Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: A History Lesson


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A History Lesson Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A History Lesson - 8/23/2017 7:39:07 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

Then I guess the real problem is the same problem right now.

KKK, Nazis and White Supremacists will never associate with Democrats and will only be Republicans.

Same with back then, KKK, Nazis and White Supremacists will never associate with whatever the winning party is.

And only associate with Confederate.

But is there evidence that there were Confederate who fought against Slavery?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_in_the_American_Civil_War

East Tennessee was a stronghold of Unionism; most slaves were house servants—luxuries—rather than the base of plantation operations. The dominant mood strongly opposed secession.[22] Tennesseans representing twenty-six East Tennessee counties met twice in Greeneville and Knoxville and agreed to secede from Tennessee (see East Tennessee Convention of 1861.) They petitioned the state legislature in Nashville, which denied their request to secede and sent Confederate troops under Felix Zollicoffer to occupy East Tennessee and prevent secession.

East Tennessee thus came under Confederate control from 1861 to 1863. Nevertheless East Tennessee supplied significant numbers of troops to the Federal army. (See also Nickajack). Many East Tennesseans engaged in guerrilla warfare against state authorities by burning bridges, cutting telegraph wires, and spying for the North.[23] East Tennessee became an early base for the Republican Party in the South. Strong support for the Union challenged the Confederate commanders who controlled East Tennessee for most of the war. Generals Felix K. Zollicoffer, Edmund Kirby Smith, and Sam Jones oscillated between harsh measures and conciliatory gestures to gain support, but had little success whether they arrested hundreds of Unionist leaders or allowed men to escape the Confederate draft. Union forces finally captured the region in 1863.[24]

General William Sherman's famous March to the Sea saw him personally escorted by the 1st Alabama Cavalry Regiment, which consisted entirely of Unionist southerners. Despite its name, the regiment consisted largely of men from Tennessee.


_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to Greta75)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: A History Lesson - 8/23/2017 8:10:58 AM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

Because I am very lazy to read up detailed information about the civil war and why people are so against the Confederate. And why the Confederate are associated with White Supremacy.

I asked my very leftie White American BFF to give me a very short history lesson when we were bickering about the VA incident, where obviously his stance was, "Nazi and White Supremacists are always wrong!" And well, everyone here has more or less seen my views on the matter.

So he made it very straight forward.

Confederate was the camp that wants slavery to stay around forever, but lost the war, and because they lost, did slavery get eliminated. If they had won, slavery would still have existed today.

Thus they are associated with everything slavery and nothing confederate should even be celebrated or respected or worshiped. My BFF felt disgusted by anybody who drives around with the confederate flag because of what they represented to him.

So what is the rightie argument on this? That is pretty straight forward.

Why preserve anything confederate at all? Or give it any attention?

Sorry, America ain't my country, and there are too many countries in this world to learn all their detailed history. And in schools, any white country history is not part of our curriculum AT ALL. Not even UK despite them colonizing us in the past.

But I cannot believe we had to learn India's history. Trust me, i can't spell anybody's names in that history!





Southerners don't give a damn about slavery. The issue of partisan politics of one region of the country bleeding another part of the country.
Someone mentioned a land grab; the land grab perpetrated during the ten years of military occupation of the southern states called "reconstruction" was never forgiven.

If you run across Andrew Johnson's autobiography; you can here his reasons for not prosecuting any of the Confederate leaders. By the way, not prosecuting Confederate leaders was one of the main reason's President Andrew Johnson was impeached. Andrew Johnson invited the Supreme Court Justices to adivise him on the best way to proceed against the insurrectionist leaders. The Supreme Court informed him that they would have to rule, if it came to them, that the prosecution of a war against seceding states was unconstitutional. Andrew Johnson elected to proceed with Lincoln's policy of reconciliation and healing and not open the can of worms that prosecution of southerners would open.

The written Articles of Impeachment were written to accuse Johnson of High Crimes and Misdemeanors in ignoring a law passed by Congress that Johnson considered unconstitutional. Johnson was later proven right.

The real issue was over raping and punishing the Southern States or reintegrating the south into the Union. Eventually, the punishment faction won. Laws were passed to assure the recently freed slaves would not benefit from reconstruction money or having a vote and to confiscate property and sell off to corporate interests from the Northern States.

The Confederate memorials are, for many, a symbol of a noble but failed attempt at preventing their lives from being controlled and manipulated by big money interests far removed from your life. The propaganda portraying southerners as inbred ignorant racists to provide an excuse for the rape of the south has been going on for over 100 years. Yet, in the heyday of the racist KKK; there were more members in Illinois and Indiana than ever there were in the whole of the Southern States.

The bigoted and prejudiced narrative of the socialist left is not all there is to the story.

(in reply to Greta75)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: A History Lesson - 8/23/2017 11:51:05 AM   
Edwird


Posts: 3558
Joined: 5/2/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
The Confederate memorials are, for many, a symbol of a noble but failed attempt at preventing their lives from being controlled and manipulated by big money interests far removed from your life.


And for some (including myself and others), they are just monuments to stupidity run amok.

So while we're at it; when are the monuments to 'The war for the Union' and statues of inept union generals in Illinois and upstate NY coming down?

War 'memorials' serve no other purpose than to distract the populace from the fact that those who propose to lead us too often lead us down the path of our own destruction, to their own ends. Fuck me if I'm going to give homage to the destroyers of society and civilization, no matter how many dead soldiers and generals they parade before us to paint it in 'heroic' or 'patriotic' terms.

quote:

The propaganda portraying southerners as inbred ignorant racists to provide an excuse for the rape of the south has been going on for over 100 years. Yet, in the heyday of the racist KKK; there were more members in Illinois and Indiana than ever there were in the whole of the Southern States.


