text:
Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 3

Dec 8
This discussion has gotten somewhat off-track, so I'm going to attempt another summary. Before I do, I can't resist responding to your misguided "straw man" accusation. If you were reading what I wrote (clearly not), you'd know that (a) the rape example was to make a point, (b) the car example was to further explain that point (essentially by noting the two examples are the same in the relevant aspect).
 * lol, okey dokey, you apparently think the point you made applied to my argument though, eh? That is the straw-man, the attribution to myself a position that I do not hold which would entail mothers getting raped with sons standing on hand too confused to do anything about it.

 * VV I never attributed any such view to you, quite the contrary. Since you failed to understand the argument the first time, I don't know if there is any point in repeating it, but here goes anyway:  If an ancap defending their car in a manner consistent with the currents rights regime constitutes imposing their system, then so does thwarting the aforementioned rape with violence.  The latter position is absurd, as I assume you would concede (hence the contrary).

Anyway,lzvbtfっざzたっdぜっっzdっっっzd to summarize the terminology svccdz issue:

One side: Anarchism should refer dzedrvonly to a particSdular, fairly old belief system/movement of people who call themselves anarchists.
 * Um, no. There are many new movements in anarchism, for example the primitivists.  This is misrepresentation on your part.  All this "side" is claiming is that anarchism has a particular meaning that the capitalists purposefully ignore.

 * VV Christianity is a belief system. Lutheranism may be a "new" belief system, but it is also part of the old one.   This is a minor point anyway.

Other self-described anarchists who don't share their views are impostors with no right to the term.
 * I don't recall saying anything about impostors or rights. I'm merely pointing out the simple truth that anarchism still has these meanings, they have not yet disappeared despite the capitalists best efforts.

 * VV Whatever. You may not have used the word impostor but that is the thrust.

Response: Anarchy in the sense used by these others refers to the absence of a state/government.
 * Then it is indeed a misnomer, as that is not the literal definition of anarchy. What is more, neo-classical liberals support several forms of government, thus would not be anarchists even if this is all anarchism meant.

There may be another sense in which it refers specifically to that movement, so it may be fair to say there are two different senses of the word anarchism, one "literal" and one a name of sorts.
 * The "literal" translation of anarchism is absence of rulers. So it just so happens that the literal meaning of the word refers to the group that bears the name.  Coincidence?

 * VV Your POV about what constitutes a ruler.

In any case, given there is an active movement of capitalists who consider themselves anarchists, the rule of usage dictates that either there are two distinct meanings or the word must be construed broadly. The claim that this other usage is illegitimate is POV.
 * That is precisely why this page still exists, and isn't deleted by anarchists everytime we come across it. Capitalist views should definately be presented here, having more information allows people to see past their lies and misrepresentations more clearly.  The ONLY thing I ask for, and many people through the history of this page ask for, is that the language they use not indicate an absolute truth value of their position.  In other words, neutrality.

 * VV No such language is used, manifestly.

Other side's possible counter: But in fact they are not anarchists because what they believe in is not "true" anarchy for some reasons
 * Funny, in all my time here I have never said that, not even once, yet you have attributed it to me on multiple occasions

There is no qualitative difference between private security and the state, or there is no liberty if others have the right to enforce property claims, or the existence of property entails violent enforcement.
 * Actually that is "and," "and," and "and."

Response: Your POV. Ancaps believe there is a fundamental difference between these private institutions and government. Disagreement, however strong, is thus non-neutral. Ancaps may in turn see projected left-anarchist societies as being state-like.
 * Sure, both opinions ought to be presented somewhere on wikipedia. You will note that on several occasions I have now said clearly that I don't demand the anarchist position be explicated here.  Again, and again, all I demand is that the language used here does not rule our position out.  You constantly try to turn away from this and pretend it is about something it is not.

 * VV Your position is not ruled out but in fact generously explained in the intro, quite substantially since this is not an article about it.

Does that make no one an anarchist? The fact thay they believe in the absence of the state, even if their proposal seems state-like to others, makes ancaps anarchists in this sense.
 * Here I thought your own definitions made it clear that anarchism was against all forms of government, not merely the state. The fact that you equate the two as identical is fine, but not everyone does.  As such even if we limit the word to only one of its meanings and pretend that the root does not call for far more, capitalists would still not be anarchists.  But again, these arguments don't need to be on this page.

 * VV This seems a bit pointless anyway since both state and government are potentially vague words. You seem to have implicitly conceded this by calling potential ancap institutions states in all but name, on the seeming grounds that they are government-like.

Most of the things you've said about this have in my view not been on point at all. You accuse me of having a double standard, when there's nothing to have a double standard about.
 * I see, so when I made changes to wording identical to changes you made yourself on other pages, and you reverted it, that was not a double standard. Apparently, neutrality simply means something different on other pages than what it means here.

I see terms such as anarcho-socialist, left-anarchist, and socialist anarchist as disambiguating.
 * And anarchists see them as blatantly misrepresentative.

 * VV How? They may seem redundant to those who think anarchism should refer only to the one position, but redundancy is not misrepresentation.  French conservative would seem redundant to those who thought the only valid, historical kind of conservatism was that so called in France, and that what Russians believe is not conservative at all.  But the qualifier allows us to be spared taking a position on this.  The opinion of those who find it redundant is also stated very clearly in the opening paragraph.

When there are two different claims to a term, this is the best course.
 * Yes, so lets make a distinction here. Capitalists diverge from anarchist tradition, they do so admittedly.  Capitalist DO NOT think that they arose from anarchism, it says so RIGHT HERE ON THIS PAGE.  NONE of the original anarchists were capitalist, neither the individualists nor the collectivist.  So obviously the distinction "traditional anarchist" would be valid.  No?  If you think it would be unclear to readers, lets even make a clause that states explicitly "this label is meant to do nothing more than disambugate between the two theories, it does not imply that "anarcho-capitalists" have no tradition of their own."  Good?  No?  Not satisfied enough yet with your misrepresentations of anarchism?  Notice, that there is no "real traditional anarchist" being suggested here, nor has it ever been on the table in this discussion.  So why do you keep trying to portray the scenario as if someone is trying to distinguish between "real" and "fake" when no one is?  Perhaps because you can't argue the actual issue on the table?

 * VV Ancaps would regard past efforts towards a stateless market order as anarchist, whether so called or not (cf. dinosaur above). Thus traditional is a troublesome qualifier.  Socialist is not since you claim your variety/ies of anarchism require socialism.
 * Do you really think that individualism/egoism have anything to do with socialism? Anti-capitalism != socialism. I'm reverting your revert. It would be different if you actually ran things by this discussion page before taking unilateral action. - AaronS

 * Spare me the claims of non-discussion; they're absurd given the history, as is the edit in question. Would you prefer anti-capitalist anarchism then to socialist anarchism as a compromise?  This objection had not been brought to my attention, possibly lost in the mass of other verbiage. -- VV 23:01, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Regardless of my history, the claims are valid. You have done it again; thus, I am forced to revert it until more discussion is had. Both anti-capitalist anarchism and socialist anarchism are misnomers; just as it would be POV for me to call anarcho-capitalists anarcho-fascists, or some other derogatory term, it is POV to call traditional, Bakunian, Proudhonian, etc, etc anarchists anything other than that which has been historically used in reference to them. With this in consideration, the term traditional anarchism is a clear compromise. It is not POV, since, according to 99.9% of literature on the subject, it factually is traditional anarchism. - Aaron 19:50, 8 Dec 2003

 * This analogy is obviously inapplicable. Said variety of anarchists do claim to be anti-capitalist, while ancaps do not claim to be fascist.  Do you really believe this objection?  The revert is of an absurd change, renaming ancaps.  It is not POV to avoid using a hotly disputed one alone by adding to it a specification of which sense of it you mean.  You have provided no objection to anti-capitalist anarchism, nor any reason why it is a misnomer.  -- VV 01:25, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * First of all, property is an institution of government, by definition. It is the exercise of absolute dominion over a person or thing (Merriam-Webster). Anti-capitalist anarchism is POV because, for many traditional anarchists, anti-capitalism is not on their list of priorities. In fact, many do not even define themselves that way, especially considering the fact that their objection to capitalism is not a socialist one but an anarchist one. This distinction must be clear. Furthermore, anti-capitalist anarchism is a term that I have never seen used before; why it should begin to be used in a supposedly neutral encyclopaedia definition is beyond me. It is not our perogative to create a new language; rather, it is to define things, when necessary, within their historical and contemporary contexts. That said, anti-capitalist anarchism is a misnomer, the equivalent to anti-statist anarchism. Also, your revert edits out clearly non-POV things, such as my inclusion of individualist anarchists with traditional anarchists. For this reason, I am reverting until further discussion is had. -- Aaron 21:14, 8 Dec 2003

 * Property an institution of gov't? By definition?  I don't think even Kev asserted such a crazy thing.  Your POV, obviously.  I am seeking a specifier for this form of anarchism which is not loaded like traditional.  Socialist anarchism still seems like the best choice, but I am open to alternatives, including the ones I've proposed.  The misnomer talk is puzzling in light of your objection being merely one of emphasis, when the feature emphasized is the distinguishing one in this case.  We could even try a proper name, like Proudhonian anarchism.  But ancap->lib-cap is not a solution and will not be one.  As for the text on indiv anarchists, it is off topic; we were listing terms used, not all the different component movements, which is not really relevant for this article and out of scope for that paragraph.  -- VV 02:36, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * By definition, yes. It doesn't take much to pick up a dictionary.

