The History of Slavery

Did you know the term "slave" is derived from enslaved Slavs owned by Muslims?

Did you know that Africans became targets for slavery by Europeans only after European nations became better at protecting themselves from slave raids?

Did you know that Africans practiced slavery?

Did you know that thousands of free blacks owned slaves in the United States?

Did you know that the Indians took their 1600 black slaves with them on the Trail of Tears?

Here's a clinic on the history of slavery by Thomas Sowell:

https://youtu.be/lyPWjjWs7-w

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Did you know that Africans practiced slavery?

Did you know that thousands of free blacks owned slaves in the United States?

Did you know that the Indians took their 1600 black slaves with them on the Trail of Tears?

---

You struggle with the idea of concepts either being good concepts or bad concepts more than I thought you would.

"The Civil War was fought over the immediate issue of secessation." Thomas Sowell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Did you know that Africans practiced slavery?

Did you know that thousands of free blacks owned slaves in the United States?

Did you know that the Indians took their 1600 black slaves with them on the Trail of Tears?

---

You struggle with the idea of concepts either being good concepts or bad concepts more than I thought you would.

---

You struggle with "I'm better than you" syndrome.

What you don't seem to understand is that slavery was a universal evil. Asians practiced slavery, Semites practiced slavery, Africans practiced slavery, Polynesions practiced slavery. American Indians practiced slavery before the arrival of europeans.

YOUR ANCESTORS practiced slavery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

"The Civil War was fought over the immediate issue of secessation." Thomas Sowell

---

As in, what? That the war wouldn't have happened at the time that it did had the South not seceded? Yes, I agree completely. Now...why did the South secede, though?

My advice to you is just to acknowledge that the Civil War is predominantly about slavery, then having done so, saying why else it was fought. Anything else just makes it look like you're desperate for it to be about something other than slavery, but of what consequence is it? You did not personally decide to fight in the Civil War and weren't alive at the time.

I'm not suggesting that the South shouldn't have pride in something Southern, if it's absolutely necessary for them to do so. There is the disgusting combination of chicken and waffles that Southerners can take as a matter of pride, nasty ass white gravy, Southern Evangelicalism (of the same variety that supported and defended slavery, of course) or the fact that they have the worst sounding accents in all of known civilization, both English-speaking and not...take pride in one of those things.

But, for Southerners to continue to try to defend that they had the right of it in the Civil War is just a bad look.

Seriously, though, why chicken and waffles? Is it really that tough for people from the South to go just one meal without BOTH added sugars (syrup) and saturated fats?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

You struggle with "I'm better than you" syndrome.

What you don't seem to understand is that slavery was a universal evil. Asians practice slavery, Semites practiced slavery, Africans practiced slavery, Polynesions practiced slavery.

YOUR ANCESTORS practiced slavery.

---

Yes, I am a bit of an arrogant cunt with a massive intellectual superiority complex, aren't I?

In any event, the history of slavery does nothing to make slavery morally right, which is why I am guessing we no longer have it.

Oh, also NASCAR. Being transfixed by things moving around in circles also started in The South, so you guys can also be proud of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

"The Civil War was fought over the immediate issue of secessation." Thomas Sowell

---

As in, what? That the war wouldn't have happened at the time that it did had the South not seceded? Yes, I agree completely. Now...why did the South secede, though?

My advice to you is just to acknowledge that the Civil War is predominantly about slavery, then having done so, saying why else it was fought. Anything else just makes it look like you're desperate for it to be about something other than slavery, but of what consequence is it? You did not personally decide to fight in the Civil War and weren't alive at the time.

I'm not suggesting that the South shouldn't have pride in something Southern, if it's absolutely necessary for them to do so. There is the disgusting combination of chicken and waffles that Southerners can take as a matter of pride, nasty ass white gravy, Southern Evangelicalism (of the same variety that supported and defended slavery, of course) or the fact that they have the worst sounding accents in all of known civilization, both English-speaking and not...take pride in one of those things.

But, for Southerners to continue to try to defend that they had the right of it in the Civil War is just a bad look.

