Confederate Battle Flag

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is bubba at the diner? He doesn't seem very sophisticated unlike the fine northern families who plied the slave trade.

90% of the US slave trade was operated out of Georgia and the Carolinas. Slave importation was abolished in 1808. Slavery was abolished in most of the northern states by 1820. It was the Southerners who kept on enslaving generation after generation of home grown slaves after importation was abolished.

Abolishing slavery in the northern states wasn't much of an issue as they were not dependent on slaves for their industries etc. while the agricultural crops of tobacco & cotton required lots of hands. But the north continued to profit from slavery financially after 1820 up to the Civil War. They were not averse to trading various financial instruments that directly related to slave labor. Nor were they averse to products that were directly related to slavery.

And before anyone raises the northern states based on their anti slavery lets remember that the barons of the day, and others, exploited workers with low wages, company towns, child labor. Many died due to the deplorable conditions they worked in and their freedoms so limited they were virtual slaves. That continued, and grew, throughout the 19th century.

[Anonymous]

If you don't like confederate flags, don't have one. See, it's kinda like abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody here is denying slavery existed - I simply argued it would have naturally ended without the war of northern aggression.

If slavery was going to die out then secession was pointless.

You folks seem to want the flag to be some kind of nazi symbol. Do you really believe that folks with the flag are fantasizing about capturing African Americans and enslaving them? Why is it so hard for you to understand that for most people the flag isn't about slavery today or slavery nostalgia? Slavery was a disaster for the south.

Bull. That's precisely what the flag is about. A yearning for a simpler time when men were men and women were women and blacks knew their place, and for those who didn't, there was terrible, holy hell to pay.

While I would never fly the stars and bars, nor any of the official Confederate flags, your pronouncement of what the flag is about in the hearts and minds of everyone who might, is BS. Is what you laid out true for some? Absolutely. Should it be seen as a flag associated with slavery? Absolutely. Do some see it as something different? Absolutely. Why is it so hard to understand that your premise is too inclusive and even prejudicial?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don't like confederate flags, don't have one. See, it's kinda like abortion.

right. And just like abortion it should not be sponsored by the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is bubba at the diner? He doesn't seem very sophisticated unlike the fine northern families who plied the slave trade.

90% of the US slave trade was operated out of Georgia and the Carolinas. Slave importation was abolished in 1808. Slavery was abolished in most of the northern states by 1820. It was the Southerners who kept on enslaving generation after generation of home grown slaves after importation was abolished.

Abolishing slavery in the northern states wasn't much of an issue as they were not dependent on slaves for their industries etc. while the agricultural crops of tobacco & cotton required lots of hands. But the north continued to profit from slavery financially after 1820 up to the Civil War. They were not averse to trading various financial instruments that directly related to slave labor. Nor were they averse to products that were directly related to slavery.

And before anyone raises the northern states based on their anti slavery lets remember that the barons of the day, and others, exploited workers with low wages, company towns, child labor. Many died due to the deplorable conditions they worked in and their freedoms so limited they were virtual slaves. That continued, and grew, throughout the 19th century.

That's a deflection. The North wasn't forcing the South to continue to practice slavery. The North found other ways to conduct their business and in fact it was the Northern states that continued to lead the charge in working toward equity and better conditions for workers - the North was far ahead of the South in terms of improving conditions where it came to sharecroppers and indentured servants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is bubba at the diner? He doesn't seem very sophisticated unlike the fine northern families who plied the slave trade.

90% of the US slave trade was operated out of Georgia and the Carolinas. Slave importation was abolished in 1808. Slavery was abolished in most of the northern states by 1820. It was the Southerners who kept on enslaving generation after generation of home grown slaves after importation was abolished.

Abolishing slavery in the northern states wasn't much of an issue as they were not dependent on slaves for their industries etc. while the agricultural crops of tobacco & cotton required lots of hands. But the north continued to profit from slavery financially after 1820 up to the Civil War. They were not averse to trading various financial instruments that directly related to slave labor. Nor were they averse to products that were directly related to slavery.

And before anyone raises the northern states based on their anti slavery lets remember that the barons of the day, and others, exploited workers with low wages, company towns, child labor. Many died due to the deplorable conditions they worked in and their freedoms so limited they were virtual slaves. That continued, and grew, throughout the 19th century.

That's a deflection. The North wasn't forcing the South to continue to practice slavery. The North found other ways to conduct their business and in fact it was the Northern states that continued to lead the charge in working toward equity and better conditions for workers - the North was far ahead of the South in terms of improving conditions where it came to sharecroppers and indentured servants.

