Confederate flags burned and monuments defaced as South Carolina protesters lash out in wake..

dailymail.co.uk ^ | June 21, 2015 | Chris Spargo and Mia De Graaf

[BroJoeK]

FYI — note my responses in post #140.

[BroJoeK]

WhiskeyX: "Your great-grandfather deluded himself and deceived his family.
Certain factions of the British Government and the Royal family spent decades of effort in various attempts to subvert the U.S. Government in the wake of the 1783 Treaty of Paris, foment civil wars designed to disunite the United States, and make the U.S. territories vulnerable to eventual reacquisition or place them under the protection and control of the British Empire"

I doubt if Americans required British intervention to foment disunion here -- we had plenty of disunionists, aka "Fire Eaters", without British help.

The historical narrative leading up to US Civil War has been related many times by many different historians, none of whom emphasized a key role for British subversion.
By 1860 the vast majority of Brits opposed slavery, and so favored the Union.

[BroJoeK]

John 3_19-21: "Lincoln would have made slavery permanent."

BillyBoy: "And Jefferson Davis beat him to the punch."

In early 1861 Lincoln was prepared to accept almost any compromise which would preserve the Union.
But though several proposals were floated, none were ever accepted by the Confederacy, and no compromise was ever reached.

Instead, the Confederacy provoked, started and then formally declared war on the United States on May 6, 1861.
At that point, Lincoln had only one constitutional duty, and that was to defeat the military power which was assaulting the United States.

[NorthMountain]

The preacher of this church was very much opposed to Voter ID

The "preacher" at this racist organization posing as a church (AFRICAN Methodist Episcopal ...) was also an elected politician; he was a senator in the SC Legislature. His voting record there was straight-up democrat party leftism ... including support for abortion.

[BroJoeK]

ladyjane: "Slave owners started calling enslaved blacks indentured servants but there was no provision to free them.
There were even slaves in Lexington - the Cradle of Liberty."

Before the Revolutionary War, more than half of immigrants here came over as indentured servants.
That was a legal status whereby young people sold their services for a number of years in exchange for transportation to America.
After 1800 various new laws made indentured service more difficult to enforce, and therefore less frequently used.

But by 1860 the practice was still legal, and there is no reason to assume that the term "indentured servant" in, say Massachusetts, must necessarily have really meant black slaves.

The United States formally outlawed indentured servitude in the year 2000 as part of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA).

[BroJoeK]

ladyjane: "Pointing out that Massachusetts never passed any laws against slavery until after the Civil War, how is that a defense?"

Again, here is a listing according to census data of actual slaves by state, by year.
You will note that Massachusetts recorded one slave in 1830, but none before or after.
My state, Pennsylvania, slowly phased-out slavery and recorded its last slaves in the 1840 census.

Your claim that some "indentured servants" were in reality black slaves is not supported by any reliable data I know of.

ladyjane: "You still want to believe Massachusetts was filled with Abolitionists? "

In 1860 no Northern state was "filled with Abolitionists".
In 1860 the vast majority of Northerners were totally content to let slavery continue in the South.
What they adamantly opposed was extending slavery into their own states via the Supreme Court's Dred-Scott decision, or into western territories which didn't want them.

But such limited opposition to slavery was more than enough to fuel Southern Fire Eaters' flames of secession, especially when it was represented in the person of President-elect Abraham Lincoln.

ladyjane: "Mentioning the thousands of blacks who owned slaves and sold their own children into slavery -that's a defense?
Actually there was one reported case in which a black woman bought her husband and when he didn't behave she sold him back into slavery."

And this is supposed to prove or illustrate what, exactly?
That blacks obeyed the laws of the land, and worked hard to get ahead in life, as best they could?
And in what sense does that defend the South's "peculiar institution" of slavery?

ladyjane: "These are inconvenient facts that the liberals prefer you didn't know.
Unlike liberals some Freepers would like to know the facts."

What you here call "inconvenient facts" are in truth laughable fantasies, concocted by pro-Confederates in order to distort history and confuse the real issues.

[BroJoeK]

ladyjane: "Massachusetts and other New England states made a lot of money with the slave trade."

Well, first of all, importing slaves from overseas was outlawed by Congress in 1808, so any profit from that disappeared, in Massachusetts and everywhere else which had previously transported African slaves to the United States.

But more to the point: in 1860 very few Northerners cared about abolishing slavery in the South.
The vast majority of Northerners were content to let Southerners hold on to their "peculiar institution", provided slavery was not exported to Northern states or to Western territories which didn't want it.

But such limited opposition was still enough to convince Southern Fire Eaters to declare secession and then war on the United States.

ladyjane: "Somehow northerners want to be seen as innocent and southerners as guilty even though they profited as much, if not more, than southerners."

The truth of this matter is that virtually all Northerners were totally innocent of wanting slavery in their own states and totally guilty of wanting to allow Southerners to keep their "peculiar institution" in the South".

Most of those Northerners who opposed slavery on principle were soon persuaded to tolerate it in the South in order to preserve the Union of the United States of America.

[bert]

however, all the anti flag blather aside, the fact remains, the northeast states should be purged from the union.

maybe Pennsylvania needs to be added to the list.

[catfish1957]

I wonder if the looney left thinks this will reduce the tide of racism. If anything, the past 5 yrs. have brought many tolerant whites to realize that a huge percentage of blacks are entitlement junkies, and think whitey owes them in infinity.

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "Prior to 1807 most slaves ships flew the USA ensign and were registered in Massachusetts and other Yankee states."

