Confederate Flag[W:1518,2230, 2241]

Re: Confederate Flag

Superfly said:

Did your granddaddy tell you what the 3/5ths compromise is?

Click to expand...

I'm curious...what did YOUR granddaddy teach you about the 3/5ths compromise? How did YOUR granddaddy reconcile the fact that when the compromise was offered northern states also had slaves and that they simply didnt want them to be counted at all?

Edit: Really...Im just curious...not being argumentative. OFTEN TIMES...people trot out things like the 3/5th compromise or 'Jim Crow laws' and dont have the first ****ing clue the historical relevance or sometimes even WTF they were about. Like...when they were passed, what 'flag' was flying when it was being discussed, who were the proponents of what, etc....

Re: Confederate Flag

VanceMack said:

I'm curious...what did YOUR granddaddy teach you about the 3/5ths compromise? How did YOUR granddaddy reconcile the fact that when the compromise was offered northern states also had slaves and that they simply didnt want them to be counted at all?

Click to expand...

The 3/5th clause was about reapportionment.

The North did not want the slaves counted - because they were property, much as a horse or cow was property.

In fact at the Constitutional Convention, some Northern reps even argued if property could be counted for reapportionment, why not their own horses?

The south wanted full count to beef up their numbers in Congress, which it did -- they just didn't want those same people -- er, property, to vote or to actually have representation.

That would kinda jam up their plans.

It was a compromise - because the southerners said they would not ratify the Constitution if they could not give their slave property at least 3/5ths representation in Congress.

Without giving them representation. They used their slaves as hostages to the negotiation.


Then the South went on to dominate congress for near all of the first quarter of our history.

Re: Confederate Flag

Slavery had been abolished in most of the Northern states long before the Civil War.

The only way the South would join the Union in the first place was because the South insisted on keeping their slaves. That dirty compromise was made at the start with the Southerners and the die was cast, the can kicked down the road.

The Industrial Revolution tied up their world deeper and further into slavery and cotton was King.

There's no getting around the fact of just how entrenched they were in their longing to preserve, protect and expand their "peculiar institution."

Some seventy years later they were itching for that war and nothing was going to stop them. Those slaves were theirs, dammit. A republican president who made it clear he would not abolish slavery -- but also would not expand it was all it took.

The South commenced hostilities before that first Republican president ever stepped into office.

Damn shame it had to come to that, but in the end, it was a worthy and noble war because it destroyed slavery once and for all.

It's a wretched indictment of 19th century Americans though, that they had to slaughter each other to do that.

Re: Confederate Flag

Paperview said:

Slavery had been abolished in most of the Northern states long before the Civil War.

The only way the South would join the Union in the first place was because the South insisted on keeping their slaves. That dirty compromise was made at the start with the Southerners and the die was cast, the can kicked down the road.

The Industrial Revolution tied up their world deeper and further into slavery and cotton was King.

There's no getting around the fact of just how entrenched they were in their longing to preserve, protect and expand their "peculiar institution."

Some seventy years later they were itching for that war and nothing was going to stop them. Those slaves were theirs, dammit. A republican president who made it clear he would not abolish slavery -- but also would not expand it was all it took.

The South commenced hostilities before that first Republican president ever stepped into office.

Damn shame it had to come to that, but in the end, it was a worthy and noble war because it destroyed slavery once and for all.

It's a wretched indictment of 19th century Americans though, that they had to slaughter each other to do that.

Click to expand...

Actually, the horror for the Black took up speed after they were freed, form what I have read. As slaves they were relatively valuable and therefore treated in a manor to keep them functional. They were fed, clothed or housed better than more easily replaceable labor in the slums and villages around the world. After they were freed however, they became destitute and have taken a long time to recover.

Re: Confederate Flag

joG said:

Actually, the horror for the Black took up speed after they were freed, form what I have read. As slaves they were relatively valuable and therefore treated in a manor to keep them functional. They were fed, clothed or housed better than more easily replaceable labor in the slums and villages around the world. After they were freed however, they became destitute and have taken a long time to recover.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you're trying to make the case for them to have remained enslaved.

