Southern Secession

Oh yeah, you're really schooling us

So you count families as owning slaves instead of individual slaveowners. So a man and woman have 3.5 kids and all those kids are slave owners...according to you and your dumbass table.

So you can take that 316,632 number and multiply it by 36%, eliminating the kids. 113,987 slave owners/5,582,222 = 2%

 

The people so upset by the Confederate flag would not even know if a Bonnie Blue flag was staring them in the face.

 

There were about 60,000 slaveowners that owned 1 slave in the Confederate states.
6% of the families in the South had at least one slave, get it?
This includes single person "families", see the source data.
No need to be an incel in the South if you could wiggle together enough cash to succeed at the auction block?

The next group is about 36,000 slaveowners, and at two slaves each, they equal this interesting distribution that flat lines in accumulative slaves up to < 10 per owner.
Steady at about 88,000 in cohorts of owners:
Slaves Owners
58171 58171
72038 36019
82695 27565
etc...

Then we can see indeed a clear demarcation that supports partially the assertion that the only slavery going on was in the big plantations: the Amazon Jeff Bezos equivalents of the Sunny South.

So, about of a fifth of the slaves were treated like family, some even like girlfriends.

 

Quite frankly Bill you are not exactly showing your chops at handling math with this assertion.
You sure you wanna stick with this?

 

Really? What would have been your recommended sentence for R.E. Lee? Or better yet, J.F. Davis?

 

What's the new holiday we celebrate on June 19th about?

 

You don’t celebrate it is my bet, so why write this post as though you include yourself as doing so?

 

Why not simply answer the question instead of trying to deflect and make it about me instead?

It's the day Lincoln freed the slaves..... In the south. But of course the average person celebrating it has no clue about that.

 

You chose to include yourself as a member of our society that celebrates Juneteenth when you used the pronoun we, but you have recently posted that you judge blacks as rude and unworthy of your respect, hence my question concerns first, are you including yourself in the celebration, or, rather are you using “we” in a generic sense to cast scorn upon our nation for recognizing this as a Federal Holiday. Secondly, your derision will only find favor among members of your tribe with respect to your assertion that most of the folks who do actually celebrate Juneteenth do so simply to get full without any knowledge of why they celebrate. Personally, I celebrate life everyday in a very small and insignificant way. I didn’t attend any celebrations for Memorial Day, Juneteenth, or the 4th of July. So, your seemingly absurd point was to attempt to make the point that no one even understands the significance of Juneteenth? Seriously?

 

I am so tired of that leftist propaganda outright lie about Florida. I know several high school students, and they assure me that, despite what you and others keep spreading to gain political leverage, they are still learning about slavery the same as I did as a student in Florida, so can we please put that to rest?

Next up, this entire debate is more nuanced than many people want to believe. My whole life, I've heard the competing theories... That the Civil War was about slavery, oh wait, no, it's about saving the union, and as Lincoln said, paraphrased, 'If I can save the union without ending slavery, I'll do that, or if I can save the union with ending slavery, I'll do that, too. The truth is that it was about BOTH! I saw a show on Smithsonian or one of those other nerdy channels, and it was about 4 hours in total that examined precisely this question. I wish I remembered the name of it, alas I do not, but look around and you might find it, if you do, please let me know what it is.

What they presented was based on all kinds of historical research, and while what I'm about to say oversimplifies it greatly (4 hour show, remember), the reality is that at first, it was about saving the Union and that was it. It was only as the war drug on that the policies of Lincoln and the entire Yankee leadership to make it about slavery as well.

That was a wise choice, as I would hate to have seen how history turned out if slavery had not been defeated when it was, to the point that I fear it might actually still be with us, though I'd like to think not. However, speculating about that is a fool's errand, because the fact is there is no way to know. It was not a popular issue all the way back to the founding, when some of our Founders wanted to end it then, but reality got in the way, and they realized that if they tried to force that at that time, the Constitution itself would never be ratified, so they held their noses and let it be. For then. I believe, and someone with more knowledge than I might be able to expound on it, that they fully intended and expected it to end at some point.

Which brings us to the three fifths "compromise", which is not as bad as it appears with a casual glance. After all, labeling someone as only having the value of 3/5ths of a person sounds downright insulting, right? But there is a twist.

