What Does the Confederate Flag Mean To You ?

[cnm]

Now you're trolling. That's what ignorant indoctrinated leftist punks resort to when their propaganda fails.

Oh. Propaganda. Right...

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

RNC Chief to Say It Was Wrong to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong."

"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong." ​

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Confederate Flags symbolizes the Confederacy - a nation founded upon the ideal that whites are superior to blacks. There's nothing "knee-jerk" - about that, its historical fact.

Read my post again. Since it's historical fact, why you lefties decided to address the issue now, and not some 5 or 10 or 20 or 50 years ago? Flag didn't bothered you back then.

I wasn't alive 50 years ago. Its always bothered me though. The issue has been addressed multiple times you short memorried dolt.

 

[Liminal]

What Does the Confederate Flag Mean To You ? To me, it means a few things.

1. The flag of the nation that was the 11 states of the south during the civil war, and yes, it did represent slavery. And no, that's not a good thing. Of course not.

2. It represents a tribute and honoring of the Million + men who fought for the South with courage and heroism, regardless of the cause. Same as I say I honor the troops who fought in Vietnam, even though I totally disagreed with the politics of it.

3. It represents the cultural heritage of at least 11 states of the USA, and about 90 Million people living in those states.

4. It represents yet another tool the bossy, pushy, race hustler crowd is using, to transform American society into something of THEIR own design, while these control freaks go trampling on everything and anything standing in their way, no matter whether right or wrong.

The majority of white southerners didn't own slaves. But stay stuck on stupid.

But the majority of White Southerners decided, with sound mind and body, to commit treason against their country.

Southerners didn't think the government had the right to tell them how to live, and most still don't. Unlike morons like you that need to be told what to think, us southerners like doing for ourselves.

It's the fault of this nation's founding fathers. They created a slave republic and a vague Constitution.

Aren't you glad you don't live here?

You mean Texas? Fuck yeah, I'm pretty glad about that.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Take a few minutes and listen to an expert lay it out for you. Don't be afraid to learn something.

The True Origin of the Confederate Flag by SiriusXM News u0026 Issues Free Listening on SoundCloud

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The majority of white southerners didn't own slaves. But stay stuck on stupid.

But the majority of White Southerners decided, with sound mind and body, to commit treason against their country.

Southerners didn't think the government had the right to tell them how to live, and most still don't. Unlike morons like you that need to be told what to think, us southerners like doing for ourselves.

It's the fault of this nation's founding fathers. They created a slave republic and a vague Constitution.

Aren't you glad you don't live here?

You mean Texas? Fuck yeah, I'm pretty glad about that.

No dumbass, I mean the US.

 

[Flash Farley]

Now you're trolling. That's what ignorant indoctrinated leftist punks resort to when their propaganda fails.

Oh. Propaganda. Right...

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

RNC Chief to Say It Was Wrong to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong."

"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong." ​

Busing was racism. Mehlman is a politician and he was pandering to the NAACP for votes. In fact, the NAACP is a racist corrupt leftist organization. You didn't help yourself here. I'm informed. Peddle your propaganda to some naive college kids.

 

[Liminal]

But the majority of White Southerners decided, with sound mind and body, to commit treason against their country.

Southerners didn't think the government had the right to tell them how to live, and most still don't. Unlike morons like you that need to be told what to think, us southerners like doing for ourselves.

It's the fault of this nation's founding fathers. They created a slave republic and a vague Constitution.

Aren't you glad you don't live here?

You mean Texas? Fuck yeah, I'm pretty glad about that.

No dumbass, I mean the US.

I don't understand the question.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It was listed as one cause among many.

For fuck's sake, do you really think that the Confederates that sat out the freezing winters at Cold Harbor, starving and missing their homes were there solely because they had to protect the rich mans right to own slaves that drove that same poor farmers dad and family into subsistence farming?

If so then you are a drooling idiot.

Please look at the post above, and see what Alexander Stephens had to say on the matter. It is evident that it was more than just one of many reasons.

