The Ignorance Of Facebook [Pic]

Submitted by: fancylad 7 years ago in Funny

Ugh...
There are 170 comments:
Female 105
Think the Mongolians were here first,sweetheart.

I hate that they teach high school children that "America" was discovered by some backwards-ass European when the Mongolians traveled here and inhabited the land. Its not like he was all for doing it for England..hell he was doing it for Queen Isabella of freaking SPAIN! And he actually thought it was an effing Asian country.

And he wasn`t the first to sail here, it was the vikings, you drattard.
0
Reply
Female 204
"And the America`s were settled by colonists from all over Europe before, during and after the founding of any of the countries here"

Um I believe that Italians discovered Northern America. Christopher Columbus was Italian.
0
Reply
Male 39
The civil war didn`t happen to free the slaves; the war happened because the south wanted to break away from the union (amongst other things), because the north was helping the slaves escape and wouldn`t give them back (there was however "bounty-hunters" that were hired by slave owners to go to the north and kidnap black people; it really didn`t matter if the black person was free or not). The north freed the slaves after the war because they knew it was the best thing to do. Abraham Lincoln never mentioned anything about freeing the slaves because he didn`t want to lose the votes of the south.

So to those that agree with Ashley:
Pay attention during history class!
:D


Slavery is dumb, anyway.
0
Reply
Male 12
lol
0
Reply
Female 1,172
ROFL.
0
Reply
Male 3,915
btw...nicole is a tard...enjoy welfa-...enjoy being stupid....
0
Reply
Male 3,915
lol...davy...i thought ol` skeez was funny...
0
Reply
Male 12,138
vv Southpark reference. Gotta let that one go...
0
Reply
Male 720
Stupid naggers. :-D
0
Reply
Male 1,351
I`m not going to touch this. People have already mentioned that the Civil War didn`t start directly because of slavery, people have already racially insulted both of them, and people have just generally gone overboard. Thus, I will now leave this post.
0
Reply
Female 3,598
and then i saw how long all of your comments were and i didn`t want to see them anymore.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
To be accurate, the first 690 years (1215-1905) of voting reform in England (and UK after 1707) are completely ignored. But the really important period of time for voting reform started in ~1800 and it`s all completely ignored prior to 1905.

To give you some idea...the UK was on the verge of revolution in 1832. Two governments collapsed, the country had no government at all for a week, armed revolution was being openly advocated, mass rioting was going on and it was only halted by the king blatantly abusing his power in order to rig a key vote in Parliament, which in itself was another constitutional crisis. There was shouting, screaming, weeping, cursing, blaspheming chaos in Parliament. The British parliament in 1832, when it was even more formally well-mannered than today. It was a time of utter mayhem and monumental change...and it`s been completely wiped from history classes.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Do other countries teach their kids things that are just flat out wrong like that?[/quote]

I`d be very surprised if they didn`t. I know that a false history of voting reform is taught in the UK. It`s the usual thing - people with an agenda practice historical revisionism to suit that agenda and any of them with enough power can get it spread. So the first 100 years of it are completely ignored and the last 10-15 years of it are grossly misrepresented.

An inaccurate image of the middle ages is also common, though I don`t know if that`s taught at schools at all. It`s more a pervasive idea from various sources, mostly stemming from Victorian historical revisionism that was mostly aimed at showing how much more civilised their time was in comparison with the times before it. So we have an image of filthy, utterly downtrodden peasants, women totally without legal rights or social status, bizarre torture at the drop of a hat...none of which is true.
0
Reply
Female 168
I am quite pleased that Nicole is my job competition.
0
Reply
Male 22
@Angilion: I don`t expect our Civil War to be mentioned there, I just mean revisionist history in general. We`re taught that the war was about ending slavery and Lincoln was a great emancipator, but he didn`t care in the least bit about freeing slaves, and wanted to kick them out post-war. Do other countries teach their kids things that are just flat out wrong like that?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Tmortens: In the UK, the American civil war is barely mentioned, if it`s mentioned at all. I doubt if most people here even know it happened.

