A new name, a new man?

Just a theory Jar. Maybe I shoudl rephrase myself. Abolishing slavery was their primary goal, however, other objectives were money and power.

 

No shit

 

I disagree comepletely. I know it to be this way:

The north had a very fast rising economy, industrialised. With time, there was a shortage of people working. They needed more people. They had factories and so on, but not enought people, so they looked at the south, and what did they see? I big almost free labor force waiting there. And hell, they didn't even have to pay for the import cost, the south already shipped the ppl onto their land.

The south was filled with rich landowners who were making a shitload of money off their cotton farms and so on, they didn't want to improve, they had it all right there, so they weren't so happy about giving up the salve labor force they weren't paying for at all.
They lost because they lacked the industry, once the money ran out, they didn't have a steady income nor factories of any sort.

The north had a isolation policy going on then which went comepletely against the south who traded with Spain at that time I think, once the confeds got their ports cut off, they couldn't even sell the stuff they were making.
Getting rid of slavery was just a god damn pretext. It's how america always functioned, they are fighting terrorism now.

 

It would seem Quethim has been forgoten, I know you did not mension me, cause I actually read the whole thing. So any thoughts?

 

How about Wolpal Wabbit?

 

I have also read that slavery may have been a convenient justification for forcibly including the Southern states into the Union. I'm not sure whether it is right, but it gets said a lot.

 

Quethim = Cretin?

Sorry, have we moved on from the name-calling thing? 0

 

sorry, Q, you're just a letter

 

How about we called him a different letter? Z? Zzzzzzz....

 

WW then...

 

Queerthim

 

It aint that compilicatorid
It was about federalism and state's rights. The same issue that led to the creation of the bill of rights. Lincoln did not agree with slavery, however, he was not going to push the issue b/c he feared a breakup of the union. When it became obvious that it was going to be a dusey he issued the proclamation of emancipation. However, for many northerners especially in new england the war was about slavery. That is the problem of a marxist reading of history its not always about the money.

 

I don’t think that any movement that kills this many people is ever simple. Anyway what I wanted to say is that Marxism isn’t that simple, it doesn’t mean that everything is done for money. I don’t know much about the American Civil War but I love the work of Eugene Genovese on the subject, a Marxist that will surprise and please you.
I bet 200k on this! :wink:

 

You have that much Monopoly money?

 

quotum

 

Is that like a Scrotum that likes to repeat famous sayings?

 

no... quotum is an economic term... it means that for instance a milk-farmer can't produce more that (let's say) 2000 gallons. We have an arrangement in Holland that the governement buys the milk from the farmers for a highter price then they'll get from custumers. But to prevent the farmers produce way too much, there's this quotum which makes sure that if the farmers produce too much they have to pay fines...
that's a bit of a crooked explanation, but I think it'll work. _

 

I think you mean quota there...

 

ph yeah... I forgot.. in Dutch in Quotum... (stupid)