The Constitution "Has no Binding Power on Anything."

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Not trying to stir things up. (too much)

Perhaps. But you are trying to have it both ways. You want your views on the history of this country to be taken seriously but you are unwilling to support your positions when folks who have put in their time studying the subject disagree with you.

You say that you're willing to consider different perspectives, but when presented with those perspectives, you turn to disconnected attempts at snark and retreat into the realm of feigned disinterest and relativism.

In combination, these and other inconsistencies raise questions about your motivation.

Originally Posted by Dozer523

I have to disagree here. For quite some time I have been baffled by why the South thought they could afford a war with the North. They had to know wars are financially expensive, they had to know that the combined coffers of all the Southern states probably did not match that of the single state of New York (I need to find a cite on that statement). So my question has for a long time been:
How did they intend to pay for this war?

With oil.

The "oil" of the period, was cotton. Before America there was no cotton, cotton did not grow anywhere else. The Southerners thought they could hold the industrial world (or at least the ones who didn't want to wear flax and wouldn't wear silk) hostage. The Civil War was the reason for the cotton industry in Egypt (at the behest of the British who had established a strong presence after the revolution in 1852) and India (which was a British colony). The British could/would not contenence slavery no matter how desperately they needed cotton. Which came as a sad surprise to the Southern financiers.

The British were hoping we would be at war (North and South), they had established cotton production prior to our markets failing. GB then sold cotton and to a lessor degree wool to both sides.

GB also aided the south with weapons, the french helped us in the north. GB/France made money retiring or at least re-financed their own losses when we took the country in 1776 and 1812.

[Dusty]

SC seceeded because of Lincoln's stance on slavery which, as every sane person knows, was correct; it's wrong.

10 states followed suit, and you had your Confederacy, which adopted a strategy of erosion to exhaust the North in its efforts to police the Country.

In '62, Lincoln declared war on the South-an aggressive, all-out war-because the North needed the cotton and other resources.

Lee fucked up at Gettysburg, and the North wound up with much of the stuff it had taken away by the recession.

So, the reason for the initial secession was indeed slavery, but the reason for the war was booty.

Hence, it's named the War of Northern Aggression by every sane human being, which sadly doesn't include you damn Carpebaggers.

[Richard]

RE Post #49

Now we know why all those birds met the Grim Rooster in The Natural State - they overdosed on historical corn pone.

http://www.paulgraham.com/cornpone.html

And so it goes...

Richard

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Richard

RE Post #49

Now we know why all those birds met the Grim Rooster in The Natural State - they overdosed on historical corn pone.

http://www.paulgraham.com/cornpone.html

And so it goes...

Richard

You're on the right track.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Before America there was no cotton, cotton did not grow anywhere else.

I think there are a few Indians (dot, not feather) and Chinese (and Greeks, Romans, Africans, etc.) that would disagree with that.

http://www.plantcultures.org/plants/cotton_history.html

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Perhaps. But you are trying to have it both ways. You want your views on the history of this country to be taken seriously but you are unwilling to support your positions when folks who have put in their time studying the subject disagree with you.

You say that you're willing to consider different perspectives, but when presented with those perspectives, you turn to disconnected attempts at snark and retreat into the realm of feigned disinterest and relativism.

In combination, these and other inconsistencies raise questions about your motivation.

The disconnect here is convergent vs. divergent thinking.
The limitations of this media exacerbate the problem.

I am not concerned with the end conclusions of various arguments and thoughts.
I am interested in the thoughts and arguments which might support a given conclusion, regardless of whether the conclusion is "correct".

Exploring those thoughts and arguments leads to new ideas, sometimes directly related to the original idea, sometimes not.
Making a beeline for the conclusion and deeming it "correct" or "incorrect" stifles the process.

Squaring the circle, doubling the cube, and trisecting an angle are impossible.
Exploring how you might attempt it, if it were possible, leads to new thoughts and ideas.

Concerning my motivations, consider where this thread has gone in the past day.
Consider the new thread Nmap spun off today.