Mind you, the English civil war is barely known about here either. Most people are pretty ignorant of history in general. If I recall correctly, my history classes at school started with the industrial revolution.
0
Reply
Male 22
What`s worse to me is the response that the war was to free slaves, and that that is the generally accepted answer. That revisionist history is taught as fact in schools is irritating, and it`s rampant in the U.S. How about other democratic countries? Anyone from Canada, France, or Germany want to chime in?
0
Reply
Male 426
can i get a face palm please?
0
Reply
Male 58
Well.... she was right about not having to study it...
She wouldn`t have to study anything!
0
Reply
Female 163
I`ve lost all hope.
0
Reply
Male 2,148
Here`s another point for IAB to consider:

What if she was just making a stupid joke, and she`s not all that ignorant? Maybe Nicole doesn`t like studying the Civil War, so she like "haha, I wish the Civil War NEVER HAPPENED. :D"

I mean, that makes her ignorant for not wanting to know history, but at least it wouldn`t make her retarded...
0
Reply
Male 1,086
"I love the school system." The very same school system which ensures the internet is populated by people who can`t construct a sentence...
0
Reply
Male 2,148
GJ: Why, I was just giving you another history to read.
0
Reply
Male 167
And if it had never happened she would`nt have to study at all.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"GJ: It doesn`t change much in terms of meaning, you clearly still get what I meant to say."

Yes, but I`m not going to get serious and worked up over this stupid topic. The Civil War involved slavery. To what extent? I`ll rely on the multiple civil war histories I`ve read to answer that.
0
Reply
Male 77
go ElDavo!!!
0
Reply
Male 4,014
All of this reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Apu is trying to become a U.S. citizen.

He`s sitting for the citizenship interview, and asked "what caused the civil war?" He begins to explain that many socio-economic factors played a role beyond the obvious conflict between abolishinists and anti-abolishinists and.....

Interviewer interrupts, says "ah ah ah....Just say slavery."
0
Reply
Male 2,148
GJ: It doesn`t change much in terms of meaning, you clearly still get what I meant to say.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
"Slavery throughout the country didn`t end as a whole until the 14th amendment, passed in 1968 (3 years after Lincoln`s death)."

hehe, typos can radically change meaning.
0
Reply
Male 2,148
The South seceded because of increasing divisions between northern and southern society as well as imbalances between northern and southern economic and political power. These things would ultimately have freed the slaves, but the freedom issue didn`t CAUSE the Civil War.

For the record, The Emancipation Proclamation literally only freed slaves in the Confederate states. It didn`t touch northern slaves. Slavery throughout the country didn`t end as a whole until the 14th amendment, passed in 1968 (3 years after Lincoln`s death).

You`ve learned something about US history today. Congratulations.
0
Reply
Female 477
ah yes, yet another uneducated black person
0
Reply
Male 10,338
It didn`t result in freedom for the slaves. That would have happened anyway. It`s not a sustainable form of society. The southern leaders knew that, that`s why Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin.

Freedom for the slaves was an inevitability. If they had done it the right way, and not just said "Okay, you`re free. Here`s 40 acres and a mule!" There wouldn`t be the class struggles that we have today.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
Selfish!!!!!!!!!!!!
0
Reply
Male 256
Oh man look at all the people in the comment section acting so smart UMM WELL ACTUALLY IT WASNT ABOUT SLAVES...shut up, either way it RESULTED in freedom for the slaves and this girl is a moron for not thinking of that
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@Lionhart:

Lincoln freed the slaves AFTER the South left the union. He did it as a tactic.

