The Confederate Flag

[Deuce]

Correct me by posting the number of the plantations what actually beat slaves? Were are your figures and from where?

Does it matter? Is slavery somehow justified as long as you don't beat your slaves?"

But flip the argument. Say the Armies of the South invaded DC shortly after Abe was put into office. And killed a lot of people. Then my case would be the South was wrong.

The southerners attacked an American fort. They started the war.

Is there a Democrat attended school to mislead the public as to the South? This pattern of hate to the South is not new and I have encountered it only from Democrats.

The misleading information is in the south. "War of Northern Aggression" propaganda was invented by racists when the civil rights movement started. You clearly bought into it.

 

[Robertinfremont]

It's because they're actually racist, hope this helps.

"Heritage" is the cover. Not some of the time. All of the time.

If in my family there are any ancestors that fought under the banner of the South, none of us heard of it. And we do a lot of genealogy.

My family was here prior to George Washington being born.

What shocks me is the lack of education in the Democrats camp.

 

[Deuce]

If in my family there are any ancestors that fought under the banner of the South, none of us heard of it. And we do a lot of genealogy.

My family was here prior to George Washington being born.

What shocks me is the lack of education in the Democrats camp.

What does this have to do with what I wrote? Nobody cares about your personal ancestry. If you choose to fly a symbol of slavery and hate, I'm going to judge you based on that. "Heritage" is a cover. The truth is that the south fought to preserve slavery, plain and simple.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Does it matter? Is slavery somehow justified as long as you don't beat your slaves?"


The southerners attacked an American fort. They started the war.


The misleading information is in the south. "War of Northern Aggression" propaganda was invented by racists when the civil rights movement started. You clearly bought into it.

My main justification for the South is they had to repel an invading army. Sumter was extremely stout. So stout that when the Union left it in ruins, it was due to them shelling it over a span of 4 years. It was so stout no person under fire from the weak cannons then in the South not one man was hurt by the fire.

Abe caused all the present turmoil. Not the South.

What I bought into was spending a few decades researching what Abe did vs what the South did and trying first to excuse Abe only to give it up and support the side in the right.

 

[Master Debator]

Correct me by posting the number of the plantations what actually beat slaves? Were are your figures and from where?

I admit to sympathizing with the South. It is the purpose of my comments.

But flip the argument. Say the Armies of the South invaded DC shortly after Abe was put into office. And killed a lot of people. Then my case would be the South was wrong.

A super fort having balls falling off the bricks is no good reason to have a war.

Abe did not invade anybody when the Star of the West took fire. Buchanan was president but Abe the outlaw could have invaded VA for that. But he did not.

Is there a Democrat attended school to mislead the public as to the South? This pattern of hate to the South is not new and I have encountered it only from Democrats.

Treatment of slaves in the United States - Wikipedia

The*treatment of*slaves in the United States*varied by time and place, but was generally brutal, especially on*plantations. Whipping and rape were routine, but usually not in front of white outsiders, or even the plantation owner's family. ("When I whip niggers, I take them out of the sight and hearing of the house, and no one in my family knows it."[1]) A slave could not be a witness against a white; slaves were sometimes required to whip other slaves, even family members. There were also businesses to which a slave owner could turn over the whipping. Families were often split up by the sale of one or more members. There were certainly some kind and relatively enlightened slave owners —*Nat Turner*said his master was kind[2]*— but not on large plantations. Only a small minority of slaves received anything resembling decent treatment, and even that could vanish on such occasion as an owner's death. As put by*William T. Allan, a slaveholder's abolitionist son who could not safely return to Alabama, "cruelty was the rule, and kindness the exception".[3]

Also the south was wrong from its inception. Even if they never fired a shot at the union they were still violating the inalienable rights of slaves.

 

[Deuce]

My main justification for the South is they had to repel an invading army. Sumter was extremely stout. So stout that when the Union left it in ruins, it was due to them shelling it over a span of 4 years. It was so stout no person under fire from the weak cannons then in the South not one man was hurt by the fire.

Abe caused all the present turmoil. Not the South.

