invite responseComments 1 - 10 of 10 Search these comments
1
joeyjojojunior
2017 May 13, 9:22am
So what do you think the "truth" was? What is Soros trying to erase?
3
bob2356
2017 Nov 24, 7:54pm
NuttBoxer says
Not that I believe for a second you actually sat down and read TIme on the Cross but in the extremely unlikely event you did then you should also read Slavery and the Numbers Game A Critique of Time on the Cross by Gutman which simply destroys the assertions of Time on The Cross.
At a time when Soros is attempting to erase the truth of history by funding the removal of American hero's in the south, I thought it appropriate to post well researched source about what US southern slavery was really like.
Not that I believe for a second you actually sat down and read TIme on the Cross but in the extremely unlikely event you did then you should also read Slavery and the Numbers Game A Critique of Time on the Cross by Gutman which simply destroys the assertions of Time on The Cross.
4
fdhfoiehfeoi
2017 Nov 24, 8:06pm
fdhfoiehfeoi
2017 Nov 24, 8:06pm
joeyjojojunior says
The last resistance by free men to tyranny. This is common practice for all totalitarian regimes, to re-shape history in an attempt to erase even the thought that people ever disagreed with big brother.
So what do you think the "truth" was? What is Soros trying to erase?
The last resistance by free men to tyranny. This is common practice for all totalitarian regimes, to re-shape history in an attempt to erase even the thought that people ever disagreed with big brother.
5
fdhfoiehfeoi
2017 Nov 24, 8:34pm
fdhfoiehfeoi
2017 Nov 24, 8:34pm
bob2356 says
Which side would a communist take? The side of independent freedom-fighters, or the side of socializing government? Which side would an economist take, someone devoted to the cold hard facts of mathematics?
Forget about that though, what agenda were Fogel and Engerman pushing? If they're lying as you believe, they had to have an agenda that benefited somebody, otherwise what's the point? Now Gutman's agenda clearly benefits the winner, and only surviving power from that war. And benefiting those in power always has it's perks.
Slavery and the Numbers Game A Critique of Time
Which side would a communist take? The side of independent freedom-fighters, or the side of socializing government? Which side would an economist take, someone devoted to the cold hard facts of mathematics?
Forget about that though, what agenda were Fogel and Engerman pushing? If they're lying as you believe, they had to have an agenda that benefited somebody, otherwise what's the point? Now Gutman's agenda clearly benefits the winner, and only surviving power from that war. And benefiting those in power always has it's perks.
6
bob2356
2017 Nov 25, 7:52am
NuttBoxer says
You dodged the question. Are you saying you have read both books. If so then lay out your case based on what was written in the books not some random hyperbole. . I've read gutman but not fogel so I do know the case against some of fogel's assertions is pretty compelling. Slaves certainly weren't a big happy family with their owners no matter what fogel claims. Gutman shows some serious math errors in fogels book also.
You seem very confused about agenda. Fogel demonstrates that slavery was very profitable which is why the south was willing to go to war to preserve it. His assertions about slaves conditions and lives are the part that is very questionable. Some of his assertions are just stupid. Freeman lifespan went down after the war? Everyones lifespan went down after the war. Farms were destroyed, crops burned, equipment destroyed, banks destroyed, livestock killed, towns destroyed, roads destroyed, ports destroyed, shipping destoryed, railroads wrecked, malnutrition rampant, disease rampant. . Life after a major war is always pretty grim for a long time.
NuttBoxer says
Where has anyone other than you claimed blacks were the cause of the civil war? The destruction of the souths economy was from attacking the north and losing the war afterwards. What atrocities did Sherman commit? Taking crops and burning buildings was common on both sides.
Which side would a communist take? The side of independent freedom-fighters, or the side of socializing government? Which side would an economist take, someone devoted to the cold hard facts of mathematics?
Forget about that though, what agenda were Fogel and Engerman pushing? If they're lying as you believe, they had to have an agenda that benefited somebody, otherwise what's the point? Now Gutman's agenda clearly benefits the winner, and only surviving power from that war. And benefiting those in power always has it's perks.
You dodged the question. Are you saying you have read both books. If so then lay out your case based on what was written in the books not some random hyperbole. . I've read gutman but not fogel so I do know the case against some of fogel's assertions is pretty compelling. Slaves certainly weren't a big happy family with their owners no matter what fogel claims. Gutman shows some serious math errors in fogels book also.
