Texas school board bans confederate flag

Hear, hear!

 

Find me a flag in the USA that doesn't represent 'hatred, racism, slavery'.

Found one. Its Montana's state flag.

 

California!

 

I find it rather amusing when American talk of defending America.
In the Armed Forces, they must take an oath.

Then some American public buildings fly the flag of a separatist army.

 

..............

 

You clearly have no clue to US involvement in Hawaiian history. But thats ok.

I recommend you google it.

 

Racism.... against bears.

 

And lone stars.

 

I, too, grew up in the Deep South, and am now in my 50's. I remember segregation and the beginnings of integration. I would remind you, though, that slavery was not exclusive to the South, nor was/is modern racism. There really is no reason to include the phrase 'slavery in the South in a hostile light'. Do you regard slavery in the North in a better light? Do you not remember the race riots of the 60's in the Northern cities? I understand where you're coming from, but it only makes sense if you view the South's secession as being only about slavery. I believe I have shown that was not so in earlier posts.

How could it be racist for a black man to own another black man? It may be a lot of things, but racist isn't one of them.

Without looking it up, I would say that were no black owners of whites in 1860. The earliest mention I have seen of that issue is back in the 1600's when a Virginia court ruled that blacks could not own whites, but that they could be indentured. You may recall that I posted about Anthony Johnson, a black man that is recognized as America's first recognized slaveholder.

On the subject of black slave owners....

The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).

In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).

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

To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4).

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

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

Point taken. I know people that are the product of being educated in black schools under segregation. They don't view segregation as a 'good' thing, but don't use it as an excuse for failure, either. They would tell you that their education was better than most kids receive today with integrated schools. Really, it doesn't matter if you have an old textbook; that doesn't stop you from learning. By the way, in my 'white' school, we had old textbooks, no air conditioning and an old building. What's the difference?

The above is not meant to defend segregation, but only to inject a little reality. Sure there was racism and it was reflected in society at large. Segregation was a reflection of that.

Ironically, in my state we still have what is now termed 'historically black' colleges, formerly known as black colleges. It really is an economic burden on the state to have so many colleges, but none ever get shut down because it would be 'racist' to do so. Go figure.

Here's a link to a list of historically black colleges...from Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historically_black_colleges_and_universities

I might, but I never suffered under slavery and neither did you. I would say that, 150 years after the fact, it is high time to take an honest look at that entire period of history.

Just to add a little personal perspective to this. My GGG Grandfather died in the Civil war, as did all but one of his brothers and also some cousins. The one surviving brother lost a leg. They owned zero slaves. Most Confederate soldiers did not own slaves. It makes no sense to think that so many men, indeed the whole population, would suffer so for an institution that had no part in.

All that being said, my feelings about the Confederacy would be just a matter of family history if we had a government today that stayed within its Constitutional bounds. We instead have an over-reaching Federal Gov't that seems top have no limits in its reach. I see Lincoln, in his pretext for and prosecution of the Civil War, creating the template for that type of Government. He was, IMO, the original Big Brother.

Unfortunately, the slavery card is used every time someone defends the Confederacy. This division among us, through a faulty understanding of history, is Big Government's best friend. Until we get past that, we won't see how Lincoln broke with the Founders intent and turned the Constitution on its head. We will never find a solution if we don't correctly see the problem.

As I have shown earlier with Northern editorials, people in the day saw Lincoln's acts for what they were. Despite that, the Lincoln legend has grown for 150 years and that period is largely viewed through the filter of that legend. The complete history is out there for anyone that chooses to look. What anyone makes of it is up to that person.

 

Plenty of people walking around now my age or older suffered from "slavery", which would obviously include the racial discrimination laws that continued from the days of slavery. Their children are materially affected as well, since parents being banned from many of the economic and social opportunities reduces opportunistic for the children in many ways. For instance, legacy admissions to college of children of alumni give the past racial discrimination great effect to continue on down through generations.

The Civil Rights Act in the 1960s started the end of these kinds of legal oppression, but whute defended the legally discrimination vociferously (and with taxpayer money), so it was only in the later 1980s when we could really say the LEGAL sanctions of th last of slavery were eliminated.

Now I would have thought that the group with the political philosophy that says that children should get unearned income from their parents entirely tax free, that the idea of intergenerational disadvantage from "screwing the parents = screwing the children" would be obvious. The fact that they vociferously oppose ANY form of temporary arrangement that would counteract the built-in racial discrimination from past legal discrimination shows their blindness when it comes to paying for THEIR sins, racists think it all ends the MOMENT they stop profiting from it.

 

I used to care. I don't any more. Lots of people have stopped caring.

 

A few points concerning this:

1. You want to whitewash the abuse of blacks that occurred in the Confederacy due to slavery with injustice in that occurred in the North. The abuse you are referring to in the North is not an excuse for the abuse of blacks what happened in the Confederacy during slavery and in the South afterwards.

2. You want to ignore the fact that there were significant differences in the Confederacy and the North with regards to slavery. At the time of the Civil War slavery was not legal in the following Union states: New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon, and Kansas. Can you name me one, JUST ONE, state in the Confederacy where slavery was illegal. If there is no difference in the North and the Confederacy with regards to slavery why is that?

