I'm for Quebec. ;)

Quebec bitches about shit more than I do. Seem like a bunch of hypocrities to me who want so much out of the english speaking, but never do anything for them in return.

When all the seperating shit happened when I was like in grade 5 I didn't care...and I don't care now if Quebec is Canada or not. Plus it would finally hopefully...make Canada a one language country...well one official language.

Well if slavery had pretty much nothing to do with the civil war like you all state, then my history teacher and the books we read out of were all full of shit.

it did play a role, just not the main role its been advertised. i understood what you meant earlier. subject matter varies from nation to nation i guess.

What they're saying that slavery wasn't the main reason for the war (though they are downplaying it quite a bit), it was a contributing issue along with others. After 1862 and the Emancipation Proclaimation the idea of ending slavery was used to gain more support for the cause of the war and thus it became more important.

However, our education system teaches us that it was a war fought over slavery (along with Lincoln liking black people, Columbus discovering America and being friends with the natives, etc...) so perhaps they're downplaying slavery's role over frustration.....

I don't think we are downplaying it past the point of irrelevance. Slavery was a problem in the country at the time but not a cause of the war. I can't see 99.9% of the Confederate army going off to fight so that the other 0.1% can still own slaves. I can't see more than half the US army going off to fight to free slaves that they never have any contact with and could care less about.

BTW - did you know that Ninjas tipped the scale of battle at Gettysburg? http://modernhumorist.com/mh/0303/civilninjas/

awww i wanted to read about the ninjas!

I thought the southern economy was laregly dependent on slave labor at the time...... So would that not be a huge factor in the eqaution ?

[quote="Short Hand":1653c]I thought the southern economy was laregly dependent on slave labor at the time...... So would that not be a huge factor in the eqaution ?[/quote:1653c]that was only for the southern aristocracy pretty much. I forget the figure, but something like 70% (i think it is higher...i dunno) of southerns didn't own slaves. They did alot of subsistance farming and such.

Still, in any society the rich are the ones with the power. Those 30 % could easily make up 80 % of the economy. Just a simple thought really.

this is why I like talking about Civil War battles and strategies better. No politics.

No politics?

oOo:

I dont know about that....

not really any politics on national issues.

lets just turn this into a battles thread

I tried to talk about the ninjas but it didn't seem to sidetrack the thread. LOL

well this can become the official Civil War thread. Since everyone seems to already know everything about it rolleyes:

Do you think Longstreet should have gone to the right at Gettysburg? Was it Lee's fault? Was Gettysburg the turning point?

I think that Longstreet was the one of the greatest commanders to ever live. His flanking movements are still studied today, and were so effective, it caused complete stalemates in WWI. I can see his argument to the right, cut off supply from DC and force Meade to attack him. I do disagree. Lee's main goal was not to defeat his enemy by force, but by forcing him to surrender by political means. He knew that he had a chance to defeat Meade at Gettysburg, and tried too. I think after the failure on the seond day, he should have listened more to Longstreet.

Despite what some may believe, I think the turning point of the war was neither Gettysburg nor Vicksburg. It was Atlanta. Lincoln's reelection in 1864 was in doubt untill Atlanta fell. The Western theatre is more interesting anyways. Sherman, Thomas, Macpherson, all were in the west, and were ahead of their time. The Civil War would have been one by the South if Braxton Bragg wasnt in TN, or if Hood hadnt replaced Johnston.