PDA

View Full Version : The Independent Republic of Texas



Pages : [1] 2

KT2000
03-02-2006, 03:21 PM
Happy Independence Day everyone!

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 03:27 PM
Back at ya KT and to everyone else.

I am so proud to be from the Greatest State in the Greatest Country in the World. Now I want to go back and read the "What's great about Texas thread".

So tonight I will have a Lone Star, listen to Willie, and share with my daughter some more of her history and why she should be proud. (as if she doesn't hear it all of the time anyway. ;) )

CyFallsMom
03-02-2006, 03:30 PM
This is how my family ended up in the great state of TEXAS - my 4th great grandfather fought at San Jacinto against the evil Santa Ana and we just never left! We even have a street named for us!

Anyway, Happy Independence Day - I feel like I should be going down to the San Jac monument and rub his name or something (it's on a plaque down there). This is the 170th anniversary!

Tigerjag
03-02-2006, 03:39 PM
My deep thanks to the Republic of Texas for chartering Baylor in 1845, making my school older than yours, no matter where you went! (In Texas, that is. :D )

http://tinypic.com/outci1

DragonWatcher
03-02-2006, 03:42 PM
Tigerjag are you at baylor right now or an alum. I actually walked by the charter sign today in front of the SUB and refelected on how much old history Texas has got. Its so funny to see people from other states when one mentions a middle school Texas history course, makes me proud to be from the Lone Star.

Tigerjag
03-02-2006, 03:55 PM
Oh no, not a Baylor. I graduated long ago, back when tuition was under $100 a semester hour!

yankee
03-02-2006, 04:01 PM
Happy Independence Day everyone!
its already 4th of july?

DragonBand06
03-02-2006, 04:16 PM
This is how my family ended up in the great state of TEXAS - my 4th great grandfather fought at San Jacinto against the evil Santa Ana and we just never left! We even have a street named for us!

Anyway, Happy Independence Day - I feel like I should be going down to the San Jac monument and rub his name or something (it's on a plaque down there). This is the 170th anniversary!
There's a street named "CyFallsMom Lane"?:eek:

KT2000
03-02-2006, 04:18 PM
its already 4th of july?

What's that?

Kidding. Texas Indepence day today. Break out the history book. ;)

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 04:19 PM
There's a street named "CyFallsMom Lane"?:eek:


Well if there isn't, there shoud be. :D

lonny23
03-02-2006, 04:19 PM
May the Dallas Mavericks overthrow that tyranny we call the San Antonio Spurs on Texas Independence Day. It's going to be like the Battle of the Alamo all over again!:p

DragonBand06
03-02-2006, 05:39 PM
May the Dallas Mavericks overthrow that tyranny we call the San Antonio Spurs on Texas Independence Day. It's going to be like the Battle of the Alamo all over again!:p
... Wait ... What??? :rolleyes:

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 05:51 PM
"Honor the Texas flag,
I pledge alegiance to thee,
Texas, one and indivisible"

DragonWatcher
03-02-2006, 06:01 PM
Oh no, not a Baylor. I graduated long ago, back when tuition was under $100 a semester hour!


So that was like when 1888? I think my current tuition without all my scholarship crap is around 30,000 a semester.

lonny23
03-02-2006, 06:12 PM
... Wait ... What??? :rolleyes:
They had Battle of the Alamo reenactments at the Alamo when I was downtown on Saturday.

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 07:04 PM
Its a good day for a birthday, Gen. Sam Houston, the Promised Land itself, and me:D

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 07:07 PM
Happy Birthday CL6 :D

yankee
03-02-2006, 07:08 PM
What's that?

Kidding. Texas Indepence day today. Break out the history book. ;)
in 10th grade we actually learn an important history: that of the world we live upon.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 07:15 PM
in 10th grade we actually learn an important history: that of the world we live upon.

LOL, World History is a joke.

slorch
03-02-2006, 07:15 PM
May the Dallas Mavericks overthrow that tyranny we call the San Antonio Spurs on Texas Independence Day. It's going to be like the Battle of the Alamo all over again!:p
no, that would be like Davey Crockett fighting Jim Bowie before the bad guys( Detroit, Miami, Philly?) got there!

slorch
03-02-2006, 07:17 PM
in 10th grade we actually learn an important history: that of the world we live upon.

That would be NFL or NCAA Football History?:D

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 07:17 PM
no, that would be like Davey Crockett fighting Jim Bowie before the bad guys( Detroit, Miami, Philly?) got there!

nice one.

