The Facebook "Share this!" Hall of Shame

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[creekster]

Of course a Ute has friends like that.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Best one yet.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[old_gregg]

There is someone in my neighborhood selling teeth whitening. She makes it sound like its just something she has "discovered" and wants to "share" with others.

Also, this is what she looks like. All those colors look legit, right?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7955[/ATTACH]

this pic freaks me out every time i open the thread. can we delete it

[Clark Addison]

I really should get on Facebook more; I feel I get a college education each time I go.

[cowboy]

I really should get on Facebook more; I feel I get a college education each time I go.

I'd say most of us were taught in school that the war wasn't about slavery. It seems easy to believe when less than 5% of southerners owned slaves and less than 15% of Confederate soldiers were slave-owners. In retrospect, I believe the powerful who saw slavery in jeopardy started a war and soldiers who didn't own slaves fought to preserve it either out of a belief in the institution or a sense of loyalty to their state over their country.

An analogous situation would be a civil war over capitalism. Few people are business owners or produce goods to sell in a free market, yet many would go to war to protect free markets. Many would believe in the system, while others would go to war just on the principle of being able to determine their own economic system without being told what to do by outsiders. Regardless, it would still be a war over capitalism.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'd say most of us were taught in school that the war wasn't about slavery. It seems easy to believe when less than 5% of southerners owned slaves and less than 15% of Confederate soldiers were slave-owners. In retrospect, I believe the powerful who saw slavery in jeopardy started a war and soldiers who didn't own slaves fought to preserve it either out of a belief in the institution or a sense of loyalty to their state over their country.

An analogous situation would be a civil war over capitalism. Few people are business owners or produce goods to sell in a free market, yet many would go to war to protect free markets. Many would believe in the system, while others would go to war just on the principle of being able to determine their own economic system without being told what to do by outsiders. Regardless, it would still be a war over capitalism.

Uh... that doesn't mean it wasn't fought over slavery.

[creekster]

Uh... that doesn't mean it wasn't fought over slavery.

Uh....that's what he said.

[cowboy]

...In retrospect, I believe the powerful who saw slavery in jeopardy started a war and soldiers who didn't own slaves fought to preserve it....

An analogous situation would be a civil war over capitalism...Regardless, it would still be a war over capitalism.

Uh... that doesn't mean it wasn't fought over slavery.

Uh....that's what he said.

What creek said; not quite sure how you interpreted my post as a support of the 'Civil War wasn't fought over slavery' argument.

[Jeff Lebowski]

What creek said; not quite sure how you interpreted my post as a support of the 'Civil War wasn't fought over slavery' argument.

Sorry, I didn't read the second paragraph carefully. My bad.

[BigPiney]

Sorry, I didn't read the second paragraph carefully. My bad.

Left to right, top to bottom.

[Clark Addison]

I'd say most of us were taught in school that the war wasn't about slavery. It seems easy to believe when less than 5% of southerners owned slaves and less than 15% of Confederate soldiers were slave-owners. In retrospect, I believe the powerful who saw slavery in jeopardy started a war and soldiers who didn't own slaves fought to preserve it either out of a belief in the institution or a sense of loyalty to their state over their country.

An analogous situation would be a civil war over capitalism. Few people are business owners or produce goods to sell in a free market, yet many would go to war to protect free markets. Many would believe in the system, while others would go to war just on the principle of being able to determine their own economic system without being told what to do by outsiders. Regardless, it would still be a war over capitalism.

Agree with what you said here. I would add, though, that the lowest class of white people in the South, who never had a chance of owning a slave, were, in a large part, among the most interested in maintaining slavery. Slavery insured that they and their children would never be on the bottom rung of society.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Agree with what you said here. I would add, though, that the lowest class of white people in the South, who never had a chance of owning a slave, were, in a large part, among the most interested in maintaining slavery. Slavery insured that they and their children would never be on the bottom rung of society.

What happened in the south after the civil war was proof that the culture of slavery and its corresponding evils permeated the south from top to bottom.

[cowboy]

Agree with what you said here. I would add, though, that the lowest class of white people in the South, who never had a chance of owning a slave, were, in a large part, among the most interested in maintaining slavery. Slavery insured that they and their children would never be on the bottom rung of society.

This is a sound theory, but I've seen little evidence that this drove people's decisions "in a large part" ie, for a majority of non-slave owners. Most of the journals I have seen (which is admittedly a small sample) from confederates cite a loyalty to state over country as the reason to fight.

What happened in the south after the civil war was proof that the culture of slavery and its corresponding evils permeated the south from top to bottom.

I'm interested in what you mean by this. What specifically are you referring to by "what happened in the south"? I'm not saying I disagree, necessarily, but while there is nothing good about slavery, its downstream effects seem complicated. More to the point, it's hard to separate the effects of the war and the punitive attitudes of the North from the absence of slavery in the South.

Racism, like everything, can take on multiple definitions. My mother-in-law from the South speaks of how horrified her family was when a black man was brutally murdered for speaking to a white woman, and talks with fondness of their black maid. On the other hand, she says they would never think of inviting her maid to eat in their kitchen, and "she wouldn't have felt comfortable" doing so. On yet another hand, her father and the maid's husband were very good friends and would meet to play cards every Friday. Were my in-laws racists? I suppose. They certainly exhibited racial bias. Did they hate black people? Absolutely not.

Back to slavery. I believe most in the South held a racial bias, but that was a prevailing opinion among nearly as many Northerners. Clearly, more believed in the institution of slavery in the South than in the North, but the number of people who fought for the Confederacy out of loyalty to the state vs dedication to the institution is less clear. As an aside, we cannot find any of my in-laws that were slave owners, and while I have a few ancestors who fought for the Union, I was surprised to learn that one of them was a descendant of a slave-owning family in Indiana. All of my direct ancestors were out west by then, so it's been interesting to read my in-laws' ancestors' letters.