Northerner sticking their nose in South
U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd Calls for Removal of Confederate Flag
(Columbia)AP - U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd called Sunday for the removal of the Confederate flag that flies at the South Carolina Statehouse.
The Connecticut Democrat says the Confederate flag belongs in a museum.
Senator Dodd was attending a Martin Luther King Junior memorial event at a Greenville church.
He and Delaware Senator Joe Biden plan on attending a march and rally Monday to mark the annual holiday honoring slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Junior.
Dodd, of Connecticut, has announced that he is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008.
Biden has said he is considering a run for president.
(Columbia)AP - U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd called Sunday for the removal of the Confederate flag that flies at the South Carolina Statehouse.
The Connecticut Democrat says the Confederate flag belongs in a museum.
Senator Dodd was attending a Martin Luther King Junior memorial event at a Greenville church.
He and Delaware Senator Joe Biden plan on attending a march and rally Monday to mark the annual holiday honoring slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Junior.
Dodd, of Connecticut, has announced that he is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008.
Biden has said he is considering a run for president.
0
-
Nice educational posting JamesRK. The Anti-Americans say that the only flag they want erased from our culture is the Battle Flag. All BS as any intelligent person would suspect. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Msut77
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by git_r_done
I may be wrong here but, have people not been trying to get that flag down here in SC for a long time without any luck.
I don't believe they will be successfull this time either.
I am not originally from SC but I have been here for 2 years now and I can definatly see where there are strong feelings for the confederacy and these people don't want to forget about their family members lost in that war.
I believe that flag will stay in its rightfull place flying high!
No, these __________ MF's got the one that flew on the statehouse years ago. These lowlife scum are after anything and everything AMERICAN, not just the Southern Flag. The flag they are after now is the one that flies with the Confederate monument on the statehouse grounds. We have hundreds, if not thousands of smaller monuments and flags on courthouse grounds throughout the south to honor our dead. Lots of sorry BASTA*DS want to prevent us from memoralizing them. They are the Hitler like Sons of gripe*s that talk and act like this cowardly MF is doing.
Nothing says AMERICA like the Naval Flag of the biggest group of traitors in this countries history.
As is usually the case, you never get anything right. First, the Confederate States of America formed of its own volition, at the will of its people, as it was their legal right to do so. Secondly, the flag you refer to as the Naval Flag is only partially correct. The Battle Flag...which you failed to tell us here, is also known as the Union Jack, more specifically when it is flown, or intended to be flown aboard vessels as the crossed bars and stars represent the confederation of states, hence the term "Union" - even then it is still known as the Battle Flag of the Confederate States of America. It was dear to our fathers and their families, and it has its place in our day to day history and culture.
We, as sons and daughters of Confederate veterans should not be oppressed by Anti-American organizations like the NAACP, and the cowards like Senator Christopher Dodd, or other idiots who wish to erase the American culture.
Lets talk about traitors now. What have you done for our country, Msut? Tell us about how much you love America. Tell us what you have done to protect our way of life, puke.0 -
quote:Originally posted by 2-barrel
My wife is from Kentucky and she has a confederate flag flying on our wall. I'm in Wisconsin. I have no problem with the flag. It was long before my time and is part of history. Its time for the liberals to suit up and swim the ocean. [;)]
Thank you, and all who would allow us the opportunity to honor our dead in peace.0 -
...seattle, why do you keep posting "race is an illusion"?
It ain't... About every member of any race that is proud of their race, would beg to differ with your statement...[;)]
0 -
quote:Originally posted by warriorsfan
quote:Originally posted by fastcarsgofastOriginally posted by HAIRY
Just like the war of northern aggression in the 1860's.
The war of Northern Aggression that the South started by firing the first shots at Fort Sumter? Nice revisionist history you got there.