Seriously, though, why chicken and waffles? Is it really that tough for people from the South to go just one meal without BOTH added sugars (syrup) and saturated fats?

---

Southern elites (slaveholders) had dominated politics on the national level since the founding. They left the Union because they could see that would no longer be the case in the future and it could possibly lead to the end of slavery. But its irrelevant. You and redietz don't really know your history other than what you've been brainwashed to believe.

Why can't you admit the south wanted out of the Union so the north invaded. That was the reason for the war. Was slavery wrong? Of course. Am I happy it ended when it did? Of course. But the south wanted out of the Union and the north didn't want to let them go. That was the reason for the war. My advice to you is go back and research the situation to relieve yourself of the brainwashing you took.

Chicken and waffles? You need to do your research, sonny boy. Hey, I'm not making this shit up. Chicken and waffles came from Pennsylvania. Now....let's see....do we know anyone that lives in Pennsylvania....Oh!....That's right!....YOU LIVE IN PENNSYLVANIA!!!! What's for dinner, mish? Chicken and waffles? LOLOL!!!

Chicken and waffles is primarily eaten by blacks. What you need to do is quit pretending you're not racist. Everyone, including blacks, are on to you. They are not going to like the way you make fun of them and their chicken and waffles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

You struggle with "I'm better than you" syndrome.

What you don't seem to understand is that slavery was a universal evil. Asians practice slavery, Semites practiced slavery, Africans practiced slavery, Polynesions practiced slavery.

YOUR ANCESTORS practiced slavery.

---

Yes, I am a bit of an arrogant cunt with a massive intellectual superiority complex, aren't I?

In any event, the history of slavery does nothing to make slavery morally right, which is why I am guessing we no longer have it.

---

I never said slavery was morally correct. I'm glad it ended in the U.S when it did. However, slavery carried on in the world well into the 20th century. And that included the enslavement of whites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Oh, also NASCAR. Being transfixed by things moving around in circles also started in The South, so you guys can also be proud of that.

---

Never been to a NASCAR race. But I did know moonshiners and rumrunners when I was a kid. Shade tree mechanics souping up their cars. Moonshiners with their hot cars are how NASCAR got it's start. Amazing how they could drive, especially on dirt roads, to shake off the law dogs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

"The Civil War was fought over the immediate issue of secessation." Thomas Sowell

---

As in, what? That the war wouldn't have happened at the time that it did had the South not seceded? Yes, I agree completely. Now...why did the South secede, though?


I'm not suggesting that the South shouldn't have pride in something Southern, if it's absolutely necessary or the fact that they have the worst sounding accents in all of known civilization, both English-speaking and not...

?

---

Hard disagree. Southern accent isn’t attractive, but the American northeast like Philly/NJ, NY, Boston has BY FAR the most annoying accent ever known to civilization. And then they have to go about moving all around the damn country but bringing their stupid accents with them rather than getting speech therapy. Somalians come in second, sound like someone is trying to hock a loogie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Southern elites (slaveholders) had dominated politics on the national level since the founding. They left the Union because they could see that would no longer be the case in the future and it could possible lead to the end of slavery. But its irrelevant. You and redietz don't really know your history other than what you've been brainwashed to believe.

---

Dude, I tried, but I'm done. It is becoming increasingly evident that, despite having quoted them on several occasions, you are not actually reading any of my posts. I have to look at it in the light most favorable to you and suggest you are not reading them, otherwise, the only possible conclusion is that you are reading them, but are failing to comprehend them.

I have already stipulated that is precisely why they seceded from the Union. Specifically, I said that it was because slavery was looking like it would not be expanded to any of the new territories, which would eventually themselves become states, which could theoretically lead to enough Congressional support that slavery would be eliminated even from the Southern states---perhaps even by Constitutional Amendment.

Quote:

---

Why can't you admit the south wanted out of the Union? The north invaded. That was the reason for the war. Was slavery wrong? Of course. Am I happy it ended when it did? Of course. But the south wanted out of the Union and the north didn't want to let them go. That was the reason for the war. My advice to you is go back and research the situation to relieve yourself of the brainwashing you took.