Indeed it has, and the neo-nazis are far more prevalent in the Midwest and far West US than in the South, but people prefer myth to fact oftentimes.

Which brings us to . . .

quote:

The bigoted and prejudiced narrative of the socialist left is not all there is to the story.


And you were doing so well, before you blew it to shit with that one.

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: A History Lesson - 8/23/2017 12:24:15 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

Here is some food for thought in these troubling times. All of this is fact, and is public record.

The Civil War almost happened in 1832. Prior to the Revenue Act of 1861, there was no federal income tax in the US. Prior to that, 90% of federal revenue was derived from import tariffs. These tariffs varied by goods but averaged 15 to 20%. In turn, the European countries that were importing US goods charged a similar tariff rate.

Nation to nation this may seem like an equitable arrangement, but domestically it was very unbalanced. The bulk of industrial goods, produced in the north, were being consumed within the US. On the other hand, 80% of the agricultural goods produced in the south were being exported. In short, the tariff was forcing the south to charge higher prices for the goods that it sold, while at the same time forcing them to pay more for the industrial goods that they had to purchase.

In the early to mid 1800’s, the south only comprised about 30% of the US population, but it was paying about 80% of the revenue that the federal government was collecting.

Things came to a head in 1832, the fed had enacted two new tariffs and had effectively raised the tariff rate to almost 50%. South Carolina responded with a state convention and articles of nullification. This nearly led to secession and armed conflict. This is know as the “Nullification Crisis”. Fortunately, a compromise was reached in 1833 and the tariff rate was reduced to an average of 20%.

In the late 1850’s, the US was experiencing a recession. The recession had the most effect on the industrial north. Using the recession as an excuse, in May of 1860, the federal government passed the Morrill Tariff. This effectively raised the tariff rate to 50%. This was a highly partisan act. Only one southern congressman, out of 50, voted in favor of the tariff.

South Carolina responded in December by seceding from the union. They were quickly followed, in January of 1861, by five more southern states. By June of 1861, the eleven primary southern states had all seceded from the union.

This was major concern to the northern controlled union government. They new how much they relied upon the south for federal revenue. Conversely, the general populace in the north had an attitude of “let them go”. They didn’t see the significance of the departure of the southern states and also most people recognized that the union was designed for mutual benefit and also recognized that each state had a right to secede.

Www.overpassesforamerica.com › ?p=54695

What Tamaka convienently forgot to put in her brief history lesson, in order of priority:


States' Rights
The idea of states' rights was not new to the Civil War. Since the Constitution was first written there had been arguments about how much power the states should have versus how much power the federal government should have. The southern states felt that the federal government was taking away their rights and powers.

Expansion
As the United States continued to expand westward, each new state added to the country shifted the power between the North and the South. Southern states began to fear they would lose so much power that they would lose all their rights. Each new state became a battleground between the two sides for power.

Slavery
Contrary to what movies and TV series about the war would want you to believe, the southern land owners money was not tied up in land, crops or even privately owned cotton gins.

Their money was tied up in slaves.

Cotton is still a labor intensive crop, albeit the labor is now mechanical, but prior to mechanical harvesters there was only one way to harvest the crop, by hand.
This required a lot of cheap labor.

Now, what the op forgot to mention was that, cotton was exported from the south, but less than 40% of the crop went to foreign markets, most went to mills in the North.

Mills that would not purchase the more expensive foreign produced cotton from countries that had abolished slavery and thus were paying people to pick the crops, making the end product more expensive.

Of course, cotton would not have been a major crop in the South had it not been for Eli Whitney inventing the cotton gin.

Picking the cotton was only part of the problem, the real issue was separating cotton from the seeds. Prior to the invention of the cotton gin, it was done by carding, which is a hand separating process and required more slaves than it was worth.

Prior to the invention of the cotton gin, other crops dominated the south, indigo, tobacco were primary crops, along with the staple food crops.

None of these required a large number of slaves, so in essence, slavery (on a massive scale) was on its way out.

The cotton gin ended that, and cotton became king.

Another issue about slavery that many do not know, but I have mentioned countless times.

Prior to the civil war, during the late 1840's and through the 1850's there were some massive cotton crop failures in the south, due to a bug that loves cotton, the boil weevil.

This meant that plantation owners needed loans to buy seeds for the next years crops. Banking was big business in the North, not so much in the south. Northern banks flocked to the south to give loans, and being good business men, saw that the land or even a percentage of the future crop paled in value to the slaves that worked the crops.

90% of those loans made were made with the slaves as the main collateral, the land and facilities as secondary collateral, at least in the last years leading up to the civil war.

Finally, while Boston, New York and the wealthy ship owners may have had abolitionist sympathies, they were business people at heart.

Ships sailed from nothern ports with goods bound for European ports, which in turn were sold to buy goods desired in Africa.

The goods sold in Africa bought slaves bound at first to the Southern states, and after the laws passed making importing slaves illegal, to ports in the Indies where they were sold to buy sugar, molasses and Rum.

While more than willing to abolish slavery, these people were also more than willing to make a profit off the slave trade.

Bleeding Kansas
Some historians would make the case for this violent conflict as the first shots of the civil war.

