on economics and not racism.

What is important to note is that racism towards Africans had already become well-developed over the course of the half-century since a Dutch privateer landed the first African slaves at Jamestown in 1619.  But, the racism devived from the slavery, not the other way around.  It is inaccurate to say that Berkeley's law took advantage of racial discord.  Just the opposite was the case--racial discord grew as the economic discrepancies grew.

I never said Berkeley took advantage of racial discord. I said he hoped to create it by dividing the white from the black race.

But, I'm still puzzled by your original post stating, "no more Bacon's Rebellions."  Isn't that exactly what we are hoping for in Obama's candidacy?  That economically disadvantaged people of all races will come together to support their common purpose?

I think that was what faithfull was trying to express in this diary.  Appalachians are not racists.  They just need to see that Obama is concerned about all disadvantaged people and not just blacks.

BTW, I have enjoyed this thread very much.  It is refreshing to engage someone who wants to examine and discuss what American history teaches us.

The title of the post was simply Bacon's Rebellion. Of course we need another Bacon's Rebellion.

As I have done this research I am in awe of the struggles our forebearers went through, and their willingness to face the unknown rather than settle for living under tyranny. I am especially impressed with what people were willing to do to protect their religious beliefs, especially ones that spoke truth to power. I've always had very deep convictions, but have not liked religious services. Now I am beginning to understand the roots of that independent thinking in the Quaker tradition.

I also now understand why people kept moving Westward, away from the Eastern colonies. The British brought their oppressions with them as they ruled the colonies on the East Coast. People moved Westward to the territories to escape from the British style of oppression. Some kept going farther than others, just to make sure they wouldn't be bothered by the British.

One of my major ancestors was William Womack whose father was an official of some sort in the Anclican church in England during the rise of Cromwell. William became a Quaker and because of that his father disinherited him. From what I can figure out William then came to Virginia and got a land patent for 450 acres sometime between 1630 and 1640. This means he brought 9 indentured servants with him. He married near Richmond and lived near the James River. His family formed the first Quaker meeting group in Virginia. His brother-in-law was the governor for a short time.

1) I have learned from you both on this thread, and thoroughly enjoyed the exemplary and respectful dialogue

2) QUAKERS ROCK! :)

peace,
faithfull

The word is "Democratic."

Grow up.

Not a troll, but if I were, I'd be a truth-telling troll.  Chairmen did resign in SWVA over Obama.