---

Further proof that this conversation is pointless. Of course the South wanted out of the Union. Do you think that I believe that the Southern states seceded because they did not want out of the Union? I would say that the goal of leaving the Union was to, you know, leave the Union.

The direct event that started the actual war was the attack on Fort Sumter. The matter of the legality of secession, as I have already pointed out, was still on the table in the Senate. In fact, the Southern Senators could have been in the Senate to represent their own positions vis-a-vis this matter, but they chose not to be and instead returned to their home states. As I have also already pointed out, it wasn't until three months AFTER the attack on Fort Sumter that the remaining Senators officially declared that the Southern Senate seats had been vacated.

You can assume that the North would not have permitted the secession...and I can agree that it's likely they wouldn't have...but neither of us can know because the South did not exhaust all of the options that they had available to them prior to the attack on Fort Sumter.

Anyway, once again, why did the South want out of the Union? You said it in your first paragraph? Fundamentally, I'm not certain we actually have a disagreement, at this point.

Quote:

---

Chicken and waffles? You need to do your research, sonny boy. Hey, I'm not making this shit up. Chicken and waffles came from Pennsylvania. Now....let's see....do we know anyone that lives in Pennsylvania....Oh!....That's right!....YOU LIVE IN PENNSYLVANIA!!!! What's for dinner, mish? Chicken and waffles? LOLOL!!!

---

Dinner? I thought it was a breakfast item. The origin of chicken and waffles is in dispute:

https://www.myrecipes.com/extracrisp...hern-invention

But, there's little question that it has been most embraced in the South.

For my part, I've never had it. It was just part of the cheap shot I was taking against the region.

Quote:

---

What you need to do is quit pretending you're not racist. Everyone, including blacks, are on to you.

---

Huh? I just do what I do and say what I say. If someone wants to take from anything that I do or say that I'm a racist, then that's for them to decide. Short of the notion of, "Implicit bias," (which is quite a Far Left concept, by the way) I would find it very difficult for anyone to come to the conclusion that I'm racist...but if that's the conclusion they reach, that's fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

I never said slavery was morally correct. I'm glad it ended in the U.S when it did. However, slavery carried on in the world well into the 20th century. And that included the enslavement of whites.

---

It wouldn't have ended when it did (would have been much later) except as an indirect consequence of the Civil War, so pick your poison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcap

Hard disagree. Southern accent isn’t attractive, but the American northeast like Philly/NJ, NY, Boston has BY FAR the most annoying accent ever known to civilization. And then they have to go about moving all around the damn country but bringing their stupid accents with them rather than getting speech therapy. Somalians come in second, sound like someone is trying to hock a loogie.

---

I would put Boston/New York/New Jersey/Philly region as a very close second. They have a very unfortunate accent particularly in that it's one that you hear and are immediately disinclined from trusting that person...but that could tie into the fact that the politics of those regions has historically been so corrupt.

I make no claims to any familiarity with the Somalian accent, so admit that I should have prefaced my earlier statement with, "Of all of the accents I'm familiar with."

It is also a fact that multiple of the Southern generals did not have a position, in particular, vis-a-vis slavery. Furthermore, a few of the Southern Generals...and I'd have to look again to recall which ones...were not even necessarily in favor of secession, but felt that their loyalty to their individual states trumped their loyalty to the Union (This would be a very common position for people on both sides of the Mason-Dixon to hold at that time).

I think Longstreet might be one of the better examples of a Southern General who just felt that his loyalties were, first and foremost, to his state--regardless of what he, personally, would have wanted. As I understand Longstreet, he was no personal fan of secession.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcap

Hard disagree. Southern accent isn’t attractive, but the American northeast like Philly/NJ, NY, Boston has BY FAR the most annoying accent ever known to civilization. And then they have to go about moving all around the damn country but bringing their stupid accents with them rather than getting speech therapy. Somalians come in second, sound like someone is trying to hock a loogie.

