Time to rename our Confederate Forts

[9thIDdoc]

We need to ask......What have these men done to deserve such an honor?

AP HIll, Braxton Bragg, George Pickett, John Bell Hood......why should they be honored?

Defending ones sacred lands and homes from an invasion sent by a Tyrant is more honorable than invading your neighbor because a Tyrant said so.

Defending the right to keep other human beings as slaves is the ultimate tyranny

The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.
The USA had slavery for 89 years.

Sounds like a valid point......

But we are talking about the same assholes in the South owning slaves in both cases

Northern schools teach you that?

It’s a fact
Same assholes forced slavery into the United States, forced slavery into new territories and created a slave Confederacy

So you are OK with the USA having slavery but not the Confederacy. Double standards.

Like I said, it was the same group of southerners forcing slavery on the rest of the country.

Slavery was a southern institution

They had slavery in the North for 200 years dating back to the Colonial period, and they still had slavery in the North after the Civil War was over, and all the Confederate slaves were free. But Yankees dont teach true history.

Cut the nonsense

<sob> But, but....the North had slaves too!

There was minimal slavery in northern states, mostly border states where the stench of slavery had leached over.

So you hate the Ancient Egyptian's, Greeks, and Roman's? They all practiced slavery. What about Native Americans, they too practiced slavery. Then surely you must hate the Dutch, English, Spanish, and Portuguese because all those nation's practiced slavery as well.

We don’t have any forts named after Ancient Egyptians, Greeks or Romans

But the basis of your argument to change the names was based on slavery in the antebellum South and these men fighting to defend their homeland from invasion by the federal government.

You keep dancing around the reason for forming the Confederacy........to ensure that slavery would exist in their nation forever. They wrote a Constitution to ensure it.

Defending their “homeland” was defending slavery

So? Abolishing it at that time would have been an economic disaster that would have bankrupted the South which meant a very bleak future including the widespread possibility of starvation for all including the very former slaves the North claimed it was trying to help. Many in the South thought the goal of the North was to impoverish the South rather than help the slave. The result was thousands of uneducated starving unemployed homeless blacks and whites together and seems to support that thought. Who wouldn't defend home and family against disaster?

The fun part was that Lincoln did not have the power or inclination to abolish slavery. He wanted to stop the spread into new territories.

Slavery would have eventually been phased out in the next 20 years with slave owners receiving some compensation for their lost “property”

But by leaving the union and attacking US property, the Confederacy brought the end of slavery in four years.

When it became cheaper and/or more efficient to use machinery than slaves for agriculture slavery would have ended without all the bloodshed caused by the North's occupation of a fort in a Southern harbor. Lincolns' election and his vow to end slavery (and ruin the South) resulted in the South lawfully leaving the union they had voluntarily joined. Rich Northern industrialists who feared having to pay more for cotton had far more to do with the start of the war than slavery. A little Northern patience and slavery would have ended naturally with a united nation instead of a bloodbath.

They did not have machinery to pick cotton until the 1930s
The South loved their “peculiar institutions” so much that they kept blacks as second class citizens well into the 1960s. When their Jim Crow policies were threatened , they resorted to terrorism to enforce their rules

How Did Farming Technology Change in the Past Two Centuries?

A timeline shows how farming tools and agricultural inventions drove modernization from manual labor to mechanization in the 1800s and 1900s.

www.thoughtco.com

Educate yourself. The farm machinery tech. revolution was well underway and picking up speed at the time of the Civil War as I said. The cotton gin was invented in 1793. The Jim Crow laws were not related to slavery they were intended to keep the peace. The KKK was formed in reaction to "reconstruction" and carpetbaggers and the fact that whites do not like becoming second class citizens either. You might want to remember that busing children to achieve intergration was met with more violence in the Northeast than anywhere else.

Educate yourself

A machine to harvest cotton was not on the market until 1935.

Cotton picker - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The cotton gin did not reduce the need for slaves, it made them more valuable. Slavery was on its way out until the invention of the cotton gin created the immense wealth of King Cotton.

Jim Crow was a direct response to the end of slavery. You may be free, but we will be damned if you will be treated the same as a white man. It created a whole legal and social code to formalize second class citizenship.

The KKK is nothing but a terrorist organization to keep blacks in their place.

What is this fixation you have with cotton picking machines?
I didn't mention them; you did. What I wrote was: " When it became cheaper and/or more efficient to use machinery than slaves for agriculture..." Apparently it will surprise you to learn that the cotton picker is neither the only nor most important machine used in the production of agriculture. Nor is cotton the only form of agricultural product. None of this would come as a surprise had you bothered to click on the link I was kind enough to provide.

03
of 20
1776-99 Farm Technology Innovations
The farm technology revolution begins.

• 1790's - Cradle and scythe introduced
• 1793 - Invention of cotton gin
• 1794 - Thomas Jefferson's moldboard of least resistance tested.
• 1797 - Charles Newbold patented first cast-iron plow

04
of 20
Early 1800s - Agricultural Revolution Begins
The agricultural revolution picks up steam.

• 1819 - Jethro Wood patented iron plow with interchangeable parts
• 1819-25 - U.S. food canning industry established

05
of 20
1830s
In 1830, about 250-300 labor-hours were required to produce 100 bushels (5 acres) of wheat with walking plow, brush harrow, hand broadcast of seed, sickle, and flail

• 1834 - McCormick reaper patented
• 1834 - John Lane began to manufacture plows faced with steel saw blades
• 1837 - John Deere and Leonard Andrus began manufacturing steel plows. The plow was made of wrought iron and had a steel share that could cut through sticky soil without clogging.
• 1837 - Practical threshing machine patented

06
of 20
1840s - Commercial Farming
The growing use of factory-made agricultural machinery increased farmers' need for cash and encouraged commercial farming.

• 1841 - Practical grain drill patented
• 1842 - First grain elevator, Buffalo, NY
• 1844 - Practical mowing machine patented
• 1847 - Irrigation begun in Utah
• 1849 - Mixed chemical fertilizers sold commercially

07
of 20
1850s
In 1850, about 75-90 labor-hours were required to produce 100 bushels of corn (2-1/2 acres) with walking plow, harrow, and hand planting

• 1850-70 - Expanded market demand for agricultural products brought adoption of improved technology and resulting increases in farm production
• 1854 - Self-governing windmill perfected
• 1856 - 2-horse straddle-row cultivator patented

08
of 20
1860s - Horse Power

• 1862-75 - Change from hand power to horses characterized the first American agricultural revolution
• 1865-75 - Gang plows and sulky plows came into use
• 1868 - Steam tractors were tried out
• 1869 - Spring-tooth harrow or seedbed preparation appeared

 

[rightwinger]

We need to ask......What have these men done to deserve such an honor?