Who's Davey Crockett

(I'm just kidding, by the way)

slorch
03-02-2006, 07:18 PM
Hey Yankeeman at least you do live in the right place now!

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 07:26 PM
Hey Yankeeman at least you're not a complete idiot, you do live in the right place now!

i think he is still a complete idiot:D

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 07:27 PM
May the Dallas Mavericks overthrow that tyranny we call the San Antonio Spurs on Texas Independence Day. It's going to be like the Battle of the Alamo all over again!:p

Blasphemous pig!:D

I'm glad Judson's not in San Antonio!

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 07:28 PM
Blasphemous pig!:D

I'm glad Judson's not in San Antonio!

I live in SA, and I can't stand the Spurs bandwagon fans....I wanna choke them....

I myself don't really watch NBA basketball. Every now and then I'll put on a college game, but otherwise I don't really watch Basketball...

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 07:34 PM
I live in SA, and I can't stand the Spurs bandwagon fans....I wanna choke them....

I myself don't really watch NBA basketball. Every now and then I'll put on a college game, but otherwise I don't really watch Basketball...

You live in SA?

I don't really get into the Spurs for another few weeks....once high school basketball is over. Then I kinda get into it. But I've always been a Spurs fan.....long before they became champions. Parents were a pretty good friend of Sean Elliott.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 07:38 PM
You live in SA?

I don't really get into the Spurs for another few weeks....once high school basketball is over. Then I kinda get into it. But I've always been a Spurs fan.....long before they became champions. Parents were a pretty good friend of Sean Elliott.

yeah, SA annexed(correct word?) Sunrise a few years ago:(.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 07:39 PM
yeah, SA annexed(correct word?) Sunrise a few years ago:(.

Oh ok, gotcha. Couple places over here were annexed as well.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 07:42 PM
Oh ok, gotcha. Couple places over here were annexed as well.

In Washington???:D

yankee
03-02-2006, 07:45 PM
Hey Yankeeman at least you do live in the right place now!
hahahaha. i didnt choose to live here. but i have enjoyed my life down here, im just not into the whole "nothing except texas matters" attitude.

yankee
03-02-2006, 07:45 PM
i think he is still a complete idiot:D
'fraid your wrong about that prediction there.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 07:48 PM
'fraid your wrong about that prediction there.

...i was kidding

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 07:49 PM
In Washington???:D

huh? I was talking about the Reagan area....

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 07:50 PM
Wait...why is this thread about the INDEPENDENT Republic of Texas? Texas is part of the Union, isn't it? How is it Independent?

I also have some other questions:
1. Can Texas secede?
2. How does a State secede?

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 07:52 PM
huh? I was talking about the Reagan area....

I know. But I didn't think Washington fans moved far from the team....they might get eaten alive.

Welcome to the SA area:D

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 07:52 PM
Wait...why is this thread about the INDEPENDENT Republic of Texas? Texas is part of the Union, isn't it? How is it Independent?

I also have some other questions:
1. Can Texas secede?
2. How does a State secede?

Texas can do whatever it wants. Not really, but its fun to say that.

Texas used to be its own nation....

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 07:53 PM
Wait...why is this thread about the INDEPENDENT Republic of Texas? Texas is part of the Union, isn't it? How is it Independent?

I also have some other questions:
1. Can Texas secede?
2. How does a State secede?

Texas is the only state that was a country. When the Texas Declaration of Independence was written it declared Texas an Independent Republic (Country).

Yes Texas can secede.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 07:54 PM
Texas is the only state that was a country. When the Texas Declaration of Independence was written it declared Texas an Independent Republic (Country).

Yes Texas can secede.

That's technically wrong.....one could say that the Confederacy was a "country" .....

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 07:54 PM
Texas can do whatever it wants. Not really, but its fun to say that.

Texas used to be its own nation....

I know it used to be its own Nation....

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 07:55 PM
That's technically wrong.....one could say that the Confederacy was a "country" .....

Texas is the only STATE to ever have been its own Republic. No other state, by themselves was. Thats why we can fly the Texas flag at the same height as the US flag, while no other state can:D

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 07:58 PM
Texas is the only STATE to ever have been its own Republic. No other state, by themselves was. Thats why we can fly the Texas flag at the same height as the US flag, while no other state can:D

I know about all that. But the South was still technically a "country".

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 07:59 PM
That's technically wrong.....one could say that the Confederacy was a "country" .....

The Confederacy was not a state. It was a group of states. Just as the Union was a group of states. Divided by the Mason Dixon line.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 07:59 PM
I know about all that. But the South was still technically a "country".

