Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #195 - dawgfan (04/21/2013) [-]
Technically the Union started the US Civil War.

The South succeed because the social and economic differences between the South and North were so great. The Union invaded For Sumter and the Civil War officially began.

User avatar #249 to #195 - Lulzilla (04/22/2013) [-]
I don't think you understand. An area cannot just go "Oh hey, We're going to be a completely different country now" without any ramifications. The south leaving destroys the norths economy. Plus having an area that is completely different and is known for it's violence is a complete threat. The moment they decided to succeed is the moment Civil war occurred. No shots need to be fired for a war to start.
User avatar #259 to #249 - jlew (04/22/2013) [-]
The Northern Economy actually exploded during the Civil War. It grew by about 90%.
The Southern Economy was the one that was destroyed.
#252 to #249 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
Legally at the time, yes any state could leave if they voted on it.
User avatar #269 to #252 - Lulzilla (04/22/2013) [-]
Yeah it was legal for a state to leave when ever it wanted to but I'm pretty sure the people who created it had NO idea that half the country would become a different country. Regardless if they had the right in order for any country to survive and become anything they needed to stay together which the North understood. The north(Union)'s reason for civil war was to preserve the country. Ending slavery was just an additional thing.
#272 to #269 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
The people who created it seceeded to create their own country, they knew full well it could happen. And the point still stands the south had every right to leave the union, regardless of the ramifications.
User avatar #279 to #272 - Lulzilla (04/22/2013) [-]
It's so much easier to say that when you look at yourself as a regular civilian. Think about if you were high up in the government. Imagine yourself as the president. Half of your country leaves and becomes a different country. HALF of it. Half of England didn't leave. Only a tiny bit. Also they became a different country. The north let the states succeed. When they attacked (Yes the south attacked first) the President had to do something.
#282 to #279 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
The 13 colonies were what 3 times bigger than england? The south went to claim land within their boundaries northern troops refused to leave, taking back land on their jurisdiction was completely justified.
User avatar #287 to #282 - Lulzilla (04/22/2013) [-]
I'm sorry but that's just foolish. If there were 3 times more people in the colonies then in England it wouldn't be called a colony anymore. Hell they'd just call that England. The amount of people in the colonies during the war for Independence were 2 to almost 3 times LESS then in England.
#289 to #287 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
The landmass was 3 times bigger.
User avatar #292 to #289 - Lulzilla (04/22/2013) [-]
That's something COMPLETELY different. Granted I said the land was as important or more important. Also regardless of what I said England invaded and tried to keep us from leaving. How is whatever your trying to tell me going towards not my opinion because it sounds like your backing MY opinion up.
#298 to #292 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
My point was it wasn't a tiny bit of england that left as you stated.
User avatar #281 to #279 - jlew (04/22/2013) [-]
It wasn't really half. Most of the population was in the North at the time and a huge percentage of the southern population was slaves, who couldn't even fight until they were forced to towards the end of the war.
User avatar #283 to #281 - Lulzilla (04/22/2013) [-]
I'm not talking about population wise. Even to this day most of the population is in the North. I'm talking about land wise which itself is equally or more important.
User avatar #286 to #283 - jlew (04/22/2013) [-]
Ok then. It was still a bit under half though as not all of the landmass had been claimed yet. Almost all of the agricultural land was in the south however so it was a pretty big hit.
User avatar #205 to #195 - nerdrugger (04/21/2013) [-]
fort sumter was a union fort and the confederacy attacked it on april 12 1861

and the main social and economic difference between the north and the south was slavary
and the south succeeded because of lincoln's views on slavery
User avatar #220 to #205 - dawgfan (04/22/2013) [-]
Way to show how little you know about US History there champ
User avatar #307 to #220 - nerdrugger (04/22/2013) [-]
you joking right?
#310 to #307 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
Not sure how you attack a fort you legally own.
User avatar #312 to #310 - nerdrugger (04/22/2013) [-]
when you are shooting cannons at people i think that is safe to say you are attacking someone
#316 to #312 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
Attacking the forces inside that are illegally occupying a structure you own.
User avatar #323 to #316 - nerdrugger (04/22/2013) [-]
their act of succession itself was illegal
you cant just declared yourself a new country and then attack the troops that were station their to keep you safe
#326 to #323 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
1.Secession was legal at the time, there was no laws against secession until after the civil war.
2.A sovereign nation has every right to forcibly remove a foreign force refusing to leave.
User avatar #334 to #326 - nerdrugger (04/22/2013) [-]
yahhhhhhhh that isnt trueeeeeeeee

