Second Civil war? - General

[QUOTE=Veers;20146370]And we have a winner *ding ding ding*[/QUOTE] It happens when you're a history major :smug:

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;20146318]You have to be a troll. France and England NEVER recognized the CSA as an independent nation. It's officially called "The American Civil War", the "War Between the States", although more accurate, is usually used by pro-confederates after the war. IF there were to be another civil war, what the fuck does more blacks than whites have to do with it? You automatically assume it'll be on race? Get your mind out of the 1870s.[/QUOTE] Yes, because blacks here in Mississippi, although some smart, carry just as much dumb weight on our education system as the people living in trailer parks cooking meth. Known fact: Richland, Mississippi, is the meth capital of the world. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Racism" - Greeman))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Detective P;20146385]Well you might want to get your own terminology right, as at the time, it was known as The War of Secession, primarily. It was a civil war, because it was a war between a single nation- just because two nations accept its government does not mean it holds a proper government, a unified people, or most importantly sovereignty, which, as we all know, the Union made an effort to prevent. Had they successfully seceded and were able to defend their sovereignty, they would have been a sovereign government, and it would have been a war of secession and not a civil war. Thanks to the Union, the government was never able to defend their claimed territory for long enough to become officially sovereign from the United States. And a civil war is bound to happen again, just probably not North vs South or anytime soon.[/QUOTE] Well said. :golfclap:

None. Just another neo-conservative wet dream.

[QUOTE=KillerKane;20146403]Yes, because blacks here in Mississippi, although some smart, carry just as much dumb weight on our education system as the people living in trailer parks cooking meth. Known fact: Richland, Mississippi, is the meth capital of the world.[/QUOTE] Before I called you a troll. Now I'm going to call you a bigot.

[QUOTE=Detective P;20146385]Well you might want to get your own terminology right, as at the time, it was known as The War of Secession, primarily. It was a civil war, because it was a war between a single nation- just because two nations accept its government does not mean it holds a proper government, a unified people, or most importantly sovereignty, which, as we all know, the Union made an effort to prevent. Had they successfully seceded and were able to defend their sovereignty, they would have been a sovereign government, and it would have been a war of secession and not a civil war. Thanks to the Union, the government was never able to defend their claimed territory for long enough to become officially sovereign from the United States. And a civil war is bound to happen again, just probably not North vs South or anytime soon.[/QUOTE] The East VS West more likely since they have similar economic interest. War is all about money. [editline]06:42PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;20146430]Before I called you a troll. Now I'm going to call you a bigot.[/QUOTE] I accept your statement.

[QUOTE=KillerKane;20146434]The East VS West more likely since they have similar economic interest. War is all about money.[/QUOTE] Not always. The crusades were about religious intolerance. World War I was about who had the biggest balls. The Second World War was derived from eugenics. [QUOTE=KillerKane;20146434][editline]06:42PM[/editline] I accept your statement.[/QUOTE] :geno:

Same odds as France or England to have a Civil War. We pretty much do this all the time, I don't see why everyone is screaming that it's going to be a Civil War.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;20146552]Not always. The crusades were about religious intolerance. World War I was about who had the biggest balls. The Second World War was derived from eugenics. :geno:[/QUOTE] Well, in the War Between the States, the rebellion in the South had no real just cause, except for money. Lets look at it realistically. It takes 3/4 of all the states in the U.S. to make an amendment on the Constitution. It would have taken all of the pro-union states that had banned slavery and an additional 37 states to ban slavery if all of the states in the south that carried slavery vetoed the amendment. We would have had to waited until Alaska entered the Union in the 1940's to ban slavery. The war was emotional more than anything. Also, when all the plantation owners succeeded from the United States, they didn't have to pay back the New York bankers the loans on their plantations. It was all about money and economic interest. Back on thread, the chances for a second rebellion in the south would be zero. I won't rule out some states trying to succeed from the Union government but other states would most likely not join them for fear of the federal government removing all of their tax dollars and moving troops into the area.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;20146680]Same odds as France or England to have a Civil War. We pretty much do this all the time, I don't see why everyone is screaming that it's going to be a Civil War.[/QUOTE] How can it be a civil war when there are two separate countries?

Is it unlikely? Yes. Could it happen? Definately.

