pilottj
Posts: 274
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 1:23 pm

War Of Northern Aggression

Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:21 pm

Hey folks, I was at brunch with a distant cousin who lives in Richmond VA. He told us about how the civil war is refered to the 'war of northern aggression'. I know history textbooks usually have a slant but that seems pretty extreme. Is this really common or just an idea among revisionists in the south?

Cheers
TJ
God was my copilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him...
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:30 pm

Pilottj - only ones I hear refer to it as such are revisionists, League of the South types, closet Klansmen, and MD-90.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
adam
Posts: 456
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:45 pm

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:31 pm

I actually really don't understand what your relative was trying to say, but I've never lived in the South, nor do I ever intend to, nor do I have family in the South, so I really can't comment on how southerners view the Civil War or their enemy, even in the present time. Is that your question, whether or not the South continues, or did view the North as aggressive?
Texas: You'll come for the Alamo, You'll stay because you were wrongfully executed. - Conan O'Brian State Quarters
 
767ALLTHEWAY
Posts: 636
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 1999 5:37 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:34 pm

Well in my short stint in South Carolina (where the war started) I have heard it referred to as that on many occasions.
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgement that something else is more important than fear"
 
CaptOveur
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 3:13 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Thu Mar 03, 2005 2:47 pm

Quoting 767ALLTHEWAY (reply 3):
Well in my short stint in South Carolina (where the war started) I have heard it referred to as that on many occasions.


Sort of fits with reply #1.
Things were better when it was two guys in a dorm room.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Thu Mar 03, 2005 3:44 pm

Salvery was going to fall anyway, it would have taken longer, but it was going to fall. They call it the Northern Agression because rather than be slower on the progression, Lincoln and the conservative north opted to move in on the liberal south and impose their will. A good move I might add.

Wierd how times have changed, I mean... History has been distorted about conservatives.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Thu Mar 03, 2005 6:37 pm

Quoting Boeing7E7 (reply 5):
Lincoln and the conservative north opted to move in on the liberal south and impose their will.


Errr. Got your liberals and conservatives a tad confused, haven't you ?
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
57AZ
Posts: 2371
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:55 pm

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Thu Mar 03, 2005 8:06 pm

That was and still is the view taken by some in the Deep South. Furthermore, while Lincoln disliked slavery personally, he realized that the best that could be done was to prevent its spread outside the Deep South. Thus, he never really viewed abolition as a possibility. However, when the southern states began to secede from the Union, that led to the events that gave put him in the position to declare all slaves held in the areas in rebellion free. That only "freed" slaves in the states where the rebellion was ongoing. Slaves held in nothern states, namely Kentucky and Maryland would not be emancipated until 1866 when the Constitution was amended to abolish slavery. Also, for the record Lincoln and the northerners were certainly not conservative for their day. Reread your history books and you should note that they were called Radical Republicans. Also, most history books convienantly leave out the fact that each of the states in rebellion supplied troops to the United States Army during the conflict. In Tennessee, the vote on succession failed on the first attempt and only due to a shift in political power led by Gov. Harris, did Tennessee secede on the second vote. East Tennessee was rife with Unionists and this caused serious problems for the Confederate authorities for the duration of the war. Nothing in that conflict was clear cut in any way.
"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Thu Mar 03, 2005 8:07 pm

Quoting JGPH1A (reply 6):
Errr. Got your liberals and conservatives a tad confused, haven't you ?



Uh. No. Lincoln was a Republican.

Also, for the record Lincoln and the northerners were certainly not conservative for their day.

Um.. Yeah. Tell that to Lincoln. He'll thank you for re-writing his history.

Have you ever actually read anything on Lincoln? I seriously doubt it.

[Edited 2005-03-03 12:10:17]
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Thu Mar 03, 2005 8:36 pm

Quoting Boeing7E7 (reply 8):
Uh. No. Lincoln was a Republican.


Yes he was. But in those enlightened days, Republican did not mean closet-fascist, rabid ultra-right wing Christian taliban like it does now. It was the more interventionist and Federalist of the parties, whereas the Democrats were the small-government, States' Rights anti-liberal party.

If the Republican Party in Lincoln's day had been as reactionary as todays GOP, you'd probably still have slavery in the US today !
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
ushermittwoch
Posts: 2530
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:18 pm

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Thu Mar 03, 2005 8:44 pm

Quoting JGPH1A (reply 9):
Yes he was. But in those enlightened days, Republican did not mean closet-fascist, rabid ultra-right wing Christian taliban like it does now.


...true but you could also put "Southern Democrat" into the second sentence and it wouldn't change a thing, well actually it would, but not to the better...
Where have all the tri-jets gone...
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Thu Mar 03, 2005 8:48 pm

Quoting JGPH1A (reply 9):
Yes he was. But in those enlightened days, Republican did not mean closet-fascist, rabid ultra-right wing Christian taliban like it does now.



Nor is it today. But thanks for trying.

Reactionary? Everyone is reactionary.

September 11th might have been different if everyone were less reactive, and more pro-active:

Read chapter 3.

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/212fin~1.html
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Thu Mar 03, 2005 8:54 pm

Allow me to explain...

