Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
No Soul Man

FAVORITE HISTORICAL EVENT

Recommended Posts

The day I lost my cherry.... Any one seen it? Been gone since the 1980's, wish it'd been some one different. Could be I'll never see that piece of fruit again. I guess I'll throw in the day I discovered there was more than Stairway to Heaven in Led Zeppelin's catalog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was just stating that Great Britain stopped Slavery before the United States did, something overlooked by most so called Scollars.

Britain abolished slavery in 1833, after it acted to end the slave trade within its empire in 1807. Did Britain cease buying cotton from the United States at the same time? Oh, that's right, during the Civil War, between 1861 and 1865, the United States Union States blockaded the Southern U.S. ports, making it hard for Britain to import cotton from the U.S.

cottontown.org

/wiki/Cotton

The advent of the Industrial Revolution in Britain provided a great boost to cotton manufacture, as textiles emerged as Britain's leading export. In 1738, Lewis Paul and John Wyatt, of Birmingham, England, patented the roller spinning machine, and the flyer-and-bobbin system for drawing cotton to a more even thickness using two sets of rollers that traveled at different speeds. Later, the invention of the spinning jenny in 1764 and Richard Arkwright's spinning frame (based on the roller spinning machine) in 1769 enabled British weavers to produce cotton yarn and cloth at much higher rates. From the late 18th century onwards, the British city of Manchester acquired the nickname "Cottonopolis" due to the cotton industry's omnipresence within the city, and Manchester's role as the heart of the global cotton trade. Production capacity in Britain and the United States was improved by the invention of the cotton gin by the American Eli Whitney in 1793. Improving technology and increasing control of world markets allowed British traders to develop a commercial chain in which raw cotton fibers were (at first) purchased from colonial plantations, processed into cotton cloth in the mills of Lancashire, and then exported on British ships to captive colonial markets in West Africa, India, and China (via Shanghai and Hong Kong).

By the 1840s, India was no longer capable of supplying the vast quantities of cotton fibers needed by mechanized British factories, while shipping bulky, low-price cotton from India to Britain was time-consuming and expensive. This, coupled with the emergence of American cotton as a superior type (due to the longer, stronger fibers of the two domesticated native American species, Gossypium hirsutum and Gossypium barbadense), encouraged British traders to purchase cotton from plantations in the United States and the Caribbean. By the mid-19th century, "King Cotton" had become the backbone of the southern American economy. In the United States, cultivating and harvesting cotton became the leading occupation of slaves.

During the American Civil War, American cotton exports slumped due to a Union blockade on Southern ports, also because of a strategic decision by the Confederate government to cut exports, hoping to force Britain to recognize the Confederacy or enter the war, prompting the main purchasers of cotton, Britain and France, to turn to Egyptian cotton. British and French traders invested heavily in cotton plantations and the Egyptian government of Viceroy Isma'il took out substantial loans from European bankers and stock exchanges. After the American Civil War ended in 1865, British and French traders abandoned Egyptian cotton and returned to cheap American exports, sending Egypt into a deficit spiral that led to the country declaring bankruptcy in 1876, a key factor behind Egypt's annexation by the British Empire in 1882.

During this time, cotton cultivation in the British Empire, especially India, greatly increased to replace the lost production of the American South. Through tariffs and other restrictions, the British government discouraged the production of cotton cloth in India; rather, the raw fiber was sent to England for processing.

The Slave Trade Act (citation 47 Geo III Sess. 1 c. 36) was an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed on 25 March 1807, with the long title "An Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade". The original act is in the Parliamentary Archives. The act abolished the slave trade in the British Empire, but not slavery itself; that had been abolished in England, in Somersett's Case in 1772, but remained legal in most of the British Empire until the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.

wiki/Slave Trade Act of 1807

wiki/Union_blockade

wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

wiki/American_Civil_War

Edited by Silver Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the scholars noted it. Did Britain cease buying cotton from the United States at the same time? Oh, that's right, the United States Union States blockaded the Southern U.S. ports, making it hard for Britain to import cotton from the U.S.

Thats what they call "CAPITALISM" something that is still alive and kicking today, and your point is?

Regards, Danny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats what they call "CAPITALISM" something that is still alive and kicking today, and your point is?

