Southern pride gone wrong!

[LuvsDragonflies]

You should also mention that slaves were considered 1/3 of a HUMAN, and that was adult male slaves only.

Oh please, and what was an adult white woman worth to the white men? What were our opinions worth?

Lots of diverse races, religions and immigrants have been crapped on throughout history. The story of the black slaves is no less nor nor more important or horrific as theirs. People have been selling other people into slavery for thousands of years, and still do. So please spare me how the Confederate States are the most evilest of evil slave owners on the planet. Because it's still going on.

Those who choose to wallow in it discredit their ancestors. Those ancestors fought a war and lived hard lives to better their world for themselves and their children. NOT so future generations could still be waving the flag and crying about it. Suck it up and move on. Incorporate it, don't let it define who you are.

 

[Geoff_M]

I think the comparison is in how the people were treated, not the freedoms that they had in theory.

Oh, it was more than a theory. I'm pretty sure that the white "slaves" up North were in fact allowed to vote, were counted as fully human in Census figures, were allowed to keep their families in tact (unless Alex Haley made all that stuff up and it didn't really happen). I also don't think too many of them received lashings in their places of employment or were hunted down by company posses when they decided to change their line of work.

There is just no reason for anyone to assume their ancestors to have better morals or humanity because they were in the North.

Given the fact that the last public lynching in the US took place one County north of my birthplace... in Indiana... I have a pretty good idea that the South historically hasn't been the sole area of racial dystopia in the US. I also don't get the sense that the Yankees on this thread are morally looking down our collective noses at our Southern brethren (and sistern). I also think I've been pretty even handed in my posts on this thread.

 

[princessmom29]

The world, in the time being discussed, had three classes of people:

The rich - they owned EVERYTHING.
The poor - there were many types, from share croppers, to indentured servants, to people with real skills (craftsmen). But they lived and died poor, with almost no exceptions.
The slaves - no question in my mind that it was worse to be a slave with three square meals/day than to be an indentured servant. Freedom has always had value, even if the life of a free man is less pleasurable than that of a slave on a day to day basis.

IMO, you are dabbling in moral revelency by trying to compare the daily lives of these people without including the value of freedom.

But does freedom really have any value when you have no means of exercising it??

 

[princessmom29]

Oh, it was more than a theory. I'm pretty sure that the white "slaves" up North were in fact allowed to vote, were counted as fully human in Census figures, were allowed to keep their families in tact (unless Alex Haley made all that stuff up and it didn't really happen). I also don't think too many of them received lashings in their places of employment or were hunted down by company posses when they decided to change their line of work.

.

then you need to read more about the time period form primary sources. Yes, workers in factories were prysically punished, blackballed, and hunted down by factory owners with regularity. They were allowed to vote, but those who didn't vote the way the boss "suggested" was subject to all of the above. They did actually get counted in the census however, os they had that. I don't think it really meant much to them however.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

But does freedom really have any value when you have no means of exercising it??

Almost all of them did. Their options were terrible. Such was the life of a poor person back then. But they could choose to go home after their next shift and never come back. It might mean starvation for them or their children, but the choice was there.

The harsh reality is that life back then SUCKED for 99% of the world's population. But it sucked most for slaves. Upon the bones of their bodies were built every empire.

 

[princessmom29]

Almost all of them did. Their options were terrible. Such was the life of a poor person back then. But they could choose to go home after their next shift and never come back. It might mean starvation for them or their children, but the choice was there.

The harsh reality is that life back then SUCKED for 99% of the world's population. But it sucked most for slaves. Upon the bones of their bodies were built every empire.

A slave could also choose to sit down and refuse to work anymore. He was also choosing certian death for himself and likely his family, but he had that choice. No one could really force him to stand up and work. He could make the choice to refuse. I really don't see that much of a difference. The outcome is the same.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

A slave could also choose to sit down and refuse to work anymore. He was also choosing certian death for himself and likely his family, but he had that choice. No one could really force him to stand up and work. He could make the choice to refuse. I really don't see that much of a difference. The outcome is the same.

We can agree to disagree.

 

[princessmom29]

We can agree to disagree.

absolutely! Non one can agree on everything. I am glad some of us can have reasonable discussions aobut it though!

 

[crashbb]

The world, in the time being discussed, had three classes of people:

The rich - they owned EVERYTHING.
The poor - there were many types, from share croppers, to indentured servants, to people with real skills (craftsmen). But they lived and died poor, with almost no exceptions.
The slaves - no question in my mind that it was worse to be a slave with three square meals/day than to be an indentured servant. Freedom has always had value, even if the life of a free man is less pleasurable than that of a slave on a day to day basis.

IMO, you are dabbling in moral revelency by trying to compare the daily lives of these people without including the value of freedom.

I have to agree with you. The lives of the poor were awful, no doubt; however, they were better than the lives of slaves.

