I’m just looking for material on the subject at hand. If you are offended by the material I apologize, but something tells me that there is more to history than what we are told. I don’t accept any argument, even religious ones, without questioning it for myself.
The main point being avoided is that for the South’s plantation economy, slavery was an integral part of it. For Europe, Canada and the northern states, it was hardly the case.
I don’t think it’s being avoided, it’s just something I didn’t feel was relevant as most of us knew this about the northern states.
I agree, it was something that needed to be phased out not forced out at the end of a barrel.
I don’t believe for one second that the element of racism did not exist in the northern states as well at one point.More than that though, the element of racism in Southern slavery adds a whole new dimension in the argument. it becomes much more akin to Nazis holding Jews slaves than anything that was happening in Europe.
Many southerners apparently haven’t yet grasped that point when they come out against the Civil War.
Don’t try to reason with him. It’s a language he doesn’t understand. As Kaninchen noted, the Nazis were in sense ultra-primitivists; they loved farmers, idealized the “rural past,” they were racialists, a traditionally right-wing ideology (both in Europe and in the US; Jim Crow South was not left wing, no matter what the nutjobs on here might like to tell themselves; nor were the racial theorists that infuenced Hitler).
To sincerely believe that the Nazis were a left wing ideology is beyond ignorance. If one knows so little about s subject, it is only suitable to avoid to expressing strong opinions on it. When people do the opposite, I’m lost for words. Going around calling liberals Nazis is just nuts. Or stupid. Whichever word one prefers.
I understand that, usually I don’t participate with it in such detail. Because I know very little about it.
“Limited government” is only a “right-wing” idea in a very narrow sense of the word. That is, for the past few decades in the United states. In Germany, in 1933, a person advocating today’s Republican party platform, would not have been called a conservative; not remotely; he’d be called, perhaps, something of a liberal actually; liberal in the classical sense of the word. Bismarck was a conservative. Bismarck also was a founder of the idea of the welfare state. He was a militarist, a traditionalist, a staunch anti-communist, anti-unionist, a monarchist, a conservative in every meaningful sense of the word. Limited government was not the issue for him the way it his conservatives today. The point being best summed perhaps by a German proverb, "andere Laender, andere Sitten: other countries, other customs).
Not liberals by today’s measures no…they were fiscally more responsible, maybe more like today’s moderates to an extent. But they wanted government money just the same, as long as it was there. My great uncles farmed peanuts and were subsidized by the government. And as long as the money was rolling in they were going to vote for the person who made sure of it, which if I’m not mistaken was usually Democrat. I didn’t know any of them well enough to know if they were racist or not though.
I don’t think that’s peculiar to any party though. The oil industry is pro-Republican, not because they love the unborn or support traditional values or what have you. Or the defense indistry. People who’s jobs or salaries may depend on certain policies tend to vote for the ones who support them.
The point I was making is that Irish slavery occured HERE, not in England. Irish slaves were forced to do things that were considered too dangerous for African slaves, because the Irish were worth less (primarily because they were Catholic).The main point being avoided is that for the South’s plantation economy, slavery was an integral part of it. For Europe, Canada and the northern states, it was hardly the case.
Your data shows as much. For the south, it would be like taking away the owners tractor;for an Irishman, it would be like messing with an Englishmen’s hobby. For the one, slavery was integral to the economy;for the other, ithadn’t been for years.
More than that though, the element of racism in Southern slavery adds a whole new dimension in the argument. it becomes much more akin to Nazis holding Jews slaves than anything that was happening in Europe.
Many southerners apparently haven’t yet grasped that point when they come out against the Civil War.
Typical, anyone who doesn’t accept the academia approved definitions of things is a knuckle-dragging troglodyte.
The fact that for all PRACTICAL purposes, fascism and communism are the same means nothing. The point is making yourself feel all smart by being able to split hairs and recite the minutia. Of course, this is of little comfort to the millions of people who have been killed, imprisoned, tortured, etc… in the names of these totalitarian systems. What is important is specifically WHY they are killed, tortured, and imprisoned.Most certainly, evil has never been confined to the American South. The religious wars and hatreds that tore Europe apart were as vicious and as deep-seated as any hatreds that existed elsewhere.
Did you read the article I posted a few pages back? The ban on bringing new slaves and the north being a safe haven for escaped slaves made it difficult for slave owners of the south to keep existing slaves. The cost of securing them, and not being able to purchase more made it extremely expensive. That is according to that article which would make complete sense to me.
No way. Bryan was unashamedly Christian. His support was largely agrarian, but that was because the fiscal policies of the late 19th century, expecially the transition to the gold standard, were eroding rural economies, and he opposed those policies.
Yes he did. When one can not support their opinions with facts the ad hominen is the only alternative they have.