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

reactionary

adj : extremely conservative [syn: reactionist, far-right] n : an extreme conservative; an opponent of progress or liberalism [syn: ultraconservative, extreme right-winger]
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Thu Mar 03, 2005 8:56 pm

You still have it wrong. Your perception is warped by a few right extremists with a pulpet and amplified by yapping voices of left extremists.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:03 pm

What part of "an opponent of progress or liberalism" do you disagree with, when classifying the current GOP as "reactionary" ?
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:29 pm

The kind of progress being pursued in the US is not Liberal at all. It's Socialist, there's a difference. Both parties are actually headed that way. One is just slower than the other.
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:38 pm

Quoting Boeing7E7 (reply 15):
The kind of progress being pursued in the US is not Liberal at all. It's Socialist, there's a difference. Both parties are actually headed that way. One is just slower than the other.


You are right about the difference, but the difference is more apparent in Economic policy. Socialism is an economic doctrine, and does not particulary reflect "social" moral or behavioural aims at all. It is possible to be economically socialist and socially repressive at the same time (Nazi Germany, for example). It is also possible to be economically socialist and socially liberal (Sweden, for example), or economically liberal AND socially liberal (the UK, for example).

In the US the differences between the parties seem to me to be mostly in the areas of social policy. The Republican Party is socially conservative, whereas the Democratic Party is socially more liberal (although liberalism is very relative - no matter which party is in power, it is unlikely that the US will ever be as socially liberal as say Sweden or the Netherlands or even France). Economic socialism in US policy terms is out on the fringes at best, there are government economic programs yes, but these are pretty limited.
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:13 pm

Pilottj - only ones I hear refer to it as such are revisionists, League of the South types, closet Klansmen, and MD-90.

 Silly When I saw this thread title, I wa sure MD-90 had someting to do with it.

Lincoln and the conservative..

Boeing7E7, you fall in the trap all too many today do-the trap that the GOP was ALWAYS conservative (it was not), and that the Democrats were ALWAYS liberal.

The truth is that Lincoln was liberal, not conservative. Conservatives, by their nature, do NOT want things to change, and the South was fighting against change. Back then, it was the Democrats, especially the Southern Democrats, who were the conservatives of the time. Lincoln and the Republican Party, which had just been founded a few years before that, were the liberal party of the time-they were demanding change, not the status quo.

Lincoln would turn over in his grave if he would have seen what his party has become in the last 150 years. It's the anthisis of everything he stood for.

Uh. No. Lincoln was a Republican.

Yes, he was, and in 1961, Republicans were the liberal party, as I said. Learn your history, my friend. The GOP didn't become the conservative party until Harry Truman intigrated the armed forces in that 1940's, and all the southern Democrats began defecting to the GOP, ala Strom Thurmond.

So way to get off subject, 7E7, and I'm glad I could set you straight with that history lesson. Learn from it.

As for the title, the "War of Northern Aggression" is used by Confederate apologists and sympathizers to try to shift the blame for the war on the North. It was the South that seceeded over the election. Hell, South Carolina seceeded BEFORE Lincoln ever took office! It was South Carolina that fired the first shot on the United States ,and occupied Ft. Sumpter. It was the south who defined the conflict as one over slavery, because for all their talk about tariffs and the like, they didn't the end of one thing-slavery-which would change their whole culture, a culture built on the backs of men who they enslaved.

So, like 7E7 trying to rewrite history and say Lincoln was a conservative ,which he wasn't, those who call it The War of Northern Aggression are trying to rewrite history to make themselves look better.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:51 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (reply 17):
Yes, he was, and in 1961, Republicans were the liberal party, as I said. Learn your history, my friend. The GOP didn't become the conservative party until Harry Truman intigrated the armed forces in that 1940's, and all the southern Democrats began defecting to the GOP, ala Strom Thurmond.



Uh... Yeah. Nothing better than a Liberal wanting to lay claim on the Republican Conservative ideals. You guys are good at that. How about you read a bit on Lincoln and GOP history then think about re-stating your claim. I have several books on him and the party, do you? Ask Ike how he managed to F up the party.

Yes, he was, and in 1961, Republicans were the liberal party, as I said. Learn your history, my friend. The GOP didn't become the conservative party until Harry Truman intigrated the armed forces in that 1940's, and all the southern Democrats began defecting to the GOP, ala Strom Thurmond.

1961?

In case you need help on why the Party was formed? It was to get back to the roots the nation was founded on. Pretty conservative move if you ask me.

Here's a nice liberal quote from Lincoln:

Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."

In other words... Get off your ass and build you own wealth.

[Edited 2005-03-03 15:03:28]
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:49 pm

Uh... Yeah. Nothing better than a Liberal wanting to lay claim on the Republican Conservative ideals.

You can't get away from it, can you? You're so fixated on what the liberal and conservative and what parties they're aligned with now, that you can't see past you own nose. This has NOTHING to do with me being liberal or you being conservative! This has to do with objectively looking at history, something, as someone who likes to study history, I have always done, no matter my own political leanings.

Go look at the defintions of "liberalism" and "conservatiism", my friend. Liberals want and work for change, they want to always push and change the status quo. Conservatives want things to remain as they are. That's the basic definition of both. Had we listened to the conservatives in the 1770's, we'd all still be singing "Rule Britannia" and "God Save The Queen", because the conservatives back then were the Monarchists. Had we listened to the conservatives in the 1860's, Slavery would have lasted at least another generation before dying.

