Discussion:
History Question
(too old to reply)
v***@gmail.com
2019-01-21 14:07:10 UTC
Permalink
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Tim
2019-01-21 14:12:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
You're quick to ask questions, not very good at forming them (which war idiot?), and completely absent when it comes to answering them, LOL!

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/ko59NsmDZtk/yZujLg8VFQAJ

Run coward run!
m***@gmail.com
2019-01-21 14:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
You're quick to ask questions, not very good at forming them (which war idiot?), and completely absent when it comes to answering them, LOL!
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/ko59NsmDZtk/yZujLg8VFQAJ
Run coward run!
That's okay. I answered it. It was an easy one.
Billy the Kid
2019-01-22 09:20:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_County_War

Everybody knows that one.
Wyatt Earp
2019-01-22 09:26:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Billy the Kid
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_County_War
Everybody knows that one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfight_at_the_O.K._Corral

Everybody knows that one.
Big Nose Kate
2019-01-22 09:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wyatt Earp
Post by Billy the Kid
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_County_War
Everybody knows that one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfight_at_the_O.K._Corral
Everybody knows that one.
You two boys at it again?! Go do your chores.
[shakes head...] Don't have kids.

Mary Magdalene
Dinky Dalton
2019-01-22 10:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wyatt Earp
Post by Billy the Kid
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_County_War
Everybody knows that one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfight_at_the_O.K._Corral
Everybody knows that one.
Mum TOLD you two to Finish your chores! Now git!!

deep
Mitchell Holman
2019-01-21 14:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
m***@gmail.com
2019-01-21 14:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
I didn't know about the Civil War battle. Learned something new today. Yay!
v***@gmail.com
2019-01-21 15:31:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
Mitchell Holman
2019-01-21 17:39:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
Your attempt to school us on history
backfired, deal with it.
Yap Honghor
2019-01-22 03:30:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
Your attempt to school us on history
backfired, deal with it.
His attempt to show himself that you knows every subject under the sun is stupid at best....
He should have a go at psychiatry which will benefit him personally.
m***@gmail.com
2019-01-22 09:25:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
Your attempt to school us on history
backfired, deal with it.
His attempt to show himself that you knows every subject under the sun is stupid at best....
He should have a go at psychiatry which will benefit him personally.
Artie Joe did succeed in one thing. We all taught each other some
things we didn't know. That's always a good thing, even if it wasn't
his intent. And. we managed not to start a new war with with the UK.
v***@gmail.com
2019-01-22 13:20:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
Your attempt to school us on history
backfired, deal with it.
His attempt to show himself that you knows every subject under the sun is stupid at best....
He should have a go at psychiatry which will benefit him personally.
Artie Joe did succeed in one thing. We all taught each other some
things we didn't know. That's always a good thing, even if it wasn't
his intent. And. we managed not to start a new war with with the UK.
How do you know what my intent was?
Are you claiming to read my mind?
Mindreading is a magician's trick.
It has no scientific basis.


YOU ARE A FRAUD.
m***@gmail.com
2019-01-22 14:17:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
Your attempt to school us on history
backfired, deal with it.
His attempt to show himself that you knows every subject under the sun is stupid at best....
He should have a go at psychiatry which will benefit him personally.
Artie Joe did succeed in one thing. We all taught each other some
things we didn't know. That's always a good thing, even if it wasn't
his intent. And. we managed not to start a new war with with the UK.
How do you know what my intent was?
Are you claiming to read my mind?
Mindreading is a magician's trick.
It has no scientific basis.
YOU ARE A FRAUD.
We always know what your intent is, ArtieJoe. You told us. You hate
atheists and want to destroy our reputations. And, after 21 years
of your trolling, we all can pretty much recognize whatever you
try to pull. You're as obvious as John McCoy (Stupid Answers).
Yap Honghor
2019-01-23 02:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
Your attempt to school us on history
backfired, deal with it.
His attempt to show himself that you knows every subject under the sun is stupid at best....
He should have a go at psychiatry which will benefit him personally.
Artie Joe did succeed in one thing. We all taught each other some
things we didn't know. That's always a good thing, even if it wasn't
his intent. And. we managed not to start a new war with with the UK.
How do you know what my intent was?
Are you claiming to read my mind?
Mindreading is a magician's trick.
It has no scientific basis.
Human have intelligence...we read your process of posting and can gather accurate information about your state of mind, your level of IQ and your personality!!!!!!!!
Post by v***@gmail.com
YOU ARE A FRAUD.
With you as a real life sufferer in constant presence, we attain our diagnostic ability...no fraud!!!
Yap Honghor
2019-01-23 02:36:25 UTC
Permalink
fraud
v***@gmail.com
2019-01-22 06:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
Your attempt to school us on history
backfired, deal with it.
I asked a question. I said don't want to hear any more shit from you.

You can't even tell the truth with the subject sitting right in front of you.
v***@gmail.com
2019-01-22 06:14:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
Your attempt to school us on history
backfired, deal with it.
I asked a question.
I gave no answer to it.
Post by v***@gmail.com
You can't even tell the truth with the subject sitting right in front of you.

m***@gmail.com
2019-01-22 07:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
Your attempt to school us on history
backfired, deal with it.
I asked a question.
I gave no answer to it.
Post by v***@gmail.com
You can't even tell the truth with the subject sitting right in front of you.
You asked a question that several people did answer, liar. You just hate not being able to show off.
Post by v***@gmail.com
http://youtu.be/QKvIpdAlTLw
Posting this 'song' is an example of what a poor loser you are.
People thought you wanted an answer. You didn't. After all
these years of trolling in alt.atheism, you should know there
are a lot of historically knowledgeable people here. You just
assumed no one would know. When several of us answered your
question and even mentioned details, you not only flipped out,
you were obscene. Shame on you, little schoolyard boy. By the
way, several people didn't answer because the knew how you
would react. They were right.




Now, go ahead an be obscene again. It's expected of you.
Cloud Hobbit
2019-01-22 09:25:26 UTC
Permalink
Artie, the Duckfaced Boy spewed:

http://youtu.be/QKvIpdAlTLw


Wow, someone wrote a song about you and your too stupid to realize it.

Have you not been paying attention all these years to the depth of historical knowledge possessed by some of the people here?

And when they demonstrate how bad your question was because either YOU didn't know there WAS more than one battle or else you didn't think anyone else would know and they proved otherwise.

You show what a mature adult you are by linking the Asshole Song.

This is the behavior one expects from a 4th grader.

Grow the hell up old man.
Tim
2019-01-22 12:08:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
Your attempt to school us on history
backfired, deal with it.
I asked a question.
I gave no answer to it.
You have a habit of doing that, coward.
m***@gmail.com
2019-01-22 14:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
Your attempt to school us on history
backfired, deal with it.
I asked a question.
I gave no answer to it.
You have a habit of doing that, coward.
Then, which war was he referring to? You know it was the Battle of New Orleans.
I bet he's scrambling to find some battle no one has heard of.
Tim
2019-01-22 14:16:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
Your attempt to school us on history
backfired, deal with it.
I asked a question.
I gave no answer to it.
You have a habit of doing that, coward.
Then, which war was he referring to?
He did not say. The concept of context seems to be completely over his thick head.
Post by m***@gmail.com
You know it was the Battle of New Orleans.
I bet he's scrambling to find some battle no one has heard of.
He's got issues. He challenged me to a quiz, then he ran away leaving a trail of empty excuses in his wake.

To make matters worse, when he attempted to address the answers I gave, he got the answers wrong. Answers to questions he asked, LOL!
v***@gmail.com
2019-01-22 19:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
Your attempt to school us on history
backfired, deal with it.
I asked a question.
I gave no answer to it.
You have a habit of doing that, coward.
Then, which war was he referring to?
He did not say. The concept of context seems to be completely over his thick head.
Post by m***@gmail.com
You know it was the Battle of New Orleans.
I bet he's scrambling to find some battle no one has heard of.
He's got issues. He challenged me to a quiz, then he ran away leaving a trail of empty excuses in his wake.
To make matters worse, when he attempted to address the answers I gave, he got the answers wrong. Answers to questions he asked, LOL!
The above exchange is what American sailors call a "circle jerk".
It's a classic example of mutual mental masturbation. ROTFL!
Tim
2019-01-23 01:14:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
Your attempt to school us on history
backfired, deal with it.
I asked a question.
I gave no answer to it.
You have a habit of doing that, coward.
Then, which war was he referring to?
He did not say. The concept of context seems to be completely over his thick head.
Post by m***@gmail.com
You know it was the Battle of New Orleans.
I bet he's scrambling to find some battle no one has heard of.
He's got issues. He challenged me to a quiz, then he ran away leaving a trail of empty excuses in his wake.
To make matters worse, when he attempted to address the answers I gave, he got the answers wrong. Answers to questions he asked, LOL!
The above exchange is what American sailors call a "circle jerk".
The above is what rational people call a lame excuse.

It's your hole to dig, knock yourself out.
Post by v***@gmail.com
It's a classic example of mutual mental masturbation. ROTFL!
Says the classic example of a coward.
%
2019-01-23 01:16:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
Your attempt to school us on history
backfired, deal with it.
I asked a question.
I gave no answer to it.
You have a habit of doing that, coward.
Then, which war was he referring to?
He did not say. The concept of context seems to be completely over his thick head.
Post by m***@gmail.com
You know it was the Battle of New Orleans.
I bet he's scrambling to find some battle no one has heard of.
He's got issues. He challenged me to a quiz, then he ran away leaving a trail of empty excuses in his wake.
To make matters worse, when he attempted to address the answers I gave, he got the answers wrong. Answers to questions he asked, LOL!
The above exchange is what American sailors call a "circle jerk".
The above is what rational people call a lame excuse.
It's your hole to dig, knock yourself out.
Post by v***@gmail.com
It's a classic example of mutual mental masturbation. ROTFL!
Says the classic example of a coward.
says the modern day gutless puke
m***@gmail.com
2019-01-23 19:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
Your attempt to school us on history
backfired, deal with it.
I asked a question.
I gave no answer to it.
You have a habit of doing that, coward.
Then, which war was he referring to?
He did not say. The concept of context seems to be completely over his thick head.
Post by m***@gmail.com
You know it was the Battle of New Orleans.
I bet he's scrambling to find some battle no one has heard of.
He's got issues. He challenged me to a quiz, then he ran away leaving a trail of empty excuses in his wake.
To make matters worse, when he attempted to address the answers I gave, he got the answers wrong. Answers to questions he asked, LOL!
The above exchange is what American sailors call a "circle jerk".
It's a classic example of mutual mental masturbation. ROTFL!
Hey, look! ArtieJoe is feeling left out. Maybe he wants to join a
real circle jerk. After all, he is a jerk.
%
2019-01-23 19:28:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
Your attempt to school us on history
backfired, deal with it.
I asked a question.
I gave no answer to it.
You have a habit of doing that, coward.
Then, which war was he referring to?
He did not say. The concept of context seems to be completely over his thick head.
Post by m***@gmail.com
You know it was the Battle of New Orleans.
I bet he's scrambling to find some battle no one has heard of.
He's got issues. He challenged me to a quiz, then he ran away leaving a trail of empty excuses in his wake.
To make matters worse, when he attempted to address the answers I gave, he got the answers wrong. Answers to questions he asked, LOL!
The above exchange is what American sailors call a "circle jerk".
It's a classic example of mutual mental masturbation. ROTFL!
Hey, look! ArtieJoe is feeling left out. Maybe he wants to join a
real circle jerk. After all, he is a jerk.
he will join if you stand in the middle of the circle
v***@gmail.com
2019-01-23 21:17:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
Your attempt to school us on history
backfired, deal with it.
I asked a question.
I gave no answer to it.
You have a habit of doing that, coward.
Then, which war was he referring to?
He did not say. The concept of context seems to be completely over his thick head.
Post by m***@gmail.com
You know it was the Battle of New Orleans.
I bet he's scrambling to find some battle no one has heard of.
He's got issues. He challenged me to a quiz, then he ran away leaving a trail of empty excuses in his wake.
To make matters worse, when he attempted to address the answers I gave, he got the answers wrong. Answers to questions he asked, LOL!
The above exchange is what American sailors call a "circle jerk".
It's a classic example of mutual mental masturbation. ROTFL!
Hey, look! ArtieJoe is feeling left out. Maybe he wants to join a
real circle jerk. After all, he is a jerk.
he will join if you stand in the middle of the circle
I won't voluntarily join those two in anything.
m***@gmail.com
2019-01-24 05:55:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by %
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
Your attempt to school us on history
backfired, deal with it.
I asked a question.
I gave no answer to it.
You have a habit of doing that, coward.
Then, which war was he referring to?
He did not say. The concept of context seems to be completely over his thick head.
Post by m***@gmail.com
You know it was the Battle of New Orleans.
I bet he's scrambling to find some battle no one has heard of.
He's got issues. He challenged me to a quiz, then he ran away leaving a trail of empty excuses in his wake.
To make matters worse, when he attempted to address the answers I gave, he got the answers wrong. Answers to questions he asked, LOL!
The above exchange is what American sailors call a "circle jerk".
It's a classic example of mutual mental masturbation. ROTFL!
Hey, look! ArtieJoe is feeling left out. Maybe he wants to join a
real circle jerk. After all, he is a jerk.
he will join if you stand in the middle of the circle
I won't voluntarily join those two in anything.
Glad to hear it. That would mean that you're leaving alt.atheism.
Yap Honghor
2019-01-24 09:28:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by %
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Tim
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
Your attempt to school us on history
backfired, deal with it.
I asked a question.
I gave no answer to it.
You have a habit of doing that, coward.
Then, which war was he referring to?
He did not say. The concept of context seems to be completely over his thick head.
Post by m***@gmail.com
You know it was the Battle of New Orleans.
I bet he's scrambling to find some battle no one has heard of.
He's got issues. He challenged me to a quiz, then he ran away leaving a trail of empty excuses in his wake.
To make matters worse, when he attempted to address the answers I gave, he got the answers wrong. Answers to questions he asked, LOL!
The above exchange is what American sailors call a "circle jerk".
It's a classic example of mutual mental masturbation. ROTFL!
Hey, look! ArtieJoe is feeling left out. Maybe he wants to join a
real circle jerk. After all, he is a jerk.
he will join if you stand in the middle of the circle
I won't voluntarily join those two in anything.
Glad to hear it. That would mean that you're leaving alt.atheism.
I doubt that...he is not wanted any where else, especially not in the White Supremist forum.
m***@gmail.com
2019-01-22 07:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
See what happens when people answer his questions. ArtieJoe is mentally ill.
Christopher A. Lee
2019-01-22 12:36:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
See what happens when people answer his questions. ArtieJoe is mentally ill.
He's obsessed with being fucked in the ass....