The South left the union because they were not being represented in Washington. That`s the beginning and end of it. Everything after that was politics.
0
Reply
Female 812
Listen Nicole, it`s either learning about the civil war or not learning at all.
The `learning nothing at all` comes from not letting the civil war have happened, just like you wished, so you can be Ashley`s b*tch and (just how you like it) never learn anything at all.
It`s your choice, really
0
Reply
Male 797
@Lionhart2 I love these kind of points the most the ones that prove themselves. Notice not on your list was not to free slaves but rather to end disputes on slavery, the end of slavery was a side effect and not a direct intention.
0
Reply
Male 1,148
Hahaha ignorance is bliss.
0
Reply
Male 2,690
HOLY CRAP HAHAHHAHAH
0
Reply
Male 794
after reading the FB post i was going to say something, but all the comments below have it well covered, way to go IMB readers
0
Reply
Male 351
@Lionhart2: The north wasn`t winning the whole war. Gettysburg could have guaranteed the win for either side. The North only had the army of the Potomac and they needed to prevent Lee from forcing Lincoln to sign a peace agreement.
0
Reply
Male 112
wow i love how stupid ppl r and i love how condesending those stupid ppl can b the civil war wasnt about slavery it happened because the south believe that they were not being adequatly represented at congress and that the intrestes of the southern states werent being given due consideration and so they decided to secede and that was what the war was about not slavery that was one issue on which the south didnt feel they werent being treated fairly on but that was by no means the basis for the war
0
Reply
Female 163
BUT, now that I read more, Lionhart2 sin`t all that correct. Lincoln himself was a diehard bigot who honestly didn`t give two squats of piss about the slaves (read Lincoln-Douglass Debates). He didn`t own slaves because in his exact words it was a "moral wrong", to be left for God to judge. Lincoln also states that if it were his choice blacks wouldn`t be allowed to live in the country because it would cause "racial impurity". ALSO, he elected a strong xenophobe as his vice president (for the southern vote of course).

So, before you get righteous please read. Stupid drats.
0
Reply
Female 163
Im an African American History major, and yea Lionhart2 is right. Go read a history book instead of wikipedia, there`s a reason why your professors won`t let you cite that poo.
0
Reply
Male 132
I`m sorry, but Abraham Lincoln was nothing but an opportunist.
0
Reply
Male 8,300
>66stang

Yep, gotta love whatever school system you went through at least. Lincoln did not own slaves. I`m Australian and I knew that was just urban legend. And since the slaves were only freed IF the North won, how exactly was freeing them going to provide people to fight for him? Not to mention that the North kicked Southern butt from pretty much the beginning, so why would they need more?
0
Reply
Male 225
I love the school system. The civil war was not started nor was the major reason to free the slaves. Abraham Lincoln himself OWNED slaves. Let me say that again he OWNED slaves. One of the major reasons Lincoln free`d the slaves was to give them incentives to fight for his army and give him an upper hand.
0
Reply
Male 1,162
Oh nicole. You`re doing your people proud.
0
Reply
Male 8,300
The Top 5 Causes of the Civil War.

1. Economic and social differences between the North (tech-based city life) and the South (slavery-based cropping).
2. States versus federal rights.
3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.
4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.
5. The election of Abraham Lincoln, who was seen as anti-slavery.

So whichever way you look at it, at least 4 out of 5 of those reasons are about slavery, hence the Civil War was about slavery.
0
Reply
Male 34
wow, some people....
0
Reply
Male 11,739
:facepalm:
0
Reply
Male 1,370
HAHHAHHAHHA.
0
Reply
Female 1,199
Oh that`s good. XP
0
Reply
Male 217
people like her will end up slaves

to society

zing
0
Reply
Male 2,748
hahhaha, she black fails!!
0
Reply
Male 52
@screwzlooose Actually, the invention of the cotton gin encouraged the growth of and dependence on slavery in the South.

@auburnjunky I don`t think you`re understanding me, I already acknowledged their secession before he became president (took office). But they all seceded after he was elected.
0
Reply
Male 80
HAHAHAHA... why don`t i ever get people like this on bookfaces.. haha
0
Reply
Male 208
That`s right it wasn`t to end slavery! It was to protect states rights which just so happened to mainly revolve around the ability to own other people as property, aka slaves! Oh, God dang it...
0
Reply
Male 3,668
Interesting fact, Lincoln`s favorite song was "I Wish I was in Dixie". His second favorite song was "Blue Tail Fly", AKA "Jimmy Crack Corn". And considering both are credited to Daniel Decatur Emmett, it makes sense.
0
Reply
Female 859
LOL
0
Reply
Female 914
to free the slaves was not the primary reason the war happened, it was a tactic to get the south to surrender. slaves=commodity, without it, the way of life in the south crumbled. so one person was just being an ignorant non-nice individual and the other was just wrong.
0
Reply
Female 767
It wasn`t "to end slavery."