---

I would put Boston/New York/New Jersey/Philly region as a very close second. They have a very unfortunate accent particularly in that it's one that you hear and are immediately disinclined from trusting that person...

---

If that is true perhaps that is part of the problem with making Fauci the face of “trustworthy science.”

They say, "Perception is reality," but we also know that stereotypes (obviously) don't always apply to specific individuals---so, who the hell knows?

Whipping is an efficiency question.
Slavery was great in Civ IV until it gets abolished.
They abolished Slavery for good after Civ IV Beyond the Sword.
Hopefully, they bring it back in Civ VII.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0_Ra4N3Q8U

What I find to be absent from the discussion, and not surprisingly given both mickey and Mission's America-centric perspectives, is the international context in which the North and South found themselves. In most countries, slavery was eliminated in steps -- first the auctions went, but people could own and trade slaves. It was step by step, and the British Empire had different transitions in different places, for example.

The U.S. was behind much of the westernized world in phasing out slavery, as evidenced by those Star Spangled banner lyrics from years previous. Slaves going over to the Brit side could become free men.

By the time the Civil War began, the South was becoming (or had already become) an international anachronism still dependent on slave labor.

The basic problem with mickey's argument that the South was no worse than central Africa or Greece or Mesopotamia or anywhere/when that had slaves is that without an international historical context, you can take that argument to its logical conclusion to justify anything. There were undoubtedly times when this tribe ate that tribe and various genetic strains of humans ate each other, so you can say, "See, the Donner Party was just carrying on a tradition that once existed in central Africa and Mesopotamia and...." Perfectly normal, natural behavior, traditional human behavior. And since humans may have eaten each for longer than they haven't, everything gets justified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

The basic problem with mickey's argument that the South was no worse than central Africa or Greece or Mesopotamia or anywhere/when that had slaves is that without an international historical context, you can take that argument to its logical conclusion to justify anything. There were undoubtedly times when this tribe ate that tribe and various genetic strains of humans ate each other, so you can say, "See, the Donner Party was just carrying on a tradition that once existed in central Africa and Mesopotamia and...." Perfectly normal, natural behavior, traditional human behavior. And since humans may have eaten each for longer than they haven't, everything gets justified.

---

Singer is right. You are one weird dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

What I find to be absent from the discussion, and not surprisingly given both mickey and Mission's America-centric perspectives, is the international context in which the North and South found themselves. In most countries, slavery was eliminated in steps -- first the auctions went, but people could own and trade slaves. It was step by step, and the British Empire had different transitions in different places, for example.

The U.S. was behind much of the westernized world in phasing out slavery, as evidenced by those Star Spangled banner lyrics from years previous. Slaves going over to the Brit side could become free men.

By the time the Civil War began, the South was becoming (or had already become) an international anachronism still dependent on slave labor.

---

Cuba and Brazil didn't outlaw slavery until the 1880's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

The basic problem with mickey's argument that the South was no worse than central Africa or Greece or Mesopotamia or anywhere/when that had slaves is that without an international historical context, you can take that argument to its logical conclusion to justify anything. There were undoubtedly times when this tribe ate that tribe and various genetic strains of humans ate each other, so you can say, "See, the Donner Party was just carrying on a tradition that once existed in central Africa and Mesopotamia and...." Perfectly normal, natural behavior, traditional human behavior. And since humans may have eaten each for longer than they haven't, everything gets justified.

---

Comrade, will you give me the post number in this or any other thread where I made an argument that slavery in the south was no worse than Africa, Greece or Mesopotamia? I must have amnesia. I don't remember writing it. And I sure don't remember thinking it. So thanks in advance for pointing it out for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

What I find to be absent from the discussion, and not surprisingly given both mickey and Mission's America-centric perspectives, is the international context in which the North and South found themselves. In most countries, slavery was eliminated in steps -- first the auctions went, but people could own and trade slaves. It was step by step, and the British Empire had different transitions in different places, for example.

The U.S. was behind much of the westernized world in phasing out slavery, as evidenced by those Star Spangled banner lyrics from years previous. Slaves going over to the Brit side could become free men.

