Isn't opposing the Confederate flag basic decency?

[Revoltingest]

My numbers are credible. The census you speak of shows that only 5% of the US population owned 95% of the slaves. Southerners owned 85% of the land that the slaves worked. That census skews the data as it counts all family members instead of the actual slave owner as a single entity. In other words...

Mr. Smith owns 100 slaves
Mrs. Smith, though married to Mr. Smith, is also counted as a slave owner even though it is the same 100 slaves that her husband owns
Little John Smith, age 10, is also counted with his parents as a slave owner

What should have been done is to calculate the total number of slaves and divide them by the actual number of slave owning households, not combined individuals within the same household. When you do that, you get the correct ~5% ratio.

Also, the ratios for some other states were much lower than for those shown above,
eg, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri.

 

[dust1n]

Being born and raised in Alabama, I will speak from the perspective of one who actually likes the flag and what it means in both American history, and on a personal level...

For starters, it is NOT a symbol for slavery or hatred. Some will interpret it that way, but they do not understand where the South was coming from.

I've lived in the south my whole life and I still have no idea where they are coming from.

Now let's talk about slavery and what is NOT taught in school. Many people do not realize that the Europeans who went into Africa and started shipping slaves over to North America, did not actually conquer the natives and enslave them. No, no, no...African tribes would be at war with each other and the victor would enslave the loser, sell them to the Europeans in exchange for goods (clothing, food, alcohol, weapons) and that is how the slave trade got started in North America. Blacks would enslave other blacks and sell them off.

Seem simplified, so I thought I would check into this, and lo and behold:

"The first 19 or so Africans to reach the English colonies arrived in Jamestown, Virginia in 1619, brought by Dutch traders who had seized them from a captured Spanish slave ship. The Spanish usually baptized slaves in Africa before embarking them. As English law then considered baptized Christians exempt from slavery, these Africans were treated as indentured servants, and they joined about 1,000 English indentured servants already in the colony. The Africans were freed after a prescribed period and given the use of land and supplies by their former masters. The historian Ira Berlin noted that what he called the "charter generation" in the colonies was sometimes made up of mixed-race men who were indentured servants, and whose ancestry was African and Iberian. They were descendants of African women and Portuguese and Spanish men who worked in African ports as traders or facilitators in the slave trade. For example,Anthony Johnson arrived in Virginia in 1621 as an indentured servant; he became a free person of color and became a property owner, even owning slaves. The transformation of the status of Africans from indentured servitude to slavery – which they could not leave or escape – happened gradually.

There were no laws regarding slavery early in Virginia's history. But, in 1640, a Virginia court sentenced John Punch to slavery after he attempted to flee his service.[4] The two whites with whom he fled were only sentenced to an additional year of their indenture, and three years' service to the colony.[5] This marked the first legal sanctioning of slavery in the English colonies and was one of the first legal distinctions made between Europeans and Africans.[4][6]

In 1654, John Casor, a black indentured servant, was the first man to be declared a slave in a civil case. He had claimed to an officer that his owner, free black colonist Anthony Johnson, had held him past his indenture term. A neighbor, Robert Parker told Johnson that if he did not release Casor, Parker would testify in court to this fact; which under local laws, may have resulted in Johnson losing some of hisheadright lands. Under duress, Johnson freed Casor, who entered into a seven years' indenture with Parker. Feeling cheated, Johnson sued Parker to repossess Casor. A Northampton County court ruled for Johnson, declaring that Parker illegally was detaining Casor from his rightful master who legally held him "for the duration of his life".[9]

During the colonial period, the status of slaves was also affected by interpretations related to the status of foreigners. England had no system of naturalizing immigrants to its island or its colonies. Since persons of African origins were not English subjects by birth, they were among those peoples considered foreigners and generally outside English common law. In 1656 Virginia, Elizabeth Key Grinstead, a mixed-race woman, successfully gained her freedom and that of her son by making her case as the daughter of the free Englishman Thomas Key. She was also a baptized Christian. Her attorney was an English subject, which may have helped her case. (He was also the father of her mixed-race son, and the couple married after Key was freed.)[10]

