Avo
That is nuts, 11 states were ready for secession fifteen years earlier. Ever heard of the Compromise of 1850?  He "alienated" the South by opposing any federal guarantee of slavery. They had every choice but war. They chose war.

TDA
As opposed to what? Giving the turf and populace back to syria, jordan, and Egypt as intl law seems to demand?  They don't want those mad dogs any more than Israel does.

The South declared before the election that Lincoln's election would mean secession. After Lincoln's inauguration, eleven state legislatures voted for secession. Then they began stealing Federal property. When the garrison at Fort Sumter refused to surrender, the rebels fired on the American flag.

Just what "concessions" do you imagine were possible or desirable?  The maintenance of slavery?

@ TDA

to quote Orsen Scott Card:
"As for the Palestinians, they have never kept any agreement. Israel makes concessions; the Palestinians make promises. The Palestinians break the promises; Israel refuses to make any more concessions; and then the Palestinians scream that it's Israel that is not keeping the treaty. The Palestinians murder Israeli schoolchildren, and when Israel strikes back against terrorists, the Palestinians scream about Israeli aggression"

There are two parts: right and wrong.

> TheYell wrote:

> The South declared before the election that Lincoln's election would mean secession. After Lincoln's inauguration, eleven state legislatures voted for secession. Then they began stealing Federal property. When the garrison at Fort Sumter refused to surrender, the rebels fired on the American flag.

Just what "concessions" do you imagine were possible or desirable?  The maintenance of slavery?

do you think that the south didnt like Lincoln because they had something against tall, skinny guys? no, he made himself the enemy of the south, he made the south feel threatened enough by his election that they felt the need to secede.

> Han wrote:

> None of this will matter soon.
When people in the US start to starve because they can't afford food they will start to question the foreign aid doled out. When all that free money to Isreal goes away those nukes will be rolled out quick smart to extort free money from anywhere they can get it.

Wow.  I think it would take a miracle to get a real food shortage in America.  Between constantly advancing agricultural technology, and the fact that America wastes a ton of food through a mix of subsidy policies and food left in stores to spoil, food shortages would require only structural reforms.

Oh, and America has lots of obese people.  So the first thing to happen would be a decline in obesity, not starvation.  That both shows that the US has even more food, and it gives legislators pre-warning before they need to establish new policies.

> Han wrote:

> "starve because they can't afford food "

There is a difference between lots of food and affordable food.

Please take an economics course.  Lots of food=more supply than demand=price of food goes down.

Our problem right now is useless demand, not a lack of supply.  The useless demand can be easily repaired, solving high food prices.

No, but the current supply exceeds the required demand for sustaining life.

Consider it this way: Food isn't necessarily always a survival need.  True, we need food to live, obviously.  But past a certain point, our consumption of food is based on our desires, rather than needs.  At the point where food is consumed only for enjoyment, discouraging its consumption is simple.

In addition, much food's consumption, especially in the US, isn't actually consumed.  Rather, it's wasted.

You don't need to necessarily increase production to solve the issue.  Reduced consumption does the same thing.

We pay farmers not to grow food otherwise they produce so much of a surplus that the price drops below what they need to stay in business. A lot of farming is done by borrowing against the harvest.

The US Farms under 47% of its total Farm land.

2002 -
434  .. of .. 938 mil ....acres was farmed.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/US.htm

Now, just imagine if the US farmed even 80% of its available farm land.

What Im so concerned about, is how smart people think they are just spouting off anything they want to say w/o even just a 5 minutes of their time search to get their facts.

Still didn't answer my argument, so you're wrong anyway, from where this thread stands.

Han,   old facts ??  Where are yours ??

Doesnt work that way HAN.

YOU made a stupid statement.  A few have posted Facts in a mature manner.

You are not only wrong, but then you wish to hide from your unsubstantiated flawed assumption.

Its ok though kid, thats what you usually do.

/me knows Han will now disappear, and wait to make an ass of himself in another thread.

"Lincoln made clear that slavery was going to be considered a Southern deal, not something that would spread to the great plains and the Pacific.  In that he was joined by the West Coasters and most of the North.  His election meant a hostile federal government to the spread of slavery and possibly cheap trade in cotton.  That's why they quit, they put slavery and the export economy first and Union a far second.  And they were punished by the Union.  And rightly so."

you can say all you want about what Lincoln said, but im willing to bet you dont have every quote from him that was ever made public. and the fact of the matter is that the South seceded from the union when they did because Lincoln made himself their enemy and when he was elected into office, they thought their only choice was to secede.

the north also had a superior navy, and a superior army, and superior transportation with much more extensive railroads. and the reason why the war lasted as long as it did and cost so many american lives is because Lincoln chose incredibly inept generals to lead his army.