"FUCK YOU, Filthy coward.And fuck your Mother, too, in the ass."
"Go fuck yourself in the ass, you worthless whore."
"Go fuck your Mother. When you get done with her, go back in the
bedroom. Grandma is still horny."
"Go back in the bedroom, Burkey. Your grandmother is still horny.
This time, she wants it in the ass. "
"FUCK YOU and stick your fucking orders up your chickenshit ass.
Go fuck your mother and your sister in the ass, too. "
"Go back in the bedroom. Yer Grandma wants it in the ass again. " ?
Tim
2019-01-22 12:57:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
See what happens when people answer his questions. ArtieJoe is mentally ill.
He's obsessed with being fucked in the ass....
Which is odd, since he's not catholic.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
"FUCK YOU, Filthy coward.And fuck your Mother, too, in the ass."
"Go fuck yourself in the ass, you worthless whore."
"Go fuck your Mother. When you get done with her, go back in the
bedroom. Grandma is still horny."
"Go back in the bedroom, Burkey. Your grandmother is still horny.
This time, she wants it in the ass. "
"FUCK YOU and stick your fucking orders up your chickenshit ass.
Go fuck your mother and your sister in the ass, too. "
"Go back in the bedroom. Yer Grandma wants it in the ass again. " ?
LOL! And he calls me a foul-mouthed punk!
m***@gmail.com
2019-01-22 14:11:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
See what happens when people answer his questions. ArtieJoe is mentally ill.
He's obsessed with being fucked in the ass....
"FUCK YOU, Filthy coward.And fuck your Mother, too, in the ass."
"Go fuck yourself in the ass, you worthless whore."
"Go fuck your Mother. When you get done with her, go back in the
bedroom. Grandma is still horny."
"Go back in the bedroom, Burkey. Your grandmother is still horny.
This time, she wants it in the ass. "
"FUCK YOU and stick your fucking orders up your chickenshit ass.
Go fuck your mother and your sister in the ass, too. "
"Go back in the bedroom. Yer Grandma wants it in the ass again. " ?
He's obsessed with wishing this on female members of our families and
having us do such things to ourselves. That way he can't be accused of threatening whoever he sends such messages to. He's a very sick person.
And, he's been doing this the entire 21 years he's been trolling here.
He did stop for awhile. I guess he's off his meds again.
v***@gmail.com
2019-01-24 02:59:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
See what happens when people answer his questions. ArtieJoe is mentally ill.
He's obsessed with being fucked in the ass....
"FUCK YOU, Filthy coward.And fuck your Mother, too, in the ass."
"Go fuck yourself in the ass, you worthless whore."
"Go fuck your Mother. When you get done with her, go back in the
bedroom. Grandma is still horny."
"Go back in the bedroom, Burkey. Your grandmother is still horny.
This time, she wants it in the ass. "
"FUCK YOU and stick your fucking orders up your chickenshit ass.
Go fuck your mother and your sister in the ass, too. "
"Go back in the bedroom. Yer Grandma wants it in the ass again. " ?
http://youtu.be/QKvIpdAlTLw
v***@gmail.com
2019-01-24 03:03:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Pack it in your ass, fool.
See what happens when people answer his questions. ArtieJoe is mentally ill.
He's obsessed with being fucked in the ass....
"FUCK YOU, Filthy coward.And fuck your Mother, too, in the ass."
"Go fuck yourself in the ass, you worthless whore."
"Go fuck your Mother. When you get done with her, go back in the
bedroom. Grandma is still horny."
"Go back in the bedroom, Burkey. Your grandmother is still horny.
This time, she wants it in the ass. "
"FUCK YOU and stick your fucking orders up your chickenshit ass.
Go fuck your mother and your sister in the ass, too. "
"Go back in the bedroom. Yer Grandma wants it in the ass again. " ?
AWWWWW! Poor Chrissie-poo has had his widdle ears offended.
Go to Mommy.She'll kiss it and make it all better.


Aren't you the one who keeps ranting:"WHAT FUCKING GOD?"
Kevrob
2019-01-24 03:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Aren't you the one who keeps ranting:"WHAT FUCKING GOD?"
It's impossible to hurt the feelings of imaginary beings, troll.

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Christopher A. Lee
2019-01-24 05:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Aren't you the one who keeps ranting:"WHAT FUCKING GOD?"
It's impossible to hurt the feelings of imaginary beings, troll.
The moron knows that this is only because he and his fellow
psychotics keep deliberately, rudely and stupidly begging the
question, even though they know atheists aren't theists.

He and they have been doing this for years.

So they get the question they beg - and they don't like it.

There's no reason to show them and their delusions the very courtesy
they have never shown us.

Why is he so dishonest?

Apart fron the fact that he's MAd Joe?
v***@gmail.com
2019-01-24 16:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Aren't you the one who keeps ranting:"WHAT FUCKING GOD?"
It's impossible to hurt the feelings of imaginary beings, troll.
---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
ROTFL! The issue is Chrissy poo's complaining that I use profanity.
Holy crap! You are as stupid as he is.
Kevrob
2019-01-24 19:30:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Aren't you the one who keeps ranting:"WHAT FUCKING GOD?"
It's impossible to hurt the feelings of imaginary beings, troll.
ROTFL! The issue is Chrissy poo's complaining that I use profanity.
Holy crap! You are as stupid as he is.
Our group FAQ warns that trolls will be treated as they deserve.
"THAT FUCKING GOD" is always deployed to respond to a troll.

Stop trolling, and he won't feel the need to deploy it.

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
v***@gmail.com
2019-01-24 19:43:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Aren't you the one who keeps ranting:"WHAT FUCKING GOD?"
It's impossible to hurt the feelings of imaginary beings, troll.
ROTFL! The issue is Chrissy poo's complaining that I use profanity.
Holy crap! You are as stupid as he is.
Our group FAQ warns that trolls will be treated as they deserve.
"THAT FUCKING GOD" is always deployed to respond to a troll.
Stop trolling, and he won't feel the need to deploy it.
---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
I don't take orders from two faced scum like you.
You're as much of a hypocrite as he is.
%
2019-01-24 19:50:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Aren't you the one who keeps ranting:"WHAT FUCKING GOD?"
It's impossible to hurt the feelings of imaginary beings, troll.
ROTFL! The issue is Chrissy poo's complaining that I use profanity.
Holy crap! You are as stupid as he is.
Our group FAQ warns that trolls will be treated as they deserve.
"THAT FUCKING GOD" is always deployed to respond to a troll.
Stop trolling, and he won't feel the need to deploy it.
---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
I don't take orders from two faced scum like you.
You're as much of a hypocrite as he is.
LOL
Ted
2019-01-24 19:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Aren't you the one who keeps ranting:"WHAT FUCKING GOD?"
It's impossible to hurt the feelings of imaginary beings, troll.
ROTFL! The issue is Chrissy poo's complaining that I use profanity.
Holy crap! You are as stupid as he is.
Our group FAQ warns that trolls will be treated as they deserve.
"THAT FUCKING GOD" is always deployed to respond to a troll.
Stop trolling, and he won't feel the need to deploy it.
---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
I don't take orders from two faced scum like you.
You're as much of a hypocrite as he is.
Kevin is offering advice, and you reject it to your detriment. So suit
yourself.
%
2019-01-24 20:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Aren't you the one who keeps ranting:"WHAT FUCKING GOD?"
It's impossible to hurt the feelings of imaginary beings, troll.
ROTFL! The issue is Chrissy poo's complaining that I use profanity.
Holy crap! You are as stupid as he is.
Our group FAQ warns that trolls will be treated as they deserve.
"THAT FUCKING GOD" is always deployed to respond to a troll.
Stop trolling, and he won't feel the need to deploy it.
---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
I don't take orders from two faced scum like you.
You're as much of a hypocrite as he is.
Kevin is offering advice, and you reject it to your detriment. So suit
yourself.
i bet he doesn't take orders from you either
Ted
2019-01-24 20:20:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by %
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Aren't you the one who keeps ranting:"WHAT FUCKING GOD?"
It's impossible to hurt the feelings of imaginary beings, troll.
ROTFL! The issue is Chrissy poo's complaining that I use profanity.
Holy crap! You are as stupid as he is.
Our group FAQ warns that trolls will be treated as they deserve.
"THAT FUCKING GOD" is always deployed to respond to a troll.
Stop trolling, and he won't feel the need to deploy it.
---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
I don't take orders from two faced scum like you.
You're as much of a hypocrite as he is.
Post by Kevrob
Kevin is offering advice, and you reject it to your detriment. So suit
yourself.
i bet he doesn't take orders from you either
In that case, I guess he won't be suiting himself.
Cloud Hobbit
2019-01-24 20:51:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
I don't take orders from two faced scum like you.
You're as much of a hypocrite as he is.


That's probably why you couldn't make a career in the Navy.

You wouldn't take orders.
Not that anyone here has given you any orders. That's another thing, you don't understand what is being said to you and take everything as an attack.

Basically, you don't know what is being said and you can't read as evidenced by the number of times you have linked to things that don't say what you think they say.

Perhaps it's the realization of how incompetent you are that makes you so combative.

It must be very aggravating to fail here so often where nobody respects you and where you continue to embarrass yourself daily.

Oh well, maybe some day You will wise up, but I won't hold my breath. You seem to enjoy your status as a liar and incompetent moron.
v***@gmail.com
2019-01-24 21:03:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
I don't take orders from two faced scum like you.
You're as much of a hypocrite as he is.
That's probably why you couldn't make a career in the Navy.
You don't know shit about it.
Post by v***@gmail.com
You wouldn't take orders.
ROTFL! You betray your ignorance. The UCMJ provides severe penalties for disobedience of an order. Had I done that, I'd have been court martialed.


I take orders well from people with legal authority over me, but NEVER FROM STUPID SCUM LIKE YOU AND KEVROB.
v***@gmail.com
2019-01-27 00:00:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
I don't take orders from two faced scum like you.
You're as much of a hypocrite as he is.
That's probably why you couldn't make a career in the Navy.
You wouldn't take orders.
ROTFL!My naval service was performed more than 40 years ago in numerous places all over the world. You were never there, nor have you ever seen the fitness reports written by my Commanding Officers on my performance.
Yet, you have the stupid gall to tell us all about how I acted way back then.

YOU ARE A STUPID, ARROGANT FRAUD.