 * prop·er·ty
 * 2 a : something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate b : the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : 'OWNERSHIP' c : something to which a person or business has a legal title d : one (as a performer) under contract whose work is especially valuable

 * own
 * 1 a : to have or hold as property : 'POSSESS' b : to have power over : CONTROL

 * pos·sess
 * 1 a : to have and hold as property : OWN b : to have as an attribute, knowledge, or skill
 * 2 a : to take into one's possession b : to enter into and control firmly : 'DOMINATE' c : to bring or cause to fall under the influence, possession, or control of some emotional or intellectual reaction

 * dom·i·nate
 * 1 : RULE, CONTROL
 * 2 : to exert the supreme determining or guiding influence on

 * rule
 * 3 a : the exercise of authority or control : 'DOMINION' b : a period during which a specified ruler or government exercises control

 * So, please, don't pretend like I'm stretching things, here. It's all right there. It's not my POV - it's the POV of the dictionary.

 * Socialist anarchism is just as loaded as traditional anarchism, and is much less accurate, considering the fact that many anti-capitalist anarchists would not call themselves socialists. Proudhonian anarchism leaves even more out. If libertarian capitalism is not a solution, then neither is libertarian socialism. As for individualist anarchism - it is a term that is used to describe traditional anarchism. -- Aaron 22:24, 8 Dec 2003

Like I said long ago, one could say Russian conservative and French conservative, and thereby save arguments as to who the real conservatives are, when there are radically different competing usages. -- VV 07:18, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Obvious, the ancap -> lib-cap thing is not a solution. Again, the issue is not whether people should be able to choose labels for themselves, they should, but whether when there are conflicting claims to a label there should be specification as to which usage is meant. -- VV 21:52, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Back to Anarcho-capitalism.

'' VV I never attributed any such view to you, quite the contrary. Since you failed to understand the argument the first time, I don't know if there is any point in repeating it, but here goes anyway: If an ancap defending their car in a manner consistent with the currents rights regime constitutes imposing their system, then so does thwarting the aforementioned rape with violence. The latter position is absurd, as I assume you would concede (hence the contrary). ''
 * You are having lots of trouble with this one VV. Let me put it this way.  If you think this applies to my argument, then this is a straw-man, because it does not.  If you do not think it applies to my argument, then it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.  If you can't see the qualitative difference between property and self, then that is your position and your problem, not mine.

 * VV Really, quit the patronizing language. It is you who misunderstood what I said, probably because you didn't try.  Now you're trying to make the word straw-man apply otherwise.  The argument is very simple and solid.  I'd repeat it but I don't see the point.
 * Yes, the argument is simple, solid, and a straw-man. Thank you, move on.

 * VV It's probably too much to expect for you to admit you were wrong. You've made a heroic attempt at retooling the straw-man accusation, but do you seriously stand by the claim that I "changed my example"?
 * Yes. The relevance of the example changes entirely when you begin by claiming that a person is being physically harmed (the straw-man, as it didn't apply to my arguments), then suddenly change it to a car being damaged/stolen.

''Christianity is a belief system. Lutheranism may be a "new" belief system, but it is also part of the old one. This is a minor point anyway. ''
 * Yes, Lutherans also believe in Christ, making them a part of Christianity. Primitivists also believe in anarchism, making them a part of anarchism.  The only way we could claim that capitalists believe in anarchism would be to change the meaning of the word.  If Lutherans tried to claim that the Buddha was Christ, then christians would have a pretty good argument that Lutherans aren't christian.  If people in Nepal tried to claim that their country was Scottland, then Scottish would have a pretty good argument that people in Nepal are not actually Scottsmen, eh?

 * VV The situation is not so clearcut, since the ancap claim to anarchist is not so absurd.
 * According to? Hmm... hum... that is right, according to VV!  The ultimate arbiter of what is clearcut and what is hazy and obscured, like this "mysterious past" of anarchism you refer to when you can't get around the facts concerning the original anarchists.

 * VV So you're claiming it's "clearcut" when in fact it's an issue of considerable controversy? Oh, you're claiming I'm the only dissenter even to its being clearcut.
 * I never claimed you were the only dissenter. I am saying that you are falsely presenting yourself as some kind of authority on what is or is not a clearcut issue.  To anyone who has studied the history of anarchism this issue is clearcut.  The people calling themselves anarcho-capitalists are almost entirely isolated to the US and ignorant of that very history.

But, fine, yes, this very thing does happen. "Native Americans" often call themselves Indians. This causes confusion sometimes because people from India are also called Indians. If an article were, say, comparing both groups, some terminology would be needed, and in fact the term American Indian is often used. Do Indians (from India) have a good argument that they are not actually Indians? Well, it doesn't much matter. Eh?
 * Yep. As I have said repeatedly, let the caps call themselves whatever the heck they want to.  They can call themselves fascists or buddhists or pancakes with butter.  Just indicate that this is a CLAIM on their part, and everyone is happy.

 * VV You seem to have overlooked the fact that I rebutted your argument.
 * What argument, that anarcho-capitalists have no valid claim to the title? You sure as hell did not put to rest that arugment.  You merely gave some reason to believe that they do have claim to the title, which I readily agreed with, pointing out that regardless of what they believe their claims should exist on the page as claims.

'' Whatever. You may not have used the word impostor but that is the thrust. ''
 * Funny, I thought I made the "thrust" of my argument explicit. Anarchism has a certain meaning, historically and today, a meaning that must be ignored in order to call capitalists anarchists.  But apparently you are a mind-reader who knows that my "true" motivations are not what I say they are, or maybe you think that an argument about the meaning of a word reduces to an argument about which ideology is "true."

 * VV Oh, get off it. I'm reading English, not minds.
 * Then stop assuming you know my motivations from my words, and stop attacking ME according to my motivations instead of addressing my ARGUMENTS according to the words.

 * VV This is pretty funny coming from you. But you probably wouldn't recognize it.
 * Who was the one on about "irrelevant broadsides" earlier?

''No such language is used, manifestly. ''
 * So making a definitive statement about a matter that capitalists claim without a single qualifier, without even noting that it is a claim and not a fact, is totally neutral to you? Then why, VV, have you edited such statement on so many other pages with the exact same qualifiers I have tried to insert?

''Your position is not ruled out but in fact generously explained in the intro, quite substantially since this is not an article about it. ''
 * Generously? Are you the one that dictates this page VV, "giving" generously to those who disagree with you?  Give me a break.  You only accept particular arguments that we make, carefully weeding out others.  Then you destroy any attempt to make the statements that follow throughout the rest of the essay neutral, and you pretend you are not ruling out our position?  As I have said from the begining, and as I will repeat, I DON'T CARE IF OUR POSITION IS EXPLICATED HERE.  All I am asking is that the position of the capitalists be explicated in a neutral manner.  You can pretend like I'm asking for something else, but it won't change the fact.  If you are unable to accept that capitalism must be introduced through the neutrality policy of wikipedia, then I would also accept a simple header that declares, in bold, "This page does not attempt to be neutral, readers are warned that it is an explicit propaganda by capitalists and does not even attempt to allow for dissenting positions."

 * VV I assume you recognize your own hyperbole for what it is. Grab your aforementioned dictionary for uses of the word generous.
 * K. There, read it, understood it, still applies.  Next...

 * VV No it doesn't. You can't fool me, I know what my own words mean.
 * I see, so you apparently must know that generous does not mean "liberal in giving," because if it did, then my statements would indeed apply.

This seems a bit pointless anyway since both state and government are potentially vague words.
 * Ah, so for what, two months now, you argue into the ground that caps obviously reject the state and government. Then when your arguments fail and have nowhere to go, "this seems a bit pointless anyway."  Fine, define the two words in the context of the essay, or just link to a wikipedia definition.  If caps fit in it, then the claims can stand without qualification.  If caps do not fit in those definitions, then the claims must be qualified as CLAIMS.

 * VV Yes, my arguments have failed and I have nowhere to go. I'm desperately grabbing at any straw I can find, because I'm just so biased and want Wikipedia to be nothing but anarcho-capitalist propaganda.  Fortunately, a knight in shining armor has seen through my crumbling and absurd straw-men and will overthrow the dictatorial stranglehold I seek to maintain.  Am I summarizing your take on me fairly?
 * You exaggerated it to the point of absurdity, but I thin you have the basic pattern down, yes. If you would like to suggest evidence that doesn't fit this pattern, instead of playing games, go ahead.

 * VV Well what I've said so far has been dismissed as part of this scheme,
 * No, it hasn't. You built a cartoon characture exaggeration of what my claims where, as per the following statement on your part:

so your comical call for evidence comes off as insincere. Ancaps would regard past efforts towards a stateless market order as anarchist, whether so called or not (cf. dinosaur'' above). ''
 * Then according to this very page, that would mean that "anarcho-capitalists" have their own tradition, but that it is not the tradition of anarchism. After all, as this page clearly indicates, "anarcho-capitalists" believe that they came from liberalism, NOT from anarchism.  That means that past "anarcho-capitalist" societies follow in the tradition of liberalism, NOT anarchism.  Thus the word "traditional anarchist" quite clearly refers to those following from the people who originally identified with anarchism.

