The Confederate "Rebel" Flag and it's Meaning and Usage

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Imperius:
I'm a Southern Nationalist and that flag to me means both pride in our past but also hope for the future, that the South can be a country unto its own rights once again, free to go its own way.

Shock and Awe:
the Confederates were traitors, and they were traitors for a really shitty cause.

And I don't consider defending's ones homes and loved ones to be a shitty cause , OP. -.-
I know the Yankee propoganda is hard to overcome, but please, let me quote Lincoln himself on this one:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

The Cause that we fought for, and still fight for is State's Rights and that is what flag represents.

Sure there's more reasons than just slavery. But don't pretend that isn't part of it. Besides, quoting Lincoln is a poor tactic, let's look at someone who spoke for the Confederates instead of trying to read an implication out of their enemies:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. 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."

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76

Lil devils x:

ClockworkPenguin:
Well, when I see someone fly it I think 'Boy, I just bet they support gay rights, feminism, a scale back of nuclear weapons, and civil liberties'.

No, I assume until otherwise corrected that they are overly nationalistic christian conservatives. Yes, that's a prejudice based on an unfair stereotype, but that's the message that flag sends to me.

The sort of people who engage in that sort of historical/regional romanticisation tend as a rule to be fairly conservative and lack a certain political self awareness.

If I'm honest, I'm not a fan of flag flying in general for precisely those reasons. Outside of international sporting competitions that kind of overt, almost aggressive, display of nationalism makes me uneasy.

Yea, it is kinda like when they fly the american flag and I think about how they support gay rights, feminism, are anti war, and civil liberties...Oh yea, They killed our unarmed gays first in battle and still persecute them so we have to hide and shelter them from them, tried to force our women to take the mans name when the man has always taken the womans name, they send us rotten food and new bibles, tie us to chairs and make us read the bible aloud, imprison our people for refusing to fight, imprison our people from trying to protect their children from those coming to steal them and force them to read bibles and poison our people with their uranium mining to make their nukes and go bomb the crap out of goat farmers somewhere.... yea they really are a " beacon of inspiration" for the world eh?

Keep in mind this was the US Federal government responsible for these things, actions done under the US flag, not the confederates.

Symbols can change over time. The US flag represents the US as it is now, its meaning has changed. Confederate flags are a callback to a dead nation that died supporting vile practices. They are a reference to something past that is no longer changing. Maybe people want them to mean something new, but the flag is still in part meant to reference the Confederacy as a point of some kind of pride. They use it to represent the South? Why? Because of the Confederacy. A poor point in history to take pride in.

Dijkstra:
Symbols can change over time. The US flag represents the US as it is now, its meaning has changed. Confederate flags are a callback to a dead nation that died supporting vile practices. They are a reference to something past that is no longer changing. Maybe people want them to mean something new, but the flag is still in part meant to reference the Confederacy as a point of some kind of pride. They use it to represent the South? Why? Because of the Confederacy. A poor point in history to take pride in.

And what part of the Confederacy do you think they're trying to highlight? The slavery part?

LetalisK:

Dijkstra:
Maybe people want them to mean something new, but the flag is still in part meant to reference the Confederacy as a point of some kind of pride. They use it to represent the South? Why? Because of the Confederacy. A poor point in history to take pride in.

And what part of the Confederacy do you think they're trying to highlight? The slavery part?

I don't think it matters which part they want to highlight. I'm not going to suddenly say "Oh well you're ignoring all the bad parts while taking pride in that event, that means it's cool." Instead I think it only deserves more scorn to try and ignore the full history to praise something that didn't deserve it.

Dijkstra:

LetalisK:

Dijkstra:
Maybe people want them to mean something new, but the flag is still in part meant to reference the Confederacy as a point of some kind of pride. They use it to represent the South? Why? Because of the Confederacy. A poor point in history to take pride in.

And what part of the Confederacy do you think they're trying to highlight? The slavery part?

I don't think it matters which part they want to highlight. I'm not going to suddenly say "Oh well you're ignoring all the bad parts while taking pride in that event, that means it's cool." Instead I think it only deserves more scorn to try and ignore the full history to praise something that didn't deserve it.

No, no, that's not what I said. I did not say ignore. You can look at a flag and take pride in, for example, the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, struggle to attain the American Dream, baseball, and apple pie that it represents while simultaneously understanding that bad things happened under that flag as well and not advocating for them, like slavery, systematic slaughter and marginalization of the Native Americans, pointless wars that accomplished nothing but a lot of bloodshed and tears, foreign policy that propped up unpopular and murderous tyrants, black sites, etc.

LetalisK:

Dijkstra:

LetalisK:
And what part of the Confederacy do you think they're trying to highlight? The slavery part?

I don't think it matters which part they want to highlight. I'm not going to suddenly say "Oh well you're ignoring all the bad parts while taking pride in that event, that means it's cool." Instead I think it only deserves more scorn to try and ignore the full history to praise something that didn't deserve it.

No, no, that's not what I said. I did not say ignore. You can look at a flag and take pride in, for example, the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, struggle to attain the American Dream, baseball, and apple pie that it represents while simultaneously understanding that bad things happened under that flag as well and not advocating for them, like slavery, systematic slaughter and marginalization of the Native Americans, pointless wars the accomplished nothing but a lot of bloodshed and tears, foreign policy that propped up unpopular and murderous tyrants, black sites, etc.

And what is highlighting some parts and showing the thing in a praiseworthy manner? In my mind it's like trying to sweep the rest under the rug. It's like putting a Nazi swastika on a flag and trying to say it's only there to highlight some good they might have done. And I think given slavery it is not too terrible of a comparison.

And the difference with the American flag is that the nation is still alive, and can change. It's like comparing a dead man to a living one. The dead man died a bad man, I don't see why only potentially good aspects should be highlighted. The other is a living man who has moved on past some of those old crimes, he changed and he can still hope to keep on changing for the better. Not the best comparison as one can more reasonably not hold a nation's century old crimes against it compared to an individual etc, but I think the point stands. One cannot change anymore, and died as a vile nation. The other one can still have hopes for.

Dijkstra:

And the difference with the American flag is that the nation is still alive, and can change. It's like comparing a dead man to a living one. The dead man died a bad man, I don't see why only potentially good aspects should be highlighted. The other is a living man who has moved on past some of those old crimes, he changed and he can still hope to keep on changing for the better. Not the best comparison as one can more reasonably not hold a nation's century old crimes against it compared to an individual etc, but I think the point stands. One cannot change anymore, and died as a vile nation. The other one can still have hopes for.

So instead of praising a flag because it represents good things, we're now down to praising it because it might get better?

LetalisK:

Dijkstra:

And the difference with the American flag is that the nation is still alive, and can change. It's like comparing a dead man to a living one. The dead man died a bad man, I don't see why only potentially good aspects should be highlighted. The other is a living man who has moved on past some of those old crimes, he changed and he can still hope to keep on changing for the better. Not the best comparison as one can more reasonably not hold a nation's century old crimes against it compared to an individual etc, but I think the point stands. One cannot change anymore, and died as a vile nation. The other one can still have hopes for.

So instead of praising a flag because it represents good things, we're now down to praising it because it might get better?

No, we're praising it for the good and are willing to work to change the negative aspects.

Though it's not really 'we', I don't praise flags. But I'm willing to accept that people can praise a current flag for its good along with hoping and working towards ridding it of the negative. The negative can't be ignored is one of my points. In the case of a current flag it can be mitigated by attempts to change those negative aspects. For a flag representing a dead nation? Nothing about the nation can change any more, those negative aspects are ingrained into it for eternity.

Dijkstra:

LetalisK:

Dijkstra:

I don't think it matters which part they want to highlight. I'm not going to suddenly say "Oh well you're ignoring all the bad parts while taking pride in that event, that means it's cool." Instead I think it only deserves more scorn to try and ignore the full history to praise something that didn't deserve it.

No, no, that's not what I said. I did not say ignore. You can look at a flag and take pride in, for example, the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, struggle to attain the American Dream, baseball, and apple pie that it represents while simultaneously understanding that bad things happened under that flag as well and not advocating for them, like slavery, systematic slaughter and marginalization of the Native Americans, pointless wars the accomplished nothing but a lot of bloodshed and tears, foreign policy that propped up unpopular and murderous tyrants, black sites, etc.

And what is highlighting some parts and showing the thing in a praiseworthy manner? In my mind it's like trying to sweep the rest under the rug. It's like putting a Nazi swastika on a flag and trying to say it's only there to highlight some good they might have done. And I think given slavery it is not too terrible of a comparison.

