Kick the south out of the union

Kick the south out of the union?

  • Yes, kick the fuckers out, I'm tired of putting up with their retarded shit

    Votes: 3 42.9%

  • No

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • Yes, kick the fuckers out, and then give them what they deserve: a blanket of nukes

    Votes: 3 42.9%
  • Total voters
    7
SmarterThanYou said:
dumbass. the war of northern aggression was NOT fought to abolish slavery.

and how idiotic are the northern libtards? they move down south to retire, the hurricane target area. thats brilliant.
Click to expand...

They like a challenge, I guess. Live life dangerously, and all that.

And the War of Southern Stupidity would never have occurred if not for slavery...

Dumbass.
 
Threedee said:
They like a challenge, I guess. Live life dangerously, and all that.

And the War of Southern Stupidity would never have occurred if not for slavery...

Dumbass.
Click to expand...

This is truth no matter how much the revisionists want to deny it. It wasn't fought to free the slaves but it was fought because of them for the most part. Of course there are other reasons.

The south started to seceed on Lincoln's inauguration day if I remember correctly (maybe it was election day) because they were scared of what he was going to do regarding slavery.
 
Nearly all of the states that seceeded, did so before Lincoln was inaugurated. I think Virginia waited to see if the Americans would use force on the Confederates.
 
Blackflag said:
This is truth no matter how much the revisionists want to deny it. It wasn't fought to free the slaves but it was fought because of them for the most part. Of course there are other reasons.

The south started to seceed on Lincoln's inauguration day if I remember correctly (maybe it was election day) because they were scared of what he was going to do regarding slavery.
Click to expand...

It's massively, massively more complicated that that. To even begin to fully understand the Civil War and all of the movitations behind it, you pretty much have to study it exclusively at the post-graduate levels. Any position you could begin to dream up has been espoused authoritatively for a few decades, and the consequence is that there are generational and regional differences in education about the Civil War. E.g, Being a young Southerner, I was not taught the same thing that Darla, an old yankee, was taught. There are something like four or five distinct schools of thought on the Civil War; ranging from blatant revisionism to multi-faceted interpretations using later paradigms like Marxism and feminism.

I guess my point is really that everyone likes to use the Civil War to support their larger theories about why things occur the way they do. People in general just have to be careful trying to draw too many conclusions from limited information, particularly regarding the Civil War as it is immensely more complex than it appears to be in highschool textbooks.
 
You have to basically study the debate over Westward expansion, and understand the paranoid views of both sides. The South's "expand or die" view of slavery, and the North's "slave power" conspiracies. The South also viewed slavery as a means to avoid the evils of capitalism that the Whigs had long advocated. That is why many people make a big deal out of the economics of the time.
 
Epicurus said:
It's massively, massively more complicated that that. To even begin to fully understand the Civil War and all of the movitations behind it, you pretty much have to study it exclusively at the post-graduate levels. Any position you could begin to dream up has been espoused authoritatively for a few decades, and the consequence is that there are generational and regional differences in education about the Civil War. E.g, Being a young Southerner, I was not taught the same thing that Darla, an old yankee, was taught. There are something like four or five distinct schools of thought on the Civil War; ranging from blatant revisionism to multi-faceted interpretations using later paradigms like Marxism and feminism.

I guess my point is really that everyone likes to use the Civil War to support their larger theories about why things occur the way they do. People in general just have to be careful trying to draw too many conclusions from limited information, particularly regarding the Civil War as it is immensely more complex than it appears to be in highschool textbooks.
Click to expand...

I remember being told about how the slaves had it pretty good, and how the civil war had absolutely nothing to do with slavery.
 
Threedee said:
You have to basically study the debate over Westward expansion, and understand the paranoid views of both sides. The South's "expand or die" view of slavery, and the North's "slave power" conspiracies. The South also viewed slavery as a means to avoid the evils of capitalism that the Whigs had long advocated. That is why many people make a big deal out of the economics of the time.
Click to expand...

But the Whigs were protectionists weren't they? (Which is a little odd, being that the party they were named after was known as the free trade party in Britian).
 
Mr. Conservative said:
But the Whigs were protectionists weren't they? (Which is a little odd, being that the party they were named after was known as the free trade party in Britian).
Click to expand...

The Whigs supported higher tarrifs to pay for their industrial expansion projects, but they saw the American System as practical and easy, not as protectionist.

It was the Dems who were extremely protective of their economic system. Anything that could be construed as a threat to commercial agriculture was inherently evil. The Whigs had long had to deal with attacks on their banking plans, trade policies, industrial growth plans, internal trade expansion policies, et. al. and yet you didn't see them going insane on everyone...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top