7E7, quit making this a modern-day, Democrat vs. Republican fight, will you? It's not about that. It's about the fact that, in the 1860's, Lincoln and the Republican Party was the liberal party,and the Democrats were the conservatives. Look at the lineage of the Democrats, from the 1860's until 1948. From about 1861 until 1932, they could only one the presidency like two or 3 times-in 70 years. It took the Great Depression to bring a Democrat in power. Who was his base, back then? In party, southern whites, because they had been Democrats when the South broke away in 1861. What changed southern allegiance? Easy-the Civil Rights movement, which the Democratic party embraced, beginning with Truman and desegregating the Armed Forces in 1948. What happened after that? The Southern Democrats, guys like Strom Thurman, ALWAYS a conservative, bolted the party and went to the GOP. It was THEN, not before that, that the GOP was the conservative party. By the 1950s, with the Democrats fully supporting Civil Rights, the ideologies of the parties switched. The GOP, which had been the liberal party under Lincoln, now flushed with former Southern Democrats, became the Conservative standard bearer, and the Democrats became the liberal party, having jettisoned it's southern conservative roots.

You guys are good at that. How about you read a bit on Lincoln and GOP history then think about re-stating your claim.

Lincoln was more in line with modern Democrats like Truman, JFK and LBJ than he was any modern conservative. They held similar values. Again, you can be ignorant all you want, but you're dead wrong on this one. But if you want to keep your head up your butt, and cling to the modern alignments, and sling them back in history, go right ahead. It only makes you look sadly ignorant.

Btw, I meant 1861. My bad, but I think you knew it was a typo. In 1861, the parties were the exact opposite ideologically than what they are today. Sorry for the one number typo.

Unfortunately, you're one of those modern conservatives who will give credit to no one else. I think it might have been you who called the Nazi's "liberal" once (and also communism, in the same sentence). Which was also wrong. Unlike you, I can think beyond modern party ideology, and look at history objectively, without passion for my own beliefs. You obviously cannot.

Lincoln was a liberal. The Democrats, from that time, through Strom Thurmand, before he and his ilk broke from the party in the late 1940's, were the conservatives.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:56 pm

Lincoln was not a liberal. You'll have to get over that. I know you'd like him to be, but that is not the case. Rant away.

Just stop. Okay.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 12:05 am

You go right ahead and, like a good goose-step conservative, be ignorant, Boeing7E7. Your head is so far up the ying yang of conservatism that is isn't funny.

The ideological descendants of Jefferson Davis were guys like Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, Barry Goldwater, not JFK and LBJ. The ideological descendants of Lincoln were FDR, Truman and JFK, not modern conserviates like the ones I mentioned. If you look at it objectively, and see the history from 1861 through 1948, you'll see how the ideological lineage plays out.

But wallow in your ignorance. It doesn't bother me one bit. I know I'm right; I know you're dead wrong.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 12:39 am

Quoting Pilottj (reply 0):
Is this really common or just an idea among revisionists in the south?


I don't think it will be possible for you to understand the answer if you frame the question that way. "Revisionist" is a word that gets thrown around far too much. It is a catchphrase, and it is not deeply rooted in reality.

It implies, in this case, that southerners are revising the events surrounding the Civil War. This is not necessarily the case.

The northern understanding of what happened during those years has formed the backbone of most of what has been written about the Civil War for the simple reason that they won the war. The winner gets to advance their own version.

Throughout the era, from John Brown to Frederick Douglass to Fort Sumpter to Appomattox and Ford's Theater people of the south understood events one way and people of the north another. There is no "revision" it is just the vestiges of the differences in the way they saw it at the time.

Today you think of the United States of America as a single nation. In 1860 each state thought of itself as sovereign and then as a member of a Union of American States. It was grammatically correct to say "the United States are . . ." Today, the north having won, and states' rights having been eroded, and power centralized to Washington DC as they have, it is grammatically correct to say "the United States IS . . ."

Secession, from the point of view of most rural southerners was not treason, as they were still loyal to South Carolina, Georgia, etc. The "Union" of American States was not their nationality, it was more like a treaty or alliance from which they were withdrawing.

The issue to southern leaders was their right to govern their own states. Of course the economic issue over slavery helped them decide how they felt about things - money bought politicians, then as now. To most rural southerners (and most were rural) it truly was about northern armies invading their states.

So my recommendation is to avoid using modern catchphrases like "revisionist" when trying to understand events of another era. They attach a mindset that does not even relate to the thinking of the times.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:06 am

Quoting Falcon84 (reply 21):
You go right ahead and, like a good goose-step conservative, be ignorant, Boeing7E7. Your head is so far up the ying yang of conservatism that is isn't funny.

The ideological descendants of Jefferson Davis were guys like Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, Barry Goldwater, not JFK / KJFK), USA - New York">JFK and LBJ. The ideological descendants of Lincoln were FDR, Truman and JFK / KJFK), USA - New York">JFK, not modern conserviates like the ones I mentioned. If you look at it objectively, and see the history from 1861 through 1948, you'll see how the ideological lineage plays out.

