SC Governor calls for removal of confederate flag on state grounds

[IndyDave1776]

IDK what that even means Jamil. What I do know, is there's a fair amount of ignorance in comparing the working conditions of a free man to that of one that can be bought and sold on a whim.

Oh please tell us what constitutes 'free' or 'not free'. I will stand by the notion that there is a hell of a lot more to it than ownership papers or the lack thereof.

Kut (appears to take a very simplistic view of this matter)

 

[Kutnupe14]

Perhaps it would better to say that slavery was less bad than some factory situations. You also have to take a step back and consider some of the context: Being required to work in some cases 7 days a week, long hours, harsh conditions, and all for starvation wages puts you in a box just as solid as being owned property on a plantation only without formal ownership. Not having the time to do anything but work is a very harsh cage and just as constraining. My point is that those on the top of the socio-economic pyramid in the north who nursed ill will toward the south were engaging in gross hypocrisy as the only material difference is that they didn't give a damn whether their factory workers lived or died where the planter at least had an interest in making sure the slaves were fed adequately and didn't drop dead.

Please note that I am not making any attempt to mitigate anyone's perception of the evils of slavery, but rather am pointing out that the pot was screaming up a lung about the kettle.

Sorry, no link this time. My days in college happened before the internet--well, actually at the dawn of the internet when having e-mail was an astonishing novelty and a limited amount of other information was available for those of greater technical aptitude than Yours Truly which required understanding a long list of commands and had what looked like a telephone directory only of internet addresses rather than phone numbers.

No, it's not. There's one significant difference... the ability to walk away. Anybody who worked in those factories CHOSE to be there.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Oh please tell us what constitutes 'free' or 'not free'. I will stand by the notion that there is a hell of a lot more to it than ownership papers or the lack thereof.

Kut (appears to take a very simplistic view of this matter)

So now we're saying that factory workers were routinely raped, beat, murdered, restricted of movement, and shipped off to other places away from their loved ones? I think that's a good place to begin what constitutes "free" and "not free."

 

[IndyDave1776]

No, it's not. There's one significant difference... the ability to walk away. Anybody who worked in those factories CHOSE to be there.

Do you really think anyone would work under the conditions in which some of these people worked if they had anywhere to go or were able to afford the trip?

So now we're saying that factory workers were routinely raped, beat, murdered, restricted of movement, and shipped off to other places away from their loved ones? I think that's a good place to begin what constitutes "free" and "not free."

You think none of these things happened in the north? Being shipped off is the only one which history doesn't remember happening in the north as well as the south. Power, be it de jure or de facto, corrupts and gets used in corrupt ways. I hate to rain on your parade, but there has been more than one group which has suffered in years past in this country.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Do you really think anyone would work under the conditions in which some of these people worked if they had anywhere to go or were able to afford the trip?



You think none of these things happened in the north? Being shipped off is the only one which history doesn't remember happening in the north as well as the south. Power, be it de jure or de facto, corrupts and gets used in corrupt ways. I hate to rain on your parade, but there has been more than one group which has suffered in years past in this country.

We're not talking about other groups, and you have offered zero proof supporting your ridiculous position of "factory workers had it as bad as slaves." Please (you or anyone) provide me with proof of factory workers being raped, murdered, shipped off, or beat... against their will, and the action being completely legal within the eye of the law.

 

[IndyDave1776]

We're not talking about other groups, and you have offered zero proof supporting your ridiculous position of "factory workers had it as bad as slaves." Please (you or anyone) provide me with proof of factory workers being raped, murdered, shipped off, or beat... against their will, and the action being completely legal within the eye of the law.

Believe what you will. I really don't give a damn. If you want to believe that the Civil War was a righteous crusade carried out by the holier than God north to eliminate the scourge of slavery, then do so with my blessing. History as I have studied it over the span of my life tells me that the reality is that two decidedly unrighteous agendas had a head-on collision resulting in a remarkably bloody war which left little more righteousness in its wake than was found in front of it at the beginning, only changing in that there was a decisive winner in the power struggle. If you really want to demonize people like Lee who fought not for slavery but rather for federalism and that his first loyalty was to the state of Virginia, not to Washington, feel free to do so. If you want to ignore the fact that the Civil War represents the shift in the balance of de facto power by force from the states to Washington, feel free to do so. If you want to believe that the northern factories offered a workers' paradise, feel free to do so. If you want to believe we are actually free today, feel free to do so.

