NationStates Jolt Archive

Dude this is sooooooooo not right why in the world did the south lose the war. WE SHOULD HAVE WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are right they had the right to leave if they wanted!! :evil: it makes me mad!!!!!!!!!!

Hmmmmm there ought to be somthing we can do about it

eh? i dont know about that; but i did accidentally(sp?) bought a bootleg copy of fooly cooly at my local used book and movie store

Because they sucked?

They lost because the US wanted their states back... they could have easily let you guys become your own country, but we felt a sense of territory, and wanted to put up a fight.

Plus, you know, all that stuff about slavery wasn't too great either.

Whats the book called?

DUDE!!! you are soooo wrong they had the RIGHT to leave

Threads like these spark up needless controversy. We all know that the North should;ve won from day one at Fort Sumter.

The big thing the South was fighting for was for the few rich people's rights to own slavery. Were you going to base your nation on the foundations of slavery? Would you still have slavery in the 21st century?

Once slavery in the Confederacy would be abolished, what would have you guys have fought for? NOTHING! The needless deaths of thousands and thousands would've been for naught.

Besides, being a Confederacy would've eventually led the CSA into chaos. States weren't lending troops to each other, instead they cared only for themselves. And President Davis of the CSA made terrible decisions.

Yea well I still think that they should have won & most people think that it was about the slaves it was NOT!!!!!!!!

Oh, and states do not have the right to leave. It is hypocritical to vote your way into the United States and then secede from the United States.

Threads like these spark up needless controversy. We all know that the North should;ve won from day one at Fort Sumter.

The big thing the South was fighting for was for the few rich people's rights to own slavery. Were you going to base your nation on the foundations of slavery? Would you still have slavery in the 21st century?

Once slavery in the Confederacy would be abolished, what would have you guys have fought for? NOTHING! The needless deaths of thousands and thousands would've been for naught.

Besides, being a Confederacy would've eventually led the CSA into chaos. States weren't lending troops to each other, instead they cared only for themselves. And President Davis of the CSA made terrible decisions. so sorry; thats not what the civil war was about. the civil war was started because of states rights issues, not the right to own slaves

Yea well I still think that they should have won & most people think that it was about the slaves it was NOT!!!!!!!!

it was MOSTLY on the issue of slavery. Pick up a history book before making conclusions

So you think that as soon as you say your a state than your part of that country for ever. Then it was not right to leave England.

It did not start from slavery but it was a BOG part of it

Threads like these spark up needless controversy. We all know that the North should;ve won from day one at Fort Sumter.

The big thing the South was fighting for was for the few rich people's rights to own slavery. Were you going to base your nation on the foundations of slavery? Would you still have slavery in the 21st century?

Once slavery in the Confederacy would be abolished, what would have you guys have fought for? NOTHING! The needless deaths of thousands and thousands would've been for naught.

Besides, being a Confederacy would've eventually led the CSA into chaos. States weren't lending troops to each other, instead they cared only for themselves. And President Davis of the CSA made terrible decisions. so sorry; thats not what the civil war was about. the civil war was started because of states rights issues, not the right to own slaves

The big thing the South was fighting for was for the few rich people's rights to own slavery.

Left a gap there for the myriad of other things the South claimed to want.

Did you mean a "big" part of it. Well I agree with that. but it did not start that way

So you think that as soon as you say your a state than your part of that country for ever. Then it was not right to leave England.

We were never a state of England. We never VOTED to be with England.

Threads like these spark up needless controversy. We all know that the North should;ve won from day one at Fort Sumter.

The big thing the South was fighting for was for the few rich people's rights to own slavery. Were you going to base your nation on the foundations of slavery? Would you still have slavery in the 21st century?

Once slavery in the Confederacy would be abolished, what would have you guys have fought for? NOTHING! The needless deaths of thousands and thousands would've been for naught.

Besides, being a Confederacy would've eventually led the CSA into chaos. States weren't lending troops to each other, instead they cared only for themselves. And President Davis of the CSA made terrible decisions. so sorry; thats not what the civil war was about. the civil war was started because of states rights issues, not the right to own slaves

The big thing the South was fighting for was for the few rich people's rights to own slavery.

Left a gap there for the myriad of other things the South claimed to want. okay, fair enough

Yea thats true butt people are miss lead to buleeve that it was started over slavery

Did you mean a "big" part of it. Well I agree with that. but it did not start that way

It did, then it turned to the issue of states rights later on. Slavery is what split apart the nation from slavery.