While Kansas eventually entered the union as a free state, the violence continued for years, and during the civil war, raiders from Kansas carried out bloody raids into slave states, in some cases making those conducted by Bloody Bill Anderson look almost pacifistic in comparison.

Abraham Lincoln
Many states made it clear if Lincoln won the election that they would secede from the Union.

Lincoln won the election even though he was not on the ballot in ten southern states.

A few other facts about Lincoln that Americans want to ignore.

In 1833, the British Empire outlawed slavery.

They also compensated slave owners totaling 20 million pounds sterling, so British Empire slave owners did not go broke over night.

Similar legislation was introduced four times prior to the civil war and each time either did not pass senate and house vote or never made it out of committee.

The justification given, "Southern slave owners should not profit from the abolishing of slavery."

In other words, not only was the anti slave north more than willing to abolish slavery, but they were equally willing to live families destitute in the process, by eliminating financial assets.

Lincoln was one of the Northern politicians that favored abolishing slavery without compensation.

Of course, it has already been mentioned that after the civil war, no laws were passed at a Federal level that protected the now free slaves, they could not vote, it was legal to pay them far less than what a white worker was paid, and as far as rights went, on some levels they had more rights as slaves than as free men.

And it was true even in the US Army.

Black soldiers got paid a third of what a white soldier (or even an Indian scout) was paid. They were equipped with weapons that substandard compared to whites (who were using the new weapons with brass cartridges rather than cap and ball) and often wore uniforms that barely held together being of sub standard quality.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to tamaka)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: A History Lesson - 8/24/2017 10:08:35 AM   
MercTech


Posts: 3706
Joined: 7/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

Then I guess the real problem is the same problem right now.

KKK, Nazis and White Supremacists will never associate with Democrats and will only be Republicans.

Same with back then, KKK, Nazis and White Supremacists will never associate with whatever the winning party is.

And only associate with Confederate.

But is there evidence that there were Confederate who fought against Slavery?


The Democratic Party was the party of the KKK, the party of National Socialism, the party of Eugenics. Despite the spin doctoring started in 1968; the core belief that the majority of people are incapable of ordering their own lives but must be controlled remains.

(in reply to Greta75)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: A History Lesson - 8/24/2017 10:20:41 AM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
And they're still at it:

http://www.guns.com/2017/08/23/the-hill-op-ed-gun-control-laws-have-racist-origins/

(in reply to MercTech)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: A History Lesson - 8/24/2017 10:31:44 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Ive missed much lately, not the news, but the posts that forced the mods to go into action. I dunno what or why.
but it certainly seems to have been a useless endeavour.




You missed a lot lately because you were manipulating weather patterns causing my little corner of west Texas to experience 4 days of severe thunderstorms in an attempt to drown me, bury me in red clay mud and other evils that may befall someone caught in one of those beasts.

While your attempts failed pitifully, you did delay my completion of the new front porch and steps by three days, and completely destroyed my herb garden.

To borrow the immortal words of B. Bunny, "I hope you know this means war."

I am presently working on a counter attack involving 90 feet of snow falling on your fair city on the first of November.

Should make for some good skiing hey ? Well ok, at least...for a while.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: A History Lesson - 8/24/2017 10:45:43 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

Here is some food for thought in these troubling times. All of this is fact, and is public record.

The Civil War almost happened in 1832. Prior to the Revenue Act of 1861, there was no federal income tax in the US. Prior to that, 90% of federal revenue was derived from import tariffs. These tariffs varied by goods but averaged 15 to 20%. In turn, the European countries that were importing US goods charged a similar tariff rate.

Nation to nation this may seem like an equitable arrangement, but domestically it was very unbalanced. The bulk of industrial goods, produced in the north, were being consumed within the US. On the other hand, 80% of the agricultural goods produced in the south were being exported. In short, the tariff was forcing the south to charge higher prices for the goods that it sold, while at the same time forcing them to pay more for the industrial goods that they had to purchase.

In the early to mid 1800’s, the south only comprised about 30% of the US population, but it was paying about 80% of the revenue that the federal government was collecting.

Things came to a head in 1832, the fed had enacted two new tariffs and had effectively raised the tariff rate to almost 50%. South Carolina responded with a state convention and articles of nullification. This nearly led to secession and armed conflict. This is know as the “Nullification Crisis”. Fortunately, a compromise was reached in 1833 and the tariff rate was reduced to an average of 20%.

In the late 1850’s, the US was experiencing a recession. The recession had the most effect on the industrial north. Using the recession as an excuse, in May of 1860, the federal government passed the Morrill Tariff. This effectively raised the tariff rate to 50%. This was a highly partisan act. Only one southern congressman, out of 50, voted in favor of the tariff.

South Carolina responded in December by seceding from the union. They were quickly followed, in January of 1861, by five more southern states. By June of 1861, the eleven primary southern states had all seceded from the union.

This was major concern to the northern controlled union government. They new how much they relied upon the south for federal revenue. Conversely, the general populace in the north had an attitude of “let them go”. They didn’t see the significance of the departure of the southern states and also most people recognized that the union was designed for mutual benefit and also recognized that each state had a right to secede.

Www.overpassesforamerica.com › ?p=54695

This is horrible, these facts imply that there were other reasons in addition to slavery for the Civil War.
That is a theory that makes you a racist.

I would have empathy I guess the word is now and I could say the tariffs were key. But I don't.

The cotton was getting a very fair price given that there was say...lots of cotton, which forced the south to seek export markets. Still, the south could out produce US demand and why ?

