I support the CSA but thats because when you get past all the dumb lies your history books tell you they really where the good(well good est)side in the war, that war was not about Slavery, more men died than every US war ever combined! So you can't say that so many men died for freeing slaves or keeping them... Any Historian or just plain smart person would know the real story, that the south was fighting for Independence just like the Colonists in the Revolution, they where fighting for rights and freedom not slavery and what not. And the Union was fighting to keep the country together as one not to free slaves which they did not care one bit about when it came to the man who was dying out in the field or to really any Union leader, sure Lincoln cared about them but he even said that it wasan't something he was gonna fight over ever. And sure the CS lost but they fighted much more fiercely and bravely and where fighting to defend their homes and true American freedom, and in my opinion it was a war where the Good Guys lost cause they where outnumbered, if you ever see paintings and pics you always see southerners in anything they could find to wear cause well they where rebels, but now days people on both sides act like the other wasant American especialy southerners, but they need to remember that their own General, General Lee even said that something they tend to forget is that they both are american, so if the veterans at the anniversary in Gettysburg in the 20s and 30's could shake hands and laugh and admit they where brothers than why cant we do that 200 hundred some years later and learn the truth about it in school, cause when ever were in the civil war in history i always have to do the same speech about how it actauly went and what they where actauly fighting for. If you disagree than iam sorry but you are very ignorant and may as well stay in the 1st grade since thats all you seem to want to know about the most bloody and emotional war this Country of ours have fought.
Well. I don't know much about this war but it's not that amazing that more americans died in that war than any other. I mean. Ever single casualty without exception was an American. That's generally how it works with civil wars.
But I do abolished sknow that Lincoln lavery in all states that the union didn't control so his boys could have them keep on working and it was only until the end of the war that every slave was free so I knwo what your saying.
I cant blame the confederates they were protectiong there lives jobs and more we would do the same I live in nebraska and if the government wanted to make having cow illigle there would be the same reaction I am not calling cows and slaves the same it is just an example I also am not calling slavery good I am just saying I can see there point
[quoteSlavery was hardly a reason for the Civil War; the United States was still a fledgling country, and we were attempting to build sovereignty and prove ourselves to Europe. If we had half of the country secede, there would be obvious problems there.
Throughout history, wars for independence have been fought successfully or unsuccessfully based on whether or not other nations have acknowledged the rebel's side as a country.
In the case of the Civil War, the fight was to keep Britain, France, and Spain from acknowledging the south as a separate entity from the Union. When President Lincoln found that they might be leaning towards siding with the Confederacy, he released the Emancipation Proclamation.
Now, as someone earlier said, this freed no slaves, because the Proclamation only freed slaves in the south. However, the Union now had no control over what happened in the south. The freedom of slaves, however, became a reason for the war to be fought, and it made the Union look like the good, moral side, and the south look like warmongering slave traders.
It was probably the greatest political ploy in history; the European nations did not acknowledge the Confederacy as a separate state, and it raised morale in the North.[/quote]couldint put it better myself
I have a serious problem with your first post. Despite the insults that show absolutely no possibility of open mindedness, I'll argue this out anyways
all the dumb lies your history books tell you they really where the good(well good est)side in the war, that war was not about Slavery
The thing about those "dumb lies" is that they aren't based upon personal opinion. There are documents and records that validate things in history books, and I don't know which you might be reading, but I find that most of the books I read are extremely neutral, even in extreme situations like WW2. Perhaps the Confederacy is portrayed in a negative light, but you have to acknowledge that both sides were at fault. The war may not have started over slavery, but I do believe that it was a positive impact from the war, something that is very rare in extreme violence. Historic records do show that slavery was used in both the North and South, but it was a much bigger number in the South where slaves were forced to work on plantations. In the North all the slaves should have been released, but sadly not everyone is of one mind when it comes to the issue of slavery.
