The American Civil War

[alanoink]

Site of epic future flamewar

What's your stand on it?

[tony4moroney]

It would've been interesting if the Southerners won.

U.S Vs Confederate states... interesting...

Either way they should've been granted their independence. Who the hell wants them?

[WeOwnTheNight]

It was a war. With guns.

no, well, complicated. I like the idea of more free states rights. I also like the whole abolishing slavery thing. damn.

[alanoink]

I want them, I am one. Lawl.

I would've been a lot different, that's for sure. Two 2nd world counties instead of one 1st world country. Also, no war in Iraq. No immigration problem (Not for the US, maybe for the CS) Slavery would've been outlawed eventually either way. About a million more people dead.

[tony4moroney]

At 7/22/07 08:57 PM, alanoink wrote: I want them, I am one. Lawl.

I would've been a lot different, that's for sure. Two 2nd world counties instead of one 1st world country.

Wrong, both first-world countries, one achieved through intelligent governing, the other through slavery.

Also, no war in Iraq. No immigration problem (Not for the US, maybe for the CS)

The CS wouldve enslaved the entirety of Mexico.

About a million more people dead.

Not if Lincoln thought twice about it, realized those CS would come back begging and let them have their independence. Or are you referring to Africans and Mexicans, because that'd be an underestimation of the CS sadism.

[alanoink]

At 7/22/07 09:02 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 7/22/07 08:57 PM, alanoink wrote: I want them, I am one. Lawl.

I would've been a lot different, that's for sure. Two 2nd world counties instead of one 1st world country.

Wrong, both first-world countries, one achieved through intelligent governing, the other through slavery.

Also, no war in Iraq. No immigration problem (Not for the US, maybe for the CS)

The CS wouldve enslaved the entirety of Mexico.

About a million more people dead.

Not if Lincoln thought twice about it, realized those CS would come back begging and let them have their independence. Or are you referring to Africans and Mexicans, because that'd be an underestimation of the CS sadism.

I'm guessing you're a Northerner? The CSA wouldn't have come crawling back. It had the same political system, plenty of rich land to make money off of, and (Though I don't agree with it) slaves to do their work. They would've done well.

Also, stop with the cheap shots about slavery. The Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about independence.

[WeOwnTheNight]

Ahem, States rights. It was about states rights, same difference.

[alanoink]

Well, yes. Independence to get their state rights.

[Buffalow]

The South knew that slavery was a cursed practice, if you own slaves your technology does not progress and you eventually end up doing more work for less payoff. The war was not fought over slavery, it was fought over the states rights to private enterprise.

[BitchWeed]

There's little to discuss on the topic of the American Civil War. It ended in the only manner it could have and should have ended. The south never could have won, but if they did, slavery would have most likely been phased out gradually as moral concepts became increasingly prominent and applicable.

At 7/22/07 11:03 PM, Gwarfan wrote: The South knew that slavery was a cursed practice, if you own slaves your technology does not progress and you eventually end up doing more work for less payoff. The war was not fought over slavery, it was fought over the states rights to private enterprise.

Pulling facts out of your asshole must feel like taking a giant shit.

[MattZone]

The South lost. End of fucking story.

Yeah, it wasn't about slavery... it was about states' rights... to decide whether or not slavery was legal.

What, you thought it was about the right to make crappy music and bang your cousin?

Just kidding. I'm from Texas. You aren't supposed to make fun of rednecks unless you are one... and I are one. =)

But seriously, the South lost and everyone is better off because of it. Slavery isn't just immoral... it's stupid from an economic viewpoint. Sure, a few people get rich at the expense of everyone else, but even those few people don't get as rich as they would be if everyone was free, for a variety of reasons. The North was already far richer than the South at the time of the American Civil War, which is one reason the North won. If the North and the South had split peacefully and the South continued with slavery to this very day, the North would be hundreds, if not thousands of times richer than the South. It would be like comparing the present day U.S. to a conglomeration of third world countries: even if landmass, population size, and natural resources are the same, the U.S. (or the North) will always be richer because it has a better system of government.

[Flaming-Dookie]

The North won, The South lost. It would have been interesting if The North let the Southerners have their independence.

Here's an interesting idea...what if The North incited riots/revolts among the slaves? It would have messed up The South's economy...like an insurgency of the 1800s XD.

[MattZone]

At 7/23/07 12:35 AM, Flaming-Dookie wrote: The North won, The South lost. It would have been interesting if The North let the Southerners have their independence.

Here's an interesting idea...what if The North incited riots/revolts among the slaves? It would have messed up The South's economy...like an insurgency of the 1800s XD.

