Confederate flag was the flag of traitors

Yeah, I do.

And the reason you don't is that you are white and slavery wouldn't have affected you.

And what makes you think that slavery didn't kill millions over the 200+ year period it was in force?

How many slaves died outright from beatings, lynchings and disease (especially on the slave boats)? How many millions more died many years earlier than they should have from abuse, malnutrition, and untreated, but treatable, illnesses?

If you are going to count all the deaths in Chinese and Russian labor camps and gulags, then why aren't you counting the similar deaths of American slaves?

The Confederacy had nothing to be proud of except having a good military. But that military was put in service of brutal injustice. Originally Posted by ExNYer

I've tried but I can not imagine what it is like to be as stupid as you are. Slavery was and still is awful. But it dosen't even come close to the number of deaths caused by the purges, the intentional starving millions in Ukrain, gulags, etc., etc., Mao is reportably responsible for over 20 million by himself. Slave owners didn't intentionaly destroy their property. That does not make economic sense. I agree that alot of black people were hurt or died but to compare it to Stalin and Mao confirms that you are a fucking idiot.

And what makes you think that slavery didn't kill millions over the 200+ year period it was in force?

How many slaves died outright from beatings, lynchings and disease (especially on the slave boats)? How many millions more died many years earlier than they should have from abuse, malnutrition, and untreated, but treatable, illnesses?

If you are going to count all the deaths in Chinese and Russian labor camps and gulags, then why aren't you counting the similar deaths of American slaves? Originally Posted by ExNYer

I know that fact and citations aren't normally how things are handled here, but just a quick google of "Number of slaves in the US in 1850" turned up http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/wahl.slavery.us

A quick quote from that shows "The first dark-skinned slaves in what was to become British North America arrived in Virginia -- perhaps stopping first in Spanish lands -- in 1619 aboard a Dutch vessel. From 1500 to 1900, approximately 12 million Africans were forced from their homes to go westward, with about 10 million of them completing the journey. Yet very few ended up in the British colonies and young American republic. By 1808, when the trans-Atlantic slave trade to the U.S. officially ended, only about 6 percent of African slaves landing in the New World had come to North America."

So, 12 million taken from Africa to the Western Hemisphere, and yet ONLY 6 percent came to North America. So, that works out to be less than 1 million in total from 1500 to 1900, and transfers to North America stopped in 1808 so not even the full 12 million counts. Tell us again how that less than a million, mean, nasty, and brutal as it admittedly was, is/was worse than the KNOWN 20+ million killed by Stalin and Mao?

I've tried but I can not imagine what it is like to be as stupid as you are. Slavery was and still is awful. But it dosen't even come close to the number of deaths caused by the purges, the intentional starving millions in Ukrain, gulags, etc., etc., Mao is reportably responsible for over 20 million by himself. Slave owners didn't intentionaly destroy their property. That does not make economic sense. I agree that alot of black people were hurt or died but to compare it to Stalin and Mao confirms that you are a fucking idiot. Originally Posted by rodog44

Read below, shithead.

Your selective counting of slave deaths confirms that you are a fucking idiot.

I know that fact and citations aren't normally how things are handled here, but just a quick google of "Number of slaves in the US in 1850" turned up http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/wahl.slavery.us

A quick quote from that shows "The first dark-skinned slaves in what was to become British North America arrived in Virginia -- perhaps stopping first in Spanish lands -- in 1619 aboard a Dutch vessel. From 1500 to 1900, approximately 12 million Africans were forced from their homes to go westward, with about 10 million of them completing the journey. Yet very few ended up in the British colonies and young American republic. By 1808, when the trans-Atlantic slave trade to the U.S. officially ended, only about 6 percent of African slaves landing in the New World had come to North America."

So, 12 million taken from Africa to the Western Hemisphere, and yet ONLY 6 percent came to North America. So, that works out to be less than 1 million in total from 1500 to 1900, and transfers to North America stopped in 1808 so not even the full 12 million counts. Tell us again how that less than a million, mean, nasty, and brutal as it admittedly was, is/was worse than the KNOWN 20+ million killed by Stalin and Mao? Originally Posted by RedLeg505

Those were the numbers that were BROUGHT to America. That is NOT the number that were held as slaves.