This nation cannot stay half slave and half free forever

Actually, if you'd like to now, we'd be perfectly happy to let you go. So long as it's before the election is over, of course.

Seriously (as if that matters), this is useless to debate over. Yes, the South had some legitimate concerns. Yes, the Union did do some horrid things (such as the March to the Sea). Yes, the South was abusing slaves. But it's over, right? What's the point of blabbering about it, other than inflating egos?

Thats true thats why the south wanted out!!!!

Actually, if you'd like to now, we'd be perfectly happy to let you go. So long as it's before the election is over, of course.

Seriously (as if that matters), this is useless to debate over. Yes, the South had some legitimate concerns. Yes, the Union did do some horrid things (such as the March to the Sea). Yes, the South was abusing slaves. But it's over, right? What's the point of blabbering about it, other than inflating egos?

As I said earlier. Threads like these spark needless arguements

"Seriously (as if that matters), this is useless to debate over. Yes, the South had some legitimate concerns. Yes, the Union did do some horrid things (such as the March to the Sea). Yes, the South was abusing slaves. But it's over, right? What's the point of blabbering about it,"



Its the hole point of the thing!!!!!!!!

we only lost becuase at Gettesburg Lee sent picket up the middle instead of floowing Jackson up the side.

Yupp thats true

we only lost becuase at Gettesburg Lee sent picket up the middle instead of floowing Jackson up the side.
Actually, you could've won at the First Battle of Bull Run. Whereas, the Confederate troops under Jackson got the Union soldiers to run back all the way to Washington D.C....mind you this is the FIRST real battle between the Union and the Confederacy

Had Jackson's troops not loot over the dead bodies and have some real discipline, you could've taken D.C. right then and there

But nooooo...you guys wanted new boots and canteens :lol:

we only lost becuase at Gettesburg Lee sent picket up the middle instead of floowing Jackson up the side.
Actually, you could've won at the First Battle of Bull Run. Whereas, the Confederate troops under Jackson got the Union soldiers to run back all the way to Washington D.C....mind you this is the FIRST real battle between the Union and the Confederacy

Had Jackson's troops not loot over the dead bodies and have some real discipline, you could've taken D.C. right then and there

But nooooo...you guys wanted new boots and canteens :lol: they needed the supplies; also the south didnt have the industrial power of the north

we only lost becuase at Gettesburg Lee sent picket up the middle instead of floowing Jackson up the side.
Actually, you could've won at the First Battle of Bull Run. Whereas, the Confederate troops under Jackson got the Union soldiers to run back all the way to Washington D.C....mind you this is the FIRST real battle between the Union and the Confederacy

Had Jackson's troops not loot over the dead bodies and have some real discipline, you could've taken D.C. right then and there

But nooooo...you guys wanted new boots and canteens :lol: they needed the supplies; also the south didnt have the industrial power of the north

umm...there were ANSOLUTELY no orders from the Generals to do this! Supply issue wouldn't be such a big deal if your within 50 miles from your enemey's HQ!

Oh, and states do not have the right to leave. It is hypocritical to vote your way into the United States and then secede from the United States.

The 10th Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States reads:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. " - ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentx )

The areas of the Constitution which detail the operation of the individual states, including procedure for including new states into the Union, is silent on the matter of state secession. Since the Constitution doesn't mention the issue at all, it cannot be said that the right is denied to the states. Nor can the power to make any determinations on the matter be held by the federal government. Ergo, according to the 10th Ammendment, because it is not explicitly controlled by the federal government, nor explicitly forbidden by the Constitution, the right to secession is implied and granted to each state.

This would be consistant with the ideals expressed earlier in such documents as the Declaration of Independence; that people have a God given right to select their government, and form a new government if so moved.

Hey. The South was willing to practice "Nullification." Do you know what nullification is? It's where the states nullify any law passed by the federal government that they do not approve of.

This is some of the stuff the South wanted.


Do you know....who my father is?

we only lost becuase at Gettesburg Lee sent picket up the middle instead of floowing Jackson up the side.
Actually, you could've won at the First Battle of Bull Run. Whereas, the Confederate troops under Jackson got the Union soldiers to run back all the way to Washington D.C....mind you this is the FIRST real battle between the Union and the Confederacy

Had Jackson's troops not loot over the dead bodies and have some real discipline, you could've taken D.C. right then and there

But nooooo...you guys wanted new boots and canteens :lol: they needed the supplies; also the south didnt have the industrial power of the north

umm...there were ANSOLUTELY no orders from the Generals to do this! Supply issue wouldn't be such a big deal if your within 50 miles from your enemey's HQ!
1. most of the southern soldiers didnt even have shoes
2. washington was heavily fortified and they wouldnt have stood a chance

Do you know....who my father is?

