(04-18-2014 06:40 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 06:36 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Why would the average southern male risk life, limb, property for a slave that most did not own?!

That's a great question. I've often wondered that, myself.

because secession was pushed by corporate interests and once that happened the south relied on peer pressure/rally around the flag effect to get men to enlist. when that stopped working they relied on economic/social pressure. when that stopped working they implemented the draft which lead to the highest draft rate this country has ever seen and to my knowledge I don't believe any 1800s army from a european power ever had draft rates that high.

(04-18-2014 07:05 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 06:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 06:27 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 05:53 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 11:06 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Explain that comment please. What are you suggesting?

I am suggesting that it is ridiculous to continue to hold an entire region of the United States of America in perpetual blame based on the actions of their forefathers.

For instance, specific to this thread, it's outrageous to suggest that the presentation of the battle flags at Washington and Lee is anything but a historical display.

If someone is racist in the South, it's because they are racist, not because they participated in chattel slavery.

Then people should start by stop apologizing for the Rebel flag and stop giving in to pressure to remove it. Start forcing these intolerant people to expose their desire to limit speech.

freedom of speech does not protect oneself from how society reacts to your expression.

if southerners wanna pull the "it is unfair to blame us even today for slavery" card fine......but they only reason it gets thrown in their face in the first place is because they still celebrate the civil war era.

Reaction is one thing. Censorship is another. Removing it is not an acceptable reaction.

it has nothing to do with censorship. if an institution believes that the backlash from putting up a flag is not worth it ==> they have just as much of a right to take it down.

no one is censoring the nazi flag and there sure as hell is no censorship of the rebel flag.

(04-18-2014 07:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 06:40 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 06:36 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Why would the average southern male risk life, limb, property for a slave that most did not own?!

That's a great question. I've often wondered that, myself.

because secession was pushed by corporate interests and once that happened the south relied on peer pressure to get men to enlist. when that stopped working they relied on economic/social pressure. when that stopped working they implemented the draft which lead to the highest draft rate this country has ever seen and to my knowledge I don't believe any 1800s army from a european power ever had draft rates that high.

That is nonsense John. The southern man was tired of watching the north take their raw material and turn a profit. It was about the control of cotton and textiles. Only rich plantation owners acquired slaves. The common man was poor and lived by the sweat of his brow.

This argument is getting really dumb really fast.


Oh, John's here.

Carry on!

Silvery/corporate interests LOL! Ahahahahahaha

(04-18-2014 07:12 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 06:40 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 06:36 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Why would the average southern male risk life, limb, property for a slave that most did not own?!

That's a great question. I've often wondered that, myself.

because secession was pushed by corporate interests and once that happened the south relied on peer pressure to get men to enlist. when that stopped working they relied on economic/social pressure. when that stopped working they implemented the draft which lead to the highest draft rate this country has ever seen and to my knowledge I don't believe any 1800s army from a european power ever had draft rates that high.

That is nonsense John. The southern man was tired of watching the north take their raw material and turn a profit. It was about the control of cotton and textiles. Only rich plantation owners acquired slaves. The common man was poor and lived by the sweat of his brow.

if you want to lash on to your revisionist history. the fact is that the south had enormous enlistment rates and the way the south went about the rebellion in 1863 is nothing like the revolutionary war.

(04-18-2014 07:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This argument is getting really dumb really fast.


Oh, John's here.

Carry on!

Silvery/corporate interests LOL! Ahahahahahaha

anyone who knows a damn about the civil war WITHOUT the revisionist bullsh!t knows that succession was pushed mostly by corporate interests

Oh really?

What corporation were slave holders a part of?

(04-18-2014 07:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:12 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 06:40 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 06:36 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Why would the average southern male risk life, limb, property for a slave that most did not own?!

That's a great question. I've often wondered that, myself.

because secession was pushed by corporate interests and once that happened the south relied on peer pressure to get men to enlist. when that stopped working they relied on economic/social pressure. when that stopped working they implemented the draft which lead to the highest draft rate this country has ever seen and to my knowledge I don't believe any 1800s army from a european power ever had draft rates that high.

That is nonsense John. The southern man was tired of watching the north take their raw material and turn a profit. It was about the control of cotton and textiles. Only rich plantation owners acquired slaves. The common man was poor and lived by the sweat of his brow.

if you want to lash on to your revisionist history. the fact is that the south had enormous enlistment rates and the way the south went about the rebellion in 1863 is nothing like the revolutionary war.

But that wasn't because the common southern man was trying to protect the rich slave owners.

(04-18-2014 07:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Oh really?

What corporation were slave holders a part of?

corporate interests dumb***. its a general term to describe how the the influence of the largest business's of the day were the ones that favor secession and saw the most benefit.

are you always this annoying/dumb???

is it completely beneath you to realize the concept of the 1% even in the 1860s?

(04-18-2014 07:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This argument is getting really dumb really fast.


Oh, John's here.

Carry on!

Silvery/corporate interests LOL! Ahahahahahaha

anyone who knows a damn about the civil war WITHOUT the revisionist bullsh!t knows that succession was pushed mostly by corporate interests

Jonnyzero, please keep telling us the story about succession. That's another of my faves...

Easily, and without any doubt, argument or anything else possible- the most racist people with out any question about it, that I have had to deal with in any great capacity hail from either Massachusetts or Rhode Island. Not even close. Eastern shore of Maryland comes in a close 3rd.