The North wouldn't have to incite riots, the slaves got that idea all on their own, and even launched several full-scale revolts.

link

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

The civil war was not "some fight for slaves". Importing slaves had been illegal since 1808, and it was on a rampant path to complete destruction. It should also be noted that since only 1% of white people in the south owned slaves in the mid 1800's (those being the richest 1%), and about the top 5% had enough money to buy their way out of fighting, you can hardly call it a fight for slavery. The Confederacy was all about the anger over Lincoln being voted in. They (falsely, IMHO) thought if they became thier own country they could keep free from all the wrongs going on in the union. It was better for themselves that they where defeated, but a few facts remained: They believed in thier ideals to the death, and went against a seamingly impossible enemy in order to install thier beliefs of freedom. In my oppinion, they are just as patriotic as Washington or Jefferson (Both of whom owned slaves, and the latter raped his).

[altanese-mistress]

1) How can you have a stance on something that was decided nearly a century and a half ago?
2) It wasn't technically a Civil War, since that would imply an internal struggle for control of a single nation, and the Confederacy didn't have any goal of conquering the Union.
3) 'at war with Africa' ? So Africa would have been a single nation in this half-assed attempt at an alternate history?
4) The Emancipation Proclamation didn't do jack shit to free a single slave; it was a political tool used to frame the war in morals instead of independance.

[alanoink]

Except for we're not talking about slavery, we're talking about the Civil War. The Civil War was not some glorious rescue of the slaves by the North, it was the North refusing to give the South it's independence, and throwing in slaves as propaganda, because the population new the war shouldn't be happening.

[starmage11]

That may be true, but one has to wonder what would have happened should the North had failed to reunite the United States. Such as World War 1 and World War 2. The Allies might not have succeeded in winning either war had the U.S. not intervened, in fact (no offense to anyone) all of Europe might have controlled by Nazi Germany and Asia might have been controlled by Imperialist Japan.

So even if it seemed wrong, the United Stated needed to be whole to play the role in creating modern society (even though the current U.S. governing body isn't that great).

[SmilezRoyale]

At 7/23/07 12:35 AM, Flaming-Dookie wrote: The North won, The South lost. It would have been interesting if The North let the Southerners have their independence.

Here's an interesting idea...what if The North incited riots/revolts among the slaves? It would have messed up The South's economy...like an insurgency of the 1800s XD.

When the Unions strategy changed to a more agressive attack against the south after the proclamation the north Faught the south like insurgents; alot of pillaging especially in the march to atlanta

[HighlyIllogical]

Historically, it was an interesting conflict. The weapons of war had changed greatly, but the war itself was not much different from the previous ones. In some ways, it reminds me of WWI.

[altanese-mistress]

At 7/23/07 08:16 PM, starmage11 wrote: World War 1

The Triple Entente was already well on it's way to winning that war, what with several key victories in the East Medditerranian and especially the British introduction of tanks.

World War 2

Oh please. Britian was already pushing Rommel from Africa and the Soviets had turned Operation Barbarossa into a massive failure with NO help from America and were already pushing into pre-war German territory by the time D-day happened. Rellt America only turned the tide in the Pacific, but with Hitler defeated the Soviets could focus on East Asia (which they actually did and were a big push in Japan's decision to surrender to America) and Britain could focus it's entire arial and naval power on the Pacific.

Right, sorry to get off topic, but it just bugs the hell out of me when people say that the entire world would be a militarist society ruled by fascists if not for the United States.

[cellardoor6]

At 7/24/07 12:20 AM, altanese-mistress wrote:

At 7/23/07 08:16 PM, starmage11 wrote: World War 1

The Triple Entente was already well on it's way to winning that war, what with several key victories in the East Medditerranian and especially the British introduction of tanks.

Actually they were losing until the US entered.

World War 2

Oh please. Britian was already pushing Rommel from Africa

While the US provided almost all of their supplies and equipment, while they were fighting almost entirely on America's dime. Then, they still needed the US to not only fund basically the entire war, but they needed the US to join with troops, and when the US did... that lead to victory in Africa.

and the Soviets had turned Operation Barbarossa into a massive failure with NO help from America

No help from America you say? If by "no help" you actually mean providing ENORMOUS AMOUNTS of aide to the Soviets, ENORMOUS AMOUNTS of aircraft, fuel, artillery, guns, ammunition, clothes, food, fuel, tanks, transport vehicles, ships, explosives, locomotives, and basically all conceivable war material... then yes, the US provided "no help".

How would the Soviets even fought WITHOUT US aid? How would they have fought, while being naked, starving, and having only rocks and pitchforks to fight the Germans with?

and were already pushing into pre-war German territory by the time D-day happened.

Russia only fought to a significant degree in Eastern Europe, and they could only really do so because they received US-provided aid.

Then, the US committed troopshad Supreme Command over the operation in Europe, and did by far the most and most significant fighting on the Western front. The US was the only country to fight in evey major theatre of war, and was the ONLY country to fight the Japanese to a significant degree.