After 6 years in the Navy, I could have applied for a permanent commission.
I did not. I got out by choice. HAVE YOU GOT THAT, YOU STUPID IDIOT?
Ted
2019-01-27 00:12:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
I don't take orders from two faced scum like you.
You're as much of a hypocrite as he is.
That's probably why you couldn't make a career in the Navy.
You wouldn't take orders.
ROTFL!My naval service was performed more than 40 years ago in numerous
places all over the world. You were never there, nor have you ever seen
the fitness reports written by my Commanding Officers on my performance.
Yet, you have the stupid gall to tell us all about how I acted way back then.
YOU ARE A STUPID, ARROGANT FRAUD.
After 6 years in the Navy, I could have applied for a permanent commission.
I did not. I got out by choice. HAVE YOU GOT THAT, YOU STUPID IDIOT?
Were you an officer in the Navy, Joe?
v***@gmail.com
2019-01-27 00:20:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
I don't take orders from two faced scum like you.
You're as much of a hypocrite as he is.
That's probably why you couldn't make a career in the Navy.
You wouldn't take orders.
ROTFL!My naval service was performed more than 40 years ago in numerous
places all over the world. You were never there, nor have you ever seen
the fitness reports written by my Commanding Officers on my performance.
Yet, you have the stupid gall to tell us all about how I acted way back then.
YOU ARE A STUPID, ARROGANT FRAUD.
After 6 years in the Navy, I could have applied for a permanent commission.
I did not. I got out by choice. HAVE YOU GOT THAT, YOU STUPID IDIOT?
Were you an officer in the Navy, Joe?
YES, for the last 4 years.
Ted
2019-01-27 00:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
I don't take orders from two faced scum like you.
You're as much of a hypocrite as he is.
That's probably why you couldn't make a career in the Navy.
You wouldn't take orders.
ROTFL!My naval service was performed more than 40 years ago in numerous
places all over the world. You were never there, nor have you ever seen
the fitness reports written by my Commanding Officers on my performance.
Yet, you have the stupid gall to tell us all about how I acted way back then.
YOU ARE A STUPID, ARROGANT FRAUD.
After 6 years in the Navy, I could have applied for a permanent commission.
I did not. I got out by choice. HAVE YOU GOT THAT, YOU STUPID IDIOT?
Were you an officer in the Navy, Joe?
YES, for the last 4 years.
Kewl. How long were you in altogether?
v***@gmail.com
2019-01-27 01:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
I don't take orders from two faced scum like you.
You're as much of a hypocrite as he is.
That's probably why you couldn't make a career in the Navy.
You wouldn't take orders.
ROTFL!My naval service was performed more than 40 years ago in numerous
places all over the world. You were never there, nor have you ever seen
the fitness reports written by my Commanding Officers on my performance.
Yet, you have the stupid gall to tell us all about how I acted way back then.
YOU ARE A STUPID, ARROGANT FRAUD.
After 6 years in the Navy, I could have applied for a permanent commission.
I did not. I got out by choice. HAVE YOU GOT THAT, YOU STUPID IDIOT?
Were you an officer in the Navy, Joe?
YES, for the last 4 years.
Kewl. How long were you in altogether?
6 years
Ted
2019-01-27 01:48:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Ted
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
I don't take orders from two faced scum like you.
You're as much of a hypocrite as he is.
That's probably why you couldn't make a career in the Navy.
You wouldn't take orders.
ROTFL!My naval service was performed more than 40 years ago in numerous
places all over the world. You were never there, nor have you ever seen
the fitness reports written by my Commanding Officers on my performance.
Yet, you have the stupid gall to tell us all about how I acted way back then.
YOU ARE A STUPID, ARROGANT FRAUD.
After 6 years in the Navy, I could have applied for a permanent commission.
I did not. I got out by choice. HAVE YOU GOT THAT, YOU STUPID IDIOT?
Were you an officer in the Navy, Joe?
YES, for the last 4 years.
Kewl. How long were you in altogether?
6 years
Interesting.
Yap Honghor
2019-01-25 01:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Aren't you the one who keeps ranting:"WHAT FUCKING GOD?"
It's impossible to hurt the feelings of imaginary beings, troll.
ROTFL! The issue is Chrissy poo's complaining that I use profanity.
Holy crap! You are as stupid as he is.
Our group FAQ warns that trolls will be treated as they deserve.
"THAT FUCKING GOD" is always deployed to respond to a troll.
Stop trolling, and he won't feel the need to deploy it.
---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
I don't take orders from two faced scum like you.
You're as much of a hypocrite as he is.
You are just an old brat, incapable to learn the desired right things...
Christopher A. Lee
2019-01-24 20:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Aren't you the one who keeps ranting:"WHAT FUCKING GOD?"
It's impossible to hurt the feelings of imaginary beings, troll.
ROTFL! The issue is Chrissy poo's complaining that I use profanity.
Holy crap! You are as stupid as he is.
Our group FAQ warns that trolls will be treated as they deserve.
"THAT FUCKING GOD" is always deployed to respond to a troll.
Stop trolling, and he won't feel the need to deploy it.
The proven serial liar knows perfectly well that it's in response to
repeated, rude, stupid question-begging by people who know atheists
don't share Christian presumptions - in some cases for more than
twenty years.

Mad Joe and the other religious loonies have crashed _our_ shared
personal space and simply reap what they sow.

If they don't like it, tough - they have no reason even to be here
apart from causing trouble and disruption.
v***@gmail.com
2019-01-24 20:58:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Aren't you the one who keeps ranting:"WHAT FUCKING GOD?"
It's impossible to hurt the feelings of imaginary beings, troll.
ROTFL! The issue is Chrissy poo's complaining that I use profanity.
Holy crap! You are as stupid as he is.
Our group FAQ warns that trolls will be treated as they deserve.
"THAT FUCKING GOD" is always deployed to respond to a troll.
Stop trolling, and he won't feel the need to deploy it.
The proven serial liar knows perfectly well that it's in response to
repeated, rude, stupid question-begging by people who know atheists
don't share Christian presumptions - in some cases for more than
twenty years.
Mad Joe and the other religious loonies have crashed _our_ shared
personal space and simply reap what they sow.
If they don't like it, tough - they have no reason even to be here
apart from causing trouble and disruption.
In case you are not aware, you have just declared war.
What I've got in store for you..........HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Cloud Hobbit
2019-01-24 21:06:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
In case you are not aware, you have just declared war.
What I've got in store for you..........HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Again the image of an ant crawling up an elephants leg with rape on its mind seems appropriate here.

Careful Duckman will haul off and leave us alone.

How many times has he threatened us only to be embarrassed by his own stupidity and have his ads handed to him on a platter.

Being who he is, he just runs away and hopes nobody will remember his embarrassing fuckups.

Another busy Yom Kippur for him this year.

Sigh.
Yap Honghor
2019-01-25 01:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Aren't you the one who keeps ranting:"WHAT FUCKING GOD?"
It's impossible to hurt the feelings of imaginary beings, troll.
ROTFL! The issue is Chrissy poo's complaining that I use profanity.
Holy crap! You are as stupid as he is.
Our group FAQ warns that trolls will be treated as they deserve.
"THAT FUCKING GOD" is always deployed to respond to a troll.
Stop trolling, and he won't feel the need to deploy it.
The proven serial liar knows perfectly well that it's in response to
repeated, rude, stupid question-begging by people who know atheists
don't share Christian presumptions - in some cases for more than
twenty years.
Mad Joe and the other religious loonies have crashed _our_ shared
personal space and simply reap what they sow.
If they don't like it, tough - they have no reason even to be here
apart from causing trouble and disruption.
In case you are not aware, you have just declared war.
What I've got in store for you..........HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
An illegally possessed gun????
viva padrepio
2019-01-22 15:40:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Tim: "Don't forget The Battle Of Mike Hunt!" :-D
Tim
2019-01-22 15:55:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by viva padrepio
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Tim: "Don't forget The Battle Of Mike Hunt!" :-D
Viva Pedophile: "That's nothing, my arse hole has been invaded and occupied by the Vatican. Rumour has it that there are three Popes up there waiting to be sainted - they're all ready scented. I anointed them with shit!!!"

:-O
Yap Honghor
2019-01-23 02:36:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by viva padrepio
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
Actually there were several. The Battle of New Orleans
(1815) and the Battle of Palmito Ranch (1865) come to mind.
Tim: "Don't forget The Battle Of Mike Hunt!" :-D
Viva: "I fight with Mike Hunt every night in bed over the issue of who should be on top!"
m***@gmail.com
2019-01-21 14:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
The Battle of New Orleans was fought after the British had surrendered
in the War of 1812.
Kevrob
2019-01-21 15:39:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
The Battle of New Orleans was fought after the British had surrendered
in the War of 1812.
"Surrendered" is inaccurate.

"...after the belligerents signed a peace treaty" would be more apt.

There being neither a transatlantic cable, nor an electrical telegraph
to make one desirable, news of the Treaty of Ghent took a month to
get Stateside.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Alex W.
2019-01-21 22:21:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
The Battle of New Orleans was fought after the British had surrendered
in the War of 1812.
"Surrendered" is inaccurate.
"...after the belligerents signed a peace treaty" would be more apt.
There being neither a transatlantic cable, nor an electrical telegraph
to make one desirable, news of the Treaty of Ghent took a month to
get Stateside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent
Arguably, the battle of New Orleans occurred during wartime, since the
peace treaty did not come into effect until both sides had ratified it
and Congress did not do so until more than a month after the battle.
m***@gmail.com
2019-01-22 09:08:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
The Battle of New Orleans was fought after the British had surrendered
in the War of 1812.
"Surrendered" is inaccurate.
"...after the belligerents signed a peace treaty" would be more apt.
There being neither a transatlantic cable, nor an electrical telegraph
to make one desirable, news of the Treaty of Ghent took a month to
get Stateside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent
Right, but the British knew it was a defeat or they wouldn't
have signed. And the Battle of New Orleans made that a
certainty. They gave up on invading the US, but tried to help
the Confederates win the Civil War, believing that the whole
country would fall apart and they would pick up the pieces.
After that, they finally admitted to themselves that they
weren't recapturing the US. The Louisiana Purchase and the
Mexican War didn't make this totally clear to them, but the
Civil War did. We weren't just 13 lost colonies anymore. And
the house was not going to be divided and fall. There were 18
states in 1812 and 36 states by the end of the Civil War.

What were the British thinking back then? Well, we're long time
allies now, as long as traitor Trump doesn't manage to drive us
apart.
v***@gmail.com
2019-01-22 13:16:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
The Battle of New Orleans was fought after the British had surrendered
in the War of 1812.
"Surrendered" is inaccurate.
"...after the belligerents signed a peace treaty" would be more apt.
There being neither a transatlantic cable, nor an electrical telegraph
to make one desirable, news of the Treaty of Ghent took a month to
get Stateside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent
Right, but the British knew it was a defeat or they wouldn't
have signed. And the Battle of New Orleans made that a
certainty. They gave up on invading the US, but tried to help
the Confederates win the Civil War, believing that the whole
country would fall apart and they would pick up the pieces.
After that, they finally admitted to themselves that they
weren't recapturing the US. The Louisiana Purchase and the
Mexican War didn't make this totally clear to them, but the
Civil War did. We weren't just 13 lost colonies anymore. And
the house was not going to be divided and fall. There were 18
states in 1812 and 36 states by the end of the Civil War.
What were the British thinking back then? Well, we're long time
allies now, as long as traitor Trump doesn't manage to drive us
apart.
The British lost the revolution and the war of 1812 because they were thinking like Europeans. They figured they would win just by capturing Washington DC.
Parliament did not realize just how big North America is. In order to win those 2 wars, they'd have to control Washington, New York, Philadelphia, Charleston, SC and all the territory West of those cities.
They didn't have the money or the manpower to do all that. It took them a while to realize just what they were up against.


The US Constitution defines Treason as "waging war against the United States, or adhering to it's enemies, providing them aid and comfort."

We are not even officially at war with anybody.