Just saying.
0
Reply
Male 316
@aseirinn

Slavery was the primary reason. Also, the South struck first not the North.
0
Reply
Male 17
Whoa, obviously me saying whatever i said has somehow made it look like I didnt know slavery was involved in the civil war. It did and I know that. it just wasnt started over it and therefore the war wasnt about slavery.
0
Reply
Male 914
wow...just wow...
0
Reply
Male 92
aseirinn thats only if you are from the south. If your from the north than it was all about slaves baby.
0
Reply
Male 182
Wednesday, April 7, 2010 5:39:18 PM
I don`t know which one is more stupid - Nicole for not realizing the whole thing changed her life, or Ashley for effectively saying Nicole would still be a slave if it hadn`t happened.


I would not put it past the U.S.,If the North

lost and we never would have given freedom to

minorities.

I`m pro freedom.
0
Reply
Male 877
i thought the civil war was about tax, trade tarriffs etc and the north invading the south...please correct me if im wrong...
0
Reply
Female 721
That`s why I`m glad I`m out of highschool. Classmates complained about history and about literature. I mean granted it`s not always a life skill but I would think learning about your country`s history would be interesting if not give you some semblance of respect. As for reading, well you kinda do that everywhere, don`t you? I hate people that whine that they hate reading yet sit at the computer or play video games all day. Both require reading and depending on what game or site, extensively. Guess they like the addition of pictures still. [/soapbox]
0
Reply
Male 55
LMFAO
0
Reply
Male 8,300
I don`t know which one is more stupid - Nicole for not realizing the whole thing changed her life, or Ashley for effectively saying Nicole would still be a slave if it hadn`t happened.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]The word "here" in the quote you responded to is a geographical concept [..] it can mean a country or nation, can also mean simply the territory itself.[/quote]

Given the nationalism of the person I was replying to and their reference to countries, I think they were referring to the USA.

[quote]The U.S. is formally 224 years old, and since 224 is a multiple of 100 (and then some), your criticism is erroneous, because 224 is 2 "100`s of years" plus 24 years. [/quote]

Technically true, but "hundreds of years" implies a longer time period than slightly over 200 years.

[quote]And the America`s were settled by colonists from all over Europe before, during and after the founding of any of the countries here[/quote]

Who were not "people of all colors". Which was the point in question.

[quote]Anglion, Mississippi is not Europe.[/quote]

New York is not Mars. Both facts, both silly and
0
Reply
Female 1,441
Oh that was directed at Batmanners by the way.
0
Reply
Male 1,629
@ chaos7

i actually enjoy the history debates on IAB as long as they dont turn into flame wars to quickly
0
Reply
Female 354
ok, i just find this funny, I`m not going to throw my opinion about it out there to make myself sound more intelligent.
0
Reply
Female 1,441
I love that the first think you can think of to use against me is my age. Is that really all you`ve got? I`ve never claimed to be super well-read and intelligent, so that`s something that you can`t use against me. I don`t make such bold statements without having something solid to back it up. You`re entire argument against me is based on an assumption that I consider myself an intellectual though nothing I have said could indicate that.

