LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Andrei Kirilenko is now a US citizen
- Thread starter sirkickyass
- Start date
chemdude1232
Active Member
Hey whatever form she takes, Catherine Zeta Jones has moolah. I'm down.
Does this increase, decrease, or neutralize his trade value? I'm curious, will the Nets owner want him now that he's less Russian or is he going to have to broaden his horizons to guys like Fesenko and Medvedenko and simply be Team USSR?
98% - woo hoo! And I missed that same question, and NO, the freedom to vote only applies to CITIZENS, not everyone living in the US. I made the same mistake, only I picked D. Besides, can't certain people be barred from the right to bear arms, like the insane?
Anyhow, I got a kick out of the links along the side of the page:
anyhow, MAJOR CONGRATULATIONS to Andrei Kirilenko!
You guys are all completely missing the point that the Southern states felt slavery was necessary to their economy. Their entire economy at the time was pretty much based upon cotton and tobacco, and they felt they couldn't have managed their large cotton and tobacco plantations without slaves to do the work.
And it looks like a lot of folks made that same mistake about the rights of everyone living in the US rather than realizing that voting is a right that only belongs to citizens.
Edgewriter
Well-Known Member
In other news . . . Ak became a US citizen.
I think that is pretty cool. It was unexpected for me. I had never heard him express a desire to become American. He has always been so pro-Russia.
I wonder what this means for his NBA future? . . . Not to change the subject or anything.
I think that is pretty cool. It was unexpected for me. I had never heard him express a desire to become American. He has always been so pro-Russia.
I wonder what this means for his NBA future? . . . Not to change the subject or anything.
Mr. McGibblets
Well-Known Member
History major here. I don't work fast food, I've moved on, and up, to serving at Applebees.
In any case, slavery played a part and it was to preserve the union, but the reason Lincoln needed to try and preserve the union was because the South was concerned about their economy.
The economies in the north and the south were completely different. The north had more factories and the south was based on cotton. This meant the south exported a lot of cotton to Europe and imported a lot of finished goods from the north and Europe.
This led to many financial tensions involving cost of labor (e.g., slavery & tariffs) The north wanted to start placing import tariffs on European goods and the south disagreed due to fears that Europe would enact import tariffs of their own which would hurt the southern cotton exports.
While slavery played a part, as did the election of Lincoln, the civil war mainly started due to economics. Economics is thus the best answer and was a bigger driving force than slavery. It's estimated that about 385,000 out of the 1.6 million people in the south owned slaves. Slavery wasn't what pushed the poor southerners to secede, it was based on economics and the independence of the states.
In any case, slavery played a part and it was to preserve the union, but the reason Lincoln needed to try and preserve the union was because the South was concerned about their economy.
The economies in the north and the south were completely different. The north had more factories and the south was based on cotton. This meant the south exported a lot of cotton to Europe and imported a lot of finished goods from the north and Europe.
This led to many financial tensions involving cost of labor (e.g., slavery & tariffs) The north wanted to start placing import tariffs on European goods and the south disagreed due to fears that Europe would enact import tariffs of their own which would hurt the southern cotton exports.
While slavery played a part, as did the election of Lincoln, the civil war mainly started due to economics. Economics is thus the best answer and was a bigger driving force than slavery. It's estimated that about 385,000 out of the 1.6 million people in the south owned slaves. Slavery wasn't what pushed the poor southerners to secede, it was based on economics and the independence of the states.
so how DID you do on the citizenship quiz????
This is an apologist perspective
I suggest you look at the states secession documents.
First two sentences of Georgia's document: "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. "
First two sentences of Mississippi's document: "In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. "
Texas: "In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."
South Carolina: "In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River. "
I dunno dude. Seems like it was kind of about slavery.
https://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Slavery had everything to do with the economy of the South. They really can't be separated.
"Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."
"Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."
Mr. McGibblets
Well-Known Member
Agreed. Slavery, tariffs, and other reasons all fall under the same economic umbrella. There wasn't a slavery answer option. While slavery is a human rights issue, it was more of an economic issue to the southerners.
A. human rights
B. election freedom
C. economic reasons
D. presidential conflicts
But that requires you to adopt the the perspective of the southerners to answer the question "correctly" under the test. Just because they defined slavery as an "economic issue" rather than a "human rights" issue doesn't mean that a) the war was not fought over slavery and b) that slavery is not a human rights issue.
Mr. McGibblets
Well-Known Member
"When the war began, only a minority of Northerners linked the preservation of the Union with the abolition of slavery. By 1863, Union and freedom had become inseparable Federal objectives. The Confederacy fought for independence and the preservation of slavery. But their own ambivalence about slavery and the contempt of outside public opinion eventually led Southerners to emphasize independence." The American Journey: A History of the U.S. vol. 1
I agree with what you are saying and think you are right. I didn't mean to imply that slavery was not a reason for the war, nor a major reason. I think the South viewed it as more of an economic issue compared to the Northerners who saw it as a human rights issue. I also think the slavery issue increased in importance for the North as the war went on. However, the South initially seceded due to economic issues (which included slavery), not slavery itself. Slavery was still legal at the time the south started the war (but it was facing heavy scrutiny). It was not until midway through the war that Lincoln emancipated the slaves and banned slavery.
While I agree that preserving slavery played a part in the South's secession, I think it was more of an economic issue rather than a human rights issue. I think the question is poorly worded, but the most correct answer is economics not human rights.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
good, maybe he'll stop sucking then.
Why? Being a citizen hasn't stopped you from sucking.
You're all wrong. It was all a conspiracy by the London financiers to tear apart the union. Lincoln sniffed it out and had to fight to keep the Brittish out. Duh. Everybody who hasn't been mind controlled by the illiterate government knows this.
If I define revisionism then a revisionist is someone who revises history.
I define revisionism.
Thus, you're all revisionists.
Read this book you illiterate revisionist historistas, you:
Stidger - Knights of the Golden Circle - Treason History of American Civil War (1903)
If I define revisionism then a revisionist is someone who revises history.
I define revisionism.
Thus, you're all revisionists.
Read this book you illiterate revisionist historistas, you:
Stidger - Knights of the Golden Circle - Treason History of American Civil War (1903)
NAOS
Well-Known Member
This is why YB has rep. More given.