You're either uninformed or in denial. No deflection, just a realistic representation of the facts. Much has been written that while the South had chattel slaves (replaced by sharecroppers and very low wage farm workers) the North had wage slaves. Many of them immigrants who had little choice. Changes in working conditions, hours and wages didn't begin until the late 19th century didn't become more common place until well into the 20th. What it boils down to is that while there are some differences the fact is that as a part of the times, sweatshops, 12 & 14 hour days 6 and sometimes 7 days a week, company towns, deplorable factory and mine conditions...all often at very low wages....they were a fact and yes it happened in the North. If they did in fact have it so good in the northern states why were they so driven to head out west and face such uncertainty and possible death? One of the reasons slavery didn't move west is it was largely settled by those from the northern states.

Now...as to firms in the North that benefited from slavery. Among them, Lehman Brothers, Aetna, New York Life and banks that made loans with slaves as collateral. Some offered slave insurance reimbursing slave owners for their deaths. Others loaned money for expansion of cotton plantations. The old axiom that cotton is king related to the money it generated as it drove industry. Ever heard of the sweatshops in New York's garment district?

This isn't to absolve slave owners, the abhorrent trade in human flesh and indifference to their well being is not to be excused even in consideration of another time and place. But this whole the South was hell and the North progressive/heaven is nonsense. There was evil and exploitation in both places and when one tries to compare they are attempting to excuse, deny, serve their own bias. Perhaps all of the above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is bubba at the diner? He doesn't seem very sophisticated unlike the fine northern families who plied the slave trade.

90% of the US slave trade was operated out of Georgia and the Carolinas. Slave importation was abolished in 1808. Slavery was abolished in most of the northern states by 1820. It was the Southerners who kept on enslaving generation after generation of home grown slaves after importation was abolished.

Abolishing slavery in the northern states wasn't much of an issue as they were not dependent on slaves for their industries etc. while the agricultural crops of tobacco & cotton required lots of hands. But the north continued to profit from slavery financially after 1820 up to the Civil War. They were not averse to trading various financial instruments that directly related to slave labor. Nor were they averse to products that were directly related to slavery.

And before anyone raises the northern states based on their anti slavery lets remember that the barons of the day, and others, exploited workers with low wages, company towns, child labor. Many died due to the deplorable conditions they worked in and their freedoms so limited they were virtual slaves. That continued, and grew, throughout the 19th century.

That's a deflection. The North wasn't forcing the South to continue to practice slavery. The North found other ways to conduct their business and in fact it was the Northern states that continued to lead the charge in working toward equity and better conditions for workers - the North was far ahead of the South in terms of improving conditions where it came to sharecroppers and indentured servants.

You're either uninformed or in denial. No deflection, just a realistic representation of the facts. Much has been written that while the South had chattel slaves (replaced by sharecroppers and very low wage farm workers) the North had wage slaves. Many of them immigrants who had little choice. Changes in working conditions, hours and wages didn't begin until the late 19th century didn't become more common place until well into the 20th. What it boils down to is that while there are some differences the fact is that as a part of the times, sweatshops, 12 & 14 hour days 6 and sometimes 7 days a week, company towns, deplorable factory and mine conditions...all often at very low wages....they were a fact and yes it happened in the North. If they did in fact have it so good in the northern states why were they so driven to head out west and face such uncertainty and possible death? One of the reasons slavery didn't move west is it was largely settled by those from the northern states.

Now...as to firms in the North that benefited from slavery. Among them, Lehman Brothers, Aetna, New York Life and banks that made loans with slaves as collateral. Some offered slave insurance reimbursing slave owners for their deaths. Others loaned money for expansion of cotton plantations. The old axiom that cotton is king related to the money it generated as it drove industry. Ever heard of the sweatshops in New York's garment district?

This isn't to absolve slave owners, the abhorrent trade in human flesh and indifference to their well being is not to be excused even in consideration of another time and place. But this whole the South was hell and the North progressive/heaven is nonsense. There was evil and exploitation in both places and when one tries to compare they are attempting to excuse, deny, serve their own bias. Perhaps all of the above.

I have bolded your false dichotomy. No one said that the antebellum North was progressive/heaven.

But the South was really, really bad to black people.

[Anonymous]

In summary, there was the not so good (the North) and the really, really bad (the South).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is bubba at the diner? He doesn't seem very sophisticated unlike the fine northern families who plied the slave trade.

90% of the US slave trade was operated out of Georgia and the Carolinas. Slave importation was abolished in 1808. Slavery was abolished in most of the northern states by 1820. It was the Southerners who kept on enslaving generation after generation of home grown slaves after importation was abolished.

