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
-
Kimi: Just put on your camos and pretend to be an American hero, staunchly fighting against all those "mongrel hordes" who are ruining your warped idea of what this country truly is. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
Kimi: Just put on your camos and pretend to be an American hero, staunchly fighting against all those "mongrel hordes" who are ruining your warped idea of what this country truly is.
Go eat some more tofu. Or I should say,
Call a spade a spade.
Embrace culture? Black Culture? Arab culture?
These cultures are not racially bias?
In the mean time these same people either deny, suppress, or belittle those from the South or rural back grounds.0 -
Let me get this straight; Its OK to fly a MEXICAN flag on a US post office but a flag of States Rights and DEFIANCE to Federal oppression is not OK.
Whew; glad I got that cleared up.
P.S. Being a Yankee, therefore on the winning side; I have no heart burn with it as long as it is flown BELOW the stars and stripes.0 -
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
Kimi: Just put on your camos and pretend to be an American hero, staunchly fighting against all those "mongrel hordes" who are ruining your warped idea of what this country truly is.
Do I get under your hide, Hairy? I should, I am your worst enemy.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
Kimi: Just put on your camos and pretend to be an American hero, staunchly fighting against all those "mongrel hordes" who are ruining your warped idea of what this country truly is.
Go eat some more tofu. Or I should say,
Call a spade a spade.
Embrace culture? Black Culture? Arab culture?
These cultures are not racially bias?
In the mean time these same people either deny, suppress, or belittle those from the South or rural back grounds.
Thank you, sir.0 -
A long time ago, when I was in Boy Scouts, I studied flag etiquette. I learned that it is proper and allowable to fly any flag that ever flew over a particular piece of ground, anytime in its history. So, in Texas I can properly fly one (or more) of six flags, since six flags have flown over Texas, depending on the politics of the day. Spain, France, Mexico, The Confederacy, The Republic of Texas, and the United States.
Anyone wants to fly a Confederate flag over ground that was part of the Confederacy, will have no gripe from me. It's about history, not hate.0 -
Kimi, dont fool yourself you are as anti american as Osama. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Msut77
Kimi, dont fool yourself you are as anti american as Osama.
Good morning clown. What have you ever done for your country?0 -
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by Msut77
Kimi, dont fool yourself you are as anti american as Osama.
Good morning clown. What have you ever done for your country?
This is about the 5th time I said this but I dont live in a fantasy world and I dont spread lies like Pigpen spread Anthrax.
Which is a lot more than you can say.0 -
this whole Johnny reb and yankee thing is kind of old and died one hundred years ago, get over it 0 -
Lincoln died a long time ago too, and he's a hot item today, just like other topics are, and for good reasons having to do with a wide range of subjects. If you do not want to discuss a subject that's your prerogative. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Msut77
This is about the 5th time I said this but I dont live in a fantasy world and I dont spread lies like Pigpen spread Anthrax.
Which is a lot more than you can say.
I wonder why you would have to say that so often. [;)] [?]0 -
well we won the war, get over it 0 -
quote:Originally posted by nards444
well we won the war, get over it
I didn't realize you were that old. Good job though. [:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
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.[:)]
dlrjj: Here's is one noted authority figure that a great many Americans look upon as someone of proven character, not prone to "spin" that pretty much verifies my "5%" slave ratio figure,(1860). However, he notes People instead of Family.(?) What his sources are, I do not know.
http://www.jameswebb.com/speeches/confedmemorial.htm0 -
quote:Originally posted by nards444
this whole Johnny reb and yankee thing is kind of old and died one hundred years ago, get over it
I think it's pretty clear that it hasn't died yet.
Whether is should or not is an entirely different question.[:)]0 -
Apples and oranges kimi, apples and oranges. I stated that you should feel free to count it any way you saw fit, but the fact remains that the census figures for tax purposes show that about one quarter of all households in the South owned slaves prior to the war. The only way to get 5%, which is still low according to the census figures I posted for you (more like 6-7%), is to ONLY count one person as an owner, yet count the entire population as potential owners. I wrote the check for the kitchen table, but I'm of the opinion that it is owned by the family, and that's different by a factor of five in our household. If we are to only count the technicalities of pure ownership, it is reasonable to say that only about 20-25% of the people in the U.S. own a table to eat on, but I suspect the percent who have access to one is a bit higher.
