Point (2): The European banks could have funded steam/mechanical farming devices in Europe, but they weren't popular there either. (That is not to say they weren't used, just not used extensively. I'm not sure an agricultural comparison between G.B. and the U.S.A. is reasonable in any case. Much of the good farming land in G.B. was owned by the Church of England and various royals. They could afford extravagent machinery.)
Point (3): Almost every reference I have run across, including "dusty old tomes in the library" indicate these monsters were slow, cumbersome, and difficult to maintain. So is a Jaguar, but there are still lots of them on the road.
Point (4): My grandfather had a bunch of old museum pieces on his ranch. I learned to drive on an old Massey tractor (not a Massy-Ferguson!). Just because somebody took care of some equipment doesn't mean it was popular or extensively used. When he passed, he had a bunch of machinery in his equipment sheds for harvesting lima beans. These were complex harvesters, but beans hadn't been grown much in the area since the 1960's. Stuff worked fine though.
Point (5): We are in the United States, not Great Britain. You have provided no logical or reasonable explanation on how a Rube Goldberg contraption would have put 4,000,000 slaves out of business. You might as well have said slavery would have been eliminated in 5-10 years because the Starship Enterprise would have beamed them all up.
Point (6): It's not that I don't admit when I'm mistaken (case in point a few posts back when I mixed up the Grants and the Dents). It's that your suggestion is so far off the wall, even you fellow rebelites don't believe it! You are darn near a minority of one on that issue. But I'll say no more, not wanting to be responsible for bursting that bubble you're in! By the way, the more adjectives you use, the less credible you appear.
By the way, seen any of the revolutionary Stanley Steamers driving around lately? They've got one at Petersen's Auto Museum in Hollywood. It was such a good car, it put four million Fiat mechanics out of business!
2.i fail to see what the Church of England and/or the royals have to do with the improvement in agriculture. aren't you reaching here a bit????
3.go do some more research. what you posted is WRONG.
4.and 4 means what????? again you are reaching.
5.what a DUMB comment! engaging in ridicule of a person who MANIFESTLY knows more about this subject than you do does you NO honor.like my "nemisis with the dirty mouth", you've lost the argument,imvho.
6.more of the same drivel & bilge.
7.YEP. a friend of mine has one. STANDARD OIL, rather than impractacality kileed the Stanley. this is generall agreed to by most automotive historians. by 1924, the SS was FAR ahead of its rivals;it still is if you are discussing EFFICIENCY.
free dixie,sw
i also have an "8N" too, which i plan to restore "some day"!
the 8N was the first NEW tractor our family bought after WW2.(i just can't part with it!)
also i have a Mark IX Jag, with body by TOURING, too-i'm a glutton for punishment, as there are just no parts for that creature anymore. LOL.
free the southland,sw
the 8-row cottonpicker WORKED and WORKED WELL, despite what N-S and some other "city kitties" here think. (i know about that too. i seriously doubt that anyone else here has as much time as i do "behind a team of six". as you may have guessed that is a BIG part of WHY i left the farm and headed off to college and NOT to Texas A&M either!)
free dixie,sw