Shortly after the Elizabeth Key trial and similar challenges, in 1662 the royal colony of Virginia approved a law adopting the principle of partus sequitur ventrum (called partus, for short), stating that any children of an enslaved mother would take her status and be considered born into slavery, regardless if the father were a freeborn Englishman or Christian. This was a reversal of common law practice, which ruled that children of English subjects took the status of the father. The change institutionalized the power relationships between slaveowners and slave women, freed the white men from the legal responsibility to acknowledge or financially support their mixed-race children, and somewhat confined the open scandal of mixed-race children andmiscegenation to within the slave quarters.

The Virginia Slave codes of 1705 further defined as slaves those people imported from nations that were not Christian. Native Americans who were sold to colonists by other Native Americans, or captured by Europeans during village raids, were also defined as slaves.[11] This established the basis for the legal enslavement of any non-Christian foreigner.

Slavery in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




That's not to say that your point about African kings selling slaves is lost. Certainly people who capture and sell slaves to people are just as culpable as those who buy and use them, but that doesn't really resolve the issue about purchasing slaves.

Ironically, Britain's efforts in the 1800's in probably one of the most influential factors in abolishing slavery in many places throughout the world.

 

[columbus]

Actually, the CSA was pretty much kicking the Union's *** strategically, even though it was outnumbered 2 to 1. By the war's end, the Union Army had suffered ~200,000 more casualties than the CSA. Lee's army almost destroyed Grant's army at Shiloh, TN. If Grant had not received reinforcements, the outcome of the War would have been much different.

I'm glad someone took on the remedial US history lesson. The idea that the North invaded to end slavery is ridiculous.
They could no more have raised an army with the war cry "Save the ******s" than the Bush administration could have with "Save the shi'a".
The reason the war was so bloody is that a ruthless and powerfully armed army attacked a people fighting for their families and homes in their own backyards.

Tom

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Also, the ratios for some other states were much lower than for those shown above,
eg, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri.

I specified 7 original confederate states, since they seemed most germaine to the seccesion.

The source I linked to lists all states.

 

[gsa]

I'm glad someone took on the remedial US history lesson. The idea that the North invaded to end slavery is ridiculous.
They could no more have raised an army with the war cry "Save the ******s" than the Bush administration could have with "Save the shi'a".
The reason the war was so bloody is that a ruthless and powerfully armed army attacked a people fighting for their families and homes in their own backyards.

Tom

No, it is not ridiculous. Union soldiers did think they were preserving the union, which included abolishing slavery. They weren't fighting for racial equality, to be sure, but to stop the expansion, and ultimately existence, of slavery? Yes. And self-interest played a role as well, see free labor ideology and Southern opposition to homesteading to see why.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm glad someone took on the remedial US history lesson. The idea that the North invaded to end slavery is ridiculous.
They could no more have raised an army with the war cry "Save the ******s" than the Bush administration could have with "Save the shi'a".
The reason the war was so bloody is that a ruthless and powerfully armed army attacked a people fighting for their families and homes in their own backyards.

Tom

Not sure who claimed the North invaded to end slavery, or that they would have used 'Save the ******s' as an sort of rallying cry. Seems like a simplistic argument to me, but also seems like a strawman.
But if we're doing the history lesson thing, it's worth considering the reasons given by the states of the confederacy for the succession in the first place.

Pretty clear that whatever the reasons the North used to convince their population to fight (which included drafting soldiers anyway), slavery and the disagreements over it played a key role in the decision of the Confederate States to secede.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

 

[columbus]

No, it is not ridiculous. Union soldiers did think they were preserving the union, which included abolishing slavery.