Because and particularly in view of the hard costs to industrialized north, plus labor costs affected price. So it was with almost no effort on the part of the south to produce, Seeds, water, sun and slaves. 'Cotton was King.'

So the even average let alone large cotton farmers had to do almost nothing at all to bring in great profits, almost all they took in, was profits. Little to no production costs. All he needed was land plus the others.

So it was as is typical today...g r e e d. Those poor southern cotton and agric. slave owners didn't 'work' for a living, they watched, enjoyed and got rich. So it was greed that was the incentive for slaves, the incentive against tariffs and the incentive to secede.

Why am I not surprised ?

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: A History Lesson - 8/24/2017 11:00:00 AM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

Here is some food for thought in these troubling times. All of this is fact, and is public record.

The Civil War almost happened in 1832. Prior to the Revenue Act of 1861, there was no federal income tax in the US. Prior to that, 90% of federal revenue was derived from import tariffs. These tariffs varied by goods but averaged 15 to 20%. In turn, the European countries that were importing US goods charged a similar tariff rate.

Nation to nation this may seem like an equitable arrangement, but domestically it was very unbalanced. The bulk of industrial goods, produced in the north, were being consumed within the US. On the other hand, 80% of the agricultural goods produced in the south were being exported. In short, the tariff was forcing the south to charge higher prices for the goods that it sold, while at the same time forcing them to pay more for the industrial goods that they had to purchase.

In the early to mid 1800’s, the south only comprised about 30% of the US population, but it was paying about 80% of the revenue that the federal government was collecting.

Things came to a head in 1832, the fed had enacted two new tariffs and had effectively raised the tariff rate to almost 50%. South Carolina responded with a state convention and articles of nullification. This nearly led to secession and armed conflict. This is know as the “Nullification Crisis”. Fortunately, a compromise was reached in 1833 and the tariff rate was reduced to an average of 20%.

In the late 1850’s, the US was experiencing a recession. The recession had the most effect on the industrial north. Using the recession as an excuse, in May of 1860, the federal government passed the Morrill Tariff. This effectively raised the tariff rate to 50%. This was a highly partisan act. Only one southern congressman, out of 50, voted in favor of the tariff.

South Carolina responded in December by seceding from the union. They were quickly followed, in January of 1861, by five more southern states. By June of 1861, the eleven primary southern states had all seceded from the union.

This was major concern to the northern controlled union government. They new how much they relied upon the south for federal revenue. Conversely, the general populace in the north had an attitude of “let them go”. They didn’t see the significance of the departure of the southern states and also most people recognized that the union was designed for mutual benefit and also recognized that each state had a right to secede.

Www.overpassesforamerica.com › ?p=54695

This is horrible, these facts imply that there were other reasons in addition to slavery for the Civil War.
That is a theory that makes you a racist.

I would have empathy I guess the word is now and I could say the tariffs were key. But I don't.

The cotton was getting a very fair price given that there was say...lots of cotton, which forced the south to seek export markets. Still, the south could out produce US demand and why ?

Because and particularly in view of the hard costs to industrialized north, plus labor costs affected price. So it was with almost no effort on the part of the south to produce, Seeds, water, sun and slaves. 'Cotton was King.'

So the even average let alone large cotton farmers had to do almost nothing at all to bring in great profits, almost all they took in, was profits. Little to no production costs. All he needed was land plus the others.

So it was as is typical today...g r e e d. Those poor southern cotton and agric. slave owners didn't 'work' for a living, they watched, enjoyed and got rich. So it was greed that was the incentive for slaves, the incentive against tariffs and the incentive to secede.

Why am I not surprised ?

Yes! And that's why those durn southners lost the war. Just way to out of shape from drinking mint juleps all day and night.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: A History Lesson - 8/24/2017 11:30:13 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I would have empathy I guess the word is now and I could say the tariffs were key. But I don't.

The cotton was getting a very fair price given that there was say...lots of cotton, which forced the south to seek export markets. Still, the south could out produce US demand and why ?

Because and particularly in view of the hard costs to industrialized north, plus labor costs affected price. So it was with almost no effort on the part of the south to produce, Seeds, water, sun and slaves. 'Cotton was King.'

So the even average let alone large cotton farmers had to do almost nothing at all to bring in great profits, almost all they took in, was profits. Little to no production costs. All he needed was land plus the others.

So it was as is typical today...g r e e d. Those poor southern cotton and agric. slave owners didn't 'work' for a living, they watched, enjoyed and got rich. So it was greed that was the incentive for slaves, the incentive against tariffs and the incentive to secede.

Why am I not surprised ?


You missed a key part of the equation, the only thing that made cotton profitable was the cotton gin.

Even today cotton is a problematic crop.

It is susceptible to a multitude of plant diseases, needs a lot of irrigation to get the plant established in the first part of the growing cycle then when it is close to being harvested, any large amounts of rain will leave it to rot in the fields.

As for greed, the northern states had its far share, and the simple fact that it was northern congress members that killed each attempt to eliminate slavery without financially ruining southern slave owners is a damn good example.

After the civil war, plantations that were not foreclosed on by banks based in the north were bought up at prices that were pennies on the dollar when compared to value, and what did these carpet bagger land buyers do? Put freed slaves back to work on the same damn plantations as share croppers, which was little better than being slaves.

These share croppers had to buy seed from the company owned supplier, sell to the designated buyers, without the option to seek other buyers, and then pay for the use of whatever equipment, clothing and food they used during the year.

Buy the time it was all said and done, the sharecroppers ended up owing the land owner money, and after the war, these were not former slave owners they owed.