Regards, Danny

My point is that the United States was divided when Britain abolished slavery in 1833. Slavery was not entrenched in Britain, as it was in the U.S, where "King Cotton" served as the primary trade in the Southern economy. In the United States, the Union States tried very hard to end slavery, while the Confederate States worked strenuously against the Union to keep slavery, which was part of the mainstay of their economy.

Was society in Britain in 1833 anything like the following? Probably not, yet many in American southern society accepted this way of life, buying and selling people in lots, dividing families, as if it were alright, just so long as they labored and made their owners wealthy and powerful. In Britain, poverty divided the nation, but family life remained somewhat intact. In America, slavery divided people from their families, and there was very little that anyone could do until the law finally changed. But changing the law in America would not be easy.

localhistories.org/19thcent.html

docsouth.unc.edu/neh/thompsch/thompsch

BIOGRAPHY OF A SLAVE.

BEING THE EXPERIENCES

OF

Rev. Charles Thompson

I was a slave, and was born in Atala County, Mississippi, near the town of Rockford, on the third day of March, 1833, My father and mother both being slaves, of course my pedigree is not traceable, by me, farther back than my parents. Our family belonged to a man named Kirkwood, who was a large slave-owner. Kirkwood died when I was about nine years old, after which, upon the settlement of the affairs of his estate, the slaves belonging to the estate were divided equally, as to value, among the six heirs. There were about seventy-five slaves to be divided into six lots; and great was the tribulation among the poor blacks when they learned that they were to be separated.

When the division was completed two of my sisters and myself were cast into one lot, my mother into another, and my father into another, and the rest of the family in the other lots. Young and slave as I was, I felt the pang of separation from my loved and revered mother; child that I was I mourned for mother, even before our final separation, as one dead to me forever. So early to be deprived of a fond mother, by the "law," gave me my first view of the curse of slavery. Until this time I did not know what trouble was, but from then until the tocsin of freedom was sounded through the glorious Emancipation Proclamation by the immortal Abraham Lincoln, I passed through hardship after hardship, in quick succession, and many, many times I have almost seen and tasted death.

I bade farewell to my mother, forever, on this earth. Oh! the pangs of that moment. Even after thirty years have elapsed the scene comes vividly to my memory as I write. A gloomy, dark cloud seemed to pass before my vision, and the very air seemed to still with awfulness. I felt bereaved, forlorn, forsaken, lost. Put yourself in my place; feel what I have felt, and then say, God is just; he will protect the helpless and right the wronged, and you will have some idea of my feelings and the hope that sustained me through long and weary years of servitude. My mother, my poor mother! what must she have suffered. Never will I forget her last words; never will I forget the earnest prayers of that mother begging for her child, and refusing to be comforted. She had fallen to the lot of Mrs. Anderson, and she pleaded with burning tears streaming down her cheeks, "He is my only son, my baby child, my youngest and the only son I have; please let me have him to go with me!"

Anderson spoke roughly to her and told her to hold her peace; but with her arms around me she clung to me and cried the louder, "Let me have my child; if you will let me have my baby you may have all the rest!"

Mothers can realize this situation only, who have parted with children whom they never expected to see again. Imagine parting with your dearest child, never to see it again; to be thrown into life-servitude in one part of the country and your dear child in the same condition six hundred miles away. Although my mother was black, she had a soul; she had a heart to feel just as you have, and I, her child, was being ruthlessly torn from her by inexorable "law." What would you have done if you had been in her place? She prayed to God for help.

My kind old father consoled and encouraged my mother all he could, and said to her, "Do not be discouraged, for Jesus is your friend; if you lack for knowledge, he will inform you, and if you meet with troubles and trials on your way, cast all your cares on Jesus, and don't forget to pray." The old man spoke these words while praying, shouting, crying, and saying farewell to my mother. He had, in a manner, raised nearly all the colored people on the plantation; so he had a fatherly feeling for all of them. The old man looked down on me, and said, "My child, you are now without a father and will soon be without a mother; but be a good boy, and God will be father and mother to you. If you will put your trust in him and pray to him, he will take you home to heaven when you die, where you can meet your mother there, where parting will be no more. Farewell." I was then taken from my mother, and have not seen or heard of her since--about twenty-nine years ago. Old Uncle Jack, as my father was called by the plantation people, spoke words of comfort to all of us before we were parted.

