Posted on 10/26/2013 7:01:38 AM PDT by Davy Buck
Yeah, frankly it’s hard to find a photo of any woman from that period that anyone today would consider a looker.
I would say Mrs. Custer is winning.
That’s not an ad-hom.
Ad Hominem: An argument based on the perceived failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case; a logical fallacy that involves a personal attack.
Although some faulty arguers may call attention to distasteful features of their opponents’ subject in order to manipulate the responses of their audience, most abusers apparently believe that such characteristics actually provide good reasons for ignoring or discrediting the arguments of those who have them. Logically, of course, the fact that any of these characteristics might fit an opponent provides no reason to ignore or discredit his or her arguments or criticisms.
(T. E. Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Wadsworth, 2001)
That is why you have always been contemptuous and do not realize that you are...your biases lie outside your consciousness. Does it occur to you why it is so easy for you to adopt the smugness that is on display here.
She looks pretty good... compare her to the wookie!
It’s amazing what even a hint of a smile will do.
But if there had not been slaves, there would have been no South.
At the time, agriculture on a large scale was being done by slaves and the south was an agrarian society.
Planting and harvesting was labor intensive work.
FYI, by many standards slavery still exists around the world. There are places where large factories dominate and if you work for them they provide you with food and housing and little else. Should you try to leave and go to work elsewhere you will find your options very limited.
While American slavery was a detestable institution, it was also a product of it’s times - born of necessity and perpetuated by heinous economic exploitation of the industrial north.
Too funny. You project without perception. You literally are what you accuse.
So was the Midwest, but somehow they managed to plant and harvest without slaves.
Gee wiz, no white person ever planted a crop, sawed an board or laid a brick in the antebellum South. Who knew?
There are high-labor crops, there are low-labor crops.
Indigo, tobacco, cotton are examples of the former; grain crops in general constitute the latter -- while animal forage requires even less labor.
As a rule, the former are better suited to the climatic and soil conditions in the south, while the latter were ideally suited to the Midwest.
In other words, the agricultural Midwest didn't necessarily conscientiously choose to avoid slavery; instead, there was no economic need for it.
You should have quit while you were ahead.
Born of expedience and perpetuated by heinous economic exploitation of the black man by arrogant southern opportunists.
Fixed it for ya in the interest of accuracy.
No, the truth is that the southern planter class chose to maximize their profits by planting labor intensive crops, then using slaves to tend them.
Did I say that? Gee, I thought I said there were high labor crops and low labor crops.
And, that since low labor crops were best adapted to the Midwest, there was no particular credit to be assigned for not employing slaves.
You are reading into what I wrote something that isn't there -- a sign of over-zealousness.
I might add, though, that the South had a slave-based economy because that is a choice that the British financiers had imposed upon them at the time of initial settlement.
The stock companies which developed the southern colonies sought crops that could be profitably grown in the climate and soils of the area. The initial winner was indigo, a crop that thrived in the hot, humid lowlands of the Carolinas.
But it was also a labor-intensive crop -- which, in turn, gave birth to the slave trade thru Charleston. Had it thrived in the rocky soils of New England, there would've been a slave trade thru the port of Boston, as well.
Personally, I find it very difficult to criticize anybody of the mid-19th century for decisions regarding economic systems that were created in the mid-17th century. The system was a product of another era -- when slavery was viewed in a totally different light. <
Times change. Standards change. Slavery is now a thing of the past...and that's good. But I'm not going to blame anybody who inherited the system, when it was still legal (and Constitutional, I might add), for defending it and their livelihood. Misguided, perhaps. But malicious, no.
If you insist on carrying the torch for racial injustice, why don't you focus on the people who created and practiced Jim Crow. From the outset, they knew they were doing something that was inherently wrong. And they were doing it for primarily political reasons.
Plessy vs Ferguson was far more pernicious than the sanctioning of slavery in the Constitution and the so-called 3/5 rule.
I suspect the artillery bombardment of Fort Sumter would qualify as an act of aggression. Not that much different than a bomb or torpedo falling on Pearl Harbor. A premeditated attack against a United States military installation. Doesn’t make much difference if the people firing are Japanese or ex U.S. citizens.
I’m sure you meant descendent.
Yes I did and thank you very much.
Name a major agrarian economy of the early to mid 19th century that did not use slaves.
If you do not think that the tariffs imposed by the north and their manipulation of prices did not de facto promote slavery, then you are a deluded fool.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.