Abolishing slavery in the northern states wasn't much of an issue as they were not dependent on slaves for their industries etc. while the agricultural crops of tobacco & cotton required lots of hands. But the north continued to profit from slavery financially after 1820 up to the Civil War. They were not averse to trading various financial instruments that directly related to slave labor. Nor were they averse to products that were directly related to slavery.

And before anyone raises the northern states based on their anti slavery lets remember that the barons of the day, and others, exploited workers with low wages, company towns, child labor. Many died due to the deplorable conditions they worked in and their freedoms so limited they were virtual slaves. That continued, and grew, throughout the 19th century.

That's a deflection. The North wasn't forcing the South to continue to practice slavery. The North found other ways to conduct their business and in fact it was the Northern states that continued to lead the charge in working toward equity and better conditions for workers - the North was far ahead of the South in terms of improving conditions where it came to sharecroppers and indentured servants.

You're either uninformed or in denial. No deflection, just a realistic representation of the facts. Much has been written that while the South had chattel slaves (replaced by sharecroppers and very low wage farm workers) the North had wage slaves. Many of them immigrants who had little choice. Changes in working conditions, hours and wages didn't begin until the late 19th century didn't become more common place until well into the 20th. What it boils down to is that while there are some differences the fact is that as a part of the times, sweatshops, 12 & 14 hour days 6 and sometimes 7 days a week, company towns, deplorable factory and mine conditions...all often at very low wages....they were a fact and yes it happened in the North. If they did in fact have it so good in the northern states why were they so driven to head out west and face such uncertainty and possible death? One of the reasons slavery didn't move west is it was largely settled by those from the northern states.

Now...as to firms in the North that benefited from slavery. Among them, Lehman Brothers, Aetna, New York Life and banks that made loans with slaves as collateral. Some offered slave insurance reimbursing slave owners for their deaths. Others loaned money for expansion of cotton plantations. The old axiom that cotton is king related to the money it generated as it drove industry. Ever heard of the sweatshops in New York's garment district?

This isn't to absolve slave owners, the abhorrent trade in human flesh and indifference to their well being is not to be excused even in consideration of another time and place. But this whole the South was hell and the North progressive/heaven is nonsense. There was evil and exploitation in both places and when one tries to compare they are attempting to excuse, deny, serve their own bias. Perhaps all of the above.

I have bolded your false dichotomy. No one said that the antebellum North was progressive/heaven.

But the South was really, really bad to black people.

The fact that you ignored facts given to you and singled out that one part...nothing left to say to a closed mind.

[Anonymous]

^ Not the PP you are responding to, but you seem hellbent on ignoring numerous facts about just how bad the South truly was.

Again, slavery was NOT dying out.

The Civil War WAS about slavery. That is what the whole "states rights" thing was about - the right to continue to practice slavery.

And the flag was the symbol of exactly that.

Those are absolute facts that cannot be ignored or denied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is bubba at the diner? He doesn't seem very sophisticated unlike the fine northern families who plied the slave trade.

90% of the US slave trade was operated out of Georgia and the Carolinas. Slave importation was abolished in 1808. Slavery was abolished in most of the northern states by 1820. It was the Southerners who kept on enslaving generation after generation of home grown slaves after importation was abolished.

Abolishing slavery in the northern states wasn't much of an issue as they were not dependent on slaves for their industries etc. while the agricultural crops of tobacco & cotton required lots of hands. But the north continued to profit from slavery financially after 1820 up to the Civil War. They were not averse to trading various financial instruments that directly related to slave labor. Nor were they averse to products that were directly related to slavery.

And before anyone raises the northern states based on their anti slavery lets remember that the barons of the day, and others, exploited workers with low wages, company towns, child labor. Many died due to the deplorable conditions they worked in and their freedoms so limited they were virtual slaves. That continued, and grew, throughout the 19th century.

That's a deflection. The North wasn't forcing the South to continue to practice slavery. The North found other ways to conduct their business and in fact it was the Northern states that continued to lead the charge in working toward equity and better conditions for workers - the North was far ahead of the South in terms of improving conditions where it came to sharecroppers and indentured servants.