I will also remind you of the statement of the Vice President of the Confederacy:

Again it is made clear hear what the founders of the Confederate nation had in mind. A major cornerstone of their new nation rested on the notion that blacks, were by nature inferior to whites, and as a such assigning them to the role of slaves was justified. As a black person, how can I not view slavery in the South in a hostile light?

This can easily be seen by the fact that at the time of the Civil War, there were practically no blacks who owned white slaves. In order to understand this, you need to look at the underlying motivation. It is rooted in the notion that blacks were inferior to whites and therefore blacks were assigned the role of slave. To see this, recall Stephen's speech.

A couple of points

1. Where you went to school makes a difference when you are trying to get a job.
2. Because the opportunities of blacks were restricted due to the legacy of slavery and segregation, the teachers were restricted in their opportunities to gain practical experience in their fields in some instances.
3. In many cases the facilities given to blacks were out right inferior to those of whites, thus putting blacks at a disadvantage.
4. The principle behind segregation was that blacks are inferior to whites. By FORCING the separation of races in this way, a subtle type of psychological conditioning of the notion that blacks are inferior, is emblazoned in the minds of blacks. Not only that but the notion that whites are superior to blacks is instilled into the minds of whites. An older relative of mine told me that once he went into a store to purchase some Prince Albert tobacco. The white clerk told him that Prince Albert was a white man. It's ridiculous stuff that blacks had to endure on a daily basis, that were the result of such conditioning.

I did not suffer under slavery, but my ancestors did. Not only that but growing up in the South, I suffered and witnessed quite a bit of abuse that was due to the legacy of slavery. It would be different if the abuse of blacks ended with slavery. Unfortunately it did not.

They were fighting for a nation that believed it was perfectly fine for blacks to be slaves. That's the problem.

Well I too am concerned about the growth in the power of the Federal government. It appears these days that they have little or no regard for the civil liberties in the Constitution. That said however, I believe slavery to be a far greater crime than the denial of the right to secede. If by denying a state the right to secede, the institution of slavery is abolished in that state, then I say deny the state the right to secede.

 

Totally false. The Confederate Flag is just St. Andrew's Cross, the same one that appears on the Scottish Flag. Only people who have been brainwashed in government schools actually believe that the Confederate Flag represents those things.

 

Actually, it was the Federal government under Lincoln that was intent on waging war. They (Lincoln and the Northern elites) wanted to maintain their political and economic hegemony over the Southern economy so they militarily invaded the Confederacy (which had peacefully withdrawn). Slavery as a justification for war (as embodied by the Emancipation Proclamation) was just a piece of propaganda fabricated by Lincoln almost two years after he invaded the South. Arguably it was one of the most effective pieces of war propaganda in history, as it is still being regurgitated by government indoctrination centers and their graduates (you, for instance). If you actually think the Federal government waged war against the South because they wanted to free black people, then I suppose there isn't much you couldn't be convinced of...

P.S. - The "Confederate Flag" it not just a single flag. The version of the Confederate Flag most people rail against was not actually adopted as the Confederacy's flag until a year or two after the war started. It is actually nothing more than St. Andrew's Cross, the same one which appears on the Scottish Flag, and was originally used as a battle standard for Confederate soldiers, the vast majority of whom did not own slaves.

 

And I'm looking forward to the day when the US changes its flag, the same flag that flew over the genocide of native Americans and the institutionalized racism of the past centuries. The US flag is a symbol of death and tyranny to many millions of victims. If you had a shred of consistency, you would spit on and burn the Stars and Stripes for what has transpired under its shadow...

 

They changed their flag from one Confederate Flag to another?

 

In other news, the swastika is merely the Hindu symbol for the primordial cosmic energy.

Why would anyone who reads the Declarations of Secession and the Cornerstone Speech of Alexander Stephens think it does not represent slavery and racism?

 

Not all blacks hated their lives in the South, slaves included. In fact, many of them lead relatively happy and healthy lives. You can read hundreds of firsthand accounts from former slaves that confirm this fact:

Quotes like that are not uncommon. Sometimes you will read about slaves getting married in their master's home and on their master's dime.

In reality, the South was not some racist cesspool during those times. In fact, the North was arguably much more racist towards blacks than Southerners. That is why, for instance, the first black man from the North was not elected to the Congress until 1929, sixty-four years AFTER the Civil War had been over. By that time, the South had already sent twenty-three black men to the US Congress. Most of the things you think you know about that time period are almost all wrong. Don't worry, though, it is not entirely your fault. You have been lied to by government propaganda artists your entire life.

 

If you are trying to equate the Nazis with the Confederacy, then clearly you are not thinking straight.

There are manifold documents, speeches, pamphlets, books, etc. that one must read in order to arrive at an informed conclusion in this regard. Slavery was just a propaganda piece used by BOTH sides in order to stir up support for the elitist cause.

 

Its quite offensive how you blindly defend the flag of slavery. Face it you lost and freedom won now deal with it!

 

It's quite offensive how you blindly defend the US flag, the same one that flew over the genocide of native Americans and Japanese internment camps.

 

So you are anti-American? I always thought so, but now it is confirmed. If I may use your quote as my sig line that would be much appreciated.

 

So you are pro-genocide? I always thought so, but now it is confirmed.

 

Drones in Pakistan killed 176 children from 2004 to 2012



Why are you flag-wavers defending the murder of innocent children? How despicable.

 

the flag we have now is a different flag than the one we had when that took place

it changed in 1959