I'm not really talking about the soldiers but the leaders. Then, as now, army grunts weren't known for keen moral discernment or educated views on government policy. Attempting to impose freedom for all would have netted the northerners about 100 Quaker pacifists and some poor kids hoping that the gov would give them a rifle they could keep.
The War Between the States was a clash between cultures and the rival financial interests of the wealthy elites.
Going back to the OP briefly, I do agree that the current trendiness of the rebel flag is mostly a 20th century reaction to cause celebre of racial desegregation, and as such is really lame.
Tom

 

[lewisnotmiller]

My numbers are credible. The census you speak of shows that only 5% of the US population owned 95% of the slaves. Southerners owned 85% of the land that the slaves worked. That census skews the data as it counts all family members instead of the actual slave owner as a single entity. In other words...

Mr. Smith owns 100 slaves
Mrs. Smith, though married to Mr. Smith, is also counted as a slave owner even though it is the same 100 slaves that her husband owns
Little John Smith, age 10, is also counted with his parents as a slave owner

What should have been done is to calculate the total number of slaves and divide them by the actual number of slave owning households, not combined individuals within the same household. When you do that, you get the correct ~5% ratio.

The numbers I showed are a straight dump from the census, but there is additional information available regarding slaveholder numbers instead.
I can calculate the numbers for all the states if you like, but South Carolina had 26701 registered slaveholders, from a total free population of 301,302, which comes out at just under 9% slave ownership. Assuming you're willing to accept that as representational, or come up with some figures of your own as an alternative, we at least have a reference point for discussion.

I don't care if 5% of the US population owned 95% of the slaves (as you posted) for a couple of reasons. Firstly, when saying population you are presumably talking about the free population, since that is how the census figures were taken. So we're automatically building in a bias by ignoring the slaves. So in South Carolina, 57% of the population were slaves. Even if just 5% of South Carolina's free population were slaveholders, then total number of people who either directly own (ie. not even counting Mrs Smith) or ARE slaves sits at well over 60%. But 5% appears too low a count anyway.

Using South Carolina as reference, there are 2 ways a 5% number can be arrived at
1) Pad out the sample size to include more than the confederate states that seceded. Including Delaware, for example. Or;
2) Pad out the South Carolina population to include the slaves. Who obviously were not slaveholders.
Otherwise it looks like just under 9% to me.

The figures suggested at weren't arrived at via the mathematical formula you suggested (ie. counting every individual in a house as a slaveholder).
Instead, they were arrived at by comparing the actual number of slaveholders to the average sized household, both of which were known.

There is an obvious inherent assumption, in so far as homes with multiple slaveholders (uncommon, but they existed) would skew the numbers up slightly.
Might be clearer in table form;

5% still doesn't appear credible. It is probably just easier if you post how you arrive at that number, to be honest.

 

[Revoltingest]

I specified 7 original confederate states, since they seemed most germaine to the seccesion.
The source I linked to lists all states.

But it pays to look at all slave states for a complete picture.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

But it pays to look at all slave states for a complete picture.

I did. And I'm a total history geek. And i linked to figures on them all.

But quoting slave percentages from Delaware actually has an overall clouding effect, not a clarifying one.

 

[Revoltingest]

I did. And I'm a total history geek. And i linked to figures on them all.

I know.....where'd you think I got me additional states!?

But quoting slave percentages from Delaware actually has an overall clouding effect, not a clarifying one.

I think Delaware was too far north to be considered part of the south, both politically & economically.
I also ruled out Saskatchawwooon.
(Is that correct spelling, @Wirey?)

 

[Wirey]

I know.....where'd you think I got me additional states!?

I think Delaware was too far north to be considered part of the south, both politically & economically.
I also ruled out Saskatchawwooon.
(Is that correct spelling, @Wirey?)

Close enough.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I know.....where'd you think I got me additional states!?

I think Delaware was too far north to be considered part of the south, both politically & economically.
I also ruled out Saskatchawwooon.
(Is that correct spelling, @Wirey?)

Oh...well you said 'slave-owning', not just South. I can see the sense in adding additional confed states to consider them, but i can also see the sense in not, so I didn't. The initial secession group were the most important, to my mind, because they drove the split. Other states were then forced to choose a side (practically).

So I think economic arguments hold more ground in general terms as you proceed through the confederate formation.