AP HIll, Braxton Bragg, George Pickett, John Bell Hood......why should they be honored?

Defending ones sacred lands and homes from an invasion sent by a Tyrant is more honorable than invading your neighbor because a Tyrant said so.

Defending the right to keep other human beings as slaves is the ultimate tyranny

The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.
The USA had slavery for 89 years.

Sounds like a valid point......

But we are talking about the same assholes in the South owning slaves in both cases

Northern schools teach you that?

It’s a fact
Same assholes forced slavery into the United States, forced slavery into new territories and created a slave Confederacy

So you are OK with the USA having slavery but not the Confederacy. Double standards.

Like I said, it was the same group of southerners forcing slavery on the rest of the country.

Slavery was a southern institution

They had slavery in the North for 200 years dating back to the Colonial period, and they still had slavery in the North after the Civil War was over, and all the Confederate slaves were free. But Yankees dont teach true history.

Cut the nonsense

<sob> But, but....the North had slaves too!

There was minimal slavery in northern states, mostly border states where the stench of slavery had leached over.

So you hate the Ancient Egyptian's, Greeks, and Roman's? They all practiced slavery. What about Native Americans, they too practiced slavery. Then surely you must hate the Dutch, English, Spanish, and Portuguese because all those nation's practiced slavery as well.

We don’t have any forts named after Ancient Egyptians, Greeks or Romans

But the basis of your argument to change the names was based on slavery in the antebellum South and these men fighting to defend their homeland from invasion by the federal government.

You keep dancing around the reason for forming the Confederacy........to ensure that slavery would exist in their nation forever. They wrote a Constitution to ensure it.

Defending their “homeland” was defending slavery

So? Abolishing it at that time would have been an economic disaster that would have bankrupted the South which meant a very bleak future including the widespread possibility of starvation for all including the very former slaves the North claimed it was trying to help. Many in the South thought the goal of the North was to impoverish the South rather than help the slave. The result was thousands of uneducated starving unemployed homeless blacks and whites together and seems to support that thought. Who wouldn't defend home and family against disaster?

The fun part was that Lincoln did not have the power or inclination to abolish slavery. He wanted to stop the spread into new territories.

Slavery would have eventually been phased out in the next 20 years with slave owners receiving some compensation for their lost “property”

But by leaving the union and attacking US property, the Confederacy brought the end of slavery in four years.

When it became cheaper and/or more efficient to use machinery than slaves for agriculture slavery would have ended without all the bloodshed caused by the North's occupation of a fort in a Southern harbor. Lincolns' election and his vow to end slavery (and ruin the South) resulted in the South lawfully leaving the union they had voluntarily joined. Rich Northern industrialists who feared having to pay more for cotton had far more to do with the start of the war than slavery. A little Northern patience and slavery would have ended naturally with a united nation instead of a bloodbath.

They did not have machinery to pick cotton until the 1930s
The South loved their “peculiar institutions” so much that they kept blacks as second class citizens well into the 1960s. When their Jim Crow policies were threatened , they resorted to terrorism to enforce their rules

How Did Farming Technology Change in the Past Two Centuries?

A timeline shows how farming tools and agricultural inventions drove modernization from manual labor to mechanization in the 1800s and 1900s.

www.thoughtco.com

Educate yourself. The farm machinery tech. revolution was well underway and picking up speed at the time of the Civil War as I said. The cotton gin was invented in 1793. The Jim Crow laws were not related to slavery they were intended to keep the peace. The KKK was formed in reaction to "reconstruction" and carpetbaggers and the fact that whites do not like becoming second class citizens either. You might want to remember that busing children to achieve intergration was met with more violence in the Northeast than anywhere else.

Educate yourself

A machine to harvest cotton was not on the market until 1935.

Cotton picker - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The cotton gin did not reduce the need for slaves, it made them more valuable. Slavery was on its way out until the invention of the cotton gin created the immense wealth of King Cotton.

Jim Crow was a direct response to the end of slavery. You may be free, but we will be damned if you will be treated the same as a white man. It created a whole legal and social code to formalize second class citizenship.

The KKK is nothing but a terrorist organization to keep blacks in their place.

What is this fixation you have with cotton picking machines?
I didn't mention them; you did. What I wrote was: " When it became cheaper and/or more efficient to use machinery than slaves for agriculture..." Apparently it will surprise you to learn that the cotton picker is neither the only nor most important machine used in the production of agriculture. Nor is cotton the only form of agricultural product. None of this would come as a surprise had you bothered to click on the link I was kind enough to provide.

03
of 20
1776-99 Farm Technology Innovations
The farm technology revolution begins.

• 1790's - Cradle and scythe introduced
• 1793 - Invention of cotton gin
• 1794 - Thomas Jefferson's moldboard of least resistance tested.
• 1797 - Charles Newbold patented first cast-iron plow

04
of 20
Early 1800s - Agricultural Revolution Begins
The agricultural revolution picks up steam.

• 1819 - Jethro Wood patented iron plow with interchangeable parts
• 1819-25 - U.S. food canning industry established

05
of 20
1830s
In 1830, about 250-300 labor-hours were required to produce 100 bushels (5 acres) of wheat with walking plow, brush harrow, hand broadcast of seed, sickle, and flail

• 1834 - McCormick reaper patented
• 1834 - John Lane began to manufacture plows faced with steel saw blades
• 1837 - John Deere and Leonard Andrus began manufacturing steel plows. The plow was made of wrought iron and had a steel share that could cut through sticky soil without clogging.
• 1837 - Practical threshing machine patented

06
of 20
1840s - Commercial Farming
The growing use of factory-made agricultural machinery increased farmers' need for cash and encouraged commercial farming.

