Places named after Confederate Historical Figures in the United States

[markonthemark]

16. I lived in Ocala in the 1980s.

There was a short-lived effort to change Bradford County's name, but it didn't go far. I think it was one council member who got shot down by the rest. I also don't understand this thread. Somebody posted what looks like material from another thread...maybe a rant...or maybe combined threads. Looks weird and I don't see it in the thread. It's from the OP's link about Wikipedia...post 9. Is this a bug? Don't get it. Here's the material.


Weird stuff here....
This is a list of people, places and other names matching DU members.


This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.

Pansy: A flower/A DU liberal who is emasculated by radical feminists.
Pussy Galore: A sexy James Bond movie character/The plethora of DU males members owned by DU feminsim.
Phony: The DU member who says he cares about his fellow man, but then demands that government takes money from others so that the DU member himself does not have to lift a finger.
Intercourse, (Pennsylvania): What DU males will never have with females because they act to much like them.


O.K, now that the joking is aside.

To the DU women: Ask yourselves why you involve yourselves so much with men who are confused and act like you. You want, and need, real men. You want a man who does not depend on government so often, but one who does not take charity and does things for himself. You don't want another chatter mate to bitch to. You don't want someone like you, no matter how much a feminist gets in your ear.

To the DU men: Scrap the radical feminists of DU. They are either gay or are confused. You're screwed either way. You don't get dates and progress with women if you're acting like them. Women want real men. Stop acting like a woman.



BTW, the Civil War was actually the War Between the States because the South had no interest in taking over the North. It was much more about economics than the phony high ground the North tried to present. The two regions were economically different. The South had all the resources in raw materials. The South was the US economy, up to 80%. They provided 2/3 of the world's cotton. The tariff was an ongoing issue. First in 1828. The last straw was the Morrill tariff of 1861.

The North sought industry protection instead of letting people freely choose where they would buy their goods. The South had the wealth and their exporting was hurt by the tariff. (People often criticize freedom and free trade, instead of just trying to compete. What a tangled web one builds when constantly invoking government.)

England and Europe disliked the tariff, so they were on the side of the South. Lincoln knew he could not sell the war internationally on the tariff/economics, so he played the slavery card. England (rightly) opposed slavery, so the US government played that angle. Most people did not really care about slavery, at least to the point of killing one another over it. Lincoln was a shrewd and insincere racist who just manipulated the slavery angle. If the South had not been so greedy and just given up their slaves, then the North would not have had an argument. It was a poor decision on their part, but they were greedy. Their economy would have been better than the North because of their raw materials, even without slavery.

If your site did not have such weak arguments, then you would let people present these arguments.




Reply to poster Mia:

Mia, Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Part of the post is just some silly hi-jinks. It's probably viewed as over-the-top by many, but not much worse than the quick offense people take to the next big thing like internet outrage over the flag.

The flag was not really discussed in a meaningful way among many. It just became this lightning rod for people to take offense and then pounce. It looks like the next big thing is places named after Confederate officers. People will jump all over this, without much meaningful discourse. The flag has become this focus of dumb internet polls. What is the flag? Is it heritage or hate? A nice, comfortable sound bite, but a false dichotomy that has people choosing the socially correct answer.

Slavery was obviously a part of the war, but it's lost on people. The slavery cause is easy to explain. Mention the tariffs however, and most people don't even know the meaning of the word tariff. I often wonder if I would have fought in that war. I probably would not have had slaves because of my financial position. Hopefully, I would not have inherited any and would have seen the inherent evil. Hopefully, I would not have been a product of my time. If however, my financial situation is affected by a tariff and people who greedily wanted to protect their own industry, then that would have been a possibility. If someone is coming in my backyard, then that is going to give you pause. On the other, maybe not much has changed in the world--Rich man's war, poor man's fight.

The other issue is freedom. People, I believe, should have had the freedom to choose the origin of their product, whether overseas or from the US. Protectionism simply uses government to favor one group over another. That issue was central in the two regions of North and South that were very different. If government can make your situation better, then you've given it the power to make your life worse. Today, the government is your friend. Tomorrow, they side with someone else and become your enemy. There's that old saying of a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take everything you have.


JS