Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:44:42 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.

As Harry would say, your reading comprehension is flawed.

I never said they were better off being enslaved but I do say without
a divisive war their freedom and integration into society would have
been better if there was a financial incentive to let them go. If the
plantation owners could not sell "slave" cotton, they would find
another way to grow cotton that did not involve slaves.
We keep ignoring the fact that most of these former slaves ended up
picking cotton anyway and at slave wages.

Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

On 4/19/2016 12:44 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article FPKdnckyYI1-ZonKnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil War
... slavery.

I'm still waiting for your history text
recomendations that say otherwise.
I have no idea why you think the Civil War would have
occurred but for slavery. It makes no sense.
Maybe in searching for text to support your view, you
will be enlightened.
At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.



Rather than a book (that I doubt you would read) here's a couple of
rational discussions on the conventional wisdom that the Civil War
was just about slavery:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/falsifying-history-on-behalf-of-agendas-us-civil-war-was-about-money-not-slavery/5464841

Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:44:42 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.

As Harry would say, your reading comprehension is flawed.

I entered this thread after you said this:
"So you really think the civil war was worth the cost?
It certainly wasn't for black people. They were worse off
in the south for the first 40-50 years and it took almost
100 years for it to just get a little better."

There's only one way to read that.


I never said they were better off being enslaved but I do say without
a divisive war their freedom and integration into society would have
been better if there was a financial incentive to let them go. If the
plantation owners could not sell "slave" cotton, they would find
another way to grow cotton that did not involve slaves.
We keep ignoring the fact that most of these former slaves ended up
picking cotton anyway and at slave wages.

WTF? You haven't given any thought to what it means to be
enslaved. Maybe you think black people can "naturally"
accept being slaves. I can't teach you empathy.
Your alternative history goes against the facts.
The rebs wanted that war, and they got it.

Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:44:42 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article FPKdnckyYI1-ZonKnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil War
... slavery.

I'm still waiting for your history text
recomendations that say otherwise.
I have no idea why you think the Civil War would have
occurred but for slavery. It makes no sense.
Maybe in searching for text to support your view, you
will be enlightened.
At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.

What a liar!

You and Krause must get a kick out of putting words into the mouths of others.

Do you feel that enhances your 'argument'?
--

Ban liars, tax cheats, juvenile name-callers, and narcissists...not guns!

Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 05:43:16 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:44:42 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.

As Harry would say, your reading comprehension is flawed.

I entered this thread after you said this:
"So you really think the civil war was worth the cost?
It certainly wasn't for black people. They were worse off
in the south for the first 40-50 years and it took almost
100 years for it to just get a little better."

There's only one way to read that.


Exactly. The way it was written.
--

Ban liars, tax cheats, juvenile name-callers, and narcissists...not guns!

Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

In article ,
says...

On 4/19/2016 12:44 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article FPKdnckyYI1-ZonKnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil War
... slavery.

I'm still waiting for your history text
recomendations that say otherwise.
I have no idea why you think the Civil War would have
occurred but for slavery. It makes no sense.
Maybe in searching for text to support your view, you
will be enlightened.
At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.



Rather than a book (that I doubt you would read) here's a couple of
rational discussions on the conventional wisdom that the Civil War
was just about slavery:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/falsifying-history-on-behalf-of-agendas-us-civil-war-was-about-money-not-slavery/5464841

I read these unconvincing arguments by a neurophysiologist
and an economist. I prefer historians. One example:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military-jan-june11-
civilwar_04-12/
But I can't tell you where to get your information.
I never bought into other reasons for the war, because they
go against facts.

Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

On 4/19/16 7:08 AM, Keine Keyserschei�e wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:44:42 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article FPKdnckyYI1-ZonKnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil War
... slavery.

I'm still waiting for your history text
recomendations that say otherwise.
I have no idea why you think the Civil War would have
occurred but for slavery. It makes no sense.
Maybe in searching for text to support your view, you
will be enlightened.
At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.

What a liar!

You and Krause must get a kick out of putting words into the mouths of others.

Do you feel that enhances your 'argument'?
--


As if you had a clue...

Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

On 4/19/16 6:15 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2016 12:44 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article FPKdnckyYI1-ZonKnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil War
... slavery.

I'm still waiting for your history text
recomendations that say otherwise.
I have no idea why you think the Civil War would have
occurred but for slavery. It makes no sense.
Maybe in searching for text to support your view, you
will be enlightened.
At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.



Rather than a book (that I doubt you would read) here's a couple of
rational discussions on the conventional wisdom that the Civil War
was just about slavery:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html


http://www.globalresearch.ca/falsifying-history-on-behalf-of-agendas-us-civil-war-was-about-money-not-slavery/5464841




Slavery and the many issues attached to it, including economics, were
the cause and rationale for the Civil War. History revisionists and
apologists don't like to acknowledge the fact that at times in its
history, the United States was no better than many other countries in
its treatment of people of color. It's the same sort of argument you get
from Christian apologists who claim the horrors committed in the name of
that religion were somehow less horrible than the horrors committed in
the name of other religions.

Posit: If there had been no slavery in the South, there would have been
no Civil War.

Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

On 4/19/2016 7:35 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 4/19/2016 12:44 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article FPKdnckyYI1-ZonKnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil War
... slavery.

I'm still waiting for your history text
recomendations that say otherwise.
I have no idea why you think the Civil War would have
occurred but for slavery. It makes no sense.
Maybe in searching for text to support your view, you
will be enlightened.
At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.



Rather than a book (that I doubt you would read) here's a couple of
rational discussions on the conventional wisdom that the Civil War
was just about slavery:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/falsifying-history-on-behalf-of-agendas-us-civil-war-was-about-money-not-slavery/5464841

I read these unconvincing arguments by a neurophysiologist
and an economist. I prefer historians. One example:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military-jan-june11-
civilwar_04-12/
But I can't tell you where to get your information.
I never bought into other reasons for the war, because they
go against facts.


No, they go against what you read in Social Studies class in the sixth
grade.

"Slavery" became the talking point issue but there were many more
pressing reasons that 11 states elected to secede from the Union. The
war was fought to prevent them from seceding. In those days state
citizenship was much more important than being a citizen of the nation.
The 11 southern states felt the federal government was becoming too
intrusive and wanted no part of it. Abolitionism, led by the newly
founded Republican Party was only one of many bitches. Lincoln himself
was far from being a true abolitionist even though he led the Republican
movement.


He

https://www.learningthings.com/images/product/large/JWS0764552449.jpg

Happy birthday, John Herring...
 

On 4/19/2016 7:48 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 4/19/16 6:15 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/19/2016 12:44 AM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article FPKdnckyYI1-ZonKnZ2dnUU7-
, says...


According to you and BOA, there was only *one* reason for the Civil War
... slavery.

I'm still waiting for your history text
recomendations that say otherwise.
I have no idea why you think the Civil War would have
occurred but for slavery. It makes no sense.
Maybe in searching for text to support your view, you
will be enlightened.
At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.



Rather than a book (that I doubt you would read) here's a couple of
rational discussions on the conventional wisdom that the Civil War
was just about slavery:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html



http://www.globalresearch.ca/falsifying-history-on-behalf-of-agendas-us-civil-war-was-about-money-not-slavery/5464841





Slavery and the many issues attached to it, including economics, were
the cause and rationale for the Civil War. History revisionists and
apologists don't like to acknowledge the fact that at times in its
history, the United States was no better than many other countries in
its treatment of people of color. It's the same sort of argument you get
from Christian apologists who claim the horrors committed in the name of
that religion were somehow less horrible than the horrors committed in
the name of other religions.

Posit: If there had been no slavery in the South, there would have been
no Civil War.

We will never know. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't end
slavery. He made exceptions. He even publicly stated that blacks
should not have the full citizenship rights of whites.

There were many reasons for the Civil War. Abolishing slavery is a
simple and convenient explanation but it isn't the full story. It was
really seeded in state's rights as interpreted by the south and the
feeling that the federal government was becoming too intrusive.