Texas school board bans confederate flag

I know it sucks, people don't want their ancestors to be stereotyped black hating racists for supporting a movement aimed at protecting states' rights.

 

Yes it is, because the Confederacy had to steal federal property to secede unilaterally.

Pointless repetition.

Your evasion of my question is noted. As for yours, it doesn't matter, because history shows that the effective majority of colonists were in sympathy with the grievances listed in the DoI - just as the effective majority of the populace of the slave states similarly affirmed its perverted sense of injustice over the threat Lincoln and his ilk posed to the institution of slavery by its actions.

So they were OK with people of another race remaining enslaved as long as their comfort zone remained inviolate. How is that not racist?

That would certainly compute if states had the right of unilateral secession, but they didn't.

I doubt it.

 

LMAO!!! You r ok!!! This is great! That made my day.

Any rate, we are talking about the Confederate flag and what it represents. If you want to talk about the North and what the US flag represents, start a thread for that.

That doesn't answer the question. Can you name a Confederate state that outlawed slavery? Name just one.

Now that's hard core. Now I'm really mad at the Confederate flag. In addition to Oregon, blacks had an entire nation in the south to deal with.

 

Well at least Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Did Jefferson Davis ever say that he wanted to free the slaves in the Confederacy?

Why didn't they own any white slaves? Why only blacks as slaves?

We are talking about the Confederate flag, therefore we are talking about the South. Again, start a thread about the abuse of blacks in the US. It would be interesting. But you can't whitewash what went on in the South with what went on in the North,.

So you are saying there is nothing wrong with segregated schools?

So let me make sure I understand your position. Are you saying that if Mississippi wanted to secede from the United States today so that the whites living there could own black slaves, you would support that?

 

The Federal government's presence there (and very existence) was predicated upon a legal contract that was no longer valid, ergo it was no longer their rightful property.

The point is that the flag originated with the common soldiery of the Confederate Army who were not slave owners but poor Scots-Irish people who thought our Federal government was corrupt and usurping the Constitution.

I am not evading, only alluding to the fact that the DOI was written and signed by the elites of the day, not the people. Certainly the DOI represented the feelings of most Americans, but that does not mean there is a one-to-one correspondence between the two. You must analyze ALL the available evidence, not just one narrow subsection of it. The documents have in common that they were written by the elites of the day who used them for PROPAGANDA purposes. You cannot take them at 100% face value and must analyze them critically. A critical analysis of the evidence would lead one to believe that the southern soldiery had no reason to fight to protect slavery, as they typically did not own slaves or even necessarily benefit from its existence, as it was a competing and cheaper source of labor. In reality, the southern soldiery, while generally racist (as EVERYONE was in those days), did not rise up in opposition to the Federal government because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery, they did so because (a) they were poor and poor people always fight wars for the elites and (b) the Federal government was routinely violating their state and individual sovereignty on behalf of Northern special interest groups.

I answered your original question. The reason why the slavery propaganda was useful to the southern aristocracy is because of how extreme the rhetoric over slavery and black liberation had become at that point. Many common southerners were afraid of a violent and widespread slave revolt. You can say this makes them immoral but it doesn't change the fact that they were acting out of fear and basic self-preservation. And if I remember correctly, there are plenty of other grievances in the documents you are citing, so why are you fixating disproportionately on the slavery aspect of it?

They did and they still do and the language of the DOI clearly affirms such a right. The contract between those states and the Federal government had become null and void at that point and no longer held any legal weight over the sovereign states and people.

 

You asked....I replied.

I have no need to start a new thread. I posted info that could help disabuse you of your ignorance and see that period of history for what it was.

I see what you made of it. No problem. Carry on. I'm done here.

 

That's at variance with the historical record.

 

Texans were so racist that some of them wanted to kill all of the slaves in Texas in 1860. The made slave owners in other States look like saints.

Black Confederates in the Civil War
http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/blackcs.htm

"Black Confederates? Why haven’t we heard more about them? National Park Service historian, Ed Bearrs, stated, “I don’t want to call it a conspiracy to ignore the role of Blacks both above and below the Mason-Dixon line, but it was definitely a tendency that began around 1910” Historian, Erwin L. Jordan, Jr., calls it a “cover-up” which started back in 1865. He writes, “During my research, I came across instances where Black men stated they were soldiers, but you can plainly see where ‘soldier’ is crossed out and ‘body servant’ inserted, or ‘teamster’ on pension applications.” Another black historian, Roland Young, says he is not surprised that blacks fought. He explains that “…some, if not most, Black southerners would support their country” and that by doing so they were “demonstrating it’s possible to hate the system of slavery and love one’s country.” This is the very same reaction that most African Americans showed during the American Revolution, where they fought for the colonies, even though the British offered them freedom if they fought for them.

