Enough with Political Correctness

[ninjadude]

I'm rather surprised you would assume they were slave owners without evidence. Only about 2% of the people in the South owned slaves.

and yet all those states went to WAR against the United States to defend the right to have slaves. Kind of makes you wonder if they were "temporarily displaced slave-owners" in their own minds.

[MiskatonicGrad]

and yet all those states went to WAR against the United States to defend the right to have slaves. Kind of makes you wonder if they were "temporarily displaced slave-owners" in their own minds.

Actually after the southern states voted to exercise their constitutional right to ceced and formed their own country then were threatened dy the country to the north with invasion. Then they went to war. I am always curious how the black slave-owners reacted to the war.you all do realize slave ownership in louisiana was 50/50? But I digress I would think that the majority of the southern troops thought they were defending their hearth and home and not weather or not to keep slaves. Just like wars today are fought by people who think they are defending freedom instead of the real reasons.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Only about 2% of the people in the South owned slaves. Many, many more had sharecroppers to help them tend the fields.

Do you have a citation or something that supports the idea that there were 'many, many more' sharecroppers during the time of slavery? Most of the cites I've found note that sharecropping really took off during Reconstruction, and obviously it was less financially advantageous to use sharecroppers when you could use slaves instead. Not saying you're wrong, just wondering what the situation actually was. For what it's worth, wiki says: Although the sharecropping system was primarily a post-Civil War development, it did exist in antebellum Mississippi, especially in the northeastern part of the state, an area with few slaves or plantations,^[17] and most likely existed in Tennessee.^[18] Sharecropping, along with tenant farming, was a dominant form in the cotton South from the 1870s to the 1950s, among both blacks and whites. Sounds like it existed, but was not widespread.

[Leo Krupe]

I'm rather surprised you would assume they were slave owners without evidence. Only about 2% of the people in the South owned slaves. Many, many more had sharecroppers to help them tend the fields. A plantation basically means a big house with a large yard. It could be a couple of acres or a thousand.

I don't know where you got that 2% figure from, but I've seen it bandied about a lot, so I checked. It seems to be a little higher, at 8%. Source: http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

Another source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Distribution_of_slaveholders

Only 8% of all US families owned slaves,^[184] while in the South, 33% of families owned slaves. According to recent research by historian Joseph Glatthaar, the number of soldiers of the Confederacy's Army of Northern Virginia who either owned slaves or came from slave owning households is "almost one of every two 1861 recruits". In addition he notes that, "Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery."^[185]

Granted, 8% isn't a majority, or even a very large number, but it's not 2%.

[Michelle]

http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/h-1613

There was very little documentation with the exact term "sharecroppers", Liquid Gardens. Even though slavery was legal at the time many people didn't agree with it. Blacks were sometimes listed as slaves instead of tenant farmers for various reasons including but not limited to tax evasion. I wouldn't know where to piece together all of the information on the internet.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Granted, 8% isn't a majority, or even a very large number, but it's not 2%.

It seems like from what you quoted though Leo that you should be using 33%, which is considerably different than 2%. The 2% claim was in reference to just the South, not the entire country, however that claim was that 2% of the 'people' owned slaves, not families, but I think families is a better metric than just 'people'.

http://www.encyclope.../article/h-1613

There was very little documentation with the exact term "sharecroppers", Liquid Gardens. Even though slavery was legal at the time many people didn't agree with it. Blacks were sometimes listed as slaves instead of tenant farmers for various reasons including but not limited to tax evasion. I wouldn't know where to piece together all of the information on the internet.

Thanks for the link Michelle, I wasn't aware of the different kinds of labor arrangements that were made back then. Tenant farming/sharecropping doesn't seem that widespread at the time of slavery, from your link: "Of course, slavery was the dominant labor source in the Cotton Belt until 1865, but antebellum tenancy certainly influenced the rise of sharecropping after the war. " Doesn't mean what you said was wrong, 10 farmers could have 1 sharecropper working each compared to one plantation owner who could have many times that number in slaves. It sounds like slaves were expensive too, which probably put them out of reach of many farmers regardless.

[Beany]

I know what you mean ... the lion fish likes to show off ... not all that familiar with them fact be told ~ I'm more sun beach and sand than corals and reefs

~

Lion fish are agressive. They don't swim away from divers, some of them actually charge towards divers. Don't want to get caught in a down current with them directly beneath you.

