IF YOU WERE IN TEH CIVIL WAR...

Beyond the Grave · **Posted:** Thu May 01, 2008 4:13 am

AbuGrape45 wrote:

No wonder you're such a loser.

I'm from New York, I'd be Union.

AbuGrape45 · **Posted:** Thu May 01, 2008 4:17 am

Beyond the Grave wrote:

AbuGrape45 wrote:

No wonder you're such a loser.

You shut up.

Also, NOT IN FANTASY BAESBALL I AIN'T LOLOLOLOLOLO

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Thu May 01, 2008 4:18 am

Anybody who knows the history behind this tragic and avoidable war, would seriously not pick sides.

Jitka · **Posted:** Thu May 01, 2008 4:20 am

True story:

In an elevator at the Hoover Dam, I met some people from Alabama who asked me where I was from. When I said Pennsylvania, they said, quote, "Pennsylvania! Ain't that somethin'. Let me ask you this; you ever heard of a little town called Gettysburg?"

...

I told them yeah. Then we got to the top floor and went out on the Hoover Dam.

Union.

AbuGrape45 · **Posted:** Thu May 01, 2008 4:22 am

Tragic, yes. Avoidable...eh...

The only thing avoidable about it was the South's stupid decision to ambush the North when they were already starting to defeat them. They won the first several battles, and then they were all, "OH, LET'S TEACH OUR PREZ A LESSON AND SHOW HIM HOW POINTLESS THIS WAR IS THEN WE CAN END IT."

And the Confederacy's way of life was wrong, admittedly. But I could see where they'd like to defend it.

Einoo T. Spork · **Posted:** Thu May 01, 2008 4:23 am

These polls just keep getting weirder...

Union.

Larson · **Posted:** Thu May 01, 2008 9:31 am

Confederate. i'm not in it for the slaves, just the flag.

STupendous7 · **Posted:** Thu May 01, 2008 1:06 pm

Based on where I live, I would have to say Confederate.

But if it's not based on where I live, then it's Union.

gino · **Joined:** Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:40 pm **Posts:** 802

It depends. If it were ME, now me, I would fight for the Union, because I'm 1)Anti-Slave 2) Live some where in the north. If I were from that time, it would depend on where I live.

HHFOV · **Posted:** Fri May 02, 2008 1:32 am

Ohio, so Union.

Acekirby · **Posted:** Fri May 02, 2008 1:56 am

TheFacelessEvil wrote:

Anybody who knows the history behind this tragic and avoidable war, would seriously not pick sides.

I just spent quite a long time learning about this war in school. AP US HISTORY FECK YEAH

I don't think the war was avoidable. I agree with Seward's proclamation of an "irrepressible conflict". The miracle was that it did not happen sooner, which was a testament to the compromising powers of the early leaders of the government. But compromise can only last so long. There were a ton of factors and issues that went into shaping the conflict, and they eventually all snapped when Lincoln was elected.

I side with Lincoln and the Union.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Fri May 02, 2008 1:58 am

HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote:

Ohio, so Union.

Kentucky, so... umm.... whoever happens to be winning at the time.

The first union victory of the war took place in the same town where I went to high school. Of course, the Battle of Middle Creek wasn't so much a Union routing of the South as it was the Union happening to show up as the Confederates were leaving.

16_BIT_MARIO1 · **Posted:** Sat May 03, 2008 2:01 pm

The Union, for several reasons.
1. I'm anti-slave.
2. I live in the North.
3. The Confederacy had bad reasons to secede.
4. The Union won.

The Noid · **Posted:** Sat May 03, 2008 4:33 pm

Quote:

4. The Union won.

That's a crappy reason.

Not sure. I'm of course anti-slavery but think to yourself, with different upbringing than what you have now, do you think you'd still be anti-slavery? I don't know the answer to this one. But geographically it's Union.

AbuGrape45 · **Posted:** Sat May 03, 2008 9:17 pm

Geographically I would be representing neither side. And as far as the slavery issue goes I'd like to say one thing:

Back in that era, Slavery was Constitutional. In fact, it was a guaranteed right to have slaves. And in today's society, we might see slavery as discriminatory, or just plain bad. But back then, it was nothing more or less than a way of life for the South. Think for a minute: If you grew up in that era with an obviously different lifestyle than you have today, would you still see slavery as bad?

Acekirby · **Posted:** Sat May 03, 2008 10:13 pm

The Noid wrote:

Quote:

4. The Union won.

That's a crappy reason.

