Okay, then one more time, I'll ask you to explain. You claim that the south's impoverishment after the war delayed the mechanization of cotton, even though the machines already existed. Why, then, wasn't cotton mechanized in California until the 1940s? Why wasn't cotton mechanized, in fact, anywhere in the world until the 1940s? And why are the Rust Brothers credited all over the place with inventing the first practical cotton picker in the late 1930s?
As for the tractors, as Dr. Pete Daniel pointed out (the REAL agricultural curator at the Smithsonian, and author of real, published books on mechanization of southern agriculture), that the early steam tractors weren't used for plowing. They were heavy, expensive and required trained crews to run them. When they were used, they were generally used to power belt driven machines like threshers. The simplest way of dismissing your argument is merely to point out that the north (supposedly enriched at southern expense by the war) didn't have tractors doing the plowing until the 1910s, at the earliest. Curiously, that's the same time tractors starting appearing in the south, too. Go figure.
So, have you contacted Lubar to prove your accusation that I've lied about what he said denying your arguments yet? What are you afraid of?
he hasn't changed his mind/answers,UNlike HANOI-john kerry & his band of DIMocRATS, according to who is asking.
thus, there is no reason to ask/bother him a second time, NEEDLESSLY.
face it, you are wrong & making yourself look ever more foolish.
why not head over to DU & peddle your drivel & lunatic theories there. they will, i predict, welcome you with open arms.
free dixie,sw