'More than just one of many reasons' is quite the ambiguous phrase. And why does Mr Stephens opinion count for more than the opinions of others who disagree with him? Did he fight in the war? Oh, no, looky here, he was a rich man who served as VP during the war.

Farming men, the majority of Southern soldiers by quite a bit, don't fight through the horrors of war to enable rich fucks to own slaves that drive him into the ground with zero labor costs.

You have bought into some pretty stupid shit and you would realize it if you would just stop and think about it.

But I wont hold my breath.

The entire economy of the South was based on slavery. The idea that non-slave owning whites had nothing at stake in slavery is utterly false, and the idea that slave ownership was restricted to the wealthy is also false.

No the entire economy of the South was NOT based on slavery,, only the cash economy was. Most Southerners were subsistence farmers and sold some crops for store cash, and that is it. They were the majority of the white participants in the economy and no, they did not and could not own slaves.

You go from one piece of ridiculous bullshit to the next one. Does it tire you at all, or is lying just so reflexive you don't even realize you are doing it any more?

"Most"? What proportion?

What would they typically buy with their cash?

And they did not fear the consequences of a slave rebellion?

Only 25% of Southerners owned slaves and most of them owned less than ten.

The 75% that were the majority were either Yeomen farmers, clay eaters or freed slaves.

"Yeoman farmers. The largest single group of southern whites were family farmers, the “ yeoman” praised by Thomas Jefferson as the backbone of a free society. On farms of about one hundred acres or less, they raised livestock and grew corn and sweet potatoes for their own consumption, and perhaps tended a little cotton or tobacco to supply much‐needed hard currency. The yeoman families lived much more isolated lives than their counterparts in the North and, because of their chronic shortage of cash, lacked many of the amenities that northerners enjoyed. Some southern yeomen, particularly younger men, rented land or hired themselves out as agricultural workers. Small farmers did not own slaves, and their prospect for acquiring enough land or money to do so was nil, but they still supported slavery out of strongly held views of racial superiority and because a large free black population would compete with them for a decent living.

Poor whites. The lowest rung on the white social ladder was occupied by people who lived on the most marginal lands in the South—the pine barrens, swamps, and sandy hill country. Poor whites, variously called “hillbillies,” “white trash,” “crackers,” or “clay eaters,” just barely survived as subsistence farmers, usually as squatters. Their reputed laziness was primarily due to an extremely inadequate diet; malnutrition left them susceptible to malaria, hookworm, and other diseases that produced lethargy. Slaves sometimes had better physical living conditions than poor whites.

Free blacks in the South. Not all African Americans in the South before the Civil War were slaves. More than a quarter million “free persons of color” were concentrated in the states of Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia as well as the cities of Charleston and New Orleans. Blacks who managed to buy their freedom or were freed by their masters, a practice outlawed throughout the South during the 1830s, occupied a strange place in society. While a handful found financial success, even becoming landowners with slaves of their own, the majority were laborers, farm hands, domestics, factory workers, and craftsmen who never escaped poverty. Religion played an important role in the lives of free blacks, as it did for slaves, and black evangelical churches, particularly Baptist and African Methodist Episcopal (AME), flourished. Perhaps because planters felt sentimental toward children they had sired with slaves, mulattos accounted for a significant percentage of the free persons of color. As a group, mulattos tended to look down on those with darker skin, whether free or slave. "

Slavery the Economy and Society

They used their small amount of cash to buy guns, knives, axes, Sunday clothes, etc.

And not all American slaves were black.

"The English had been practicing a slow genocide against the Irish since Queen Elizabeth, but the Irish bred too fast and were tough to kill. On the other side of the Atlantic, there was a chronic labor shortage (because the local natives tended to die out too quickly in slavery conditions).
Putting two and two together, King James I started sending Irish slaves to the new world.
The first recorded sale of Irish slaves was to a settlement in the Amazon in 1612, seven years before the first African slaves arrived in Jamestown.

The Proclamation of 1625 by James II made it official policy that all Irish political prisoners be transported to the West Indies and sold to English planters. Soon Irish slaves were the majority of slaves in the English colonies.