You see, if slaves had been counted as whole persons, the slave states, and southern states in general, would have had more representatives in the House, and by extension, they would have had a larger, more powerful voting block, that may have headed off the Civil War, and saved a lot of lives, which is good, but... Slavery may have continued for who knows how much longer. So if you can get over your initial emotional reaction to the concept and realize how ingenious it was, and what a subtle trap it was for those states, which they likely didn't even notice, it ends up being a good thing!

So, not everything fits in nice little if/then/else buckets, as there are sometimes competing agendas and hidden in plain sight traps for the pro-slavery forces that ultimately at the very least contributed to their demise.

 

Can you just stick to the Target instead of going on a personal diatribe about me?

First of all I never said all of anyone does all of anything. Second of all I suggest you go and read the post I was responding to before you butted and tried to make it about me.

Did you not get the memo it's now a federal holiday? That means it applies to everyone.

 

Those tokens are very cool, and while I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess I probably can't afford one, I would love to get my hands on one if they are in a reasonable range.

As for the Federal Government's authority to end slavery, the answer is yes, but at the same time no. They could have done it, but the only legal way was through a Constitutional Amendment, which did come at the end of the war, but the Emancipation Proclamation, as influential and important to history as it was, was an Unconstitutional use of Executive power that did not exist. The President isn't even involved in the process of passing Amendments, as they are proposed by the House (and maybe Senate, hopefully someone can tell me that answer), and once they achieve a 2/3rds majority, it's sent to the States for ratification. Pre-civil war and pre-emancipation Proclamation, I don't think they could have gotten 3/4ths of the existing States to ratify it.

But, the way history turned out, whether or not Lincoln's proclamation was technically legal, it still worked, and when the South conceded and surrendered, they had no choice but to ratify the Reconstruction Amendments as a condition for readmittance.

I am a believer that many to most things happen for a reason, including bad things like my disability, though I have yet to figure out the reason for that! But, back on topic, everything worked out, and before anyone could challenge the Constitutionality of the Proclamation, it was too late as the war was over and the Amendments were done quickly enough to render that point moot. It cost a lot of blood and treasure, on both sides, often by people who really had no other good choices to put some coins in their pocket, but who may not have cared all that much about the outcome, other than trying to not die or get badly injured. Sadly, many did die, and I expect that also dampened the growth of the US population for several decades as most people killed and wounded were prime baby-making age, so many babies that would have otherwise been born, were not. But, for better or worse, even that downside was, IMNSHO, very much worth it. I have ancestors who fought for the Union, an ancestor who was an aide to Gen. Washington in the Amrev, and an ancestor who was the 2nd POTUS. You get 3 guess who that was, without looking it up, and the first two don't count!

 

It absolutely does not apply to everyone. I’ve worked for several F500 companies that completely ignore US Federal holidays, and I reckon you didn’t get any consideration for it from your employer.

Cry me a ****ing river brah, your point was not to disparage the holiday or the societal impact of the date’s significance? Please.

 

Here's the post I was responding to that you butted in the middle of. Maybe the astute reader can put the pieces together.

My post was relevant because the average person thinks Juneteenth was the day the slaves were freed. Sure if you mean the ones in the south.

Instead of actually addressing that you felt the need to make up some BS about me.
Now instead of addressing the post you'll probably just go on to continue doing more of that.

 

HONEST, SUBSTANTIVE AND MATURE DEBATE OR "...FUN TO POKE AT THEM..."

Re:

While I expected as much, it's nice to finally hear you admit that when it comes to debating the Holocaust you still have no intention of honest, substantive and mature debate.
Instead, your agenda is still not to engage in serious and informed discussion about the Holocaust but rather to "poke at" individuals expecting an honest and sincere debate as per forum rules.

If previous attempts to discuss that topic with you are any indication, your "poking" will include the usual evasions, obfuscations, refusal to answer questions and slander common to people gullible enough to believe physically impossible holocaust myths.

Even the term: "Holocaust denialist" (aka "Holocaust denier") is a fraudulent misnomer because no one here has claimed that the Holocaust didn't happen.
Instead, the vast majority of the world does not believe the inflated numbers, grisly hoaxes and impossible Holocaust survivor stories. (1)
Only a very few people maintain that the Holocaust didn't happen at all and only they are the ones who are "Holocaust denialists", (aka "Holocaust deniers").

So, if and when you start your new thread on "Holocaust denial", I hope that you'll be honest enough to tell other forum members that you don't answer questions or intend to engage in substantive debate because you cannot defend the standard Holocaust narrative with facts or mature discussion.

