Yeah, maybe next time, when we aren't busy single handedly saving Europe and you don't have the help of the French, it will be a fair fight.Littlee300 said:The score is still 1: Americans 0:EnglishRiobux said:
Poll: If You Fought In The American Civil War, Who Would You Fight For?
- Thread starter hippykiller
- Start date
Fair fight? We have a crazily high amount of bombs that have been tested already. *looks at japan*Daystar Clarion said:Yeah, maybe next time, when we aren't busy single handedly saving Europe and you don't have the help of the French, it will be a fair fight.Littlee300 said:The score is still 1: Americans 0:EnglishRiobux said:
________________________________________________________________________________________________
The south were kinda doomed from start of the civil war economy based.
i think this is pretty much a no brainer.
the north was economically and industrially developed.
if the south won, there would've been a regression.
also, slavery=bad.
the north was economically and industrially developed.
if the south won, there would've been a regression.
also, slavery=bad.
Wisconsin born and raised. And I never did like the idea of slavery none.
I'd fight for the blue
I'd fight for the blue
You do know that nukes are a deterrent right? No country can fire a nuke at another country without being hit themselves.Littlee300 said:Fair fight? We have a crazily high amount of bombs that have been tested already. *looks at japan*Daystar Clarion said:Yeah, maybe next time, when we aren't busy single handedly saving Europe and you don't have the help of the French, it will be a fair fight.Littlee300 said:The score is still 1: Americans 0:EnglishRiobux said:
________________________________________________________________________________________________
The south were kinda doomed from start of the civil war economy based.
Oh, how different history might have been if the south had won their independence...
If that had happened, it would only have been a matter of time before the west declared themselves their own seperate country. The Union might choose to press a fight over it, if only to get gold. Nobody really bothers to make Hawaii or Alaska a state. Eventually Texas eats the rest of the south. We never really get around to building the Panama canal, and trade between the pacific and atlantic oceans remains low. On the plus side the stock exchange doesn't crash, but that doesn't really matter because the dustbowl still occurs, causing the central states to practically be abandoned. The Manhattan project is never started because the 'americans' lack the resources to pull off such an intensive project. Before the government in California even knows what is happening San Fransisco has been bombed by the japanese. The West States are conquered in 1942. The Union does send some aid to england, but lacking the resources most of that aid is sunk by german U-boats. Alone in the fight with no real allies to turn to, England surrenders in 1943. The Germans complete their atomic bomb in 1946 and use it on Boston. The Federal government puts up a valient fight, but by 1952 most of the northern states are a wasteland. A few of the southern states choose to ally with the north to help them fight off the germans, but many are over in texas trying to hold back the japanese advance. By 1960 japan develops their own atomic weapon and declares war on germany. The ensuing nuclear exchange drives the world into nuclear winter, and everyone loses.
Now, aren't you glad the north won?
If that had happened, it would only have been a matter of time before the west declared themselves their own seperate country. The Union might choose to press a fight over it, if only to get gold. Nobody really bothers to make Hawaii or Alaska a state. Eventually Texas eats the rest of the south. We never really get around to building the Panama canal, and trade between the pacific and atlantic oceans remains low. On the plus side the stock exchange doesn't crash, but that doesn't really matter because the dustbowl still occurs, causing the central states to practically be abandoned. The Manhattan project is never started because the 'americans' lack the resources to pull off such an intensive project. Before the government in California even knows what is happening San Fransisco has been bombed by the japanese. The West States are conquered in 1942. The Union does send some aid to england, but lacking the resources most of that aid is sunk by german U-boats. Alone in the fight with no real allies to turn to, England surrenders in 1943. The Germans complete their atomic bomb in 1946 and use it on Boston. The Federal government puts up a valient fight, but by 1952 most of the northern states are a wasteland. A few of the southern states choose to ally with the north to help them fight off the germans, but many are over in texas trying to hold back the japanese advance. By 1960 japan develops their own atomic weapon and declares war on germany. The ensuing nuclear exchange drives the world into nuclear winter, and everyone loses.
Now, aren't you glad the north won?
As mentioned earlier, Southern economy was dependent on slavery. They were mostly rural, while the North had industry. Freeing the salves was a lot more costly to the South than the North. It's not like they wanted to keep slavery just because of racism (after all, the North had plenty of racists to).Blatherscythe said:
Plus I just remembered that the majority of Northern generals sucked at their job. I'd rather not be led to certain death.
That's just supposition. You can't accurately predict how things would have changed if the South had won.gim73 said:
What? How is asking which side you would be on in the civil war like that at all?EnzoHonda said:
Northern Virginia where I live was where Lee's personal army (The Army of Northern Virginia) came from so I'd probaly end up having to fight for the south, not to mention the state of VA was the Confederate Capital and "Might of the South". However nowadays NoVa is so separate from the rest of the South and identifies much more with the North so I'd probaly want to fight with the "good guys" or the North.
Wait, which one?WanderFreak said:
Dixie or the Bonnie blue flag?
both were good.
everyone knows that the war was NOT ABOUT SLAVERY right?
It only became a key factor after The Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, which was made almost 2 years after the war had started.
None. I would create my own army of mechanized Abraham Lincoln clones, and take over the continent from my airship, crushing all who oppose me with furnace-powered machine guns and gargantuan tanks.
Sorry, just been reading Boneshaker recently, so I'm kinda in a steampunk-ish mood.
Sorry, just been reading Boneshaker recently, so I'm kinda in a steampunk-ish mood.
Yes the South's economy depended on the buying and selling of human beings and the North was more industrialized. I said I'd be on the North's side just to end slavery, but yeah your right, shooting a round of cannons and wasting that ammo isn't sound battle stratagy.Internet Kraken said:
Well, it wasn't technically the North, they were southern states but they decided to join the North's side. In fear of harming the relationship with these "Boundary" States they couldn't free all slaves while protecting the war effort.Agayek said:
EDIT: The Boundary states were slave states who fought with the north and against the south.
North. Why? Even though I do agree that the expansion of the federal government under Lincoln ended up being twisted into the travesty that is the current modern Fed, if you've ever read any of the literature of the south explaining why they were seceding, the expansion of the central government was almost beside the fact.
It is true that the Emancipation Proclamation was largely a political move and motive for going to war was largely economic.
However, the fact remains that the South DID practice slavery. They had lots and lots of slaves. And since most people today agree that slavery was and still is a bad thing, arguing over whether or not the war was fought over slavery is irrelevant. The Union's victory put an end to slavery in the South. If you don't think that needed to happen, then I am sorry that whoever was responsible for your education has failed you so utterly.
Just to recap, Slavery=Bad. Knowing that their victory would help to end slavery, I'd have fought for the Union.
However, the fact remains that the South DID practice slavery. They had lots and lots of slaves. And since most people today agree that slavery was and still is a bad thing, arguing over whether or not the war was fought over slavery is irrelevant. The Union's victory put an end to slavery in the South. If you don't think that needed to happen, then I am sorry that whoever was responsible for your education has failed you so utterly.
Just to recap, Slavery=Bad. Knowing that their victory would help to end slavery, I'd have fought for the Union.