 

[badblackpug]

Oh please, and what was an adult white woman worth to the white men? What were our opinions worth?

Lots of diverse races, religions and immigrants have been crapped on throughout history. The story of the black slaves is no less nor nor more important or horrific as theirs. People have been selling other people into slavery for thousands of years, and still do. So please spare me how the Confederate States are the most evilest of evil slave owners on the planet. Because it's still going on.

Those who choose to wallow in it discredit their ancestors. Those ancestors fought a war and lived hard lives to better their world for themselves and their children. NOT so future generations could still be waving the flag and crying about it. Suck it up and move on. Incorporate it, don't let it define who you are.

They were at least considered humans!

...and no-one is painting the confederate states as the "evilest of all evil." I have said before and I will say it again, human bondage is morally reprehensible no matter who perpetrates it.

...and I don't accept "so and so did it, too" as an excuse. Slavery was wrong. No human ever had the right to own another human, even if every town, county, state, country, and continent in the world allowed it. Then, or at any time. It is not okay because they were sold by their own people. It is not okay because it was legal.

I simply cannot fathom, in 2011, that someone is actually defending the practice of slavery.

 

[CandyMandy]

no. It was horrible. I am just arguing that the existance of many of the poor working class immigrants in the North was just as bad.

No. It wasn't.

Yes punkin, certainly, the progressive, enlightened, sensitive north was just an absolute nirvana for arriving immigrants in the late 19th century. Fortunately, Jacob Ris was nice enough to document what they experienced on arrival:

Top of the line housing:

Wonderful opportunities for child laborers:

Complete with gracious sleeping accomodations:

Especially for women:

The men had it even better:

 

[princessmom29]

They were at least considered humans!

...and no-one is painting the confederate states as the "evilest of all evil." I have said before and I will say it again, human bondage is morally reprehensible no matter who perpetrates it.

...and I don't accept "so and so did it, too" as an excuse. Slavery was wrong. No human ever had the right to own another human, even if every town, county, state, country, and continent in the world allowed it. Then, or at any time. It is not okay because they were sold by their own people. It is not okay because it was legal.

I simply cannot fathom, in 2011, that someone is actually defending the practice of slavery.

Who is defending slavery??? I certianly don't see anyone here doing so.

 

[princessmom29]

Yes punkin, certainly, the progressive, enlightened, sensitive north was just an absolute nirvana for arriving immigrants in the late 19th century. Fortunately, Jacob Ris was nice enough to document what they experienced on arrival:

Top of the line housing:

Wonderful opportunities for child laborers:

Complete with gracious sleeping accomodations:

Especially for women:

The men had it even better:

Looks like a GREAT life to me. Total freedom and utopia!

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

...I simply cannot fathom, in 2011, that someone is actually defending the practice of slavery.

Just making stuff up now?

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

They were at least considered humans!

...and no-one is painting the confederate states as the "evilest of all evil." I have said before and I will say it again, human bondage is morally reprehensible no matter who perpetrates it.

...and I don't accept "so and so did it, too" as an excuse. Slavery was wrong. No human ever had the right to own another human, even if every town, county, state, country, and continent in the world allowed it. Then, or at any time. It is not okay because they were sold by their own people. It is not okay because it was legal.

I simply cannot fathom, in 2011, that someone is actually defending the practice of slavery.

Who is defending the practice of slavery?

 

[bunkkinsmom]

You left out the next sentence, which was the important one with respect this conversation - "They aren't ashamed of the reasons why they went to war, why would they be ashamed to fly the flag?"

Southerners all know that they lost, and that they were soundly defeated. The entire South was burned to the ground and then Southerners were oppressed by Reconstruction laws for decades thereafter.

Only a tiny minority even care about the Civil War any more, and those that do are as poorly informed as Dis posters on the subject matter. But that doesn't mean that they aren't proud of their "rebellious" spirit. It lives in the South, and it is a part of our culture. No, that doesn't mean that Southerners want to revolt against the federal government, but it does mean that they do not willing accept the yolk that our government has placed upon them - and neither should you.

If you want to understand why there is so much pride in the South, you need to study what they went through before and AFTER the Civil War, not just during the war. The Confederate Flag represents a lot more than most people are interested in discussing. Everyone gets hung up on slavery. A lot more happened between the years 1830 and 1920, and it is all relevant.

PREACH!

Moral Equivalence. We go round and round in a circle.

People owned people in the South. People mistreated workers all over. Workers had legal recourse. Slaves were chattel with no rights. If you (plural) can't see the difference, there is no use arguing.

The south owned slaves--that was horrible. The north did the same thing but hid behind the few pennies they paid the workers and called it paid labor.

You can spin it any way you want to but those two facts are going to remain the same.


I don't think anyone is foolish enough to believe in the "happy slaves". That is not what the pp is trying to say.

