"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
...
On 7/1/2015 4:40 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:16:31 +0700, John B.

wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch

wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.

wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch

wrote:


http://www.vice.com/read/hey-v12n5

An interesting article. Of course the first line in the article
says
that it is for people in "elementary school" which, in the U.S.
seems
to be the first 4 grads in the school system. the Wiki says for
children between the ages of 4 - 11.

Which apparently says something about either your reading, or
comprehensive, ability.

--
cheers,

John B.

I posted it because we have Leftists here and we all know that
they
are dummer than dirt. Now do you have a problem with the
Contents of
the article..or are you simply bitching because it explained
things so
the Leftist could understand it?

Hummm?

Gunner

No, I didn't spend a lot of time studying the article, but it
seemed
to say that at various times slavery has been a part of almost
every
society, which, of course, is true. After winning the Battle of
Alesia, September, 52 BC, Julius Caesar gave each soldier in his
army
one of the captured as a slave. This amounted to something like
forty
thousand slaves.... from a single campaign. In his eight years of
campaigning against the Gaul's, he was said to have enslaved more
than
a million people.

What the article seemed to ignore was that in nearly every society
slavery died out primarily because slaves, while cost effective in
a
purely agricultural environment are somewhat less efficient when
the
society becomes less dependent on agriculture and begins to depend
more on machinery.

That's not what happened in the US, however. Slavery died out
because
the federal government prevented westward expansion of slavery,
which
provoked a war that led to the outlawing of slavery.

Not quite; continued...

Federal resistance to expansion of slavery limited the growth of
cotton agriculture. In fact, it guarenteed that it would become
less
profitable, because cotton wears the hell out of the soil, and
southern plantations were already beginning to lose productivity.

It was not the federal government that prevented westward expansion
of slavery, it was federal electoral politics. And, contrary to
John's statement, it was the development of new machinery - the
cotton gin - that *strengthened* the institution of slavery in the
south, as it made inferior land profitable in the cultivation of
cotton. It is a commonplace of American history classes that
slavery was declining in the south before the cotton gin came into
widespread use. Of course, later mechanization in the form of
harvesting machinery almost certainly would have reduced the demand
for slaves.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas...93Nebraska_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas

Eli Whitney personally made the South an agricultural power with his
cotton gin, and the North an industrial one by promoting and
facilitating mechanized mass production of interchangeable parts.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F..._1818--001.png

I saw that machine or one like it in the American Precision Museum in
Vermont. It's not very large, but neither were gun lock parts, the
only thing worth mass producing back then.

-jsw