By the time the Civil War began, the South was becoming (or had already become) an international anachronism still dependent on slave labor.

---

Cuba and Brazil didn't outlaw slavery until the 1880's.

---

See, this is true, of course. But mickey, rather than giving a survey of where or when it was not legal or to what degree, simply lists two countries that support his argument. What's the point of that? Give people a sense of the entire context. Don't cherry pick data that supports you. C'mon, man, why do that?

Mickey undoubtedly checked a list of who outlawed slavery to what degree when. Rather than list much of that, he chose two countries that were (barely) late to the anti-slavery party after the U.S.

That's bad reporting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Dude, I tried, but I'm done. It is becoming increasingly evident that, despite having quoted them on several occasions, you are not actually reading any of my posts. I have to look at it in the light most favorable to you and suggest you are not reading them, otherwise, the only possible conclusion is that you are reading them, but are failing to comprehend them.

I have already stipulated that is precisely why they seceded from the Union. Specifically, I said that it was because slavery was looking like it would not be expanded to any of the new territories, which would eventually themselves become states, which could theoretically lead to enough Congressional support that slavery would be eliminated even from the Southern states---perhaps even by Constitutional Amendment.



Further proof that this conversation is pointless. Of course the South wanted out of the Union. Do you think that I believe that the Southern states seceded because they did not want out of the Union? I would say that the goal of leaving the Union was to, you know, leave the Union.

The direct event that started the actual war was the attack on Fort Sumter. The matter of the legality of secession, as I have already pointed out, was still on the table in the Senate. In fact, the Southern Senators could have been in the Senate to represent their own positions vis-a-vis this matter, but they chose not to be and instead returned to their home states. As I have also already pointed out, it wasn't until three months AFTER the attack on Fort Sumter that the remaining Senators officially declared that the Southern Senate seats had been vacated.

You can assume that the North would not have permitted the secession...and I can agree that it's likely they wouldn't have...but neither of us can know because the South did not exhaust all of the options that they had available to them prior to the attack on Fort Sumter.

Anyway, once again, why did the South want out of the Union? You said it in your first paragraph? Fundamentally, I'm not certain we actually have a disagreement, at this point.

Quote:

---

Chicken and waffles? You need to do your research, sonny boy. Hey, I'm not making this shit up. Chicken and waffles came from Pennsylvania. Now....let's see....do we know anyone that lives in Pennsylvania....Oh!....That's right!....YOU LIVE IN PENNSYLVANIA!!!! What's for dinner, mish? Chicken and waffles? LOLOL!!!

---

Dinner? I thought it was a breakfast item. The origin of chicken and waffles is in dispute:

https://www.myrecipes.com/extracrisp...hern-invention

But, there's little question that it has been most embraced in the South.

For my part, I've never had it. It was just part of the cheap shot I was taking against the region.

Quote:

---

What you need to do is quit pretending you're not racist. Everyone, including blacks, are on to you.

---

Huh? I just do what I do and say what I say. If someone wants to take from anything that I do or say that I'm a racist, then that's for them to decide. Short of the notion of, "Implicit bias," (which is quite a Far Left concept, by the way) I would find it very difficult for anyone to come to the conclusion that I'm racist...but if that's the conclusion they reach, that's fine.

---

You cling to delusions that have nothing to do with the real story. And you are arrogant enough to think you are right. But that's the way of the ignorant.

I’m arrogant and right.

I should assume the, “Real story,” is similar to the real story of Trump winning the 2020 Election in that there will be no facts whatsoever that support the, “Real story,” and what facts are available will support its opposite.

Besides, you just quoted me agreeing with you on all points and then said I’m arrogant and wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

Whipping is an efficiency question.
Slavery was great in Civ IV until it gets abolished.
They abolished Slavery for good after Civ IV Beyond the Sword.
Hopefully, they bring it back in Civ VII.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0_Ra4N3Q8U

---

slavery was OP in that game. I can't really see a reason to run any of the alternative civics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pepe

slavery was OP in that game. I can't really see a reason to run any of the alternative civics.

