The Confederacy was About Slavery

@Setanta,

The English and Amish way to grow tobacco in Pa uses

1germinated seedlings (this technique was developed in the early 1800's when ut was learned that "flea beetles" could be defeated by using sprouts)

THIS is still done byhand

2Planting has only recently been accomplished by row planter equipment. HOwever, even with auto plant means, two workers ride the planting frames to make sure that the plants are in correctly and watered at the roots.

3Early cultivation is done by machine but after the plants are about 6" high, they are cultivated by hand for the rest of the season.

4 Pest monitoring is done by hand since premium tobaccos are ALL grown organically (Kind of funny dont ya think? Heres a product that is made to kill you and they take care not to poison you too soon with pesticides)

5Topping and sucker trimming is still done by hand

6Although harvesting can be done by mchine, most growers prefer hand cutting the entire plant so that a "cut and come again" second harvest can be made

7racking and curing is all done by hand

8 "stripping" where the dried leaves are taken from the stalk, is all hand done, as is fire curing or cavendish curing . PA farmers still do shade grown and air dried tobacco because the leaf is the product and, by grade, the leaf can be worth between 1 dollar to 2 dollars a pound to the grower. Thats about 10 to 20 K pwer acre. (Thats why, fopr most of history, tobacco was called a "mortgage lifter crop" among the PA growers0

9Grading and stacking is hnd done

This is 2010 ways to grow tobacco in PA and the Tidewater growers had a much larger crop prior to switching to the large scale growth of cotton.
Every area hs its own way of tobcco growing mostly depending upon the type of market they seek to enter.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I see Joe has already dispensed with the silly mechanization argument. I had no intent to step on his toes.

Not a problem. I enjoyed reading your insights.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

The issu of slavery was that it was inhumane for a civilization. CDivil rights was a child of later times.

Freedom from slavery is a civil right.

Quote:

WHen you start acting like an asshole, I just like to remind you of your leading body part

Of course you are justified. What WAS I thinking ?

Quote:

He was a noted historian from the SOuth. Hed been bothered by the "states righters" hiding behind that statement and "Southern tradition" to explain the base of the War when, according to most all reasonable minds, it was all the issues that surrounded the industry of slavery.

He represents one point of view and you admit his position was based on politics.

Quote:

Youve a habit of attacking people who dont agree with you at which time you get petulant and childish.

Show me one instance where I have not been verbally attacked first. I give better than I recieve, but thats just because I am generous.

Quote:

attained some of their own credibility by hard work in reearching a topic.

You mean they research enough to fully understand the topic as soon as it is mentioned ? And they post the same day ? WOW ! Superman is alive and well.

Quote:

Something that Ive noted about you is that you are quite lazy when it comes to debate

If you think I am writing you are paper on everything we disagree about then you are silly. I have better things to do. my posts are based on a lifetime of reading and forming my own opinion.

Quote:

You claim that others arent "historians", yet when I posted a quote from a historian who ws recognized as one of the best when it came to Civil War social realities, you upped the ante to state that , as a historian he wasnt infallible.

They arent historians because they never mention the little titbits that historians know about. Transcribing google is a foolish attempt to impress the dull and ignorant. Quoting an historian who you agree with is hardly doing the matter justice.

Quote:

The fact that every reason for the civil war is focused upon slavery surely must occur to you.

Slavery was a very important issue in those times. But it did not cause the Civil War, it was not fought to free the slaves, and this red-neck bashing is just more PC thuggery. The southerners who fought and died in that war did so for family and honour and the men they fought with. To say their flag is a reflection of some kind of evil is to confuse the Nazi flag with the German flag.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Well, Boss,

Pucker up !!

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

After the Brits agreed to the Treaty of Paris in 1783, they continued to hold Detroit and Florida until the United States satisfied the claims of British subjects for losses and damages arising out of the revolution.

How is that relevant in law ?

Quote:

these coteries of political terrorists should be allowed to seize Federal property without compensation,

There was no federal land after the states legally seceeded. You have confused yourself on a runabout of you must be right therefore it is right.

Quote:

and the act of raising said troops and levying war was a clear violation of the third paragraph of Article One, Section ten of the constitution.

The act of stationing troops in a foriegn country is an act of war. The constitution protects the rights of states and citizens to bear arms against an unlawful government. After seceesion, the USA had NO RIGHTS as a legitimate government. THEIR constitution no longer applied.

Quote:

Yet we are to believe that somehow it was Mr. Lincoln's fault, that the South was forced into a war, that the war was not about the institution of slavery, and that the South were the innocent victims of Yankee aggression.

