Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

Phys251 · Nov 21, 2011

LaMidRighter said:
First of all, murder and arson are not charges that can be brought up against a state, this is the first logical fallacy. Second, murder and arson being individual charges can be brought up against and individual through state laws and due process. As well the Federal government does have laws against individuals destroying federal property or committing murder against federal employees or within federal properties and that is perfectly legal, it falls under the defense clause. That is your second logical fallacy. Third, your appeal to the court. A law cannot be declared ex post facto. If you don't know what this means an american court cannot retroactively apply punishment in the U.S. for actions committed before a law or judgement was passed. In other words the U.S. could not declare that a legal act post war was illegal and that decision could not stand. As a matter of fact there are STILL state secession discussions. That is your final logical fallacy, appeal to authority can not stand on it's own, especially considering the authority in question tends to reverse itself on occasion.

Your first point: You said that if it's not in the Constitution, the federal government can't do it. That means that they can't prosecute people in federal courts for said crimes, and since the Tenth Amendment allows states to do whatever they want, then if said state doesn't prosecute them, murder and arson could be legal. Second, if we allow people to form their own versions of what's constitutionally valid, then people could start having lynch mobs again and call that "due process," thus rendering your Fourteenth Amendment argument moot. (You Confederate sympathizers should be very, very careful how you use that amendment in your arguments, by the way.) Third, you try to accuse me of a fallacy while making one of your own. You (plural) have repeatedly claimed that secession is legal simply because the Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid it.

What you (plural) don't want to admit is that not only did Texas v. White explicitly rule that secession was, is, and will always be a violation of the law, it also ruled that legally it wasn't even legitimate. Secession was absolutely void, meaning that strictly from a legal point-of-view, it never happened in the first place. Only revisionists such as yourself would claim otherwise.

The only people attempting deflection are those trying to maintain that the north was 100% correct. The facts have been presented and shrugged off by people who don't want to admit that maybe they didn't get the whole story on the Civil War. But if you want to maintain your stance.....whatev.

Nice strawman. I never said that the United States (we should stop calling it the Union already. That's an outdated term.) never did anything wrong. Hell, while they were fending off the Confederacy, they were oppressing the Natives out west. Fighting for liberty on one front, fighting against it on another.

Ah yes. More simplifying. Slavery was a sub-issue and the last straw, many writings from the north of the time even say that abolition was a sub-issue to their desire of maintaining the Union. So we can retire that argument.

You lie. Slavery was THE core issue. "States rights" was nothing more than an expedient catchphrase designed to defend an inherently racist and oppressive institution. Again, you revisionists make comments such as these because you want people to take their eyes off that fact.

apdst said:
When did that happen?

Already answered multiple times. Texas v. White.

Why do ya'll insist on labeling those who don't buy into your PC revised version of history, "Confederate sympathizers", or, "slavery apologists"?

Get the plank out of your eye before you try to get the speck out of ours.

Bodhisattva said:
Laws can and do exist outside of the Constitution, and in the case of murder and arson the State is not only not allowed to deprive anybody of life liberty or property, but lawmakers have made laws that make average citizens depriving others of life liberty or property illegal.

But that's the federal government that you're talking about. States can do just about anything they want, because the Tenth Amendment says so. And anything the federal government does to stop that is a government takeover.

Slavery was the issue that brought up States Rights... so the real issue was actually: States vs Federal Rights.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

You lie. Don't direct us away from the real issue here.

misterman said:
Here's the deal. A symbol can be different for different people.

The flag most certainly has meant racism, treason, slavery etc. to people in history - both in the Civil War era and more recent times. One can consider a symbol of something else, if you want. But it's been hijacked by the racists (much like the Nazis hijacked the swastika) and now you use it at your peril. A new symbol might be a good idea.

Totally agree.