---

Finally... someone who understands!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

What I find to be absent from the discussion, and not surprisingly given both mickey and Mission's America-centric perspectives, is the international context in which the North and South found themselves. In most countries, slavery was eliminated in steps -- first the auctions went, but people could own and trade slaves. It was step by step, and the British Empire had different transitions in different places, for example.

The U.S. was behind much of the westernized world in phasing out slavery, as evidenced by those Star Spangled banner lyrics from years previous. Slaves going over to the Brit side could become free men.

By the time the Civil War began, the South was becoming (or had already become) an international anachronism still dependent on slave labor.

---

Cuba and Brazil didn't outlaw slavery until the 1880's.

---

See, this is true, of course. But mickey, rather than giving a survey of where or when it was not legal or to what degree, simply lists two countries that support his argument. What's the point of that? Give people a sense of the entire context. Don't cherry pick data that supports you. C'mon, man, why do that?

Mickey undoubtedly checked a list of who outlawed slavery to what degree when. Rather than list much of that, he chose two countries that were (barely) late to the anti-slavery party after the U.S.

That's bad reporting.

---

I knew about Cuba and Brazil decades ago so very bad reporting on your part. When you assume you make an ass of yourself. Or I should say a weirdo out of yourself. What I didn't know was slavery lasting until well into the 20th century in some parts of Africa and the middle east.

Speaking of the middle east, the great pyramid at Giza, admired by enough people around the globe to be considered one of the seven wonders of the world, was built on the backs of slaves (it sure as hell wasn't built by aliens). Man, we're a hypocritical bunch.

Who are hypocrites? I've certainly never visited the Great Pyramid of Giza and will almost certainly never do so given that I have no plans to ever leave the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Who are hypocrites? I've certainly never visited the Great Pyramid of Giza and will almost certainly never do so given that I have no plans to ever leave the country.

---

tableplay is speaking in a general sense.
It's not all about Mission146.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Who are hypocrites? I've certainly never visited the Great Pyramid of Giza and will almost certainly never do so given that I have no plans to ever leave the country.

---

tableplay is speaking in a general sense.
It's not all about Mission146.

---

Thanks Monet. I'm sure if you ask the Egyptians they will say they are against slavery, yet they are monetizing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Who are hypocrites? I've certainly never visited the Great Pyramid of Giza and will almost certainly never do so given that I have no plans to ever leave the country.

---

tableplay is speaking in a general sense.
It's not all about Mission146.

---

See, I thought that the question, "Who are hypocrites?", that I opened with would lead one to believe that I am wondering who Tableplay is accusing of hypocrisy, but I guess not.

Since it referred to some kind of tour, or whatever, I assumed he was referring to people from the U.S. who claim to be against the institution of U.S. slavery but would take a tour of some slave built pyramid in Egypt---because those two things are obviously directly related to one another---I just didn't know if he meant anyone from this board specifically.

Mission, why are all those people moving down to live with racist christians?

Net Domestic Migration by Region July 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021

Northeast -389,638
West -144, 941
Midwest -123103
South +657,682

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Mission, why are all those people moving down to live with racist christians?

Net Domestic Migration by Region July 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021

Northeast -389,638
West -144, 941
Midwest -123103
South +657,682

---

That people would be fleeing California and New York States just as fast as they can get the hell out of there? I'm shocked.

Anyway, it would seem that the biggest single gainer is Texas, followed by Florida, in terms of raw population gain. Those two states, however, are 7th and 8th when it comes to percentage gain, by virtue of having such high populations to begin with, of course.

Many Californians, in particular, are choosing instead to live in Texas---which is becoming a substantial tech hub. We also see that Liberals are fleeing California for Texas and Nevada, which is just the continuation of a trend that had already been happening. That's going to be largely based on less personal income tax and lower real estate costs.

Texas, of course, should HOPE that the Liberals don't get into the state levels of Government and do to Texas what they have already done to California at state and lower levels which resulted in the very conditions that Californians are fleeing from in the first place.

As far as Florida is concerned, the Northeast moves to Florida since time immemorial.

