Welcome! Please use the navigational links to explore our website.
PartsASAP LogoCompany Logo Auction Link (800) 853-2651

Shop Now

   Allis Chalmers Case Farmall IH Ford 8N,9N,2N Ford
   Ferguson John Deere Massey Ferguson Minn. Moline Oliver

Ford 9N, 2N & 8N Discussion Forum
:

north vs south

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
R.G.M.

01-30-2008 18:44:29




Report to Moderator

I live in south east Louisana it seems to me there are more Ns' in the north then the south its just unfair.




[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
Ed S. (IL)

02-01-2008 13:52:15




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to R.G.M., 01-30-2008 18:44:29  
For what it's worth, the name "Civil War" is not really the right term to use, as a civil war generally has the intent of governmental overthrow.

"War between the States" is probably a better term, although as a Georgia-born Southerner, I like to tease my New England-bred coworker by calling it "The War of Northern Aggression" with a thick southern accent. :lol:
es

"The victors write the history books…"

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Bruce (VA)

02-01-2008 14:16:23




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to Ed S. (IL), 02-01-2008 13:52:15  
Some folks did indeed take it very seriously. The Fourth of July was not celebrated after the War in the South until 1917. And it was not celebrated in Vicksburg MS until 1944.

True or not.....it's a good story. A Yankee newspaper editor was visiting his counterpart editor in Vicksburg on July 4th, 1876 when he heard the unmistakable sounds of fireworks & cheering. He said how glad he was to hear, only 11 years after the "Rebellion" that Vicksburg citizens were celebrating the Centennial of the founding of the USA. The Vicksburg editor replied:
"Sir, you are mistaken. We have just received word that the Yankee General Custer was killed at the Little Big Horn"

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
gahorN

02-01-2008 10:30:05




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to Hobo,NC, 01-30-2008 18:44:29  

Bruce (VA) said: (quoted from post at 07:12:23 02/01/08) ...

I haven't had a good debate like this w/ a knowledgable Yankeee in years! :)


I am not a damned Yankee! Born and Bred in the deep south, and lived all my life down here too!

(Just don't hold the Civil War in the same light as a pro-football game, believing that it was US against THEM. "There is no North, no South, no East, no West. There is only these United States, ..." (and I am a citizen who loves it.) -Sam Watkins, Confederate soldier of Co. H, of the Army of Tennessee who was in every major battle fought by that army, and author of "Company Aych", Diary of that soldier.

There are many ways to twist the words to say what one wishes. One of the most common is "the war was not about slavery." and another is, "the war was about economic systems (i.e., money). Well, doh! Slavery was the only way the south could economically harvest cotton, it's primary source of revenue. The north was already into the industrial revolution. Conflicted? Of course! But the south DID seceed and did so over slavery. The north refused to allow such a valuable and large area of the country split off, regardless of the legal question of secession. Therefore, the precipitating factor leading to the civil war was the regional disputes which focused and hinged on slavery.

But there are many in our country who don't wish to recognize their own racism and will make every convoluted argument they can that slavery had nothing to do with it. :roll:
Aren't we all GLAD it ended as it did?

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Bruce (VA)

02-01-2008 12:36:57




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to gahorN, 02-01-2008 10:30:05  
Oooops, sorry for the Yankee comment! Very few Southerners make these arguments!

Yep, Company Aych was a great book.

I do believe Lee's advice was correct when he refused to conduct guerrilla warfare & told his troops to go home & obey the law.

My key argument....and I think that's why we started this debate.....is that I simply refuse to accept any ONE reason as being THE cause of the War.

Lets put this in a tractor perspective.....it takes three things to make it run: fuel in the correct mixture, spark at the right time & compression. Remove any one of these elements and it does not run.

Likewise w/ the CW. Remove slavery, no conflict. But, remove Sectional hostility created by the Abolitionists & the Fire-Eaters....again, no War. Remove Lincolns call for troops....no war. And so it goes w/ tariffs, equal representation in the US Senate, etc, etc.