But wallow in your ignorance. It doesn't bother me one bit. I know I'm right; I know you're dead wrong.


Look Falcon. I know you'd like every great President in American History to be a liberal, and I'm sure you're working on a way to claim Reagan is also liberal because of the the number of Democrats that voted for him. But your claim that Lincoln was a Liberal is really over the top, if not a hysterical.

You should read the book "Lincoln" by David Donald. It's one of the most insightful books on Lincoln ever written. Just because someone in recent political history envokes the memory of a former President in their ideology does not mean they share the same views. His entire platform was one of returning the nation to the basic tenants and foundation that we were built on, not what the liberals had allowed it to become. He was a conservative Whig in every way.

[Edited 2005-03-03 17:10:55]
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:13 am

Look Falcon. I know you'd like every great President in American History to be a liberal

Again, you just can't let go of your straight-jacketed ideologies, can you? The great presidents are just that-great, no matter what their ideology. I think Lincoln was a great President, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt; Truman. I Think Carter and LBJ, two liberals, were lousy Presidents. I think Reagan, while not being as god-like in his greatness as some want to make him, was an above-average President.

You see, unlike you, I can judge something, or analyze something, and put aside my personal beliefs, and where I stand on issues. And it comes back to one thing: Licoln was no conservative. Your ideological forefather wasn't Lincoln-it was Jeff Davis, and the southern Democrats, who, by 1950, were becoming the backbone of the modern Republican party. Again, I can't help you don't see that, but again, I know I'm dead on in my estimation, and you're so far off the mark that it isn't funny.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:15 am

Quoting Falcon84 (reply 24):
You see, unlike you, I can judge something, or analyze something, and put aside my personal beliefs, and where I stand on issues. And it comes back to one thing: Licoln was no conservative. Your ideological forefather wasn't Lincoln-it was Jeff Davis, and the southern Democrats, who, by 1950, were becoming the backbone of the modern Republican party. Again, I can't help you don't see that, but again, I know I'm dead on in my estimation, and you're so far off the mark that it isn't funny.



You're so off base that it's not even funny anymore.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:40 am

Would those of you who are debating the relative merit (or lack thereof) of present-day liberal/conservative personalities and organizations please butt out of this thread.

Your exchanges are utterly off-topic here.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:58 am

Actually, SlamClick, I did make a comment on the point of the post, but what 7E7 brought up is a good sidebar, and I don't see a problem responding to it. I can't help it if he's stubborn.  Smile
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 2:34 am

Well then perhaps I wasn't talking about you Falcon84

Or I might have been. Smile
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 3:00 am

The issue to southern leaders was their right to govern their own states. Of course the economic issue over slavery helped them decide how they felt about things - money bought politicians, then as now. To most rural southerners (and most were rural) it truly was about northern armies invading their states.

Nice phrasing.... let's rephrase that for what it truly was...

"Southern Leaders" were slaveholders and saw their holdings (value) dropping like a rock off the Empire State Building with a Lincoln Election. The writing had been long on the wall and this was no big sudden suprise to anyone! "Southern Leaders" had long used their views to legislate 'slave laws' even in free territories/states thus was about 'governing/protecting' a profit making enterprise... nowhere near about governing/legislating for the 'rural southerners' you point out Slamclick. This was simply the most blatant case protecting profit at 'all cost' even if drawing non-affected parties (rural residents) into the fray (well actually to fight it for them-- a lot like Iraq today!)... but under the guise of "we're under attack from 'Northern Aggression'... we must save out homeland at all cost!!!" ... uh huh and a poor bunch of saps feel for that one!

The economic issue of slavery didn't help them decide anything... it was the 'ONLY' issue (from the southern standpoint).

The Northern perspective was 'fcuk!... that's a hell 'of lot of real estate' to just let 'get up and walk away' without a fight! The fought like hell to get it away from the British after stealing it from the native Americans... free the slaves/keep the slaves... that land wasn't going anywhere without a serious knock 'em out smackdown... and that's exactly what materialized!

So in the aggregate, the whole damn thing was about 'money', not rights, not governing... just the freedom to built on ill-gotten gains and continue profiting from it!

Lincoln, a conservative??? Someone loan this kid (7e7) a crowbar so he can extract his head from his a$$!

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
jcs17
Posts: 7376
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 11:13 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 3:42 am

Mmmhmmm...yeah buddy, that's what my grandpappy calls it. Them northerners wanted to do away with our trailer parks and 10 foot satillite dishes. They got a big ol' Southern boot up their ass.

Signed,
MD-90
America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
 
avek00
Posts: 3156
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 3:42 am

It's funny trying to see people apply the modern definitions of liberal and conservative, as NEITHER ideology was established in America until the Industrial Revolution was underway, which took place AFTER the War of Southern Rebellion.
Live life to the fullest.
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:40 am

It's funny trying to see people apply the modern definitions of liberal and conservative, as NEITHER ideology.

There's nothing funny about.. and you absolutely can apply such 'definitions'... after all it was only a 135 years ago! You make it sound like we're talking about the Stone Age!

