The traditional labeling of northern, middle and southern dates back to the original 13 colonies. Maryland southern, Delaware middle. New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey being the other middle states and definitely part of the 1804 group that had gone abolition or was phasing in abolition. Kentucky was carved out of Virginia which had expanded its borders west. So I guess we can say all northern and middle states, except Delaware, had decided to abolished slavery by 1804.

The "debate" over "southern" is in some cases a post-war perspective. A rejection by some southerners of their southern neighbors who remained loyal to the Union, rejecting them as not "true southerners".

But yeah Union is not strictly northern. Lets also toss in West Virginia which I think was carved from a region of Virginia that remained loyal to the Union. And the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in rebel territory.

Poor analogy. The documents and statements being referred to were written by the states seceding and the confederate government, not folks in Washington DC. The documents we have are self-incrimination, not outsider claims. Go read the secession documents if you dare intellectual honestly.

The plain truth is that by 1804 all Northern states had decided to abolish slavery, some immediately, some phased it out over time. The North hoped the South would follow their lead. Instead, the South wanted to perpetuate slavery indefinitely and to expand it into new territories. The North's acceptance of slavery in existing slave states was a grudging concession to preserve unity and avoid war.

So no, you are mistaken with the idea that the North was not much better. It was not perfect, its hands were not clean, but it was much better.

As for the confederate battle flag. It is the flag of an army that was the force of arms that a government used to defend and perpetuate the institution of slavery. Whatever an individual Johnny Reb may have held as an opinion or belief, the preceding truth does not change. That flag is a symbol of the defense and perpetuation of slavery. Furthermore in the civil rights era of the 1960s that flag was resurrected as a symbol of support for segregation. So in the original context the flag represent institutional slavery and white supremacy and in the modern context it still represented white supremacy.

Actually you got the Emancipation Proclamation wrong. As I mentioned in several posts its only freed slaves in rebel held territory. It did not apply to regions of the South under Union control.

In any case your logic is terribly terribly flawed. The North did not initiate the war. The South decided to secede and to start the war (firing on Fort Sumter) and the Southern leadership that made these decisions was absolutely motivated by the defense and preservation and expansion of the institution of slavery.

There were violent debates in Congress prior to the war regarding the expansion of slavery into the territories. The North wanting to confine slavery to existing slave states, the South wanting to expand slavery into the territories and even require that half of new states admitted to the Union be slave states. The South's primary state's rights argument was that the North was not enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. At least one, maybe more, of the secession declarations cited the election of Lincoln and his secret "abolitionist leanings", as if US Presidents were required to be pro-slavery. Numerous secession declaration explicitly and unambiguously lists the defense and preservation of slavery as a main cause.

The South decided upon secession and war and that decision was based on protecting their wealth and power and economy that was based upon the institution of slavery.

France granted asylum to convicted fugitive child rapist Roman Polanski. The victim was 13 years old. After pleading guilty he fled to France before sentencing. No US and European arrest warrant interfered with his 30+ year stay in France.

It is a well known tenet of software engineering that sometimes you just have to accept that a software product has come to the end of its useful life. That it is so bloated and kludged up and incomprehensible that a complete rewrite is warranted rather than ongoing extension and maintenance of the existing mess.

Sort of like the IRS regulations.

Actually Obama does not lean towards capture and extraction, he leans towards assassination via drones. Capture and extract was the previous guy.

One does not get the new French identity paperwork and right to live in France until after one has served a complete tour in the Legion and been honorably discharged. There are no political or celebrity postings to the Legion. The French take the Legion really f'ing serious. Its training is no joke, its effectively at a special forces level. The reason the French take the Legion so serious is because it is a highly capable force that can be deployed without domestic political consequences, it foreigners not French kids, in particular French conscripts. They would not f' with the Legion's esprit de corps for Assange.

Imagine two US Ranger brigades (7,000'ish men) that the President of the US could send anywhere around the globe without domestic political consequences. That is effectively what France has.

Did anyone say otherwise? Note that the above is merely asking if Apple is applying any discretion? Such discretion would be obvious based upon whether games that are historical and display the flag only in a clearly historical context are still available.

Of course. The North was perfectly willing to allow slavery to remain in existing slave states to avoid the war. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to rebel held territory. The framing of the war by the North around the morality of slavery was a strategy to keep the British from aiding the confederates. And so on ...

The fact that the Union was not "good" does not change the fact that the confederacy was "evil". Again, its various secession documents clearly state defending the institution of slavery as a main cause. You mention state's rights, do you know what state's rights meant to the confederacy? Their main state's rights grievance was that the fugitive slave laws were not being enforced. Plus there was the hypocrisy of expecting half the state's entering the Union to be slave states, what, the population of the territory doesn't have the right to decide? That's not very respectful of state's rights. State's rights was a misdirection to help get Johnny Reb to enlist in the army that was formed to defend the institution of slavery. Johnny probably wouldn't have volunteered without that and other misdirections, slavery usually being something he wasn't willing to risk his life over.

The Civil War was absolutely about slavery. It was the foundation of Southern wealth and power and the political class decided to secede and go to war to defend that source of wealth and power. The bitter fights in Congress were about the expansion of slavery into new territories. The South desperately wanting to maintain an equilibrium between the number of slave and non-slave states. The North wanting to confine slavery to existing slave states. The South going as far as wanting to require half of new states being admitted to be slave states. They opposed local self determination knowing the long term trend was against them. They cited Lincoln's election as a cause for secession because he had "abolitionist leanings", can't have a President who is not pro slavery?

The decision to secede and go to war was made by the South and that decision was firmly rooted in the defense and perpetuation of slavery. That is indisputable. No moral failings of the North changes this fact. Neither does the personal opinions and beliefs of an individual Johnny Reb change the fact that he volunteered for an army that existed to defend and perpetuate the institution of slavery. How the war was framed and sold to him does not change why secession and war were decided upon.

Well, its the hippies, not necessarily baby boomers in general.

Ever see a bunch of cops grabbing guns and ammunition and hurrying to their cars? I have. It wasn't a riot or other incident. It was the day when it was announced that the shooting range just received purple Barney silhouette targets. All of a sudden everyone seemed to need some time on the practice range. Ever see grown men singing a Barney song in unison while firing their weapons. I have, its unforgettable. Guys had to put their gun down and step back from the firing line to take a laugh break. Sadly it was before cellphones with cameras.

Yes, that's why you do small scale things first. Things that are transitory like cloud seeding to reflect sunlight. It takes a substantial effort to screw things ups. We didn't get to the current situation through a few small or medium scale experiments.

Plus there is really no alternative. Greening the economy/industry won't happen in time. Demand for power will increase as billions enter the middle class and demand their little luxuries and status symbols. You can wish and wish and wish that solar and wind could scale to meet this demand but it won't, not in time. Better get used to the idea that we need to figure out how to make some temporary shade and reflect more sunlight out of the atmosphere.

Dihydrogen monoxide is dangerous to children. It is a leading cause of accidental death. Children should be supervised when immersed in it. And absolutely beware of electron flows when immersed, both children and adults.

So the non-slavery justifications include:

State's rights - Namely the north not respecting the southern states rights to have fugitive slaves returned.

Other - Includes having a President with suspected abolitionist leanings, can't have a President that is not pro-slavery.