​

It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, “saw the elephant” also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple criteria, “Will you fight?” Historian Ervin Jordan, explains that “biracial units” were frequently organized “by local Confederate and State militia Commanders in response to immediate threats in the form of Union raids…”. Dr. Leonard Haynes, a African-American professor at Southern University, stated, “When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you’ve eliminated the history of the South.”

​

As the war came to an end, the Confederacy took progressive measures to build back up it's army. The creation of the Confederate States Colored Troops, copied after the segregated northern colored troops, came too late to be successful. Had the Confederacy been successful, it would have created the world's largest armies (at the time) consisting of black soldiers, even larger than that of the North. This would have given the future of the Confederacy a vastly different appearance than what modern day racist or anti-Confederate liberals conjecture. Not only did Jefferson Davis envision black Confederate veterans receiving bounty lands for their service, there would have been no future for slavery after the goal of 300,000 armed black CSA veterans came home after the war."
​

 

That's a sly trick, using percentages to prove a point.

Since there were so few free blacks any who owned slaves would have exceeded the percentage of whites who did. You're comparing a small sample size to a much larger sample size. That skews the results.

So if there were 30 free blacks and 10 of them owned 1 slave each the conclusion would be that a third of free blacks owned slaves.

OTOH, if there were 27 million whites and 500,000 of them owned 4 million slaves the conclusion would be that less than 2% of them owned slaves. However, the smaller percentage owned the greater number.

 

That's silly. Ft. Sumter was property of the U.S. government. Just because a bunch of loonies got drunk and thought that they could kick the Union out of federal property is stupid.

 

Because...?

Doesn't matter, any more than it would matter where the swastika originated in a discussion of what the Nazi flag represents.

Excuse me. Are you under the impression that the Constitution was signed - or even ratified - by "the people"? And if not, what the hell's your point? Do you really believe that rather than doing their bidding, those "elites" were dictating to the people in clear contravention of the DoI itself?

Even if that's true of the DoI, what difference does it make when the Constitution as originally ratified implicitly recognized it as the nation's founding document?

Taking all this at face value, these soldiers were content to gain some measure of freedom at the expense of the freedom of southern blacks. Had they rejected the Declarations of Secession and refused to fight under the auspices of the Confederate Constitution you might have a colorable argument, but they chose to support tyrants who were explicitly racist against tyrants who were not.

Yes and no. There may be some in the Cornerstone Speech, but it is nevertheless abrasively clear as to the primary concern of the seceding states:

The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.​

As for the Declarations, aside from the complaint of Texas that its borders were unprotected, I'm not aware of anything specific besides the failure to enforce the fugitive slave clause and the refusal to open the territories to slaveholders.

My "fixation" is no more "disproportionately on the slavery aspect of it" than that expressed by the documents themselves.

A right to unilateral secession? You're dreaming. For one thing, even if there were language in it that could be so interpreted, surely it is passing strange that the states unequivocally and unanimously disavowed that right just a few years later by ratifying the Articles of Confederation. For another, I should hardly have to explain to a military guy why recognition of unilateral secession would have been unthinkable in 1776.

The states relinquished their sovereignty under the AoC, and obviously didn't get it back under the Constitution.

 

It wasn't a trick. I used census figures when saying that. I didn't try to make more of it than is true as I posted the census info along with that statement.

Sure, the numbers of black slave owners was far smaller than white ones. However, the fact that there were any black slave owners that held a large number of slaves belies the default response of racism whenever slavery is mentioned.

Some snippets of what I posted earlier:

According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3).

In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings (5). In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners (6).

 

Granny says, "Well, what next...

... ya can bring a gun to school...

... but ya can't wave the Stars n' Bars...

... what's dis world comin' to?

 

They're just inanimate symbols...

It's only people's connotation of them that matters.. The civil war and what it entailed (atrocities on both sides) colors people's perceptions of the stars and bars.. But not as bad as the nazis (*)(*)(*)(*)ed over the swastika.. Now it doesn't matter which way you point it that symbol is (*)(*)(*)(*)ed for a long time to come... The stars and bars are no more better or worse than the stars and stripes really.

Many atrocities through history have happened under a banner. The only colors I even care to even bother flying is CHICAGO BEARS.

 

If it means anything your efforts were not entirely in vain. That said, it appears that you feel that the fact that the racism and other types of evil were present on the side of the North somehow minimizes the fact that they were present in the Confederacy. Honestly, the shortcomings of the US could take up many threads and endless discussion. To bring them up in a discussion on why the Confederate flag is banned in public places only serves to divert attention from the issue at hand.

Good luck.

BTW I failed to mention that I feel some sympathy for your forefathers who fought in the civil war. It is indeed tragic that many times in war, so many people die who really do not have a major stake in the motivation for the conflict.