I take you are referring to me as being the Australian revisionist?
I am not killing anyone, I am stating my view point and allowing
everyone else to state theirs.
Further you have not given any logical arguments as to how Lincoln
should have proceeded. So how can I kill anything that you have written?
Far as I am concerned Lincoln was caught between a rock and a hard place.
So if Iran, North Korea and others have a policy of developing nuclear
weapons they should (according to the average American) be able to do this?
I am not even going to mention the once former sovereign nations of Iraq
and Afghanistan.
The argument that slavery would have naturally stopped because of
mechanization is fanciful at best. They still need people to operate
machines and work in factories and clean houses and cook food and all
the other jobs that require labor. As a side note, 20 years ago I had a
holiday job chipping cotton, with a hoe walking up and down cotton rows
getting rid of weeds. I think now they have selective herbicides to do
this but there is still a truck load of work to do on a farm.
There a million what if the south has gone it alone, however one to
ponder is WW2 in which the south may well have sided with the Axis, thus
making things very interesting. The US of A may well not have developed
an A bomb, whereas the USSR might have, giving us a very interesting
(and perhaps short) cold war.
Now we can all sit back and ponder the world we have today, it might not
be perfect but it could be a hell of a lot worse.
Hendrik
the revisionist
Gary Hurst wrote:
he's some kind of australian revisionist who believe in just killing
everyone who disagrees with him. i didn't know that such people still
existed. frightening.
if a sovereign nation has policies that you don't agree with, just burn and
kill them until they comply. maybe that is how they do it in sydney and tel
aviv, but i'd like to think the average american finds this outlook as
shocking as i do.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Scott Ritchey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The US Civil War was about more than slavery. At that time the main
federal
tax was import duties. The south, having little ability to manufacture
goods paid a very disproportionate share of these taxes while the north
made
a lot of their own stuff and didn't need many imports. Lincoln's
emancipation proclamation was a political move that only freed slaves in
the
south while any slaves in the north (still slaves under Dred-Scott) were
not
effected. The primary result was to push back open support for the south
in
Europe and the UK who were then anti-slave. Practically speaking, slavery
was already doomed in the US because machines would be more economical in a
just a few years. The real issue was secession and slavery was just one
factor. The south believed that they because they joined the union
voluntarily and could also leave if they wanted to. The constitution was
silent (and still is) on that issue. Lincoln believed that the union would
continue to fragment (like Germany) over every little issue once the
precedent was set so, despite much political resistance in the north, he
went to war to keep the union intact. By any measure, it was the worst war
in US history. One wonders how the history of the world would be different
if the south had been allowed to secede.
_______________________________________
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/
For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