And the difference with the American flag is that the nation is still alive, and can change. It's like comparing a dead man to a living one. The dead man died a bad man, I don't see why only potentially good aspects should be highlighted. The other is a living man who has moved on past some of those old crimes, he changed and he can still hope to keep on changing for the better. Not the best comparison as one can more reasonably not hold a nation's century old crimes against it compared to an individual etc, but I think the point stands. One cannot change anymore, and died as a vile nation. The other one can still have hopes for.

"To live to fight another day" is not dead. Down, but not out. As long as a people exist, there is the possiblity of a nation rising once again. You should also consider the different reasons people opposed the Union and fought against them. This was not a North = good/ South = bad situation. Native tribes fought for their freedom and recognition of sovereignty that the Union refused to give them, and that the confederate promised them. To them, it meant finally having the extermination stop, finally being free people once again. It is a matter of perspective. The American flag being alive today also carries with it all of the atrocities carried out under it's banner from past and PRESENT. It represents all of those from the past that were exhalted for their genocide as well as the ones in the present, still alive, who have not been held accountable for their actions. You do not wash that away with " the possibility of change". The crimes have not ceased, they have continued, yet the people bicker endlessly making excuses for such actions, rather than hold those responsible accountable. Saying ' this administration or "that administration" is just passing the buck and never taking responsibility. The system in place is one that gives the very false impression that people are somehow excused from their actions because someone else made the decision, and that someone else is exempt from prosecution. We still have to live in this world with the choices they made. That does not change and is never excused. The US has not yet shown it willing to work to solve these problems, only made empty promises they never intended to keep. When does that change?

Dijkstra:

No, we're praising it for the good and are willing to work to change the negative aspects.

Though it's not really 'we', I don't praise flags. But I'm willing to accept that people can praise a current flag for its good along with hoping and working towards ridding it of the negative. The negative can't be ignored is one of my points. In the case of a current flag it can be mitigated by attempts to change those negative aspects. For a flag representing a dead nation? Nothing about the nation can change any more, those negative aspects are ingrained into it for eternity.

Okay, I don't disagree with your argument on principle, but I think you're setting the bar too low. When I think "America", I don't think "is proactive to change itself", I think "has to be dragged kicking and screaming to try to keep up with the rest of the first world".

Lil devils x:

Dijkstra:

LetalisK:
No, no, that's not what I said. I did not say ignore. You can look at a flag and take pride in, for example, the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, struggle to attain the American Dream, baseball, and apple pie that it represents while simultaneously understanding that bad things happened under that flag as well and not advocating for them, like slavery, systematic slaughter and marginalization of the Native Americans, pointless wars the accomplished nothing but a lot of bloodshed and tears, foreign policy that propped up unpopular and murderous tyrants, black sites, etc.

And what is highlighting some parts and showing the thing in a praiseworthy manner? In my mind it's like trying to sweep the rest under the rug. It's like putting a Nazi swastika on a flag and trying to say it's only there to highlight some good they might have done. And I think given slavery it is not too terrible of a comparison.

And the difference with the American flag is that the nation is still alive, and can change. It's like comparing a dead man to a living one. The dead man died a bad man, I don't see why only potentially good aspects should be highlighted. The other is a living man who has moved on past some of those old crimes, he changed and he can still hope to keep on changing for the better. Not the best comparison as one can more reasonably not hold a nation's century old crimes against it compared to an individual etc, but I think the point stands. One cannot change anymore, and died as a vile nation. The other one can still have hopes for.

"To live to fight another day" is not dead. Down, but not out. As long as a people exist, there is the possiblity of a nation rising once again.

It will be a different nation if so. Dragging the rotten carcass of a nation proud of slavery is ridiculous. The Confederacy itself is dead and unchanging. All it does is hearken back to the past, it has done nothing new for the past century.

You should also consider the different reasons people opposed the Union and fought against them. This was not a North = good/ South = bad situation.

Did I say it was? America itself was quite a vile nation at the time. You're trying to ram a square peg in a round hole repeatedly. Not once did I say anything about the North and what do we see? You trying to actually imply I said they were good.

Native tribes fought for their freedom and recognition of sovereignty that the Union refused to give them, and that the confederate promised them. To them, it meant finally having the extermination stop, finally being free people once again.

And allying themselves with a nation proud of its slavery. But I'm not even talking about them so why bring them up?

It is a matter of perspective. The American flag being alive today also carries with it all of the atrocities carried out under it's banner from past and PRESENT. It represents all of those from the past that were exhalted for their genocide as well as the ones in the present, still alive, who have not been held accountable for their actions.

Genocide of the past is done, no one around is still responsible. The nation has changed. Nations are comprised of people, they are not quite the same. A person will carry responsibility for their actions for their life. But a nation can be made of completely different people in the future, none of whom are responsible. And a nation can change. A flag represents a nation in this case, if the nation changes so does what the flag represents. Maybe you see the past, but there is something new for it to represent.

As for the present ones, that is indeed an issue. But as a member of a nation, one can wish to change their own nation. It isn't something to leave as static. One can fight for what they want their nation to mean while it still has a chance of changing.

You do not wash that away with " the possibility of change".

It isn't merely the possibility, things have actually changed.

The crimes have not ceased, they have continued, yet the people bicker endlessly making excuses for such actions, rather than hold those responsible accountable. Saying ' this administration or "that administration" is just passing the buck and never taking responsibility.

And people can be against those actions. And you don't take responsibility for what you did not do. Though punishment of crimes of previous administrations is appropriate in my mind.

The system in place is one that gives the very false impression that people are somehow excused from their actions because someone else made the decision, and that someone else is exempt from prosecution. We still have to live in this world with the choices they made. That does not change and is never excused. The US has not yet shown it willing to work to solve these problems, only made empty promises they never intended to keep. When does that change?

Yes, that is problematic, when people think that merely following orders because someone else made the decision excuses them. But one does not need to think that is how their nation ought to be, and it does not prevent them from wanting their flag to represent something better.

LetalisK:

Dijkstra:

No, we're praising it for the good and are willing to work to change the negative aspects.

Though it's not really 'we', I don't praise flags. But I'm willing to accept that people can praise a current flag for its good along with hoping and working towards ridding it of the negative. The negative can't be ignored is one of my points. In the case of a current flag it can be mitigated by attempts to change those negative aspects. For a flag representing a dead nation? Nothing about the nation can change any more, those negative aspects are ingrained into it for eternity.

Okay, I don't disagree with your argument on principle, but I think you're setting the bar too low. When I think "America", I don't think "is proactive to change itself", I think "has to be dragged kicking and screaming to try to keep up with the rest of the first world".

True, it isn't very proactive in changing itself. Though I think some Americans can be more proactive and want to change the nation to be so and I wouldn't begrudge them wanting to hold on to the symbol. In a way I see it as bit of a battle within the nation for what ideals the nation ought to represent. Victor gets to define what the nation stands for, shouldn't be mad at them for wanting to keep it and make it be something better.

Then again I'm American and so I don't have as full of a perspective that someone who has been harmed due to American policies might have on it.

BreakfastMan:
I think that the confederate flag is a symbol of racism and bigotry. If someone walks in wearing a confederate flag, I automatically assume they are a racist/white supremacist. Basically, it means the same thing as a burning cross to me.

this. Lets be real here. The other excuses are just another White Supremacist playing dumb. Its annoying.

Grandcrusader:

BreakfastMan:
I think that the confederate flag is a symbol of racism and bigotry. If someone walks in wearing a confederate flag, I automatically assume they are a racist/white supremacist. Basically, it means the same thing as a burning cross to me.

this. Lets be real here. The other excuses are just another White Supremacist playing dumb. Its annoying.

The classic stereotype of white Southerners would certainly support your perspective, but when you're talking about millions of people's opinions and perspectives--particularly across generation lines--things aren't so cut and dried.

There have been ample comments in this thread made by posters who aren't white that would seem to demonstrate that the matter isn't "black or white".

Pardon the unintended pun, please. :)

Copper Zen:

Grandcrusader:

BreakfastMan:
I think that the confederate flag is a symbol of racism and bigotry. If someone walks in wearing a confederate flag, I automatically assume they are a racist/white supremacist. Basically, it means the same thing as a burning cross to me.

this. Lets be real here. The other excuses are just another White Supremacist playing dumb. Its annoying.

The classic stereotype of white Southerners would certainly support your perspective, but when you're talking about millions of people's opinions and perspectives--particularly across generation lines--things aren't so cut and dried.