The Union had massive advantages on its side, though. A larger white population and better living conditions for starters. Mostly, they had a powerful industry and market economy, with easier transportation (railroads) to the Western United States, where they could get food and other resources quite easily. If they put a blockade on the South's shipment of cotton (which they did), they would completely cripple their economy (which they did). The South also forgot that it's main revenue source was the North itself, who, as I've previously said, found an acceptable substitute in the West. I could list more but I forget them. I remember learning the only real advantages the South had were their military leaders.

The Noid · **Posted:** Sat May 03, 2008 10:51 pm

Those are all good reason but simply "they won" is a crappy reason and not a legit reason either unless you're a future-seeing medium.

Acekirby · **Posted:** Sun May 04, 2008 12:39 am

Well hindsight is always 20/20, but there WERE a lot of signs back then that the Confederacy would not be able to hold up if they ever went to war.

The only possible way for them to win would have been to get foreign aid, and once the Union secured support for themselves, it was pretty much over for the South.

Duecex2 · **Posted:** Sun May 04, 2008 2:19 am

Straight up Chicagoan Yankee.

bwave · **Posted:** Mon May 12, 2008 9:23 pm

TheFacelessEvil wrote:

Anybody who knows the history behind this tragic and avoidable war, would seriously not pick sides.

Union.

DorianGray · **Posted:** Wed May 14, 2008 7:56 am

Drat. Am I the only one who thought the choices were going to be between Iron Man and Captain America?

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Wed May 14, 2008 4:20 pm

bwave wrote:

TheFacelessEvil wrote:

Anybody who knows the history behind this tragic and avoidable war, would seriously not pick sides.

Union.

Aren't you sassy.

My point is this: http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

"Specific: At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam."

"In addition to its dead and wounded from battle and disease, the Union listed:

Deaths in Prison 24,866
Drowning 4,944
Accidental deaths 4,144
Murdered 520
Suicides 391
Sunstroke 313
Military executions 267
Killed after capture 104
Executed by enemy 64
Unclassified 14,155"

So yeah, internet person, chew on that. I suppose it's easier since they're faceless 'n all, but... It's not that easy for me.

:-(

Jitka · **Posted:** Wed May 14, 2008 4:28 pm

Nobody's saying either side would have been good to be on; the war was tragic and unnecessary. But in just about every war you have the good guys and the bad guys. America lost 400,000 soldiers in WWII, and they were clearly the good guys. The Union may have suffered horrendous casualties, but they were the good guys and they're the ones whose side it was right to be on.

IMHO

Ath-a-late · **Posted:** Wed May 14, 2008 4:36 pm

I'd want nothing to do with it (and never did).

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Wed May 14, 2008 4:36 pm

Jitka wrote:

Nobody's saying either side would have been good to be on; the war was tragic and unnecessary. But in just about every war you have the good guys and the bad guys. America lost 400,000 soldiers in WWII, and they were clearly the good guys. The Union may have suffered horrendous casualties, but they were the good guys and they're the ones whose side it was right to be on.

IMHO

In my opinion, the end doesn't justify the means.

Jitka · **Posted:** Wed May 14, 2008 5:21 pm

TheFacelessEvil wrote:

Jitka wrote:

Nobody's saying either side would have been good to be on; the war was tragic and unnecessary. But in just about every war you have the good guys and the bad guys. America lost 400,000 soldiers in WWII, and they were clearly the good guys. The Union may have suffered horrendous casualties, but they were the good guys and they're the ones whose side it was right to be on.

IMHO

In my opinion, the end doesn't justify the means.

That's where you and I differ, I guess. I think some wars are necessary, no matter how horrific. Example: WWII.

A war that was both horrific and unnecessary, now, would be Vietnam.

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Wed May 14, 2008 5:37 pm

Jitka wrote:

That's where you and I differ, I guess. I think some wars are necessary, no matter how horrific. Example: WWII.

A war that was both horrific and unnecessary, now, would be Vietnam.

I'm of the opinion that if everybody stopped pandering, negotiations would actually yield results. Nobody seems to want to make sacrifices other then the lives of their citizens.

Jitka · **Posted:** Wed May 14, 2008 7:18 pm

TheFacelessEvil wrote:

Jitka wrote:

That's where you and I differ, I guess. I think some wars are necessary, no matter how horrific. Example: WWII.

A war that was both horrific and unnecessary, now, would be Vietnam.

I'm of the opinion that if everybody stopped pandering, negotiations would actually yield results. Nobody seems to want to make sacrifices other then the lives of their citizens.

Whose pandering led to World War II, apart from Neville Chamberlain? Do you really think anyone could have negotiated with Hitler? He was a madman bent on genocide, I mean come on.

this-guy · **Posted:** Wed May 14, 2008 7:20 pm

Which civil war?

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

IF YOU WERE IN TEH CIVIL WAR...

Who is online