Should displaying Confederate symbols be illegal in the United States?

[DreamQuickBook]

"When our Constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable, for there we find provision made for the very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men - not even upon that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste, only to be represented in the numerical proportion of three-fifths".

And where was the constitution written? And by whom? Who's hypocrisy have you allowed to be pointed out I wonder? America's. Not the South.

Slavery was an economic, not a moral issue with regard to the Civil War. Were there slave owners in the south that were resisting moral change and the abolitionist movements desperate to keep themselves out the union and a Northern Controlled economy? Of course they were. Were there racists in the south? Of course there were, as there were in the North. Did the prospect of recklessly banning slavery without careful planning bother southerners, whose lives depended upon the economic conditions before them? Yes.

But the North had no interest in "freeing slaves" because they thought that slavery was wrong. Lincoln used the Abolistionists to stir up public support, while denying that the war was about slavery at all from his office. Very clever. Very hypocritical.

 

[Green Gaia]

But the North wasn't fighting to get rid of slavery.

I don't know if that is true or not. There were people fighting to end slavery, you cannot deny that. Certianly both sides have their viewpoint even today, 130 years later. But isn't the fact that by defeating the South, slavery was defeated, enough to say it was the right thing to do? I don't buy the argument that white slave owners were going to voluntarily give up their free workforce.

Whether is was the cause of the war or not, the Civil War ended slavery in this country. I cannot see how that is not a good thing.

 

[jewscout]

And where was the constitution written? And by whom? Who's hypocrisy have you allowed to be pointed out I wonder? America's. Not the South.

umm...i'm pretty sure southern states were there at the constitutional congress:sarcastic ...otherwise the 3/5 compromise never would have happened...the slaves just wouldn't have been counted at all

Slavery was an economic, not a moral issue with regard to the Civil War. Were there slave owners in the south that were resisting moral change and the abolitionist movements desperate to keep themselves out the union and a Northern Controlled economy? Of course they were. Of course they were. Were there racists in the south? Of course there were, as there were in the North. Did the prospect of recklessly banning slavery without careful planning bother southerners, whose lives depended upon the economic conditions before them? Yes.

i find nothing at fault with this statement. It in fact supports my claim that slavery as an institution was a central cause and reason for secession, thus making the existance of the Confederacy about keeping slavery in place.

But the North had no interest in "freeing slaves" because they thought that slavery was wrong. Lincoln used the Abolistionists to stir up public support, while denying that the war was about slavery at all from his office. Very clever. Very hypocritical.

again i find nothing to argue about in regards to this statement either, the War itself was not about slavery but about bringing rebel states back into the Union (now i really don't care which side you cheer for i'm just making a statement in regards to how the Union most likely viewed this conflict)
as i've stated before the war was not about slavery...
Secession was

 

[Quoth The Raven]

I don't buy the argument that white slave owners were going to voluntarily give up their free workforce.

Just out of interest, does anyone have any idea how much it cost to feed, clothe and house a slave as opposed to what the average wage would have been for a farm hand?

 

[Sunstone]

Just out of interest, does anyone have any idea how much it cost to feed, clothe and house a slave as opposed to what the average wage would have been for a farm hand?

This does not directly address your question, Lady Lazarus, but according to Thomas Sowell, the average slave in the Southern United States lived as well or better than the average Irish peasant of the same time. That wasn't too well by today's standards.

 

[Green Gaia]

Just out of interest, does anyone have any idea how much it cost to feed, clothe and house a slave as opposed to what the average wage would have been for a farm hand?

I don't know how much a hired farm hand would be paid, but "A typical weekly food share for a slave was a peck of cornmeal and three to four pounds of salt pork. Clothing was basic and required to last a long time and included a "heavy blanket every third year." According to some estimates, slaves cost only $15 to $60 a year to keep." http://www.epcc.edu/ftp/Homes/monicaw/borderlands/21_juneteenth.htm

 

[jewscout]

Just out of interest, does anyone have any idea how much it cost to feed, clothe and house a slave as opposed to what the average wage would have been for a farm hand?

for an individual slave? i can't give you numbers but knowing the conditions Black slaves lived under one slave was much cheaper to "keep up" than to pay a farm hand to do the work.