I'm not sure if it was recognized by the US as one though....

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:01 PM
The Confederacy was not a state. It was a group of states. Just as the Union was a group of states. Divided by the Mason Dixon line.

A state is another word for a country. The States that seceded banded together to form a Confederacy, which was recognised by, i believe, quite a few European countries, including England and France.

slorch
03-02-2006, 08:01 PM
hahahaha. i didnt choose to live here. but i have enjoyed my life down here, im just not into the whole "nothing except texas matters" attitude.
that's cool, you'll come around some day...:D

Matallica said it best, " Nothing Else Matters..."

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:01 PM
I'm not sure if it was recognized by the US as one though....

Lol, I'm a 100% sure it wasn't recognized or else they wouldn't have fought them.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 08:05 PM
Lol, I'm a 100% sure it wasn't recognized or else they wouldn't have fought them.

thats not the way I meant it

slorch
03-02-2006, 08:09 PM
I know about all that. But the South was still technically a "country".
but not previously as a state, it was a group of states

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 08:12 PM
but not previously as a state, it was a group of states

stupid Dedskin fan doesn't get it:mad:

yankee
03-02-2006, 08:13 PM
but not previously as a state, it was a group of states
it was a group of states that were a country. the confederacy continually looked for overseas help, to be officialy recognized as a country. it almost won the support of the british.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:18 PM
it was a group of states that were a country. the confederacy continually looked for overseas help, to be officialy recognized as a country. it almost won the support of the british.

It technically did. The British government was ready to support the South.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:18 PM
but not previously as a state, it was a group of states

Like someone else said, a group of states that technically became a country.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 08:19 PM
It technically did. The British government was ready to support the South.

Until the Emancipation Proclamation came about. It scared them away because it made the war about slavery, and they were against slavery

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 08:21 PM
But we are talking about Texas Independence from Mexico. That is what today is about. Which happened in 1836. In 1845 Texas became the 28th state of the Union. In January of 1861 Texas Seceded from the Union and joined the Confederate States of America. In April of 1861 the Civil War Started.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:22 PM
Until the Emancipation Proclamation came about. It scared them away because it made the war about slavery, and they were against slavery

It was more Gettysburg....

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 08:22 PM
It was more Gettysburg....

I disagree...

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:22 PM
But we are talking about Texas Independence from Mexico. That is what today is about. Which happened in 1836. In 1845 Texas became the 28th state of the Union. In January of 1861 Texas Seceded from the Union and joined the Confederate States of America. In April of 1861 the Civil War Started.

And the Texans who evicted Sam houston from office.....

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:23 PM
I disagree...

The emancipation proclomation did have something to do with it. But not as big as Gettysburg had to do with it. The British cared more about the goods that the South could produce.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 08:23 PM
And the Texans who evicted Sam houston from office.....

...got drunk

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:24 PM
...got drunk

Must've been drunk for years then.....

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 08:25 PM
Must've been drunk for years then.....

lol. DUDE, that would be crazy...

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:26 PM
lol. DUDE, that would be crazy...

No wonder the Texans didn't fight all that well in the Civil War....LOL. Jk, some of the best calvary came out of Texas.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 08:28 PM
No wonder the Texans didn't fight all that well in the Civil War....LOL. Jk, some of the best calvary came out of Texas.

some of the best were Native Americans....

yankee
03-02-2006, 08:28 PM
Until the Emancipation Proclamation came about. It scared them away because it made the war about slavery, and they were against slavery
if the limeys were against the slavery, then why did they participate in slave trade?

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:29 PM
some of the best were Native Americans....

Really?

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 08:29 PM
Really?
I think so...

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:30 PM
if the limeys were against the slavery, then why did they participate in slave trade?

Europe had banned slavery at this point. The European people were against slavery (what aren't they against?) But the European governments cared more about the goods. That's why the Union quickly tried to blockade the south. One of the reasons why the South lost was because of the blockade.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 08:30 PM
the French and the British both could not really have helped because they had to keep troops home to protect against each other

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:31 PM
I think so...

