Once again. During the days of slavery, the slave owners provided free housing, free food, free medical care (such as it was for anyone, free or slave in those days). How does that differ from todays medicare, food stamps, or 'free housing'?
Posted on 11/26/2002 2:36:03 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
Hell fire, y'all! White folks done voted to take Georgia back 40 years!
Well, that's it. The (white) people of Georgia have spoken, and they've told us that the confederate flag is more important than anything else in the world. And make no mistake, folks -- as far as the governor's race was concerned, it was all about the state flag. Angry rural white people turned out at the polls in numbers not seen since the days of Lester Maddox to vent their fury at that danged ol' Liberal King Rat Roy Barnes.
What you heard on Nov. 5 was not a Republican earthquake. It was the sound of progressive men like William B. Hartsfield and Robert Woodruff and Charles Weltner rolling over in their graves. For the first time in a generation, the reins of Georgia government have been handed over to a wide-eyed hick who proudly panders to the neo-confederate crowd, a shadowy and racist gang of baccer-chewin' morons most city folks had believed to be extinct, if not permanently powerless.
And now these clueless crackers are running amok, planning to embarrass us all by restoring the confederate emblem to the state flag and transforming zombie-like Democratic state Senators into right-wing Republicans by the busload. And it's all being orchestrated by Ralph Reed. God help us.
History books say that Eugene Talmadge, the legendary race-baiting Georgia governor, often boasted of the fact that he'd "never carried a county with a streetcar." It was a pretentious rejection of modernity, as if being backwards was somehow a worthy attribute. But the Talmadge following was comprised of an ignorant gaggle of bumpkins and Klan-affiliated rednecks, so I guess there is a legitimate comparison to what happened to Georgia on Nov. 5. Just like "Ol' Gene," Perdue's victory came from an overwhelmingly rural base.
I am old enough to remember the Georgia countryside in the late 1960s, when "Maddox Country" signs were plentiful. I'd foolishly believed for most of my life that those days of racist politics in Georgia were long gone. When "Sonny Country" signs bearing the confederate flag began popping up earlier this year, it worried me -- but not seriously. "Surely we have progressed beyond such foolishness," I said to myself.
Well, I was wrong, by God. Yee-haw!
Of course, suburban Republicans are now spinning their asses off, swearing to anyone who will listen that Perdue's election had nothing to do with race or the flag, but was actually due to Barnes' alleged "arrogance," a charge that anyone who has met the governor knows to be ridiculous. But try as they might to muddy the waters, establishment Republicans cannot dispute the shocking and disturbing videotape of Perdue supporters waving confederate flags on election night as the governor-elect mocked the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Nor can they deny the backwater election demographics, or the legions of gloating boneheads from racist groups like the Sons of the Confederate Veterans and the League of the South, all of them taking credit for Perdue's victory.
Yes friends, the sleeping giant redneck has awakened, and he don't give a damn about what uppity colored folks think about the confederate flag. He's out stomping across Georgia like some kind of mutant yokel Godzilla, wreaking humiliation and destruction upon our hard-earned image as an enlightened place to do business.
To their credit, Democrats didn't play the race card during the election. And if they had, they would've probably been screwed anyway. It's tough to battle against a race-bating enemy like state GOP chairman Reed, who once said, "I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag."
Reed and his Republican nightriders may have lynched Barnes -- but at what price? This klutzy clan has painted itself into a corner: If they put the flag to a vote, the state will pay mightily. If they don't, the rednecks will revolt, and the world may be subjected to a petulant spectacle of white-trash madness not seen since Sherman lit a match.
Either way, Georgia's hard-won image as the progressive leader of the south will suffer.
Jeff Berry is buying up confederate flags as fast as he can -- and burning them.
What the slave owners took issue with was that the nothern states were becoming less and less willing to support slavery.
Why do you suppose that was?
The South Carolina Declaration of Causes even says that northerners labored under a false religious belief that slavey was wrong.
Slavery existed under the U.S. flag; it was U.S. citizens who were becoming increasingly uncomfortable with it ---except in the slave states.
