Southern_Man

I don't think anybody would be charged. This all depends on what state it is in and how the prosecutor chooses to proceed, as well as the details of the facts of the case. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

How YOU doin'? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

It has a high strength to weight ratio. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I've got a lot of grievances with you people!! "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Let's just complicate matters even more. Slave labor was not free. There were considerable costs involved in acquiring (especially after the ban on further importation) providing shelter for, supervising, and feeding slaves. There were some Northern abolitionists who crafted an economic argument against slavery. This did not prove to be very compelling to the Southerners, perhaps not because of the strenght of the underlying argument but because of the transition costs that moving from a slave-labor society to a free-labor society would have entailed. Let's further complicate things. Let's not pretend that Northerern's opposed Southern slavery only because they found it immoral. Certainly some did but questions of motive are often tricky. Many Northerner's sought to limit slavery's expansion into the west because it was a threat to economic opportunity of northern free labor. The ability of free labor to expand westward served quite a few purposes--including economic growth and as a social safety valve. Let's look back a little further. One of Thomas Jefferson's only phrases that was eliminated in the editing of the Declaration of Independence was where he blamed King George III for foisting slavery onto the colonies. In this he was oppossed by voters from New England and from the Deep South--the states in the middle were more than willing to go along--remember slavery was legal everywhere and slaves were held in all of the colonies at this time. The North did not outlaw slavery (and largely fail to adopt it on anywhere near the same scale as the south to begin with because they were more moral but because their land and climate was not suitable to the growing of large cash crops for export. Tobacco and later cotton prospered in the South and were large, labor intensive crops cultivated mainly for export back to Europe. Both were not really feasible crops in the North. Northern slaves were predominantly domestic servants, not field hands, although they were used in every capacity both in the north and in the south (just in different proportions). In the Constitutional Convention (slavery beginning to be outlawed in northern states) the delegates of the mid-atlantic states (Maryland and VA prominent slave holding socieites at the time) wanted to outlaw further importation. Why? The price of their slaves were very low because of large supply and their own ability to gainfully employ slaves on their land was dimished as the tobacco had largely removed the fertility from the soil that was neede to grow large cash crops and VA farmers were mostly planting wheat, which is much, much less labor intensive and much less profitable. VA farmers, including Jefferson, would have loved to ban importation so they could fetch a higher price for their slaves by selling them to Western settlers. These mid-atlantic states were opposed by the states further south and west--which still had productive soils to use slaves in and wanted to keep prices low--and by the New England states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island--which had enormous interests in serving as shippers of slave across the Atlantic. My point--of course slavery is immoral--but if you are looking at either the North or the South and arguing that they were acting morally or immorally based on our understanding of slavery today you are undoubtedly missing a huge part of the history and the mixed motives on which people acted. You are anachronistically imposing our cultural, moral standards on people that did not share them (both Northerners and Southerners). Both sides acted largely on their economic self-interest as they perceived it. Morality was often used as the justification and rhetorical rallying point but was only one part of a larger and more complex decision making process. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

It's like some sort of Special Relativity, isn't it? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Wow, dude, you really thinking killing puppies is as bad as holding human beings in chattel slavery? Man, I just got to say, that's messed up. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

To be fair, there were some tax issues that greatly upset the south and threatened prosperity. For example, the federal government imposted import duties on finished European manufactured products (to protect norhtern industries) which in turn caused European countries to impose their own import taxes on cotton, thus leading to lower volumes of trade and less profit for Southern planters. Southerner's argued that the federal government did not have the abilty to impose these import taxes. The idea of nullification played a large part in this regional dispute. These issues are indirectly related to slavery (through cotton of course) but would have effected southerner's regardless of what sort of labor system was used. I generally believe Slavery was the overhwhelming and dominant cause for the Civil war (based on reading the primary evidence in Southerner's own words). "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Good morning Skootzie-bootzie. Sorry about your allergies. I have cat allergies but as long as I avoid them I am okay. I'm go with LisaH. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I'm pretty much a first Amendment absolutist, which puts me in the uncomfortable position of defending even objectionable material. I really haven't followed this controvery, so I am unaware of what is in the contents of this book. As long as it is words, drawings, etc. it is hard for me to see how it would not be protected speech. Pictures of underaged individuals are another matter. I think marketplace solutions (boycotting any publisher or distributer who carries this book) is the best solution. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I think Assange is a publisher and can post whatever he wants on his website. The people who leaked him information may (probably have) committed crimes against disclosing this sort of thing, but that is their action, not Assange's. There is a bit of irony that he would decry the release of his personal details, however, I would note that it is his attorney doing it, as far as I have seen, not he himself. I'm sure his attorney does not care about the irony, he is doing what he was hired to do, representing his clients best interests. I have no idea whether Assange did anything wrong or not. I certainly would not put it past the U.S. government to try to frame him but I don't know that either. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

