Once we realized Canada had snow 24/7/365 we basically stopped fighting thinking… “We can only make so many snowmen and Tundra is of no value…”
That makes alot of sense.
Historical Flaws of the US Democrat and Republican parties..
-
Damn straight!
I remember film footage of him saying he hadn’t fought anything as evil as this(referring to the Republican’s around the time of the Contract With America) since he was in Germany(WWII.) He was equating the Republican Party with Nazis!!
He is an A_S_S if there ever was one in congress.
-
Yeah, Abe bent the Constitution. But the country was going through the Civil War! Who can blame him.
Abe may not of believed in what he did, but his voters did.
-
Damn Straight!
-
Maybe Abe had more devious plans in mind…
-
Damn Straight!
you know, you doing that all the time is little better than spam. Are you trying to up your count?
I’ve been thinking about Abe recently. I wonder if he wasn’t directly responsible for tens of thousands of deaths and the civil war. I mean, its well and good to try to end slavery, but really - if a group of states democratically voted to secceed from the union, then who was he to send thousands of soldiers to their deaths in order to wage war on the south? In my mind, he’s one of the biggest warmongers of the 19th century after Napoleon and Kaiser Wilhelm the somethingith. Was it really necessary for all of that carnage and destruction? So many men killed and so many families broken? As for slavery - he didn’t really end it so much as mitigate it. Afro-Americans didn’t really have rights until the 1960’s anyway.
(mostly being facitious, but something i was thinking about) -
you know, you doing that all the time is little better than spam. Are you trying to up your count?
Not at all. Its funny (at least to me) and it sums up my feelings when I post it. If I were trying to up my count, Id do it better than that (i.e. post one word each time to make sentences).
As for Abe being a warmongerer, thats probably the first time Ive heard that opinion. While I could go off on a rant about this (because frankly I want to) Ill try to be a little more fair. What then, may I ask, is your opinion about Quebec trying to break away? And even if you think they should have been able to secede, do you think they should have been able to keep their slavery? Because thats what it boils down to, they seceeded over slavery. Yes, their were immediate causes, and other long-term tensions and issues, but the primary factor was slavery, and that was the symbol of the Northern/Southern rivalry.
-
I’ve been thinking about Abe recently. I wonder if he wasn’t directly responsible for tens of thousands of deaths and the civil war. I mean, its well and good to try to end slavery, but really - if a group of states democratically voted to secceed from the union, then who was he to send thousands of soldiers to their deaths in order to wage war on the south? In my mind, he’s one of the biggest warmongers of the 19th century after Napoleon and Kaiser Wilhelm the somethingith. Was it really necessary for all of that carnage and destruction? So many men killed and so many families broken? As for slavery - he didn’t really end it so much as mitigate it. Afro-Americans didn’t really have rights until the 1960’s anyway.
Honestly I really don’t know how to seperate fact from fiction. People view from as a warmonger, others justify his warmongering, and others refute both and see him the true patriot and hero. Even though I am a Confederate, I would like to see Abe as a all around good guy. Afterall, he is one of few good role models left (anywhere in the world). His name is synonymous with honesty and integrity – and when’s the last time you’ve ever heard of that in a politician? (okay, John McCain aside) This is one topic that I feel will never have a “right answer.”
Because thats what it boils down to, they seceeded over slavery. Yes, their were immediate causes, and other long-term tensions and issues, but the primary factor was slavery, and that was the symbol of the Northern/Southern rivalry.
No it wasn’t. The main cause was based on economics - plain and simple. As for slavery being “the symbol” between North-South rivalry - then why were abolitionists a very tiny minority moment on both sides? Why was racism greater in the north than in the south?
-
abolitionists mean nothing. the vast majority of northerners were against slavery, but in a classic american style, only a small group tried to do anything about it. the rest just ignored it, since they lived up north. as for the south, id expect there to be low numbers of abolitionists, as slavery was part of southern culture at the time, whether you owned slaves or not.
