Lakeside bans Confederate flag

Augusta Chronicle ^ | 11/10/01 | Melissa Hall

[Illbay]

ONCE AGAIN: When you have a bunch of rebels, rebellin' against you, where do you go to fight them?

Those who illegally seceded from the Union were thugs and criminals, and got what they deserved.

The North wasn't after the South to free its slaves, it was after preserving the Union against outlaws who were dead in the wrong. The SOUTH seceded because slavery was threatened.

And before you go off on that blather about how most Southerners didn't have slaves (which in itself is untrue, since most of the time we think of the plantation owners as the slavers, when just about every family above the level of hardscrabble existence had at least one or two. It was what you did, just as in Latin America in our own day most middle-class families have servants) READ THIS detailed explanation written by a Southern newspaperman about why the "poor folks" of the South fought also to protect the institution of African slavery.

[JMJ333]

Oh, I see. The Letter taken off that boy at Shiloh is a lie. Right? You must be right--all wars usually have one cause.

Blathering? Before I go blathering? Why don't you stuff it, Illbay? You don't have the manners God gave a rabbit.

[4CJ]

I agree, I wouldn't want that kind of life (slave or slave-owner), but the popular misconception is that Southerners beat their slaves unmercifully. I'll grant that some did, but most of them would be large plantation owners.

But many of those slaves loved their masters, and chose to stay with their masters after emanciaption. Some chose to move North, and quickly learned that things weren't really that bad down South. Life was extremely bad for blacks during Reconstruction - no education, now responsible for providing for their own families - I'd be willing to bet that at least one former slave wished for the good ol' days.

Sure, unless you were rich, it was hard work then, and is today - black or white.

BTW - thank you for serving your country.

[All-American Medic]

Sounds like my kinda place, got any room for a New Yorker who grew up with your values. I also love Barbeque, NASCAR and country music.

[Illbay]

Yeah, what I notice is that, confronted with evidence of the truth, you people immediately launch the ad hominem.

FYI, I was pretty distraught, too, when my own researches began to uncover the truth.

But it always sets you free.

[stainlessbanner]

Non-Sequitur runs to his search engine for resources. If it ain't listed in Google's database, he won't find it.

Only problem is, only 10-20% of all webpages are listed in search engines. That means 80-90% can't be found by Yahoo! or Google..... goin' to the library is so much work....

[PeaRidge]

Certainly Non, and it is a book I have recommended for you before. It is "South Carolina, A History" by Dr. Walter Edgar.

As usual, you did not get my statement exactly right, but Dr. Edgar will set you straight.

At the time of secession, 94% of South Carolina slave owners were small time farmers.

[Non-Sequitur]

But this is the information age, although information seems to be something that you are not interested in, and I try to provide websites because those are sources that anyone can readily check. I've been known to provide books as support for my arguments, but they are harder for people to check out. But regardless of the source, I asked him for any supporting evidence, any at all, to back up his claim in the face of evidence I provided which showed that he was wrong. Why shouldn't he provide supporting documentation?

[Non-Sequitur]

I take exception to that, Pea. I quoted you word for word. And I would point out that it is dangerous to take statistics for one state and claim that the same applied throughout the south. But rather than quibble on the statistic would it be fair to say that, regardless of whether they were a small farmer or a small businessman or a professional person, that the average slave owner down south was NOT the stereotypical mint-julip sucking, front porch sitting, wealthy plantation owner that many people visualize? If they were small farmers than I have no doubt that they worked the fields at least in a supervisory role. If they were a professional person or a teacher, like Jackson was, then the slave or slaves worked around the house.

[PeaRidge]

I chose SC because you have named it several times as being among the two highest slave ownership states in the South.

As you can see in the opinions of these posters, many believed that only the wealthy owned slaves, and that reflects the beliefs of people where slavery was not prevalent. Where it was, as in SC, it was known that slaves were owned by many small farmers.

In the SC of 1860, there were only 14 "massive" slave plantations, so it was not only the wealthy in that state.

However, as you know, the larger mass production cotton farms in Louisiana and Mississippi did reflect the stereotype of the Southern Plantation.

The point is that the stereotype did not fit the reality of 1860 in most of the South.