Ted Nugent wonders would U.S. be better 'had the South won the Civil War' [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Ted Nugent wonders would U.S. be better 'had the South won the Civil War'


Pages : [1] 2

G17Jake
07-09-2012, 17:52
The things entertainers say...

http://www.freep.com/article/20120706/COL05/120706061/nugent-what-if-south-won-civil-war?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

We will never know the answer.

Brucev
07-09-2012, 17:57
One thing is certain... if the South had won the War Between the States, the fed. royality in black robes and the squatter and his fellow liberal domestic terrorists would be destroying what was left of the union... and would be of no concern to the CSA.

Hines57
07-09-2012, 17:58
I would think most students of history wonder the same thing. I know I have.

Restless28
07-09-2012, 18:07
Are there any books that realistically analyze this? I wonder this myself.

Tx-SIG229
07-09-2012, 18:12
Are there any books that realistically analyze this? I wonder this myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guns_of_the_South

et al by Mr. Turtledove

ArtCrafter
07-09-2012, 18:19
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guns_of_the_South

et al by Mr. Turtledove


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

G17Jake
07-09-2012, 18:26
The nation is better united. We just need to get back to being the nation the founders intended for us to be.

And spare me any crap about slavery.

Dexters
07-09-2012, 18:27
The things entertainers say...

http://www.freep.com/article/20120706/COL05/120706061/nugent-what-if-south-won-civil-war?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

We will never know the answer.


Two things you need to remember about history:
1 - it is written by the victors
2 - the MORAL justification for the war comes after the war has ended.

My guess if the South won the war, it would have said that the war was about:
1 - the struggle between a strong Fed Gov't and the power of the people.
2 - The DC government was corrupt - bought by the rich in the north to pass the laws the rich wanted. If we think the congress has been bought today, imagine what it was like then - no reporting or way to find out how much money a congressman received in bribes or in stock from companies.

Putting aside the slavery issue - the USA would have been better off if the South won.

1 - The USA would not have entered WWI and all the bad that followed would probably not happened.

2. The Fed Gov't would not be as strong as it is today.

Tx-SIG229
07-09-2012, 18:30
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
oops... he said 'realistically' LOL :embarassed:

Dexters
07-09-2012, 18:31
The nation is better united. We just need to get back to being the nation the founders intended for us to be.

And spare me any crap about slavery.

Sure - united under a Southern leadership.

Foxtrotx1
07-09-2012, 18:33
I wonder if he will ever abide by hunting laws.

ArtCrafter
07-09-2012, 18:51
oops... he said 'realistically' LOL :embarassed:


That is a 'masterstroke of understatement.' :rofl:

ArtCrafter
07-09-2012, 18:56
On a semi-serious note, the more I hear Uncle Ted bleating like a beatdown sheep, the more convinced I am that he would have been better off doing drugs all along.

Preferably in mass quantities...

:hippie:

CAcop
07-09-2012, 19:00
They would have slowly joined the Union as industrialization took over. Eventually they would be reduced to a few backwards, rural states with nothing to offer. Just look at the states in the south that receive more federal money than they send to DC. A significant majority of the south should be thankful the north took them back.

ray9898
07-09-2012, 19:14
One thing is certain... if the South had won the War Between the States, the fed. royality in black robes and the squatter and his fellow liberal domestic terrorists would be destroying what was left of the union... and would be of no concern to the CSA.

LOL....I was talking the other day about people no longer being able to discuss politics like adults and instead stoop to throwing insults and general 5th grade playground behavior.

Thanks for making my point. It is embarrassing to see fellow conservatives act more childish than the liberals did in the Bush years.

Phaze5ive
07-09-2012, 19:17
Well, if the south had won, black people would probably still be slaves or second class citizens at best. Hell, they were pretty much still second class citizens ~40 years ago.

TBH, I really don't think that the south would have survived for long as a sovereign nation on its own.

norton
07-09-2012, 19:18
If the south had won, the individual southern states would have eventually seceeded from the confederacy. The south would have ended up like eastern europe. Small countries, constantly bickering with each other. Oh and those southern slave holders, who convinced Johnny Reb that the war was about something other then slavery would have owned and controlled everything.

hogfish
07-09-2012, 19:35
So much hate towards this great country. :sigh:

10mm Sonny
07-09-2012, 19:38
I thought the CSA was trying to seceeded from the USA. Not to conquer the North, but to form their own nation. Just like what the colonies did to England years earlier.

jhoagland
07-09-2012, 19:41
I like Ted. I would like to hear the OP debate him.

Naelbis
07-09-2012, 19:42
Well, if the south had won, black people would probably still be slaves or second class citizens at best. Hell, they were pretty much still second class citizens ~40 years ago.

TBH, I really don't think that the south would have survived for long as a sovereign nation on its own.
Actually pretty much every honest historian agrees that slavery would have ended within a few decades anyway. Industrialization and evolving religious mores would have seen to that. And since Reconstruction wouldn't have been imposed on the South much of the social upheaval that led to religious strife may not have happened as attitudes and social structure changed over a longer period.

Snaps
07-09-2012, 19:44
Yes, it would be.

concretefuzzynuts
07-09-2012, 19:55
Actually pretty much every honest historian agrees that slavery would have ended within a few decades anyway. Industrialization and evolving religious mores would have seen to that. And since Reconstruction wouldn't have been imposed on the South much of the social upheaval that led to religious strife may not have happened as attitudes and social structure changed over a longer period.

This.

WarCry
07-09-2012, 19:56
Actually pretty much every honest historian agrees that slavery would have ended within a few decades anyway.

This is how I've always understood it. Lincoln had reports that slavery was going to end because it was easier/cheaper to automate the work that slaves were doing anyway. As I understand it, the Emancipation Proclamation was made because the French were seriously considering coming in on the side of the South, supporting the secessionists just like they did in the Revolution. Once the Proclamation was made, the French pulled reign because they didn't want to be seen as being on "the side of slavery."

Lincoln knew it was a political - not social - move, and he played it to perfection.

concretefuzzynuts
07-09-2012, 20:00
This is how I've always understood it. Lincoln had reports that slavery was going to end because it was easier/cheaper to automate the work that slaves were doing anyway. As I understand it, the Emancipation Proclamation was made because the French were seriously considering coming in on the side of the South, supporting the secessionists just like they did in the Revolution. Once the Proclamation was made, the French pulled reign because they didn't want to be seen as being on "the side of slavery."

Lincoln knew it was a political - not social - move, and he played it to perfection.

And this.

JW1178
07-09-2012, 20:00
Well I know Obama wouldn't be running it.

certifiedfunds
07-09-2012, 20:03
Actually pretty much every honest historian agrees that slavery would have ended within a few decades anyway. Industrialization and evolving religious mores would have seen to that. And since Reconstruction wouldn't have been imposed on the South much of the social upheaval that led to religious strife may not have happened as attitudes and social structure changed over a longer period.

Excellent post naeblis



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

glocking26
07-09-2012, 20:05
Yes! With out a Doubt.

JW1178
07-09-2012, 20:06
This is how I've always understood it. Lincoln had reports that slavery was going to end because it was easier/cheaper to automate the work that slaves were doing anyway. As I understand it, the Emancipation Proclamation was made because the French were seriously considering coming in on the side of the South, supporting the secessionists just like they did in the Revolution. Once the Proclamation was made, the French pulled reign because they didn't want to be seen as being on "the side of slavery."

Lincoln knew it was a political - not social - move, and he played it to perfection.

Shhhh..... you are speaking the truth! Saying it was over slavery turns a rather illegal invasion of the CSA by the USA into a moral cause, and demonizes the South for centuries.

From what I understand the British were also interested in being on the side of the Dixie because they wanted the dibs on the resources the South had. The North needed the South because their industries needed that cotton and other resources to run their factories. The South didn't need the North, so the left.

Dexters
07-09-2012, 20:07
Actually pretty much every honest historian agrees that slavery would have ended within a few decades anyway. Industrialization and evolving religious mores would have seen to that. And since Reconstruction wouldn't have been imposed on the South much of the social upheaval that led to religious strife may not have happened as attitudes and social structure changed over a longer period.

Yes.

And let's not forget that Liberia was being used as a place for freed slaves to return.

As I said, slavery was the moral justification given for the war - after the war.

frank4570
07-09-2012, 20:10
But how would have the world wars turned out without a United States to throw in it's full support?

JW1178
07-09-2012, 20:28
Much of what is never considered is that the dark chapter containing the racisim and the KKK and such happened AFTER the civil war. I think much of it has to do with resentment after the war. Perhaps if the South won, it may not have happened. Blacks weren't treated that well up north either.

One thing I am almost positive about is that most likely the South would have ended up a third world nation. Slavery would have ended eventually but unless industry started in the South. Most industry and business to this day starts in the North until this day.

Yes.

And let's not forget that Liberia was being used as a place for freed slaves to return.

As I said, slavery was the moral justification given for the war - after the war.

Yup, such as we didn't go into WWII to stop the holocost either... and we tore down the Nazi's and Hitler but sided with The Comunists and Stalin which in many ways was worse. Stalin didn't treat Jews any better than Hitler, the only real difference is that the Germans were better at documenting it. In Soviet Russia, the USSR didn't like you, you just well, didn't exist anymore.

But how would have the world wars turned out without a United States to throw in it's full support?

Not sure about that one. Perhaps about half a million American lives would have been spared not fighting the wars? I'd like to think the North and South after the war would have realized we were all Americans and at least against our enemies stood together. Much like the US and the UK does today. It's kind of like with your parents, after you move out you get along better with them.


All in all, it turned out for the best.

Dexters
07-09-2012, 20:28
But how would have the world wars turned out without a United States to throw in it's full support?

WWI - probably would have ended in a stalemate - Germany defeated Russia and the battle lines in the west were not on German soil.

Probably no WWII or Israel or cold war or USA involvement in the middle east.

Altaris
07-09-2012, 20:31
But how would have the world wars turned out without a United States to throw in it's full support?


Assuming production places progressed as to what they are today, I would guess that the south would provide all of the oil production and the north would produce a lot of the vehicles. Then the north and south would argue over who contributed more to WW2 and who was the true cause to the allies winning.

The question would be, whose fleet would be stationed at Hawaii for the Japanese to bomb?

G26S239
07-09-2012, 20:33
Actually pretty much every honest historian agrees that slavery would have ended within a few decades anyway. Industrialization and evolving religious mores would have seen to that. And since Reconstruction wouldn't have been imposed on the South much of the social upheaval that led to religious strife may not have happened as attitudes and social structure changed over a longer period.
Had the CSA not been defeated slavery would have remained the law of the land under Article 1 Section 9.4 No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

Also see Article 6 Section 3 Supremacy Of The Constitution.

Dexters
07-09-2012, 20:40
Had the CSA not been defeated slavery would have remained the law of the land under Article 1 Section 9.4 No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

Also see Article 6 Section 3 Supremacy Of The Constitution.

Although there was the right to own slaves; that does not mean there would be slaves. Just as the situation is today with guns - some own them, most do not.

Slavery is not a viable system in a mechanized world.

G26S239
07-09-2012, 20:44
Although there was the right to own slaves; that does not mean there would be slaves. Just as the situation is today with guns.

Right, just as there are no guns now there would have been no more slave ownership if the CSA had prevailed. :rofl:

arclight610
07-09-2012, 20:49
The South will rise again... in teen pregnancies and obesity

tantrix
07-09-2012, 20:54
Well, if the south had won, black people would probably still be slaves or second class citizens at best. Hell, they were pretty much still second class citizens ~40 years ago.

This always makes me laugh...everyone I know down here who has been up North says racism is 10x worse up there than it is down here.

Naelbis
07-09-2012, 20:55
Had the CSA not been defeated slavery would have remained the law of the land under Article 1 Section 9.4 No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

Also see Article 6 Section 3 Supremacy Of The Constitution.
This is not certain as there was a very real move in relgious circles to abolish slavery anyway. Many of the great leaders of the South were fundamentally opposed to slavery on religious grounds. It is not unreasonable to assume that a constitutional amendment ending slavery was inevitable as societial attitudes evolved.

Detectorist
07-09-2012, 20:56
I've done a lot of research on this subject. As a matter of fact, my minor is in history.

I conclude that if the South had won, we would all be eating fried chicken, mashed potatoes, and black eyed peas every day. :supergrin:

tantrix
07-09-2012, 20:58
This is not certain as there was a very real move in relgious circles to abolish slavery anyway. Many of the great leaders of the South were fundamentally opposed to slavery on religious grounds. It is not unreasonable to assume that a constitutional amendment ending slavery was inevitable as societial attitudes evolved.

Of course slavery would have ended...the Northern Sympathizers just have to find a way to justify Union troops raping Southern women and burning their husbands and kids alive.

SpoiledBySig
07-09-2012, 21:01
Actually pretty much every honest historian agrees that slavery would have ended within a few decades anyway. Industrialization and evolving religious mores would have seen to that. And since Reconstruction wouldn't have been imposed on the South much of the social upheaval that led to religious strife may not have happened as attitudes and social structure changed over a longer period.



This was a very good analysis. Hard to argue with.

Good job Naelbis. :cool:

Detectorist
07-09-2012, 21:09
Of course slavery would have ended...the Northern Sympathizers just have to find a way to justify Union troops raping Southern women and burning their husbands and kids alive.

You mean as opposed to guys like Bill Anderson doing it?

G26S239
07-09-2012, 21:21
This is not certain as there was a very real move in relgious circles to abolish slavery anyway. Many of the great leaders of the South were fundamentally opposed to slavery on religious grounds. It is not unreasonable to assume that a constitutional amendment ending slavery was inevitable as societial attitudes evolved.
The fact is that the slave holding oligarchy was willing to provoke a war and sacrifice a few hundred thousand lives to found a country that had slave ownership as its cornerstone as defined by CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
"Our new government is founded on exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition."
http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76
Dance around that all you want. Article 1 Section 9.4 was not an after thought. It was put in the CSA Constitution after careful consideration.

devildog2067
07-09-2012, 21:27
This is how I've always understood it. Lincoln had reports that slavery was going to end because it was easier/cheaper to automate the work that slaves were doing anyway.

What do you think would have happened to the slaves?

Honest question. I doubt that the owners planned to just set them all fre.

Shhhh..... you are speaking the truth! Saying it was over slavery turns a rather illegal invasion of the CSA by the USA into a moral cause
Saying the war was about slavery is certainly oversimplifying it immensely... but saying it didn't have anything to do with slavery is just lying.

I bet the slaves would have loved to be able to walk off the job with no notice.

NeverMore1701
07-09-2012, 21:30
So much hate towards this great country. :sigh:

Have you seen the state of this country recently?

MulletLoad
07-09-2012, 21:35
Just wondering how many of you ass clowns would have accepted living under slavery for "a few decades" until it faded away instead of ending it in the Civil War.

Great idea unless you're one of the slaves who would have had 2 generations to live under until it was abolished.

ray9898
07-09-2012, 21:35
I bet the slaves would have loved to be able to walk off the job with no notice.


Some will come along shortly and tell you how great it was to be a slave even though you had no freedom and were owned as property. Then they will go to the next thread and pound their chest proclaiming themself as freedom lovers.

AK_Stick
07-09-2012, 21:45
Healthier maybe, but not better.


I wounder if Ted would have been a better person, if he'd gone to war?

CAcop
07-09-2012, 21:50
Some will come along shortly and tell you how great it was to be a slave even though you had no freedom and were owned as property. Then they will go to the next thread and pound their chest proclaiming themself as freedom lovers.

No kidding. They never see the irony of saying the war was all about "states rights" over the ability for states to say one human can own another human.

I think it is just post-war guilt over fighting for the right to own another human. Kind of like how the Japanese have never apologized about the war they started.

Cali-Glock
07-09-2012, 21:51
All speculation asside the fact is Lincoln trampled all over the constitution and did more far more damage to our country than the CSA leaving ever could have.

tantrix
07-09-2012, 21:53
The fact is that the slave holding oligarchy was willing to provoke a war and sacrifice a few hundred thousand lives to found a country that had slave ownership as its cornerstone as defined by CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
"Our new government is founded on exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition."
http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76
Dance around that all you want. Article 1 Section 9.4 was not an after thought. It was put in the CSA Constitution after careful consideration.



Ok..I'll play.

“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” -

Abraham Lincoln, 1858


Yeah buddy...straight from "honest Abe's" lips...

CAcop
07-09-2012, 21:55
What do you think would have happened to the slaves?

Honest question. I doubt that the owners planned to just set them all fre.


Saying the war was about slavery is certainly oversimplifying it immensely... but saying it didn't have anything to do with slavery is just lying.

I bet the slaves would have loved to be able to walk off the job with no notice.

