Confederacy

[Polis 0]

I see your point. I will take my beliefs and needs to argue these points to pm and stop putting them on the forums. Sorry if it has been too offensive. I really do just want to understand these beliefs. Also sorry for contributing to the derailment of your thread Zeus.

[bios 1]

I wish everyone could handle it like that. I just want good clean debates. People should just realize that people can make points that you disagree with and you can still be friends.

[Guest some fag]

I see your point. I will take my beliefs and needs to argue these points to pm and stop putting them on the forums. Sorry if it has been to offensive. I really do just want to understand these beliefs. Also sorry for contributing to the derailment of your thread Zeus.

Not really my thread, but it doesn't matter- no need to apologize, you were just stating your thoughts.

Ok, first lemme apolagize, slavery was not the main cause for the war. It is however, the major underlying cause.

States rights:

The south felt that the North was oppresing them right? And this is very true, so true in fact that early on the Confederacy had gained much support from nations such as Britain and France (ironic, however in England it was only upper class who supported because they feared another triumph on the side of democracy). However this all stems back to slavery, you might know of something called the Missouri Compromise, which was soon nulled and was replaced by a system where people voted on whether to keep it. However many northerners opposed this, and wanted to see the spread of slavery stopped. This angered many southerners (also ironic seeing as much of the land they wanted (southwest) was arid and unusable for plantation or cotton) and the Union had tried several times to stop this. When Lincoln was finally voted in office, the South saw this as the final straw, and that if action wasnt taken it would be the South who would become slaves of the north, so they ceceded.

Freedom:

The south fought to protect their freedom to do what they want, there existed many cultural, political and economic reasons for this.

Cultural:

North was compromised of many abolitionists, and many free blacks or runaways.

Political:

Check economy

Economic:

Cotton was the staple of southern economy, and slavery was vital for this, without slavery the south was nothing. The north however had embraced the new modern era and had industrialized at a rapid pace.

In other words, the south wanted freedom from the north, because of slavery.

Also, your wrong about the economic implication of if the South had won. By the middle of the war the north was HEAVILY taking in prosperity due to the industrialization. Not to mention that while the south was the major supplier of cotton, this was easily replaced (like in England) with cotton from Egypt. What was not replacable, however, was crops such as wheat, commonly found in the north (go Indiana). And regardless, if the South had won, its economy, and population would have been left in shambles, it was only because of the Union the south survived after the war.

Also, the General Lee is an epic car.

Slavery wasn't a cause of the war. As Polis said, it was a rallying call- a reason for people to join. Had slavery ACTUALLY been the issue, we wouldn't have seen the prejudice from then on up into the 1970s we saw from both sides of the country, not just the South. That also includes the segregation.

Also, just because the war started on the issue doesn't mean that it was about slavery, nor the fact that it was a major issue. It could have been, and most likely is, the straw that broke the camel's back.

You don't seem to realize, having slaves was a luxury. Not a necessity. They could have survived just fine without them, its just that they didn't want to. They fought mainly for states rights, meaning they fought to give individual states the right to create their own laws that over rule those of the country itself.

The reason for the North's industrialization is because of the resources they had. The South didn't have those resources. They had agriculture, and thats what they did. There was no reason for them to industrialize until the Civil War, and then, they didn't have the time or resources to do so. The North had been doing so for a while, only because they lacked the ability to farm like the South did taking into account their climate.

The South was against the North not only for slavery, but for general limitations being placed over the states. The North was LIMITING state power, which is what the South wanted. Like I said before, slavery was only the straw that broke the camels back and a reason for Northerners to fight.

Had the South been allowed their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to secede, then there would have been no war, and therefore, their economy would have continued prosperously.

[Guest cc90z]

On a similar topic, johnny rebel ftw.

[UnknownLegend 5480]

the General Lee is the God of all cars.

He has a point there.

[Polis 0]

Thats some really bad music.

[Guest some fag]

On a similar topic, johnny rebel ftw.

He has a point there.

Thats some really bad music.

Stay on topic, and end your petty signature war, please.

[Guest cc90z]

Thats some really bad music.

If your a dumbshit, it indeed is, then id have to agree.

[Guest Fohacidal]

Zeus your repeating what you said before.

Also the North didnt have to industrialize per se, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, not to mention the southern border states not run over by the Appalachians supplied enough crops, the North had it all good.

