So you put up a bunch of flags that liberals allegedly all support alongside the rebel flag and declare that all are equal. That is a bullshit premise.
People that lived under the Betsy Ross flag held slaves also. In many cases long after slaves in the South had been freed.Do you want to abolish the Betsy Ross flag Max?
Here's the deal William, it's 2015. Nobody is saying it should be illegal to display a rebel flag. What people are saying is that it is time to remove the rebel flag from license plates and state houses. Believe me, I fully understand why a certain group of people are enamored with this flag. To them it represents the time when a group of people said Fuck You to the federal government and took a stand. There are some people in this country who feel that every breath they take and every action they commit should in some way be a celebration of defiance of the federal government. I really do get it. For those that say the rebel flag is a puritan symbol of Southern Goodness, they have their argument. However, the flag was primarily flown in recent times specifically to protest civil rights. Just as the flying of the rainbow flag on state houses is a middle finger to those who have an issue with state tolerated gay marriage, so also is the rebel flag a middle finger to the federal government and black people and anyone who isn't a red neck. Again, I realize that for those with a puritan sense of libertarian values, the rebel flag is sacred. For people like me, it's an outdated symbol of failure. It was a failed rebellion, of a society that believed it was entirely proper to build it's wealth on the backs of slaves. Of course, you likely feel like the slave towards the current federal government. Regardless, the point stands.
The issue is really about retailers.Why can you buy a Nazi flag, a Soviet flag yet not a confederate flag?If someone decides that it's inappropriate to buy a confederate flag, what next?
Note, no one made it illegal. Retailers are out to make a buck, not defend free speech at the expense of profit. Why can you still buy those other things? I'm sure you have some liberal connection to make. The Nazi flag as the symbol of Fascist Germany, the Hammer and Cycle was the symbol of Soviet oppression. Neither had the effect of oppression within THIS country that the confederacy did. I mean, I get that this is just the kind of angry mob stuff that ruins all society because angry conservative mobs are always on the right side of every issue. Still, I don't think it's quite that nefarious. This white idiot openly killed black people with a stated intent to kill them solely because of their race. Said idiot is also a big fan of apartheid governments and the rebel flag. this could possibly be what is behind the backlash rather than a nefarious liberal plot. Snark aside, I went to Germany in my late teens to visit family, this was mid 80's. We went out one night and on the way home, we saw some drunk skin heads waiting a train stop flashing the one arm salute and yelling Seig Heil. My cousin said this was illegal. If we want to compare apples to apples here, maybe we should see how tolerant the German public is of Nazi flags.
"By 1776, African Americans comprised about 20% of the entire population in the 13 mainland colonies. This figure, however, masks important regional differences. It is important to remember that the North American mainland was a relatively minor destination in the global slave-trading network. Less than 4% of all African slaves were sent to North America. The vast majority of enslaved people ended up in sugar-producing regions of Brazil and the West Indies. On the mainland British colonies, the demand for labor varied by region. In contrast to the middle and New England colonies, the Southern colonies chose to export labor-intensive crops: tobacco in Chesapeake (Virginia and Maryland) and rice and indigo in South Carolina, which were believed to be very profitable.""Although the largest percentages of slaves were found in the South, slavery did exist in the middle and Northern colonies. The overall percentage of slaves in New England was only 2-3%, but in cities such as Boston and Newport, 20-25% percent of the population consisted of enslaved laborers. Other large cities, such as Philadelphia and New York, also supported significant enslaved populations. Although enslaved people in cities and towns were not needed as agricultural workers, they were employed in a variety of other capacities: domestic servants, artisans, craftsmen, sailors, dock workers, laundresses, and coachmen. Particularly in urban areas, owners often hired out their skilled enslaved workers and collected their wages. Others were used as household servants and demonstrated high social status. Whatever the case, slaves were considered property that could be bought and sold. Slaves thus constituted a portion of the owners' overall wealth. Although Southern slaveholders had a deeper investment in slaves than Northerners, many Northerners, too, had significant portions of their wealth tied up in their ownership of enslaved people."http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/25577
The Declaration of Independence not only declared the colonies free of Britain, but it also helped to inspire Vermont to abolish slavery in its 1777 state constitution. By 1804, all Northern states had voted to abolish the institution of slavery within their borders. In most of these states, however, abolition was not immediate. Instead, gradual emancipation laws set deadlines by which all slaves would be freed, releasing individuals as they reached a certain age or the end of a certain work period. This situation left some African Americans lingering in bonded servitude. Pennsylvania passed its Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery in 1780. Yet, as late as 1850, the federal census recorded that there were still hundreds of young blacks in Pennsylvania, who would remain enslaved until their 28th birthdays. The rest of the story William. Although there were still a few hundred slaves in the north in 1850 there was at least a time line to accomplish total emancipation. And make no mistake the urban slavery of the north was a far cry from the agricultural slavery of the south. yes all slaves were in bondage but northern slaves lived a much fuller life then those in the south. Most lived comfortably in the homes of their masters and were treated almost like family. And William by 1804 no new slaves could be acquired in the northern states.
From Indentured Servitude to Racial Slavery ........................All servants imported and brought into the Country. . . who were not Christians in their native Country. . . shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion. . . shall be held to be real estate. If any slave resists his master. . . correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction. . . the master shall be free of all punishment. . . as if such accident never happened. - Virginia General Assembly declaration, 1705 We sometimes imagine that such oppressive laws were put quickly into full force by greedy landowners. But that's not the way slavery was established in colonial America. It happened gradually -- one person at a time, one law at a time, even one colony at a time. One of the places we have the clearest views of that "terrible transformation" is the colony of Virginia. In the early years of the colony, many Africans and poor whites -- most of the laborers came from the English working class -- stood on the same ground. Black and white women worked side-by-side in the fields. Black and white men who broke their servant contract were equally punished. All were indentured servants. During their time as servants, they were fed and housed. Afterwards, they would be given what were known as "freedom dues," which usually included a piece of land and supplies, including a gun. Black-skinned or white-skinned, they became free. Historically, the English only enslaved non-Christians, and not, in particular, Africans. And the status of slave (Europeans had African slaves prior to the colonization of the Americas) was not one that was life-long. A slave could become free by converting to Christianity. The first Virginia colonists did not even think of themselves as "white" or use that word to describe themselves. They saw themselves as Christians or Englishmen, or in terms of their social class. They were nobility, gentry, artisans, or servants. Traditionally, Englishmen believed they had a right to enslave a non-Christian or a captive taken in a just war. Africans and Indians might fit one or both of these definitions. But what if they learned English and converted to the Protestant church? Should they be released from bondage and given "freedom dues?" What if, on the other hand, status were determined not by (changeable ) religious faith but by (unchangeable) skin color? Also, the indentured servants, especially once freed, began to pose a threat to the property-owning elite. The colonial establishment had placed restrictions on available lands, creating unrest among newly freed indentured servants. In 1676, working class men burned down Jamestown, making indentured servitude look even less attractive to Virginia leaders. Also, servants moved on, forcing a need for costly replacements; slaves, especially ones you could identify by skin color, could not move on and become free competitors.This disorder that the indentured servant system had created made racial slavery to southern slaveholders much more attractive, because what were black slaves now? Well, they were a permanent dependent labor force, who could be defined as a people set apart. They were racially set apart. They were outsiders. They were strangers and in many ways throughout the world, slavery has taken root, especially where people are considered outsiders and can be put in a permanent status of slavery. In 1662, Virginia decided all children born in the colony to a slave mother would be enslaved. Slavery was not only a life-long condition; now it could be passed, like skin color, from generation to generation.