I think the slaves would have to be better educated to be able to work in factories. It is one thing to farm, it is another to keep a factory going. Not mention factories tend to be in cities. Can you imagine gentle townsfolk wanting to see slaves being flogged for reading? Slaves could also more easily escape in the city.

Cali-Glock
07-09-2012, 21:55
The south ceceeded over the unbalance of power in congress bettween the slave states and free states.

The North waged war not over slavery but over their ideal of tyrannical federal edict over the (up until 1864) sovergien states that made up the union.

What people fail to recognize or understand is each state had as much right to leave the union as the USA should have today to leave the UN.

RustyShackelford
07-09-2012, 21:56
I've done a lot of research on this subject. As a matter of fact, my minor is in history.

I conclude that if the South had won, we would all be eating fried chicken, mashed potatoes, and black eyed peas every day. :supergrin:
__________________________
Last edited by Detectorist; Today at 23:07..


That made me laugh! :animlol: And that's what you edited it to, so I almost wonder what it said for those brief minutes. haha

devildog2067
07-09-2012, 21:57
Yeah buddy...straight from "honest Abe's" lips...

What does that prove?

When did this become about "things Lincoln said"?

AK_Stick
07-09-2012, 22:00
The south ceceeded over the unbalance of power in congress bettween the slave states and free states.

The North waged war not over slavery but over their ideal of tyrannical federal edict over the (up until 1864) sovergien states that made up the union.

What people fail to recognize or understand is each state had as much right to leave the union as the USA should have today to leave the UN.


The CSA had no more right to leave the USA, than a city has the right to declare itself a separate state.

CAcop
07-09-2012, 22:01
But how would have the world wars turned out without a United States to throw in it's full support?

WWI we didn't really do much. Both sides were pretty much bled white. We just threw some fresh faced kids in there that broke the stalemate. Plus British armor was a huge advantage. Essentially rolling pill boxes.

WWII it really wouldn't have matter. I think the CSA, even if it existed then would consist of a few hard core states in the south. Think LA, AL, GA, etc. The aresenal of democracy is what won that war. We may laugh at Detroit now but then they saved the world. lt is also interesting to note is that a lot of blacks went north in the 1920s to work in factories. Think runaway slaves in those factories.

Detectorist
07-09-2012, 22:03
That made me laugh! :animlol: And that's what you edited it to, so I almost wonder what it said for those brief minutes. haha

I added black eyed peas. Can't forget those now, can we...

:cool:

G26S239
07-09-2012, 22:15
The south ceceeded over the unbalance of power in congress bettween the slave states and free states.
As a matter of fact Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas each drew up a declaration of their reasons to secede. Northern interference in their right to have slaves was listed as the primary cause in every such declaration. Read it yourself http://www.sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

As far as the balance of power between slave and non slave states how about the slave holding states counting slaves as 3/5s of a man for purposes of congressional apportionment? For 72 years they got away with having greater than their fair share of congressional reps by inflating their numbers that way. The South was all about being underhanded when it suited them.

M&P Shooter
07-09-2012, 22:17
Hell yes!!!!!

Detectorist
07-09-2012, 22:18
As a matter of fact Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas each drew up a declaration of their reasons to secede. Northern interference in their right to have slaves was listed as the primary cause in every such declaration. Read it yourself http://www.sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

As far as the balance of power between slave and non slave states how about the slave holding states counting slaves as 3/5s of a man for purposes of congressional apportionment? For 72 years they got away with having greater than their fair share of congressional reps by inflating their numbers that way. The South was all about being underhanded when it suited them.

You are absolutely correct. And these 3/5ths people gave the slave owners what is called slave power.

Arquebus12
07-09-2012, 22:24
I wonder if he will ever abide by hunting laws.

Ted is a model for conservation and game management, and on two occasions, he's been hauled up on charges that were clearly politically based. His bait hunting charge in California was an aberration, because hunting over bait is rarely illegal, and hunting using attractants (scents) is a well established and legal method. California outlawed certain methods using the same logic governing the size of 1911 handguns, to wit: nancy boy politicians caving to special interests and passing bad legislation.

The incident with his hunting bear in Alaska exposed a "gotcha" method of entrapping tourist hunters according to Alaska Division of Wildlife laws. And it's a stupid law, specifically that a bad shot/probable miss is considered a kill, thus your tag is filled, even if the animal was lost.

In either case, were it to happen to you, I sincerely doubt you'd be accusing yourself of violating game laws. Quite the opposite, in fact. Go ahead and tell me you don't hunt, it won't make any difference in how your nitwittery will be received.

arclight610
07-09-2012, 22:26
Ted is a model for conservation and game management, and on two occasions, he's been hauled up on charges that were clearly politically based. His bait hunting charge in California was an aberration, because hunting over bait is rarely illegal, and hunting using attractants (scents) is a well established and legal method. California outlawed certain methods using the same logic governing the size of 1911 handguns, to wit: nancy boy politicians caving to special interests and passing bad legislation.

The incident with his hunting bear in Alaska exposed a "gotcha" method of entrapping tourist hunters according to Alaska Division of Wildlife laws. And it's a stupid law, specifically that a bad shot/probable miss is considered a kill, thus your tag is filled, even if the animal was lost.

In either case, were it to happen to you, I sincerely doubt you'd be accusing yourself of violating game laws. Quite the opposite, in fact. Go ahead and tell me you don't hunt, it won't make any difference in how your nitwittery will be received.

I don't hunt.

Arquebus12
07-09-2012, 22:27
But how would have the world wars turned out without a United States to throw in it's full support?

Alliances remain strong, despite internal differences of assorted nations. Canada, Britain, and especially Australia have always allied themselves with the USA in every conflict since the beginning of the 20th century. In fact, many Americans enlisted in the Canadian forces in order to fight in WWI while the US remained neutral at the beginning.

As to results, who knows? Lee was not supposed to lose at Gettysburg, but lots of seemingly insignificant circumstances led to his defeat there.

Arquebus12
07-09-2012, 22:31
Had the CSA not been defeated slavery would have remained the law of the land under Article 1 Section 9.4 No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

Also see Article 6 Section 3 Supremacy Of The Constitution.

With respect, I doubt that... the forces that led to Prohibition were just as strong and "valid" as those that supported slavery, and it led to an actual amendment to the US Constitution. This also led to an other amendment, one which repealed the other.

AK_Stick
07-09-2012, 22:31
Ted is a model for conservation and game management, and on two occasions, he's been hauled up on charges that were clearly politically based. His bait hunting charge in California was an aberration, because hunting over bait is rarely illegal, and hunting using attractants (scents) is a well established and legal method. California outlawed certain methods using the same logic governing the size of 1911 handguns, to wit: nancy boy politicians caving to special interests and passing bad legislation.

The incident with his hunting bear in Alaska exposed a "gotcha" method of entrapping tourist hunters according to Alaska Division of Wildlife laws. And it's a stupid law, specifically that a bad shot/probable miss is considered a kill, thus your tag is filled, even if the animal was lost.

In either case, were it to happen to you, I sincerely doubt you'd be accusing yourself of violating game laws. Quite the opposite, in fact. Go ahead and tell me you don't hunt, it won't make any difference in how your nitwittery will be received.


Its fine and all to make excuses, but they still don't fly.

Its a hunters obligation to know the laws pertaining to the area he is hunting. There was nothing "entraping" about it. Ted ran afoul of the law, because he cares more about making a buck, and selling his show, than being an ethical sportsman.


Ted has shown, over and over, that he thinks himself over and above the law.


The fact that you would consider a hit, but not recovered animal as not filling your tag, and then say that a law to the otherwise, is stupid, pretty much explains what kind if sportsman, no ahem, MAN you are, or in this case, aren't.


Ted is a POS, a poacher, and a repeat offending dirt bag.

Arquebus12
07-09-2012, 22:32
I don't hunt.

Thank you for your little contribution.

Cali-Glock
07-09-2012, 22:33
The CSA had no more right to leave the USA, than a city has the right to declare itself a separate state.

This country was founded as thirteen sovereign nations, who voluntarily formed a union for purposes of a common defense, negotiations with non-union nations and eventually a common currency. Each subsequent nation which was added to the union held the same rights. Voluntarily joined, with the rights to voluntarily leave. Some of those nations (Texas) were not as trusting and insisted that this right be expressly put into the terms of their contract in joining the union, but legally it was not actually necessary.

Of course the war of northern aggression changed all of this. From that point forward we were (and are) no longer united states, but instead a SINGLE state with subservient provinces.

HollowHead
07-09-2012, 22:35
I simply wonder if Vietnam would have turned out better had Ted Nugent served. HH

Arquebus12
07-09-2012, 22:35
The fact that you would consider a hit, but not recovered animal as not filling your tag, and then say that a law to the otherwise, is stupid, pretty much explains what kind if sportsman, no ahem, MAN you are, or in this case, aren't.



You and I have respectfully clashed on a few issues in the past, and I'm okay with it, but you just crossed the line by getting personal with me, Junior.

I don't know, nor care, if you hunt. But if you tell me you fire and not make a recovery at a game animal, then consequently consider that a filled tag, I'll look you in the eye and call you a damned liar.

AK_Stick
07-09-2012, 22:37
This country was founded as thirteen sovereign nations, who voluntarily formed a union for purposes of a common defense, negotiations with non-union nations and eventually a common currency. Each subsequent nation which was added to the union held the same rights. Voluntarily joined, with the rights to voluntarily leave. Some of those nations (Texas) were not as trusting and insisted that this right be expressly put into the terms of their contract in joining the union, but legally it was not actually necessary.

Of course the war of northern aggression changed all of this. From that point forward we were (and are) no longer united states, but instead a SINGLE state with subservient provinces.


The Supreme Court, has ruled that they did not then, nor now, or ever, had the right to leave.

Since the SC, was and continues to be the highest level of decision making in such matters, the truth is, they did not, no matter how you spin it, have such a right.

For better or worse, they joined the Union, they became part of the Nation, and they lost the right to decide to go a different path, after they accepted the advantages of said membership.

AK_Stick
07-09-2012, 22:47
You and I have respectfully clashed on a few issues in the past, and I'm okay with it, but you just crossed the line by getting personal with me, Junior.

I don't know, nor care, if you hunt. But if you tell me you fire and not make a recovery at a game animal, then consequently consider that a filled tag, I'll look you in the eye and call you a damned liar.


Don't get upset with me, for a (perceived) lack of character or insult on your part.

I did not insult you, unless you took it as such, or I struck on something you're ashamed of. Unless you've hit, and not claimed an animal upon one of your tags, there was no questioning of YOUR character sir. Mr Nudgent's however, we have a long track record of we can make judgment upon.


If you're going to go through with the act of shooting an animal, you need to be in, or out, whole hog. If you'll kill a game animal, you need to put in the effort to recover said animal.


I've never lost, or failed to kill an animal I've pulled the trigger on. The act of shooting, is a commitment, upon the sportsman's part. Now I do understand that it is not always possible to recover an animal.

Bad shots happen, even to the best of us. I myself have made hits that were less than the immediately fatal shot I had planned.

However, if you kill the animal, recovered or not, you killed the allotted animal for your tag. There is no way you can argue it.

The permit is not, to recover 1 animal, but a license, and agreement upon your part to KILL the legal number of animals it stands for

Arquebus12
07-09-2012, 23:02
Submitted for posterity:



The fact that you would consider a hit, but not recovered animal as not filling your tag, and then say that a law to the otherwise, is stupid, pretty much explains what kind if sportsman, no ahem, MAN you are, or in this case, aren't.


You're not talking your way out of this, son. I've taken game, and I've lost game. I've lost game after tracking a bad bow shot longer than some people have hunted. You got a perfect record? Congratulations, you've done well for yourself. But the license is for the harvesting of game, not for the killing it, as you suggested. There's nothing in any game laws that says you have to be a good shot nor a good tracker, just that you have an obligation to be the best you can be, and I have strived mightily to that end. The reason why is because that's what a real man does, and I'll not settle for less. Tp that end, I have excelled.

I've been hunting longer than you've been alive, Junior. I'm prepared to forgive the fact that you don't know me and the depth of the responsibility and spirituality I assign to the pursuit of game. You imply to me that I'm anything less, and you and I are going to have deep and bitter problems. Reread what you wrote, and imagine it had been directed at you.

You ever make a veiled accusation like you did in the quote above again, and I'll advise you to not go out of your way to ever meet me in person.

AK_Stick
07-09-2012, 23:11
Submitted for posterity:




You're not talking your way out of this, son. I've taken game, and I've lost game. I've lost game after tracking a bad bow shot longer than some people have hunted. You got a perfect record? Congratulations, you've done well for yourself. But the license is for the harvesting of game, not for the killing it, as you suggested. There's nothing in any game laws that says you have to be a good shot nor a good tracker, just that you have an obligation to be the best you can be, and I have strived mightily to that end. The reason why is because that's what a real man does, and I'll not settle for less. Tp that end, I have excelled.

I've been hunting longer than you've been alive, Junior. I'm prepared to forgive the fact that you don't know me and the depth of the responsibility and spirituality I assign to the pursuit of game. You imply to me that I'm anything less, and you and I are going to have deep and bitter problems. Reread what you wrote, and imagine it had been directed at you.

You ever make a veiled accusation like you did in the quote above again, and I'll advise you to not go out of your way to ever meet me in person.


You know what? You're right. I've been drinking, and I said something a little too pointedly.

I disagree with your sporting ethics. We'll call it a difference in background. I grew up in AK, where not always the law, but that has always been the way I've been raise, and now is infact law in some areas.

However, I shouldn't have said what I did, and you and I have always gotten along, if not agreed.

I apologize for offending you, and it was wrong of me to do so, for a matter of personal opinion. While we disagree, I would prefer to do it in a friendly fashion, as I've enjoyed, and typically agree with what you post.

Cali-Glock
07-09-2012, 23:19
The Supreme Court, has ruled that they did not then, nor now, or ever, had the right to leave.

Since the SC, was and continues to be the highest level of decision making in such matters, the truth is, they did not, no matter how you spin it, have such a right.

For better or worse, they joined the Union, they became part of the Nation, and they lost the right to decide to go a different path, after they accepted the advantages of said membership.

Nonsensical modern rulings by the Supreme Court do not change the historical truths.

The Supreme Court has reversed themselves multiple times, and made many other rulings which without ANY DEBATE by any historian completely contradict the historical meaning and intent of the Constitution.

If you believe what you say, then you must also agree that we are subject to the whims of the United Nations, and they have the right to dictate whatever they please to the USA.

AK_Stick
07-09-2012, 23:21
Nonsensical modern rulings by the Supreme Court do not change the historical truths.

The Supreme Court has reversed themselves multiple times, and made many other rulings which without ANY DEBATE by any historian completely contradict the historical meaning and intent of the Constitution.

If you believe what you say, then you must also agree that we are subject to the whims of the United Nations, and they have the right to dictate whatever they please to the USA.


The UN, is not the SC.

We abide what the UN says, in some items, because we choose to.

We abide what the SC says, because they dictate law.


You can argue that they've changed their minds before, but until they change their mind about succession, they ruled that they did not have the right, which stands now, and then as truth.

Cali-Glock
07-09-2012, 23:36
The UN, is not the SC.

We abide what the UN says, in some items, because we choose to.

We abide what the SC says, because they dictate law.


You can argue that they've changed their minds before, but until they change their mind about succession, they ruled that they did not have the right, which stands now, and then as truth.

I am not arguing that SC has not made the ruling they did. Even without the SC ruling, the Civil War determined that States no longer were "States" but from that point forward they were/are provinces.

The USA and other members of the UN are the same thing as a the 50 states are to the USA.

If States are bound to the USA, why then would the USA not be bound to the UN?

Given that the SC now (unconstitutionally) cite international law and the UN in many of their rulings I would expect them to agree that the USA is subject to the UN.

Detectorist
07-09-2012, 23:36
Uncle Ted needs to follow the law, just as any other citizen would.

AK_Stick
07-09-2012, 23:42
I am not arguing that SC has not made the ruling they did. Even without the SC ruling, the Civil War determined that States no longer were "States" but from that point forward they were/are provinces.

The USA and other members of the UN are the same thing as a the 50 states are to the USA.

If States are bound to the USA, why then would the USA not be bound to the UN?

Given that the SC now (unconstitutionally) cite international law and the UN in many of their rulings I would expect them to agree that the USA is subject to the UN.

Because where as being a member of the USA afforded many advantages to the singular states that joined, the UN offers none.

You may have an argument, when the SC rules as such. However, until that point, there is nothing to support your claim. And the only fact remains, the South, never held the right.

Cali-Glock
07-10-2012, 00:04
Because where as being a member of the USA afforded many advantages to the singular states that joined, the UN offers none.


