Put brakes on proposal for a Confeder...

Put brakes on proposal for a Confederate tag

There are 1490 comments on the Orlando Sentinel story from Feb 29, 2008, titled Put brakes on proposal for a Confederate tag. In it, Orlando Sentinel reports that:

We live in a state that loves causes. Just take a ride on our roadways and see for yourself.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Orlando Sentinel.

Franklin Ratliff

Denver, CO

#1758 Jul 14, 2008
otownnole wrote:
<quoted text>
You mock and ridicule innocent people and their family, lipstick won't helo you either.
Most European immigrants chose the north, not the south.

"The United States was a nation divided into two distinct regions separated by the Mason-Dixon line. New England, the Northeast and the Midwest had a rapidly growing economy based on family farms, industry, mining, commerce and transportation, with a large and rapidly growing urban population and no slavery outside the border states. Its growth was fed by a high birth rate and large numbers of European immigrants, especially Irish, British, German, Polish and Scandinavian.

The South was dominated by a settled plantation system based on slavery, with rapid growth taking place in the Southwest, such as Texas, based on high birth rates and low immigration from Europe. There were few cities or towns, and little manufacturing except in border areas. Slave owners controlled politics and economics. Two-thirds of the Southern whites owned no slaves and usually were engaged in subsistence agriculture, but support for slavery came from all segments of southern society.

Overall, the Northern population was growing much more quickly than the Southern population, which made it increasingly difficult for the South to continue to control the national government. Southerners were worried about the relative political decline of their region because the North was growing much faster in terms of population and industrial output."
otownnole

Orlando, FL

#1759 Jul 14, 2008
Franklin Ratliff wrote:
<quoted text>
Unlike you, I did read my history. I also read Alexander Stevens "Cornerstone Speech" as well as the 1860 census.
Does it really matter what you read?

"I don't need to understand a f**king thing." Franklin Ratliff, June 28, 2008
Franklin Ratliff

Denver, CO

#1760 Jul 14, 2008
otownnole wrote:
<quoted text>
LET ME SUMMERIZE:
INNOCENT BLACKS AND HELD IN BONDAGE - FRANKLIN HAS GREAT SYMPATHY FOR YOU.
INNOCENT SOUTHERN WHITES RAPED AND MURDERED - FRANKLIN NOT ONLY HAS NO SYMPATHY FOR YOU, HE MOCKS AND RIDICULES YOU AND YOU FAMILY.
APPARENTLY BEING INNOCENT ISN'T ENOUGH, THE COLOR OF YOUR SKIN DETERMINES WHETHER THE GREAT CARING & SYMPATHETIC MORALIST FRANKLIN RATCLIFF HAS ANY SYMPATHY OR COMPASSION FOR YOU.
Southern society was built on the color of a person's skin.
Franklin Ratliff

Denver, CO

#1761 Jul 14, 2008
otownnole wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it really matter what you read?
"I don't need to understand a f**king thing." Franklin Ratliff, June 28, 2008
Your response doesn't address the facts and so is irrelevant.
otownnole

Orlando, FL

#1762 Jul 14, 2008
Franklin Ratliff wrote:
<quoted text>
Your response doesn't address the facts and so is irrelevant.
Kind of like the one where you failed to explain why it is acceptable for you to mock and ridicule innocent people and their families who were raped and murdered? Are you denying you have done such a thing?
Franklin Ratliff

Denver, CO

#1763 Jul 14, 2008
otownnole wrote:
<quoted text>
Kind of like the one where you failed to explain why it is acceptable for you to mock and ridicule innocent people and their families who were raped and murdered? Are you denying you have done such a thing?
Explain to me how a society could be half slave and not be thoroughly corrupted by racism?
Franklin Ratliff

Denver, CO

#1764 Jul 14, 2008
otownnole wrote:
<quoted text>
Kind of like the one where you failed to explain why it is acceptable for you to mock and ridicule innocent people and their families who were raped and murdered? Are you denying you have done such a thing?
Southern society was built on the color of a person's skin.
otownnole

Orlando, FL

#1765 Jul 14, 2008
Franklin Ratliff wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain to me how a society could be half slave and not be thoroughly corrupted by racism?
We have been over this.

Since you think that some one can speak of blacks as second class citizens and say they are inferior to the white man. Yet only a couple years later can be the savior for wanting to free them. Feel free to go back and see the posts of the words of Lincoln, you have yet to disprove them. Remember, you stated that his actions spoke louder than his words. Again, the actions of non-slave owners not owning slaves simply isn't enough for you, they must be racist because of where the lived. THAT IS YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF YOUR DOUBLE STANDARDS. If someone can make that transformation then it is not out of the realm of possibility that some in the south was not influenced by a society being half slave.