And just because there are no intellectuals at my age, doesn`t mean there aren`t people who claim to be one. Your logic there is flawed I`m afraid.
0
Reply
Male 848
Does everything on I-Am-Bored come with a History Comment Thread?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]You are the one being a total pompous fag here. I understand everything, you jumped in for you little pal.[/quote]

Please continue. I find your ignorant bigotry amusing and you keep revealing more of it. It`s like a stripshow of loathesome stupidity.
0
Reply
Male 527
This whole argument serves to remind me of the adage "history is written by the victors."
0
Reply
Male 559
The civil war was about states rights v/s Federal Authority. Slavery was considered a minor issue at that time, mainly because the southern plantation owners believed they would be bankrupt without slaves to farm their crops. Pretty much the same argument the corporations give about minimum wage. It`s all about them not wanting to cut into their profits to pay people. The government said Human rights came before profit. Same arguement that goes on today. Slavery was an issue, but not the biggest one of the war, and certainly did not CAUSE the war.
0
Reply
Male 4,004
"I`m actually just anti-peopl"

...I`m just anti-people-full-of-themselves.
0
Reply
Male 4,004
"Oh, what would the internet be without pseudo-intellectual statements by ill-informed teenagers."

As posted by a 13-17yo girl lol.

No offense, but "pseudo-intellectual" means somebody who is convinced they are smart and well-read, despite being grossly uninformed. And, at your age range, there are no intellectuals. So to act holier than thou towards a "pseudo-intellectual" makes you an even bigger "pseudo-intellectual".

Really, no offense. I just thought you would appreciate what it felt like to be called out as a doofus, you being so intellectual and all. The constant search for understanding every aspect of everything and completely questioning every aspect of every situation just to get a grasp on the forces at hand, and even going into the psych of it all, to understand the thought-processes that went through people`s minds when an idea was conceived.

I`m no intellectual... I`m actually just anti-peopl
0
Reply
Female 1,441
To say that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery is just as ignorant, if not more so, than saying that the Civil War was exclusively about slavery.
0
Reply
Male 384
the civil war wasn`t started over slavery. thats just what has been pushed to the front in history. the freeing of the slaves was more propaganda than anything,(especially since they weren`t freed up north until AFTER the start of the war) after they were "freed" most continued to work for the same person, for a wage that had them living a lower class lifestyle than before.

the big argument in the civil war was quite simply this- state government VS federal government.

seriously, look it up. eli whitney was more responsible for slavery going out, with the invention of the cotton gin. i mean, why house 100 slaves, feed them, clothe them, and make sure they aren`t sick, if you can just buy a machine?
0
Reply
Female 1,441
"The civil war wasn`t even about slavery. FAIL!"

Oh, what would the internet be without pseudo-intellectual statements by ill-informed teenagers.
0
Reply
Female 9,585
""The civil war wasn`t even about slavery. FAIL!"

You`ve got to be kidding me. You`re not the one to say FAIL here my friend."

Yes and no. See originally The Civil war was about keeping the union together or not. The south wanted to have and keep their own country, while the north, of course, wanted to keep the country in one piece. Slavery became in issue after the war started.
0
Reply
Male 357
Angilion, wtf are you talking about? You are the one being a total pompous fag here. I understand everything, you jumped in for you little pal.

My statements are : 1. Not all black people have slave ancestors (I`m not even saying Americans here, I`m saying "all" as in "in the world total")
2. People have been dying to get to the US for 100`s of years. I`m saying 200 or more, which technically is 100`s.

so what it comes down to is that you were blindly sticking up for some euro dude.


0
Reply
Male 1,054
"to get here"

"I call your bluff. Provide evidence of widespread immigration into the USA by "people of all colors" centuries ago. Which would mean before the USA existed, but hey, that`s a minor detail. "

The word "here" in the quote you responded to is a geographical concept, that though it can mean a country or nation, can also mean simply the territory itself.

The U.S. is formally 224 years old, and since 224 is a multiple of 100 (and then some), your criticism is erroneous, because 224 is 2 "100`s of years" plus 24 years.

Archeological evidence indicates that the America`s were had been repeatedly settled before Christopher Columbus got here. And the America`s were settled by colonists from all over Europe before, during and after the founding of any of the countries here, including the U.S - a period of more than 500 years.

Anglion, Mississippi is not Europe.
0
Reply
Male 1,629
the war was about money and country, human rights came afterwards. and people that act like american slavery was the worst thing ever are some of the most biased and ignorant people ever. it was far from the worst, african americans have had it easier then most races in the past and present. they just whine the loudest...
0
Reply
Male 10,855
CONGRATULATIONS! I now decree both of you....
IDIOTS!