How many more generations should they have endured having their children, and their children's children ripped away from them,

their bodies put up on action blocks and sold like cattle?

their women raped legally by the slavers, most all slaves were whipped, and brutalized...

None legally allowed to be even married. Bred like livestock.

How many more generations to endure not even being citizens in the country they were born in?

Re: Confederate Flag

Paperview said:

The 3/5th clause was about reapportionment.

The North did not want the slaves counted - because they were property, much as a horse or cow was property.

In fact at the Constitutional Convention, some Northern reps even argued if property could be counted for reapportionment, why not their own horses?

The south wanted full count to beef up their numbers in Congress, which it did -- they just didn't want those same people -- er, property, to vote or to actually have representation.

That would kinda jam up their plans.

It was a compromise - because the southerners said they would not ratify the Constitution if they could not give their slave property at least 3/5ths representation in Congress.

Without giving them representation. They used their slaves as hostages to the negotiation.


Then the South went on to dominate congress for near all of the first quarter of our history.

Click to expand...

Which would make some of the comments here offered about the 3/5ths compromise a little disconnected from the facts then....yes?

Kinda the point.

Re: Confederate Flag

No.


If the South considered them as only chattel property - why do they count as a human only when the census is concerned?

Re: Confederate Flag

Paperview said:

Sounds like you're trying to make the case for them to have remained enslaved.

How many more generations should they have endured having their children, and their children's children ripped away from them,

their bodies put up on action blocks and sold like cattle?

their women raped legally by the slavers, most all slaves were whipped, and brutalized...

None legally allowed to be even married. Bred like livestock.

How many more generations to endure not even being citizens in the country they were born in?

Click to expand...

Very similar to the standards under which peasants in large areas all around the world had been living for centuries at that time, the main difference being that these slaves were better fed. The remarkable things were that they were freed and that that was done so poorly.

Re: Confederate Flag

Wow.

I didn't think I'd be running into a slavery apologist here.

Re: Confederate Flag

Paperview said:

Wow.

I didn't think I'd be running into a slavery apologist here.

Click to expand...

That's quite a leap you're making.

Re: Confederate Flag

Superfly said:

Did your granddaddy tell you what the 3/5ths compromise is?

Click to expand...

Of course I know what the 3/5ths compromise was, a way to keep the South from getting the upper hand in Congress by allowing slaves to actually count as people.

Re: Confederate Flag

HorseLoverGirl said:

Of course I know what the 3/5ths compromise was, a way to keep the South from getting the upper hand in Congress by allowing slaves to actually count as people.

Click to expand...

:lamo

So wrong. Soo, so very wrong, comically wrong.

So often.

Re: Confederate Flag

Phys251 said:

Um.

1. Many of those skyscrapers are in Midtown Atlanta, most of which were built in recent decades. Midtown looked like **** half a century ago.
2. Pan that camera 90 degrees to the west and travel one mile. Now let's see how the two neighborhoods look.

Click to expand...

:doh The reference to Sherman simply meant to highlight the irony that Detroit is closer to the Atlanta of 1865 than Atlanta is. I mean, yeah, Detroit has Quicken Loans and skyscrapers in its downtown core, BUT the point of juxtaposing the photos was Atlanta is a vibrant, expanding city and serves as the headquarters for a growing stable of Fortune 500 companies while Detroit is shadow of its former self--crime ridden, bankrupt, and just, well, small. Vast swaths of Detroit look like Berlin in 1945. These two cities are metaphors for what's happening across the North and the South as a whole. Businesses, retirees, entire families are fleeing the high taxes, living costs, and cold of the North for the warmer temperatures and lower living and business costs in the South. So, honestly, while the North may have "won" the war, the South seems to have been the major beneficiary of it.

