Tooth loss by state

[Nuclear Raunch]

Post edited.

Oh and Raunch, that's only true for a few states. In Indiana, the Electoral college has to vote the way the state voted, and no dissenting votes are allowed. But it still means that if person x got 51% of the vote and person Y got 49%, all the electoral votes go to person X.

Also, we've had some decent presidents come out of the system. FDR(Even if he did create Welfare and Social Security for us to deal with now), Truman, Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, Reagan(I'm sure some will disagree on that one), Jackson, and of course, all the Founding Fathers who eventually got elected President.

A strong minority of states do have that law, however nobody has ever been punished as a result of one.

BTW Abraham Lincoln was garbage. One of our worst Presidents ever.

[Gen. Volkov]

ROFL. Whatever you say man. LMAO.

And about the electoral college thing, I think there have been people who went to court over it.

[Nuclear Raunch]

Lincoln is best remembered for 2 things, emancipation and winning the Civil War. I still feel America lost the Civil War as you may have guessed from a previous discussion. http://frostnflame.org/forum/index.php? ... hl=slavery

On slavery I obviously feel that slaves should have been freed, and all Americans should have equal rights to everything. Suffrage, jobs, health care etc... What people try to overlook about Lincoln was that he only freed the slaves in the South (North still had em, just not as much) and he also advocated shipping all blacks back to Africa rather than let them remain as free Americans.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

source
BTW that was one of the 7 Lincoln-Douglas debates in which he frequently "adjusted" his positions on slavery, which in turn cost him the Senate race.

Check Wiki for info on a proposed Constitutional ammenment that Lincoln supported which would have supported slavery. Although he supported it Lincoln said it was redundant and that it was already unconstitutional for the federal government to restrict slavery in any way.

Here's another Lincoln-Dougls debate quote, "I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so" Notice how he contradicts himself?

When one of his generals, General Frémont, proclaimed that slaves in Missouri would be freed Lincoln ordered him to retract the statement. When the general refused Lincol fired him and replaced him with the more conservative General Halleck.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>COLONIZATION</span>

The American Colonization Society was a society that advocated sending all free blacks anywhere but America, but predominately in Liberia. The society actually bought the land (albeit they "convinced" the tribe leaders to sell at gunpoint) that Liberia is on, and set up Liberia for the sole intent of using it as a place to send blacks. Lincoln's idol Henry Clay was the president of the ACS from 1836 to 1849 and Lincoln himself as a member in good standing. Lincoln himself tried to send blacks to Haiti, Panama, and Liberia because they were "inferior."

Bah, I gotta go right now, I'll post more later. In the meantime please post why you think he was a great President.

[The Beatles]

And even so, you only stopped slavery when it became economically unprofitable. Slavery was overturned by court in England and Wales in 1569, and abolished throughout the British Empire in 1834. Europe followed suit not long after. The US was very late to the game indeed, and had the worst racism issues in the 19th and 20th centuries, after African nations.


[edit] Oh btw, Raunch, did you know that Hitler wanted all European Jews sent to Madagascar? (That was before his more terrible and horrifying solution.) Not quite the same, I know.

[Freenhult]

Well...Just hope we learned from it! (Just Kidding)

Lots can be said about it. It really depends on where you are from. Slavery still today, is not often agreed about in terms of American history. Everyone will tell you it was bad, but they often will tell you much differently how bad it was. It's one of those region things. Slavery wasn't much of an issue in the north. It was, but not to such the extreme of the south. Everyone has to remember...slavery was generally an accecpted practice. I give the man credit for atleast doing something about it.

[Nuclear Raunch]

And even so, you only stopped slavery when it became economically unprofitable. Slavery was overturned by court in England and Wales in 1569, and abolished throughout the British Empire in 1834. Europe followed suit not long after. The US was very late to the game indeed, and had the worst racism issues in the 19th and 20th centuries, after African nations.


[edit] Oh btw, Raunch, did you know that Hitler wanted all European Jews sent to Madagascar? (That was before his more terrible and horrifying solution.) Not quite the same, I know.

We overturned slavery because it was economically profitable. It was intended to hurt the South's economy.

Didn't know that. My knowledge of WW2 battles is fairly decent, my knowledge of WW2 era politics are sadly lacking.

[windhound]

I disagree with that. The North did not want to intentionally harm the South, as at that time they were still one country.

Lincoln was born and raised in a time that slavery was accepible. Cannables eat human flesh because they were taught it was alright. We (well, hopefully) do not because we are taught that it is wrong.