In 1629 a large group of Irish men and women were sent to Guiana, and by 1632, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat in the West Indies. By 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves, which records show was a cause of concern to the English planters. But there were not enough political prisoners to supply the demand, so every petty infraction carried a sentence of transporting, and slaver gangs combed the country sides to kidnap enough people to fill out their quotas. The slavers were so full of zest that they sometimes grabbed non-Irishmen. On March 25, 1659, a petition was received in London claiming that 72 Englishmen were wrongly sold as slaves in Barbados, along with 200 Frenchmen and 7-8,000 Scots.
So many Irish slaves were sent to Barbados, between 12,000 and 60,000, that the term "barbadosed" began to be used...
After Oliver Cromwell defeated the royalists in the English Civil War, he turned to Ireland, who had allied themselves with the defeated royalists. What happened next could be considered genocide.
The famine (caused by the English intentionally destroying foodstocks) and plague that followed Cromwell's massacres reduced the population of Ireland to around 40%.

And then Cromwell got really nasty.
Anyone implicated in the rebellion had their land confiscated and was sold into slavery in the West Indies. Even catholic landowners who hadn't taken part of the rebellion had their land confiscated.
Catholicism was outlawed and catholic priests were executed when found.
To top it off, he ordered the ethnic cleansing of Ireland east of Shannon in 1652. Soldiers were encouraged to kill any Irish who refused to relocate.

Instead of trying to describe the horror, consider the words from the English State Papers in 1742.

"In clearing the ground for the adventurers and soldiers (the English capitalists of that day)... To be transported to Barbados and the English plantations in America. It was a measure beneficial to Ireland, which was
thus relieved of a population that might trouble the planters; it was a benefit to the people removed, which might thus be made English and Christians ... a great benefit to the West India sugar planters, who desired men and boys for their bondsmen, and
the women and Irish girls... To solace them." I can't help but notice that the exact same language and logic used to justify enslavement of the blacks was used to justify enslavement of the Irish."...

As for the Irish slaves, Cromwell specifically targeted Irish children. “During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, [Oliver] Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.” For some reason, history likes to call these Irish slaves as 'indentured servants'. As if they were somehow considered better than African slaves. This can be considered an attempt at whitewashing the history of the Irish slave trade.
There does exist indentured servitude where two parties sign a contract for a limited amount of time. This is not what happened to the Irish from 1625 onward. They were sold as slaves, pure and simple.
In reality, they were considered by some to be even lower than the blacks. “...the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period,” writes Martin. “It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.” African slaves were still relatively new, and were expensive to transport such a long distance (50 sterling in the late 1600's). Irish slaves on the other hand, were relatively cheap in comparison (5 sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Because Irish slaves were so much cheaper, the loss of investment from torturing and killing them was not considered an effective deterrent. In an ironic twist, this caused some to recommend importing African slaves instead for humanitarian reasons."

The last Irish slaves sold into the Americas was in 1798.

The slaves that time forgot

 

[JimBowie1958]

People who don't bother to know any history are prone to over generalize and stereotype. Slave ownership varied greatly from state to state, so the motivations of individuals are hard to characterize . Here's how it breaks down.
1860 Census Results

And not all the South wanted to leave the Union either. If you look at a county map of the Souths votes for secession you see many large areas that did not want to leave the Union and voted no. And yet they all contributed troops to fight the northern invasion.

So that must prove it was all about slavery...in a pig's eye.

And those areas were typically the areas with FEWER SLAVES. Why do you think W Virginia split?

And yet those still in the South and part of the Confederacy *still* fought to defend their states.


Are you really this stupid or does it require effort?

 

[Flash Farley]

Ya know what's really funny is black Muslims in the USA. If anyone has done the most to harm the black man it's Muslims.

 

[Synthaholic]

What Does the Confederate Flag Mean To You ? To me, it means a few things.

1. The flag of the nation that was the 11 states of the south during the civil war, and yes, it did represent slavery. And no, that's not a good thing. Of course not.

2. It represents a tribute and honoring of the Million + men who fought for the South with courage and heroism, regardless of the cause. Same as I say I honor the troops who fought in Vietnam, even though I totally disagreed with the politics of it.

