On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:53:03 -0500, "
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:13:41 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:39:14 -0500, "
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:19:13 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 08:23:08 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

harry wrote:
On Oct 11, 2:48 am, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:16:03 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Your Indepenedence war was just so rich people didn't have to pay
taxes as I have frequently pointed out. Nothing to do with
"freedom".

So what? I was talking about the SECOND War of Independence. In my
part of the country we call it the "recent unplesantness."

That was the War of Northern Aggression.

It was another form of economic warfare. Slaves made the productsof
the South cheap. They didn't want that. They removed the South's most
important economic asset and condemned them to poverty as their
industry was mostly labour intensive..

It WAS economic warfare. The North was desperate. If the South was allowed
to secede, over 40% of the entire nation's exports would disappear (think
"King Cotton").


True. Yet, people think this "unpleasantness" started over slavery.
That cause came later... a political football so to speak.

The slavery *cause* came much before. The excuse did come later.

I believe secession talk started around 1833. Slavery was a concern at
some point. Even Abraham Lincoln thought Negroid's were inferior, he
later took up the cause. It made good political hay.

The "cause" existed since the, at least, founding; long before Lincoln.

Lincoln brought the subject forth; into war.

We don't have to beat a dead horse. I just disagree, that's all.

"Don’t Let a Crisis Go to Waste" sound familiar?