Jump to content

Democracy - Still going strong?


Cheetah

Recommended Posts

The Republican Party at the time had two goals, the important one was to get rid of slavery. It was a moral outrage! (The second wasn't as imiportant, it was to get rid of Poligamy)

Thoses were his goals, and we elected their nomination, Lincoln. He fought against slavery and to preserve the Union, and he died for it in the end.

The rest of the Americans didn't like slavery either. When Johnson vetoed both the Wade Davis bill and the Freedman's Bureau he was impeached for it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-Myth #2: The Civil War was fought over slavery. -

Most people in the north who didn’t care about slavery wanted the country to remain united. They would not fight in a war over slavery and slavery only, but the folks who didn’t care about slavery (who were called non-abolitionists) were willing to fight to keep a single country.

 

Cause did not precipitate effect. The idea of having separate states was the real issue, slavery was still supported in the North by some. Besides which, all this has nothing to do with the war of independence. Even less to do with the thread!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

I'm sure, but I was pointing out what I meant to say, I meant we didn't get invovled in WWII until Hitler had taken France! All those people died, not o mention the jews. We could have stoped him early, but we didn't. Truman kinda make us into the world's police, what's wrong with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I haven't heard of that, but I know we supported Britain before we joined the war. At first we sold non-war supplies at a cash and go bases. But they needed more help so the US sold wepons and things like that. Then we donated billions of dollars to Britain. We got pretty involved, we just didin't fighting until the Lusitania was sunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-Demosthenes- said in post # :

I'm sure, but I was pointing out what I meant to say, I meant we didn't get invovled in WWII until Hitler had taken France! All those people died, not o mention the jews. We could have stoped him early, but we didn't. Truman kinda make us into the world's police, what's wrong with that?

 

No, the decision to become 'world police' came in the 60's with McCarthyism and Vietnam. The concept got its metaphorical head kicked in when the US went into Somalia in the 1990’s. During the 2nd World War, Britain was still a superpower and it didn't require the level of support that it would in the modern world. Russia still doesn’t.

 

What your saying is Russia, Britain and the US became the world police; with is just nonsense. It’s like saying China are the worlds diplomats, or North Korea is the head of television because they have a broadcast system.

 

Putting forward the view that it was just the US involvement that ended the world war is an insult to the hundred upon hundreds of thousand members of allied forces who died to protect your free world before the US decided to involve themselves. I understand patriotism, but show some respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could start splashing all I know about the war and such but it would be completely off the subject.. I could do that some other time and it's not THAT important anyways to this discussion.

 

But I still think that this example proves two things:

 

1. That meddling in another country's politics is required of the WORLD sometimes (not all the time).

2. That a superpower is also responsible to keeping balance in the world, and has much more responsibility.

 

There's a limit to all, of course- too much meddling is baddddd but turning a blind eye is also bad... so somewhere in the middle.

 

I don't think there's a choice to superpowers btw - it's a given situation. They have POWER.

 

Logically :P

 

~moo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-Demosthenes- said in post # :

Okay, I haven't heard of that, but I know we supported Britain before we joined the war. At first we sold non-war supplies at a cash and go bases. But they needed more help so the US sold wepons and things like that. Then we donated billions of dollars to Britain. We got pretty involved, we just didin't fighting until the Lusitania was sunk.

 

The Lusitania was World War 1.

 

I can't really express how much this is annoying me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw --- oops I was in teh first page and posted the reply, I'm sorry it's a bit "stuck" in the middle. It's still what i wanted to say but... err.. I didn't notice your continuance atinymonkey O.O

 

sorry

 

~moo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-Demosthenes- said in post # :

atinymonkey,

1) Okay it was the 50's in NOrth Karea, but it was Truman.

2) Britain was a super power but that didn't mean they couldn't do with a little help. The goverment, andt the red cross sent money, which was actually for "relief".

 

The British stepped into the Korean dispute, the US involvement was later. Truman was reacting, and not policing, due to the political pressure after the delayed involvement in the 2nd World War. North Korea didn't even exist until the 48th parallel was crossed and ...........Oh, I can't be bothered.

 

Historys a big place. Why not go for a stroll sometime?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.