LaMidRighter · Nov 21, 2011

Phys251 said:
Phys251 said:

Your first point: You said that if it's not in the Constitution, the federal government can't do it. That means that they can't prosecute people in federal courts for said crimes, and since the Tenth Amendment allows states to do whatever they want, then if said state doesn't prosecute them, murder and arson could be legal. Second, if we allow people to form their own versions of what's constitutionally valid, then people could start having lynch mobs again and call that "due process," thus rendering your Fourteenth Amendment argument moot. (You Confederate sympathizers should be very, very careful how you use that amendment in your arguments, by the way.) Third, you try to accuse me of a fallacy while making one of your own. You (plural) have repeatedly claimed that secession is legal simply because the Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid it.

Click to expand...

1) The constitution provides the duty of the federal government, not the right to provide for the common defense. This would mean that the federal does have the right to make laws regarding the illicit taking of life or destruction of federal property. Had the defense of the nation not been included you may have a point. 2) States cannot "do whatever they want" and neither can the federal. All powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. This means that the states may go above what the federal sets as a bare minimum, and that the federal must not encroach on rights where they have no powers. 3) Lynch mobs are not protected rights under any stretch of constitutional interpretation so no, they wouldn't be legal. 4) There is no right of the U.S. or power delegated to it to enforce Union, and at the same time there is no disbarrment from the states leaving the Union. If there were your side would have honored the request to cite the specific Article, Section, and phrasing to that end. We are all still waiting for that. 5) Appeal to the court is usually weak when arguing the constitution for a multitude of reasons. The most important being that while their decisions carry the weight of law the court does reverse itself on occasion, so therefore your reasoning based solely on their decisions is on shaky ground, the next point at which this fails is that it was an Ex Post Facto decision which is why there were no filed treason charges. You see, when there was no law fitting the definition of treason no charges would have been upheld. 6) Until you can make this case strongly without charges of racism, and apologism, and revisionism based on more than logical fallacies you cannot hope to be taken seriously, I'm not trying to be rude but them's the facts.

ThePlayDrive · Nov 21, 2011

LaMidRighter said:
Awwwww. Whassa matter? You can't counter with anything so you try to discredit us? Come on I thought you were better than that.

I don't have to try. You've already done it yourself. :shrug:

LaMidRighter · Nov 21, 2011

theplaydrive said:
I don't have to try. You've already done it yourself. :shrug:

Keep telling yourself that. I won't stop you from thinking you're right.

Phys251 · Nov 22, 2011

LaMidRighter said:
1) The constitution provides the duty of the federal government, not the right to provide for the common defense. This would mean that the federal does have the right to make laws regarding the illicit taking of life or destruction of federal property. Had the defense of the nation not been included you may have a point. 2) States cannot "do whatever they want" and neither can the federal. All powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. This means that the states may go above what the federal sets as a bare minimum, and that the federal must not encroach on rights where they have no powers.

But what in the Constitution is to prevent states from overreaching their powers?

3) Lynch mobs are not protected rights under any stretch of constitutional interpretation so no, they wouldn't be legal. 4) There is no right of the U.S. or power delegated to it to enforce Union, and at the same time there is no disbarrment from the states leaving the Union. If there were your side would have honored the request to cite the specific Article, Section, and phrasing to that end. We are all still waiting for that.

Complete and utter BS. Why are you continuing to raise a point that I have thoroughly debunked?

5) Appeal to the court is usually weak when arguing the constitution for a multitude of reasons. The most important being that while their decisions carry the weight of law the court does reverse itself on occasion, so therefore your reasoning based solely on their decisions is on shaky ground, the next point at which this fails is that it was an Ex Post Facto decision which is why there were no filed treason charges. You see, when there was no law fitting the definition of treason no charges would have been upheld.

None of this is relevant. I pointed to the court's decision to gain the legal high ground, not the moral one. Not once did I claim that secession was morally wrong, though I certainly believe that, and the ball is in the court of those who think it is justifiable. But legally speaking, secession by any state is not allowed, period, end of discussion. What you are trying to do is akin to arguing that the world is flat, and I seriously wish you guys would stop trying to beat this dead horse.