You seem very confused about agenda. Fogel demonstrates that slavery was very profitable which is why the south was willing to go to war to preserve it. His assertions about slaves conditions and lives are the part that is very questionable. Some of his assertions are just stupid. Freeman lifespan went down after the war? Everyones lifespan went down after the war. Farms were destroyed, crops burned, equipment destroyed, banks destroyed, livestock killed, towns destroyed, roads destroyed, ports destroyed, shipping destoryed, railroads wrecked, malnutrition rampant, disease rampant. . Life after a major war is always pretty grim for a long time.
NuttBoxer says
And if the government was able to deflect blame for Sherman's war atrocities, and the destruction of the south's economy through Reconstruction onto blacks being the cause of the war, so much the better. Although I get the impression that never went over in the south.
Where has anyone other than you claimed blacks were the cause of the civil war? The destruction of the souths economy was from attacking the north and losing the war afterwards. What atrocities did Sherman commit? Taking crops and burning buildings was common on both sides.
7
fdhfoiehfeoi
2017 Nov 25, 9:01am
fdhfoiehfeoi
2017 Nov 25, 9:01am
bob2356 says
So for you answering the question means ignorning the background and motives of the authors? You sound like the socialist you praise, deriding independent thought and critical analysis of the authors and the motives behind their books.
bob2356 says
And now we the root cause of your praise of a "book" that's really just a long review by a critic. It's always easier to attack someone's else's idea than come up with your own. Of course you know that Bob, that's 90% of your posts here. For multiple historical references to why the Civil War had shit to do with slavery, see:
http://patrick.net/post/1306089/2017-05-14-so-why-is-the-south-quietly-removing-these-monuments-in-the-dead-of-night-oh-that-s-why
Here's some to start you off:
"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery."
The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
You dodged the question.
So for you answering the question means ignorning the background and motives of the authors? You sound like the socialist you praise, deriding independent thought and critical analysis of the authors and the motives behind their books.
bob2356 says
which is why the south was willing to go to war to preserve it.
And now we the root cause of your praise of a "book" that's really just a long review by a critic. It's always easier to attack someone's else's idea than come up with your own. Of course you know that Bob, that's 90% of your posts here. For multiple historical references to why the Civil War had shit to do with slavery, see:
http://patrick.net/post/1306089/2017-05-14-so-why-is-the-south-quietly-removing-these-monuments-in-the-dead-of-night-oh-that-s-why
Here's some to start you off:
"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery."
The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
At a time when Soros is attempting to erase the truth of history by funding the removal of American hero's in the south, I thought it appropriate to post well researched source about what US southern slavery was really like.
https://www.amazon.com/Time-Cross-Economics-American-Slavery/dp/0393312186/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1494689594&sr=1-1&keywords=Time+on+the+Cross%3A+The+Economics+of+American+Slavery
"The authors point out that following emancipation and the end of the Civil War, the life expectancy of freedmen declined by ten percent, and their illnesses increased by twenty percent, over slavery times."
"..many slaves were encouraged to marry and maintain households, they were given garden plots, the dehumanizing practice of "slave breeding" was virtually non-existent, the quality of their daily diets and medical care were comparable to the white population, and many trusted slaves were given great responsibility in managing plantations."
""[S]lave owners expropriated far less than generally presumed, and over the course of a lifetime a slave field hand received approximately ninety percent of the income produced."(p. 5-6) They were estimating the value of housing, clothing, food and other benefits received by the slaves and argued that they lived as well in material terms as did free urban laborers; life was difficult for both classes."
"The authors acknowledged their thesis was controversial and emphasized that their goal was not to justify slavery. Rather, they asserted, their goal was to counter myths about the character of black Americans - myths they said had gained currency in the antebellum slavery debate and had survived into the civil rights era. These myths, the authors wrote, had their genesis in racist attitudes widely shared by both abolitionists and defenders of slavery. Myths included perceptions that black Americans were lazy, promiscuous, untrustworthy and lacked natural ability."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_on_the_Cross
And if the government was able to deflect blame for Sherman's war atrocities, and the destruction of the south's economy through Reconstruction onto blacks being the cause of the war, so much the better. Although I get the impression that never went over in the south.