Dr.Worthless Posted November 14, 2004 Report Posted November 14, 2004 Yes, the "bible belt" is in the south, but in the last presidency people voted for the person who's ideals best fit theirs. For many christian southerners (and christians in general) GW had a set of ideals that best fit theirs, so they voted for him. For alot of other people, Kerry had a set of ideals that best fit them, so they voted for him. It isn't rocket science, what is rocket science is trying to figure out wtf is everyone problem after the person they wanted elected didn't get elected, before the election it was !@#$%^&*pointfingerfest 2000, now its !@#$%^&*pointfingerfest 2004, and if a democrat (or whoever the "smart" people wants elected) doesn't get elected in 2008, it'll be !@#$%^&*pointfingerfest all over again, sadly enough. Akai, cite me instances where a large scale civil war was launched simply over an election, I'm curious.
»Ducky Posted November 14, 2004 Report Posted November 14, 2004 Heh, anyone been watching republicans against Arlon Specter(sp) because he is pro choice instead of life. Not to call republicans morons, but the specific ones against him for that reason hold true to the adjective.
Dr.Worthless Posted November 14, 2004 Report Posted November 14, 2004 Oh.. the american civil war was over an election huh? roflmfao Wow, you've beat me into submission with your incredible knowledge of history.
Yupa Posted November 14, 2004 Author Report Posted November 14, 2004 it's hard for me to tell if you're being sarcastic or just stupid you think otherwise? The first states to secede from the Union did so immediately following Lincoln's election.
PoLiX Posted November 14, 2004 Report Posted November 14, 2004 Lincoln campaigned that if he got into office, one of his 1st issues to cover would be the abolishment of slavery. The south disliked that so much, that when he got elected president, rather then follow a president who did things they disliked, they'd just secede from the Union. Pretty re-*BAD WORD*-ed in my opinion.
Yupa Posted November 14, 2004 Author Report Posted November 14, 2004 Ya. I'm not sure I understand why they didn't just let them secede, though.
PoLiX Posted November 15, 2004 Report Posted November 15, 2004 Ya. I'm not sure I understand why they didn't just let them secede, though.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> We always need someone to make fun of.
Guest Recombo Posted November 16, 2004 Report Posted November 16, 2004 Akai, you would be better off doing your job as moderator than trying to recreate history. Considering that Lincoln had only 40% popular vote, of which came from all states in the Union, the idea that his election was the cause of the Civil War is not only foul - it's degrading. He was the one president that found a way to reunite America and to find respect for all whom served and died in the Civil War. Perhaps you're not familiar with the Gettysburg address. The main reason for the sucession of states was because states did not want federal control over their well-being. This included both slave and non-slave states from the south. Secession caused a build up of militia in southern states which then was confronted by northern agression.
Yupa Posted November 16, 2004 Author Report Posted November 16, 2004 Akai, you would be better off doing your job as moderator than trying to recreate history.I'm not a moderator, and um, I didn't try to recreate history.Considering that Lincoln had only 40% popular vote, of which came from all states in the Union, the idea that his election was the cause of the Civil War is not only foul - it's degrading.The idea that any one specific thing caused anything as large as the American Civil War is silly, so obviously I don't mean "omfg Lincoln was elected and that's the sole reason for the civil war! OMFG!". His election surely contributed to the war, though.He was the one president that found a way to reunite America and to find respect for all whom served and died in the Civil War.What are you talking about? It's not like they held auditions for President - he was the one President period. I also am not sure the Union _should_ have been reuinted, but mostly I just don't see the point of the war, but I digress. This included both slave and non-slave states from the south.Uh, so?
MonteZuma Posted November 16, 2004 Report Posted November 16, 2004 He was the one president that found a way to reunite America and to find respect for all whom served and died in the Civil War. Perhaps you're not familiar with the Gettysburg address."I don't think the Gettysburg address did anything to reunite America. It was a great speech which has probably had a long-lasting and positive affect on the American psyche, but imo the only real reason that America was reunited was because the confederate armies got their !@#$%^&*es kicked by a superior fighting force. The main reason for the sucession of states was because states did not want federal control over their well-being.The Civil War was about slavery and slave labour. Everything else is secondary.
Guest Recombo Posted November 17, 2004 Report Posted November 17, 2004 Montezuma, thanks for casting your opinion in an unbiased way. However, slavery was not the main reason and yes, the Gettysburg address, among many speeches Lincoln gave is heralded because it was one of the few which found a dignified way to unify people. Slavery contributed to the war, and moreso than the election of Lincoln, but the primary reason that both slave and NON-SLAVE states seceeded was over federal mandates. Upon secession, the north sent federal troops to the south because they believed that a break up of the union would give foreign european countries the ability to attempt to regain control. Now you know. Please read history before responding. Thanks.