The United States Government has argued for the past 72 years that being a member of the UN does in fact provide many advantages to it's members.


You may have an argument, when the SC rules as such. However, until that point, there is nothing to support your claim.

Until that point there is nothing to support the claim? :rofl: I truly don't know what to make of this! How can anyone make the claim that the States are to the US as the US is to the UN. Explain it if this is not the case.


You may have an argument, when the SC rules as such. However, until that point, there is nothing to support your claim. And the only fact remains, the South, never held the right.

I am genuinely interested why you believe this. If the states never had the right to voluntarily join or drop out of the union, why then are they called states to begin with, and why then for the first 80 years of our country did the states believe themselves to be sovereign entities who were part of a voluntary union?



:cheers: Cheers to you AK Stick!! I am very much enjoying our friendly debate! I think we are both very perplexed as to how the other party can have such a dramatically, different understanding and perspective on the law, history and the nature of the world, but we are able to discuss this fairly contentious issue in a friendly manner. (Even if you are mistaken and miss-guided :tongueout:)

Seriously though Thank you - I am genuinely interested in trying to understand understand your perspective!

AK_Stick
07-10-2012, 00:19
Ok, before I begin, let me state a couple things.

1. I've been drinking for about 4 hours, so any typo's and or completely retarded statements I should make in the following, I reserve the right to retract, once I've sobered up. I've already pissed off Arquebus12, and I'm going to refrain from trying to do so again, unless I actually mean to piss someone off.

2. Its really hard on me to reply when you break things up into a bunch of little quotes, I'm drunk, so bear with me if I forget a quote or /quote.





The United States Government has argued for the past 72 years that being a member of the UN does in fact provide many advantages to it's members.

When I say advantages, I mean in the facet of, as a state, in the view of "city states" as things were in the 1800 and earlier era's i.e. Greece, banding togeather, with a common rule, held many advantages for a group of states to become a "nation".

In the UN, you have a group of "Nations" not city states. Where as once you start pooling your individual resources, and taking both losses and gains financially, and supporting each other, not in military action, but in everyday function, you more or less become tied together. In the UN, you have a group of people who've come together to form a coalition to govern the earth in a generally peaceful manner. There is no agreement to forgoe (sp?) individuality, members are soely there, as long as they deem they want to be. In the US, once you joined the whole, you lost part of your individuality. Not all mind you, as we still have separate, individual rule, but it comes second behind the single, binding rule we agreed to as part of our initial buy in or agreement.





Until that point there is nothing to support the claim? :rofl: I truly don't know what to make of this! How can anyone make the claim that the States are to the US as the US is to the UN. Explain it if this is not the case.


I disagree with your assertation that the UN is a binding agreement/orginization everyone must remain in, by the fact that, people have walked out/left the UN and returned, or abstained, without a ruling that such is illegal, or any laid down contract stating as such. Members of the UN are voluntary, and are free to go as they choose.

Where as in the US, we have law ( or rather ruling) stating that states, are NOT free to come and go as they choose. They must be voted in. And I would think, must be voted by the same majority, out.


I am genuinely interested why you believe this. If the states never had the right to voluntarily join or drop out of the union, why then are they called states to begin with, and why then for the first 80 years of our country did the states believe themselves to be sovereign entities who were part of a voluntary union?


Many people beleive many things, doesn't make them true.

KKK and Nazi members beleive that Jews and Blacks are lesser beings, Democrats think they're smarter than Republicans, Americans think they work harder than Immigrants. Doesn't make it true.


:cheers: Cheers to you AK Stick!! I am very much enjoying our friendly debate! I think we are both very perplexed as to how the other party can have such a dramatically, different understanding and perspective on the law, history and the nature of the world, but we are able to discuss this fairly contentious issue in a friendly manner. (Even if you are mistaken and miss-guided :tongueout:)

Seriously though Thank you - I am genuinely interested in trying to understand understand your perspective!

Agreed. I hope we can keep the rest of this civil. While we don't agree, for my part, I enjoy a good debate with someone who can present an argument that is both civil, and smartly presented.

BlackPaladin
07-10-2012, 01:16
For being drunk, you did that post pretty well.

clancy
07-10-2012, 04:58
Submitted for posterity:




You're not talking your way out of this, son. I've taken game, and I've lost game. I've lost game after tracking a bad bow shot longer than some people have hunted. You got a perfect record? Congratulations, you've done well for yourself. But the license is for the harvesting of game, not for the killing it, as you suggested. There's nothing in any game laws that says you have to be a good shot nor a good tracker, just that you have an obligation to be the best you can be, and I have strived mightily to that end. The reason why is because that's what a real man does, and I'll not settle for less. Tp that end, I have excelled.

I've been hunting longer than you've been alive, Junior. I'm prepared to forgive the fact that you don't know me and the depth of the responsibility and spirituality I assign to the pursuit of game. You imply to me that I'm anything less, and you and I are going to have deep and bitter problems. Reread what you wrote, and imagine it had been directed at you.

You ever make a veiled accusation like you did in the quote above again, and I'll advise you to not go out of your way to ever meet me in person.

Wow, another Ted fanboy speaks. I personally wish Ted would just shut up. I for one don't need to hear anything a draft dodging pedophile has to say(Ted, not you).

jhoagland
07-10-2012, 05:14
Once or twice a year it seems Ted comes up for__________ reason. You either love or hate him. I love him. Don't care what yall think.

Arquebus12
07-10-2012, 05:15
Directed toward Clancy-

Then why did you click on the link? It's got "Ted Nugent wonders..." in the thread title.

You're entitled to your opinion, but a point of fact is that he's done more good for RKBA than everyone else on this thread combined. He's far from a perfect man, but who is? He's still one of the good guys, and he's on your/our side.

Foxtrotx1
07-10-2012, 05:59
Ok..I'll play.




Yeah buddy...straight from "honest Abe's" lips...

Where did he mention slavery was awesome?

Bren
07-10-2012, 06:03
The things entertainers say...

http://www.freep.com/article/20120706/COL05/120706061/nugent-what-if-south-won-civil-war?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

We will never know the answer.

I don't wonder, I'm certain it would be better. All that even yankees complain about today, with the loss of freedom and the federal government's growth, started when the bad guys won the war. I didn't need Ted to tell me that. However, I enjoy seeing him upset the left-wingers and limpwristers who frequent these threads.

series1811
07-10-2012, 06:09
They would have slowly joined the Union as industrialization took over. Eventually they would be reduced to a few backwards, rural states with nothing to offer. Just look at the states in the south that receive more federal money than they send to DC. A significant majority of the south should be thankful the north took them back.

And, now we have yankees coming down here in droves to live, to show us how bad we have it. :supergrin:

Foxtrotx1
07-10-2012, 06:16
Ted is a model for conservation and game management, and on two occasions, he's been hauled up on charges that were clearly politically based. His bait hunting charge in California was an aberration, because hunting over bait is rarely illegal, and hunting using attractants (scents) is a well established and legal method. California outlawed certain methods using the same logic governing the size of 1911 handguns, to wit: nancy boy politicians caving to special interests and passing bad legislation.

The incident with his hunting bear in Alaska exposed a "gotcha" method of entrapping tourist hunters according to Alaska Division of Wildlife laws. And it's a stupid law, specifically that a bad shot/probable miss is considered a kill, thus your tag is filled, even if the animal was lost.

In either case, were it to happen to you, I sincerely doubt you'd be accusing yourself of violating game laws. Quite the opposite, in fact. Go ahead and tell me you don't hunt, it won't make any difference in how your nitwittery will be received.

So basically he broke game laws and you are making excuses. OK.

If he broke ATF regulations you would still make the same excuses. Except it would go like this:

"so what if he had a homemade full auto, it's a dumb law anyway".

Gotcha.

certifiedfunds
07-10-2012, 06:21
If he broke ATF regulations you would still make the same excuses. Except it would go like this:

"so what if he had a homemade full auto, it's a dumb law anyway".

Gotcha.

It *IS* a dumb law.

HexHead
07-10-2012, 06:26
This country was founded as thirteen sovereign nations, who voluntarily formed a union for purposes of a common defense, negotiations with non-union nations and eventually a common currency. Each subsequent nation which was added to the union held the same rights. Voluntarily joined, with the rights to voluntarily leave. Some of those nations (Texas) were not as trusting and insisted that this right be expressly put into the terms of their contract in joining the union, but legally it was not actually necessary.

Of course the war of northern aggression changed all of this. From that point forward we were (and are) no longer united states, but instead a SINGLE state with subservient provinces.

Exactly. We went from being These United States to The United States, which is a pretty big difference.

Back to the original post, I gotta agree with Ted for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which, given the state of our society today, between failed integration forced on us in the schools, crime rates, the incarceration rate and out of wedlock births for blacks, I'm not convinced we'd be a better nation today if we hadn't freed those people. It certainly wasn't worth the war.

Every other civilized nation that eliminated slavery did it without having to go to war over it. Why couldn't we?

Foxtrotx1
07-10-2012, 06:37
It *IS* a dumb law.

It's the law.

Is mandating auto insurance a dumb law?

Paying taxes?

Murder?

DUI?

Open container?

Prohibition?

Prostitution?

Drugs?

Why do you get to decide? Oh wait, you don't.

Also adding: NRA dosn't get my membership till Ted leaves.

CAcop
07-10-2012, 06:37
This country was founded as thirteen sovereign nations, who voluntarily formed a union for purposes of a common defense, negotiations with non-union nations and eventually a common currency. Each subsequent nation which was added to the union held the same rights. Voluntarily joined, with the rights to voluntarily leave. Some of those nations (Texas) were not as trusting and insisted that this right be expressly put into the terms of their contract in joining the union, but legally it was not actually necessary.

Of course the war of northern aggression changed all of this. From that point forward we were (and are) no longer united states, but instead a SINGLE state with subservient provinces.

So did each state have it's own postal service prior to the war? Did each state have its own currency? Did each state have an independent army or navy?

FLIPPER 348
07-10-2012, 06:43
This always makes me laugh...everyone I know down here who has been up North says racism is 10x worse up there than it is down here.

How so? any examples??

HexHead
07-10-2012, 06:47
How so? any examples??

I've lived in the NYC area, and L.A for that matter, and he's right. People were far more racist in both places than I see living in the South.

You want examples? Just go live there for a while.

series1811
07-10-2012, 06:51
Originally Posted by tantrix This always makes me laugh...everyone I know down here who has been up North says racism is 10x worse up there than it is down here.



How so? any examples??

I can give one. I don't think I ever heard the N-word used so much in my life as the six years I lived in Maryland, and on the fifty or so trips I took to New York (and I grew up in the Mississippi Delta, so that's saying a lot).

The other thing I noticed up north is that the blacks and whites actually mix a lot less in social settings up north than down south.

It's a weird situation I noticed where southern whites claim to not like most blacks, but hang out socially with the ones they do like a lot, while northern whites claim to like blacks, but just never seem to actually know any socially.

Again, from a culture standpoint, in many ways, southern whites and blacks, have much more in common than southern and northern whites, or southern and northern blacks.

I never really saw that commonality between northern blacks and whites when I lived and visited up north.

Arquebus12
07-10-2012, 07:19
So basically he broke game laws and you are making excuses. OK.

If he broke ATF regulations you would still make the same excuses. Except it would go like this:

"so what if he had a homemade full auto, it's a dumb law anyway".

Gotcha.


You're reaching. Both of those "violations" we're unintentional, and committed passively while legally pursuing game in good faith.

Don't presume, you look foolish. Got me?

Foxtrotx1
07-10-2012, 07:24
You're reaching. Both of those "violations" we're unintentional, and committed passively while legally pursuing game in good faith.

Don't presume, you look foolish. Got me?

"Gotcha" as in I understand you in a sarcastic manner. Not: "I got you now!"

Full of your self much?

No I was not reaching, he broke the laws intentionally. Ignorance is no excuse.

Arquebus12
07-10-2012, 07:27
You paint with a broad brush. Seeing as how you asked...

It's the law.

Is mandating auto insurance a dumb law? There are degrees to the coverage required, but no.

Paying taxes? Books have been written...

Murder? No, we're in agreement here.

DUI? Define "Impaired" or "Under the influence"

Open container? Yes, thats a dumb one. See above.

Prohibition? Very dumb.

Prostitution? Consenting adults, etc. Dumb to a degree.

Drugs? In regards to marijuana, incredibly dumb.

Why do you get to decide? Oh wait, you don't. Uhm... Yes I do.

Also adding: NRA dosn't get my membership till Ted leaves. That's cool.

Foxtrotx1
07-10-2012, 07:33
You paint with a broad brush. Seeing as how you asked...

So your saying you get to decide whether a law is to be followed?

Arquebus12
07-10-2012, 07:36
Submitted for your approval... ;)

"Gotcha" as in I understand you in a sarcastic manner. Not: "I got you now!" I understood it as written. Didn't you?

Full of your self much? Yes, actually. I'm proud of the man I've become. Problem with that?

No I was not reaching, he broke the laws intentionally. Ignorance is no excuse. Oh, you were there when it happened. Gotcha. Which one was it? Intentional or ignorant? Or intentionally ignorant? Can't be both, really...

jason10mm
07-10-2012, 07:37
If the SOuth "won" the war, presumably by Lee winning Gettysburg and then taking D.C., I think both sides would have been too damaged to do much, and eventually the North would rebuild faster and retake the South. If the Civil War never happened, i.e. the CSA was allowed to form without violence, then it would be a race to hit the West Coast. Imagine a Northern pocket with only access to the Great Lakes and the East Coast, wedged in by Canada to the North and the CSA to the South and West. That reduced USA wouldn't be the economic powerhouse it needed to be for WW1 and WW2. I suspect a diplomatic solution with a reunion would happen as well, with a weakened Fed (though this would only delay the inevitable, as we are just following Europe). Without a united US economic engine WW2 might have happened very differently. I think the Russians would still have beaten Hitler, but the Japanese forces may have had a much better go of it and possibly even secured the Pacific Rim. We would have then had 3-4 "superpower" (Nazi Europe, Russia, Japan, and the USA/CSA) cold war instead of a 2 sided one, as I think Stalin could have only pushed Hitler back so far before they would have declared peace somewhere east of Berlin.

The slavery issue is predetermined, IMHO. It would have gone away, as turning folks into willing credit "slaves" is a far superior advancement than literal slavery. It is much cheaper to employ someone for minimum wage than to have to pay for them 24/7. Whether resentment over losing the ACW fueled the KKK is hard to say, no one in the 1800s gave black folk much credit. I'm sure civil rights history would have unfolded in much the same timeframe. Heck, giving WOMEN the right to vote was almost as radical an idea as giving it to a black man in 1864, yet both eventually happened (heck, it took what, 50 more YEARS for women to get the same voting privileges as a black man?).

Arquebus12
07-10-2012, 07:40
So your saying you get to decide whether a law is to be followed?

You're damned right. Jefferson went so far as to prescribe disobedience against bad laws and legislation, going so far as to call it a duty. Ross Perot said that the thing he admired most about the American people was their disregard for onerous laws.

And you're no different. Don't tell me follow the speed limit precisely whenever you drive.

Dexters
07-10-2012, 07:46
Right, just as there are no guns now there would have been no more slave ownership if the CSA had prevailed. :rofl:

It is sad that you can not make a point without parsing a person's post.


Is it that you can not understand what other people post?

Or

Is it that you don't have much to offer otherwise?

CAcop
07-10-2012, 07:47
If the SOuth "won" the war, presumably by Lee winning Gettysburg and then taking D.C., I think both sides would have been too damaged to do much, and eventually the North would rebuild faster and retake the South. If the Civil War never happened, i.e. the CSA was allowed to form without violence, then it would be a race to hit the West Coast. Imagine a Northern pocket with only access to the Great Lakes and the East Coast, wedged in by Canada to the North and the CSA to the South and West. That reduced USA wouldn't be the economic powerhouse it needed to be for WW1 and WW2. I suspect a diplomatic solution with a reunion would happen as well, with a weakened Fed (though this would only delay the inevitable, as we are just following Europe). Without a united US economic engine WW2 might have happened very differently. I think the Russians would still have beaten Hitler, but the Japanese forces may have had a much better go of it and possibly even secured the Pacific Rim. We would have then had 3-4 "superpower" (Nazi Europe, Russia, Japan, and the USA/CSA) cold war instead of a 2 sided one, as I think Stalin could have only pushed Hitler back so far before they would have declared peace somewhere east of Berlin.

