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 would like to know exactly why textile mills can't rise again in the south. i am sure that it costs a lot of money to transport goods halfway around the world.
what is stopping build it here, buy it here, keep it here?
Agreed. I've got some levi's in my wardrobe still, but it's getting impossible to find made in America. Thank the decades long willful neglect of trade deficit for the hemorrhaging of wealth from our nation.
I think this can offer insights... Levi Strauss & Co. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
They try to do the right thing and wind up getting punished indirectly for failure to be 'competitive' with what amounts to be crooks. People cough up cash for inflated Nike sneakers, but they won't support companies paying decent wages here. That's the state of our values as consumers.
Very complex but a birds eye view: Gov't policy objectives + commerce objectives... when they collaborate for the greater good, it's a very good thing. When they collude in self service (greater good no longer paramount), it destroys freedom available in civilization by having a dollar value placed upon freedom itself. The result being indentured servitude of the masses through financial means. Some homeless and society drop outs are expressing that sentiment of rejection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
The Northern states resented that the South was willing to do trade with other countries, and used economic blackmail over those states. Told them that they could NOT sell to Britain, or any other country, without going through them.
Explained superficially, I would agree that's grossly unfair. Your characterization implies the north wanted their middle man jobs as protected status. I'd want to hear all sides of the argument, however. Ref's?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny
That had nothing to do with my vote. I voted strongly for secession because I figure it is the quickest way to the right wing, whining, rebel-wannabees the hell out of my country. And the sooner the better. the biggest mistake we ever made was letting these traitors back into the Union after the Civil War. I had no problem with the civil war itself - they needed to be taught a lesson. The error was in allowing that nest of vipers back into our country.
I think your vote winds up being a reflection of the center poll too-- don't care either way. If the question and answers were framed differently, my answer would have to be I don't want anyone who doesn't mean to be an American hanging out behind my flag. We're all in, or we're all out. Any special interest groups, however labeled, hanging out on the fringes looking for opportunity to exploit my greater american family can expect walking papers if it were my decision alone to make.
That said, UIM, drawing conclusions on your statistics is premature. The media has yet to whip up bogus animosity to sufficient levels quite yet, but perhaps wisdom in America will finally prevail.
That is so far-fetched and unlikely, I can't believe it's even being presented as a possibility. What evidence is there to suggest that those groups might "win out" or that any Western states might be annexed by Mexico?
Mexico spends more for their defense budget than Iran. If Iran is so dangerous, imagine what Mexico is up to?
Is that the flag he was flying when he surrendered to Grant and had to beg him for food for his starving troops? Hopefully it's in the military museum of some northern city now.
Hey there Angry Angus! How yew doin' bud?
I sure have been anxious to rejoin this (and other related threads) after a busy week. Finally got the opportunity with an unexpected day off. Which translates into I don't have to wait another day to blow another one of your ridiculous assertions all over hell and half of Georgia. To wit, one you have continually repeated that Lee "begged and whined" to Grant so as to get food for the Army of Northern Virginia.
Of course, it is a matter of biographical history that Lee never "whined nor begged" for anything. He was not that type of man. Such terminolgy on your part is only indicitive of your own pathological hatred for the South and her history. Which is no big deal, really. After all, nothing is so instrinsically humorous as Angry Angus's viewpoint taking on the reputation of a man like Lee. LMAO
But I digress. So here the proof be (In poker parlance, read it and weep).
Note that it is not by a "revisionst" source, but by a Union general who was eye-witness to the formal surrender.
I am pasting the relevant parts, but am including a previous paragraph so you can't claim the said being self-interested edited. Also, first, the link to entirety of the memoir:
The Surrender At Appomattox Court House
By
Horace Porter, Brevet Brigadier General, U.S.A.
Lee did not utter a word while the introductions were going on, except to Seth Williams, with whom he talked quite cordially. Williams at one time referred in rather jocose a manner to a circumstance which occurred during their former service together, as if he wanted to say something in a good natured way to break up the frigidity of the conversation, but Lee was in no mood for pleasantries, and he did not unbend, or even relax the fixed sternness of his features. His only response to the allusion was a slight inclination of the head. General Lee now took the initiative again in leading the conversation back into business channels. He said:
"I have a thousand or more of your men as prisoners, General Grant, a number of them officers whom we have required to march along with us for several days. I shall be glad to send them into your lines as soon as it can be arranged, for I have no provisions for them. I have, indeed, nothing for my own men. They have been living for the last few days principally upon parched corn, and we are badly in need of both rations and forage. I telegraphed to Lynchburg, directing several train-loads of rations to be sent on by rail from there, and when they arrive I shall be glad to have the present wants of my men supplied from them."
At this remark all eyes turned toward Sheridan, for he had captured these trains with his cavalry the night before, near Appomattox Station. General Grant replied: "I should like to have our men sent within our lines as soon as possible. I will take steps at once to have your army supplied with rations, but I am sorry we have no forage for the animals. We have had to depend upon the country for our supply of forage. Of about how many men does your present force consist?"
"Indeed, I am not able to say," Lee answered after a slight pause. "My losses in killed and wounded have been exceedingly heavy, and, besides, there have been many stragglers and some deserters. All my reports and public papers, and, indeed, my own private letters, had to be destroyed on the march, to prevent them from falling into the hands of your people. Many companies are entirely without officers, and I have not seen any returns for several days; so that I have no means of ascertaining our present strength."
General Grant had taken great pains to have a daily estimate made of the enemy's forces from all the data that could be obtained, and, judging it to be about 25,000 at this time, he said: "Suppose I send over 25,000 rations, do you think that will be a sufficient supply?" "I think it will be ample," remarked Lee, and added with considerable earnestness of manner, "and it will be a great relief, I assure you."
General Grant now turned to his chief commissary, Colonel (now General) M. R. Morgan, who was present, and directed him to arrange for issuing the rations. The number of officers and men surrendered was over 28,000. As to General Grant's supplies, he had ordered the army on starting out to carry twelve days' rations. This was the twelfth and last day of the campaign.
******************
Let's review, shall we? Even you should be able to glean these points from the Union officer present.
1. Lee initially brought up the lack of rations in the context of concern over the Union prisoners of war. For that reason, he wanted to get them back over to their own army as quickly as possible. He mentioned the plight of his own army only in support of the point.
2. Lee NEVER ONCE asked Grant (much less "begged or whined" ) to feed is own men. Instead, the said he would do so himself by way of the expected arrival of supply trains from Lynchburg. However, he was unaware those trains had been captured.
3. Grant made the offer to send over rations to Lee. And, if I recall, was actually done from the said Confederate supply trains (but I could be wrong about that).
Spot off, TK. Lee whined about his poor troops and how he just didn't know how in the world he was going to feed them, whereupon Grant gave him 25000 rations. Dumb move on Grant's part.
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.
) to feed is own men. Instead, the said he would do so himself by way of the expected arrival of supply trains from Lynchburg. However, he was unaware those trains had been captured. 
