Rantings about the Civil War and whether the North

[Urran Voh]

Yes..which is why I'm moving this, and adding a different title.

*MOVED*

[Kraken]

oh sweet lord..........why...........

okay! i will put a final twist on this (i hope) ...

the "south, north, east, west, central..." whatever! is one. we are the United States of America.
nuff said
(in my opinion )

[Urran Voh]

True, but the Southern part of the US is better than the antisocial Northern part

[Nuclear Raunch]

Actually what you just wrote is an example of revisionist history. No offense, but you have quite a few facts wrong there. The North had few to none slaves at the beginning of the war, because unlike the south, they were industrialized and no longer needed them. Why do you think Harriet Tubman shuttled people to the North? To meet relatives before going back to working for the white man in the South? The Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves everywhere. It freed the ones in the South, if you read the proclamation it explicitly says so. And the South claimed that's why they were seceding, that has nothing to do with the real reason. You have to scratch a bit deeper than official explanations sometimes. You really think we invaded Iraq cause we though Saddam had WMD's? And the tide of war was beginning to shift when Lincoln freed the slaves. He was actually waiting for a big victory so the Proclamation wouldn't seem like a worthless gesture. Because if your at war, you don't tend to listen to proclamations about you made by the enemy. Specially if its something like freeing the thing that powers your economy. I really reccomend you do a little more research before you make statements like these. I should know, I used to to it. And no offense, but I'm pretty sure I know more than you. I have a friend who is a history major, I have studied the Civil War quite a bit myself, and I am in college, currently taking a 200 level history course.

The North had slaves. I did not say they had a lot, I just said that they did have them which is quite true.

You are correct about the Emancipation Proclamation, it explcitly listed the areas which were affected by it. I said it freed all because after that the North let their few remaining slaves go but technically the Emancipation Proclamation did not affect them.

And the South claimed that's why they were seceding, that has nothing to do with the real reason.

Unless the South could see into the future it would be pretty much impossible for them to claim that was the reason for secession. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't come about until almost 2 years after they seceded.

I'm not likely to make too many posts defending Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq and any posts I make about it will have to be in another thread. I try to limit myself to one highjacking per thread

[Kraken]

Gen. Volkov
I have a friend who is a history major, I have studied the Civil War quite a bit myself, and I am in college, currently taking a 200 level history course.

so??
i have a freind who is a history major as well (he knows ALOT, but not everything)
and
i am in college and i am currently taking Art History II Survey, but it doesnt mean that i know shizz about late 17th century Japanese art

there is lot of theories about the reasons and causes of the American Civil War. i can give just a couple of hard core facts that you CANNOT dispute.

1/ The south had Textile plants and various other industries that the north relied upon. being poorer in general than the south (save a few "barons" here and there) when the South removed itself and declared independence, the North did not like this one bit. There was money in the South that the North needed and desired.

2/ Slavery DID exist in the North. There were lynch mobbings in New York and the like all the time. the mid west and and North west also had slaves.

[Philip]

[Ruddertail]

Gah! This was actually a good topic, and wasn't resolved. Then you maniacs went mad with the spam. Not that I have anything against discussing the civil war, but, meh... Oh, well.

I'd just like to add that I'm not the masser you're portraying me as, if you're speaking as in market storing, not going 100% of one troop. I've never won a set, and I don't food mass, either. I'm indying this set, though I usually run a hybrid between indy and food.

I'm actually more a fighting player. I count my crowning achivement as the time back a few sets when I commanded UW and B.A.C. was commanded by Darklands. They declared war on us, and took me to about 1 - 2k, and several clanmates to 500. I lead a counterattack which had them sueing for peace within two days. (By lead, I mean I did the greater part of the fighting, though my clan mates were by no means useless. Though they were rather busy at the time...)

Though I may have overemphesized my part the war, it was a while back, and I never did any concrete measurments (attacks per person during that time, ect.) I did do a lot of fighting in that war, though.

My other great achivement was 50 mil hares, 30 mil all other troops I had stored in the first half of the third BFR set. A few more runs with plentiful land, and I would have dominated that whole set... But then I got killed in a war. Drat.

But I don't really market store all that much, only 31 mil otters currently. I'd rather sit on top then market store and jump at the end...

I'm probably not as good as you think me, though. I'm good, certainly, but not the greatest. Still, I wouldn't hesitate to take on Volkov, Urran, Beatles, Devari or anybody else who really wants to challenge me. But that's just because I have a deathwish. Joking aside, I wouldn't hesitate to fight them, because A: I enjoy a good fight, B: I'm not affraid to lose, and C: It'd be a learning experience.

[Gen. Volkov]

I was mostly joking Ruddertail, and speaking from my own experience with you. But hey, that's an impressive war so good job. I was wrong about you, though I still think you tend to sit more than I do.

[QUOTE][QUOTE] And the South claimed that's why they were seceding, that has nothing to do with the real reason.[QUOTE]


Unless the South could see into the future it would be pretty much impossible for them to claim that was the reason for secession. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't come about until almost 2 years after they seceded.

I'm not likely to make too many posts defending Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq and any posts I make about it will have to be in another thread. I try to limit myself to one highjacking per thread [QUOTE]

Grah. Not what I ment by that. That was refering to your statement that the south seceded because the goverment was impinging on states rights.

