PDA

View Full Version : A Modern Version of the Civil War


TeknoAXE
04-17-2003, 06:09 PM
American news, June 14th, 1864--

As the Battle of Cold harbor winds down, more protesters filled the streets of Washington today to protest the Union's pre-emptive war against the Confederation. They filled the streets, brandishing signs like "No Blood for Cotton!", "Get your cotton-pickin' hands off the south!" and "Lincoln = King George!" in a mass array that seem to convey the assembly's frustration at what they call an unjust war.

"They're killing innocent people over there!" said on protester, who had a wooden Lincoln mask, modified with devil horns, on his face, a Union uniform on his back and replica of the new repeater rifle in Union service on hand. "How can you justify killing innocent people for the sake of Union dominance and Imperial ambitions?"

"I feel ashamed to live in Maryland," said a woman in the crowd. "Looking at the president's face makes me sick. I'm so ashamed to be a part of the Union."

Many scoff at the notion that President Lincoln plans to free the slaves after the war. "You say that the freeing the slaves is a good reason why we should continue this war against the south, but are we rewriting history here? I thought good ol' Abe Shabe said it was to keep the Union together. It's all bullshit! Duh! It's about COTTON!" Said Whitman Brown of Vermont.

"Of course what do you expect when you get a president who didn't recieve the majority vote?" Brown's companion, Samuel Hobson. The man is so ugly and stupid. He can't even talk straight!"

During mid-day, a group of supporters for the war marched past the protesters with vigor, holding up a myriad of American Flags. One of them was Old Glory. Others were more modern. The incident thickened the tension in the air, and police had to be called in to keep the demonstrations non-violent.

Protests like these have literally flooded streets across the Union. It was thought and generally hoped, among these crowds, that the South would defeat the Union and teach the North a lesson that they would not quick. Now, with Southern supplies severely depleted and the Confederate army on the verge of surrender, many of these protestors have shut up and gone home.

Of course not all have the same arguments. A man name Beffendi Jones happily told us what he thought of the whole situation: "It's them dirrrrrrty Jeeews, I tell ya! If they weren't panhandlin and causing such a ruckous in Russia, we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with!"

AXE

superkool
04-17-2003, 09:45 PM
it took you all month to come up with that huh?

TeknoAXE
04-17-2003, 09:49 PM
No. Half an Hour.

AXE

superkool
04-18-2003, 08:26 AM
well keep your day job, i dont think you'll be taking king or ludlums job just yet.

Mike S
04-18-2003, 09:33 AM
More more more..we want more!!

That was pretty damn good Axe.

MS

TeknoAXE
04-18-2003, 09:59 AM
*takes bow*

Thank you! Thank you!

AXE

Hookups
04-18-2003, 03:11 PM
How much do you know about the civil war?

TeknoAXE
04-18-2003, 03:23 PM
The funny thing is that the fact that Lincoln was not elected by a majority population is true. He won the electorate. When this happened, it was the final straw that sparked the South's notion to suceed from the Union, led by the losing cadidate of the 1860 election. Lincoln went to war with the south to keep the United States together. The war wasn't technically about slavery, but it freed the slaves. General Lee was asked to lead the forces of the Union. Being from the south, Lee finally decided to lead the Confederate Armies over much deliberation.

AXE

Mike S
04-18-2003, 03:29 PM
Here's a pop quiz.

Which side was constitutionally correct in regards to secession and preventing the seceding states from leaving the union?

MS

Hookups
04-18-2003, 03:35 PM
Here's a pop quiz.

Which side was constitutionally correct in regards to secession and preventing the seceding states from leaving the union?

MS
I'm assuming that's a rhetorical question since I don't think the south attacked the north for leaving the union...

The 14th ammendment was a bitch for states rights, because while it effectively freed the slaves it also effectively nullified the states ability to be even marginally independent of the federal government.

Meanwhile AXE, while you're making fun of the anti-war movement, you're sort of givng them accurate arguments for being against the war. It wasnt' exactly about cotton, but it was about tarriffs.

Hookups
04-18-2003, 03:36 PM
On a side note: Texas is the only state which reserves the right to secede from the union.

TeknoAXE
04-18-2003, 03:36 PM
I'm thinking the South?

AXE

Cedwyn
04-19-2003, 06:53 AM
werd, hookups!

texas is bad ass like that. and we can fly the lone star just as high as the ol' glory!

back on topic: wasn't the 14th amendment ratified in the midst of the war? as in, it wasn't in place when lincoln suppressed the secession?

TeknoAXE
04-19-2003, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Hookups


Meanwhile AXE, while you're making fun of the anti-war movement, you're sort of givng them accurate arguments for being against the war. It wasnt' exactly about cotton, but it was about tarriffs.

How am I giving accurate arguments for being against the war. I know that it was about tarrifs and a number of other issues that hit the south at the time, but you know what? If the anti-war movement that exists today existed back then, they'd be saying "It's all about cotton, stupid!"

AXE

Kosmicdog
04-19-2003, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Buttrock_Beethoven
If the anti-war movement that exists today existed back then, they'd be saying "It's all about cotton, stupid!"


I'm anti war, and I'm also not naive enough to believe that all wars and conflicts are ever about one thing in particular.

the "no blood for oil" rallying cry is only there to tie in an issue that most citizens can generally grasp.