Read More

Edited by Silver Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that the United States was divided when Britain abolished slavery. In the United States, the Union States tried very hard to end slavery, while the Confederate States worked strenuously to keep slavery, which was part of the mainstay of their economy.

From when did the North aquire this pang of concience?

Regards, Danny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From when did the North aquire this pang of concience?

Regards, Danny

It was around February 18, 1688 in Germantown, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. :D

Remember the song that Elton John wrote, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sd6P2Tu8rw. Rhode Island was the first state to end slavery in 1774. Ohio outlawed slavery in 1802 and had never allowed slavery within its borders.

Spain abolished colonial slavery in 1542.

Photo

Photo 2

quakerinfo.org/history/slavery

1688 Protest Against Slavery

by German Mennonites and Quakers in Germantown, Pennsylvania

Background: "The petition, submitted to a subordinate Friends meeting in April 1688, eventually reached the Yearly Meeting in Burlington, New Jersey, where it was, in effect, tabled" (from Am I Not a Man and a Brother).

It is believed to be the first formal protest by white colonists against the practice of slavery in the Americas.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is to ye Monthly Meeting held at Richard Worrell's.

These are the reasons why we are against the traffick of men-body, as followeth.

  • Is there any that would be done or handled at this manner? viz., to be sold or made a slave for all the time of this life? How fearful and faint-hearted are many on sea, when they see a strange vessel, -- being afraid it should be a Turk, and they should be taken, and sold for slaves into Turkey. Now what is this better done, as Turks doe? Yea, rather is it worse for them, which say they are Christians; for we hear that ye most part of such negers are brought hither against their will and consent, and that many of them are stolen.
  • Now, tho they are black, we can not conceive there is more liberty to have them slaves, as it is to have other white ones. There is a saying, that we shall doe to all men like as will be done ourselves; making no difference of what generation, descent or colour they are. And those who steal or robb men, and those who buy or purchase them, are they not all alike? Here is libety of conscience, wch is right and reasonable; here ought to be likewise liberty of ye body, except of evil-doers, wch is an other case. But to bring men hither, or to rob and sell them against their will, we stand against. In Europe there are many oppressed for conscience sake; and here there are those oppressed wh are of a black colour.
  • And we who know that men must not comitt adultery, -- some do committ adultery, in others, separating wives from their husbands and giving them to others; and some sell the children of these poor creatures to other men.
  • Ah! doe consider well this thing, you who doe it, if you would be done at this manner? and if it is done according to Christianity? You surpass Holland and Germany in this thing. This makes an ill report in all those countries of Europe, where they hear off, that ye Quakers doe here handel men as they handel there ye cattle. And for that reason some have no mind or inclination to come hither. And who shall maintain this your cause, or pleid for it? Truly we can not do so, except you shall inform us better hereof, viz, that Christians have liberty to practise these things.
  • Pray, what thing in the world can be done worse towards us, than if men should rob or steal us away, and sell us for slaves to strange countries; separating housbands from their wives and children. Being now this is not done in the manner we would be done at therefore we contradict and are against this traffic of men-body.
  • And we who profess that it is not lawful to steal, must, likewise, avoid to purchase such things as are stolen, but rather help to stop this robbing and stealing if possible. And such men ought to be delivered out of ye hands of ye robbers, and set free as well as in Europe. Then is Pennsylvania to have a good report, instead it hath now a bad one for this sake in other countries. Especially whereas ye Europeans are desirous to know in what manner ye Quakers doe rule in their province; -- and most of them doe look upon us with an envious eye. But if this is done well, what shall we say is done evil?
  • If once these slaves (wch they say are so wicked and stubbern men) should joint themselves, -- fight for their freedom. -- and handel their masters and mastrisses as they did handel them before; will these masters and mastrisses take the sword at hand and warr against these poor slaves, licke, we are able to believe, some will not refuse to doe; or have these negers not as much right to fight for their freedom, as you have to keep them slaves?
  • Now consider well this thing, if it is good or bad? And in case you find it to be good to handel these blacks at that manner, we desire and require you hereby lovingly, that you may inform us herein, which at this time never was done, viz., that Christians have such a liberty to do so. To the end we shall be satisfied in this point, and satisfie likewise our good friends and acquaintances in our natif country, to whose it is a terror, or fairful thing, that men should be handeld so in Pennsylvania.
This is from our meeting at Germantown, held ye 18 of the 2 month, 1688, to be delivered to the Monthly Meeting at Richard Worrel's.