If you read your history you'll see that the North was sending troops in for a troop build up to keep the southern states in line. I suppose you also believe that the war was about slavery. Never mind that less than 1% of whites in the south actually owned a slave and that it took several years before Lincoln made his famous emancipation proclamation. Talk about revisionist history. Focusing on the slave issue was a political strategy to garner support for the north's war effort. And has subsequently been focused on by historians (mostly from the north) to make the war appear justified. It was no justified than the British aggression against the colonies when they declared their independence from an oppressive government who was raping them economically.
Make no mistake about it slavery was an evil that needed to be dealt with. But it was not the primary concern of the northern lead federal govt. If it was then they would have emancipated the slaves at the beginning of or eve before the war. The Yankees were rich and wanted to get richer while they kept the south poor and powerless. Truth be known the north benefited as much maybe even more form the slaves in the south. Just like Americans today benefit from cheep if not free labor from oversees.
Not revisionist history. Just the history they don't teach you at your usual public govt. run school.0 -
quote:Originally posted by warriorsfan
quote:Originally posted by fastcarsgofastOriginally posted by HAIRY
Just like the war of northern aggression in the 1860's.
The war of Northern Aggression that the South started by firing the first shots at Fort Sumter? Nice revisionist history you got there.
Really? Gosh, how bright you are? Now, maybe you'd want to tell us why Old Dishonest Abe thanked his naval commander Gustavus Fox for assisting him in manipulating the South Carolinians into firing on Fort Sumpter. Add this to more of Thomas J. Dilorenzo's work regarding the myth that Lincoln was a great statesman. A "great statesman" would not have manipulated his own people into starting one of the bloodiest wars in world history.0 -
quote:Originally posted by fastcarsgofast
quote:Originally posted by warriorsfan
quote:Originally posted by fastcarsgofastOriginally posted by HAIRY
Just like the war of northern aggression in the 1860's.
The war of Northern Aggression that the South started by firing the first shots at Fort Sumter? Nice revisionist history you got there.
If you read your history you'll see that the North was sending troops in for a troop build up to keep the southern states in line. I suppose you also believe that the war was about slavery. Never mind that less than 1% of whites in the south actually owned a slave and that it took several years before Lincoln made his famous emancipation proclamation. Talk about revisionist history. Focusing on the slave issue was a political strategy to garner support for the north's war effort. And has subsequently been focused on by historians (mostly from the north) to make the war appear justified. It was no justified than the British aggression against the colonies when they declared their independence from an oppressive government who was raping them economically.
Make no mistake about it slavery was an evil that needed to be dealt with. But it was not the primary concern of the northern lead federal govt. If it was then they would have emancipated the slaves at the beginning of or eve before the war. The Yankees were rich and wanted to get richer while they kept the south poor and powerless. Truth be known the north benefited as much maybe even more form the slaves in the south. Just like Americans today benefit from cheep if not free labor from oversees.
Not revisionist history. Just the history they don't teach you at your usual public govt. run school.
You might want to check those ownership figures. Only about 1% owned over 100 slaves, but about 25% owned at least one slave. There were around 3.5-3.9 million slaves at the time of the Civil War and around 5.5 million whites. That would work out to around 60+ slaves per owner with the 1% figure, and that just was not the case. It is very easy to establish the number with tax records of the time.[:)]0 -
The most accepted percentage figure is 5%. A great many slave owners owned a hundred or more, some several hundred. Some Indian families owned well beyond one hundred salves, LeFlore (Lefluer) famil being one.
Here's one account of the Choctaw family LeFlore:
http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=dpanther&id=I096150 -
The initial act that started the war was the occupation of Fort Sumter. South Carolina mearly acted to repel that invasion.
http://www.contemplator.com/america/bonnieblue.html0 -
quote:Originally posted by kimi
The most accepted percentage figure is 5%. A great many slave owners owned a hundred or more, some several hundred. Some Indian families owned well beyond one hundred salves, LeFlore (Lefluer) famil being one.
Try table 4, and a strong dose of reality.