The accusation of "treason" is baseless.
Mitchell Holman
2019-01-22 14:02:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 9:36:57 AM UTC-5,
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 9:07:13 AM UTC-5,
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
The Battle of New Orleans was fought after the British had
surrendered in the War of 1812.
"Surrendered" is inaccurate.
"...after the belligerents signed a peace treaty" would be more apt.
There being neither a transatlantic cable, nor an electrical
telegraph to make one desirable, news of the Treaty of Ghent took a
month to get Stateside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent
Right, but the British knew it was a defeat or they wouldn't
have signed. And the Battle of New Orleans made that a
certainty. They gave up on invading the US, but tried to help
the Confederates win the Civil War, believing that the whole
country would fall apart and they would pick up the pieces.
After that, they finally admitted to themselves that they
weren't recapturing the US. The Louisiana Purchase and the
Mexican War didn't make this totally clear to them, but the
Civil War did. We weren't just 13 lost colonies anymore. And
the house was not going to be divided and fall. There were 18
states in 1812 and 36 states by the end of the Civil War.
What were the British thinking back then? Well, we're long time
allies now, as long as traitor Trump doesn't manage to drive us
apart.
The British lost the revolution and the war of 1812
Who told you British lost the War of 1812?
The Americans lost more troops, had more ships
destroyed, saw more land occupied and it's trade
routes eliminated. The US army could not even
defend Washington DC. Both sides were spending
themselves into debt for no gain, so it ended in
a stalemate.




because they were
Post by v***@gmail.com
thinking like Europeans. They figured they would win just by capturing
Washington DC. Parliament did not realize just how big North America
is. In order to win those 2 wars, they'd have to control Washington,
New York, Philadelphia, Charleston, SC and all the territory West of
those cities. They didn't have the money or the manpower to do all
that. It took them a while to realize just what they were up against.
The US Constitution defines Treason as "waging war against the United
States, or adhering to it's enemies, providing them aid and comfort."
We are not even officially at war with anybody.
The accusation of "treason" is baseless.
Kevrob
2019-01-22 16:41:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 9:36:57 AM UTC-5,
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 9:07:13 AM UTC-5,
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
The Battle of New Orleans was fought after the British had
surrendered in the War of 1812.
"Surrendered" is inaccurate.
"...after the belligerents signed a peace treaty" would be more apt.
There being neither a transatlantic cable, nor an electrical
telegraph to make one desirable, news of the Treaty of Ghent took a
month to get Stateside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent
Right, but the British knew it was a defeat or they wouldn't
have signed. And the Battle of New Orleans made that a
certainty. They gave up on invading the US, but tried to help
the Confederates win the Civil War, believing that the whole
country would fall apart and they would pick up the pieces.
After that, they finally admitted to themselves that they
weren't recapturing the US. The Louisiana Purchase and the
Mexican War didn't make this totally clear to them, but the
Civil War did. We weren't just 13 lost colonies anymore. And
the house was not going to be divided and fall. There were 18
states in 1812 and 36 states by the end of the Civil War.
What were the British thinking back then? Well, we're long time
allies now, as long as traitor Trump doesn't manage to drive us
apart.
The British lost the revolution and the war of 1812
Who told you British lost the War of 1812?
The Americans lost more troops, had more ships
destroyed, saw more land occupied and it's trade
routes eliminated. The US army could not even
defend Washington DC.
Which, at the time, was a small town with nobody living
there but some government employees, and the folks who
had been living in Georgetown before the District was
set up. Baltimore, a major seaport that would have to
be taken if the British tried to HOLD Washington City,
was defended.

The burning of Washington was a reprisal for US troops disobeying
orders and burning York, ON (now part of Toronto.)
Post by Mitchell Holman
Both sides were spending
themselves into debt for no gain, so it ended in
a stalemate.
The attempt to invade northern New York, and use the Hudson route to
divide New England from the mid-Atlantic states failed, however.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plattsburgh

These two American victories convinced Britain that making peace
was wiser than continuing the war. Wellington advised the politicians
that a settlement more favorable to Britain than status quo ante bellum
could not be justified by the military results.

[quote]

"I think you have no right, from the state of war, to demand any
concession of territory from America... You have not been able to
carry it into the enemy's territory, notwithstanding your military
success, and now undoubted military superiority, and have not even
cleared your own territory on the point of attack. You cannot on
any principle of equality in negotiation claim a cession of territory
except in exchange for other advantages which you have in your power...
Then if this reasoning be true, why stipulate for the uti possidetis?
You can get no territory: indeed, the state of your military pperations,
however creditable, does not entitle you to demand any."

-Arthur Wellesley, First Duke of Wellington

[/quote]

https://sites.google.com/site/ttreatyofghent/overview-diagram/duke-of-wellington

The UK government might have wanted to continue the war,
and either take the States back, or defeat us seriously
enough that we would have had to make concessions at the
treaty table: give up rights to fish the Grand Banks, or
push the border of British North America below the Great Lakes.
Making the US cede Louisiana back to Spain was another point.
Britain had forced France out of Spain at serious cost

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsular_War

Some in Spain thought that France did not have the right to
sell Louisiana, as the whole point of the cession was to
protect Spanish colonies from US encroachment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Treaty_of_San_Ildefonso

If Britain could force that, then later it might buy that territory
from the Spanish, and deny American settlers use of the Mississipi
and "the right of deposit" at New Orleans. As a result, the USA's
only avenue for export would be via East Coast ports, and, unless
we decided to build a big navy, US merchant ships would be sailing
on a British lake. A USA confined to the eastern seaboard, unable
use the Ohio-to Mississipi route for internal communications, would
be a much less potent rival, and might well be snapped up by the
Empire years or decades down the road, if only as a client state.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
because they were
thinking like Europeans. They figured they would win just by capturing
Washington DC. Parliament did not realize just how big North America
is. In order to win those 2 wars, they'd have to control Washington,
New York, Philadelphia, Charleston, SC and all the territory West of
those cities. They didn't have the money or the manpower to do all
that. It took them a while to realize just what they were up against.
The Foreign Office would have also liked to have set up a buffer
state between the Ohio and the southern shores of the Great Lakes
for their native tribal allies.

See:

https://www.historynet.com/clumsy-war-lasting-peace-treaty-ghent.htm

or ad-lite @ https://outline.com/hUTU4K

There's a saying among those who have studied the 1812-1815
Us/UK war: The "Canadians" won, the US and UK tied, and the
Native Americans lost. "Canada" didn't yet exist as a state,
though Canadian national identity calls back to the 1812 war.

British businessmen would rather have had the market than war taxes,
and they let their MPs know that. The debt from the Napoleonic wars
was immense, so piling up more made no sense. Peace was more
profitable.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
The US Constitution defines Treason as "waging war against the United
States, or adhering to it's enemies, providing them aid and comfort."
We are not even officially at war with anybody.
The "declaration of war" by the US is essentially extinct in
the modern age. We haven't used one since WWII.
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by v***@gmail.com
The accusation of "treason" is baseless.
If one gave "aid and comfort" to Al-Qaeda or ISIS, one might get
charged with it. The Justice Department could always charge on
the basis of being an accessory to terrorist acts, or to homicide
or attempted homicide, or state governments could, if one helped in
setting up an attack in the 50 states. "There's no declared war,
so it can't be treason" wouldn't help as an argument if one is
facing death penalty charges on non-treason counts.

Standards of treason are tough in court, too.

[quote]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony
of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but
no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture
except during the Life of the Person attainted.

[/quote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Treason

The "two witness rule" might be hard to adhere to, in some cases.

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Alex W.
2019-01-23 01:06:02 UTC
Permalink
On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 1:08:20 AM UTC-8,
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 10:40:02 AM UTC-5, Kevrob
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 9:36:57 AM UTC-5,
On Monday, January 21, 2019 at 9:07:13 AM UTC-5,
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
The Battle of New Orleans was fought after the British had
surrendered in the War of 1812.
"Surrendered" is inaccurate.
"...after the belligerents signed a peace treaty" would be
more apt.
There being neither a transatlantic cable, nor an electrical
telegraph to make one desirable, news of the Treaty of Ghent
took a month to get Stateside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent
Right, but the British knew it was a defeat or they wouldn't
have signed. And the Battle of New Orleans made that a
certainty. They gave up on invading the US, but tried to help
the Confederates win the Civil War, believing that the whole
country would fall apart and they would pick up the pieces.
After that, they finally admitted to themselves that they
weren't recapturing the US. The Louisiana Purchase and the
Mexican War didn't make this totally clear to them, but the
Civil War did. We weren't just 13 lost colonies anymore. And
the house was not going to be divided and fall. There were 18
states in 1812 and 36 states by the end of the Civil War.
What were the British thinking back then? Well, we're long
time allies now, as long as traitor Trump doesn't manage to
drive us apart.
The British lost the revolution and the war of 1812
Who told you British lost the War of 1812? The Americans lost more
troops, had more ships destroyed, saw more land occupied and it's
trade routes eliminated. The US army could not even defend
Washington DC.
Which, at the time, was a small town with nobody living there but
some government employees, and the folks who had been living in
Georgetown before the District was set up. Baltimore, a major
seaport that would have to be taken if the British tried to HOLD
Washington City, was defended.
The burning of Washington was a reprisal for US troops disobeying
orders and burning York, ON (now part of Toronto.)
And we are still waiting for a hearty thank-you from right-thinking
Americans for this act of grace.

:-)
Both sides were spending themselves into debt for no gain, so it
ended in a stalemate.
The attempt to invade northern New York, and use the Hudson route to
divide New England from the mid-Atlantic states failed, however.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plattsburgh
These two American victories convinced Britain that making peace was
wiser than continuing the war. Wellington advised the politicians
that a settlement more favorable to Britain than status quo ante
bellum could not be justified by the military results.
Also consider that the US was a beneficiary of good timing. The Union
with Ireland, the Napoleonic wars and the Peninsular War combined to
preoccupy and focus the political establishment elsewhere, and they
drained British resources (financial, manpower) to a considerable
degree. Had, for instance, Napoleon fallen prey to a stray bullet or a
palace intrigue, we might well have had the resources and the political
will to pursue the reconquest of North America to a far more determined
degree.
[quote]
"I think you have no right, from the state of war, to demand any
concession of territory from America... You have not been able to
carry it into the enemy's territory, notwithstanding your military
success, and now undoubted military superiority, and have not even
cleared your own territory on the point of attack. You cannot on any
principle of equality in negotiation claim a cession of territory
except in exchange for other advantages which you have in your
power... Then if this reasoning be true, why stipulate for the uti
possidetis? You can get no territory: indeed, the state of your
military pperations, however creditable, does not entitle you to
demand any."
-Arthur Wellesley, First Duke of Wellington
[/quote]
https://sites.google.com/site/ttreatyofghent/overview-diagram/duke-of-wellington
The UK government might have wanted to continue the war, and either
take the States back, or defeat us seriously enough that we would
have had to make concessions at the treaty table: give up rights to
fish the Grand Banks, or push the border of British North America
below the Great Lakes. Making the US cede Louisiana back to Spain was
another point. Britain had forced France out of Spain at serious
cost
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsular_War
Some in Spain thought that France did not have the right to sell
Louisiana, as the whole point of the cession was to protect Spanish
colonies from US encroachment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Treaty_of_San_Ildefonso
If Britain could force that, then later it might buy that territory
from the Spanish, and deny American settlers use of the Mississipi
and "the right of deposit" at New Orleans. As a result, the USA's
only avenue for export would be via East Coast ports, and, unless we
decided to build a big navy, US merchant ships would be sailing on a
British lake. A USA confined to the eastern seaboard, unable use the
Ohio-to Mississipi route for internal communications, would be a much
less potent rival, and might well be snapped up by the Empire years
or decades down the road, if only as a client state.
because they were thinking like Europeans. They figured they
would win just by capturing Washington DC. Parliament did not
realize just how big North America is. In order to win those 2
wars, they'd have to control Washington, New York, Philadelphia,
Charleston, SC and all the territory West of those cities. They
didn't have the money or the manpower to do all that. It took
them a while to realize just what they were up against.
The Foreign Office would have also liked to have set up a buffer
state between the Ohio and the southern shores of the Great Lakes for
their native tribal allies.
If that had come off, it would have made life (and history) much more
interesting in North America. The march to a unified nation from sea to
shining sea would not have been nearly as easy as it eventually was.
https://www.historynet.com/clumsy-war-lasting-peace-treaty-ghent.htm
There's a saying among those who have studied the 1812-1815 Us/UK
war: The "Canadians" won, the US and UK tied, and the Native
Americans lost. "Canada" didn't yet exist as a state, though
Canadian national identity calls back to the 1812 war.
British businessmen would rather have had the market than war taxes,
and they let their MPs know that. The debt from the Napoleonic wars
was immense, so piling up more made no sense. Peace was more
profitable.
Not to forget that peace reduced the risk to the immensely profitable
Caribbean colonies. The river of gold flowing into Britain from rum,
sugar and tobacco was worth so much that any potential gains from
regaining control over the 13 colonies would have paled in comparison.
Kevrob
2019-01-23 04:01:04 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
The burning of Washington was a reprisal for US troops disobeying
orders and burning York, ON (now part of Toronto.)
And we are still waiting for a hearty thank-you from right-thinking
Americans for this act of grace.
:-)
Washington City was not yet the "swamp" that those who would
like a smaller federal government call it. It was still a
nice patch of arable land.

https://theconversation.com/draining-the-swamp-a-guide-for-outsiders-and-career-politicians-73422

The place doesn't really come due for a good torching
until the Progressive Era, or the New Deal. :)
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
Both sides were spending themselves into debt for no gain, so it
ended in a stalemate.
These two American victories convinced Britain that making peace was
wiser than continuing the war. Wellington advised the politicians
that a settlement more favorable to Britain than status quo ante
bellum could not be justified by the military results.
Also consider that the US was a beneficiary of good timing. The Union
with Ireland, the Napoleonic wars and the Peninsular War combined to
preoccupy and focus the political establishment elsewhere, and they
drained British resources (financial, manpower) to a considerable
degree. Had, for instance, Napoleon fallen prey to a stray bullet or a
palace intrigue, we might well have had the resources and the political
will to pursue the reconquest of North America to a far more determined
degree.
Good points, all.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
[quote]
"I think you have no right, ..
[snip]
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
-Arthur Wellesley, First Duke of Wellington
[/quote]
https://sites.google.com/site/ttreatyofghent/overview-diagram/duke-of-wellington
[snip]
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
The Foreign Office would have also liked to have set up a buffer
state between the Ohio and the southern shores of the Great Lakes for
their native tribal allies.
If that had come off, it would have made life (and history) much more
interesting in North America. The march to a unified nation from sea to
shining sea would not have been nearly as easy as it eventually was.
At some point - the middle of our War Between The States, I'd say --
London decided trying to fracture the USA or contain its east-west
expansion was futile, and at best could be managed. Keeping present-day
British Columbia under the red ensign by building a railroad from
Eastern Canada to the Pacific, for example, and the entire process
of Canadian Confederation, which was a prophylactic against any
northern expressions of Manifest Destiny.