Oh yes, as a descendant of a family that lost everything, I'm glad it's over. My greatest regret is not that the South lost, but that the war ever occurred in the first place. When my grandfather discussed the CW, it was not in terms of battles & victories or anything like that. It was to remind us that both of his grandfathers died in the War, that what little his family had (the farm & livestock) was stolen or burned to the ground & that so much of the economic problems in the South in his childhood was as a direct result of the War. He was a tenant farmer. He died in 1963 & still referred to downtown Richmond as the 'Burnt District'. And he bore no racial or sectional hatred. The War was just a very, very sad thing to him & most of his generation.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
gahorN

02-01-2008 03:22:16




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to Tiny-t, 01-30-2008 18:44:29  
P.S.- The real argument here is not about whether or not secession was illegal. While secession may have been the first, and most overt action to protest against the differences between the union and the southern conferacy which precipitated war,.... it is not THE REASON for disagreement between the parties.

THE REASON for disagreement was all about slavery, and only about slavery. John C. Calhoun made that eloquently clear at a White House dinner with president Buchanan and the Spanish ambassador over the Amistad controversy. I pissed on his grave in Charleston. (Not really, but I wonder how that would have felt?) :lol:

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Bruce (VA)

02-01-2008 06:12:23




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to gahorN, 02-01-2008 03:22:16  
We are not talking about differences between North & South..... we are talking about what precipitated the actual outbreak of warfare in the CW. What if Lincoln had just said "Fine, go away" to the Deep South? Would there have been a Civil War? Slavery had been around since 1619, well before the Constitution. Why didn't war break out w/ the Dred Scott decision if slavery was THE cause? I agree w/ you that slavery was a major cause of disagreement, but it can not be isolated from all that went before or from the political power struggle between North & South. Doing so raises this national tragedy to a historical farce. Quoting John C. Calhoun as an authority doesn't help your argument either; you clearly know that I can quote Lincoln for an opposing viewpoint as well as many prominent Southerners as well.

I haven't had a good debate like this w/ a knowledgable Yankeee in years! :)

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
gahorN

02-01-2008 02:50:22




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to JMOR, 01-30-2008 18:44:29  

Bruce (VA) said: (quoted from post at 20:08:32 01/31/08) "Wrong answer! The CW was precipitated by A. Lincoln calling for volunteers to "quell the rebellion". Secession was LEGAL. Sending US troops into the CSA was war.

...

You contradict yourself:

....


I don't think so. (And you are completely incorrect about the reasons for secession. The following are DIRECT CUT-AND-PASTE primary lines and statements from the various DECLARATIONS OF SECESSION of the states. (Do some research sometime and get our heads out of the sand, fellow ostriches. And Dunk.... those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it. Someone somewhere once said that.) :wink:
Declaration of Causes
of Seceding States


Georgia

The people of Georgia…have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding ... States with reference to the subject of African slavery…

Mississippi

[A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

Mississippi….. we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course….Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

South Carolina

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The people of the State of South Carolina…opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States…

And even my beloved Texas, in which fewer slaves were held than any other seceding state (and therefore has less reason to secede for that reason, and more right than most other states to leave a union it had voluntarily joined as an independent republic :

Texas

[A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. …She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them? ….
That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.
(Ad infinitum, Ad nauseum)

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
OKDAD

01-31-2008 21:33:59




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to Dell (WA), 01-30-2008 18:44:29  
Dunk...Please enlighten me! What proof do you have that man has never walked on the Moon? :o



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Dunk

01-31-2008 19:21:31




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to Bob, 01-30-2008 18:44:29  

gahorN said: (quoted from post at 00:02:41 02/01/08)
Dunk said: (quoted from post at 19:57:26 01/31/08) ...

I'm sorry, I will believe in Leprechauns first.


WHAT? :shock: :shock: :shock: You don't believe in Leprechauns?!!! You are NEVER going to find that pot of gold! :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:


I might have a hard time dis-proving Leprechauns exist.

But the rest, I don't think so.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
gahorN

01-31-2008 19:02:41




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to Greg_Ky, 01-30-2008 18:44:29  

Dunk said: (quoted from post at 19:57:26 01/31/08) ...

I'm sorry, I will believe in Leprechauns first.


WHAT? :shock: :shock: :shock: You don't believe in Leprechauns?!!! You are NEVER going to find that pot of gold! :wink: :lol: :lol: :lol:



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Dunk

01-31-2008 18:57:26




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to Dunk, 01-30-2008 18:44:29  

gahorN said: (quoted from post at 23:50:36 01/31/08)
Dunk said: (quoted from post at 18:05:47 01/31/08) I do have one more thing to say.

