On Apr 16, 2:49*pm, "
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:51:08 -0700 (PDT), Luigi Zanasi
wrote:





On Apr 16, 8:29*am, "
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 22:05:35 -0700 (PDT), Luigi Zanasi
wrote:

On Apr 15, 9:15 pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote

Ain't that the truth! I remember reading somewhere that most of the
population during the revolution didn't give a hoot which side won. That
seems to be true of most, if not all, revolutions.

But if the Brits won, we'd have to pay taxes. It was worth fighting for NO
taxes. Oh, wait, that didn't quite work out did it?

But then, you'd have abandoned slavery 30 years earlier without a
massive murderous civil war. :-)

Huh? *What does one have to do with any of the others in this sentence?

In 1833, the UK Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act,
effectively resulting in the abolition of Slavery in the British
empire.

Still adds no sense to your post, other than perhaps the 30 years snipe. *The
Civil war was *not* about slavery. *That it ended it was perhaps one of the
only worthwhile side effects, however.

Sorry, I forgot and I stand corrected. The South seceded because
Dishonest Ape was about to raise import duties and force them to buy
shoddy expensive Northern goods.

Luigi