Supporters Rise Up To Defend Confederate Flag

You're the only one not comprehending things here guy.

You're wrong on every single last point.

You have no concept of what actually happened. You are throwing out biased objections without any factual standpoint.

THE BILL WAS SIGNED 7 MONTHS BEFORE THE OPPOSITION.

How hard is that to understand?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/36-1/h151

Yes, grade school stuff that you don't seem to comprehend.

Not into effect, but will be, 7 months of spreading the word knowing something will happen, 7 months of built up frustration knowing your taxes are to rise from 20% to 47%, 7 months knowing that you will lose the majority of your income. 7 months of time to prep to prevent the lose of income....

Use commonsense.

That is dramatically higher than average wages for other careers during this time period. As far as I'm reading this isn't in 1960 USD (when the article was written) but historic USD. Look at footnote 10 on p. 454

Edit : Hmm, read that incorrectly first pass.

Lest not forget that both Grant and Sherman had slaves themselves and the Union army was composed of forced slaves, the volunteers were paid a lesser wage and charged for clothing issuance. The highest paid black soldier was paid nearly half the lowest paid white soldier.



Discrediting the statement of southern racist with fact that Abraham Lincoln and both his Generals were racist, have you ever lost a battle but continued to have pride in something?

Page 6 on the PDF or 453 of the text:

Gah formatting isn't working.

Of the estimated 46,200 plantations known to exist in 1860, 20,700 had 20 to 30 slaves and only 2,300 had a workforce of a hundred or more, with the rest somewhere in between

In 1805 there were just over one million slaves worth about $300 million; fifty-five years later there were four million slaves worth close to $3 billion.

New York City, not just Southern cities, was essential to the cotton world. By 1860, New York had become the capital of the South because of its dominant role in the cotton trade. New York rose to its preeminent position as the commercial and financial center of America because of cotton. It has been estimated that New York received forty percent of all cotton revenues since the city supplied insurance, shipping, and financing services and New York merchants sold goods to Southern planters. The trade with the South, which has been estimated at $200,000,000 annually, was an impressive sum at the time.

So, for example, Mississippi had 30,943 slave ownering families nd 436,631 slaves, this is on average 14 slaves per owner. 50% of families in Mississippi did not own slaves. These numbers are well within the realm of possibility.

whats the % of slave owners being white vs black?

Indentured servants first arrived in America in the decade following the settlement of Jamestown by the Virginia Company in 1607.

The idea of indentured servitude was born of a need for cheap labor. The earliest settlers soon realized that they had lots of land to care for, but no one to care for it. With passage to the Colonies expensive for all but the wealthy, the Virginia Company developed the system of indentured servitude to attract workers. Indentured servants became vital to the colonial economy.

The timing of the Virginia colony was ideal. The Thirty Year's War had left Europe's economy depressed, and many skilled and unskilled laborers were without work. A new life in the New World offered a glimmer of hope; this explains how one-half to two-thirds of the immigrants who came to the American colonies arrived as indentured servants.

Servants typically worked four to seven years in exchange for passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues. While the life of an indentured servant was harsh and restrictive, it wasn't slavery. There were laws that protected some of their rights. But their life was not an easy one, and the punishments meted out to people who wronged were harsher than those for non-servants. An indentured servant's contract could be extended as punishment for breaking a law, such as running away, or in the case of female servants, becoming pregnant.

For those that survived the work and received their freedom package, many historians argue that they were better off than those new immigrants who came freely to the country. Their contract may have included at least 25 acres of land, a year's worth of corn, arms, a cow and new clothes. Some servants did rise to become part of the colonial elite, but for the majority of indentured servants that survived the treacherous journey by sea and the harsh conditions of life in the New World, satisfaction was a modest life as a freeman in a burgeoning colonial economy.

In 1619 the first black Africans came to Virginia. With no slave laws in place, they were initially treated as indentured servants, and given the same opportunities for freedom dues as whites. However, slave laws were soon passed – in Massachusetts in 1641 and Virginia in 1661 –and any small freedoms that might have existed for blacks were taken away.

As demands for labor grew, so did the cost of indentured servants. Many landowners also felt threatened by newly freed servants demand for land. The colonial elite realized the problems of indentured servitude. Landowners turned to African slaves as a more profitable and ever-renewable source of labor and the shift from indentured servants to racial slavery had begun.

whats the % of slave owners being white vs black?

One of the most vexing questions in African-American history is whether free African Americans themselves owned slaves. The short answer to this question, as you might suspect, is yes, of course; some free black people in this country bought and sold other black people, and did so at least since 1654, continuing to do so right through the Civil War. For me, the really fascinating questions about black slave-owning are how many black "masters" were involved, how many slaves did they own and why did they own slaves?

The answers to these questions are complex, and historians have been arguing for some time over whether free blacks purchased family members as slaves in order to protect them -- motivated, on the one hand, by benevolence and philanthropy, as historian Carter G. Woodson put it, or whether, on the other hand, they purchased other black people "as an act of exploitation," primarily to exploit their free labor for profit, just as white slave owners did. The evidence shows that, unfortunately, both things are true. The great African-American historian, John Hope Franklin, states this clearly: "The majority of Negro owners of slaves had some personal interest in their property." But, he admits, "There were instances, however, in which free Negroes had a real economic interest in the institution of slavery and held slaves in order to improve their economic status."

In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows that free black people have owned slaves "in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery," at least since Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life.

And for a time, free black people could even "own" the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well. Free blacks owned slaves in Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat Butler "regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade," Halliburton wrote.

