Will have to get your contact the info, you know, no PM’s on here.
LOL so I played baseball with a bunch of country guys in college…only a few were bold enough to say ignorant shit like that…but they were really just trying to incite a reaction of course. They’re the same guys who would love the Southern Cross of course. Some of them turned out to be really good people.
When it’s gets closer to reality we will work out the details. Family first, obviously.
But you seem really cool and have an open mind, so I think we could have a really good talk.
Just let me know when you will be in area and we will work out the details then.
Otherwise, I truly appreciate the opportunity to ask you direct questions and have you answer them honestly. I consider that a true blessing. I want to understand that which I cannot by experience. So, with all honesty and humility, thank you for answering questions I cannot normally ask people. …
When you go play college sports with guys from the South, you have to remember, they’re not sending us their best. They’re rapists, they’re murderers, and some, I assume, are really good people.
Wait, I might be thinking of someone else.
For the record I’m from Atlanta and my in-laws live in Augusta/aiken and I’m through that way pretty often too.
Well, I doubt that even the south winning would mean modern day slavery. There probably were even high level discussions in the south to outlaw it during the war as a means of winning international support. And the civil war didn’t really end slavery anyway, at least not in the union states.
There are some things I’ve realized about the civil war in my old age I was too rambunctious to understand growing up. First, while one side may have fought for one issue, it does not necessitate that the other side fought for the same reason. While the overarching reason the south fought was to preserve slavery, the overarching reason the north fought was to preserve the union, not to end slavery. Further, it is easily possible to disagree with both motives in the war. I do not believe the war was worth preserving the way of life for the south (or even “states rights”) and I do not believe it was justified by preservation of the union. I do think it was worth ending slavery, but that was a minority reason for the people of the time.
Second, southerners are completely wrong to argue that it was a state’s rights issue. That is to say the south was NOT in favor of of moving governance closer to the individual. While they did want to move power closer to the state from the fed this was only in order to also move governance AWAY from the individual (blacks) and into the state government. This is a power grab of absolute authority by the state over individuals. The net move of power wanted by the south is overwhelmingly away from the individual and toward the government. This is NOT an example of rebellion in favor of smaller government, it’s quite the opposite. And this is absolutely proven when rebellion failed that the southern Dems were totally willing to used the fed to push that same trampling of individual rights. However, libs would also do well to take note that since the south fought for slavery (big government) and not state’s rights, they war can’t be laid at the feet of small government conservatism or state’s rights philosophies.
But this is coming from a Georgia boy who grew up flying the southern cross, so what do I know? This post also probably contradicts previous posts I’ve made on this topic, so I’m a flip flopper.
Sounds good my friend. That is exactly why we are here, to exchange ideas. I’m glad I can do that for you. I will definitely let you know.
Haha sounds accurate. In all reality, if everyone had to spend 4 years working towards a common goal with people they felt were diametrically opposed to them, we would be in a much better place. I mean those country guys taught me how to shoot a gun lol. My Dad was an airforce guy and I had never seen a gun ever.
There are also whites who do this as they advance. I believe academics like to use the term “class migrant.” I see it as one reason why privileged whites are so ready to accept white privilege why while working class whites aren’t. Race is used to mask the reality of class. That’s the game the Democratic Party is playing when it denegrates worjing class whites. Call them “racist” and you can treat them as subhuman.
Has anyone ever noticed that leftists generally have poor life and coping skills? I’ve noticed the follow traits of leftists I know.
Lack of empathy.
Ad hominem attacks that come out of the damn blue.
False assumptions.
Incessant talk about rights, even in cases in which such talk doesn’t apply. (Eg, “You have no right to think you’re better than someone else,” which implies that I don’t have the right to thoughts.)
A belief that because something effects them or hasn’t effected them, that millions of other peoples differing experiences are unimportant or worthless.
A belief in equality amongst races and individuals.
A belief in the world, let alone the USA, having endless resources, like a never-ending piggy bank of sorts.
Though I had a lousy temper and suffered from a mood disorder in the past, I am not a leftist and I don’t considering any disorders to be comical, but I have noticed anxiety, paranoia, temper tantrums, attention whoring, and infantile behavior are common amongst them.
Modern conservatives are quite a squeamish bunch too.
While I love to tease lefties I think part of what you’re diacribing is the immaturity of being young. Many leftists are young college kids who swallowed what their professors taught them. Life is much simpler when you know everything.
Let them get jobs and watch over 50% of their income (fed/state/local/fica/ss) go to people without jobs. That always sobers people up real quick.
I was born 40 so what do I know about the mindset of the young.
I’ve always wondered where this particular part came from. I spent 5 years in college in a county/city that has voted blue every election I’ve been alive, and not a single prof my entire schooling pushed lib tendencies on anyone. Most of the business profs actually push the opposite.
Agreed. This mentality that anyone who votes dem is some young, naive college kid with no real-world experience is on par with assuming everyone who votes republican is an old, crotchety white guy.
See you majored in business. Most business schools have to hire people that have been in the real world and succeeded.
At Pitt every single arts and sciences professor was some flavor of marxist and every business professor was like the second coming of Freidman/Hayek.
I had an economics (a&s) professor talk about how interesting and bold it was when Venezuela was seizing foreign owned oil companies to return the wealth to “the people.” I raised my hand
“We’ve seen this movie before, it ends with people starving in the streets.”
