The Civil War

[gtopa1]

The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?

The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.

No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.

Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.

Greg

The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?

I do remember. Do you remember that they shot at Sumpter because they seceded from the Union? Do you remember the reason they did that?

Yes; it was then Sth Carolina so a part of the Confederate States; the Union soldiers were trespassing. Re-inforcing the fort was an act of war. Also, Ft Sumter was about 85 Union Troops of whom 84 survived....ONE died when his cannon blew up!!!

btw: your buddy Marx said:

"In October 1861 Marx, who was living in Primrose Hill, summed up the view of the British press: ‘The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty.’ That view was shared by Charles Dickens, who wrote: ‘The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.’"

The American Civil War: A North-South Divide | History Today

www.historytoday.com

Greg

 

[forkup]

Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.

Name a specific other one please?

Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”

The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.

 

[gtopa1]

Another part of the history that seems to have been forgotten is what the south said they wanted. They had some grand plans. Since they had depleted their soil slavery had been a losing proposition for some time but they had a way to keep it. Instead of using slaves to grow crops they would grow slaves for export. They foresaw selling slaves to the west and to the entirety of Mexico and South America which they thought we should annex by force. Turns out the North was not too hot on all that.

sauce?????

Greg

 

[initforme]

How did the south justify slavery?

 

[gtopa1]

Another part of the history that seems to have been forgotten is what the south said they wanted. They had some grand plans. Since they had depleted their soil slavery had been a losing proposition for some time but they had a way to keep it. Instead of using slaves to grow crops they would grow slaves for export. They foresaw selling slaves to the west and to the entirety of Mexico and South America which they thought we should annex by force. Turns out the North was not too hot on all that.

I think I heard that somewhere but was it ever actually a policy? I have yet to see that it was. be a good chap and dig up that source if possible.

Greg

 

[forkup]

The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?

The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.

No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.

Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.

Greg

The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?

I do remember. Do you remember that they shot at Sumpter because they seceded from the Union? Do you remember the reason they did that?

Yes; it was then Sth Carolina so a part of the Confederate States; the Union soldiers were trespassing. Re-inforcing the fort was an act of war. Also, Ft Sumter was about 85 Union Troops of whom 84 survived....ONE died when his cannon blew up!!!

btw: your buddy Marx said:

"In October 1861 Marx, who was living in Primrose Hill, summed up the view of the British press: ‘The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty.’ That view was shared by Charles Dickens, who wrote: ‘The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.’"

The American Civil War: A North-South Divide | History Today

www.historytoday.com

Greg

And what made South Carolima decide they didn't want to be part of the Union anymore?

 

[Jets]

Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.

Name a specific other one please?

Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”

The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.

That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.

 

[gtopa1]

How did the south justify slavery?

The same way the North did prior to 1861. You know some slave owning states joined 'The North", don't you??



Greg

 

[initforme]

Yes I do. And I have zero respect for any of the slave owning lazy men.

 

[occupied]

Another part of the history that seems to have been forgotten is what the south said they wanted. They had some grand plans. Since they had depleted their soil slavery had been a losing proposition for some time but they had a way to keep it. Instead of using slaves to grow crops they would grow slaves for export. They foresaw selling slaves to the west and to the entirety of Mexico and South America which they thought we should annex by force. Turns out the North was not too hot on all that.

sauce?????

Greg

Here's the article by Marx you quoted. One of the finest contemporary examinations of the Question.

Karl Marx - The American Civil War

 

[Correll]

Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.

Name a specific other one please?

Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”

The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.

Why did Lincoln lie about it then?

 

[forkup]

Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.

Name a specific other one please?

Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”

The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.

That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.

If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst.

I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.

 

[Correll]

Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.

Name a specific other one please?

Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”

The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.

That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.

If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst.

I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.

Why did Lincoln lie about that then?

 

[gtopa1]

The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?

The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.

No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.

Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.

Greg

The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?

I do remember. Do you remember that they shot at Sumpter because they seceded from the Union? Do you remember the reason they did that?

Yes; it was then Sth Carolina so a part of the Confederate States; the Union soldiers were trespassing. Re-inforcing the fort was an act of war. Also, Ft Sumter was about 85 Union Troops of whom 84 survived....ONE died when his cannon blew up!!!

btw: your buddy Marx said:

"In October 1861 Marx, who was living in Primrose Hill, summed up the view of the British press: ‘The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty.’ That view was shared by Charles Dickens, who wrote: ‘The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.’"