3. It represents the cultural heritage of at least 11 states of the USA, and about 90 Million people living in those states.

4. It represents yet another tool the bossy, pushy, race hustler crowd is using, to transform American society into something of THEIR own design, while these control freaks go trampling on everything and anything standing in their way, no matter whether right or wrong.

The majority of white southerners didn't own slaves. But stay stuck on stupid.

But the majority of White Southerners decided, with sound mind and body, to commit treason against their country.

Southerners didn't think the government had the right to tell them how to live, and most still don't. Unlike morons like you that need to be told what to think, us southerners like doing for ourselves.

Yeah, and that's called treason, when you act on it.

 

[Huey]

It means nothing to me.

 

[reconmark]

Please look at the post above, and see what Alexander Stephens had to say on the matter. It is evident that it was more than just one of many reasons.

'More than just one of many reasons' is quite the ambiguous phrase. And why does Mr Stephens opinion count for more than the opinions of others who disagree with him? Did he fight in the war? Oh, no, looky here, he was a rich man who served as VP during the war.

Farming men, the majority of Southern soldiers by quite a bit, don't fight through the horrors of war to enable rich fucks to own slaves that drive him into the ground with zero labor costs.

You have bought into some pretty stupid shit and you would realize it if you would just stop and think about it.

But I wont hold my breath.

The entire economy of the South was based on slavery. The idea that non-slave owning whites had nothing at stake in slavery is utterly false, and the idea that slave ownership was restricted to the wealthy is also false.

No the entire economy of the South was NOT based on slavery,, only the cash economy was. Most Southerners were subsistence farmers and sold some crops for store cash, and that is it. They were the majority of the white participants in the economy and no, they did not and could not own slaves.

You go from one piece of ridiculous bullshit to the next one. Does it tire you at all, or is lying just so reflexive you don't even realize you are doing it any more?

"Most"? What proportion?

What would they typically buy with their cash?

And they did not fear the consequences of a slave rebellion?

Only 25% of Southerners owned slaves and most of them owned less than ten.

The 75% that were the majority were either Yeomen farmers, clay eaters or freed slaves.

"Yeoman farmers. The largest single group of southern whites were family farmers, the “ yeoman” praised by Thomas Jefferson as the backbone of a free society. On farms of about one hundred acres or less, they raised livestock and grew corn and sweet potatoes for their own consumption, and perhaps tended a little cotton or tobacco to supply much‐needed hard currency. The yeoman families lived much more isolated lives than their counterparts in the North and, because of their chronic shortage of cash, lacked many of the amenities that northerners enjoyed. Some southern yeomen, particularly younger men, rented land or hired themselves out as agricultural workers. Small farmers did not own slaves, and their prospect for acquiring enough land or money to do so was nil, but they still supported slavery out of strongly held views of racial superiority and because a large free black population would compete with them for a decent living.

Poor whites. The lowest rung on the white social ladder was occupied by people who lived on the most marginal lands in the South—the pine barrens, swamps, and sandy hill country. Poor whites, variously called “hillbillies,” “white trash,” “crackers,” or “clay eaters,” just barely survived as subsistence farmers, usually as squatters. Their reputed laziness was primarily due to an extremely inadequate diet; malnutrition left them susceptible to malaria, hookworm, and other diseases that produced lethargy. Slaves sometimes had better physical living conditions than poor whites.

Free blacks in the South. Not all African Americans in the South before the Civil War were slaves. More than a quarter million “free persons of color” were concentrated in the states of Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia as well as the cities of Charleston and New Orleans. Blacks who managed to buy their freedom or were freed by their masters, a practice outlawed throughout the South during the 1830s, occupied a strange place in society. While a handful found financial success, even becoming landowners with slaves of their own, the majority were laborers, farm hands, domestics, factory workers, and craftsmen who never escaped poverty. Religion played an important role in the lives of free blacks, as it did for slaves, and black evangelical churches, particularly Baptist and African Methodist Episcopal (AME), flourished. Perhaps because planters felt sentimental toward children they had sired with slaves, mulattos accounted for a significant percentage of the free persons of color. As a group, mulattos tended to look down on those with darker skin, whether free or slave. "

Slavery the Economy and Society

They used their small amount of cash to buy guns, knives, axes, Sunday clothes, etc.