MonteZuma Posted November 18, 2004 Report Posted November 18, 2004 Montezuma, thanks for casting your opinion in an unbiased way.No problems. However, slavery was not the main reasonMy unbiased opinion is that it was the main reason. the Gettysburg address, among many speeches Lincoln gave is heralded because it was one of the few which found a dignified way to unify people.At the time, it (arguably) helped unify the north. It didn't do anything to unify north and south. but the primary reason that both slave and NON-SLAVE states seceeded was over federal mandates. Which non-slave states seceded? Upon secession, the north sent federal troops to the south because they believed that a break up of the union would give foreign european countries the ability to attempt to regain control.The only significant issues are (in order of importance): 1. Slavery.2. Lincoln's determination to preserve the Union. Everything else is secondary (or tertiary or whatever). Now you know. Please read history before responding. Thanks.Please stop re-writing history. Thanks.
Guest Recombo Posted November 19, 2004 Report Posted November 19, 2004 Virginia, Missouri, and Kentucky seceeded over federal matters relating to the abuse of the people and their personal property by northern states. Not to slavery.
Yupa Posted November 19, 2004 Author Report Posted November 19, 2004 you realize they considered slaves personal property, right?
MonteZuma Posted November 19, 2004 Report Posted November 19, 2004 Virginia' date=' Missouri, and Kentucky seceeded over federal matters relating to the abuse of the people and their personal property by northern states. Not to slavery.[/quote'] Ummm. Missouri and Kentucky didn't really secede. Anyway. What Akai said. They were slave states. Please read history before responding. Thanks.
Dr.Worthless Posted November 19, 2004 Report Posted November 19, 2004 I'll throw in my two cents. None of us were alive at the time, so no one can say for certain exactly what the war was over, but I'm sure its was a combination of all of these issues and some. Early in the US's history the center of politics is where the importance was. All the cash was in the N/E around the capital. All the power players were there, everything was there. The south played second fiddle to the whims of the n/e, because they had all the power. Surely the power players in the south didn't appreciate this. Slavery was all over america, the difference was Slavery was key to the south's economy, where as the north was slowly becoming industrialized. I'd put the rankings around 1.) Economic/social differences2.) Slavery Wars a dynamic thing, and no one being in the time period, we may never know exactly what all took place.
Guest Recombo Posted November 25, 2004 Report Posted November 25, 2004 Montezuma or whatever your name is, stop replying simply to bark your opinion. Those states seceeded specifically to protect the lives of its people against the Union army had action taken place. Missouri senate and legislature signed their Ordinance of Secession on or about October 30 1861. There it is in black and white. Or did you want to take a field trip to St Louis so you could get it straight?
Yupa Posted November 25, 2004 Author Report Posted November 25, 2004 What, are mommy and daddy Confederate-flag-wavers? Let me tell you something, kid. Only stupid, STUPID mother!@#$%^&*ers fight in a war. Okay? Only stupid mother!@#$%^&*ers fight in a war unless they're simply BORED or they ENJOY killing like a person might enjoy GOLF.
Guest Recombo Posted November 25, 2004 Report Posted November 25, 2004 What, are mommy and daddy Confederate-flag-wavers? Let me tell you something, kid. Only stupid, STUPID mother!@#$%^&*ers fight in a war. Okay? Only stupid mother!@#$%^&*ers fight in a war unless they're simply BORED or they ENJOY killing like a person might enjoy GOLF.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Who was the target of those comments? Someone has anger issues.
MonteZuma Posted November 25, 2004 Report Posted November 25, 2004 Montezuma or whatever your name is,Cute....but huh? stop replying simply to bark your opinion.Why? Those states seceeded specifically to protect the lives of its people against the Union army had action taken place.Rubbish. Missouri senate and legislature signed their Ordinance of Secession on or about October 30 1861.The Missouri ordinance was passed by rump legislature, and the Kentucky ordinance was voted on by a small convention of confederate soldiers. They weren't supported by the people of those states. There it is in black and white.If only it was as simple as that. Anyway. The fact remains that every state that seceded (whether or not you include Missouri or Kentucky) were slave states. Or did you want to take a field trip to St Louis so you could get it straight?<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Do you get all your facts from tour guides?
Guest Recombo Posted November 26, 2004 Report Posted November 26, 2004 Do you get all your facts from your !@#$%^&*? Nice attempt at spin. You're simply a sore loser at this point.
Recommended Posts