Morons who believe the civil war wasn't about slavery

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Clearly, the wealthiest, most educated, most productive parts of our country generally lie in the former Union states, and/or non-former slave states.

Of course, you are excepting Virginia from this.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Of course, you are excepting Virginia from this.

That's a fair comment, maybe North Carolina too.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

That's a fair comment, maybe North Carolina too.

That was no comment. That was me offering you an opportunity to avoid a duel, sir!

[K-dog]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

That's a fair comment, maybe North Carolina too.

Virginia is only high on GDP because of its proximity to D.C. If it was a different country it would probably be as poor as Georgia.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by K-dog

Virginia is only high on GDP because of its proximity to D.C. If it was a different country it would probably be as poor as Georgia.

Agreed

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Here's a book for you. I know what the CW was about and I'm still going to get this. It looks like gripping stuff. I wonder how the manuscripsts were recently discovered. An interesting tale itself no doubt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/bo...ks&oref=slogin

YOu're going to read the book even though you have already read the review? Amazing.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by K-dog

Virginia is only high on GDP because of its proximity to D.C. If it was a different country it would probably be as poor as Georgia.

And New York wouldn't have the GSP it has if New York City was located in the middle of the plains rather than being in a natural port location. Not sure what your point is.

[K-dog]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

And New York wouldn't have the GSP it has if New York City was located in the middle of the plains rather than being in a natural port location. Not sure what your point is.

We were talking about whether the northern states were bearing the burden of carrying the southern states. Virginia's relative wealth is a product of D.C. which, I'm contending, is a product of the northern states. If the union had cut the south loose, Virginia GDP per capita would look like Georgia.

[marsupial]

I have never heard of this Civil War you are all talking about. Around here, we only talk about the War of Northern Oppression.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by K-dog

We were talking about whether the northern states were bearing the burden of carrying the southern states. Virginia's relative wealth is a product of D.C. which, I'm contending, is a product of the northern states. If the union had cut the south loose, Virginia GDP per capita would look like Georgia.

I see what you mean. Clearly, the agrarian states had economies based on slavery and that ended. I have no doubt that the many of them historically are less wealthy than their northern counter parts as a result of this. Still, that was a long time ago and as my map shows several of those states have pulled them selves while not all of the northern states have done so.

So, basically I think the thesis as I understand it was asserted is right. I am curious to know what is meant by "carry" however. I assume that means some kind of transfer of wealth?

On another note, what explains Utah being the Alabama of the west I wonder.