There have been ample comments in this thread made by posters who aren't white that would seem to demonstrate that the matter isn't "black or white".

Pardon the unintended pun, please. :)

who are you kidding? that acting dumb nonsense wont work on me. The flag has a historic reference to African oppression here in United States. It a disrespect to African people of the United States.
How would a white jew feel about some loon running around with a Nazi flag? Seem like only time whites have sympathy for the shit they do is when its happening to their own kind...

Grandcrusader:
/snip

Before this escalates, I would like to say that while I don't think too highly of the confederate flag, some forum members did give other examples of why they could still like the flag.

Whether you agree or disagree is up to debate ,but there's no need to be rude.

Grandcrusader:
who are you kidding? that acting dumb nonsense wont work on me. The flag has a historic reference to African oppression here in United States.

Is it? Why? The answer is because you make it that way. The flag is a piece of colored cloth. Its meaning varies from person to person because it is a symbol. Who are you to tell everybody what a symbol means to them?

The flag you are referring to was used by the Confederate Navy, not slaveholders. In fact, slaveholders generally did not even join the Confederate military. Why is this piece of colored cloth so important to you? It is important to some people because they recognize it as a important historical artifact relating to their home and culture.

It a disrespect to African people of the United States.

So would you argue that putting up a statue of King Leopold II in the Congo and using a variation of the colonial flag is disrespectful to the people there? They obviously do not think so. Yet that would be obviously disrespectful to the millions of dead, maybe. Or maybe, as the people say now, he was an important foundational person in Congolese history.

How would a white jew feel about some loon running around with a Nazi flag?

Apparently the white Jews who go into my library think that it is a cool piece of history.

Also, the Nazis have not produced many things that people want to remember them for. The south is different-

Seem like only time whites have sympathy for the shit they do is when its happening to their own kind...

As a non-white person and a historian I would ask what the fuck do you know? I am asking seriously and I do not mean to be insulting but seriously what do you know about this issue?

I live in Texas. I am a southerner and I do not give a shit whether a person flies the Confederate Flag. I have a Nazi flag in my library. Why? Because it is a historical artifact and I am a historian. I do not feel bad about having it in my home and I would not feel bad about flying my Confederate Flag if I had the room for it. And give me one damn good reason why I should feel bad about it. The Confederate Flag is a historical artifact that represents a group of states. This is not a big deal and you should not make it into one.

Grandcrusader:

Copper Zen:

Grandcrusader:
this. Lets be real here. The other excuses are just another White Supremacist playing dumb. Its annoying.

The classic stereotype of white Southerners would certainly support your perspective, but when you're talking about millions of people's opinions and perspectives--particularly across generation lines--things aren't so cut and dried.

There have been ample comments in this thread made by posters who aren't white that would seem to demonstrate that the matter isn't "black or white".

Pardon the unintended pun, please. :)

who are you kidding? that acting dumb nonsense wont work on me. The flag has a historic reference to African oppression here in United States. It a disrespect to African people of the United States.
How would a white jew feel about some loon running around with a Nazi flag? Seem like only time whites have sympathy for the shit they do is when its happening to their own kind...

So I guess the American flag is offensive to native americans since it was under that flag that they were murdered. Clearly everyone who flies an American flag hates the natives. You see how that sounds? I've lived in the south for 13 years and I've learned to respect the confederate flag. There are many accounts of valor on the part of the men who fought for it and there are other things they were fighting for (independence, states rights, stopping the north from burning the entire state of Georgia)

Grandcrusader:

Copper Zen:

Grandcrusader:
this. Lets be real here. The other excuses are just another White Supremacist playing dumb. Its annoying.

The classic stereotype of white Southerners would certainly support your perspective, but when you're talking about millions of people's opinions and perspectives--particularly across generation lines--things aren't so cut and dried.

There have been ample comments in this thread made by posters who aren't white that would seem to demonstrate that the matter isn't "black or white".

Pardon the unintended pun, please. :)

who are you kidding? that acting dumb nonsense wont work on me. The flag has a historic reference to African oppression here in United States. It a disrespect to African people of the United States.
How would a white jew feel about some loon running around with a Nazi flag? Seem like only time whites have sympathy for the shit they do is when its happening to their own kind...

As farson said; its a symbol. It will mean different things to different people. From what I have gathered actually living in Dixie my entire life, there is a very small group of people who see the flag as inherently racist, or use it as such. Most see it as a symbol of Southern Pride, and rebellion in general. Its not just whites either, most blacks see it that way too, or at the very least understand that most whites see it that way and aren't racist. Its all in the eye of the beholder, much like your Swastika. If I see a skinhead running around with something with a swastika I can guess he means it referring to the Nazis. If I see a Buddhist or Hindu with it, I can guess it has a peaceful religious meaning to them. If a Jew has an issue with followers of the aforementioned religions using swastikas they can get over it.

farson135:

Just like to say I love that song....

Grandcrusader:

Copper Zen:

Grandcrusader:
this. Lets be real here. The other excuses are just another White Supremacist playing dumb. Its annoying.

The classic stereotype of white Southerners would certainly support your perspective, but when you're talking about millions of people's opinions and perspectives--particularly across generation lines--things aren't so cut and dried.

There have been ample comments in this thread made by posters who aren't white that would seem to demonstrate that the matter isn't "black or white".

Pardon the unintended pun, please. :)

who are you kidding? that acting dumb nonsense wont work on me. The flag has a historic reference to African oppression here in United States. It a disrespect to African people of the United States.
How would a white jew feel about some loon running around with a Nazi flag? Seem like only time whites have sympathy for the shit they do is when its happening to their own kind...

So do you think it would be more disrespectful to this man to take his flag or respect his wishes in this? Or are you saying you know better than he does?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8hPo6mYnks

Dijkstra:

Lil devils x:

Dijkstra:

And what is highlighting some parts and showing the thing in a praiseworthy manner? In my mind it's like trying to sweep the rest under the rug. It's like putting a Nazi swastika on a flag and trying to say it's only there to highlight some good they might have done. And I think given slavery it is not too terrible of a comparison.

And the difference with the American flag is that the nation is still alive, and can change. It's like comparing a dead man to a living one. The dead man died a bad man, I don't see why only potentially good aspects should be highlighted. The other is a living man who has moved on past some of those old crimes, he changed and he can still hope to keep on changing for the better. Not the best comparison as one can more reasonably not hold a nation's century old crimes against it compared to an individual etc, but I think the point stands. One cannot change anymore, and died as a vile nation. The other one can still have hopes for.

"To live to fight another day" is not dead. Down, but not out. As long as a people exist, there is the possiblity of a nation rising once again.

It will be a different nation if so. Dragging the rotten carcass of a nation proud of slavery is ridiculous. The Confederacy itself is dead and unchanging. All it does is hearken back to the past, it has done nothing new for the past century.

You should also consider the different reasons people opposed the Union and fought against them. This was not a North = good/ South = bad situation.

Did I say it was? America itself was quite a vile nation at the time. You're trying to ram a square peg in a round hole repeatedly. Not once did I say anything about the North and what do we see? You trying to actually imply I said they were good.

Native tribes fought for their freedom and recognition of sovereignty that the Union refused to give them, and that the confederate promised them. To them, it meant finally having the extermination stop, finally being free people once again.

And allying themselves with a nation proud of its slavery. But I'm not even talking about them so why bring them up?

It is a matter of perspective. The American flag being alive today also carries with it all of the atrocities carried out under it's banner from past and PRESENT. It represents all of those from the past that were exhalted for their genocide as well as the ones in the present, still alive, who have not been held accountable for their actions.

Genocide of the past is done, no one around is still responsible. The nation has changed. Nations are comprised of people, they are not quite the same. A person will carry responsibility for their actions for their life. But a nation can be made of completely different people in the future, none of whom are responsible. And a nation can change. A flag represents a nation in this case, if the nation changes so does what the flag represents. Maybe you see the past, but there is something new for it to represent.

As for the present ones, that is indeed an issue. But as a member of a nation, one can wish to change their own nation. It isn't something to leave as static. One can fight for what they want their nation to mean while it still has a chance of changing.

You do not wash that away with " the possibility of change".

It isn't merely the possibility, things have actually changed.

The crimes have not ceased, they have continued, yet the people bicker endlessly making excuses for such actions, rather than hold those responsible accountable. Saying ' this administration or "that administration" is just passing the buck and never taking responsibility.