• 1841 - Practical grain drill patented
• 1842 - First grain elevator, Buffalo, NY
• 1844 - Practical mowing machine patented
• 1847 - Irrigation begun in Utah
• 1849 - Mixed chemical fertilizers sold commercially

07
of 20
1850s
In 1850, about 75-90 labor-hours were required to produce 100 bushels of corn (2-1/2 acres) with walking plow, harrow, and hand planting

• 1850-70 - Expanded market demand for agricultural products brought adoption of improved technology and resulting increases in farm production
• 1854 - Self-governing windmill perfected
• 1856 - 2-horse straddle-row cultivator patented

08
of 20
1860s - Horse Power

• 1862-75 - Change from hand power to horses characterized the first American agricultural revolution
• 1865-75 - Gang plows and sulky plows came into use
• 1868 - Steam tractors were tried out
• 1869 - Spring-tooth harrow or seedbed preparation appeared

Are you DENSE??

You claimed slavery would have gone away by itself because of technology and automation.

Slaves were working primarily at picking cotton. Automation was not available until 1935, meaning slave labor would have been necessary until that time

 

[9thIDdoc]

Some were ex-slaves trying to protect their homes like everybody else and many of them were executed out-of-hand if captured by union troops.

More Lost Cause revisionist history
It was black Union soldiers who were executed out of hand.

Untrue. If interested look up Camp Douglas in Chicago. It is recorded that was a common practice whenever a black Confederate soldier was brought in. And, yes, many Confederate shot blacks instead of taking them prisoner when they could have. They considered them traitors. Was not a good time for a black to be a soldier in either army.

I am still calling Bullshit

You look it up is not an answer

I already know the answer because I've had occasion to read a book before and your ignorance in no way proves that what I wrote isn't fact. Remain ignorant if that pleases you and I think it does because you didn't bother to consider the link I researched and presented you earlier.

 

[Scamp]

Slavery was legal. The South turned it into a Billion dollar enterprise. Its called capitalism.

 

[9thIDdoc]

We need to ask......What have these men done to deserve such an honor?

AP HIll, Braxton Bragg, George Pickett, John Bell Hood......why should they be honored?

Defending ones sacred lands and homes from an invasion sent by a Tyrant is more honorable than invading your neighbor because a Tyrant said so.

Defending the right to keep other human beings as slaves is the ultimate tyranny

The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.
The USA had slavery for 89 years.

Sounds like a valid point......

But we are talking about the same assholes in the South owning slaves in both cases

Northern schools teach you that?

It’s a fact
Same assholes forced slavery into the United States, forced slavery into new territories and created a slave Confederacy

So you are OK with the USA having slavery but not the Confederacy. Double standards.

Like I said, it was the same group of southerners forcing slavery on the rest of the country.

Slavery was a southern institution

They had slavery in the North for 200 years dating back to the Colonial period, and they still had slavery in the North after the Civil War was over, and all the Confederate slaves were free. But Yankees dont teach true history.

Cut the nonsense

<sob> But, but....the North had slaves too!

There was minimal slavery in northern states, mostly border states where the stench of slavery had leached over.

So you hate the Ancient Egyptian's, Greeks, and Roman's? They all practiced slavery. What about Native Americans, they too practiced slavery. Then surely you must hate the Dutch, English, Spanish, and Portuguese because all those nation's practiced slavery as well.

We don’t have any forts named after Ancient Egyptians, Greeks or Romans

But the basis of your argument to change the names was based on slavery in the antebellum South and these men fighting to defend their homeland from invasion by the federal government.

You keep dancing around the reason for forming the Confederacy........to ensure that slavery would exist in their nation forever. They wrote a Constitution to ensure it.

Defending their “homeland” was defending slavery

So? Abolishing it at that time would have been an economic disaster that would have bankrupted the South which meant a very bleak future including the widespread possibility of starvation for all including the very former slaves the North claimed it was trying to help. Many in the South thought the goal of the North was to impoverish the South rather than help the slave. The result was thousands of uneducated starving unemployed homeless blacks and whites together and seems to support that thought. Who wouldn't defend home and family against disaster?

The fun part was that Lincoln did not have the power or inclination to abolish slavery. He wanted to stop the spread into new territories.

Slavery would have eventually been phased out in the next 20 years with slave owners receiving some compensation for their lost “property”

But by leaving the union and attacking US property, the Confederacy brought the end of slavery in four years.

When it became cheaper and/or more efficient to use machinery than slaves for agriculture slavery would have ended without all the bloodshed caused by the North's occupation of a fort in a Southern harbor. Lincolns' election and his vow to end slavery (and ruin the South) resulted in the South lawfully leaving the union they had voluntarily joined. Rich Northern industrialists who feared having to pay more for cotton had far more to do with the start of the war than slavery. A little Northern patience and slavery would have ended naturally with a united nation instead of a bloodbath.

They did not have machinery to pick cotton until the 1930s
The South loved their “peculiar institutions” so much that they kept blacks as second class citizens well into the 1960s. When their Jim Crow policies were threatened , they resorted to terrorism to enforce their rules

How Did Farming Technology Change in the Past Two Centuries?

A timeline shows how farming tools and agricultural inventions drove modernization from manual labor to mechanization in the 1800s and 1900s.

www.thoughtco.com

Educate yourself. The farm machinery tech. revolution was well underway and picking up speed at the time of the Civil War as I said. The cotton gin was invented in 1793. The Jim Crow laws were not related to slavery they were intended to keep the peace. The KKK was formed in reaction to "reconstruction" and carpetbaggers and the fact that whites do not like becoming second class citizens either. You might want to remember that busing children to achieve intergration was met with more violence in the Northeast than anywhere else.

Educate yourself

A machine to harvest cotton was not on the market until 1935.

Cotton picker - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The cotton gin did not reduce the need for slaves, it made them more valuable. Slavery was on its way out until the invention of the cotton gin created the immense wealth of King Cotton.

Jim Crow was a direct response to the end of slavery. You may be free, but we will be damned if you will be treated the same as a white man. It created a whole legal and social code to formalize second class citizenship.

The KKK is nothing but a terrorist organization to keep blacks in their place.

What is this fixation you have with cotton picking machines?
I didn't mention them; you did. What I wrote was: " When it became cheaper and/or more efficient to use machinery than slaves for agriculture..." Apparently it will surprise you to learn that the cotton picker is neither the only nor most important machine used in the production of agriculture. Nor is cotton the only form of agricultural product. None of this would come as a surprise had you bothered to click on the link I was kind enough to provide.

