NationStates Jolt Archive

On April 19, 1861, Southern rebels of the Confederacy attacked a Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina. The fort was taken over after a fierce fight by the new Confederate States of America. This was the day in which the fate of hundreds of thousands American citizens and forgein immigrants would be set in stone - death.

Lest we forget. Thank God those Confederates didn't reach the White House in the First Battle of Bull Run!

Damn warmongering Republicans. :evil:

Damn warmongering Republicans. :evil:

uhhh....the Republicans were the GOOD GUYS at the time...it was the Southern Democrats that were all evil and stuff

Damn warmongering Republicans. :evil:

uhhh....the Republicans were the GOOD GUYS at the time...it was the Southern Democrats that were all evil and stuff

Yeah, I know. :wink:

Damn warmongering Republicans. :evil:

uhhh....the Republicans were the GOOD GUYS at the time...it was the Southern Democrats that were all evil and stuff

Yeah, I know. :wink:

Yay, I got 1800 posts now!


Whithin two weeks, I'll have 2000 posts!

Nice. 8)

Which makes me Rank #260 by posts...at 1802

April 19, 1993: American Civil War II begins when the Feds attack a church in Waco, Texas with military tanks -- burning men, women and childrend alive!

April 19, 1993: American Civil War II begins when the Feds attack a church in Waco, Texas with military tanks -- burning men, women and childrend alive!
I guess Civil War II is over, because that was the only battle

Thank God those Confederates didn't reach the White House in the First Battle of Bull Run!

The Confederates were fighting for their freedom: the Union was fighting for an Empire...

I guess Civil War II is over, because that was the only battle
Same day... two years later: the Alfred P. Murrah building is bombed...

Damn warmongering Republicans. :evil:
the same story keeps repeating itself...

On April 19, 1861, Southern rebels of the Confederacy attacked a Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina. The fort was taken over after a fierce fight by the new Confederate States of America.

This is all false... from the date right down to your characterization of the fighting

On April 19, 1861, Southern rebels of the Confederacy attacked a Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina. The fort was taken over after a fierce fight by the new Confederate States of America.

This is all false... from the date right down to your characterization of the fighting

You could call it a fierce fight if you wanted to.. even though no one died, they beat the living hell out of the fort. :wink:

You could call it a fierce fight if you wanted to.. even though no one died, they beat the living hell out of the fort. :wink:

hahaha

oh man... I wonder if it occured to anyone that the Union guys didn't want to be there: most of them just stood around waiting for the Confederates to take the Fort (which was in the South) so they could leave to go back up to Yankee land!

Thank God those Confederates didn't reach the White House in the First Battle of Bull Run!

I know... if that happend we might have a free country or something!

Thank God those Confederates didn't reach the White House in the First Battle of Bull Run!

I know... if that happend we might have a free country or something!

A free country?...righttttttt....if the South had managed to make it to the White House...every person of color would still be wearing manacles and be treated as property...the only good thing that might have occured is that Chief Stand Watie signed a treaty with the Confederacy that in exchange for his support (he became a Confederate General leading 3 regiments of lite calvary)...the Confederacy would deed over the State of Tennessee back to the Cherokee from which it had been wrongfully stolen.

yay, a modern confederate states of america would be much better then the modern union! i dunno, i would put any support to that statement.

Aren't we all forgetting something interesting? WWI and WWII. What side would the north be on? What side would the south be on? Would there even BE Nazis? Would the south become the nazis (progroms of killing racially inferior blacks)?

Who knows what would have happened.

Aren't we all forgetting something interesting? WWI and WWII. What side would the north be on? What side would the south be on? Would there even BE Nazis? Would the south become the nazis (progroms of killing racially inferior blacks)?