6) Until you can make this case strongly without charges of racism, and apologism, and revisionism based on more than logical fallacies you cannot hope to be taken seriously, I'm not trying to be rude but them's the facts.

In your opinion. You don't want the issue of racism to surface, because you and I both know that that would undermine your credibility in this argument. The problem is that due to the roots of the Confederacy, and the root cause of the Civil War, the racism issue is not going to go away until you address it head-on. But you refuse to do that. The lies, deception and propaganda I am seeing in this thread from the Conservative sympathizers approach a level of insane propaganda not seen since the days of Nazi Germany. "States rights" as a primary cause of the Civil War--LOL, what a pathetic lie.

Furthermore, I fail to understand why individuals such as yourself are so eager to defend the Confederacy. I fail to understand why you turn a blind eye to slavery, to the oppression, to the lifelong destruction of liberty for an entire group of people. And you (plural) claim that supporters of the Confederacy support freedom? Since when? You're not supporting freedom. You're supporting slavery! Imprisonment! Forced labor! "Freedom"--LOL! Do Confederate sympathizers even know what freedom for every citizen, not just those of a certain skin color, is?

apdst · Nov 22, 2011

haymarket said:
A poster asking for proper evidence is always something that must be answered or the alternative is to risk losing all credibility.

You want to say this must have been what it was like to sit in the fog and watch the Titanic sink into the North Atlantic night where the cold ocean waters simply took over inch by inch without even a whimper . But then you realize this is not even rowboat capsizing on small pond.

The idea that anyone could be so far out there and yet so oblivious at the same time is to their inability to actually conduct an actual discussion and present at least a semblance of a case is really striking.

Maybe I should use YahooAnswers, like you did. :lamo

Whatever, my man!

LaMidRighter · Nov 22, 2011

Phys251 said:
But what in the Constitution is to prevent states from overreaching their powers?

Complete and utter BS. Why are you continuing to raise a point that I have thoroughly debunked?

None of this is relevant. I pointed to the court's decision to gain the legal high ground, not the moral one. Not once did I claim that secession was morally wrong, though I certainly believe that, and the ball is in the court of those who think it is justifiable. But legally speaking, secession by any state is not allowed, period, end of discussion. What you are trying to do is akin to arguing that the world is flat, and I seriously wish you guys would stop trying to beat this dead horse.

In your opinion. You don't want the issue of racism to surface, because you and I both know that that would undermine your credibility in this argument. The problem is that due to the roots of the Confederacy, and the root cause of the Civil War, the racism issue is not going to go away until you address it head-on. But you refuse to do that. The lies, deception and propaganda I am seeing in this thread from the Conservative sympathizers approach a level of insane propaganda not seen since the days of Nazi Germany. "States rights" as a primary cause of the Civil War--LOL, what a pathetic lie.

Furthermore, I fail to understand why individuals such as yourself are so eager to defend the Confederacy. I fail to understand why you turn a blind eye to slavery, to the oppression, to the lifelong destruction of liberty for an entire group of people. And you (plural) claim that supporters of the Confederacy support freedom? Since when? You're not supporting freedom. You're supporting slavery! Imprisonment! Forced labor! "Freedom"--LOL! Do Confederate sympathizers even know what freedom for every citizen, not just those of a certain skin color, is?

The only thing you have done is fail to understand, but that's because you don't want to. I get it, you have a worldview and think you are correct, but I am not wasting more time with you.

apdst · Nov 22, 2011

Phys251 said:
Already answered multiple times. Texas v. White.

And, what year was that? 18-sixty, what? Sixty-nine?

Surely not trying to say tht everyone, in 1860, was very familiar with Texas v. White and knew that secession was illegal. Or, are you?