03
of 20
1776-99 Farm Technology Innovations
The farm technology revolution begins.

• 1790's - Cradle and scythe introduced
• 1793 - Invention of cotton gin
• 1794 - Thomas Jefferson's moldboard of least resistance tested.
• 1797 - Charles Newbold patented first cast-iron plow

04
of 20
Early 1800s - Agricultural Revolution Begins
The agricultural revolution picks up steam.

• 1819 - Jethro Wood patented iron plow with interchangeable parts
• 1819-25 - U.S. food canning industry established

05
of 20
1830s
In 1830, about 250-300 labor-hours were required to produce 100 bushels (5 acres) of wheat with walking plow, brush harrow, hand broadcast of seed, sickle, and flail

• 1834 - McCormick reaper patented
• 1834 - John Lane began to manufacture plows faced with steel saw blades
• 1837 - John Deere and Leonard Andrus began manufacturing steel plows. The plow was made of wrought iron and had a steel share that could cut through sticky soil without clogging.
• 1837 - Practical threshing machine patented

06
of 20
1840s - Commercial Farming
The growing use of factory-made agricultural machinery increased farmers' need for cash and encouraged commercial farming.

• 1841 - Practical grain drill patented
• 1842 - First grain elevator, Buffalo, NY
• 1844 - Practical mowing machine patented
• 1847 - Irrigation begun in Utah
• 1849 - Mixed chemical fertilizers sold commercially

07
of 20
1850s
In 1850, about 75-90 labor-hours were required to produce 100 bushels of corn (2-1/2 acres) with walking plow, harrow, and hand planting

• 1850-70 - Expanded market demand for agricultural products brought adoption of improved technology and resulting increases in farm production
• 1854 - Self-governing windmill perfected
• 1856 - 2-horse straddle-row cultivator patented

08
of 20
1860s - Horse Power

• 1862-75 - Change from hand power to horses characterized the first American agricultural revolution
• 1865-75 - Gang plows and sulky plows came into use
• 1868 - Steam tractors were tried out
• 1869 - Spring-tooth harrow or seedbed preparation appeared

Are you DENSE??

You claimed slavery would have gone away by itself because of technology and automation.

Slaves were working primarily at picking cotton. Automation was not available until 1935, meaning slave labor would have been necessary until that time

Are you too dense to understand that I just posted a long list of machines and processes invented before or during the 1860's? The 1860's came before 1935. Ask anybody Most people including slaves don't eat cotton and if they starve they can't run a cotton picking machine which probably required the tractor to be invented to pull it.

 

[rightwinger]

We need to ask......What have these men done to deserve such an honor?

AP HIll, Braxton Bragg, George Pickett, John Bell Hood......why should they be honored?

Defending ones sacred lands and homes from an invasion sent by a Tyrant is more honorable than invading your neighbor because a Tyrant said so.

Defending the right to keep other human beings as slaves is the ultimate tyranny

The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.
The USA had slavery for 89 years.

Sounds like a valid point......

But we are talking about the same assholes in the South owning slaves in both cases

Northern schools teach you that?

It’s a fact
Same assholes forced slavery into the United States, forced slavery into new territories and created a slave Confederacy

So you are OK with the USA having slavery but not the Confederacy. Double standards.

Like I said, it was the same group of southerners forcing slavery on the rest of the country.

Slavery was a southern institution

They had slavery in the North for 200 years dating back to the Colonial period, and they still had slavery in the North after the Civil War was over, and all the Confederate slaves were free. But Yankees dont teach true history.

Cut the nonsense

<sob> But, but....the North had slaves too!

There was minimal slavery in northern states, mostly border states where the stench of slavery had leached over.

So you hate the Ancient Egyptian's, Greeks, and Roman's? They all practiced slavery. What about Native Americans, they too practiced slavery. Then surely you must hate the Dutch, English, Spanish, and Portuguese because all those nation's practiced slavery as well.

We don’t have any forts named after Ancient Egyptians, Greeks or Romans

But the basis of your argument to change the names was based on slavery in the antebellum South and these men fighting to defend their homeland from invasion by the federal government.

You keep dancing around the reason for forming the Confederacy........to ensure that slavery would exist in their nation forever. They wrote a Constitution to ensure it.

Defending their “homeland” was defending slavery

So? Abolishing it at that time would have been an economic disaster that would have bankrupted the South which meant a very bleak future including the widespread possibility of starvation for all including the very former slaves the North claimed it was trying to help. Many in the South thought the goal of the North was to impoverish the South rather than help the slave. The result was thousands of uneducated starving unemployed homeless blacks and whites together and seems to support that thought. Who wouldn't defend home and family against disaster?

The fun part was that Lincoln did not have the power or inclination to abolish slavery. He wanted to stop the spread into new territories.

Slavery would have eventually been phased out in the next 20 years with slave owners receiving some compensation for their lost “property”

But by leaving the union and attacking US property, the Confederacy brought the end of slavery in four years.

When it became cheaper and/or more efficient to use machinery than slaves for agriculture slavery would have ended without all the bloodshed caused by the North's occupation of a fort in a Southern harbor. Lincolns' election and his vow to end slavery (and ruin the South) resulted in the South lawfully leaving the union they had voluntarily joined. Rich Northern industrialists who feared having to pay more for cotton had far more to do with the start of the war than slavery. A little Northern patience and slavery would have ended naturally with a united nation instead of a bloodbath.

They did not have machinery to pick cotton until the 1930s
The South loved their “peculiar institutions” so much that they kept blacks as second class citizens well into the 1960s. When their Jim Crow policies were threatened , they resorted to terrorism to enforce their rules

How Did Farming Technology Change in the Past Two Centuries?

A timeline shows how farming tools and agricultural inventions drove modernization from manual labor to mechanization in the 1800s and 1900s.

www.thoughtco.com

Educate yourself. The farm machinery tech. revolution was well underway and picking up speed at the time of the Civil War as I said. The cotton gin was invented in 1793. The Jim Crow laws were not related to slavery they were intended to keep the peace. The KKK was formed in reaction to "reconstruction" and carpetbaggers and the fact that whites do not like becoming second class citizens either. You might want to remember that busing children to achieve intergration was met with more violence in the Northeast than anywhere else.

