Being selfish. Putting yourself before others. Being too fast paced. Arrogant and ignorant. Snooty. Vain. Hypocritical. Think that they are the best thing since sliced bread. Horrible attitude. No manners. Rude. Amoral. Doesn't treat women with respect(big one). Curses.
You know, the usual...
Very few people are actually Yankees, it pretty much means to be the scum of the earth...
It's amazing how different the textbooks tell history. This is all verbatim from my AP US history review book.
Lincoln did his best to avoid angering the slave states that had not yet seceded. In his inaugural address he urged southerners to reconsider their actions but warned that the Union was perpetutal, that statesx could not secede, and that he would therefore hold the federal forts and installations in the south.
Of these only two remained in federal hands: Fort Pickens, off Pensacola, Florida; and Fort Sueter, in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. Lincoln soon received word from Major Robert Anderson, commanding the small garrison at Sumter, that supplies were running low. desiring to send in the needed supplies, Lincoln informed the governor of South Carolina of his intention but promised that no attpemts would be made to send arms, ammunition, or reinforcements unless Southerners initated hostilities.
Not satisfied, Southernors deteremined to take the fort. confederat General P.G. T. Beauregard, acting on orders from President Davis, demanded Anderson's surrender. Anderson said he would if not resupllied. Knowing supplies were on the way, the Confderates opened fire at 4:30am on April 12, 1861 The next day the fort surrendered.
The day following Sumter's surrender Lincoln declared the esistence of an insurrection...
From my textbook, it's the bloody South's fault for causing trouble =P
Sorry, I'm a national government fan, not a state loving fan. We tried that with the Articles of Confederation--and that kinda failed.
lol... sounds like the stereotypical Frenchman...
I am of the opinion that the Articles of Confederation needed to be changed, not thrown away. We have all seen (Communist Russia, Communist China, Nazi Germany) what happens when a centralized government becomes too powerful. I think that there should be a centralized government to help with cohesion between the states, but the states need to have Waaaaaay more power than they have now, and the US government needs much less.
About the history book. Yes, I know, I remember that section when I took AP US history myself. You must remember that history is written by the victors. Notice that nothing I say is contradicted by the text, the makers of the book were sly enough to skirt around the facts. They say that the troops were starving, but not for how long, nor whether the people of the city helped them. It said that Lincoln officially said that it was only food(how often are official statements between two governments hostile to each other actually truthful?), but it never said whether he actually did as he said. It implies that the South hears about the ship, makes an ultimatum, and attacks shortly. Why would they, if everything is as the book says, if they have a week or two before the ship actually arrives, and the supplies can't last that long. I have literally read well over a hundred books about the Civil War, this is not some half-baked theory I heard through hearsay. I can go into many more reasons of why there was a war(there are several dozen in my opinion), but these two should suffice for now.
Also, about the Bethel attack, how do you respond to an unmitigated attack, authorized by the President, that started the original hostilities?
I'll keep this brief. I've studied this somewhat (outside of the AP context), and I think its reasonably clear that the Civil War was unavoidable. Tell me if you think I'm wrong about this. So the initial causes are not terribly relevant to the overall historical significance. Its like a massive scale, "nu-uh, it was him."
I think theres a difference between strong and effective central government and Communism Jakko. I dont think CPR was advocating that, by any means.
Look at the UN. We dont want something like that as our central government (a good example of an ineffectual centralized attempt at government). by the same token, it is quite clear that each state requires different things (be it education, or more specialized things like agriculture), so a stronger state government would be able to cater better to the specific needs of the state. I believe that a balance can be found, and that, at this point, it lies in the balance that we have now, maybe with a little bit more state power and a little less central power.
the needs of the group need to hold sway over the needs of the individual groups, so its important to keep that in mind.
I kinda like the way things are right now. Well... majority of it is okay, but there seriously is no such thing as a perfect government. I don't see how having states being more powerful would help us. Gathering troops? repaying debts?
Originally Posted by Jakko
I am well aware of that fact. That's why I asked how you guys taught the Civil War.
Originally Posted by Jakko
I have no response to that since this is my first time hearing about it. Guess it was purposely insignificant in the eyes of collegeboard.
Originally Posted by Jakko
also... at the "South was defending the land" stuff. We call it "North was protecting the Union." Though, I bet you already knew that.
@Aikido and CPR:
I know. I didn't mean it in an insulting was to CPR, just responding, sorry if it was taken in that way. However, I tend not to trust any group with too much power, I tend to follow the motto, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," when I am thinking about governments. I have a fear that if the US government keeps gaining power(the power is a lot more centralized than it was 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago, heck even 30 years ago, even 1 year ago[the Emminent Domain ruling, anyone]). Also, about the Civil War, I think that because of things in the 10 years preceeding the war, it was inevitable, however, if people had wised up before hand, it could have been prevented. It would still have been difficult to prevent, but possible. I think there was blame enough to go around on both sides, but the lionshare belonged to the North in my opinion, and I feel that history has unfairely heaped it on the South. Bottom line, when you get past the social and economic reasons, the North benefitted from several things present in the South, including slavery(which I disagree with and actually the majority of the population of the South at the time also disagreed with), and grew wealthy because of it, and self suffiecient. They then expected the South to change along with them, and the South was unwilling and unable to change at the rate the North wanted, and conflict rose because of it.
I was just being blatantly obvious about some things, because I didn't want to take them for granted, I wanted to point them out. Also, I put forth that the Bethel attack was actually very important, and was a very important news item at the time, and raised the tensions between the South and the North greatly, the college board and most historians don't want that known. Americans love the gallant hero, who can do no wrong and fights those that are absolutely evil, and I think that historians are perpetuating this myth about the North, and are unwilling to do anything that would tarnish it. This is not the first time in history something like this has happened...
Edit: Again, I will make this clear. It seemed like from the last posts by Aikido and CPR that y'all thought I was insulting y'all, and both of you seemed angry. On the contrary, I am merely having a discussion, and have nothing but respect for both of y'all, and was not trying to insult anyone.
Last edited by Jakko; 04-02-2006 at 08:18 PM.
me? angry? hardly.
Though, I don't know how much of your statements are true or not seeing that this is the first time I'm hearing them. They could be the purposely left out facts in my textbook--or-- of course, just bitter resentment =P
Nah, I try my best to keep my views free of bias. I will freely admit that the South did some screwed up things, and slavery was a particularly strong example of how bad the South could be, I have just read a good bit, things that lean towards both sides of the fence on these issues, and find that the majority of evidence seems to show that the South, while to blame for many things, was not as at fault in the war as the North.
The Civil War? What's that? We didn't learn about it! Well, not exactly - I think I read a book for English on the Underground Railway a number of years ago, but really, you'd think Canada would actually CARE about it's neighbours.
Oh, and we kicked your ass in 1812. At least, I think it was 1812.
...Whenever you guys invaded.
Canadian history books are a great example of how biased countries are and how you only hear about your country's victories. I mean, of all the years I've been in school, only one had been spent learning about a culture other than our own (ancient, and grade 5). Four hundred years in more than four years... and yet, we never learned a thing about our losses, our problems, and anything after WWII.
The hell are Yankees? We don't know. The hell are Southerners? Um... Australians? Yeah, that's basically what we know. Nothing. Oh, except that half the US fought the other half over freeing African-American slaves (gotta be politically correct!) and a bunch of them came to Canada.
I apologize if I seem ignorant about history. Blame Canada. Please.