One theory of schizophrenia is that it is a result of incomplete communication between the two hemispheres of the brain. The right brain therefore is coming up with all of these sorts of primordial urges and partially constructed ideas that are usually then organized by the left brain in a normally functioning brain. Because the Schizophrenic's hemispheres do not communicate well these ideas are then experienced as hallucinations--much like a dream state. It is a very interesting theory anyway. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

After reading your reply I can't really find anything to disagree with. (People agreeing in Speaker's Corner, what is the world coming to?) "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Did you read that article? Although you said the article pointed out the complexity of the causes, four out of the five causes were slavery. Just for example, 1. Economic/social differences between the states explains that the south was different because it was a cotton economy based on SLAVE labor. The only one that is even potentially not about slavery is the states right vs. federal rights. Of course this is the one that is always trotted out. The truth is that the only state right the south was interested in was the right to continue to hold slaves and to extend that right into the western territories. I would agree that the North's motives were not simply about slavery as I pointed out up thread, Lincoln endorsed the Permanent Slavery Amendment at his inauguration. You also point out that the E.P. didn't free all the slaves, e.g. the slaves held in Maryland. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

The economic issue the southern states were interested in was their right to continue to hold slaves and expand slavery into the western territories. The States rights they were interested in was the right to continue with slavery and expand slavery into the western territories. It's very telling the Declaration did not list any other economic or states rights issues by name but includes (by my quick count) eight references to slavery. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

People making those arguments should go back to the first post of the thread and read the Declaration again. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I'm a skydiver...I'm upside down anyways. Oh..and explain what you mean by that. I'm clueless in that department... Upside down means you owe more on the car than it is worth (than what you can resell it for. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

So, uh, you're saying Lincoln was pro-slavery? Well, as always, history is a little more comlicated than just handing out white marks and black marks on a report card. Lincoln was against any further extension of slavery into any more of the western territories. Slave owners in the south very much wanted to preserve the right to further expand slave territory in the west. Lincoln was more than willing to accept permanent slavery in the south as a cost of preserving the Union. You should read his inaugural address and the text of the Northern Permanent Slavery Amendment. Yes, Lincoln endorsed the amendment. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I fail to see how the North broke any agreement. There was no move afoot to abolish slavery. Lincoln offered to support a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the rights of slave owners in the south permanently. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

See Turtle....that is a proper good morning! Good Morning SouthernMan.....it's a great day...only 2.5 days left of work. Then we'll be snow shoeing, cross country skiing and escaping Spoghetto for 4 days! I only work today and tomorrow. Thursday is my birthday and I will be hitting the slopes (downhill) for the day. Probably skiing all day Friday, too. Skootz. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Good morning everyone. Hope the day is off ot a great start. Skootz. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Sure, then 150+ years later the baker's descendents keep insisting, "That war wasn't really about flour anyway." "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I can't tell if this part is serious or not but war is not sports. You are not supossed to start with a level playing field. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Right, so you are saying those DZO's need to ban open, functioning canopies? Automatic 75% reduction in fatalities. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

orgies?? or did you not mean that far back? Don't be silly. Orgies are at Beltane (May 1st)! On another note, Bright Blessings for the Solstice tomorrow, everyone!