That being said for even a medium sized plantation you are talking about thousands if not millions of dollars in investments. Slaves: captial, production and labor all in one. To have let them go would have been economic suicide and would have created a greatly unwanted population in the south.

 

[jewscout]

This does not directly address your question, Lady Lazarus, but according to Thomas Sowell, the average slave in the Southern United States lived as well or better than the average Irish peasant of the same time. That wasn't too well by today's standards.

yes because being treated like a horse or a head of cattle is preferable:sarcastic

 

[Quoth The Raven]

for an individual slave? i can't give you numbers but knowing the conditions Black slaves lived under one slave was much cheaper to "keep up" than to pay a farm hand to do the work.

That being said for even a medium sized plantation you are talking about thousands if not millions of dollars in investments. Slaves: captial, production and labor all in one. To have let them go would have been economic suicide and would have created a greatly unwanted population in the south.

The average number of slaves residing together in the South in 1860 was 10, which would represent - assuming premium price - a total investment of around $30,000.

 

[jewscout]

The average number of slaves residing together in the South in 1860 was 10, which would represent - assuming premium price - a total investment of around $30,000.

the source of this material is...

 

[jewscout]

The average number of slaves residing together in the South in 1860 was 10, which would represent - assuming premium price - a total investment of around $30,000.

let me help...

...in 1860 about one-half of all slaves lived on holdings of 10 to 49 slaves. The remaining half of the slave population was evenly divided between larger and smaller establishments. Holdings tended to be bigger in the deep South than in the upper South...

http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/civwar/slavery.html

to say that "the averate...was 10" is not entirely accurate...since about half was between 10-49 we can probably assume that the average was between 20-30...but of course this is not taking into acount the other half of the slave population of the South so take that how you will...

 

[DreamQuickBook]

i find nothing at fault with this statement. It in fact supports my claim that slavery as an institution was a central cause and reason for secession, thus making the existance of the Confederacy about keeping slavery in place.

No one is saying that slavery wasn't an issue. In fact, what we are saying is, that it was an economic issue, insofar as the North wanted to take control of the Southern Economy. They couldn't do that without ending slavery and subordinating the Southern States to Federal governance, which was no different than what the South had suffered under the rule of a king.

The point is, if we can stay on the ball here, that the war was not about ending slavery or continuing slavery. The war was about conquering the South's economic system and subjugating them to the rule of the North. Slavery was immoral and it is a blessing that it ended, but the North Conquered the South in order to obtain power, not free slaves.

Slavery was more of an issue to the South than it was to the North, because how and when slavery ended was a very serious issue. The Yankee Army and Government didn't care at all for freeing slaves. It was economic.

The point is, the North has no "moral" high ground and the South does.

The North stripped the South of its' independence because the North wanted to force the south to sell their goods at cheaper prices and to force the south to buy their goods at a higher price. The South fought the war to protect their independence and liberty from the power hungry and greedy North. The South didn't want to go to war. They were invaded.

The only good thing that came out of the North's victory was the end of slavery; but NONE OF US have known such freedom since then. The freedom of all was sacrificed in that war. I suppose, looking back on it, to end the injustice of slavery, it was worth the price. But again, the north has no moral high ground. They were after power and nothing more.

Lincoln sent tens of thousands of men to their deaths for no greater reason than to protect his economy.

 

[jewscout]

The point is, if we can stay on the ball here, that the war was not about ending slavery or continuing slavery.

i half agree with you here, the north, yes, could care less about the slaves but the Confederacy wanted to remain independent as a nation, a nation founded on the principle of white supremacy over black slaves.

Slavery was more of an issue to the South than it was to the North...

very true

The point is, the North has no "moral" high ground and the South does.

how does the South have moral high ground? Because they didn't start the war? What is moral about leaving a country because your scared they are going to force you to free people from bondage????

The North stripped the South of its' independence because the North wanted to force the south to sell their goods at cheaper prices and to force the south to buy their goods at a higher price.

Then why didn't the future President Jefferson Davis mention that when he was discussing his reasons for leaving the union?

The only good thing that came out of the North's victory was the end of slavery; but NONE OF US have known such freedom since then

except the African-American population

 

[Scuba Pete]

Those who would reduce this war to being SIMPLY about slavery are frankly without a clue.

