Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I personally think this whole romanticizing of the north during the Civil War is the result of modern people using the South as a scapegoat for all the wrong done throughout the country since it's inception. Unfortunately it continued long after the Civil War throughout the country, but the blame is typically only focused on the South. It's not the South that's denying their past.
There wasn't slavery in northern states during the Civil War period. Secession resulted from an effort by Confederate leaders to defend the institution of slavery, likely the greatest evil in American history.
In the 20th century, the North didn't have poll taxes and oppressive legalized segregation in the 20th century. There were many reasons for the Great Migration in the first half of the 20th century, and not all involved superior wages.
I personally think this whole romanticizing of the north during the Civil War is the result of modern people using the South as a scapegoat for all the wrong done throughout the country since it's inception. Unfortunately it continued long after the Civil War throughout the country, but the blame is typically only focused on the South. It's not the South that's denying their past.
Sure,
As if "Southern heritage" was not romanticizing the confederate slavery culture
Ah, so they only became racist after black people moved in. Gotcha
Was there racism in the North during all of American history? Yes.
However, unlike in the South, there was abhorrence regarding slavery. There developed a sense that African Americans were entitled to the right to vote. Public segregation, such as with drinking fountains and buses, was not legislated into law, as in the South, into the 20th century. Many northern whites had great respect for African American individuals.
In northeastern Ohio following the Civil War, there was an immense respect for the African Americans who fought for the Union and in the elimination of slavery. These attitudes are immortalized in Cleveland's Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument:
<<Though Scofield’s inclusion of a black solider was unique for the time, the depiction of African-Americans inside the monument was even more controversial, given the rampant racial intolerance and segregation present throughout the country in 1894. In a bronze relief depicting the emancipation of slaves, Abraham Lincoln is shown lifting the shackles from a black man kneeling before him. “Now here’s the part that’s really extreme,” Evans says. “He is giving him a Springfield musket rifle with a full cartridge box so he can defend and fight for himself.” >>
Mark the words of Cleveland's James A. Garfield in the only major speech outside of Ohio during his Presidential campaign, delivered in New York City.
<<Another thing we will remember: we will remember our allies who fought with us. Soon after the great struggle began, we looked behind the army of white rebels, and saw 4,000,000 of black people condemned to toil as slaves for our enemies; and we found that the hearts of these 4,000,000 were God-inspired with the spirit of Liberty, and that they were all our friends. [Applause.] We have seen the white men betray the flag and fight to kill the Union; but in all that long, dreary war we never saw a traitor in a black skin. [Great cheers.] Our comrades escaping from the starvation of prison, fleeing to our lines by the light of the North star, never feared to enter the black man's cabin and ask for bread. ["Good, good," "That's so," and loud cheers.] In all that period of suffering and danger, no Union soldier was ever betrayed by a black man or woman. [Applause.] And now that we have made them free, so long as we live we will stand by these black allies. [Renewed applause.] We will stand by them until the sun of liberty, fixed in the firmament of our Constitution, shall shine with equal ray upon every man, black or white, throughout the Union. [Cheers.] >>
Show me one similar public expression from the 19th century in the South, celebrating the abolishment of slavery or a dedication to the liberties of African Americans.
It disgusts me when someone suggests that there was no difference between racial attitudes in the North and the South in the 19th and much of the 20th century.
What about the South? A racism existed that was so profound as to justify slavery as a moral good. Poll taxes and intense physical intimidation were practiced by whites to keep African Americans from voting, for almost a century, until racial voting restrictions were outlawed not by southern states but by Congressional legislation and federal enforcement. Lynching of African Americans was common in the South well into the 20th century. Even today, a concerted effort exists to deny the ability to vote and to gerrymander political districts to minimize the political impact of the African American vote; sadly, some of these practices have been extended by Republicans into northern states, such as Ohio. The Republican Supreme Court justices have rolled back the provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
Let me emphasize that slavery was an immensely evil institution. We do not emphasize this sufficiently, largely because the nation is filled with apologists who, when not defending Southern slavery, attempt to argue that the only difference between Northern and Southern racial morality was that the Southern economy was dependent upon slavery. Such arguments are hogwash.