Educate yourself

A machine to harvest cotton was not on the market until 1935.

Cotton picker - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The cotton gin did not reduce the need for slaves, it made them more valuable. Slavery was on its way out until the invention of the cotton gin created the immense wealth of King Cotton.

Jim Crow was a direct response to the end of slavery. You may be free, but we will be damned if you will be treated the same as a white man. It created a whole legal and social code to formalize second class citizenship.

The KKK is nothing but a terrorist organization to keep blacks in their place.

What is this fixation you have with cotton picking machines?
I didn't mention them; you did. What I wrote was: " When it became cheaper and/or more efficient to use machinery than slaves for agriculture..." Apparently it will surprise you to learn that the cotton picker is neither the only nor most important machine used in the production of agriculture. Nor is cotton the only form of agricultural product. None of this would come as a surprise had you bothered to click on the link I was kind enough to provide.

03
of 20
1776-99 Farm Technology Innovations
The farm technology revolution begins.

• 1790's - Cradle and scythe introduced
• 1793 - Invention of cotton gin
• 1794 - Thomas Jefferson's moldboard of least resistance tested.
• 1797 - Charles Newbold patented first cast-iron plow

04
of 20
Early 1800s - Agricultural Revolution Begins
The agricultural revolution picks up steam.

• 1819 - Jethro Wood patented iron plow with interchangeable parts
• 1819-25 - U.S. food canning industry established

05
of 20
1830s
In 1830, about 250-300 labor-hours were required to produce 100 bushels (5 acres) of wheat with walking plow, brush harrow, hand broadcast of seed, sickle, and flail

• 1834 - McCormick reaper patented
• 1834 - John Lane began to manufacture plows faced with steel saw blades
• 1837 - John Deere and Leonard Andrus began manufacturing steel plows. The plow was made of wrought iron and had a steel share that could cut through sticky soil without clogging.
• 1837 - Practical threshing machine patented

06
of 20
1840s - Commercial Farming
The growing use of factory-made agricultural machinery increased farmers' need for cash and encouraged commercial farming.

• 1841 - Practical grain drill patented
• 1842 - First grain elevator, Buffalo, NY
• 1844 - Practical mowing machine patented
• 1847 - Irrigation begun in Utah
• 1849 - Mixed chemical fertilizers sold commercially

07
of 20
1850s
In 1850, about 75-90 labor-hours were required to produce 100 bushels of corn (2-1/2 acres) with walking plow, harrow, and hand planting

• 1850-70 - Expanded market demand for agricultural products brought adoption of improved technology and resulting increases in farm production
• 1854 - Self-governing windmill perfected
• 1856 - 2-horse straddle-row cultivator patented

08
of 20
1860s - Horse Power

• 1862-75 - Change from hand power to horses characterized the first American agricultural revolution
• 1865-75 - Gang plows and sulky plows came into use
• 1868 - Steam tractors were tried out
• 1869 - Spring-tooth harrow or seedbed preparation appeared

Are you DENSE??

You claimed slavery would have gone away by itself because of technology and automation.

Slaves were working primarily at picking cotton. Automation was not available until 1935, meaning slave labor would have been necessary until that time

Are you too dense to understand that I just posted a long list of machines and processes invented before or during the 1860's? The 1860's came before 1935. Ask anybody Most people including slaves don't eat cotton and if they starve they can't run a cotton picking machine which probably required the tractor to be invented to pull it.

Which means....let me see?
Jack Squat

NONE of those farm implements negated the need for slave labor in the south nor negated the institutions desire to consider blacks to be subhuman

 

[rightwinger]

Slavery was legal. The South turned it into a Billion dollar enterprise. Its called capitalism.

They sure did
They made Billions off of cotton and claimed they couldn’t afford to share it with those doing the planting, care, harvesting and bringing it to market.

 

[Scamp]

Slavery was legal. The South turned it into a Billion dollar enterprise. Its called capitalism.

They sure did
They made Billions off of cotton and claimed they couldn’t afford to share it with those doing the planting, care, harvesting and bringing it to market.

Slave owners had to pay for the slaves food, housing, medical expenses etc. Just like the Gov does today.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

10 military bases named after Confederate generals

President Donald Trump on Wednesday jumped into the debate over whether to change the names of 10 Army bases that are named for Confederate generals.

www.indystar.com

View attachment 348955

Its all part of history. The names remind us of the war we fought to preserve the union AND to end slavery, and basically, that war is over now. Picking at old wounds is a curious thing but its what political movements like to use as emotional fuel.
I don't go for it because its BS. It's better to face history than run away from it.

It's also a waste of resources to do all this when a. I imagine simply doing something like this is going to come with a price tag as well. I bet you some politician is getting some money through the backdoor on this one.

It is part of history
But why do we have such a twisted view of who we honor in history?
10 first named after Confederate Generals, one after Union Generals

Why Gen Lee and not General Grant?
Why Gen Bragg and Hood but not Gen Sherman and Sheridan?

Why? The Lost Cause movement

That would be because the South had better and much more honorable generals.

Bragg, Hood, Benning, Polk are better and more honorable than Grant, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Marshall and Patton?

Polk wasn't a confederate, he died shortly after leaving office long before the War of Northern Aggression.

BTW, libs condemned Eisenhower as Literally Hitler for daring to oppose the liberal hero Stevenson.

Funny you should bring that up. I suggest you read up on the 1956 Republican Convention Plank. It was pretty damned liberal. The complete changeover of the parties had not been completely done yet and both parties had about the same number of Conservatives and Liberals. Just remember, a lot of what Kennedy and Johnson got credit for in race relations was started or proposed by Eisenhower. The group that was created in 1957 that was going after Eisenhower was the John Birch Society that claimed he was a Communist. Funny how the JBS just took up the mantle of the failed debacle that McCarthy did. You picked a really bad time to use as an example. The Republican Party was still pretty damned Liberal and Progressive at that point but it also had Conservative ideas as well. It was about as well balanced as it ever was.

Just because you say so doesn't make it a fact.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

10 military bases named after Confederate generals

President Donald Trump on Wednesday jumped into the debate over whether to change the names of 10 Army bases that are named for Confederate generals.

www.indystar.com

View attachment 348955

Its all part of history. The names remind us of the war we fought to preserve the union AND to end slavery, and basically, that war is over now. Picking at old wounds is a curious thing but its what political movements like to use as emotional fuel.
I don't go for it because its BS. It's better to face history than run away from it.