-Please- don't say Darth Vader.

we only lost becuase at Gettesburg Lee sent picket up the middle instead of floowing Jackson up the side.
Actually, you could've won at the First Battle of Bull Run. Whereas, the Confederate troops under Jackson got the Union soldiers to run back all the way to Washington D.C....mind you this is the FIRST real battle between the Union and the Confederacy

Had Jackson's troops not loot over the dead bodies and have some real discipline, you could've taken D.C. right then and there

But nooooo...you guys wanted new boots and canteens :lol: they needed the supplies; also the south didnt have the industrial power of the north

umm...there were ANSOLUTELY no orders from the Generals to do this! Supply issue wouldn't be such a big deal if your within 50 miles from your enemey's HQ!
1. most of the southern soldiers didnt even have shoes
2. washington was heavily fortified and they wouldnt have stood a chance

THE TROOPS WERE RUNNING! Literally! Like cowards back into Washington!

And if the Southern troops could walk 50 miles to Bull Run, they could walk another 50 miles to D.C.

I sure as hell wouldn't complain. There's no arguement here. Just common military sense!

it wasnt an army the south had a bull run. it was a bunch of green farmers with little or no training. no way they could have taken Washington.

Yea well I still think that they should have won & most people think that it was about the slaves it was NOT!!!!!!!!

it was MOSTLY on the issue of slavery. Pick up a history book before making conclusions

It was mostly on the issue of whether or not the states had the right to leave the Union. The southern states believed they did, the northern states, led by Lincoln, believed they did not. I've already explained above why in fact they did/do have such a right.

As abhorrent as human slavery is, it factored into the equation as only part of the reason why the southern states wanted to leave. Whether or not they could was the key issue in the over all Civil War conflict. The abolishment of slavery was in fact a strategic move by Lincoln to destroy the southern economy in order to secure northern victory.

we only lost becuase at Gettesburg Lee sent picket up the middle instead of floowing Jackson up the side.
Actually, you could've won at the First Battle of Bull Run. Whereas, the Confederate troops under Jackson got the Union soldiers to run back all the way to Washington D.C....mind you this is the FIRST real battle between the Union and the Confederacy

Had Jackson's troops not loot over the dead bodies and have some real discipline, you could've taken D.C. right then and there

But nooooo...you guys wanted new boots and canteens :lol: they needed the supplies; also the south didnt have the industrial power of the north

umm...there were ANSOLUTELY no orders from the Generals to do this! Supply issue wouldn't be such a big deal if your within 50 miles from your enemey's HQ!
1. most of the southern soldiers didnt even have shoes
2. washington was heavily fortified and they wouldnt have stood a chance

THE TROOPS WERE RUNNING! Literally! Like cowards back into Washington!

And if the Southern troops could walk 50 miles to Bull Run, they could walk another 50 miles to D.C.

I sure as hell wouldn't complain. There's no arguement here. Just common military sense!

they would have been slaughtered! D.C. was surrounded with extensive trenchworks AND heavy artillery emplacements! remember, the southern commanders were no fools (unlike their northern counterparts). jackson knew better to send his men on a suicide mission

In most any case of a lost war, I've noticed, people will often pin it on that they -could- have won if so-and-so hadn't been a coward at that battle, or if such-and-such hadn't done this. I don't mean to inflame the argument anymore so (like that's possible), but it's human nature.

we only lost becuase at Gettesburg Lee sent picket up the middle instead of floowing Jackson up the side.

Assuming you're talking about Stonewall Jackson, he died a few months before Gettysburg took place.

we only lost becuase at Gettesburg Lee sent picket up the middle instead of floowing Jackson up the side.

Assuming you're talking about Stonewall Jackson, he died a few months before Gettysburg took place.

He was shot by one of his own soldiers by accident during a battle

we only lost becuase at Gettesburg Lee sent picket up the middle instead of floowing Jackson up the side.

Assuming you're talking about Stonewall Jackson, he died a few months before Gettysburg took place.

He was shot by one of his own soldiers by accident during a battleyes, at night; and died of pnemonia a month later from an infection

we only lost becuase at Gettesburg Lee sent picket up the middle instead of floowing Jackson up the side.

