Man forced to shit in front of cops, given forced digital anal probing, Xrays, and 3 enemas without consent (Lawsuits pending) I shit you not...LOL (pun intended)

hang on JR ... prepare to drown in IB douche water

The lesson to learn is that we live in a different time. This is not the 1490's when slavery started in the new world, or the 1860's when we had the civil war.

In the last 150 years we have made great changes. We should look forward to where we can be, not backward and blame the past for what was.

JR Originally Posted by JRLawrence

Some of the best words posted on here in a long while. Thanks.

I think you make some very good points. But in some ways I think you undercut the significance of slavery. While the technologies such as the cotton gin had probably set in motion the eventual demise of slavery, that effect was not yet pervasive nor seen by southerners as inevitable. Additionally, one of the reasons for the manufacturing, RR, etc., disparity between north and south was because slave-based farming was so easy in the south, and for those at the top, very profitable. Major fundamental economic change does not happen just because it is logical. The inertia of "I'm doing OK, why go through the pain of reformation?" is large--because after change it is often a different group at the top. If I am at the top of the heap, I probably will resist change that may better the society as a whole but will topple ME from being king of the hill. We see much of that around us today as well.

Look at the 1950s: why did Japan modernize so much quicker than the US? Not because the companies in the US didn't understand, but because there was inertia--and after the destruction of WW II the Japanese had no choice. Why did hunter/gatherers turn to cultivation? Cultivation can feed many more people, allows for civilizations, etc., BUT IT IS HARD WORK AND A HARD CONVERSION, so in most cases it happened only when the H/G approach was leading to starvation, not typically because intellectually farming was better--though it was.

Some of the best words posted on here in a long while. Thanks.

I think you make some very good points. But in some ways I think you undercut the significance of slavery. While the technologies such as the cotton gin had probably set in motion the eventual demise of slavery, that effect was not yet pervasive nor seen by southerners as inevitable. Additionally, one of the reasons for the manufacturing, RR, etc., disparity between north and south was because slave-based farming was so easy in the south, and for those at the top, very profitable. Major fundamental economic change does not happen just because it is logical. The inertia of "I'm doing OK, why go through the pain of reformation?" is large--because after change it is often a different group at the top. If I am at the top of the heap, I probably will resist change that may better the society as a whole but will topple ME from being king of the hill. We see much of that around us today as well.

Look at the 1950s: why did Japan modernize so much quicker than the US? Not because the companies in the US didn't understand, but because there was inertia--and after the destruction of WW II the Japanese had no choice. Why did hunter/gatherers turn to cultivation? Cultivation can feed many more people, allows for civilizations, etc., BUT IT IS HARD WORK AND A HARD CONVERSION, so in most cases it happened only when the H/G approach was leading to starvation, not typically because intellectually farming was better--though it was. Originally Posted by Old-T

We agree. However, just looking at the inertia of the South because it was historically an agrarian society ignores the rapid changes in the North as an Industrial society. The changes in the North were driven by the Great Lakes which served as a highway from the East Coast to the Minnesota. With the completion of the Erie Canal in 1825 bulk goods moved west and cut costs by about 95%. The South did not have an effective East-West Transportation corridor.

The North developed industrially and the South did not. The South simply did not have the resources to win a war with the North except by the political sympathy it had from a lot of people. The war was not popular in the North and indeed could have been lost early due to lack of support. Lincoln was not as popular as we make him out by looking backward today.

John Brown was against slavery. But he was considered to be a radical and did not even have any slaves join him as expected when he raided the US arsenal at Harpers Ferry in 1859 (for which he was hanged).

The slave uprising he expected did not happen. We can only wonder why at this point in history.

Life and history are not always easy. My hobby is to learn what really happened.

But slavery was not a major question for many in the North; like today most people just don't care if it doesn't directly affect them.

Sorry about the harsh truths.

JR

I have just caught a little of this ongoing insanity. But I caught this post about the middle passage.

First: the development of slavery in the new world, and the exploration to find the new world was primarily about the quest for sugar. Sugar was only available from the Muslim areas because the processing of sugar was first developed by the Muslims.

Land was claimed, slaves imported, land cleared and rapidly planted in sugar cane. The sugar was taken to Europe to satisfy the building demand. Trade goods were bought and taken to Africa and traded for slaves; the slaves were taken to the Caribbean where they were traded for sugar. The triangle trade existed for over 300 years. It is estimated that today the average person consumes 150 pounds of sugar per year which is the cause of the spread of obesity and diabetes.

Slavery spread to America for the cultivation of tobacco and cotton. The cotton gin was invented prior to the civil war which means that slavery in America was set to die by itself because the slave labor was not needed to nearly the extent that was previously required.

Technology changes everything.

The claims that state rights were a cause (major or minor cause is not stated here) has validity because of the predatory practices of the Northern States on the Southern Economy; e.g. it cost much more to sent Souther cotton to the Northern textile mills than it cost to ship Northern Steel to the South at higher steel prices. Thus, the South suffered economically due to disproportional pricing. The result was that the South shipped most of their cotton to England textile mills when it could. All of it would have been shipped if there had been a better transportation system that would take the inland cotton to the coast. But the South had very few railroad miles that would carry the goods. The North had many more railroad miles, and manufacturing capability - including the production of gunpowder that the South lacked.