(04-18-2014 07:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Oh really?

What corporation were slave holders a part of?

corporate interests dumb***. its a general term to describe how the the influence of the largest business's of the day were the ones that favor secession and saw the most benefit.

are you always this annoying/dumb???

is it completely beneath you to realize the concept of the 1% even in the 1860s?

That's not what corporate interests means. LOL

So again, what corporations were there? I'll wait.

Do you know what a corporation is?

(04-18-2014 07:23 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:12 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 06:40 PM)Smaug Wrote:  That's a great question. I've often wondered that, myself.

because secession was pushed by corporate interests and once that happened the south relied on peer pressure to get men to enlist. when that stopped working they relied on economic/social pressure. when that stopped working they implemented the draft which lead to the highest draft rate this country has ever seen and to my knowledge I don't believe any 1800s army from a european power ever had draft rates that high.

That is nonsense John. The southern man was tired of watching the north take their raw material and turn a profit. It was about the control of cotton and textiles. Only rich plantation owners acquired slaves. The common man was poor and lived by the sweat of his brow.

if you want to lash on to your revisionist history. the fact is that the south had enormous enlistment rates and the way the south went about the rebellion in 1863 is nothing like the revolutionary war.

But that wasn't because the common southern man was trying to protect the rich slave owners.

that sentence was a typo. i meant to say forced enlistment.

special interests my friend. rebellions in the 1800s almost always came down to what was in the best interests of the 1%'s bank account than the commoner defending his homeland.

the rich write the bulls!t and get the rest of the country to buy it.

thats how it happened in 1776 & 1861

(04-18-2014 07:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Oh really?

What corporation were slave holders a part of?

corporate interests dumb***. its a general term to describe how the the influence of the largest business's of the day were the ones that favor secession and saw the most benefit.

are you always this annoying/dumb???

is it completely beneath you to realize the concept of the 1% even in the 1860s?

That's not what corporate interests means. LOL

So again, what corporations were there? I'll wait.

Do you know what a corporation is?

here we go

i make a valid point: dixie goes bonkers fixated on a technicality that has absolutely nothing to do with THE ACTUAL ARGUMENT.

if you wanna be the ******** who thinks big money $$$ interests didn't influence politics in the 1860s then you have proven your own stupidity.

you see its easier to simplify. instead of having to say all of that ^^^ a simply "corporate interests" is a lot easier and anyone who is remotely smart can understand what I am getting at. but no you with the routine BS such as this trying to dodge a talking point gets fixated on a trivial irrelevant talking point ==> from my experiences only the dumb ones resort to that.

(04-18-2014 07:28 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This argument is getting really dumb really fast.


Oh, John's here.

Carry on!

Silvery/corporate interests LOL! Ahahahahahaha

anyone who knows a damn about the civil war WITHOUT the revisionist bullsh!t knows that succession was pushed mostly by corporate interests

Jonnyzero, please keep telling us the story about succession. That's another of my faves...

Easily, and without any doubt, argument or anything else possible- the most racist people with out any question about it, that I have had to deal with in any great capacity hail from either Massachusetts or Rhode Island. Not even close. Eastern shore of Maryland comes in a close 3rd.

hey at least we care enough about racism to actually charge people with hate crimes on a regular basis

Everybody who read what you are wrote about "corporate interests" assumed you were as stupid as I know you are. You'd think you would want to speak accurately instead of saying moronic stuff.

And that "experience," is that from your brothers study group?

it is sad really. How little 90% of americans understand about the civil war. but that is the product of 100+ years of politicians/special interests writing textbooks

(04-18-2014 07:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Everybody who read what you are wrote about "corporate interests" assumed you were as stupid as I know you are. You'd think you would want to speak accurately instead of saying moronic stuff.

And that "experience," is that from your brothers study group?

so do you deny the notion that big business had a major influence on politics in this time period?

please answer because I want to see you admit your own stupidity.

and fyi the very fact that you make such a big stink about this corporate interests comments shows
1. you want to dodge the actual conversation
2. you are just trolling
3. you are too dumb to understand the concept of generalized terms

Big business? No

That's inaccurate. You're talking about a rural society. There were no big corporate or business interests but a landed gentry. Now, if you want to talk about that is be happy to but you're using terms you don't understand and belittling yourself and the conversation by adding in stuff that is blatantly stupid.

(04-18-2014 07:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:28 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 07:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This argument is getting really dumb really fast.


Oh, John's here.

Carry on!

Silvery/corporate interests LOL! Ahahahahahaha

anyone who knows a damn about the civil war WITHOUT the revisionist bullsh!t knows that succession was pushed mostly by corporate interests

Jonnyzero, please keep telling us the story about succession. That's another of my faves...

Easily, and without any doubt, argument or anything else possible- the most racist people with out any question about it, that I have had to deal with in any great capacity hail from either Massachusetts or Rhode Island. Not even close. Eastern shore of Maryland comes in a close 3rd.

hey at least we care enough about racism to actually charge people with hate crimes on a regular basis

Oh, goody. another of my favorite Fairy Tales- is this the one about "more crime equals less crime and less crime equals more crime"? I LOVED that one. It kept me in giggles and stitches for days.

Oh, please, please, tell that one again!!!

These people that look to be offended and want to rewrite history make me sick.