This episode, along with the formative experiences of Branch Rickey, well explains the difference between Northern and Southern racial attitudes even into the 1960s, and which I've always been proud of as an Ohioan.
<<
Bobby Mitchell, the Washington Redskins' assistant general manager who played for Brown in the 1960's, recalled an incident in Miami when the manager of a hotel informed Brown that the hotel would not accommodate Cleveland's black players.
''Paul Brown looked him right in the eye and said, 'No, our team stays together,' '' Mitchell recalled. ''They had words, and finally Paul told them: 'I'll tell you what then. We'll just get back on the plane and go back home.' The manager said, 'You can't do that.' Brown said: 'Is that so? Our players stay together.' So they relented.''>>
Was there racism in the North during all of American history? Yes.
However, unlike in the South, there was abhorrence regarding slavery. There developed a sense that African Americans were entitled to the right to vote. Public segregation, such as with drinking fountains and buses, was not legislated into law, as in the South, into the 20th century. Many northern whites had great respect for African American individuals.
In northeastern Ohio following the Civil War, there was an immense respect for the African Americans who fought for the Union and in the elimination of slavery. These attitudes are immortalized in Cleveland's Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument:
<<Though Scofield’s inclusion of a black solider was unique for the time, the depiction of African-Americans inside the monument was even more controversial, given the rampant racial intolerance and segregation present throughout the country in 1894. In a bronze relief depicting the emancipation of slaves, Abraham Lincoln is shown lifting the shackles from a black man kneeling before him. “Now here’s the part that’s really extreme,†Evans says. “He is giving him a Springfield musket rifle with a full cartridge box so he can defend and fight for himself.†>>
Mark the words of Cleveland's James A. Garfield in the only major speech outside of Ohio during his Presidential campaign, delivered in New York City.
<<Another thing we will remember: we will remember our allies who fought with us. Soon after the great struggle began, we looked behind the army of white rebels, and saw 4,000,000 of black people condemned to toil as slaves for our enemies; and we found that the hearts of these 4,000,000 were God-inspired with the spirit of Liberty, and that they were all our friends. [Applause.] We have seen the white men betray the flag and fight to kill the Union; but in all that long, dreary war we never saw a traitor in a black skin. [Great cheers.] Our comrades escaping from the starvation of prison, fleeing to our lines by the light of the North star, never feared to enter the black man's cabin and ask for bread. ["Good, good," "That's so," and loud cheers.] In all that period of suffering and danger, no Union soldier was ever betrayed by a black man or woman. [Applause.] And now that we have made them free, so long as we live we will stand by these black allies. [Renewed applause.] We will stand by them until the sun of liberty, fixed in the firmament of our Constitution, shall shine with equal ray upon every man, black or white, throughout the Union. [Cheers.] >>
It disgusts me when someone suggests that there was no difference between racial attitudes in the North and the South in the 19th and much of the 20th century.
What about the South? A racism existed that was so profound as to justify slavery as a moral good. Poll taxes and intense physical intimidation were practiced by whites to keep African Americans from voting, for almost a century. Lynching of African Americans was common in the 20th century. Even today, a concerted effort exists to deny the ability to vote and to gerrymander political districts to minimize the political impact of the African American vote; sadly, some of these practices have been extended by Republicans into northern states, such as Ohio.
Let me emphasize that slavery was an immensely evil institution. We do not emphasize this sufficiently, largely because the nation is filled with apologists who, when not defending Southern slavery, attempt to argue that the only difference between Northern and Southern morality was that the Southern economy was dependent upon slavery. Such arguments are hogwash.
This episode, along with the formative experiences of Branch Rickey, well explains the difference between Northern and Southern racial attitudes even into the 1960s, and which I've always been proud of as an Ohioan.
<<
Bobby Mitchell, the Washington Redskins' assistant general manager who played for Brown in the 1960's, recalled an incident in Miami when the manager of a hotel informed Brown that the hotel would not accommodate Cleveland's black players.
''Paul Brown looked him right in the eye and said, 'No, our team stays together,' '' Mitchell recalled. ''They had words, and finally Paul told them: 'I'll tell you what then. We'll just get back on the plane and go back home.' The manager said, 'You can't do that.' Brown said: 'Is that so? Our players stay together.' So they relented.''>>
Now that we’ve established racism existed everywhere the whole “my ancestors were less evil than your ancestors†(my ancestors were in still in Europe in the 1860’s btw) is childish.