She looks at me and goes “you can’t compare this to the USSR and CUBA, because that’s national socialism, this is democratic socialism.”
“So there won’t be corruption and ineptitude when the government runs everything?”
Kind of random, but I cut my teeth in the oilfield working offshore Louisiana. We’d take what was basically “shore leave” in either Baton Rouge or New Orleans, and I can’t remember which town this was. I think New Orleans.
Anyway, there was a Confederate monument with a clearly black Confederate soldier on it. I basically started mocking in and got an almost-had-a-fight dressing down by some Cajun friends and this light-skinned black guy who was a native New Orleans guy.
I was completely unaware of this, but Louisiana (and New Orleans, in particular) had a long history of partial French/free black combo, with lots of levels (“high brown” being the only one I remember because the black guy identified himself and Lisa Bonet as “high brown”).
Anyway, there were a fair number of mixed race people who were Confederate, respected citizens, and even slave owners.
In fact, a lot of those Mardi Gras clubs are a vestige of this, and there are classes of blacks, white, French, English of which I was totally unaware being in various clubs (there is a word for “club” too, but I forgot that, as well). It’s very complex and reminded me of feudal Japan in its complexity.
It was both heartening and disheartening at the same time.
Not at all. I briefly worked up there prior to the 2014 crash. Couple of observations:
The actual local natives don’t really give a shit. This is all imported outrage.
The oil already crosses the river, albeit by train. A train requires a transload station – where oil is transferred by either pipe or, more likely, truck to a location, then offloaded into rail cars. Transport by truck and train is far riskier than pipe. And transload locations are where accidents are most likely to happen. AND, by nature of transloading, you lose product (like 1-2%) to vapor, so it’s the least friendly environmental process. In short, the environmental concerns are bullshit.
So what is happening? Certain powerful liberal interests own the rail line and are using people as suckers.
What do I want? As a Delaware Basin/Permian service provider, I want at little competition as possible so I can charge the highest amount for my services. So, I don’t want the pipeline for purely selfish reasons. So I have remained silent. I am not alone in my quiet amusement.
As you can see, items 3 & 4 create interesting bedfellows. But thank you stupid liberals. Because of you, we probably get an extra $0.25/bbl.
It’s tough to say how long slavery would have continued if the south had won. They certainly would have been under increasing pressure to end it, but it would have been much later, if at all. So I don’t really know. It’s tough to speculate on an alternative reality like that.
I agree. Slavery wasn’t actually ended until the 13th Amendment was passed and that’s what ended it. And there was lots of alternative motivations for fighting on both sides other than slavery, but it was the main issue. Many in the North may not have thought that at the time, but when the Emancipation Proclamation came out. It’s clear what Lincoln had in mind. And the EP did cause some attrition in the ranks of the North, but not enough to damage the war effort.
Like I said, it’s one of my favorite wars to study. It’s fascinating on so many different levels.
Sounds interesting. Will have to check that out. [quote=“thefourthruffian, post:135, topic:225936”]
I was completely unaware of this, but Louisiana (and New Orleans, in particular) had a long history of partial French/free black combo, with lots of levels (“high brown” being the only one I remember because the black guy identified himself and Lisa Bonet as “high brown”)
[/quote]
I knew of the freed-folks but not of the “caste-system” sounds like lighter skin was valued higher, like you said very similar to feudal Japan. Very interesting.
This is why I love this place… I can talk to smart people who know shit and get real information. I can talk to MoreMuscle calmly about race and get more information and I can talk to people like yourself who know the real deal from their perspective communities. All this makes me a better person. I appreciate that.
Lisa Bonet used to be hot as hell… Then, she aged.
Well, there is argument to be made here that there could have been “better” ways of ending it. The thing that gets overlooked largely is that the south had legitimate grievances that went unaddressed. Losing the war, becoming occupied territory, having your political rights removed, then ramming through the 13th amendment guaranteeing the even further collapsing of the southern economy despite the fact that the north had also largely benefited from slavery isn’t a recipe for a receptive end to slavery. If the south had won or been allowed to leave, would there have been a later end to slavery? Yeah. Would it have been more amiable? Probably. Would there have been less segregation/Jim crowe/KKK? Maybe.
And to be explicit I am not endorsing the idea that the south should have been allowed to do its’ own thing and get rid of slavery (eventually) on its’ own. Slavery is completely vile and a minute’s prolonging of the institution is 60 seconds too long. I’m only looking and the interesting scenarios that could have played out in an alternate universe.
I think you should read some more about the north before and during and even after the war. Lincoln and others made it clear explicitly stating over and over again that the north was not fighting over slavery. (Slave owning) Union generals also fought under the impression that they were always going to keep their slaves including even after the war and didn’t give them up until the 13th. I can dig up some of the books I’ve read if you’d care to get into it. My impression is that most leaders, both civil and military, on the north did not fight against slavery, they fought for the Union.
The EP was a stroke of propaganda to keep foreign nations from entering the war on the south’s side. It also guaranteed slavery in the future for northern states and any southern states wishing to rejoin by a deadline. The EP was still about preservation of the union. It certainly wasn’t the wonderful commanded end to slavery everyone seems to remember.