If I recall most were white. And there wasn't nearly as much fighting in the West as there was in Virginia (where a lot of the calvary was)

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 08:31 PM
As far as the CSA being a country. It did have it's on Constitution, Government, & Currency. One interesting thing about the Constitution was that although it did follow the US Constitution very closely word for word for the most part, the Confederacy did invoke the name of "Almighty God" as it's source of legitimacy. Whereas the US Constitution acknowledged the People of the U.S. as the government's source of power.

yankee
03-02-2006, 08:32 PM
the French and the British both could not really have helped because they had to keep troops home to protect against each other
and the csa never won a decisive battle after antietam, or at least none of the importance of say bull run, antietam, shiloh, or gettysburg.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:33 PM
As far as the CSA being a country. It did have it's on Constitution, Government, & Currency. One interesting thing about the Constitution was that although it did follow the US Constitution very closely word for word for the most part, the Confederacy did invoke the name of "Almighty God" as it's source of legitimacy. Whereas the US Constitution acknowledged the People of the U.S. as the government's source of power.

CSA also had its own army.....and very small navy.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 08:33 PM
If I recall most were white. And there wasn't nearly as much fighting in the West as there was in Virginia (where a lot of the calvary was)

There was a lot of fighting in the Kansas-Oklahoma area I believe...I may be mistaken though

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:33 PM
the French and the British both could not really have helped because they had to keep troops home to protect against each other

I think they had pretty much stopped fighting at this point....but England would've been able to help the South however.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 08:34 PM
As far as the CSA being a country. It did have it's on Constitution, Government, & Currency. One interesting thing about the Constitution was that although it did follow the US Constitution very closely word for word for the most part, the Confederacy did invoke the name of "Almighty God" as it's source of legitimacy. Whereas the US Constitution acknowledged the People of the U.S. as the government's source of power.

I thought it was based off of the Articles of Confederation...

yankee
03-02-2006, 08:35 PM
I think they had pretty much stopped fighting at this point....but England would've been able to help the South however.
the csa did get most of its imported weapons from britain. in fact, their main rifles were copies of the british enfield.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:35 PM
There was a lot of fighting in the Kansas-Oklahoma area I believe...I may be mistaken though

It was up and down the Mississippi river. Grant was heading down from memphis to the city of Vicksburg. There was a really good Calvary commander who was a major hindrance to Grant and Grant had to retreat several times. But Grant eventually made it to Vicksburg and finally captured it. Giving the Union full control of the Mississippi and cutting Texas out of the Confederacy.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 08:35 PM
I think they had pretty much stopped fighting at this point....but England would've been able to help the South however.

they were still fighting. They weren't currently at war but they still didn't like each other.

Everyone wanted the Cotton from the south, so they all wanted the south to win. there were other reasons some wanted the south to win also...

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 08:36 PM
CSA also had its own army.....and very small navy.

Well yeah, that kind of goes without saying. Sorry I left it out.

After the CSA constitution was written, international slave trading was prohibited.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:36 PM
the csa did get most of its imported weapons from britain. in fact, their main rifles were copies of the british enfield.

Yes they did....but before the war, the Secretary of War from the previous administration had redistributed much of the American arsenal to depots in the South.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:37 PM
they were still fighting. They weren't currently at war but they still didn't like each other.

Everyone wanted the Cotton from the south, so they all wanted the south to win. there were other reasons some wanted the south to win also...

Cotton was a major commodity the British and the rest of Europe wanted. If the South was able to trade with them. It may have been a different outcome. There were many reasons that people wanted either side to win.

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 08:37 PM
I thought it was based off of the Articles of Confederation...

It was based off of both actually. But the wording was almost identical to the US Constitution.

yankee
03-02-2006, 08:38 PM
It was up and down the Mississippi river. Grant was heading down from memphis to the city of Vicksburg. There was a really good Calvary commander who was a major hindrance to Grant and Grant had to retreat several times. But Grant eventually made it to Vicksburg and finally captured it. Giving the Union full control of the Mississippi and cutting Texas out of the Confederacy.
i believe you are talking about nathan bedford forest. one of his famous quotes was "to get there the firstest with the mostest"

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 08:38 PM
Yes they did....but before the war, the Secretary of War from the previous administration had redistributed much of the American arsenal to depots in the South.

but the Union had better weapons during the war. Some of the weapons were smuggled to the south, but not enough to make a difference

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 08:39 PM
It was based off of both actually. But the wording was almost identical to the US Constitution.

oh. Didn't it have strong states rights and a weak central government though? the exact reason the Articles failed...

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:39 PM
i believe you are talking about nathan bedford forest. one of his famous quotes was "to get there the firstest with the mostest"

Thats the guy! Always forget his name.....one guy I look up to as a Calvary Commander was JEB Stuart.

yankee
03-02-2006, 08:39 PM
oh. Didn't it have strong states rights and a weak central government though? the exact reason the Articles failed...
exactly.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:40 PM
but the Union had better weapons during the war. Some of the weapons were smuggled to the south, but not enough to make a difference

Of course they had better weapons. The North was mostly industry. The South was mostly agriculture. Hence, the "need" for slaves.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:40 PM
oh. Didn't it have strong states rights and a weak central government though? the exact reason the Articles failed...

