Posted on 05/01/2017 7:54:06 AM PDT by C19fan
That is a short sentence. When you began it you were right but before you ended you were wrong. I have not used the word “homestand”.
Reading your posts allows me to experience vicariously what it must be like to live with attention deficient disorder.
That should demonstrate how unfamiliar sounding your word was -- post #585, same as "chivvied" you said:
And you were called out for it at the same time.
Homestand (your word) is generally considered a series of consecutive games played at a team's home stadium, field, or court. It is a different word than homestall. Both are different than home-field. And then there is the word homestead. It must be confusing for you.
Again, reading your posts allows me to vicariously experience what it must be like to live with attention deficient disorder.
The young pup thought someone was following him.
That I completely believe. That makes perfect sense and dovetails with my understanding of the era. The only thing surprising is that they are only 3 times more wealthy. I would have thought it would have been much more than that.
Yes, the Southern plantation owners viewed themselves as a wealthy "Aristocracy", and they tended to act like it too. (Arrogant)
So when our FRiends DiogenesLamp and jeffersondem argue that Civil War was all about economics, there are such numbers to point at.
How do these numbers rebut my point? The North stood to lose the bulk of European trade to an Independent South. This means the direct loss of the existing trade (something like 250 million dollars per year) and potential economic competition with the South in supplying the Midwestern states with goods and services.
The potential losses to the North were huge, and that doesn't speak to the other threat of additional states being lured into the Confederacy by economic benefits derived from association with it.
But therein lies the rub. The Confederates had been sieging Ft. Sumter for something like 3 months with the stated position that the Union contingent must leave.
To then back down under the threat of attack is an idea that no one would have accepted at the time. Both sides understood that allowing them to provision Sumter peacefully was not going to happen. Lincoln knew this before he sent the fleet. He was counting on it. They would have actually outsmarted him had they just allowed this to happen.
Given what both sides understood about the situation, the orders were effectively an attack order for the Union fleet to sweep away the Confederates seiging the fort.
The only problem was, the fleet didn't attack as everyone believed it would. Lincoln had used secret orders to send their biggest gunship on a wild goose chase to Florida, all the while hiding from it's sister ships in the Union and Confederate observers who would relay information of it's whereabouts if they identified it.
Clever trick that. He told the Confederates he was going to attack, and then didn't.
About tally books you say, “A niche market perhaps.”
The petroleum, ranching, forestry, mining, and trucking industries have used them and continue to buy them.
You should get out into the real world and get some mud on those Gucci’s.
But "homestall" is your word, and it identifies you as something other than normal American, likely British, which is fine, we love our distant British kin.
But it makes a pretty arresting point regarding just who are the people putting out so much effort to defend our Lost Causers?
DiogenesLamp has self identified as a Northerner whose black college roommate traumatized him by revealing Lincoln's "secret strategy" which somehow invalidated everything poor DL learned in school, and turned him into a Lost Causer.
Now we have jeffersondem, who won't admit anything, but still manages to reveal himself as something other than American, much less Southerner.
Which means that our two main Lost Causer voices on this thread are not genuine Southerners with real feelings toward the Civil War -- as for example, central_va & others obviously are.
Instead jd & DL are outsiders who take Lost Causer positions for reasons of their own.
And those reasons are? Anyone's guess...
Remember, this compares averages to averages, and those include non-slave-holding Southerners.
In states like South Carolina & Mississippi about half of families owned slaves and the vast majority of them fewer than five.
But all participated in the general prosperity, in which slaves themselves were claimed to be better off than Northern industrial workers.
And at the top were large plantation owners with hundreds of slaves & thousands of acres in cotton.
Yes, they were relatively few, however their wealth increased not just the averages, but also living standards for non-plantation owners.
DiogenesLamp: "How do these numbers rebut my point?
North stood to lose the bulk of European trade...
These numbers demonstrate that any suggestion the South was "oppressed" or "impoverished" by tyrannical Northern government is just nonsense.
In fact, 1860 whites in the Deep South especially were better off, on average, than any other people in history to that that time.
For today's analogy, think Saudi Arabia or Emirates.
DiogenesLamp: "... potential economic competition with the South in supplying the Midwestern states with goods and services.
The potential losses to the North were huge, and that doesn't speak to the other threat of additional states being lured into the Confederacy by economic benefits derived from association with it."
Because the Confederate Constitution mandated slavery, there was no possibility non-slave states would ever join.
That leaves Border slave-states (Delaware, Maryland, western Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri) and they all voted against secession.
During the war all supplied troops to both sides but on the order of two or three Union for every one Confederate.
So slavery was not popular in Border slave-states.
Bottom line, that means without Civil War the Confederacy is just the seven original Deep South states, yes wealthy almost beyond imagination, but as potentially vulnerable as, say, oil-rich Persian Gulf countries are today.
So, again, could the Union get along without $200 million in cotton exports?
Well, we already know the answer because that's just what happened in 1861 - 1865.
Turns out the Union got along just fine without Deep South cotton.
Exactly, and even before Lincoln's inauguration, Jefferson Davis ordered preparations for military assault on Fort Sumter.