And people can be against those actions. And you don't take responsibility for what you did not do. Though punishment of crimes of previous administrations is appropriate in my mind.

The system in place is one that gives the very false impression that people are somehow excused from their actions because someone else made the decision, and that someone else is exempt from prosecution. We still have to live in this world with the choices they made. That does not change and is never excused. The US has not yet shown it willing to work to solve these problems, only made empty promises they never intended to keep. When does that change?

Yes, that is problematic, when people think that merely following orders because someone else made the decision excuses them. But one does not need to think that is how their nation ought to be, and it does not prevent them from wanting their flag to represent something better.

The United states among many other nations still here today were also dragging around the carcass of once " being proud of slavery." In fact, they have yet to return the wealth they accumulated on the backs of those slaves to the families of those slaves. When they have done so, they will have partially repaid their debt. You can never fully repay a debt for murder and the destruction of families. You cannot return their history.

Genocide of the past is done? these people are not around? Since when?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aQxh0Zu4y0
http://www.examiner.com/article/the-press-allowed-bill-clinton-to-commit-war-crimes-against-the-people-of-serbia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/408122.stm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/International_War_Crimes/ClintonWarCriminal_Herman.html
http://www.brussellstribunal.org/topics.asp?topic=VIOLENCE&offset=5

Lil devils x:

Shock and Awe:

For most Americans this flag means something, but it seems to mean a lot of different things to different people. People also have very varying opinions on how it should be used. I started to think about this again when someone on the radio was complaining how the Georgia state flag was changed from this to this a few years back. My question is pretty basic: What do you think about it and how should it be used?

I personally have mixed feelings on the Battle Flag. I have lived in Georgia all of my life and am proud of where I come from; I love the south. I think that the Battle Flag is a good representation of a piece of Southern history. However, thats the it, its a piece of Southern history. The focus a lot of Southerners put on the flag because its "history" annoys me greatly as its a fairly small piece of history, and frankly not exactly a shining piece of it either. As much as I like to Romanticize the people in it, the Confederates were traitors, and they were traitors for a really shitty cause.

I don't think the flag is inherently racist, but it's certainly not making things up to say it is. Like any other symbol it means what people think it means, and for the past 150 years, its been used by racists supporting racist policies. Is it a coincidence that states started adopting Confederate battle flags into state flags right after the Civil Rights movement started to get into swing? I think not.

TL;DRI'm starting to ramble, basically I respect the flag, but I think it's used for less then honorable reasons much of the time and don't particularly care for it.

It is strange how people take things different ways. This flag reminds me of the first time I had seen it actually displayed on the wall at my friends home. It was on the wall in his bedroom, as well as his framed great gandfathers uniform. According to his family, the war was not about slavery it was about economic supression. The abolition of slavery was an unintended consequence that was only done in order to win, not because they really wanted to do so. Some were actually allowed to keep their slaves after the war if they fought for the union. I am not sure how him displaying the flag and the confederate uniform can be considered " racist" considering the guy is black. There is no "myth" of the black confederates, they are real.
http://blackconfederates.blogspot.com/
http://www.stonewallbrigade.com/articles_black_confeds.html
This guy pretty much states how the southern black confederates view this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8hPo6mYnks

and time to nip that bit of bad history in the butt right now

(From the South Carolina Declaration of Succession-first state to leave the union)

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

For context they were mad about northern states turning a blind eye to the Fugitive slave act and ignoring Artical 4's extradition clause of the US Constitution

Wars like most history is complicated and almost never have one reason.
it was about slavery and economic suppression, along with the role of states, the power of states on the federal level and a bunch of outer reasons.

direkiller:

Lil devils x:

Shock and Awe:

For most Americans this flag means something, but it seems to mean a lot of different things to different people. People also have very varying opinions on how it should be used. I started to think about this again when someone on the radio was complaining how the Georgia state flag was changed from this to this a few years back. My question is pretty basic: What do you think about it and how should it be used?

I personally have mixed feelings on the Battle Flag. I have lived in Georgia all of my life and am proud of where I come from; I love the south. I think that the Battle Flag is a good representation of a piece of Southern history. However, thats the it, its a piece of Southern history. The focus a lot of Southerners put on the flag because its "history" annoys me greatly as its a fairly small piece of history, and frankly not exactly a shining piece of it either. As much as I like to Romanticize the people in it, the Confederates were traitors, and they were traitors for a really shitty cause.

I don't think the flag is inherently racist, but it's certainly not making things up to say it is. Like any other symbol it means what people think it means, and for the past 150 years, its been used by racists supporting racist policies. Is it a coincidence that states started adopting Confederate battle flags into state flags right after the Civil Rights movement started to get into swing? I think not.

TL;DRI'm starting to ramble, basically I respect the flag, but I think it's used for less then honorable reasons much of the time and don't particularly care for it.

It is strange how people take things different ways. This flag reminds me of the first time I had seen it actually displayed on the wall at my friends home. It was on the wall in his bedroom, as well as his framed great gandfathers uniform. According to his family, the war was not about slavery it was about economic supression. The abolition of slavery was an unintended consequence that was only done in order to win, not because they really wanted to do so. Some were actually allowed to keep their slaves after the war if they fought for the union. I am not sure how him displaying the flag and the confederate uniform can be considered " racist" considering the guy is black. There is no "myth" of the black confederates, they are real.
http://blackconfederates.blogspot.com/
http://www.stonewallbrigade.com/articles_black_confeds.html
This guy pretty much states how the southern black confederates view this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8hPo6mYnks

and time to nip that bit of bad history in the butt right now

(From the South Carolina Declaration of Succession-first state to leave the union)

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

For context they were mad about northern states turning a blind eye to the Fugitive slave act and ignoring Artical 4's extradition clause of the US Constitution

Wars like most history is complicated and almost never have one reason.
it was about slavery and economic suppression, along with the role of states, the power of states on the federal level and a bunch of outer reasons.

The slavery and economics were one in the same issue. You see, they were not giving the south time to change their economy as the states that had shifted from a slave dependent economy already had. Mind you the wealth they accumulated in the north from their slave labor is WHAT PAID for them to be able to switch over in the first place. When you look at how the wealth was accumulated in New York, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania among others, it was due to their slave trade. Those were the very funds used to be able to switch over. They were shifting the economy in favor of the North, and crippling the South economically Yet, before they would allow the south to switch, they also imposed the morrill tariff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff of which caused many to leave congress before it even passed. They were not leaving the south the same options they had to enable them to switch, instead, they were crippling them financially making it harder for them to do in the first place.

direkiller:

For context they were mad about northern states turning a blind eye to the Fugitive slave act and ignoring Artical 4's extradition clause of the US Constitution

Wars like most history is complicated and almost never have one reason.
it was about slavery and economic suppression, along with the role of states, the power of states on the federal level and a bunch of outer reasons.

I've read that economic suppression, states rights etc, were the major motivating factors for secession but slavery was the "hot topic" that pushed everybody's emotional button.

Does that about sum it up, do you think?

Lil devils x:

The slavery and economics were one in the same issue. You see, they were not giving the south time to change their economy as the states that had shifted from a slave dependent economy already had. Mind you the wealth they accumulated in the north from their slave labor is WHAT PAID for them to be able to switch over in the first place. When you look at how the wealth was accumulated in New York, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania among others, it was due to their slave trade. Those were the very funds used to be able to switch over. They were shifting the economy in favor of the North, and crippling the South economically Yet, before they would allow the south to switch, they also imposed the morrill tariff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff of which caused many to leave congress before it even passed. They were not leaving the south the same options they had to enable them to switch, instead, they were crippling them financially making it harder for them to do in the first place.

er thats not right
PA was not a state when it had slavery, it was never wide spread had no major ecomic impact and was basically abolied before the US was a pipe dream.
North was primarly Indistry/export based which is were its economic power came from. Slavery was never wide spred(nor had a deep economic impact)due to religion,farming methods, navigable rivers like the Ohio, and ports like Boston and New York.

direkiller:

Lil devils x:

The slavery and economics were one in the same issue. You see, they were not giving the south time to change their economy as the states that had shifted from a slave dependent economy already had. Mind you the wealth they accumulated in the north from their slave labor is WHAT PAID for them to be able to switch over in the first place. When you look at how the wealth was accumulated in New York, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania among others, it was due to their slave trade. Those were the very funds used to be able to switch over. They were shifting the economy in favor of the North, and crippling the South economically Yet, before they would allow the south to switch, they also imposed the morrill tariff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff of which caused many to leave congress before it even passed. They were not leaving the south the same options they had to enable them to switch, instead, they were crippling them financially making it harder for them to do in the first place.

er thats not right
PA was not a state when it had slavery, it was never wide spread had no major ecomic impact and was basically abolied before the US was a pipe dream.
North was primarly Indistry/export based which is were its economic power came from. Slavery was never wide spred(nor had a deep economic impact)due to religion,farming methods, navigable rivers like the Ohio, and ports like Boston and New York.