LaMidRighter · Nov 22, 2011

I think it's time to sum this thread up:
Pro-history side-
- The north engaged in unfair trade practices and the location of the railroads
- The south tried to use diplomacy
- The slavery issue came up
- The south seceeded because of all factors combined
- The north occupied territory
- The south issued a warning and attacked but probably should have furthered diplomacy
- Both sides were wrong

The pro-North Side-
- The south was wrong
- Because we say so
- We don't need evidence
- North Good South Bad.

Does this sound about accurate?

Free For All · Nov 22, 2011

LaMidRighter said:
I think it's time to sum this thread up:
Pro-history side-
- The north engaged in unfair trade practices and the location of the railroads
- The south tried to use diplomacy
- The slavery issue came up
- The south seceeded because of all factors combined
- The north occupied territory
- The south issued a warning and attacked but probably should have furthered diplomacy
- Both sides were wrong

The pro-North Side-
- The south was wrong
- Because we say so
- We don't need evidence
- North Good South Bad.

Does this sound about accurate?

Couldn't of said it better myself.

apdst · Nov 22, 2011

LaMidRighter said:
I think it's time to sum this thread up:
Pro-history side-
- The north engaged in unfair trade practices and the location of the railroads
- The south tried to use diplomacy
- The slavery issue came up
- The south seceeded because of all factors combined
- The north occupied territory
- The south issued a warning and attacked but probably should have furthered diplomacy
- Both sides were wrong

The pro-North Side-
- The south was wrong
- Because we say so
- We don't need evidence
- North Good South Bad.

Does this sound about accurate?

Don't forget on the pro-history side,

-The Northern mills wanted the South to be forced to sell them their cotton, at a lower price than the Europeans were offering
-The Northern farmers wanted to see an end to slavery, because they weren't able to compete.

The civil war had more to with money than it did anything else.

LaMidRighter · Nov 22, 2011

apdst said:
Don't forget on the pro-history side,

-The Northern mills wanted the South to be forced to sell them their cotton, at a lower price than the Europeans were offering
-The Northern farmers wanted to see an end to slavery, because they weren't able to compete.

The civil war had more to with money than it did anything else.

Right on both points, I don't want people to feel bad about the north. I just wish people would discuss the issue openly and stop assuming the southern historical perspective is about slavery or racism. It's much deeper than that.

Phys251 · Nov 22, 2011

LaMidRighter said:
The only thing you have done is fail to understand, but that's because you don't want to. I get it, you have a worldview and think you are correct, but I am not wasting more time with you.

Seriously? You're giving up already?

apdst said:
And, what year was that? 18-sixty, what? Sixty-nine?

Surely not trying to say tht everyone, in 1860, was very familiar with Texas v. White and knew that secession was illegal. Or, are you?

Basic civics fail. Texas v. White is established precedent into US law. It has yet to be overturned, and I seriously doubt it will ever be.

LaMidRighter said:
I think it's time to sum this thread up:
Pro-history side-
- The north engaged in unfair trade practices and the location of the railroads
- The south tried to use diplomacy
- The slavery issue came up
- The south seceeded because of all factors combined
- The north occupied territory
- The south issued a warning and attacked but probably should have furthered diplomacy
- Both sides were wrong

The pro-North Side-
- The south was wrong
- Because we say so
- We don't need evidence
- North Good South Bad.

Does this sound about accurate?

So the South = the good guys, the North = the bad guys. Yep, completely unbiased and pro-America position there. And you STILL ignored slavery.

LaMidRighter said:
Right on both points, I don't want people to feel bad about the north. I just wish people would discuss the issue openly and stop assuming the southern historical perspective is about slavery or racism. It's much deeper than that.