So as he announced in February, 1861, Davis intended to start war if "...the integrity of our territory and jurisdiction be assailed, it will but remain for us with firm resolve to appeal to arms...".
But Lincoln's message to Governor Pickens saying he would not "assail" didn't deter Davis.
Davis decided based on other sources (spies) that he was being "assailed" and so started Civil War, just as promised.
The fact is Davis's act of demanding Union surrender was itself a provocation of war and when his military assault followed, the fact of war was firmly established.
Lincoln's only issue was whether to accept Davis's war, and for that Lincoln was prepared.
Remember, in his March 4 inaugural Lincoln promised:
"...In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war.
The government will not assail you.
You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors."
And so it began.
Now I remember where I've heard it before -- Beetlejuice!!
jeffersondem: "The petroleum, ranching, forestry, mining, and trucking industries have used them and continue to buy them."
And you've used that term when & where?
Nobody asked me but - this is a maladaptive strategy for you to use to save face.
“But “homestall” is your word, and it identifies you as something other than normal American, likely British, which is fine, we love our distant British kin.
But it makes a pretty arresting point regarding just who are the people putting out so much effort to defend our Lost Causers?
DiogenesLamp has self identified as a Northerner whose black college roommate traumatized him by revealing Lincoln’s “secret strategy” which somehow invalidated everything poor DL learned in school, and turned him into a Lost Causer.
Now we have jeffersondem, who won’t admit anything, but still manages to reveal himself as something other than American, much less Southerner.
Which means that our two main Lost Causer voices on this thread are not genuine Southerners with real feelings toward the Civil War — as for example, central_va & others obviously are.
Instead jd & DL are outsiders who take Lost Causer positions for reasons of their own.
And those reasons are? Anyone’s guess...”
Very colourful.
Integrate that into your fictive storyline.
You could easily tell us the truth, or even invent your own story line, so your refusal to do so suggests truth would not strengthen your arguments.
Consider, most Lost Causers are happy to tell us of the suffering their ancestors endured.
Suffering makes it personal, passionate & legitimate for them, regardless of what historical facts, logic & legalese they believe.
But jeffersondem's only real passion seems to be against our Founders for their, ahem, "unpleasantness" of 1776.
Duly noted.
IDC where demojeff hails from or what rock he crawled out from under. His/her “arguments” are specious, inane, or utterly absurd. They serve not to clarify or enlighten but to muddy the waters. Not worth anyone’s time.
You have said - just to cite an example - about the word “chivvied”: “Who uses words like that? NOT AMERICANS, EVER.” (Emphasis added)
And yet everyone on this board has seen the great American hero figure John Wayne use the word on the big screen. And tens of millions of Americans have witnessed its use by the iconic American.
You have been given repeated opportunities to extricate yourself gracefully, but you continue to spread an ill-advised story that is the opposite of the truth. Opposite of the truth.
That is an interesting comment. May we see your data on that?
Have not read the book so can't comment except to say it looks interesting.
The summary was striking: some classes of people had three times the wealth of other classes before the South was destroyed. THREE TIMES! ! !
Couple that with the fact that Southerner George Washington was the Father of Our Country. And Southerner James Madison was the Father of the Constitution. And Southerner George Mason was the Father of the Bill of Rights. And Southerner Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence.
You start to see the basis of sectional jealousy and, perhaps, the reason Cain decided to slay Able.
Unrelated, does anyone know the wealth multiple of today's top elite class compared to lower economic classes in the U.S.?
Does the economic class of Forrest Mars, Phil Knight, Sheldon Anderson, Christy Walton, Sergey Brin, Michael Bloomberg, David Koch, Jeff Bezos and Larry Ellison have a wealth multiple of three times the lower economic classes, or more than three times?
And no, I'm not suggesting that anyone in the highest economic class has ever exploited overseas sweatshop labor. Nor am I suggesting that any of us consumers have ever benefited from buying Red Chinese goods made with sweatshop labor.
And I'm not pointing a finger at Bill Gates and his reported net worth of 79 billion dollars. He has worked many long, hard hours for his money - perhaps 16 hours a day for 40 years. If my math is correct, he has earned just $338,000 per hour all those years.
What I find striking is that at times in history, some classes of people have had THREE TIMES as much as others.
I note first that average net income in the richest states now is about double the average net income in the poorest states.
I haven't seen the data on average net wealth, but if the difference was greater in the 1850s than it is now, that's significant.
Maybe when slaves were taken into account the difference wasn't so great, but slaves weren't taken into account.
Secondly, if the wealth differential wasn't a big thing, that does a lot to discredit the idea that Northerners wanted war to take away that big pile of Southern money.
And if it was a big thing, would it confirm Northerners wanted war to take away that big pile of Southern money?
My good friend Brother Joe, who introduced the book, didn't exactly say it was a big thing . . . he simply said the “disparity is striking.”
My point about today's wealth multiples was serious, if somewhat irreverent. IF a 3X wealth disparity was a disqualifier then, what would today's wealth disparity nationwide, and worldwide, require?
I'm avoiding saying anything directly about the book's contents because I don't know anything about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.