Since: Jul 08

Location hidden

#1770 Jul 14, 2008
If the confederate soldiers had used Realpersonreminder.com for a live wake up call service they might have one!
Franklin Ratliff

Denver, CO

#1771 Jul 14, 2008
NOT Franklin Ratliff NOT wrote:
The following is a parody, with intellectual sense however.
Yes, I do finally come to understand.
The fact is, the South had an industry that was built with a strong emphasis on slavery, and certainly they did NOT want to lose that, and fought hard for it. The North, while racist in tendencies as all people were at that time, including Abraham Lincoln, saw the inherent evil not in racism, but in the act of enslaving one man over the other, and therefore fought hard to eradicate slavery.
That does not diminish the fact that the racist mindset continued in the North (and I know, I know, I have said many times racism is evil, so therefore you got me, the North also suffered from this same evil) and in the South well into the 20th century and still into the 21st century.
Yes, this is all true. It certaily does not also diminish the fact however that the North did recognize the inherent evils in slavery and was successful in the Civil war in battling against that.
Ahh well. Once you open your mind you can see that all is well, that the actions of a people can be judged by the results in future centuries, and that I, Mr. Franklin Ratliff, cannot be the only one right. Either that, or:
"Whatever." - Mr. Franklin Ratliff, July 11, 2008
"I don't need to understand a f**king thing." Franklin Ratliff, June 28, 2008
(the above posted with tongue firmly planted in cheek but brain fully activated unlike the recurring and nonsensical ranting posts of the REAL Mr. Franklin Ratliff whom thankfully, I am not. If I was, the bile in my stomach would be so acrid it would actually eat my organs from the inside.)
The south had agriculture, not industry. Industry requires higher rates of literacy and levels of education.
Franklin Ratliff

Denver, CO

#1772 Jul 14, 2008
otownnole wrote:
<quoted text>
We have been over this.
Since you think that some one can speak of blacks as second class citizens and say they are inferior to the white man. Yet only a couple years later can be the savior for wanting to free them. Feel free to go back and see the posts of the words of Lincoln, you have yet to disprove them. Remember, you stated that his actions spoke louder than his words. Again, the actions of non-slave owners not owning slaves simply isn't enough for you, they must be racist because of where the lived. THAT IS YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF YOUR DOUBLE STANDARDS. If someone can make that transformation then it is not out of the realm of possibility that some in the south was not influenced by a society being half slave.
In the north, being either black or white meant a person was never in danger of becoming a slave.

In the south, only white people were never in danger of becoming a slave.
Franklin Ratliff

Denver, CO

#1773 Jul 14, 2008
otownnole wrote:
<quoted text>
We have been over this.
Since you think that some one can speak of blacks as second class citizens and say they are inferior to the white man. Yet only a couple years later can be the savior for wanting to free them. Feel free to go back and see the posts of the words of Lincoln, you have yet to disprove them. Remember, you stated that his actions spoke louder than his words. Again, the actions of non-slave owners not owning slaves simply isn't enough for you, they must be racist because of where the lived. THAT IS YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF YOUR DOUBLE STANDARDS. If someone can make that transformation then it is not out of the realm of possibility that some in the south was not influenced by a society being half slave.
STILL WAITING for you to explain to me how a society could be half slave and not be thoroughly corrupted by racism.
Mojo

Winter Park, FL

#1774 Jul 14, 2008
Why not just put a plate on your car that says I'M A STUPID, IN-BRED, SOUTHERN, MORON!
Franklin Ratliff

Denver, CO

#1775 Jul 14, 2008
Bob wrote:
Sorry, George, but this demonstrates your complete ignorance. The Civil War was about state's rights - the right of a state to govern itself. Yes, slavery was the emotional trigger, but the root cause was much deeper and fundamental. You're probably not aware that Senators used to be appointed by the States (not elected by the general public as the Representatives are)- this was the Founding Fathers plan to ensure that the States had a voice in federal decisions. Please peek out of your bubble-wrap.
...With only 30% of the nation's (free) population, the South had 60% of the "wealthiest men." The 1860 per capita income in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040...

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html

"Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population).

Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five.(A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.)

For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America.

On a typical plantation (more than 20 slaves) the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and implements.

Confederate enlistment data is incomplete because many records were lost when the South collapsed, but it is possible to estimate, very loosely, the number of men in the Confederate army who came from slave-holding families. For this discussion, click here.