My ancestors don’t define my identity unlike some people on this thread. I don’t know nor care what they did. If they did something noble, then cool (though I probably won’t get the whole story so I’ll still be a skeptic), if they were evil, that’s their prerogative. My views are shaped by my environment, not ancient genetic code.
Slavery and Jim Crow and discussed to death in modern schools. What’s left out is racism and segregation in the north. Lincoln’s prewar racist quote won’t be discussed in high school but his emancipation proclamation will. I’ve never met a southerner who denied racism or slavery existed. I have met an infinite amount of northerners who think racism was confined to the South, particularly white northerners who grew up in white suburbs.
That brings us back to the slavery vs state’s rights thing. If the South seceded to preserve slavery via state’s rights and the North invaded the south to preserve the union then that should be proof slavery was a bit of a side show for the north. Were the north’s motives to eliminate slavery throughout the country or simply confine it to the states that it existed? Did the North really want to “preserve the union†or did they simply want to remain in political control of the most profitable exports in America? Did they actually care about the slaves themselves or was simply the thoughts behind some high ranking abolitionist? State’s rights is a topic that continues to be relevant while slavery is a relic of the past. If you’re looking for a lesson in the Civil War it should be focused on the topic that’s still relevant.
Among the millions of people who existed back then and the wide range of views and perspectives people all over were entitled to have, trying to prove one theory over the other, looking for evidence in political documents (knowing very well political theater was alive and well back then as it is today), and trying to look beyond our modern biases is an impossible task. We’ll find evidence all day that will support whatever we want to hear and we’ll probably ever really know for sure. That being said it’s not worth getting worked up over.
The North didn't need segregation laws.. there were simply not enough blacks living in the North to demand such laws at the turn of the 20th century...
take a look....
But Segregation existed in the North even if they didn't have laws on the books.
Throughout almost all of Ohio, schools were not segregated. E.g., unlike in the South, where segregated schools were mandated by law, most Ohio communities had a single high school and neighborhood schools. Neighborhood schools were the norm in larger districts, and to the extent that neighborhoods were segregated, so were the schools. In fact, several communities had mega high schools (such as Canton McKinley High School) to make certain a community's best athletes, certainly including African Americans, could compete on the same team.
As evidenced by Ohio natives, such as Branch Rickey and Paul Brown, who integrated professional athletics, athletic competition in Ohio, unlike in the South, was never deliberately segregated. Certainly famed Ohio athletes such as Jesse Owens experienced severe discrimination, but they were allowed to compete in integrated championships.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
Now that we’ve established racism existed everywhere the whole “my ancestors were less evil than your ancestors” (my ancestors were in still in Europe in the 1860’s btw) is childish.
Nothing is childish about establishing the immorality of Southern slavery and 20th century legislated segregation and the denial of civil rights in the South. To the extent this immorality expresses itself today in such forms as voter denial, it's still unfortunately a living legacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
My ancestors don’t define my identity unlike some people on this thread. I don’t know nor care what they did. If they did something noble, then cool (though I probably won’t get the whole story so I’ll still be a skeptic), if they were evil, that’s their prerogative. My views are shaped by my environment, not ancient genetic code.
This debate has nothing to do with personal ancestors or one family's genetics. E.g., I know that I had ancestors who were racists, who likely never met an African American in their lives (I know because I remember their intense interest because my mother taught in an integrated elementary school). However, these ancestors likely were universally appalled by slavery.
This debate has everything to do with historical facts, which you continually attempt to obfuscate for some reason in order to defend the relative morality in the South in respect to slavery and subsequent instituted racism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
Slavery and Jim Crow and discussed to death in modern schools. What’s left out is racism and segregation in the north. Lincoln’s prewar racist quote won’t be discussed in high school but his emancipation proclamation will. I’ve never met a southerner who denied racism or slavery existed. I have met an infinite amount of northerners who think racism was confined to the South, particularly white northerners who grew up in white suburbs.