Perhaps the most insidious or desperate attempt to defend the right of black people to own slaves was the statement made on the eve of the Civil War by a group of free people of color in New Orleans, offering their services to the Confederacy, in part because they were fearful for their own enslavement: "The free colored population [native] of Louisiana … own slaves, and they are dearly attached to their native land … and they are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana … They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought [to defend New Orleans from the British] in 1814-1815."

So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people. In his essay, " 'The Known World' of Free Black Slaveholders," Thomas J. Pressly, using Woodson's statistics, calculated that 54 (or about 1 percent) of these black slave owners in 1830 owned between 20 and 84 slaves; 172 (about 4 percent) owned between 10 to 19 slaves; and 3,550 (about 94 percent) each owned between 1 and 9 slaves. Crucially, 42 percent owned just one slave.

Pressly also shows that the percentage of free black slave owners as the total number of free black heads of families was quite high in several states, namely 43 percent in South Carolina, 40 percent in Louisiana, 26 percent in Mississippi, 25 percent in Alabama and 20 percent in Georgia. So why did these free black people own these slaves?

It is reasonable to assume that the 42 percent of the free black slave owners who owned just one slave probably owned a family member to protect that person, as did many of the other black slave owners who owned only slightly larger numbers of slaves. As Woodson put it in 1924's Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830, "The census records show that the majority of the Negro owners of slaves were such from the point of view of philanthropy. In many instances the husband purchased the wife or vice versa … Slaves of Negroes were in some cases the children of a free father who had purchased his wife. If he did not thereafter emancipate the mother, as so many such husbands failed to do, his own children were born his slaves and were thus reported to the numerators."

according to the logic of anti Confederate flags. the American flag should also be banned because it represented the same slavery that also existed in the south as well as in the north. also the flag represents a nation that oppressed and murdered the native americans, and also took by force half of Mexico's land. our country was never about freedom and liberty. we stand for power and more power, to stand on the backs of those we have conquered.

anti living, anti- thinking

according to the logic of anti Confederate flags. the American flag should also be banned because it represented the same slavery that also existed in the south as well as in the north. also the flag represents a nation that oppressed and murdered the native americans, and also took by force half of Mexico's land. our country was never about freedom and liberty. we stand for power and more power, to stand on the backs of those we have conquered.

The Confederate States were formed with the perpetuation of slavery at the forefront of their new nation. Also, they lost. Losers don't get to fly flags on national buildings belonging to the people of the United States.

It belongs in a museum. Along with every other sad Civil War tale. If you want to honor your Confederate dead, that's well and good and I suggest you contribute heartily to Civil War historians/organizations.

You still don't get to fly a flag of treason and slavers over our national buildings.

Trying to say the United States has a dark history is no surprise to anyone with a cursory knowledge of history. However, the United States wasn't formed expressly to perpetuate a slave trade.

To put it bluntly:

During the civil war the Confederate battle flag, in all its variants, was simply a rallying banner for the troops.

In that context it was a simple battle flag.

Post reconstruction it was proudly flown at lynchings, cross burnings, and Klan rallies.

In that context it was a symbol of terrorism and white superiority.

But it was never flown at state houses until after Brown vs. board of education.

IN THAT CONTEXT, at state houses, it became a symbol of segregation.

I mean there's already anti-vax, so it's not far off.

That is exactly the point many are trying to make. the meaning keeps shifting.
also attacking our freedom of speech will only open the floodgates to eventually loosing all our freedoms.

I personally don't like what the Confederate flag can stand for, but that is only my opinion and i can't impose my opinion because i would be ignoring the other sides of what it represents..
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

Right but your also forgetting that ties into freedom of choice, its now law in California to get vaccinated, against your will. Thats not free choice or right over your own body to take care of yourself.

It's not just about yourself if you're a danger to others. It's responsibility towards the rest of the population.

NO! LET THEM FEND FOR THEMSELVES! ME ONLY!

--Ayn Rand

Nobody is attacking anyone's freedom of speech.

President Barack Obama Signs Bill that Ends Free Speech in Presence of Any Politician

The Infamous H.R. 347, the ‘Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. it says

H.R 347

“Whoever knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so; knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of government business or official functions; knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds; attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished.”

Some members of Congress saw the danger of the wording and voted against the bill.

Rep Justin Amash (R-MI) who said,

“Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it’s illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway. The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal.

“Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity – even if that activity is annoying to those government officials – violates our rights.”

Rutherford Institute president, John Whitehead responded to the HR 347 by writing,

“The bill’s language is so overly broad as to put an end to free speech, political protest and the right to peaceably assemble in all areas where government officials happen to be present.

“A person eating in a diner while a presidential candidate is trying to score political points with the locals could be arrested if government agents determine that he is acting ‘disorderly.’ Mind you, depending on who’s making the assessment, anything can be considered disorderly, including someone exercising his right to free speech by muttering to himself about a government official. And if that person happens to have a pocketknife or nail clippers in his possession (or any other innocuous item that could be interpreted by the police as ‘dangerous’), he could face up to 10 years in prison.

“Given that the Secret Service not only protects the president but all past sitting presidents, members of Congress, foreign dignitaries, presidential candidates, and anyone who the president determines needs protection, anywhere these officials happen to be becomes a zone where the First Amendment is effectively off-limits.”

“While the Trespass Bill may have started out with the best of intentions, it has ended up as the government’s declaration of zero tolerance for individuals exercising their First Amendment rights.”

Right but your also forgetting that ties into freedom of choice, its now law in California to get vaccinated, against your will. Thats not free choice or right over your own body to take care of yourself.

he bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal.

Got the law?

That's not what it says at all. Ffs and I'm not even the native english speaker between us here.
It specifically talks about disruptive behaviour or obstruction of functions.

The other quote instead is just paranoid. Behave like an educated person and you'll be fine.