[ninjadude]

Actually after the southern states voted to exercise their constitutional right to ceced and formed their own country then were threatened dy the country to the north with invasion. Then they went to war.

I expected this misinformation. There is no right to [sIC] "ceced". These people attacked the lawful government forts and military. There was no "invasion".

[Leo Krupe]

It seems like from what you quoted though Leo that you should be using 33%, which is considerably different than 2%. The 2% claim was in reference to just the South, not the entire country, however that claim was that 2% of the 'people' owned slaves, not families, but I think families is a better metric than just 'people'.

[snip]

You're right, of course, the 8% figure is nationally,and I recognized that after I posted. Mea culpa.

[Yamato]

So, sometimes you have to slaughter the 92% because of the 8%.

Bloody good idea, Union.

[Indiogene]

PC-ness, Civil Rights, Social Justice, whatever you call it, our society is trying hard to make amends for historically underrepresented and discriminated groups of people: Racial minorities, Women, LGBT people, different religions, the disabled and seniors. We've gone far enough to restrict freedoms of speech and expression, and other acts of PC-ness involving environmentalism, animal rights, anti-tobacco smoking legislation and toned down American patriotism, because it might offend others or hurt others' feelings. And most of all, changing the English language. Now, can we refer to president Barack Obama as a (half) black person...or an African-American?...wait, these terms aren't "nice" or "polite". He would be called Negro or colored (now offensive or derogatory terms) as recently as 40 years ago.

Yes, PC-ness began between 25 and 50 years ago, but it can be traced back to 70 or 90 years ago, when Americans (WASPs) started to no longer hate or dislike Irish Catholics and Jewish people, for examples. Human beings have a natural tendency to view the "other" usually a "minority" of people differently and make stereotypical or bigoted assumptions about them, either out of hatred or observing they are different from them. PC-ness insists we must become color-blind, genderless, classless (no socioeconomic divisions), irreligious and apolitical...how can we do that? "Stop the hate", "diversity", "tolerance" and "sensitivity" are buzzwords to promote a PC society. You cannot fight human nature, even when it's negative, to prevent us from our own instincts, and PC-ness will eventually destroy itself in the very end.

[ninjadude]

So, sometimes you have to slaughter the 92% because of the 8%.

Bloody good idea, Union.

The South "volunteers" didn't have to join up. They didn't have to allow their governments to attack the United States.

[Michelle]

The South "volunteers" didn't have to join up. They didn't have to allow their governments to attack the United States.

Why didn't you stop the US government from going into Iraq?

[Yamato]

The South "volunteers" didn't have to join up. They didn't have to allow their governments to attack the United States.

The South didn't have to defend itself, it chose to. And "their governments" didn't "attack the United States" unless there's a new conspiracy about Fort Sumter I haven't heard.

Lincoln invaded the South, for worse and better.

[ninjadude]

Why didn't you stop the US government from going into Iraq?

Last time I checked Iraq is NOT part of the United States as much as the Republicans might want it to be.

[ninjadude]

The South didn't have to defend itself, it chose to. And "their governments" didn't "attack the United States" unless there's a new conspiracy about Fort Sumter I haven't heard.

Lincoln invaded the South, for worse and better.

on what planet did you learn about the civil war? You can't "invade" your own country. The Confederate South attacked the US.

The Battle of Fort Sumter (April 12–14, 1861) was the bombardment and surrender of Fort Sumter, near Charleston, South Carolina, that started the American Civil War. Following declarations of secession by seven Southern states, South Carolina demanded that the US Army abandon its facilities in Charleston Harbor. On December 26, 1860, Major Robert Anderson of the U.S. Army surreptitiously moved his small command from the vulnerable Fort Moultrie on Sullivan's Island to Fort Sumter, a substantial fortress controlling the entrance of Charleston Harbor. An attempt by U.S. President James Buchanan to reinforce and resupply Anderson, using the unarmed merchant ship Star of the West, failed when it was fired upon by shore batteries on January 9, 1861. South Carolina authorities then seized all Federal property in the Charleston area, except for Fort Sumter.