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/wahl.slavery.us
It's one of many, and the numbers are provable. 5% is far too low a figure even if you count all members of a family separately as people, but not owners. The only way to even get in that neighborhood is to take something like a family, count it as one entity, and then compare it to the total number of whites in the South at the time, and that's not apples to apples. Count family units and compare, or count all members of a family as slave holders and compare, but don't be dishonest and pick family units and then total population.
In case you hadn't noticed, this is NOT an attack on the South or the Stars and Bars, I was born in the South, but I do believe in accuracy, not myth.[:)]0 -
I'll stick to the five percent figure that is commonly talked about regarding this issue. As a matter of fact, I have never even heard of such a high figure. 25% seems way off to me. I have seen literally thousands of old census documents where slaves for each family is noted, and I believe that 5% is probably a good all around figure. Maybe someone else can shed some light on this point. 0 -
My guess is tha you are using "listed" owners and attempting to compare them to the total white population of around 5.5 million. That is no more accurate than for most folks to say that "I own my house", but to refuse to count family members as part of the ownership group. It is one of the nifty little tricks that can be used to distort reality when someone wants to use statistics to "prove" a point.
Count household to household, or family population to population, and the numbers work out just shy of the 25% for most records. One of the factors that helps to confuse the issue is the fact that for much of the time period involved, women were not allowed to own property in many areas. Technical ownership would revert to the nearest male relative upon the death of a husband, until and if the woman remarried. Ask Martha Washington about that one, and what she got under English Common Law at the time of the death of her first husband, and who owned the property after she married George.
All you really have to do is to take the numbers of the total population, multiply by the percent you choose, and compare to the number of known and registered owners of slaves. 5% of 5.5 million is 275,000 and there are quite a few more owners than that, EVEN if you only count one member per household. If you actually count households with slaves the percent jumps by leaps and bounds.
Don't get lost in the idea that I'm trying to knock your position on the South or State's Rights, just the accuracy of the slave owning numbers.[:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by kimi
The most accepted percentage figure is 5%. A great many slave owners owned a hundred or more, some several hundred. Some Indian families owned well beyond one hundred salves, LeFlore (Lefluer) famil being one.
Here's one account of the Choctaw family LeFlore:
http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=dpanther&id=I09615
Thanks I meant to hit the 6. Typing too fast for my own good. Guess I'll stick to spelling out numbers.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
My guess is tha you are using "listed" owners and attempting to compare them to the total white population of around 5.5 million. That is no more accurate than for most folks to say that "I own my house", but to refuse to count family members as part of the ownership group. It is one of the nifty little tricks that can be used to distort reality when someone wants to use statistics to "prove" a point.
Count household to household, or family population to populaion, and the numbers work out just shy of the 25% for most records. One of the factors that helps to confuse the issue is the fact that for much of the time period involved, women were not allowed to own property in many areas. Technical ownership would revert to the nearest male relative upon the death of a husband, until and if the woman remarried. Ask Martha Washington about that one, and what she got under English Common Law at the time of the death of her first husband, and who owned the property after she married George.
All you really have to do is to take the numbers of the total population, multiply by the percent you choose, and compare to the number of known and registered owners of slaves. 5% of 5.5 million is 275,000 and there are quite a few more owners than that, EVEN if you only count one member per household. If you actually count households with slaves the percent jumps by leaps and bounds.
Don't get lost in the idea that I'm trying to knock your position on the South or State's Rights, just the accuracy of the slave owning numbers.[:)]
You bring up some good points, and I think you know that I am not attempting to trick anyone. My belief is that a figure of 25% is way too high, but I could be wrong. I am going to delve into this the next day or three and learn as much as I can. Some of what this author wrote is vague, or outright misleading. Consider the following quote of his:
"Rapid Natural Increase in U.S. Slave Population
How did the U.S. slave population increase nearly fourfold between 1810 and 1860, given the demise of the trans-Atlantic trade? They enjoyed an exceptional rate of natural increase."
