Started By
Message
re: Alabama Governor Bentley has Confederate flags removed from Capitol grounds
Posted on 6/24/15 at 4:59 pm to BowlJackson
Posted on 6/24/15 at 4:59 pm to BowlJackson
quote:
99% of slaves were owned by the richest 1% of the population
This is not entirely accurate. Slave ownership by household was around 50% in some Southern states, and averaged around 35%.
quote:
They wanted to come to that moral conclusion to end it themselves, instead of being told by somebody who had never set foot south of DC. If left to their own devices to deal with human rights on their own, as the rest of the world was at that time, I imagine there would have been less violence and anger about it and likely less lingering resentment and hate in the long run.
Do you have anything to support this? I do think many Southerners struggled with the morality of slavery, but there was also a lot of money invested in it. And it was pretty much the only driver of the Southern economy at the time. I don't think the voluntary conclusion of it would have been as quickly and peaceful as you suggest. Just look at how far into the 1950's and 60's the Jim Crow laws extended to. And those took multiple Supreme Court decisions and Federal laws to unravel.
3
Posted on 6/24/15 at 5:32 pm to The Spleen
I'm not too fussed over whether the confederate flag flies on government property in southern states or not. It probably shouldn't be, but I think there are bigger issues.
I'm more concerned with the political whiplash and the general overreaction by people who weren't even thinking about this issue 2 weeks ago. Some right-wing racist terrorist nutjob kills people in a church (which is completely awful and there will be a special place in hell for him), and the entire country suddenly feels this flag is evil? Somehow the cause? The new object of contempt?
It's classic, unfortunately. Let's distract everyone with something shiny and easy to get people to rally around. And continue to ignore the underlying issues. The flag is just the current scapegoat. Or for Mizzou fans...the escape goat.
I'm more concerned with the political whiplash and the general overreaction by people who weren't even thinking about this issue 2 weeks ago. Some right-wing racist terrorist nutjob kills people in a church (which is completely awful and there will be a special place in hell for him), and the entire country suddenly feels this flag is evil? Somehow the cause? The new object of contempt?
It's classic, unfortunately. Let's distract everyone with something shiny and easy to get people to rally around. And continue to ignore the underlying issues. The flag is just the current scapegoat. Or for Mizzou fans...the escape goat.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 5:42 pm to The Spleen
quote:
This is not entirely accurate. Slave ownership by household was around 50% in some Southern states, and averaged around 35%.
True it wasn't accurate, but then neither is your stat.
quote:
The standard image of Southern slavery is that of a large plantation with hundreds of slaves. In fact, such situations were rare. Fully 3/4 of Southern whites did not even own slaves; of those who did, 88% owned twenty or fewer. Whites who did not own slaves were primarily yeoman farmers.
LINK
Posted on 6/24/15 at 7:16 pm to The Spleen
What I meant by the stat was that while a sizable chunk of the white population may have owned slaves, most of those owners only had a few and weren't working the ones they had to death in the fields. The vast majority of slaves were owned en masse on large plantations in harsh conditions, by the richest of society. Compare the size and percentage of it to modern corporately owned farms. Independent farmers might outnumber corporate farms 100:1, but the crops and livestock owned and produced outnumber all the production of every small private farmer together 100:1.
The razorbacks link mentions 88% of slave owners owned 20 or less slaves. 20 is still a lot and no better than 1 at the end of the day, but I thought it worth mentioning that Robert E. Lee falls into that category. The only slaves he ever owned were ~15 that he inherited from his father-in-law. He is on record as saying that he, like most southerner, knew slavery was evil but thought it necessary for the economy. While we know he did have at least one slave whipped after they tried to run away, by most accounts he treated them very well and human for the day. He never had them working as servants and handymen and not in a field. But people still hear his name and just write him off as an evil racist, without really knowing anything about him.
Obviously there is nothing concrete that I can point to. Obviously it isn't something that would have happened overnight. But it is something that was going on all over the world throughout the entire 19th century, and in the rest of the country too.
3/4th of white southerns did not own slaves. There was already vocal opposition to slavery in the south, and most knew it was wrong. There was already considerable pressure to do away with the practice before Lincoln ever got to the White House. The only thing keeping it alive was the money. Maybe in the 4-5 years that the country was occupied with war one of the several hundred thousand young men who died could have come up with a new way for the south to make money or farm without slaves. Instead the south was left burned to the ground, literally in ruins and poverty with no way to rebuild on their own and an entire generation of their finest young men gone.
