Confedrate Comics

[LWhitehead]

Re: Confedrate Comics

 

I still say it's a good idea for a superhero setting in 1976, all I have to go on as an example is Captain Conferacy.

 

 

I'm Canadian this is why I'm having problem figuring out what Southern Cities would be like in 1976 CSA, I got general idea for my superhero and Villians but what about crime and the underworld in the CSA.

 

LW

[ayinde]

Re: Confedrate Comics

 

Odd question but has was slavery dealt with in Canada what year did it end was it as common as the in the us. I live by the rule that when all else fails take what you know and tweek it to your liking.

What if the csa conquered Canada how would the social climate change for that matter

 

What if the south still lost but subverted its self in the union government and throu there influence the slaves were sent to reservations to live. sense they had there own nation the government would be in the right to expect a form of passbook (these books note whether you are a citizen or a resident being a member of the Negro nation your just a resident of the us) if that is what national security wanted maybe all immigrants have them making America much more couscous place. To take it farther the old confederate gained a foot hold in Canada. Now that the us is changed enough to let you take as much license as you like plus you can use Canada somewhere you are more familiar with. What do you think

 

this is just a crazy idea i thought id throw out hope it offers some help

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Confedrate Comics

 

Speaking from a historian's point of view, there was discrimination in the south prior to end of the war. It was normal in both sections of the US for non-whites to be discriminated against. However, it was only in the north that there were major penalties both civilly and criminally against non-whites. This did not exist in the south until after 1865 with the south losing to the north. Also, the Underground Railroad went to Canada not to the northern states since it was a felony for a white person to help a non-white. The laws that were enacted post-1865 to 1875 were done so by the US Army under their jurisdiction with the state governments playing zero role in the governing of the people. Each of the 13 Confederate States was assigned to a special military district with the western territories bordering Missouri and southward being under the Trans-Mississippi Department.

 

There's much more I could add from the 25+ years I've been studying American History circa 1610-1875 with primary source documentation to this subject. To better understand the people of the Antebellum South I'd recommend you read a letter that Robert E. Lee wrote to his wife in the 1856 since he expresses the majority feeling towards blacks at that time. Here's a small snippet of what he wrote, "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially." Keep in mind that Lee never owned a single slave and found the practice to be repugnant to him.

 

You are, with all due respect, being a bad historian here.

A good historian would search high and low (or just click over to Wikipedia) and get the rest of that quote: "The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."

 

While at Wikipedia, a good historian might look up, say, Frederick Douglass, one of many, many escaped Black slaves who fled to the North, not Canada.

And then, even if they are not actually Americanists, they could look at, say, a volume of the Oxford History of the United States (http://www.amazon.com/What-Hath-God-Wrought-Transformation/dp/0195078942/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251236303&sr=8-1)

and turn up a whole literature tending to support the common sense supposition that, in a country where some states allowed slavery, and some didn't, the problem of slavery was a problem* of those states that had slavery.

 

*Problem being here a shorthand way of talking about the utter, total denial of all human rights by the use of brutality and terror. Which, many people think, is even worse than racial discrimination.

[Yansuf]

Re: Confedrate Comics

 

Odd question but has was slavery dealt with in Canada what year did it end was it as common as the in the us. I live by the rule that when all else fails take what you know and tweek it to your liking.

What if the csa conquered Canada how would the social climate change for that matter.

 

From Wikopedia:

... slavery remained in Upper and Lower Canada until 1834 when the British Parliament's Slavery Abolition Act finally abolished slavery in all parts of the British Empire.

Most of the emancipated slaves of African descent in Canada were in the 1830s sent to settle Freetown in Sierra Leone and those that remained primarily ended up in segregated communities such as Africville outside Halifax, Nova Scotia.

[The_Patriot]

Re: Confedrate Comics

 

You are, with all due respect, being a bad historian here.

A good historian would search high and low (or just click over to Wikipedia) and get the rest of that quote: "The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."

 

While at Wikipedia, a good historian might look up, say, Frederick Douglass, one of many, many escaped Black slaves who fled to the North, not Canada.

And then, even if they are not actually Americanists, they could look at, say, a volume of the Oxford History of the United States (http://www.amazon.com/What-Hath-God-Wrought-Transformation/dp/0195078942/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251236303&sr=8-1)

and turn up a whole literature tending to support the common sense supposition that, in a country where some states allowed slavery, and some didn't, the problem of slavery was a problem* of those states that had slavery.

 

*Problem being here a shorthand way of talking about the utter, total denial of all human rights by the use of brutality and terror. Which, many people think, is even worse than racial discrimination.