What I bought into was spending a few decades researching what Abe did vs what the South did and trying first to excuse Abe only to give it up and support the side in the right.

Uhh, the south attacked Sumter. They started the shooting.

 

[JasperL]

I was reading only yesterday the accounts of the owners actually paying bonus money for productions. How the owner flat ordered the farm manager not to harm the slaves. And work a reward program for the slaves. This is more common than taught in school. Do not forget who fed the slaves. Who put a roof over their heads. Have you actually ever gone to those plantations to see what the slaves lived like?

During the Civil war a slave was so abused it became a cause for the north. This poor black had massive welts on his body from being whipped.

Do you also know what the plantation owner did to that man who whipped the slave? He kicked the guy off of his plantation like a dirty mad dog. He violated orders by the owner to never whip the slaves.

You're reading scripts from Lost Cause alternative history, the myth of the benevolent master. It's the story told at all those old plantations - THOSE owners treated their slaves like family! :roll:

And what you're celebrating is the slave owners provided the basics of life to their slaves, worth something like $20,000 each (in current dollars) on average. So they treated them like prized livestock, which also would be provided adequate food and shelter and medical care if needed, so the livestock could keep working or live long enough to slaughter or provide calves or whatever. Should we give them a pat on the head for that?

Furthermore, just common sense tells you what is required to keep millions of people in bondage, as slaves, and that is the ever present threat of cruelty, savage punishment, beatings, even death for those who step out of line, or worse try to escape. That was their reality.

 

[Robertinfremont]

What does this have to do with what I wrote? Nobody cares about your personal ancestry. If you choose to fly a symbol of slavery and hate, I'm going to judge you based on that. "Heritage" is a cover. The truth is that the south fought to preserve slavery, plain and simple.

Look, your whataboutism is not an argument. We are not here to service you and your lack of historical knowledge.

Who cares? Well clearly not Democrats. I have fans though. Heritage is not why I bought my battle flag. But owning a piece of history's significance was my reason to own this flag. I checked on my flag half an hour ago to see who it hated. I found nobody was hated by my flag.

You are judging all of us, ALL of us, over the hateful crap pulled mostly by the under 40 crowd who tarnish who we are. Colin Kaepernick tarnished me too when he waged a war against our current flag.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Your claim is the entire history of Lincoln is housed in his monument and if we tear it down it will all be lost?

:screwy


Also its your fellow Confederate sympathizers that are pushing false histories like those of the benevolent slave owner. Maybe statue based history curriculum isn't the most effective?


:lamo

Nope, just pointing out you were being far less than honest when you said "I'm simply in favor of removing Confederate monuments and flags from public places" in post #1378. Your deceitfulness has caused me to mistrust anything and everything you post. You advocating the destruction of the Lincoln Memorial only adds weight to your dishonest postings.

..:lamo

Have I suggested we stop teaching slavery and the civil war as history? Have I suggested we raze museums? No. I'm simply in favor of removing Confederate monuments and flags from public places. That doesn't equate to erasing history, and maybe try to sound less hyperbolic. In fact, maybe you should take your own advice and "get over it", if you were, removing statues of long dead racists wouldn't bother you so much.


Oh no we removed some statues the end is nigh, run for your lives!

:lamo

 

[Deuce]

Look, your whataboutism is not an argument. We are not here to service you and your lack of historical knowledge.

Who cares? Well clearly not Democrats. I have fans though. Heritage is not why I bought my battle flag. But owning a piece of history's significance was my reason to own this flag. I checked on my flag half an hour ago to see who it hated. I found nobody was hated by my flag.

You are judging all of us, ALL of us, over the hateful crap pulled mostly by the under 40 crowd who tarnish who we are. Colin Kaepernick tarnished me too when he waged a war against our current flag.

You defend slavery. Yes, I judge you. You fly the flag of traitors while claiming to care about the American flag. Yes, I judge you. You ignore the untold numbers of families destroyed, people killed, women raped, and lives ruined because some slave owners chose not to beat slaves.

Yes. I judge you.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Uhh, the south attacked Sumter. They started the shooting.

ummm....'the south" didn't do anything. South Carolina seceded and told the Feds to leave. When they didn't, South Carolina fired on Sumter. Result? Lincoln invades Virginia. Go figure.

