Civil War

Freddy Figbottom said:
Its a direct rebuttal do your argument about tariffs causing domestic oligarchies.

oh no, don't throw me in that Tariff Patch, Br'er dumbass.

you forgot, you're not arguing with some dumb cultural marxist.

you got me on the line and i'll break your pole and pull you in the water.
Click to expand...
At least somebody knows who Br'er Rabbit is.
Many have been deprived of knowing who that is.
A century or more of Uncle Remus was in America.
And no, it was not racist, it was reality of the situation.
Many truths were told in Uncle Remus.
Leftards have no clue who that is I bet.
Thank God I grew up in a different America than that.
 
EdwinA said:
Lincoln had more support among the 100 War Democrats in Congress and the Senate than he did most Republicans. The only member of his Cabinet who supported going to war was a turncoat Democrat, his Postmaster General; Winfield Scott and the only actual abolitionist in his Cabinet, Seward, opposed it, along with the other six members.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you've read some stuff.
Aw, dude, when I was young, there was a Matthew Brady Civil War picture tacked to my great-grandma's cedar chest.
It was a battalion. It may still be around. The Cedar Chest is..
 
Matt Dillon said:
Yeah, you've read some stuff.
Aw, dude, when I was young, there was a Matthew Brady Civil War picture tacked to my great-grandma's cedar chest.
It was a battalion. It may still be around. The Cedar Chest is..
Click to expand...

I've read real history. One of my ancestors started a Cavalry unit that was later absorbed into the Union Army, so it's not like I have any family who fought for the South; I just prefer real history to ideological rubbish. The South shot itself in the foot because of their slave economy discouraging white immigration and the mindless pursuit of laissez faire, which is why they lost the war; they never invested anything in other enterprises, their capital followed the highest returns, so they never invested anything in ship building, ironworks, or railroads.

This guy says it all for me:


And here is what bothers me so much about modern "scholarship." At what point did history become ethics? Why should we subvert the elusive search for facts to moralist concerns? So what if they are on or off the hook? If you want to be a preacher, go preach. If you want to save the world, go into politics. If you want to invent a world free of evil, take prozac. It was said in Ecclesiastes and it still is true today,people suck. They did then, all of them. They do now, all of us.History is the history of self-interested, competing, aggressive,selfish, murderous humans. At what point did it become a morality play? -Dave WIlliams, George mason Univ.

I'm the with Jewish history or anybody else's. My Conservative Jewish grandparents were the same away about Jewish history, and didn't buy the current propaganda nonsense put out about the 'centuries of evul Xian hatred and bigotry' currently peddled by their own propagandists. They pointed out that Jews fared far better than most ever did as a people, and virtually all their problems were self-inflicted, same with every other peoples on the planet; they were self-isolating arrogant snobs who thought themselves a 'master race'. Not until their own 'min-Enlightenment' in the late 18th and early 19th centuries did they become the great movers of science and secular literature they have been the last 300 years or so, and are no more special than any other families who emphasized education and literacy among its children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top