Progressive thought was as vibrant back then as it is today. People looking forward too fast (in the opinion of those who like things the way they are--aka conservatives/the status quo). It always has and very much today, frightens many people and cements them into a steadfast mentality... to resist change. Progressive thought unlocks consideration, enactment and tinkering with 'the unknown'.. thus a loss (or false sense) of control. Conservatives inherently believe they have a good bead on things, they think if they hold on hard enough.. nothing will change and things will remain the same -- the comfort zone is not disturbed. Liberal thinking traces its' roots from 'enlightenment' which had it's own age... but is also predated by the great thinkers 100s of years before with the likes of Aristotle and Plato. And I'm certain there were progressive thinkers before that, they just didn't (or could afford) to put pen to paper!


Lincoln, clearly was one of those who knew change beyond his comprehesion was fast tracking and there wasn't much he could do about it except 'do all he could' to not be remembered as 'the guy who let the United States of America' unravel' on his watch... now that would have been a legacy label/stench... hard to escape!

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
FDXmech
Posts: 3219
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 9:48 pm

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:59 am

>>>The truth is that Lincoln was liberal, not conservative. Conservatives, by their nature, do NOT want things to change, and the South was fighting against change.<<<

But here's the paradox. Is George Bush a liberal? After all,, he doesn't want the status quo in the middle east. Can that somehow be equated with Lincoln's liberal nature of Emancipation. Conversely the unpopular nature (in many circles) of the Iraq war. Can those opinions be touted as conservative because of the disdain for change in that part of the earth?

Honest question - no barbs please.
You're only as good as your last departure.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 5:18 am

Quoting BN747 (reply 29):
So in the aggregate, the whole damn thing was about 'money', not rights, not governing... just the freedom to built on ill-gotten gains and continue profiting from it!



No, that would be Hollywood you are talking about.

You need to get to America from time to time. Your rant is so full of stereotypical liberal clichés as to confound any effort to comment upon it.

In the first place it is not the descendants of the slave holding minority today who call it the "war of northern agression." It is Bubba, it is Joe Sixpack, whose great-grand daddy (all four of them) fought in the war as privates. The educated, monied southerners have moved on.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 5:52 am

No, that would be Hollywood you are talking about.

You need to get to America from time to time. Your rant is so full of stereotypical liberal clichés as to confound any effort to comment upon it.


No, what you NEED to do is get a hold of some real money.. the kind people don't let go of! Not a 50 bucks, a $100, 10 grand or a 100K. The kind of money that makes people like Joey Koslowski and the like do the kind of sh*t that they do! Your undertstanding of world class finance is something of mix between your local 7-11 spending and a text book lesson. It's very clear that you cannot begin to fathom what serious finance and power is all about. You need to STOP watching Hollywood fare... and work on you bank account pal.. then come back and talk to me...

In the first place it is not the descendants of the slave holding minority today who call it the "war of northern agression." It is Bubba, it is Joe Sixpack, whose great-grand daddy (all four of them) fought in the war as privates. The educated, monied southerners have moved on.

True and not true... the monied southerns have moved on... but they get a serious kick out watching the MD90s of the South continue to 'fight their fight for them... example: Trent Lott, and if you think he's alone... then you might as well pitch in and help!

BN747

[Edited 2005-03-03 22:29:39]
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 6:00 am

But here's the paradox. Is George Bush a liberal? After all,, he doesn't want the status quo in the middle east. Can that somehow be equated with Lincoln's liberal nature of Emancipation. Conversely the unpopular nature (in many circles) of the Iraq war. Can those opinions be touted as conservative because of the disdain for change in that part of the earth?

Honest question??

Here's an honest answer...

Lincoln tried to avoid war... Bush didn't (not by a stretch.. he even fabricated and excuse to do so).

Who are we to dictate that we want change in another part of the world. If were truly, TRULY committed to that.. then we'd start with our 'friends first'... like Saudi Arabia and many other nations. After our own house is in order.. then we try and go help clean up someone elses!

Seriously, just what strategy do you propose when we turn and stare down China and say 'Democracy or else?'... We do want change all over the world right? And they can afford loose 300 million people and have a billion left...what would be left in the US after a 300 million population loss?

BN747

[Edited 2005-03-03 22:22:53]
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
RNOcommctr
Posts: 774
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 6:18 am

Symbols live on. What scares me are the jack-upped pick-up trucks that have Confederate flag stickers and bumper stickers that say "Jeff Davis for President".

What is the message here? I know the message as well as you do, but it is too repugnant for me see it in writing here on this thread. Scary stuff.
Active loading only, ma'am, keep it moving!
 
FDXmech
Posts: 3219
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 9:48 pm

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 6:44 am

>>>Lincoln tried to avoid war... Bush didn't (not by a stretch.. he even fabricated and excuse to do so).<<<

How did Lincoln try to avoid war?
What happened when Lincoln changed the aim of the war from preserving the Union to Emancipation? Was preserving the Union a fabrication? I don't think so.

>>>Who are we to dictate that we want change in another part of the world.<<<

The draft riots of 1863 were based partially on that logic.

Is that statement primarily on behalf of the oppressed or the oppressors?

[Edited 2005-03-03 22:45:07]
You're only as good as your last departure.
 