I've never met a northerner, and I've lived in the North my entire life, who ever denied that racism existed or exists in the North, not just towards African Americans either. Issues such as the shooting deaths of Tamir Rice in Cleveland and Samuel DuBose in Cincinnati are living racial issues.
Yet northerners were and are almost universally appalled by the concepts of slavery and, in the 20th century, by legislated segregation (Ohioans and many others in the North were big believers in neighborhood schools and vehemently objected to mandated school busing, and not just on racial grounds).
I don't know what is taught in schools today. You've provided no documentation that high schools don't teach about northern racism, race riots, etc. With the production of movies, such as "Detroit," I would find this strange, except that when I was in school, my American history teachers never seemed able to get to World War II, yet beyond.
It's more certain that many states and high schools, especially in the South, distort history by teaching that slavery was not the root cause of the Civil War.
That brings us back to the slavery vs state’s rights thing. If the South seceded to preserve slavery via state’s rights and the North invaded the south to preserve the union then that should be proof slavery was a bit of a side show for the north. Were the north’s motives to eliminate slavery throughout the country or simply confine it to the states that it existed?
Your repeated obfuscations do not negate historical reality that slavery was the root cause of the Civil War.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
Debate after debate in these threads have documented that the South seceded defend the institution of slavery and actually objected to states' rights as practiced in the North. Among the millions of people who existed back then and the wide range of views and perspectives people all over were entitled to have, trying to prove one theory over the other, looking for evidence in political documents (knowing very well political theater was alive and well back then as it is today), and trying to look beyond our modern biases is an impossible task. We’ll find evidence all day that will support whatever we want to hear and we’ll probably ever really know for sure. That being said it’s not worth getting worked up over.
The primary historical record shows that the Southern states seceded with the clear intent of engaging in an armed revolution in order to secure the institution of slavery. As Lincoln and others repeatedly noted, without slavery there was no casus belli.
Your ridiculous argument now is that objective history is not possible. Not surprising in a political age where politicians and religious leaders even deny empirical science. Nevertheless, extremely disgusting.
Her post embodies everything wrong with public education on this topic. In one post she’s completely wrong, and the next she’s bragging about her state’s education standards.
Throughout almost all of Ohio, schools were not segregated. E.g., unlike in the South, where segregated schools were mandated by law, most Ohio communities had a single high school and neighborhood schools. Neighborhood schools were the norm in larger districts, and to the extent that neighborhoods were segregated, so were the schools. In fact, several communities had mega high schools (such as Canton McKinley High School) to make certain a community's best athletes, certainly including African Americans, could compete on the same team.
As evidenced by Ohio natives, such as Branch Rickey and Paul Brown, who integrated professional athletics, athletic competition in Ohio, unlike in the South, was never deliberately segregated. Certainly famed Ohio athletes such as Jesse Owens experienced severe discrimination, but they were allowed to compete in integrated championships.
Nothing is childish about establishing the immorality of Southern slavery and 20th century legislated segregation and the denial of civil rights in the South. To the extent this immorality expresses itself today in such forms as voter denial, it's still unfortunately a living legacy.
This debate has nothing to do with personal ancestors or one family's genetics. E.g., I know that I had ancestors who were racists, who likely never met an African American in their lives (I know because I remember their intense interest because my mother taught in an integrated elementary school). However, these ancestors likely were universally appalled by slavery.
This debate has everything to do with historical facts, which you continually attempt to obfuscate for some reason in order to defend the relative morality in the South in respect to slavery and subsequent instituted racism.
I've never met a northerner, and I've lived in the North my entire life, who ever denied that racism existed or exists in the North, not just towards African Americans either. Issues such as the shooting deaths of Tamir Rice in Cleveland and Samuel DuBose in Cincinnati are living racial issues.
Yet northerners were and are almost universally appalled by the concepts of slavery and, in the 20th century, by legislated segregation (Ohioans and many others in the North were big believers in neighborhood schools and vehemently objected to mandated school busing, and not just on racial grounds).
I don't know what is taught in schools today. You've provided no documentation that high schools don't teach about northern racism, race riots, etc. With the production of movies, such as "Detroit," I would find this strange, except that when I was in school, my American history teachers never seemed able to get to World War II, yet beyond.
It's more certain that many states and high schools, especially in the South, distort history by teaching that slavery was not the root cause of the Civil War.
