John Stamos
This was being said on both sides. In the South, a lot of poor whites felt they were fighting for rich planters, not in uniform, to continue their life of feudal privilege. In the North, there was a bad law that allowed highly-placed young men to pay a substitute to enlist in their place. This not only caused much resentment; it flooded the armies with men of low ability and dubious character, supplied by unscrupulous brokers. As for this Mr. Watson, I don't know who he was, and would be interested to know.
Linkin Park
Dr. Strangelove
there jobs were to fight in the civil war for the union, but the slave owners trick African Americans into being on their side because slave owners said;" if you fight on our side i will let you be free".there jobs were to fight in the civil war for the union, but the slave owners trick African Americans into being on their side because slave owners said;" if you fight on our side i will let you be free".there jobs were to fight in the civil war for the union, but the slave owners trick African Americans into being on their side because slave owners said;" if you fight on our side i will let you be free".there jobs were to fight in the civil war for the union, but the slave owners trick African Americans into being on their side because slave owners said;" if you fight on our side i will let you be free".
It was James K. Polk in 1844. more information is available on the link below
They said it was a rich man's war and a poor man's fight. That was because a lot of dirt-poor troops were having to fight for the profits of rich landowners who were not in uniform. Northern troops were saying the same - because of the disastrous law that allowed rich young men to pay a substitute to enlist in their place.
No, the rich people wanted to get rid of the kings so they decided to get rid of them, but they couldn't do it on their own, so they decided to get the poor men to do it for them. But the poor men wanted something in return, so the rich people said ok, if you fight for us we wil give you power, so the poor men said yes to the rich people and they went to fight. When the fight was over and the poor men had won, the poor men went to ask for their power but instead the rich people didn't want to give them any power. And blah blah blah.
William Harrison in a 1840 speech (making the rich richer and the poor poorer) Shelley in 1840 said That the rich have become richer and the poor poorer In modern times, Stanley Lebergott states that under a free market, the rich get rich and the poor get poorer.
It is said that Archimedes, as child, he and his family were rich and noble.
This was being said on both sides. In the South, a lot of poor whites felt they were fighting for rich planters, not in uniform, to continue their life of feudal privilege. In the North, there was a bad law that allowed highly-placed young men to pay a substitute to enlist in their place. This not only caused much resentment; it flooded the armies with men of low ability and dubious character, supplied by unscrupulous brokers. As for this Mr. Watson, I don't know who he was, and would be interested to know.
Andy Warhol
Linkin Park
Peter Pan
Ulysses S. grant was neither poor nor very rich in his lifetime. He is said to of lived above his means, but was not poor at all. He was just an average person.
None
William J. H. Boetcker
Karl Marx (1818-1883)