It could have also taken another 30 years like some places in the world, and obviously everything that happened was 100% worth it to keep another generation out of slavery. But I think it's clear that the way it happened is what ultimately caused a lot of the animosity and hatred that happened afterwards.
Like I said the south was left in poverty and ruins after the Civil War, a shell of it's former antebellum past. In hard times it's human nature to want to blame somebody else, and I think that is what bred a lot of the resentment and hateful racism in the south.
Before the Civil War I don't think that most peoples racism was "hateful." Yes almost everybody was racist, even Lincoln thought he was better than black people. It was just that though, people had a misguided view that black people were somehow lesser. I don't think most people actually hated black people though, most actually had compassion for them.
But the resentment and bad feelings from the Civil War was eventually directed towards black people and manifested into a hateful racism that directly bred things like the KKK and Jim Crow Laws. The economic impact of the Civil War affected the south for 100 years, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the Civil Rights Movement also occurred 100 years later as the southern economy was finally recovering.
The racial tension that we feel in this country today is directly linked to that and we can trace it clearly all the way back to the Civil War.
We can point all around the world to areas where civil rights issues developed naturally and handled mostly peacefully, like the north, and see much less division and tension among different races. Conversely we look at other areas where like in the south civil rights issues were forced violently by an outside power and there still exists racial issues that are deeply ingrained in the culture.
The razorbacks link mentions 88% of slave owners owned 20 or less slaves. 20 is still a lot and no better than 1 at the end of the day, but I thought it worth mentioning that Robert E. Lee falls into that category. The only slaves he ever owned were ~15 that he inherited from his father-in-law. He is on record as saying that he, like most southerner, knew slavery was evil but thought it necessary for the economy. While we know he did have at least one slave whipped after they tried to run away, by most accounts he treated them very well and human for the day. He never had them working as servants and handymen and not in a field. But people still hear his name and just write him off as an evil racist, without really knowing anything about him.
quote:
Do you have anything to support this? I do think many Southerners struggled with the morality of slavery, but there was also a lot of money invested in it. And it was pretty much the only driver of the Southern economy at the time. I don't think the voluntary conclusion of it would have been as quickly and peaceful as you suggest. Just look at how far into the 1950's and 60's the Jim Crow laws extended to. And those took multiple Supreme Court decisions and Federal laws to unravel.
Obviously there is nothing concrete that I can point to. Obviously it isn't something that would have happened overnight. But it is something that was going on all over the world throughout the entire 19th century, and in the rest of the country too.
3/4th of white southerns did not own slaves. There was already vocal opposition to slavery in the south, and most knew it was wrong. There was already considerable pressure to do away with the practice before Lincoln ever got to the White House. The only thing keeping it alive was the money. Maybe in the 4-5 years that the country was occupied with war one of the several hundred thousand young men who died could have come up with a new way for the south to make money or farm without slaves. Instead the south was left burned to the ground, literally in ruins and poverty with no way to rebuild on their own and an entire generation of their finest young men gone.
It could have also taken another 30 years like some places in the world, and obviously everything that happened was 100% worth it to keep another generation out of slavery. But I think it's clear that the way it happened is what ultimately caused a lot of the animosity and hatred that happened afterwards.
Like I said the south was left in poverty and ruins after the Civil War, a shell of it's former antebellum past. In hard times it's human nature to want to blame somebody else, and I think that is what bred a lot of the resentment and hateful racism in the south.
Before the Civil War I don't think that most peoples racism was "hateful." Yes almost everybody was racist, even Lincoln thought he was better than black people. It was just that though, people had a misguided view that black people were somehow lesser. I don't think most people actually hated black people though, most actually had compassion for them.
But the resentment and bad feelings from the Civil War was eventually directed towards black people and manifested into a hateful racism that directly bred things like the KKK and Jim Crow Laws. The economic impact of the Civil War affected the south for 100 years, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the Civil Rights Movement also occurred 100 years later as the southern economy was finally recovering.
The racial tension that we feel in this country today is directly linked to that and we can trace it clearly all the way back to the Civil War.
