Posted on 02/29/2008 12:58:25 PM PST by Rebeleye
‘Confederate flag represents Independence’
In general I don’t have a problem with that statement.
‘denial that “That flag represents a heritage of treason, bigotry, hostility.”’
Wrong tense on the verb.
“The history of this country from the time of the first settlers until today is full of instances of less than stellar humanity on the part of its citizens.”
I don’t hold to your point of view that ‘”That flag represents a heritage of treason, bigotry, hostility.”’ Any failings of this country on the ‘bigotry/hostility’ front have been more than compensated for by subsequent actions. The South chose a course as did the North. Your examples in your interesting test show hypocrisy on the part of the North if slavery was the issue. Seccession in this case failed as I think it should have. I honor the sacrifice of the soldiers of the North and the South for the same reason: They were Americans.
You offer very weak arguments.
Re 2. There is firm evidence that slave labor was used.
Re 3. The vote happened. Your caveats and red herrings not withstanding.
Re 6. You re framed the question and used speculation...a non-rebuttal.
Re 7. I do not use non-sequiturs.
Re 9. Statement is well documented. Your Cabinet reference is a red herring.
‘denial that “That flag represents a heritage of treason, bigotry, hostility.”’
You said: Wrong tense on the verb.
Tell it to the newspaper.
You said: “I don’t hold to your point of view that ‘”That flag (Union flag also) represents a heritage of treason, bigotry, hostility.”’ Any failings of this country on the ‘bigotry/hostility’ front have been more than compensated for by subsequent actions.
I suppose by that you mean the reconstruction of the South? You must remember that millions in the South, of all races, were the recipients of bigotry and hostility from the other regions. And it is still happening today.
“The South chose a course as did the North. Your examples in your interesting test show hypocrisy on the part of the North if slavery was the issue.”
Actually slavery was only one issue.
But whose issue was it?
You scored a perfect 100 on the test. Here is a bonus question for the big cigar:
In March of 1861, which of the following branches of the Federal government acknowledged the legality of slavery and supported the institution:
b. The legislative
c. The executive
d. The judicial
e. All of the above
It's always fun reading your stuff, Pea. It's always most amusing.
Re 2. There is firm evidence that slave labor was used.
And I don't doubt it. But given when the other two universities were founded and their locations is it likely that slave labor wasn't used in construction of their facilities, too? Like I said, the answer is most likely "All of the above". The vote happened. Your caveats and red herrings not withstanding.
As did the resumption of slave imports into South Carolina, since it wasn't a ban but a temporary halt. Your misidentification of the intent of the legislation not withstanding.
You re framed the question and used speculation...a non-rebuttal.
Not speculation, Pea, but facts which contradict your claim.
Re 7. I do not use non-sequiturs.
You do all the time, Pea. Wood's loss was directly related to his pro-secessionist stand. The two facts are related.
Statement is well documented. Your Cabinet reference is a red herring.
You linked the cabinet, Pea. The connetion is your's.
Great test - thanks for posting in PeaRidge
BTTT
Good Job Pea
All speculation and red herrings. Very weak post.
Well who better than you would know about things like that?
On the other hand the test looks like fun. Maybe I’ll come up with one of my own, see how you do.
Personal attacks do not replace facts.
Why don’t you do some research and offer reasonable information instead of being deceptive.
I did, Pea, in reply 39. The fact that you prefer to dismiss it as 'weak' only because they don't fit your agenda doesn't negate the fact that several of your answers for your questions are themselves deceptive, if not outright false, and some of the questions are misleading.
The answer: e
Still didn’t make slavery ‘right’ only legal.
‘denial that “That flag represents a heritage of treason, bigotry, hostility.”’
You said: Wrong tense on the verb.’
The newspaper likely wouldn’t listen, Mrs Obama holds the same view, I disagree with her as well.
‘compensated for by subsequent actions.’
‘I suppose by that you mean the reconstruction of the South?’
I don’t, I would lump the majority of reconstruction under the less than stellar moral performances I referenced before.
‘You must remember that millions in the South, of all races, were the recipients of bigotry and hostility from the other regions. And it is still happening today.’
I wouldn’t deny that. Bigotry gets thrown around here on alot of issues as if is the worst offense one could have. Unless you have a reason to respect someone save for their bigotry, why would anyone care about the bigotry of a stranger? Why give counsel to the words of a fool?
But it's also probably true that William and Mary's early buildings were built by slaves: College’s oldest buildings likely built by slaves, lecturer says.
Complete records don't survive. It's not like slaves would be on a payroll. But some of the contractors were definitely slave owners.
We do know that the College of William and Mary owned slaves and plantations. More here.
As regards the College of Charleston, I don't see that anyone's addressed this question. I thought about writing them, but it's probably not something they want to get into.
It's also tricky to ask which state "transported" the most slaves. It's said that more slave ships sailed out of Newport, Rhode Island than any other city in North America, but it's likely that more slaves came through on British ships sailing out of Bristol, Liverpool, London and Glasgow.
In so far as Charleston was the busiest port of entry on the US coast one could say that South Carolina "transported" the most slaves, since Charleston was the destination and Charleston money paid the costs.
Hrumph. All speculation and red herrings. Very weak post. </sarcasm>
You said the answers were false. Prove it.
That seems to be your understanding of the intent of my commentary, but you are wrong. But since you brought it up, you wouldn't think that a newly elected chief officer would start a war over an issue that was protected by the Constitution. That would be unforgivable.
You said: “I wouldn’t deny that. Bigotry gets thrown around here on alot of issues as if is the worst offense one could have. Unless you have a reason to respect someone save for their bigotry, why would anyone care about the bigotry of a stranger? Why give counsel to the words of a fool?”
Some “fools” are merely mis-educated, and can be turned around with the facts.
Congratulations, you aced the test. For your A+ grade, identify the author of the following passage (without benefit of the Internet):
“Do you say that the people of the free states have nothing to do with it (slavery). The people of the free states have defended, encouraged, and participated; and are more guilty for it, before God, than the South.
"There are multitudes of slaves temporarily owned, and sold again, by merchants in Northern cities; and shall the whole guilt or obloquy of slavery fall only on the South?
“Northern men, Northern mothers, Northern Christians, have something more to do than denounce their brethren at the South; they have to look to the evil among themselves.”
a. John Brown
b. Alexander H. Stephens
c. Harriet Beecher Stowe
d. Robert E. Lee, Lieutenant Colonel, 2nd Cavalry
“...probably true....”
“...records don't survive....but...”
“I don't see that anyone's addressed this question.”
“It's also tricky...”
“It is said....”
“...but it's likely that...”
“...One could say...”
Nothing. Not one bit of information that can be verified.
Even your “higher authority”, Dr. Lounsbury, cannot step up to the plate with facts....just his own supposition. He says this: “Just how many slaves did similar skilled jobs is unknown, but it seems probable that there were some.”
That is a conclusion, not a fact. Your use of it as acceptable verification of a point you want to make reflects not just the irrelevance of Dr. Lounsbury, but the bias of your thinking.
Your bias has been exposed by a non-sequitur. How about that?
Well, I see you have been reduced to telling the truth.
I suggest you try it some time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.