You have already admitted to "being a history major"

To me that says that you were taught what "they" want you to believe, and know.

Not the truth.

The school systems are one of the greatest problems in this country.

REspectfully also... to me, that means that despite the conclusions drawn by those whose profession is the study of history... you refuse to be swayed by recorded history or cause and effect.
No reason to further discuss what reason and facts cannot sway. :wink:


You are totally correct.

Check out what is "taught" about Pearl Harbor, and then research the truth.

Check out what is "taught" about 9/11, and then learn the truth.

The truth IS out there.

Check out the truth about John Kennedy.

Check out the truth.

I bet you even believe that "man" has survived the trip thru the radiation belts, landed on the moon, lifted back off, and made it back to earth.

I'm sorry, I will believe in Leprechauns first.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
gahorN

01-31-2008 18:50:36




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to Tiny-t, 01-30-2008 18:44:29  

Dunk said: (quoted from post at 18:05:47 01/31/08) I do have one more thing to say.

You have already admitted to "being a history major"

To me that says that you were taught what "they" want you to believe, and know.

Not the truth.

The school systems are one of the greatest problems in this country.

REspectfully also... to me, that means that despite the conclusions drawn by those whose profession is the study of history... you refuse to be swayed by recorded history or cause and effect.
No reason to further discuss what reason and facts cannot sway. :wink:

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Dunk

01-31-2008 17:26:49




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to R.G.M., 01-30-2008 18:44:29  
So who gits the deer, me or the dog?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
R.G.M.

01-31-2008 17:34:41




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to Dunk, 01-31-2008 17:26:49  
The hungyest.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Dunk

01-31-2008 17:10:18




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to soundguy, 01-30-2008 18:44:29  

Sean (TX) said: (quoted from post at 22:05:58 01/31/08) third party imagethird party imagethird party image


Sean, the topic, as posted was...

north vs south

How is this off topic?

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
R.G.M.

01-31-2008 17:20:24




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to Dunk, 01-31-2008 17:10:18  
Dunk you made it that way take a look at your original reply.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Sean (TX)

01-31-2008 17:05:58




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to R.G.M., 01-30-2008 18:44:29  
third party imagethird party imagethird party image

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Dunk

01-31-2008 17:05:47




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to R.G.M., 01-30-2008 18:44:29  
I do have one more thing to say.

You have already admitted to "being a history major"

To me that says that you were taught what "they" want you to believe, and know.

Not the truth.

The school systems are one of the greatest problems in this country.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
S Russell (TX)

01-31-2008 13:12:22




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to R.G.M., 01-30-2008 18:44:29  
Excellent points. Both sides of my family were farmers here in Texas. None had a tractor. Mules were used. If you had a mule and a milk cow , there was always fresh corn to eat when it came in, the majority stored for feed. The tractor situation has puzzled me to, I think it may be that the weather is less severe in area like east and south Texas, so that are left out in the weather, rather than being shedded for months at a time like the north. I look forward to winter to use mine, less heat, bugs, the trash weeds and treees slow their growth, etc. You boys in the north are rebuilding them as a winter project. Money. Just as the colonist and early America looked to Europe for the bankers with hard specie ( may have been a reason for the Revolution, if you owe more than you can pay. Jefferson would have like to free more than just Sally Jennings and the kids, except the bank owned the PROPERTY he was still paying on the note. The South of the Civil War did not have many large urban areas, little industry, thus no concentrations of wealth. Their bankers were the cotton buyers in England..Texas looked to England to recognize them as independent, but only France gave recognition. More American boys were killed in the Civil War than all the wars we have fought since.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Upper Peninsula,MI.

01-31-2008 07:03:55




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to R.G.M., 01-30-2008 18:44:29  
R.G.M. You reminded me of the beautiful diverse country and the great people in Louisiana. I had the fortune of spending a little over 6 months in Baton Rouge and traveled the entire State several years ago setting up your State Lottery.Liked the country, great people, enjoyed the food and observed some of the most beautiful woman. Ron



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Tool Kat

01-31-2008 07:02:35




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to R.G.M., 01-30-2008 18:44:29  
My best guess is there are more Ns sold in the south than the north. Why? The N and several other tractors were designed to replace the one horse or mule on a small farm. Where was most of this farming prevelent? The south. With in a two mile radius of my house (I'm in SC) I have counted 6 Ns still working. Most Ns have been scrapped by now, so if there are that many still here, many more were sold.
Also, in many parts of the south, farming is a year-round occupation, so the tractors are always worked harder,so they wear out sooner.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
old-9