We can point all around the world to areas where civil rights issues developed naturally and handled mostly peacefully, like the north, and see much less division and tension among different races. Conversely we look at other areas where like in the south civil rights issues were forced violently by an outside power and there still exists racial issues that are deeply ingrained in the culture.
Posted on 6/24/15 at 8:11 pm to CCTider
quote:
Good for him. Most of those flags on the south weren't hung until desegregation began. So, they are racist. But everyone sees them that way, but enough do to where they shouldn't fly on public land.
While I think it is utterly ridiculous that anyone is truly offended, and not just saying they are because it is the cool thing to say, by a fricking flag it has no business being at the state capital. It has nothing to do with the state at this point so it shouldn't be there plain and simple.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 8:05 am to Warfarer
quote:
It has nothing to do with the state at this point so it shouldn't be there plain and simple.
Do you happen to know where the flags (plural, there were four) were located and the context in which they were displayed?
Posted on 6/25/15 at 8:24 am to semotruman
quote:
I'm more concerned with the political whiplash and the general overreaction by people who weren't even thinking about this issue 2 weeks ago. Some right-wing racist terrorist nutjob kills people in a church (which is completely awful and there will be a special place in hell for him), and the entire country suddenly feels this flag is evil? Somehow the cause? The new object of contempt?
People have been fighting for the flag's removal in Alabama since it first appeared on the Capitol building in 1963, so it wasn't entirely a knee jerk reaction.
Now, the flag in question was moved from the capitol building to the Confederate monument at the capitol building in 1993 following a successful lawsuit. There had been 2 other unsuccessful lawsuits for its removal. The fight since then has gone virtually unnoticed, but there have been numerous protests since 93 for the removal of all 4 Confederate flags that fly at the Confederate monument.
Sure there are bigger issues, and those bigger issues are the reason Alabama's governor had the flags removed. He didn't want them to be a distraction to the bigger issue of the state legislature passing a budget later this summer when he calls a special session.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 8:27 am to BowlJackson
quote:
BowlJackson
You just pulled all of that out of your arse. It's clear that you've never studied the rebellion, the Civil War, or reconstruction.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 8:34 am to BarkRuffalo
quote:
True it wasn't accurate, but then neither is your stat.
My stat was by household, not by individual, so yes it was accurate.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 8:52 am to The Spleen
quote:
He didn't want them to be a distraction to the bigger issue of the state legislature passing a budget later this summer when he calls a special session.
Good luck with that. We just detT with our own budget disaster here in Louisiana. The difference here though was the legislature was willing to raise tax revenue because they had the cover of everyone blaming Bobby Jindal for the budget shortfall.
I'm guessing your legislature isn't as willing to raise taxes to make up for the shortfall and I know Bentley has struggled to keep the legislature in line.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 9:01 am to Duke
quote:
I'm guessing your legislature isn't as willing to raise taxes to make up for the shortfall and I know Bentley has struggled to keep the legislature in line.
They're not. They're having to do the budget in a special session later this summer because they failed to pass one this past session, even though the state constitution requires the budget to be the first order of business every session.
We'll end up with some taxes raised, but it'll be on politically safe things - cigarettes, alcohol, etc.
The Poarch Creek Indians have offered a bailout on the budget shortfall in exchange for exclusive gaming rights across the state. It stinks to high heaven, but is on the table, though Bentley has said he would veto it. Lottery is also on the table, but he also said he'd veto it. It'll be an interesting showdown. I think the number is about $300 million they have to make up.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 9:08 am to The Spleen
$300 million. Eh, we were down over a billion going into our legislative session. Are there any cuts left to make? If not, I don't see how you can't raise taxes a little bit.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 9:12 am to Duke
I think the $300 million is just one year. The long term number is more grim.
I mean, there's always more they could cut, but there's not enough to cut to make up the shortfall without crippling vital government services. The ironic thing is there are a couple of studies that indicate we wouldn't have such a shortfall had we expanded Medicaid and set up our own exchange under Obamacare. Not sure how accurate those studies are though.
I mean, there's always more they could cut, but there's not enough to cut to make up the shortfall without crippling vital government services. The ironic thing is there are a couple of studies that indicate we wouldn't have such a shortfall had we expanded Medicaid and set up our own exchange under Obamacare. Not sure how accurate those studies are though.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 9:23 am to The Spleen
quote:
They're not. They're having to do the budget in a special session later this summer because they failed to pass one this past session, even though the state constitution requires the budget to be the first order of business every session.