The American Civil War: A North-South Divide | History Today

www.historytoday.com

Greg

And what made South Carolima decide they didn't want to be part of the Union anymore?

$$$$$$$$

As Marx said; it was a TARIFF WAR. do look it up. Remember that the North's Industrial base had tremendous clout and paid few taxes.

In May of 1860 the U. S. Congress passed the Morrill Tariff Bill (named for Republican Congressman and steel manufacturer, Justin S. Morrill of Vermont) raising the average tariff from about 15% to 37% with increases to 47% within three years. Although this was remarkably reminiscent of the Tariffs of Abomination which had led in 1832 to a constitutional crisis and threats of secession and armed force, the U. S. House of Representatives passed the Bill 105 to 64. Out of 40 Southern Congressmen only one Tennessee Congressman voted for it.

U. S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total even before the Morrill Tariff. While the tariff protected Northern industrial interests, it raised the cost of living and commerce in the South substantially. It also reduced the trade value of their agricultural exports to Europe. These combined to place a severe economic hardship on many Southern states. Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the North at the expense of the South.

In the 1860 election, Lincoln, a former Whig and great admirer of Henry Clay, campaigned for the high protective tariff provisions of the Morrill Tariff, which had also been incorporated into the Republican Party Platform. Thaddeus Stevens, the most powerful Republican in Congress and one of the co-sponsors of the Morrill Tariff, told an audience in New York City on September 27, 1860, that the two most important issues of the Presidential campaign were preventing the extension of slavery to new states and an increase in the tariff, but that the most important of the two was increasing the tariff. Stevens, a Pennsylvania iron manufacturer, was also one of the most radical abolitionists in Congress. He told the New York audience that the tariff would enrich the northeastern states and impoverish the southern and western states, but that it was essential for advancing national greatness and the prosperity of industrial workers. Stevens, who would become virtually the “boss’ of America after the assassination of Lincoln, advised the crowd that if Southern leaders objected, they would be rounded up and hanged.

Two days before Lincoln’s election in November of 1860, an editorial in the Charleston Mercury summed up the feeling of South Carolina on the impending national crisis:

“The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government, from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism.”

True causes of the Uncivil War: Understanding the Morrill Tariff

“The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.” ~ Charles Dickens Most Americans believe …

metropolis.cafe

Marx was of course a pos, but probably right on this.

btw: I am NOT rusted on wrt causes.....but in EVERY War/Revolution I've looked at over the years, the root has been $ and the justifications by the winners after the event were MORAL issues. The problem is trying, as the DemoKKKrats are doing, demonising others using some historic canards.

Greg

 

[forkup]

Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.

Name a specific other one please?

Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”

The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.

That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.

If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst.

I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.

Why did Lincoln lie about that then?

What specifically is "that" if you want me to respond?

 

[Batcat]

Why didn't the plantation owners simply hire workers at a fair wage? Why did the lazy owners need slaves?

You can breed and sell slaves. You can’t do that with workers.

Measuring Slavery in 2016 Dollars*

by

Samuel H. Williamson
Miami University
MeasuringWorth
[email protected]

and

Louis P. Cain
Loyola University Chicago
Northwestern University
[email protected]​

***snip***

​

The demand for a slave is a derived demand, as is that for any productive resource. It is derived from the demand for the output that resource helps to produce. There was an active market for slaves throughout the antebellum period, meaning that slave owners believed the purchase of a slave would prove to be a profitable expenditure, even though that expenditure required a considerable amount of money3. As we will explain below, at the time the South seceded from the Union, the purchase of a single slave represented as much as $150,000 and more in today's prices. This was twice the average of 14 years earlier, indicating a sustained growth in the demand for slaves. Economists would say that these observations alone indicate that the profitability of "investing" in a slave was increasing substantially.

Why would a slave have so much value? A short answer is the value of a slave is the value of the expected output or services the slave can generate minus the costs of maintaining that person (i.e., food, clothing, shelter, etc.) over his or her lifetime.4. A quick list of the data that have to be considered in determining the value of a slave's expected revenue would include sex, age, location, how much he or she is likely to produce (a factor that included a slave's health and physical condition), and the price of the output in the market. For a female slave, an additional thing to consider would be the value of the children she might bear.

In addition, there is considerable evidence that slaves were worked harder than free labor in Southern agriculture; what slaves could be induced to produce in bondage was greater than what they could be expected to produce with the freedom to make their own choice of labor or leisure.

https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php

 

[occupied]

Another part of the history that seems to have been forgotten is what the south said they wanted. They had some grand plans. Since they had depleted their soil slavery had been a losing proposition for some time but they had a way to keep it. Instead of using slaves to grow crops they would grow slaves for export. They foresaw selling slaves to the west and to the entirety of Mexico and South America which they thought we should annex by force. Turns out the North was not too hot on all that.