And not all American slaves were black.

"The English had been practicing a slow genocide against the Irish since Queen Elizabeth, but the Irish bred too fast and were tough to kill. On the other side of the Atlantic, there was a chronic labor shortage (because the local natives tended to die out too quickly in slavery conditions).
Putting two and two together, King James I started sending Irish slaves to the new world.
The first recorded sale of Irish slaves was to a settlement in the Amazon in 1612, seven years before the first African slaves arrived in Jamestown.

The Proclamation of 1625 by James II made it official policy that all Irish political prisoners be transported to the West Indies and sold to English planters. Soon Irish slaves were the majority of slaves in the English colonies.

In 1629 a large group of Irish men and women were sent to Guiana, and by 1632, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat in the West Indies. By 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves, which records show was a cause of concern to the English planters. But there were not enough political prisoners to supply the demand, so every petty infraction carried a sentence of transporting, and slaver gangs combed the country sides to kidnap enough people to fill out their quotas. The slavers were so full of zest that they sometimes grabbed non-Irishmen. On March 25, 1659, a petition was received in London claiming that 72 Englishmen were wrongly sold as slaves in Barbados, along with 200 Frenchmen and 7-8,000 Scots.
So many Irish slaves were sent to Barbados, between 12,000 and 60,000, that the term "barbadosed" began to be used...
After Oliver Cromwell defeated the royalists in the English Civil War, he turned to Ireland, who had allied themselves with the defeated royalists. What happened next could be considered genocide.
The famine (caused by the English intentionally destroying foodstocks) and plague that followed Cromwell's massacres reduced the population of Ireland to around 40%.

And then Cromwell got really nasty.
Anyone implicated in the rebellion had their land confiscated and was sold into slavery in the West Indies. Even catholic landowners who hadn't taken part of the rebellion had their land confiscated.
Catholicism was outlawed and catholic priests were executed when found.
To top it off, he ordered the ethnic cleansing of Ireland east of Shannon in 1652. Soldiers were encouraged to kill any Irish who refused to relocate.

Instead of trying to describe the horror, consider the words from the English State Papers in 1742.

"In clearing the ground for the adventurers and soldiers (the English capitalists of that day)... To be transported to Barbados and the English plantations in America. It was a measure beneficial to Ireland, which was
thus relieved of a population that might trouble the planters; it was a benefit to the people removed, which might thus be made English and Christians ... a great benefit to the West India sugar planters, who desired men and boys for their bondsmen, and
the women and Irish girls... To solace them." I can't help but notice that the exact same language and logic used to justify enslavement of the blacks was used to justify enslavement of the Irish."...

As for the Irish slaves, Cromwell specifically targeted Irish children. “During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, [Oliver] Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.” For some reason, history likes to call these Irish slaves as 'indentured servants'. As if they were somehow considered better than African slaves. This can be considered an attempt at whitewashing the history of the Irish slave trade.
There does exist indentured servitude where two parties sign a contract for a limited amount of time. This is not what happened to the Irish from 1625 onward. They were sold as slaves, pure and simple.
In reality, they were considered by some to be even lower than the blacks. “...the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period,” writes Martin. “It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.” African slaves were still relatively new, and were expensive to transport such a long distance (50 sterling in the late 1600's). Irish slaves on the other hand, were relatively cheap in comparison (5 sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Because Irish slaves were so much cheaper, the loss of investment from torturing and killing them was not considered an effective deterrent. In an ironic twist, this caused some to recommend importing African slaves instead for humanitarian reasons."

The last Irish slaves sold into the Americas was in 1798.

The slaves that time forgot

Those original white Irish weren't slaves. they were indentured servants.
Thanks for playing...