We'll end up with some taxes raised, but it'll be on politically safe things - cigarettes, alcohol, etc.
The Poarch Creek Indians have offered a bailout on the budget shortfall in exchange for exclusive gaming rights across the state. It stinks to high heaven, but is on the table, though Bentley has said he would veto it. Lottery is also on the table, but he also said he'd veto it. It'll be an interesting showdown. I think the number is about $300 million they have to make up.
The special session is going to be the most interesting one in my lifetime.
On team A you've got the Governor, who has been completely irrelevant for his entire term until now because a veto override in Alabama is a simply majority vote and the legislature's been moving as one over the last few terms.
BUT NOW
We've got Team B of Del Marsh & the state Senate appearing to now be in the pocket of the McGregor casino crowd
AND
We've got Team C of a chunk of the House appearing to be in the pocket of Poarch creek and attempting to get an exclusive deal for them. You've also got a house speaker currently under felony indictment and scheduled for trial later in the year.
Of course, Poarch creek wins if either teams B or C get their way. If the McGregor faction wins, Federal law says Poarch Creek gets to have the same games, they'll just have competition.
It is going to be a dog-and-pony show of the finest order.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 10:02 am to JustGetItRight
quote:
It is going to be a dog-and-pony show of the finest order.
Yep, and every Republican lawmaker will do all he/she can to avoid discussing the elephant in the room - raising taxes.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 6:38 pm to The Spleen
I don't know what the situation is in AL, but in TN the legislature's refusal to expand medicaid is really putting alot of hospitals in a financial bind. Hospitals have to eat the cost of providing care to uninsured patients.
The governor wants the expansion, but the legislature refuses. Something is gonna have to give. There are some influential people on the boards of these hospitals, who I'm sure are making their views heard in private.
The status quo is just not sustainable up here.
The governor wants the expansion, but the legislature refuses. Something is gonna have to give. There are some influential people on the boards of these hospitals, who I'm sure are making their views heard in private.
The status quo is just not sustainable up here.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 6:41 pm to CCTider
quote:
Most of those flags on the south weren't hung until desegregation began. So, they are racist
A flag isn't racist.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 7:23 pm to AUjim
quote:
My best friend would tell you that his great great grandfather fought under the flag. Never owned a slave and was poor as dirt. Fought for the confederacy to defend the land that he owned. It genuinely means something different to him.
Same as my mothers family. My fathers family were yankees.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 7:53 pm to StopRobot
I really wished the ones preaching "Equal Rights" would realize what equal rights are. They aren't, you get the benefits everyone else has but they don't get the ones you have or that you get your way but no one that doesn't agree with you can get theirs.
Equal rights would mean that if they had the right to tell some random guy in Mississippi what he could fly in his yard, he would be able to tell them what they could have in theirs. Also that if they can have what they don't want to see in government places taken down then so can anyone else.
Now since we are supposed to take down the Confederate flags because it represents people who were racists then every flag this country had prior to blacks being freed represents racists too. Not to mention all the statues of this country's founding fathers who owned slaves would have to be taken down. Half this country's history would have to be taken out of history books and out of museums.
Plus we would have to do away with everything anyone in this country was offended by because everyone has equal rights.
I think racists are stupid but equal rights posers with a double standard are too.
Equal rights would mean that if they had the right to tell some random guy in Mississippi what he could fly in his yard, he would be able to tell them what they could have in theirs. Also that if they can have what they don't want to see in government places taken down then so can anyone else.
Now since we are supposed to take down the Confederate flags because it represents people who were racists then every flag this country had prior to blacks being freed represents racists too. Not to mention all the statues of this country's founding fathers who owned slaves would have to be taken down. Half this country's history would have to be taken out of history books and out of museums.
Plus we would have to do away with everything anyone in this country was offended by because everyone has equal rights.
I think racists are stupid but equal rights posers with a double standard are too.
This post was edited on 6/25/15 at 8:18 pm
Posted on 6/25/15 at 8:42 pm to Rabern57
Nobody is saying you can't fly your shitty flag in your yard, but it shouldn't be on official government property.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News