Apparently it was not legally possible to seceed from the union, and all of the USA's wars are legal including the Indian Wars and the Invasion of the Indian states.

Quote:

the product of an intentional and concerted propaganda campaign

They're out to get you arent they ? Look out ! There is one under the bed !

Quote:

Essentially, what happened is that the South started a war they couldn't win.

The south seceeded legally. The north started a war illegally by failing to remove troops from an independent state. Having won the war at great expense and the inhumane destruction of the south, the north then claimed it wasnt about power it was about freeing the slaves...you see ? Noble always...and half educated fools believe it.

Quote:

It would be laughable and pathetic

Your ego is laughable and pathetic.

Quote:

about issues they don't understand

Only the great **** for brains understands ....everyone can stop posting now...we have heard from HIM.....a fool educated beyond his intelligence thanks to google.

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

Quote:

I quit fishing that lake which is sad because that was my favorite fishing lake in colorado.

I dont think he will crash there again .....

0 Replies

Quote:

This thread isn't worth the candle any longer.....I'll not indulge in that any further.

How many posts ago is that ?FM has this petulent childish approach too. "If you dont do what I say then I wont talk to" ...PLEASE...feel free not to continue.....

2 Replies

Ionus wrote:

The act of stationing troops in a foriegn country is an act of war.

You're assuming that there was a right to secede. The troops were stationed there before a coterie of slave owners rigged up a secession convention. The Federal government was under no obligation to recognize that action.

Quote:

The constitution protects the rights of states and citizens to bear arms against an unlawful government.

You see, this is why you have no business in this discussion. The constitution has no such provision. There is not only no provision for states to "bear arms," states are prohibited from keeping troops or ships of war in time of peace without the consent of Congress. This is precisely why i pointed out that you are not an American. There is no reason to assume that you know anything about our constitution, and with idiotic comments such as that, you demonstrate the case. There is no provision in the constitution for secession, and Mr. Buchanan was perfectly justified in ignoring that foolishness--murderous foolishness, as it turned out. There is not and never was any such thing as an "Indian state." The issue of the justice of the treatment of aboriginal Americans is not, of course, germane to a discussion of whether or not the Confederate States were constituted to defend slavery--and sneers from an Australian about the treatment of aboriginals is more than a little poignantly ironic.

The hagiography of Lee and Jackson, as well as the romantic "lost cause" nostalgia bullshit, are well documented by contemporary historians, and was pointed out in the past, beginning immediately after the end of the war. I'm not surprised that you don't know that--apparently, you never read reliable history.

If the South "seceded legally," perhaps you'd be so good as to provide reliable evidence of that legal right. A mob of armed Floridians fired on Fort Barrancas before Florida passed a secession ordinance. Even with such an ordinance, there was no reason for any Federal officer to take such nonsense seriously, and every reason for them to do their respective duties, and defend themselves and the property for which they were responsible.

At any such time as you come up with reasonable arguments, based on the actual text of the constitution, upon sound legal reasoning and based upon reputable historical texts, you'll be worth talking to. As it stands right now, you just make yourself look a fool with every response.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Considering the vile manner in which you address people, there is very good reason to ignore you. However, when you attempt to lay out an actual argument, and it is full of holes, as a courtesy to others who read here, it is worthwhile pointing out why what you have said is not reasonable.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus, we all get that you don't like Setanta/farmerman etc. that's totally ok with most of us because likes and dislikes are usually personal but jesus ******* christ man you've run it into the ground and then some. get a clue and argue issues as issues or just continue being another spendi and post nonsense followed by more nonsense which noone reads.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

You wish to restrict insults to snickers and sneering insults within your posts and then think you have the moral high ground when I give you worse back ?

Quote:

as a courtesy to others who read here

Oh please ! You do it for yourself, you sactimonious piece of crap.

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

Quote:

get a clue and argue issues as issues or just continue being another spendi and post nonsense followed by more nonsense which noone reads.

Are they my only two choices ?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

You're assuming that there was a right to secede.

Yes I am. And you are assuming there was no right to secede. The matter is still being debated by experts.

The whole basis of secession from Britain was that the 13 colonies had the right. The incorporation of Texas was based on its right to secede from Mexico. The incorporation of new states into the union recognises their existence as a state. Rights can not be signed away.

The constitution protects the rights of states and citizens to bear arms against an unlawful government.

From the Second Amendment :

Quote:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Quote:

There is no provision in the constitution for secession

From the Declaration of Independence :

Quote:

“the Right of the People to … institute new Government”

In his book Life of Webster, Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes :

Quote:

It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw.

