The Confederate Flag

And, they were greedy because they hired people to make them money rather than getting rich off the backs of slaves?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

imho
slavery was a minor issue for most of the southern states
some of the targeted tariffs were over 100%
eg on nails, barrel hoops, iron tires for wagon wheels, axes, plows, etc...
.................
ok, this country realized soon on that they would need to industrialize if they hoped to be considered among the great nations. the first tariff was on gunpowder--which allowed dupont to create a facility for producing enough to satisfy our domestic needs. -----then steel and iron---the morrill tariff greatly favored the budding pennsylvania steel industry, but harmed the southern consumer who was forced to by overpriced northern goods instead of imports. It seems that most in the agrarian south felt that these tariffs harmed their economy and way of life, while favoring other people.
The tariffs were anathema to free trade.

meanwhile
less than 20% of the population of the south were slave owners(it was higher in south carolina)
many of those slave owners only owned one slave
many of those slave owners were black---it was not uncommon for a free black person to buy their spouse or child out of slavery, and then not fill out the emancipation papers---so that the purchased family member was still listed as a slave.

ok slavery was an issue for some in the south, and some in the north.

however, from the tariffs of 1816 to the looming tariff of 1860 the south had fought against higher tariffs including the nullification crisis.
(funny story there, jackson and the congress created the force act which allowed jackson to use the army to force payment------then he backed off on the high tariff, and south carolina voted down their act of nullification----and then as a parting gesture voted to nullify the force act within the borders of south carolina)
the north had more people, and usually controlled the house of representatives.
politically, the southern agrarian states were fighting a losing political battle.

ok
2 years into the war, the north was losing.
Lincoln wrote that if he could save the union by freeing the slaves, he would do it--if he could save the union by freeing some slaves, he would do it---if he could save the union by not freeing any slaves, he would do it.

A few weeks later he delivered the emancipation proclamation which freed exactly zero slaves.
perhaps in an effort to create a fifth column?
after that
the war became about slavery
(you look like less of an asshole if you are fighting to free the slaves
instead of fighting to create radical tariffs?)

......................................................................................................
as re stone mountain
if people want to act like depraved iconoclastic savages
the taliban has already shown them how to erase monuments.

.................................................

Alexander Tytler
may or may not have written or said:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury.
After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result
the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy

for the people of pennsylvania and new jersey-----Lincoln was that candidate
and, vote for him they did.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes particularly the aspect of how it's value may be degraded by the links to the KKK or if we can simply overlook that aspect.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah yes the Morrill tariffs, it's like condemning the whole nation to leprosy. Read the Confederate states' independence proclamations, Morrill gets mentioned dozens of times and slavery isn't even mentioned once. Any prosperous nation would find itself instantly at war without delay if their government started speculating about new taxes.

Southern commoners who couldn't afford slaves still had the same mentality as you do here in the present- nearly all of them expected to be rich one day, and most of them wanted to be able to own slaves when that happened. Plus there's no glory in being a white Christian if you still get ranked in the same category as blacks, they needed something to feel superior to.

This isn't about Lincoln's motivations, it's about the Confederacy's excuses for starting the war to protect slavery.

Yeah what kind of savage monkey would want to take a KKK statue down in this day and age? Let's erect statues to Louis Farrakhan and Osama Bin Laden in Central Park NY rather than tearing down other people's cherished hate symbols.

Democracy can only exist as long as we openly recognize the intentions of people like yourself to dismantle it.

 

CptBork
I see that you have chosen ignorance as a place to make your stand.

The sad thing is that this particular ignorance has people acting as if the claims were actually true.
smoke and mirrors

as/re

how nice of you to speak for people you do not/didn't know---will never know
Now
do you think you could say something nice about them?

 

Their economy and lifestyle was entirely based on hereditary ownership of vast tracts of land serviced by slavery. Moreover, they intended to start up the African slave trade again. That was very much a part of their notion of 'free trade' as was the bypassing of federal taxes in order to increase their overseas trade of slave-produced cotton and tobacco for cheap/child-labour produced manufactured goods from Europe instead of the northern industrial states.
Tariffs played an important role in the early development of secessionist constitutional theory. But as an object of antebellum national political discussion, tariffs occupied a distant secondary place behind slavery.

The same landowners who also held 90% of the political and economic power.

What would you vote for, in not benefits? Funny, I don't see any fiscally irresponsible promises in Lincoln's election platform. The argument seems to center on his resolutions to keep the union intact and contain slavery within previously established boundaries.

 

Firstly thank you for your well considered reply.

