-Demosthenes- Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 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 More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Oh, just go here and read about the myths:- http://library.thinkquest.org/J0112391/civil_war.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 It was fought over secession. But the underlying cause was slavery. It drove a wedge between the free North and the South who had slaves. It was inevitable that the South would secede, and they did so becasue of slavery. Arguments over Slavery-->Secession-->Civil War Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 atinymonkey said in post # :Oh, just go here and read about the myths:- http://library.thinkquest.org/J0112391/civil_war.htm ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 What's wrong with my post? It says they went to war becasue of secesion. And I know that they seceded because of slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 -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 More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted February 8, 2004 Share Posted February 8, 2004 Sorry about going off topic. The south cared about slavery! That's why they left! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erador Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 frankly...i dont get why we must impose our way of governing on other nations :s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Because of what happened in WWI. We stayed out of it and things got way to out of hand. It could happen again if we don't clear things up early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 You mean what happened in WWII....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Yeah, get those mixed up. Sry, everone who cares what I say, yeah both of you, sry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Not at all, if Maverick and Goose hadn't save our ass in the Battle of Britain who know where we would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 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 More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Actually sorry to be quite blunt but America DID get involevd it just chose to ignore.. Vanze' (sp?) committee and the Bermuda Summit (sp again sorry) are sheer proof. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 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 More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 -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 More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 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 ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 -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 More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 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 More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Pah, you usually make more sense than me anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 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". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Crap, I really get things messed up!!!!!! Lusitania!!!!!! Peal Harbor!!!!!!! Sry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 -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 More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted March 4, 2004 Share Posted March 4, 2004 Okay, okay. sry about confusion about wwI and wwII. It's just in this book I'm reading, I guess it's from like the 80's though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now