Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The North did NOT "need" the South and its slaves; Lincoln wanted the Union to stay together. Now: if we're gonna talk "racism";
Your point is moot; I would disagree with you, but it's not necessary since the Civil War occurred about 70 years after the First Constitutional Convention, and it is during that era that I'm referring to the North needing the South. Every colony was needed.
Quote:
the US would've been better off in sending the former slaves to Liberia after the Civil War and keeping the "free persons of color", looking back on things.
The North needed the South; the South needed the enslaved people; therefore, the North needed the enslaved people.
The South didn't really need enslaved people it needed a labor force. It simply chose to enslave its force.
Quote:
Without slavery, there would have been no South of which to speak and, therefore, no United States. I trust that you're sufficiently educated to know that the era's (during the Constitutional Conventions and ratification) politics were such that the North could not have survived without the South.
Quite a leap there. In Colonial Virginia, where slavery started in the USA most of the land was worked by indentured servants who were white.
Quote:
I mean no disrespect when I say the following. I believe that you have displayed your erroneous attitude of white supremacy. Do you notice that you didn't question me about the details of the corporate veil/equal employment trade, which is something you've certainly never heard before? Do you notice that you didn't question me about St. Mary's Honor Ctr and the resultant insulation from competition from African Americans that white people enjoy, of which you're also certainly unfamiliar? But I challenged your fantasy of white supremacy-- your myth-- and to that you responded. That's subtle racism.
In Los Angeles they are preparing to have open enrollment which means that there will be no school boundry lines and you can enroll your kid in any school in LA so long as you (or the Metro) can get them there. It will be interesting to see what happens. The only other place I know of that does this is Las Vegas.
No, but they have a much less pronounced negative effect on its listeners than hip hop thuggery [c]rap
Last time I checked country singers don't advocate a gangster lifestyle. Disadvantaged urban youth are disproportionately affected and destroyed by this 'thug lyfe' hip hoppery culture yet you could care less....U make me sick calipoppy we are talking about kids futures here
No country singers advocate drunkeness, DUI, racism, unemployment, irresponsibiltiy, wife beating and I am sure they will get around to Meth soon enough. Don't get me wrong, I like country music. It is not that popular in L.A. but I like it. But let's not pretend it is anymore saintly than rap is. It is just funnier!
You mean to tell me the top 1% of rich liberal white NYCers don't want their precious cargo to attend school with NYC's poor black underclass? I am shocked. I thought liberals were aallll about embracing Diversity and celebrating it? Once again we see their code language exposed for what is is- hypocrisy.
Liberal racism rears its ugly head again. Shame. Meanwhile Democrats distract their black voter base from their own racism by calling Republicans racist, Lol.
No, but they have a much less pronounced negative effect on its listeners than hip hop thuggery [c]rap
Last time I checked country singers don't advocate a gangster lifestyle. Disadvantaged urban youth are disproportionately affected and destroyed by this 'thug lyfe' hip hoppery culture yet you could care less....U make me sick calipoppy we are talking about kids futures here
Thuggery is necessary to survive in the hood. If you have Zoe Pound on your block, you better thug it up and get a gun or tomorrow will never come.
The South didn't really need enslaved people it needed a labor force. It simply chose to enslave its force.
The South couldn't maintain a labor force without slavery.
Quote:
Quite a leap there. In Colonial Virginia, where slavery started in the USA most of the land was worked by indentured servants who were white.
By the end of the 18th century, indentured servitude was no longer financially feasible. Further, since slavery was a requirement of some Southern colonies to negotiate and ratify the Constitution, slavery was necessary for the survival of the United States because without the colonies united, America would have been reconquered by the Europeans.
Because liberals are hypocrites(as usual) always talking diversity, but yet are quick to send their kids to private schools or way out in the suburbs.
So I guess by your definition every white person living in New York City is a liberal?
You should really get out more.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought liberals were aallll about embracing Diversity and celebrating it? Once again we see their code language exposed for what is is- hypocrisy.