Thanks for the warning,





(1). ”THE WORLD IS FULL OF HOLOCAUST DENIERS”
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...he-world-is-full-of-holocaust-deniers/370870/

EXCERPT “Only a third of the world's population believe the genocide has been accurately described in historical accounts.

Some said they thought the number of people who died has been exaggerated; others said they believe it's a myth.

Thirty percent of respondents said it's probably true that "Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust."

- Hindus were most likely to believe that the number of Holocaust deaths has been exaggerated.

- people younger than 65 were much more likely to say they believe that facts about the Holocaust have been distorted”CONTINUED

 

There is a good bit of hypocrisy in your argument, in that you admit that the North was not fighting, primarily to end slavery. They were fighting to enforce the concept that no state was entitled to leave our national union, even though this eternal vow is not in the Constitution. That was the Northern motivation, which you seem to want to ignore: to force states to remain in a political union, from which they wished to separate. But if you admit that truth, then it would be at least as accurate, as saying the South fought to preserve slavery, to say that the Southern States fought in the belief they had as much right to leave the United States, as the American Colonies, less than a century before, had felt they had a right to leave mother England.

Since I haven't yet seen your mentioning of this principle motivator of the North, I presume you want to inaccurately depict their cause, as unimpeachably noble, in "preserving the Union," while not even considering, on the other side of the ledger, this irrevocably central aspect of secession, and of democracy. IOW, arguing that any single concept can be a legitimate lens to use, for fairly depicting the American Civil War, is a biased perspective. If all Confederates were traitors, then so were all the Colonial soldiers traitors, to England. What is the real difference? Only that the Continental Army won, and the Confederates lost.

There is also a great bit of irony, in your looking at things this way, because it was the fear of England legislating against slavery, which was at least one of the motives of the American Colonies, to revolt.

https://www.zinnedproject.org/materials/slave-nation/

<Snip>
This carefully documented, chilling history presents a radically different view of the profound role that slavery played in the founding of the republic, from the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution through the creation of the Constitution. The book begins with a novel explanation about the impact of the Somerset Case on the founding of the republic.

In 1772, a judge sitting in the High Court in London declared slavery “so odious” that it could not exist at common law and set the conditions which would consequently result in the freedom of the 15,000 slaves living in England. This decision eventually reached America and terrified slaveholders in the collection of British colonies, subject to British law. The predominantly southern slave-owners feared that this decision would cause the emancipation of their slaves. It did result in some slaves freeing themselves.

To ensure the preservation of slavery, the southern colonies joined the northerners in their fight for “freedom” and their rebellion against England. In 1774, at the First Continental Congress John Adams promised southern leaders to support their right to maintain slavery. As Eleanor Holmes Norton explains in her introduction, “The price of freedom from England was bondage for African slaves in America. America would be a slave nation.”
<End Snip>


While this revisionist view is still controversial, and the subject of debate, it is certainly not unfounded, and this book is certainly not the only source you could use, to research the subject. The other, traditionalist, side of the debate, does not even contend that slavery played no role in motivating our Revolution, only that it wasn't a major one, notwithstanding how many of our most prominent founding fathers, were slave owners. I should not need to point out to a seeming student of history, like yourself, that newer historical interpretations, will naturally face resistance, and this is no indication that they may not ultimately become the standard, accepted view. It should also be obvious as to the natural instinct of any American, including historians, to want to reject the less heroic elements, of our fight for independence. That bias in depicting our Revolution as something purely honorable and admirable, is the same one evident, from those depicting the North as the white knight, in our domestic war, "between the States." The truth, is somewhat messier than that.



P.S.-- In case you are interested in looking at research that challenges your view-- you know, in the interest of learning the real facts-- here is more about the book, from above:

<Snip>
...In 1787, about the time Benjamin Franklin proposed the first affirmative action plan, negotiations over a new Constitution ground to a halt until the southern states agreed to allow the prohibition of slavery north of the Ohio River. The resulting Northwest Ordinance created the largest slave-free area in the world. Slave Nation is a fascinating account of the role slavery played in the foundations of the United States that traces this process of negotiation through the adoption of Northwest Ordinance in 1787, and informs our understanding of later events including the Civil War and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [Publisher’s description.]

Features an introduction by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, and an in requiem poem by Barbara Chase-Riboud.

About the Authors
Alfred Blumrosen is the Thomas A. Cowan Professor of Law Emeritus at Rutgers University in New Jersey, specializing in Labor and Employment law, with a long history in enforcement of Civil Rights.