Women and minor children were virtually excluded from property ownership in that day and age in most of that area, so it is a complete misrepresentation to count them as part of the potential ownership group, but not count family unit ownership. Remove the women and minor children from the eligibility group and the percent jumps right back up to the census figures used. Using the title figures only tries to create an appearance of reduced ownership and lower involvement in slavery on the part of the general mass of Southerners, but it is simply smoke and mirrors to obfuscate the truth.
I will repeat the obvious here. If you only count the person who actually holds TITLE for ANY item, you can distort the reality quite a bit. Selecting specific ownership is EXACTLY what I would use if I wanted to show just how poor the South was prior to the war by pointing out how few people owned a house, horse, wagon, buggy, land, tools, or any other item that may have been purchased by one member of a family, but in reality are the common property of all.
The reality is in the census figures, count them as you wish.
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-south
http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/censusbin/census/cen.pl?year=860
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html
Some of THESE figures I have always felt to be a bit too high, but here they are.
"unless otherwise noted, all data is as of the 1860 census)
Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).
Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).
Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population).
Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five."
"Census data can be appealed to in order to determine the extent of slave ownership in each of the states that allowed it in 1860. The figures given here are the percentage of slave-owning families as a fraction of total free households in the state. The data was taken from a census archive site at the University of Virginia."
Mississippi: 49%
South Carolina: 46%
Georgia: 37%
Alabama: 35%
Florida: 34%
Louisiana: 29%
Texas: 28%
North Carolina: 28%
Virginia: 26%
Tennessee: 25%
Kentucky: 23%
Arkansas: 20%
Missouri: 13%
Maryland: 12%
Delaware: 3%
Did you note that these figures come from that bastion of Yankeedom, the University of Virginia?
You have the same problem when some people try to disparage total Southern participation in the war by pointing out that around 900,000-1,100,000 out of 9 million served in the Confederate military, about 11%. Drop out the 3.5-3.8 million slaves, and the percent jumps to around 20%. Subtract the women, and males over 55 and under 17, and you get a pool of somewhere around 1.2 million men, add in the border states, and the pool jumps to maybe 1.7 million. The percent of THOSE in the military is astounding.[:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
Apples and oranges kimi, apples and oranges. I stated that you should feel free to count it any way you saw fit, but the fact remains that the census figures for tax purposes show that about one quarter of all households in the South owned slaves prior to the war. The only way to get 5%, which is still low according to the census figures I posted for you (more like 6-7%), is to ONLY count one person as an owner, yet count the entire population as potential owners. I wrote the check for the kitchen table, but I'm of the opinion that it is owned by the family, and that's different by a factor of five in our household. If we are to only count the technicalities of pure ownership, it is reasonable to say that only about 20-25% of the people in the U.S. own a table to eat on, but I suspect the percent who have access to one is a bit higher.
Women and minor children were virtually excluded from property ownership in that day and age in most of that area, so it is a complete misrepresentation to count them as part of the potential ownership group, but not count family unit ownership. Remove the women and minor children from the eligibility group and the percent jumps right back up to the census figures used. Using the title figures only tries to create an appearance of reduced ownership and lower involvement in slavery on the part of the general mass of Southerners, but it is simply smoke and mirrors to obfuscate the truth.
I will repeat the obvious here. If you only count the person who actually holds TITLE for ANY item, you can distort the reality quite a bit. Selecting specific ownership is EXACTLY what I would use if I wanted to show just how poor the South was prior to the war by pointing out how few people owned a house, horse, wagon, buggy, land, tools, or any other item that may have been purchased by one member of a family, but in reality are the common property of all.
The reality is in the census figures, count them as you wish.
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-south
http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/censusbin/census/cen.pl?year=860
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html
Some of THESE figures I have always felt to be a bit too high, but here they are.
"unless otherwise noted, all data is as of the 1860 census)
Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).
Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).
Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population).
Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five."
"Census data can be appealed to in order to determine the extent of slave ownership in each of the states that allowed it in 1860. The figures given here are the percentage of slave-owning families as a fraction of total free households in the state. The data was taken from a census archive site at the University of Virginia."
Mississippi: 49%
South Carolina: 46%
Georgia: 37%
Alabama: 35%
Florida: 34%
Louisiana: 29%
Texas: 28%
North Carolina: 28%
Virginia: 26%
Tennessee: 25%
Kentucky: 23%
Arkansas: 20%
Missouri: 13%
Maryland: 12%
Delaware: 3%
Did you note that these figures come from that bastion of Yankeedom, the University of Virginia?
