"You Lost."  Funny, because I am not trying to win. I am just putting information out there, and I am not on a high horse or ridiculing anybody for not having been taught this information.  I legitimately thought you might be interested in the information and those other quotes.  But, Time magazine has historically been and continues to be a publication owned and used by the criminal foreign bankers to propagandize, distract and misinform. 

Gip attacks almost as if I am defending slavery or something.  I am pointing out that the issue of slavery was seized upon by the financial manipulators who had a much, much larger agenda in the global chess game that I summarized earlier. 

Certainly pressure from the North against slavery in the South made matters even more volatile.  A fact that is often overlooked in this episode is that the cost of a slave was very high, around $1,500 each.  A modest plantation with only forty or fifty slaves, therefore, had a large capital investment which, in terms of today's purchasing power, represented many millions of dollars.  To the South, abolition mean, not only loss of its ability to produce a cash crop, but the total destruction of an enormous capital base.  (I am not defending that system, I am stating that there were powerful forces that had a vested interest in dividing the U.S. and they incorporated the issue of slavery as a part of their overarching strategy.)

Many Southern plantation owners were working towards the day when they could convert their investment to more profitable industrial production as had been done in the North, and others felt that freemen who were paid wages would be more efficient that slaves who had no incentive to work.  They felt that a complete and sudden abolition of slavery with no transition period would destroy their economy and leave many of the the former slaves to starve....all of which actually happened in due course.

That was the situation that existed at the time of Lincoln's campaign and why, in his speeches, he attempted to calm the fears of the South about his intentions.  But his words were mostly political rhetoric. Lincoln was a Republican and he was totally dependent on the Northern industrialists who controlled the Party. 

This is not to say that Lincoln was indifferent to the institution of slavery, for he felt strongly that it was a violation of personal and national morality, but he also knew that slavery was gradually being swept away all over the world...with the possible exception of Africa itself...and he believed that it would soon disappear in America simply by allowing the natural forces of enlightenment to work their way through the political system. He feared...and rightly so...that to demand immediate and total reform, not only would destroy the Union, it would lead to massive bloodshed and more human suffering than was endured even under slavery itself. 

That's  pretty close, K. But I maintain that at the outset this was not a popular war based on humanitarian principle (that is a very old and still used trick); but rather it was a war of business interests.  But I suppose I am also trying to show that taking a closer look at history and the global chess game of that era is far more compelling and revealing than the trappings of this Southern bigotry, white-guilt shit that so many ninny, self-proclaimed liberals get caught up in and seem to get off on.  I particularly enjoy fleshing out this subject because I grew up in Fredericksburg, VA playing in the Civil War trenches that went on for miles in the woods behind my house. 

I mean the real history is fucking wild, guys.  For instance, in 1864 when the puppet monarch, Maximilian was installed in Mexico and the English had their troops on the Canadian border...it really appeared that America was facing a checkmate from the powers in Europe.  Until an unexpected event tipped the scale against it. That being Russia aligning with the North.  Tsar Alexander II notified Lincoln that he stood ready to militarily align with the North...his primary motivation for coming to the aid of the Union undoubtedly had little to do with emancipating the slaves in the South.  England and France had been maneuvering to break up the Russian empire. Knowing that war was being considered by his enemies, Tsar Alexander decided to jump into the chess game.  He dispatched his Baltic fleet of war ships to Virginia and his Asiatic fleet to San Francisco.  No treaty was signed between Russia and the U.S. but their mutual interest and threat of war unified them at a critical moment.  The presence of the Russian Navy helped the Union enforce a devastating naval blockade against the Southern states which denied them access to critical supplies from Europe.  English/French vessels and Russian vessels never fired on each other and remained neutral but without the presence of the Russian fleet the war  could have been significantly different. 

Because the war didn't go well early on for the North and wasn't a popular humanitarian war, the North faced two serious problems.  The first was how to get people to fight, and the second was how to get them to pay.  Both problems were solved by the simple expediency of violating the Constitution.

To get people to fight, it was decided to convert the war into an anti-slavery crusade. The Emancipation Proclamation was primarily a move on the part of Lincoln to fan the dying embers of support for the "Rich-man's war and the poor-man's fight", as it was commonly called in the North.  Furthermore, it was not an amendment to the Constitution nor even an act of Congress.  It was issued totally without constitutional authority, as the solitary order of Lincoln himself, acting as Commander-in-Chief of the the armed forces. 

Preservation of the Union was not enough to fire men's enthusiasm for war. Only the higher issue of freedom could do that. To make the cause of freedom synonymous with the cause of the North there was no alternative to officially declare against slavery.  After having emphasized over and over again that slavery was not the reason for war, Lincoln later explained why he changed his course and issued the Proclamation:

"Things had gone from bad to worse until I felt we had reached the end of our rope on the plan we were pursuing; that we had about played our last card, and must change our tactics or lose the game. I now determined upon the adoption of the emancipation policy."

Technically, the proclamation was almost absurd. It proclaimed freedom for all slaves in precisely those areas where the U.S. could not make its authority effective, and allowed slavery to continue in slave states which remained under Federal control...But in the end it changed the whole character of the war and, more than any other single thing, doomed the confederacy to defeat.

The Proclamation had a profound impact on the European powers as well. Now that freedom was the apparent issue, no government in Europe dared to anger its own subjects by taking sides against a country that was trying to destroy slavery. After 1862 the chance that Europe would militarily intervene on behalf of the Confederacy rapidly faded to zero. On the propaganda front, the South had been maneuvered into a position which could not be defended in the modern world. 