Really? a lot of people sell crack... I don't have to buy it. ...and if, in all honesty, there was no market for slaves (or crack) no one would sell them (or it)

I just want to point out that not only were there slaves in the Northern States as well, but they were our dealers:

"The slave trade in particular was dominated by the northern maritime industry. Rhode Island alone was responsible for half of all U.S. slave voyages. The DeWolfs may have been the biggest slavers in U.S. history, but there were many others involved. For example, members of the Brown family of Providence, some of whom were prominent in the slave trade, gave substantial gifts to Rhode Island College, which was later renamed Brown University.

While local townspeople thought of the DeWolfs and other prominent families primarily as general merchants, distillers and traders who supported ship-building, warehousing, insurance and other trades and businesses, it was common knowledge that one source of this business was the cheap labor and huge profits reaped from trafficking in human beings.

The North also imported slaves, as well as transporting and selling them in the south and abroad. While the majority of enslaved Africans arrived in southern ports–Charleston, South Carolina was the largest market for slave traders, including the DeWolfs—most large colonial ports served as points of entry, and Africans were sold in northern ports including Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and Newport, Rhode Island."

 

[Geoff_M]

then you need to read more about the time period form primary sources. Yes, workers in factories were prysically punished, blackballed, and hunted down by factory owners with regularity. They were allowed to vote, but those who didn't vote the way the boss "suggested" was subject to all of the above. They did actually get counted in the census however, os they had that. I don't think it really meant much to them however.

Did the employers sell their children too?!?!? Look, "workers" have been abused on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, but just like the fact that Simple Assault and Second Degree Murder are both "crimes", there an exponential difference in their degrees.

 

[Wall-E1]

Such was the life of a poor person back then. But they could choose to go home after their next shift and never come back. It might mean starvation for them or their children, but the choice was there.

A slave could also choose to sit down and refuse to work anymore. He was also choosing certian death for himself and likely his family, but he had that choice. No one could really force him to stand up and work. He could make the choice to refuse. I really don't see that much of a difference.

This is an example of what it would look like the if a slave refused to work...

This is an example of what it would look like if an indentured servant refused to work...

Hungry and broke, sure. But they're not hanging from a tree.

Does that help you to see the difference?

Trying to say that a slave had "a choice" is such a disgusting and twisted statement. By that logic, I guess you think that holocaust victims had a choice also. I guess in your world, there really isn't much difference between slaves, holocaust victims, and the poor working class/indentured servants.

I'm stunned that you could equate a slave refusing to work with an indentured servant refusing to work. I truly hope that your views are not representative of the typical southerners' viewpoint of slavery.

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

Did the employers sell their children too?!?!? Look, "workers" have been abused on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, but just like the fact that Simple Assault and Second Degree Murder are both "crimes", there an exponential difference in their degrees.

I'm sure the women and children locked in that burning building in 1911 would beg to differ with you, dead is dead. Whether you starve, or freeze or get sicker and sicker with no way to pay a doctor, dead is dead. Wrong is wrong.

It would be closer to Murder in the First Degree and Murder in the Second Degree.

So now, the Union is the bastion of light because, hey, they didn't sell their workers kids, they just worked them or starved them to death too.

The North has been just as callous and heinous in their treatment of the immigrants as the plantation owners were to their slaves. There were even plantation owners that were better to their slaves than the Northern mill owners were to their people.

It's just silly to continue to think of the North as the Big Protector when they were doing pretty much the same thing for a much longer time than the plantation owners ever did.

Yeah...I can see how much more humane and civilized that is.

But you go ahead and pretend that the Stars and Stripes waves for nothing but the best.

 

[princessmom29]

Did the employers sell their children too?!?!? Look, "workers" have been abused on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, but just like the fact that Simple Assault and Second Degree Murder are both "crimes", there an exponential difference in their degrees.

Yes, in some cases they actually sold them to families who couldn't have children, but in most cases they we "sold" toi factories for a pitiful wage as soon as they were big enough to work.

This is an example of what it would look like the if a slave refused to work...

This is an example of what it would look like if an indentured servant refused to work...

Hungry and broke, sure. But they're not hanging from a tree.

Does that help you to see the difference?

Trying to say that a slave had "a choice" is such a disgusting and twisted statement. By that logic, I guess you think that holocaust victims had a choice also. I guess in your world, there really isn't much difference between slaves, holocaust victims, and the poor working class/indentured servants.

I'm stunned that you could equate a slave refusing to work with an indentured servant refusing to work. I truly hope that your views are not representative of the typical southerners' viewpoint of slavery.

They might look like that for a while, but eventually they will end u-p much like the first picture. Still no difference in outcome. They both end up dead because they refused to be enslaved. My point is that neither group had any real choices. Work or die is not a choice and that was the only option either group was faced with. Many ar trying to argue that starving to death is a viable option. I don't think so. That has little to do with the holocaust however. The ultimate goal there was not profit but genociede. They always intended to kill everyone they took.