Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How did that work out for the recent SSM? How did that work out for the recent Obamacare? When does that ever work when the (FEB) Union, wants(ed) to increase their funds with the use of state funds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Pr...tion_of_Slaves
They stopped the importation on slaves 1807. And one would think, the Union grew a conscience, I don't think so.
If states can't make money to sustain themselves with out the Union, then they have to stop this Independence nonsense and join the Union. Labor was to the Confederacy, what machinery was to the Union.
I know the South depended on slave labor for its economy. I do not care. This is why. It came at the expense of my ancestors. If it had been me living back in those days, I would have most likely been a slave. This is my paradigm. Freedom is more important to me than the Antebellum South making money if it comes down to enslaving people to make money.
"Concerned that literate slaves would forge passes or convince other slaves to revolt, Southern slaveholders generally opposed slave literacy. In 1740 South Carolina enacted another response to the events that occurred at Stono by passing one of the earliest laws prohibiting teaching a slave to read or write. In other parts of the South the mid-eighteenth century saw an expansion of earlier laws forbidding the education of slaves."
"Anglican ministers established a school for slaves in South Carolina. For over twenty years the school offered instruction in Christian religion and education under the guidance of a slave schoolmaster."
Like Rev. J. C. Postell,
"It is not a moral evil. The fact that slavery is of Divine appointment, would be proof enough with the Christian, that it could not be a moral evil. But when we view the hordes of savage marauders and human cannibals enslaved to lust and passion, and abandoned to idolatry and ignorance, to revolutionise them from such a state, and enslave them where they may have the gospel, and the privileges of Christians; so far from being a moral evil, it is a merciful visitation. If slavery was either the invention of man or a moral evil, it is logical to conclude, the power to create has the power to destroy. Why then has it existed? And why does it now exist amidst all the power of legislation in state and church, and the clamor of abolitionists? It is the Lord's DOINGS AND MARVELLOUS IN OUR EYES:"
And you left out: "Still, there was some tolerance for slave education among certain groups in the South."
So, lets put it all together shall we:
Quote:
Like black musicians and singers, slaves who could read and write were considered esteemed members of the slave community. Concerned that literate slaves would forge passes or convince other slaves to revolt, Southern slaveholders generally opposed slave literacy. In 1740 South Carolina enacted another response to the events that occurred at Stono by passing one of the earliest laws prohibiting teaching a slave to read or write. In other parts of the South the mid-eighteenth century saw an expansion of earlier laws forbidding the education of slaves. Still, there was some tolerance for slave education among certain groups in the South. In 1743, for instance, Anglican ministers established a school for slaves in South Carolina. For over twenty years the school offered instruction in Christian religion and education under the guidance of a slave schoolmaster.
Photo of two women reading
Two women reading. National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution.
In the absence of formal education, slaves in both the rural and urban South often found alternative paths to learning. On plantations the pursuit of education became a communal effort -- slaves learned from parents, spouses, family members, and fellow slaves and some were even personally instructed by their masters or hired tutors. Slaveholders were motivated by Christian convictions to enable Bible-reading among slaves and even established informal plantation schools on occasion in part because of slaveholders' practical need for literate slaves to perform tasks such as record-keeping.
What we have is, where as the State was passing laws, its people did not agree with, the people did what we do still today ... bypass legislature and do what we please.
Where are you getting Rev. J. C. Postell from as I see no reference to him on the page in question.
The Bible and Slaves, how far back into history do you want to go? All that is being applied by Rev. Postell, is his belief in the teachings of the Bible. What you have managed to accomplish is to show that not every one dances to the same beat of the drummer. Like we don't already know this.
The Battle Flag is still just a Battle Flag, its symbol of representation is determined by the conscience of the person(s) waving it.
EDIT: I have yet to look as it just occurred to me, Robert E. Lee was the one that grabbed up the Battle Flag and used it. Since the Battle Flags origins, is Scotland, could be ... Robert E. Lee's ancestry is of Scottish origin.
I know the South depended on slave labor for its economy. I do not care.
.
Nor should anyone. Pimps rely on prostitutes for their economy. If busted, their loss of income much like the 19th century South is not a worthy reason to allow either condition to exist.
Mariner, hey brother. Here's my subjective understanding.
The maintenance of slavery should never be denied as a cause for Deep Southern secession, but it should be contextualized within (and not isolated from) the whole South's broader position.
The Deep South wanted to maintain their state sovereignty over slavery, bcuz they saw that the Northern states had set a precedent of state-level abolition over the preceding years. If states like Pennsylvania abolished slavery at their discretion w/out the Federal government ordering them to.. the Southern states wanted to preserve that same prerogative. If the Southern states surrendered sovereignty over slavery, it becomes a slippery slope, where the Fed. Gov't could assume power over all their state business. Which in fact has happened in the subsequent generations following the War. A state like Virginia didn't secede primarily over slavery, they were still in the Union when the Deep South starting leaving.. They rejected secession until Lincoln was prepared to use Federal power to conscript Virginians to subdue & kill fellow Americans.