[QUOTE=KillerKane;20146705]Lets look at it realistically. It takes 3/4 of all the states in the U.S. to make an amendment on the Constitution. It would have taken all of the pro-union states that had banned slavery and an additional 37 states to ban slavery if all of the states in the south that carried slavery vetoed the amendment.[/QUOTE] How many states do you think we have?

[QUOTE=Veers;20146713]How can it be a civil war when there are two separate countries?[/QUOTE] So there has never been a civil war in the history of the World? By that logic, what Britain was doing to the Colonies during the "Revolutionary" War was blatant Imperialism, since the United States was a separate nation during that time. [editline]07:59PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Gmod_Fan77;20146732]Is it unlikely? Yes. Could it happen? Definitely.[/QUOTE] Much like how an asteroid can slam into your backyard tomorrow.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;20146752]So there has never been a civil war in the history of the World? :downs: By that logic, what Britain was doing to the Colonies during the "Revolutionary" War was blatant Imperialism, since the United States was a separate nation during that time. [editline]07:59PM[/editline] Much like how an asteroid can slam into your backyard tomorrow.[/QUOTE] You don't understand. It is like saying that a war between Germany and the U.S. is a civil war. France and Britain don't really have anything in common besides being in the same neighborhood, it isn't like they are one country like the U.S. was when the Confederates succeeded.

[QUOTE=Veers;20146734]How many states do you think we have?[/QUOTE] We didn't have 50 states in 1840.

[QUOTE=Veers;20146795]You don't understand. It is like saying that a war between Germany and the U.S. is a civil war. France and Britain don't really have anything in common besides being in the same neighborhood, it isn't like they are one country like the U.S. was when the Confederates succeeded.[/QUOTE] Oh, you misread what I said I believe, I was saying if Britain had a civil war or France had a civil war, not if Britain and France declared war on each other.

[QUOTE=IAmAnooB;20137383]Because I'm sure the soldiers in the military are willing to fight against their family and the rest of the country. I mean soldiers will be soldiers.[/QUOTE] I never said the military would fight the population. I just said it could split from united states.

[QUOTE=KillerKane;20146705]Well, in the War Between the States, the rebellion in the South had no real just cause, except for money. Lets look at it realistically. It takes 3/4 of all the states in the U.S. to make an amendment on the Constitution. It would have taken all of the pro-union states that had banned slavery and an additional 37 states to ban slavery if all of the states in the south that carried slavery vetoed the amendment. We would have had to waited until Alaska entered the Union in the 1940's to ban slavery. The war was emotional more than anything. Also, when all the plantation owners succeeded from the United States, they didn't have to pay back the New York bankers the loans on their plantations. It was all about money and economic interest. Back on thread, the chances for a second rebellion in the south would be zero. I won't rule out some states trying to succeed from the Union government but other states would most likely not join them for fear of the federal government removing all of their tax dollars and moving troops into the area.[/QUOTE] Just like every other main stream American idiot, you think the war was solely based because of slavery. Slavery was only a minuscule issue during the war. It was based on state rights vs. federal rights. The south believed that states should hold the greater power in the country, much like how the Articles of Confederation the nation had, versus the north who wanted a strong, powerful federal government. On top of this, there was a huge distinction in culture between the north and south, which still remains today, although not as strong. The north was an industrious land, full of self-made businessmen who climbed through the ranks of society on their own. The south was ruled almost like a feudal society, with the rich land owners made up most of the government like an aristocracy. Old money counted more than any new money, where a sense of honor and respect, despite the racial overtones, thrived. When Lincoln assumed the presidency, his goal was NOT to free the slaves, but to prevent slavery's extension into western territories. The idea that all the slaves in the country could be freed only began to come into consideration AFTER war broke out. And even then, the main objective of the Unionists was to keep the nation together as a whole. If the south were able to leave, what would prevent any other state or region to secede? You need to pay more attention in history class.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;20146904]Just like every other main stream American idiot, you think the war was solely based because of slavery. Slavery was only a minuscule issue during the war. It was based on state rights vs. federal rights. The south believed that states should hold the greater power in the country, much like how the Articles of Confederation the nation had, versus the north who wanted a strong, powerful federal government. On top of this, there was a huge distinction in culture between the north and south, which still remains today, although not as strong. The north was an industrious land, full of self-made businessmen who climbed through the ranks of society on their own. The south was ruled almost like a feudal society, with the rich land owners made up most of the government like an aristocracy. Old money counted more than any new money, where a sense of honor and respect, despite the racial overtones, thrived. When Lincoln assumed the presidency, his goal was NOT to free the slaves, but to prevent slavery's extension into western territories. The idea that all the slaves in the country could be freed only began to come into consideration AFTER war broke out. And even then, the main objective of the Unionists was to keep the nation together as a whole. If the south were able to leave, what would prevent any other state or region to secede? You need to pay more attention in history class.[/QUOTE] This. Thank you for destroying his face. I rage every time someone says that it was just over slavery,