Re: Confederate Flag

Ahlevah said:

:doh The reference to Sherman simply meant to highlight the irony that Detroit is closer to the Atlanta of 1865 than Atlanta is. I mean, yeah, Detroit has Quicken Loans and skyscrapers in its downtown core, BUT the point of juxtaposing the photos was Atlanta is a vibrant, expanding city and serves as the headquarters for a growing stable of Fortune 500 companies while Detroit is shadow of its former self--crime ridden, bankrupt, and just, well, small. Vast swaths of Detroit look like Berlin in 1945. These two cities are metaphors for what's happening across the North and the South as a whole. Businesses, retirees, entire families are fleeing the high taxes, living costs, and cold of the North for the warmer temperatures and lower living and business costs in the South. So, honestly, while the North may have "won" the war, the South seems to have been the major beneficiary of it.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should come down to Atlanta, and you'll see what I mean. That beautiful Downtown/Midtown skyline--and that one I will give you--belies the fact that, as I tried to gently point out in my previous post, wealth inequality is a serious problem there, just as it is across most if not all of America. Atlanta has incredible mansions, for example, in the Buckhead region, which exist only a few miles from the west side of town, where you can find a lot of poverty. You want wealth, you want poverty, we've got both. Furthermore, the recent "vibrancy" of Atlanta, as you call it, is a two-headed coin: Yes they have a lot of building projects, the Beltline, gentrification, etc., but that gentrification is coming at the expense of displacing those who cannot afford basic housing. So what happens? Some of that poverty gets pushed into the suburbs. South Cobb, southwest Gwinnett, etc. are seeing large swaths of poverty, where even 30 years ago there was not nearly as much. Simply put, playing whack-a-mole with poverty does not solve it. Nor does cutting taxes on the rich, otherwise states such as Louisiana and Mississippi would be prosperous.

P.S. Georgia has the second-worst unemployment rate in the nation, only ahead of, surprise surprise, Mississippi. These have been Republican-controlled states ever since the mass exodus of the Dixiecrats to the Democratic party. And oh, yeah, Michigan is Republican-controlled, too, yet it also has bad unemployment. Could it be that cutting taxes on the richest people is not the silver bullet that we have been told for decades?

Re: Confederate Flag

Paperview said:

:lamo

So wrong. Soo, so very wrong, comically wrong.

So often.

Click to expand...

Yes revisionists like you are but then again with the educational climate in this country I am not surprised.

Re: Confederate Flag

HorseLoverGirl said:

Yes revisionists like you are but then again with the educational climate in this country I am not surprised.

Click to expand...

Rich.

you actually think the 3/5th clause "reduced* the Southern power in Congress. lol Property, with no votes -- get representation.

See: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/227177-confederate-flag-26.html#post1064792892

& Answer this one:

If the South considered slaves as only chattel property - why do they count as a human only when the census is concerned?

Re: Confederate Flag

Paperview said:

Rich.

you actually think the 3/5th clause "reduced* the Southern power in Congress. lol Property, with no votes -- get representation.

See: http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/227177-confederate-flag-26.html#post1064792892

& Answer this one:

If the South considered slaves as only chattel property - why do they count as a human only when the census is concerned?

Click to expand...

WOW are you ignorant of true Southern history. The slaves in the South were treated fairly well, considering their rank in society. Besides that only a minority of the wealthiest Southerners even owned slaves.

Re: Confederate Flag

HorseLoverGirl said:

WOW are you ignorant of true Southern history. The slaves in the South were treated fairly well, considering their rank in society. Besides that only a minority of the wealthiest Southerners even owned slaves.

Click to expand...

Yea sure their masters treated them well. Even if a slave owner didnt whip their property, they still had complete ownership and control of the slaves every aspect of life. To be a slave alone is bad treatment by the owner.

Re: Confederate Flag

FreedomFromAll said:

Yea sure their masters treated them well. Even if a slave owner didnt whip their property, they still had complete ownership and control of the slaves every aspect of life. To be a slave alone is bad treatment by the owner.

Click to expand...

I see you only picked a minority to attempt to prove your "point"

Re: Confederate Flag

HorseLoverGirl said:

WOW are you ignorant of true Southern history. The slaves in the South were treated fairly well, considering their rank in society. Besides that only a minority of the wealthiest Southerners even owned slaves.

Click to expand...