First of all, "North" and "South" are POV terms. They make it sound like they were just flip sides of the same coin, when in fact they weren't. Second, your feeble attempt to sweep the slavery issue under the rug, with as much enthusiasm as you have shown for doing so, is blatant dishonesty. Doesn't matter how many other Confederate sympathizers we have on this thread, it doesn't make it right. What you are preaching here is nothing short of anti-American propaganda. Spin it, slice it, equivocate, do all you want to, but they do not change the facts. Had there been no slavery, there would have been no Civil War, period. The whole "states' rights" mantra was nothing more than a defense of slavery. Stop whitewashing history and start owning up to it.

apdst · Nov 22, 2011

Phys251 said:
Basic civics fail. Texas v. White is established precedent into US law. It has yet to be overturned, and I seriously doubt it will ever be.

It was a ruling decided in 1869, four years after the war ended.

Basic chronology fail.

apdst · Nov 22, 2011

Phys251 said:
So the South = the good guys, the North = the bad guys. Yep, completely unbiased and pro-America position there. And you STILL ignored slavery.

I must admit that LMR got this one wrong. He should have said, "pro-bull**** side", instead. :rofl

But, I'm sure he was just trying to be polite.

Phys251 · Nov 22, 2011

apdst said:
It was a ruling decided in 1869, four years after the war ended.

Basic chronology fail.

Dude. The Supreme Court ruled, in Texas v. White, that secession was legally impossible by the fact that the covenant of the Union was indissoluble, and that secession acts to the contrary were absolutely null. Meaning, they had zero legal validity, as far as the United States was concerned. When I say that the Confederacy was a bastard government, I don't just mean that as an insult; I mean that as a statement of legal matter.

Phys251 · Nov 22, 2011

apdst said:
I must admit that LMR got this one wrong. He should have said, "pro-bull**** side", instead. :rofl

But, I'm sure he was just trying to be polite.

Flaming is all you've got in response?

apdst · Nov 22, 2011

Phys251 said:
Dude. The Supreme Court ruled, in Texas v. White, that secession was legally impossible by the fact that the covenant of the Union was indissoluble, and that secession acts to the contrary were absolutely null. Meaning, they had zero legal validity, as far as the United States was concerned. When I say that the Confederacy was a bastard government, I don't just mean that as an insult; I mean that as a statement of legal matter.

In 1869!! Goddamn! Why is it so hard for you get a grip on that?!?

If you're right and it was so ****ing obvious that secession was un-constitutional, the decision would have been made when New England attempted to secede in 1804.

LaMidRighter · Nov 22, 2011

Phys251 said:
Flaming is all you've got in response?

This coming from a guy who had to call me a racist?

LaMidRighter · Nov 22, 2011

Phys251 said:
Seriously? You're giving up already?

Basic civics fail. Texas v. White is established precedent into US law. It has yet to be overturned, and I seriously doubt it will ever be.

So the South = the good guys, the North = the bad guys. Yep, completely unbiased and pro-America position there. And you STILL ignored slavery.

First of all, "North" and "South" are POV terms. They make it sound like they were just flip sides of the same coin, when in fact they weren't. Second, your feeble attempt to sweep the slavery issue under the rug, with as much enthusiasm as you have shown for doing so, is blatant dishonesty. Doesn't matter how many other Confederate sympathizers we have on this thread, it doesn't make it right. What you are preaching here is nothing short of anti-American propaganda. Spin it, slice it, equivocate, do all you want to, but they do not change the facts. Had there been no slavery, there would have been no Civil War, period. The whole "states' rights" mantra was nothing more than a defense of slavery. Stop whitewashing history and start owning up to it.

Yes, I am giving up on you. All you've done is flame. As far as spin goes, that is all you have provided. I have made every attempt to be civil and give you room for debate but all I get is "nuh-uh" "south bad". Sorry, there are better uses of my intellect than getting into a pissing contest with someone who wants to remain half informed.