The Confederacy started out very uncoordinated and this ultimately led to their downfall.

The South could've easily won the war in the Battle of Manassas.

yankee
03-02-2006, 08:42 PM
The Confederacy started out very uncoordinated and this ultimately led to their downfall.

The South could've easily won the war in the Battle of Manassas.
no not exactly. the confederates were just as confused and exhausted as the the us troops were. had they pursued the northerners, they wouldve met numerous heavily armed forts on their way to dc.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 08:42 PM
Of course they had better weapons. The North was mostly industry. The South was mostly agriculture. Hence, the "need" for slaves.

Yep. But the better weapons were smuggled to the south, but it was to little to late.

And I, personally, don't think slavery was the big issue in the civil war. I HATE the idea of slavery, and it sucks that Africans were used for this, but what I hate even MORE than slavery is people trying to say they CAN'T succeed because their ancestors were slaves. Half of my ancestors are Native Americans, this does not mean I can not succeed. (sry, just had to put that out there)

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 08:43 PM
The Confederacy started out very uncoordinated and this ultimately led to their downfall.

The South could've easily won the war in the Battle of Manassas.

sort of. They won the first battle, and had they charged as the yankees retreated they would have ended the war after only 1 battle...

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:44 PM
sort of. They won the first battle, and had they charged as the yankees retreated they would have ended the war after only 1 battle...

Yep....they could've driven all the way into Washington DC and ended the war very soon. And they probably would've gotten a few Senators and Congressman along the way, lol.

SeguinMatadors
03-02-2006, 08:45 PM
The myth that slavery was the cause for the civil war was just about as far from the truth that you can get... that issue was burried under many others. There is also an incorrect myth that Lincoln had a strong stance on slavery.. he didn't care much either way.

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 08:46 PM
no not exactly. the confederates were just as confused and exhausted as the the us troops were. had they pursued the northerners, they wouldve met numerous heavily armed forts on their way to dc.

The difference was, the CSA didn't want DC. They just wanted the South. They weren't trying to take over the Union and make it the way they wanted it. That is why the North came down here.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 08:46 PM
Yep....they could've driven all the way into Washington DC and ended the war very soon. And they probably would've gotten a few Senators and Congressman along the way, lol.

Imagine how different our world...THE world would be had the Confeds won.:eek:

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:46 PM
Yep. But the better weapons were smuggled to the south, but it was to little to late.

And I, personally, don't think slavery was the big issue in the civil war. I HATE the idea of slavery, and it sucks that Africans were used for this, but what I hate even MORE than slavery is people trying to say they CAN'T succeed because their ancestors were slaves. Half of my ancestors are Native Americans, this does not mean I can not succeed. (sry, just had to put that out there)

I'm very against everyone thinking the South was against slavery. Heck, quite a few of the north was just as racist as some of their counterparts down south. I myself and very against slavery as well.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:47 PM
The myth that slavery was the cause for the civil war was just about as far from the truth that you can get... that issue was burried under many others. There is also an incorrect myth that Lincoln had a strong stance on slavery.. he didn't care much either way.

The myth that slavery was the cause for the war is a nice bedtime story, but not the truth. All Lincoln cared about was "preserving the Union....even if slavery has to be kept"

lonny23
03-02-2006, 08:47 PM
Its a good day for a birthday, Gen. Sam Houston, the Promised Land itself, and me:D
Happy birthday!

yankee
03-02-2006, 08:48 PM
The difference was, the CSA didn't want DC. They just wanted the South. They weren't trying to take over the Union and make it the way they wanted it. That is why the North came down here.
the csa wouldve had to take dc to win the war.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:48 PM
Imagine how different our world...THE world would be had the Confeds won.:eek:

It'd be very interesting....Quite a few of my heroes were some of the great leaders of the South though.