01-31-2008 06:16:42




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to R.G.M., 01-30-2008 18:44:29  
RG send me an email so I can send you a photo that could explain this. I bought a Ford sales map on ebay sometime back. Very interesting! Joe



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
ricky1956

01-31-2008 05:58:47




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to R.G.M., 01-30-2008 18:44:29  
At the most, CSA fielded no more than 700,00 soldiers at any time during the war. Estimates indicate that no more than 1 out of ten of these were slave holders. I doubt that the remaining 630,000 were fighting for the right to hold slaves. They were fighting for their country.I was in the army when roe vs wade passed in 1974, I was not there to defend this hideous law. I was there for my country.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Bruce (VA)

01-31-2008 06:38:42




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to ricky1956, 01-31-2008 05:58:47  
While I disagree w/ your numbers (70k was a reasonable estimate for the Army of Northern Va) you are on point about the percentage of slave owners & the fact that the South saw Lincoln's call for volunteers to be an invasion.

As foreign & repugnant as it is to us today, slavery was accepted as a natural course of human events by the majority of US citizens in 1860. I'm not about to defend it, but in order to have any understanding whatsoever about the causes of Civil War, that understanding is critical. Lets look at how women are treated in the Mid-East today.....foreign & repugnant to us, right? But, are we invading those countries to 'free the oppressed women' held in near bondage?

As seen by most Southerners, Secession was legal (turns out it was.....note that no treason trails, Jefferson Davis to be precise, ever went anywhere). All the CSA wanted was to be left alone. They willingly joined the Union & now they wanted to leave. The average Southerner also drew no distinction between a Union Army freeing the slaves or stealing his mules. Both were legal personal property.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Bob in La.

01-31-2008 05:41:42




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to R.G.M., 01-30-2008 18:44:29  
R.G.M. Where are you in southeast Louisiana? I'm just east of Baton Rouge.

Bob



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
mArK Pearce

01-30-2008 23:41:00




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to R.G.M., 01-30-2008 18:44:29  
RGM, We didn't need tractors back then don't you remember. Supposedly everyone had slaves that were cheaper to run than machinery. Slavery ended but then again it didn't end, it just came in the form of a minimun wage. My Great Great Grandfather was a white man and he sure wasn't by a long shot a slave owner. He had to work on a farm from sun up to sun down just to put food in his families mouth and nuthing more. It took a while for machinery to be accepted down here and salesmen had a rough time so they stayed up North. Then to get a good tractor shipping was a big issue for the manufacturer. We were in the middle of a world war. Back then tires and fuel were severly rationed so trucking or rail roading them here was almost imposible. This is why Northerners have all the fun!!!!!


Mark....

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Ken(Ark)

01-31-2008 07:10:10




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to mArK Pearce, 01-30-2008 23:41:00  
Minimum wage started at $.25 hr in 1938 but did not apply to farm labor .
In 1967 farm labor was added at $1.00 hr.

My family homesteaded this property in 1897 and used mules cuz that all poor white boys could afford . We even picked or own cotton so any teenager that wants to cry about slavery can kiss my arse .

We got out first tractor (used 8N) in 1955 , yea haw - Ken(Ark)



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Dan in CO

01-30-2008 21:08:00




Report to Moderator
 Re: mules v tractors in reply to R.G.M., 01-30-2008 18:44:29  
There is something incongruous in this notion of more N’s in the North versus the South. Why is it that the 9N’s and 2N’s were gray (not blue) yet they end up being popular in the North?

That seems to be a mystery of life like: How is it that you can drink a 12 oz. Can of beer and gain 3 pounds.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
old timer in ohio

01-30-2008 21:05:21




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to R.G.M., 01-30-2008 18:44:29  
Hey there;
Yankee by birth, REBEL AT HEART!!!
Bob
God Bless



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Ross Pugh(NC)

01-31-2008 07:21:48




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to old timer in ohio, 01-30-2008 21:05:21  
Yankee by birth.
Southerner by the grace of God.
This was the original quote as I heard it, we are not Rebels but Southerners.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Tiny-t