 

[goodhunter819]

Have your read the historical atrocities that took place leading to the civil war in America?

 

[Underhill]

The flag is in bad taste. It is like the term '******'. Doesn't bother me personally one way or the other. But it bothers some people so I don't use it. I see people who do use the term as arrogant and ignorant, just as I see those flying the confederate flag in the backs of their pickups as arrogant and ignorant.

But I am all in favor of them plastering it on their vehicles and tattooing it on their arm... It tells me who to avoid.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

What I have always wondered, with regards to the confederate flag is, well over a 150 years after the confederate loss, why is it still used as a symbol of defiance by some in the US? Do they want back slavery? What exactly is going through their minds?

 

[Brickjectivity]

What I have always wondered, with regards to the confederate flag is, well over a 150 years after the confederate loss, why is it still used as a symbol of defiance by some in the US? Do they want back slavery? What exactly is going through their minds?

This may be hard to imagine, so I will keep it short. It has to do with small towns in a nation that has many big cities. People from small towns often feel coerced into acting like they are not. Its such a small thing, but somehow it has created a rebellion against city culture. 'Southern' culture is actually small-town culture, and the old South is actually gone now. People from small towns go to the big city and do not fit in well. In the big cities they feel like they have gone to a northern state, as if they have entered another country. Mostly that is the real reason, but there are some extremely bigoted and hateful racists, too. There is also insensitivity -- a failure to understand why that flag offends.

Racism is real, and segregation is a recent and fresh memory. Purposeful racism is not common though. In the South most people do not think of themselves as racists, because things are very different from the recent past. Many small towns still have a black side and a white side of town, although places of business are no longer segregated. Black people and white people tend to have very different family histories, different wealth levels and such. Misunderstandings are real and prejudgements are real. Southern small-town culture feels under siege, and it unfortunately recently uses that flag as its symbol of resistance to cultural change. (I don't know how black people from small towns feel when they go into cities and whether they are part of small-town culture or not.) I think that attitudes about using that flag are changing, and people are changing their minds slowly. I think a lot of change comes from hospitals (which are staffed by people of all colors and treat all kinds) and from mixed churches and to a lesser degree from workplaces and day to day business.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What I have always wondered, with regards to the confederate flag is, well over a 150 years after the confederate loss, why is it still used as a symbol of defiance by some in the US? Do they want back slavery? What exactly is going through their minds?

It has to do with wanting to have personal pride in your heritage .No one wants to feel like their ancestors were dirt bags. People want to feel pride in who they are and where they come from. In the aftermath of the civil war there was a need in the communities of the southern states to find some kind of pride and self esteem. Many felt that the rebel flag (as it is more commonly called rather than confederate flag) embodied some sense of pride in themselves. Most people don't support racism in the south. I don't think anyone wants slavery again. It just has to do with wanting to feel like having something worth being proud of.

Now the thing that I simply don't understand about all of this was the removal of the confederate solider memorials. That is something I do not understand. The flag I get. Don't put it on government buildings. Don't hang it in public places. Let the people who want to hang it on their own private property do what they will.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It has to do with wanting to have personal pride in your heritage .No one wants to feel like their ancestors were dirt bags. People want to feel pride in who they are and where they come from.

Celebrating treason in defense of slavers and slavery seems an odd way to do that.

In the aftermath of the civil war there was a need in the communities of the southern states to find some kind of pride and self esteem. Many felt that the rebel flag (as it is more commonly called rather than confederate flag) embodied some sense of pride in themselves. Most people don't support racism in the south. I don't think anyone wants slavery again. It just has to do with wanting to feel like having something worth being proud of.

If it was only about "southern pride", wouldn't there be more African-American people flying the Confederate flag?

Now the thing that I simply don't understand about all of this was the removal of the confederate solider memorials. That is something I do not understand.

On public land? I understand just fine why people wouldn't want to memorialize traitors.

The flag I get. Don't put it on government buildings. Don't hang it in public places. Let the people who want to hang it on their own private property do what they will.

... but by the same token, let people who see it respond as *they* will. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.