[QUOTE=Cowie1337;20147235]This. Thank you for destroying his face. I rage every time someone says that it was just over slavery,[/QUOTE] Any time :smile:

THIS JUST IN, SOUTH CAROLINA SECEDED! God damn it, why would we fight each other while fighting OTHER COUNTRIES?

[QUOTE=SkinkYEA;20147415]THIS JUST IN, SOUTH CAROLINA SECEDED! God damn it, why would we fight each other while fighting OTHER COUNTRIES?[/QUOTE] Because there's so much discontent about fighting other countries that we're fighting with each other about them :downs:

Woah, suddenly had Shattered Union Flashbacks.

The Republican Party loses it's presidential seat. Big whoop. It's not like they're going to bring up arms to re-install John McCain into power. There's always stupid controversy coming up when there's a transition of power.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;20146904]Just like every other main stream American idiot, you think the war was solely based because of slavery. Slavery was only a minuscule issue during the war. It was based on state rights vs. federal rights. The south believed that states should hold the greater power in the country, much like how the Articles of Confederation the nation had, versus the north who wanted a strong, powerful federal government. On top of this, there was a huge distinction in culture between the north and south, which still remains today, although not as strong. The north was an industrious land, full of self-made businessmen who climbed through the ranks of society on their own. The south was ruled almost like a feudal society, with the rich land owners made up most of the government like an aristocracy. Old money counted more than any new money, where a sense of honor and respect, despite the racial overtones, thrived. When Lincoln assumed the presidency, his goal was NOT to free the slaves, but to prevent slavery's extension into western territories. The idea that all the slaves in the country could be freed only began to come into consideration AFTER war broke out. And even then, the main objective of the Unionists was to keep the nation together as a whole. If the south were able to leave, what would prevent any other state or region to secede? You need to pay more attention in history class.[/QUOTE] Yes thank you, this man actually knows what he's talking about.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;20147457]Because there's so much discontent about fighting other countries that we're fighting with each other about them :downs:[/QUOTE] You know, very rarely are we on the same sides in debates, if I remember right, but I'm glad that we agree on this.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;20146904]Just like every other main stream American idiot, you think the war was solely based because of slavery. Slavery was only a minuscule issue during the war. It was based on state rights vs. federal rights. The south believed that states should hold the greater power in the country, much like how the Articles of Confederation the nation had, versus the north who wanted a strong, powerful federal government. On top of this, there was a huge distinction in culture between the north and south, which still remains today, although not as strong. The north was an industrious land, full of self-made businessmen who climbed through the ranks of society on their own. The south was ruled almost like a feudal society, with the rich land owners made up most of the government like an aristocracy. Old money counted more than any new money, where a sense of honor and respect, despite the racial overtones, thrived. When Lincoln assumed the presidency, his goal was NOT to free the slaves, but to prevent slavery's extension into western territories. The idea that all the slaves in the country could be freed only began to come into consideration AFTER war broke out. And even then, the main objective of the Unionists was to keep the nation together as a whole. If the south were able to leave, what would prevent any other state or region to secede? You need to pay more attention in history class.[/QUOTE] AKA blame it all on South Carolina.

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;20147804]AKA blame it all on South Carolina.[/QUOTE] Actually, a lot of states were considering secession, it's just that South Carolina had the balls to do it first. Then most of the south followed suit. And believe it or not, this all happened under President Buchanan's last three months of office, before Lincoln went into the white house.

I never said it was over slavery, I said it was an emotional issue and money.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;20146904] Slavery was only a minuscule issue during the war.[/QUOTE] people who say this are just as bad as the people who say slavery was the only reason for the war btw if you rate this dumb you are a neo-confederate(republican OWNED) and should be ashamed