01-30-2008 19:52:49




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to R.G.M., 01-30-2008 18:44:29  
Don't really know why for sure, but maybe it had to do with shipping them south. Henry did'nt like to spend too much to turn a buck. It would cost him x amount to load a train and ship them that far, to sell them for the same amount closer. Just a guess.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Bruce (VA)

01-30-2008 19:58:18




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to Tiny-t, 01-30-2008 19:52:49  
Well, back to the topic.....look at the economics. Northerners had money. Southerners didn't. Seriously, just look at the income difference between MS & CT in 1940. My grandfather, born in 1892, farmed with mules until he retired for health reasons in 1950. He was a tenant farmer, as was the majority of Southerner farmers then, white and black. Didn't matter, poor was poor.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
duey

01-30-2008 20:09:57




Report to Moderator
  mules v tractors in reply to Bruce (VA), 01-30-2008 19:58:18  
The 12-volt-side-mount mules just lasted longer!! Especially with 90 wt lube.
Now, you load them with FLUID and you've really got something!!



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
R.G.M.

01-30-2008 20:14:38




Report to Moderator
 Re: mules v tractors in reply to duey, 01-30-2008 20:09:57  
deuy you seam to know alot about muels



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
duey

01-30-2008 20:18:51




Report to Moderator
 Re: mules v tractors in reply to R.G.M., 01-30-2008 20:14:38  
Sorry, no, I don't.. but I did spend last night at a HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS....

I've enjoyed the thread :-)

duey



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
R.G.M.

01-30-2008 19:47:06




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to R.G.M., 01-30-2008 18:44:29  
I am so sorry I should have made the subject topic why are there more 9ns',2ns' and 8ns' in the northern UNITED states then the southern UNITED states?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
ToMater

01-30-2008 19:23:48




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to Bob, 01-30-2008 18:44:29  
Dunk you blew it. You were off topic and brought up a wound that will not heal in the hearts of us southern boys. Best leave it alone and stick to tractors. The group could get divided real quick.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Bruce (VA)

01-30-2008 19:38:24




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to ToMater, 01-30-2008 19:23:48  
No division here & no 'argument'. Northerners were taught what they were taught & they believe it. I respect them for that, but what they know came from a book. What we know came from living in it. Just 5 miles from where I sit, more US soldiers died in combat in the shortest amount of time in any war....Cold Harbor VA. The 1860 population of my family's home county was not equaled until 1940. My father was the first to own land in the family since 1867....which was when the family farm was sold for taxes, because my gg-grandfather was killed in the War. Think about it. We Southerners have a passion for this because we saw it & felt the results of it.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Peter, Covington, LA

01-30-2008 19:23:32




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to R.G.M., 01-30-2008 18:44:29  
I also live in southeast Louisiana. Every time one of my grandchildren reaches age 11 I take them on the train from New Orleans to Chicago, and we "do" the Windy City.

Part of the trip is noticing and talking about the terrain and things we see out the train windows. In Louisiana and Mississippi, it's small family vegetable gardens, and very few farms of any size.

Then it gets dark.

We wake up on the prairie in Southern Illinois. The farm land goes as far as the eye can see.

Then we reach the outskirts of Chicago.

Not related, you think? Well, my idea is that the farmers in the deep south had smaller farms, and many couldn't afford and maybe didn't need tractors -- while those farther north couldn't tend their acreage without them.

Does that make any sense??

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
tim[in]

01-30-2008 19:17:18




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to R.G.M., 01-30-2008 18:44:29  
yep winning the war meant we got first choice so we took 8n s! lol



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
tim[in]

01-31-2008 09:00:09




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to tim[in], 01-30-2008 19:17:18  
I dont know . With the price of gas now the mules and horses are looking better all the time. Now i understand why the amish use horses in the field to pull the implements and just use tractors for loading manure and grinding feed and such odd jobs.I once when a teenager had a small plot of about an acre of corn. I used a couple of bushel baskets tied together with a piece of baling wire wrapped in a couple of burlap bags. Only did it once or twice because i hadnt thought of it till toward the end of my harvest. Was very satisfying. I dont know if it was just having some company while i worked or what. Was very enjoyable. Of course if i was eating dust in dry conditions or standing in mud handhusking 40 acres or more if it would be as enjoyable. Or pitching hay over my head in hundred degree heat and humidity.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
R.G.M.