Sure, on July 4, 1776, when our Declaration of Independence asserted that "all men are created equal", slavery was in fact lawful in all 13 colonies / states.
Some new states (i.e., Vermont) began immediately to outlaw slavery, others (like Pennsylvania) slowly phased out slavery.
But the US Constitution put no restrictions on slavery, except to allow the outlawing of importing new slaves after 1808.
Indeed, the Constitution rewarded slave-owning states by granting them additional representatives in Congress, based on the numbers of their slaves.

Point is: even the vast majority of Northerners who might oppose slavery on general principles (i.e., "all men are created equal") were still persuaded to support it in the South as a necessary price for preserving the Union.

[BroJoeK]

bert: "maybe Pennsylvania needs to be added to the list."

Pennsylvania was the Keystone in forming our Union in 1776, in defining it in 1787 and in preserving it in 1863.

Pennsylvania is the heart and soul of the United States -- always was, always will be, FRiend.

[Sherman Logan]

The Brits pretty much gave up on interfering with USA after the War of 1812, which demonstrated pretty thoroughly that it wasn't going to work. As the US got more powerful, they also had a pretty obvious hostage in their Canadian colonies. Not a good idea to poke the tiger.

By 1860 the vast majority of Brits opposed slavery, and so favored the Union.

Probably true, though I'd say majority, not vast majority.

The Union, however, was quite unpopular among the upper classes, who still ran things in UK. They would have been quite happy to find an excuse to recognize the CSA or even to interfere militarily. The slavery bit was the only thing that kept them from doing so.

Which means that if independence had really been more important than slavery to the South, they could have had it. Abandon slavery, and their freedom would have followed almost automatically.

The problem, of course, is that preserving slavery was the reason they wanted independence, which would have been meaningless for them without slavery.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Maryland did not willingly go with the Union. It was held at gunpoint to preserve the government in its precious capital.

[rockrr]

You sound disappointed.

[BroJoeK]

the OlLine Rebel: "Maryland did not willingly go with the Union.
It was held at gunpoint to preserve the government in its precious capital."

Thanks for responding.
Like Missouri, its fellow Border State, in 1860 Maryland's slave population was about 13% (87,000), with 11% (14,000) of Maryland families owning slaves.
But Maryland was unique in the country, in that about half of all blacks were freed -- in other words, Maryland had as many free blacks as slaves.
Indeed, Maryland and Delaware were the only slave-states where the number of slaves was falling in 1860.

On April 29, 1861, a week before the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States (May 6, 1861), the Maryland legislature met and voted 53 - 29 against secession.
After the Confederacy declared war, then giving aid and comfort to our enemy was an act of treason, for which some Marylanders were arrested, and no other votes were held on secession.

During the Civil War Maryland supplied troops to both sides, but more Union than Confederate by a factor of two-to-one.
Indeed, when Confederates marched into Maryland in September 1862, one major reason was to encourage more Marylanders to join the Confederate army.
In that they failed.

Finally, we should note that in Maryland in 1861 slave-holders dominated the southern counties, while Unionists were strongest in northern and western Maryland.
Slaves as a percentage of each county's 1860 population:

[the OlLine Rebel]

Just sayin’, as a MDer born of Baltimoreons and with roots/current relations and contacts in western MD, I am well aware of the major southern sympathies all the way from the Eastern Shore, through the Baltimore riots (Fed Hill guns set on the city), to Cumberland and environs.

It is not to be taken lightly.

[BroJoeK]

the OlLine Rebel: "I am well aware of the major southern sympathies all the way from the Eastern Shore, through the Baltimore riots (Fed Hill guns set on the city), to Cumberland and environs."

Today, as in 1861, Maryland is more conservative in its eastern and western counties.
Liberal Democrats dominate central counties, especially Baltimore.
In 1861 conservatives were Unionists, Liberal Democrats were slave-owning secessionists.

The fact that some conservatives today identify with slave-holding secessionists illustrates the success of Lost Causer mythology.

Maryland's 2014 governor's race results by county:

[the OlLine Rebel]

I’m well aware of our demographics, thanks alot.

Afraid Dems did a general flip-flop c. 1900/Woodrow Wilson.

Sorry, but the Confeds have alot more in common with modern-day “conservatism” than you’d like to admit. Also with Revolutionaries.

It’s not all simply about slavery. Any more than today’s conservatism is simply about abortion, although we have many one-note wonders on this here too.

[BroJoeK]

the OlLine Rebel: "Dems did a general flip-flop c. 1900/Woodrow Wilson."

Up until the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt (1930s), most blacks voted Republican, and the South was solidly Democrat.
Indeed, the Solid South did not begin to become solid Republican until the 1964 election landslide of Texas Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Arizona Republican Barry Goldwater.

the OlLine Rebel: "Sorry, but the Confeds have alot more in common with modern-day “conservatism” than you’d like to admit.
Also with Revolutionaries."

Pure pro-Confederate propaganda.
In fact, there is an exact correspondence between 1860s slave-owners and todays Progressive-Liberal Democrats.
Both wished first and foremost to live off, and profit from, lawfully extracted work of others.
In 1860 it was the Democrats' black slaves, while today we are all slaves of Big Government redistribution taxation.

Sorry, but only your deliberate misunderstandings of actual history allow you to believe otherwise, FRiend.

the OlLine Rebel: "It’s not all simply about slavery."

No, in 1860 secession was all about slavery.
No other issue -- none -- was powerful enough to drive slave-owners to declare separation from the United States.
If you doubt me on this, simply read the four Declarations of Reasons for Secession.
The perceived threat against slavery represented by Abraham Lincoln's Black Republicans is the only serious reason given.

[stockpirate]

My firearm of choice is just point and click. No need to really aim at anything, just in the general direction.

However I can put six rounds in to a pie pan at 30 feet, and my daughter shot on a NRA rifle team trained in VA by Gunny Sgt Quntrail lead instructor of the USMC sniper team.