And sure the CS lost but they fighted much more fiercely and bravely and where fighting to defend their homes and true American freedom, and in my opinion it was a war where the Good Guys lost cause they where outnumbered
Numbers does not winning and losing. We're fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, who we outnumber many times over, but they've fought us to a standstill with tactics we aren't ready to deal with. Also, most of the people fighting there aren't terrorists, but people who view US troops there as threatening, and they're fighting to defend their freedom and homes. Yet you still think of them as evil, despite many of them only wishing to guarantee their own freedom, as we've done before.
learn the truth about it in school, cause when ever were in the civil war in history i always have to do the same speech about how it actauly went and what they where actauly fighting for.
We can't truly know what happened 200 years ago and what people were thinking. All we have are documents and historic evidence that points us to some conclusions. After 200 years of studying these sources, I doubt that most of them are wrong. Maybe some conclusions are wrong, but as for slavery, I view it as a valid point in the war. Again, it may not have been the real reason for starting it, but in the end it helped people who had no control over their own lives, something that should never be taken away from people.
Irony: Robert E Lee was against secession and slavery More irony: OP refuses to post in paragraphs Even more irony: The book already teaches this to us.
By the way, Lincoln did want to save the slaves, but only after the Union could be in a winning position.
General Lee was in fact a homosexual. He and Abraham Lincoln did have sexual relations. The reason of the war was simply an epic homosexual battle between Abraham Lincoln's lovers, Ulyss S. Grant, and Robert E. Lee.
In 1879, the South had seceded as a reason to protect its auto-run cotton business.
The North had an automatic reaction. This was caused by one known reason. The Confederate flag was in direct violation of the Lincoln's homosexuality. The flag marked a sideways X with stars. The background of the flag was green which represented the blood which oozes out of gays. This is a famous propaganda technique that is used very often.
1. Fox News, March 14, 2007. 2. Godhates***s.com, "The Truth of The Inauguration Speech," April 5, 2008.
Fox News is a bit hard to believe oftentimes...and I've never heard of the second one. Maybe choose more reliable sources next time? I'm not sure about what you said, it seems a bit questionable. I've never once heard anything about homosexuality being involved in the war at all. I'll look it up though.
Alright, I looked some stuff up and couldn't find much about Robert E. Lee. However, I did discover that the sexuality of Lincoln has been debated before. It seems to me though that he was probably not homosexual, as in the 19th century it was fairly common for men to have to sleep in the same bed. He also had to share a room with up to 8 other men, so they would often times have to share beds.
If he was actually homosexual though, I can see how that may have been an issue in the war.
Alright, slavery was not the main reason. Yet, if the South succeeded, then the country would have divided and would have been highly vulnerable to being taken over by outside countries.
Your post is biased. You say they were being rebels, which is true, but just because they were rebelling does not mean they were the good/better guys. In fact, many Southerners were lazy, manipulated, and ignorant farmers. Even though most of the Southern whites did not own a slave, they still feared black people and treated them cruely. Even a few Yankees were that way. None the less, they wished to keep slavery legal because without the slaves, they would have (and did) lose a lot of money.
Don't always side with the rebels fighting for peace. Succesion is generally a dumb idiotic move. Don't say that the South was good/better just because the north didn't fight particularly to end slavery. At least they didn't legalize slavery.
Yes, history books do tell many manipulated truths (lies) about Early America, but you need to see the truth for what it is, not as an excuse to side against your teachers. A form of rebelling against your scheming teachers.
Who the fuck ever said Lincoln slept with Lee? The debate is about Lincoln and another man, but I still believe that Lincoln was straight. We can't take today's norms and slang and expect them to match those from the past.
Many things that would seem to relate to sex today, meant something more literal back then. When people share a bed today, it often means sex. Back then, it often meant they shared a bed by simply sleeping on it. Men back then were also more open with their feelings for one another. In some countries, it is normal for male friends (straight) to hold hands. Though men from Lincoln's time did not hold hands in such manner, they were more open with each other. Open to the point most people would consider it as "coming onto whoever" today. But today people are very conceded to those of the same sex. Especaily men.