If they tried to leave when they owed money, they had wonderful things called 'debtor's prisons," where they served time and worked off the debt.

But, according to these jackasses, the only people guilty of mistreating slaves and former slaves are southerners.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: A History Lesson - 8/24/2017 11:53:57 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I would have empathy I guess the word is now and I could say the tariffs were key. But I don't.

The cotton was getting a very fair price given that there was say...lots of cotton, which forced the south to seek export markets. Still, the south could out produce US demand and why ?

Because and particularly in view of the hard costs to industrialized north, plus labor costs affected price. So it was with almost no effort on the part of the south to produce, Seeds, water, sun and slaves. 'Cotton was King.'

So the even average let alone large cotton farmers had to do almost nothing at all to bring in great profits, almost all they took in, was profits. Little to no production costs. All he needed was land plus the others.

So it was as is typical today...g r e e d. Those poor southern cotton and agric. slave owners didn't 'work' for a living, they watched, enjoyed and got rich. So it was greed that was the incentive for slaves, the incentive against tariffs and the incentive to secede.

Why am I not surprised ?


You missed a key part of the equation, the only thing that made cotton profitable was the cotton gin.

Even today cotton is a problematic crop.

It is susceptible to a multitude of plant diseases, needs a lot of irrigation to get the plant established in the first part of the growing cycle then when it is close to being harvested, any large amounts of rain will leave it to rot in the fields.

As for greed, the northern states had its far share, and the simple fact that it was northern congress members that killed each attempt to eliminate slavery without financially ruining southern slave owners is a damn good example.

After the civil war, plantations that were not foreclosed on by banks based in the north were bought up at prices that were pennies on the dollar when compared to value, and what did these carpet bagger land buyers do? Put freed slaves back to work on the same damn plantations as share croppers, which was little better than being slaves.

These share croppers had to buy seed from the company owned supplier, sell to the designated buyers, without the option to seek other buyers, and then pay for the use of whatever equipment, clothing and food they used during the year.

Buy the time it was all said and done, the sharecroppers ended up owing the land owner money, and after the war, these were not former slave owners they owed.

If they tried to leave when they owed money, they had wonderful things called 'debtor's prisons," where they served time and worked off the debt.

But, according to these jackasses, the only people guilty of mistreating slaves and former slaves are southerners.

Careful, Jeff, you keep feeding these people historical facts and you'll blow them out of their comfort zone.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: A History Lesson - 8/24/2017 12:05:08 PM   
BoscoX


Posts: 11239
Joined: 12/10/2016
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

Here is some food for thought in these troubling times. All of this is fact, and is public record.

The Civil War almost happened in 1832. Prior to the Revenue Act of 1861, there was no federal income tax in the US. Prior to that, 90% of federal revenue was derived from import tariffs. These tariffs varied by goods but averaged 15 to 20%. In turn, the European countries that were importing US goods charged a similar tariff rate.

Nation to nation this may seem like an equitable arrangement, but domestically it was very unbalanced. The bulk of industrial goods, produced in the north, were being consumed within the US. On the other hand, 80% of the agricultural goods produced in the south were being exported. In short, the tariff was forcing the south to charge higher prices for the goods that it sold, while at the same time forcing them to pay more for the industrial goods that they had to purchase.

In the early to mid 1800’s, the south only comprised about 30% of the US population, but it was paying about 80% of the revenue that the federal government was collecting.

Things came to a head in 1832, the fed had enacted two new tariffs and had effectively raised the tariff rate to almost 50%. South Carolina responded with a state convention and articles of nullification. This nearly led to secession and armed conflict. This is know as the “Nullification Crisis”. Fortunately, a compromise was reached in 1833 and the tariff rate was reduced to an average of 20%.

In the late 1850’s, the US was experiencing a recession. The recession had the most effect on the industrial north. Using the recession as an excuse, in May of 1860, the federal government passed the Morrill Tariff. This effectively raised the tariff rate to 50%. This was a highly partisan act. Only one southern congressman, out of 50, voted in favor of the tariff.

South Carolina responded in December by seceding from the union. They were quickly followed, in January of 1861, by five more southern states. By June of 1861, the eleven primary southern states had all seceded from the union.

This was major concern to the northern controlled union government. They new how much they relied upon the south for federal revenue. Conversely, the general populace in the north had an attitude of “let them go”. They didn’t see the significance of the departure of the southern states and also most people recognized that the union was designed for mutual benefit and also recognized that each state had a right to secede.

Www.overpassesforamerica.com › ?p=54695


Careful, tamaka, you keep feeding these people historical facts and you'll blow them out of their comfort zone.

_____________________________

Thought Criminal

(in reply to tamaka)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: A History Lesson - 8/24/2017 12:21:44 PM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

Here is some food for thought in these troubling times. All of this is fact, and is public record.

The Civil War almost happened in 1832. Prior to the Revenue Act of 1861, there was no federal income tax in the US. Prior to that, 90% of federal revenue was derived from import tariffs. These tariffs varied by goods but averaged 15 to 20%. In turn, the European countries that were importing US goods charged a similar tariff rate.

Nation to nation this may seem like an equitable arrangement, but domestically it was very unbalanced. The bulk of industrial goods, produced in the north, were being consumed within the US. On the other hand, 80% of the agricultural goods produced in the south were being exported. In short, the tariff was forcing the south to charge higher prices for the goods that it sold, while at the same time forcing them to pay more for the industrial goods that they had to purchase.

In the early to mid 1800’s, the south only comprised about 30% of the US population, but it was paying about 80% of the revenue that the federal government was collecting.