I think I heard that somewhere but was it ever actually a policy? I have yet to see that it was. be a good chap and dig up that source if possible.

Greg

Already posted a source but there used to be these things called "Books" people used to read before the internet. Turns out I can't remember where I got every single fact I've ever read.

 

[Correll]

Slavery was one of the main causes of the civil war. However, it was not the sole one.

Name a specific other one please?

Apologies, that should have read”slavery was the main cause, not the sole one”

The problem I have is that all the other causes you are I would be willing to name will all boil down to slavery. War never ever breaks out over one particular reason. The US civil war has probably one of the most straightforward root causes in history.

That was the point I was trying to make, as you correctly stated,war does not break out over one particular reason. The issues may all connect to one main one, but it does not mean they are all one and the same.

If they all connect to the same one the other reasons aren't all that relevant and for the purpose of revisionism distracting at the least and dishonest at worst.

I usually appluad nuance I really do but to often in this narrative its used as a justification for starting a war in order to preserve something that was recognised as reprehensible even at that time.

Why did Lincoln lie about that then?

What specifically is "that" if you want me to respond?

YOu made a point. My reply was addressing your point.


"That", was a reference to your point.



I understand that this is very alien to you.



Now, to take this back to my point.



Why did Lincoln lie about that then?



(i hope you were able to follow that. I know it was a lot of information and very complex, what with you saying something and me asking you a question about it)

 

[occupied]

The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?

The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.

No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.

Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.

Greg

The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?

I do remember. Do you remember that they shot at Sumpter because they seceded from the Union? Do you remember the reason they did that?

Yes; it was then Sth Carolina so a part of the Confederate States; the Union soldiers were trespassing. Re-inforcing the fort was an act of war. Also, Ft Sumter was about 85 Union Troops of whom 84 survived....ONE died when his cannon blew up!!!

btw: your buddy Marx said:

"In October 1861 Marx, who was living in Primrose Hill, summed up the view of the British press: ‘The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty.’ That view was shared by Charles Dickens, who wrote: ‘The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.’"

The American Civil War: A North-South Divide | History Today

www.historytoday.com

Greg

And what made South Carolima decide they didn't want to be part of the Union anymore?

$$$$$$$$

As Marx said; it was a TARIFF WAR. do look it up. Remember that the North's Industrial base had tremendous clout and paid few taxes.

In May of 1860 the U. S. Congress passed the Morrill Tariff Bill (named for Republican Congressman and steel manufacturer, Justin S. Morrill of Vermont) raising the average tariff from about 15% to 37% with increases to 47% within three years. Although this was remarkably reminiscent of the Tariffs of Abomination which had led in 1832 to a constitutional crisis and threats of secession and armed force, the U. S. House of Representatives passed the Bill 105 to 64. Out of 40 Southern Congressmen only one Tennessee Congressman voted for it.

U. S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total even before the Morrill Tariff. While the tariff protected Northern industrial interests, it raised the cost of living and commerce in the South substantially. It also reduced the trade value of their agricultural exports to Europe. These combined to place a severe economic hardship on many Southern states. Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the North at the expense of the South.

In the 1860 election, Lincoln, a former Whig and great admirer of Henry Clay, campaigned for the high protective tariff provisions of the Morrill Tariff, which had also been incorporated into the Republican Party Platform. Thaddeus Stevens, the most powerful Republican in Congress and one of the co-sponsors of the Morrill Tariff, told an audience in New York City on September 27, 1860, that the two most important issues of the Presidential campaign were preventing the extension of slavery to new states and an increase in the tariff, but that the most important of the two was increasing the tariff. Stevens, a Pennsylvania iron manufacturer, was also one of the most radical abolitionists in Congress. He told the New York audience that the tariff would enrich the northeastern states and impoverish the southern and western states, but that it was essential for advancing national greatness and the prosperity of industrial workers. Stevens, who would become virtually the “boss’ of America after the assassination of Lincoln, advised the crowd that if Southern leaders objected, they would be rounded up and hanged.

Two days before Lincoln’s election in November of 1860, an editorial in the Charleston Mercury summed up the feeling of South Carolina on the impending national crisis:

“The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government, from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism.”