[signed by:] Garret henderich
derick u de graeff
Francis daniell Pastorius
Abraham up Den graef

The first American movement to abolish slavery came in the spring of 1688 when German and Dutch Quakers of Mennonite descent in Germantown, Pennsylvania (now part of Philadelphia) wrote a two-page condemnation of the practice and sent it to the governing bodies of their Quaker church, the Society of Friends. Though the Quaker establishment took no immediate action, the 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery, was an unusually early, clear and forceful argument against slavery and initiated the process that finally led to the banning of slavery in the Society of Friends (1776) and in the state of Pennsylvania (1780).

wiki/Abolitionism

The 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery was the first protest against African American slavery made by a religious body in the English colonies. It was drafted by Francis Daniel Pastorius and signed by him and three other Quakers living in Germantown, Pennsylvania (now part of Philadelphia) on behalf of the Germantown Meeting. It was forwarded to the monthly, quarterly, and yearly meetings without any action being taken on it. According to John Greenleaf Whittier. ..the original document was discovered in 1844 by the Philadelphia antiquarian Nathan Kite and published in The Friend (Vol. XVIII. No. 16).

absoluteastronomy.com.The_1688_Germantown_Quaker_Petition_Against_Slavery

All of the Northern states had different policies concerning slavery before the American Revolution. In some areas of the country where religious groups such as the Quakers played a prominent role in political life, there was strong opposition to having slaves. Rhode Island was the first state to abolish slavery in 1774, followed by:

  • Vermont in 1777
  • Pennsylvania in 1780
  • Massachusetts in 1781
  • New Hampshire in 1783
  • Connecticut in 1784
  • New York in 1799
  • New Jersey in 1804

These new states never allowed slavery within their borders:

  • Maine
  • Michigan
  • Wisconsin
  • Ohio
  • Indiana
  • Kansas
  • Oregon
  • California
  • Illinois

buzzle.com/articles/abolishing-slavery-in-america

faculty.washington.edu/qtaylor/a_us_history/1700_1800_timeline

Edited by Silver Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was around 1688 in Pennsylvania. Remember the song that Elton John wrote, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sd6P2Tu8rw. I think that Pennsylvania was the first state to end slavery in 1780, when it passed its Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery. Ohio outlawed slavery in 1802.

Spain abolished colonial slavery in 1542.

Thanks Silver opened my eyes a bit more tonight you have, cheers.

Regards, Danny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Danny, going to beat a dead horse here, but my point was that your assertion is not entirely correct in my opinion-- although understandably dependent on semantics. I know my last response was long but think of it this way: In "parts" of the United States (states are permitted to enact any laws not established or reserved within the 'Federal' Constitution) slave trade, slave importation and slavery/servitude was being outlawed--- or slaves were being emancipated--- as early as the 1780s & 1790s, same as in the British Isles. And while slavery in all parts of "The American Empire" for lack of a better term, continued until the defeat of the Confederacy in 1865; slavery did in fact END in the "American Empire" at that point.

I submit to you that slavery in the "British Empire" continued in some form or another in British colonies until nearly the 1920s. Therefore Britian did not "stop slavery" before the United States did in reality.

Maybe it should be said that Britian as a whole began "the process to stop slavery" in her empire BEFORE the United States was able to effect the same in our "empire". But Britian (although with the best intentions) did not prevent slavery entirely , even where she had troops to enforce the laws; and that needs to be recognized.

FWIW, obviously there is a complex history with slavery here, and in my opinion a fascinating one. But I always try to see history in a larger context than we were taught in our primary and secondary school years. It's always dangerous to attempt to boil history down to short answers when there are other points to consider. As an American I accept that my country tries to spin things one way, while I see that your country tries spin things another way. Heck, I have a Japanese friend who said he never even learned that Japan LOST the war to the Allies until he learned it after moving to the United States. He was taught that the war ended in a settlement that the Japanese agreed to and not "unconditional surrender". Talk about bizarre.