You're either uninformed or in denial. No deflection, just a realistic representation of the facts. Much has been written that while the South had chattel slaves (replaced by sharecroppers and very low wage farm workers) the North had wage slaves. Many of them immigrants who had little choice. Changes in working conditions, hours and wages didn't begin until the late 19th century didn't become more common place until well into the 20th. What it boils down to is that while there are some differences the fact is that as a part of the times, sweatshops, 12 & 14 hour days 6 and sometimes 7 days a week, company towns, deplorable factory and mine conditions...all often at very low wages....they were a fact and yes it happened in the North. If they did in fact have it so good in the northern states why were they so driven to head out west and face such uncertainty and possible death? One of the reasons slavery didn't move west is it was largely settled by those from the northern states.

Now...as to firms in the North that benefited from slavery. Among them, Lehman Brothers, Aetna, New York Life and banks that made loans with slaves as collateral. Some offered slave insurance reimbursing slave owners for their deaths. Others loaned money for expansion of cotton plantations. The old axiom that cotton is king related to the money it generated as it drove industry. Ever heard of the sweatshops in New York's garment district?

This isn't to absolve slave owners, the abhorrent trade in human flesh and indifference to their well being is not to be excused even in consideration of another time and place. But this whole the South was hell and the North progressive/heaven is nonsense. There was evil and exploitation in both places and when one tries to compare they are attempting to excuse, deny, serve their own bias. Perhaps all of the above.

I have bolded your false dichotomy. No one said that the antebellum North was progressive/heaven.

But the South was really, really bad to black people.

The fact that you ignored facts given to you and singled out that one part...nothing left to say to a closed mind.

It was your central argument. The previous paragraphs were just your attempt to support it. You blew it at the conclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is bubba at the diner? He doesn't seem very sophisticated unlike the fine northern families who plied the slave trade.

90% of the US slave trade was operated out of Georgia and the Carolinas. Slave importation was abolished in 1808. Slavery was abolished in most of the northern states by 1820. It was the Southerners who kept on enslaving generation after generation of home grown slaves after importation was abolished.

Abolishing slavery in the northern states wasn't much of an issue as they were not dependent on slaves for their industries etc. while the agricultural crops of tobacco & cotton required lots of hands. But the north continued to profit from slavery financially after 1820 up to the Civil War. They were not averse to trading various financial instruments that directly related to slave labor. Nor were they averse to products that were directly related to slavery.

And before anyone raises the northern states based on their anti slavery lets remember that the barons of the day, and others, exploited workers with low wages, company towns, child labor. Many died due to the deplorable conditions they worked in and their freedoms so limited they were virtual slaves. That continued, and grew, throughout the 19th century.

That's a deflection. The North wasn't forcing the South to continue to practice slavery. The North found other ways to conduct their business and in fact it was the Northern states that continued to lead the charge in working toward equity and better conditions for workers - the North was far ahead of the South in terms of improving conditions where it came to sharecroppers and indentured servants.

You're either uninformed or in denial. No deflection, just a realistic representation of the facts. Much has been written that while the South had chattel slaves (replaced by sharecroppers and very low wage farm workers) the North had wage slaves. Many of them immigrants who had little choice. Changes in working conditions, hours and wages didn't begin until the late 19th century didn't become more common place until well into the 20th. What it boils down to is that while there are some differences the fact is that as a part of the times, sweatshops, 12 & 14 hour days 6 and sometimes 7 days a week, company towns, deplorable factory and mine conditions...all often at very low wages....they were a fact and yes it happened in the North. If they did in fact have it so good in the northern states why were they so driven to head out west and face such uncertainty and possible death? One of the reasons slavery didn't move west is it was largely settled by those from the northern states.

Now...as to firms in the North that benefited from slavery. Among them, Lehman Brothers, Aetna, New York Life and banks that made loans with slaves as collateral. Some offered slave insurance reimbursing slave owners for their deaths. Others loaned money for expansion of cotton plantations. The old axiom that cotton is king related to the money it generated as it drove industry. Ever heard of the sweatshops in New York's garment district?

This isn't to absolve slave owners, the abhorrent trade in human flesh and indifference to their well being is not to be excused even in consideration of another time and place. But this whole the South was hell and the North progressive/heaven is nonsense. There was evil and exploitation in both places and when one tries to compare they are attempting to excuse, deny, serve their own bias. Perhaps all of the above.

I have bolded your false dichotomy. No one said that the antebellum North was progressive/heaven.

But the South was really, really bad to black people.

The fact that you ignored facts given to you and singled out that one part...nothing left to say to a closed mind.

This is nothing but a lengthy attempt to deflect from how bad the South was, via 'tu quoque' fallacy in rhetoric. It changes NOTHING about how bad the South was - or, how much worse the South was. Sorry, fallacious.