The late Ruth Blumrosen was an adjunct professor of Law at Rutgers Law School, who did groundbreaking work on equality of the sexes, especially in connection with wages.

ISBN: 9781402206979 | Sourcebooks
<End Snip>

 

Sorry, treating slaves well doesn't justify slavery. Slavery is the loss of freedom regardless of the environment in which it occurs.

 

The Death Penalty, of course.

Those traitors deserved it.

I will remind that the North cleaned the South's clock. The yankees won, the Southern inbred ancestors to today's MAGA slimeballs lost.

The South lost.

I repeat: the South for it's ass handed to it.

The South deserved to lose.

And the North was far too kind afterward, a mistake with unfortunate repercussions all the way to today.

The North should have occupied the South for at least 30 years, changed the boundaries of the Southern States among themselves, renamed them and allowed them back into the Union with a Northern governor until 1925 and no Southernor should have been granted a Passport until that same yesr. The South should have been taxed heavily and forced to pay reparations to the North.

The South was never really forced to confront it's crimes against the Union. That was a mistake.

 

Who is defending Democrat slave holders?

The only ones excusing them is you by pretending they were conservative, i.e. Republican. Which they weren't.

Trying to play games with terminology to fit your political agenda and attack Republicans of today while simultaneously excusing Democrats racist past.

You align politically with the party of slave holders, you can't simply make that go away with these games.

 

Good good.... Let the hate course through you.

 

Given the vast literature written by historians on the US Civil War, there's little wiggle room left for discussion.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

@DentalFloss

Lincoln probably had the power to issue the Emancipation Proclamation as the commander in chief of the armed forces. The words you see that support the Emancipation are "military necessity." The southern army was using slaves to dig trenches and for other support activities in an armed rebellion against the Union. Therefore Lincoln claimed the power to free the slaves as of January 1, 1863 in any state that was in armed rebellion against the Union. Lincoln's action was never tested in court. Some thought that a few states might come back into the Union as a result of the Proclamation, but it didn't happen.

Here is a Civil War token that was issued by Michigan die maker named James Gleason. He made "the Michigan Primitive" pieces. He wasn't a good speller, but he conveyed the message.



Slaves had been freed under similar circumstances earlier in the war. When the South lost territory or the slaves could break free, they came to the Union lines. Some Union commanders took them as "contraband of war." At very beginning of the war, there were calls to return them to their masters, but that proposed policy died out very quickly.

As for the token I posted, it's probably worth $300 to $400, although I have confess I have not been an active dealer for over 10 years. I bought that piece in 1992 for $50. Not nearly as many collectors were interested in 19th century political tokens back then. Many dealers, other than the specialists, didn't know what to do with them. There are quite a number of tokens that expressed the same issue as part of the Lincoln campaign. Here is one using different words that said the same thing. It was issued by token maker, Charles Lang, who was from Worcester, Massachusetts.



It's ironic, but the 1860 Lincoln campaign tokens, as a group, are more common and the varieties are more numerous than the pieces from the other three 1860 candidates. The Lincoln campaign had the most money and was better organized than the others. The prices for Lincoln material are strong because there is now heavy demand for Lincoln pieces that were issued during his campaigns.

Up until that time, the Democratic Party had been strong, but it split over the slavery issue. Stephen Douglas ran on his popular sovereignty idea, which called for the new states and territories to vote to whether or not they wanted slavery. That was not good enough for the South. They wanted slavery to spread with no restrictions. They candidate was the sitting vice president, John Breckenridge.

A Douglas "popular sovereignty" token.



A Breckenridge token. The Breckenridge pieces are the hardest to find. His campaign issued a limited number of pieces. There were very few die makers in the South who could make tokens. The Breckenridge pieces that were made, came from the border state areas. The slogan on the reverse is "Our country and our rights ... to own slaves. This piece was made by a Kentucky token maker.



To complete the the circle, the fourth candidate was John Bell, who represented the more reasonable southern point of view. Bell opposed secession until after it happened. Then he went with the South. He claimed that the country could be held together by enforcing the laws that were already on the books. His running mate was Edward Everett. He was the keynote speaker at Gettysburg. Everett spoke for two hours; Lincoln spoke for two minutes ... The Gettysburg Address.

 

It's not hate.

It's justice.

 

Conservatives? Republicans weren't the conservatives when they were running Reconstruction after the Civil War.