Slavery was profitable, although a large part of the profit was in the increased value of the slaves themselves. With only 30% of the nation's (free) population, the South had 60% of the "wealthiest men." The 1860 per capita income in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040."
hmmm

Powder Springs, GA

#1776 Jul 14, 2008
Bob wrote:
Sorry, George, but this demonstrates your complete ignorance. The Civil War was about state's rights - the right of a state to govern itself. Yes, slavery was the emotional trigger, but the root cause was much deeper and fundamental. You're probably not aware that Senators used to be appointed by the States (not elected by the general public as the Representatives are)- this was the Founding Fathers plan to ensure that the States had a voice in federal decisions. Please peek out of your bubble-wrap.
that being said, i would argue against any public display of the confederate flag. its display represents an act of treason. the southern states committed treason when they decised to go against the united states and form their own country, so their falg represents treason. right?
Franklin Ratliff

Denver, CO

#1777 Jul 14, 2008
otownnole wrote:
<quoted text>
So does that make you morally superior to the rest of us since you mock and ridicule innocent people and their families that were raped and murdered during that time.
**please note: the absence of acknowledging that slavery is and was an incredibly horrible act and that I have both sympathy and empathy for those who suffered under those conditions does not mean that I feel the exact opposite. Nor can any conclusions be drawn from comments that are not expressed in the entire commentary regarding this article.
However, the presence of comments mocking and ridiculing innocent people and their families that were raped and murdered for no other reason than who they happened to live by shall be taken at face value. Also, any such morally superior comments by those making such comments shall be also taken at face-value; that being the face of a pig wearing lipstick.
"Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five."

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html
otownnole

Orlando, FL

#1778 Jul 14, 2008
Franklin Ratliff wrote:
<quoted text>
STILL WAITING for you to explain to me how a society could be half slave and not be thoroughly corrupted by racism.
That is simple, 67% of the southern population didn't own slaves. That means for every one person who did own slaves, two people didn't.

Explain to me how someone who doesn't own slaves and is not fighting to keep them in bondage deserves to have members of their family raped and murdered. Explain to me the exact circumstances in which it is acceptable to mock and ridicule someone whose family was raped and murdered? Explain how that makes you morally superior, caring and sensitive.
The Savage Reposter

Palm Bay, FL

#1779 Jul 14, 2008
Franklin Ratliff wrote:
<quoted text>
The south had agriculture, not industry. Industry requires higher rates of literacy and levels of education.
Your intelligence really amuses you doesn't it? It amuses no one else. Because it is not funny.
You are an insulting, egoist who only has power here on this blog because you can incite people to anger. "Whatever" is the best you can do in terms of dealing with others.
You are pathetic and sad in your insulting demeanor, and that has been stated so many times in so many way by so many others.
You need to look inward, and look outward as well. Something you seem incapable of.
otownnole

Orlando, FL

#1780 Jul 14, 2008
Franklin Ratliff wrote:
<quoted text>
In the north, being either black or white meant a person was never in danger of becoming a slave.
In the south, only white people were never in danger of becoming a slave.
It didn't mean that you could not be killed, raped or beaten or even in 2003 you could have had the government deny you access to public water service if you were black. It really didn't even mean you could not have slaves, it just meant that is was illegal to own them. From 1956 to 2003, it was illegal to discriminate against people because of their race. In Ohio, a local government was found guilty of denying public water service to people solely because they were black. IT IS ILLEGAL, IT STILL HAPPENED, IN THE MORALLY SUPERIOR NORTH NONETHELESS.

In the south you could have not owned slaves and not been fighting to keep them in bondage and had your family members raped and murdered by the great Northern Soldiers. Is raping and killing innocent people acceptable if someone who lives in the same state owns slaves?

What is the acceptable distance to live from people owning slaves so that you did not have to worry about your family being raped and killed as a result of someone else's actions?

When is it OK to mock and ridicule those people?
Alex Campbell

Orlando, FL

#1782 Jul 23, 2008
WOW! I was born and raised in DeFuniak Springs. Same old DeFuniak Springs I see. http://www.alexccampbell.com

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Orlando Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Jacques Ottawa 1,745,257
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 30 min T-REX 517,052
last post wins! (Jul '11) 16 hr Princess Hey 6,084
___Justice For Caylee___Cont. (Feb '10) 22 hr lisa 25,653
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) Sat STEAMY FARTS 64,570
News Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) Sat zazz 98,709
News 2010 Florida Governor Race Election Results a "... (Nov '10) Sat The Peoples Media 3,138

Orlando Jobs

Personal Finance

Orlando Mortgages