[snip]
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
British businessmen would rather have had the market than war taxes,
and they let their MPs know that. The debt from the Napoleonic wars
was immense, so piling up more made no sense. Peace was more
profitable.
Not to forget that peace reduced the risk to the immensely profitable
Caribbean colonies. The river of gold flowing into Britain from rum,
sugar and tobacco was worth so much that any potential gains from
regaining control over the 13 colonies would have paled in comparison.
Another good point. Consider how the Dutch swapped occupied New
Netherland (modern New York state) for Suriname,* and how Napoleon
sold Louisiana to the US so he could try to retake Haiti and
re-establish slavery there. The plantation economies there were
goldmines compared even to those in the US southeast, at least
until cotton became a serious cash crop. Whitney had invented
and patented his cotton gin by 1807, but it took time for the crop
to become "King Cotton."

* see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Anglo-Dutch_War#Second_Peace_of_Westminster

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Don Martin
2019-01-23 14:12:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
The Foreign Office would have also liked to have set up a buffer
state between the Ohio and the southern shores of the Great Lakes for
their native tribal allies.
If that had come off, it would have made life (and history) much more
interesting in North America. The march to a unified nation from sea to
shining sea would not have been nearly as easy as it eventually was.
I dunno. Given our god-given advantages (small pox, measles, mumps,
and TB, to name just the prominent ones), we would simply have walked
around such a reservation on our way to the Pacific, and come back
later to pick up Youngstown, Cleveland, and Toledo once the area was
depopulated. Any survivors there could have been eliminated by
rolling a few barrels of whiskey in front of the settlers.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Alex W.
2019-01-24 00:10:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
The Foreign Office would have also liked to have set up a buffer
state between the Ohio and the southern shores of the Great Lakes for
their native tribal allies.
If that had come off, it would have made life (and history) much more
interesting in North America. The march to a unified nation from sea to
shining sea would not have been nearly as easy as it eventually was.
I dunno. Given our god-given advantages (small pox, measles, mumps,
and TB, to name just the prominent ones), we would simply have walked
around such a reservation on our way to the Pacific, and come back
later to pick up Youngstown, Cleveland, and Toledo once the area was
depopulated. Any survivors there could have been eliminated by
rolling a few barrels of whiskey in front of the settlers.
You don't think that with material and political support, the Five
Nations could have made a go of their own nation?
Kevrob
2019-01-24 00:51:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
The Foreign Office would have also liked to have set up a buffer
state between the Ohio and the southern shores of the Great Lakes for
their native tribal allies.
If that had come off, it would have made life (and history) much more
interesting in North America. The march to a unified nation from sea to
shining sea would not have been nearly as easy as it eventually was.
I dunno. Given our god-given advantages (small pox, measles, mumps,
and TB, to name just the prominent ones), we would simply have walked
around such a reservation on our way to the Pacific, and come back
later to pick up Youngstown, Cleveland, and Toledo once the area was
depopulated. Any survivors there could have been eliminated by
rolling a few barrels of whiskey in front of the settlers.
You don't think that with material and political support, the Five
Nations could have made a go of their own nation?
If the extent of the buffer state included such lands as
present-day Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota,
I'd say they stood a chance until the fur-bearing animals
were trapped out. After that, making a living would be
tougher. By 5 Nations, I take it you mean the Iroquois.

The southeast had the "5 Civilized Tribes," whom the US
double-crossed. I could see them moving across the Mississippi
if the US had to give up Louisiana.

It's a shame soc.history.what-if was destroyed by the spammers.
The Google Groups archive must have loads of scenarios there,
but access has been shut down.

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Alex W.
2019-01-24 07:52:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
The Foreign Office would have also liked to have set up a buffer
state between the Ohio and the southern shores of the Great Lakes for
their native tribal allies.
If that had come off, it would have made life (and history) much more
interesting in North America. The march to a unified nation from sea to
shining sea would not have been nearly as easy as it eventually was.
I dunno. Given our god-given advantages (small pox, measles, mumps,
and TB, to name just the prominent ones), we would simply have walked
around such a reservation on our way to the Pacific, and come back
later to pick up Youngstown, Cleveland, and Toledo once the area was
depopulated. Any survivors there could have been eliminated by
rolling a few barrels of whiskey in front of the settlers.
You don't think that with material and political support, the Five
Nations could have made a go of their own nation?
If the extent of the buffer state included such lands as
present-day Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota,
I'd say they stood a chance until the fur-bearing animals
were trapped out. After that, making a living would be
tougher. By 5 Nations, I take it you mean the Iroquois.
At their peak, the Five (later Six) Nations would have encompassed a
significant territory, much of which in what is now the United States.
This would have put them foursquare in the middle of some important
trade routes within the US and Canada both, would have given them access
to (and therefore some control over) the Great Lakes and the St
Lawrence, and would have been well within reach of the big cities of the
East Coast. If my memory of my (admittedly limited) reading is correct,
this process was already well underway by the middle of the 18th century
-- well before the American Revolution -- as German settlers on Iroquois
lands exchanged farming techniques and technologies. So, given time and
good leadership, I think they might well have been able to adopt enough
Western ways and technology to become a viable Native nation.

In addition, there are distinct advantages to be had from being a
smaller nation between two big countries, able to play off one against
the other.
Post by Kevrob
The southeast had the "5 Civilized Tribes," whom the US
double-crossed. I could see them moving across the Mississippi
if the US had to give up Louisiana.
Someone once told me that there is not a single treaty with Native
Americans that the US did not break. So no surprises there....
Post by Kevrob
It's a shame soc.history.what-if was destroyed by the spammers.
The Google Groups archive must have loads of scenarios there,
but access has been shut down.
It's fun to play what-if, but not really productive history.
Kevrob
2019-01-24 19:26:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
It's a shame soc.history.what-if was destroyed by the spammers.
The Google Groups archive must have loads of scenarios there,
but access has been shut down.
It's fun to play what-if, but not really productive history.
It can produce some amusing fiction.

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
%
2019-01-24 19:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
It's a shame soc.history.what-if was destroyed by the spammers.
The Google Groups archive must have loads of scenarios there,
but access has been shut down.
It's fun to play what-if, but not really productive history.
It can produce some amusing fiction.
---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
if you're easily amused
Alex W.
2019-01-24 23:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
It's a shame soc.history.what-if was destroyed by the spammers.
The Google Groups archive must have loads of scenarios there,
but access has been shut down.
It's fun to play what-if, but not really productive history.
It can produce some amusing fiction.
Harry Turtledove has made a very decent career writing alternate history
novels. It helps that he has a PhD in history...

AAMOF, I think I have a novel of his somewhere in which the basic setup
includes an established and thriving Five Nations state. "The Two
Georges", maybe?
Kevrob
2019-01-25 01:27:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
It's a shame soc.history.what-if was destroyed by the spammers.
The Google Groups archive must have loads of scenarios there,
but access has been shut down.
It's fun to play what-if, but not really productive history.
It can produce some amusing fiction.
Harry Turtledove has made a very decent career writing alternate history
novels. It helps that he has a PhD in history...
AAMOF, I think I have a novel of his somewhere in which the basic setup
includes an established and thriving Five Nations state. "The Two
Georges", maybe?
And, in the Southern Victory series, Oklahoma is Sequoyah.

Yes. There's also a state, Irrakawa, located in present-day
New York state, in Orson Scott Card's Alvin Maker novels.

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Don Martin
2019-01-24 15:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
The Foreign Office would have also liked to have set up a buffer
state between the Ohio and the southern shores of the Great Lakes for
their native tribal allies.
If that had come off, it would have made life (and history) much more
interesting in North America. The march to a unified nation from sea to
shining sea would not have been nearly as easy as it eventually was.
I dunno. Given our god-given advantages (small pox, measles, mumps,
and TB, to name just the prominent ones), we would simply have walked
around such a reservation on our way to the Pacific, and come back
later to pick up Youngstown, Cleveland, and Toledo once the area was
depopulated. Any survivors there could have been eliminated by
rolling a few barrels of whiskey in front of the settlers.
You don't think that with material and political support, the Five
Nations could have made a go of their own nation?
Politically and culturally, of course they could have done, But in
receiving that support, they would have come in contact with
Europeans. When I was a kid, we were taught (seriously!) that the
precolumbian Indian population in north America never amounted to more
than 1 million, so the mortality was not a very big deal. Current
estimations are 100 times that, and considers that the toll of
European disease was close to 90%, but it was usually uncounted. One
of the few counts we do have is from the 19th century, when the
Canadian Pacific Railway was built. For some reason, they tracked the
rate of TB (a fashionable disease in the 19th century; see _La Boheme_
for details) in the regions through which they laid tracks. The death
rate was 10% per YEAR. You do not have to do too many years of that
sort of thing to run out of community in which to practice good
government.

And TB was only one of our many Gifts* to them.

__________
* Capitalized because I like the irony of the German definition.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Don Martin
2019-01-23 14:12:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
British businessmen would rather have had the market than war taxes,
and they let their MPs know that. The debt from the Napoleonic wars
was immense, so piling up more made no sense. Peace was more
profitable.
Not to forget that peace reduced the risk to the immensely profitable
Caribbean colonies. The river of gold flowing into Britain from rum,
sugar and tobacco was worth so much that any potential gains from
regaining control over the 13 colonies would have paled in comparison.
No foresight, then, for the new cotton gin, and its resulting impact
upon England's textile industry. Before that machine, it took a slave
an entire (long) working day to get the seeds out of one pound of
cotton; Whitney's first model did 50 pounds per day, and his
subsequent improvements upped that amount considerably. Slavery was on
the verge of dying out in this country at that time: the cotton gin
gave the peculiar institution a new lease on life.

Contrary to American self-aggrandizing notions, Whitney did not
_invent_ the gin. One form had been in use in India from 500 CE
onward, but it worked best for long-staple cotton and not the stuff we
grew here. Whitney modified the technology to process short-staple
cotton, first by human muscle power (slaves, again), then larger
versions using horse or water power, then steam powered the largest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Alex W.
2019-01-24 00:32:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
British businessmen would rather have had the market than war taxes,
and they let their MPs know that. The debt from the Napoleonic wars
was immense, so piling up more made no sense. Peace was more
profitable.
Not to forget that peace reduced the risk to the immensely profitable
Caribbean colonies. The river of gold flowing into Britain from rum,
sugar and tobacco was worth so much that any potential gains from
regaining control over the 13 colonies would have paled in comparison.
No foresight, then, for the new cotton gin, and its resulting impact
upon England's textile industry. Before that machine, it took a slave
an entire (long) working day to get the seeds out of one pound of
cotton; Whitney's first model did 50 pounds per day, and his
subsequent improvements upped that amount considerably. Slavery was on
the verge of dying out in this country at that time: the cotton gin
gave the peculiar institution a new lease on life.
At that time, slavery had already been outlawed in the British Caribbean
colonies and business models had shifted to share-cropping and low-wage
models. We would not have had much reason to think that developments on
the American mainland would be much different.

What I find interesting is that it took so long for a cotton-harvesting
machine to be developed. Whether the plantation owner/operator owned
slaves or employed share-croppers, the cost of labour would have been
quite high and consequently there should have been much demand for such
a contraption.
Post by Don Martin
Contrary to American self-aggrandizing notions, Whitney did not
_invent_ the gin. One form had been in use in India from 500 CE
onward, but it worked best for long-staple cotton and not the stuff we
grew here. Whitney modified the technology to process short-staple
cotton, first by human muscle power (slaves, again), then larger
versions using horse or water power, then steam powered the largest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin
Note: the glory (and the profits) of an invention does not go to the
inventor but to whoever first rushes it into publication or production
(or first registers the patent) ....