The slavery issue is predetermined, IMHO. It would have gone away, as turning folks into willing credit "slaves" is a far superior advancement than literal slavery. It is much cheaper to employ someone for minimum wage than to have to pay for them 24/7. Whether resentment over losing the ACW fueled the KKK is hard to say, no one in the 1800s gave black folk much credit. I'm sure civil rights history would have unfolded in much the same timeframe. Heck, giving WOMEN the right to vote was almost as radical an idea as giving it to a black man in 1864, yet both eventually happened (heck, it took what, 50 more YEARS for women to get the same voting privileges as a black man?).

If the south had gotten as far west as CA I don't think they would have taken much more than the southland and the central valley. Far northern CA is not the kid of place for slave labor.

Even if the US was landlocked on the west I could see Canada and the north joining together. They would have far more in common with the north than the south. The US probably would have gone to the artic circle.

tsmo1066
07-10-2012, 07:49
If the SOuth "won" the war, presumably by Lee winning Gettysburg and then taking D.C., I think both sides would have been too damaged to do much, and eventually the North would rebuild faster and retake the South.

If the South would have won at Gettysburg, Lee would have marched back to Virginia shortly afterwards. Lee's goal in marching North was never to actually take D.C. (which was fortified and FULL of Union troops, BTW). The Confederate thinking when Lee marched into Maryland was that if Lee could secure a major victory on Union soil, it would give the final push necessary for France and Britain to formally recognize the Confederacy as an independent nation. Even if neither France nor Britain actually joined the fight, such international recognition would provide grounds for the CSA to sue for peace and do so with strong international backing for an end to the conflict on terms favorable to the CSA.

certifiedfunds
07-10-2012, 07:52
You're damned right. Jefferson went so far as to prescribe disobedience against bad laws and legislation, going so far as to call it a duty. Ross Perot said that the thing he admired most about the American people was their disregard for onerous laws.

And you're no different. Don't tell me follow the speed limit precisely whenever you drive.

Clearly you haven't seen the radar detector threads here.

Arquebus12
07-10-2012, 07:53
I can only imagine...

Bren
07-10-2012, 08:01
So basically he broke game laws and you are making excuses. OK.

If he broke ATF regulations you would still make the same excuses. Except it would go like this:

"so what if he had a homemade full auto, it's a dumb law anyway".

Gotcha.

I have to wonder if you dazzling urbanites have ever hunted. The point was correctly made that what Ted did, in both California and Alaska would be perfectly legal and normal most places. To act like they were terrible sins, you have to really want to be outraged. They are the sort of unusual laws that surprise peoplee from out of state and that's a hazard of hunting all over the country.

It's a lot like the CCWers who get arrested for violating some unusual provision of another state's law, like having to uncover your gun in the car or not being able to carry in a restaurant with a liquor license.

SC Tiger
07-10-2012, 08:10
Ted is a model for conservation and game management, and on two occasions, he's been hauled up on charges that were clearly politically based. His bait hunting charge in California was an aberration, because hunting over bait is rarely illegal, and hunting using attractants (scents) is a well established and legal method. California outlawed certain methods using the same logic governing the size of 1911 handguns, to wit: nancy boy politicians caving to special interests and passing bad legislation.

The incident with his hunting bear in Alaska exposed a "gotcha" method of entrapping tourist hunters according to Alaska Division of Wildlife laws. And it's a stupid law, specifically that a bad shot/probable miss is considered a kill, thus your tag is filled, even if the animal was lost.

In either case, were it to happen to you, I sincerely doubt you'd be accusing yourself of violating game laws. Quite the opposite, in fact. Go ahead and tell me you don't hunt, it won't make any difference in how your nitwittery will be received.

Didn't he actually either miss the animal or hit it but was still able to recover the arrow or something (ie not kill it)?

AK_Stick
07-10-2012, 08:21
You're reaching. Both of those "violations" we're unintentional, and committed passively while legally pursuing game in good faith.

Don't presume, you look foolish. Got me?


How is going out of your way to break rules just so you can make a kill on camera, "unintentional"?

It's the obligation of the hunter to know the laws persuant to the area he's hunting.


Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

SteveH
07-10-2012, 08:25
Ted sure is a loose cannon.

AK_Stick
07-10-2012, 08:28
Didn't he actually either miss the animal or hit it but was still able to recover the arrow or something (ie not kill it)?

He hit, buy did not recover the bear. He claimed it wasn't seriously injured but in AK, that's considered taking.

RenoF250
07-10-2012, 08:49
Getting back to the OP's original point Ted said:
Because our legislative, judicial and executive branches of government hold the 10th Amendment in contempt, I’m beginning to wonder if it would have been best had the South won the Civil War.

"I'm beginning to wonder if.." Means is is getting so bad I want to use something worse to illustrate. "We can't seem to get productivity up, I am beginning to wonder if I should just fire all of them." Do you think that sentence would indicate I actually want to fire everyone? To me it is meant to convey desperation but since uncle Ted used the 3rd rail of slavery all the bed wetters come out of the woodwork.

Personally I do not understand how slavery was ever allowed. The country was started with the Declaration of Independence -
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Where is the exception for black men????

fnfalman
07-10-2012, 08:50
The CSA would have sided with Germany in both WWI and WWII.

Dexters
07-10-2012, 08:59
Personally I do not understand how slavery was ever allowed. The country was started with the Declaration of Independence -
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Where is the exception for black men????

Your comments are a sad commentary on the educational system or at least your participation in it.

Slavery was not outlawed when the US was formed so that the Southern states would join in the war against the British and keep the union together afterwards. Everyone at that time knew they were kicking the can down the road.

Dexters
07-10-2012, 09:00
The CSA would have sided with Germany in both WWI and WWII.

Why?...

tsmo1066
07-10-2012, 09:06
The CSA would have sided with Germany in both WWI and WWII.

Considering that Britain was the CSA's largest trading partner and closest diplomatically friendly nation, I find that VERY doubtful.

fnfalman
07-10-2012, 09:13
Considering that Britain was the CSA's largest trading partner and closest diplomatically friendly nation, I find that VERY doubtful.
Because you know what those people would have thought had they won the Civil War?

Damn, I keep forgetting that this is a serious thread on something that might have/shoulda/coulda.

fnfalman
07-10-2012, 09:17
Why?...

Why not?

RenoF250
07-10-2012, 09:19
Your comments are a sad commentary on the educational system or at least your participation in it.

Slavery was not outlawed when the US was formed so that the Southern states would join in the war against the British and keep the union together afterwards. Everyone at that time knew they were kicking the can down the road.

Never miss an opportunity to insult someone's education eh? I think you are missing my point. I don't understand from a logical point. From a practical point I know it was ignored because they wanted to and could have slaves. The important thing is that you feel intellectually superior though so carry on.

BMH
07-10-2012, 09:21
I can't help but remember the Hank Willimas Jr. song: If the South woulda won

"Well I'd make my Supreme Court down in Texas..."

Pwhfirefighter
07-10-2012, 09:22
And, now we have yankees coming down here in droves to live, to show us how bad we have it. :supergrin:

:goodpost: :wavey:

tsmo1066
07-10-2012, 09:22
Money is one thing, philosophy is another.

What philosophy? Slavery would have died out under its own weight long before WWI as technological advances like the steam tractor and automated harvesters rendered it obsolete and economically unprofitable.

Sure, racism would still exist, but Britain was just as much on board with thinking they were superior to the Chinese, Africans and Indians that were under their rule as any Confederate was in thinking he was superior to blacks.

Sorry, but business as well as long-standing alliance with Britain would have ruled the day (remember, Britain was building ironclads for the CSA and shipping her thousands of tons of rifles, canon and other military equipment even during the Civil War). In fact, the hot-headed and internationally-oriented CSA would likely have plunged into the fighting against Germany long before the heavily isolationist Northern states did so.

My guess would be CSA fighting in Europe against Germany by mid-1915 in WWI and getting after Germany by early 1940 in WWII (as soon as the first London-bound CSA cotton freighter got hit by a German U-boat).

fnfalman
07-10-2012, 09:29
Been reading Harry Turtledove again, eh?

Highly entertaining alternate history series on the American Civil War and its impact on the world had the South won.

Sorry, but business as well as long-standing alliance with Britain would have ruled the day (remember, Britain was building ironclads for the CSA and shipping her thousands of tons of rifles, canon and other military equipment even during the Civil War). In fact, the hot-headed and internationally-oriented CSA would likely have plunged into the fighting against Germany long before the heavily isolationist Northern states did so.

My guess would be CSA fighting in Europe against Germany by mid-1915 in WWI and getting after Germany by early 1940 in WWII (as soon as the first London-bound CSA cotton freighter got hit by a German U-boat).

Dexters
07-10-2012, 09:29
I think you are missing my point. I don't understand from a logical point.

From a practical point I know it was ignored because they wanted to and could have slaves.

The important thing is that you feel intellectually superior though so carry on.

You didn't make those points and your 'practical' point was not the reason slavery wasn't outlawed at the time. See my previous post.

Dexters
07-10-2012, 09:30
Why not?

Because

tsmo1066
07-10-2012, 09:33
Been reading Harry Turtledove again, eh?

Highly entertaining alternate history series on the American Civil War and its impact on the world had the South won.

No, I'm just looking at real history and the most likely scenario based on it. Britain was the CSA's closest ally and largest trading partner.

zoyter2
07-10-2012, 09:34
You know what? You're right. I've been drinking, and I said something a little too pointedly.

I disagree with your sporting ethics. We'll call it a difference in background. I grew up in AK, where not always the law, but that has always been the way I've been raise, and now is infact law in some areas.

However, I shouldn't have said what I did, and you and I have always gotten along, if not agreed.

I apologize for offending you, and it was wrong of me to do so, for a matter of personal opinion. While we disagree, I would prefer to do it in a friendly fashion, as I've enjoyed, and typically agree with what you post.

We interrupt this thread to bring you the following......

Class....it always shows through! Nice to see the good for a change! :wavey::wavey:

We now return to our regularly scheduled insanity!

devildog2067
07-10-2012, 09:41
What philosophy? Slavery would have died out under its own weight long before WWI as technological advances like the steam tractor and automated harvesters rendered it obsolete and economically unprofitable.

I think that's probably true.

I ask again, though--what would have happened to the slaves, after they stopped being economically viable to keep?

Arquebus12
07-10-2012, 09:49
How is going out of your way to break rules just so you can make a kill on camera, "unintentional"?

It's the obligation of the hunter to know the laws persuant to the area he's hunting.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Nobody here knows if he intentionally broke game statutes. You're assuming he did, I personally don't believe it, Ted's shown repeatedly his respect for the law and the game he pursues.

I agree that it's incumbent upon the hunter to be fully aware of the regulations, but game laws vary (wildly) from state to state. Ignorance is not an excuse, but it is a reason, and it's also far more likely why he was charged in the first place, and not because of his blatant disregard for those laws.

tsmo1066
07-10-2012, 09:54
I think that's probably true.

I ask again, though--what would have happened to the slaves, after they stopped being economically viable to keep?

Good question.

I have no illusions that the South would have simply snapped their fingers and slavery would be instantly replaced with equality. With the advent of new technology and farming techniques, chattel slavery would have become unsustainable as an economic practice within a couple of decades of the Civil War, but there would still be plenty of demand for cheap labor and the South would have undoubtedly kept blacks in a "second class citizen" status for many decades to feed that demand.

The slave quarters of the Old South would have given way to shanty-towns for sharecroppers and itinerant black workers who, although technically "free" would have had a station in life no better (and perhaps even somewhat worse) than that enjoyed by the average Irish or Italian tenement dweller in the North.

I'm also sure that a great many freed blacks would have opted to seek their fortunes out West as sharecropping in the South would not have offered enough opportunities to employ all, or even most, of the former slave population.

Dexters
07-10-2012, 09:55
I think that's probably true.

I ask again, though--what would have happened to the slaves, after they stopped being economically viable to keep?

You hit the nail on the head. Versus machines people are expensive to maintain - feed, cloth, guard, house, etc & buy.

Also, the mechanical revolution required an educated workforce and one that took little or no supervision. Something not feasible with slaves.

A few things would happen over time.
1 -Breeding of slaves would slow down - decreasing the population.
2 -Send them to Liberia

Slaves would be freed
3-Freed slaves - stay in the south - become share croppers & see above post
4-Freed slaves - move out of the south

Dexters
07-10-2012, 10:03
Here is an alternative history no one has suggested:

The Federal Government could buy the slave's freedom from owners. It could have bought them at auctions and by direct offer to the owner. This could have been done over several years to lower the economic disruption.

This would have been much less expensive then all the killing and cost of the CW.

RustyShackelford
07-10-2012, 10:35
I simply wonder if Vietnam would have turned out better had Ted Nugent served. HH

Let's turn it a different way, friend and suppose that did serve in Vietnam but was killed on some mission. Now, do you think the USA (and rest of the world, I reckon) would have fared so well in the music industry? I mean, come on man....

Stranglehold. Enough said.

http://youtu.be/0c3d7QgZr7g

Bilbo Bagins
07-10-2012, 11:29
What philosophy? Slavery would have died out under its own weight long before WWI as technological advances like the steam tractor and automated harvesters rendered it obsolete and economically unprofitable.


Are you kidding?

Do you know understand how the Nazis manufacturing work force operated. How where German moms able to stay home to raise their kids while American and British Moms worked in the factories?

Before they had concentration camps they were labor camps.

Even after that there were slave labor camps in China and the USSR.

Slavery even exist today. Having people work for free will always be economically viable.

Bren
07-10-2012, 12:08
Your comments are a sad commentary on the educational system or at least your participation in it.

Slavery was not outlawed when the US was formed so that the Southern states would join in the war against the British and keep the union together afterwards. Everyone at that time knew they were kicking the can down the road.

That doesn't really hold up to the fact that the union states continued to allow slavery under state law, even during and after the civil war. Kentucky, for example, voted to remain neutral in the war in the state level and, while we had a significant presence on the southern side, was technically a union state. Throughout the civil war and after it, slavery remained legal in Kentucky udner both state and federal law, until the 14th amendment made it unconstitutional. Same as Delaware.

On the other hand, slavery was already illegal under state law in Tennessee and Missouri before the end of the civil war.

Why didn't those anti-slave northerners make slavery illegal (some states died, of course) in all of their states?

You have to ignore pretty much everything in history to come to the conclusion that the north was anti-slave and anti-racist. Your position is no more than propaganda created for the war effort, same as we do for every war.

If your anti-southern issue is "slavery" it's a pretty weak one - if an alcoholic who quit drinking last week ridiculed one who quit drinking this week, you'd think that was pretty silly, right?

Green_Manelishi
07-10-2012, 12:08
The Green Man wonders why Ted morphed from rocker (Stranglehold, Free for All, etc.) into pop-rock. CatScratchFever was the beginning of his decline.

tsmo1066
07-10-2012, 12:09
Are you kidding?

Do you know understand how the Nazis manufacturing work force operated. How where German moms able to stay home to raise their kids while American and British Moms worked in the factories?

Before they had concentration camps they were labor camps.

Even after that there were slave labor camps in China and the USSR.

Slavery even exist today. Having people work for free will always be economically viable.

Nazi labor camps were POLITICAL structures designed to punish opponents of the Reich and exterminate certain religious and ethnic groups. Their use of slavery was geared towards a political goal.

Plantations were BUSINESSES driven by profit and as such, their use of slave labor could only last as long as it was profitable.

BTW - Slaves didn't work for "free" under the Confederate model. They were, in fact, very expensive commodities, costing from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars apiece to purchase and hundreds of dollars per year each to maintain, guard and feed (even at near-starvation levels).

Machines were far cheaper to purchase, operate and maintain - and post Civil War, the plantation owner who insisted on clinging to his slave labor model would soon find his plantation and lands bankrupted and owned by his neighbor who chose instead to purchase a few steam combines and tractors and pay a small crew of trained laborers to operate them. Why? Because the mechanized neighbor could bring his cotton and tobacco to market at half the price while still turning a handsome profit.

barta
07-10-2012, 14:04
The problem with our government is us. We let it get too big. The states have rights. They need to unite and take back those rights. Great men long ago(black/white/etc.) were willling to give everything to stand up for those rights.

Are we willing to do the same?

Bren
07-10-2012, 14:13
BTW - Slaves didn't work for "free" under the Confederate model. They were, in fact, very expensive commodities, costing from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars apiece to purchase and hundreds of dollars per year each to maintain, guard and feed (even at near-starvation levels).


When you describe it that way, it sounds so much like the current welfare system (except that the slaves had to work for food and housing) that you have to wonder if it's a coincidence that the democrats were mainly responsible for both. :rofl:

vikingsoftpaw
07-10-2012, 15:33
Although there was the right to own slaves; that does not mean there would be slaves. Just as the situation is today with guns - some own them, most do not.

Slavery is not a viable system in a mechanized world.