I'm sorry but you are incorrect on the financial impact of Slavery in the North:
http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/history/slavery-gw-oney.htm
http://www.slavenorth.com/profits.htm
http://www.slavenorth.com/pennsylvania.htm

The issue being that the southern states were further behind in development, but the northern had already had time to build up on the back of slaves since they had been developed earlier. The south was not as developed and relied more heavily on the same slave labor at the time in order to accomplish what The North had already accomplished due to their earlier slavery.

Lil devils x:

direkiller:

Lil devils x:

The slavery and economics were one in the same issue. You see, they were not giving the south time to change their economy as the states that had shifted from a slave dependent economy already had. Mind you the wealth they accumulated in the north from their slave labor is WHAT PAID for them to be able to switch over in the first place. When you look at how the wealth was accumulated in New York, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania among others, it was due to their slave trade. Those were the very funds used to be able to switch over. They were shifting the economy in favor of the North, and crippling the South economically Yet, before they would allow the south to switch, they also imposed the morrill tariff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff of which caused many to leave congress before it even passed. They were not leaving the south the same options they had to enable them to switch, instead, they were crippling them financially making it harder for them to do in the first place.

er thats not right
PA was not a state when it had slavery, it was never wide spread had no major ecomic impact and was basically abolied before the US was a pipe dream.
North was primarly Indistry/export based which is were its economic power came from. Slavery was never wide spred(nor had a deep economic impact)due to religion,farming methods, navigable rivers like the Ohio, and ports like Boston and New York.

I'm sorry but you are incorrect on the financial impact of Slavery in the North:
http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/history/slavery-gw-oney.htm
http://www.slavenorth.com/profits.htm
http://www.slavenorth.com/pennsylvania.htm

The issue being that the southern states were further behind in development, but the northern had already had time to build up on the back of slaves since they had been developed earlier. The south was not as developed and relied more heavily on the same slave labor at the time in order to accomplish what The North had already accomplished due to their earlier slavery.

from your sorce
104 slaves on 58 farms
compared to 58,000 Germans and 16,500 Scots-Irish , 35,000 German immigrants
how is that diffident then what I said?
(btw PA had less then 10,000 Slaves at it's peak and that was at the French and Indian War by the time of the Abolition Act>6,000, 10 years after it was >4,000)
as I said Slavery had no big economic impact on PA

PA had a number of factors going for it(Rivers, Soft Coal,Timber, Iron) none of which are condusive to slavery.

direkiller:

Lil devils x:

direkiller:

er thats not right
PA was not a state when it had slavery, it was never wide spread had no major ecomic impact and was basically abolied before the US was a pipe dream.
North was primarly Indistry/export based which is were its economic power came from. Slavery was never wide spred(nor had a deep economic impact)due to religion,farming methods, navigable rivers like the Ohio, and ports like Boston and New York.

I'm sorry but you are incorrect on the financial impact of Slavery in the North:
http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/history/slavery-gw-oney.htm
http://www.slavenorth.com/profits.htm
http://www.slavenorth.com/pennsylvania.htm

The issue being that the southern states were further behind in development, but the northern had already had time to build up on the back of slaves since they had been developed earlier. The south was not as developed and relied more heavily on the same slave labor at the time in order to accomplish what The North had already accomplished due to their earlier slavery.

from your sorce
104 slaves on 58 farms
compared to 58,000 Germans and 16,500 Scots-Irish , 35,000 German immigrants
how is that diffident then what I said?
(btw PA had less then 10,000 Slaves at it's peak and that was at the French and Indian War by the time of the Abolition Act>6,000, 10 years after it was >4,000)
as I said Slavery had no big economic impact on PA

PA had a number of factors going for it(Rivers, Soft Coal,Timber, Iron) none of which are condusive to slavery.

From my source they had a peak of around 30,000 not 10,000.
"Pennsylvania's slave population had risen gradually, from about 5,000 in 1721 to an estimated 11,000 in 1754. By 1766, it was believed to number 30,000."
You should also take into consideration that Pennsylvania was harder on free blacks than they were on the slaves!

"Not only was colonial Pennsylvania a slave-owning society, but the lives of free blacks in the colony were controlled by law. The restrictions on slaves were mild, by Northern standards, but those on freemen were comparatively strict. The restrictions had begun almost with the colony itself. After 1700, when Pennsylvania was not yet 20 years old, blacks, free or slave, were tried in special courts, without the benefit of a jury.

For a people who later protested against the fugitive slave laws, Pennsylvanians, when they had slaves themselves as property, used the full power of the law to protect them. "An Act for the better Regulation of Negroes" passed in the 1725-26 session, set especially high penalties for free blacks who harbored runaway slaves or received property stolen from masters. The penalties in such cases were potentially much higher than those applied to whites, and if the considerable fines that might accrue could not be paid, the justices had the power to order a free black person put into servitude.

Under other provisions of the 1725-26 act, free negroes who married whites were to be sold into slavery for life; for mere fornication or adultery involving blacks and whites, the penalty for the black person was to be sold as a servant for seven years. Whites in such cases faced different or lighter punishment. The law effectively blocked marriage between the races in Pennsylvania, but fornication continued, as the state's burgeoning mulatto population attested.

Other colonial Pennsylvania laws forbid blacks from gathering in "tippling-houses," carrying arms, or assembling in companies. These, however, were loosely or unevenly enforced. But throughout Pennsylvania colony, the children of free blacks, without exception, were bound out by the local justices of the peace until age 24 (if male) or 21 (if female). All in all, the "free" blacks of colonial Pennsylvania led severely circumscribed lives; they had no control even over their own family arrangements, and they could be put back into servitude for "laziness" or petty crimes, at the mercy of the local authorities."

"The law for gradual emancipation in Pennsylvania passed on February 1780, and that's when the Mason-Dixon line began to acquire its metaphoric meaning as the boundary between North and South. But the law was no proclamation of emancipation. It was deeply conservative. The 6,000 or so Pennsylvania slaves in 1780 stayed slaves. Even those born a few days before the passage of the act had to wait 28 years before the law set them free. This allowed their masters to recoup the cost of raising them."
The abolition bill was made more restrictive during the debates over it -- it originally freed daughters of slave women at 18, sons at 21. By the time it passed, it was upped to a flat 28. That meant it was possible for a Pennsylvania slave's daughter born in February 1780 to live her life in bondage, and if she had a child at 40, the child would remain a slave until 1848.[3] There's no record of this happening, but the "emancipation" law allowed it. It was, as the title of one article has it, "philanthropy at bargain prices."

"Despite the lack of economic interest in slavery, and the absence of a political party to defend it, the Pennsylvania abolition law met serious opposition. The bill also made blacks equal under the state's laws, removed the prohibition on interracial marriage, and allowed free blacks to testify against whites in state courts. The implications of this aroused indignation in many quarters.

The 1780 abolition law actually had more immediate impact on the free blacks than the enslaved ones. The abolition of slavery was very gradual, while the restrictive laws on free blacks were lifted at once. The only rights of free whites that were not extended to them were those of voting and of serving in the state militia. There was actually some doubt about the voting, and on this point the act was interpreted differently in different places. In Philadelphia, blacks seemingly never voted. But in some of the western counties they did so in small numbers. York and Westmoreland were mentioned among these counties.

The act that abolished slavery in Pennsylvania freed no slaves outright, and relics of slavery may have lingered in the state almost until the Civil War. There were 795 slaves in Pennsylvania in 1810, 211 in 1820, 403 or 386 (the count was disputed) in 1830, and 64 in 1840, the last year census worksheets in the northern states included a line for "slaves." The definition of slavery seems to have blurred in the later counts. The two "slaves" counted in 1840 in Lancaster County turned out to have been freed years before, though they were still living on the properties of their former masters. "

I will say that Pennsylvania was unique, but only because of the Quakers, and not the rest of the settlers, simply because Quakers were the majority of the population, and they did not approve of enslaving another human being. However, that is also the double edged sword. Although they did not believe in owning another human being, they also believed in harsh punishments and many more restrictions placed on those who were not "owned".