 

Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source. You may think me to be a bad historian for handling a touchy subject with delicate gloves and that I'm defending human rights abuses. That isn't the case and I did link the entire letter which the entire quote is published. I prefer primary source documentation like the book Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville written in the 1820's when dealing with this subject. My original post was to get the original poster to do some actual research instead of going with biased fairy tales against the south bandied about as real history of the south. Care to explain for the entire board why roughly 95% of slaves of all races were owned by less than 10% of the southern population between 1790 and 1865?

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Confedrate Comics

 

Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source. You may think me to be a bad historian for handling a touchy subject with delicate gloves and that I'm defending human rights abuses. That isn't the case and I did link the entire letter which the entire quote is published. I prefer primary source documentation like the book Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville written in the 1820's when dealing with this subject. My original post was to get the original poster to do some actual research instead of going with biased fairy tales against the south bandied about as real history of the south. ..[snip]...?

 

It turns out that on the subject of Robert E. Lee quotes, Wikipedia is more reliable than you. Is there, perchance, a reason to edit the Lee citation so ...nicely?

On further matters of accuracy, De Toqueville's Democracy in America, which was published in 1835--40, and not in the 1820s (the period of his visit, to be sure) is in no way a "primary source documentation." It is the very interesting meditations of a highly observant visitor to the United States. Amongst his many interesting observations?

An old and sincere friend of America, I am uneasy at seeing Slavery retard her progress, tarnish her glory, furnish arms to her detractors, compromise the future career of the Union which is the guaranty of her safety and greatness, and point out beforehand to her, to all her enemies, the spot where they are to strike. As a man, too, I am moved at the spectacle of man's degradation by man, and I hope to see the day when the law will grant equal civil liberty to all the inhabitants of the same empire, as God accords the freedom of the will, without distinction, to the dwellers upon earth.

Thanks, Wikipedia!

And well you might demand that I explain why "roughly 95% of slaves of all races were owned by less than 10% of the southern population between 1790 and 1865? " It certainly does look like the antebellum South was a region of great economic inequality, with the top 10% of the population owning most of the human chattel, just like they owned 93% of everything else. Why, the number of Southern households owning slaves fell from 36% in 1830 to a mere 25% in 1850! (Peter Kolchin, American Slavery, 1619--1877 [New York: Hill and Wang, 1993], 180).

Fortunately for Neo-Confederates trying to argue that the South wasn't such a bad place after all, careful examination of the statistics from the 1850 Census of the Slave Population yields a much happier conclusion. Far more Southern Whites had an opportunity to own their own enslaved human being than, say, Jamaicans before abolition finally reached the West Indies in 1832. (BTW, those interested might just be able to find the date of abolition in Canada.) Only 8.9% of slaves in Jamaica were held in lots of 1--9 slaves. Compare 35% in the Upper South, 19.4% in the Lower!

Slavery was a middle class option in the South! Yay! Unfortunately, the Southern middle class was under pressure from, near as we can figure, slave labour. That's probably why by the late 1850s, some Southern intellectuals were arguing for slavery for all poor folk, White or Black.

John Norman, call your office.

[The_Patriot]

Re: Confedrate Comics

 

It turns out that on the subject of Robert E. Lee quotes, Wikipedia is more reliable than you. Is there, perchance, a reason to edit the Lee citation so ...nicely?

On further matters of accuracy, De Toqueville's Democracy in America, which was published in 1835--40, and not in the 1820s (the period of his visit, to be sure) is in no way a "primary source documentation." It is the very interesting meditations of a highly observant visitor to the United States. Amongst his many interesting observations?

 

Thanks, Wikipedia!

And well you might demand that I explain why "roughly 95% of slaves of all races were owned by less than 10% of the southern population between 1790 and 1865? " It certainly does look like the antebellum South was a region of great economic inequality, with the top 10% of the population owning most of the human chattel, just like they owned 93% of everything else. Why, the number of Southern households owning slaves fell from 36% in 1830 to a mere 25% in 1850! (Peter Kolchin, American Slavery, 1619--1877 [New York: Hill and Wang, 1993], 180).

Fortunately for Neo-Confederates trying to argue that the South wasn't such a bad place after all, careful examination of the statistics from the 1850 Census of the Slave Population yields a much happier conclusion. Far more Southern Whites had an opportunity to own their own enslaved human being than, say, Jamaicans before abolition finally reached the West Indies in 1832. (BTW, those interested might just be able to find the date of abolition in Canada.) Only 8.9% of slaves in Jamaica were held in lots of 1--9 slaves. Compare 35% in the Upper South, 19.4% in the Lower!

Slavery was a middle class option in the South! Yay! Unfortunately, the Southern middle class was under pressure from, near as we can figure, slave labour. That's probably why by the late 1850s, some Southern intellectuals were arguing for slavery for all poor folk, White or Black.