They had children, generation after generation from 1619 to 1865 in the US. 246 years. Their population grew. There were a lot more than a million by the time the Civil War ended.

How many of them died early due to neglect - just like all those in Communist labor camps?

How many slaves that should have lived to 60 years of age died at, say, 40-something due to a typhus outbreak or flu outbreak from being in cramped, filthy slave quarters?

How many died prematurely in their 40s and 50s - but looked like they were in their 70s - from overwork and poor nutrition?

The Russians and Chinese didn't operate gas chambers the way the Nazis did. Some were shot outright for being dissidents. But most were sent to "re-education" camps. Some came back home, but many/most were just worked, abused, and neglected while prisoners for years until they died. Kind of like North Korea today.

If the average lifespan of an inmate of a Chinese labor camp or Soviet gulag was 10 years shorter than the average lifespan of a Chinese or Russian who was NOT imprisoned, you count those interned people as part of the 20 million dead, right?

Well, if you found out that the average lifespan of an American slave in the South was 5 or 10 years SHORTER than the average lifespan of a white person or a free black from the north, do you not count those premature deaths as being caused by slavery?

Also, if you want to REALLY figure out what is worse, you have to look at percentages. Individuals who are not imprisoned don't experience the depredations of those who are imprisoned. There is no such thing as vicarious suffering or vicarious death.

So, to know which system was worse, you have to look at the probability that the average person ends up suffering premature death and endures extreme hardship. Let's double the 20 million number to 40 million people who died prematurely from starvation, hard labor and various other depredations at the hands of the commies.

For most of the Communist era, the Russians had about 250 million people. The Chinese over a billion. Round it off to 1.2 billion (that's probably a low number). So, 40 million (that's a high number) out of 1.2 billion had early deaths under communism. That is about 3.3 percent of the total population. And that is a HIGH number. it was probably closer to 2%.

Now, let's look at blacks living under slavery. Do you really think the percentage who died early is less than 10%? Slave masters couldn't get much work out of 50 year old field hands that were bent over with arthritis. They might have been somewhat more protective of young slaves who were still productive "property". But what advantage was there to giving medical care, healthy food, and proper shelter to older slaves?

The number of blacks dying prematurely under slavery was surely higher than 2% or even 3.3%.

So, if you had to choose which system to live under, which would you choose?

Live in China under the communists and take a 3.3% risk of dying early?

Or live as a slave in the American south in the 1800s and take a 10% (probably higher) risk of dying early?

Remind me again how the life of an American slave was better than living under communism?

Ex-Nyer is right- there's no comparison- Slavery was perhaps one of the most brutal actions done by mankind. Do you realize most American Blacks can't even trace their ancestral roots because of how the slaves were dispersed. At least 2 million died during the middle passage- EX Nyer has not even accounted for the backlash of slavery which today still has inequalities, racism etc.

The origanal port of entry for the slaves was NEW YORK...duhhh

Don't you mean DUH ORIGANAL PORT OF ENTRY, moron?

It is still difficult to believe the absolute stupidity of EVERYTHING Whirlaway posted in this thread. I mean, IBHankerwrong is dishonest and OCD argumentative, but not even HE is this stupid.

You should shut the fuck up, until such time that your or your family have made similar sacrifices for this great nation.

I hope you take your fucking carpetbagger attitude back to anyplace else but here. But if you do stay; learn to contribute to this great country before criticizing it about serious things that happened a mere 80 years before you (or your family) were even here. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I've already posted above about the sacrifices my family has made. But even if they hadn't made them yet, what on earth makes you think you have the right to judge when they have made those sacrifices and earned the right to speak?

You should shut the fuck up until you actually learn and absorb the principles this country is founded on. Like freedom of speech. There is no qualifier on the first amendment based on sacrifice.