Things came to a head in 1832, the fed had enacted two new tariffs and had effectively raised the tariff rate to almost 50%. South Carolina responded with a state convention and articles of nullification. This nearly led to secession and armed conflict. This is know as the “Nullification Crisis”. Fortunately, a compromise was reached in 1833 and the tariff rate was reduced to an average of 20%.

In the late 1850’s, the US was experiencing a recession. The recession had the most effect on the industrial north. Using the recession as an excuse, in May of 1860, the federal government passed the Morrill Tariff. This effectively raised the tariff rate to 50%. This was a highly partisan act. Only one southern congressman, out of 50, voted in favor of the tariff.

South Carolina responded in December by seceding from the union. They were quickly followed, in January of 1861, by five more southern states. By June of 1861, the eleven primary southern states had all seceded from the union.

This was major concern to the northern controlled union government. They new how much they relied upon the south for federal revenue. Conversely, the general populace in the north had an attitude of “let them go”. They didn’t see the significance of the departure of the southern states and also most people recognized that the union was designed for mutual benefit and also recognized that each state had a right to secede.

Www.overpassesforamerica.com › ?p=54695


Careful, tamaka, you keep feeding these people historical facts and you'll blow them out of their comfort zone.

I'm glad to see you finally learned to post properly without trolling, attacks or hijacking.

Well done

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to BoscoX)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: A History Lesson - 8/24/2017 12:25:27 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

Here is some food for thought in these troubling times. All of this is fact, and is public record.

The Civil War almost happened in 1832. Prior to the Revenue Act of 1861, there was no federal income tax in the US. Prior to that, 90% of federal revenue was derived from import tariffs. These tariffs varied by goods but averaged 15 to 20%. In turn, the European countries that were importing US goods charged a similar tariff rate.

Nation to nation this may seem like an equitable arrangement, but domestically it was very unbalanced. The bulk of industrial goods, produced in the north, were being consumed within the US. On the other hand, 80% of the agricultural goods produced in the south were being exported. In short, the tariff was forcing the south to charge higher prices for the goods that it sold, while at the same time forcing them to pay more for the industrial goods that they had to purchase.

In the early to mid 1800’s, the south only comprised about 30% of the US population, but it was paying about 80% of the revenue that the federal government was collecting.

Things came to a head in 1832, the fed had enacted two new tariffs and had effectively raised the tariff rate to almost 50%. South Carolina responded with a state convention and articles of nullification. This nearly led to secession and armed conflict. This is know as the “Nullification Crisis”. Fortunately, a compromise was reached in 1833 and the tariff rate was reduced to an average of 20%.

In the late 1850’s, the US was experiencing a recession. The recession had the most effect on the industrial north. Using the recession as an excuse, in May of 1860, the federal government passed the Morrill Tariff. This effectively raised the tariff rate to 50%. This was a highly partisan act. Only one southern congressman, out of 50, voted in favor of the tariff.

South Carolina responded in December by seceding from the union. They were quickly followed, in January of 1861, by five more southern states. By June of 1861, the eleven primary southern states had all seceded from the union.

This was major concern to the northern controlled union government. They new how much they relied upon the south for federal revenue. Conversely, the general populace in the north had an attitude of “let them go”. They didn’t see the significance of the departure of the southern states and also most people recognized that the union was designed for mutual benefit and also recognized that each state had a right to secede.

Www.overpassesforamerica.com › ?p=54695

This is horrible, these facts imply that there were other reasons in addition to slavery for the Civil War.
That is a theory that makes you a racist.

I would have empathy I guess the word is now and I could say the tariffs were key. But I don't.

The cotton was getting a very fair price given that there was say...lots of cotton, which forced the south to seek export markets. Still, the south could out produce US demand and why ?

Because and particularly in view of the hard costs to industrialized north, plus labor costs affected price. So it was with almost no effort on the part of the south to produce, Seeds, water, sun and slaves. 'Cotton was King.'

So the even average let alone large cotton farmers had to do almost nothing at all to bring in great profits, almost all they took in, was profits. Little to no production costs. All he needed was land plus the others.

So it was as is typical today...g r e e d. Those poor southern cotton and agric. slave owners didn't 'work' for a living, they watched, enjoyed and got rich. So it was greed that was the incentive for slaves, the incentive against tariffs and the incentive to secede.

Why am I not surprised ?

Guess you didn't know that most slave owners worked along side their slaves.
Where did you get your info BLM?

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: A History Lesson - 8/24/2017 12:29:19 PM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD








Guess you didn't know that most slave owners worked along side their slaves.
Where did you get your info BLM?

I'd guess he watched Gone With the Wind

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: A History Lesson - 8/24/2017 1:21:22 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD








Guess you didn't know that most slave owners worked along side their slaves.
Where did you get your info BLM?

I'd guess he watched Gone With the Wind

And he isn't satisfied with being ignorant , he wants everyone to know it.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: A History Lesson - 8/24/2017 3:18:12 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

Here is some food for thought in these troubling times. All of this is fact, and is public record.

The Civil War almost happened in 1832. Prior to the Revenue Act of 1861, there was no federal income tax in the US. Prior to that, 90% of federal revenue was derived from import tariffs. These tariffs varied by goods but averaged 15 to 20%. In turn, the European countries that were importing US goods charged a similar tariff rate.