Anyway, I don't think any of this has much to do with where the Christians are or are not. Nevada, for instance, also gained 1% and I don't consider that an ideal state if your religious values are extremely important to you.

Idaho, Utah, Montana, Arizona and South Carolina (in that order) are the top five population gainers by percentage, with the Top 4 of those probably seeing a lot of people coming in from California as well as Washington and Oregon.

Delaware was 6th in growth...I can't even offer a guess as to why.

Looking at the Top 10 states in percentage decline, it would seem that people are most likely to flee the most Liberal states, followed by to flee the most Conservative states that are also states with little in the way of opportunity, examples of which being West Virginia and Mississippi.

Oh, to the last bit, Mississippi and West Virginia are also two of the MOST religious states, ranking T-1st and T-4th, respectively, for belief in God.

The point being, I don't think people really make these domestic migration decisions based on religion whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Oh, to the last bit, Mississippi and West Virginia are also two of the MOST religious states, ranking T-1st and T-4th, respectively, for belief in God.

The point being, I don't think people really make these domestic migration decisions based on religion whatsoever.

---

Mission, I know a good state for you to visit that meets some of your ideological requirements. It has, for the past 50 years, the most integrated school system in the nation. And it has the most black elected politicians of any state in the Union. Can you guess which state it is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Oh, to the last bit, Mississippi and West Virginia are also two of the MOST religious states, ranking T-1st and T-4th, respectively, for belief in God.

The point being, I don't think people really make these domestic migration decisions based on religion whatsoever.

---

Mission, I know a good state for you to visit that meets some of your ideological requirements. It has, for the past 50 years, the most integrated school system in the nation. And it has the most black elected politicians of any state in the Union. Can you guess which state it is?

---

I have no idea, based on the topic of discussion, I'm assuming somewhere in the South.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Oh, to the last bit, Mississippi and West Virginia are also two of the MOST religious states, ranking T-1st and T-4th, respectively, for belief in God.

The point being, I don't think people really make these domestic migration decisions based on religion whatsoever.

---

Mission, I know a good state for you to visit that meets some of your ideological requirements. It has, for the past 50 years, the most integrated school system in the nation. And it has the most black elected politicians of any state in the Union. Can you guess which state it is?

---

I have no idea, based on the topic of discussion, I'm assuming somewhere in the South.

---

Just some trivia. My home state Mississippi integrated the schools in the early 70's. The population is about 60% white, 40% black. It's been the most integrated school system in the nation for 50 years. Mississippi also has the most black elected politicians of any state in the country. A state with a population of just 3 million has more black elected politicians than liberal California with 40 million people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Mission, I know a good state for you to visit that meets some of your ideological requirements. It has, for the past 50 years, the most integrated school system in the nation. And it has the most black elected politicians of any state in the Union. Can you guess which state it is?

---

I have no idea, based on the topic of discussion, I'm assuming somewhere in the South.

---

Just some trivia. My home state Mississippi integrated the schools in the early 70's. The population is about 60% white, 40% black. It's been the most integrated school system in the nation for 50 years. Mississippi also has the most black elected politicians of any state in the country. A state with a population of just 3 million has more black elected politicians than liberal California with 40 million people.

---

Fascinating:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...-voters-452213

If you don't want to infer my point from reading the link, my point is because there are so many majority-black jurisdictions that it's basically black people voting themselves in and the state's politics are very much divided on racial lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

I have no idea, based on the topic of discussion, I'm assuming somewhere in the South.

---

Just some trivia. My home state Mississippi integrated the schools in the early 70's. The population is about 60% white, 40% black. It's been the most integrated school system in the nation for 50 years. Mississippi also has the most black elected politicians of any state in the country. A state with a population of just 3 million has more black elected politicians than liberal California with 40 million people.

---

Fascinating:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...-voters-452213

If you don't want to infer my point from reading the link, my point is because there are so many majority-black jurisdictions that it's basically black people voting themselves in and the state's politics are very much divided on racial lines.

---

Spare me the Politico leftist propaganda. Blacks have a lot of power in Mississippi.

I'm sure you looked for something to counter the school integration but couldn't find anything.

No voting along racial lines in Ohio, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Spare me the Politico leftist propaganda.

---

How can he spare you of that?
It is literally the only thing that he types.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Spare me the Politico leftist propaganda. Blacks have a lot of power in Mississippi.

I'm sure you looked for something to counter the school integration but couldn't find anything.

No voting along racial lines in Ohio, right?

---

I agree they have a lot of power in Mississippi; the article that I linked says as much. It also explains why that would be the case.

I no longer live in Ohio, but I'm sure some of the voting there is racially motivated. Same in PA. I'm sure some black people would automatically be more inclined to vote for another black person as opposed to a white one and that would qualify as racism just as equally. Racism doesn't begin and end at the Mason-Dixon line, and doesn't begin and end exclusively with Caucasians being racist and I never claimed either of those things.

That said, I do appreciate why you would put arguments in my mouth---much easier to be perceived as winning debates that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Spare me the Politico leftist propaganda. Blacks have a lot of power in Mississippi.

I'm sure you looked for something to counter the school integration but couldn't find anything.

No voting along racial lines in Ohio, right?

---

I agree they have a lot of power in Mississippi; the article that I linked says as much. It also explains why that would be the case.

I no longer live in Ohio, but I'm sure some of the voting there is racially motivated. Same in PA. I'm sure some black people would automatically be more inclined to vote for another black person as opposed to a white one and that would qualify as racism just as equally. Racism doesn't begin and end at the Mason-Dixon line, and doesn't begin and end exclusively with Caucasians being racist and I never claimed either of those things.

That said, I do appreciate why you would put arguments in my mouth---much easier to be perceived as winning debates that way.

---

The only place you are winning debates is in your delusional mind. Your arguments were so weak I took pity and let up on you. When 1910 comes back your arguments will be a hit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Spare me the Politico leftist propaganda. Blacks have a lot of power in Mississippi.

I'm sure you looked for something to counter the school integration but couldn't find anything.

No voting along racial lines in Ohio, right?

---

I agree they have a lot of power in Mississippi; the article that I linked says as much. It also explains why that would be the case.

I no longer live in Ohio, but I'm sure some of the voting there is racially motivated. Same in PA. I'm sure some black people would automatically be more inclined to vote for another black person as opposed to a white one and that would qualify as racism just as equally. Racism doesn't begin and end at the Mason-Dixon line, and doesn't begin and end exclusively with Caucasians being racist and I never claimed either of those things.

That said, I do appreciate why you would put arguments in my mouth---much easier to be perceived as winning debates that way.

---

The only place you are winning debates is in your delusional mind. Your arguments were so weak I took pity and let up on you. When 1910 comes back your arguments will be a hit.

---

That's good because, when 1910 comes back, your political views will be relevant again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

I agree they have a lot of power in Mississippi; the article that I linked says as much. It also explains why that would be the case.

I no longer live in Ohio, but I'm sure some of the voting there is racially motivated. Same in PA. I'm sure some black people would automatically be more inclined to vote for another black person as opposed to a white one and that would qualify as racism just as equally. Racism doesn't begin and end at the Mason-Dixon line, and doesn't begin and end exclusively with Caucasians being racist and I never claimed either of those things.

That said, I do appreciate why you would put arguments in my mouth---much easier to be perceived as winning debates that way.

---

The only place you are winning debates is in your delusional mind. Your arguments were so weak I took pity and let up on you. When 1910 comes back your arguments will be a hit.

---

That's good because, when 1910 comes back, your political views will be relevant again.

---

When 1910 comes back your jokes will be funny again. Seek counseling from your Pastor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

The only place you are winning debates is in your delusional mind. Your arguments were so weak I took pity and let up on you. When 1910 comes back your arguments will be a hit.

---

That's good because, when 1910 comes back, your political views will be relevant again.

---

When 1910 comes back your jokes will be funny again. Seek counseling from your Pastor.

---

1910 has a better chance of literally coming back around than my jokes do of ever being funny.