Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

american civil war
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=7597		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Mini Moose n gir [ Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:13 pm ]
Post subject:  american civil war
who do you think should of won this war?
SOUTH all the way...keep the flag flying!
tell what you think

can the mods move this to fun polls, if it doesnt get locked
Author:  Kevin DuBrow [ Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
As southern as I am, the North should have won. Slavery is wrong and it needed to be abolished.
Author:  Markie [ Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
Could this be in like, religion and politics?

But seriously, I don't care who wins. Then again, slavery is wrong...
Author:  Acekirby [ Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: american civil war
Mini Moose n gir wrote:
who do you think should of won this war?
SOUTH all the way...keep the flag flying!
tell what you think

Here's WHAT I THINK.

If the South won the civil war, there would still be slavery and racsism would still be flourishing in America.

Now, do you really want that?
Author:  Jello B. [ Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
North, obviously. I think the answers will be extremely one sided.
Author:  Mini Moose n gir [ Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
Kevin DuBrow wrote:
As southern as I am, the North should have won. Slavery is wrong and it needed to be abolished.
the slavery buissness had already quit by the time the civil war started, but Old Abraham Lincoln's soldiers didnt have any motivation for fighting so he said "Hey! I'll tell them were fighting for slavery"
Lincoln.....he disgusts me
Author:  Jello B. [ Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
It wasn't just slavery. There were many reasons the civil war had started. I would reccomend you read the Wikipedia article, or at least some of it, because Wikipedia knows. And the thirteenth amendment that banned slavery was put into effect in 1865, the year the war ended.
Author:  Acekirby [ Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
Mini Moose n gir wrote:
Kevin DuBrow wrote:
As southern as I am, the North should have won. Slavery is wrong and it needed to be abolished.
the slavery buissness had already quit by the time the civil war started, but Old Abraham Lincoln's soldiers didnt have any motivation for fighting so he said "Hey! I'll tell them were fighting for slavery"
Lincoln.....he disgusts me

I have a real problem with you saying things like this. Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents in American history.

I really suggest you read the Wikipedia article before you comment any further.
Author:  putitinyourshoe [ Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
Mini Moose n gir wrote:
Kevin DuBrow wrote:
As southern as I am, the North should have won. Slavery is wrong and it needed to be abolished.
the slavery buissness had already quit by the time the civil war started, but Old Abraham Lincoln's soldiers didnt have any motivation for fighting so he said "Hey! I'll tell them were fighting for slavery"
Lincoln.....he disgusts me


agreed that the north won rightfully (as far as morals go) and that this should prolly be on the religion and politics. but i'll weigh in.

take a history class, eh? the slave trade was weakened, yes, but thats because the south was quite weakened and also because Britian cut off its ties (officially) to the south when the war began and did not side. this caused the cotton biz to slow down a bit, but kid if you think that slavery was gone when the war broke out you are soooorely mistaken, and if you think that all of it ended when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued you are wrong as well. the Civil war was more of a first step to abolishing some seriously evil human rights abuses, rather than a bookend.

oh yeah not to mention an additional century of oppression and human rights violations even after the slaves were free. woo-hoo! go Confederacy!
Author:  Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
i dont really care, in the ultimate, the Slaves would have an uprising and end Slavery if the south had won.
Author:  Jello B. [ Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest wrote:
i dont really care, in the ultimate, the Slaves would have an uprising and end Slavery if the south had won.

Ya think? They would probably be harsher on the slaves with all the paranoia of them rising against the slave owners.
Author:  putitinyourshoe [ Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:01 am ]
Post subject: 
in a lot of states in the south, by the 1860s the slave population was majority or approaching majority. you're right there probably would have been an uprising eventually, though.
Author:  ramrod [ Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:47 am ]
Post subject: 
Ok, let me try to sort this out. Now, not only am I a history [s]dork[/s] buff, but currently I'm taking a 200 level history course on just the Civil War, so yeah, I kinda know what happened. The South was doomed to lose. Their Government relied too much on the States, and Davis has little power. They had an economy based on cotton, and when the war happened and the Northern Blockade came into effect, the South learned one important thing, you can't eat cotton. Also, it was the South that cut ties with England and France, so that England and France would interfere to get the cotton supply back. It backfired, England and France went to other nations for it's Cotton.

The North, while it had it more than fair share of not quite up to par Generals, was not won by Grant. McClellan, the over cautious General was the one that trained the Northern Army originally. It was McClellans organization and Grants leadership that made the North so powerful. The North's population greatly overshadowed the Souths, slaves included.

The Civil War was not about slavery, at first. It was in the back of peoples minds, but not the issue. The North's main goal was to preserve the Union. During the first few battles when Slaves would run to the Union, the soldiers were told to return the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation only effected Slaves that were in states still in rebellion, not Border States, nor territory conquered by the North. Loncoln also had a plan for the slaves to send them back to Africa, not have them live in America.

There are many myths surrounding the Civil War. Many told by stories in books, movies and television. To fully understand the Civil War, you need to do more than half pay attention in history class and watch "Gods and Generals."


Wow, I could sent this in for my essay...
Author:  Somm-1 [ Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:10 am ]
Post subject: 
From what I can remember, the big issue that ignited the American Civil War was the economical situation. If the factories in the North didn't get more customers they wouldn't be able to stay in business, so they looked to the Agricultural South for customers.