History bears this out. Confederates seeking to maintain the slavery based agriculture system fled to parts of South America. They in essence, became a mixed race culture.

fella
07-10-2012, 15:49
The South will rise again... in teen pregnancies and obesity

:rofl:

chpullen
07-10-2012, 16:15
No. Love the South. Like Ted just fine. But this country is the greatest in human history because it is united. These "lost cause" beliefs just ignore simple reality. As an example, could the US have saved Western Civilization in 1941-1945 if it was divided? No.

Averageman
07-10-2012, 16:33
I would agree that slaves would have been far to expensive to keep after Industrialized farming became more prevelant. I would however remind you that many farms were worked with draft animals well in to the 20th Century; there for it is not too much of a stretch to imagine that Blacks in the U.S. would not have been freed until at least 1900 and probobly well in to 1920.
When the upkeep for mouths to feed becomes greater than the upkeep on machinery you would have seen an end to Slavery.
I do however find it ironic that freed slaves left the South to move to the industrial North and live in sometimes worse conditions. You never hear about the freedom to work in dangerous conditions for low pay and the freedom to live in a ghetto.
The history we learn in school is the history written by the victorious North, these lies we are told and taught have caused much of the racial divison we have today in society. No one wants to face the fact that the Slaves were bought in Africa from black Africans.
No one wants to face the fact that after the civil war "reconstruction" hurt blacks far worse than it did whites. To some degree "reconstruction" was a way to remove the slaves from Southern cotton farms and send them North to fill factories, mills and foundries; intentional or not I cannot say, but it did happen.
In the end what we did was to prolong and aggrivate racial strife, the worse thing ever to happen to America was the landing of a Slave Ship.

devildog2067
07-10-2012, 16:40
I do however find it ironic that freed slaves left the South to move to the industrial North and live in sometimes worse conditions. You never hear about the freedom to work in dangerous conditions for low pay and the freedom to live in a ghetto.

I'd much rather live in a ghetto and work in a factory, AND BE FREE, than be owned by another human being.

devildog2067
07-10-2012, 16:41
No one wants to face the fact that the Slaves were bought in Africa from black Africans.

What difference does that make?

el_jewapo
07-10-2012, 16:51
What difference does that make?

I suppose the difference is that whites didn't catch them in nets on the open plains as history suggests. The slaves bought by whites fate was already sealed when they showed up. They were either going to be sold as slaves or killed. No, that doesn't make it right, but it's something.

Dexters
07-10-2012, 17:20
Are you kidding?

Do you know understand how the Nazis manufacturing work force operated. How where German moms able to stay home to raise their kids while American and British Moms worked in the factories?

Before they had concentration camps they were labor camps.

Even after that there were slave labor camps in China and the USSR.

Slavery even exist today. Having people work for free will always be economically viable.

Those those camps as part of their political oppression.

And they were not part of international commerce or capitalistic.

Peace Warrior
07-10-2012, 17:24
I would think most students of history wonder the same thing. I know I have.
Are there any books that realistically analyze this? I wonder this myself.

Google: CSA, YOUTUBE, south won civil war, ken willmot, bbc television

pokersamurai
07-10-2012, 18:56
I think the south losing the Civil War was the best result in the long run. If the South had won neither the CSA of USA would be as strong (economically, industrially, or militaristicly) as the the current USA ended up being, and who knows what may have have happened after that. The Axis powers could have won WWI/WWII, the Soviet Union may have become the dominant power in the world, humans may never have landed on the moon, or made any of the significant medical or technological breakthroughs that the US contributed to post civil-war.

In addition, it can be almost guaranteed that if the South had won that it would not have been the last war the USA and CSA would have fought against each-other.

tantrix
07-10-2012, 19:08
In addition, it can be almost guaranteed that if the South had won that it would not have been the last war the USA and CSA would have fought against each-other.

With the way our federal government acts today, I wouldn't doubt it...and they would deserve a war. They can't seem to keep their noses out of other people's business halfway across the world, much less the CSA bordering right on the edge of them governing themselves.

G26S239
07-10-2012, 19:15
It is sad that you can not make a point without parsing a person's post.


Is it that you can not understand what other people post?

Or

Is it that you don't have much to offer otherwise?

Just how serious should I take wishful thinking conjecture about when slavery coulda, woulda, shoulda spontaneously disappeared from a victorious CSA versus objective facts about the CSA and slavery?

Objective facts,
1. Article 1 Section 9.4 is part of the CSA Constitution.
2. Slavery is identified as The Cause of secession in each of the 4 declaration of causes for secession that were written by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas as well as being "the immediate cause of the latest rupture" as stated by Alexander H. Stephens in his Cornerstone Speech.
3. In addition to #2 above Texas expressly stated in their declaration that slavery was intended to last forever as in "and which her people intended should exist in all future time." That does expressly state all future time, not the next 10 years, 20 years or 50 years.
4. The Cornerstone of the CSA defined by the Vice President of the CSA Alexander H. Stephens is "that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition." regarding black slavery. This is called the Corner-Stone of the CSA, not a by the way or afterthought, by the Vice President of the CSA.
The secessionists stated flat out what their intentions and beliefs regarding slavery were because they expected that they would prevail.

5. And, for those who can only point the slavery finger at the North, the 13th Amendment passed the Senate on April 8th 1864 and passed the House on January 31st 1865 and was put into effect by the Victorious Union in December 1865. It did happen in 1865 BECAUSE the North won.

Against those objective facts there is conjecture about when slavery in the CSA might have just spontaneously gone away. The idea that the slave holding class that had successfully defended their right to own slaves in the 1860s would suddenly develop a collective conscience in the 1880s, 1910s or 1920s and vote against their self interest seems highly unlikely to me.

tantrix
07-10-2012, 19:18
Where did he mention slavery was awesome?

No...here's a better question. I'll post it again, tell me how you interpret this:

“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” -

Abraham Lincoln, 1858


Seem pretty clear to me what it means.

G26S239
07-10-2012, 19:34
No...here's a better question. I'll post it again, tell me how you interpret this:




Seem pretty clear to me what it means.
In case it has escaped your notice Presidents and Presidential candidates don't always say what they really mean. Here are two more recent examples of this relatively unknown phenomenon. Who would have figured?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP9_kkzfN-w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBe_guezGGc

devildog2067
07-10-2012, 19:35
No...here's a better question. I'll post it again, tell me how you interpret this:


That's the second time you posted that, and the second time I'll ask what it has anything to do with anything.

Dexters
07-10-2012, 19:35
Just how serious should I take wishful thinking conjecture about when slavery coulda, woulda, shoulda spontaneously disappeared from a victorious CSA versus objective facts about the CSA and slavery?

Objective facts,
1. Article 1 Section 9.4 is part of the CSA Constitution.
2. Slavery is identified as The Cause of secession in each of the 4 declaration of causes for secession that were written by Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas as well as being "the immediate cause of the latest rupture" as stated by Alexander H. Stephens in his Cornerstone Speech.
3. In addition to #2 above Texas expressly stated in their declaration that slavery was intended to last forever as in "and which her people intended should exist in all future time." That does expressly state all future time, not the next 10 years, 20 years or 50 years.
4. The Cornerstone of the CSA defined by the Vice President of the CSA Alexander H. Stephens is "that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition." regarding black slavery. This is called the Corner-Stone of the CSA, not a by the way or afterthought, by the Vice President of the CSA.
The secessionists stated flat out what their intentions and beliefs regarding slavery were because they expected that they would prevail.

5. And, for those who can only point the slavery finger at the North, the 13th Amendment passed the Senate on April 8th 1864 and passed the House on January 31st 1865 and was put into effect by the Victorious Union in December 1865. It did happen in 1865 BECAUSE the North won.

Against those objective facts there is conjecture about when slavery in the CSA might have just spontaneously gone away. The idea that the slave holding class that had successfully defended their right to own slaves in the 1860s would suddenly develop a collective conscience in the 1880s, 1910s or 1920s and vote against their self interest seems highly unlikely to me.

Three points
1 - you only quoted part of my post - to suit your needs.

2 - No one said the CSA would develop a conscience. What I said is that slavery was not economically viable considering the industrial revolution and modern machinery.

3. The points you raised were addressed previously.

Dexters
07-10-2012, 19:38
No...here's a better question. I'll post it again, tell me how you interpret this:




Seem pretty clear to me what it means.

He also supported sending slaves back to Africa.
http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=34&subjectID=3

tantrix
07-10-2012, 19:46
That's the second time you posted that, and the second time I'll ask what it has anything to do with anything.

It has everything to do with everything. All the blame for slavery is put on the CSA by the majority here, yet when Lincoln says that, all of a sudden it's "not what he really meant". Must be nice to pick and choose what is truth and what isn't.

HollowHead
07-10-2012, 19:50
All the blame for slavery is put on the CSA by the majority here...

It's not just here. HH

HexHead
07-10-2012, 19:58
I think the south losing the Civil War was the best result in the long run. If the South had won neither the CSA of USA would be as strong (economically, industrially, or militaristicly) as the the current USA ended up being, and who knows what may have have happened after that. The Axis powers could have won WWI/WWII, the Soviet Union may have become the dominant power in the world, humans may never have landed on the moon, or made any of the significant medical or technological breakthroughs that the US contributed to post civil-war.

In addition, it can be almost guaranteed that if the South had won that it would not have been the last war the USA and CSA would have fought against each-other.


I have heard that the former Southern states today would be the world's 5th largest economy, and that the former Northern states wouldn't even make the top 25.

If the Axis had won WWI, and they probaly would have if we hadn't entered the war, there wouldn't have been a WWII. At least not with Germany. Japan was a whole 'nother thing.

Peace Warrior
07-10-2012, 20:06
...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBe_guezGGc
When pressed on something stressful that might be embarrassing or bring about disciplinary action, in my experiences, ALL school age kids that point in one direction while looking or speaking in another direction, 8.5 out of 10 times they are completely lying.

10 our of 10 times they are being deceitful with at least part of their story/explanation.

devildog2067
07-10-2012, 20:09
It has everything to do with everything. All the blame for slavery is put on the CSA by the majority here

What "blame" for slavery?

It has nothing to do with blame. It has to do with facts. The FACT is, most of the slave owning population and most of the slaves lived in the part of the country that chose to secede.

Yes, there were slave-owners in the North. Yes, they were specifically exempt from the Emancipation Proclamation, and yes, that document was clearly politically motivated. So what? In the end, millions of people were set free. That's what actually happened.

yet when Lincoln says that, all of a sudden it's "not what he really meant"

See above: So what? In the end, millions of people were set free. That's what actually happened. What difference does it make what he "meant"? He chose a course of action that ultimately set millions free. That's what he "did" and it trumps what he "meant".

G26S239
07-10-2012, 20:13
Although there was the right to own slaves; that does not mean there would be slaves. Just as the situation is today with guns - some own them, most do not.

Slavery is not a viable system in a mechanized world.

Three points
1 - you only quoted part of my post - to suit your needs.

2 - No one said the CSA would develop a conscience. What I said is that slavery was not economically viable considering the industrial revolution and modern machinery.

3. The points you raised were addressed previously.
1. There, I have posted your entire quote. It changes nothing. Most people did not own slaves when it was legal to do so. Slavery STILL existed because SOME people owned slaves. 100% participation or even majority participation is not required for legalized slavery to exist.
2. Mexico as a nation is not economically viable, at least in comparison to where they could be, in spite of numerous natural resources BECAUSE the vested interests of the oligarchy running Mexico take precedence over a better standard of living for a greater number of people. Your apparent assumption that the people in power will want the most efficient system even if it goes against their own vested interest is a flawed assumption.

The slave owning class of the antebellum South did not give a shiite about the lower class whites of the South anymore than the upper class in Mexico wants to use PEMEX money to build an education, health care or industrial infrastructure that would improve the standard of living across the board. Read Gone With The Wind and note how Scarlett's family think of Emmy Slattery and her family. Black slavery benefitted them and how it adversely affected lower class whites was not their concern.

3. Addressed in a coulda, woulda, shoulda fashion. Objective facts are that the CSA was established with the intent of keeping slavery for as long as possible.

tantrix
07-10-2012, 20:19
What "blame" for slavery?

It has nothing to do with blame. It has to do with facts. The FACT is, most of the slave owning population and most of the slaves lived in the part of the country that chose to secede.

Yes, there were slave-owners in the North. Yes, they were specifically exempt from the Emancipation Proclamation, and yes, that document was clearly politically motivated. So what? In the end, millions of people were set free. That's what actually happened.



See above: So what? In the end, millions of people were set free. That's what actually happened. What difference does it make what he "meant"? He chose a course of action that ultimately set millions free. That's what he "did" and it trumps what he "meant".


Were have you been during Civil War threads?

If you believe Lincoln was responsible for the slaves being freed, that shows you haven't done any actual research on your own.

The point is, the war and death of 300,000 soldiers wasn't needed to end slavery...so what did it really happen for? There was nothing "Civil" about that war, and Lincoln's decision to murder all those involved is nothing to be proud of.



I for one, think it's not only ironic, but flat-out humorous that Lincoln died as a result of the decisions he made regarding the Civil War.

Dexters
07-10-2012, 20:27
1. There, I have posted your entire quote. It changes nothing. Most people did not own slaves when it was legal to do so. Slavery STILL existed because SOME people owned slaves. 100% participation or even majority participation is not required for legalized slavery to exist.
2. Mexico as a nation is not economically viable, at least in comparison to where they could be, in spite of numerous natural resources BECAUSE the vested interests of the oligarchy running Mexico take precedence over a better standard of living for a greater number of people. Your apparent assumption that the people in power will want the most efficient system even if it goes against their own vested interest is a flawed assumption.

The slave owning class of the antebellum South did not give a shiite about the lower class whites of the South anymore than the upper class in Mexico wants to use PEMEX money to build an education, health care or industrial infrastructure that would improve the standard of living across the board. Read Gone With The Wind and note how Scarlett's family think of Emmy Slattery and her family. Black slavery benefitted them and how it adversely affected lower class whites was not their concern.

3. Addressed in a coulda, woulda, shoulda fashion. Objective facts are that the CSA was established with the intent of keeping slavery for as long as possible.

OK, I've updated my response.

Two points


1 - No one said the CSA would develop a conscience. What I said is that slavery was not economically viable considering the industrial revolution and modern machinery.

2. The points you raised were addressed previously.


3. Addressed in a coulda, woulda, shoulda fashion. Objective facts are that the CSA was established with the intent of keeping slavery for as long as possible.


Yes, and as long as possible would have been limited by the fact that slavery was not economically viable considering the industrial revolution and modern machinery.

devildog2067
07-10-2012, 20:30
If you believe Lincoln was responsible for the slaves being freed, that shows you haven't done any actual research on your own.

Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

That's a fact.

To assign responsibility for it to a single person is, yes, oversimplifying a lot. It's like saying "Obama got Bin Laden."

But it *is* true that Obama was C-in-C when Bin Laden was killed, and it *is* true that Lincoln was President when the first steps to eliminate the institution of slavery in the US were taken.

devildog2067
07-10-2012, 20:32
The point is, the war and death of 300,000 soldiers wasn't needed to end slavery...so what did it really happen for?

Was it worth the deaths of 300,000 soldiers to end the institution of slavery a few decades sooner?

(Also, wasn't it more like 600k? I thought I remembered 600k.)

Foxtrotx1
07-10-2012, 20:40
No...here's a better question. I'll post it again, tell me how you interpret this:




Seem pretty clear to me what it means.

Again I ask, where did he say slavery was awesome?

You can be a racist and not support slavery. Besides, in 1863, i'm not sure many people anywhere in the world thought blacks were equal.

Dexters
07-10-2012, 20:42
Was it worth the deaths of 300,000 soldiers to end the institution of slavery a few decades sooner?

(Also, wasn't it more like 600k? I thought I remembered 600k.)

Would you believe 750,000?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/civil-war-toll-up-by-20-percent-in-new-estimate.html?pagewanted=all

tantrix
07-10-2012, 20:42
Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

That's a fact.

It's also a fact that slaves in the North were not freed after the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, only the slaves in the South. The North still had slaves many years after the end of the Civil War.



Was it worth the deaths of 300,000 soldiers to end the institution of slavery a few decades sooner?

(Also, wasn't it more like 600k? I thought I remembered 600k.)


It was...I was simply split it 50/50 referring to the Southern soldiers who were killed by Lincoln because the South wanted to govern themselves. But yeah, we can pretty much say 600,000+ died for...well, what some say was the end of slavery, but as I said above...apparently it was a different reason.

rgregoryb
07-10-2012, 20:44
We did win, the North still has Newark and Detroit

Foxtrotx1
07-10-2012, 20:45
I suppose the difference is that whites didn't catch them in nets on the open plains as history suggests. The slaves bought by whites fate was already sealed when they showed up. They were either going to be sold as slaves or killed. No, that doesn't make it right, but it's something.