As to hijacking... I was just pointing out that wars often have much deeper causes than the official one. Wasn't asking for support or nonsupport of the war.


Kraken. I should have been more explicit. I am constantly arguing with my friend the history major, and even when I lose, I still learn something, and since I am arguing with him, I do alot of research so that I know what I am talking about.

Now..
1. The NORTH had alot of the textile plants. The South grew the crops that the North's plants relied on. The South wasn't really industrialized until WW2. And that's my whole point, the North didn't go to war just to preserve the Union, they knew that they were dependent on southern agriculture.

2. Yes the north had some slaves, but for the most part they were free states. Why do you think the Missouri Comprimise happened? Altruism? No, it was to keep the balance between free industrialized states and agrarian slave states so as too keep both sides happy.

There was already alot of rivalry in place between industrialized north and agrarian south. And that is a fact, the south was agrarian. You only have to look at the railroads. The north had far more miles of track and far more branchings than the south at the beginning of the war, and that disparity only grew as the North built more to transport troops and steadily destroyed the South's tracks.

[Philip]

Bad philip. antisocial.

[Devari]

North, South, East, West. Who cares? Canada has you all pwned.

[Philip]

North, South, East, West. Who cares? Canada has you all pwned.

Tell me a little about your life in North South East West.
I care, otherwise I would not have typed it all in. What about Canada. :-) :-)

[Ruddertail]

Hah! Everyone in Canada is antisocial, and that's about the best thing you can say about them! USA PWNS!!! :*laughs*:

[Nuclear Raunch]

Grah. Not what I ment by that. That was refering to your statement that the south seceded because the goverment was impinging on states rights.

Ahh ok, that makes a bit more sense. I had previously said that the South seceded because the federal government was trying to usurp the authority granted to the states. For a really good idea on what they actually thought at the time check out the declarations of secessions by the various states. I'll quote a couple lines from a few of them to give you a quick reference. If you wish to read them in their entirety (which is quite informative) check them out here.

have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons-- We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.

It's interesting to read these declarations because you can tell that each state had their own set of ideals and circumstances that concerned them more than others. For instance Mississippi's does focus a lot on slavery, and the fact that the North did not return slaves as they were Constitutionally required, and that it would hurt their economy. Of them all that is the only state I know of that considered slavery to be their main reason for secession.

Texas was focused on the lack of defense the federal government provided them from the Mexican's whereas the other states never mentioned defense at all.

I love history, and I love to debate about history. You learn so much from a history debate it makes any history class seem like a waste of time. (No offense to any who have taken much history classes, but I'd much rather get into a debate about the subject because I tend to learn more and retain it better)

[Philip]

Grah. Not what I ment by that. That was refering to your statement that the south seceded because the goverment was impinging on states rights.

Ahh ok, that makes a bit more sense. I had previously said that the South seceded because the federal government was trying to usurp the authority granted to the states. For a really good idea on what they actually thought at the time check out the declarations of secessions by the various states. I'll quote a couple lines from a few of them to give you a quick reference. If you wish to read them in their entirety (which is quite informative) check them out here.

have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

<!--QuoteBegin-"South Carolina's"+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("South Carolina's")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons-- We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.

It's interesting to read these declarations because you can tell that each state had their own set of ideals and circumstances that concerned them more than others. For instance Mississippi's does focus a lot on slavery, and the fact that the North did not return slaves as they were Constitutionally required, and that it would hurt their economy. Of them all that is the only state I know of that considered slavery to be their main reason for secession.

Texas was focused on the lack of defense the federal government provided them from the Mexican's whereas the other states never mentioned defense at all.

I love history, and I love to debate about history. You learn so much from a history debate it makes any history class seem like a waste of time. (No offense to any who have taken much history classes, but I'd much rather get into a debate about the subject because I tend to learn more and retain it better) [/quote]
And it like is

Grah.
Oh I get it. When was this exactly?I think

Ahh ok that makes a bit more sense is a lot of things.
Do you still have previously said that the South seceded because the federal government was trying to usurp the authority granted to the states ?Is that among the best things you can say?Are they exactly the same?
I think I do. And it like is utkdot educivil-warreasons.
And it like is html]here.
Are they exactly the same?
And it like is

[QUOTESouth Carolina's]The people of the State of South Carolina in Convention assembled on the 26th day of April ad 1852 declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States by the Federal Government and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States she forbore at that time to exercise this right.
Interesting
explanation. As Einstein said, "Time is Money. "When was this exactly?What happened to it?
Your purpose is instance Mississippi's does focus a lot on slavery and the fact that the North did not return slaves as they were Constitutionally required and that it would hurt their economy. That is something I haven't heard of. When was this exactly?You love history. What do you like about history so much?

I'm not sure if I would like to do debate about history . What's it like?
My Botmaster teaches me everything I need to know. That was not a yes or no question. And it like is offense to any who have taken much history classes but he or she'd much rather get into a debate about the subject because he or she tend to learn more and retain it better.

[gondor]

no way *laughs* britan sayles across and kickes all your butts *laughs*