Quote:

A widespread fear, during the debates on the ratification of the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could happen if the Congress passed laws prohibiting states from arming citizens, prohibiting citizens from arming themselves or the federal government prohibiting the southern tradition of using their state militia for slave control. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Quote:

There is not and never was any such thing as an "Indian state."

It is pathetic comments like this that lead to me to believe you think you are an historian but always fall well short of the mark. So all those treaties where they refer to different Indian tribes as being a seperate Nation and are negotiated with by the USA as a seperate nation; what are those ? If a Nation deals with another people as an equal and enters agreement with them, they have recognised them as a Nation. Indian Nations were also recognised by Spain, France, Britain and Holland.

Quote:

A mob of armed Floridians fired on Fort Barrancas before Florida passed a secession ordinance.

God help you if a gang of teenagers are found with flick knives......that would be a declaration of war too, wouldn’t it ?

Quote:

You see, this is why you have no business in this discussion.

Ah ! Secret North American business…..

Quote:

was pointed out in the past, beginning immediately after the end of the war.

I am familiar with the winner writes history.

Your foolish attempts to sound knowledgeable on history do great discredit to a high school student.

3 Replies

@Ionus,

I forgot to mention the secession of the Phillipines much later in history.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

So all those treaties where they refer to different Indian tribes as being a seperate Nation and are negotiated with by the USA as a seperate nation; what are those

The US never turned any land over to the tribes. As far as treaties. DO you really think the US ever kept them? There were a scary few that we actually honored. Even though the Kansas Nebraska Act had the provisions in there, they were never even worked on until 1890 when the Oklahoma Territory was defined in metes and bounds. EVEN THEN, the US kept and administered ALL laws regarding courts , security, etc.

What is your source for your opinions about the Indian "Nations".

2 Replies

@farmerman,

This excerpt - from the site of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, part of the Federal Department of the Interior - might shed some light on your last question:

Quote:

The United States has a unique legal and political relationship with Indian tribes and Alaska Native entities as provided by the Constitution of the United States, treaties, court decisions and Federal statutes. Within the government-to-government relationship, Indian Affairs provides services directly or through contracts, grants, or compacts to 564 Federally recognized tribes with a service population of about 1.9 million American Indian and Alaska Natives.

http://www.bia.gov/WhatWeDo/index.htm

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

You and Setanta know nothing about the economic forces set in motion with the industrial revolution? Dys is the only poster here so far to have grasped that economics - not some absurd Southern prejudice, as claimed by the obsessed fanatic who started this thread - were long known to be the main force behind the abolition of slavery. Minutiae of agricultural production don't change one iota to the massive changes imposed by that force. This was clearly seen at least since 1776, date on which Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations:
[quote]It appears, accordingly, from the experience of all ages and nations, I believe, that the work done by freemen comes cheaper in the end than that performed by slaves.[/quote]
http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN3.html#B.I,%20Ch.8,%20Of%20the%20Wages%20of%20Labour

What you don't know about economics fills countless libraries - and since you don't appear to be afflicted either by fanatical obsession or demented political correctness - like the 2 stellar examples of each posting here - you should know that already. Note to Panzade: I'm sorry I lumped you together with those 2 basket cases - I understand you were trying to make a friendly joke and retract my critical remarks addressed to you Smile

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

In his book Life of Webster, Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes :
Quote:
It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw.

I haven't followed the details of your disagreement(s) with Setanta, but Cabot Lodge's understanding has always been mine as well; it certainly seems to have been the case presented (at least officially) by the Confederacy. I do however understand constitutional experts disagree on the legality of secession.

Last comment re you and Setanta: I'm sure he didn't mean what he said about you not being American disqualifying you from opinions on the Civil War - he knows better than that. Gibbon shouldn't have written on the Roman Empire, not being Italian, if that were truly so. I'm with Dys on that one.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

So, instead of addressing the points that I raised in my post, you choose instead to insult me.

That's fine, I'm used to that. It's the kind of thing I expect from someone who doesn't have much of an argument to begin with and doesn't know enough about the subject to provide a better one.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Please point to me what insult was addressed to you. The only point you made that I didn't address was that of the Paraguay casualties - and it's a simple point to dismiss, when you know the composition of the troops on both sides of that conflict, the way statistics were kept at the time (casualties in the Civil War included prisoners, wounded, missing, and confirmed dead, and unlike those in Rio de la Plata were reasonably accurate) and the appalling problems with training, armaments, equipment, discipline, and so on in the war you mention. Armed conflicts involving African tribes, e.g., often showed 100% "casualty" rates - that's how they stopped. My statement on the Civil War showing the highest casualty rate (as percent of combatants) stands.

1 Reply

The Confederacy was About Slavery

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know