When one says the the Civil War was all about slavery, they are responding to emotional thinking about their justified hatred of slavery.

I wrote a paper in college titled "The Economic Causes of the Civil War"; the research concerning actual facts opened my mind about what really caused the hostility between the North and the South. Some of it was about Slavery, but not all of it. The Slavery issue was used to justify the actions of the North in the conflict. Because the North won the war, the slave issue has been used by the victors to justify their actions of subjecting the south to oppression and blame slavery as the only cause for the war. The bad feelings that resulted lead to problems that had a major impact on the US for 100 years, and which we are still working out.

The lesson to learn is that we live in a different time. This is not the 1490's when slavery started in the new world, or the 1860's when we had the civil war.

In the last 150 years we have made great changes. We should look forward to where we can be, not backward and blame the past for what was.

JR Originally Posted by JRLawrence

+1

hang on JR ... prepare to drown in IB douche water Originally Posted by CJ7

There was nothing in JR's post with which to disagree, CBJ7. He's not trying to blame the past or declare an absurd absolute as the OP in the other thread did.

Some of the best words posted on here in a long while. Thanks.

I think you make some very good points. But in some ways I think you undercut the significance of slavery. While the technologies such as the cotton gin had probably set in motion the eventual demise of slavery, that effect was not yet pervasive nor seen by southerners as inevitable. Additionally, one of the reasons for the manufacturing, RR, etc., disparity between north and south was because slave-based farming was so easy in the south, and for those at the top, very profitable. Major fundamental economic change does not happen just because it is logical. The inertia of "I'm doing OK, why go through the pain of reformation?" is large--because after change it is often a different group at the top. If I am at the top of the heap, I probably will resist change that may better the society as a whole but will topple ME from being king of the hill. We see much of that around us today as well.

Look at the 1950s: why did Japan modernize so much quicker than the US? Not because the companies in the US didn't understand, but because there was inertia--and after the destruction of WW II the Japanese had no choice. Why did hunter/gatherers turn to cultivation? Cultivation can feed many more people, allows for civilizations, etc., BUT IT IS HARD WORK AND A HARD CONVERSION, so in most cases it happened only when the H/G approach was leading to starvation, not typically because intellectually farming was better--though it was. Originally Posted by Old-T

Notice CBJ7, it's Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man that is quibbling with JR.

We agree. However, just looking at the inertia of the South because it was historically an agrarian society ignores the rapid changes in the North as an Industrial society. The changes in the North were driven by the Great Lakes which served as a highway from the East Coast to the Minnesota. With the completion of the Erie Canal in 1825 bulk goods moved west and cut costs by about 95%. The South did not have an effective East-West Transportation corridor.

The North developed industrially and the South did not. The South simply did not have the resources to win a war with the North except by the political sympathy it had from a lot of people. The war was not popular in the North and indeed could have been lost early due to lack of support. Lincoln was not as popular as we make him out by looking backward today.

John Brown was against slavery. But he was considered to be a radical and did not even have any slaves join him as expected when he raided the US arsenal at Harpers Ferry in 1859 (for which he was hanged).

The slave uprising he expected did not happen. We can only wonder why at this point in history.

Life and history are not always easy. My hobby is to learn what really happened.

But slavery was not a major question for many in the North; like today most people just don't care if it doesn't directly affect them.

Sorry about the harsh truths.

JR Originally Posted by JRLawrence

Can't argue with much of that. The view of Lincoln as beloved certainly evolved after his death. To some extent, as it did with JFK.

As to the John Brown slave uprising that did not happen, I don't think it should be that surprising. First, Brown was a zealot, and many zealots have gone past the point of reason and into emotion fueled thinking. When they do, they often lose the ability realize others might not think as they do. Couple that with great uncertainty that such rebellion would succeed, the repercussions to slaves who joined if it failed, and the lack of reliable spreading of the word to far flung slaves, and it doesn't seem all that shocking. In many ways just as the Rice/Rove/Cheney belief about the Iraqis rising up against Sadam was ill founded.

Notice CBJ7, it's Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man that is quibbling with JR. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Try to understand the difference between quibbling and having an intelligent discussion.

When I first came on here I tried to have intelligent discussions with you, against the advice of others on here. They said you were unwilling to discuss volatile issues, you were only interested in dogmatic Thumping and spouting raw sewage. They were, of course, correct as I eventually discovered.

Try to understand the difference between quibbling and having an intelligent discussion.

When I first came on here I tried to have intelligent discussions with you, against the advice of others on here. They said you were unwilling to discuss volatile issues, you were only interested in dogmatic Thumping and spouting raw sewage. They were, of course, correct as I eventually discovered. Originally Posted by Old-T

By definition an "intelligent conversation" would exclude you and all of your pretentious, judgmental biases, Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man, go suck on your prophylactic.

By definition an "intelligent conversation" would exclude you and all of your pretentious, judgmental biases, Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man, go suck on your prophylactic. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

As I said, having an intelligent conversation with you is exceedingly difficult. But at least you are predictable.

By definition an "intelligent conversation" would exclude you and all of your pretentious, judgmental biases, Old-Twerp: the Prophylactic Man, go suck on your prophylactic. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Whose "definition," Corpy? The same book that defines "fucktard?"

I think there is no "definition" of "intelligent conversation."

You're just lying again, champ!

Thanks, JR! Excellent points.