Pendrilsaint
Posts: 674
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 6:46 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 8:13 am

What this boils down to is contract law for the time. Does a state have right to enter and exit a contract if it is a constitution? I would argue that yes, a state which enters into a contract having only been established some 3/4 of a century ago do have a right to break contract. The fact of the matter is that each state had its own constitution and could be considered its very own nation. We see this battle all the way back to the begining with the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers (If you think you know the Federalists without having read the papers, think again, Hamilton, Jay, and Madison were nothing but hardcore elitists interested in the subjugation of an agrarian class they felt were beneath them). Now back to the topic at hand, let's look at the Fort Sumter issue: One side claims that the fort was on property belonging to the sovereign nation of South Carolina, while the other claims that it was a rebelling area...they both have excellent claims...if you look at it from the SC side they did indeed have a right to fire on ships rearming and resupplying the fort of a foreign entity on their soil.
I am not an apologist...I don't believe slavery was right and I don't believe in the glory of the southerners, nor do I believe in the glory of the north during this conflict. Both sides did horrible, terrible, and obviously self-interested things. However, thank god slavery ended anyway you look at it, that is the best outcome. Let's understand though, Southerners nor Northerners are stupid and they both had convincing and good reasons for what they did.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 9:03 am

Quoting BN747 (reply 35):
No, what you NEED to do is get a hold of some real money.. the kind people don't let go of! Not a 50 bucks, a $100, 10 grand or a 100K. The kind of money that makes people like Joey Koslowski and the like do the kind of sh*t that they do! Your undertstanding of world class finance is something of mix between your local 7-11 spending and a text book lesson.


Again - you need to get out of Hollywood. Honestly would you even have heard of Joey Koslowski if the story hadn't been made into a movie. And if you think $1.2 million is "serious finance" I'd say you are not doing all that well there anyway. $1.2 mil is about the net worth a working stiff needs to have at my age to be able to consider retiring.

You have no idea what my understanding of finance might be. None! But again you could not resist (or even express yourself) without some cutesy line about 7-11 spending.

None of this has anything to do with the topic. Rural, minimally educated, impecunious southerners were more concerned with northern armies invading their soil and the notion that they were not being allowed to make their own laws than they were about slavery - as a sociological question. For the most part, they were not stupid, however, and we well aware that they were being sent to fight for the rich - who did own slaves.

A moment's thought would tell you that the line "fighting for the property we've won by honest toil" was a reference to slaves. Presumably everyone who eve sang that song understood the role of money in politics.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 9:10 am

Quoting JGPH1A (reply 9):
Republican did not mean closet-fascist, rabid ultra-right wing Christian taliban like it does now.


Doesen't mean that today either.

After all the democrats still have clansmen such as Robert Byrd holding positions of power in their party.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 am

OK lets take a seemingly innocent question and turn it into full blown conflict..... Oh for Gods sake!

Why the hell are we fighting the Civil War all over again?

The reference to the term "War of Northern Aggression" comes from a post-bellum southern frame of reference that sought to portray the South as the victim in the war instead of the instigator in the act of secession and actually shelling the resupply convoy and fort in the bay at Charleston.

The only people who refer to the war as "Northern Aggression" are the elitist psuedo-intellectual "historian" wanna-bees who tend to use overplayed accents and give off airs. It appears on some old historical markers, but not in any modern textbooks as anything other than an example of archaic terms and speech.

The term has nothing to do with the modern, integrated south......outside of the minds of those who seek to make an issue of crap like this.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 12:26 pm

Again - you need to get out of Hollywood. Honestly would you even have heard of Joey Koslowski if the story hadn't been made into a movie. And if you think $1.2 million is "serious finance" I'd say you are not doing all that well there anyway. $1.2 mil is about the net worth a working stiff needs to have at my age to be able to consider retiring.

1. I don't need to know who Koslowski is... the point (which you missed by a light year) was that he's just a snow flake on the iceberg. It's a common 'thing'.. there's not enough courtrooms & file cabinets in the nation to handle the slew of white collar transgressions (let alone people to investigate them)!

2. Get off your Hollywood kick-- it's weaker than your non-argument... The greed involved in the Slave Trade is a greed that would put Hollywood's avarice to shame. And it was a proliferate greed that was on the scene long before Hollywood was conceived.

3. You'll never have a million bucks because if you were remotely close... you have a clue as to what I'm talking about. Instead, you're one of these people like Pendrilsaint who feels the need to express a wicked act in broad circuitous manner in order to masked the true harshness... or you just too stupid to know the truth if it bit you in the ass.

This statement shows as much...

...Southerners nor Northerners are stupid and they both had convincing and good reasons...

No.. the people who started the whole damn thing were the very souls at the core of decisions made (right or wrong-- but not stupid)! The point of contention is not in dispute.. it's your wording that's troubling/confusing you! They weren't stupid they knew exactly what they were doing... it's all the millions of people on the fringe who did the fighting who were stupid and wondering how they got drawn into the whole mess (again.. just like Iraq today!) The story's the same... the lies are the same, only the characters change! ... and the person telling story.