And, again, there is no such thing as vicarious sacrifice. YOU don't get to claim any sacrifices your ancestors made. THEY made the aacrifices, NOT you. I don't see any battle scars on you.

You are the lucky recipient of the benefits that flow from those sacrifices. You don't set in judgment of any one else's right to criticize.

You threw the towel in on New York, you move to the next land of milk and honey (Texas and the southwest), and you bring with you arrogance and stupidity. You are the worse kind of "anchor baby" immigrant. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Once again, you prove your stupidity every time you open your mouth. This time, you demonstrate you don't know what an anchor baby is. An "anchor baby" is the child of an illegal alien that supposedly allows other family members to later immigrate to the US.

BOTH of my parents were US citizens before any of their children were born. So they did not need an anchor baby. They were already citizens. In fact, my father was already a military veteran.

unlike those who came here and serve and contribute; you come here and leech. You give back nothing of consequence to this great nation. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Again, what do YOU know about what my family has done?

More to the point, what have YOU done to sit in judgment of any one else?

I don't care what your ancestors did. THEY made those sacrifices, NOT you.

Listening to you talk about the sacrifices that made this country great is like listening to a lecture from Bill Gates's kid about building a great company and creating jobs.

Both hysterically funny and stupid at the same time.

The origanal port of entry for the slaves was New York Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

NY may or may not have been the "original" port of entry for slaves.

But it figures that when you start talking about "port of entry" your focus is on the origanal entry point. Looks like you enjoy trannies, too, hillbilly.

Read below, shithead.

Your selective counting of slave deaths confirms that you are a fucking idiot.

Those were the numbers that were BROUGHT to America. That is NOT the number that were held as slaves.

They had children, generation after generation from 1619 to 1865 in the US. 246 years. Their population grew. There were a lot more than a million by the time the Civil War ended.

How many of them died early due to neglect - just like all those in Communist labor camps?

How many slaves that should have lived to 60 years of age died at, say, 40-something due to a typhus outbreak or flu outbreak from being in cramped, filthy slave quarters?

How many died prematurely in their 40s and 50s - but looked like they were in their 70s - from overwork and poor nutrition?

The Russians and Chinese didn't operate gas chambers the way the Nazis did. Some were shot outright for being dissidents. But most were sent to "re-education" camps. Some came back home, but many/most were just worked, abused, and neglected while prisoners for years until they died. Kind of like North Korea today.

If the average lifespan of an inmate of a Chinese labor camp or Soviet gulag was 10 years shorter than the average lifespan of a Chinese or Russian who was NOT imprisoned, you count those interned people as part of the 20 million dead, right?

Well, if you found out that the average lifespan of an American slave in the South was 5 or 10 years SHORTER than the average lifespan of a white person or a free black from the north, do you not count those premature deaths as being caused by slavery?

Also, if you want to REALLY figure out what is worse, you have to look at percentages. Individuals who are not imprisoned don't experience the depredations of those who are imprisoned. There is no such thing as vicarious suffering or vicarious death.

So, to know which system was worse, you have to look at the probability that the average person ends up suffering premature death and endures extreme hardship. Let's double the 20 million number to 40 million people who died prematurely from starvation, hard labor and various other depredations at the hands of the commies.

For most of the Communist era, the Russians had about 250 million people. The Chinese over a billion. Round it off to 1.2 billion (that's probably a low number). So, 40 million (that's a high number) out of 1.2 billion had early deaths under communism. That is about 3.3 percent of the total population. And that is a HIGH number. it was probably closer to 2%.

Now, let's look at blacks living under slavery. Do you really think the percentage who died early is less than 10%? Slave masters couldn't get much work out of 50 year old field hands that were bent over with arthritis. They might have been somewhat more protective of young slaves who were still productive "property". But what advantage was there to giving medical care, healthy food, and proper shelter to older slaves?

The number of blacks dying prematurely under slavery was surely higher than 2% or even 3.3%.

So, if you had to choose which system to live under, which would you choose?