SeguinMatadors
03-02-2006, 08:48 PM
The myth that slavery was the cause for the war is a nice bedtime story, but not the truth. All Lincoln cared about was "preserving the Union....even if slavery has to be kept"

Exactly.. but if you ask any uneducated person the cause of the civil war... 9 out of 10 say slavery.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 08:49 PM
no not exactly. the confederates were just as confused and exhausted as the the us troops were. had they pursued the northerners, they wouldve met numerous heavily armed forts on their way to dc.
The union thought it was going to be an easy war. The people thought it would be over in a matter of weeks, not YEARS. There were people picknicking(i butchered that word:eek:] while the battle was going on. They sat there and watched, thinking the Union would win easily. When the Union started to Retreat, the CSA army could have EASILY followed and defeated that portion. They may not have wanted DC, but had they slaughtered the Union there, they might have won.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 08:49 PM
Exactly.. but if you ask any uneducated person the cause of the civil war... 9 out of 10 say slavery.
then they are not correctly educated

yankee
03-02-2006, 08:50 PM
It'd be very interesting....Quite a few of my heroes were some of the great leaders of the South though.
stonewall jackson was a wonderful man. always put famliy and faith before anything else. same thing with lee.

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 08:50 PM
The myth that slavery was the cause for the civil war was just about as far from the truth that you can get... that issue was burried under many others. There is also an incorrect myth that Lincoln had a strong stance on slavery.. he didn't care much either way.

This is the truth. War has not changed. The powers that be have to personalize it by putting faces to it. This was the way the Union personalized the Civil War and got the support. Slavery was really a very small afterthought as far as causes of the war. I am glad to hear you say that Seguin. It is often taught incorrectly in schools. I know I used to be married to a History teacher who taught it wrong until I got a hold of him. He just kind of skipped that unit. LOL

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:50 PM
The difference was, the CSA didn't want DC. They just wanted the South. They weren't trying to take over the Union and make it the way they wanted it. That is why the North came down here.

The only person who wanted to invade the North to end the war was Lee, and he wasn't made a the General in Command of the army of northern virginia until after First Manassas.....but if the South drove to DC, the war would have ended. OR if Maryland had seceded.

lonny23
03-02-2006, 08:51 PM
Blasphemous pig!:D

I'm glad Judson's not in San Antonio!
You got that right! I used to argue with Spurs fans every day. You guys can't imagine the hatred I have for the Spurs and for the most part, San Antonio.

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 08:51 PM
the csa wouldve had to take dc to win the war.


The CSA would have been content being a seperate territory and doing things the way they did if the Union had not decided we need to be industrialized.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 08:51 PM
This is the truth. War has not changed. The powers that be have to personalize it by putting faces to it. This was the way the Union personalized the Civil War and got the support. Slavery was really a very small afterthought as far as causes of the war. I am glad to hear you say that Seguin. It is often taught incorrectly in schools. I know I used to be married to a History teacher who taught it wrong until I got a hold of him. He just kind of skipped that unit. LOL

Our history teacher hates when people say the Civil war was because of Slavery.


Wasn't it mainly over states rights? The south wanted more rights to the states than the central government.

yankee
03-02-2006, 08:52 PM
The union thought it was going to be an easy war. The people thought it would be over in a matter of weeks, not YEARS. There were people picknicking(i butchered that word:eek:] while the battle was going on. They sat there and watched, thinking the Union would win easily. When the Union started to Retreat, the CSA army could have EASILY followed and defeated that portion. They may not have wanted DC, but had they slaughtered the Union there, they might have won.
wrong again sir. the csa had over 2,000 casualties, and in the middle of july, the confederates never wouldve been able to follow the union soldiers. they most definetly won the battle, but a possible pursuit was out of the question.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 08:52 PM
the csa wouldve had to take dc to win the war.

WRONG

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:52 PM
The union thought it was going to be an easy war. The people thought it would be over in a matter of weeks, not YEARS. There were people picknicking(i butchered that word:eek:] while the battle was going on. They sat there and watched, thinking the Union would win easily. When the Union started to Retreat, the CSA army could have EASILY followed and defeated that portion. They may not have wanted DC, but had they slaughtered the Union there, they might have won.

Lol, at first manassas, congressman and senators picnicked(sp) out at the battlefield and when the Confederates began to route the Union. They turned tail and ran like the wind. But the Confederates were too exhausted to pursue the Union back to DC.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:53 PM
Our history teacher hates when people say the Civil war was because of Slavery.


Wasn't it mainly over states rights? The south wanted more rights to the states than the central government.

Yes it was.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 08:53 PM
wrong again sir. the csa had over 2,000 casualties, and in the middle of july, the confederates never wouldve been able to follow the union soldiers. they most definetly won the battle, but a possible pursuit was out of the question.

I would love to argue my point with you, but I am going to eat then finish my CNN article:D

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 08:53 PM
The only person who wanted to invade the North to end the war was Lee, and he wasn't made a the General in Command of the army of northern virginia until after First Manassas.....but if the South drove to DC, the war would have ended. OR if Maryland had seceded.

