Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
The point is not unrelated Humpy, we were discussing institution.
That was enacted, but the north thought that was unjust to them because they did not believe in that.
I think you are confusing Andrew Jackson with every American president. Lincoln didn't want that either, it was thrust on him with the attack on Sumter. And you just said that it would not concern the President anyway, he really wouldn't have much of a say. Why does the Bloody Kansas have anything to do with the President's influence in the expansion of slavery? Everything that I have argued has been backed up by historical evidence and common sense. I challenge you to find one major pillar in my overall argument that ca't be proven. If you give me a point, I will post the historic or analytically numeric (economic) evidence.
You could not hope to prove such a broad and frankly overly-generalized statement. How can you prove that the North as a whole thought that law was unjust?
The tariffs though
Your point on how the North's main purpose of the war was economic, that is just simply not the case. The north was trying to end slavery.
I am aware that everyone in the north did not believe in ending slavery, but the majority of them did.
I have given multiple logical reasons, I can pull up the numbers if you'd like, but I would think simply making a statement like "The north was trying to end slavery." would be impossible to prove. You are trying to make proven arguments, so while I re-find my sources, please provide solid analytical or logical evidence other than a moral squabble as morality is subjective and cannot be proven.
Prove it.
Also, I mentioned Bloody Kansas not to discuss the expansion of slavery, but to show how there was already conflict on the issue of slavery before the war actually started. I mention Jackson because he didn't want conflict within the states because it would lead to violence. I was making two separate points.
Humpy, they went to war because of slavery. I am pretty sure that proves it there, they wouldn't go to war if they didn't believe in what they were fighting for
Not my point. Of course there was social tension, but you are completely missing the point. It is illogical to believe the Civil War was about morality.
So you have no proof? Your proof is your thesis? I apologize if I don't believe that stating one sentence over and over again counts as proof.
Hump, don't defend either the North or the South, they're both awful, with the South being somewhat worse.
You want statistics, here have them.
The North, by contrast, was well on its way toward a commercial and manufacturing economy, by 1860, 90 percent of the nation's manufacturing output came from northern states. The North produced 17 times more cotton and woolen textiles than the South, 30 times more leather goods, 20 times more pig iron, and 32 times more firearms. The North produced 3,200 firearms to every 100 produced in the South. Only about 40 percent of the Northern population was still engaged in agriculture by 1860, as compared to 84 percent of the South.
So based on these numbers, it quite obvious to see that the north was economically stable.
What's your response to that?
I don't argue either way. We're arguing about the cause.
1. Please cite your sources.
2. The North was dominant in industry, yes. But the US understood that once the South became agriculturally developed, they would begin to increase i the other fields as well. The pilgrims didn't hop off the ship ad walk into a steel mill. Once the South began to develop more, they would become competition for the North. You cannot put all of your chips in one hand.
Really doesn't change much. I never said the North was worse-off. They were just defending their interests.
http://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm?id=251. I think we need to give this up, i'm not going to change your mind and you're not changing mine.
And to add, how do you think they fed all of these opportunistic industrialist workers in the North? You do not give the agricultural industry enough credit.
And if the North didn't care about southern agriculture, why did they implement the Tariff of Abominations? They cared.
And to conclude, why did you end up agreeing with me?
And congratulations on copying and pasting from a government website to prove my point. It helped. I did change your mind.
If you noticed, this argument started out as me arguing that the Civil War was about economics. You argued that it was about slavery. Your final contention was a economic point in favor of the North. In the end, you inadvertently agreed to my contention that the war was, in fact, about slavery. That was cake.
I don't agree with you Humpy, this is the one rare occurrence where I do not agree with you. It's just getting late. Finally, The Tariff of Abominations happened because the north wanted to protect industry because they weren't as reliant on farming as the south was, which lead to higher taxes on goods for the south which impacted their economy.
Hello everyone. How y'all doing. I am doing wonderful hahaha! yeppers!
What are we discussing? How awesome life is? *Reads*
Oh Slavery? Look the Civil war was about State's Rights....to own Slaves.
No, it was proving my point that the north was economically stable, and therefore did not start the war because of economics, but to end slavery.
Yes, but the northern textile and cigarette factorys depended on souther cotton and tabacco.
We were arguing about whether or not it was about economics or ending slavery.
Actually, by 1860 The North produced 17 times more cotton than the south because they were becoming industrialized while the south was still performing labor-intensive farming with slavery.
It was about uniting the Union on the North Side and Protecting Economics in the South
Also, I have been arguing that the entire war was about slavery.
The NPS said that to prove the North's industrial stand, that does not in turn prove that the war was about slavery. That is employing a slippery slope fallacy and it is not to be considered in debate. It doesn't make sense, we can talk about this tomorrow over a meeting IRL. Goodnight.
Well this was fun, but i'm tired. Goodnight Libertatem
The civil war is like an adult beating his retarded little brother till he pissed his pants because he wouldn't play a game with the rules in the older brothers favor.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/come-take-family-fights-save-treehouse-city/#axzz33VdVzdiT
Come and take it you statist b*******
And I would like to thank the region for its support during this last election. I recognize the significance of the position and am honored to be chosen.
