The Confederate flag (Union, North: sold, dog, American)

[Techgeek]

Originally Posted by OleTomCat

What was untrue, all of what he said was true with the exception of the "There were probably even some white folks with black owner" comment.

admittedly that one was speculation on my part but I'd be surprised if it didn't happen at least once.

[Geechie North]

Couple more sites, relevent to this issue:


Rice, Fever, and Indigo in Colonial South Carolina


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=633361

From it:
The essay demonstrates that neo-Confederate histories of southern slavery are not concerned with historical accuracy. They seek instead to advance an ideological repudiation of multiculturalism and civil rights. As such, they are being used by opponents of civil rights to challenge voting rights, desegregation, and affirmative action in a variety of court challenges and grassroots campaigns and to champion the imposition of "biblical law."

[Hoarfrost]

Originally Posted by sumter native

NO where in modern warfare is it considered modern to do what sherman and his gang did to people here sherman was a bloodthirsty evil little bastard and if he was around now him and alot of his men would be charged with war crimes..
sherman said he would give any slave a MULE and 40 acres that left their plantations and fought against the south it was political tactic to try and get the slaves to leave the plantations because the slaves werent runnin to the yankee side in droves...I aint met one black person who has any stories in their family that got that 40 acres and a mule so that adds being a liar to shermans list of accomplishments..
most of them stayed right on the plantations , they tried to keep up the farms and such while the men of the south were off fighting an invading army
The slave master relationship was not like it was portrayed in roots in many cases yall yankees keep bringing up slavery and all that bs and I think its because yall envy us and yall are ashamed of how your invading army treated the people of the south,and if the south is so bad then why dont yall stay up there...Most of us dont really want to see any more of yall foriegners down here and I dont mean all of yall just the ones that fell you have to force your beliefs on someone else (yall up there got a really bad habit of doing that)

Actually, Sherman issued an order to settle the freed blacks in portions of the newly conquered land. That ordered was reversed by president Johnson.

And I'm sure the slaves just loved being slaves. I mean, what could be more awesome?

[Hoarfrost]

Originally Posted by Techgeek

How's this for history?

Black people owned slaves

White people were slaves

There were probably even some white folks with black owners

The slaves brought over from Africa were sold to the Europeans by other (black) Africans

No PBS series can change those facts

Your insinuation that an exception to the rule overrules the rule is fallacious.

[Techgeek]

Originally Posted by Hoarfrost

Your insinuation that an exception to the rule overrules the rule is fallacious.

Actually...

I didn't insinuate anything. I pointed out evidence that slavery was not about racism but more of an economic institution.

If it were purely about racism then states would have implemented laws preventing slaves from being freed on any grounds. States would have prevented Whites from being slaves and Blacks from owning slaves.

Since it was an economic institution the rule was simply that any person who could afford to do so was welcome to purchase another person to work for them.

For the record I don't defend the practice. The whole point of these posts has been to show that the CSA Battle Flag was and is not a racist symbol and that to say the American Civil War was fought because of slavery is an uneducated oversimplification of the events of the time.

[Jpierpont]

I'm not angered, just a way for loser to express themselves. I think the South is odd sometimes and flying the flag of treason is one reason.

[Valishin]

At that time in our history our country was divided. The ISSUE was slavery. The south for for it the north was not.

This is the key problem in the disagreement over flying the Confederate flag. People continue to be ignorant about why the nation was divided. Slavery was an issue it was not THE issue. Nor was the north neccessarly anti-slavery, lets not forget slavery was still legal in the north after the civil war.

Anyway back to the primary point. The reason for division was the same arguement that happened years prior between Jefferson and Hamilton, THE issue is states rights vs federalism. Jefferson won the debate because that was the only solution under which the colonies were willing to form a union. Those who supported Hamilton's view have since that time done a run around on the legal structure of our system to implement the system they wanted without having to get the concent of the people through the agreed upon process.

As for the claims people make that this all needs to be put into the past, the issue has not been resolved. We the people have to this day never approved of a change to strong federal government through the agreed upon process of changing the Constitution. Read the constitution, to this day even with the 14th amendment in place it still reads with a very strong state's rights slant which is the type of union we the people agreed to in the first place. Displaying the Confederate flag today is a symbol that the fight is not over, it is a symbol saying that there are still people who do not believe a strong federal government is neccessary or even particularlly benefitial. Especially considering how willingly such an organization takes to putting aside its legal limitations to forward its agenda.

Now are there also racists that fly the flag, absolutely and it makes perfect sense that they would. Not because the flag is a symbol of racism but that the flag is a symbol of self determination and they support the same self determination as those who are not racists even if they want it to allow them to be racists. This doesn't mean that their racism is justified, they are still idiots for making that choice, but it does recognize their right to be said idiots just as it recognizes the rights of others to view and treat them as idiots.

For the sake of historical facts, if you really want to know what THE issue of the civil war was, look into the tarriff placed on exported goods that was put in place for protectionism to ensure northern industrial areas preferential access to southern export goods. That was THE issue that truely drove a wedge between the regions at that time. Slavery on the other hand was an issue in that it was the representitive issue in debate that states should maintain the power to govern themselves which was amplified by the states inability to profitablly trade with Britan and France who offered better payment for goods over northern offers but no so much as to exceed the tarriff. The specific debate involving slavery was that states coming into the union should be allowed to choose for themselves to be free states or slave states vs having the mantle of free state forced upon them by the federal government a power not granted to the federal government by the Constitution. That is the regard in which slavery was a significant issue. Did some people want to maintain the status quo of the time to prevent the nation from tilting to the anti-slavery side and eventually banning the practice as the culture changed, absolutely. But the core issue even in that abhorent reasoning is to maintain the balance of power between state and federal government upon which the union was founded.

For many, the problem isn't that people with good intentions wanted change, but that they went about it through a process that abused authority and as we can see today became the catalysis for a system that completely ignores the limitations placed on said authority. Reestablishing this union as a nation of laws is what this is all about.

[OleTomCat]

The 17th ammendment also put another nail in the coffin of states rights....

[gaflsc]

Originally Posted by Valishin

For the sake of historical facts, if you really want to know what THE issue of the civil war was, look into the tarriff placed on exported goods that was put in place for protectionism to ensure northern industrial areas preferential access to southern export goods. That was THE issue that truely drove a wedge between the regions at that time. Slavery on the other hand was an issue in that it was the representitive issue in debate that states should maintain the power to govern themselves which was amplified by the states inability to profitablly trade with Britan and France who offered better payment for goods over northern offers but no so much as to exceed the tarriff. The specific debate involving slavery was that states coming into the union should be allowed to choose for themselves to be free states or slave states vs having the mantle of free state forced upon them by the federal government a power not granted to the federal government by the Constitution. That is the regard in which slavery was a significant issue. Did some people want to maintain the status quo of the time to prevent the nation from tilting to the anti-slavery side and eventually banning the practice as the culture changed, absolutely. But the core issue even in that abhorent reasoning is to maintain the balance of power between state and federal government upon which the union was founded.

^^^ Pay attention to this, all.

[Valishin]

I wouldn't say that the mechanism for selecting senators was a nail in the coffin as it is really just a removal of a layer that accomplished the same thing. So long as the citizens of the state are the only ones who get to vote for that senator then I don't see this as a major issue as the original method was for the representitives those individuals elected did so on their behalf. In some ways this parallels the debate over the electorial college, except that, at least to the best of my knowledge, the balance between the districts within a state is suppose to be based purely on population even if crooked methods are used to draw the lines. This difers from the EC in that there is no weighted representation so election by populas vs election by electors elected by populas isn't that critical of a difference.