It was about power. It was about who had the RIGHT to determine whether slavery (or flags, or whatever) was acceptable or not. The south felt that they did not have sufficient representation, and largely they were right. That being said, given our current state of affairs I am glad they were NOT successful.

This past week I got the chance for the first time to visit Fredricksburg, VA. My guide was a Texan who brought me up to the sunken road and explained the absolute carnage that transpired there. Sequestered behind a low brick wall, the confederates decimated the advancing Union troops. The air was so thick with bullets that they sounded like a swarm of hornets. They have found MANY bullets that simply collided with other bullets they were so thick. There was the "Angel" of the battlefield, Richard Kirklnd, a confederate who slipped over the wall to render aid to Union Soldiers with water and comfort.

As we traveled throught the National cemetary, where Union and Confederate soldiers lie side by side, it occured to me: They were EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM an American. They fought out of loyalty to their leaders and for a cause they never could understand. Few owned slaves but all fought for the "right" for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As the fire flies rose from the numbered graves (less than 15% were able to be identified by name) I thought I could see their spirits sharing the honor that both sides exhibited in this conflict. When I read that there were over 15,000 soldiers interred at this cemetary, I felt tears come to my eyes.

War is hell, and should not be prosecuted on a whim as is the case in Iraq.

On another trip, I visited the house where Stonewall Jackson died. Apparently he was accidentally shot by his own troops. They were crushed when they learned that they had done this.

 

[Faminedynasty]

No one is saying that slavery wasn't an issue. In fact, what we are saying is, that it was an economic issue, insofar as the North wanted to take control of the Southern Economy. They couldn't do that without ending slavery and subordinating the Southern States to Federal governance, which was no different than what the South had suffered under the rule of a king.

The point is, if we can stay on the ball here, that the war was not about ending slavery or continuing slavery. The war was about conquering the South's economic system and subjugating them to the rule of the North. Slavery was immoral and it is a blessing that it ended, but the North Conquered the South in order to obtain power, not free slaves.

Slavery was more of an issue to the South than it was to the North, because how and when slavery ended was a very serious issue. The Yankee Army and Government didn't care at all for freeing slaves. It was economic.

The point is, the North has no "moral" high ground and the South does.

The North stripped the South of its' independence because the North wanted to force the south to sell their goods at cheaper prices and to force the south to buy their goods at a higher price. The South fought the war to protect their independence and liberty from the power hungry and greedy North. The South didn't want to go to war. They were invaded.

The only good thing that came out of the North's victory was the end of slavery; but NONE OF US have known such freedom since then. The freedom of all was sacrificed in that war. I suppose, looking back on it, to end the injustice of slavery, it was worth the price. But again, the north has no moral high ground. They were after power and nothing more.

Lincoln sent tens of thousands of men to their deaths for no greater reason than to protect his economy.

I will not dispute that economics were a key reason that the Union army was mobilized, but to deny the moral issue of the struggle is not only to ignore the massive efforts of abolitionists and their surging popular movement but also the whole history of human struggle for basic rights, which the south fought against. The influence of the abolitionists, of men like Frederick Douglass who wanted slavery ended for all the right reasons grew within the Union in the years leading up to the war and more so during it. And no army that was fighting for its "freedom" to continue to enslave, exploit, rape and brutalize huge numbers of people can claim to have the high moral ground above virtually anyone.
And in regards to your claim of the South having the high moral ground, and the Union having none, how about those abolitionists who did join the union army to fight for freedom? And how about the thousands and thousands of blacks who were killed fighting for their own freedom, for their own status as human beings which the confederates would have stripped of them? I would say that the man who fights for his freedom has the high moral ground above the man who fights to enslave him. This is no small matter, it is not a mere footnote to this history. The preservation of the union led to the war, but it became a moral struggle between slavery and freedom. The south lost, and let us all be thankful for that.

 

[DreamQuickBook]

The South was fighting for it's freedom as well. What few abolitionists fought for the Union, I don't deny them the worthiness of their cause, but they were fighting for an army created for the soul purpose, to dominate and enslave (politically and economically) another group of people. Quite a hypocrisy, in my opinion. So while we must look upon those patriots that fought for liberty against slavery, we must also judge them harshly for joining such a corrupt and contradictory cause. Liberty, Independence and Slavery all ended with the conclusion to the civil war. The only people to benefit were the slaves, the federal government and the wealthy northern elitists that controlled it (a trend that sadly has not changed over the last 150 years).