Also, slaves were not a luxury item, they were a display of power politically. Also, blacks FAR outnumbered whites in the south, if all the blacks didnt have to work, the south would have barely anybody to work the fields, and production would be at a standstill./

[Guest Fohacidal]

Double post I fail

[UnknownLegend 5480]

Zeus your repeating what you said before.

Lol. Am I the only one that sees an irony in what he said, and his double post?

[Guest Fohacidal]

Yes, yes you are.

[Guest some fag]

Zeus your repeating what you said before.

Also the North didnt have to industrialize per se, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, not to mention the southern border states not run over by the Appalachians supplied enough crops, the North had it all good.

Also, slaves were not a luxury item, they were a display of power politically. Also, blacks FAR outnumbered whites in the south, if all the blacks didnt have to work, the south would have barely anybody to work the fields, and production would be at a standstill./

Yes, the blacks out numbered the whites, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't an abundance of white citizens in the south.

Also, farming in the North wasn't very good at best. The South had that as a strong suit, hence the reason the North was the side who consumed a majority of hardtack.

[Guest Fohacidal]

Oh also I forgot to add, since the south produced 3/4ths of the worlds cotton, farms that produced actual food in the south were VERY scarce, not the issue for the north.

[Guest some fag]

Oh also I forgot to add, since the south produced 3/4ths of the worlds cotton, farms that produced actual food in the south were VERY scarce, not the issue for the north.

Ah, because since there is an abundance of Mexicans in California, there must be little to no whites. Or, better yet, there are a majority of Ford vehicles out on the road in the US so there must be no Chevys, Dodges, Pontiacs, Hondas, or any other brand, at least, not very many.

[Guest Fohacidal]

They didnt get mexicans into slavery dumbass...

[Guest some fag]

They didnt get mexicans into slavery dumbass...

Wow. What a fucking retard. I was making a statement that was directly in line with what you said. You said that since the Confederacy produced 3/4 of the world's cotton, that it was scarce for food. I said that since there are more Mexicans in California, that there must not be many, if any whites. The same with the car bit.

You need to THINK.

[Guest Fohacidal]

Double post I fail

Wow. What a fucking retard. I was making a statement that was directly in line with what you said. You said that since the Confederacy produced 3/4 of the world's cotton, that it was scarce for food. I said that since there are more Mexicans in California, that there must not be many, if any whites. The same with the car bit.

You need to THINK.

Well word your posts better or differently because it made NO SENSE?!

[Guest some fag]

Well word your posts better or differently because it made NO SENSE?!

COMPREHENSION!

[w33D.Ross 2]

Ah, because since there is an abundance of Mexicans in California, there must be little to no whites. Or, better yet, there are a majority of Ford vehicles out on the road in the US so there must be no Chevys, Dodges, Pontiacs, Hondas, or any other brand, at least, not very many.

POWER DRILL TO THE FACE!!!

[Guest some fag]

In response to you, Boris:

This is all false. Everyone knows that the main cause of the civil war was slavery. Give me the proof to support your statements.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/csa.htm - the constitution of the Confederate States.

http://www.pointsouth.com/csanet/confederate_flag.htm - is the Confederate flag a symbol for slavery?

http://www.braino.org/blog/archives/000668.php - kind of a blog, but whatever.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/ja.../flag_5-29.html - just an interesting debate in South Carolina, if you feel like readin'.

Now, while slavery was a part of the Constitution, that doesn't mean that it was the cause. It was likely the last straw, but not the cause nor a really major issue.

Also, I would like to mention, the South kicked the Union's ass for the most part, if you read about any of the battles. Severely out-numbered and they could still dish it out.

[Guest Fohacidal]

Incorrect, the Confederacy almost completely derailed the Union for the first half of the war, the turning point happened at Gettysburg, and then Grant's capture of Confederate forts down the Mississipii (Vicksburg I think it was called) giving the Union full accsess to the river.

You can argue all you want Zeus, but sometime in your short life youll have to humble yourself and admit defeat. While slavery was never a direct reason, its the main root for all the reasons that directly impacted Southern actions.

[Guest some fag]

Incorrect, the Confederacy almost completely derailed the Union for the first half of the war, the turning point happened at Gettysburg, and then Grant's capture of Confederate forts down the Mississipii (Vicksburg I think it was called) giving the Union full accsess to the river.

You can argue all you want Zeus, but sometime in your short life youll have to humble yourself and admit defeat. While slavery was never a direct reason, its the main root for all the reasons that directly impacted Southern actions.

Ignorance is bliss, ain't it?

[Guest Fohacidal]

You would know it is wouldnt you?