Who knows what would have happened.
What a distortion of history. The south had more black fighting for them than the North initialy. The North had no intention of setting the blacks free, it was a ploy to try and get them to fight the south.
Why would the south if it took over be the Nazis? They would have been receiving support from Britian, which got rid of slaves long before the US, so don't you think there may have been some pressure there.
And all this is once again a case of 'if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle'. Who could possibly know.
But to say the war had anything to do with slaves when it started is like saying the war of indipendance was about high taxation (a total pile of sh*te).

But to say the war had anything to do with slaves when it started is like saying the war of indipendance was about high taxation (a total pile of sh*te).

Quite so. It wasn't the amount, it was the fact that they were taxed without any representation in the British Parliament.

But to say the war had anything to do with slaves when it started is like saying the war of indipendance was about high taxation (a total pile of sh*te).

Quite so. It wasn't the amount, it was the fact that they were taxed without any representation in the British Parliament.
It was about not being able to go off to the west and take indian land and rapidly expand the colony. It was about greed and power, all the rest are excuses. Given time they would have had thier own represtative governments like Australia and Canada and and and and etc.
Greed is not a bad basis to start as that is how it continues, but the distortion of history, well that goes on still, Brave Heart, The Patriot, U whatever, the list goes on.
But back to the thread. It would be interesting to see what the worl would have been like with the US split.

What a distortion of history. The south had more black fighting for them than the North initialy. The North had no intention of setting the blacks free, it was a ploy to try and get them to fight the south.
Why would the south if it took over be the Nazis? They would have been receiving support from Britian, which got rid of slaves long before the US, so don't you think there may have been some pressure there.
And all this is once again a case of 'if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle'. Who could possibly know.
But to say the war had anything to do with slaves when it started is like saying the war of indipendance was about high taxation (a total pile of sh*te).

I'm not saying the war had everything to do with slavory, however I will say that it had a lot to do with it. And I won't say that it wasn't a dirty ploy for the union army to garner support from freed slaves and the Europeans, because it was.

For some, (ie the rich, political folks) the war was not about slavory, but rather if a central government could tell them what they could and could not do. For the vast majority, the war was about proving that they were better as god-fearing white folk, than the black folk that lived in those parts (as slaves). Abraham Lincoln, elected on a platform of emancipation, (wasn't even on the ticket in the south) was faced with a war not months after becoming president, before he could even suggest any anti-slavory legislation or (as was more likely) increase the numbers of free states to slave states.

As for the Nazi comment, I was referencing a book by Harry Turtledove, an author of Alternative history. In his series, the US loses the civil war, and the following second war between the states in 1882 (the south is allied with Great Brittain and France). The US ultimately wins WWI, and the south, plunged into the depression, elects a Hitleresque figure to lead them out of it (Jake Featherstone). Whether this would happen or not is mearly conjecture, but pushed hard enough, as Germany was after WWI, anything seemes better than starving to death.

And now I have explained myself, and rebutted your comments on the Civil war not being about slavory. I won't go into the revolutionary war, because that's off topic, except to say you're right, and it was fought to secure prominent Americans the rights of British noblemen.

What's the name of this book? Sounds interesting.
I bow to your greater knowledge of the American civil war.
Just appears that many people in the US buy the revised history a little too easily.

For some, (ie the rich, political folks) the war was not about slavory, but rather if a central government could tell them what they could and could not do. For the vast majority, the war was about proving that they were better as god-fearing white folk, than the black folk that lived in those parts (as slaves).

This is a complete fabrication... the fact is that most Southerners treated blacks better than Northern Capitalists did. No slaves froze to death or died of starvation and homelessness. The Yankees were more racist than the Southerners because "freed" slaves either took their jobs or resorted to criminal activities to stay alive.

And now I have explained myself, and rebutted your comments on the Civil war not being about slavory.

The North was moving towards industrialization while the South was realizing an agrarian paradise: seeing that they were losing power in the international market, the Yanks raised tariffs on the South to prevent them from trading with Europe... The Confederate States dispised the high tariff and left the Union. Lincoln then attacked the nations for no better reason than to "win them back."