Lil devils x:

direkiller:

Lil devils x:

I'm sorry but you are incorrect on the financial impact of Slavery in the North:
http://www.ushistory.org/presidentshouse/history/slavery-gw-oney.htm
http://www.slavenorth.com/profits.htm
http://www.slavenorth.com/pennsylvania.htm

The issue being that the southern states were further behind in development, but the northern had already had time to build up on the back of slaves since they had been developed earlier. The south was not as developed and relied more heavily on the same slave labor at the time in order to accomplish what The North had already accomplished due to their earlier slavery.

from your sorce
104 slaves on 58 farms
compared to 58,000 Germans and 16,500 Scots-Irish , 35,000 German immigrants
how is that diffident then what I said?
(btw PA had less then 10,000 Slaves at it's peak and that was at the French and Indian War by the time of the Abolition Act>6,000, 10 years after it was >4,000)
as I said Slavery had no big economic impact on PA

PA had a number of factors going for it(Rivers, Soft Coal,Timber, Iron) none of which are condusive to slavery.

From my source they had a peak of around 30,000 not 10,000.
"Pennsylvania's slave population had risen gradually, from about 5,000 in 1721 to an estimated 11,000 in 1754. By 1766, it was believed to number 30,000."
You should also take into consideration that Pennsylvania was harder on free blacks than they were on the slaves!

"Not only was colonial Pennsylvania a slave-owning society, but the lives of free blacks in the colony were controlled by law. The restrictions on slaves were mild, by Northern standards, but those on freemen were comparatively strict. The restrictions had begun almost with the colony itself. After 1700, when Pennsylvania was not yet 20 years old, blacks, free or slave, were tried in special courts, without the benefit of a jury.

For a people who later protested against the fugitive slave laws, Pennsylvanians, when they had slaves themselves as property, used the full power of the law to protect them. "An Act for the better Regulation of Negroes" passed in the 1725-26 session, set especially high penalties for free blacks who harbored runaway slaves or received property stolen from masters. The penalties in such cases were potentially much higher than those applied to whites, and if the considerable fines that might accrue could not be paid, the justices had the power to order a free black person put into servitude.

Under other provisions of the 1725-26 act, free negroes who married whites were to be sold into slavery for life; for mere fornication or adultery involving blacks and whites, the penalty for the black person was to be sold as a servant for seven years. Whites in such cases faced different or lighter punishment. The law effectively blocked marriage between the races in Pennsylvania, but fornication continued, as the state's burgeoning mulatto population attested.

Other colonial Pennsylvania laws forbid blacks from gathering in "tippling-houses," carrying arms, or assembling in companies. These, however, were loosely or unevenly enforced. But throughout Pennsylvania colony, the children of free blacks, without exception, were bound out by the local justices of the peace until age 24 (if male) or 21 (if female). All in all, the "free" blacks of colonial Pennsylvania led severely circumscribed lives; they had no control even over their own family arrangements, and they could be put back into servitude for "laziness" or petty crimes, at the mercy of the local authorities."

"The law for gradual emancipation in Pennsylvania passed on February 1780, and that's when the Mason-Dixon line began to acquire its metaphoric meaning as the boundary between North and South. But the law was no proclamation of emancipation. It was deeply conservative. The 6,000 or so Pennsylvania slaves in 1780 stayed slaves. Even those born a few days before the passage of the act had to wait 28 years before the law set them free. This allowed their masters to recoup the cost of raising them."
The abolition bill was made more restrictive during the debates over it -- it originally freed daughters of slave women at 18, sons at 21. By the time it passed, it was upped to a flat 28. That meant it was possible for a Pennsylvania slave's daughter born in February 1780 to live her life in bondage, and if she had a child at 40, the child would remain a slave until 1848.[3] There's no record of this happening, but the "emancipation" law allowed it. It was, as the title of one article has it, "philanthropy at bargain prices."

"Despite the lack of economic interest in slavery, and the absence of a political party to defend it, the Pennsylvania abolition law met serious opposition. The bill also made blacks equal under the state's laws, removed the prohibition on interracial marriage, and allowed free blacks to testify against whites in state courts. The implications of this aroused indignation in many quarters.

The 1780 abolition law actually had more immediate impact on the free blacks than the enslaved ones. The abolition of slavery was very gradual, while the restrictive laws on free blacks were lifted at once. The only rights of free whites that were not extended to them were those of voting and of serving in the state militia. There was actually some doubt about the voting, and on this point the act was interpreted differently in different places. In Philadelphia, blacks seemingly never voted. But in some of the western counties they did so in small numbers. York and Westmoreland were mentioned among these counties.

The act that abolished slavery in Pennsylvania freed no slaves outright, and relics of slavery may have lingered in the state almost until the Civil War. There were 795 slaves in Pennsylvania in 1810, 211 in 1820, 403 or 386 (the count was disputed) in 1830, and 64 in 1840, the last year census worksheets in the northern states included a line for "slaves." The definition of slavery seems to have blurred in the later counts. The two "slaves" counted in 1840 in Lancaster County turned out to have been freed years before, though they were still living on the properties of their former masters. "

I will say that Pennsylvania was unique, but only because of the Quakers, and not the rest of the settlers, simply because Quakers were the majority of the population, and they did not approve of enslaving another human being. However, that is also the double edged sword. Although they did not believe in owning another human being, they also believed in harsh punishments and many more restrictions placed on those who were not "owned".

1.Your sorce includes Indentured servetued with slavery they are not the same thing.

2. How PA treated Free people is irelvant to the point you were making and failed to do so(slavery was an economic force in PA)

3. None of this changes the fact that slavery was part of the reason for the succession

4. Yes I am well aware of how the PA Laws worked, playing a game of see PA did bad things too, dose not make what you said any more wrong.

It is nice you can copy and paste stuff but it dose not help eater of the points I called you on
(Slavery was not part of the reason at the start of the civil war)
(North was built on the backs of slaves)

Copper Zen:

direkiller:

For context they were mad about northern states turning a blind eye to the Fugitive slave act and ignoring Artical 4's extradition clause of the US Constitution

Wars like most history is complicated and almost never have one reason.
it was about slavery and economic suppression, along with the role of states, the power of states on the federal level and a bunch of outer reasons.

I've read that economic suppression, states rights etc, were the major motivating factors for secession but slavery was the "hot topic" that pushed everybody's emotional button.

Does that about sum it up, do you think?

It pushed the buttons of Northern Idealist and Land owners in the south.

It is like the tire on top of the fire you were about to light. It did not start the fire but it causes the most long term damage,the aftermath can be seen long after the fire is out, and it is all anyone will remember about it.

direkiller:

Lil devils x:

direkiller:

from your sorce
104 slaves on 58 farms
compared to 58,000 Germans and 16,500 Scots-Irish , 35,000 German immigrants
how is that diffident then what I said?
(btw PA had less then 10,000 Slaves at it's peak and that was at the French and Indian War by the time of the Abolition Act>6,000, 10 years after it was >4,000)
as I said Slavery had no big economic impact on PA

PA had a number of factors going for it(Rivers, Soft Coal,Timber, Iron) none of which are condusive to slavery.

From my source they had a peak of around 30,000 not 10,000.
"Pennsylvania's slave population had risen gradually, from about 5,000 in 1721 to an estimated 11,000 in 1754. By 1766, it was believed to number 30,000."
You should also take into consideration that Pennsylvania was harder on free blacks than they were on the slaves!

"Not only was colonial Pennsylvania a slave-owning society, but the lives of free blacks in the colony were controlled by law. The restrictions on slaves were mild, by Northern standards, but those on freemen were comparatively strict. The restrictions had begun almost with the colony itself. After 1700, when Pennsylvania was not yet 20 years old, blacks, free or slave, were tried in special courts, without the benefit of a jury.

For a people who later protested against the fugitive slave laws, Pennsylvanians, when they had slaves themselves as property, used the full power of the law to protect them. "An Act for the better Regulation of Negroes" passed in the 1725-26 session, set especially high penalties for free blacks who harbored runaway slaves or received property stolen from masters. The penalties in such cases were potentially much higher than those applied to whites, and if the considerable fines that might accrue could not be paid, the justices had the power to order a free black person put into servitude.

Under other provisions of the 1725-26 act, free negroes who married whites were to be sold into slavery for life; for mere fornication or adultery involving blacks and whites, the penalty for the black person was to be sold as a servant for seven years. Whites in such cases faced different or lighter punishment. The law effectively blocked marriage between the races in Pennsylvania, but fornication continued, as the state's burgeoning mulatto population attested.

