haha thats funny....probably
2006-08-14 04:11:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by *~*MaryAnn*~* 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
You might try some education on the subject of the War Between the States! If the war had been about slavery you would at least be in the ballpark of making a point. I am curious as to what these two questions have in common besides the obvious that they're both in the wrong section.
2006-08-14 11:19:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by pottersclay70 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Education has nothing to do with it, opinion does. If your world view contains certain values and certain opinions, you make a choice on the information you have. Add this to the discernment of what you hear being true and being false and you come up with an answer.
As far as slavery in the states causing the war, Lincoln's desire to free the slaves was political. I believe he wanted the backing of the African Americans on both sides. Anyway, I don't think they hesitated. The southern states wanted to seperate from the union, and the union wanted them to stay. This was done for various reasons, such as the different types of economies in the north and south, and different sociopolitical structures based on those economies....not just specifically slavery It wasn't that they simply wanted slaves, they wanted to maintain the power and control of the plantation system.
2006-08-14 11:26:58
·
answer #3
·
answered by walkerzo2000 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think any hesitation would have been because of economic$. Without cheap slave labor in the south, prices in the north would go up too.
Regarding your top question about Bush: Yes. Have you read John Dean's new book? It's the *sheep* who are the neocons, the ones who are awed by obnoxious bullies. The same dynamic was at work when the Nazis were coming to power: the sheep followed the "tough guys" who talked about fear and cowardice.
2006-08-14 11:15:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by Sweetchild Danielle 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Actually, you seem to be the one that's uneducated and unintelligent. The Union didn't attack the CSA because of slavery, but rather because the Union claimed forts that rightfully belonged to the CSA in their newly formed country.
And anyways, I'm very educated, that's why I don't hate Bush. I'm not somebody that listens to left wing jingoism about how every white Christian male is wrong, no matter what he does, even if he's eliminating the world's biggest evils, which is the middle eastern culture of violence and outright disrespect towards other people.
2006-08-14 11:30:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by enigma_frozen 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
How does Bush's presidency relate to the American Civil war? Or are you suggesting another civil war? I think the North hesitated to go to war with the South because either way Americans would die. Lincoln hoped that they could come to terms with their issues peacefully. Didn't work for Clinton either.
2006-08-14 11:16:44
·
answer #6
·
answered by t79a 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
No. Most wars are not fought because of moral reasons, and the civil war was not an exception.
2006-08-14 11:11:55
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Some people are just uneducated enough or unitelligent (sic) enough to agree with you. We educated intelligent people love Bush and hate Clinton. (We ALSO hate Clinton's husband.)
2006-08-14 11:12:46
·
answer #8
·
answered by professionaleccentric 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
What type of tortured reasoning is this?
It's another perfect example of a "half-baked" Far Left-Wing-Liberal-Democrat best at character slander and name calling which is typical for the liberal who has no solution
but to mock....does your analogy apply to the towering intellect of "Howard Dean" as well?
2006-08-14 11:15:25
·
answer #9
·
answered by B'klyn Barracuda 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
Does anyone else think saying you have to be intelligent to hate someone is an oxymoron?
2006-08-14 11:23:16
·
answer #10
·
answered by daisyk 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
You're in the wrong section. Try politics.
2006-08-14 11:11:06
·
answer #11
·
answered by johnusmaximus1 6
·
2⤊
0⤋