It's a fact that Africans share part of the guilt for slavery as well, but that is hardly ever talked about. I also have a friend from Sweden who boasts that his country never had such a torrid history as the United States (speaking of slavery). However, I told him to just go back a few more centuries and then give an answer to the violence and territorial aggression by Viking invaders upon peoples of other lands? He believes that "doesn't count." Oh well!

We are all in this together.

Respectfully,

Brad

Hi Brad,

You may have guesed that i'm no flag waveing Brit and i recognise what a plague the British Empire was to the world, but in those days with Spanish, French, Portugese and German attemps at Global Domination GB could only do what it had to do for survival, some excuse i know but there it is, no different to what America had to do after WW2, you either face up to what you have to do or go down with your ship. And I believe that if GB hadnt done what it had to do for its survival then one of those countries mentioned would have overcome GB and ruled the world in her place.

So when i have a pop at America it is to point out, in my own way, not to make the same mistakes that GB did, dont alienate the locals with arrogant and ignorant behaviour, be friendly even when you meet hostility, and always remember, your a guest in their home not tother way round and you will do well.

Kind Regards, Danny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have a friend from Sweden who boasts that his country never had such a torrid history as the United States (speaking of slavery). However, I told him to just go back a few more centuries and then give an answer to the violence and territorial aggression by Viking invaders upon peoples of other lands?

The Sami are the modern indigenous people in Sweden, which has a pre-Viking era history of settlements dating to 12,000 BC of reindeer hunters and hunter-gatherer-fishers known as the Bromme culture.

In the early days, the indigenous people of the area now known as Norway and Sweden were forced to pay taxes to their invading neighbors, so they would hunt the wild reindeer and use them in trade. Eventually the indigenous population had to keep tame herds of reindeer as the population of wild reindeer dwindled.

sources: wiki and youtube

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably my favorite historical event of all-time: Roswell, New Mexico., 1947

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Danny, going to beat a dead horse here, but my point was that your assertion is not entirely correct in my opinion-- although understandably dependent on semantics. I know my last response was long but think of it this way: In "parts" of the United States (states are permitted to enact any laws not established or reserved within the 'Federal' Constitution) slave trade, slave importation and slavery/servitude was being outlawed--- or slaves were being emancipated--- as early as the 1780s & 1790s, same as in the British Isles. And while slavery in all parts of "The American Empire" for lack of a better term, continued until the defeat of the Confederacy in 1865; slavery did in fact END in the "American Empire" at that point.

I submit to you that slavery in the "British Empire" continued in some form or another in British colonies until nearly the 1920s. Therefore Britian did not "stop slavery" before the United States did in reality.

Maybe it should be said that Britian as a whole began "the process to stop slavery" in her empire BEFORE the United States was able to effect the same in our "empire". But Britian (although with the best intentions) did not prevent slavery entirely , even where she had troops to enforce the laws; and that needs to be recognized.

FWIW, obviously there is a complex history with slavery here, and in my opinion a fascinating one. But I always try to see history in a larger context than we were taught in our primary and secondary school years. It's always dangerous to attempt to boil history down to short answers when there are other points to consider. As an American I accept that my country tries to spin things one way, while I see that your country tries spin things another way. Heck, I have a Japanese friend who said he never even learned that Japan LOST the war to the Allies until he learned it after moving to the United States. He was taught that the war ended in a settlement that the Japanese agreed to and not "unconditional surrender". Talk about bizarre.

It's a fact that Africans share part of the guilt for slavery as well, but that is hardly ever talked about. I also have a friend from Sweden who boasts that his country never had such a torrid history as the United States (speaking of slavery). However, I told him to just go back a few more centuries and then give an answer to the violence and territorial aggression by Viking invaders upon peoples of other lands? He believes that "doesn't count." Oh well!

We are all in this together.

Respectfully,

Brad

Not true, slavery is a ONLY A WHITE thing. Let's not try to change the course of history otherwisde we'll start saying that FASCISM = COMMUNISM!!!! :):):)!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slavery had been going on for thousands of years before England and America got involved in it.

