Posted on 01/20/2014 1:42:16 PM PST by mhutcheson
BWHAAAAAhahahhhaaaaa.
bkmk
Placemarker
Thanks for the link.
The solidest fact is the one that is irrefutable by virtue of being independently and credibly verified. As I’m sure you’re aware, even commonly known resources on the Internet have somewhat dubious credibility. Take Wikipedia for example. It’s quick but in some areas the information is suspect because it’s posted by partisans.
At this Listverse link we have someone presenting a variety of assertions. A lot of what she claims is common knowledge but many are not. And the fact that none if it is sourced is problematic.
This claim of equal pay for example. I can’t find a reference for it anywhere else. I’m not saying that it categorically isn’t true but without verification I find it suspect. I will continue to seek independent verification because I find the assertion interesting.
The more I’ve studied Church History, British history, and more recently slavery and indentured servitude, the less judgmental I am of either side in the War.
In the 1500s, the New World was being explored. In the 1600s, adequate technology existed for the poorest people to migrate here when times were desperate in the Old World.
Slavery and indentured servitude and peonage all became legitimately integrated into commerce throughout this new world frontier in the 1600s.
It continued for a couple of centuries until population densities came to equilibrium with the Old World.
It naturally began to fade away mid 1800s throughout the western world. It took several generations for its removal to reach an equilibrium economically and socially.
Today the buzzword is “Human Trafficking”, but this seems to be a method to identify the transition between Communist isolation to an open world competition as individuals again may shift national identities.
What will be the buzzword to transition from international oligopoly controlled economies back to free market competition for individual workers?
He’s not the only one, but I’ve learned to ignore your childish rants.
You mean “won” not “on”, right?
So, your knowledge ends in the 1850s?
The United States built these forts to protect the inlets. Sumter was not on state soil and so since the fort and the island was built and owned by the Federal Government they had the duty to keep it supplied to protect against foreign invasion and to keep river commerce going.
We're from the Government and we are here to help you.
And what would have been the cause? There was nothing else.
That was a mistake, huh?
But you don't hate slavery?
Isn't slavery tyranny?
FDR never lost a southern state. Carter and Clinton, from the south.
The south gave us FDR! He never lost a southern state. Song of the South, they still love him. lol
“So, your knowledge ends in the 1850s?”
Bwahahaha! Good one!
He asked me why the South didn’t build their own ships. Apparently his history lessons ended in 6th grade. He doesn’t even have a grasp of the reason the South was so upset about the Cotton tariff because he didn’t even know that:
1. All exports had to be on American built ships.
2. The ship building ports and industry were in New England
3. 65% of all the exports in the US at that time were
Southern cotton and it was all sent up to Northern
ports and shipped out of NY because all
the ships were in the North and the North
realized about 40 cents out of every dollar on the
deal.
But the war started over slavery.
These civil war trolls about 3 of them come on every thread. I think they are high school kids or something. Or all three are one as they say the same stuff over and over. Its like its been written out on note cards. :-)
Yep, laptop buttons don't register as well as as desktop.
Huh?
So, out of school for a snow day I see. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.