You may hold that opinion but honestly slavery was an issue and slavery is not ever a minor issue.

What you are saying is it was about the money... I suggest both slaves and tariffs are about the money.

Maybe you have been so annoyed that folk leave tariffs out of the discussion that you now hold a view that perhaps has pushed the aspect of slavery a little too far to the back of the bus.
I am not convinced that slavery was an after thought.
Even if it was that still leaves folk going to war because they couldn't get their own way over tariffs which I expect was something a developing nation may have needed.

That is their point I expect...if you want to grow local industry you don't want imports to make their chances of getting established impossible due to free trade seeing the local product not competitive.

To dislike higher costs of products is one thing but to go to war for that reason is really treason as you are not supporting policy that is in the best interest of the "whole" nation.

Personally I don't care what the confederate folk put up as justification they will never be able to justify going to war against their own to me and this bullshit that they are honourable god fearing folk proud of their past neglects admitting what they did was just so very very wrong and should not be seen as virtue but as something disgusting. Plus they lost..move on work on an identity that you can be proud of.

They are up themselves fantasizing they are something that they are not and being proud about a history one should be happy to forget rather than make out as something honourable, is just unbelievable..where are these people's heads? When was a war a good thing? When was being on the losing side of a civil war fought against the best interest of the nation a good thing...this pride in that flag is just so very wrong but mostly because it is pure delusion. And that's well before we get to the racisism that flag represents..local pride..sure and yet the KKK fly it with pride...Yes pride a deadly sin..very bad because folk think pride is good..it's not it is evil..look how pride hides the reality of the civil war.

That is so cheap and demonstrates you are not being rational if you care to think about what you have just said.

Please stop trying to defend and seriously rationally think about the two.

Did you miss who started the carving? Anyways there is no point in me pointing out the obvious it seems your views are set but from the outside it makes those who support the carving the park etc a laughing stock ..but you probably will never see why.

Quotes carry no weight for me at all...I can say something short and sweet that sounds good enough to write down but it is only a passing thought...if I was prepared to waste my time I could show the opposite to be true of your quote...but a quote is just irrelevant and too general.

I was surprised the percentage of slave ownership was so high.
Your approach of it not being all that bad is a worry ... are you one of these folk who defend slavery in the bible? Like it was really just the norm and that we who call it out just don't understand.

Alex

 

He wasn't speaking for them [the white southerners who didn't own any slaves], he was speaking about them, and not saying anything that is not clearly evident in the actions of those unknown people, then, since and now.
PS If CaptBork doesn't think of something nice to say about those people, I'll try:
They didn't make their false idols out of gold but a more serious, more robust bronze.
Something nice I could say to those people:
Nice flags. Choose one.

 

The difference is that some claims can be verified by historical documentation, others can't.

Do you have a time machine so you can tell what the common opinion was any more than I can? I base my assessment on what Confederates stated in their own writings, I don't see a reason not to take those words at face value. Read the Washington Post article I linked to or any other reputable Civil War fact checks. Not owning slaves made little difference to the ambitions of people who thought they would one day own some.

Once again I ask you how many mentions were made of overbearing tariffs as opposed to retaining slaves, when the Confederate states issued their independence declarations? Did they subsequently implement 100 years of segregation after losing the war because the majority sympathized with the emancipation movement?

 

Why don't journalists question Kayleigh McEnany's answer about why there is an increase in cases of covid-19?

If the increase in cases is because of an increase in testing, why are more people being admitted to hospital with respiratory problems who then test positive following their admission? So, duh, they don't get sick after the test, they get sick before the test. How does she explain that, and why doesn't someone challenge her answer?

Is Kayleigh in fact lying to everyone's face? Clue: yes, she is. Her answer is fucking meaningless and illustrates how much she cares. She also seems to be well aware that she's lying, and how good she is at it.

 

Wake up America !

Trump cares more about his reelection than people dying.

 

Ah do declaeh, they had the most finely trimmed and sturdy beards, and the sweet as succotash hymns issuing forth from their banjo brigades outshone the very best of the *censored* heathens' filthy work songs.

 

LOL, nicely done.

For comparison, consider the following response regarding the confederate flag from none other than Stone Cold Steve Austin, a genuine southern man who is not stuck in the past:

Excerpt:
Fan April Vickery commented on his Instagram in the symbol's defense, using a defense many southerners have deployed in the past to evade the flag's racist legacy. "For us it wasn’t a sign of hatred or hate or ignorance," she wrote, "it’s a sign of Southern Pride a pride in who you are where you come from the people who come from the people you know stood for heritage lineage family and pride never stood for hate ever."