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!EPIC FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Ah, so you`re a nationalist fool as well. No surprises there.

"Euro pal"...heh, you haven`t a clue about Europe either.

Why are you here instead of on Facebook?

You failed to understand the post made and you`ve failed to provide any evidence to support your claims. You`ve just plain failed.
0
Reply
Male 976
"The civil war wasn`t even about slavery. FAIL!"

You`ve got to be kidding me. You`re not the one to say FAIL here my friend.
0
Reply
Male 357
Angilion: My initial comment was that people think that every black person has US slave ancestors. Which isn`t true at all. I don`t know what you are talking about with the "most" and "all" stuff. Fleh said some dumb crap about people swimming over here (which they do, so that makes him wrong) then you backed him up because you are both euro pals.

Provide evidence? Come on, it`s a know fact that the US is immigrant paradise. At least for 200 years, so I stand by my statement.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]
You wouldn`t understand because unlike your country, people of all colors have been dying to get here for 100`s of years.[/quote]

I call your bluff. Provide evidence of widespread immigration into the USA by "people of all colors" centuries ago. Which would mean before the USA existed, but hey, that`s a minor detail.

I also draw your attention to the difference between "most", which is what Fleh wrote, and "all", which is what you replied to.

I don`t know if Fleh is right, but I`m confident they are more right than you are.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I live several thousand miles away and haven`t studied what to me is a foreign civil war, and I still know better than she does. Besides, 30s online to confirm dates shouldn`t be hard for a young child. Slavery was abolished in the north *after* the civil war started.
0
Reply
Male 357
Actually, Fleh, they come here from all over. For example ,the president of our country has no slave ancestry.

And yes, some do swim here. Ever hear of Cuba? No you probably haven`t.

You wouldn`t understand because unlike your country, people of all colors have been dying to get here for 100`s of years.
0
Reply
Male 17
The civil war wasn`t even about slavery. FAIL!
0
Reply
Male 231
Most black people in america have slave history dumbass. Do you think they swam over there? Damn
0
Reply
Male 101
"This is dumb on so many levels! Why do people assume that every black person has American slave ancestry?"
Just like the black people who are called racist and reply with: "Racist? I`m black." Why do they assume they get all the racism!? Damn it all!
0
Reply
Male 397
The fact that she is black makes it even funnier.
0
Reply
Male 3,343
"This is dumb on so many levels! Why do people assume that every black person has American slave ancestry?"

I don`t know if they do, but every black person living in America should be sensitive to it. Really, EVERY person in America should be sensitive to it, remember it, and hate it.
0
Reply
Male 3,343
This might have been said, but I`m not going to read all the comments. The Civil War was NOT about freeing the slaves. It was about a states right to secede from the union. The South states wanted to leave and form their own country (because of the slavery issue), and the North said that they didn`t have the right to do that.

Yes, slavery was an issue in the war, but it was not the cause of the war, and it`s not what we went to war over.
0
Reply
Male 357
This is dumb on so many levels! Why do people assume that every black person has American slave ancestry?

0
Reply
Female 855
"I cain`t study. I`se goin down and get the chile susport check from one ob mah baby daddies."
trashy fool
0
Reply
Male 207
@slab-of-rage,

When I was still in school I learned more about British history I think than I did American history. Probably because there was more to learn on that front. It was like the first 75% of our history books were before we even discovered America...then we got into the whole American history portion...
0
Reply
Male 41,153
No you are all wrong! The American Civil War happened to punish Nicloe and force her to study bo-ring sh*t insted of stuffing twinkies in her stoopid face.
It`s a vast, right-wing conspiracy...
0
Reply
Male 2,616
Hilarious.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
slab-of-rage, I got a minor in history with my BS in psych. I focused it on English reformation. Yeah there is a lot, and it is interesting!
0
Reply
Male 769
damn Americans have got it easy - you`ve only been around for about 500 years, think about how much British history there is to learn!
0
Reply
Female 2,289
doesn`t matter if it`s true or not. it`s funny
0
Reply
Female 876
/facepalm
0
Reply
Male 421
it was because of states` rights. the freedom of slaves was just a biproduct.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@jotham:

See. BEFORE he was president.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@jotham:

Before Lincoln took office, seven states had declared their secession from the Union. They established a Southern government, the Confederate States of America on February 4, 1861.[63] They took control of federal forts and other properties within their boundaries with little resistance from outgoing President James Buchanan, whose term ended on March 4, 1861.
0
Reply
Male 1,357
LMAO!
0
Reply
Female 547
Yeah, the Civil War wasn`t about freeing the slaves it was about state`s rights.... to own PEOPLE! *Notice how everyone who says it wasn`t about slavery is IN the South....*
0
Reply
Male 50
"If I remember correctly, the emancipation proclamation was mainly done to stop Britain from entering the war? Sounds weird I know, but I remember my legal studies professor saying that freeing the slaves was mostly a political move, not a moral one."

This is 100% correct. And btw just so everyone knows, slavery was ending all over the world during this time, so the war may have hastened it some but slavery would have ended regardless because it doesn`t work. People tend to only work hard when youre standing over them if you aren`t paying them.

And besides the North thought of african americans as inferior "noble savages". Now who was racist?
0
Reply
Male 50
Haha so ignorant! The civil war wasn`t about freeing slaves. It was about the legality of southern succession. The north actually sold many slaves to South American nations! That IS ignorant! HAHA. *Hates the American school system
0
Reply
Male 129
the civil war happened because the North wanted to ensure only ONE GLENN BECK in the future
0
Reply
Male 2,703
I`m guessing the "ignorance" is that Ashley thinks the civil war was about freeing slaves...
0
Reply
Female 290
The agenda was purely political which doe not change the fact that the civil war was the first step towards ending slavery. Regardless - def. worth studing whether you`re black or white so Nicole def. had it coming.
0
Reply
Male 92
@Jotham Actually, South Carolina was the first to secede, and it was because Lincoln got elected to presidency even though he wasn`t on the ballot in the slave states, which proved that they had no power in the government.
0
Reply
Male 52
@auburnjunky No, they seceded before he took office, but after he was elected.

Lincoln was elected November 6, 1860. South Carolina (the first state to secede) seceded on December 20, 1860.
0
Reply
Male 1,540
The north was against slavery, although citizens of the north still thought of blacks as inferior. That really had nothing to do with the civil war. Slavery was already mostly vanished from the north. The reason the civil war started was because the south wanted to succeed because the house of reps gave power to the north, because they had a higher population density, so they had more representatives, and laws were being passed that benefited the north and was bad for the south. Eventually, as new states were formed, they became part of the north, and so the south said "drat you guys, we`re succeeding." Of course the north said, "No you`re not" and then an assassination attempt on some political figure in the south was blamed on the north and that`s how it happened.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@jotham:

Because their rights as states were being violated.

If the 13th amendment had been voted on a ratified before all this, the southern states would not have had an argument.

As it was though, they had a right to seceed and the north viewed it as rebellion.
0
Reply
Male 52
"Actually, it was over whether or not the South was allowed to secede form the Union."

Yeah, I guess that was the basic reason, but I think you have to acknowledge why the South wanted to secede in the first place.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@jotham:

Actually, the first 5 states seceeded BEFORE Lincoln was elected.
0
Reply
Female 354
Actually, it was over whether or not the South was allowed to secede form the Union.
0
Reply
Male 464
Is this racist, or retarded?
0
Reply
Male 52
The south seceded after Lincoln`s election because he supported the end of the expansion of slavery.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Also MOST of the union generals looks down on blacks, thinking of them as inferior.
0
Reply
Male 339
If I remember correctly, the emancipation proclamation was mainly done to stop Britain from entering the war? Sounds weird I know, but I remember my legal studies professor saying that freeing the slaves was mostly a political move, not a moral one. The Confederation generally had the support of foreign allies (Britain, France in particular), so it was purely a political move to make it seem like it was a war of freedom vs slavery so that the Confederation wouldn`t get any military support from overseas.
0
Reply
Male 4,793
no no, nicole has a point.
0
Reply
Female 2,352
That`s damn funny.
0
Reply
Male 180
As many people have said, the Civil War was about state`s rights. Abolition was tacked on to gain support for the war.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@jotham:

Slavery was an issue, yes, but it was absent from the actual declaration of war.
0
Reply
Male 52
Edana42 is basically right, the civil war was really more of a response to economic issues. However, from what I remember, the Emancipation Proclamation wasn`t so much for Union states but for foreign policy, specifically Britain which had already abolished slavery and was a vital importer of southern cotton.

-Your friendly internet historian.
0
Reply
Male 52
Okay, the Civil War was complicated, but slavery was the main issue.
0
Reply
Male 156
it was funny at first but now I`m just groaning.
0
Reply
Male 2
dissmising anything political or racist
that is freakin hillarious
0
Reply
Female 2,509
aaaactually, the civil war was originally over the states` rights, primarily the north (which was pretty much the federal gov`t)was telling the south how they should handle the cotton industry, etc. Because of technology (the cotton gin) more cotton could be grown, which means ya need more cheap labor. If you abolish slavery you control the south`s single crop. Slavery was added on to get more support from non-slave states. oh, and what gandhi said...

or at least that is what I learned.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
WOW! Look at all the educated people in here right now!

I am proud of I-A-B at this moment!

*cries*
0
Reply
Male 13,630
sorry this is needed right now


0
Reply
Male 533
yeah.... no it wasn`t...
0
Reply
Male 2,309
Hahaha. The civil war was not fought to free the slaves. Why do people take their elementary school knowledge so seriously?
0
Reply
Male 2,028
I`m pretty darn sure the Civil War was actually fought in order to preserve the Union once the southern states seceded and formed the Confederacy. Not to free the slaves.
0
Reply
Male 522
good job, tuxman, and no, daniellee not too far. I would say just far enough
0
Reply
Male 10,338
It`s also funny because that`s not why there was a civil war.
0
Reply
Male 15,510
Thanks to that war is why she can complain about school now
0
Reply
Male 77
LOL @ tuxman4

"Ahaha its funny because she`s black."

Reminds me....
0
Reply
Male 264
haha, the civil war being fought to free the slaves?! now that`s laughable.
0
Reply
Male 7,839
yes chode and mcgovern (and anyone who comes after this post), we all know (at least we who are intelligent) that there was more too the civil war than the freeing of the slaves. those other factors though, do not make this funny. this is why you should all just sit down relax and giggle a little.
0
Reply
Male 13,630
Dayum, life is sad sometimes
0
Reply
Male 107
dumb I am a racist!s
0
Reply
Male 231
pffft....never grateful....
0
Reply
Male 3,482
I`m normally not racist, but I swear at times like this I have to wonder why it happened myself...
0
Reply
Male 1,083
"waaaahhh. studying sucks! i`d rather be a slave."
0
Reply
Male 196
HA!
0
Reply
Male 367
Ahaha its funny because she`s black.
0
Reply
Female 451
hahaha! she doesn`t deserve to be free. Too far?
0
Reply
Male 3,296
haha what a dombo its obvious she is not gonna pas the test
0
Reply
Male 600
hahahaha this made me lol. ignorant ppl.
0
Reply
Male 85
the civil war wasnt just to free the slaves. the north and the south had been disagreeing on tons of things. the slavery issue was just the prominent one, but it wasnt exactly a deciding factor
0
Reply
Male 14,331
It was more than that.
0
Reply
Male 365
Hahahah...wow!
0
Reply
Male 7,839
fail, no need for any other words.
0
Reply
Female 4,491
maybe for some people, freedom was just not worth all the effort.
0
Reply
Male 198
rofl owned
0
Reply
Male 554
Ahahaha, wow that made my day
0
Reply
Male 21,023
0
Reply