I always find the Savernake Shunt does the trick. Which means, unless I’m very much mistaken, that Swiss Cottage is playable in the present position.
It becomes more understandable when you realize that the biscuits are not biscuits and the gravy is not gravy. Proof.
Gotcha.
So I take it that real biscuits are called cookies and real gravy is called -erm- gravy?
Correct.
Yep. There is the brown stuff that you will be familiar with. At least on the packets, this is called “brown gravy”. Maybe some passing American can clarify, but it seems that when using the word “gravy”, the type of gravy is context-sensitive. “Biscuits and gravy” means the thick white stuff; “beef in gravy” would mean the thin brown stuff.
There are about as many kinds of gravy as there are things to put it on. Regular brown gravy is the workhorse, goes on darn near everything. For your biscuits or your chicken-fried steak, though, you want what I call “cream gravy”, which is the white stuff. That’s okay on potatoes, too. And there’s “red-eye gravy”, which is made with coffee and ham drippings.
(did we already explain chicken-fried steak in this thread? I’m too lazy to plow through every post)
We’ll have to agree to disagree. I looked at that thread, and from what I saw, it argued both ways. Suit yourself, but I maintain that slavery was a side issue in the Civil War and that it was all about states’ rights. If the South had somehow been defeated early on, in 1861 or 1862, slavery would probably have been left alone, at least for a while.
I was just about to ask… 
Yeah, I’ll have to disagree too. If slavery had not been an issue, there would have been no need or opportunity to assert state’s rights at all. This “state’s rights” stuff is just post-Reconstruction revisionism.
Not at all. The South’s secession was a pre-emptive strike, if you will. They decided they did not like the signs as they saw them, so tried to withdraw. The North said no they couldn’t do that. I’m sure if the South had never withdrawn, the slavery issue would have come to a head sooner or later – and hopefully sooner rather than later – but the North in the beginning was interested only in keeping the South in. If the South had folded right away, there’d still have been slavery for at least a few years to come.
Absolutely none of this supports the statement that “Slavery was a side issue and the Civil War was about states’ rights.” Indeed, what you say here supports the idea that slavery was the central issue in the Civil War.
It’s steak that’s fried in breading like fried chicken. It’s my holy grail of culinary delights. I really want it, but I feel I must travel to the South to get it. Can I rely on a New England Denny’s to do it right?
Suit yourself. We definitely agree to disagree then.
And some Italian-Americans call red sauce “gravy.” When you hear that word, you really have to understand the context to know what is being talked about!
Chicken fried steak is one thing I REALLY miss about the US. I introduced my Thai wife to chicken fried steak at a great little diner in Texas I knew, and she absolutely loved it. Good chicken fried steak cannot be described, it can only be experienced.
Sorry, but you’re simply wrong. Go back and read what the Southerners were saying in 1860 - not their later post-war revisions. In 1860, they made it quite clear that slavery was the only issue on the table. The biggest mention given to states rights was when South Carolina denounced the principle of states rights because some northern states were using it to abolish slavery. South Carolina said the Federal government should have used its power to overrule the states and protect slavery.
I will concede that Northerners were thinking about other issues besides slavery. But their opinions aren’t really material to this issue - they weren’t the ones seceding. The people who did secede did so because of slavery and they openly said so.
I read a NY Times article saying that chicken fried steak is essentally Wiener Schnitzel made with beef rather than veal. German immigrants were just making what they had back home but substituting mature beef which was more readily available than veal.
Exactly! That’s what the Southerners were saying, and THEY were plain wrong. They opted to secede to prevent what they thought was an imminent attempt by the North to end slavery. The North probably would have attempted it at some point, but it was not as eminent as the South thought. Once the South seceded, the North was only interested, at first, in teaching them they couldn’t do that. That’s why slavery was still allowed in the four border states. the Emancipation Proclamation even specifically says states that were in rebellion had to free their slaves, not the border states.
I DO understand, though, why people would want to see it as a simple good-versus-evil slavery-versus-freedom struggle, but it simply was not like that.
I don’t know the history of chicken fried steak, but Man! With that white gravy on top of it, I’d just about kill for a portion. Mmmm!
Ah, I found it. One of my favorite historians, JM Roberts in his excellent “The Penguin History of the World”:
"At the beginning of the war he [Lincoln] had spoken only of restoring the proper order order of affairs: there were things happening in the Southern states, he told the people, ‘too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings’ and they would require military operations. This view broadened into a consistent reiteration that the war was fundamentally about preserving the Union; Lincoln’s aim in fighting was to reunite the states which composed it. For a long time this meant that he failed to satisfy those who sought from the war the abolition of slavery. But in the end he came round to it. In 1862 he could still say in a public letter that:
"‘If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.’
“But he did so at a moment when he had already decided that he must proclaim the emancipation of slaves in the rebel states. It became effective on New Year’s Day 1863; thus the nightmare of Southern politicians was reality at last, though only because of the war they had courted. It transformed the nature of the struggle, though not very obviously.”
Well, I’ve said my piece. I’m sure others can come up with quotes to counter the one above; I’ve no doubt someone could show that the whole Civil War was a direct result of tidal movements along the Atlantic. But this is starting to descend into a “Yes it was; no it wasn’t” sort of slanging match, so I’ll leave it be now. It never was my intention to hijack this thread, so I’ll say no more.
I do want some chicken fried steak now though.
Siam, your argument boils down to this:
Premise 1 - Southerners seceded because they were afraid that Northerners were going to abolish slavery.
Premise 2- Lincoln, though he would ideally liked to have abolished slavery at some point, held as his primary goal the preservation of the union.
Conclusion - Therefore, “slavery was a side issue in the Civil War and that it was all about states’ rights”
Can you see how your conclusion fails to follow from your premises?