The Southern Plantation owners were hurt the most by the lack of slaves, the avg. farmer did not own many if any slaves. Thats why they had large families, so the kids could work the farmland.

[Nuclear Raunch]

The South seceded on February 9, 1861 and slavery in the South became illegal on January 1 1863 almost 2 years after the South split. Slavery in the North became illegal December 18, 1865. Interestingly enough Mississippi ratified the constitutional ammendment banning slavery on March 21, 1995.

Emancipation Proclamation specifically stated that it was only banning slavery in the states that were "in rebellion against the United States."

Lincoln also stated that freeing the slaves in the South was a "fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion."

In short we were not one country at the time and Lincoln expressly stated that it was done to hurt the South.

[Gen. Volkov]

I think Lincoln is a great president for one reason. He saved the Union, and when the war was over, he tried to make it so the South wouldn't be punished. Unfortunately Wilkes shot him and the South was horribly punished. It didn't recover until WW2, most of a century later.

All three of you are sort of right about slavery. Slavery was wiped out in America just before it became unprofitable. It was one of those things where the economy was starting to be held back by a slave owning South, and as it became less profitable, those who said it was wrong got listened to more, especially in the North. Eventually slavery had no more real use in the North, and crusading abolitionists there tried to get it abolished everywhere after getting rid of it in the North. It was still profitable in the South, though alot less than it had been, and they didn't like losing it. And there's one of the reasons for the Civil War. The Emancipation Proclamation came after all this had come to a head, and didn't matter for the South, because we were not the same country, it only mattered after we won the Civil War, but by that point the South had been so completely destroyed it jsut didn't matter anymore.

And the reason it was easier for Britain and Europe(except Russia) was because they had already gotten to the point that the North was at. They never had the problems we had of one section of the country being so much more heavily industrialized than another. And after all, the largest country in Europe is only about the size of Texas, there's just not enough room for that sort of split to happen. And also, we were only 30 years behind 1834, which is not that late to the game. And don't forget, Russia didn't free it's slaves until 1917.

[The Beatles]

Yes, there is. Italy is still split kind of like you say the North-South split was. You Americans have got galloping gigantism, and can't imagine anythinig exciting happening in smaller places. Splits like what you describe can happen even at the city level.

Yes, 30 years behind 1834 for the B.E. Still, some 70 years behind France, and 300 years behind England/Wales proper.

[Gen. Volkov]

By this city level split I assume you are refering too Berlin? That's a different case though. That was an enforced split, not a natural split.

It's very hard for me to imagine one part of a city being agrarian and one side being industrialized to the extent that the North and South were. I can see it in Italy, because it is a very long country, but I still don't think it can happen to the extent that the North vs. South split was. I admit we americans have a thing about size, but sometimes size is necessary for certain things to happen.

If you look at history it's most the big countries that end up with one part industrialized and another part heavily agrarian. India, China, and the Soviet Union are all examples of this. China is probably close to a Civil War of it's own because of it. The mainstay of the Chinese food producers, the small peasant farmers, make so much less money than the city industry workers that they are starting to riot over it. And the tools they use are so primitive compared to basically every other industrialized farming country on Earth it's ridiculous, and that's causing riots as well.

[The Beatles]

I didn't see the Soviet Union's split; tell me all about it.

No, of course I did not mean Berlin. Look at the suburbs of many large cities such as London or New York.

Italy's split is very marked, but you can also look at other European countries, such as the Ukraine. And most nonracial civil wars in history were fueled by exactly such splits.

I'm just sayin'...

[Gen. Volkov]

It was the October Revolution, 1917, the Czar was industrializing the cities, but the serfs/peasants reamained poor, and getting poorer. The Bolsheviks took advantage of this and launched their revolution. There's alot more to it, but that's the basic drift. Oh and Stalin had to put down several peasant uprisings when he was industrializing the Soviet Union.

Oh, I see what you mean, but the suburbs are not agrarian farmlands, they are just less urbanized. The difference between North and south was MUCH more marked. And I know that's what fueled most nonracial civil wars. And I'm just sayin that those nonracial ones tended to occur in large countries.

[The Beatles]

That trend to large countries is a bit simplistic. No need to invoke gigantism.

And the Soviet Union's split was not geographical. You couldn't point to a geographical divide, just an urban divide, which isn't the same.

[Gen. Volkov]

Er actually.. the Ural Mountains. Nearly all the industrialization was occuring east of the Urals. Its why the stuff had to be moved beyond the Urals when Hitler attacked.

The trend still exists. I'm jsut saying the smaller you are, the harder it is to get that sort of divide, there is no insult intended.