John Norman, call your office.

 

I never edited his quote. If you look at what I wrote you can see I linked the letter in its entirity.

 

The rest of your statement isn't worth even arguing about especially when you throw around terms like Neo-Confederates etc... I also loved how you toss out a book written by someone that wasn't even alive when the Antebellum south was around as proof of your argument. At least I gave you a book written by someone that witnessed things first hand and he had no ponies in slavery. However, the reason why there were more blacks in the south was because almost all northern states had made it illegal for blacks to live in their borders and that a freed black person could be sold into slavery in the south. This is the last thing I will say about the subject.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Confedrate Comics

 

I never edited his quote. If you look at what I wrote you can see I linked the letter in its entirity.

 

The rest of your statement isn't worth even arguing about especially when you throw around terms like Neo-Confederates etc... I also loved how you toss out a book written by someone that wasn't even alive when the Antebellum south was around as proof of your argument. At least I gave you a book written by someone that witnessed things first hand and he had no ponies in slavery. However, the reason why there were more blacks in the south was because almost all northern states had made it illegal for blacks to live in their borders and that a freed black person could be sold into slavery in the south. This is the last thing I will say about the subject.

Here's the quotation as you gave it upthread:

"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially."

Here's the quote as it is available on Wikipedia:

... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.

I, and I imagine others, use "edit" as a term of art for the striking of text from passages. You edited that quotation, and the fact that you linked to the full text is irrelevant to my question.

 

For the remainder, it is true that I quoted a historian. What I quoted was not random opinion, however, but a neat analysis of the the United States Census of 1850, and specifically the Census of the Slave Population that rubbishes your implied claim that slaveholding was not widespread in the antebellum South.

That's what historians do. Discover wie es eigentlich gewesen, as opposed to posting misleading edits and flawed statistics.

Here endeth the lesson.

[The_Patriot]

Re: Confedrate Comics

 

Here's the quotation as you gave it upthread:

Here's the quote as it is available on Wikipedia:

I, and I imagine others, use "edit" as a term of art for the striking of text from passages. You edited that quotation, and the fact that you linked to the full text is irrelevant to my question.

 

For the remainder, it is true that I quoted a historian. What I quoted was not random opinion, however, but a neat analysis of the the United States Census of 1850, and specifically the Census of the Slave Population that rubbishes your implied claim that slaveholding was not widespread in the antebellum South.

That's what historians do. Discover wie es eigentlich gewesen, as opposed to posting misleading edits and flawed statistics.

Here endeth the lesson.

 

I never edited his quote. I quoted what was pertainent to the conversation and gave the full letter for review. There was no removal of any words by myself. It's only irrelevant to your tirade against historical facts. You citing a biased historian is irrelevant to the discussion at hand since he didn't live through the events as described from first hand accounts like Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America written in the 1820's.

 

The thing is that you harping over my quote and not touching what I said in relation to the quote which I find hilarious. Immediately preceding the quote from Robert E. Lee I said, "To better understand the people of the Antebellum South I'd recommend you read a letter that Robert E. Lee wrote to his wife in the 1856 since he expresses the majority feeling towards blacks at that time." I placed the full letter before I quoted the section regarding slavery. Lee calls slavery an immoral and evil institution with the majority of southerners agreeing with his view. Your own statements regarding the decline of slavery in the 1820's to 1830's highlights this fact. If you wish to focus on the remaining part of the letter while turning focus away from my statement that's up to you. Don't go on a witch hunt against me for making a statement backed by someone that was alive at the time regarding how the south really was. However before you get all indignant about the south maybe you should learn about how the north really was prior to the war and its end. You'll find that the north was even worse in their treatment of minorities than the south ever was.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Confedrate Comics

 

Consumer Warning: I've chopped Patriot's comments up and even moved one passage for easier flow. Please don't take my edit for granted. Keep in mind what Patriot has to say for himself, as well as what I've said about his comments.

 

I never edited [Lee's] quote. I quoted what was pertainent to the conversation and gave the full letter for review. [snip] .

 

I gave a definition of "edit." Do you propose to offer another at some point, or just deny the plain fact that what you did meets my (and every other known) definition?

 

The thing is that you harping over my quote and not touching what I said in relation to the quote which I find hilarious. Immediately preceding the quote from Robert E. Lee I said, "To better understand the people of the Antebellum South I'd recommend you read a letter that Robert E. Lee wrote to his wife in the 1856 since he expresses the majority feeling towards blacks at that time." I placed the full letter before I quoted the section regarding slavery. Lee calls slavery an immoral and evil institution with the majority of southerners agreeing with his view.

 

One more time. Your edit:

... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things.

