Confederate Battle Flag
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Secession wasn't ever an issue of state's rights. That's a revisionist spin. So i have no idea what you are prattling on about as you proclaim your knowledge of history, notwithstanding your inability to grasp the basic rules of capitalization, punctuation, grammar, syntax and spelling. And what was the North (the only Yankees can be found in New York) supposed to learn? That slavery was an inhumane abomination and that treason and repudiation of the Constitution should not go unchallenged? Maybe the lesson you should learn is don't pick a fight you can't possibly win and then try to claim the moral high ground. |
Anonymous
States rights is the last recourse of people who do not like the Federal Government's laws and policies. In the particular case of secession, the policy in question is slavery. The secession was about the future of slavery. |
Anonymous
Maybe you don't know your history after all. Claiming it was about "states rights" is a fly on the rump of the conflict - It was specifically about ONE and ONLY ONE right - the right to practice slavery - and in fact, what brought it to a head was the Southern states' push to expand slavery into the western territories. And additionally, I suggest you read up on what Robert E. Lee had to say about the flag after the war ended. You know, Robert E. Lee, the man who was the commanding general of the entire Confederate Army? He said the flag should never be flown again. He said the flag needed to be laid to rest in order for the nation's wounds to heal. No confederate flags or other symbols of the Confederacy were displayed in his presence while he was alive, and even at his funeral, there were no symbols of the Confederacy. And unlike you and the rest of the neo-Confederate pretenders, he was *actually there* and knew far more about what was best for the nation than you or anyone else ever could or ever will. |
Anonymous
|
Sorry that's just a bunch of bs- plenty of confederates displayed the flag proudly.
Slavery would have died out in any case as it did over most of the world and frankly the north has a lot culpabity in the slave trade like your brown university. Jews too were big in the slave trade. Anyway this is all a bunch of hocus pocus/ you'll pry my flag from my cold dead hands. |
Anonymous
|
"This was no less true on the North American mainland, where during the eighteenth century Jews participated in the 'triangular trade' that brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies and there exchanged them for molasses, which in turn was taken to New England and converted into rum for sale in Africa. Isaac Da Costa of Charleston in the 1750's, David Franks of Philadelphia in the 1760's, and Aaron Lopez of Newport in the late 1760's and early 1770's dominated Jewish slave trading on the American continent."
|
Anonymous
|
Rhode Islanders dominated the North American share of the African slave trade, mount- ing over a thousand slaving voyages in the century before the abolition of the trade in 1807 (and scores more illegal voyages thereafter).
http://www.brown.edu/Research/Slavery_Justice/documents/SlaveryAndJustice.pdf |
Anonymous
|
Lopez expanded his trade beyond the North American coastline and by 1757 had major interests in the West Indian trade.[7] He also sent ships to Europe and the Canary Islands.[8] Between 1761 and 1774, Lopez was involved in the slave trade.[9] While The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews describes Lopez as "Newport's leading participant in the Black Holocaust", historian Eli Faber determined Lopez underwrote 21 slave ships during a period in which Newport sent a total of 347 slave ships to Africa, and Faber described Lopez's ventures in the slave trade as "an infinitesimal part" of the British slave trade.[10] By the beginning of the American Revolution, Lopez owned or controlled 30 vessels.[11]
By the early 1770s, Lopez had become the wealthiest person in Newport; his tax assessment was twice that of any other resident.[12][13] The reason he was successful was that his business interests were so diverse. He manufactured spermaceti candles, ships, barrels, rum, and chocolate. He had business interests in the production of textiles, clothes, shoes, hats, and bottles.[14] Ezra Stiles, the Congregational minister in Newport and future president of Yale College, described Lopez as "a merchant of the first eminence" and wrote that the "extent of [his] commerce probably [was] surpassed by no merchant in America".[15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Lopez |
Anonymous
|
A list of the leading slave merchants is almost identical with a list of the region's prominent families: the Fanueils, Royalls, and Cabots of Massachusetts; the Wantons, Browns, and Champlins of Rhode Island; the Whipples of New Hampshire; the Eastons of Connecticut; Willing & Morris of Philadelphia. To this day, it's difficult to find an old North institution of any antiquity that isn't tainted by slavery. Ezra Stiles imported slaves while president of Yale. Six slave merchants served as mayor of Philadelphia. Even a liberal bastion like Brown University has the shameful blot on its escutcheon. It is named for the Brown brothers, Nicholas, John, Joseph, and Moses, manufacturers and traders who shipped salt, lumber, meat -- and slaves. And like many business families of the time, the Browns had indirect connections to slavery via rum distilling. John Brown, who paid half the cost of the college's first library, became the first Rhode Islander prosecuted under the federal Slave Trade Act of 1794 and had to forfeit his slave ship. Historical evidence also indicates that slaves were used at the family's candle factory in Providence, its ironworks in Scituate, and to build Brown's University Hall.[4]
Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South. Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806. The financial base of New England's antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping. And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean. Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans. Long after the U.S. slave trade officially ended, the more extensive movement of Africans to Brazil and Cuba continued. The U.S. Navy never was assiduous in hunting down slave traders. The much larger British Navy was more aggressive, and it attempted a blockade of the slave coast of Africa, but the U.S. was one of the few nations that did not permit British patrols to search its vessels, so slave traders continuing to bring human cargo to Brazil and Cuba generally did so under the U.S. flag. They also did so in ships built for the purpose by Northern shipyards, in ventures financed by Northern manufacturers. In a notorious case, the famous schooner-yacht Wanderer, pride of the New York Yacht Club, put in to Port Jefferson Harbor in April 1858 to be fitted out for the slave trade. Everyone looked the other way -- which suggests this kind of thing was not unusual -- except the surveyor of the port, who reported his suspicions to the federal officials. The ship was seized and towed to New York, but her captain talked (and possibly bought) his way out and was allowed to sail for Charleston, S.C. Fitting out was completed there, the Wanderer was cleared by Customs, and she sailed to Africa where she took aboard some 600 blacks. On Nov. 28, 1858, she reached Jekyll Island, Georgia, where she illegally unloaded the 465 survivors of what is generally called the last shipment of slaves to arrive in the United States. |
Anonymous
BULL SHIT! It wasn't going to "die out" - again, what led to the escalation to war was the South's desire to EXPAND slavery into the western territories! There were actually brawls on the floor of Congress over it prior to the South's secession! Just more spin, bullshit and deflection from you. You are full of crap. You just go on waving your flag and we'll know who the ignorant racists are. |
Anonymous
No one is trying to take your flag away. Feel free to put it on your truck, wear it as a poncho. You can even make your own brand of stars and bars cigarettes and celebrate two freedoms at once. But the notion that "slavery would have died out" is sort of ridiculous. You are basically saying that slaves should have been content waiting until technology made them obsolete as property. Not exactly the kind of justice you would want if you were a slave. |
Anonymous
|
There is no reason to think slavery would have continued in the CSA -- too many long term trends were against it. The last country to abolish slavery in the americas was brazil in 1888...
The CSA constitution abolished the slave trade and permitted individual states to abolish slavery. |
Anonymous
You are just talking hypotheticals and speculations, whereas I am talking FACTS and it is a FACT that the South was working to EXPAND the practice of slavery into the western territories. Read up on what transpired around slavery all throughout the mid-to-late 1850s in the territories, and read up on the debates and battles fought in Congress before the South seceded. Again, it is a WELL DOCUMENTED FACT that the South was not allowing slavery to fade away. |
Anonymous
| Blacks got equal pay in the confederate army; not in the union forces. |
Anonymous
Oh, is this Compassionate Slavery? |
Anonymous
So... on one hand, equal pay. On the other hand, Slavery! What's next, are you going to compare benefit packages? Free healthcare, subsidized housing? Guaranteed employment for life? |