Nation to nation this may seem like an equitable arrangement, but domestically it was very unbalanced. The bulk of industrial goods, produced in the north, were being consumed within the US. On the other hand, 80% of the agricultural goods produced in the south were being exported. In short, the tariff was forcing the south to charge higher prices for the goods that it sold, while at the same time forcing them to pay more for the industrial goods that they had to purchase.

In the early to mid 1800’s, the south only comprised about 30% of the US population, but it was paying about 80% of the revenue that the federal government was collecting.

Things came to a head in 1832, the fed had enacted two new tariffs and had effectively raised the tariff rate to almost 50%. South Carolina responded with a state convention and articles of nullification. This nearly led to secession and armed conflict. This is know as the “Nullification Crisis”. Fortunately, a compromise was reached in 1833 and the tariff rate was reduced to an average of 20%.

In the late 1850’s, the US was experiencing a recession. The recession had the most effect on the industrial north. Using the recession as an excuse, in May of 1860, the federal government passed the Morrill Tariff. This effectively raised the tariff rate to 50%. This was a highly partisan act. Only one southern congressman, out of 50, voted in favor of the tariff.

South Carolina responded in December by seceding from the union. They were quickly followed, in January of 1861, by five more southern states. By June of 1861, the eleven primary southern states had all seceded from the union.

This was major concern to the northern controlled union government. They new how much they relied upon the south for federal revenue. Conversely, the general populace in the north had an attitude of “let them go”. They didn’t see the significance of the departure of the southern states and also most people recognized that the union was designed for mutual benefit and also recognized that each state had a right to secede.

Www.overpassesforamerica.com › ?p=54695

This is horrible, these facts imply that there were other reasons in addition to slavery for the Civil War.
That is a theory that makes you a racist.

I would have empathy I guess the word is now and I could say the tariffs were key. But I don't.

The cotton was getting a very fair price given that there was say...lots of cotton, which forced the south to seek export markets. Still, the south could out produce US demand and why ?

Because and particularly in view of the hard costs to industrialized north, plus labor costs affected price. So it was with almost no effort on the part of the south to produce, Seeds, water, sun and slaves. 'Cotton was King.'

So the even average let alone large cotton farmers had to do almost nothing at all to bring in great profits, almost all they took in, was profits. Little to no production costs. All he needed was land plus the others.

So it was as is typical today...g r e e d. Those poor southern cotton and agric. slave owners didn't 'work' for a living, they watched, enjoyed and got rich. So it was greed that was the incentive for slaves, the incentive against tariffs and the incentive to secede.

Why am I not surprised ?

Guess you didn't know that most slave owners worked along side their slaves.
Where did you get your info BLM?

As I've stated before, you need a tin foil hat while reading his stuff.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: A History Lesson - 8/25/2017 11:45:37 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I would have empathy I guess the word is now and I could say the tariffs were key. But I don't.

The cotton was getting a very fair price given that there was say...lots of cotton, which forced the south to seek export markets. Still, the south could out produce US demand and why ?

Because and particularly in view of the hard costs to industrialized north, plus labor costs affected price. So it was with almost no effort on the part of the south to produce, Seeds, water, sun and slaves. 'Cotton was King.'

So the even average let alone large cotton farmers had to do almost nothing at all to bring in great profits, almost all they took in, was profits. Little to no production costs. All he needed was land plus the others.

So it was as is typical today...g r e e d. Those poor southern cotton and agric. slave owners didn't 'work' for a living, they watched, enjoyed and got rich. So it was greed that was the incentive for slaves, the incentive against tariffs and the incentive to secede.

Why am I not surprised ?


You missed a key part of the equation, the only thing that made cotton profitable was the cotton gin.

Even today cotton is a problematic crop.

It is susceptible to a multitude of plant diseases, needs a lot of irrigation to get the plant established in the first part of the growing cycle then when it is close to being harvested, any large amounts of rain will leave it to rot in the fields.

As for greed, the northern states had its far share, and the simple fact that it was northern congress members that killed each attempt to eliminate slavery without financially ruining southern slave owners is a damn good example.

After the civil war, plantations that were not foreclosed on by banks based in the north were bought up at prices that were pennies on the dollar when compared to value, and what did these carpet bagger land buyers do? Put freed slaves back to work on the same damn plantations as share croppers, which was little better than being slaves.

These share croppers had to buy seed from the company owned supplier, sell to the designated buyers, without the option to seek other buyers, and then pay for the use of whatever equipment, clothing and food they used during the year.

Buy the time it was all said and done, the sharecroppers ended up owing the land owner money, and after the war, these were not former slave owners they owed.

If they tried to leave when they owed money, they had wonderful things called 'debtor's prisons," where they served time and worked off the debt.

But, according to these jackasses, the only people guilty of mistreating slaves and former slaves are southerners.

Careful, Jeff, you keep feeding these people historical facts and you'll blow them out of their comfort zone.

Pretty funny.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: A History Lesson - 8/25/2017 1:01:52 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I would have empathy I guess the word is now and I could say the tariffs were key. But I don't.

The cotton was getting a very fair price given that there was say...lots of cotton, which forced the south to seek export markets. Still, the south could out produce US demand and why ?

Because and particularly in view of the hard costs to industrialized north, plus labor costs affected price. So it was with almost no effort on the part of the south to produce, Seeds, water, sun and slaves. 'Cotton was King.'

So the even average let alone large cotton farmers had to do almost nothing at all to bring in great profits, almost all they took in, was profits. Little to no production costs. All he needed was land plus the others.

So it was as is typical today...g r e e d. Those poor southern cotton and agric. slave owners didn't 'work' for a living, they watched, enjoyed and got rich. So it was greed that was the incentive for slaves, the incentive against tariffs and the incentive to secede.