 * VV Yeah maybe that should be rewritten. I didn't write it.
 * Ah, finally the standard of what should or should not be rewritten, edited, and reverted on this page. Just ask yourself, did VV write it?  If the answer is yes, it stands.  If the answer is no, it stands only with his express approval.  Go ahead and rewrite it, that would be a hoot.  I like watching someone who knows next to nothing about anarcho-capitalism rewrite the claims of people who actually understand it.

 * VV I again assume you're just being dishonest. But in any case you are genuinely confused, my message was that you should not hold me accountable for something I didn't say.
 * Of course, when you said "maybe it should be rewritten" I should have read that as "don't hold be accountable for that" instead of "maybe it should be rewritten."

Thus traditional'' is a troublesome qualifier. Socialist is not since you claim your variety/ies of anarchism require socialism. ''
 * "Socialism" is not only redundant, it is far too vague. Traditional anarchists are all socialists in different senses of the word.  Many egoists and individualists are only socialists insofar as they are anti-capitalist.  To call them socialist, and then attribute these positions to them and use their labels interchangably with others is to misrepresent and confuse both positions.  Alternatively, to call it another of your suggestions like "anarcho-communism" would be to rule them out altogether.  They could, however, be included very easy and simply under the "traditional anarchist" label that Aaron whipped up.  Let me repeat myself, "Capitalists diverge from anarchist tradition, they do so admittedly.  Capitalist do not think that they arose from anarchism, it says so right here on this page.  None of the original anarchists were capitalist, neither the individualists nor the collectivist.  So obviously the distinction "traditional anarchist" would be valid."

Property an institution of gov't? By definition?''  I don't think even Kev asserted such a crazy thing. ''
 * I would be happy to point out the fact that property is exclusive dominion over a given thing, the ability to use, dispose, and enjoy a thing upheld by way of force. I could further point out that to govern is to control, direct, or strongly influence the actions and conduct of, to exert a determining or guiding influence over.  In the face of those two definitions, taken straight from the dictionary without edit, I don't have to claim that property is governance by definition.  I only have to wait for you to be silly enough to deny it.

 * VV This is just word play.
 * lol, first the response is "property as an institution of government is just plain crazy!" Then when it turns out to be strongly supported by the very definition of the word, "this is just word games."

 * VV I stand by everything I've said. I don't feel the need nor see the point in seeking to explain again.

Govern has some weak senses, but a government in the relevant sense is something more specific.
 * Feel free to define your variables as you slither away from the very arguments you called for and are unwilling to accept the answer to.

At any rate, this is your POV; it just flatly denies the ancap position.
 * Yes, it does. Yes, it is POV.  That is why my POV should not be on this page, but rather, the cap POV should be on this page.  Agreed?  Good.  Now just add to that the fact that the cap POV should not be expressed AS FACT, and we are good to go.

 * VV I'll hold my tongue yet again. But, "slither", really....
 * Tit for tat. You want me to be civil, try removing the dismissive bullshit you load into half your statements.

 I am seeking a specifier for this form of anarchism which is not loaded like traditional''. Socialist anarchism still seems like the best choice ''
 * If you were really looking for a term that wasn't loaded, then you would not chose socialist anarchism, as that blatantly assumes the capitalist position at the outset. "Traditional anarchism" is indeed loaded, but it just happens to be loaded with connotations that capitalists agree with, like the fact that they did not come from the same tradition as anarchists, but rather arose from liberalism.  Proudhonian anarchism doesn't work, because again you are trying to squish a huge number of diverse ideologies into a label that does not fit them.  "Anarchism" is the label the refer themselves to, universally.  They are anarchists, and they are no more or less than anarchists.  The compromise of even traditional anarchist is problematic, but it is less so then any other.  I would vastly prefer that they be called anarchists, since anarchist is a different word than "anarcho-capitalist" and thus distinguishes them just as well as any false prefix you slap onto the label would.  But since no one is going to accept that, "traditional anarchist" will just have to suffice.

 * VV Once again, you've exposed me. I never wanted a term that wasn't loaded; I looked for one that blatantly assumes the capitalist position at the outset.  I can't fool you at all, can I?
 * Nope. Choosing words that did in fact assume their position from the outset, and then enforcing those changes regardless of the opposition, sort of gave it away.

 * VV I'll keep that in mind for my future crusades of anarcho-capitalist deception.
 * You do that.

Oh, reiterating the claim that there is only that kind of anarchist isn't going to serve to dismiss the huge number of objections to it.
 * Nor should it. Those objections should be present, they should be accounted for.  All well and good, I have never suggested anything otherwise.

''But ancap->lib-cap is not a solution and will not be one. ''
 * Your bias is leaking from your pores VV. You thought that anarchist->libertarian socialist was a perfectly acceptable solution.  In defense of it you even pointed to the fact that capitalists have pushed collectivist anarchists into refering to themselves as libertarian socialists on their own page.  Why is it that they can be refered to exclusively as libertarian socialists on their page, even renaming the entire page to indicate as much, yet refering to capitalists as libertarian capitalists "will not be done?"  I didn't even change the page or the headings, just the sub-text.  How much more biased can you be?  The good news is, I didn't intend for libertarian capitalist to be taken seriously, I intended for it to stop your mindless reverts to "libertarian socalism" long enough for us to talk about it.  Apparently it worked, where weeks of trying to talk about it did not.  I'm begining to understand just how valuable these discussions are, given your total disregard for them.

 * VV Just to review, the "mindless reverts" (which constituted one (1) change)
 * One change repeated over and over and over.

 * VV Nope, once.
 * Funny, the history shows otherwise. Maybe its a different reality we are looking at here.

were (was) to socialist anarchism. I had moved on from libertarian socialism after strenuous objections. And it was you who had originally suggested that term in the first place! I suppose once I conceded that much you wanted more.
 * Try this for a change. Listen to what someone says, and think about it, and then act accordingly.  I tried it and Aaron convinced me, his arguments worked just fine.  But of course you would hold it against me that I changed my position through discussion on this page, since you apparently think it would be disaster if any of these discussions lead you to change your own opinion.

 * VV I'm supposed to be impressed that you were persuaded to adopt an even more extreme and unreasonable position by Aaron?
 * Extreme and unreasonable. Of course, it must be so, because VV said as much.  And I take him at his word everytime he says anything, because he has shown so much integrity in this conflict thus far.

And I suppose it would be a waste of time to note all the changes I have accepted (but I did anyway, see below).
 * You mean all the changes you have "generously" accepted. Oh great lord?

As for later mindless reverts, they were to a version before what you now seem to admit was vandalism (making frivolous changes just to make a point).
 * The article as it stood was biased, and you unilaterially reverted it back to that bias over and over. I decided to stop banging my head against the wall and demonstrate the bias to you by making it symmetric.  What do you know, you finally stop reverting back to lib soc, and suddenly my edit is "frivolous."

''As for the text on indiv anarchists, it is off topic; we were listing terms used, not all the different component movements, which is not really relevant for this article and out of scope for that paragraph. ''
 * So a brief explaination of the ideology that capitalists claim to borrow from is off topic? Then why are there so many explainations of liberalism, natural law, and libertarianism right here on this page?  I'm serious VV, take a little time off, reorient yourself, and come back.  I will happily cease to edit the page if you agree to take a few days off, because you obviously need it to clear your head here.  - Kev 12/08/03

 * VV Yes, it's a quick blurb about the opposing anarchist ideology, not a classification of all the opposing views. The sections that then do do exhaustive comparisons warrant more discussion.  Anyway, I will see your advice for me to "reorient" myself and clear my head for what it is, a patronizing cover, and I'll go clean up all that bias that was leaking out of my pores.  In the interim, I have tried a new edit.  Since it doesn't give you everything you want, I'm sure you won't like it.  I'll brace myself for a new round of incivilities. -- VV 08:05, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * You'd best brace yourself, because if you continue to constantly dismiss my edits as "absurd" "silly" "ridiculous" "non-sensical" "vandalism" "frivolous" "terrible" and so on and so on, you can reasonably expect that my tone is not going to suddenly grow more loving out of the kindness of my heart.

 * VV I would never suspect you of developing a loving tone. Your behavior towards me on this forum goes far beyond rude.  I fear yielding to the temptation to start talking to you the way you've been talking to me.
 * Yes. Please take a note of the begining of our conversations.  Look carefully, and notice who first started using dismissive rhetoric and bullshit qualifiers in the place of arguments.  I'm sorry if you don't like my response to it.