True causes of the Uncivil War: Understanding the Morrill Tariff

“The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.” ~ Charles Dickens Most Americans believe …

metropolis.cafe

Marx was of course a pos, but probably right on this.

btw: I am NOT rusted on wrt causes.....but in EVERY War/Revolution I've looked at over the years, the root has been $ and the justifications by the winners after the event were MORAL issues. The problem is trying, as the DemoKKKrats are doing, demonising others using some historic canards.

Greg

Marx was certain the war was over slavery. You didn't read the link I gave you.

 

[forkup]

The Civil War was all about slavery, OK? It wasn't the War of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States. That's bullshit. It was a Civil War, and it was about slavery. Denying that is like denying that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews in concentration camps... oh, wait, you deny that, too?

The end of slavery was one of the eventual outcomes of the war. Odd that every other country that had slaves was able to ban slavery without killing a million of its own citizens...UK and France for example.

No you silly person; the Civil War was about $....as usual.

Make no mistake; that slavery was ended was a good thing and overdue. You must also be aware that the North DESTROYED the South's ECONOMY. No money for reparations.

Greg

The North destroyed the South's economy because the South made war upon the North. Remember Fort Sumpter?

I do remember. Do you remember that they shot at Sumpter because they seceded from the Union? Do you remember the reason they did that?

Yes; it was then Sth Carolina so a part of the Confederate States; the Union soldiers were trespassing. Re-inforcing the fort was an act of war. Also, Ft Sumter was about 85 Union Troops of whom 84 survived....ONE died when his cannon blew up!!!

btw: your buddy Marx said:

"In October 1861 Marx, who was living in Primrose Hill, summed up the view of the British press: ‘The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty.’ That view was shared by Charles Dickens, who wrote: ‘The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.’"

The American Civil War: A North-South Divide | History Today

www.historytoday.com

Greg

And what made South Carolima decide they didn't want to be part of the Union anymore?

$$$$$$$$

As Marx said; it was a TARIFF WAR. do look it up. Remember that the North's Industrial base had tremendous clout and paid few taxes.

In May of 1860 the U. S. Congress passed the Morrill Tariff Bill (named for Republican Congressman and steel manufacturer, Justin S. Morrill of Vermont) raising the average tariff from about 15% to 37% with increases to 47% within three years. Although this was remarkably reminiscent of the Tariffs of Abomination which had led in 1832 to a constitutional crisis and threats of secession and armed force, the U. S. House of Representatives passed the Bill 105 to 64. Out of 40 Southern Congressmen only one Tennessee Congressman voted for it.

U. S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total even before the Morrill Tariff. While the tariff protected Northern industrial interests, it raised the cost of living and commerce in the South substantially. It also reduced the trade value of their agricultural exports to Europe. These combined to place a severe economic hardship on many Southern states. Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the North at the expense of the South.

In the 1860 election, Lincoln, a former Whig and great admirer of Henry Clay, campaigned for the high protective tariff provisions of the Morrill Tariff, which had also been incorporated into the Republican Party Platform. Thaddeus Stevens, the most powerful Republican in Congress and one of the co-sponsors of the Morrill Tariff, told an audience in New York City on September 27, 1860, that the two most important issues of the Presidential campaign were preventing the extension of slavery to new states and an increase in the tariff, but that the most important of the two was increasing the tariff. Stevens, a Pennsylvania iron manufacturer, was also one of the most radical abolitionists in Congress. He told the New York audience that the tariff would enrich the northeastern states and impoverish the southern and western states, but that it was essential for advancing national greatness and the prosperity of industrial workers. Stevens, who would become virtually the “boss’ of America after the assassination of Lincoln, advised the crowd that if Southern leaders objected, they would be rounded up and hanged.

Two days before Lincoln’s election in November of 1860, an editorial in the Charleston Mercury summed up the feeling of South Carolina on the impending national crisis:

“The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government, from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism.”

True causes of the Uncivil War: Understanding the Morrill Tariff

“The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.” ~ Charles Dickens Most Americans believe …

metropolis.cafe

Marx was of course a pos, but probably right on this.

btw: I am NOT rusted on wrt causes.....but in EVERY War/Revolution I've looked at over the years, the root has been $ and the justifications by the winners after the event were MORAL issues. The problem is trying, as the DemoKKKrats are doing, demonising others using some historic canards.

Greg

You know, you can claim that everybody dies because of the fact that the brain stops functioning . It's true for someone who has a heart attack or of someone who is beheaded. The problem is that its so generic a reason as to become useless. The same can be said about saying all wars are about money.