Centinel · Nov 22, 2011

Phys251 said:
Your first point: You said that if it's not in the Constitution, the federal government can't do it. That means that they can't prosecute people in federal courts for said crimes,

This is correct. The states reserved nearly all police powers to themselves when they established their compact. They did give their federal government the power to punish piracy and treason, for example. Other than those few exceptions, the federal government was delegated no police powers.

and since the Tenth Amendment allows states to do whatever they want, then if said state doesn't prosecute them, murder and arson could be legal.

Yes, and if my uncle had tits, he'd be my aunt.

You (plural) have repeatedly claimed that secession is legal simply because the Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid it.

This is correct. The federal government may only exercise its delegated powers. It was never delegated any power to restrict exit from the federation, which, based on the 10th amendment, implies that this power was reserved by the states.

What you (plural) don't want to admit is that not only did Texas v. White explicitly rule that secession was, is, and will always be a violation of the law, it also ruled that legally it wasn't even legitimate. Secession was absolutely void, meaning that strictly from a legal point-of-view, it never happened in the first place. Only revisionists such as yourself would claim otherwise.

No kidding? You mean the federal government decided that secession was illegal? That's a shocker.

And what section and clause did they cite to support their opinion?

haymarket · Nov 22, 2011

apdst said:
Maybe I should use YahooAnswers, like you did. :lamo

Whatever, my man!

What are you raving about? Do you even know? You have said this many times and I have asked for clarification many times and you just keep regurgitating the same line over and over again.

For you to use something like Yahoo Answers - information which can be collaborated and verified in many other mainstream sources of information - would be a giant step up in your efforts to support your claims. It would be a whole lot better than using the racist rantings of a convicted first degree murderer serving a life sentence in prison in Indiana who can only get his unverified nonsense put up on a Aryan white power site.

Yes indeed , yahoo answers would be like you using the Encyclopedia Britannica after that one.

haymarket · Nov 22, 2011

apdst said:
In 1869!! Goddamn! Why is it so hard for you get a grip on that?!?

If you're right and it was so ****ing obvious that secession was un-constitutional, the decision would have been made when New England attempted to secede in 1804.

News Bulletin for you : The US Supreme Court decides many many questions of law long after the event has occurred and even has concluded. That is the nature of the beast. It is utterly ridiculous for you and anyone else here to keep whining about the date the secession took place and the later date that the White case was decided. It is completely and totally irrelevant in law and in history.

The only thing that is relevant to the discussion about the White ruling is that the Court did decide and did issue a ruling and did decide the issue and that is now the precedent and is the law in the matter.

Some here badly need to both get familiar with how the real world works and what is relevant and what is not relevant in determining the legality of actions.

haymarket · Nov 22, 2011

apdst - your repeated whining about using yahoo answers as a source is at best humorous and at worst rather sad.

The information I took from it was regarding just who in the South owned slaves. Here is the information from yahoo answers

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. (A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.)

For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America.

On a typical plantation (more than 20 slaves) the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and implements.

You do not like this because it disagrees with your white supremacist sites and the ravings of convicted murderers that you use for your supposed numbers.

However, before you go attacking yahoo answers, lets see what other sources say about the validity of this information

1- this article on Wikipedia uses the source Distribution of Slaves in US History

Slavery in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it confirms the numbers from yahoo answers as follows:

Only 8% of all US families owned slaves,[124] while in the South, 33% of families owned slaves and 50% of Confederate soldiers lived in slave-owning households

2 - This book length excellent study of the soldiers who made up the confederate army confirms the information

http://www.amazon.com/General-Lees-...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276825358&sr=1-1

