Posted on 05/01/2017 7:54:06 AM PDT by C19fan
Agreed.
Based on jeffersondem's language, arguments and refusal to even invent a personal story I'd guess the probability of his/her being Southern is near zero and of even American well under 50%.
And yet I've never heard that word used in normal conversation, including here, and neither have you, or you'd cite the instances.
So all you've demonstrated is you watched some old movies.
Now you've made some kind of argument, however improbable, on two of the three unusual words, chivvied & tally book.
But no response whatever on "homestall", suggesting that is the real jeffersondem, peaking out from behind your FR cloak of invisibility.
That's why rockrr's point above is the correct one.
But the South was never destroyed, and would never have been destroyed, ever, until Confederates first provoked, then started, declared and waged war against the United States, much of it in Union states.
jeffersondem: "What I find striking is that at times in history, some classes of people have had THREE TIMES as much as others."
And yet it was the wealthiest Southern states which started & declared war against those poorest Northern states.
It would be as if, to use your examples, Bill Gates and those others most wealthy you cited first declared themselves seceded, Confederated and then actual war against the poorer United States.
You seem to suggest that would be senseless, and I'd totally agree.
If you'd like a current global analogy, suppose the wealthiest oil exporters were suddenly taken over by Fire Eater radicals and out of hatred for President Trump's "western values" stopped exporting oil.
Suppose they then declared & waged war on their biggest customers.
It would make no sense, anyone would say "they're crazy and have to be defeated".
That's what happened in 1861.
I’m generally reluctant to employ analogies - especially when dealing with dishonest posters like demojeff - because even the best analogy holds a degree of imprecision, of in-aptness.
The antebellum slavocracy hit upon a fabulous economic strategy - a crop that grew almost by itself; a burgeoning market with seemingly no end; and a production strategy using enforced labor that promised a huge profit margin. They couldn’t lose, and indeed soon enough became richer than God.
They got to the point where they could afford ANYTHING their pea-picking hearts could desire - and then some. It doesn’t matter in percentages how that compared to the industrial north - the comparison isn’t the point. The point is that, like movie stars, they could buy anything they wanted.
What becomes interesting then is not so much what luxuries they did spend their dough on, but what they didn’t spend money on - infrastructure. They didn’t spend money on roads and rail. They didn’t spend money developing their ports or investing in shipbuilding. They didn’t spend money on factories or industry. Or defense. But they sure did build themselves fancy digs.
For all those other things they whined to congress that they were perennially on the short end of the stick and insisted that the federal government spend more in their districts. It wasn’t true of course - the federal government was spending huge amounts, especially defense dollars, in and for the south.
They were simply behaving like democrats.
“And yet I’ve never heard that word used in normal conversation, including here, and neither have you, or you’d cite the instances.”
Have you already forgotten Tom Clancy and his use of the word (”had spent two weeks chivvying this division toward combat readiness.)?
This is kinda fun.
“But the South was never destroyed, and would never have been destroyed, ever, until Confederates first provoked, then started, declared and waged war against the United States, much of it in Union states.”
Not only do your posts conflict with each other, you often can’t write a complete sentence without incorporating a contradiction.
Your sentence above reminds me of what the lawyer for a major U.S. manufacturer used to say routinely to EPA officials when defending against a citation: “Our company has never violated an EPA regulation. And we never will again.” Funny stuff.
Right.
” . . . a crop that grew almost by itself . . . “
You are an expert on the economics of agriculture, but you know nothing about agriculture.
Start with that.
“If you’d like a current global analogy, suppose the wealthiest oil exporters were suddenly taken over by Fire Eater radicals and out of hatred for President Trump’s “western values” stopped exporting oil.”
That’s close to what actually happened in 1973 (oil embargo). Nixon, not Trump, was president.
I am so thankful President Nixon did not decide to start a war and kill two percent of our nation’s then 212 million residents. That would have been the 1861 equivalent of four million dead.
President Nixon had his faults, but he did not gratuitously start wars.
I first appeared on the grassy knoll but I am from Covfefe.
Nixon was a man of peace (i.e., with China) but waged war when necessary, as in Vietnam.