While most of these slaves who survived were eventually freed after their time of service was completed, many leaving the islands for the American colonies, many were not, and the planters found another way to insure a free supply of valuable slaves. They were quick to “find solace” and start breeding with the Irish slave women. Many of them were very pretty, but more than that, while most of the Irish were sold for only a period of service, usually about 10 years assuming they survived

Irish Slavery mediachecker

 

[cnm]

I'm informed.

Hoho. FoxNews viewer?

edit...Oh I just noticed your avatar, Tea Bagger. Say no more.

 

[Jackson]

I have a T shirt with the Confederate flag. I bought it years ago when I moved to the south. All it meant to me is remembering the souls that lost their lives and celebrating the history of the south. It meant that people formed an army to preserve their way of life and help them economically. I will continue to wear the t shirt and recognize also the tribute to some black ancestors that that lost their live under brutal means.

 

[JimBowie1958]

'More than just one of many reasons' is quite the ambiguous phrase. And why does Mr Stephens opinion count for more than the opinions of others who disagree with him? Did he fight in the war? Oh, no, looky here, he was a rich man who served as VP during the war.

Farming men, the majority of Southern soldiers by quite a bit, don't fight through the horrors of war to enable rich fucks to own slaves that drive him into the ground with zero labor costs.

You have bought into some pretty stupid shit and you would realize it if you would just stop and think about it.

But I wont hold my breath.

The entire economy of the South was based on slavery. The idea that non-slave owning whites had nothing at stake in slavery is utterly false, and the idea that slave ownership was restricted to the wealthy is also false.

No the entire economy of the South was NOT based on slavery,, only the cash economy was. Most Southerners were subsistence farmers and sold some crops for store cash, and that is it. They were the majority of the white participants in the economy and no, they did not and could not own slaves.

You go from one piece of ridiculous bullshit to the next one. Does it tire you at all, or is lying just so reflexive you don't even realize you are doing it any more?

"Most"? What proportion?

What would they typically buy with their cash?

And they did not fear the consequences of a slave rebellion?

Only 25% of Southerners owned slaves and most of them owned less than ten.

The 75% that were the majority were either Yeomen farmers, clay eaters or freed slaves.

"Yeoman farmers. The largest single group of southern whites were family farmers, the “ yeoman” praised by Thomas Jefferson as the backbone of a free society. On farms of about one hundred acres or less, they raised livestock and grew corn and sweet potatoes for their own consumption, and perhaps tended a little cotton or tobacco to supply much‐needed hard currency. The yeoman families lived much more isolated lives than their counterparts in the North and, because of their chronic shortage of cash, lacked many of the amenities that northerners enjoyed. Some southern yeomen, particularly younger men, rented land or hired themselves out as agricultural workers. Small farmers did not own slaves, and their prospect for acquiring enough land or money to do so was nil, but they still supported slavery out of strongly held views of racial superiority and because a large free black population would compete with them for a decent living.

Poor whites. The lowest rung on the white social ladder was occupied by people who lived on the most marginal lands in the South—the pine barrens, swamps, and sandy hill country. Poor whites, variously called “hillbillies,” “white trash,” “crackers,” or “clay eaters,” just barely survived as subsistence farmers, usually as squatters. Their reputed laziness was primarily due to an extremely inadequate diet; malnutrition left them susceptible to malaria, hookworm, and other diseases that produced lethargy. Slaves sometimes had better physical living conditions than poor whites.

Free blacks in the South. Not all African Americans in the South before the Civil War were slaves. More than a quarter million “free persons of color” were concentrated in the states of Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia as well as the cities of Charleston and New Orleans. Blacks who managed to buy their freedom or were freed by their masters, a practice outlawed throughout the South during the 1830s, occupied a strange place in society. While a handful found financial success, even becoming landowners with slaves of their own, the majority were laborers, farm hands, domestics, factory workers, and craftsmen who never escaped poverty. Religion played an important role in the lives of free blacks, as it did for slaves, and black evangelical churches, particularly Baptist and African Methodist Episcopal (AME), flourished. Perhaps because planters felt sentimental toward children they had sired with slaves, mulattos accounted for a significant percentage of the free persons of color. As a group, mulattos tended to look down on those with darker skin, whether free or slave. "

Slavery the Economy and Society

They used their small amount of cash to buy guns, knives, axes, Sunday clothes, etc.