So to say it is only confned to "white" races is not only ludicrous but historically untrue.

Many ancient civilisations traded in slavery and some even sacrificed them.

The slave trade is alive and thriving even today and ironically it is called the "white slave market" and mostly perpetrated by non white peoples against, although not exclusively, the west.

The only reason slavery raised it's ugly head again in England's colonies and America is, it was solely based on making money and providing cheap if not free labour to the tobacco plantations.

Thankfully sanity eventually prevailed and it was abolished and even then the cost was high.

We never had slavery here but it was pretty darn close given that the convicts were treated to extreme hard labour until they had served their sentence and given land grants, because being "criminals" they could never return home to England or wherever, but at least they were free.

Edited by Reggie29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true, slavery is a ONLY A WHITE thing. Let's not try to change the course of history otherwisde we'll start saying that FASCISM = COMMUNISM!!!! :):):)!!!

Hi Spider,

REALLY? Got anything to say about what is happening in MAURITANIA this very day? Well TEACHER have ya? estimated to be up to 600,000 men, women and children in Slavery.

Regards, Danny

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4091579.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true, slavery is a ONLY A WHITE thing.

Blacks were sold by blacks in Africa to white traders.

And slavery in Africa continues today.

Edited by Silver Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I get where you are coming from exactly Danny. But I believe that even despite the manner in which GB operated, they did so as you point out, in their best interests. That's what mankind has always done. I don't for one moment accept that "indigenous peoples" didn't do the same when they had to. Pushing other tribes out of their hunting grounds and fisheries. Or stealing their women and children if it fit their purpose.

Danny,

I haven't taken anything you have said the wrong way. I take my pops at the UK as well from time to time--- if only to point out a discrepancy where I see it. As far as alienating the locals goes; somebody is always going to disagree with the way you do things. Just look at the American colonies. It wasn't like the British were forcing us into chains and whipping us.

Where there is a "machine" somebody will find a reason to rise up against it. Our day is coming too.

Cheers,

Brad

Hi Brad,

The really big problem this century will be the Yellow Peril from China, they have entwined themselves in our economies and have the numbers (1.2 Billion People 20% of World Population) they have a Government that at the moment are a law unto themselves, and they have the will to take on the world.

I believe their doctrin is a cancer on the world but they will have to overcome Capitalism, in other words America, and they will be instrumental in trying to ruin your economy, they will get you owing Trillions of Dollars to their Banks, they will gobble up the worlds recources of Oil that drives your economy, their Companies will buy up your Companies, they will take you over without you even knowing it and you will die a slow miserable death and your country will end in anarchy. We will all face this enevitable end at their hands, without any Extra Terrestial Intervention. :o;):lol:

And now the good news, there is NO good news.

Regards, Danny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We never had slavery here but it was pretty darn close given that the convicts were treated to extreme hard labour until they had served their sentence and given land grants, because being "criminals" they could never return home to England or wherever, but at least they were free.

Luckily we got rid of the pommies in time :):):):):)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When WE got rid of the RIGHT-WING Fascists and Nazis in Europe and elsewhere on this globe......let's remember that there are MILLIONS who have pledged NEVER to let the HORRIBLE RIGHT-WING head of Fascism and Nazism rise EVER again,,,,never, in any form it may come in......the next time round, we'll BLOW THEIR RIGHT-WING BRAINS out of the entire Universe:):):)!!!!!

Edited by spidersandsnakes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when did Slavery become alot of peoples "Favorite Historical Event"?

I would consider that a least "Favorite Historical Event". Maybe that is just me. jahfin seems to relish calling me a " Fucking Idiot". So I guess I am a fucking idiot for saying that "slavery" and "Favorite Historical Event" probably is best not said in the same sentence.

Again, I say that Roswell, New Mexico 1947 is probably my favorite historical event. I truly believe that something did crash out there in the desert and was and has been covered-up ever since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a history lover, there are to many to name. But both the American Revolutionary War and the Civil War are prime candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Favorite Historical Event is the very first day that Jimmy Page/Robert Plant/John Paul Jones/John Bonham first met and rehearsed in that "Tiny little room on Gerrard Street" in London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×