It's also a waste of resources to do all this when a. I imagine simply doing something like this is going to come with a price tag as well. I bet you some politician is getting some money through the backdoor on this one.

It is part of history
But why do we have such a twisted view of who we honor in history?
10 first named after Confederate Generals, one after Union Generals

Why Gen Lee and not General Grant?
Why Gen Bragg and Hood but not Gen Sherman and Sheridan?

Why? The Lost Cause movement

That would be because the South had better and much more honorable generals.

Bragg, Hood, Benning, Polk are better and more honorable than Grant, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Marshall and Patton?

Grant is the only Civil War era general you mentioned and he was not an especially good general and he allowed Sherman to sully any honor he was due. The rest have had many things named after them but I doubt they were even born when most of the forts were named.

"The lost cause movement" is a Northern invention and delusion as far I know.

The Movie "Lost Cause" was financed and promoted by the Daughters of the Confederates. Stop trying to rewrite history.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We need to ask......What have these men done to deserve such an honor?

AP HIll, Braxton Bragg, George Pickett, John Bell Hood......why should they be honored?

Defending ones sacred lands and homes from an invasion sent by a Tyrant is more honorable than invading your neighbor because a Tyrant said so.

Defending the right to keep other human beings as slaves is the ultimate tyranny

The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.
The USA had slavery for 89 years.

Sounds like a valid point......

But we are talking about the same assholes in the South owning slaves in both cases

Northern schools teach you that?

It’s a fact
Same assholes forced slavery into the United States, forced slavery into new territories and created a slave Confederacy

So you are OK with the USA having slavery but not the Confederacy. Double standards.

Like I said, it was the same group of southerners forcing slavery on the rest of the country.

Slavery was a southern institution

They had slavery in the North for 200 years dating back to the Colonial period, and they still had slavery in the North after the Civil War was over, and all the Confederate slaves were free. But Yankees dont teach true history.

Cut the nonsense

<sob> But, but....the North had slaves too!

There was minimal slavery in northern states, mostly border states where the stench of slavery had leached over.

So you hate the Ancient Egyptian's, Greeks, and Roman's? They all practiced slavery. What about Native Americans, they too practiced slavery. Then surely you must hate the Dutch, English, Spanish, and Portuguese because all those nation's practiced slavery as well.

We don’t have any forts named after Ancient Egyptians, Greeks or Romans

But the basis of your argument to change the names was based on slavery in the antebellum South and these men fighting to defend their homeland from invasion by the federal government.

You keep dancing around the reason for forming the Confederacy........to ensure that slavery would exist in their nation forever. They wrote a Constitution to ensure it.

Defending their “homeland” was defending slavery

So? Abolishing it at that time would have been an economic disaster that would have bankrupted the South which meant a very bleak future including the widespread possibility of starvation for all including the very former slaves the North claimed it was trying to help. Many in the South thought the goal of the North was to impoverish the South rather than help the slave. The result was thousands of uneducated starving unemployed homeless blacks and whites together and seems to support that thought. Who wouldn't defend home and family against disaster?

Or, we can look at another model. Pay a fair wage and give fair treatment. Imagine that. There is a huge difference between a Slave and an indentured servant.

So? The women and children that worked in northern sweatshops had it worse that either. Slaves were given food, housing, clothing and medical care by their owners. Although they had no rights they were usually treated well for exactly the same reason that an expensive horse is. Some were honestly cared for as members of the family. The little indentured servants were paid had to also cover basic needs that were provided by the slave owner. The worker in a sweat shop worked very long hard hours under horrendous conditions for pay that rarely fully covered basic needs that a slave was provided. Due to the nature of agriculture a slave might be worked hard during spring and fall but have it relatively easy much of the year.

You keep telling yourself that. But if it were so peaches and cream, the undergound wouldn't have been so active. "Some" were humane in the treatment while others weren't. "Some" kept families together while other sold children off when they became of age. "Some" kept their hands off the black daughters while other didn't like Jefferson. "Some" beat them to death. "Some" You should get the idea. But you won't.

I do not think nor did I say that most slaves didn't have it pretty rough. There were an awful lot of hard times back then for most folks. Sharecroppers worked very hard and only got to keep a portion of what they grew. No pay and had to provide somehow for the needs of their family. If they didn't please the land owner for any reason they could be kicked out of their home and off the land into starvation. The vast majority of the soldiers in the Confederate Army didn't own slaves and had no desire to. Some were ex-slaves trying to protect their homes like everybody else and many of them were executed out-of-hand if captured by union troops.

Most Confederate soldiers did not own slaves but they profited off of it. The whole south did.

A powerful incentive was that as low as their status in life was, slaves were still lower. The threat of blacks being equal, voting and stealing white women was quite an incentive.

As I said before that slavery was critical to Southern economy and that nobody wants to be bankrupted much less everybody in several States. Pretty natural to want to be able to feed you children. Economy; not nearly so much slavery itself.
Your other paragraph is fairly correct except that most white people (North and South) of the time didn't believe that blacks could ever be equal due to a lack of mental capacity.

The problem was, the slave traders wanted to spread their wares to new markets. If they had stayed with their current markets, it may have been decades before slaving would have been abolished. But as one person said, in 1935 some really neat Agri machines came out and that pretty well killed the need so Slavery would have ended about then. OF course, the depression would have had a big impact on it as well in 1935.

 

[gipper]

10 military bases named after Confederate generals

President Donald Trump on Wednesday jumped into the debate over whether to change the names of 10 Army bases that are named for Confederate generals.

www.indystar.com

View attachment 348955

Its all part of history. The names remind us of the war we fought to preserve the union AND to end slavery, and basically, that war is over now. Picking at old wounds is a curious thing but its what political movements like to use as emotional fuel.
I don't go for it because its BS. It's better to face history than run away from it.

It's also a waste of resources to do all this when a. I imagine simply doing something like this is going to come with a price tag as well. I bet you some politician is getting some money through the backdoor on this one.

It is part of history
But why do we have such a twisted view of who we honor in history?
10 first named after Confederate Generals, one after Union Generals

Why Gen Lee and not General Grant?
Why Gen Bragg and Hood but not Gen Sherman and Sheridan?