As for my criticisms, they have been of what you've written, not you, and in some cases I've been right by your own admission. Now, in accordance with my "patronizing cover", you know, that one that implored you to discuss things when you reverted without a single word, that one that already took two weeks off to give you time, that one who has wasted hours now educating you as to basic facts about this subject you were almost wholly ignorant of - that "cover" will leave the page according to YOUR edits, just like he did last time, to give YOU time to get your head clear. - Kev 10/09/03
 * VV A positive though temporary gesture,
 * More than you are willing to do, apparently. Too bad though.  Don't worry, I still won't edit it for a week.  At least one of us ought to be sincere, eh?  I know, you are going to whine about how Aaron was still changing it even when I'm not, ignoring the fact that the last time I did this for 2 weeks your edits stood almost totally unchallenged.  I'll just mark this up as another indication of the extent that you are willing to come to an amicable compromise.  Can't wait till the week is up, as you've just lost a whole lot of the "give him the benefit of the doubt" that was keeping me back.

although of course Aaron is not on board. I still of course do not believe there's anything wrong with MY edits (which are MY attempt at answering everyone's concerns), and I don't see much evidence of constructive criticism of them.
 * I know you don't, but I no longer have any hope in this area. I've done my best to explain my reasoning behind every edit.  You've disagreed on each and every point.  I've tried and tried again, come up with numerous facts on the matter, shown different angles.  When you weren't discussing it I implored you to discuss it, when it wasn't going anywhere I voluntarily took a break for your benefit.  I noted the historical facts that were relevant, ones that you clearly had no knowledge of.  Yet still, you think nothing is wrong with your edits, despite their one-sided nature, despite their constant attempts to push back any change on this page - regardless of the reasoning behind it (the lao tzu edit for example, which you blocked time and again with NO justification and finally gave up on it as it was apparently "silly."  The lib soc edit, which you reverted half a dozen times before finally adopting it as your own edit when you feared even that might change)

Nor do I expect you're likely to acknowledge how much compromising there's been.
 * So all that change was compromise? You are saying that if you'd had your way none of those changes would exist on the page?  That would be rather sad, as the former version you are comparing it to not only lacks a great deal of relevant information, it is also horribly biased.  That sorta indicates that you would prefer the bias, and have only removed it as part of a "compromise."  Go ahead VV, revert back to the page you think it so grand.  I assure you there are several instances in the history of this page I could revert back to as well, ones long before I even came, and sit on a high horse claiming its been "a whole load of compromise since then."  -Kev 12/10/03

-- VV 06:56, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dec 9
VV, are you going to address the issues that I raised, or are you just going to revert at will? - Aaron 4:59 PM 9 Dec 2003

 * I have been addressing the issues, and you have been reverting at will. -- VV 06:16, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * You have addressed none of the issues that I raised. None whatsoever. Please do so. - Aaron 7:15 PM 11 Dec 2003

title: Talk:Anarcho-capitalism/Archive 3


text:
Freedmen's Bureau

The Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, usually referred to as simply the Freedmen's Bureau, was a U.S. government agency of early post American Civil War Reconstruction, assisting freedmen (i.e., former slaves) in the South. It was established on March 3, 1865, and operated briefly as a federal agency after the War, from 1865 to 1872, to direct "provisions, clothing, and fuel... for the immediate and temporary shelter and supply of destitute and suffering refugees and freedmen and their wives and children".

Background and operations
In 1863, the American Freedmen's Inquiry Commission was established. Two years later, as a result of the inquiry the Freedmen's Bureau Bill was passed, which established the Freedmen's Bureau as initiated by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln. It was intended to last for one year after the end of the Civil War. The Bureau became a part of the United States Department of War, as Congress provided no funding for it. The War Department was the only agency with funds the Freedmen's Bureau could use and which had an existing presence in the South.

Headed by Union Army General Oliver O. Howard, the Bureau started operations in 1865. From the beginning, its representatives found its tasks very difficult, in part because Southern legislatures passed Black Codes that restricted movement, conditions of labor, and other civil rights of African Americans, nearly replicating the conditions of slavery. Also, the Freedmen's Bureau only controlled a limited amount of arable land.

The Bureau's powers were expanded to help African Americans find family members from whom they had become separated during the war. It arranged to teach them to read and write—skills considered critical by the freedmen themselves as well as by the government. Bureau agents also served as legal advocates for African Americans in both state and federal courts, mostly in cases dealing with family issues. The Bureau encouraged former major planters to rebuild their plantations and pay wages to their previously enslaved workers. It kept an eye on the contracts between the newly free laborers and planters, given that few freedmen had yet gained adequate reading skills, and pushed whites and blacks to work together in a free-labor market as employers and employees rather than as masters and slaves.

In 1866 Congress renewed the charter for the Bureau. President Andrew Johnson, a Southern Democrat who had succeeded to the office following Lincoln's assassination in 1865, vetoed the bill, arguing that the Bureau encroached on states' rights, relied inappropriately on the military in peacetime, gave blacks help that poor whites had never had, and would ultimately prevent freed slaves from becoming self-sufficient by rendering them dependent on public assistance. Though the 39th United States Congress—controlled by Radical Republicans—overrode Johnson's veto, by 1869 Southern Democrats in Congress had deprived the Bureau of most of its funding, and as a result it had to cut much of its staff. By 1870 the Bureau had been weakened further due to the rise of Ku Klux Klan (KKK) violence across the South; members of the KKK and other terrorist organizations, attacked both blacks and sympathetic white Republicans, including teachers. Northern Democrats also opposed the Bureau's work, painting it as a program that would make African Americans "lazy".

In 1872 Congress abruptly abandoned the program, refusing to approve renewal legislation. It did not inform Howard, whom U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant had transferred to Arizona to settle hostilities between the Apache and settlers. Grant's Secretary of War William W. Belknap was hostile to Howard's leadership and authority at the Bureau. Belknap aroused controversy among Republicans by his reassignment of Howard.

Day-to-day duties
The Bureau mission was to help solve everyday problems of the newly freed slaves, such as obtaining food, medical care, communication with family members, and jobs. Between 1865 and 1869, it distributed 15 million rations of food to freed African Americans and 5 million rations to impoverished whites, and set up a system by which planters could borrow rations in order to feed freedmen they employed. Although the Bureau set aside $350,000 for this latter service, only $35,000 (10%) was borrowed by planters.

The Bureau's humanitarian efforts had limited success. Medical treatment of the freedmen was severely deficient, as few Southern doctors, all of whom were white, would treat them. Much infrastructure had been destroyed by the war, and people had few means of improving sanitation. Blacks had little opportunity to become medical personnel. Travelers unknowingly carried epidemics of cholera and yellow fever along the river corridors, which broke out across the South and caused many fatalities, especially among the poor.

Gender roles
Freedmen's Bureau agents initially complained that freedwomen were refusing to contract their labor. One of the first actions black families took for independence was to withdraw women's labor from fieldwork. The Bureau attempted to force freedwomen to work by insisting that their husbands sign contracts making the whole family available as field labor in the cotton industry, and by declaring that unemployed freedwomen should be treated as vagrants just as black men were. The Bureau did allow some exceptions, such as married women with employed husbands, and some "worthy" women who had been widowed or abandoned and had large families of small children to care for. "Unworthy" women, meaning the unruly and prostitutes, were usually the ones subjected to punishment for vagrancy.

Before the Civil War the enslaved could not marry legally, and most marriages had been informal, although planters often presided over "marriage" ceremonies for their enslaved. After the war, the Freedmen's Bureau performed numerous marriages for freed couples who asked for it. As many husbands, wives, and children had been forcibly separated under slavery, the Bureau agents helped families reunite after the war. The Bureau had an informal regional communications system that allowed agents to send inquiries and provide answers. It sometimes provided transportation to reunite families. Freedmen and freedwomen turned to the Bureau for assistance in resolving issues of abandonment and divorce.

Education
The most widely recognized accomplishments of the Freedmen's Bureau were in education. Prior to the Civil War, no Southern state had a system of universal, state-supported public education; in addition, most had prohibited both enslaved and free blacks from gaining an education. This meant learning to read and write, and do simple arithmetic. Former slaves wanted public education while the wealthier whites opposed the idea. Freedmen had a strong desire to learn to read and write; some had already started schools at refugee camps; others worked hard to establish schools in their communities even prior to the advent of the Freedmen's Bureau. The Freedmen's Bureau schools were also open to poor whites, however, almost no whites attended because "Despite the absence of statewide systems in most Southern states, most parents preferred to consign their children to illiteracy rather than to see them educated alongside black children."

Oliver Otis Howard was appointed as the first Freedmen's Bureau Commissioner. Through his leadership, the bureau set up four divisions: Government-Controlled Lands, Records, Financial Affairs, and Medical Affairs. Education was considered part of the Records division. Howard turned over confiscated property including planters' mansions, government buildings, books, and furniture to superintendents to be used in the education of freedmen. He provided transportation and room and board for teachers. Many Northerners came south to educate freedmen.

By 1866, Northern missionary and aid societies worked in conjunction with the Freedmen's Bureau to provide education for former slaves. The American Missionary Association (AMA) was particularly active, establishing eleven "colleges" in Southern states for the education of freedmen. The primary focus of these groups was to raise funds to pay teachers and manage schools, while the secondary focus was the day-to-day operation of individual schools. After 1866, Congress appropriated some funds to operate the freedmen's schools. The main source of educational revenue for these schools came through a Congressional Act that gave the Freedmen's Bureau the power to seize Confederate property for educational use.

George Ruby, an African American, served as a teacher and school administrator and as a traveling inspector for the Bureau, observing local conditions, aiding in the establishment of black schools, and evaluating the performance of Bureau field officers. Blacks supported him, but planters and other whites opposed him. Overall, the Bureau spent $5 million to set up schools for blacks. By the end of 1865, more than 90,000 former slaves were enrolled as students in such public schools. Attendance rates at the new schools for freedmen were about 80%. Brigadier General Samuel Chapman Armstrong created and led Hampton Normal and Agricultural Institute in Virginia in 1868. It is now known as Hampton University.