Even more revealing was their attachment to slavery. Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally. This compared favorably to the Confederacy as a whole, in which one in every twenty white persons owned slaves. Yet more than one in every four volunteers that first year lived with parents who were slaveholders. Combining those soldiers who owned slaves with those soldiers who lived with slaveholding family members, the proportion rose to 36 percent. That contrasted starkly with the 24.9 percent, or one in every four households, that owned slaves in the South, based on the 1860 census. Thus, volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.
The attachment to slavery, though, was even more powerful. One in every ten volunteers in 1861 did not own slaves themselves but lived in households headed by non family members who did. This figure, combined with the 36 percent who owned or whose family members owned slaves, indicated that almost one of every two 1861 recruits lived with slaveholders. Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery. For slaveholder and nonslaveholder alike, slavery lay at the heart of the Confederate nation. The fact that their paper notes frequently depicted scenes of slaves demonstrated the institution's central role and symbolic value to the Confederacy.
More than half the officers in 1861 owned slaves, and none of them lived with family members who were slaveholders. Their substantial median combined wealth ($5,600) and average combined wealth ($8,979) mirrored that high proportion of slave ownership. By comparison, only one in twelve enlisted men owned slaves, but when those who lived with family slave owners were included, the ratio exceeded one in three. That was 40 percent above the tally for all households in the Old South. With the inclusion of those who resided in nonfamily slaveholding households, the direct exposure to bondage among enlisted personnel was four of every nine. Enlisted men owned less wealth, with combined levels of $1,125 for the median and $7,079 for the average, but those numbers indicated a fairly comfortable standard of living. Proportionately, far more officers were likely to be professionals in civil life, and their age difference, about four years older than enlisted men, reflected their greater accumulated wealth.

3 -The Historic Census Browser from the University of Virginia also confirms the numbers from yahoo answers that you are so disparaging of

University of Virginia Library
here is a description of their findings

The Historical Census Browser from the University of Virginia Library allows users to compile, sort and visualize data from U.S. Censuses from 1790 to 1960. For Glatthaar's purposes and ours, the 1860 census, taken a few months before the outbreak of the war, is crucial. It records basic data about the free population, including names, sex, approximate age, occupation and value of real and personal property of each person in a household. A second, separate schedule records the name of each slaveholder and lists the slave he or she owns. Each slave is listed by sex and age; names were not recorded. The data in the UofV online system can be broken down either by state or counties within a state, and make it possible to compare one data element (e.g., households) with another (slaveholders) and calculate the proportions between them.

In the vast majority of cases, each household (termed a "family" in the 1860 document, even when the group consisted of unrelated people living in the same residence) that owned slaves had only one slaveholder listed, the head of the household. It is thus possible to compare the number of slaveholders in a given state to the numbers of families/households, and get a rough estimation of the proportion of free households that owned at least one slave. The numbers varies considerably, ranging from 1 in 5 in Arkansas to 1 in 2 in Mississippi and South Carolina. In the eleven states that formed the Confederacy, there were in aggregate just over 1 million free households, which between them represented 316,632 slaveholders—meaning that just under one-third of households in the Confederate States counted among its assets at least one human being.

So there you have three different sources of information, all mainstream respected sources - NOT white supremacist sites written by murderers and extremists - which confirm the information from yahoo answers.

Caine · Nov 22, 2011

haymarket said:
News Bulletin for you : The US Supreme Court decides many many questions of law long after the event has occurred and even has concluded. That is the nature of the beast. It is utterly ridiculous for you and anyone else here to keep whining about the date the secession took place and the later date that the White case was decided. It is completely and totally irrelevant in law and in history.

The only thing that is relevant to the discussion about the White ruling is that the Court did decide and did issue a ruling and did decide the issue and that is now the precedent and is the law in the matter.

Some here badly need to both get familiar with how the real world works and what is relevant and what is not relevant in determining the legality of actions.

I see you ignored the New England secession point...

Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

Yes

No

I don't know.

Purge evil with Justice

Klattu Verata Nicto

Klattu Verata Nicto

Purge evil with Justice

Klattu Verata Nicto

Klattu Verata Nicto

Klattu Verata Nicto

Purge evil with Justice

Purge evil with Justice

Purge evil with Justice

Klattu Verata Nicto

Klattu Verata Nicto

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency