Where does Lincoln rank

[Anachronism]

Yeah, but a guy who makes this statement: "He moved people unwilling to assimilate into society off American land (indians)" has an opinion that sucks, and therefore irrelevent...

Then we have nothing more to discuss do we? Welcome to the Ignore List.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yeah, but a guy who makes this statement: "He moved people unwilling to assimilate into society off American land (indians)" has an opinion that sucks, and therefore irrelevent...

Then we have nothing more to discuss do we? Welcome to the Ignore List.

Wimp...

 

[Toro]

Nonsense.

Machines are much cheaper to maintain than slaves, and they won't run away.

Sure, eventually.

But all economic growth is a function of productivity growth. And all productivity growth is a function of innovation. And all innovation is a function of education. And the slaveowners had a vested political interest in keeping the slaves uneducated. Not being able to read and write meant less opportunities for political agitation and change. This system stunted economic development. Also, the agarian slave system discouraged the formation of great cities. Technological development requires a critical mass if it is to become commercially viable, for a number of reasons. The agarian slave system had no reason to evolve out of the county seat.

So sure, eventually when technology had been commodiized, it wold have migrated south in the way it migrates to Asia today, but a Confederate state would have for a century lagged the rest of the country even more than it did.

 

[Dr Grump]

. And the slaveowners had a vested political interest in keeping the slaves uneducated. Not being able to read and write meant less opportunities for political agitation and change. This system stunted economic development.

Sounds like most dictatorships,

 

[Oddball]

Nonsense.

Machines are much cheaper to maintain than slaves, and they won't run away.

Sure, eventually.

But all economic growth is a function of productivity growth. And all productivity growth is a function of innovation. And all innovation is a function of education. And the slaveowners had a vested political interest in keeping the slaves uneducated. Not being able to read and write meant less opportunities for political agitation and change. This system stunted economic development. Also, the agarian slave system discouraged the formation of great cities. Technological development requires a critical mass if it is to become commercially viable, for a number of reasons. The agarian slave system had no reason to evolve out of the county seat.

So sure, eventually when technology had been commodiized, it wold have migrated south in the way it migrates to Asia today, but a Confederate state would have for a century lagged the rest of the country even more than it did.

Maybe....Maybe not.

But what of the planationers?...You think they're going to keep slaves that are a net production inefficiency versus mechanization, just so they can keep them uneducated?

C'mon, man!

 

[Toro]

Who would have operated the machinery? The slaves? Who couldn't read and write? Learning to read and write was a punishable offense for slaves.

It's not a matter of whether or not the South would have adopted mechanization. They would have. It's a matter of when they would have. And there is absolutely no reason to believe, neither in the history of the South nor any other comparative example on the planet, that they would have adopted widespread education necessary to achieve critical mass for technological innovation, which is necessary for advanced nations. The evidence suggests the contrary.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

I've hung out with all sorts of "classes". What "class" of people are you talking about?.

Patriots. People who understand what this country was intended to be and are ready to use force to return it to that when necessary.

Well the constitution itself was set up to change, and more importantly adapt with the times. That's part of what makes it such a great document.

I don't believe so, if it's a union kept together at the point of a gun.

What of the American concept of freedom of association?

You have to use the perceptual lens of that time-not now. Our concept of freedom here in America is different than it was back then. There was slavery, only white men could vote, women couldn't own property (or at least it was very hard for them to), women couldn't serve in the military, we killed the indians and marched them off of their own land, etc.

None of those things (whether you agree with them or not-I'm talking about anarchism here), are a part of the current views of freedom in America-but were perfectly acceptable in many-if not all areas-of America back then.

While I personally am not sure on my thoughts about whether those who died was worth it or not, it's irrelevant, because many of those soldiers thought it was. And it happened in a time frame, and culture very different from our own.

None of that changes the fact that the Confederate States were brought back into the Union at the point of a gun.

Any southerner who doesn't want to live in the United States is more than free to leave for elsewhere. Period.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why Jackson? Please elucidate.

The last actual CONSERVATIVE to serve as an elected offician in the US Federal Government and one of very few true CONSERVATIVES to actually hold the Office of the President. A true American Hero. A man who put AMERICAN Interests first and foremost in his mind. A man who believed in the Greatness of America. A man who didn't compromise his positions or his principles.

A fucking back stabbing murdering bastard. Ask any Cherokee.

 

[Old Rocks]

True and that is why I believe he is the Worst President in American History and will likely never be usurped from that spot by any POTUS to come.

Yea...I guess some are still pissed at not being able to own slaves anymore

Yet others wonder whether the 500,000+ dead young men, millions injured and maimed, uncounted civilians killed/injured/voilated and cities burned to the ground was worth the trouble to end something that mechanization was making obsolete.

But you feel free to continue your brain dead, knee-jerk demagoguery....It's really all you're good at.

Yes, Davis, Lee, and the rest should have hung for that.

 

[Old Rocks]

I've hung out with all sorts of "classes". What "class" of people are you talking about?.

Patriots. People who understand what this country was intended to be and are ready to use force to return it to that when necessary.

Well, well. What have we here? Another Timothy McViegh, ready to justify his murderous perversions by giving them the name of patriotism.

 

[Old Rocks]

I don't believe so, if it's a union kept together at the point of a gun.

What of the American concept of freedom of association?

You have to use the perceptual lens of that time-not now. Our concept of freedom here in America is different than it was back then. There was slavery, only white men could vote, women couldn't own property (or at least it was very hard for them to), women couldn't serve in the military, we killed the indians and marched them off of their own land, etc.

None of those things (whether you agree with them or not-I'm talking about anarchism here), are a part of the current views of freedom in America-but were perfectly acceptable in many-if not all areas-of America back then.

While I personally am not sure on my thoughts about whether those who died was worth it or not, it's irrelevant, because many of those soldiers thought it was. And it happened in a time frame, and culture very different from our own.

None of that changes the fact that the Confederate States were brought back into the Union at the point of a gun.

Yep, and my great-grandfather weilded one of those guns, at Fort Donaldson, Shiloh, and numerous other places. For which I and every American should be eternally grateful. A Balkanization of this continent would have been a disaster.

 

[Oddball]

Yea...I guess some are still pissed at not being able to own slaves anymore

Yet others wonder whether the 500,000+ dead young men, millions injured and maimed, uncounted civilians killed/injured/violated and cities burned to the ground was worth the trouble to end something that mechanization was making obsolete.

But you feel free to continue your brain dead, knee-jerk demagoguery....It's really all you're good at.

Yes, Davis, Lee, and the rest should have hung for that.

Davis, Lee and the rest didn't invade the north, stupid asshole....They merely wanted the authoritarian Union interlopers to leave them alone.

 

[Oddball]

Who would have operated the machinery? The slaves? Who couldn't read and write? Learning to read and write was a punishable offense for slaves.

It's not a matter of whether or not the South would have adopted mechanization. They would have. It's a matter of when they would have. And there is absolutely no reason to believe, neither in the history of the South nor any other comparative example on the planet, that they would have adopted widespread education necessary to achieve critical mass for technological innovation, which is necessary for advanced nations. The evidence suggests the contrary.

Well then, I guess that the white southern plantationers would've then had sufficient motivation to want blacks to be at least semi-literate, wouldn't they?