But you haven't answered a direct question. Since you admit that the U.S. Flag flew over northern states that condoned slavery, why do you not wish to have the Stars & Stripes changed or replaced?
I'll add another question. Why do you fear the Stars & Bars so?
And another: Is the South advocating a return to slavery?
One more for good measure: During the days of slavery, the slave owners provided free housing, free food, free medical care (such as it was for anyone, free or slave in those days). How does that differ from todays medicare, food stamps, or 'free housing'?
It's always folly to put modern day judgements on historical people. That what this, "but the US flag flew over slavery for 75 years" or whatever it was shows.
But I can condemn the slave power because they were condemned at the time. The Czar even freed the serfs. Slavery was being irradicated and phased out everywhere in the world (although it continued in Argintina until after the ACW) --EXCEPT in the slave states. The slave power fought tooth and nail to keep it. I can condemn the slave power because they were condemned at the time.
I tell you again -- the slavers in South Carolina said that the idea that slavery was wrong was based on a --false--religious-- idea. That is grotesque.
The people today, who honor the slavers, I also condemn.
Now, it is also as plain as can be that the vast majority of whites in the south were --vehemently-- opposed to negro equality. So all these SCV and UDC people cannot weasel out of it. The confederate battle emblem should be irradicated generally, and it certainly has no place on public buildings.
The freedom to fly the CBF is guaranteed by the constitution the slave power, and its willing helpers, the non-slave owning whites sought to destroy.
Consider this text:
"... a North Carolina mountaineer wrote to governor Zebulon Vance a letter that expressed the non-slave holder's view perfectly Believing that some able-bodied men ought to stay at home to preserve order, this man set forth his feelings: "We have but little interest in the value of slaves, but there is one matter in this connection about which we have a very deep interest. We are opposed to Negro equality. To prevent this we are willing to spare the last man, down to the point where women and children begin to suffer for food and clothing; when these begin to suffer and die, rather than see them equalized with an inferior race we will die with them. Everything, even life itself, stands pledged to to the cause; but that our greatest strength may be employed to the best advantage and the struggle prolonged let us not sacrifice at once the object for which we are fighting."
-- "The Coming Fury" p. 202-203 by Bruce Catton.
And consider this:
"Though I protest against the false and degrading standard to which Northern orators and statesmen have reduced the measure of patriotism, which is to be expected from a free and enlightened people, and in the name of the non-slaveholders of the South, fling back the insolent charge that they are only bound to their country by the consideration of its "loaves and fishes," and would be found derelict in honor and principle, and public virtue, in proportion as they were needy in circumstances, I think it but easy to show that the interest of the poorest non-slaveholder among us is to make common cause with, and die in the last trenches, in defence of the slave property of his more favored neighbor."
-- J.E.B. DeBow, 1860
DeBow was the taker of the 1850 census. That census showed that slave ownership devolved on 1/2 of the whites in LA, MS, and SC. Slave ownership in the other four deep south states devolved on 1/3 of the whites. Debow noted that there were more slave holders in the south than there were real property owners in the north.
People who venerate the CBF are either ignorant of the history or willfully malevolent.
Walt
Per the Georgia slave code of 1806 it was illegal in Georgia to teach a negro to read.
You better let this go. You are in way over your head.
Walt
You are making an assumption. That is always dangerous. I could care less what people do with the CBF on their property. But I do know that the display of the CBF cannot fail to make the person displaying it appear either ignorant, malevolent, or both.
Walt
Neither could the so-called CSA.
Nor the thirteen American colonies.
Walt
The people today, who honor the slavers, I also condemn.
Does this condemnation also include the people who sold the Negro into slavery, the blacks themselves?
No, I'm not in over my head. I just want you to actually answer a question without pontificating.
Once again. During the days of slavery, the slave owners provided free housing, free food, free medical care (such as it was for anyone, free or slave in those days). How does that differ from todays medicare, food stamps, or 'free housing'?
Per the Georgia slave code of 1806 it was illegal in Georgia to teach a negro to read.