This actually doesn't change what he said. It doesn't matter if a lot of slave owners (at least in certain areas) treated their slaves well. They still didn't get the vote but were counted as part of the population, which puts a significantly greater percentage of "people" (or at least those who counted toward the population count of a state in a way to determine representation in Congress) in slave holding states, giving an unfair advantage to those states in their representation in Congress. It would be a significant loss of power for them to either a) not be able to count slaves as part of the population at all or b) have slaves freed, giving them a vote or the opportunity to leave the state they are in, changing the population count within that state. If you free people who before weren't allowed to vote but counted toward the population, and give them a voice in how they are governed, then you have now potentially changed the political nature of the area.

Re: Confederate Flag

roguenuke said:

This actually doesn't change what he said. It doesn't matter if a lot of slave owners (at least in certain areas) treated their slaves well. They still didn't get the vote but were counted as part of the population, which puts a significantly greater percentage of "people" (or at least those who counted toward the population count of a state in a way to determine representation in Congress) in slave holding states, giving an unfair advantage to those states in their representation in Congress. It would be a significant loss of power for them to either a) not be able to count slaves as part of the population at all or b) have slaves freed, giving them a vote or the opportunity to leave the state they are in, changing the population count within that state. If you free people who before weren't allowed to vote but counted toward the population, and give them a voice in how they are governed, then you have now potentially changed the political nature of the area.

Click to expand...

You just explained why the Southern states left. The yanks knew had they allowed everyone to be counted down south the South would run the show, and the yanks couldn't handle that

Re: Confederate Flag

HorseLoverGirl said:

You just explained why the Southern states left. The yanks knew had they allowed everyone to be counted down south the South would run the show, and the yanks couldn't handle that

Click to expand...

That would have been wrong. It would have been highly unfair to have people counted as part of the population who could not choose to leave the area and were not allowed to vote. It is a power scheme that could easily have the potential to put much more power in the hands of Southern slaveowning states unfairly. Freed black men may not have had a vote in the Northern states, but they could leave to go somewhere else if they chose. And I'm willing to bet there were some places in the US at the time that did allow black men to vote in at least local elections.

It is a good thing the South did not win the Civil War. I'm not a states' rights person. This doesn't mean that I don't see some merit to the side of those defending the confederate flag, especially outside of the whole flying over public offices thing, but it is because I understand the various meanings of that flag to others (I was raised in NC) even if I don't agree with them on things like states' rights.

Re: Confederate Flag

roguenuke said:

That would have been wrong. It would have been highly unfair to have people counted as part of the population who could not choose to leave the area and were not allowed to vote. It is a power scheme that could easily have the potential to put much more power in the hands of Southern slaveowning states unfairly. Freed black men may not have had a vote in the Northern states, but they could leave to go somewhere else if they chose. And I'm willing to bet there were some places in the US at the time that did allow black men to vote in at least local elections.

It is a good thing the South did not win the Civil War. I'm not a states' rights person. This doesn't mean that I don't see some merit to the side of those defending the confederate flag, especially outside of the whole flying over public offices thing, but it is because I understand the various meanings of that flag to others (I was raised in NC) even if I don't agree with them on things like states' rights.

Click to expand...

You and the founders would have started civil war part 1, because they intended, through the much ignored 10th amendment, for the states to govern themselves in most matters.

Re: Confederate Flag

digitusmedius said:

Just because you inhabit a fantasy world where up is down, front is back and in is out doesn't mean we have to play along with it.

Click to expand...

The truth is on my side, the sooner the yanks admit it, the better for all of us

Re: Confederate Flag

HorseLoverGirl said:

You and the founders would have started civil war part 1, because they intended, through the much ignored 10th amendment, for the states to govern themselves in most matters.

Click to expand...

Not all of them, no. They were divided greatly on how much power the states should have in comparison to the federal government. But there is also the other aspect of how much power the states should have over their people, in comparison to individual rights. That is the problem we see.

Plus, the Founders also recognized that this nation would change and put in place a mechanism to change the Constitution along with those changes, as we did, which gave much of the states' power originally perceived by the Founders back to where many preferred it, in the hands of the people, enforced by the federal government backed by the Constitution.