4. Umm a million dollars IS serious finance Mr. I'm Above It All'... if it isn't ....just march outside and give the 1st homeless person you encounter $10, 50 or a $100 bucks... I bet the best you've done is about a buck. ... yeah a million bucks isn't serious finance.Get it 1st.. then back here and spread that stupidity. A million is serious, 10 million dead serious and 100 million+ can cause nations to go to WAR!
I have a copy of an actual check on my office wall to the tune of $383 Million Dollars.... I know what serious finance is... and I've seen up close and personal what it can do. If should ever get close to a million dollars.. I'll bet anything you'll defend keeping it more vociferously than the Slave-Holders did to keep their slaves... you talk the nonsense you do because it's like talking about a comic strip... it isn't real too you. And at the rate you understand it... if you do get close.. someone is sure to take it from you before you can figure out what happened!

Nevermind that I digress while indulging in your ridiculous swipe at 'a million dollars'.

You have no idea what my understanding of finance might be.

You make it plain as day.

None of this has anything to do with the topic.

Another stupid statement... it was ALL ABOUT MONEY/VALUE! On both sides! If the South was giant swamp without slaves... 1) the South would not have left. 2) and if they wanted to... the North would have let them. But it's not a giant swamp... it's highly valued real estate. It would have served you well to look at some Hollywood 2 weeks ago ... namely the PBS production- The Making of America:Slavery. It spend 4 hours of showcasing the economic impact of the human slave trade. A most profound comment--"... to the South, the only thing more valuable than the Slave himself... was the land!"

And that is what the North's biggest beef was... 'Preserving the Union= the Land stays here!' .. now you can dress that up in all the fancy semantics you want... it doesn't change one iota of that equation. Slavery had nothing to with it. Lincoln said if himself... 'if keeping Slavery legal would preserve the Union... he'd have no problem with it!'

As far as the South was concerned ...the wealth from the slave trade was equal to the wealth addiction of a drug dealer-- "... it's wrong.. but don't fcuk with my money or tell me what to do with it or there will be hell to pay! Now go ahead and toss in the legistive frustrations and gymnastics over states rights and all the other bullsh*t... that's just political jargon and hot air. It's just like the Declaration of Independence... it calls the native americans 'savages' but no one wants to talk about that part.. they only speak of the 'noble, patriotic and gut-warming' terms.

A moment's thought would tell you that the line "fighting for the property we've won by honest toil" was a reference to slaves. Presumably everyone who eve sang that song understood the role of money in politics.

Except you.

Why reference anything... you've gotta tongue... 'Just say it, man... don't mince words!

After all the democrats still have clansmen such as Robert Byrd holding positions of power in their party.

L-188.. we've gone over than a zillion times.. just give me an expiration date on when you'll let that go... the man has apologized for his past and made far greater strides than others of that ilk (Thurmond, Lott, Wallace, etc.,.) ... just give us a heads up of when you plan on letting it go... that'd be very considerate...

It just makes me wonder... if Hilary Clinton had a Man-Slaughter charge on her record instead of Laura Bush (you never seem to mention that) would be on her case too for the next 30 years or so.. or would you cut her the same slack you're obviously given Laura.... just wondering.

Fed Ex Mech... back to History Class for you...

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:33 pm

A few historical facts here for some folks.

I think it's misleading to say "Lincoln tried to avoid war". Hell, he was only in office a month when Ft. Sumpter was fired on. It's more accurate to say Lincoln never, ever wanted a war. He certainly didn't get elected to preside over a fractured nation.

I think DL021 hit it on the head, with his explaination of why some Confederate sympathizers call it "The War Of Northern Aggression." The rationale of the South as a victim came to life shortly after Robert E. Lee's death in 1870. It was picked up by many post-war historians, many taking up the defiant attitude of former Confederate General Jubal T. Early, who was one of the first of the Southerners to build up the legacy of Robert E. Lee, and of the south as victim, not aggressor.

It was a way with many in the south to cope with the devistation the war had visited on them-this "South as Victim" perspective gave the South a legendary hero in General Lee, for a while, gave them a scapegoat, namely the north, and even former Confederate Generals like James Longstreet, and tried to put the onus for the war on the North, which is pure fantasy, but it did help sustain many in the south for long after the war.

There are a few souls who actually believe this theory, but historical fact tends to get in the way of their trying to reshape history. It was the South who broke away after the election; It was the South who fired on Ft. Sumter.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:53 pm

and even former Confederate Generals like James Longstreet, and tried to put the onus for the war on the North, which is pure fantasy, but it did help sustain many in the south for long after the war.

Absolutely and therein lies my argument... 'never ending attempts to phrase or say things in such a manner as to assuage or pacify someone's feelings or even make them feel better about themselves or 'a past event' of their involvement!

In a nutshell... looking to place blame instead of placing squarely and exactly where it belongs! And getting someone stepping up and saying 'yep.. we f*ucked up, we were wrong... that's it!'... but the Nation that has mastered.. no.. made an artform of chronic denial... it'll never.. ever happen. As individuals we do it all day long.. but as a cohesive unit, officially.. it'll never happen. And the revisionist won't tire until their version is accepted as fact!


BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 2:01 pm

Can anyone tell me if people in the south still celebrate things like "Jefferson Davis Day", and the like? I know the south used to make a big show of the anniversary of the birth of the Confederacy, and celebrated Jeff Davis and Bobby Lee, but does that still go on?