[Anonymous]

The "no one is innocent" argument fails miserably. Some bank insuring slaves is not the same as whipping them and putting them in chains. That's like saying Coca Cola was guilty for imprisoning Nelson Mandela, because they sold soda in South Africa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is bubba at the diner? He doesn't seem very sophisticated unlike the fine northern families who plied the slave trade.

90% of the US slave trade was operated out of Georgia and the Carolinas. Slave importation was abolished in 1808. Slavery was abolished in most of the northern states by 1820. It was the Southerners who kept on enslaving generation after generation of home grown slaves after importation was abolished.

Abolishing slavery in the northern states wasn't much of an issue as they were not dependent on slaves for their industries etc. while the agricultural crops of tobacco & cotton required lots of hands. But the north continued to profit from slavery financially after 1820 up to the Civil War. They were not averse to trading various financial instruments that directly related to slave labor. Nor were they averse to products that were directly related to slavery.

And before anyone raises the northern states based on their anti slavery lets remember that the barons of the day, and others, exploited workers with low wages, company towns, child labor. Many died due to the deplorable conditions they worked in and their freedoms so limited they were virtual slaves. That continued, and grew, throughout the 19th century.

That's a deflection. The North wasn't forcing the South to continue to practice slavery. The North found other ways to conduct their business and in fact it was the Northern states that continued to lead the charge in working toward equity and better conditions for workers - the North was far ahead of the South in terms of improving conditions where it came to sharecroppers and indentured servants.

You're either uninformed or in denial. No deflection, just a realistic representation of the facts. Much has been written that while the South had chattel slaves (replaced by sharecroppers and very low wage farm workers) the North had wage slaves. Many of them immigrants who had little choice. Changes in working conditions, hours and wages didn't begin until the late 19th century didn't become more common place until well into the 20th. What it boils down to is that while there are some differences the fact is that as a part of the times, sweatshops, 12 & 14 hour days 6 and sometimes 7 days a week, company towns, deplorable factory and mine conditions...all often at very low wages....they were a fact and yes it happened in the North. If they did in fact have it so good in the northern states why were they so driven to head out west and face such uncertainty and possible death? One of the reasons slavery didn't move west is it was largely settled by those from the northern states.

Now...as to firms in the North that benefited from slavery. Among them, Lehman Brothers, Aetna, New York Life and banks that made loans with slaves as collateral. Some offered slave insurance reimbursing slave owners for their deaths. Others loaned money for expansion of cotton plantations. The old axiom that cotton is king related to the money it generated as it drove industry. Ever heard of the sweatshops in New York's garment district?

This isn't to absolve slave owners, the abhorrent trade in human flesh and indifference to their well being is not to be excused even in consideration of another time and place. But this whole the South was hell and the North progressive/heaven is nonsense. There was evil and exploitation in both places and when one tries to compare they are attempting to excuse, deny, serve their own bias. Perhaps all of the above.

I have bolded your false dichotomy. No one said that the antebellum North was progressive/heaven.

But the South was really, really bad to black people.

The fact that you ignored facts given to you and singled out that one part...nothing left to say to a closed mind.

It was your central argument. The previous paragraphs were just your attempt to support it. You blew it at the conclusion.

This was the conclusion..."There was evil and exploitation in both places and when one tries to compare they are attempting to excuse, deny, serve their own bias. Perhaps all of the above." And is supported by the facts that you are ignoring as if I am attempting to balance one with the other while what I am doing is shining a light on all of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The "no one is innocent" argument fails miserably. Some bank insuring slaves is not the same as whipping them and putting them in chains. That's like saying Coca Cola was guilty for imprisoning Nelson Mandela, because they sold soda in South Africa.

No one said it was the same as beating and chaining but what fails is your ignoring facts. And your attempt at the comparison...failure as well. If a bank is loaning money for the purchase of slaves, holding slaves as collateral and financed the expansion of slave plantations that is an active participation by facilitation.

Let's say there is a slave owner that doesn't beat or kill his slaves. But, he sells one of his slaves to someone that he knows full well does and that slave dies. No intelligent person is going to say he killed that slave but no intelligent person is going to completely absolve the first owner either.

Oh...btw...companies that were selling goods and services in Apartheid South Africa, along with universities such as Columbia who had investments there, came under heavy fire for doing so. Coca Cola even divested itself of the operations there selling to black investors. Why? Because continuing to do business with South Africa was seen as passive support and allowed them to continue with what they were doing. Divestiture was a big factor in the end of Apartheid.

What would have happened if the North cut off support? What if they hadn't continued buying cotton and running their sweatshops? Maybe nothing. But maybe it would have helped to end slavery. We'll never know because they didn't.