 

[Divine_Wind]

You defend slavery. Yes, I judge you. You fly the flag of traitors while claiming to care about the American flag. Yes, I judge you. You ignore the untold numbers of families destroyed, people killed, women raped, and lives ruined because some slave owners chose not to beat slaves.

Yes. I judge you.

Please cite a single post where he defended slavery. If you can't, will you admit it or just run away?

 

[Deuce]

ummm....'the south" didn't do anything. South Carolina seceded and told the Feds to leave. When they didn't, South Carolina fired on Sumter. Result? Lincoln invades Virginia. Go figure.

It was a Union facility. They attacked it.

If I suddenly decide your house sits on my property, am I justified in breaking into your house now?

 

[vegas giants]

ummm....'the south" didn't do anything. South Carolina seceded and told the Feds to leave. When they didn't, South Carolina fired on Sumter. Result? Lincoln invades Virginia. Go figure.

If south Carolina seceded they are a foreign nation and the us can invade anytime they want

 

[Master Debator]

Nope, just pointing out you were being far less than honest when you said "I'm simply in favor of removing Confederate monuments and flags from public places" in post #1378. Your deceitfulness has caused me to mistrust anything and everything you post. You advocating the destruction of the Lincoln Memorial only adds weight to your dishonest postings.

Sure. Seems like your using a quote out of context from an exchange I was having with another poster to avoid answering my tough questions. That's pretty obvious.

 

[Deuce]

Please cite a single post where he defended slavery. If you can't, will you admit it or just run away?

He's written paragraph after paragraph about how some slave owners didn't beat their slaves. Read the thread.

"Slavery wasn't so bad" is defending slavery.

 

[Robertinfremont]

You're reading scripts from Lost Cause alternative history, the myth of the benevolent master. It's the story told at all those old plantations - THOSE owners treated their slaves like family! :roll:

And what you're celebrating is the slave owners provided the basics of life to their slaves, worth something like $20,000 each (in current dollars) on average. So they treated them like prized livestock, which also would be provided adequate food and shelter and medical care if needed, so the livestock could keep working or live long enough to slaughter or provide calves or whatever. Should we give them a pat on the head for that?

Furthermore, just common sense tells you what is required to keep millions of people in bondage, as slaves, and that is the ever present threat of cruelty, savage punishment, beatings, even death for those who step out of line, or worse try to escape. That was their reality.

Lord knows for over a hundred years the Haters of the South had the upper hand. Some of us indeed studied.

You see bondage. I see lack of freedom yet those blacks never knew freedom. It was the law at the time they live as slaves. I want to only relate history and read the haters hating the South in fury and fire.

I am not saying no plantations beat slaves. When you study this, surprisingly you will learn why few plantations beat their cast of slaves.

If your dog barks, do you beat it?

The myth that all of the South were cruel to slaves is wrong. In today's money, the price of a slave then is $40,000. Does that seem to you to be a candidate to be suffering beatings?

If you spent a fortune on slaves, and you were then a plantation owner, would you chance killing your slave by beating the slave?

I traced this myth to one slave. And he for an odd reason was photographed at the Union lines and he got used to make the beating slaves myth.

Again, i see it like you should see men beating women. A few men beat women. But the vast majority of men do not beat women.

You might be shocked at how many slaves truly liked living on plantations.
1. Job security
2. Bonus payment for working hard. Both Washington and Jefferson used the bonus payment as a way to keep slaves from running off.
3. Living with the rich. It was great to live in a home built by the rich. Even if it had no indoor plumbing.

Even the rich shunned in the main house kitchens. Due to fire danger. Go visit actual plantations. Hear the docents explain life there. Stop preaching Democrat dogma.

Democrat pretend they fathered the end of slavery. They did not.

 

[JasperL]

More evidence of you seeking to destroy American history. Thanks!

Destroying/removing/replacing a monument isn't to "destroy" "history."