The Freedmen's Bureau published their own freedmen's textbook. They emphasized the bootstrap philosophy, encouraging freedmen to believe that each person had the ability to work hard and to do better in life. These readers included traditional literacy lessons, as well as selections on the life and works of Abraham Lincoln, excerpts from the Bible focused on forgiveness, biographies of famous African Americans with emphasis on their piety, humbleness, and industry; and essays on humility, the work ethic, temperance, loving one's enemies, and avoiding bitterness.

J. W. Alvord, an inspector for the Bureau, wrote that the freedmen "have the natural thirst for knowledge," aspire to "power and influence … coupled with learning," and are excited by "the special study of books." Among the former slaves, both children and adults sought this new opportunity to learn. After the Bureau was abolished, some of its achievements collapsed under the weight of white violence against schools and teachers for blacks. Most Reconstruction-era legislatures had established public education but, after the 1870s, when white Democrats regained power of Southern governments, they reduced funds available to fund public education, particularly for blacks. Beginning in 1890 in Mississippi, Democratic-dominated legislatures in the South passed new state constitutions disenfranchising most blacks by creating barriers to voter registration. They then passed Jim Crow laws establishing legal segregation of public places. Segregated schools and other services for blacks were consistently underfunded by the Southern legislatures.

By 1871, Northerners' interest in reconstructing the South had waned. Northerners were beginning to tire of the effort that Reconstruction required, were discouraged by the high rate of continuing violence around elections, and were ready for the South to take care of itself. All of the Southern states had created new constitutions that established universal, publicly funded education. Groups based in the North began to redirect their money toward universities and colleges founded to educate African-American leaders.

Teachers
Written accounts by northern women and missionary societies resulted in historians' overestimating their influence, writing that most Bureau teachers were well-educated women from the North, motivated by religion and abolitionism to teach in the South. In the early 21st century, new research has found that half the teachers were southern whites; one-third were blacks (mostly southern), and one-sixth were northern whites. Few were abolitionists; few came from New England. Men outnumbered women. The salary was the strongest motivation except for the northerners, who were typically funded by northern organizations and had a humanitarian motivation. As a group, the black cohort showed the greatest commitment to racial equality; and they were the ones most likely to remain teachers. The school curriculum resembled that of schools in the north.

Colleges
The building and opening by the AMA and other missionary societies of schools of higher learning for African Americans coincided with the shift in focus for the Freedmen's Aid Societies from supporting an elementary education for all African Americans to enabling African-American leaders to gain high school and college educations. Some white officials working with African Americans in the South were concerned about what they considered the lack of a moral or financial foundation seen in the African-American community and traced that lack of foundation back to slavery.

Generally, they believed that Blacks needed help to enter a free labor market and rebuild a stable family life. Heads of local American Missionary Associations sponsored various educational and religious efforts for African Americans. Later efforts for higher education were supported by such leaders as Samuel Chapman Armstrong of the Hampton Institute and Booker T. Washington of the Tuskegee Institute (from 1881). They said that black students should be able to leave home and "live in an atmosphere conducive not only to scholarship but to culture and refinement".

Most of these colleges, universities and normal schools combined what they believed were the best fundamentals of a college with that of the home, giving students a basic structure to build acceptable practices of upstanding lives. At many of these institutions, Christian principles and practices were also part of the daily regime.

Educational legacy
Despite the untimely dissolution of the Freedmen's Bureau, its legacy influenced the important historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), which were the chief institutions of higher learning for blacks in the South through the decades of segregation into the mid-20th century. Under the direction and sponsorship of the Bureau, together with the American Missionary Association in many cases, from approximately 1866 until its termination in 1872, an estimated 25 institutions of higher learning for black youth were established. The leaders among them continue to operate as highly ranked institutions in the 21st century and have seen increasing enrollment. (Examples of HBCUs include Howard University, St. Augustine's College, Fisk University, Johnson C. Smith University, Clark Atlanta University, Dillard University, Shaw University, Virginia Union University, and Tougaloo College).

, there exist approximately 105 HBCUs that range in scope, size, organization, and orientation. Under the Education Act of 1965, Congress officially defined an HBCU as "an institution whose principal missions were and are the education of Black Americans". HBCUs graduate over 50% of African-American professionals, 50% of African-American public school teachers, and 70% of African-American dentists. In addition, 50% of African Americans who graduate from HBCUs pursue graduate or professional degrees. One in three degrees held by African Americans in the natural sciences, and half the degrees held by African Americans in mathematics, were earned at HBCUs.

Perhaps the best known of these institutions is Howard University, founded in Washington, D.C., in 1867, with the aid of the Freedmen's Bureau. It was named for the commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, General Oliver Otis Howard.

Church establishment
After the Civil War, control over existing churches was a contentious issue. The Methodist denomination had split into regional associations in the 1840s prior to the war, as had the Baptists, when Southern Baptists were founded. In some cities, Northern Methodists seized control of Southern Methodist buildings. Numerous northern denominations, including the independent black denominations of the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) and African Methodist Episcopal Zion, sent missionaries to the South to help the freedmen and plant new congregations. By this time the independent black denominations were increasingly well organized and prepared to evangelize to the freedmen. Within a decade, the AME and AME Zion churches had gained hundreds of thousands of new members and were rapidly organizing new congregations.

Even before the war, blacks had established independent Baptist congregations in some cities and towns, such as Silver Bluff and Charleston, South Carolina; and Petersburg and Richmond, Virginia. In many places, especially in more rural areas, they shared public services with whites. Often enslaved blacks met secretly to conduct their own services away from white supervision or oversight. After the war, freedmen mostly withdrew from the white-dominated congregations of the Baptist, Methodist and Presbyterian churches in order to be free of white supervision. Within a short time, they were organizing black Baptist state associations and organized a national association in the 1890s.

Northern mission societies raised funds for land, buildings, teachers' salaries, and basic necessities such as books and furniture. For years they used networks throughout their churches to raise money for freedmen's education and worship.

Continuing insurgency
Most of the assistant commissioners, realizing that African Americans would not receive fair trials in the civil courts, tried to handle black cases in their own Bureau courts. Southern whites objected that this was unconstitutional. In Alabama, the Bureau commissioned state and county judges as Bureau agents. They were to try cases involving blacks with no distinctions on racial grounds. If a judge refused, the Freedmen's Bureau could institute martial law in his district. All but three judges accepted their unwanted commissions, and the governor urged compliance.

Perhaps the most difficult region reported by the Freedmen's Bureau was Louisiana's Caddo and Bossier parishes in the northwest part of the state. It had not suffered wartime devastation or Union occupation, but white hostility was high against the black majority population. Well-meaning Bureau agents were understaffed and weakly supported by federal troops, and found their investigations blocked and authority undermined at every turn by recalcitrant plantation owners. Murders of freedmen were common, and white suspects in these cases were not prosecuted. Bureau agents did negotiate labor contracts, build schools and hospitals, and aid freedmen, but they struggled against the violence of the oppressive environment.

In addition to internal parish problems, this area was reportedly invaded by insurgents from Arkansas, described as Desperadoes by the Bureau agent in 1868. In September 1868, for example, whites arrested and convicted 21 blacks accused of planning an insurrection in Bossier Parish. Henry Jones, accused of being the leader of the purported insurrection, was shot and left to burn by whites, but he survived, badly hurt. Other freedmen were killed or driven from their land by Arkansas Desperadoes. Whites were anxious about their power as blacks were to receive the franchise, and tensions were rising over land use. In early October, blacks arrested two whites from Arkansas "accused of being part of a mob ... that killed several Negroes." The agent reported 14 blacks had been killed in this incident, then said that another eight to ten had been killed by the same Desperadoes. Blacks were reported to have killed the two white men in the altercation. The whites' Arkansas friends and local whites went on a rampage against blacks in the area, resulting in more than 150 blacks being killed.

In March 1872, at the request of President Ulysses S. Grant and the Secretary of the Interior, Columbus Delano, General Howard was asked to temporarily leave his duties as Commissioner of the Bureau to deal with Indian affairs in the west. Upon returning from his assignment in November 1872, General Howard discovered that the Bureau and all of its activities had been officially terminated by Congress, effective as of June. While General Howard was dealing with Indian affairs in the west, the Freedmen's Bureau was steadily losing its support in Congress. President Johnson had opposed the Freedmen's Bureau and his attitude encouraged many people, especially white Southerners, to challenge the Bureau. But insurgents showed that the war had not ended, as armed whites attacked black Republicans and their sympathizers, including teachers and officeholders. Congress dismantled the Bureau in 1872 due to pressure from white Southerners. The Bureau was unable to change much of the social dynamic as whites continued to seek supremacy over blacks, frequently with violence.

In his autobiography, General Howard expressed great frustration about Congress having closed down the bureau. He said, "the legislative action, however, was just what I desired, except that I would have preferred to close out my own Bureau and not have another do it for me in an unfriendly manner in my absence." All documents and matters pertaining to the Freedmen's Bureau were transferred from the office of General Howard to the War Department of the United States Congress.

Alabama
The Bureau began distributing rations in the summer of 1865. Drought conditions resulted in so much need that the state established its own Office of the Commissioner of the Destitute to provide additional relief. The two agencies coordinated their efforts starting in 1866. The Bureau established depots in eight major cities. Counties were allocated aid in kind each month based on the number of poor reported. The counties were required to provide transportation from the depots for the supplies. The ration was larger in winter and spring, and reduced in seasons when locally grown food was available.