Your repeated obfuscations do not negate historical reality that slavery was the root cause of the Civil War.
The primary historical record shows that the Southern states seceded with the clear intent of engaging in an armed revolution in order to secure the institution of slavery. As Lincoln and others repeatedly noted, without slavery there was no casus belli.
Your ridiculous argument now is that objective history is not possible. Not surprising in a political age where politicians and religious leaders even deny empirical science. Nevertheless, extremely disgusting.
I went to school in South Texas. I’m a military brat though who’s lived all over, so I’m essentially from “everywhere†. Civil War was strictly taught all about how evil slavery is and the fight to end it. You hear about it in US, world, and Texas history. There was no attempt to romanticize the antebellum South at all. The state’s rights/ vs slavery thing never comes up. Looking back it all felt like propaganda though.
A lot of stuff was either skimmed over either on purpose or due to shortage of time. Lincoln’s actions today would violate the Geneva Convention, abolitionist weren’t always peaceful, and “free labor “ wasn’t always in the best interest of the laborer. How many people know that New York was strongly sympathetic to the South? The Day New York Tried to Secede | HistoryNet
The state’s rights/ vs slavery thing is debated to death. It’s no different than saying the Revolution was fought over taxation policies rather than the dysfunctional relationship with the Britsh Government, then bashing other posters over their vantage point of the dysfunction relationship. They’re both not wrong. Get over it already. Nobody’s apologizing for anything.
Surprisingly, you seem to be the only poster who concludes the War was one of morality vs one of politics and economics, yet you’re accusing me of distorting history. You really started to lose me after implying the reason we didn’t free slaves in Cuba is because we were tired of war. Now you’re defending Ohio’s history of segregation as though it was self determined and not because Federal law prohibited it in the first place. Segregation - Ohio History Central, yet I’m the one accused of apologizing for the South’s institutional racism? A recent “racism†map Google came up with (so take it with a grain of salt), would imply Ohio has a bit of a problem....https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.62723edf284d.
It’s clear by now you have some preconceived hang ups with this topic that gets set off by the trigger words “state’s rightsâ€. If we were talking about the American or Texas Revolution, and someone proposed they were essentially over state’s rights (both of which is essentially true), it’s doubtful you would attack them and accuse them of distorting history to suit their racist agenda. I can’t figure out if those trigger words pull you into a proxy modern day political argument or a civil rights one. It’s you that automatically assumes somebody claiming the war was over a much bigger issue than slavery alone is apologizing or denying something.
Slavery is terrible, but to the average person anywhere in the 1860’s, so was everything else. Most people either did not care (Ohio as you know was a copperhead State), or were at best moderately appalled. Abolitionist, many of them escaped slaves or religious fanatics, were the most vocal and well known, but not necessarily representative of the entire population. People’s environment shape their views. If you’re a Puritan minister’s daughter, you’re most likely going to be an abolitionist than a plantation owner’s son. History is kind of boring like that. Once you understand people’s environment, their actions are fairly predictable. It does however make it fairly easy to see their world from their perspective. It’s easy to be appalled by slavery now, but if you can’t get over that and accept the fact that from tens of thousands of years of world history, it only just recently became an appalling thought, most of that history isn’t going to make a lot of sense.
I went to school in South Texas. I’m a military brat though who’s lived all over, so I’m essentially from “everywhere” . Civil War was strictly taught all about how evil slavery is and the fight to end it. You hear about it in US, world, and Texas history. There was no attempt to romanticize the antebellum South at all. The state’s rights/ vs slavery thing never comes up. Looking back it all felt like propaganda though.
A lot of stuff was either skimmed over either on purpose or due to shortage of time. Lincoln’s actions today would violate the Geneva Convention, abolitionist weren’t always peaceful, and “free labor “ wasn’t always in the best interest of the laborer. How many people know that New York was strongly sympathetic to the South? The Day New York Tried to Secede | HistoryNet
The state’s rights/ vs slavery thing is debated to death. It’s no different than saying the Revolution was fought over taxation policies rather than the dysfunctional relationship with the Britsh Government, then bashing other posters over their vantage point of the dysfunction relationship. They’re both not wrong. Get over it already. Nobody’s apologizing for anything.