This is the worst argument for any statue or monument. When you choose to honor Person A in that space, you also by definition choose NOT to honor any other person, millions of them, in that space. So to "preserve" the "history" of Person A, so goes your argument, you're willing to "destroy" the history of millions of other great people. Obviously, that's a dumb argument but it's the one you're making.

The mayor of New Orleans, Landrieu, had a great speech when that city took down a few Confederate monuments, and one of his compelling points was that monuments to dead confederate leaders are a form of "historical malfeasance" and "a lie by omission." Point is if you want to tell the "history" of slavery or of the south, part of it is selling people like cattle, the beatings, the rapes, separating children from their mommas and daddies, lynchings, and all the ugly part of that "history." If you just put up a monument to NB Forrest to celebrate his military exploits, which were great, you obscure that he made his money as a slave trader, and post Civil war was the first Grand Klukker, which post civil war went on a massive terrorist campaign to kill off white and black republicans and by force seize power in the former slave states for whites and only for whites. That worked.

Point is the Confederate monuments don't preserve "history" so much as the Lost Cause myth of that history, which is a lie.

Those interested should take the time to listen to this speech. I thought he did a great job of explaining the issues in a way intended to bring the two sides together.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

ummm....'the south" didn't do anything. South Carolina seceded and told the Feds to leave. When they didn't, South Carolina fired on Sumter. Result? Lincoln invades Virginia. Go figure.

Because the confederacy fired upon u.s forces

 

[Divine_Wind]

It was a Union facility. They attacked it.

If I suddenly decide your house sits on my property, am I justified in breaking into your house now?

Who is "They"? You do know South Carolina seceded and asked the Feds to leave, right?

If a survey proves my house is on your property, do I get squatters rights?

 

[Master Debator]

Destroying/removing/replacing a monument isn't to "destroy" "history."

This is the worst argument for any statue or monument.

Actually, I am working on a secret weapon to ease Lincoln from the minds of every American! Bwahhaaahaaahhaaaa






The only thing thwarting me is that darn monument!

 

[vegas giants]

Who is "They"? You do know South Carolina seceded and asked the Feds to leave, right?

If a survey proves my house is on your property, do I get squatters rights?

But once you leave the union we are free to treat you as a hostile country and invade

 

[Divine_Wind]

Because the confederacy fired upon u.s forces

ummm....'the south" didn't do anything. South Carolina seceded and told the Feds to leave. When they didn't, South Carolina fired on Sumter. Result? Lincoln invades Virginia. Go figure.

There, I made it bigger. Does that help?

 

[Divine_Wind]

But once you leave the union we are free to treat you as a hostile country and invade

Thank you for conceding Lincoln started the war by invading the CSA. Kudos! Now please 'splain it to your LWL friends.

 

[Deuce]

Lord knows for over a hundred years the Haters of the South had the upper hand. Some of us indeed studied.

You see bondage. I see lack of freedom yet those blacks never knew freedom. It was the law at the time they live as slaves. I want to only relate history and read the haters hating the South in fury and fire.

I am not saying no plantations beat slaves. When you study this, surprisingly you will learn why few plantations beat their cast of slaves.

If your dog barks, do you beat it?

The myth that all of the South were cruel to slaves is wrong. In today's money, the price of a slave then is $40,000. Does that seem to you to be a candidate to be suffering beatings?

If you spent a fortune on slaves, and you were then a plantation owner, would you chance killing your slave by beating the slave?

I traced this myth to one slave. And he for an odd reason was photographed at the Union lines and he got used to make the beating slaves myth.

Again, i see it like you should see men beating women. A few men beat women. But the vast majority of men do not beat women.

You might be shocked at how many slaves truly liked living on plantations.
1. Job security
2. Bonus payment for working hard. Both Washington and Jefferson used the bonus payment as a way to keep slaves from running off.
3. Living with the rich. It was great to live in a home built by the rich. Even if it had no indoor plumbing.

Even the rich shunned in the main house kitchens. Due to fire danger. Go visit actual plantations. Hear the docents explain life there. Stop preaching Democrat dogma.

Democrat pretend they fathered the end of slavery. They did not.

Even if zero slaves were beaten or raped, slavery was still horrifying. Do you agree?