No doubt, Robert E. Lee was a great General, but I do think he was over-rated a bit. He was a very good defensive General, and he did have a knack for exploiting a mistake by an opponent. But I think his greatness has to be measured against those, up until Grant took over the AOP, of who his adversaries were: McLellan, Pope, Burnside, Hooker. I mean, that's not exactly an All-Star lineup of American Generalship. With Grant-and before him Meade, from Gettysburg until Grant took the reins as, basically, Supreme Commander of Northern forces, Lee didnt fare so well. When up against the best the North had, which was Sam Grant, the game was up.

As an offensive strategist, Lee is well behind Grant. As a defensive strategist, I think only Longstreet was better than he was. Great yes, but not other-worldly. But his dogged determination gave the south, after Lee's death, a hero to cling to for a century.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 2:24 pm

Can anyone tell me if people in the south still celebrate things like "Jefferson Davis Day", and the like? I know the south used to make a big show of the anniversary of the birth of the Confederacy, and celebrated Jeff Davis and Bobby Lee, but does that still go on?

Falcon - not that I can tell. SCV and League of the South do usually do something for Confederate Memorial Day on the State House grounds, usually reading the names of all the South Carolinians who died in the Civil War...usually pretty understated. Mind you bigger cities like CAE, CHS, and GSP don't see that type of stuff anymore, but in smaller towns like Swansea (where the local Klan used to have a weekly parade in full regalia) that sort of stuff may still happen. I don't venture out into small-town SC enough to know.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
UALPHLCS
Posts: 3233
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:50 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 2:53 pm

JGPH1A
Quoting JGPH1A (reply 9):
Yes he was. But in those enlightened days, Republican did not mean closet-fascist, rabid ultra-right wing Christian taliban like it does now. It was the more interventionist and Federalist of the parties, whereas the Democrats were the small-government, States' Rights anti-liberal party



First off today's Republican party IS NOT the party you refer to above. I'm sorry if a more literal reading of the US Constitution, and a lasse faire policy toward the economy, offends you. But it most certainly is NOT fascism. Those who can't argue facts call names. In fact the core principles of the Republican party of Lincoln and Today have changed very little.

The Repbulican PArty back then was Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men.

Free Soil, meant that the land out west was the public's land and not to be sold to the Railroads. The government was claiming it for itself to sell to the railroads in backroom deals. Graft was a huge problem. It was also a protest against expanding slavery into the territories.

Free labor was a call that men could work there way up in society. That no man was fixed as a labourer just becasue he was born poor. If he educated himself and worked hard he could be anything he wanted to be. Lincoln exemplified this on the campaign trail noting his early days slitting rails before educating himself and passing the bar.

Free Men is the anit slavery plank. but today it is best explified in Bush's inaguaral address. The Republican party set men free in the US now it has commited the nation to setting men free all over the world.

ON the other hand the Democrat party was the party of Slavery. Anti-immagrant Nativism. Anti-Catholism. Anti- National Bank, and industrial growth. Today, we see this manifest in the failed "war on poverty" 40 years of Democrat programs and urban people are still poor, and still oppressed. The democrats don't practice Nativism anymore but they certainly would like to pander to the illegal immagrants while ignoring those who have come here leagally. The Democrats are still anti-economic growth. Be it in their tax polic or thier pandering to the "Greens." The new Red is Green.

So in a way while the progressive ideas of the 1850-1880 Republicans have become "Conservative", the Conservativism of the old Democrat party has somehow become progressive.

Somehow these old ideas have been substituted for the socialist agenda of the 1930's Progressives, and been labled "progressive" or liberal.

In any event to finally answer the question posed in the original thread.

The War of Northern Aggression, is an anachonistic term. From the 1870's to the 1960's the Civil War was refered to in many Southern textbooks as The War of Northern Aggression, but more commonly simply The War Between the States. Civil War implies that there was a rebellion against the lawful government. Once Reconstruction failed and the Northern military governments were returned to the States, Southerners felt imboldened to tell the story their way, pass Jim Crow laws and lynch blacks for crimes that whites would stand trial for.

History is written by the victors, Well the North won the War, but the South Won Reconstruction. So they told the story they wanted to tell. After the Civil Rights Movement destroyed the "Lost Cause" culture that grew up under Jim Crow, the name was changed to Civil War. Besides, textbooks are printed nationally, It would be impossible for a national textbook publisher to write a slanted version of a history text and sell it North and South.
A little less Hooah, and a little more Dooah.
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: War Of Northern Aggression

Fri Mar 04, 2005 3:15 pm

A friend of mine in Arkansas likes to refer to the war as The War of Northern Aggression, but he's more mellow about it. A few of them (not all of them) are able to look at the war somewhat objectively. Though what's done is done, it's interesting to hear southerners describe their feelings about the war, like how Lincoln was only being political when he delivered the Emancipation Proclamation (and I agree on that one), how the North drove the South into secession and firing the 1st shot and all. From what I've seen, (and I lived in SC for 2 years) those are also the same few who freely admit their ancestors (or those of their neighbors) were inhuman to incorporate slavery.

-R
Living the American Dream

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GGtai, LAX772LR, PacificBeach88 and 16 guests