How does that change anything? Whites created the demand.

http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa328/Foxtrotx1/sherman.jpg

devildog2067
07-10-2012, 20:48
It's also a fact that slaves in the North were not freed after the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, only the slaves in the South.

Yes. I said so, a few posts ago:

Yes, there were slave-owners in the North. Yes, they were specifically exempt from the Emancipation Proclamation, and yes, that document was clearly politically motivated. So what? In the end, millions of people were set free. That's what actually happened.


Again, so what? The document freed ~20k slaves immediately, and several million by the end of the war (as areas came back under Union control, the slaves were "automatically" freed).

The North still had slaves many years after the end of the Civil War.

Totally untrue. The 13th Amendment was passed in 1864 and took effect in 1865, completely outlawing slavery everywhere in the US. The war ended in 1865. There were a few months between the formal end of hostilities and the end of slavery everywhere in the US, not "many years."

rgregoryb
07-10-2012, 20:48
[quote=Foxtrotx1;19183186]How does that change anything? Whites created the demand.



whites only wore cotton?

rauldduke1979
07-10-2012, 20:51
But how would have the world wars turned out without a United States to throw in it's full support?

Well, for starters, its unlikely that we'd call it a "world war".

We'd probably call it that one war where Germany beat Russia and then got their act together in the west and beat France and England like rented mules.

Germany would have achieved regional hegemony (much like the North eventually did here in North America) and be basically untouchable. We'd never have had a WWII and no Soviet Union either.

England would accommodations with the Germany Empire.

France would exist as a province of Germany.

England might have kept her Empire.

North America would probably be a balance between The CSA (stretching down to Panama)/ The USA, Canada and an independent Sioux nation in the west.

tantrix
07-10-2012, 20:56
How does that change anything? Whites created the demand.




Keep posting that pic...it shows what kind of person you are to be proud of that piece of ****.

During the Civil War, General Grant insisted that the defeat of Confederate armies was the first and foremost objective of Union strategy. Disobeying this policy, General Sherman set forth on a march to Savannah and the sea on November 15, 1864. He led his Union troops away from every Confederate army camp or stronghold. Instead, his army proceeded through the soft belly of the South, burning and destroying the civilians, their homes, their property, their farms, their food, their entire countryside. They murdered the children and the elderly, raped the women and then shot them, and stole every valuable they could get their hands on.


Sherman was nothing but a coward and a murderer. What a hero.

Foxtrotx1
07-10-2012, 21:22
[quote=Foxtrotx1;19183186]How does that change anything? Whites created the demand.



whites only wore cotton?

The demand for slaves. :faint:

http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/grimsley1/myth/myth.htm

Averageman
07-10-2012, 21:39
What difference does that make?
Steven;
It makes a difference in that the black man was in essence sold by a fellow black man in to slavery, or more likely traded in to slavery.
The responcability for slavery is not totally a white fault.
In Africa today, blacks are still selling blacks in to slavery, yet white Americans have nothing to do with the still on going trade.
Want some guilt for slavery, place it first in Africa and keep the pressure on it now as it is still going on,...but then where are Jackson and Sharpton on the issue? Pretty much not is the answer.

AK_Stick
07-10-2012, 21:49
Keep posting that pic...it shows what kind of person you are to be proud of that piece of ****.




Sherman was nothing but a coward and a murderer. What a hero.


Thats how you win a war.

Take a lesson, Pershing, Sherman, Patton, they knew how to fight.



That you don't have the stomach for it, simply explains it.

certifiedfunds
07-10-2012, 21:52
Thats how you win a war.

Take a lesson, Pershing, Sherman, Patton, they knew how to fight.



That you don't have the stomach for it, simply explains it.

raping women and burning people alive in churches?

tantrix
07-10-2012, 21:52
Thats how you win a war.

Take a lesson, Pershing, Sherman, Patton, they knew how to fight.



That you don't have the stomach for it, simply explains it.

And yet anyone who does such things to us are considered war criminals. :upeyes:

I say any American troops captured in the Middle East are beheaded on live TV...seems fair, after all...it is war. :whistling:

Averageman
07-10-2012, 21:54
Thats how you win a war.

Take a lesson, Pershing, Sherman, Patton, they knew how to fight.

That you don't have the stomach for it, simply explains it.

I would have to totally agree with this.
You dont win wars playing by the rules we have been using since 1950.
You want to conscript troops from all socio economic groups and then fight as destructive a war as possible.
You cannot stop the spread of war by "Winning Hearts and Minds" It is not only a waste of National Treasure it puts the burden of warfare in the hands of the a small group of "volunteers".

Arquebus12
07-10-2012, 21:55
It's one way to win a war, and Willie T. was a professional soldier... cut off supply lines, demoralize your opponent, take the fight to the enemy by doing as much harm as you can, etc.

That said, I can't get around the women and kids aspect of his actions, if it's true.

AK_Stick
07-10-2012, 21:57
And yet anyone who does such things to us are considered war criminals. :upeyes:

I say any American troops captured in the Middle East are beheaded on live TV...seems fair, after all...it is war. :whistling:



It was a different time.

War is not fought the same way today, as it was in the 1400's 1500's or 1800's.




As for your little remark, well, if that's how you feel, so be it.

AK_Stick
07-10-2012, 21:59
It's one way to win a war, and Willie T. was a professional soldier... cut off supply lines, demoralize your opponent, take the fight to the enemy by doing as much harm as you can, etc.

That said, I can't get around the women and kids aspect of his actions, if it's true.



I have no doubt that some of it is certainly true. As it happens, even today, and in every war preceding.


That said, its one thing to happen, and another to have ordered and/or encouraged/accepted it.


It was a horrible thing to put brother against brother, and fathers against sons. Horrible things happened on both sides. Its not like the South didn't have their share of atrocity either.

AK_Stick
07-10-2012, 22:02
raping women and burning people alive in churches?



Happened in WWII and we called them heros. "The Greatest Generation"


We burned whole cities to ash, and incited firestorms that killed everything living for miles.

We nuked two entire citys. Because killing everything, destroying the will, and the means to fight, is how you win.


War is horrible, ugly, terrible thing. And it needs to be.


Trying to pretty it up, only shows a lack of experience, and/or knowledge of it.

Averageman
07-10-2012, 22:02
And yet anyone who does such things to us are considered war criminals. :upeyes:

I say any American troops captured in the Middle East are beheaded on live TV...seems fair, after all...it is war. :whistling:
And that hasn't happened? You havent seen that on the news or on Utube yet?
Surely you are either very unaware or not very smart when making statements like that on a board with so many currently serving or veterans of our late wars.
In my family, just my family mind you, I have served, my brother is disabled from his service, my other brother is serving and both of his sons my nephews are deployable or soon to deploy.
I find your statement distasteful and childish.

tantrix
07-10-2012, 22:03
It was a different time.

War is not fought the same way today, as it was in the 1400's 1500's or 1800's.




As for your little remark, well, if that's how you feel, so be it.

It doesn't matter what time it was, it never justifies the rape and murder of women and children.

It's a little hypocritical to be ok with Sherman doing that, but when the US sees pictures of American troops they burned alive and hung from bridges in the Middle East, all of a sudden the entire country is outraged and it's candlelight vigils everywhere.




And that hasn't happened? You havent seen that on the news or on Utube yet?
Surely you are either very unaware or not very smart when making statements like that on a board with so many currently serving or veterans of our late wars.
In my family, just my family mind you, I have served, my brother is disabled from his service, my other brother is serving and both of his sons my nephews are deployable or soon to deploy.
I find your statement distasteful and childish.

Yes, I know all about it...that's exactly why I said it.

And I also don't care who here is serving or has served if they agree with what Sherman did. As I said, if it's wrong to do despicable things to people even during a time of war, it's wrong no matter when or where it's happening.

AK_Stick
07-10-2012, 22:08
It doesn't matter what time it was, it never justifies the rape and murder of women and children.

It's a little hypocritical to be ok with Sherman doing that, but when the US sees pictures of American troops they burned alive and hung from bridges in the Middle East, all of a sudden the entire country is outraged and it's candlelight vigils everywhere.


So its perfectly ok to bomb women and children into oblivion from 10K+ feet, but we get squeamish when its on the personal level?

I'm not making excuses for raping anyone. But war, especially total war, is a harsh, ugly, but effective way of fighting a war.


Secondly, it wasn't US troops burned and hung from bridges, it was a group of US contractors. I actually knew one of them professionally.

AK_Stick
07-10-2012, 22:10
Yes, I know all about it...that's exactly why I said it.

And I also don't care who here is serving or has served if they agree with what Sherman did. As I said, if it's wrong to do despicable things to people even during a time of war, it's wrong no matter when or where it's happening.


Have you served in the armed forces Tantrix?

tantrix
07-10-2012, 22:13
So its perfectly ok to bomb women and children into oblivion from 10K+ feet, but we get squeamish when its on the personal level?

I'm not making excuses for raping anyone. But war, especially total war, is a harsh, ugly, but effective way of fighting a war.


Secondly, it wasn't US troops burned and hung from bridges, it was a group of US contractors. I actually knew one of them professionally.

And they were "our" contractors, so everyone was upset. But, when it's not "our" side like the Southern men/women during the Civil War, it's fine because it "was a different time"? Still doesn't make it acceptable.

I would also bet a Confederate general doing this to the men/women in a Northern state/town would be called every name in the book.

tsmo1066
07-10-2012, 22:14
I would agree that slaves would have been far to expensive to keep after Industrialized farming became more prevelant. I would however remind you that many farms were worked with draft animals well in to the 20th Century; there for it is not too much of a stretch to imagine that Blacks in the U.S. would not have been freed until at least 1900 and probobly well in to 1920.

I think that had the CSA won, complete emancipation would have happened earlier than 1900, perhaps even as early as 1880-90. The reason is that while many smaller subsistance farms might have wanted to stick with draft animals and slaves, the big plantations and commercial farms would have had to rid themselves of slavery almost immediately in order to remain competitive economically, and those plantation owners and wealthy farmers were, coincidentally, the leaders, power brokers and legislators throughout the CSA.

Once the government leaders throughout the CSA had personally divorced themselves from slavery, there would really be no reason for them to keep bucking international pressure from Britain and their other primary trading partners, all of whom had already ditched the institution. Getting rid of slavery throughout the South would have simply been good business in a CSA victorious, post-Civil War world and money talks.

Arquebus12
07-10-2012, 22:19
I'll preface this by saying that the US has had it's low moments... My Lai comes to mind.

That said, the business with the contractors being strung up from the bridge sickened me. Even worse was the bodies of US air crews being dragged through Mogadishu.

If I was in charge, I could see myself being dissuaded from using the nuclear option in either case, but a Dresden-type of fire bombing would be something I'd be campaigning for as a result of such displays. Vigorously. Women and kids would be collateral damage.

AK_Stick
07-10-2012, 22:22
And they were "our" contractors, so everyone was upset. But, when it's not "our" side like the Southern men/women during the Civil War, it's fine because it "was a different time"? Still doesn't make it acceptable.

I would also bet a Confederate general doing this to the men/women in a Northern state/town would be called every name in the book.



Have you ever served?

Or is your only knowledge of war, what you've read in a text book?

Averageman
07-10-2012, 22:23
And they were "our" contractors, so everyone was upset. But, when it's not "our" side like the Southern men/women during the Civil War, it's fine because it "was a different time"? Still doesn't make it acceptable.

I would also bet a Confederate general doing this to the men/women in a Northern town would be called every name in the book.
Try looking at our troops, not our contractors, it has happened to our troops.
Our troops who have put themselves in the line of fire to protect civilians from casualties.
"Our Troops" doesn't mean a lot if you havent served or come home for Christmas to a brother who cant quiet walk again yet.
"Our Troops" doesnt mean a lot until you get a H.S. graduation notice then a Ranger school graduation from a Nephew a couple of years apart, oh and by the way, while his Dad is fighting in country and cant quite make it.
And the South was not without guilt,..remember Fort Pillow?

Arquebus12
07-10-2012, 22:26
And they were "our" contractors, so everyone was upset. But, when it's not "our" side like the Southern men/women during the Civil War, it's fine because it "was a different time"? Still doesn't make it acceptable.

I would also bet a Confederate general doing this to the men/women in a Northern state/town would be called every name in the book.

Point of order, Tantrix, General Morgan and his Raiders did much of the same kind of behavior tear-assing through Indiana and Ohio.

Not a swipe at you and your history, but still a historical fact. Neither side's hands were all the way clean during the Civil War.

tantrix
07-10-2012, 22:27
Have you ever served?

Or is your only knowledge of war, what you've read in a text book?


No, I haven't served but that's irrelevant. It doesn't take a 20 year veteran to know what should or shouldn't be done during times of war. And you, being someone who is serving or has served...should not agree with what he did. That was my point this entire time.



And the South was not without guilt,..remember Fort Pillow?

I have never said the South was without guilt.



Neither side's hands were all the way clean during the Civil War.

Exactly. That's why I cannot stand the Sherman love every time the Civil War is brought up. Just because he fought for the "good guys" doesn't justify his actions. They were atrocious, and he will always be a stain on this country no matter which side he fought for.

Averageman
07-10-2012, 22:32
No, I haven't served but that's irrelevant. It doesn't take a 20 year veteran to know what should or shouldn't be done during times of war. And you, being someone who is serving or has served...should not agree with what he did. That was my point this entire time.
So, what you have read, studied and understood about war is your basis of an opinion about how it should be fought.
Your behind in the grass, mud, snow and blood are irrelevant to the facts; but what someone else has written is?
I highly suggest you put down the book and put on your rucksack and give us an opinion after a 4 or 6 year tour.
And this is why we should have a draft.

tsmo1066
07-10-2012, 22:39
No, I haven't served but that's irrelevant. It doesn't take a 20 year veteran to know what should or shouldn't be done during times of war. And you, being someone who is serving or has served...should not agree with what he did. That was my point this entire time.

In point of fact, Sherman never ordered his troops to rape women and burn children alive in churches. He ordered them to shatter the economic infrastructure of the South by destroying their farms, crops, rail lines, cities and other elements necessary for the survival of the Confederate Army.

It was ugly business, and yes, many Union troops committed atrocities outside of their direct orders, but as Sherman very accurately noted, "War is all hell."

What Sherman did was nothing new in the annals of military history and it was by no means the last time such tactics would be employed, even by the "good guys". Eighty years later our Air Corps carpet bombed Europe and Japan into oblivion to defeat the Axis, and in Vietnam we blasted huge swaths of enemy territory without mercy.

War sucks...it always has and it always will, and those who detest such actions should think twice before unleashing armies against each other.

Arquebus12
07-10-2012, 22:40
So, what you have read, studied and understood about war is your basis of an opinion about how it should be fought.
Your behind in the grass, mud, snow and blood are irrelevant to the facts; but what someone else has written is?
I highly suggest you put down the book and put on your rucksack and give us an opinion after a 4 or 6 year tour.
And this is why we should have a draft.

Respectfully disagree... The benefits of an all volunteer force would be negated by conscription. It's a unifying thing, the hardship and conflict, and it's good for a fighting force's morale. Insert draftees, and the dynamic changes dramatically with just one "Barracks Lawyer" in a platoon, who's doing his tour to get it out of the way, because Canada and Mexico won't take his ass in this time.

That said, some sort of national service is something I've always favored. It's not enough to just pay taxes... you should directly contribute to the United States because you were fortunate enough to be born American.

tantrix
07-10-2012, 22:43
So, what you have read, studied and understood about war is your basis of an opinion about how it should be fought.
Your behind in the grass, mud, snow and blood are irrelevant to the facts; but what someone else has written is?
I highly suggest you put down the book and put on your rucksack and give us an opinion after a 4 or 6 year tour.
And this is why we should have a draft.

A draft would prove absolutely nothing. If anything, it would result in more US troops lost and more war crimes committed than what already goes on.

But, back to the point...


If people didn't care how war was fought, AGAIN...we wouldn't have Geneva Conventions or been upset about the beheading of our troops or the burning/lynching of the US contractors...we would have just accepted it as something that happens during war.

certifiedfunds
07-10-2012, 22:49
It was a different time.



Seems that some use that same excuse to justify slavery.

certifiedfunds
07-10-2012, 22:51
Happened in WWII and we called them heros. "The Greatest Generation"


We burned whole cities to ash, and incited firestorms that killed everything living for miles.

We nuked two entire citys. Because killing everything, destroying the will, and the means to fight, is how you win.


War is horrible, ugly, terrible thing. And it needs to be.