Assuming you're talking about Stonewall Jackson, he died a few months before Gettysburg took place.

He was shot by one of his own soldiers by accident during a battleyes, at night; and died of pnemonia a month later from an infection
really? I must've fallen asleep at that part during the movie. All I remember was "Lee got shot by his own man during the battle of such and such"

Yea are you sure I dont remember that part of the movie

Well I get back to my point earler the south had the right to susceed from the union. And it was NOT about slavery. or at least it did not start that way!!!!

Well I get back to my point earler the south had the right to susceed from the union. And it was NOT about slavery. or at least it did not start that way!!!!

Well I get back to my point earler the south had the right to susceed from the union. And it was NOT about slavery. or at least it did not start that way!!!!

It did. Slavery was an issue that split morals and ideas between the North and the South way back when we became a nation.

Geographical, social life, and economies also split the North and the South, but that could've been overlooked. The issue of slavery could not.

Well I get back to my point earler the south had the right to susceed from the union. And it was NOT about slavery. or at least it did not start that way!!!!

You're right, the South had every right to secede from the Union. No one prevented them from doing so. The North also had a right to invade a sovereign nation like the Confederacy if they wanted to.

we only lost becuase at Gettesburg Lee sent picket up the middle instead of floowing Jackson up the side.

Assuming you're talking about Stonewall Jackson, he died a few months before Gettysburg took place.

He was shot by one of his own soldiers by accident during a battleyes, at night; and died of pnemonia a month later from an infection
really? I must've fallen asleep at that part during the movie. All I remember was "Lee got shot by his own man during the battle of such and such"

Jackson got shot. Lee didnt die.
or did you fall asleep during the part where all the characters where introduced too?

O wait now I remember yea he did die

Did you know that during the civivel war they invented a very primetive flame thrower.

mmmmm... flame thrower...
*eyes glaze over*

yea thats true but you are still off toppic. And a lot of people are diseeved to buleeving that teh north was right!!

Ha ha ha I like that eyes glaze over ha ha ha

ha ha ha. And they had a primetive machine gun.....I like this

People dont get it do they???

No they don't man it makes me mad. ok I need somthing to settle me down hmmmmmm ok need to party!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

keg=instant party
find one

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha :lol:

Ha ha ha yea a BIG keg hmmm maby miller lite or somthing.
Does anybody want to partY??

Hmmmmm 8) a party would be fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

indeed to would.
wheres a dang keg when you need one...

WEll IF WE ARE GOING TO PARTY WE NEEEED LOTS OF PEOPLE SOOOO COME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*pulls up in jacked up jeep wih a keg in back*
this outa help
*pulls out keg and puts on tap*

Simple, because the South sucks, and the North sucks, but the north doesn't suck quite as bad.

BLASPHEMER!
*douses Eridanus with booze*

I think the North should have won. Not that they were necessarily morally right, which it's been decided that they were since they won the war and therefore got to write history, but because of the many other advantages. They had superior numbers of people, factories, textiles, and mines. The Confederacy could not even feed its people, and the vast majority of the war took place in the South, resulting in destroyed crops and hence, even less food.

*throws back a few*

Mmmmmm... beer and flamethrowers

*stumbles around in search of someone with hot dogs or marshmallows*

*hands expansive territory a cheeseburger*

Anyways, the poll pretty much shows the real answer.

The North should have won. Anyone who says it wasn't about slavery is full of it. It was. They say it was about States' Rights. Which ones would those be? The right for the state to decide whether to have slavery or not (guess which way the States that seceded would have decided, lol) and nullification (so that they could ignore any law pertaining to slavery that they didn't like.) The major split, was in fact over slavery. Nullification would not have been a real issue at the time without slavery. Slavery was ingrained into the southern economy. It was the major cause of the cultural difference between the north and the south. People babble on about "states' rights" but I have yet to hear anyone tell me what those "states' rights" were without relation to slavery.

Anyway, the south did have some great generals, too bad they're all dirty rotten traitors in my opinion. If you thought Sherman's march to the sea was bad, you should be thankful it wasn't me doing it. I would have burned/killed/destroyed the entire region had it been up to me. My idea of a funny sight is a burning confederate flag, and yes, I realize that my opinions are extreme and I do not claim in any way shape or form to be representative of anyone but myself in saying what I've said.

Sounds like you wouldn't have left much of any South to re-integrate back into the Union. Keep in mind before you torch the entire region that not every resident of the South was really a Confederate. There were quite a few Union sympathizers in places such as North Carolina, which is why Sherman's men greatly reduced their level of destructiveness when they crossed the border from South to North Carolina.