well im pretty sure you're not an idiot with no understanding on how a country works and just tryin to "troll me" otherwise why would you be an anon posting here

#346 to #334 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
Show me anywhere in the constitution before 1869 any mention of secession, maybe look into the laws a little bit next time you go off stating something as fact.
User avatar #257 to #220 - jlew (04/22/2013) [-]
No he's right. Fort Sumter was a Northern Fort, it was attacked by the South.
He was technically right but worded it wrong when he said the South seceded because of Lincoln's views on Slavery. The South believed that Lincoln was going to instantly abolish slavery when in reality he was going to completely leave the issue alone.
The North actually needed the South's cotton and other agricultural products due to its high level of Industrialization and low amounts of land capable of being used to grow food and other products. The South wasn't really even thinking about its economic disadvantages when it seceded and planned to win with the support of Britain by selling them a bunch of cotton for weapons and other supplies.
The South did secede because of social differences. i.e. Slavery. The North had already abolished slavery and was feverishly trying to do so in the south as well. They believed, as did the South, that Lincoln was going to abolish slavery, but he didn't. The Emancipation Proclamation was actually pointless as it abolished slavery in places that it didn't have the jurisdiction to.
Try to argue with me. I read my history book, cover to cover.
#260 to #257 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
After the secession the union had no rights to Fort Sumter, since it was then in Confederate territory.
User avatar #280 to #260 - jlew (04/22/2013) [-]
Maybe now, but back then not so much. Britain still had forts in America until the 1800s.
Plus the fort was filled with union soldiers. The South could have at least given them a chance to leave, but it instead attacked while a supply ship was on its way down the river.
#285 to #280 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
The union soldiers had no rights to be there past the date of secession. And if the US asked Britian to leave it would've been legally compelled to.
User avatar #291 to #285 - jlew (04/22/2013) [-]
The union soldiers didn't have a CHANCE to leave past the date that the land they were in had seceded. Boats aren't exactly the fastest things in the world you know, especially not back then. And the US did ask Britain to leave. When we started our own country and won the Revolution part of the terms of the Treaty was that Britain would renounce ALL landownership it had in the Americas.
Anyway secession occurred over a long period of time, each state seceded at its own time so saying "the date of secession" is a little bit idiotic.
#295 to #291 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
The date of secession where the fort was located, and yes, South carolina ordered them to abandon the fort, they had knowledge of the secession and had plenty of time to prepare ships in case secession passed.
User avatar #300 to #295 - jlew (04/22/2013) [-]
Ships are still slow. The soldiers didn't actually pose a threat to the South. They could have been given more time, but the South was too trigger-happy and started the war.
No matter what the South is still responsible as they attacked first, the North had no plans or reasons to attack the South as they could have imported food as they had been doing even before secession.
#303 to #300 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
Keeping troops in a sovereign nation against its will was considered an act of war at the time, so technically speaking, no the union started the war when it refused to leave SC.
User avatar #304 to #303 - jlew (04/22/2013) [-]
Well you just bring your reasons to the people who revise the history books and see if they take your case.
#305 to #304 - anon (04/22/2013) [-]
I've seen history books that state the south started the war and some that say the north did, I guess it comes down to perspective.
User avatar #239 to #220 - dawgfan (04/22/2013) [-]
Just realized I'm a dumbass at spelling
#207 to #205 - anon (04/21/2013) [-]
After the secession the Union had no claim to anything within confederate territory.
#197 to #195 - mulletmafia (04/21/2013) [-]
kinda related..

i guess
 Friends (0)