Live in China under the communists and take a 3.3% risk of dying early?

Or live as a slave in the American south in the 1800s and take a 10% (probably higher) risk of dying early?

Remind me again how the life of an American slave was better than living under communism? Originally Posted by ExNYer

So, even if EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 12 million that taken from Africa had been brought to the US, which they weren't only 6 percent were, and even if they had ALL lived shorter lives, and had a million descendants over that period.. it STILL WOULD NOT ADD UP TO the 20+ million killed by Stalin and Mao. According to you liberals, we all suffer that same "10% risk of dying early" because of car exhaust and other pollutants that you all say we still haven't cleaned up enough so how you can try and stretch that to the "plight of blacks" is simply hilarious.

But hey, nice to see you keeping up with the standards of this forum with the name calling and such. Thought for a moment an actual discussion might accidentally break out here. I'll let you folks get back to your ever more convoluted scatological name calling. Enjoy!!

So, even if EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 12 million that taken from Africa had been brought to the US, which they weren't only 6 percent were, and even if they had ALL lived shorter lives, and had a million descendants over that period.. it STILL WOULD NOT ADD UP TO the 20+ million killed by Stalin and Mao. According to you liberals, we all suffer that same "10% risk of dying early" because of car exhaust and other pollutants that you all say we still haven't cleaned up enough so how you can try and stretch that to the "plight of blacks" is simply hilarious. Originally Posted by RedLeg505

Your numbers are still way too low. There were about 4 millions slaves in the US at the time of abolition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery..._United_States

And that was in 1865. In the preceding 246 years, there were probably at least that many that had been born and died since 1619. So there were at least 8 million and probably over 10 million slaves that were either brought to the US or were born in the US.

Also, you apparently don't understand the way probabilities work.

The absolute number of dead doesn't determine which system is worse. Communism may have killed more in total, but that is because they had a far larger pool of people to work with - about 300 times larger.

A single person doesn't die 20 million times. He only dies ONCE.

So the probability that one single person will die early will tell you which system is worse.

If America had had a population of 1.2 billion black slaves, you can be sure that a lot more than 20 million would have died early.

So, no, communism was not worse than slavery.

And I don't know WHAT point your idiotic statement about air pollution was trying to make. But you forget that air pollution is something we are ALL equally exposed to.

So it doesn't represent a system of oppression - not least because we are doing it to all of ourselves, not just to a disfavored and oppressed minority.

And air pollution is a by-product of modern life. The harm caused by air pollution must be weighed against the benefits of modern life - including the longer lifespan that modern life already has.

What was the "benefit" that black slaves received that should be weighed against the harm they suffered? NOTHING, right? They not only died early, they suffered miserably while they were alive, and they had all of the fruits of their labor stolen from them. THAT is what the Confederacy stood for.

P.S. - Stick the "According to you liberals..." where the sun don't shine. I'm a conservative. I just don't tolerate any of that Civil War revisionism. Defending the Confederacy doesn't make you a conservative, it makes you a bigot.

Thank you shit for brains. But I did know it and I didn't make a mistake, either.

NOBODY calls the Stars and Bars the "flag of the Army of Northern Virginia".

It is, and always has been, referred to as "the Confederate flag" because that is the one that that the Confederates marched under.

Whenever you read or hear that, for example, a pickup truck had a Confederate flag on the bumper, YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT FLAG THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. Even if they did not call is the "flag of the Army of Northern Virgina".

So, NO, in common vernacular, the Stars and bars is called the Confederate flag. And always will be.

Similarly, the Stars and Stripes has been referred to as the Union flag, even though it is the flag of the United States of America.

Quit splitting hairs to try to look smart. You're not. You have a written record on this board and we haven't forgotten it. Originally Posted by ExNYer

You make a lot of stupid assumptions carpetbagger. When someone says they fly an Confederate flag, I don't know what they are flying since I know better and many people I hang around also know better. Now you know what you think (and you were wrong) when you hear someone say the same thing.