Other colonial Pennsylvania laws forbid blacks from gathering in "tippling-houses," carrying arms, or assembling in companies. These, however, were loosely or unevenly enforced. But throughout Pennsylvania colony, the children of free blacks, without exception, were bound out by the local justices of the peace until age 24 (if male) or 21 (if female). All in all, the "free" blacks of colonial Pennsylvania led severely circumscribed lives; they had no control even over their own family arrangements, and they could be put back into servitude for "laziness" or petty crimes, at the mercy of the local authorities."

"The law for gradual emancipation in Pennsylvania passed on February 1780, and that's when the Mason-Dixon line began to acquire its metaphoric meaning as the boundary between North and South. But the law was no proclamation of emancipation. It was deeply conservative. The 6,000 or so Pennsylvania slaves in 1780 stayed slaves. Even those born a few days before the passage of the act had to wait 28 years before the law set them free. This allowed their masters to recoup the cost of raising them."
The abolition bill was made more restrictive during the debates over it -- it originally freed daughters of slave women at 18, sons at 21. By the time it passed, it was upped to a flat 28. That meant it was possible for a Pennsylvania slave's daughter born in February 1780 to live her life in bondage, and if she had a child at 40, the child would remain a slave until 1848.[3] There's no record of this happening, but the "emancipation" law allowed it. It was, as the title of one article has it, "philanthropy at bargain prices."

"Despite the lack of economic interest in slavery, and the absence of a political party to defend it, the Pennsylvania abolition law met serious opposition. The bill also made blacks equal under the state's laws, removed the prohibition on interracial marriage, and allowed free blacks to testify against whites in state courts. The implications of this aroused indignation in many quarters.

The 1780 abolition law actually had more immediate impact on the free blacks than the enslaved ones. The abolition of slavery was very gradual, while the restrictive laws on free blacks were lifted at once. The only rights of free whites that were not extended to them were those of voting and of serving in the state militia. There was actually some doubt about the voting, and on this point the act was interpreted differently in different places. In Philadelphia, blacks seemingly never voted. But in some of the western counties they did so in small numbers. York and Westmoreland were mentioned among these counties.

The act that abolished slavery in Pennsylvania freed no slaves outright, and relics of slavery may have lingered in the state almost until the Civil War. There were 795 slaves in Pennsylvania in 1810, 211 in 1820, 403 or 386 (the count was disputed) in 1830, and 64 in 1840, the last year census worksheets in the northern states included a line for "slaves." The definition of slavery seems to have blurred in the later counts. The two "slaves" counted in 1840 in Lancaster County turned out to have been freed years before, though they were still living on the properties of their former masters. "

I will say that Pennsylvania was unique, but only because of the Quakers, and not the rest of the settlers, simply because Quakers were the majority of the population, and they did not approve of enslaving another human being. However, that is also the double edged sword. Although they did not believe in owning another human being, they also believed in harsh punishments and many more restrictions placed on those who were not "owned".

1.Your sorce includes Indentured servetued with slavery they are not the same thing.

2. How PA treated Free people is irelvant to the point you were making and failed to do so(slavery was an economic force in PA)

3. None of this changes the fact that slavery was part of the reason for the succession

4. Yes I am well aware of how the PA Laws worked, playing a game of see PA did bad things too, dose not make what you said any more wrong.

It is nice you can copy and paste stuff but it dose not help eater of the points I called you on
(Slavery was not part of the reason at the start of the civil war)
(North was built on the backs of slaves)

1) Calling slavery by another name does not make it any less vile. " indentured servitude" for the same things that whites are allowed to do is "slavery" none the less. Trying to make it into something else simply because they called it something else does not change the fact that it was.

2)How PA treated " free blacks" vs " free whites" IS very much relevant. You cannot just say they are free, but then restrict them more and give them less rights than even the slaves! Yes, that is VERY much relevant.

3)None of what you have stated thus far made the North any less vile than the south.

I addressed your points accordingly, and yes, I provided the resources to back them up, rather try to downplay what really happened here by claiming " oh that doesn't count because they called it something else!" No matter how it affected the lives of the people that had to endure such things.

Just because they tried harder to hide their slavery does not mean it was okay.

Lil devils x:

direkiller:

Lil devils x:

From my source they had a peak of around 30,000 not 10,000.
"Pennsylvania's slave population had risen gradually, from about 5,000 in 1721 to an estimated 11,000 in 1754. By 1766, it was believed to number 30,000."
You should also take into consideration that Pennsylvania was harder on free blacks than they were on the slaves!

"Not only was colonial Pennsylvania a slave-owning society, but the lives of free blacks in the colony were controlled by law. The restrictions on slaves were mild, by Northern standards, but those on freemen were comparatively strict. The restrictions had begun almost with the colony itself. After 1700, when Pennsylvania was not yet 20 years old, blacks, free or slave, were tried in special courts, without the benefit of a jury.

For a people who later protested against the fugitive slave laws, Pennsylvanians, when they had slaves themselves as property, used the full power of the law to protect them. "An Act for the better Regulation of Negroes" passed in the 1725-26 session, set especially high penalties for free blacks who harbored runaway slaves or received property stolen from masters. The penalties in such cases were potentially much higher than those applied to whites, and if the considerable fines that might accrue could not be paid, the justices had the power to order a free black person put into servitude.

Under other provisions of the 1725-26 act, free negroes who married whites were to be sold into slavery for life; for mere fornication or adultery involving blacks and whites, the penalty for the black person was to be sold as a servant for seven years. Whites in such cases faced different or lighter punishment. The law effectively blocked marriage between the races in Pennsylvania, but fornication continued, as the state's burgeoning mulatto population attested.

Other colonial Pennsylvania laws forbid blacks from gathering in "tippling-houses," carrying arms, or assembling in companies. These, however, were loosely or unevenly enforced. But throughout Pennsylvania colony, the children of free blacks, without exception, were bound out by the local justices of the peace until age 24 (if male) or 21 (if female). All in all, the "free" blacks of colonial Pennsylvania led severely circumscribed lives; they had no control even over their own family arrangements, and they could be put back into servitude for "laziness" or petty crimes, at the mercy of the local authorities."

"The law for gradual emancipation in Pennsylvania passed on February 1780, and that's when the Mason-Dixon line began to acquire its metaphoric meaning as the boundary between North and South. But the law was no proclamation of emancipation. It was deeply conservative. The 6,000 or so Pennsylvania slaves in 1780 stayed slaves. Even those born a few days before the passage of the act had to wait 28 years before the law set them free. This allowed their masters to recoup the cost of raising them."
The abolition bill was made more restrictive during the debates over it -- it originally freed daughters of slave women at 18, sons at 21. By the time it passed, it was upped to a flat 28. That meant it was possible for a Pennsylvania slave's daughter born in February 1780 to live her life in bondage, and if she had a child at 40, the child would remain a slave until 1848.[3] There's no record of this happening, but the "emancipation" law allowed it. It was, as the title of one article has it, "philanthropy at bargain prices."

"Despite the lack of economic interest in slavery, and the absence of a political party to defend it, the Pennsylvania abolition law met serious opposition. The bill also made blacks equal under the state's laws, removed the prohibition on interracial marriage, and allowed free blacks to testify against whites in state courts. The implications of this aroused indignation in many quarters.

The 1780 abolition law actually had more immediate impact on the free blacks than the enslaved ones. The abolition of slavery was very gradual, while the restrictive laws on free blacks were lifted at once. The only rights of free whites that were not extended to them were those of voting and of serving in the state militia. There was actually some doubt about the voting, and on this point the act was interpreted differently in different places. In Philadelphia, blacks seemingly never voted. But in some of the western counties they did so in small numbers. York and Westmoreland were mentioned among these counties.

The act that abolished slavery in Pennsylvania freed no slaves outright, and relics of slavery may have lingered in the state almost until the Civil War. There were 795 slaves in Pennsylvania in 1810, 211 in 1820, 403 or 386 (the count was disputed) in 1830, and 64 in 1840, the last year census worksheets in the northern states included a line for "slaves." The definition of slavery seems to have blurred in the later counts. The two "slaves" counted in 1840 in Lancaster County turned out to have been freed years before, though they were still living on the properties of their former masters. "

I will say that Pennsylvania was unique, but only because of the Quakers, and not the rest of the settlers, simply because Quakers were the majority of the population, and they did not approve of enslaving another human being. However, that is also the double edged sword. Although they did not believe in owning another human being, they also believed in harsh punishments and many more restrictions placed on those who were not "owned".