In 1866, the depot at Huntsville provided five thousand rations a day. The food was distributed without regard to race. Corruption and abuse was so great that in October 1866, President Johnson ended in-kind aid in that state. One hundred twenty thousand dollars was given to the state to provide relief to the end of January 1867. Aid was ended in the state. Records show that by the end of the program, four times as many White people received aid than did Black people.

Florida
The Florida Bureau was assessed to be working effectively. Thomas Ward Osborne, the assistant commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau for Florida, was an astute politician who collaborated with the leadership of both parties in the state. He was warmly praised by observers on all sides.

Georgia
The Bureau played a major role in Georgia politics. It was especially active in setting up, monitoring, and enforcing labor contracts for both men and women. It also set up a new system of healthcare for the freedmen. Although a majority of the agency's relief rations went to freedpeople, a large number of whites also benefited. In Georgia, poor whites received almost one-fifth of the Bureau's rations.

North Carolina
In North Carolina, the bureau employed: 9 contract surgeons, at $100 per month; 26 hospital attendants, at average pay each per month $11.25; 18 civilian employees, clerks, agents, etc., at an average pay per month of $17.20; 4 laborers, at an average pay per month of $11.90, for a total annual salaries of $18,596.40, which is approximately $595,000 in 2024 dollars; enlisted men are detailed as orderlies, guards, etc., by commanding officers of the different military posts where officers of the Bureau were serving. Some misconduct was reported to the bureau main office that bureau agents were using their posts for personal gains. Colonel E. Whittlesey was questioned but said he was not involved in nor knew of anyone involved in such activities. The bureau exercised what whites believed were arbitrary powers: making arrests, imposing fines, and inflicting punishments. They were considered to be disregarding the local laws and especially the statute of limitations. Their activities resulted in resentment among whites toward the federal government in general. These powers invoked negative feelings in many southerners that sparked many to want the agency to leave. In their review, Steedman and Fullerton repeated their conclusion from Virginia, which was to withdraw the Bureau and turn daily operations over to the military.

South Carolina
In South Carolina, the bureau employed nine clerks, at average pay each per month $108.33, one rental agent, at monthly pay of $75.00, one clerk, at monthly pay of $50.00, one storekeeper, at monthly pay of $85.00, one counselor, at monthly pay of $125.00, one superintendent of education, at monthly pay of $150.00, one printer, at monthly pay of $100.00, one contract surgeon, at monthly pay of $100.00, and twenty-five laborers, at average pay per month $19.20. Total annual salaries of $25,679.64 which is $821,600 in 2024 dollars. General Saxton was head of the bureau operations in South Carolina; he was reported by Steedman and Fullerton to have made so many "mistakes and blunders" that he made matters worse for the freedmen. He was replaced by Brigadier General R. K. Scott. Steedman and Fullerton described Scott as energetic and a competent officer. It appeared that he took great pains to turn things around and correct the mistakes made by his predecessors. The investigators learned of reported murders of freedmen by a band of outlaws. These outlaws were thought to be people from other states, such as Texas, Kentucky and Tennessee, who had been part of the rebel army (Ku Klux Klan chapters were similarly started by veterans in the first years after the war.) When citizens were asked why the perpetrators had not been arrested, many answered that the Bureau, with the support of the military, had the primary authority. In certain areas, such as the Sea Islands, many freedmen were destitute. Many had tried to cultivate the land and began businesses with little to no success in the social disruption of the period.

Texas
Suffering much less damage in the war than some other Deep South states, Texas became a destination for some 200,000 refugee blacks from other parts of the South, in addition to 200,000 already in Texas. Slavery had been prevalent only in East Texas, and some freedmen hoped for the chance of new types of opportunity in the lightly populated but booming state. The Bureau's political role was central, as was close attention to the need for schools.

Virginia
The Freedmen's Bureau had 58 clerks and superintendents of farms, paid average monthly wages $78.50; 12 assistant superintendents, paid average monthly wages 87.00; and 163 laborers, paid average monthly wages 11.75; as personnel in the state of Virginia. Other personnel included orderlies and guards.

During the war, slaves had escaped to Union lines and forts in the Tidewater, where contraband camps were established. Many stayed in that area after the war, seeking protection near the federal forts. The Bureau fed 9,000 to 10,000 blacks a month over the winter, explaining:
 * "A majority of the freedmen to whom this subsistence has been furnished are undoubtedly able to earn a living if they were removed to localities where labor could be procured. The necessity for issuing rations to this class of persons results from their accumulation in large numbers in certain places where the land is unproductive and the demand for labor is limited. As long as these people remain in the present localities, the civil authorities refuse to provide for the able-bodied, and are unable to care for the helpless and destitute among them, owing to their great number and the fact that very few are residents of the counties in which they have congregated during the war. The necessity for the relief extended to these people, both able-bodied and helpless, by the Government, will continue as long as they remain in their present condition, and while rations are issued to the able-bodied they will not voluntarily change their localities to seek places where they can procure labor.'

Bureau records
In 2000, the U.S. Congress passed the Freedmen's Bureau Preservation Act, which directed the National Archivist to preserve the extensive records of the Bureau on microfilm, and work with educational institutions to index the records. In addition to those records of the Bureau headquarters, assistant commissioners, and superintendents of education, the National Archives now has records of the field offices, marriage records, and records of the Freedmen's Branch of the Adjutant General on microfilm. They are being digitized and made available through online databases. These constitute a major source of documentation on the operations of the Bureau, political and social conditions in the Reconstruction Era, and the genealogies of freedpeople. The Freedmen's Bureau Project (announced on June 19, 2015) was created as a set of partnerships between FamilySearch International and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture, the Afro-American Historical and Genealogical Society (AAHGS), and the California African American Museum. With the help of more than 25,000 volunteers, the project was completed on June 20, 2016. Information about millions of African Americans is now accessible, allowing families to build their family trees and connect with their ancestors.

In October 2006, Virginia governor Tim Kaine announced that Virginia would be the first state to index and digitize Freedmen's Bureau records.

General

 * ; a scholarly history
 * ; full biography of Bureau leader
 * ; essays by scholars.
 * Compares the Bureau with the Works Progress Administration in the 1930s and welfare today. Excerpt and text search
 * ; biography of Bureau's head.
 * Compares the Bureau with the Works Progress Administration in the 1930s and welfare today. Excerpt and text search
 * ; biography of Bureau's head.
 * Compares the Bureau with the Works Progress Administration in the 1930s and welfare today. Excerpt and text search
 * ; biography of Bureau's head.
 * ; biography of Bureau's head.
 * ; biography of Bureau's head.

Supporting education

 * Abbott, Martin. "The Freedmen's Bureau and Negro Schooling in South Carolina," South Carolina Historical Magazine, Vol. 57#2 (Apr., 1956), pp. 65–81 in JSTOR
 * Anderson, James D. The Education of Blacks in the South, 1860–1935 (1988).
 * Butchart, Ronald E. Northern Schools, Southern Blacks, and Reconstruction: Freedmen's Education, 1862–1875 (1980).
 * Cimbala, Paul, and Randall Miller, eds. The Freedmen's Bureau and Reconstruction (Fordham University Press, 2020). online book review
 * Hornsby, Alton. "The Freedmen's Bureau Schools in Texas, 1865–1870," Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Vol. 76#4 (April, 1973), pp. 397–417 in JSTOR
 * Jackson, L. P. "The Educational Efforts of the Freedmen's Bureau and Freedmen's Aid Societies in South Carolina, 1862–1872," The Journal of Negro History (1923), vol 8#1, pp 1–40. in JSTOR
 * Jones, Jacqueline. Soldiers of Light and Love: Northern Teachers and Georgia Blacks, 1865–1873 (1980).
 * Myers, John B. "The Education of the Alabama Freedmen During Presidential Reconstruction, 1865–1867," Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 40#2 (Spring 1971), pp. 163–171 in JSTOR
 * Parker, Marjorie H. "The Educational Activities of the Freedmen's Bureau" (PhD dissertation, The University of Chicago; ProQuest Dissertations Publishing,  1951. T-01438).
 * Parker, Marjorie H. "Some Educational Activities of the Freedmen's Bureau," Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 23#1 (Winter, 1954), pp. 9–21. in JSTOR
 * Richardson, Joe M. Christian Reconstruction: The American Missionary Association and Southern Blacks, 1861–1890 (1986)
 * Richardson, Joe M. "The Freedmen's Bureau and Negro Education in Florida," Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 31#4 (Autumn, 1962), pp. 460–467. in JSTOR
 * Span, Christopher M. "'I Must Learn Now or Not at All': Social and Cultural Capital in the Educational Initiatives of Formerly Enslaved African Americans in Mississippi, 1862–1869," The Journal of African American History, 2002, pp. 196–222.
 * Tyack, David, and Robert Lowe. "The Constitutional Moment: Reconstruction and Black Education in the South," American Journal of Education, Vol. 94#2 (February 1986), pp. 236–256 in JSTOR
 * Vaughn, William Preston, "Schools for All: The Blacks and Public Education in the South, 1865–1877" (1974). online
 * Williams, Heather Andrea; "'Clothing Themselves in Intelligence': The Freedpeople, Schooling, and Northern Teachers, 1861–1871", The Journal of African American History, 2002, pp. 372+.
 * Williams, Heather Andrea. Self-Taught: African American Education in Slavery and Freedom (2006). online edition

Specialized studies

 * Bethel, Elizabeth . "The Freedmen's Bureau in Alabama," Journal of Southern History Vol. 14, No. 1, (February 1948) pp. 49–92 in JSTOR.
 * Bickers, John M. "The Power to Do What Manifestly Must Be Done: Congress, the Freedmen's Bureau, and Constitutional Imagination", Roger Williams University Law Review, Vol. 12, No. 70, 2006 online at SSRN.
 * Cimbala, Paul A. "On the Front Line of Freedom: Freedmen's Bureau Officers and Agents in Reconstruction Georgia, 1865–1868," Georgia Historical Quarterly 1992 76(3): 577–611..
 * Cimbala, Paul A. Under the Guardianship of the Nation: the Freedmen's Bureau and the Reconstruction of Georgia, 1865–1870 (1997).
 * Click, Patricia C. Time Full of Trial: The Roanoke Island Freedmen's Colony, 1862–1867 (2001).
 * Crouch, Barry. The Freedmen's Bureau and Black Texans (1992).
 * Crouch; Barry A. "The 'Chords of Love': Legalizing Black Marital and Family Rights in Postwar Texas," The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 79, 1994.
 * Downs, Jim. Sick from Freedom: African-American Illness and Suffering during the Civil War and Reconstruction (Oxford University Press, 2012)
 * Durrill, Wayne K. "Political Legitimacy and Local Courts: 'Politicks at Such a Rage' in a Southern Community during Reconstruction," in Journal of Southern History, Vol. 70 #3, 2004 pp. 577–617.
 * Farmer-Kaiser, Mary. "'Are They Not in Some Sorts Vagrants?' Gender and the Efforts of the Freedmen's Bureau to Combat Vagrancy in the Reconstruction South," Georgia Historical Quarterly 2004 88(1): 25–49..
 * Farmer-Kaiser, Mary. Freedwomen and the Freedmen's Bureau: Race, Gender, and Public Policy in the Age of Emancipation (Fordham University Press, 2010); describes how freedwomen found both an ally and an enemy in the Bureau.
 * Finley, Randy. From Slavery to Future: the Freedmen's Bureau in Arkansas, 1865–1869 (1996).
 * Lieberman, Robert C. "The Freedmen's Bureau and the Politics of Institutional Structure," Social Science History 1994 18(3): 405–437..
 * Morrow Ralph Ernst. Northern Methodism and Reconstruction (1956)
 * May J. Thomas. "Continuity and Change in the Labor Program of the Union Army and the Freedmen's Bureau," Civil War History 17 (September 1971): 245–54.
 * Oubre, Claude F. Forty Acres and a Mule. (1978).
 * Pearson, Reggie L. "'There Are Many Sick, Feeble, and Suffering Freedmen': the Freedmen's Bureau's Health-care Activities During Reconstruction in North Carolina, 1865–1868," North Carolina Historical Review 2002 79(2): 141–181..
 * Richter, William L. Overreached on All Sides: The Freedmen's Bureau Administrators in Texas, 1865–1868 (1991).
 * Rodrigue, John C. "Labor Militancy and Black Grassroots Political Mobilization in the Louisiana Sugar Region, 1865–1868" in Journal of Southern History, Vol. 67 #1, 2001, pp. 115–45.
 * Schwalm, Leslie A. "'Sweet Dreams of Freedom': Freedwomen's Reconstruction of Life and Labor in Lowcountry South Carolina," Journal of Women's History, Vol. 9 #1, 1997 pp. 9–32.
 * Smith, Solomon K. "The Freedmen's Bureau in Shreveport: the Struggle for Control of the Red River District," Louisiana History 2000 41(4): 435–465..
 * Williamson, Joel. After Slavery: The Negro in South Carolina during Reconstruction, 1861–1877 (1965).
 * Freedmen's Bureau in Texas, Texas Handbook of History online
 * Freedmen's Bureau in Texas, Texas Handbook of History online

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Freedmen's Bureau


text:
Łyna (river)

The Łyna (Alle ; Alna; Ла́ва - Lava), is a river that begins in northern Poland's Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship and ends in Russia's Kaliningrad Oblast.

The Łyna is a tributary of the Pregolya River, and has a total length of 264 km (207 km in Poland and 57 km in Russia) and a basin area of 7,126 km² (5,298 km² in Poland). It is connected to Lake Mamry by the 18th-century Masurian Canal.

The river's source is located near the village of Łyna in Masuria, Poland. It then flows through the regions of Warmia, Bartia and Nadrovia.

History
In historical terms, the river fell within the area of the medieval Monastic state of the Teutonic Knights established in the 13th century. In 1454, the adjacent territory was incorporated by King Casimir IV Jagiellon to the Kingdom of Poland upon the request of the anti-Teutonic Prussian Confederation. It was confirmed as part of Poland after the subsequent Thirteen Years' War, the longest of all Polish–Teutonic wars, ended in 1466. Following the First Partition of Poland in 1772, the area was annexed by Prussia and made part of the newly formed province of East Prussia in 1773, which from 1871 was also part of Germany. Following Germany's defeat in World War II, in 1945, it was split between Poland and the Soviet Union in accordance with border changes promulgated at the Potsdam Conference.

Cities and towns
The largest city located on the Łyna is Olsztyn, Poland. Cities and towns along the Łyna include:

title: Łyna (river)


text:
Bóbr

The Bóbr (Bobr, Bober, ) is a river which carries water through the north of the Czech Republic and the southwest of Poland. It is a left tributary of the Oder.

Course
The Bóbr has a length of 279 km (3 in Czech Republic, 276 in Poland, 10th longest Polish river) and a basin area of 5874 km2 (44 in Czech Republic and 5,830 in Poland). It originates on a slope of the Rýchory mountains in the southeast of the Krkonoše range. The source is located near the small Bobr village of the Žacléř municipality in the Czech Hradec Králové Region. Parallel to the Lusatian Neisse tributary of the Oder in the west, it flows northwards from the Bohemian region into adjacent Silesia.

Shortly after the river crosses the border to Polish Niedamirów and runs northwestwards through the Jelenia Góra valley of the Western Sudetes to the dam of Pilchowice and downhill into the plains of Lower Silesia, passing the towns of Jelenia Góra, Bolesławiec, Szprotawa, and Żagań, where the parallel Kwisa river joins it. The river finally flows into the Oder near the town of Krosno. Non-navigable for its entire length, it is a popular destination for canoeing.

History
Since the Middle Ages the lower Bóbr river north of Żagań and the Kwisa confluence marked the border between the historic regions of Silesia in the east and Lower Lusatia to the west. After in 937 King Otto I of Germany had established the Saxon Eastern March on the lands settled by Polabian Slavs, Margrave Gero until 963 subdued the Lusatian lands up to the border with Poland (Civitas Schinesghe). Upon Gero's death in 965, the river was the designated eastern border of the newly created March of Lusatia in the Holy Roman Empire.

The Polish territorial sovereignty was acknowledged to Duke Bolesław I Chrobry by Emperor Otto III at the Congress of Gniezno in 1000. Nevertheless, Bolesław laid claims to the lands west of the Bóbr, which he temporarily acquired by the 1018 Treaty of Bautzen. After Emperor Conrad II had reconquered the territory until 1031, the status quo was restored.

The river became an internal border, when the Luxembourg king John of Bohemia step-by-step vassalized the Piast dukes of Silesia and incorporated their lands with the consent of King Casimir III of Poland by the 1335 Treaty of Trentschin, whereafter both Lusatia in the west and Silesia in the east became Lands of the Bohemian Crown.

During the Potsdam Conference in 1945, the Western Allies briefly advocated a Polish-German border along the Oder, Bóbr and Kwisa rivers, but were rejected by Joseph Stalin, who had already committed himself to the Oder-Neisse line.

Towns

 * Lubawka
 * Kamienna Góra
 * Jelenia Góra
 * Wleń
 * Lwówek Śląski
 * Bolesławiec
 * Szprotawa
 * Małomice
 * Żagań
 * Nowogród Bobrzański
 * Krosno Odrzańskie
 * Pstrąże

Bóbr dam
The Pilchowice Dam (Jezioro Pilchowickie, German: Talsperre Mauer) was built from 1904 to 1912 in the northern Krkonoše range near Jelenia Góra. Then the largest in Europe, surpassing even the Urft Dam built in 1905, it created a reservoir of about 4 km length.

The masonry structure was erected on a Gneiss basis according to the Intze Principle. Equipped with Francis turbines manufactured by Voith and Siemens-Schuckert and AEG generators, the hydroelectric plant supplies about 20,000,000 kWh a year, with a power rating of 7,585 kW.

Protections
Parts of the Bóbr river valley is protected area in some form or another, and the river itself originates from the Krkonoše National Park in Czech Republic, close to the border with Poland. Protections in the Bóbr valley area include:
 * Rudawy Landscape Park
 * Bóbr Valley Landscape Park
 * Przemków Landscape Park

title: Bóbr


text:
Wieprz

The Wieprz is a river in central-eastern Poland, and a tributary of the Vistula. It is the country's ninth longest river, with a total length of 349 km and a catchment area of 10,497 km2, all within Poland. Its course near the town of Łęczna includes the protected area known as Wieprz Landscape Park.