Nobody in their right mind could suggest that the US was anything other than the single largest contributor to allied victory in WWII.

Rellt America only turned the tide in the Pacific

And in Europe.

but with Hitler defeated the Soviets could focus on East Asia (which they actually did and were a big push in Japan's decision to surrender to America)

No they fucking weren't, they fought in one single operation in Asia after the US had already single-handedly destroyed the Japanese Navy, thus making the Japanese no longer able to supply their ground forces. Russia only fought ill-equipped, under-supplied, tattered and torn Japanese forces after the US already destroyed Japan's REAL ability to wage war.

and Britain could focus it's entire arial and naval power on the Pacific.

Pfft, the British barely even handled the Atlantic, they didn't do SHIT in the Pacific. And the Pacific naval battles were WAY, WAY larger and more significant than those that took place in the Atlantic. Germany didn't even have aircraft carriers! Japan did, and the aircraft carriers were basically the most significant force multipliers in WWII.

You must be on crack.

Right, sorry to get off topic, but it just bugs the hell out of me when people say that the entire world would be a militarist society ruled by fascists if not for the United States.

Which is actually true, either they would have been conquered by the Axis, or the Soviets. Without the US, the world would have been, and would be fucked.

[Demosthenez]

I HATE YOU ALL >:( Make this into a WWII flame fest. Fucking tards. I HATE YOU >:(

At 7/23/07 09:45 AM, altanese-mistress wrote: 2) It wasn't technically a Civil War, since that would imply an internal struggle for control of a single nation, and the Confederacy didn't have any goal of conquering the Union.

Err, no.

At 7/22/07 08:57 PM, alanoink wrote: Two 2nd world counties instead of one 1st world country.

When were both the North and South gonna become apart of the Soviet bloc?

[Imperator]

At 7/24/07 03:11 AM, Demosthenez wrote: I HATE YOU ALL >:( Make this into a WWII flame fest. Fucking tards. I HATE YOU >:(

HAHAHAAH! I love the inevitableness of these threads. Now we just need the one guy to bring up Hitler, then we're off and running!

At 7/23/07 09:45 AM, altanese-mistress wrote: 2) It wasn't technically a Civil War, since that would imply an internal struggle for control of a single nation, and the Confederacy didn't have any goal of conquering the Union.

Err, no.

Apparently someone who's never seen Gettysburg.....or read Killer Angels.....

At 7/22/07 08:57 PM, alanoink wrote: Two 2nd world counties instead of one 1st world country.

When were both the North and South gonna become apart of the Soviet bloc?

Right after the South signs a non-aggression treaty with Hitler and Japan.

[tony4moroney]

At 7/24/07 03:16 AM, Imperator wrote:

HAHAHAAH! I love the inevitableness of these threads. Now we just need the one guy to bring up Hitler, then we're off and running!

OK then I'll bite.

Hitler

Considering the U.S wasn't heavily involved with Europe during WWII we can safely say it would've occurred. Assuming everything mirrored the events, FDR was elected into office and opened an alliance with the British. The Hickey South would've signed a treaty with Hitler sent domestic spies all over the place and FDR would've had to set up boarders and try to intern every southerner he could. A Civil turmoil would occur, the U.S wouldn't be able to send in half as many troops and be anywhere near as effective as it was on the front and the Germans probably would've beaten the British, negotiated a treaty with Russia and half of Europe would be Fascist today.

Thanks to the southerners.

Good one you fucking Nazis.

[Thread-Killer]

At 7/24/07 11:15 AM, tony4moroney wrote: The Hickey South would've signed a treaty with Hitler sent domestic spies all over the place and FDR would've had to set up boarders and try to intern every southerner he could.

fuck are you smoking? The southern states wouldn't have allied with Hitler. Now you're just making a fool out of yourself.

[tony4moroney]

At 7/24/07 11:32 AM, Thread-Killer wrote:

fuck are you smoking? The southern states wouldn't have allied with Hitler. Now you're just making a fool out of yourself.

dude what the fuck are you smoking? obviously they would. now youre just making a fool out of yourself

[codinh91]

capitain america ur teh best! iron man screw

[Brick-top]

Oh look guys were already on the first page about War, and WW2 is mentioned. For fuck sake give it a rest no one cares anymore. You hear old guys saying they fought for our future, well I don't give a shit. This is now. You wan't to live in the past, go eat some rations and dive into a bomb shelter!

[alanoink]

Really, Southerners are Nazis? That's interesting coming from someone supporting the North, who refused to grant the South their independence. Taking over countries, that reminds me a bit of Germany.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 7/24/07 06:57 PM, alanoink wrote: Taking over countries, that reminds me a bit of Germany.

Crushing the rebellion of states that had legally (as in with informed consent) entered into an legally BINDING union is not illegal or wrong.