The fact that they went to war over it.

One of Napolitano's claims, in a segment that aired on Fox Business Channel:

“At the time that [Lincoln] was the president of the United States, slavery was dying a natural death all over the Western world,” Napolitano said." http://www.salon.com/2014/02/2...

Meanwhile, more slaves were alive in the United States than ever before. The international slave trade may have ended, but it was alive and well here, and slavery was expanding in the South, not contracting. Like I said, lies combined with half-truths designed to make the point that the war wasn't about slavery. And why, exactly? What's your motivation for perpetuating revisionist history? Do you even know?

Very few southereners owned slaves in the same way that very few Silicon Valley residents own tech companies. You might not be a CEO, but you sure as shit support the existence of those tech companies in the place where you're making your living.

This little tidbit of horseshit is a direct quote from Fox News's Judge Andrew Napolitano, containing tons of lies and half-truths built to support the revisionist myth that "slavery was about to go extinct of its own accord." There's far too many holes in his tripe to list them all here, but if you're interested, Jon Stewart ripped apart Napolitano's lies right to his face, with some help from three history professors: http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

It's highly informative.

"Main or only cause/reason"?

Those are two different things.

Slavery was the main reason, as laid out in each state's declaration of secession at the time. They spelled it out plainly - "You are trying to abridge our right to own slaves and that's why we're leaving." Slavery was NOT the only reason.

You conflating the two is an effective yardstick for measuring how much you like to use rhetoric to attempt to make your point of view seem more factually based than it actually is. Nice try.

Your circular logic is ridiculous revisionist bullshit. You start with a false premise - "The South didn't have any money" - what? Slaves were worth $400 each (in 1850) but plantation owners with hundreds of slaves didn't have any assets? Guess what, worldwide demand for cotton skyrocketed from 1843 onward, and that made a lot of cotton producers very, very, rich in the 18 years leading up to the Civil War. Of course, those same people knew that if they suddenly lost their free labor, they'd be less rich, and if there's one thing a rich person hates, it's the prospect of becoming less rich. They hated the idea so much that they were willing to go to war over it, and only then did they need help from a "friend across the ocean," because wars cost money. They certainly didn't need help BEFORE they decided to secede and start a civil war.

It's true that England saw an opportunity in this to weaken the the United States, but you're attempting to put the cart before the horse in a desperate attempt to keep alive this myth of "oh it wasn't about slavery, it was about .... something else!" How you were modded informative is beyond me.

He gave you a direct quote to the South Carolina declaration, and not only that, if you actually bothered to read South Carolina's declaration, it mentions "slavery" or "slaves" 19 times, not one of which is remotely in the context of "we're not seceding because of slavery." So nice try, but yeah, all of the seceding states were pissed about the fact that they thought Lincoln's government was going to make it harder for them to keep slavery going the way they wanted it.

The blatant lie is yours and yours alone.

Gee, I wonder if one of those has anything to do with the other.

Hey, while we're on this logical path, make all guns legal, for anyone, anytime, anywhere.

Just regulate the bullets.

Good, here's one that shows average height gain from ages 20-74.

http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/r041027.htm

Now I suppose you could try and tell me that we've gained another inch between 2002-2015, but I'd like to see a source for that, just as I'd like to see a source for the OP's opinion that we gained 2 inches overall.

I know you don't read the article in your giddy rush to get first post, but christ, that exact point was made in the fucking summary.

From wikipedia: Although Watson is well known for his alleged 1943 statement, "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers", there is scant evidence he made it. Author Kevin Maney tried to find the origin of the quote, but has been unable to locate any speeches or documents of Watson's that contain this, nor are the words present in any contemporary articles about IBM. The earliest known citation on the Internet is from 1986 on Usenet in the signature of a poster from Convex Computer Corporation as "'I think there is a world market for about five computers' —Remark attributed to Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board of International Business Machines), 1943". Another early article source (May 15, 1985) is a column by Neil Morgan, a San Diego Evening Tribune writer who wrote: "Forrest Shumway, chairman of The Signal Cos., doesn't make predictions. His role model is Tom Watson, then IBM chairman, who said in 1958: 'I think there is a world market for about five computers.'" One of the very first quotes can be found in The Experts Speak, a book written by Christopher Cerf and Victor S. Navasky in 1984. However Cerf and Navasky just quote from a book written by Morgan and Langford, Facts and Fallacies. All these early quotes are questioned by Eric Weiss, an editor of the Annals of the History of Computing in ACS letters in 1985.

Nice off-topic method of crow-barring in your opposition to the ACA, troll. No one cares.

I'd like to see a source for these numbers that you're using as an excuse to give us your political views.

The artist who is doing well has ALWAYS been the exception and not the rule.

They do, in fact, have different levels of protection for different types of pages. For examples, biographies of living people are afforded far more protection than an article, on, say, the World Trade Center. However, when it comes to topics like the Pythagorean Theorem, the encyclopedia tends to err more to the side of openness, rather than lockdown, and trust that the community will revert any vandalism-type edits, thus also allowing easy access to anyone that has anything of substance to add. The whole idea is to make it simple for anyone to edit.