When did we start talking about the Stars and Stripes you carpetbagging subject changer?

If you can't see the relevence of discrediting (or telling it like it is) CNN with some of their reporting on the Tea Party I can't tell you very much. You were clever in a way when you implied that the BFONV represented the Tea Party without actually saying it. That way you can throw shit without really getting your hands dirty. Kind of chickenshit if you ask me. So you're a son of a bog. Are you proud of all the death and maiming caused by the IRA? Are you proud of Teddy Kennedy? Care to fess up to alcoholism? You make a lot of implications about Southern people, there are a lot of stereotypes about the Irish you know. Can you take it?

On numbers, how many slaves do you think there were? Are you referring to those long reputed numbers about 100 million Africans thrown over the side on the way to North America? So much Barbra Streisand! Now slavery existed in the U.S. for about 90 years or from the creation of the country (signing of the Constitution) to the end of the Confederacy. Before that slavery existed under English, Dutch, Spanish, and French law. So how many slaves do you think were killed (not died, because everyone eventually dies), but killed by murder, abuse, and neglect? Apparently you think it is millions. At the end of slavery there were 4 million slaves. We know this from the census records. The slaves had to be counted in order to create new Congressional seats. Now slaves were property and were worth money. No slaver owner is going to kill his slaves for fun as that cost money. A free man can be killed for no reason and without cost but a slave is dollars in your pocket. If a slave was killed it was for a reason. It is mathematically highly improbable to kill millions of slaves, It is financially impossible to do it. You are an idiot for entertaining the idea.

When I was growing up we had a pig that thought he was a dog. He chased cars and prowled the fields with the dogs. You can think you're a conservative but that don't make it so.

Read below, shithead.

Your selective counting of slave deaths confirms that you are a fucking idiot.


Those were the numbers that were BROUGHT to America. That is NOT the number that were held as slaves.

They had children, generation after generation from 1619 to 1865 in the US. 246 years. Their population grew. There were a lot more than a million by the time the Civil War ended.

How many of them died early due to neglect - just like all those in Communist labor camps?

How many slaves that should have lived to 60 years of age died at, say, 40-something due to a typhus outbreak or flu outbreak from being in cramped, filthy slave quarters?

How many died prematurely in their 40s and 50s - but looked like they were in their 70s - from overwork and poor nutrition?

The Russians and Chinese didn't operate gas chambers the way the Nazis did. Some were shot outright for being dissidents. But most were sent to "re-education" camps. Some came back home, but many/most were just worked, abused, and neglected while prisoners for years until they died. Kind of like North Korea today.

If the average lifespan of an inmate of a Chinese labor camp or Soviet gulag was 10 years shorter than the average lifespan of a Chinese or Russian who was NOT imprisoned, you count those interned people as part of the 20 million dead, right?

Well, if you found out that the average lifespan of an American slave in the South was 5 or 10 years SHORTER than the average lifespan of a white person or a free black from the north, do you not count those premature deaths as being caused by slavery?

Also, if you want to REALLY figure out what is worse, you have to look at percentages. Individuals who are not imprisoned don't experience the depredations of those who are imprisoned. There is no such thing as vicarious suffering or vicarious death.

So, to know which system was worse, you have to look at the probability that the average person ends up suffering premature death and endures extreme hardship. Let's double the 20 million number to 40 million people who died prematurely from starvation, hard labor and various other depredations at the hands of the commies.

For most of the Communist era, the Russians had about 250 million people. The Chinese over a billion. Round it off to 1.2 billion (that's probably a low number). So, 40 million (that's a high number) out of 1.2 billion had early deaths under communism. That is about 3.3 percent of the total population. And that is a HIGH number. it was probably closer to 2%.

Now, let's look at blacks living under slavery. Do you really think the percentage who died early is less than 10%? Slave masters couldn't get much work out of 50 year old field hands that were bent over with arthritis. They might have been somewhat more protective of young slaves who were still productive "property". But what advantage was there to giving medical care, healthy food, and proper shelter to older slaves?