The South was ultimately solid in it's understanding that the states were sovereign, including sovereign in deciding when/how to abolish slavery, and their right to nullify. Defending slavery was critical, but not isolated from their broad State's Rights position. The two objectives were not mutually exclusive, and shouldn't be severed from each other by modern Americans, in order to either demonize the South, or whitewash the South's holistic cause. When you had slave-holding Union Border States fighting slave-holding Confederate states, it's obviously more than the simplistic explanation that the war was solely over slavery.
Sorry for the long post.. but I dig Civil War & Confederate history. peace
Well, this is my opinion over the situation. My ancestors were slaves. I find it quite crazy for me to worry about federal government control when my own ancestors didn't have freedom. I care more about that than anything else. Enslaved people aren't going to care what someone from the outside does to the slave master. Period.
Nor should anyone. Pimps rely on prostitutes for their economy. If busted, their loss of income much like the 19th century South is not a worthy reason to allow either condition to exist.
The enslaved rarely worries about what happens to the slave master. A prostitute most definitely wouldn't worry about what happens to the pimp.
It's now acknowledged by some that slavery was a major cause of the secession. Now, there are some trying to justify slave owners trying to keep slavery under "they were protecting their economy".
The enslaved rarely worries about what happens to the slave master. A prostitute most definitely wouldn't worry about what happens to the pimp.
It's now acknowledged by some that slavery was a major cause of the secession. Now, there are some trying to justify slave owners trying to keep slavery under "they were protecting their economy".
Oddly it is the same people who would defend a cop killing a thug, such as a pimp. Yet the pimp was acting just like the slave owner was, and neither deserved protection from those opposed to them.
Oddly it is the same people who would defend a cop killing a thug, such as a pimp. Yet the pimp was acting just like the slave owner was, and neither deserved protection from those opposed to them.
What it boils down to, in my opinion, is this. There is a very strong desire to cling to the Confederate past. Every effort is being made to make it sound like it wasn't so bad. Everything to pointing out the problems with Lincoln/The Union, to trying to rationalize a slave owner's desire to keep slavery. It shows a lack of logical thinking.
Who are the people? In 'We the people' who were the 'We'?
Race based slavery divided the delegates at the US Constitutional Convention & continued to divide the people of the United States of America from that moment forward. Race based slavery existed in the Colonies before the States declared independence & continued after because the ‘practice’ was not dissolved or abolished at the time of forming the Union & instead became an ‘institution’ or ‘industry’ upon which local economies were based. The ‘discomfort’ regarding the practice, & the compromises made is evidenced by the fact that slavery is not mentioned by name, institution or industry in the US Constitution, race based slavery is referred to obliquely. The importation of slaves (trade) is referred to more directly & it is agreed the issue is not to be discussed for 20 years, that it, the importation of slaves & by inference, the practice, institution or industry is ‘tabled’ for 20 years. Slaver & anti-slaver delegates at the Convention agreed to this compromise.
Thomas Jefferson was President at the 20 year deadline & on January 1, 1808, the slave trade was constitutionally prohibited. This did not dissolve or abolish the practice of slavery & the economies became even more dependent upon its practice. Still divided, slaver & anti-slavers.
Pre-Civil War, the divide became larger, the question of race based slavery was not whether slavery had a place in the brand new Union of the States as it had been during the Constitutional Convention. Questions revolved regarding its expansion. Still divided, slaver & anti-slavers, although now the compromises made were regarding expansion. Amendments to the US Constitution were proposed, an unsuccessful one was the Crittenden Compromise:
Quote:
Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction, and situate within the limits of States that permit the holding of slaves.
I understand folks may have questions about the legitimacy of government, may differ in what they perceive is the purpose of government & other big questions.
But to question whether it made sense for government to determine who are the people? Can't we agree this was nonsensical, irrational, illogical?
Can't we remain loyal to the Americans that came before us without being loyal to their mistakes?
It's not enough to say 'Mistakes were made but not by me.'
Quote:
Can't we agree this was nonsensical, irrational, illogical?
When has the 'business' of government ever been logical, rational and/or made sense?
Quote:
It's not enough to say 'Mistakes were made but not by me.'
If we did that, then we wouldn't have any thing to make an argument over.
We have the documents of history and we have two different sides to the story and all stories in between them. We can not change the facts, we can only have varying opinions on what the facts represent.
I think we all need to stop wearing or using anything made of cotton! We've already hit the tobacco growers who were slave holders.
Think about it, cotton was one of the biggest slave crops and more blacks were abused to benefit the cotton industry than most anything else so whenever one looks at cotton one has to see the horrible history and racism that it stood for.
I did a network search for commercials, 'buy cotton, it's American made', which were commercials I remember seeing on T.V in the 70's. I only found one commercial probably the last one ever seen on air:
I gotta go soon & won't be back for a little while. Just wanted to express I very definitely do not believe "the South is a bunch of racist, KKK'ers that wave the confederate flag in ignorance."
Ty, we are just "rebellious" that's all. However, not every one turned the corner. A conversation with an x co-worker and he as much told me that. Scared me, I'm not scared of nothing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However, not every one turned the corner. A conversation with an x co-worker and he as much told me that. 