During the early months of 1861, the situation around Fort Sumter increasingly began to resemble a siege. In March, Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard, the first general officer of the newly formed Confederate States Army, was placed in command of Confederate forces in Charleston. Beauregard energetically directed the strengthening of batteries around Charleston harbor aimed at Fort Sumter. Conditions in the fort grew dire as the Union soldiers rushed to complete the installation of additional guns. Anderson was short of men, food, and supplies.

The resupply of Fort Sumter became the first crisis of the administration of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln. He notified the Governor of South Carolina, Francis W. Pickens, that he was sending supply ships, which resulted in an ultimatum from the Confederate government: evacuate Fort Sumter immediately. Major Anderson refused to surrender. Beginning at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, the Confederates bombarded the fort from artillery batteries surrounding the harbor. Although the Union garrison returned fire, they were significantly outgunned and, after 34 hours, Major Anderson agreed to evacuate. There were no deaths on either side as a direct result of this engagement, although a gun explosion during the surrender ceremonies on April 14 caused two Union deaths.

https://en.wikipedia..._of_Fort_Sumter Edited July 26, 2015 by ninjadude

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

An argument could be made that after the Confederated States Confederated away from the United States, they ceased to be the same country.

[Frank Merton]

I hate to imagine what would have happened in history and what the world would be today if someone like Buchanan had been president and allowed the southern states to secede (which as I read the Constitution was perfectly legal). Lincoln broke the constitution in pieces to preserve the union. Thank the gods he did.

[MasterFlint]

When you destroy the Rule of Law and Supreme Law of the Land to put free people or nations under the thumb of an all powerful federal government, all you do is destroy yourself and your neighbor. Which is exactly what happened, the Southern Confederacy was destroyed, the people who were Right from the get go. And then the Northern United States was destroyed as well by tolerating the suspension of laws and rights under a tyrant. And now here we are over 100 years later one nation with a new dictator in power, completely owned by foreign interests, with none of our Rights under the Constitution guaranteed anywhere in our Land... Oh bravo, what a good thing Lincoln did! Give me a break....

[Frank Merton]

I will take moral correctness over political correctness any day.

[Leo Krupe]

When you destroy the Rule of Law and Supreme Law of the Land to put free people or nations under the thumb of an all powerful federal government, all you do is destroy yourself and your neighbor. Which is exactly what happened, the Southern Confederacy was destroyed, the people who were Right from the get go. And then the Northern United States was destroyed as well by tolerating the suspension of laws and rights under a tyrant. And now here we are over 100 years later one nation with a new dictator in power, completely owned by foreign interests, with none of our Rights under the Constitution guaranteed anywhere in our Land... Oh bravo, what a good thing Lincoln did! Give me a break....

Unbelievable.

The South was Right? In thinking they had the right to own other human beings?

You're right about one thing though: here we are over 100 years later (150 years since the end of the Civil War, which most assuredly is more than 100 years) living in one nation. Beyond that, I think your post must've been written by a random sentence generator.

[F3SS]

You guys are going to love these ones.

Public University Identifies 'Problematic' Words Such as American, Mothering, and Health

along with some others... http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/29/public-university-identifies-problematic-words-such-as-american-mothering-and-healthy/

Edited July 29, 2015 by F3SS

[Michelle]

You guys are going to love these ones.

Public University Identifies 'Problematic' Words Such as American, Mothering, and Health

along with some others... http://www.theblaze....ng-and-healthy/

Oh dear! Before we know it, something is going to have to be done about female and women! What name, whether I like it or not, is going to be assigned to me? How patronizing.

I looked on the university's website and they use one of the most politically incorrect words...blackboard. Shame!

Edited July 30, 2015 by Michelle

[Yamato]

on what planet did you learn about the civil war? You can't "invade" your own country. The Confederate South attacked the US.

https://en.wikipedia..._of_Fort_Sumter

Deny reality all you want, Lincoln invaded the South. Obviously the South seceded from the Union so it wasn't "your own country" anymore. Although that's not what the Union thought. So if we talk about the war from the Union perspective (usually the case, they won) then it was the same country and they were taking it back.

[F3SS]

Oh dear! Before we know it, something is going to have to be done about female and women! What name, whether I like it or not, is going to be assigned to me? How patronizing.

I looked on the university's website and they use one of the most politically incorrect words...blackboard. Shame!

I don't know. How about a unit? How much more bland and lacking of individuality can you get?