And it would certainly not have occurred to our illustrious forebears to
credit some funny-coloured inferior people with any sort of
inventiveness....
Don Martin
2019-01-24 15:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
British businessmen would rather have had the market than war taxes,
and they let their MPs know that. The debt from the Napoleonic wars
was immense, so piling up more made no sense. Peace was more
profitable.
Not to forget that peace reduced the risk to the immensely profitable
Caribbean colonies. The river of gold flowing into Britain from rum,
sugar and tobacco was worth so much that any potential gains from
regaining control over the 13 colonies would have paled in comparison.
No foresight, then, for the new cotton gin, and its resulting impact
upon England's textile industry. Before that machine, it took a slave
an entire (long) working day to get the seeds out of one pound of
cotton; Whitney's first model did 50 pounds per day, and his
subsequent improvements upped that amount considerably. Slavery was on
the verge of dying out in this country at that time: the cotton gin
gave the peculiar institution a new lease on life.
At that time, slavery had already been outlawed in the British Caribbean
colonies and business models had shifted to share-cropping and low-wage
models. We would not have had much reason to think that developments on
the American mainland would be much different.
You made the mistake of supposing us as civilized as the mother
country was.
Post by Alex W.
What I find interesting is that it took so long for a cotton-harvesting
machine to be developed. Whether the plantation owner/operator owned
slaves or employed share-croppers, the cost of labour would have been
quite high and consequently there should have been much demand for such
a contraption.
The cotton-picking machine was the very last mechanical device for
agriculture, because cotton is difficult to mechanize. Unlike grain,
with fairly uniform stalk length and the product conveniently located
at the top, cotton can vary considerably in height and the bolls are
all over the plant (which is actually a shrub or a tree, quite woody
and requiring study equipment, while its product is quite delicate and
requires gentle handling). Maize has its product at various heights
also, but they occur in convenient ears, easily distinguishable from
stalks and leaves, and all seeds are so distinguishable compared to
cotton. What is "picked" from it is a handful of seeds tangled in a
nest of fibers. The first cotton picker was invented in the late 20s,
but the depression bit the inventors in the ass and they were never
able to go into significant production with it, and WWII was a further
block to its development. In the 40s, other companies (with funding)
developed machines on that original, or on novel, designs, but it took
a while for their widespread adoption: the machines were very
expensive and the south was still poor. It was not until the 60s that
most cotton was mechanically picked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_picker

When I lived in Mississippi, I knew a farmer who had a 1,200 acre
family farm. He told me that in "the old days" some 120 field hands
were required to work the farm; he did it with 9 equipment operators.
If this rate of 10 hands per acre was common, you can see how the
second Great Migration of blacks northward that began with WWII's need
for factory workers was continued by the swelling ranks of unemployed
sharecroppers.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Contrary to American self-aggrandizing notions, Whitney did not
_invent_ the gin. One form had been in use in India from 500 CE
onward, but it worked best for long-staple cotton and not the stuff we
grew here. Whitney modified the technology to process short-staple
cotton, first by human muscle power (slaves, again), then larger
versions using horse or water power, then steam powered the largest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin
Note: the glory (and the profits) of an invention does not go to the
inventor but to whoever first rushes it into publication or production
(or first registers the patent) ....
And it would certainly not have occurred to our illustrious forebears to
credit some funny-coloured inferior people with any sort of
inventiveness....
People incapable of speaking English without wagging their heads might
well have trouble drafting straight lines . . . .
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Alex W.
2019-01-25 07:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
British businessmen would rather have had the market than war taxes,
and they let their MPs know that. The debt from the Napoleonic wars
was immense, so piling up more made no sense. Peace was more
profitable.
Not to forget that peace reduced the risk to the immensely profitable
Caribbean colonies. The river of gold flowing into Britain from rum,
sugar and tobacco was worth so much that any potential gains from
regaining control over the 13 colonies would have paled in comparison.
No foresight, then, for the new cotton gin, and its resulting impact
upon England's textile industry. Before that machine, it took a slave
an entire (long) working day to get the seeds out of one pound of
cotton; Whitney's first model did 50 pounds per day, and his
subsequent improvements upped that amount considerably. Slavery was on
the verge of dying out in this country at that time: the cotton gin
gave the peculiar institution a new lease on life.
At that time, slavery had already been outlawed in the British Caribbean
colonies and business models had shifted to share-cropping and low-wage
models. We would not have had much reason to think that developments on
the American mainland would be much different.
You made the mistake of supposing us as civilized as the mother
country was.
It's not so much about being civilised or having high morals, but about
money. Capital rules. Abolishing slavery in the British colonies
worked because the government footed the bill, and because, vitally, it
included a period of several years to give both sides time to adjust to
the new rules of play.

Given the right incentives, I am firmly convinced Southerners would have
abandoned slavery with equal facility. Recompense for their lost
capital investment would have liberated an awful lot of capital to be
invested fruitfully and profitably elsewhere, and would have
significantly reduced operating costs. Nor would it have shaken their
cultural sense of superiority.
Don Martin
2019-01-25 13:30:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
British businessmen would rather have had the market than war taxes,
and they let their MPs know that. The debt from the Napoleonic wars
was immense, so piling up more made no sense. Peace was more
profitable.
Not to forget that peace reduced the risk to the immensely profitable
Caribbean colonies. The river of gold flowing into Britain from rum,
sugar and tobacco was worth so much that any potential gains from
regaining control over the 13 colonies would have paled in comparison.
No foresight, then, for the new cotton gin, and its resulting impact
upon England's textile industry. Before that machine, it took a slave
an entire (long) working day to get the seeds out of one pound of
cotton; Whitney's first model did 50 pounds per day, and his
subsequent improvements upped that amount considerably. Slavery was on
the verge of dying out in this country at that time: the cotton gin
gave the peculiar institution a new lease on life.
At that time, slavery had already been outlawed in the British Caribbean
colonies and business models had shifted to share-cropping and low-wage
models. We would not have had much reason to think that developments on
the American mainland would be much different.
You made the mistake of supposing us as civilized as the mother
country was.
It's not so much about being civilised or having high morals, but about
money. Capital rules. Abolishing slavery in the British colonies
worked because the government footed the bill, and because, vitally, it
included a period of several years to give both sides time to adjust to
the new rules of play.
Given the right incentives, I am firmly convinced Southerners would have
abandoned slavery with equal facility. Recompense for their lost
capital investment would have liberated an awful lot of capital to be
invested fruitfully and profitably elsewhere, and would have
significantly reduced operating costs. Nor would it have shaken their
cultural sense of superiority.
Looking at recent events, I am convinced that _nothing_ can shake the
cultural sense of superiority of white folks.

A few months ago I posted a finding that I have since lost (though
https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php covers pretty much the same
ground): it was based on 1850 census data and contemporary
advertisements and reports of slave auctions, and concluded that the
value of slaves was something like $5 billion in 1850 dollars at a
time when our entire Federal budget was $69 million per year. With
the best will in the world, we lacked the means to buy the freedom of
these people (though we did manage to find the means to conduct the
Civil War 10 years later). The problem was further complicated by the
fact that a large number of slaves were in hock: owners used them for
collateral just like any other chattel, and they were typically the
most valuable chattel those owners possessed. The owners could not
free their hocked slaves, or allow them to be freed, without being
guilty of defrauding their lenders. I suspect that your slave owners
may have had fewer slaves (the death rate for agricultural operatives
in the sugar cane industry _was_ pretty high), and I wonder whether
British law forbade their use as collateral, which would have made
freeing them less complicated/more affordable.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Christopher A. Lee
2019-01-25 13:43:46 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 08:30:00 -0500, Don Martin
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
British businessmen would rather have had the market than war taxes,
and they let their MPs know that. The debt from the Napoleonic wars
was immense, so piling up more made no sense. Peace was more
profitable.
Not to forget that peace reduced the risk to the immensely profitable
Caribbean colonies. The river of gold flowing into Britain from rum,
sugar and tobacco was worth so much that any potential gains from
regaining control over the 13 colonies would have paled in comparison.
No foresight, then, for the new cotton gin, and its resulting impact
upon England's textile industry. Before that machine, it took a slave
an entire (long) working day to get the seeds out of one pound of
cotton; Whitney's first model did 50 pounds per day, and his
subsequent improvements upped that amount considerably. Slavery was on
the verge of dying out in this country at that time: the cotton gin
gave the peculiar institution a new lease on life.
At that time, slavery had already been outlawed in the British Caribbean
colonies and business models had shifted to share-cropping and low-wage
models. We would not have had much reason to think that developments on
the American mainland would be much different.
You made the mistake of supposing us as civilized as the mother
country was.
It's not so much about being civilised or having high morals, but about
money. Capital rules. Abolishing slavery in the British colonies
worked because the government footed the bill, and because, vitally, it
included a period of several years to give both sides time to adjust to
the new rules of play.
Given the right incentives, I am firmly convinced Southerners would have
abandoned slavery with equal facility. Recompense for their lost
capital investment would have liberated an awful lot of capital to be
invested fruitfully and profitably elsewhere, and would have
significantly reduced operating costs. Nor would it have shaken their
cultural sense of superiority.
Looking at recent events, I am convinced that _nothing_ can shake the
cultural sense of superiority of white folks.
A few months ago I posted a finding that I have since lost (though
https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php covers pretty much the same
ground): it was based on 1850 census data and contemporary
advertisements and reports of slave auctions, and concluded that the
value of slaves was something like $5 billion in 1850 dollars at a
time when our entire Federal budget was $69 million per year. With
the best will in the world, we lacked the means to buy the freedom of
these people (though we did manage to find the means to conduct the
Civil War 10 years later). The problem was further complicated by the
fact that a large number of slaves were in hock: owners used them for
collateral just like any other chattel, and they were typically the
most valuable chattel those owners possessed. The owners could not
free their hocked slaves, or allow them to be freed, without being
guilty of defrauding their lenders. I suspect that your slave owners
may have had fewer slaves (the death rate for agricultural operatives
in the sugar cane industry _was_ pretty high), and I wonder whether
British law forbade their use as collateral, which would have made
freeing them less complicated/more affordable.
Don't forget, manual labour was the only way to farm cotton and
tobacco. The economy revolved around slavery - it was the means of
production. If they paid wages, it would push the price up and
customers would go elsewhere.
Kevrob
2019-01-25 15:55:15 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 8:43:55 AM UTC-5, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
ed/more affordable.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Don't forget, manual labour was the only way to farm cotton and
tobacco. The economy revolved around slavery - it was the means of
production. If they paid wages, it would push the price up and
customers would go elsewhere.
After the US civil war, the sharecropping system was used, along
with other forms of tenant farming. Combined with loans of goods
from a local merchant to be paid when the crop came in and was
sold, many farmers were effectively debt-peons. The landlords
didn't have to pay wages, and if someone else ran the local
general store, they didn't supply the credit, other than for
the property's rent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharecropping#United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop-lien_system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenant_farmers#United_States

Kevin R
Alex W.
2019-01-26 00:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 08:30:00 -0500, Don Martin
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
British businessmen would rather have had the market than war taxes,
and they let their MPs know that. The debt from the Napoleonic wars
was immense, so piling up more made no sense. Peace was more
profitable.
Not to forget that peace reduced the risk to the immensely profitable
Caribbean colonies. The river of gold flowing into Britain from rum,
sugar and tobacco was worth so much that any potential gains from
regaining control over the 13 colonies would have paled in comparison.
No foresight, then, for the new cotton gin, and its resulting impact
upon England's textile industry. Before that machine, it took a slave
an entire (long) working day to get the seeds out of one pound of
cotton; Whitney's first model did 50 pounds per day, and his
subsequent improvements upped that amount considerably. Slavery was on
the verge of dying out in this country at that time: the cotton gin
gave the peculiar institution a new lease on life.
At that time, slavery had already been outlawed in the British Caribbean
colonies and business models had shifted to share-cropping and low-wage
models. We would not have had much reason to think that developments on
the American mainland would be much different.
You made the mistake of supposing us as civilized as the mother
country was.
It's not so much about being civilised or having high morals, but about
money. Capital rules. Abolishing slavery in the British colonies
worked because the government footed the bill, and because, vitally, it
included a period of several years to give both sides time to adjust to
the new rules of play.
Given the right incentives, I am firmly convinced Southerners would have
abandoned slavery with equal facility. Recompense for their lost
capital investment would have liberated an awful lot of capital to be
invested fruitfully and profitably elsewhere, and would have
significantly reduced operating costs. Nor would it have shaken their
cultural sense of superiority.
Looking at recent events, I am convinced that _nothing_ can shake the
cultural sense of superiority of white folks.
A few months ago I posted a finding that I have since lost (though
https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php covers pretty much the same
ground): it was based on 1850 census data and contemporary
advertisements and reports of slave auctions, and concluded that the
value of slaves was something like $5 billion in 1850 dollars at a
time when our entire Federal budget was $69 million per year. With
the best will in the world, we lacked the means to buy the freedom of
these people (though we did manage to find the means to conduct the
Civil War 10 years later). The problem was further complicated by the
fact that a large number of slaves were in hock: owners used them for
collateral just like any other chattel, and they were typically the
most valuable chattel those owners possessed. The owners could not
free their hocked slaves, or allow them to be freed, without being
guilty of defrauding their lenders. I suspect that your slave owners
may have had fewer slaves (the death rate for agricultural operatives
in the sugar cane industry _was_ pretty high), and I wonder whether
British law forbade their use as collateral, which would have made
freeing them less complicated/more affordable.
Don't forget, manual labour was the only way to farm cotton and
tobacco. The economy revolved around slavery - it was the means of
production. If they paid wages, it would push the price up and
customers would go elsewhere.
Ah, but with "free" labour, an employer only pays wages, which for
manual labour were (and remain) rather low. There would have been no
need to pay for food, clothing, housing etc, nor would there have been a
risk of loss of capital when a slave does a runner. And when economic
times are hard or when the harvest season is over, they could simply
have fired their workforce instead of having to feed and house them
until the next season.