01-30-2008 19:20:58




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to tim[in], 01-30-2008 19:17:18  
Tim I want mine back



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Dunk

01-30-2008 18:52:52




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to R.G.M., 01-30-2008 18:44:29  
Well!!

Now you have set me off.

Do you have a clue about what the Civil War was about?

Do you think it was about slavery, since you were taught that in Public School?!??!?

NO only in the last 6 months of the last year of the Civil War did that come into play.

The North (yanks) had slaves too!!

What the Civil War Was About Was STATES RIGHTS.

California is now finding out what it was about.

States rights, or US rights?!!!?!?

Link

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mark Pearce

01-30-2008 23:57:37




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to Dunk, 01-30-2008 18:52:52  
Dunk, Yep and everyone from the south Black and White are still waiting for their Civil War Reparations. We gonna give it to Iraq. The Government is already hiring Iraqis to rebuild that country. Then they get "Hurt" on the Job and recieve workers comp checks for ten years. Workers comp won't send anyone in there to have a look see but they still send the checks. Wait till a down home honest American gets hurt and see what they do to him/her. That's all another topic though, not to mention the aliens messin up our ozone with their flying sausers. lol.....


Mark..... .....

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Lance in Brenham, TX

01-30-2008 22:36:22




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to Dunk, 01-30-2008 18:52:52  
"What the Civil War Was About Was STATES RIGHTS."


BINGO!



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Bruce (VA)

01-30-2008 19:31:01




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to Dunk, 01-30-2008 18:52:52  
You are totally correct that when the Civil War is taught at all, slavery is nearly always mentioned as THE cause. Well, there were a number of "causes", and states rights far exceeds slavery as a major cause, but the top of the list.....IMHO....belongs to legislative power of the southern states( or the lack thereof) and the 'yellow" journalism of the times.

Lets start with legislative power. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 maintained the balance of power in Congress. Free State, Slave State, a 1 to 1 ratio. The Kansas Nebraska Act, 1854, ended that.

And the yellow journalism just ignited regional passions. The SC Fire-Eaters, the Rhetts, Wigfall, Yancey, representing a clear minority of Southerners, thanks to Northern journalism, convinced the average Northerner that the average Southerner was a slave owning brute. And, thanks to the publication of Uncle Toms Cabin, Southerners were convinced that every Northerner was an abolitionist. Add to that the telegraph; nearly every word spoken on the floor of the House or Senate was in the local newspapers the next day. Can you imagine how the caning of Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks played out in New England?

And, least any one forget, ratification of the US Constitution by the VA General Assembly specifically allowed VA to leave the Union at any time.

The lessons for today?

1.Do not rely on the news media for the truth.

2. The US government has lied & will lie to you, and then lie about that.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Dean

01-31-2008 09:10:06




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to Bruce (VA), 01-30-2008 19:31:01  
Double BINGO!

Dean



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Ross Pugh(NC)

01-31-2008 07:28:50




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to Bruce (VA), 01-30-2008 19:31:01  
You tell the truth there, Bruce.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Mr. Bob

01-30-2008 19:16:34




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to Dunk, 01-30-2008 18:52:52  
You are absolutely right. The Civil War was about "states' rights". The industrial New England states had more reps to congress due to a greater population and therefore railroaded tariff tax laws through that were strangling the agricultural south. Those northern industrialists were likely more cruel to their poor workers, than were the southerners to their slaves. The slavery issue was at best a secondary issue which was capatilised upon by the north to create anti-southern propaganda. The north was illustrating the "big brother" image quite well when they endeavored to strip the southern folks of their right of locally controlled government. Anyone reading this should find it easy to figure out my views on the issue. Mr. Bob

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
R.G.M.

01-30-2008 19:11:30




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to Dunk, 01-30-2008 18:52:52  
MY GOD man what do you think I am talking about? Isnt this forum about tractors. Get a grip



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
duey

01-30-2008 18:49:33




Report to Moderator
 Re: north vs south in reply to R.G.M., 01-30-2008 18:44:29  
Well, maybe the mules were just too popular...

Or y'all just change resistant..

Beats me...



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
[Options]  [Printer Friendly]  [Posting Help]  [Return to Forum]   [Log in to Reply]

Hop to:


TRACTOR PARTS TRACTOR MANUALS
We sell tractor parts!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]

Home  |  Forums


Copyright © 1997-2023 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters

Website Accessibility Policy