Wkipedia's edit:

There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.[italics mine.]

 

You see what your edit did? It turned a letter in which General Lee defends slavery as an arduous, sacred duty of the White race towards the Black race into one in which he opposes slavery! You really need to be more careful with how you edit text.

 

 

 

Your own statements regarding the decline of slavery in the 1820's to 1830's highlights this fact.

 

You need to reread my comments on Kolchin's exegesis of the census data. Slavery did not decline over that period. The Southern middle class did. As a result, it owned less of the capital wealth of the South. Including slaves. If I may refresh your memory, you came up with a number that implied that slavery was narrowly concentrated in the top 10% of the Southern population. I came up with numbers that suggested that it was widely spread through 25%.

 

If you wish to focus on the remaining part of the letter

 

I know, I'm repeating myself. The last part of the letter is what allows us to tell that Robert E. Lee was being a sanctimonious crap-head. It's rather important.

 

Don't go on a witch hunt against me for making a statement backed by someone that was alive at the time regarding how the south really was.

 

If you're lighter than a duck, you're a witch, and there's no reason not to hunt you.

 

....while turning focus away from my statement ...

 

Are you lighter than a duck? (And by duck, of course, I mean "Neo-Confederate.") It's a rather inflammatory thing to ask, but it's what I get out of paying attention to your statements. So just be glad I'm focussing on your evidence instead.

 

However before you get all indignant about the south maybe you should learn about how the north really was prior to the war and its end. You'll find that the north was even worse in their treatment of minorities than the south ever was.

 

Well, you may know that I'm not an Americanist. That's why I'm giving lessons on "reading into a field" to someone who clearly wants to be a historian, and doesn't know how to go about it.

Some hints

i) Read, and read critically. Your rather slow-loading site starts promisingly, with a blurb about "Slavery in the North." Excellent. Some kind of critique of the Census data that shows that in 1790, only 5.8% of American slaves lived in the North, and that by 1860 there was a grand total of 64 slaves in the North?

Well, no. It establishes at length that there was slavery in the North in the 1700s, and that it had vanished by the time of the Civil War. It's always embarrassing when your sources don't say what you think they were saying. Before you say "watch me," you have to actually make sure that you can do the trick.

ii) It is okay, with some care, to call a historian "biased" if they are, say, a former Marxist candidate for Parliament writing about communism. If they are presenting data from the American Census without interpretation, then what you do is you check it yourself. If you find an error, "careless" is not wrong. If you find systemic error, then it might show bias, but "liar" is more appropriate.

iii) Be very careful about accusing other people of being sloppy with the data, because it means that you are going to have to go count stuff yourself. You can't invite the other fellow to step outside, and then lock him out.

On a completely unrelated note, how's the counting going?

iv) Be very, very careful about value judgements. "Slavery is wrong" is a fine value judgement. The same cannot be said of the assertion that pervasive institutional slavery was better than x, where x is whatever this thing is about antebellum Northern society to which you're objecting. (I haven't quite got that straight.)

v) A good historian doesn't rest his case on a letter and a vague wave at a writer, even one as splendid as De Tocqueville. For one thing, it is easy to go wrong, especially when the sentence is long and rotund. Even De Tocqueville has even been known to be wrong about stuff. That's why historians build their case out of data as well as impressions. (There's some interesting work on the use of impressions in quantitative history, but you're not doing that.)

vi) We make sure to practice our craft, and that means diachronically. And it's okay not to use jargon. Every grade schooler has the essence of this. You need a timeline so that you never make the mistake of talking about the 1820s (when De Tocqueville was in America) when we mean the 1850s, for example.

 

Here endeth the second lesson on how to be a historian.

[The_Patriot]

Re: Confedrate Comics

 

@Lawnmowerboy: It's called a citation and not an edit. I cited a source that was alive during the time the original poster had questions about. A citation is a regularly used occurrence within the academic world. A citation means a passage quoted while edit means to expunge or to eliminate. Since the cited passage occurs after I linked the letter proves it was a citation and not an edit. So much for your claims of it being an edit.

 

I linked Northern Exclusion of Blacks to highlight a point I stated which was, "You'll find that the north was even worse in their treatment of minorities than the south ever was. " It wasn't deflection, but further highlighting how things really were. In fact I stated the conditions of minorities in both regions as a comparison. Where's your outrage against the north for performing crimes against humanity towards minorities? I see nothing of the sort from your statements which indicates to me that you are blinded by hatred towards a specific region of the United States. I have tried to handle this issue with delicacy and civility while you have been rude and trolling. As such this is my final reply to you.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Confedrate Comics

 

This thread is being locked. A warning about the sensitivity of the subject matter was already posted previously, and obviously was not sufficiently heeded.