The South for the most part didn't bother with manufactured goods from the North because European merchants could sell the same products for a much smaller price. The North convinced the Government to put a tariff on all foreign goods to allow American Manufactured goods a fighting chance in the Southern market. The problem with that, though, was that the South couldn't get the manufactured goods they needed cheaply any more.

Unfortunately the tariff was not the only economical issue. There was also a dispute over the price of land. The South wanted cheap land because they needed a lot of it for their farms. The North wanted higher priced land for reasons I can't remember, though I imagine it had something to do with big buildings and pivotal locations required for factories.

To further disputation, the Western Expansion called for cheap land and a tariff on foreign goods. No matter what the government decided to do, not everyone was satisfied. The slavery issue was merely a fraction of the economical problems of the era. Bitterness was everywhere you looked. The country was on a political cliff hanger. And then came a man named John Brown, who put fanatical emphasis on the moral issue of slavery, the final nudge that sent the country over the edge.

__________________________________________________________
From one point of view, you might think it was wrong for the North to force the South into buying their seemingly overpriced merchandise. But from another point of view, a weak industry makes a weak nation.

My opinion is that if the South had accepted the tariff for maybe a couple of decades, the Northern Industries would have developed enough to increase productivity and lower costs. With lowered costs come competitively low prices. Eventually, the Northern Industry could have all the business it needed and the Southern Agriculture would once again be able to buy inexpensive manufactured goods without even having to look overseas.
_________________________________________________________
For the record, I was born and raised in Alabama and I have a distant relation to Robert E. Lee. If I had to pick sides in a Battle Reinactment I would be a Union Soldier. From what I'm told I already talk like one.
Author:  The Noid [ Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
The North.

Everyone's said what I was going to say, so I'll just say nothing at all.
Author:  Snailmail [ Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
North. I wouldn't want two different countries here. The war wasn't related to slavery though. It was about the south trying to split the country. Slaves beeing freed was just part of what happened when the North won. Which is a good thing.
Author:  Simon Zeno [ Fri Mar 31, 2006 2:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
I really think this should be in R&P...

Although Lincoln was a great president, I believe he is given too much credit for freeing the slaves. Firstly, that was primarily to discourage England (who was anti-slavery) from getting involved in the war. The Emancipation Proclamation did nothing. If you look at it, it only frees those slaves that were in states in rebellion. So, the slaves in border states, which did not rebel, were not freed until the 13th. And good luck enforcing something in enemy territory. Also, many historians look upon Lincoln as being one of those presidents who upset the checks and balances of the government, albeit for the greater good, unlike some jerks. *cough*Jackson!*cough*

Personally, I don't believe there should have been a war. If the South wanted to suceed, let them. Their economy would have fallen apart eventually, and they'd come crawling back in due time.
Author:  PianoManGidley [ Fri Mar 31, 2006 2:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
Santa Zeno wrote:
If the South wanted to suceed, let them.


I think you mean "secede." And thanks to everyone for pointing out that the Civil War was NOT about slavery. From what I recall, the South were fighting primarily for States' Rights (they were more anti-Federalist, from what I recall, wanting a weaker Federal government and more emphasis on the rights of individual states, tying over from the formation of the nation earlier in history); and Abe Lincoln (No, I said, "Hey, Blinkin'!")--again if I remember correctly--didn't even really WANT to free the slaves that much, knowing how much upset it would cause throughout the country.
Author:  Simon Zeno [ Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
PianoManGidley wrote:
Santa Zeno wrote:
If the South wanted to suceed, let them.


I think you mean "secede."


No, I meant succeed at seceding. Suceed is a combination word. :P

I always get those confused. Stupid homophones.
Author:  topofsm [ Sat Apr 01, 2006 6:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: american civil war
Mini Moose n gir wrote:
who do you think should of won this war?
SOUTH all the way...keep the flag flying!
tell what you think

can the mods move this to fun polls, if it doesnt get locked

You crazy Florida types and your Confederacy, I used to live in Florida. You are crazy. The North totally should have won.
Author:  Beyond the Grave [ Sat Apr 01, 2006 8:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Magna Carta wrote:
Think about it. One reason why Lincoln did not want the South to cede was because as the Confederacy would grow,it would need more land... which would cause even more conflict with the United States and the Confederate States.
I am going to stop you right there and give you a little bit of a history lesson. When the US was under the Articles of Confederation, we were very, very weak. The states had all of the power and they were starting to turn into 13 individual countries. Had the South won the Civil War they would have done the exact same thing and the North would have just waited for the South to collapse and go in and mop up what was left. Without a strong central government, a country will just rip itself a part at the seems.
Author:  ramrod [ Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
PianoManGidley wrote:
again if I remember correctly--didn't even really WANT to free the slaves that much, knowing how much upset it would cause throughout the country.
The Republican party at that time mostly consisted of Free soilers. They wanted slavery to be contained to the states in which they already resided in. They wanted to prevent the expansion of slavery to the territories. When contained, they figured that it would slowly die off, until slavery was not needed.
Author:  ModestlyHotGirl [ Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yeah, this seems kinda political.

*boot* To the realm of Teh Ty!
Author:  Metal Head [ Sat May 06, 2006 1:07 am ]
Post subject: 
The North should have won. A country cannot survive if there is no unity. Our country is right now VERY split and I think we might not last. Slavery was also a horrible thing. There are few things crueler than slaver because it lasts your entire life.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/