And not all American slaves were black.

"The English had been practicing a slow genocide against the Irish since Queen Elizabeth, but the Irish bred too fast and were tough to kill. On the other side of the Atlantic, there was a chronic labor shortage (because the local natives tended to die out too quickly in slavery conditions).
Putting two and two together, King James I started sending Irish slaves to the new world.
The first recorded sale of Irish slaves was to a settlement in the Amazon in 1612, seven years before the first African slaves arrived in Jamestown.

The Proclamation of 1625 by James II made it official policy that all Irish political prisoners be transported to the West Indies and sold to English planters. Soon Irish slaves were the majority of slaves in the English colonies.

In 1629 a large group of Irish men and women were sent to Guiana, and by 1632, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat in the West Indies. By 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves, which records show was a cause of concern to the English planters. But there were not enough political prisoners to supply the demand, so every petty infraction carried a sentence of transporting, and slaver gangs combed the country sides to kidnap enough people to fill out their quotas. The slavers were so full of zest that they sometimes grabbed non-Irishmen. On March 25, 1659, a petition was received in London claiming that 72 Englishmen were wrongly sold as slaves in Barbados, along with 200 Frenchmen and 7-8,000 Scots.
So many Irish slaves were sent to Barbados, between 12,000 and 60,000, that the term "barbadosed" began to be used...
After Oliver Cromwell defeated the royalists in the English Civil War, he turned to Ireland, who had allied themselves with the defeated royalists. What happened next could be considered genocide.
The famine (caused by the English intentionally destroying foodstocks) and plague that followed Cromwell's massacres reduced the population of Ireland to around 40%.

And then Cromwell got really nasty.
Anyone implicated in the rebellion had their land confiscated and was sold into slavery in the West Indies. Even catholic landowners who hadn't taken part of the rebellion had their land confiscated.
Catholicism was outlawed and catholic priests were executed when found.
To top it off, he ordered the ethnic cleansing of Ireland east of Shannon in 1652. Soldiers were encouraged to kill any Irish who refused to relocate.

Instead of trying to describe the horror, consider the words from the English State Papers in 1742.

"In clearing the ground for the adventurers and soldiers (the English capitalists of that day)... To be transported to Barbados and the English plantations in America. It was a measure beneficial to Ireland, which was
thus relieved of a population that might trouble the planters; it was a benefit to the people removed, which might thus be made English and Christians ... a great benefit to the West India sugar planters, who desired men and boys for their bondsmen, and
the women and Irish girls... To solace them." I can't help but notice that the exact same language and logic used to justify enslavement of the blacks was used to justify enslavement of the Irish."...

As for the Irish slaves, Cromwell specifically targeted Irish children. “During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, [Oliver] Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.” For some reason, history likes to call these Irish slaves as 'indentured servants'. As if they were somehow considered better than African slaves. This can be considered an attempt at whitewashing the history of the Irish slave trade.
There does exist indentured servitude where two parties sign a contract for a limited amount of time. This is not what happened to the Irish from 1625 onward. They were sold as slaves, pure and simple.
In reality, they were considered by some to be even lower than the blacks. “...the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period,” writes Martin. “It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.” African slaves were still relatively new, and were expensive to transport such a long distance (50 sterling in the late 1600's). Irish slaves on the other hand, were relatively cheap in comparison (5 sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Because Irish slaves were so much cheaper, the loss of investment from torturing and killing them was not considered an effective deterrent. In an ironic twist, this caused some to recommend importing African slaves instead for humanitarian reasons."

The last Irish slaves sold into the Americas was in 1798.

The slaves that time forgot

Those original white Irish weren't slaves. they were indentured servants.
Thanks for playing...