Why am I not surprised ?


You missed a key part of the equation, the only thing that made cotton profitable was the cotton gin.

Even today cotton is a problematic crop.

It is susceptible to a multitude of plant diseases, needs a lot of irrigation to get the plant established in the first part of the growing cycle then when it is close to being harvested, any large amounts of rain will leave it to rot in the fields.

As for greed, the northern states had its far share, and the simple fact that it was northern congress members that killed each attempt to eliminate slavery without financially ruining southern slave owners is a damn good example.

After the civil war, plantations that were not foreclosed on by banks based in the north were bought up at prices that were pennies on the dollar when compared to value, and what did these carpet bagger land buyers do? Put freed slaves back to work on the same damn plantations as share croppers, which was little better than being slaves.

These share croppers had to buy seed from the company owned supplier, sell to the designated buyers, without the option to seek other buyers, and then pay for the use of whatever equipment, clothing and food they used during the year.

Buy the time it was all said and done, the sharecroppers ended up owing the land owner money, and after the war, these were not former slave owners they owed.

If they tried to leave when they owed money, they had wonderful things called 'debtor's prisons," where they served time and worked off the debt.

But, according to these jackasses, the only people guilty of mistreating slaves and former slaves are southerners.

In fact, Rhode Island was the biggest slave-trading state in the north with 275 slave brokers or auctioneers. Banks all over the north (yes, the only real banking there was and all still private) had slaves as collateral for loans.

(tells you the bankers saw this, learned a quick lesson, let former slaves fend for themselves and control the currency and wages instead)

However, if the south had paid wages, allowed some participation in society, as many politicians even proposed...let slavery die a slow death.

Yes, the northerners had their greedy but did pay their people and didn't own them as chattel and whip them into shape.

The sharecropper was slavery by a different name until laws came around and is still alive and well today. Some deals are good, some not do good.

Still, throughout history, slavery was greed and avarice.

< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 8/25/2017 1:07:06 PM >


_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: A History Lesson - 8/25/2017 1:08:29 PM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

Here is some food for thought in these troubling times. All of this is fact, and is public record.

The Civil War almost happened in 1832. Prior to the Revenue Act of 1861, there was no federal income tax in the US. Prior to that, 90% of federal revenue was derived from import tariffs. These tariffs varied by goods but averaged 15 to 20%. In turn, the European countries that were importing US goods charged a similar tariff rate.

Nation to nation this may seem like an equitable arrangement, but domestically it was very unbalanced. The bulk of industrial goods, produced in the north, were being consumed within the US. On the other hand, 80% of the agricultural goods produced in the south were being exported. In short, the tariff was forcing the south to charge higher prices for the goods that it sold, while at the same time forcing them to pay more for the industrial goods that they had to purchase.

In the early to mid 1800’s, the south only comprised about 30% of the US population, but it was paying about 80% of the revenue that the federal government was collecting.

Things came to a head in 1832, the fed had enacted two new tariffs and had effectively raised the tariff rate to almost 50%. South Carolina responded with a state convention and articles of nullification. This nearly led to secession and armed conflict. This is know as the “Nullification Crisis”. Fortunately, a compromise was reached in 1833 and the tariff rate was reduced to an average of 20%.

In the late 1850’s, the US was experiencing a recession. The recession had the most effect on the industrial north. Using the recession as an excuse, in May of 1860, the federal government passed the Morrill Tariff. This effectively raised the tariff rate to 50%. This was a highly partisan act. Only one southern congressman, out of 50, voted in favor of the tariff.

South Carolina responded in December by seceding from the union. They were quickly followed, in January of 1861, by five more southern states. By June of 1861, the eleven primary southern states had all seceded from the union.

This was major concern to the northern controlled union government. They new how much they relied upon the south for federal revenue. Conversely, the general populace in the north had an attitude of “let them go”. They didn’t see the significance of the departure of the southern states and also most people recognized that the union was designed for mutual benefit and also recognized that each state had a right to secede.

Www.overpassesforamerica.com › ?p=54695

This is horrible, these facts imply that there were other reasons in addition to slavery for the Civil War.
That is a theory that makes you a racist.

I would have empathy I guess the word is now and I could say the tariffs were key. But I don't.

The cotton was getting a very fair price given that there was say...lots of cotton, which forced the south to seek export markets. Still, the south could out produce US demand and why ?

Because and particularly in view of the hard costs to industrialized north, plus labor costs affected price. So it was with almost no effort on the part of the south to produce, Seeds, water, sun and slaves. 'Cotton was King.'

So the even average let alone large cotton farmers had to do almost nothing at all to bring in great profits, almost all they took in, was profits. Little to no production costs. All he needed was land plus the others.

So it was as is typical today...g r e e d. Those poor southern cotton and agric. slave owners didn't 'work' for a living, they watched, enjoyed and got rich. So it was greed that was the incentive for slaves, the incentive against tariffs and the incentive to secede.

Why am I not surprised ?

Guess you didn't know that most slave owners worked along side their slaves.
Where did you get your info BLM?

Bullshit !! Most slave owners did nothing of the short and had foreman or overseers to handle their slaves. They certainly didn't work dawn until dusk and later during a full moon. As long as there was light...slaves could be out in the fields. Slave owners had a far superior diet, medical care and life expectancy of about twice that of the average slave.

Slave owners and their families enjoyed the best of everything life had to offer...slaves had none.

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A History Lesson Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125