Oh yeah for sure. Once the war was started, it was on. Rebels don't back down. But I was talking about before the war. The South was content.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:53 PM
stonewall jackson was a wonderful man. always put famliy and faith before anything else. same thing with lee.

Yes he was....and he was another reason the South lost. Jackson was a mastermind.

Lee, jackson Stuart and severla others are some of the people i look up to. Each in different respects.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:54 PM
wrong again sir. the csa had over 2,000 casualties, and in the middle of july, the confederates never wouldve been able to follow the union soldiers. they most definetly won the battle, but a possible pursuit was out of the question.

The Confederates were exhausted and could not pursue the retreating Yankees.

yankee
03-02-2006, 08:55 PM
WRONG
IM RIGHT. you know the usa would NOT have given up. the rebs would have to take washington to even have a chance at winning the war. from one us soldier " i shall see the thing played out or die in the attempt". once the us took good ol richmond, the csa was a DEAD FISH IN THE WATER.

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 08:55 PM
Our history teacher hates when people say the Civil war was because of Slavery.


Wasn't it mainly over states rights? The south wanted more rights to the states than the central government.

Yes. You have a good History Teacher.

yankee
03-02-2006, 08:55 PM
The Confederates were exhausted and could not pursue the retreating Yankees.
yup.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:56 PM
This is the truth. War has not changed. The powers that be have to personalize it by putting faces to it. This was the way the Union personalized the Civil War and got the support. Slavery was really a very small afterthought as far as causes of the war. I am glad to hear you say that Seguin. It is often taught incorrectly in schools. I know I used to be married to a History teacher who taught it wrong until I got a hold of him. He just kind of skipped that unit. LOL

They want to teach us black and white. But what people don't understand is that most everything is in shades of grey.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 08:57 PM
yup.

That and it's hard to pursue a guy running scared for his life. The Union had to run across this very small bridge and then dodge all the congressman and senator's wagons.

yankee
03-02-2006, 09:00 PM
That and it's hard to pursue a guy running scared for his life. The Union had to run across this very small bridge and then dodge all the congressman and senator's wagons.
and most of the time, if someone is completely dehydrated and just witnessed one of the bloodiest battles on us soil up til that time, a nap would just be fine. the confederates actually took one congressman prisoner.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 09:00 PM
At the end of my Physics class, these kids got into an argument over whether it was right for African Americans to get scholarships and don't have to score as highly on the SAT and all that other stuff. I stayed out of it because I wasn't feeling good and I did not feel like arguing. I didn't like the whole argument because it is really pointless. If you want to go to college, you need to work hard. Just because they don't have to do as well doesn't mean they can't. IDK though, back to my article...

yankee
03-02-2006, 09:03 PM
I would love to argue my point with you, but I am going to eat then finish my CNN article:D
well itd be useless anyway, johnny reb didnt go after the yankees so id rather not argue about a "what if" situation.

dragons08
03-02-2006, 09:12 PM
alright d08, the yankee is here to join up with a fellow yankee, where are we?

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 09:13 PM
alright d08, the yankee is here to join up with a fellow yankee, where are we?

Not a good way to start. :D

yankee
03-02-2006, 09:14 PM
alright d08, the yankee is here to join up with a fellow yankee, where are we?
okey dokey. good ol rocket trn believes that the rebs couldve followed the yankees after the battle of manassas or otherwise known as bull run. he thinks the exhausted, and depleted rebs couldve gone all the way to dc and whipped them yankees. i tend not to agree with that due to simple factual support. pursuit was out of the question. he should do a little research next time.

dragons08
03-02-2006, 09:19 PM
okay...you cant just throw things out there...i know you have 'southern' pride and i have 'yankee' pride..but what it boils down to is it was a GOOD loss for the south, and you know it!!! it made what the USA is today..why go and be like if we won the war..blah blah blah, well you ddint, and thats good..it allowed america to grow into what it is today..so nots just think of ourselves as 'yankees' or 'rebels' but as loving americans

yankee
03-02-2006, 09:22 PM
okay...you cant just throw things out there...i know you have 'southern' pride and i have 'yankee' pride..but what it boils down to is it was a GOOD loss for the south, and you know it!!! it made what the USA is today..why go and be like if we won the war..blah blah blah, well you ddint, and thats good..it allowed america to grow into what it is today..so nots just think of ourselves as 'yankees' or 'rebels' but as loving americans
that is quite patriotic d08, but i have to believe that is sarcasm. man, you ruin all the fun and arguing.;)

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 09:24 PM
CSA also had its own army.....and very small navy.