In a system of free labour without workplace protection and workers'
rights, slaves are too expensive.
Don Martin
2019-01-26 13:38:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 08:30:00 -0500, Don Martin
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
British businessmen would rather have had the market than war taxes,
and they let their MPs know that. The debt from the Napoleonic wars
was immense, so piling up more made no sense. Peace was more
profitable.
Not to forget that peace reduced the risk to the immensely profitable
Caribbean colonies. The river of gold flowing into Britain from rum,
sugar and tobacco was worth so much that any potential gains from
regaining control over the 13 colonies would have paled in comparison.
No foresight, then, for the new cotton gin, and its resulting impact
upon England's textile industry. Before that machine, it took a slave
an entire (long) working day to get the seeds out of one pound of
cotton; Whitney's first model did 50 pounds per day, and his
subsequent improvements upped that amount considerably. Slavery was on
the verge of dying out in this country at that time: the cotton gin
gave the peculiar institution a new lease on life.
At that time, slavery had already been outlawed in the British Caribbean
colonies and business models had shifted to share-cropping and low-wage
models. We would not have had much reason to think that developments on
the American mainland would be much different.
You made the mistake of supposing us as civilized as the mother
country was.
It's not so much about being civilised or having high morals, but about
money. Capital rules. Abolishing slavery in the British colonies
worked because the government footed the bill, and because, vitally, it
included a period of several years to give both sides time to adjust to
the new rules of play.
Given the right incentives, I am firmly convinced Southerners would have
abandoned slavery with equal facility. Recompense for their lost
capital investment would have liberated an awful lot of capital to be
invested fruitfully and profitably elsewhere, and would have
significantly reduced operating costs. Nor would it have shaken their
cultural sense of superiority.
Looking at recent events, I am convinced that _nothing_ can shake the
cultural sense of superiority of white folks.
A few months ago I posted a finding that I have since lost (though
https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php covers pretty much the same
ground): it was based on 1850 census data and contemporary
advertisements and reports of slave auctions, and concluded that the
value of slaves was something like $5 billion in 1850 dollars at a
time when our entire Federal budget was $69 million per year. With
the best will in the world, we lacked the means to buy the freedom of
these people (though we did manage to find the means to conduct the
Civil War 10 years later). The problem was further complicated by the
fact that a large number of slaves were in hock: owners used them for
collateral just like any other chattel, and they were typically the
most valuable chattel those owners possessed. The owners could not
free their hocked slaves, or allow them to be freed, without being
guilty of defrauding their lenders. I suspect that your slave owners
may have had fewer slaves (the death rate for agricultural operatives
in the sugar cane industry _was_ pretty high), and I wonder whether
British law forbade their use as collateral, which would have made
freeing them less complicated/more affordable.
Don't forget, manual labour was the only way to farm cotton and
tobacco. The economy revolved around slavery - it was the means of
production. If they paid wages, it would push the price up and
customers would go elsewhere.
Ah, but with "free" labour, an employer only pays wages, which for
manual labour were (and remain) rather low. There would have been no
need to pay for food, clothing, housing etc, nor would there have been a
risk of loss of capital when a slave does a runner. And when economic
times are hard or when the harvest season is over, they could simply
have fired their workforce instead of having to feed and house them
until the next season.
This is, of course, the system used by our northern industrialists.
You might enjoy Upton Sinclair's _The Jungle_ for a glimpse of the
Chicago meat packing industry around the turn of the last century.
That book gave rise to a new department in the Federal government. Hog
fat was tossed into floor-level vats for rendering; the floor became
increasingly slippery with all that fat dragged over it, and the vats
had no guard rails Every once in a while, some Polish minimum-wage
operative would fall into the vat, never to be seen again ourside a
package of Cloverleaf Pure Lard. The public was outraged at this
callous indifference and complained to their congressmen, and lo! the
Food and Drug Administration was born. The public didn't object to
Polacks being deep fried, but did not want to eat any. (One simply
does not know where those chaps have been!)
Post by Alex W.
In a system of free labour without workplace protection and workers'
rights, slaves are too expensive.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Alex W.
2019-01-26 00:09:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
British businessmen would rather have had the market than war taxes,
and they let their MPs know that. The debt from the Napoleonic wars
was immense, so piling up more made no sense. Peace was more
profitable.
Not to forget that peace reduced the risk to the immensely profitable
Caribbean colonies. The river of gold flowing into Britain from rum,
sugar and tobacco was worth so much that any potential gains from
regaining control over the 13 colonies would have paled in comparison.
No foresight, then, for the new cotton gin, and its resulting impact
upon England's textile industry. Before that machine, it took a slave
an entire (long) working day to get the seeds out of one pound of
cotton; Whitney's first model did 50 pounds per day, and his
subsequent improvements upped that amount considerably. Slavery was on
the verge of dying out in this country at that time: the cotton gin
gave the peculiar institution a new lease on life.
At that time, slavery had already been outlawed in the British Caribbean
colonies and business models had shifted to share-cropping and low-wage
models. We would not have had much reason to think that developments on
the American mainland would be much different.
You made the mistake of supposing us as civilized as the mother
country was.
It's not so much about being civilised or having high morals, but about
money. Capital rules. Abolishing slavery in the British colonies
worked because the government footed the bill, and because, vitally, it
included a period of several years to give both sides time to adjust to
the new rules of play.
Given the right incentives, I am firmly convinced Southerners would have
abandoned slavery with equal facility. Recompense for their lost
capital investment would have liberated an awful lot of capital to be
invested fruitfully and profitably elsewhere, and would have
significantly reduced operating costs. Nor would it have shaken their
cultural sense of superiority.
Looking at recent events, I am convinced that _nothing_ can shake the
cultural sense of superiority of white folks.
It is being challenged (and modified) left right and centre. The
current shitstorm being whipped up against China is a clear sign of fear.

Trump's election is more evidence: his victory came at least partly
because so many voters saw themselves being outcompeted and outclassed,
and they did not like it. They thought themselves superior, but
consumers and the markets begged to differ. That hurt, and they did
something about it.

Ditto the (unwinnable) war against migrants: they work harder and for
less money. As employees, they are clearly superior. Again, that
realisation hurts.
Post by Don Martin
A few months ago I posted a finding that I have since lost (though
https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php covers pretty much the same
ground): it was based on 1850 census data and contemporary
advertisements and reports of slave auctions, and concluded that the
value of slaves was something like $5 billion in 1850 dollars at a
time when our entire Federal budget was $69 million per year. With
the best will in the world, we lacked the means to buy the freedom of
these people (though we did manage to find the means to conduct the
Civil War 10 years later). The problem was further complicated by the
fact that a large number of slaves were in hock: owners used them for
collateral just like any other chattel, and they were typically the
most valuable chattel those owners possessed. The owners could not
free their hocked slaves, or allow them to be freed, without being
guilty of defrauding their lenders. I suspect that your slave owners
may have had fewer slaves (the death rate for agricultural operatives
in the sugar cane industry _was_ pretty high), and I wonder whether
British law forbade their use as collateral, which would have made
freeing them less complicated/more affordable.
This would have been a good opportunity for abolitionists to put their
money where their mouth was. The federal government could have issued
an "Abolition Bond" and invited people to subscribe. This approach
worked rather well with wartime (Liberty) bonds.

I also wonder whether Eminent Domain could have been used to circumvent
the issue of encumbered capital.

Note also that in order to finance abolition, the British government had
to take out a loan for three quarters of the £20 million allocated
(which was finally paid off only a few years ago).
Don Martin
2019-01-26 13:38:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
British businessmen would rather have had the market than war taxes,
and they let their MPs know that. The debt from the Napoleonic wars
was immense, so piling up more made no sense. Peace was more
profitable.
Not to forget that peace reduced the risk to the immensely profitable
Caribbean colonies. The river of gold flowing into Britain from rum,
sugar and tobacco was worth so much that any potential gains from
regaining control over the 13 colonies would have paled in comparison.
No foresight, then, for the new cotton gin, and its resulting impact
upon England's textile industry. Before that machine, it took a slave
an entire (long) working day to get the seeds out of one pound of
cotton; Whitney's first model did 50 pounds per day, and his
subsequent improvements upped that amount considerably. Slavery was on
the verge of dying out in this country at that time: the cotton gin
gave the peculiar institution a new lease on life.
At that time, slavery had already been outlawed in the British Caribbean
colonies and business models had shifted to share-cropping and low-wage
models. We would not have had much reason to think that developments on
the American mainland would be much different.
You made the mistake of supposing us as civilized as the mother
country was.
It's not so much about being civilised or having high morals, but about
money. Capital rules. Abolishing slavery in the British colonies
worked because the government footed the bill, and because, vitally, it
included a period of several years to give both sides time to adjust to
the new rules of play.
Given the right incentives, I am firmly convinced Southerners would have
abandoned slavery with equal facility. Recompense for their lost
capital investment would have liberated an awful lot of capital to be
invested fruitfully and profitably elsewhere, and would have
significantly reduced operating costs. Nor would it have shaken their
cultural sense of superiority.
Looking at recent events, I am convinced that _nothing_ can shake the
cultural sense of superiority of white folks.
It is being challenged (and modified) left right and centre. The
current shitstorm being whipped up against China is a clear sign of fear.
Trump's election is more evidence: his victory came at least partly
because so many voters saw themselves being outcompeted and outclassed,
and they did not like it. They thought themselves superior, but
consumers and the markets begged to differ. That hurt, and they did
something about it.
Ditto the (unwinnable) war against migrants: they work harder and for
less money. As employees, they are clearly superior. Again, that
realisation hurts.
Post by Don Martin
A few months ago I posted a finding that I have since lost (though
https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php covers pretty much the same
ground): it was based on 1850 census data and contemporary
advertisements and reports of slave auctions, and concluded that the
value of slaves was something like $5 billion in 1850 dollars at a
time when our entire Federal budget was $69 million per year. With
the best will in the world, we lacked the means to buy the freedom of
these people (though we did manage to find the means to conduct the
Civil War 10 years later). The problem was further complicated by the
fact that a large number of slaves were in hock: owners used them for
collateral just like any other chattel, and they were typically the
most valuable chattel those owners possessed. The owners could not
free their hocked slaves, or allow them to be freed, without being
guilty of defrauding their lenders. I suspect that your slave owners
may have had fewer slaves (the death rate for agricultural operatives
in the sugar cane industry _was_ pretty high), and I wonder whether
British law forbade their use as collateral, which would have made
freeing them less complicated/more affordable.
This would have been a good opportunity for abolitionists to put their
money where their mouth was. The federal government could have issued
an "Abolition Bond" and invited people to subscribe. This approach
worked rather well with wartime (Liberty) bonds.
I also wonder whether Eminent Domain could have been used to circumvent
the issue of encumbered capital.
Note also that in order to finance abolition, the British government had
to take out a loan for three quarters of the £20 million allocated
(which was finally paid off only a few years ago).
The estimated value of the slaves above has a "b" in front, not an
"m".
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Alex W.
2019-01-27 01:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Don Martin
Post by Alex W.
Post by Kevrob
British businessmen would rather have had the market than war taxes,
and they let their MPs know that. The debt from the Napoleonic wars
was immense, so piling up more made no sense. Peace was more
profitable.
Not to forget that peace reduced the risk to the immensely profitable
Caribbean colonies. The river of gold flowing into Britain from rum,
sugar and tobacco was worth so much that any potential gains from
regaining control over the 13 colonies would have paled in comparison.
No foresight, then, for the new cotton gin, and its resulting impact
upon England's textile industry. Before that machine, it took a slave
an entire (long) working day to get the seeds out of one pound of
cotton; Whitney's first model did 50 pounds per day, and his
subsequent improvements upped that amount considerably. Slavery was on
the verge of dying out in this country at that time: the cotton gin
gave the peculiar institution a new lease on life.
At that time, slavery had already been outlawed in the British Caribbean
colonies and business models had shifted to share-cropping and low-wage
models. We would not have had much reason to think that developments on
the American mainland would be much different.
You made the mistake of supposing us as civilized as the mother
country was.
It's not so much about being civilised or having high morals, but about
money. Capital rules. Abolishing slavery in the British colonies
worked because the government footed the bill, and because, vitally, it
included a period of several years to give both sides time to adjust to
the new rules of play.
Given the right incentives, I am firmly convinced Southerners would have
abandoned slavery with equal facility. Recompense for their lost
capital investment would have liberated an awful lot of capital to be
invested fruitfully and profitably elsewhere, and would have
significantly reduced operating costs. Nor would it have shaken their
cultural sense of superiority.
Looking at recent events, I am convinced that _nothing_ can shake the
cultural sense of superiority of white folks.
It is being challenged (and modified) left right and centre. The
current shitstorm being whipped up against China is a clear sign of fear.
Trump's election is more evidence: his victory came at least partly
because so many voters saw themselves being outcompeted and outclassed,
and they did not like it. They thought themselves superior, but
consumers and the markets begged to differ. That hurt, and they did
something about it.
Ditto the (unwinnable) war against migrants: they work harder and for
less money. As employees, they are clearly superior. Again, that
realisation hurts.
Post by Don Martin
A few months ago I posted a finding that I have since lost (though
https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php covers pretty much the same
ground): it was based on 1850 census data and contemporary
advertisements and reports of slave auctions, and concluded that the
value of slaves was something like $5 billion in 1850 dollars at a
time when our entire Federal budget was $69 million per year. With
the best will in the world, we lacked the means to buy the freedom of
these people (though we did manage to find the means to conduct the
Civil War 10 years later). The problem was further complicated by the
fact that a large number of slaves were in hock: owners used them for
collateral just like any other chattel, and they were typically the
most valuable chattel those owners possessed. The owners could not
free their hocked slaves, or allow them to be freed, without being
guilty of defrauding their lenders. I suspect that your slave owners
may have had fewer slaves (the death rate for agricultural operatives
in the sugar cane industry _was_ pretty high), and I wonder whether
British law forbade their use as collateral, which would have made
freeing them less complicated/more affordable.
This would have been a good opportunity for abolitionists to put their
money where their mouth was. The federal government could have issued
an "Abolition Bond" and invited people to subscribe. This approach
worked rather well with wartime (Liberty) bonds.
I also wonder whether Eminent Domain could have been used to circumvent
the issue of encumbered capital.
Note also that in order to finance abolition, the British government had
to take out a loan for three quarters of the £20 million allocated
(which was finally paid off only a few years ago).
The estimated value of the slaves above has a "b" in front, not an
"m".
Those are the nominal amounts. £20 million, at the time, amounted to
40% of the revenue of the UK government. In terms of purchasing power,
that equates to roughly $3 billion in today's greenbacks.