He also supported Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war bringing the world to the very brink of nuclear war.
Fortunately, unlike idiot Davis at Fort Sumter, Soviet Brezhnev backed down and global holocaust was prevented.
Yom Kippur is the war which lead Arab OPEC countries to embargo their oil exports to the United States.
But again fortunately, unlike idiot Confederates in 1861, 1973 Arab OPEC countries did not provoke, start, declare & wage war against the United States.
Even in 1973 there were US bases in Arab OPEC countries which would have served as their own Fort Sumter, but wisely didn't.
That just miiiiiiiight be why Nixon didn't respond with military force, do you think?
Ah, the Christmas bombing of Hanoi. I remember it fondly.
But Nixon never started war gratuitously or for empire.
But Jefferson Davis did, too bad.
Your analogy was designed to create an unfavorable impression of the actions of southern states and southern people by making a comparison to Arab OPEC countries.
Like them or not, Arab states are recognized - even by the government in Washington D.C. - as legitimate, sovereign states with cultures different than that of the northern United States. Since you contend the southern states were not free and independent, and that the Confederate States of America never existed, you need to rush to denounce your own analogy.
Your original post about this discovered analogy included a referenced to “Fire Eater radicals” at a time when the world was focusing on the knife attacks in London by real radicals whose slashings were all-to-reminiscent of the radical knife-wielders at the Pottawatomie Creek Massacre.
Your response to "chivvy" demonstrates you've watched some American movies.
Your response to "talley book" demonstrates some familiarity with commerce.
Your non-response to "homestall" and "blinkers" suggests they're real words from your real past, which is not American.
Again, the only reason it's important is the telling note it makes regarding who are the strongest defenders of pro-Confederate Lost Cause mythology?
On this thread at least they/you are neither Southern nor necessarily even American.
Hmmmmmmmm...
Sure, but only to counteract the unfavorable impressions of Lincoln & Northerners generally which our Lost Cause mythologizers so enthusiastically monger.
jeffersondem: "Like them or not, Arab states are recognized - even by the government in Washington D.C. - as legitimate, sovereign states with cultures different than that of the northern United States.
Since you contend the southern states were not free and independent..."
If you've followed my posts then you know I've often pointed out there was no civil war when Deep South Fire Eaters declared secession, and no war when they declared Confederacy, no war when they called up 100,000 soldiers, no war when they seized dozens of major Union properties, from forts to ships, arsenals and mints.
There was still no war when they wrote up a new constitution protecting slavery, elected their own congress and president.
Indeed, there was not just no war, President Lincoln announced he would not assail them so there could be no war unless, unless, unless, Confederates themselves started it.
Somehow in Lost Cause mythology, that point is always ignored, except to claim erroneously that Lincoln himself started the war.
But the fact remains that had Jefferson Davis allowed Fort Sumter's resupply, there would still have been no war.
jeffersondem: "...all-to-reminiscent of the radical knife-wielders at the Pottawatomie Creek Massacre."
Except those were outlaws, some eventually captured & hanged, whereas Slave Power Fire Eaters declared secession, then Confederacy & war on the United States.
Despite that, none were ever hanged.
So the key fact relating to your Nixon analogy is that no Arab oil exporter, or Soviet leader, started & declared war on the United States,
If they had, Nixon would have responded differently.
Notice how he employs idioms identical to what CNN and MSNBC uses?
"had spent two weeks chivvying this division toward combat readiness"
You will find that this phrase, from the Tom Clancy book, is the "go to" example used by most online dictionaries to demonstrate the use of the word "chivvying" in a sentence. Don't be fooled by the disingenuous demojeff, who just tried to pass it off as information that he "remembered". Shame on us for having "already forgotten Tom Clancy and his use of the word". Indeed. Bravo Sierra to you, demojeff.
By the way, just the other day I happened to catch a short bit of Errol Flynn in San Antonio from 1945.
In it, addressing a group of businessmen, Flynn did use the term "tally book".
Of course, Flynn was originally Australian (we love Australians) and the reference here was to an actual book, not a metaphor as in "put that in your tally book".
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.