Steve's Response:
"That’s nice and all but if I recall it don’t matter what it means to you because to African Americans everywhere it’s a symbol of oppression, hatred and inequality so your little ‘heritage not hate’ story don’t mean shit because your stupid little heritage was built on the backs of slaves and identifying with that kinda sorta definitely makes you trash in the Texas Rattlesnake’s eyes. So you can continue to spew your bullshit but just know that none of us care ya dumb racist sumbitch and that’s the bottom line."

Link:
https://www.maxim.com/news/stone-cold-steve-austin-destroys-fan-confederate-flag

 

The good news is it's a new KKK out there ..good Christian folk...just look at this and you can feel a whole lot better about the confederate flag and Southern pride... I just love the wonderful costumes, the burning cross..enough to make anyone proud.

And helps us decent folk here get some idea of the kinda folk certain cretins on this site support and defend. Check the interview with the white supremacist...I find it hard to believe there are people like that yet there he is...what a dingbat...but god is on their side I guess.




It is just sickening to watch the videos on you tube showing the folk who fly the confederate flag.

It is so very clear that flag represents a slice of evil like no other.

Alex

 

When do we ever see people waving around the Confederate flag while doing something even mildly heroic for human rights, or even just confronting assholes like the dude featured above?

 

Alex, your mention of back of the bus there, was there something more to it?
Back of the bus... Rosa Parks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks#Refusal_to_move

 

The back of the bus is where all the cool kids sit. The Confeds were trying to do her a favour.

 

Trump cares about nothing except being president; he's been running since 1982. And now that his mentor got 'voted' yet another, even longer term... which is to say he's dictator for life, can Trump's bid for the same be far off? The attempt at invoking martial law hasn't worked, but maybe if he can get rid of a few more honest generals and incite a few more armed conflicts in the street - well, who knows? Here are people dumb enough and mad enough to fight for him; they just need a few more flash-point icons like that stupid monument.
He has only a few months to 'invalidate' or wreck the electoral system and shut it down.

 

There's this bizarre sentiment underlying all this "racism is over" nonsense, that with the abolition of slavery or the Civil Rights Act or... whatever, racism has somehow been legislated out of existence. The sheer preposterousness of this sort of thinking is rendered even more preposterous by the fact that proponents of these views very often overlap with those same people who consistently maintain that "big government" is wholly ineffectual, or worse, ultimately damaging to any cause. Can't have it both ways: government is destructive to any and all constructive ends, yet it succeeded marvelously with respect to "abolishing racism?" C'mon!

And the blindness to white privilege (here I may be alluding to another related thread) takes some serious commitment. I've been beaten senseless by cops twice in my lifetime, and both times (no exaggeration here) I was entirely innocent of any wrongdoing. First time, I was beaten while having a seizure. When I was taken to central booking in Baltimore, the look of shock on the faces of every other cop and every other "criminal" was palpable: like, how on earth does a white guy get arrested in Baltimore? And while I don't look like a "criminal" (however it is that criminals look--black, maybe?), I don't exactly look Wall Street either--IOW it's hardly inconceivable, based on gross stereotypes, that I could have committed a crime. But white people generally get a pass in Baltimore. Of the other incident, in Providence, RI, I learned over the ensuing months that the cop who bashed my skull in (effectively lowering my seizure threshold for the remainder of my days) had quite a habit of beating up black kids in my neighborhood. As far as I was concerned, I got off easy--and in no small part, almost entirely because I'm white: the backlash for murdering/disabling an "upstanding" white guy would likely have proved problematic for the Providence PD.

Being white has gotten me far too many "passes" in life to even attempt to calculate. Cops mostly ignore me, as do people prone to calling cops on "threatening" looking black men. It doesn't take a tremendous amount of reflection or soul-searching to see the myriad ways in which being a white man has afforded me a relatively hassle-free existence.

 

Ignorant straw man. No one I know of denies that racists still exist. What they do refute is that racism is some systemic, unfalsifiable boogeyman. Big difference.

You can't legislate morality, nor do conservatives think in such absolute and caricatured terms. Conservatives know that government has legit duties, like national security, protecting life, etc.. It's the left that wants big government to force their views and morality on others (fascism).

That "privilege" is simply being any demographic that isn't committing a disproportionate percent of all crimes. Asians have it (perhaps more than whites), and to a lesser relative extent, Hispanics have it too. Your personal anecdote actually belies your supposed privilege. Of course, maybe things are as you say, in Democrat-run Baltimore (last Republican mayor in 1967). That's a problem with those in charge of the system, not the system itself. Maybe people should be voting differently.