America was FOUNDED on secession

[ So long as business in the U.S. is willing to employ illegal aliens, they will find a way to get here, no matter what.

Companies that hire illegals are traitors who support the mexican destruction of america and we need leaders who will say that. Unfortunately all our leaders are traitors too and take money from the illegal alien lobby.
 
So ask your Messiah to do something to stop it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/us/politics/30raid.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1


....
Last year, according to government figures, the enforcement agency started 2,746 workplace investigations in addition to the audits, more than double the number in 2008, the last full year of the Bush administration. Fines totaling about $43 million, also a record, were levied on companies in immigration cases.

Yeah, they're tracking gun sales to Mexico too. ;)

I think you mean
Yeah, like anything Obama actually does even matters! I just hate him! Dee de Dur!
 
Wow! So that MUST mean the war had NOTHING to do with slavery!

Pretty much true. Slavery was certainly not the cause of the war though the historians have brainwashed the public into thinking it was. History is written by the victors.
 
[


Oh, sorry, my bad, its just a coincidence that most slave states were in the Confederacy and zero free states were.

Glad you used the word "most" because even you apparently realize some of the northern states had slavery too. That makes it preposterous to claim the civil war was about freeing the slaves.
 
Wow! So that MUST mean the war had NOTHING to do with slavery!

Pretty much true. Slavery was certainly not the cause of the war though the historians have brainwashed the public into thinking it was. History is written by the victors.

Pretty much false, The southern rich may have been pissed about various economic issues but it was the promise of western land and their own slaves that got the southern poor man in the field shooting at yankees.

I would post the most brilliant and clearly written contemporary account of the reasons why the war started but you wouldn't read it, it conflicts with your fantasy.
 
The southern rich may have been pissed about various economic issues but it was the promise of western land and their own slaves that got the southern poor man in the field shooting at yankees.

I doubt that, as it was pretty clear that slavery was on the way out. Gradually restrictive litigation in the US, including the South, and other European countries dropping the practice made its elimination a certainty. It was just a question of when, because doing it instantaneously would have obliterated the economy.
 
The southern rich may have been pissed about various economic issues but it was the promise of western land and their own slaves that got the southern poor man in the field shooting at yankees.

I doubt that, as it was pretty clear that slavery was on the way out. Gradually restrictive litigation in the US, including the South, and other European countries dropping the practice made its elimination a certainty. It was just a question of when, because doing it instantaneously would have obliterated the economy.

The only major difference between the constitution of the confederacy and the US constitution was to set the institution of slavery among the rights guaranteed and protected by the state. They meant to keep it no matter the cost.
 
The southern rich may have been pissed about various economic issues but it was the promise of western land and their own slaves that got the southern poor man in the field shooting at yankees.

I doubt that, as it was pretty clear that slavery was on the way out. Gradually restrictive litigation in the US, including the South, and other European countries dropping the practice made its elimination a certainty. It was just a question of when, because doing it instantaneously would have obliterated the economy.

No, it wasn't. Have you ever heard the phrase, "Cotton is king"? Cotton was the number one industry of the south and it was dependent upon slavery. Slavery was not going away.
 
Wow! So that MUST mean the war had NOTHING to do with slavery!

Pretty much true. Slavery was certainly not the cause of the war though the historians have brainwashed the public into thinking it was. History is written by the victors.

Sure! Its only a coincidence every single confederate state had slavery.

Man you're fucking stupid.
 
[


Oh, sorry, my bad, its just a coincidence that most slave states were in the Confederacy and zero free states were.

Glad you used the word "most" because even you apparently realize some of the northern states had slavery too. That makes it preposterous to claim the civil war was about freeing the slaves.

I didn't say the war was about freeing the slaves.

You can't fucking comprehend English, can you?
 
The southern rich may have been pissed about various economic issues but it was the promise of western land and their own slaves that got the southern poor man in the field shooting at yankees.

I doubt that, as it was pretty clear that slavery was on the way out. Gradually restrictive litigation in the US, including the South, and other European countries dropping the practice made its elimination a certainty. It was just a question of when, because doing it instantaneously would have obliterated the economy.

Not if the southern plantation owners made the move to wage slavery. They would have soon found its cheaper that way. If a slave is hurt working the field - you've got to see he's taken care of. If a wage slave is hurt in the field, you tell him never to come back and fuck him who cares if he dies?
 
The southern rich may have been pissed about various economic issues but it was the promise of western land and their own slaves that got the southern poor man in the field shooting at yankees.

I doubt that, as it was pretty clear that slavery was on the way out. Gradually restrictive litigation in the US, including the South, and other European countries dropping the practice made its elimination a certainty. It was just a question of when, because doing it instantaneously would have obliterated the economy.

Not if the southern plantation owners made the move to wage slavery. They would have soon found its cheaper that way. If a slave is hurt working the field - you've got to see he's taken care of. If a wage slave is hurt in the field, you tell him never to come back and fuck him who cares if he dies?

Had the south been left to their plans they would have conquered the Carribbean, Mexico and Central America and pushed slavery well into the twentieth century. Sugar is still a labor intensive process and Haitian slaves work Dominican sugar fields right now, imagine had the south managed to corner the sugar industry in this hemisphere? That alone would have been enough to preserve the institution until the present day.
 
I doubt that, as it was pretty clear that slavery was on the way out. Gradually restrictive litigation in the US, including the South, and other European countries dropping the practice made its elimination a certainty. It was just a question of when, because doing it instantaneously would have obliterated the economy.

Not if the southern plantation owners made the move to wage slavery. They would have soon found its cheaper that way. If a slave is hurt working the field - you've got to see he's taken care of. If a wage slave is hurt in the field, you tell him never to come back and fuck him who cares if he dies?

Had the south been left to their plans they would have conquered the Carribbean, Mexico and Central America and pushed slavery well into the twentieth century. Sugar is still a labor intensive process and Haitian slaves work Dominican sugar fields right now, imagine had the south managed to corner the sugar industry in this hemisphere? That alone would have been enough to preserve the institution until the present day.

You've got a truckload of stupid if you think that slavery would have lasted to today.
 
I doubt that, as it was pretty clear that slavery was on the way out. Gradually restrictive litigation in the US, including the South, and other European countries dropping the practice made its elimination a certainty. It was just a question of when, because doing it instantaneously would have obliterated the economy.

Not if the southern plantation owners made the move to wage slavery. They would have soon found its cheaper that way. If a slave is hurt working the field - you've got to see he's taken care of. If a wage slave is hurt in the field, you tell him never to come back and fuck him who cares if he dies?

Had the south been left to their plans they would have conquered the Carribbean, Mexico and Central America and pushed slavery well into the twentieth century. Sugar is still a labor intensive process and Haitian slaves work Dominican sugar fields right now, imagine had the south managed to corner the sugar industry in this hemisphere? That alone would have been enough to preserve the institution until the present day.

The South was too poor to conquer anything.

If you don't like the work conditions on Dominican sugar plantations, buy LOUISIANA Sugar.
 
[

The South was too poor to conquer anything.

.

What an incredibly ignorant thing to say. The south didn't want to conquer anything - they just wanted to leave and be left alone. The north was the agressor and that's for sure.

BTW - the south, poor or not, did come close to winning the CW. They were ahead two years into the 4 year war. The north invaded the south and the occupying force always has a tough time compared to the home forces that know the terrain and don't have to maintain supply lines hundreds of miles long.
 

Forum List

Back
Top