Trying to pretty it up, only shows a lack of experience, and/or knowledge of it.

We're talking about fellow (though ever so slightly former) countrymen.

AK_Stick
07-10-2012, 22:58
We're talking about fellow (though ever so slightly former) countrymen.



We are also talking about war.


War, is a country of will, there is no room for sympathy, and if you're not willing to give up everything, you've already lost.

Foxtrotx1
07-11-2012, 03:36
Before any southern apologist claims that slavery was not the main objective of the war; The words of General Lee himself:
"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained."



Statement to John Leyburn (1 May 1870), as quoted in R. E. Lee : A Biography (1934) by Douglas Southall Freeman

Green_Manelishi
07-11-2012, 08:11
No, I haven't served but that's irrelevant. It doesn't take a 20 year veteran to know what should or shouldn't be done during times of war.


What any man (or woman) has done, any man (or woman) is capable of doing. Oswald Chambers

I am too old to serve and even when I was young enough would not have passed the physicals. I like to think that I am "above" certain behavior but this I do know: I don't want to find out how low I can go if pushed hard enough for long enough, in the circumstances that bring out the worst in any man or woman.

JW1178
07-11-2012, 19:52
I practically live on a civil war battlefield and go to the parks dedicated as national battlefields where I do most of my running/hiking. I don't have some 6th sense but from what I read, and then the feelings I get from the battlefields themselves I know what was going through people's minds. The Union Soldiers were doing what their country called them to do, and felt what they were doing was patriotic and just. The Confederate Soldiers were fighting because they were not going to let people who are different from them rule them from far away. They wanted to have the freedom to rule themselves. They had more in common with the soldiers of the Revolutionary war than the Union Soldiers. In fact, the US because the very thing they had fought against only 90 years earlier. I really don't think the boots on the ground really cared much about slavery, all that talk was just political talk. The South was fighting for it's freedom and independence.

I hear some talk about the UN. The UN is trying to sneak it's way into becoming a one world government, but they are too weak and insignificant to be very effective. The UN is run by the US, not completely but it is that.

The UN is the biggest threat to our freedom. The UN constitution has it's idea of a Bill of Rights that can be suspended any time those rights get in the way of the operation of the UN. IOW, they are your rights when they let you have them, so actually, there are no rights. What the UN wants to do is get us to agree that the UN Consitution is over the US constituion technically voiding our constitution.

I am hoping that at least most of our politicians aren't stupid enough to agree to this kind of garbage, but if they do, we could go to a war with the UN, and if we lose history will say we were bigoted nationalists who didn't feel other humans in this world were equal so we had to be squashed.

I gaurantee you that Obama would hand the US right over to the UN as long as he could still run it. Imagine Obama with no Constitution limiting him?

Foxtrotx1
07-12-2012, 04:08
I practically live on a civil war battlefield and go to the parks dedicated as national battlefields where I do most of my running/hiking. I don't have some 6th sense but from what I read, and then the feelings I get from the battlefields themselves I know what was going through people's minds. The Union Soldiers were doing what their country called them to do, and felt what they were doing was patriotic and just. The Confederate Soldiers were fighting because they were not going to let people who are different from them rule them from far away. They wanted to have the freedom to rule themselves. They had more in common with the soldiers of the Revolutionary war than the Union Soldiers. In fact, the US because the very thing they had fought against only 90 years earlier. I really don't think the boots on the ground really cared much about slavery, all that talk was just political talk. The South was fighting for it's freedom and independence.

I hear some talk about the UN. The UN is trying to sneak it's way into becoming a one world government, but they are too weak and insignificant to be very effective. The UN is run by the US, not completely but it is that.

The UN is the biggest threat to our freedom. The UN constitution has it's idea of a Bill of Rights that can be suspended any time those rights get in the way of the operation of the UN. IOW, they are your rights when they let you have them, so actually, there are no rights. What the UN wants to do is get us to agree that the UN Consitution is over the US constituion technically voiding our constitution.

I am hoping that at least most of our politicians aren't stupid enough to agree to this kind of garbage, but if they do, we could go to a war with the UN, and if we lose history will say we were bigoted nationalists who didn't feel other humans in this world were equal so we had to be squashed.

I gaurantee you that Obama would hand the US right over to the UN as long as he could still run it. Imagine Obama with no Constitution limiting him?

The UN will never be a world Gov. Christ, the US only puts up with them to look better.

Bren
07-12-2012, 09:48
Respectfully disagree... The benefits of an all volunteer force would be negated by conscription. It's a unifying thing, the hardship and conflict, and it's good for a fighting force's morale. Insert draftees, and the dynamic changes dramatically with just one "Barracks Lawyer" in a platoon, who's doing his tour to get it out of the way, because Canada and Mexico won't take his ass in this time.

My opinion exactly. A draft would make most draftees better people - smarter, stronger, healthier, etc. - but it would do it at the expense of making the military and volunteer soldiers weaker.

On the other hand, if it would cause a significant number of cowardly left-wingers to flee the country, it might be worth it.

Dexters
07-12-2012, 09:57
Before any southern apologist claims that slavery was not the main objective of the war; The words of General Lee himself:
"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained."



Statement to John Leyburn (1 May 1870), as quoted in R. E. Lee : A Biography (1934) by Douglas Southall Freeman




In simple English for me; what do you think he was saying?

tsmo1066
07-12-2012, 10:54
In simple English for me; what do you think he was saying?

Lee was basically saying that he never supported slavery and was thrilled that it had been abolished. This is no secret and Lee was quite vocal before, during and after the Civil War that he had no love for that institution, even though his wife's family owned many slaves.

In fact, Lee was General Winfield Scott's first choice to be Supreme Commander of the Army of the Potomac in 1861. Personal loyalty to the State of Virginia and his countrymen from Virginia is what compelled Lee to decline that offer and resign his commission as a Union officer, not any love of slavery or desire to defend it.

One of history's great ironies is that a man who was personally opposed to both secession and slavery would wind up commanding the Army of Northern Virginia.

Dexters
07-12-2012, 11:02
Lee was basically saying that he never supported slavery and was thrilled that it had been abolished. This is no secret and Lee was quite vocal before, during and after the Civil War that he had no love for that institution, even though his wife's family owned many slaves.

In fact, Lee was General Winfield Scott's first choice to be Supreme Commander of the Army of the Potomac in 1861. Personal loyalty to the State of Virginia and his countrymen from Virginia is what compelled Lee to decline that offer and resign his commission as a Union officer, not any love of slavery or desire to defend it.

One of history's great ironies is that a man who was personally opposed to both secession and slavery would wind up commanding the Army of Northern Virginia.

That is what I thought it said.

But, this didn't make it sound that way.


Before any southern apologist claims that slavery was not the main objective of the war; The words of General Lee himself:

Foxtrotx1
07-13-2012, 03:45
That is what I thought it said.

But, this didn't make it sound that way.

His opening statement says, in older speech, it was a war about slavery........:faint:

"engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery"

Bren
07-13-2012, 05:02
Before any southern apologist claims that slavery was not the main objective of the war; The words of General Lee himself:
"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained."



Statement to John Leyburn (1 May 1870), as quoted in R. E. Lee : A Biography (1934) by Douglas Southall Freeman




The the south supported slavery doesn't bother me at all - yet it seems to bother the northerners so much they pretend their own side didn't have slavery before, during and after the end of the war. Very, very strange. As I said before, it's like an alcoholic who quit drinking last week making fun of one who quit drinking this week. Maybe it really the opposite, since the south quit slavery before the north (Tennesseee even abolished slavery by state law, during the war, but continued to fight).

Dexters
07-13-2012, 07:28
His opening statement says, in older speech, it was a war about slavery........:faint:

"engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery"

You omitted "So far from" what does that mean?

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ma-XQ2KqkyIC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=So+far+from+engaging+in+a+war+to+perpetuate+slavery,+I+am+rejoiced+that+slavery+is+abolished.+I+b elieve+it+will+be+greatly+for+the+interests+of+the+South.+So+fully+am+I+satisfied+of+this,+as+regard s+Virginia+especially,+that+I+would+cheerfully+have+lost+all+I+have+lost+by+the+war,+and+have+suffer ed+all+I+have+suffered,+to+have+this+object+attained.&source=bl&ots=0xcj7VsLtf&sig=mrBisC_6h891gz49e0NHzErzNuQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=syAAUM35OITo9ASv8ZigCA&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=So%20far%20from%20engaging%20in%20a%20war%20to%20perpetuate%20slavery%2C%20I%20am%20rejoiced%20tha t%20slavery%20is%20abolished.%20I%20believe%20it%20will%20be%20greatly%20for%20the%20interests%20of% 20the%20South.%20So%20fully%20am%20I%20satisfied%20of%20this%2C%20as%20regards%20Virginia%20especial ly%2C%20that%20I%20would%20cheerfully%20have%20lost%20all%20I%20have%20lost%20by%20the%20war%2C%20an d%20have%20suffered%20all%20I%20have%20suffered%2C%20to%20have%20this%20object%20attained.&f=false

HexHead
07-13-2012, 08:23
My opinion exactly. A draft would make most draftees better people - smarter, stronger, healthier, etc. - but it would do it at the expense of making the military and volunteer soldiers weaker.

On the other hand, if it would cause a significant number of cowardly left-wingers to flee the country, it might be worth it.

We're not going to be able to continue to fund the generous financial incentives to get people to volunteer to sign up or stay in the military much longer.

HexHead
07-13-2012, 08:30
The the south supported slavery doesn't bother me at all - yet it seems to bother the northerners so much they pretend their own side didn't have slavery before, during and after the end of the war. Very, very strange.

Aside from some abolishonists, most Northerners weren't very welcoming to the Negroes moving up there.

tsmo1066
07-13-2012, 13:18
Interesting side-note about Robert E. Lee and slavery.

From William Mack Lee, Robert E. Lee's personal manservant during the Civil War...

"I was raised by one of the greatest men in the world. There was never one born of a woman greater than Gen. Robert E. Lee, according to my judgment. All of his servants were set free ten years before the war, but all remained on the plantation until after the surrender." - William Mack Lee

As I mentioned in an earlier post, even though Lee was personally opposed to slavery, his wife's family owned many slaves. Those in Lee's direct service were freed long before the first shots were fired at Ft. Sumter, and it is a testament to Lee's character that all of them stayed in his service voluntarily after being freed, even those like William, whose service as Lee's personal attendant took him to the front lines of battle during the war.

Bren
07-13-2012, 13:34
We're not going to be able to continue to fund the generous financial incentives to get people to volunteer to sign up or stay in the military much longer.

You mean the starting salary of less than $18,000 for a job than requires working 12-24 hours a day (yes, 24 hours awake and working is normal, even in peacetime garrison duty and training), 7 days a week, for weeks or months at a time?

I'm sure they appreciate your generosity, but even if they worked an unusually short week for a soldier, of 50 hours it's below minimum wage and you won't find many soldiers working that few hours, even in peacetime with a desk job.

We do feed them...then again, they don't have the freedom to eat where, when or what they want.

If you mean bonuses, there aren't many right now, because they change or are eliminated monthly, depending on need. The cool think is, if you sign up for a max bonus for 6 years as an infantryman, then you get wounded and disabled, they kick you out a take the bonus back.

Again, thanks for your generosity.

JW1178
07-14-2012, 12:50
I feel that if everyone had to serve 2 years of service it would be a great thing for this country. However, I don't know if it would be good for the military. There is a real advantage to having the people who are there being the people who really want to be there or at least joined on their own free will. The last thing our military needs is a bunch of people who aren't cut out or don't want to be there getting in the way and crashing morale and productivity. In the past, manpower was the core of the military, but today we don't need as many people. The money is better spent on the equipment being run by best qualified individuals. Quality > Quanity

It seems more and more private companies and contractors are being used by the military. For many things it makes a lot of sense. Why spend all that time and money to have your combat trained soldier/marine doing construction work or driving around supplies when you could just hire someone to do the job and then when it's done, you're done? Some of it is controversial such as Blackwater and other security companies doing combat missions. The use of mercinaries has been used as long as there has been war, so it's nothing new.

PettyOfficer
07-14-2012, 13:20
I feel that if everyone had to serve 2 years of service it would be a great thing for this country. However, I don't know if it would be good for the military. There is a real advantage to having the people who are there being the people who really want to be there or at least joined on their own free will. The last thing our military needs is a bunch of people who aren't cut out or don't want to be there getting in the way and crashing morale and productivity.

Agree! Israel can do it for two reasons:
1) small population
2) high demand, they are a country regularly under attack so their 2-year members don't eff off because they are extremely aware of their needs for safety/security.

But it has some sexy possibilities: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173050/Do-NOT-steal-woman-s-towel-Heavily-armed-bikini-clad-female-Israeli-soldiers-mingle-Tel-Aviv-beachgoers.html

I had a punk on my ship who was court ordered.. He was smart, but always running his mouth looking for a fight... I avoided putting him on report but was sure to let his superiors know his attitude is going to get him thrown overboard at night.. He did his 4 and was not eligible for re-enlistment.

Cali-Glock
07-15-2012, 21:56
What "blame" for slavery?

It has nothing to do with blame. It has to do with facts. The FACT is, most of the slave owning population and most of the slaves lived in the part of the country that chose to secede.

Yes, there were slave-owners in the North. Yes, they were specifically exempt from the Emancipation Proclamation, and yes, that document was clearly politically motivated. So what? In the end, millions of people were set free. That's what actually happened.



See above: So what? In the end, millions of people were set free. That's what actually happened. What difference does it make what he "meant"? He chose a course of action that ultimately set millions free. That's what he "did" and it trumps what he "meant".

The question is WHY did he do it? The reason? It had NOTHING to do with slavery and everything to do with TYRANNY. Lincoln wanted and succeeded in imposing a Washington based tyrannical rule over the states and their citizens.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

Dexters
07-16-2012, 07:49
The question is WHY did he do it? The reason? It had NOTHING to do with slavery and everything to do with TYRANNY. Lincoln wanted and succeeded in imposing a Washington based tyrannical rule over the states and their citizens.

I think you brought the discussion full circle.

The North won the war & it wrote the history - the South started to war because it wanted to preserve history, it was demonized.

If the South won & wrote the history it would have wrote & most people would believe that the North was the aggressor because it wanted a stronger central government and the Fed Gov't was corrupted by the rich industrial giants of the north.

Slavery was not the key to the war and as has been discussed earlier was not a viable economic system.

Gray_Rider
07-16-2012, 18:00
Not even a question. As I have stated in other posts concerning the Confederacy. It is very clear people are becoming aware of the facts. Our Constutitional Republic was destroyed, and things have gotten much worse and not better since the war ended.
If slavery was peacefully abolished here as it was in all of the Western hemisphere excepting Haiti, things would have been much better indeed.
If ending slavery was the wars aim there would have been no need for a major victory on Union soil before the anouncement of Lincoln's proclamation. There was a horrific uproar in the North over the very idea of freedom being granted carte blanche to the slaves, but by then Lincoln had a lock on the country's military and resistance led only to a prison cell or a firing squad.

But we warned you....

Yours in the Cause,

Gray_Rider

Foxtrotx1
07-16-2012, 21:55
Not even a question. As I have stated in other posts concerning the Confederacy. It is very clear people are becoming aware of the facts. Our Constutitional Republic was destroyed, and things have gotten much worse and not better since the war ended.
If slavery was peacefully abolished here as it was in all of the Western hemisphere excepting Haiti, things would have been much better indeed.
If ending slavery was the wars aim there would have been no need for a major victory on Union soil before the anouncement of Lincoln's proclamation. There was a horrific uproar in the North over the very idea of freedom being granted carte blanche to the slaves, but by then Lincoln had a lock on the country's military and resistance led only to a prison cell or a firing squad.

But we warned you....

Yours in the Cause,

Gray_Rider

The civil war was to free men and get the land back that belonged to the US government.

Arquebus12
07-17-2012, 06:00
What land?

CLoft239
07-17-2012, 08:46
What land?

The land that the government stole from the Native Americans.














Oo I see what you did there :p

Sent from my DROID SPYDER using Xparent Blue Tapatalk 2

AZL
07-17-2012, 11:54
I think Ted is incredibly passionate. Ted is also incredibly witty and smart. I certainly respect and appreciate his commitment to 2A issues and his support of law enforcement.

That being said...he's really starting to sound like a crazy old coot in what he's saying. He's giving the libtard media too much ammo and soundbytes to use to paint ALL of us as nutty "gun freaks".

If he'd tone down the level of the psychotic sounding rhetoric, or at least use his incredible ability at public speaking to actually win some converts instead of polarizing the middle of the road into the other camp...he'd be a LOT more effective. When he says his most outlandish stuff...he's preachign to the choir...not to the assembly.

tantrix
07-17-2012, 13:13
He's giving the libtard media too much ammo and soundbytes to use to paint ALL of us as nutty "gun freaks".