He either conveniently forgot that the entire southern half of the South, as we know it today was under French, Spanish and/or Indian control and would not show up in the census, or for whatever reason, failed to mention it. This area was populated by lots of people who later became U.S. citizens by 1810 (1812-1814).
In the French and Spanish controlled south there were hugh plantations that had enormous slave populations. This alone would account for a BIG increase in slaves which would show up in the 1820 census. Additionally, between 1820 and 1835 the vast majority of Indian land sandwiched between Georgia, Tennessee and present day Louisiana ( known as the Mississippi Territory) opened up, which would have caused yet another significant increase in the slave population. The fact that he did not even briefly address these issues tells me that his figures need to be checked for validity. Also, when one applies a percentage to the number of slave owners there were in relation to families, other factors need to be applied besides the number of "white" slave owners that he mentioned. One needs to consider the Black and Indian slave owners, plus the "particular year of census" as the population numbers were constantly rising, and the "percentage" was changing as well.0 -
quote:Originally posted by fastcarsgofast
quote:Originally posted by kimi
The most accepted percentage figure is 5%. A great many slave owners owned a hundred or more, some several hundred. Some Indian families owned well beyond one hundred salves, LeFlore (Lefluer) famil being one.
Here's one account of the Choctaw family LeFlore:
http://wc.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=dpanther&id=I09615
Thanks I meant to hit the 6. Typing too fast for my own good. Guess I'll stick to spelling out numbers.
[:D]0 -
At my place of employment, any display of the so-called "confederate flag", be it on a bumper sticker, t-shirt or whatever, will result in immediate and permanent termination of employment.
And it's damn hard to get permanently canned where I work!0 -
quote:Originally posted by stanman
At my place of employment, any display of the so-called "confederate flag", be it on a bumper sticker, t-shirt or whatever, will result in immediate and permanent termination of employment.
And it's damn hard to get permanently canned where I work!
Hitler's America in action. What organization would you have us boycot besides Anti-American government officials and institutions? [:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by Msut77
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by git_r_done
I may be wrong here but, have people not been trying to get that flag down here in SC for a long time without any luck.
I don't believe they will be successfull this time either.
I am not originally from SC but I have been here for 2 years now and I can definatly see where there are strong feelings for the confederacy and these people don't want to forget about their family members lost in that war.
I believe that flag will stay in its rightfull place flying high!
No, these __________ MF's got the one that flew on the statehouse years ago. These lowlife scum are after anything and everything AMERICAN, not just the Southern Flag. The flag they are after now is the one that flies with the Confederate monument on the statehouse grounds. We have hundreds, if not thousands of smaller monuments and flags on courthouse grounds throughout the south to honor our dead. Lots of sorry BASTA*DS want to prevent us from memoralizing them. They are the Hitler like Sons of gripe*s that talk and act like this cowardly MF is doing.
Nothing says AMERICA like the Naval Flag of the biggest group of traitors in this countries history.
As is usually the case, you never get anything right. First, the Confederate States of America formed of its own volition, at the will of its people, as it was their legal right to do so. Secondly, the flag you refer to as the Naval Flag is only partially correct. The Battle Flag...which you failed to tell us here, is also known as the Union Jack, more specifically when it is flown, or intended to be flown aboard vessels as the crossed bars and stars represent the confederation of states, hence the term "Union" - even then it is still known as the Battle Flag of the Confederate States of America. It was dear to our fathers and their families, and it has its place in our day to day history and culture.
We, as sons and daughters of Confederate veterans should not be oppressed by Anti-American organizations like the NAACP, and the cowards like Senator Christopher Dodd, or other idiots who wish to erase the American culture.
Lets talk about traitors now. What have you done for our country, Msut? Tell us about how much you love America. Tell us what you have done to protect our way of life, puke.
I dont spend every waking moment of my life lying or in denial.
You choose to live in a fantasy world and you have on numerous occasions shown your complete lack of knowledge of American history.
You even pretty much admit it.0 -
Land of the Free, so eveyone is entitled to an opinion, even guys from Connecticut. We all know about opionos right? Those of politians smell worse than most. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
My guess is tha you are using "listed" owners and attempting to compare them to the total white population of around 5.5 million. That is no more accurate than for most folks to say that "I own my house", but to refuse to count family members as part of the ownership group. It is one of the nifty little tricks that can be used to distort reality when someone wants to use statistics to "prove" a point.
Count household to household, or family population to populaion, and the numbers work out just shy of the 25% for most records. One of the factors that helps to confuse the issue is the fact that for much of the time period involved, women were not allowed to own property in many areas. Technical ownership would revert to the nearest male relative upon the death of a husband, until and if the woman remarried. Ask Martha Washington about that one, and what she got under English Common Law at the time of the death of her first husband, and who owned the property after she married George.
All you really have to do is to take the numbers of the total population, multiply by the percent you choose, and compare to the number of known and registered owners of slaves. 5% of 5.5 million is 275,000 and there are quite a few more owners than that, EVEN if you only count one member per household. If you actually count households with slaves the percent jumps by leaps and bounds.
Don't get lost in the idea that I'm trying to knock your position on the South or State's Rights, just the accuracy of the slave owning numbers.[:)]
You bring up some good points, and I think you know that I am not attempting to trick anyone. My belief is that a figure of 25% is way too high, but I could be wrong. I am going to delve into this the next day or three and learn as much as I can. Some of what this author wrote is vague, or outright misleading. Consider the following quote of his:
"Rapid Natural Increase in U.S. Slave Population
How did the U.S. slave population increase nearly fourfold between 1810 and 1860, given the demise of the trans-Atlantic trade? They enjoyed an exceptional rate of natural increase."
He either conveniently forgot that the entire southern half of the South, as we know it today was under French and/or Indian control and would not show up in the census, or for whatever reason, failed to mention it. This area was populated by lots of people who later became U.S. citizens by 1810 (1812-1814).
In the French controlled south there were hugh plantations that had enormous slave populations. This alone would account for a BIG increase in slaves which would show up in the 1820 census. Additionally, between 1820 and 1835 the vast majority of Indian land sandwiched between Georgia, Tennesse and the French border opened up, which would have caused yet another significant increase in the slave population. The fact that he did not even briefly address these issues tells me that his figures need to be checked for validity. Also, when one applies a percentage to the number of slave owners there were in relation to families, other factors need to be applied besides the number of "white" slave owners that he mentioned. One needs to consider the Black and Indian slave owners, plus the "particular year of census" as the population numbers were constantly rising, and the "percentage" was changing as well.
Nor am I trying to distort anything here.[:)] For point of clarification, the census figures from the time period show that 25 % of the "households" were slave owners. You may count that any way you wish, but just like I consider my wife and I to be joint owners of items that might actually be listed in just one name, I would consider that to mean that 25% of Southerners were involved with slave ownership. If this is not to be considered correct as to methodology, it certainly would imply a huge number of homeless in the South, since probably less than 15% of people had a house they could call their own, especially women.[:)]0 -
drljj: You bring up an exceedingly good point about considering everyone in a household to be a member of the family. This works against the 25% figure. For example, one of my kinfolks back in 1850 owned a hotel (or boarding house, which there were a great many of both), and 15 to 20 different people were enumerated there who were not related to one another, yet they were all listed under his name. Households during the censuses of 1790 to 1860 and beyond often consisted of multiple families where only one family member might have owned any slaves, if any at all. For example the 1820 Census notes this to some extent with an extra column for males between the age of 16 and 26 who were married individuals. Consider, too, that you can take most any page of any census from anywhere and you might find where one or several people are noted as merchants, or doctors, or farm hands, but not as the head of the household. Then you have to also take into consideration examples like this one that I recall, where the enumerator made a statement to the effect that he could not adequately count the families in the preconct of the county he was assigned, because of the vast number of people at work in the cotton fields. These were WHITE people for the most part...some were mine. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by stanman
At my place of employment, any display of the so-called "confederate flag", be it on a bumper sticker, t-shirt or whatever, will result in immediate and permanent termination of employment.
And it's damn hard to get permanently canned where I work!
I don't think it would be all that hard for me. [:D] [:D] [:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by fastcarsgofast
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
Hey, no complaining. After all, we just sent an invasion force into another country because we didn't like their President. [;)][;)]
I'll bite. The Yankee led federal govt. does have a history of invading sovereign nations. Just like the war of northern aggression in the 1860's. However, we disliked more than Iraqs President.
It's not the War of Northern Aggression but more correctly and accurately, the War of Southern Stupidity.0 -
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
quote:Originally posted by fastcarsgofast
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
Hey, no complaining. After all, we just sent an invasion force into another country because we didn't like their President. [;)][;)]
I'll bite. The Yankee led federal govt. does have a history of invading sovereign nations. Just like the war of northern aggression in the 1860's. However, we disliked more than Iraqs President.
It's not the War of Northern Aggression but more correctly and accurately, the War of Southern Stupidity.
Well, if it isnn't Old Praise Allah Hairy checkin' in. What good Anti_amercian deed have you performed today, PRAY tell. [:D]0 -
While I do fully believe that this bozo's motivations are purely plolitical, I liken flying the Southern Cross in some respects to flying a Nazi flag.
While I agree with the platform of "State's Right", I have to object to it on the grounds that there are a lot of people who just find it downright offensive.
As far as the swastika goes, in Tibet, it is considered a "good luck" symbol. On the other hand, 500,000,000 people died at the hand of other people who flew that flag.
Hard to reconsile the difference, or say, "Hey! What's your problem...?"....0 -
500,000,000? Wow, that's a pretty large number! 0 -
5 mill., 4 mill., 3 mill, do I hear 3 mill.,,,?
..does that make it any better, or more acceptable?0 -
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
quote:Originally posted by fastcarsgofast
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
Hey, no complaining. After all, we just sent an invasion force into another country because we didn't like their President. [;)][;)]
I'll bite. The Yankee led federal govt. does have a history of invading sovereign nations. Just like the war of northern aggression in the 1860's. However, we disliked more than Iraqs President.
It's not the War of Northern Aggression but more correctly and accurately, the War of Southern Stupidity.
Well, if it isnn't Old Praise Allah Hairy checkin' in. What good Amercian deed have you performed today, PRAY tell. [:D]
Hi kimi--was busy watching your club on the History channel--lots of interesting shots of your KKK. Was surprised to see you turned in your sheets for camo.0 -
At least 618,000 Americans died in the "Civil" War. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
quote:Originally posted by fastcarsgofast
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
Hey, no complaining. After all, we just sent an invasion force into another country because we didn't like their President. [;)][;)]
I'll bite. The Yankee led federal govt. does have a history of invading sovereign nations. Just like the war of northern aggression in the 1860's. However, we disliked more than Iraqs President.
It's not the War of Northern Aggression but more correctly and accurately, the War of Southern Stupidity.
Well, if it isnn't Old Praise Allah Hairy checkin' in. What good Amercian deed have you performed today, PRAY tell. [:D]
Hi kimi--was busy watching your club on the History channel--lots of interesting shots of your KKK. Was surprised to see you turned in your sheets for camo.
Hairy, I am not Anti-American like you, nor am I a person who promotes racism in our society like you do. I expose your kind at every opportunity. You're against the typical American, and specifically white people who do not by off on the Anti-American culture. You can attempt to be funny, but most know it's a facade to cover for your hate and discontent with the traditional American way of life. You, just like your Lincoln Cultists in education, or their secular progressive friends in government and elsewhere, to include, activists judges live to distort the truth for personal and monetary gain. If you think your two-faced image is effective, you are sadly mistaken, because you are easily seen for who and what you are.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
81 comments