Originally posted by PocketKingsThe north lost that war. They are too silly to know it. That war was about state's rights. Now look at the power the federal government wields over the several states. carpet bagger.
Look for the Confederate Navy Jack next to their name. Those losers still can't get over losing the war, losers
Originally posted by gambit3Study history first, then find out who you are talking to. Until then try not to make yourself look stupid. traitor
The north lost that war. They are too silly to know it. That war was about state's rights. Now look at the power the federal government wields over the several states. carpet bagger.
Originally posted by gambit3No, it wasn't about states rights and slavery. If it were then there wouldn't have been a civil rights movement in the 1960's, a hundred years later. No, it was actually about England. And I'm not kidding.
The north lost that war. They are too silly to know it. That war was about state's rights. Now look at the power the federal government wields over the several states. carpet bagger.
Originally posted by boarmanI grew up in Alabama. My family lives in Georgia and South Carolina.
Looking for people from the southern states of America ,
Is there anyone there that fits this description .
Southerners have a hard time letting go of the war. Reconstruction played a large part in making it harder. If Lincoln had lived, we'd likely have a totally different dynamic in the South.
Originally posted by abejnoodYou should take that back and say you were kidding. American History is so short and so many people have it all messed up in their heads. It was about states rights (national gov vs. state) and the southern states thinking they had no say in anything, which is how voting goes in this country sometimes still. And ofcourse slavery was another big issue. You can't just break off from a country and expect them to let it happen, the whole goal of all the compromises and the war for the side of the Union was to preserve the Union.
No, it wasn't about states rights and slavery. If it were then there wouldn't have been a civil rights movement in the 1960's, a hundred years later. No, it was actually about England. And I'm not kidding.
Slavery was abolished in England in the 1830's, they refused to acknowledge the Confederacy as a nation. It was in no way, shape, or form, about England. And I'm not kidding. And Jefferson Davis was the worst president of a fake nation ever.
Originally posted by PocketKingsYou misunderstood me. I'm not saying that England had slavery, and I didn't say the Confederacy was a real nation. I'm not taking sides.
You should take that back and say you were kidding. American History is so short and so many people have it all messed up in their heads. It was about states rights (national gov vs. state) and the southern states thinking they had no say in anything, which is how voting goes in this country sometimes still. And ofcourse slavery was another big issue. Yo ...[text shortened]... land. And I'm not kidding. And Jefferson Davis was the worst president of a fake nation ever.
The South was an agricultural region that produced many cash crops, one of which was cotton. The South had to sell this cotton. Who bought it? England. This made the South become dependant on England to buy it. This gave England a greater infulence in the South. The North was smart, though. They knew what was going on. They tried to convince the South to break off ties with England and try to sell cotton elsewhere. The South, naturally, refused. Slavery and states rights and the presidential election were indeed tense subjects, but nothing that was going to blow over into war for. And if they were, then the end of the war ought to have solved them. The fact that it didn't means that there was something else going on. You'll notice that if you read history books, or even just Gone with the Wind , the Northernes torched the South's feilds, their cotton, their stores, everything. They destroyed all that. They didn't have to do all that, they could've just said "Emancipation Proclomation!" in the streets and made the slaves free, why'd they burn everything to the ground? Maybe there was something else that motivated them to do such.
Originally posted by abejnoodIt was Grants plan to end the war, the idea of "Total War". In the past war was restricted to just between soldiers, not anymore. Grant ordered everything destroyed, that nothing be left for Lee's army or for the civilians. Food, barns, livestock, equipment, railroads, homes, bridges, factories, anything that could be used or eaten was burned. I think it was over 2000 barns that were destroyed.
You misunderstood me. I'm not saying that England had slavery, and I didn't say the Confederacy was a real nation. I'm not taking sides.
The South was an agricultural region that produced many cash crops, one of which was cotton. The South had to sell this cotton. Who bought it? England. This made the South become dependant on England to buy it. This ga ...[text shortened]... rything to the ground? Maybe there was something else that motivated them to do such.
He wanted to leave them with nothing, no option except to come crawling back. And remember that most people wanted to punish the South, it was Lincoln who wanted to welcome them back as citizens