For some, (ie the rich, political folks) the war was not about slavory, but rather if a central government could tell them what they could and could not do. For the vast majority, the war was about proving that they were better as god-fearing white folk, than the black folk that lived in those parts (as slaves).

This is a complete fabrication... the fact is that most Southerners treated blacks better than Northern Capitalists did. No slaves froze to death or died of starvation and homelessness. The Yankees were more racist than the Southerners because "freed" slaves either took their jobs or resorted to criminal activities to stay alive.

And now I have explained myself, and rebutted your comments on the Civil war not being about slavory.


The North was moving towards industrialization while the South was realizing an agrarian paradise: seeing that they were losing power in the international market, the Yanks raised tariffs on the South to prevent them from trading with Europe... The Confederate States dispised the high tariff and left the Union. Lincoln then attacked the nations for no better reason than to "win them back."
Ah. Another point of view. This is more like the bits that I read, but as I admit, being English have little knowledge of this war. All I know is that it was bot all to do with slaves, at least initially.
Did Britian try and support the south? And if so I assume the French supported the North. If we weren't so busy all over the rest of the world we may have been more use to you.

Did Britian try and support the south? And if so I assume the French supported the North.



http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.htm

For some, (ie the rich, political folks) the war was not about slavory, but rather if a central government could tell them what they could and could not do. For the vast majority, the war was about proving that they were better as god-fearing white folk, than the black folk that lived in those parts (as slaves).

This is a complete fabrication... the fact is that most Southerners treated blacks better than Northern Capitalists did. No slaves froze to death or died of starvation and homelessness. The Yankees were more racist than the Southerners because "freed" slaves either took their jobs or resorted to criminal activities to stay alive.

And now I have explained myself, and rebutted your comments on the Civil war not being about slavory.


The North was moving towards industrialization while the South was realizing an agrarian paradise: seeing that they were losing power in the international market, the Yanks raised tariffs on the South to prevent them from trading with Europe... The Confederate States dispised the high tariff and left the Union. Lincoln then attacked the nations for no better reason than to "win them back."
Ah. Another point of view. This is more like the bits that I read, but as I admit, being English have little knowledge of this war. All I know is that it was bot all to do with slaves, at least initially.
Did Britian try and support the south? And if so I assume the French supported the North. If we weren't so busy all over the rest of the world we may have been more use to you.

Actually the only thing the British were interested in was the cotton the South produced..but as soon as they learned they could obtain it cheaper from India support for the Confederacy crumbled...the British Empire had earlier outlawed slavery in it's sphere of influence previously..it is doubtful they'd want to ally themselves with a slave-owning power.

And as far as treating their slaves better then freed blacks...I'd wager to say Texas that a bad life as a free man was better then a good life as a slave....slaves were routinely flogged..families separated..hangings were given for minor offenses...I lived in the South too ya know...there are still fields in Georgia that everyone knows were "hanging trees"

You could call it a fierce fight if you wanted to.. even though no one died, they beat the living hell out of the fort. :wink:

hahaha

oh man... I wonder if it occured to anyone that the Union guys didn't want to be there: most of them just stood around waiting for the Confederates to take the Fort (which was in the South) so they could leave to go back up to Yankee land!

On the contrary...quote Major Robert Anderson, Fort Sumter Commander who refused to surrender the fort, "Gentlemen (Confederates), I will await your fire."

Anderson and his men endured 30 hours of bombardment before the Confederates captured the fort.

You could call it a fierce fight if you wanted to.. even though no one died, they beat the living hell out of the fort. :wink:

hahaha

oh man... I wonder if it occured to anyone that the Union guys didn't want to be there: most of them just stood around waiting for the Confederates to take the Fort (which was in the South) so they could leave to go back up to Yankee land!

On the contrary...quote Major Robert Anderson, Fort Sumter Commander who refused to surrender the fort, "Gentlemen (Confederates), I will await your fire."

Anderson and his men endured 30 hours of bombardment before the Confederates captured the fort.