Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Whatever means necessary? (Score 1) 815 815

They don't this in schools because anyone who says the civil was wasn't about slavery is a racist confederacy apologist. The fact that you don't know the civil was was about keeping North America free of the tyranny of the British crown is DANGEROUS..... and the political correctness that lead to that ignorance is one of the tumors slowly killing America.

You've taken the south's least productive gambit: the mission to Europe, and conspiracy-theorized it. First, you're wrong about the England; they never gave the southern ambassadors a formal reception (the ambassador was quite despondent over this, and several times questioned why he was even there). With the opening of cotton trade in South America, Cotton was no longer King in the south. Simply put, they UK did not need the south, but DID need the bumper crop of wheat and new industrial machinery produced in the north.

France, on the other hand, was quite enamored with the idea of brokering a truce between the north and south; or, short of obtaining that, intervening militarily. John Slidell, the CSA ambassador, was celebrated in Paris social circles and had the favor of Napoleon III himself. But Napoleon refused to act without England, which England would not do.

England had no designs on North America. If the Trent Affair didn't start a war, nothing would.

Comment: Re:Whatever means necessary? (Score 4, Insightful) 815 815

No, it was all about slavery, and tariffs weren't even on the radar. It is true that only the most extreme Republicans (so called "Black Republicans) supported full federal abolitionism, but even as early as the 1840's they awaited a sea-change of public opinion on the matter. The 1861 election of Abraham Lincoln represented a small step toward that sea-change, and the South seceded to avoid it.

Think of it like this: In 2008, both Barack Obama and John McCain disowned gay marriage. But if you were a gay marriage advocate, who are you gonna hitch your horse to? How did that end up playing out? It really was no different in the 1860's: Lincoln may not have been as strident an advocate of abolitionism as the so-called "Jacobins" in the Republican party wanted, but to southern democrats, he might as well be John Brown himself, riding in on the Devil's back.

Comment: Re:Cuba (Score 1) 180 180

I'm sure the US won't have a problem with Russian bases on Cuban soil. Or perhaps even Mexican soil.

What's that? It's been done? What was the US reaction? 50 years of petty isolationist aggression towards a state that didn't tow the line?

If the Russians want use the American model, embargo trade with Ukraine and be done with it. The rest of your post is histrionic babble.

May Euell Gibbons eat your only copy of the manual!