Why? The Lost Cause movement

That would be because the South had better and much more honorable generals.

Bragg, Hood, Benning, Polk are better and more honorable than Grant, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Marshall and Patton?

Polk wasn't a confederate, he died shortly after leaving office long before the War of Northern Aggression.

BTW, libs condemned Eisenhower as Literally Hitler for daring to oppose the liberal hero Stevenson.

Funny you should bring that up. I suggest you read up on the 1956 Republican Convention Plank. It was pretty damned liberal. The complete changeover of the parties had not been completely done yet and both parties had about the same number of Conservatives and Liberals. Just remember, a lot of what Kennedy and Johnson got credit for in race relations was started or proposed by Eisenhower. The group that was created in 1957 that was going after Eisenhower was the John Birch Society that claimed he was a Communist. Funny how the JBS just took up the mantle of the failed debacle that McCarthy did. You picked a really bad time to use as an example. The Republican Party was still pretty damned Liberal and Progressive at that point but it also had Conservative ideas as well. It was about as well balanced as it ever was.

Just because you say so doesn't make it a fact.

It’s funny how the the radical right has labeled anyone who proposes helping the people, communists. They have done this since the 1950s. They did it to Bernie. They do it to peaceful anti-cop brutality demonstrators.

One would think all would be on to their BS by now.

 

[rightwinger]

Slavery was legal. The South turned it into a Billion dollar enterprise. Its called capitalism.

They sure did
They made Billions off of cotton and claimed they couldn’t afford to share it with those doing the planting, care, harvesting and bringing it to market.

Slave owners had to pay for the slaves food, housing, medical expenses etc. Just like the Gov does today.

The Cotton business made billions ......none of which made it down to those producing it

 

[Polishprince]

Slavery was legal. The South turned it into a Billion dollar enterprise. Its called capitalism.

They sure did
They made Billions off of cotton and claimed they couldn’t afford to share it with those doing the planting, care, harvesting and bringing it to market.

Slave owners had to pay for the slaves food, housing, medical expenses etc. Just like the Gov does today.

The Cotton business made billions ......none of which made it down to those producing it

Liberals still want slavery today. I was reading Facebook, and Crazy Bernie said "receiving health care is a human right". That's basically slavery, forcing Doctors and Nurse to provide this supposed "right".

I'm sorry fellows, but the idea of forcing people to do services is what slavery is all about, whether its picking cotton, rowing a ship or building a pyramid like in the Chuck Heston documentaries, or like in Sanders' dream of enslaving doctors.

 

[rightwinger]

Slavery was legal. The South turned it into a Billion dollar enterprise. Its called capitalism.

They sure did
They made Billions off of cotton and claimed they couldn’t afford to share it with those doing the planting, care, harvesting and bringing it to market.

Slave owners had to pay for the slaves food, housing, medical expenses etc. Just like the Gov does today.

The Cotton business made billions ......none of which made it down to those producing it

Liberals still want slavery today. I was reading Facebook, and Crazy Bernie said "receiving health care is a human right". That's basically slavery, forcing Doctors and Nurse to provide this supposed "right".

I'm sorry fellows, but the idea of forcing people to do services is what slavery is all about, whether its picking cotton, rowing a ship or building a pyramid like in the Chuck Heston documentaries, or like in Sanders' dream of enslaving doctors.

Yes, because saving people’s lives is the same thing as buying and selling them and their children

 

[gipper]

Slavery was legal. The South turned it into a Billion dollar enterprise. Its called capitalism.

They sure did
They made Billions off of cotton and claimed they couldn’t afford to share it with those doing the planting, care, harvesting and bringing it to market.

Slave owners had to pay for the slaves food, housing, medical expenses etc. Just like the Gov does today.

The Cotton business made billions ......none of which made it down to those producing it

Link.

 

[9thIDdoc]

10 military bases named after Confederate generals

President Donald Trump on Wednesday jumped into the debate over whether to change the names of 10 Army bases that are named for Confederate generals.

www.indystar.com

View attachment 348955

Its all part of history. The names remind us of the war we fought to preserve the union AND to end slavery, and basically, that war is over now. Picking at old wounds is a curious thing but its what political movements like to use as emotional fuel.
I don't go for it because its BS. It's better to face history than run away from it.

It's also a waste of resources to do all this when a. I imagine simply doing something like this is going to come with a price tag as well. I bet you some politician is getting some money through the backdoor on this one.

It is part of history
But why do we have such a twisted view of who we honor in history?
10 first named after Confederate Generals, one after Union Generals

Why Gen Lee and not General Grant?
Why Gen Bragg and Hood but not Gen Sherman and Sheridan?

Why? The Lost Cause movement

That would be because the South had better and much more honorable generals.

Bragg, Hood, Benning, Polk are better and more honorable than Grant, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Marshall and Patton?

Grant is the only Civil War era general you mentioned and he was not an especially good general and he allowed Sherman to sully any honor he was due. The rest have had many things named after them but I doubt they were even born when most of the forts were named.

"The lost cause movement" is a Northern invention and delusion as far I know.

The Movie "Lost Cause" was financed and promoted by the Daughters of the Confederates. Stop trying to rewrite history.

You think a movie few have ever heard of or seen is some kind of "movement"? You don't even bother to mention what it is you consider false. Since I've never known them to do anything of which I would disapprove I have to wonder if you just don't like having Northern lies exposed.

 

[9thIDdoc]

We need to ask......What have these men done to deserve such an honor?

AP HIll, Braxton Bragg, George Pickett, John Bell Hood......why should they be honored?

Defending ones sacred lands and homes from an invasion sent by a Tyrant is more honorable than invading your neighbor because a Tyrant said so.

Defending the right to keep other human beings as slaves is the ultimate tyranny

The Confederacy had slavery for 4 years.
The USA had slavery for 89 years.

Sounds like a valid point......

But we are talking about the same assholes in the South owning slaves in both cases

Northern schools teach you that?

It’s a fact
Same assholes forced slavery into the United States, forced slavery into new territories and created a slave Confederacy

So you are OK with the USA having slavery but not the Confederacy. Double standards.

Like I said, it was the same group of southerners forcing slavery on the rest of the country.