Remember one thing: If you put a man in a large enough cage, he will believe he is free. Moving the bars far enough back that they are not readily visible does not constitute freedom. Whether it is done with the overt blessing of the law or a blind eye turned to the situation does not affect the end result. The obvious evil actions of one do not justify the similarly evil actions of another, even if they are less obvious.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Believe what you will. I really don't give a damn. If you want to believe that the Civil War was a righteous crusade carried out by the holier than God north to eliminate the scourge of slavery, then do so with my blessing. History as I have studied it over the span of my life tells me that the reality is that two decidedly unrighteous agendas had a head-on collision resulting in a remarkably bloody war which left little more righteousness in its wake than was found in front of it at the beginning, only changing in that there was a decisive winner in the power struggle. If you really want to demonize people like Lee who fought not for slavery but rather for federalism and that his first loyalty was to the state of Virginia, not to Washington, feel free to do so. If you want to ignore the fact that the Civil War represents the shift in the balance of de facto power by force from the states to Washington, feel free to do so. If you want to believe that the northern factories offered a workers' paradise, feel free to do so. If you want to believe we are actually free today, feel free to do so.

Remember one thing: If you put a man in a large enough cage, he will believe he is free. Moving the bars far enough back that they are not readily visible does not constitute freedom. Whether it is done with the overt blessing of the law or a blind eye turned to the situation does not affect the end result. The obvious evil actions of one do not justify the similarly evil actions of another, even if they are less obvious.

This has nothing to do with the ridiculous premise you posed, and I addressed. If you wish to delve further into a revisionist history extols the virtue of traitors and external causes of the war have at it.

 

[BugI02]

The victors write the history. Almost all history is revisionist.
I submit that the honourable men who led the southern forces, such as Robert E. Lee, rebelled for much the same reasons that the founding fathers did.
If you brand one a traitor, you brand them all

 

[Bill of Rights]

It is not revisionist history to state facts that occurred. Yes, the employees in the factories were there voluntarily. They had the choice of work or starve, homeless, unless they were willing to beg charity, which men of the day viewed as a loathsome task, taking not only their pride but their honor. Admittedly, they were not routinely raped (at least not sexually) and they were not routinely beaten, but no business of the day treated its workers with care or respect, and the conditions were still horrid. They were not taken from their families and moved God-knows-where, but they were taken from their families for umpteen hours a day, seven days a week, seeing them long enough to say "Hello. Good night." and then go back the next day for more.

The factory workers were, as the saying goes, "a dime a dozen", and anyone who wanted to leave had many waiting for his position, not because it was so wonderful, but because of a work ethic... and a desire to eat.

Again, this is not revisionist. Revisionist would be to state that they had their unions and that the union or anyone else would protect the workers from the big, bad, capitalist fatcat. Revisionist is to say that Lincoln was such a hero. Revisionist is to say that only Blacks are or ever have been oppressed, or that only Whites have done the oppressing.

My , however, I'm willing to listen... IndyDave's statement was: "...factory workers in the north actually had worse working conditions and a lower standard of living than most slaves on account of the starvation wages they received and the factory owners having no vested interest in their remaining alive (i.e., the factory workers didn't have to be purchased)."

What I've seen from you, Kut, was:

factory workers in the north actually had worse working conditions

According to you, false, as none were beaten, raped, movement-controlled, or subject to sale and movement away from their loved ones, all within the law.

This statement was called into question, so I will ask- did any of these things happen to anyone other than "slaves in the antebellum South"?

and a lower standard of living than most slaves on account of the starvation wages they received and the factory owners having no vested interest in their remaining alive (i.e., the factory workers didn't have to be purchased).

According to you, false, as the standard of living was part and parcel of the whole "being owned" thing.

I'm reminded of the railroad scene in Blazing Saddles. While that was made as a comedy and not a historical record or documentary, the idea of the $400 hand cart or the horses being worth more than the lives of two men (leaving aside the pejorative used in the movie) is not historically inaccurate, is it?

Finally, do you have anything to indicate that the factory conditions were in any way what we would consider good?