 

[DreamQuickBook]

how does the South have moral high ground? Because they didn't start the war? What is moral about leaving a country because your scared they are going to force you to free people from bondage????

Because that wasn't the only thing the North wanted! The north wanted to force the south to use their ships, ports and factorys, they wanted to force the south to sell their products at a cheaper price and they wanted to force the south to by northern products at a hight price. It is true, that the Southern Elitists (aristocracy) were more concerned about the Slavery issue than anything else, but the overwhelming majority of confederates fought to protect their homes, their women and children from being murdered, raped and beaten and having their farms burned to the ground, only to be told that their business was now regulated by Northern politicians who had never spent a day in a field. The South was invaded and the Southerners fought for their independance and their lives. The north's insensitivity to that issue is one of the reasons why Yankees are viewed as such an embarressment. To this day, the Greed and Arrogance of the North is a burden and an embarrassment to this country and everything that it was founded upon.

However, The South will never rise again. The Confederacy will never exist again and we all have to find a way to work together under the steel-toed boot of the imperial federal government. If it were not for the good people in our communities, for the hard working poor and middle class and for our local politicians, doing what they can to represent us, the country would self-destruct. You cannot rule an entire nation, successfully, through force and domination.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Jacose,

As a person known for his combative stance against ALL KINDS of repression and bigotry, I must point out that you have GROSSLY over simplified the conflict that saw brother fighting against brother. Unfortunately, those that win get to write the history, and you have succombed to the bias of the Union Historians of the time, who would rather villify the South. I might suggest that you do some more research, this time from the South's perspective, before you glibly accept the spin provided by those biased historians.

 

[DreamQuickBook]

Jacose,

As a person known for his combative stance against ALL KINDS of repression and bigotry, I must point out that you have GROSSLY over simplified the conflict that saw brother fighting against brother. Unfortunately, those that win get to write the history, and you have succombed to the bias of the Union Historians of the time, who would rather villify the South. I might suggest that you do some more research, this time from the South's perspective, before you glibly accept the spin provided by those biased historians.

What in God's name are you talking about?

 

[Faminedynasty]

The only people to benefit were the slaves, the federal government and the wealthy northern elitists that controlled it (a trend that sadly has not changed over the last 150 years).

Please, the old confederacy is running this country. To be President, you must be a southerner.
I agree that some southerners fought out of loyalty to their states, or the belief that they were protecting their rights. But they were all aware that slavery was on the line and it was something they were willing to kill for. Let's drop the pretense that slavery was some minor issue to the south. They had slaves, and they were glad to, and they would have for as long as they were permitted to. So it is laughable to portray them as the goodguys, as entirely moral beings struggling for freedom. Their stance was inherently unethical. The union carried out its share of attrocities, killing civilians, burning towns to the ground and so forth. And the union did have other goals than abolishing slavery, but the fact that abolishing slavery was among the goals most certainly gives them the moral highground over the southerners, who had other goals besides keeping black people as sub-human slaves, in my humble opinion. And if the southern states had to pay higher prices, and be otherwise regulated by the federal government, that is a small price to pay.

And we, the north embarass you? I'm terribly sorry, my apologies. And you can take comfort in knowing that it's not as if the south has ever embarassed us with, oh say, seggregation, police dogs, firehoses, firebombings and lynchings. It seems to me that the civil war never really ended, it's just being fought in political terms, and frankly the south is much more successful in that arena than it was in physical war.

I'm terribly sorry if the north is a burden to you, it would be nice if we could rid you of the burden we are and personally I hope the south will rise again. If the old south would like to seceed today, under the condition that they assured us that they would not attempt to reinstitute slavery (and that they would let gays, blacks, minorities and women flee) I would support their efforts entirely. The United States of America would be better educated, have a firmer sepparation of church and state, far more civil liberties and less bigotry than it does today without the influence of southern politicians. Government would be more representative in both nations. We could remain allies. And the north of course would provide humanitarian aid to help the south's feeble, pathetic economy.

Ah, but I am being bitter, slanted and crude. Forgive me, it is not generally my way to do so. But I suppose it is a monument to the fact that bitterness still runs deep on both sides from that war so many years ago.