Surprisingly, you seem to be the only poster who concludes the War was one of morality vs one of politics and economics, yet you’re accusing me of distorting history. You really started to lose me after implying the reason we didn’t free slaves in Cuba is because we were tired of war. Now you’re defending Ohio’s history of segregation as though it was self determined and not because Federal law prohibited it in the first place. Segregation - Ohio History Central, yet I’m the one accused of apologizing for the South’s institutional racism? A recent “racism” map Google came up with (so take it with a grain of salt), would imply Ohio has a bit of a problem....https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.62723edf284d.
It’s clear by now you have some preconceived hang ups with this topic that gets set off by the trigger words “state’s rights”. If we were talking about the American or Texas Revolution, and someone proposed they were essentially over state’s rights (both of which is essentially true), it’s doubtful you would attack them and accuse them of distorting history to suit their racist agenda. I can’t figure out if those trigger words pull you into a proxy modern day political argument or a civil rights one. It’s you that automatically assumes somebody claiming the war was over a much bigger issue than slavery alone is apologizing or denying something.
Slavery is terrible, but to the average person anywhere in the 1860’s, so was everything else. Most people either did not care (Ohio as you know was a copperhead State), or were at best moderately appalled. Abolitionist, many of them escaped slaves or religious fanatics, were the most vocal and well known, but not necessarily representative of the entire population. People’s environment shape their views. If you’re a Puritan minister’s daughter, you’re most likely going to be an abolitionist than a plantation owner’s son. History is kind of boring like that. Once you understand people’s environment, their actions are fairly predictable. It does however make it fairly easy to see their world from their perspective. It’s easy to be appalled by slavery now, but if you can’t get over that and accept the fact that from tens of thousands of years of world history, it only just recently became an appalling thought, most of that history isn’t going to make a lot of sense.
It's self-defeating not to admit mistakes were made. Not just speaking about 'military mistakes' which is the typical focus.
...There is no consensus among the public about the primary cause of the Civil War, but more (48%) say that the war was mainly about states’ rights than say it was mainly about slavery (38%). Another 9% volunteer that it was about both equally. ...
You've said, "The state’s rights/ vs slavery thing is debated to death." While threads like this one & others prove you're right about this, the Pew Research Center poll findings in 2011 reveal more folks "say the War was mainly about states' rights." While this may disprove the old adage about "History is written by the victors" ~ how is this helpful?
I went to school in South Texas. I’m a military brat though who’s lived all over, so I’m essentially from “everywhere” . Civil War was strictly taught all about how evil slavery is and the fight to end it. You hear about it in US, world, and Texas history. There was no attempt to romanticize the antebellum South at all. The state’s rights/ vs slavery thing never comes up. Looking back it all felt like propaganda though.
Were you educated in military base schools?
Texas has a long history of distorting history in state-mandated textbooks.
<<New Texas textbooks, tailored to state standards that downplay
the role of slavery in the Civil War and omit mentions of Jim Crow laws
or the Ku Klux Klan, are drawing criticism again as the nation grapples
with its racial history.
By portraying slavery as merely one of several factors pushing
Southern states to secede, and by focusing on states' rights as a
primary cause, the standards fail to present a clear and accurate
picture of the Civil War, some historians, educators and activists say.>>
THIS FALL, Texas schools will teach students that Moses
played a bigger role in inspiring the Constitution than slavery did in
starting the Civil War. The Lone Star State’s new social studies
textbooks, deliberately written to play down slavery’s role in Southern
history, do not threaten only Texans — they pose a danger to
schoolchildren all over the country.
The Texas board of education adopted a revised social studies curriculum
in 2010 after a fierce battle. When it came to social studies
standards, conservatives championing causes from a focus on the biblical
underpinnings of our legal system to a whitewashed picture of race in
the United States won out. The guidelines for teaching Civil War history
were particularly concerning: They teach that “sectionalism, states’
rights and slavery” — carefully ordered to stress the first two and
shrug off the last — caused the conflict. Come August, the first
textbooks catering to the changed curriculum will make their way to
Texas classrooms.>>
Despite your protestations to the contrary, you certainly would seem a product of the Texas educational system.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