New thoughts and ideas are being explored.
I'm happy with the results.

Your knowledge was most certainly earned.
If you don't want to share it, that is your right.

I'm not making a judgement on convergent thinking or saying it is "incorrect".
Just recognizing that convergent and divergent thinking don't always mesh well.

[Box]

Most of the MEN that frequent this bulletin board had already distinguished themselves themselves as defenders of this fine Nation before Ezra Kleins parents had even figured out how to stop him from shitting in his pants...

...and somehow I am supposed to consider what this jackass has to say as either as newsworthy or relevant?

He is young enough that he still giggles when he farts in the bathtub; so enjoy your right to free speech that we have provided through judicious application of that silly document that allows your neck to vomit empty thoughts onto the world wide web. Go f##k yourself Ezra...

Oh, by the way, you're welcome


...just my two cents: I could be wrong

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Razor

I think there are a few Indians (dot, not feather) and Chinese (and Greeks, Romans, Africans, etc.) that would disagree with that.

http://www.plantcultures.org/plants/cotton_history.html

Granted yes there was cotton in other places of the world but it was not as good as New World :

"By the 1840s, (mine:20 years was plenty of time) India was no longer capable of supplying the vast quantities of cotton fibers needed by mechanized British factories, while shipping bulky, low-price cotton from India to Britain was time-consuming and expensive. This, coupled with the emergence of American cotton as a superior type (due to the longer, stronger fibers of the two domesticated native American species, Gossypium hirsutum and Gossypium barbadense), encouraged British traders to purchase cotton from plantations in the United States and the Caribbean. By the mid 19th century, "King Cotton" had become the backbone of the southern American economy. In the United States, cultivating and harvesting cotton became the leading occupation of slaves.

During the American Civil War, American cotton exports slumped due to a Union blockade on Southern ports, also because of a strategic decision by the Confederate government to cut exports, hoping to force Britain to recognize the Confederacy or enter the war, (mine, the plan) prompting the main purchasers of cotton, Britain and France to turn to Egyptian cotton. (mine: the unintended consequences) British and French traders invested heavily in cotton plantations and the Egyptian government of Viceroy Isma'il took out substantial loans from European bankers and stock exchanges. After the American Civil War ended in 1865, British and French traders abandoned Egyptian cotton and returned to cheap American exports, sending Egypt into a deficit spiral that led to the country declaring bankruptcy in 1876, a key factor behind Egypt's annexation by the British Empire in 1882. (mine: and another British land grab)
It's wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton

The US South was the major producer of the world's perferred cotton. It was still the major cash crop for the South and it was the linchpin to the finance side of the Southern war strategy.

[1stindoor]

Originally Posted by Billy L-bach

He is young enough that he still giggles when he farts in the bathtub;

I just choked on a pretzel stick and put coffee through my nose....and yes...I am quite serious. That has to be one of the funniest things I have read

...and I'm stealing it.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by 1stindoor

I just choked on a pretzel stick and put coffee through my nose....and yes...I am quite serious. That has to be one of the funniest things I have read

...and I'm stealing it.

Definitely an early entry for 2011 quote of the year.

FWIW, before reading any of Billy L-Bach's posts, I make sure all airways are clear.

[TrapLine]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Definitely an early entry for 2011 quote of the year.

FWIW, before reading any of Billy L-Bach's posts, I make sure all airways are clear.

I agree with Sigaba on this. Billy L-bach's posts can be detrimental to keyboards, screens and anyone around who does not like belly laughs. I made it to to the part about the neck and vomiting before I nearly fell out of my chair. It reminded me of one last year about a rock and a life preserver.

More importantly, I agree with his thoughts on Ezra Klein.

[nw44451]

A good quote from Learned Hand, a Federal Judge who served in the first half of the last century, that I hope might add to the Constitution conversation:

What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it…

The Constitution is (obviously) important, but it is tough for me to fault Hand's logic and easy for me to bet on men with freedom in their hearts (read QPs) outlasting any document.