Posted on 03/28/2008 12:15:10 PM PDT by cowboyway
Try entering the term "jefferson davis," exactly as I did, and see what google provides in the results bar. It's the equivalent of using Advanced Search to search the exact phrase.
Oh, this is good. You do know how and why to put quotes around a search term on Google, don't you?
Let's do some more:
Results 1 - 10 of about 452,000 for "president abraham lincoln".
Results 1 - 10 of about 94,000 for "president jefferson davis".
Results 1 - 10 of about 734,000 for "president lincoln"
Results 1 - 10 of about 90,700 for "president davis".
Seems like someone doesn’t understand the purpose of the quotation marks.
I’m afraid I can’t entirely buy your reasoning there. Regardless of how much territory was devoted to slavery, the differential population expansion would be the same. The proportion between black and white populations would be the same whether slavery was limited to the South or was able to expand into Mexico, the Caribbean and the rest of Latin America.
IOW, whites would still face the chance of being outnumbered, with the primary difference whether this would be in a large territory or a relatively small one.
The only way to change this would be to reduce black birth rates, not likely since every birth meant money in their pockets, or great expand white immigration. This also wasn’t likely, as darn few Europeans wanted to move to a slave country.
The value of slaves was related primarily to the price of cotton. If cotton dropped, demand for slaves to pick it would plummet. As long as cotton prices remained high, so would slave prices. Of course, as any idiot knows or should, high prices encourage others to enter the field and cause over-production and a price crash. Southerners were riding a cotton price bubble that would eventually collapse, taking their prosperity with it. That’s what you get with a one-crop economy.
Looks like it.
If you search for jefferson davis, you get all references to either search term. Since T. Jefferson is a famous man, and Davis is a very common name, it seemed to me that “jefferson davis” would be more accurate.
You want to take a crack at the question I posted to you all the way back at #45?
I am really interested in what a “non-racist” southern apologist has to say on the topic.
Is that your position?
Born in the red states, elected by the blue states.
Undeniable.
ROTFLMAO. So Yankees were sneaking into Texas, Georgia and Arkansas electing these clowns to state offices for all those years.
De Nile is not just a river in Africa.
Why don't you explain to us how, out of all of written history, you, singularly, can demonstrate that the South never seceded and there never was a Confederacy.
(You're one of the Truthers too. right?)
If I google Abraham Lincoln I get 8,790,000 hits. If I google Jefferson Davis I get 2,160,000. Of course I can google my name and get 12,600 hits, so I wouldn't place too much emphasis on those stats.
It's that reading comprehension thing for you again. My Google search was a bit more narrow than yours and I copied the results directed from the Google results bar instead of making crap up like you and your surrogates did.
Directly from Google:
Results 1 - 10 of about 747,000 for jefferson davis confederate president
Results 1 - 10 of about 640,000 for abraham lincoln president
Notice that I searched for "jefferson davis confederate president" to eliminate all the jefferson davis' that weren't the Confederate president. I was actually more lenient with disHonest Abe.
Just for fun, let's Google "dishonest abe lincoln".................Results 1 - 10 of about 176,000 for dishonest abe lincoln
Shazam!!!!
And I post sites like this to ensure that your revised history is challenged and confronted by the truth.
You're the one that brought up economics, numbnuts!
From YOUR post #190: "Learn some real history, including the economics that drove people like Davis to treason before you start tearing people like Lincoln apart. "
Try to keep up.
If those damn Yankees were as evil as you portray,
And if they were the fair minded angels that you and your posse portray, they would have adhered to their Constitution with a speedy and fair trail.
Funny how economically, the North prospered during the war without revenue from the South while the southern economy collapsed without Northern markets to sell to.
Nothing funny about it. Cranking up the war machine always stimulates the economy. WWII got us out of the Great Depression.
On the other hand, the South depended on exporting agricultural products. The yankee naval blockade prevented that.
It was treason and rebellion done for the benefit of a few.
That statement standing on it's own is nothing more that an opinion.
If you have documents that irrefutably state that secession was illegal in 1860, written in 1860 or before, produce them. You'll become an instant celebrity and possibly touted as the greatest research historian of all time.
You started it: post #206--"How could I set aside a thread filled with your laughable jackass ideas?"
That’s a sure sign you’ve lost the argument and you know it.
You never had an argument to debate. Just that stupid little dog and one line quips full of single syllable words.
That's why I suggested that you return to the Britney Spears threads.
In case you didn't notice, I posted the thread.
But, thanks for the homework.
It's truly funny to watch you make a fool of yourself on this Google quotation marks thing.
..Results 1 - 10 of about 176,000 for dishonest abe lincoln
Results 1 - 10 of about 170,000 for jefferson davis traitor.
Results 1 - 10 of about 94,200 for jefferson davis treason
Results 1 - 10 of about 324,000 for jefferson davis liar
And my favorite...
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,220,000 for jefferson davis woman's dress
As accurate as jefferson davis confederate president?
Talk about numbnuts. First you blame Lincoln for the war, then you bring up economic policies put in place, and repealed, when Lincoln was an unknown rail splitter in Illinois as justification for the war.
You obviously struggle in deep water as all Lost Causers do.
This one?:"Do you accept that southern slaves, whose human rights actually were being trampled, not just threatened, had a similar right, indeed duty, to use violence against their oppressors? If not, why not?"
I've answered a similar question from your leader, non-sequitur, on a previous thread. They had the right. They simply didn't have the ambition.
southern apologist
Confederate apologist would be more accurate since I'm a native born Southerner.
They were elected by southern states to some office before you all dumped them on the rest of us. that, too, is undeniable.
Really? Why wasn't the Southern economy stimulated?
On the other hand, the South depended on exporting agricultural products. The yankee naval blockade prevented that.
Again you show your ignorance. For the first few years of the war, the blocade leaked like a sive and the South could have shipped as much to Europe as their little cotten pick'n hearts desired. Instead, they imposed an embargo on cotton exports thinking that would pressure the British to support them. They overplayed their hand and found out that King Cotton was no so powerful after all.
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.