And that's the problem with gun owners today...too afraid to be labeled "gun freaks". Yeah, there's plenty of gun owners in the country...but 50% of them have absolutely no balls if/when it ever came down to actually defending the 2A. Most just contribute to the NRA from their recliners and call it a day.

AZL
07-17-2012, 13:27
And that's the problem with gun owners today...too afraid to be labeled "gun freaks". Yeah, there's plenty of gun owners in the country...but 50% of them have absolutely no balls if/when it ever came down to actually defending the 2A. Most just contribute to the NRA from their recliners and call it a day.

I understand what you're saying...trust me...I do.

But...he's not winning anyone to OUR side. If we want to keep making progress, we need to convert middle of the road people, not polarize them into the "anti" camp.

Ted doesn't need to convice us...we are already on board.

I have lived by the gun for most of my life...and for 23 years of that as a cop. I am proudly a "gun nut" in all the best senses of the word...but that has a different meaning to "us".

I teach gun safety and self defense to women FREE to help the cause. My best friend is a retired ICE agent, and now owns a small gun shop...when he sells a gun to a woman or a first time owner...I volunteer to teach them. I do it for a couple of reasons...mainly to show them how to effectively employ a firearm in self defense, but to get the word out to their NON gun owner friends that we are a COMMUNITY of gun owners, and not the freaks the libtard media has portrayed us to be. So, I contribute from more than my La-Z-Boy.

We can win this fight, but we have to do it smartly. If smartly doesn't work, and if push comes to shove...THEN we need to change tactics and exercise some of that good old fashioned rebellious spirit our ancestors had.

Arquebus12
07-17-2012, 17:51
I understand what you're saying...trust me...I do.

But...he's not winning anyone to OUR side. If we want to keep making progress, we need to convert middle of the road people, not polarize them into the "anti" camp.

Ted doesn't need to convice us...we are already on board.

I have lived by the gun for most of my life...and for 23 years of that as a cop. I am proudly a "gun nut" in all the best senses of the word...but that has a different meaning to "us".

I teach gun safety and self defense to women FREE to help the cause. My best friend is a retired ICE agent, and now owns a small gun shop...when he sells a gun to a woman or a first time owner...I volunteer to teach them. I do it for a couple of reasons...mainly to show them how to effectively employ a firearm in self defense, but to get the word out to their NON gun owner friends that we are a COMMUNITY of gun owners, and not the freaks the libtard media has portrayed us to be. So, I contribute from more than my La-Z-Boy.

We can win this fight, but we have to do it smartly. If smartly doesn't work, and if push comes to shove...THEN we need to change tactics and exercise some of that good old fashioned rebellious spirit our ancestors had.

You're a good man, AZL.:beer:

Three boxes: ballot, soap and ammo. Use in that order.

AZL
07-17-2012, 20:09
You're a good man, AZL.:beer:

Three boxes: ballot, soap and ammo. Use in that order.

I appreciate that 12. I'm not looking for accolades or anything like that. I just saw too many GOOD folks go down because they didn't know how to use their defensive firearm in an effective manner. I figured if I could train wet-behind-the-ears rookies and recruits at the academy, I could teach people who really WANTED to learn (besides...our chief was an anti-gun political scumbag who never learned how to BE a real street cop, and thought only cops should have guns, so doing this pissed him off).

My wife is a currently serving officer, and she helps me when she has time. We do the "classroom" portion here or at our church and the live-fire at the range behind my house.

One of these days I will post pics of some of the ladies gunning and grinning when they "get it". It's a hoot.

AZL
07-17-2012, 21:25
http://www.youtube.com/embed/Yo2RpVlqmPc

Ted on Glenn Beck

Walt_NC
07-19-2012, 21:31
http://www.youtube.com/embed/Yo2RpVlqmPc

Ted on Glenn Beck

I didn't watch it. Did he bravely poop his pants again?

Gray_Rider
07-25-2012, 17:11
The civil war was to free men and get the land back that belonged to the US government.


Read the books Foxtrot1.
Refute anything therein please.
You don't have to use direct quotes or worry about copyright infringement. Just look on page such and such in the books "The Real Lincoln" or "Lincoln Unmasked" or "The South was Right", or "War for What?", or "War Crimes Against Southern Civilians", et al. Prove that people who were there, North or South, and lived through the times, didn't say what they said or did what they did for reasons far different from the modern plather that resides in the offical Northern version of the so called "Civil War". Read the dairies. Read the letters. Read the Northern newspaper reports from the book "The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln" from 1861 through 1863, and tell us how there wasn't an unimaginable amount of rancor in the North when the great proclamation was unvailed. Ever hear of the N.Y. draft riots? Union troops fresh from Gettysburg were sent to quel the unrest.

The facts still stand, though ignored and covered up. Lincoln wielded the powers of a dictator. We lost our Constitutional Republic. And the Constutition hasn't been worth the paper it was written on since.

Slavery was ended peacefully EVERYWHERE but in the U.S. and Haiti. It took Brazil 20 more years than us but it was still ended without a fight and without the 650 thousand+ deaths, countless wounded and maimed, and billions in 1860's dollars wasted.

P.S. Your saviour Lincoln was for sending all blacks back to the African mainland once the war was won. Many of those that were convinced to return, died or were re-enslaved in Africa because they couldn't aclimate to the primivitive cultures already there. Lincoln was a man of his times and didn't carry any special feelings for the poor downtrodden slaves. He used their plight as a war tool nothing more nothing less.

Gray_Rider

Arquebus12
07-25-2012, 18:46
Read the books Foxtrot1.
Refute anything therein please.
You don't have to use direct quotes or worry about copyright infringement. Just look on page such and such in the books "The Real Lincoln" or "Lincoln Unmasked" or "The South was Right", or "War for What?", or "War Crimes Against Southern Civilians", et al. Prove that people who were there, North or South, and lived through the times, didn't say what they said or did what they did for reasons far different from the modern plather that resides in the offical Northern version of the so called "Civil War". Read the dairies. Read the letters. Read the Northern newspaper reports from the book "The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln" from 1861 through 1863, and tell us how there wasn't an unimaginable amount of rancor in the North when the great proclamation was unvailed. Ever hear of the N.Y. draft riots? Union troops fresh from Gettysburg were sent to quel the unrest.

The facts still stand, though ignored and covered up. Lincoln wielded the powers of a dictator. We lost our Constitutional Republic. And the Constutition hasn't been worth the paper it was written on since.

Slavery was ended peacefully EVERYWHERE but in the U.S. and Haiti. It took Brazil 20 more years than us but it was still ended without a fight and without the 650 thousand+ deaths, countless wounded and maimed, and billions in 1860's dollars wasted.

P.S. Your saviour Lincoln was for sending all blacks back to the African mainland once the war was won. Many of those that were convinced to return, died or were re-enslaved in Africa because they couldn't aclimate to the primivitive cultures already there. Lincoln was a man of his times and didn't carry any special feelings for the poor downtrodden slaves. He used their plight as a war tool nothing more nothing less.

Gray_Rider

Pfffft.

You "Suth'rin" folk, with your spurious sense of pique and phony offended sensibilities are anachronisms. Recently, a poster on GT made mention of an uncle who used to regularly climb some particular Kentucky hilltop on an appointed day, and with clenched fist would hurl curses at "The North", along with warnings of a renewed rising of the south, with all the righteous indignation and rancor he could muster after making the climb. Under any circumstance other than the guise of Southern Pride, this would only be viewed as an act of mental instability.

My people are German. They got off the boat at Ellis Island in 1952, and my father joined the same Air Force that bombed him in his home in Dortmund as a boy. We're sho nuff Krauts... but with that said, neither he nor I ever incinerated a Jew, participated in any rallies, broke any windows of Jewish owned businesses, or stood a tour of duty either at a military front or concentration camp. And that was less than 70 years ago. To that end, none of us lay claim to the wartime heritage of either of the Great Wars, even though both were losses, nor look back upon the time with anything even resembling nostalgia.

You guys align yourself behind the mythos of an agrarian society with put up airs from the mid 19th century, and personally assume the pain of the loss of the "War Between The States", even though not a one of you is less than three generations removed from anyone who ever so much as witnessed any of these events, let alone participated in battle. That's ludicrous. Worse still, it's silly. Heap all of your hatred and derision on Willie Sherman, voice your fury aimed at the 16th president, dead now almost 150 years, and howl with indignation at how God saw fit to deny you your eminent domain and manse upon the hill of Confederate Glory... The fact remains that Lincoln preserved the Union, and that trumps all.

You're damned lucky to be able to call yourself an American.

G26S239
07-25-2012, 19:43
Pfffft.

You "Suth'rin" folk, with your spurious sense of pique and phony offended sensibilities are anachronisms. Recently, a poster on GT made mention of an uncle who used to regularly climb some particular Kentucky hilltop on an appointed day, and with clenched fist would hurl curses at "The North", along with warnings of a renewed rising of the south, with all the righteous indignation and rancor he could muster after making the climb. Under any circumstance other than the guise of Southern Pride, this would only be viewed as an act of mental instability.

My people are German. They got off the boat at Ellis Island in 1952, and my father joined the same Air Force that bombed him in his home in Dortmund as a boy. We're sho nuff Krauts... but with that said, neither he nor I ever incinerated a Jew, participated in any rallies, broke any windows of Jewish owned businesses, or stood a tour of duty either at a military front or concentration camp. And that was less than 70 years ago. To that end, none of us lay claim to the wartime heritage of either of the Great Wars, even though both were losses, nor look back upon the time with anything even resembling nostalgia.

You guys align yourself behind the mythos of an agrarian society with put up airs from the mid 19th century, and personally assume the pain of the loss of the "War Between The States", even though not a one of you is less than three generations removed from anyone who ever so much as witnessed any of these events, let alone participated in battle. That's ludicrous. Worse still, it's silly. Heap all of your hatred and derision on Willie Sherman, voice your fury aimed at the 16th president, dead now almost 150 years, and howl with indignation at how God saw fit to deny you your eminent domain and manse upon the hill of Confederate Glory... The fact remains that Lincoln preserved the Union, and that trumps all.

You're damned lucky to be able to call yourself an American.
:patriot:

Dexters
07-25-2012, 21:04
Pfffft.

You "Suth'rin" folk, with your spurious sense of pique and phony offended sensibilities are anachronisms. Recently, a poster on GT made mention of an uncle who used to regularly climb some particular Kentucky hilltop on an appointed day, and with clenched fist would hurl curses at "The North", along with warnings of a renewed rising of the south, with all the righteous indignation and rancor he could muster after making the climb. Under any circumstance other than the guise of Southern Pride, this would only be viewed as an act of mental instability.

My people are German. They got off the boat at Ellis Island in 1952, and my father joined the same Air Force that bombed him in his home in Dortmund as a boy. We're sho nuff Krauts... but with that said, neither he nor I ever incinerated a Jew, participated in any rallies, broke any windows of Jewish owned businesses, or stood a tour of duty either at a military front or concentration camp. And that was less than 70 years ago. To that end, none of us lay claim to the wartime heritage of either of the Great Wars, even though both were losses, nor look back upon the time with anything even resembling nostalgia.

You guys align yourself behind the mythos of an agrarian society with put up airs from the mid 19th century, and personally assume the pain of the loss of the "War Between The States", even though not a one of you is less than three generations removed from anyone who ever so much as witnessed any of these events, let alone participated in battle. That's ludicrous. Worse still, it's silly. Heap all of your hatred and derision on Willie Sherman, voice your fury aimed at the 16th president, dead now almost 150 years, and howl with indignation at how God saw fit to deny you your eminent domain and manse upon the hill of Confederate Glory... The fact remains that Lincoln preserved the Union, and that trumps all.

You're damned lucky to be able to call yourself an American.

You quote Gray_Rider, yet you do not address the contend of what he wrote.

Arquebus12
07-26-2012, 05:18
You read it too fast then. At the bottom, I'm fair certain I alluded to the preservation of the union.

Yeah, I just checked. I did. I also took a swipe at his beloved Southern Sensibilities, did you catch that?

Dexters
07-26-2012, 05:31
You read it too fast then. At the bottom, I'm fair certain I alluded to the preservation of the union.

Yeah, I just checked. I did. I also took a swipe at his beloved Southern Sensibilities, did you catch that?


"preservation of the union" was not part of Gray_Rider's content. He was presenting other perspectives.

So, you quoted him but didn't address his points.

Arquebus12
07-26-2012, 05:51
Okay, then you clearly missed the "Pffffft" that I used as a preamble. It was way at the top, look again. That was a mocking, literary show of disdain on my part for his entire statement, a kind of brief, wet dismissal of his his high-falutin' sympathies. I emphasized his writings (via bold text) about the collapse and failure of the Republic as the acme of all his contrary statements.

You going to contribute anything, or just proofread? Because you're not very good at it... This is the Furball Forum, it's entirely possible that you're in way over your head, and I'd really prefer to not have to explain everything to you as it unfolds.

Dexters
07-26-2012, 06:11
Okay, then you clearly missed the "Pffffft" that I used as a preamble. It was way at the top, look again. That was a mocking, literary show of disdain on my part for his entire statement, a kind of brief, wet dismissal of his his high-falutin' sympathies. I emphasized his writings (via bold text) about the collapse and failure of the Republic as the acme of all his contrary statements.

You going to contribute anything, or just proofread? Because you're not very good at it... This is the Furball Forum, it's entirely possible that you're in way over your head, and I'd really prefer to not have to explain everything to you as it unfolds.

You don't know what Pffffft means. Do you? If so what?

Gray_Rider
07-27-2012, 19:38
You quote Gray_Rider, yet you do not address the contend of what he wrote.

Thanks Dexters. You said what many out there are thinking. No one yet has addressed the issues as presented in the books. Just a lot of "Pfffitttt"! The facts still stand. Our Constitutional Republic was destroyed and our Constutition trashed. If it all didn't matter, it still wouldn't be "dividing" the country to this day. Facts, however much covered up or denied, have the habit NOT going away, and they also have a habit of re-asserting themselves over many decades. As President Davis said they would.

This is what has the liberals and Confederacy haters' knickers in a knot. (See the amount of hits this thread and others concerning the WSI have generated for example.)

The "striped banner" still drips with our blood. We don't owe any appologys for not forgetting that. We are not for trying to change anything back. It's too late, and 150 years of damage to this country, tens of trillions of dollars wasted, and thousands of lives can't be resurected. We just want the truth known. Not a pack of lies passing as "history".

THIS is what must be stopped by the Yankee mythmakers at all costs. They are losing this war, and they know it.

Gray_Rider

Arquebus12
07-27-2012, 20:05
"Our" blood, hah? You say "we" a lot, is that a Victorian thing? See my generational reference above... there's an example of some key issues not being acknowledged, ala the proverbial dead elephant in the room.

There may be a division, but it's not based on hatred. As much as you'd dearly love to bear that cross, it's specious, as outlined above. The only hatred is coming northward by quixotic riders, saddled upon romantic ideals, and swearing oaths at "The North" as they harmlessly charge about.

It's bad enough that there may be remnants of division, but for you to be wishing it so while nurturing the notion is poor form, and pointless besides. Those days are gone, forever, as I'm certain you're aware, judging by your fervor. Fortunately, these United States are strong enough to accommodate all manner of points of view, and such foibles are looked upon with a level of endearment and pride.

Your mythos is not without it's charms.

Arquebus12
07-27-2012, 20:06
You don't know what Pffffft means. Do you? If so what?

Seriously? That's what you consider a rebuttal?

Dexters
07-27-2012, 20:09
"Our" blood, hah? You say "we" a lot, is that a Victorian thing? See my generational reference above... there's an example of some key issues not being acknowledged, ala the proverbial dead elephant in the room.

There may be a division, but it's not based on hatred. As much as you'd dearly love to bear that cross, it's specious, as outlined above. The only hatred is coming northward by quixotic riders, saddled upon romantic ideals, and swearing oaths at "The North" as they harmlessly charge about.

It's bad enough that there may be remnants of division, but for you to be wishing it so while nurturing the notion is poor form, and pointless besides. Those days are gone, forever, as I'm certain you're aware, judging by your fervor. Fortunately, these United States are strong enough to accommodate all manner of points of view, and such foibles are looked upon with a level of endearment and pride.

Your mythos is not without it's charms.

In short ... you got nothing; well, maybe, name calling.

Arquebus12
07-27-2012, 20:15
See my note above about proofreading, you're really not very good at it.

It's called "rhetoric", Son, look it up, and let the grown ups talk now. Off you go...