The river has its source in Lake Wieprz, in Wieprzów Tarnawacki near Tomaszow Lubelski, and flows into the Vistula near Dęblin. The Wieprz is connected to another river, the Krzna, through the 140-kilometer Wieprz-Krzna Canal, built in 1954-1961. Because the Wieprz with its wide valley has not been regulated, its nature is very diverse. The meandering river with its oxbow lakes is inhabited by numerous birds, European otters and Eurasian beavers.

During the Polish-Soviet War, units of the Polish 4th Army concentrated along the Wieprz, getting ready for the Battle of Warsaw. In September 1939, during the Invasion of Poland, the Battle of Tomaszow Lubelski took place by the Wieprz.

Towns on the Wieprz

 * Krasnobród
 * Zwierzyniec
 * Szczebrzeszyn
 * Krasnystaw
 * Łęczna
 * Lubartów
 * Dęblin

title: Wieprz


text:
Pilica (river)

The Pilica is a river in central Poland, and the longest left tributary of the Vistula river, with a length of 333 kilometres (8th longest). All 9,258 km2 of its basin area is in Poland.

It flows through the Polish Jura, after which it enters Central Polish Plains. Pilica flows into the Vistula near the village of Ostrowek, in a geographical region of Central Vistula Valley. In 1974, a dam was built near Sulejow, resulting in the creation of man-made reservoir Sulejow Lake, which has the area of 2,700 hectares. The region in the basin of the Pilica is sometimes called Nadpilicze, and the river itself marks boundary between Lesser Poland, and two other historical provinces of the country, Greater Poland and Mazovia.

The first "open-air river museum" in Poland, the Open-air museum of Pilica river, is located on the waterway and the Blue Springs nature reserve lies next to the river.

Towns

 * Pilica
 * Szczekociny
 * Koniecpol
 * Przedbórz
 * Sulejów
 * Tomaszów Mazowiecki
 * Spała
 * Inowłódz
 * Nowe Miasto nad Pilicą
 * Wysmierzyce
 * Białobrzegi
 * Warka

Left tributaries

 * Luciąża
 * Rykolanka
 * Wolborka

Right tributaries

 * Czarna (Włoszczowska)
 * Czarna (Konecka)
 * Drzewiczka

A kayak route
A 228 km long "Szlak wodny Pilicy" is a kayak route on Pilica River. It begins in Zarzecze near Szczekociny and ends on a mouth of the Pilica River. Points on the route:

 * Zarzecze near Szczekociny
 * Przedbórz
 * Faliszew
 * Skotniki (Gmina Aleksandrów, Łódź Voivodeship)
 * Sulejów
 * Sulejowski Reservoir
 * Tomaszów Mazowiecki
 * Spała
 * Inowłódz
 * Żądłowice
 * Grotowice
 * Domaniewice
 * Nowe Miasto nad Pilicą
 * Białobrzegi
 * Warka
 * a mouth of the Pilica River

A section of the river is a Natura 2000 EU Special Protection Area.

title: Pilica (river)


text:
Noteć

The Noteć (Netze, Natissis) is a river in central Poland with a length of 391 km (7th longest) and a basin area of 17302 km2. It is the largest tributary of the Warta river and lies completely within Poland.

Course
It rises in the Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship and flows through Lake Gopło and the town of Inowrocław. It reaches the voivodeship of Greater Poland in the historic Pałuki region south of Piła. Further down in Lubusz Voivodeship, it empties into the Warta at Santok near Gorzów Wielkopolski. The river is usually subdivided into an upper part (Noteć Górna), running from its source to Nakło, and a lower part (Noteć Dolna) from Nakło to its mouth into the Warta River. At Nakło, the Bydgoszcz Canal, built in 1773/74, connects the Noteć River with the Brda river, a tributary of the Vistula, at Bydgoszcz.

The lower sections down from the mouth of the Drawa (near Krzyż Wielkopolski) are located within the broad Toruń-Eberswalde Urstromtal. These large wetlands, with only two historic river crossings at Santok and Drezdenko, are sparsely populated.

Most portions of the Noteć are navigable. Several locks and dams connect the Vistula and the Warta/Oder waterways.

History
In medieval times, the impenetrable marshes of the lower Noteć River formed the border between the Kingdom of Poland and the lands of the Pomeranian tribes on the Baltic coast. Disputed for centuries, the fortresses of Santok and Drezdenko finally were acquired by Margrave Conrad of Brandenburg on the occasion of his wedding with Constance of Poznań, daughter of the Piast duke Przemysł I of Greater Poland, in 1260.

After several unsuccessful attempts by the Polish Piasts to regain control, the area along the lower Noteć was finally incorporated into the Brandeburg Neumark region. For centuries, the border with the Greater Polish Poznań Voivodeship ran between Drezdenko (Driesen) and Krzyż upstream in the east. Under the rule of Elector Joachim III Frederick of Brandenburg from about 1603, the fortress was rebuilt and further settlements were erected within the wetlands. First plans for a large-scale drainage and land amelioration were developed under King Frederick William I of Prussia in 1738/39, though not carried out until after the Seven Years' War in 1763.

After the First Partition of Poland in 1772 the adjacent Greater Polish lands up the river were annexed by the Kingdom of Prussia as the Netze District. The territory, created by the Prussian administration, was again ceded to newly established Duchy of Warsaw in 1807, but fell back to Prussia by resolution of the Vienna Congress in 1815.

Towns

 * Inowrocław
 * Izbica Kujawska
 * Kruszwica
 * Pakość
 * Barcin
 * Labiszyn
 * Nakło nad Notecią
 * Ujście
 * Czarnków
 * Wieleń
 * Krzyż Wielkopolski
 * Drezdenko
 * Village Santok near Gorzów Wielkopolski

title: Noteć


text:
San (river)

The San (San; Сян Sian; Saan) is a river in southeastern Poland and western Ukraine. It is a tributary of the river Vistula. With a length of 458 km, the San is the 6th-longest Polish river. It has a basin area of 16,877 km2, of which 14,426 km2 is in Poland.

Etymology
San in proto-Indo-European languages means 'speed' or 'rapid stream'. In Celtic languages, san means 'river'.

Course
The San arises in the Carpathian Mountains near the village of Sianky, at an elevation of 900 m, exactly on the Polish-Ukrainian border (49.00278°N, 22.875°W) and on the continental  watershed, and forms the border between Poland and Ukraine for approximately its first 50 km. Poland's largest artificial lake, Lake Solina, was created by a dam on the San River near Lesko.

The San flows into the Vistula near Sandomierz.

History of the region
Historical records first mention the river in 1097 as Sanъ, reku Sanъ, k Sanovi; then as nad Sanomъ (1152) and Sanu (1287). On the old maps of the Ruthenian Voivodeship, Poland 1339–1772 it was referred to as "San" (1339), San (1372), "Szan" (1406), "Sanok" (1438), "Saan" (1439), "Sayn" (1445), "San" (1467), "Szan" (1517), and "Schan" (1526).

Humans had first settled the southeastern region of present-day Poland (the Subcarpathian Voivodeship or Podkarpacie) in prehistoric times. In the pre-Roman era various tribes, including the Celts, Goths and Vandals (Przeworsk culture and Puchov culture) overran the area. After the fall of the Roman Empire, Hungarians and Slavs invaded the area.

The San valley must have become an important trade-route and axis of human settlement as early as the 9th or 10th century. The region subsequently became part of the Great Moravian state. Upon the invasion of the Hungarian tribes into the heart of the Great Moravian Empire around 899, the Lendians of the area declared their allegiance to the Hungarian Empire. The region then became a site of contention between Poland, Kievan Rus and Hungary starting in around the 9th century. This area was mentioned for the first time in 981 (by Nestor), when Volodymyr the Great of Kievan Rus took the area over on his way into Poland. In 1018 it returned to Poland, in 1031 reverted to Rus, and in 1340 was recovered by Casimir III of Poland.

During the years 966–1018, 1340–1772 (the Ruthenian Voivodeship) and 1918–1939, the region was part of Poland. Between 1772 and 1918 it belonged to the Austrian empire, which became the Austro-Hungarian empire when the double monarchy was introduced. This region, including the area west and east of the Subcarpathian Voivodship, was controlled by Austria for almost 120 years. During that time it was known as Galicia.

Ukrainians traditionally associated the San with their ethnographic western frontier: this is reflected in the State Anthem of Ukraine (which describes Ukraine as extending from the San to the Don) and the March of Ukrainian Nationalists (which calls for a Ukraine from the San to the Caucasus). The Poland–Ukraine border today follows the San for approximately the first 50 km of its course.

The San River, which has seen many battles in its history, was a battle site at the beginning of World War II in 1939. At the outset of the German invasion of Poland, Polish forces attempted to defend a line along the San from September 6, until German forces broke out of their bridgeheads on September 12.

Cities

 * Dubiecko, Dynów, Jarosław, Lesko, Leżajsk, Nisko, Przemyśl, Radymno, Rudnik nad Sanem, Sandomierz, Sanok, Sieniawa, Stalowa Wola, Ulanów, Zagórz

Literature

 * Geographical Dictionary of the Kingdom of Poland and other Slavic Lands Słownik geograficzny Królestwa Polskiego i innych krajów słowiańskich. tom. X, pages 260 - 263. Warszawa. 1876. (digital edition)

title: San (river)