-
As for Abe being a warmongerer, thats probably the first time Ive heard that opinion. While I could go off on a rant about this (because frankly I want to) Ill try to be a little more fair. What then, may I ask, is your opinion about Quebec trying to break away? And even if you think they should have been able to secede, do you think they should have been able to keep their slavery? Because thats what it boils down to, they seceeded over slavery. Yes, their were immediate causes, and other long-term tensions and issues, but the primary factor was slavery, and that was the symbol of the Northern/Southern rivalry.
- Quebec. You should see some of my Crypt vs. FinsterniS debates about this one. I believe that Quebec should be able to secede, but at the same time, that Quebec is divisible (i.e. that it would not be fair for all citizens to lose Canadian citizenship, particularly immigrants, anglophones, and natives). In fact, i wish that the francophone population would secede. That would make the rest of the country much more stable, and less money would be wasted on those blackmailling whiners.
- As far as slavery goes - i’m not an American, and even i know that the “civil” war (not so civil) was not so much about slavery as about federalism, and the rights of the southern states. They did not secede so much for the ability to keep slaves (which as a small part), however to put deeds to their voices of opposition to the north ordering about their lives. I believe that even if the south said “ok, we’ll do away with slavery, but we’re still seceding” there would still have been war. At the same time, if they did secede and maintained slavery, this is something that would have changed soon anyway.
-
o most definetly there would still be a war if they got rid of slavery but still seceeded. but what you said about opposition to the north ordering their lives was very much about slavery. a number of the immediate causes (dredd scott case (sp?), harper’s ferry, lincoln’s election) were directly related to slavery, and prompted many southerners to support secession for fear of losing their precious slavery. as far as long term, the economics of it and the slavery went hand in hand. the soutern economy being dependent on slaves, and the northern industrial economy exploiting them by pushing (to southern minds) unfairly high prices on them. and a deep seated resentment between the two areas was the fight over slavery (examples: missouri compromise, texas, california, kansas-nebraska, runaway slaves, etc.). no war is caused by any one thing, but one of the major causes of the civil war was slavery.
-
abolitionists mean nothing. the vast majority of northerners were against slavery, but in a classic american style, only a small group tried to do anything about it.
I like to see proof backing this statement up. I will give you “provisional slavery” (or right-to-choose), though to say the majority of Northerners were against slavery outright is a lie.
number of the immediate causes (dredd scott case (sp?), harper’s ferry, lincoln’s election) were directly related to slavery, and prompted many southerners to support secession for fear of losing their precious slavery. as far as long term, the economics of it and the slavery went hand in hand. the soutern economy being dependent on slaves, and the northern industrial economy exploiting them by pushing (to southern minds) unfairly high prices on them.
Funny, you left out probably the most important cause of the war - the Tariff of Abominations, though I’ll let that slide… :roll:
no war is caused by any one thing, but one of the major causes of the civil war was slavery
Funny. This runs counter your previous statement, “…Because thats what it boils down to, they seceeded over slavery” Now it’s just one “major” cause? :)
-
I like to see proof backing this statement up. I will give you “provisional slavery” (or right-to-choose), though to say the majority of Northerners were against slavery outright is a lie.
not so. passively, northerners were against slavery. as in, they didnt want slavery, didnt want the south to have it, but did not want to work against it for whatever reason. as for a specific source, i couldnt tell you, theyve all blurred together. i did this last year, so its all blocked from my memory.
Funny, you left out probably the most important cause of the war - the Tariff of Abominations, though I’ll let that slide…
:oops: forgot about that one, again, this was last year, so ive tried to block it out
Funny. This runs counter your previous statement, “…Because thats what it boils down to, they seceeded over slavery” Now it’s just one “major” cause?
it still boils down to slavery. if i said one major cause, then it was a mistake. it was the major cause, along with economy
-
not so. passively, northerners were against slavery. as in, they didnt want slavery, didnt want the south to have it, but did not want to work against it for whatever reason. as for a specific source, i couldnt tell you, theyve all blurred together. i did this last year, so its all blocked from my memory.
This doesn’t sound very convincing to me.
-
eh, than dont believe me, or agree with me. this is one of a few topics i dont particularly care about.
Suggested Topics