1.Your sorce includes Indentured servetued with slavery they are not the same thing.

2. How PA treated Free people is irelvant to the point you were making and failed to do so(slavery was an economic force in PA)

3. None of this changes the fact that slavery was part of the reason for the succession

4. Yes I am well aware of how the PA Laws worked, playing a game of see PA did bad things too, dose not make what you said any more wrong.

It is nice you can copy and paste stuff but it dose not help eater of the points I called you on
(Slavery was not part of the reason at the start of the civil war)
(North was built on the backs of slaves)

1) Calling slavery by another name does not make it any less vile. " indentured servitude" for the same things that whites are allowed to do is "slavery" none the less. Trying to make it into something else simply because they called it something else does not change the fact that it was.

2)How PA treated " free blacks" vs " free whites" IS very much relevant. You cannot just say they are free, but then restrict them more and give them less rights than even the slaves! Yes, that is VERY much relevant.

3)None of what you have stated thus far made the North any less vile than the south.

I addressed your points accordingly, and yes, I provided the resources to back them up, rather try to downplay what really happened here by claiming " oh that doesn't count because they called it something else!" No matter how it affected the lives of the people that had to endure such things.

Indentured servitued was a vile practice but it is not slavery.

the rest is just a straw man

I never said the north was a bastion of goodness, it was far from it , I said slavery was never a driving economic source in PA, and Slavery was a reason contributing to the civil war.
both of which you never addressed after I said you were wrong about them, you just played a game of mud slinging rather then addressing the points.

direkiller:

Lil devils x:

direkiller:

1.Your sorce includes Indentured servetued with slavery they are not the same thing.

2. How PA treated Free people is irelvant to the point you were making and failed to do so(slavery was an economic force in PA)

3. None of this changes the fact that slavery was part of the reason for the succession

4. Yes I am well aware of how the PA Laws worked, playing a game of see PA did bad things too, dose not make what you said any more wrong.

It is nice you can copy and paste stuff but it dose not help eater of the points I called you on
(Slavery was not part of the reason at the start of the civil war)
(North was built on the backs of slaves)

1) Calling slavery by another name does not make it any less vile. " indentured servitude" for the same things that whites are allowed to do is "slavery" none the less. Trying to make it into something else simply because they called it something else does not change the fact that it was.

2)How PA treated " free blacks" vs " free whites" IS very much relevant. You cannot just say they are free, but then restrict them more and give them less rights than even the slaves! Yes, that is VERY much relevant.

3)None of what you have stated thus far made the North any less vile than the south.

I addressed your points accordingly, and yes, I provided the resources to back them up, rather try to downplay what really happened here by claiming " oh that doesn't count because they called it something else!" No matter how it affected the lives of the people that had to endure such things.

Indentured servitued was a vile practice but it is not slavery.

the rest is just a straw man

I never said the north was a bastion of goodness, it was far from it , I said slavery was never a driving economic source in PA, and Slavery was a reason contributing to the civil war.
both of which you never addressed after I said you were wrong about them, you just played a game of mud slinging rather then addressing the points.

It is not strawman just because you claim it is strawman, that is just refusing to address the issue.

slavery (slv-r, slvr)
n. pl. slav,er,ies
1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.

slavery [ˈsleɪvərɪ]
n
1. (Law) the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
3. the condition of being subject to some influence or habit
4. (Business / Industrial Relations & HR Terms) work done in harsh conditions for low pay
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slavery
indentured servitude
n.
a person who is bound to work for another for a specified period of time, esp. such a person who came to America during the colonial period.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Indentured+servitude
By very definition they are the same thing.
And yes, also according to history, PA was also dependent on their 30,000 "Indentured servants" economically. I never said that slavery was not an issue contributing to the war, In fact I said that slavery and the economic issues were one in the same issue.
ALSO: LOL @ Mudslinging. That is funny right there. No, TY, I would rather just stick to the facts.

Lil devils x:

direkiller:

Lil devils x:

1) Calling slavery by another name does not make it any less vile. " indentured servitude" for the same things that whites are allowed to do is "slavery" none the less. Trying to make it into something else simply because they called it something else does not change the fact that it was.

2)How PA treated " free blacks" vs " free whites" IS very much relevant. You cannot just say they are free, but then restrict them more and give them less rights than even the slaves! Yes, that is VERY much relevant.

3)None of what you have stated thus far made the North any less vile than the south.

I addressed your points accordingly, and yes, I provided the resources to back them up, rather try to downplay what really happened here by claiming " oh that doesn't count because they called it something else!" No matter how it affected the lives of the people that had to endure such things.

Indentured servitued was a vile practice but it is not slavery.

the rest is just a straw man

I never said the north was a bastion of goodness, it was far from it , I said slavery was never a driving economic source in PA, and Slavery was a reason contributing to the civil war.
both of which you never addressed after I said you were wrong about them, you just played a game of mud slinging rather then addressing the points.

It is not strawman just because you claim it is strawman, that is just refusing to address the issue.

slavery (slv-r, slvr)
n. pl. slav,er,ies
1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.

slavery [ˈsleɪvərɪ]
n
1. (Law) the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
3. the condition of being subject to some influence or habit
4. (Business / Industrial Relations & HR Terms) work done in harsh conditions for low pay
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slavery
indentured servitude
n.
a person who is bound to work for another for a specified period of time, esp. such a person who came to America during the colonial period.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Indentured+servitude
By very definition they are the same thing.
And yes, also according to history, PA was also dependent on their 30,000 "Indentured servants" economically. I never said that slavery was not an issue contributing to the war, In fact I said that slavery and the economic issues were one in the same issue.
ALSO: LOL @ Mudslinging. That is funny right there. No, TY, I would rather just stick to the facts.

The fact that Indentured Servitude was a contract between two people with the exchange of a service for future services rendered and slavery is not. It was no cake walk but it was still a contract and therefore is not slavery.

And in the first post you said the war was not about slavery but economy
which is only partly right, as I said, it was an issue from the start of the war and not entirely economic conserns as seen in the South Carolina D.O.S

direkiller:

Lil devils x:

direkiller:

Indentured servitued was a vile practice but it is not slavery.

the rest is just a straw man

I never said the north was a bastion of goodness, it was far from it , I said slavery was never a driving economic source in PA, and Slavery was a reason contributing to the civil war.
both of which you never addressed after I said you were wrong about them, you just played a game of mud slinging rather then addressing the points.

It is not strawman just because you claim it is strawman, that is just refusing to address the issue.

slavery (slv-r, slvr)
n. pl. slav,er,ies
1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.

slavery [ˈsleɪvərɪ]
n
1. (Law) the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
3. the condition of being subject to some influence or habit
4. (Business / Industrial Relations & HR Terms) work done in harsh conditions for low pay
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slavery
indentured servitude
n.
a person who is bound to work for another for a specified period of time, esp. such a person who came to America during the colonial period.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Indentured+servitude
By very definition they are the same thing.
And yes, also according to history, PA was also dependent on their 30,000 "Indentured servants" economically. I never said that slavery was not an issue contributing to the war, In fact I said that slavery and the economic issues were one in the same issue.
ALSO: LOL @ Mudslinging. That is funny right there. No, TY, I would rather just stick to the facts.

The fact that Indentured Servitude was a contract between two people with the exchange of a service for future services rendered and slavery is not. It was no cake walk but it was still a contract and therefore is not slavery.

And in the first post you said the war was not about slavery but economy
which is only partly right, as I said, it was an issue from the start of the war and not entirely economic conserns as seen in the South Carolina D.O.S

Blacks were forced into indentured servitude against their will, that is no more a contract, than me imprisoning them and forcing them to work for me. It is the same thing regardless of how you try to twist it. As for My words, please do not take them out of context MY EXACT QUOTE: "According to his family, the war was not about slavery it was about economic supression." "His family" meaning "HIS FATHERS WORDS" to be precise, not mine. Mind you it was his family that were actually slaves here, this was their understanding of their OWN family history that was handed down with their family heirlooms. Much of their histories have been destroyed, I would think that you would allow them to at least what they have remaining.

Regardless of how you feel about it, to the Black confederates, that is their flag too.

As far as I am concerned the Slavery issue and economic issue were the same issue.

PS. Notice how the dictionary does not refer to a contract anywhere? Oh yea this was not a "mutual agreement". What were the consequences for refusing to comply?

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/slavery.html
"Before the Civil War, slaves and indentured servants were considered personal property, and they or their descendants could be sold or inherited like any other personalty."

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked