Texas judge interrupts jury, says God told him defendant is not guilty

[Baruch]

The legality of any civil war depends on which side you are on.  I learned the arguments of both sides, and quite frankly, both sides had good arguments.  But the side that wins, wins...

Much as I like a unified US, I think the Confederacy had the better legal argument.

Perhaps.  Except for chattal slavery, the Confederacy would have had support from the British Empire, and the US would have been reconquered from Canada.  It came this close ...

Abstract legal arguments, won't get most people shot.  Both sides were self-righteous and aggressive as Hell.  A sure "fire" combination.

[Cavebear]

Perhaps.  Except for chattal slavery, the Confederacy would have had support from the British Empire, and the US would have been reconquered from Canada.  It came this close ...

Abstract legal arguments, won't get most people shot.  Both sides were self-righteous and aggressive as Hell.  A sure "fire" combination.

No, there never was any real chance that the North would lose the war.  There are just too many reasons to list here. 

[Baruch]

No, there never was any real chance that the North would lose the war.  There are just too many reasons to list here.

Yes, the Confederacy without outside support (and Federal embargo on their ports).  But the French or British Empire added in ... and France was already in Mexico.  Britain was in Canada.  They could have combined and carved us new orifices.  As I pointed out awhile back, the Trent Affair was moderated by Russian Imperial support ... something I didn't know even a year ago.  Got Czar!

[Cavebear]

Yes, the Confederacy without outside support (and Federal embargo on their ports).  But the French or British Empire added in ... and France was already in Mexico.  Britain was in Canada.  They could have combined and carved us new orifices.  As I pointed out awhile back, the Trent Affair was moderated by Russian Imperial support ... something I didn't know even a year ago.  Got Czar!

By the time Britain and France felt the loss of cotton, they felt the North's manufacturing more strongly.  They had neither the navies or armies by then to embargo the North.  They were already petrified by the Monitors, and The North was CASUALLY fighting indians in the west.  They had more troops than they knew what to do with.  There's more, but I don't want to duplicate a class paper.

[Baruch]

By the time Britain and France felt the loss of cotton, they felt the North's manufacturing more strongly.  They had neither the navies or armies by then to embargo the North.  They were already petrified by the Monitors, and The North was CASUALLY fighting indians in the west.  They had more troops than they knew what to do with.  There's more, but I don't want to duplicate a class paper.

Yeah, but could Britain hired Indians, and the French ... Hispanics, to serve as cannon fodder?  We had some interesting early technology, not just monitors but submarines.  The European Empires had a hard time keeping up.

[Cavebear]

Yeah, but could Britain hired Indians, and the French ... Hispanics, to serve as cannon fodder?  We had some interesting early technology, not just monitors but submarines.  The European Empires had a hard time keeping up.

Thank you for supporting my point.  But the English and French had already tried using surrogates before.  France lost Canada and The Spanish lost most of Mexico before that.  And they were ALL worn out after Bonaparte. 

(Hey, what do you call Napoleon in front of a cannon?  "Blownapart"  ROTFLMAO!)  I crack me up...