SO yes, there is a difference in scale, but it would not have been
insurmountable. States could have been asked to contribute on top of
any federal scheme. Laws could have been passed to force debt to be
transferred to new collateral created by the investments made with this
influx of cash.

Then compare this to the cost of the civil war. At the time, the US
government estimated the cost to be $2.5 million a day -- or $77 million
in today's dollars. If it could have averted the carnage, the savings
alone would have made the sacrifices worthwhile.
Kevrob
2019-01-27 01:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Those are the nominal amounts. £20 million, at the time, amounted to
40% of the revenue of the UK government. In terms of purchasing power,
that equates to roughly $3 billion in today's greenbacks.
SO yes, there is a difference in scale, but it would not have been
insurmountable. States could have been asked to contribute on top of
any federal scheme. Laws could have been passed to force debt to be
transferred to new collateral created by the investments made with this
influx of cash.
Then compare this to the cost of the civil war. At the time, the US
government estimated the cost to be $2.5 million a day -- or $77 million
in today's dollars. If it could have averted the carnage, the savings
alone would have made the sacrifices worthwhile.
One thing the feds might have done was to pay off the slaveholders
in land. Land grants were used before the War Between the States
to encourage internal improvements, as compensation for veterans, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_grant#United_States

Southeastern planters might not have been able to raise
cotton in those new lands, essentially the same ones opened
under the Homestead Acts and by the grants to the railroads
to lay the transcontinental roads. They could have sold the
land on, if the warrant system was kept in place or revived.

Cotton, especially if not planted in rotation with other crops,
depleted the soil. Much of the pressure to open western land
to slavery was fueled by the hope that the plantation system
could be installed on them. Without slaves to staff such new
plantations, labor from free whites and/or freedmen would be
necessary, and costs would depend on what labor system was
used. Western cattle ranches were often huge, and ranchers
hired year-round hands, supplemented by outside outfits to
drive herds to market towns where they could be sold and shipped
North and East. There were many black cowboys.

---
Kevin R
a.a #2310

m***@gmail.com
2019-01-22 19:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
The Battle of New Orleans was fought after the British had surrendered
in the War of 1812.
"Surrendered" is inaccurate.
"...after the belligerents signed a peace treaty" would be more apt.
There being neither a transatlantic cable, nor an electrical telegraph
to make one desirable, news of the Treaty of Ghent took a month to
get Stateside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent
Right, but the British knew it was a defeat or they wouldn't
have signed. And the Battle of New Orleans made that a
certainty. They gave up on invading the US, but tried to help
the Confederates win the Civil War, believing that the whole
country would fall apart and they would pick up the pieces.
After that, they finally admitted to themselves that they
weren't recapturing the US. The Louisiana Purchase and the
Mexican War didn't make this totally clear to them, but the
Civil War did. We weren't just 13 lost colonies anymore. And
the house was not going to be divided and fall. There were 18
states in 1812 and 36 states by the end of the Civil War.
What were the British thinking back then? Well, we're long time
allies now, as long as traitor Trump doesn't manage to drive us
apart.
The British lost the revolution and the war of 1812 because they were thinking like Europeans. They figured they would win just by capturing Washington DC.
Parliament did not realize just how big North America is. In order to win those 2 wars, they'd have to control Washington, New York, Philadelphia, Charleston, SC and all the territory West of those cities.
They didn't have the money or the manpower to do all that. It took them a while to realize just what they were up against.
The US Constitution defines Treason as "waging war against the United States, or adhering to it's enemies, providing them aid and comfort."
We are not even officially at war with anybody.
The accusation of "treason" is baseless.
We'll see.
m***@gmail.com
2019-01-22 20:03:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
The Battle of New Orleans was fought after the British had surrendered
in the War of 1812.
"Surrendered" is inaccurate.
"...after the belligerents signed a peace treaty" would be more apt.
There being neither a transatlantic cable, nor an electrical telegraph
to make one desirable, news of the Treaty of Ghent took a month to
get Stateside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent
Right, but the British knew it was a defeat or they wouldn't
have signed. And the Battle of New Orleans made that a
certainty. They gave up on invading the US, but tried to help
the Confederates win the Civil War, believing that the whole
country would fall apart and they would pick up the pieces.
After that, they finally admitted to themselves that they
weren't recapturing the US. The Louisiana Purchase and the
Mexican War didn't make this totally clear to them, but the
Civil War did. We weren't just 13 lost colonies anymore. And
the house was not going to be divided and fall. There were 18
states in 1812 and 36 states by the end of the Civil War.
What were the British thinking back then? Well, we're long time
allies now, as long as traitor Trump doesn't manage to drive us
apart.
The British lost the revolution and the war of 1812 because they were thinking like Europeans. They figured they would win just by capturing Washington DC.
Parliament did not realize just how big North America is. In order to win those 2 wars, they'd have to control Washington, New York, Philadelphia, Charleston, SC and all the territory West of those cities.
They didn't have the money or the manpower to do all that. It took them a while to realize just what they were up against.
The US Constitution defines Treason as "waging war against the United States, or adhering to it's enemies, providing them aid and comfort."
We are not even officially at war with anybody.
The accusation of "treason" is baseless.
It's the 'or adhering to it's enemies, providing them aid and comfort.'
part I'm concerned about. That is separate from the "waging war against
the United States" part. The 'or' separates them. Why is Trump hiding what
he and Putin discussed at more than one meeting? Trump has been caught in
so many lies, I can't wait for Mueller's report.
v***@gmail.com
2019-01-23 07:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
The Battle of New Orleans was fought after the British had surrendered
in the War of 1812.
"Surrendered" is inaccurate.
"...after the belligerents signed a peace treaty" would be more apt.
There being neither a transatlantic cable, nor an electrical telegraph
to make one desirable, news of the Treaty of Ghent took a month to
get Stateside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent
Right, but the British knew it was a defeat or they wouldn't
have signed. And the Battle of New Orleans made that a
certainty. They gave up on invading the US, but tried to help
the Confederates win the Civil War, believing that the whole
country would fall apart and they would pick up the pieces.
After that, they finally admitted to themselves that they
weren't recapturing the US. The Louisiana Purchase and the
Mexican War didn't make this totally clear to them, but the
Civil War did. We weren't just 13 lost colonies anymore. And
the house was not going to be divided and fall. There were 18
states in 1812 and 36 states by the end of the Civil War.
What were the British thinking back then? Well, we're long time
allies now, as long as traitor Trump doesn't manage to drive us
apart.
The British lost the revolution and the war of 1812 because they were thinking like Europeans. They figured they would win just by capturing Washington DC.
Parliament did not realize just how big North America is. In order to win those 2 wars, they'd have to control Washington, New York, Philadelphia, Charleston, SC and all the territory West of those cities.
They didn't have the money or the manpower to do all that. It took them a while to realize just what they were up against.
The US Constitution defines Treason as "waging war against the United States, or adhering to it's enemies, providing them aid and comfort."
We are not even officially at war with anybody.
The accusation of "treason" is baseless.
It's the 'or adhering to it's enemies, providing them aid and comfort.'
part I'm concerned about. That is separate from the "waging war against
the United States" part. The 'or' separates them. Why is Trump hiding what
he and Putin discussed at more than one meeting? Trump has been caught in
so many lies, I can't wait for Mueller's report.
The adhering words refer to wartime.
Don Martin
2019-01-22 13:36:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
There being neither a transatlantic cable, nor an electrical telegraph
to make one desirable, news of the Treaty of Ghent took a month to
get Stateside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent
Right, but the British knew it was a defeat or they wouldn't
have signed. And the Battle of New Orleans made that a
certainty. They gave up on invading the US, but tried to help
the Confederates win the Civil War, believing that the whole
country would fall apart and they would pick up the pieces.
Not so much, really. The Confederacy avidly sought British
recognition as a country in its own right, but that was never granted.
Had it been, we (northerners) would have faced the most powerful navy
in the world protecting ships transporting war materiel and other
goods through our blockade, and the south would probably have won.
Considering that Britain's vast textile industry depended upon
American cotton, their lack of formal recognition came at a
substantial financial cost to them, while the south was reduced to
using its valuable cash crop as armor for its steamboats
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottonclad_warship): while the English
were quite content to see millions of people in its Empire working for
starvation wages, they were staunchly opposed to slavery.
Post by m***@gmail.com
After that, they finally admitted to themselves that they
weren't recapturing the US. The Louisiana Purchase and the
Mexican War didn't make this totally clear to them, but the
Civil War did. We weren't just 13 lost colonies anymore. And
the house was not going to be divided and fall. There were 18
states in 1812 and 36 states by the end of the Civil War.
What were the British thinking back then? Well, we're long time
allies now, as long as traitor Trump doesn't manage to drive us
apart.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
m***@gmail.com
2019-01-22 14:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Martin
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Kevrob
There being neither a transatlantic cable, nor an electrical telegraph
to make one desirable, news of the Treaty of Ghent took a month to
get Stateside.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Ghent
Right, but the British knew it was a defeat or they wouldn't
have signed. And the Battle of New Orleans made that a
certainty. They gave up on invading the US, but tried to help
the Confederates win the Civil War, believing that the whole
country would fall apart and they would pick up the pieces.
Not so much, really. The Confederacy avidly sought British
recognition as a country in its own right, but that was never granted.
Had it been, we (northerners) would have faced the most powerful navy
in the world protecting ships transporting war materiel and other
goods through our blockade, and the south would probably have won.
Considering that Britain's vast textile industry depended upon
American cotton, their lack of formal recognition came at a
substantial financial cost to them, while the south was reduced to
using its valuable cash crop as armor for its steamboats
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottonclad_warship): while the English
were quite content to see millions of people in its Empire working for
starvation wages, they were staunchly opposed to slavery.
Post by m***@gmail.com
After that, they finally admitted to themselves that they
weren't recapturing the US. The Louisiana Purchase and the
Mexican War didn't make this totally clear to them, but the
Civil War did. We weren't just 13 lost colonies anymore. And
the house was not going to be divided and fall. There were 18
states in 1812 and 36 states by the end of the Civil War.
What were the British thinking back then? Well, we're long time
allies now, as long as traitor Trump doesn't manage to drive us
apart.
I understand what you're saying and agree to a point. But, the British
businessmen (like businessmen in general) were a lot sneakier than you
seem to think and the government didn't try to stop what they were doing - sneaking in supplies and such. It just wasn't nearly enough due to the blockades.
John Locke
2019-01-21 23:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by v***@gmail.com
What battle was fought on American soil after the war was over?
...you nelected to mention which war. If you're talking about the
Civil War, the Battle of Palmito Ranch was considered to be a post war
battle.
Loading...