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.
In Summerville, SC, Annie Caddell's, proudly fly's her Confederate Flag, claiming she is proud of her "Southern Heritage".
Her neighbors, have boycotted, attempted a petition to the city council and built 8 ft solid wooden fences on either side of her house to block the view from the flag.
What do you think? Does she have the right, freedom and liberty to do so?
Should she be forced to take it down?
I don't like the Confederate flag. I don't like seeing it. A person is free to fly it. It's a free nation, but it doesn't mean I like it or have any respect for it.
I don't like the Confederate flag. I don't like seeing it. A person is free to fly it. It's a free nation, but it doesn't mean I like it or have any respect for it.
Yes blame the whole state of South Carolina. Good thinking.
I thought there was nothing wrong with what she did. So why are chastizing the poster for his assertian that this type of thing was par for the course in South Carolina. I thought there was nothing wrong with it.
In Summerville, SC, Annie Caddell's, proudly fly's her Confederate Flag, claiming she is proud of her "Southern Heritage".
Her neighbors, have boycotted, attempted a petition to the city council and built 8 ft solid wooden fences on either side of her house to block the view from the flag.
What do you think? Does she have the right, freedom and liberty to do so?
Should she be forced to take it down?
it is her freedom of speech, and no matter your race, if you think she does not have that right, then you better start telling everyone else that their own freedom of speech doesnt exist aymore.
it is her freedom of speech, and no matter your race, if you think she does not have that right, then you better start telling everyone else that their own freedom of speech doesnt exist aymore.
Sure it is. Now show me just ONE book about a constroversial subject of history (which most are anyway) that is not "questioned" or "disputed" by another historian/source? Hell, Kenneth Stampp "The Peculiar Institution" has been "questioned" on the same general grounds and for the same reasons.
Sorry, but that sophomoric self-clever attempt at irony using "mammy" and happy darkies and the ol' plantation all all that cheap rhetorical crap -- thinking it flies over my head -- is not going to work. It just covers up your inablity to make a coherent and rational argument without such a crutch.
Get real and get serious. Good lord. You know damn good and well no one is defending slavery. That is just asinine. But anyway, if it suits...before resuming the discussion...go again with your predictable *yawns* speel about "the white man" and etc, etc...
What it really boils down to is that anything that goes against your own (for whatever reason) that the South was a horrid netherworld of routinely torturing and abusing black slaves as a general rule is going to upset your whole historical vision. And you cant stand it.
Thus, the counter-response is going to be that, to deny such, constitutes, "defending slavery." THAT way, it saves you the trouble of making an actual rational argument defending the original position you took. Which was, that intentional sadistic abuse was general norm in the South. Isn't that what you said? Let's start from there, if you want...
I truly love it when individuals cherry pick comments and then respond. Then finish by stating that the original premise was ignored. Additionally what’s with the attacks? If anyone is being sophomoric, it would be you as I refrained from voicing personal judgments. Stick to the points and you wouldn’t need to rely on “sophomoric†attacks. Moving on. I still hold the premise that mistreatment was rampant in the south. The very act of holding an individual as chattel is considered cruel, and unjust. Additionally I gave you a listing of individuals from that time with a plethora of firsthand accounts from these individuals and those that they knew. Rape, hobblings, beatings, and unrealistic working hours are all well documented by these accounts. Pick up Henry Louis Gates most recent work on the matter. It is a short expose on Phyllis Wheatley. Read the book and come back to me afterwards with how justly southerners treated their slaves…
[quote=rhawkins74;21041052]Yes we are black. But we also are intelligent enough to know that the confederate flag did not stand for slavery, or racism. The civil war was not about racism or slavery. it was about money and states rights.[/QUOT
The Confederate Flag was never flown on a slave ship. The Stars and Stripes was frequently seen flying on slave trading ships departing New England harbors.
The mistreatment of slaves occurred on Yankee slave ships not plantations.
LOL Ok, now you sound more reasonable. We all probably rely too much on spell-check and such.
But anyway, the point that those of your ilk (and I mean this in no note of personal disrespect) is to presume ahead of time that those of us who do not share your vision of the role of slavery are in some kind of denial as to history. As it is -- and I am a staunch Souhern Partisian -- I fully agree that slavery was an issue on an undeniable level. It was the one that brought things to a head, so to speak.
HOWEVER, it was not a moral issue and slavery itself was bound up in larger issues that had existed from the beginning. Yes, South Carolina (along with Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas) made some strong statements in their declarations that centered around slavery. At the same time though, they were never alone and unattached to other considerations. Georgia brought up the unfair tarriffs imposed on the South. Texas brought up the failure of the feds to live up to protecting settlers along the exposed frontier.
What I am saying is, it seems more to be northern apologists that cherry pick facts to justify an invasion of a people who had done them no wrong to begin with. The majority of secessionist reasons were not over slavery at all among most Southerners and not reflected as so...but what they (rightly) saw as a dangerous portention for the future on the part of the federal government controlled by northern interests with which, numerically, they could not compete. They felt it best to go their own way.
Most of this you mention is just as mythic as that you accuse Southerners of perpetuating. If for no other reason, it would make no economic sense for slave owners to systematically abuse their slaves. Nor split up families. Whether the slave owners were white or free black slave holders (and yes, there were quite a few). Far as that goes, the opposite would be true. The northern slave traders -- sold by the African slave traders -- out of profit alone -- would be those least likely to have any humanitarian and human regard for them.
Have you ever read the book "Time on the Cross"? The authors were no fans of chattel slavery...but backed up that, when it came down to actual treatment and concerns and considerations and mortality rates, it was actually slaves in the South that fared better -- on the whole -- than the average white immigrant industrial workers in the northern factories...
But back to the OP? It is a free speech issue. And that means one takes the chances of acceptance and endorcement, or ostrasicm. Personally, I will display the icons of my Southern heritage and make no apology nor excuse for doing so. Just as I will my American and Texan.
A brief correction...it WAS a moral issue to nearly 5 million blacks and many, many northerners. That issue was based on Scripture. Southern and northern Christians and blacks both slave and free used scripture to bolster their positions. Their are numerous accounts of Christian folk freeing their slaves based on the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. In an odd sense it was a moral issue with white southerners, who were convinced that God created blacks to be the burden bearers of the world. BTW, 'Time On the Cross' conclusions are hotly disputed and mostly not accepted. The conclusion that slaves were better off than white workers is total crap because the whites were...FREE!
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.
A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words 
huh?
holy cow!
a couple of corrections