The number of blacks dying prematurely under slavery was surely higher than 2% or even 3.3%.

So, if you had to choose which system to live under, which would you choose?

Live in China under the communists and take a 3.3% risk of dying early?

Or live as a slave in the American south in the 1800s and take a 10% (probably higher) risk of dying early?

Remind me again how the life of an American slave was better than living under communism? Originally Posted by ExNYer

How many poor white farmers died at 40 years old. How many white farmers with money died at 40 years old? How many poor whites were killed by the elements and hostile "native americans". The life span was shorter for everyone moron. Answer this, how many slaves lived to be 60 years old? Do you know the answer? If you don't know the answer then you should get to looking it up. Census records should be useful as they have ages and locations of slaves, Indians, and whites.

You make a lot of stupid assumptions carpetbagger. When someone says they fly an Confederate flag, I don't know what they are flying since I know better and many people I hang around also know better. Now you know what you think (and you were wrong) when you hear someone say the same thing.

More horseshit. Now you are pretending you don't know what flag people are referring to when they say "confederate flag". Are we supposed to believe that when there were news reports about the controversy of the "Confederate flag" flying over the Georgia capitol, you didn't know exactly what flag they were talking about? Or that a "Confederate flag sticker means something other than the Stars and Bars?

When did we start talking about the Stars and Stripes you carpetbagging subject changer?
It's the same subject, mouth-breather. I was making a comparison.

If you can't see the relevence of discrediting (or telling it like it is) CNN with some of their reporting on the Tea Party I can't tell you very much.
You couldn't tell me very much under ANY circumstances.

You were clever in a way when you implied that the BFONV represented the Tea Party without actually saying it. That way you can throw shit without really getting your hands dirty. Kind of chickenshit if you ask me.
I wasn't implying that, asshole. I said the opposite. I said other Tea Party members were smeared by the Confederate flag. Can't you read? Are you drunk again?

So you're a son of a bog.
No, shithead, I'm Irish. Contrary to your ignorance, not all of Ireland is a bog. That's like calling any American at random a "son of a swamp" because Louisiana has swamps.

Are you proud of all the death and maiming caused by the IRA?
No, shithead. I'm not. I'm also not proud of all the death and maiming caused by the US Army, even against the Nazis. Are you? But, I accept that death and maiming were/are an inescapable part of war and therefore a necessary evil.

But we are not talking about war. We are talking about SLAVERY, remember? What exactly made slavery a necessary evil in your rancid mind?

Are you proud of Teddy Kennedy?
Just how stupid are you? I dislike Teddy Kennedy. What does that have to do with this discussion? Does that tiny pea brain of yours somehow believe that Ted Kennedy is a stand-in representative of all Irish people? Christ you are stupid.

Care to fess up to alcoholism?
Fess up to what, stupid?

Are you really going to bring up the subject of alcoholism? We are talking about rednecks here. Not exactly teetotalers, if you catch my drift.

And alcoholism is a harm a person inflicts on HIMSELF, not on OTHERS. How exactly does THAT come into a discussion about slavery and the Confederacy?

Well, other than the fact that you are apparently an alcoholic and are drunk posting.

You make a lot of implications about Southern people, there are a lot of stereotypes about the Irish you know. Can you take it?
Yeah. See above. Can you take it?

On numbers, how many slaves do you think there were?
See my post above. There were about 4 million alive in 1865 according to the Wiki link.

Are you referring to those long reputed numbers about 100 million Africans thrown over the side on the way to North America?
No, I wasn't. And the word is "disputed" not "reputed", you drunken fool.

So much Barbra Streisand! Now slavery existed in the U.S. for about 90 years or from the creation of the country (signing of the Constitution) to the end of the Confederacy. Before that slavery existed under English, Dutch, Spanish, and French law.

Horseshit. Don't pawn off slavery in North America on just foreigners. There were slaves in the South for 246 years. They wee brought here in response to demand for them by the landowners living HERE who decided it would be more profitable to exploit Africans than to pay white farmhands. Without that demand, the laws would have made no difference.