ETA: I just looked and realized I'd quoted IndyDave and said it was "from ... Kut" I was referencing what I'd paraphrased as Kut's answer to the quotes, and realize that could be confusing. That error was mine, and now clarified.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jamil]

IDK what that even means Jamil. What I do know, is there's a fair amount of ignorance in comparing the working conditions of a free man to that of one that can be bought and sold on a whim.

No, it's not. There's one significant difference... the ability to walk away. Anybody who worked in those factories CHOSE to be there.

I'll try to explain. I'm not trying to say that the factory work then was worse than slavery. I'd rather live free in the ****tiest conditions than be owned property living in a mansion. To me the point is about living conditions not a state of freedom or not.

 

[jamil]

It is not revisionist history to state facts that occurred. Yes, the employees in the factories were there voluntarily. They had the choice of work or starve, homeless, unless they were willing to beg charity, which men of the day viewed as a loathsome task, taking not only their pride but their honor.

I often stretch the meaning of "Hobson's choice" to refer to the two choices we get for Presidential nominees each election. But this is really the true meaning. It's not a real choice if the choice is existential.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It is not revisionist history to state facts that occurred. Yes, the employees in the factories were there voluntarily. They had the choice of work or starve, homeless, unless they were willing to beg charity, which men of the day viewed as a loathsome task, taking not only their pride but their honor. Admittedly, they were not routinely raped (at least not sexually) and they were not routinely beaten, but no business of the day treated its workers with care or respect, and the conditions were still horrid. They were not taken from their families and moved God-knows-where, but they were taken from their families for umpteen hours a day, seven days a week, seeing them long enough to say "Hello. Good night." and then go back the next day for more.

The factory workers were, as the saying goes, "a dime a dozen", and anyone who wanted to leave had many waiting for his position, not because it was so wonderful, but because of a work ethic... and a desire to eat.

Again, this is not revisionist. Revisionist would be to state that they had their unions and that the union or anyone else would protect the workers from the big, bad, capitalist fatcat. Revisionist is to say that Lincoln was such a hero. Revisionist is to say that only Blacks are or ever have been oppressed, or that only Whites have done the oppressing.

My , however, I'm willing to listen... IndyDave's statement was: "...factory workers in the north actually had worse working conditions and a lower standard of living than most slaves on account of the starvation wages they received and the factory owners having no vested interest in their remaining alive (i.e., the factory workers didn't have to be purchased)."

What I've seen from you, Kut, was:

According to you, false, as none were beaten, raped, movement-controlled, or subject to sale and movement away from their loved ones, all within the law.

This statement was called into question, so I will ask- did any of these things happen to anyone other than "slaves in the antebellum South"?

According to you, false, as the standard of living was part and parcel of the whole "being owned" thing.

I'm reminded of the railroad scene in Blazing Saddles. While that was made as a comedy and not a historical record or documentary, the idea of the $400 hand cart or the horses being worth more than the lives of two men (leaving aside the pejorative used in the movie) is not historically inaccurate, is it?

Finally, do you have anything to indicate that the factory conditions were in any way what we would consider good?

ETA: I just looked and realized I'd quoted IndyDave and said it was "from ... Kut" I was referencing what I'd paraphrased as Kut's answer to the quotes, and realize that could be confusing. That error was mine, and now clarified.

Blessings,
Bill

This IS Revisionist History:

If you really want to demonize people like Lee who fought not for slavery but rather for federalism and that his first loyalty was to the state of Virginia, not to Washington, feel free to do so.

and from a link you posted:CONFEDERATE AMERICAN PRIDE: The 10 Causes of the War Between the States

9.. SLAVERY. Indirectly slavery was a cause of the war....

Slavery...#9.... and indirect cause.

Bro that's revisionist history.

I'll direct you to the obviously fairly unknown cornerstone speech, given just prior to the start of the war, by Alexander Stephens- The VICE PRESIDENT of the Confederacy. Maybe he was a crackpot, speaking off the cuff, but his words are clear:

Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Stephens explains EXPLICITLY that Confederacy was founded upon the superiority of one race over another, and that slavery of the subordinate race is "natural and normal." He further states the argument concerning the status of slaves is the "IMMEDIATE cause" of the Southern State's secession. When these words come from the second highest elected official of a nation, without a retraction, without a clarification, it's completely valid to rely upon them as contemporary policy belief held throughout a particular govt.