And how does that equate to so many children, even those who have completed 12 years of public schools, that cannot read? Are they any better off than the uneducated slave of 160 years ago?
If I recall, State Houses actually belong to the people of that state. You should then, following your statement, have no problem with the state of Georgia flying the full CBF. Oh, and those people are only ignorant, malevolent, or both in your mind.
That too would be a modern day judgement on historical people.
Our society and much of our language is based on Greek and Roman experience. The Roman general Crassus crucified 6,000 slaves. Should we renounce all our links to Latin and the Romans?
It's like poor old Christopher Columbus. He used to be the admiral of the oceans deep and a great explorer. Now he's just an oppressor of minorities that died of syphillis.
Walt
Stop and think next time, or stick to lurking.
Walt
The statehouse of Georgia exists because it is defended by the Armed Forces of the United States. Flying the CBF is inconsistent with respect for the Armed Forces of the United States -- yes, including the army commanded by General W.T. Sherman.
That is, if you love the United States.
Walt
(And I noticed that you chose to respond with an ad hominem instead of answering my question...)
No matter. Two pieces of advice before I go, though:
1. Never say anything to a man on the Internet that you wouldn't say to his face.
2. Consider Xanax.
Thanks and God bless you,
B-chan
Once again. During the days of slavery, the slave owners provided free housing, free food, free medical care (such as it was for anyone, free or slave in those days). How does that differ from todays medicare, food stamps, or 'free housing'?
This is where you make an acknowledgement that you don't --really-- favor a return to human chattel slavery.
Walt
One of the most stupid and pernicious parts of the neo-reb rant is that there is any connection between 1776 and 1861. In fact there was none.
The colonists were being oppressed by a government far away in which they had no say. They had a moral right to revolt.
The secessionists in 1861 were fully represented in a government they helped set up. They had no moral cause of action. The only dispute the secessionist had was over slavery.
Tariffs? Tariffs were lower in 1860 than they had been in 40 years.
Federal bohemoth?
Eleven of the first fifteen presidents were southerners. The courts were dominated by southerners. The Congress was dominated by southern interests -- the proof? The tariff rates. Southerners had little manufacturing, they had no need of tariff protection. The secessionists are damned out of their own mouths. They seceded to protect slavery.
What did the seceding states say publicly was the reason for their secession?
We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows:
"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her [New Jersey] more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her [New York's] tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
* * *
The ends for which this Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
* * *
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanctions of a more erroneous religious belief.
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
Virginia
...the federal government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of Southern slaveholding states;
Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain, that the ordinance adopted by the people of this state in convention, on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and all acts of the General Assembly of this state ratifying or adopting amendments to said Constitution, are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the union between the State of Virginia and the other states under the Constitution aforesaid is hereby dissolved,...
Georgia
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war....
[N.B. See the list of "Declaration Of Cause Of Secession" for several states HERE, and note that IN EVERY INSTANCE the ONLY topic addressed is SLAVERY. TARIFFS ARE NOT MENTIONED. "States' Rights" are not mentioned except as in relation to the right of the Slave states to continue the institution].
Alabama
....And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,
Be it resolved by the people of Alabama in Convention assembled, That the people of the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri, be and are hereby invited to meet the people of the State of Alabama, by their Delegates, in Convention, on the 4th day of February, A.D., 1861, at the city of Montgomery, in the State of Alabama, for the purpose of consulting with each other as to the most effectual mode of securing concerted and harmonious action in whatever measures may be deemed most desirable for our common peace and security.
Texas
WHEREAS, The recent developments in Federal affairs make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression;...
Is it true that you hold the Confederate flag in contempt, that it and it's supporters are only worthy of derision, and because of their support for the Confederate flag, that they and the flag itself are deserving of contempt and worthy of abuse?
It it true that you hold that the right of lawful, legal, unilateral secession does not exist, that the political bonds cannot be severed, and especially that the right to self-government cannot be extended to a group that condones slavery and practices the same? That a government predicated on such a foundation is not only immoral but also unlawful, and their prior allegiance cannot be rescinded, regardless of any alleged breaches of their compact?
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.