Man, I could keep going on and on in depth.. but I'm sure you guys are over it and want to talk about skating again.  Gip, If I ever see you on the streets, maybe we'll have a heated game of skate, bro.

Holy Fuck, I keep coming to this topic to see if there's any news on what team John is on and I'll I see is this shit. Argue somewhere else.

im super stoked on TheRealDeal right now. i say keep it coming, US History was my favorite class in school and I haven't learned this much since college.

are you kidding? go read the favourite retarded conspiracy theories thread and you'd probably learn more.

K gets it.
Realdeal- YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED. It is very clear that the north DID NOT FIGHT TO END SLAVERY. The South fought to preserve it. The north fought to preserve the union and to prevent all of the economic and political issues that would come of secession. In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation was given with the reason that freeing slaves would destroy the economic engine of the southern war effort, and as everybody knows, it only applied to states in rebellion. To say that slavery was a manufactured reason for the war invented by the north is completely ignorant of fact. It was the real reason the SOUTH started the civil war, as the Vice President of the Confederacy stated several posts of mine ago. You know that right? The south started it? Seems like a basic thing but your narrative ignores that entirely. Go start a retarded conspiracy thread about the Rothschilds and stop arguing about real history.

Lincoln didn't ignore the constitution with habeas corpus, which clearly states that it must remain during peace time though it can, and has, been lifted during war, even though I do agree it was not a good move and was very authoritarian. Drafts suck, and like every other American war, the civil war was a rich man's fight but a poor man's battle and there were tons of class related rebellions on BOTH sides. But If you think the south was doing anything different you are crazy. Again though, the reason it was a rich man's war was because of the relationship of slavery to the economy in both the north and south.  It was considered total war, meaning all of the resources and manpower of both sides went to the war. I'm not saying it was a wonderful thing and that war is awesome. I've been pretty consistent in not thinking that. What I am saying is that this war was fought to maintain the "Peculiar institution" by the south.

AOL/Time Warner is a foreign company? Really? AOL/Time Warner is American as fuck, and definitely is one of the small interests that controls a great deal of American media. Saying its all lies is a stupid conspiracy theorist approach to it though. I could get into the proper way to read documents like that, but it would take a lot of text. It comes down to this- the media doesn't lie to maintain MIC control and all of that, they simply only tell the parts of the story they like to further their agenda. If there is other information, it should also be presented. If it is as flawed as you think it is, then you should be able to actually take it down point by point, but if you can't, simply saying "don't trust that" isn't really fair. Besides, it wasn't the main point of my argument.

If you want though I could get into support of my point by people like prize winning Civil War historian Eric Foner, who I believe is the head of the history department at Columbia, specializes in the civil war, was named the head of the American Historical association in 2000, as well as one of the "500 professors who hate America" for his teach-ins at Columbia against the Iraq war. No links though, I actually read his books.

Not that any of that matters though, as you still can't explain why the south didn't fight the civil war over slavery, even though the Vice President of the Confederacy claimed it did. I just tend to believe the guy who was 2nd in command of their government a bit more than a guy obsessed with the Rothschilds living 150 years later. Just me though.

In a similar way that supporting or validating the Nazis is supporting and validating the holocaust, supporting or validating the confederacy is supporting and validating slavery.That was the beginning of this argument- Does supporting the confederacy mean supporting slavery? The answer is a clear YES.

And yes, there were all sorts of economic reasons the south supported slavery, including the value of using 100% stolen labor to produce goods that would be lost, but that is still slavery as a reason.

In the end, SLAVERY was the reason the Confederate states.

Oh, and this "I'm not ridiculing others for not learning..." bullshit is stupid.  I personally believe people should have to defend their claims, and if you don't know what is being discussed, I go with "It is better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you the fool than open it and remove all doubt." I don't know shit about music, hence, no arguments from me in music

It's 2012. You should know how to link images by now

my feelings toward this thread.

lol yall gay

These posts only encourage me more. Morons who come on slap assuming that a thread will be about the same thing for more than one page deserve punishment for their foolishness.

Did you guys know that the reason the U.S. celebrates Cinco De Mayo is related to the Civil War? France was the main backer of the South at the time of the civil war, and the battle that is commemorated on that day took place right around the same time. Britain, France, and Spain (I think, not sure on Spain) came to collect debts, the other two countries settled with Mexico, but France was into war for territory in Mexico so no deal was found. Miraculously the out-gunned Mexican army won. If France won that and had outposts in Mexico during the Civil War, the outcome would have been way dfferent.
In the 60's Chicano activists were looking for a way to celebrate Mexican culture in the U.S. and came upon this one. They realized it was a victory for both the U.S. and Mexico, and began really promoting it in the U.S. That's why it is a bigger holiday in the U.S. than Mexico.

What kind of board is John Fitzgerald riding? A fucking skateboard, and he's amazing on it.


Actually, your answer is at the end of this video:

Nicki Minaj - Stupid Hoe (Explicit)

i would fuck the shit outta Nicki Minaj. itd be interesting to hear her moan in 3-4 different accents.

that bitch been thick since '03 back when she was was a Young Money Benchwarmer, although her ass definitely has gotten bigger over the years. does anyone know if fake asses feel significantly different?

anyways

I prefer hoodrat-Minaj

Seemed more freaky

Bitch has got sum skills too, my favorite verse of hers is in this

*Official Song Release* Monster - Kanye West Feat. Jay-Z, Nicki Minaj, Rick Ross and Bon Iver	Small | Large