The slaveholders in 1776 don't get to say "hey, what came before is not on us. Only what happens after this is our fault.

So how many slaves do you think were killed (not died, because everyone eventually dies), but killed by murder, abuse, and neglect? Apparently you think it is millions. At the end of slavery there were 4 million slaves. We know this from the census records.
I'm way ahead of you, stupid. See my posts above.

The slaves had to be counted in order to create new Congressional seats. Now slaves were property and were worth money. No slaver owner is going to kill his slaves for fun as that cost money.
Another strawman from JDCornhole. I didn't say they were killed for fun. I said they were abused, mistreated, neglected, and worked to death in PURSUIT of profit. That is how plantation owners made their money.

A free man can be killed for no reason and without cost but a slave is dollars in your pocket. If a slave was killed it was for a reason.
Yes. And that reason was to MAKE money. Slaveowners had every reason to exploit a black slave from the age of about 13 to about 40 something. After that, they were too broken down from hard labor, poor diet, unsanitary conditions, and the like. At that point, a slave owner had NO reason to spend money on maintaining the life of older slaves. They cost more than they produced. That's why they died younger.

It is mathematically highly improbable to kill millions of slaves, It is financially impossible to do it. You are an idiot for entertaining the idea.
And you are an idiot for misinterpreting everything I wrote. It is mathematically certain that every slave will die eventually and it is financially beneficial that they die sooner, rather than later, after they are no longer profitable.That is the part you keep ignoring.

When I was growing up we had a pig that thought he was a dog. He chased cars and prowled the fields with the dogs.
And he was the smart one in your family.

You can think you're a conservative but that don't make it so.
And you can think you're a conservative, but being a Confederate sympathizing bigot does not make it so.
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You really are drunk posting aren't you?

How many poor white farmers died at 40 years old. How many white farmers with money died at 40 years old? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

A smaller precentage than the number of slaves that died before they were 40 years old. Why do you ask?

The slaves had it worse than the poor whites by any standard of measure. Otherwise, poor whites would have been willing to work under the same conditions as the black slaves. But they weren't, were they?

So, on average, a black slave died younger than the average white or free black in the north. So, their premature deaths were caused by slavery. SLAVERY killed them.

How many poor whites were killed by the elements and hostile "native americans". Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

WTF? Slaves died of the elements and Indian attacks, too. Do you actually have a point here?

The life span was shorter for everyone moron. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Compare to whom, moron? Compared to us in the 21st century? Certainly their life spans were shorter than OURS.

But that's not the correct comparison. The question is, "did slaves live EVEN SHORTER lives than whites during the same time period?" The answer is unquestionably YES. How could they NOT die sooner? Do you really debate that?

And when they were alive, their lives were far more miserable. Do you really debate that?

Answer this, how many slaves lived to be 60 years old? Do you know the answer? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Yes. The answer is "Not many and certainly less than the number of whites, per capita".

If you don't know the answer then you should get to looking it up. Census records should be useful as they have ages and locations of slaves, Indians, and whites. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I do know the answer. See above. Do you really dispute what I wrote?

Your post is a classic piece of Confederate propaganda. You make up the stupidest of excuses and inapt comparisons in order to make slavery seem like it wasn't such a bad thing.

It was a crime against humanity. And 11 states fought to maintain it. They were willing to kill hundreds of thousands so they could continue to exploit the labors of blacks and to avoid having to live and work side by side with them in civil society. Deal with it.

Fuck you........you are a first generation immigrant to our great country..............

What flag were your ancestors flying ?

I bet is has more dishonor in it's past than the Flag of the Confederacy.


Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Whooptie-fucking-doo.

If you expect people to respect the heritage the flag invokes then you have to respect the fact that it invokes negative feelings in others.

My ancestors came over on the "Ann" in 1623. She was the second wife of Governor William Bradford of Plymouth Colony. I am a descendent of the children of her first marriage (Constant Southworth).

Is 390 years in America long enough?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jr...penter_sisters