While most of these slaves who survived were eventually freed after their time of service was completed, many leaving the islands for the American colonies, many were not, and the planters found another way to insure a free supply of valuable slaves. They were quick to “find solace” and start breeding with the Irish slave women. Many of them were very pretty, but more than that, while most of the Irish were sold for only a period of service, usually about 10 years assuming they survived

Irish Slavery mediachecker

No, those Irish slaves were in fact slaves. Most were released from their slavery after a period of time as they were too cheap to bother reselling for a profit, didn't do as well as blacks in out door labor and were continually rebellious. But there was no guarantee that they would ever be given freedom and would die as slaves.

"For some reason, history likes to call these Irish slaves as 'indentured servants'. As if they were somehow considered better than African slaves. This can be considered an attempt at whitewashing the history of the Irish slave trade.
There does exist indentured servitude where two parties sign a contract for a limited amount of time. This is not what happened to the Irish from 1625 onward. They were sold as slaves, pure and simple.
In reality, they were considered by some to be even lower than the blacks. “...the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period,” writes Martin. “It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.” African slaves were still relatively new, and were expensive to transport such a long distance (50 sterling in the late 1600's). Irish slaves on the other hand, were relatively cheap in comparison (5 sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Because Irish slaves were so much cheaper, the loss of investment from torturing and killing them was not considered an effective deterrent. In an ironic twist, this caused some to recommend importing African slaves instead for humanitarian reasons."

The slaves that time forgot

But of course, you probably think the Daily Kos is some FOX News outlet, right? lol

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm informed.

Hoho. FoxNews viewer?

edit...Oh I just noticed your avatar, Tea Bagger. Say no more.

IT is amazing how libtards engage in ad hominem and don't even realize it. You probably think that ad hominem is 'name calling', don't you? Well it isn't. Ad Hominem is the act of discrediting the source of information instead of critiquing the information itself. Every time you libtards dismiss someone arguments as wrong because they come from FOX News, you engage in false logic, irrationality and propaganda.

But then again, what else is new?

 

[eagle1462010]

The 1st flag confused the soldiers in battle...........It too closely resembled the Yankie Battle Flags............

The 2nd Flag with no wind appeared to be a white flag of surrender...........so it had to go........

So they just got rid of the white from that flag and made the main Battle Flag the Stars and Bars by themselves........It was the main Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia under General Lee............and thus became the primary symbol of the Civil War for the Confederacy.......

 

[gipper]

People who don't bother to know any history are prone to over generalize and stereotype. Slave ownership varied greatly from state to state, so the motivations of individuals are hard to characterize . Here's how it breaks down.
1860 Census Results

And not all the South wanted to leave the Union either. If you look at a county map of the Souths votes for secession you see many large areas that did not want to leave the Union and voted no. And yet they all contributed troops to fight the northern invasion.

So that must prove it was all about slavery...in a pig's eye.

And those areas were typically the areas with FEWER SLAVES. Why do you think W Virginia split?

And yet those still in the South and part of the Confederacy *still* fought to defend their states.


Are you really this stupid or does it require effort?

Regarding your point about some areas of the South siding against secession, you are of course correct.

My ancestors on my Dad's side settled in eastern Tennessee during the Revolutionary War. When Lincoln's War came, most in that area were against secession, but many of my ancestors were torn. It truly was brother against brother, as some fought for the North and some for the South.

I have a head stone picture of an ancestor who was killed and buried just north of Atlanta fighting for the murderous fool Sherman...at the ripe old age of 17.

War is ALWAYS the health of the state!!! Sadly, a majority of Americans will NEVER comprehend this.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What Does the Confederate Flag Mean To You ? To me, it means a few things.

1. The flag of the nation that was the 11 states of the south during the civil war, and yes, it did represent slavery. And no, that's not a good thing. Of course not.

2. It represents a tribute and honoring of the Million + men who fought for the South with courage and heroism, regardless of the cause. Same as I say I honor the troops who fought in Vietnam, even though I totally disagreed with the politics of it.

3. It represents the cultural heritage of at least 11 states of the USA, and about 90 Million people living in those states.

4. It represents yet another tool the bossy, pushy, race hustler crowd is using, to transform American society into something of THEIR own design, while these control freaks go trampling on everything and anything standing in their way, no matter whether right or wrong.

It means nothing like any other flag