Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Humpheria wrote:Yes, but he is basing the actions of a few private citizens to argue a point which is unrelated.

The point is not unrelated Humpy, we were discussing institution.

The Amarican Empire wrote:Wasn't their the slave runaway Act that allowed them to do that?

That was enacted, but the north thought that was unjust to them because they did not believe in that.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Minecraft was discussing why institution should never stop something because of morality, and I was responding to that. I do understand that not everyone in the north was gung ho on ending slavery. Humpy, Andrew Jackson did not want more conflict about if slavery should be permitted or not depending on who founded it because like you said, the new state could decide. Also to consider, before the civil war started there was violence in Kansas about slavery. Cities were burned down and people were killed because of the laws on slavery. Humpy, what you are saying can't be proven. You say that i'm brainwashed and to look past the written word, but what you are arguing can't be proven.

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.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:That was enacted, but the north thought that was unjust to them because they did not believe in that.

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?

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Come on Humpy, everyone knows both sides of the north and south. The south believe that the north was violating state rights and they thought they were going to lose their primary economic activity which was slavery. The north believed that slavery was against the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. "All Men are created equal" and "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" was contradicted by slavery. Humpy, slavery was actually legal in the north, but slavery was not an important part of the economy because they weren't as dependant to farming like the south was. So when you say that the north's motive was economic, that's not the case because the north wasn't dependent to slavery as a major economic activity. So the north's motive to was to end slavery because it was immoral and wrong.

The tariffs though

Humpheria wrote: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.

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.

Humpheria wrote: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?

I am aware that everyone in the north did not believe in ending slavery, but the majority of them did.

Right-Winged Nation wrote: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 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.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:I am aware that everyone in the north did not believe in ending slavery, but the majority of them did.

Prove it.

Right-Winged Nation wrote: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.

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.

Humpheria wrote:Prove it.

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

Right-Winged Nation wrote: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.

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.

Right-Winged Nation wrote: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

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.

Humpheria wrote: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.

So based on these numbers, it quite obvious to see that the north was economically stable.

What's your response to that?

Liberosia wrote:Hump, don't defend either the North or the South, they're both awful, with the South being somewhat worse.

I don't argue either way. We're arguing about the cause.

Right-Winged Nation wrote: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.

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.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:What's your response to that?

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?

Right-Winged Nation wrote: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 congratulations on copying and pasting from a government website to prove my point. It helped. I did change your mind.

Right-Winged Nation wrote: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.

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.

Humpheria wrote: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?

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.

Right-Winged Nation wrote: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.

Humpheria wrote: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.

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.

Humpheria wrote: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.

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.

Albenia wrote: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.

We were arguing about whether or not it was about economics or ending slavery.

The Amarican Empire wrote:Yes, but the northern textile and cigarette factorys depended on souther cotton and tabacco.

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.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:We were arguing about whether or not it was about economics or ending slavery.

It was about uniting the Union on the North Side and Protecting Economics in the South

Humpheria wrote: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.

Also, I have been arguing that the entire war was about slavery.

Right-Winged Nation wrote: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.

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.

Lack There Of wrote:http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/come-take-family-fights-save-treehouse-city/#axzz33VdVzdiT

Come and take it you statist b*******

Dumb statists. When will they ever learn.

Lack There Of wrote: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.

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.

Lack There Of wrote: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.

I am looking forward to working with you again this month.

I officially resign now. I'll miss you, Board.

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.

Humpheria wrote:That's a little hostile.

What's hostile?

Post self-deleted by The Amarican Empire.

Post self-deleted by The Amarican Empire.

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.

Humpheria wrote:I think Hillary Clinton will win but I want Rand Paul to win.

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?

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Guys, obviously it's going to be Jessie Ventura and Howard Stern, I mean duh.

I'm down for that. Ventura-Fartman 2016

Pevvania wrote:Accessing a public internet right now. Thank you to those who flooded my inbox with telegrams in French.

Hahahaha xD

What is the difference between Acting and temporary?

Humpy the Frenchman. :)

The Amarican Empire wrote:Humpy the Frenchman. :)

Oui. Vous anglais haineux aller avez relations sexuelles avec vous-mêmes.

Humpheria wrote:Je t'aime.

What's the difference?

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.)

Humpheria wrote:Like what is the physical difference?

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?

Pevvania wrote: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.

Humpheria wrote:here we go again..... I'm not getting involved in this one.

What do you mean Humpy?

The Amarican Empire wrote:If they want to survive they should get a full time job.

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.

Humpheria wrote:Oui. Vous anglais haineux aller avez relations sexuelles avec vous-mêmes.

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.

Humpheria wrote: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.

Muh Roads wrote: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.

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.

Humpheria wrote: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

Humpheria wrote: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.

Ah I'm only teasing lol

Muh Roads wrote:Ah I'm only teasing lol

Humpy gets emotional whenever someone insults the French, he gets personal about it.

Right-Winged Nation wrote:Humpy gets emotional whenever someone insults the French, he gets personal about it.

Sacrebleu!

Liberosia wrote:The Board would be lacking something without you.

I am so glad someone said this

Lack There Of wrote: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.

Liberosia wrote:I find myself lacking the words to respond

Look at this wise guy

Hallo Island wrote:Good Afternoon.

Don't tell me what kind of afternoon to have

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.