Not really, but since it's clear you aren't getting the hints as to why you're post has nothing to do with this thread, I'll just post my original response to the same point brought up by someone who brought it up much earlier than you did (and who was also much more respectful than you are).
It's the same with your comment. Yes, the American and Confederate flags were flown by states with similar histories. Both had slavery, treason, racism, etc. But the American flag does not represent treason against America and it does not represent a group fighting for an economy, rights, etc. that revolved around slavery so the fact that you keep bringning up the similarities as if they mean something shows, again, that all the discussions in this thread have flown straight over your head.
Please go away now. You're only a hot headed distraction.
Also many of a fortune was tied up in slaves as a capital investment.
So are you trying to argue that early Americans didn't find non-Christians savage? I like debating with you apdst. It's the easiest thing I've had to do all day and all I've done today is eat.
Yeah, I know. I said that in my first response to you. We're talking about who was chosen to be slaves.
But they weren't.
Meh, I disagree. I've learned that it was more like "Hey, Africans are cheap, inferior, conveniently located and physically able to handle the labor, let's enslave them". You and Caine are trying to reduce slavery and it's start to money alone and that simplification is wrong.
So are you trying to argue that early Americans didn't find non-Christians savage? I like debating with you apdst. It's the easiest thing I've had to do all day and all I've done today is eat.
Meh, I disagree. I've learned that it was more like "Hey, Africans are cheap, inferior, conveniently located and physically able to handle the labor, let's enslave them". You and Caine are trying to reduce slavery and it's start to money alone and that simplification is wrong.
The color of their skin was nothing more than coindence.
Three highly intelligent and well informed posters ust explained to you why it didn't. Unless you're suggesting that black folks are too weak minded to get past slavery. Not sure what you're getting at, so you may want to explain yourself, before your racist side is exposed for all to see.
Did I say anything about the KKK? But, while we're on the subject, let me remind you of the speech, on eugenics, that Margaret Sanger gave at a klan rally. You know her; famous Progressive; founder of Planned Parenhood.
Oh, BTW, the rally was held in...New Jersey! Thought I would point that out, before you automatically assumed that it took place in the South, which I'm sure was only seconds away.
Facts? No. That crap? Oh hell-to-the-yeah!
Would the fact that you in post after post fail to actually say anything of historical relevance combined with you being the most vocal apologist for the confederacy and the despicable treatment of African Americans also be nothing more than coincidence?
When you say these things, do even you believe what you are writing? By this point I have come to be half suspecting that you are merely having what you believe is a good laugh by pretending to be this cartoon caricature.
When you say these things, do even you believe what you are writing? By this point I have come to be half suspecting that you are merely having what you believe is a good laugh by pretending to be this cartoon caricature.
I see no three high intelligent and well informed posters offering anything of substance on this subject which overrides the painful reality of hundreds of years of slavery, followed by Jim Crow, Plessey v. Ferguson, the Klan and oppressive southern governments systematically ifnoring the US Constitution.
If you do, feel free to present it and I will be happy to tear it apart.
Got anything in YahooAnswers to back tht up? :lamo
This book length excellent study of the soldiers who made up the confederate army confirms the informationOnly 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
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.
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.
Can you do much of anything except adhom Apdst to death?
You're just pissed off, because when you tried to throw the KKK into the debate to prove whateverthehell, that you found yourself lieing face down in the gutter.
Remember that time you said that the Episcopalian flag had something to do with the Confederacy, but then we found out that it wasn't even created until 1918 and it had nothing to do with the Confederacy?Got anything in YahooAnswers to back tht up? :lamo
Did you even read my post? I got it aka said it several days before you even posted in this thread. I can still see that you aren't fully grasping how much of this thread has flown over your head.There you go. You get it now... amazing.
You are the king of irrelevant points. And Bodhisattva is the king of liking them.No more than the indians found th early American Christians savage. During the first winter in America, the Pilgrims actually robbed an indian village for food, because they were on the verge of starving to death.
I'm sure the indians thought that was purdy dog-gone savage of them.
Sure, I can do a lot more like completely destroy his false allegations of historical fact like with a point point presentation of the truth like I have done in the previous post.
Read it and learn. Thanks for asking.:2wave:
You are the king of irrelevant points. And Bodhisattva is the king of liking them.
Another unrelated and irrelevant point. Bodi liked it again and we can now add Caine to the list of unrelated/irrelevant point likers.Slaves weren't cheap. Hey were expensive as hell. A field hand could cost anywhere from $1,500-$2,000. That's why many in the North didn't own slaves, it wasn't cost effective and the Irish immigrants arriving by the boatload were cheaper.
and how is that? The Klan was real. Their criminal actions were real. the people they killed, multilated and tortured were real. Their legacy of hate was real.
I can see how an apologist of racial hatred would not like them being introduced into the discussion.
Sadly for you the historical record says otherwise
Remember that time you said that Episcopalian flag had something to do with the Confederacy and then I pointed out the fact that it was created in 1918 and had nothing to do the Confederacy and then you ignored that fact and said something stupid. That's what you do in every thread for every topic which is why it's so fun to "debate" with you and why anybody who likes your silly posts ends up on the "not serious" list.You're the king of ignoring the facts, because they muck up yout argument.
Another unrelated and irrelevant point. Bodi liked it again and we can now add Caine to the list of unrelated/irrelevant point likers.
The entire point that Caine and others have been making is that African slaves were cheap labor relative to other potential slaves and other types of labor. I responded to that by agreeing with their take on the cheapness of slaves within that context. It's funny you didn't respond to them with this point. You, Caine and Bodi's biases are really showing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?