You have the same problem when some people try to disparage total Southern participation in the war by pointing out that around 900,000-1,100,000 out of 9 million served in the Confederate military, about 11%. Drop out the 3.5-3.8 million slaves, and the percent jumps to around 20%. Subtract the women, and males over 55 and under 17, and you get a pool of somewhere around 1.2 million men, add in the border states, and the pool jumps to maybe 1.7 million. The percent of THOSE in the military is astounding.[:)]
dlrjj: I discovered a flaw in my report regarding the age and married head of household information, so I have removed the post. I'll try to revise my info with corrected data tomorrow.0 -
You didn't read very closely, did you? I listed an enrolled military of somewhere between 900,000-1,100,000, which is the most commonly accepted range that has been used, although others are given - see below. The 1.2 million figure was the smallest credible number in the "pool" available from which to draw those military numbers. The border states are usually added since many men joined the Confederate Army from those states.
http://www.answers.com/topic/confederate-states-army
"Due to poor record-keeping, there is no accurate number that represents the strength of the Confederate States Army. Estimates range from 500,000 to 1,500,000 men who were involved at any time during the war. Reports from the War Department began at the end of 1861 (326,768 men), 1862 (449,439), 1863 (464,646), 1864 (400,787), and "last reports" (358,692). Estimates of enlistments throughout the war were 1,227,890 to 1,406,180."
I consider THAT one to be a complete joke for accuracy
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/estimate.html
"The first problem to be resolved is the size of the Confederate army, measured in terms of total enlistments of different men. A wide range of estimates exists, from a low of 600,000 to a high of well over a million. E.B. Long, in Civil War, Day by Day, accepts an estimate of 750,000. James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom (Chapter 9, note 41) accepts an estimate of roughly 880,000. Livermore's Numbers and Losses in the Civil War deduces a number of different figures, using different means, the smallest of which is nearly 1,000,000. The Encyclopedia of the Civil War (Patricia Faust, editor), uses a figure of 900,000."
The reality is that the records were poorly kept, and most of them seem to have been destroyed by one means or another, so ANY of the figures are guesses at best. I tend to go with the middle ground of the extremes of the most commonly accepted high and low figures. NO number can be definitively defended, so a number about in the middle is likely to be within range of being correct.0 -
quote:Originally posted by git_r_done
Pa comes in full of gin
And he's mean as a rattlesnake.
Yep, nothing makes my heart go pitter-pat like abusive alcoholic fathers.
Hooray for the South!0 -
quote:Originally posted by dlrjj
You didn't read very closely, did you? I listed an enrolled military of somewhere between 900,000-1,100,000, which is the most commonly accepted range that has been used, although others are given - see below. The 1.2 million figure was the smallest credible number in the "pool" available from which to draw those military numbers. The border states are usually added since many men joined the Confederate Army from those states.
http://www.answers.com/topic/confederate-states-army
"Due to poor record-keeping, there is no accurate number that represents the strength of the Confederate States Army. Estimates range from 500,000 to 1,500,000 men who were involved at any time during the war. Reports from the War Department began at the end of 1861 (326,768 men), 1862 (449,439), 1863 (464,646), 1864 (400,787), and "last reports" (358,692). Estimates of enlistments throughout the war were 1,227,890 to 1,406,180."
I consider THAT one to be a complete joke for accuracy
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/estimate.html
"The first problem to be resolved is the size of the Confederate army, measured in terms of total enlistments of different men. A wide range of estimates exists, from a low of 600,000 to a high of well over a million. E.B. Long, in Civil War, Day by Day, accepts an estimate of 750,000. James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom (Chapter 9, note 41) accepts an estimate of roughly 880,000. Livermore's Numbers and Losses in the Civil War deduces a number of different figures, using different means, the smallest of which is nearly 1,000,000. The Encyclopedia of the Civil War (Patricia Faust, editor), uses a figure of 900,000."
The reality is that the records were poorly kept, and most of them seem to have been destroyed by one means or another, so ANY of the figures are guesses at best. I tend to go with the middle ground of the extremes of the most commonly accepted high and low figures. NO number can be definitively defended, so a number about in the middle is likely to be within range of being correct.
Going with a number somewhere in the middle is acceptable. 1.2 million is way out.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
81 comments