 

[BugI02]

Robert E Lee, in a letter to his son 23 Jan 1861

I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honour for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for 'perpetual Union,' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession: anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and all the other patriots of the Revolution. … Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved and the Government disrupted, I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and, save in defense will draw my sword on none.

 

[jamil]

This IS Revisionist History:


and from a link you posted:CONFEDERATE AMERICAN PRIDE: The 10 Causes of the War Between the States



Slavery...#9.... and indirect cause.

Bro that's revisionist history.

I'll direct you to the obviously fairly unknown cornerstone speech, given just prior to the start of the war, by Alexander Stephens- The VICE PRESIDENT of the Confederacy. Maybe he was a crackpot, speaking off the cuff, but his words are clear:





Stephens explains EXPLICITLY that Confederacy was founded upon the superiority of one race over another, and that slavery of the subordinate race is "natural and normal." He further states the argument concerning the status of slaves is the "IMMEDIATE cause" of the Southern State's secession. When these words come from the second highest elected official of a nation, without a retraction, without a clarification, it's completely valid to rely upon them as contemporary policy belief held throughout a particular govt.

I have no doubt that the primary instigator of the civil war was slavery. The claims that it was about all these other nobler causes are belied by the actions of the people involved. If it were about states' rights, then the Southern states would have given a **** about the Northern states' rights in the decades prior to the war. But at every opportunity in legislation and rhetoric they defended the things that tended to preserve slavery and opposed the things that tended to endanger it, regardless of state's rights.

ETA: It was not founded specifically on the superiority of one race over another. It was founded on preserving the way of life of the Southern aristocracy. Beliefs about superiority of race at the time were subordinate to that.

 

[jamil]

Robert E Lee, in a letter to his son 23 Jan 1861

Robert E Lee was an honorable man who took the South's side because of loyalty to his state.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Good cites, and thank you. I don't dispute that slavery was *A* cause of the war. I think, twofold, that it was indeed about preserving aristocracy, which of necessity meant that someone, in this case, the Black man, was not of that group, and about federalism, in the form of the state being sovereign in the minds of the people of the day. Why did the South not fight for "States' rights" when the rights of the Northern states were at risk? Simple: Not their problem. If the North wants to fight for their rights, they may do so. Lincoln, the purported champion of the rights of the Black man, unnecessarily signed an amendment to the Constitution to guarantee the continuation of slavery, and in the debates with Douglas, came out and said he believed that Whites were superior. It wasn't just a Southern belief, however wrong it was. The belief of superiority of one over the other was fairly ubiquitous.

This IS Revisionist History:


and from a link you posted:CONFEDERATE AMERICAN PRIDE: The 10 Causes of the War Between the States



Slavery...#9.... and indirect cause.

Bro that's revisionist history.

I'll direct you to the obviously fairly unknown cornerstone speech, given just prior to the start of the war, by Alexander Stephens- The VICE PRESIDENT of the Confederacy. Maybe he was a crackpot, speaking off the cuff, but his words are clear:





Stephens explains EXPLICITLY that Confederacy was founded upon the superiority of one race over another, and that slavery of the subordinate race is "natural and normal." He further states the argument concerning the status of slaves is the "IMMEDIATE cause" of the Southern State's secession. When these words come from the second highest elected official of a nation, without a retraction, without a clarification, it's completely valid to rely upon them as contemporary policy belief held throughout a particular govt.

Robert E Lee was an honorable man who took the South's side because of loyalty to his state.

Exactly this, Jamil. Lee believed that the state should be supreme over the fed, plain and simple. In that, I can't say I disagree.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kutnupe14]

Robert E Lee was an honorable man who took the South's side because of loyalty to his state.

Well, not all of his state.

 

[jamil]

Well, not all of his state.

If by "not all" you mean the slaves, his decision, at least according to what he said, wasn't about slavery. If VA would have voted to stay in the union Lee would have fought for the union.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If by "not all" you mean the slaves, his decision, at least according to what he said, wasn't about slavery. If VA would have voted to stay in the union Lee would have fought for the union.

One day, you're going to learn to not assume things about me....

 

[jamil]

One day, you're going to learn to not assume things about me....

View attachment 56118

You make vague and ambiguous statements. If you don't want me to guess wrong, say what you mean.