The reverse is true as well, there were plenty of Southern sympathizers in the North, especially in the border states.

Also, many of these people who are "full of it" fought for the Union. Prior to the victory at Antietam Creek in 1862 and the resulting Emancipation Proclamation, if the Northerners thought that they were fighting to free blacks, most of them would not have fought. Grant, a slaveowner himself by the way, even stated that if he thought that he was fighting to stop slavery that he also would have fought for the other side.

I'm not saying that it wasn't about slavery, I'm just saying that a lot of Northerners at that time didn't think it was. However, if I do find any other State's rights that were an issue I'll let you know.

Well that could be said about any issue. But if you look in the consitustion were does it say that as soon as you become a state than you are bound to the union for eternity???

There is no place were it says that & the fact that if you really look hard theres nothing truthful saying that it is the case!!!

So nether side really had a right to be fighting!

Yea thats true!!!!

So if thats true than why are we aruging about it any ways

Cuz its fun...........Does any body have any beer im out I thought that two kegs would be enough but I guess I was wrong!!!!

I have a keg its miller lite but its still beer.

Yea butt miller lite SUCKES!!!!!! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah ah ah ha ah ha ha ah ah ha ha ha ha ah ah ah ha ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah ah ah ha ah ha ha ah ah ha ha ha ha ah ah ah ha ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah ah ah ha ah ha ha ah ah ha ha ha ha ah ah ah ha ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah ah ah ha ah ha ha ah ah ha ha ha ha ah ah ah ha ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah ah ah ha ah ha ha ah ah ha ha ha ha ah ah ah ha ah ha ha ha

O well..... :? ......so what where we talking about???

O yea we were talking about the south & why they should have kicked teh norths butt :twisted:

O yea we were talking about the south & why they should have kicked teh norths butt :twisted:

you just agreed that neither side had a right to fight

I know nether side had an political advantage but I still think that the south could have left if they wanted!!!

come on! fellow southerners! their beating us 23 to 5! vote already!

I know nether side had an political advantage but I still think that the south could have left if they wanted!!!

The South did have some political advantages. In order for the North to win the war, they had to completely subdue the South.

The South had three different ways it could have won the war. They could have received sovereignty from the European nations. They could have influenced political outcomes in the North to get Democrats into office who would have stopped the war. They also could have held off the Federal armies long enough to cause Northern support for the war to die off, kind of like what the anti-coalition forces in Iraq have to do currently.

The South also started off with much more capable generals, at least on the Eastern front.

Let's all remember though, that the Confederates (specifically South Carolina) did in fact fire first. They had no right to fort sumter, it was federal land, and attacking it was one of the most idiotic things they did, as it gave the North, no matter what you argue on the other reasons for the war, a perfectly legitimate reason to strike back. Even if they did have a right to secede (which I don't think is the case, but anyway), as a sovereign nation, firing on a fort held by another sovereign nation is an act of WAR.
Also, if states could just secede whenever they didn't like the outcome of a presidential election, what do you think would have happened? Eventually, they'd all be broken up into the individual states, and they'd be perfect targets for European powers to just re-colonize them.

they could have handled it differently, but Sumter was on Confederate soil.

yea thats true. O and fort summner was on confederate ground. So it was there property to begain with!!!!!!!!

And the first BIG battle was the battle of minassas and it was more of a show than any thing people came and even had picnics while they watched!!! it was more of a joke.

Fort Sumter was Federal Land. It didn't belong to South Carolina, kinda like Guantanamo bay naval base in Cuba, needless to say, Cuba doesn't much like the US government either, but you don't see them firing on it. San Diego Naval base belongs to the government of the United States, not the state of California. The US also maintains an army base at Munich, Germany. I've been there, and that base is very much a part of the US

yea thats true. O and fort summner was on confederate ground. So it was there property to begain with!!!!!!!!

So, does that mean that all embassies within the United States are U.S. property?

only reason Cuba doesnt attack is cuase the entiredy of the US is only 90 miles away. but you have a point

only reason Cuba doesnt attack is cuase the entiredy of the US is only 90 miles away. but you have a point

But still, if the Confederates had a right to Fort Sumter (assuming that the Confederacy was a sovereign nation), they would still have no more right to it than Cuba has to Guantanamo. And even if they did in fact have a right to it, it doesn't mean that they weren't complete fools to attack it.