Dumb statists. When will they ever learn.
The Board would be lacking something without you.
The argumrment over thr civil war is petty. The war caused by several reasons not a single issue.
I am looking forward to working with you again this month.
I officially resign now. I'll miss you, Board.
Humpy for President!
I think Humpy would be a good choice for president
Y'all shut up. Pev's president, I am just keeping the seat warm.
Yup doesn't mean we can't prepare for the next election. If humpy does not run we will rewrite your name in!
Come on Humpy, we all know you're going to run. I will have a hard choice though, because Pev has done a good job.
The next election are a long way away.
We know, we just like to speculate.
Post self-deleted by The Amarican Empire.
That's a little hostile.
Post self-deleted by The Amarican Empire.
What's hostile?
Post self-deleted by The Amarican Empire.
Post self-deleted by The Amarican Empire.
Oh
So who do you guys think will win the 2016 election and who d9 you want to win?
I think Hillary Clinton will win but I want Rand Paul to win.
I think the GOP will win I don't know which candidate. I would prefer rand paul.
I don't think a GOP victory is plausible.
Clinton will probably fall like in 08. She was pretty strong then as well.
Guys, obviously it's going to be Jessie Ventura and Howard Stern, I mean duh.
Lol
Dude I'm straight up leaving the US if she gets it. The end of our days will be upon us.
You know what I don't like? The media is basically telling us that is between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, how do we even know are candidates yet?
I'll move to the south sooner then I would've if she wins.
Their are a few people who start to act like someone who is running.
Accessing a public internet right now. Thank you to those who flooded my inbox with telegrams in French.
A replacement router will likely come tomorrow or on Friday. Just remember: Humph is Acting President, not 'temporary'.
Je t'aime.
What's the difference?
I'm down for that. Ventura-Fartman 2016
Hahahaha xD
What is the difference between Acting and temporary?
Humpy the Frenchman. :)
Oui. Vous anglais haineux aller avez relations sexuelles avec vous-mêmes.
I'm just a stickler for details :P
Like what is the physical difference?
Is there like a boundary difference or something?
Did you guys also know that there was a rumor that Kim Kardashian and Hillary Clinton were running together? If they run my vote goes out to them(joking about voting for them of course.)
Well, Acting President is in the Constitution.
Right-Wing, I read something from you the other day about how you'd like to see a low minimum wage. If you concede that a high minimum wage causes inflation and unemployment, then why do you want any minimum wage at all?
Well Pev, I can try to answer that. I believe that there should be a minimum wage because I believe that people should be allowed to make money from the labor that they perform. The reason that pay for servers and waiters and cashiers are paid so low because fast food was not meant to be a permanent job. The majority of employees that work fast food are teenagers, college students that work for extra cash, or dropouts in which is was the only job they can find. I believe that you be allowed to make a living for yourself until you can get your life together. The reason I believe minimum wage should be so low is the fact that it would kill businesses and it would increase the price of goods for customers. I do not think that a fast food employee should make 20 dollars an hour, that is ludicrous.
So to answer your question Pev, I believe that there should be a low minimum wage because I think that people should have the chance to make the bare minimum t o survive until they can get their life together(on a sidenote, if you work for a fast food chain for more that ten years and you're still making minimum wage, there is something wrong with you.)
here we go again..... I'm not getting involved in this one.
If they want to survive they should get a full time job.
What do you mean Humpy?
Hey no argument, making fast food your full time job is your fault. So when someone complains, I can't survive, it was your fault for putting yourself there. I do think that minimum wage was established because it wasn't meant to be permanent.
All i hear is "We surrender". =P
Fast food is a last resort choice, but it's better than unemployment. I worked at a McDonald's as a teen for about a year for supplemental income, gained some work experience and I'm thankful for that.
The stereotypical French surrender joke was only created in the 1940's. They were a strong power in the first world war. They were also plainly vicious during the French Revolution. The only reason that exists is because the French government understood that they did not have the ability to fight the Nazis without devastating losses. They are widely considered to be the fourth best army in the world.
Hey Humpy, might I point out that they could never defeat England and world conquest was a failure. Also, they can execute their own people without fear, but they can't fight other countries.
Agreed, I would much rather have someone at fast food than their couch.
Their conquest was not a failure. It was incredibly exceptional until his Russian Invasion. And that is not relevant to the "surrender" stereotype as that is a defeat, not surrender.
No, I wasn't discussing the surrender stereotype, I just enjoy ragging on the French. You were right about world war two however, they didn't stand a chance against the Nazis. World Conquest was a failure by the way, Napoleon lost every single battle and convinced his people they were a super power
Ah I'm only teasing lol
Humpy gets emotional whenever someone insults the French, he gets personal about it.
Sacrebleu!
I am so glad someone said this
I find myself lacking the words to respond
Hi. i comment to figure here. I'm a nation.
Look at this wise guy
Good Afternoon.
Don't tell me what kind of afternoon to have
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.