Slavery was a southern institution

They had slavery in the North for 200 years dating back to the Colonial period, and they still had slavery in the North after the Civil War was over, and all the Confederate slaves were free. But Yankees dont teach true history.

Cut the nonsense

<sob> But, but....the North had slaves too!

There was minimal slavery in northern states, mostly border states where the stench of slavery had leached over.

So you hate the Ancient Egyptian's, Greeks, and Roman's? They all practiced slavery. What about Native Americans, they too practiced slavery. Then surely you must hate the Dutch, English, Spanish, and Portuguese because all those nation's practiced slavery as well.

We don’t have any forts named after Ancient Egyptians, Greeks or Romans

But the basis of your argument to change the names was based on slavery in the antebellum South and these men fighting to defend their homeland from invasion by the federal government.

You keep dancing around the reason for forming the Confederacy........to ensure that slavery would exist in their nation forever. They wrote a Constitution to ensure it.

Defending their “homeland” was defending slavery

So? Abolishing it at that time would have been an economic disaster that would have bankrupted the South which meant a very bleak future including the widespread possibility of starvation for all including the very former slaves the North claimed it was trying to help. Many in the South thought the goal of the North was to impoverish the South rather than help the slave. The result was thousands of uneducated starving unemployed homeless blacks and whites together and seems to support that thought. Who wouldn't defend home and family against disaster?

Or, we can look at another model. Pay a fair wage and give fair treatment. Imagine that. There is a huge difference between a Slave and an indentured servant.

So? The women and children that worked in northern sweatshops had it worse that either. Slaves were given food, housing, clothing and medical care by their owners. Although they had no rights they were usually treated well for exactly the same reason that an expensive horse is. Some were honestly cared for as members of the family. The little indentured servants were paid had to also cover basic needs that were provided by the slave owner. The worker in a sweat shop worked very long hard hours under horrendous conditions for pay that rarely fully covered basic needs that a slave was provided. Due to the nature of agriculture a slave might be worked hard during spring and fall but have it relatively easy much of the year.

You keep telling yourself that. But if it were so peaches and cream, the undergound wouldn't have been so active. "Some" were humane in the treatment while others weren't. "Some" kept families together while other sold children off when they became of age. "Some" kept their hands off the black daughters while other didn't like Jefferson. "Some" beat them to death. "Some" You should get the idea. But you won't.

I do not think nor did I say that most slaves didn't have it pretty rough. There were an awful lot of hard times back then for most folks. Sharecroppers worked very hard and only got to keep a portion of what they grew. No pay and had to provide somehow for the needs of their family. If they didn't please the land owner for any reason they could be kicked out of their home and off the land into starvation. The vast majority of the soldiers in the Confederate Army didn't own slaves and had no desire to. Some were ex-slaves trying to protect their homes like everybody else and many of them were executed out-of-hand if captured by union troops.

Most Confederate soldiers did not own slaves but they profited off of it. The whole south did.

A powerful incentive was that as low as their status in life was, slaves were still lower. The threat of blacks being equal, voting and stealing white women was quite an incentive.

As I said before that slavery was critical to Southern economy and that nobody wants to be bankrupted much less everybody in several States. Pretty natural to want to be able to feed you children. Economy; not nearly so much slavery itself.
Your other paragraph is fairly correct except that most white people (North and South) of the time didn't believe that blacks could ever be equal due to a lack of mental capacity.

The problem was, the slave traders wanted to spread their wares to new markets. If they had stayed with their current markets, it may have been decades before slaving would have been abolished. But as one person said, in 1935 some really neat Agri machines came out and that pretty well killed the need so Slavery would have ended about then. OF course, the depression would have had a big impact on it as well in 1935.

Catch up. I have already stated that I and many others believe that what is considered a "revolution in agricultural technology" had been ongoing for quite some time. And that slavery for would have rendered inefficient and overly expensive long before 1935. If the subject interests you might look at earlier posts in this thread.
Actual slave traders were mostly from the Northeast and utilized ships to bring in slaves. Slave owners establishing new homesteads in the west wanted to take their slaves with them. Maybe this is what you are thinking of.

 

[9thIDdoc]

10 military bases named after Confederate generals

President Donald Trump on Wednesday jumped into the debate over whether to change the names of 10 Army bases that are named for Confederate generals.

www.indystar.com

View attachment 348955

Its all part of history. The names remind us of the war we fought to preserve the union AND to end slavery, and basically, that war is over now. Picking at old wounds is a curious thing but its what political movements like to use as emotional fuel.
I don't go for it because its BS. It's better to face history than run away from it.

It's also a waste of resources to do all this when a. I imagine simply doing something like this is going to come with a price tag as well. I bet you some politician is getting some money through the backdoor on this one.

It is part of history
But why do we have such a twisted view of who we honor in history?
10 first named after Confederate Generals, one after Union Generals

Why Gen Lee and not General Grant?
Why Gen Bragg and Hood but not Gen Sherman and Sheridan?

Why? The Lost Cause movement

That would be because the South had better and much more honorable generals.

Bragg, Hood, Benning, Polk are better and more honorable than Grant, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Marshall and Patton?

Polk wasn't a confederate, he died shortly after leaving office long before the War of Northern Aggression.

BTW, libs condemned Eisenhower as Literally Hitler for daring to oppose the liberal hero Stevenson.

Funny you should bring that up. I suggest you read up on the 1956 Republican Convention Plank. It was pretty damned liberal. The complete changeover of the parties had not been completely done yet and both parties had about the same number of Conservatives and Liberals. Just remember, a lot of what Kennedy and Johnson got credit for in race relations was started or proposed by Eisenhower. The group that was created in 1957 that was going after Eisenhower was the John Birch Society that claimed he was a Communist. Funny how the JBS just took up the mantle of the failed debacle that McCarthy did. You picked a really bad time to use as an example. The Republican Party was still pretty damned Liberal and Progressive at that point but it also had Conservative ideas as well. It was about as well balanced as it ever was.

Just because you say so doesn't make it a fact.

It’s funny how the the radical right has labeled anyone who proposes helping the people, communists. They have done this since the 1950s. They did it to Bernie. They do it to peaceful anti-cop brutality demonstrators.

One would think all would be on to their BS by now.

If only they were not so often right.

 

[Mason22]

Even the Confederates hated Bragg,outside of Jefferson Davis!How did he get his name attached?