The CSA had Marines too.

yankee
03-02-2006, 09:25 PM
The CSA had Marines too.
what about an air force?

dragons08
03-02-2006, 09:26 PM
that is quite patriotic d08, but i have to believe that is sarcasm. man, you ruin all the fun and arguing.;)
its acuttaly patriotic..belive it or not, i wasnt being sarcastic!:eek:

this war stuff is ridiculus though..can any of you rebels tell me your pissed the south lost??

Lufkin_Class_Of_08
03-02-2006, 09:26 PM
In honor of Texas independence day lets change the houston soccer team back to houston 1836...that ticked me off because my family has an ancestor who fought at san jacinto, his name is on a plaque in the san jac monument...he also was a founding member of Houston...im a 6th generation native houstonian (born there in 89)...o well, Happy Independence Day every one

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 09:30 PM
that is quite patriotic d08, but i have to believe that is sarcasm. man, you ruin all the fun and arguing.;)

Actually, I didn't think this discussion had much of a, US vs. THEM tone between the posters. I think the facts of the war was the main thing and I was very impressed at the coolness everyone was using.

This really started as a string about Texas and it's independence. Then it's junction with the South came into play. So most of the talk was from the Confederate stance of the war.

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 09:33 PM
its acuttaly patriotic..belive it or not, i wasnt being sarcastic!:eek:

this war stuff is ridiculus though..can any of you rebels tell me your pissed the south lost??

Again, D08 it was not really an opinion discussion. But since you asked. YES, I am pissed we lost. :D I am pissed we ever had to fight in the first place. I wish we could have been on big country with a southern half and a northern half and each would have respected the way the other lived and left well enough alone. :D

dragons08
03-02-2006, 09:34 PM
Actually, I didn't think this discussion had much of a, US vs. THEM tone between the posters. I think the facts of the war was the main thing and I was very impressed at the coolness everyone was using.

This really started as a string about Texas and it's independence. Then it's junction with the South came into play. So most of the talk was from the Confederate stance of the war.
oh, well i felt like being patriotic i guess:D

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 09:34 PM
what about an air force?

Ummmmmm....... NO. :D

dragons08
03-02-2006, 09:35 PM
Again, D08 it was not really an opinion discussion. But since you asked. YES, I am pissed we lost. :D I am pissed we ever had to fight in the first place. I wish we could have been on big country with a southern half and a northern half and each would have respected the way the other lived and left well enough alone. :D
so in a sense you support slavery?

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 09:35 PM
oh, well i felt like being patriotic i guess:D

Oh I know, but this is a part of American History. It had both its good points and its bad.

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 09:37 PM
so in a sense you support slavery?

No but as it has been stated, Slavery was not a main issue of the war. And please don't for one moment think that the north did not have slaves as well. They just didn't work in cotton fields.

yankee
03-02-2006, 09:37 PM
Again, D08 it was not really an opinion discussion. But since you asked. YES, I am pissed we lost. :D I am pissed we ever had to fight in the first place. I wish we could have been on big country with a southern half and a northern half and each would have respected the way the other lived and left well enough alone. :D
youre joking right?

dragons08
03-02-2006, 09:38 PM
Oh I know, but this is a part of American History. It had both its good points and its bad.
i know, it shapes how we are today no doubt, this war IMO hasnt ended yet, were still fighting some of the same issues

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 09:39 PM
what about an air force?

The confederacy may have experimented with primitive rockets, anyone watch mythbusters?

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 09:39 PM
youre joking right?


Joking about what?

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 09:40 PM
i know, it shapes how we are today no doubt, this war IMO hasnt ended yet, were still fighting some of the same issues

The battle between states rights and the balance of federal vs state power is going to be an issue for as long as the usa is around.

dragons08
03-02-2006, 09:40 PM
No but as it has been stated, Slavery was not a main issue of the war. And please don't for one moment think that the north did not have slaves as well. They just didn't work in cotton fields.
oh i know it wasnt all based on slavery..but what im saying is, slavery is part of it, and probally the worst that we view it as today..i know the north had slaves, but i wasnt nowhere near the same..worked in the factories for very little to no pay, were servants around the house, i hate to say this, but almost likke 'illegals' today....but alas, i know the REAL reason, you didnt want this to happen, most of southlake is from..not texas, so if this never happend, someone else besides southlake would win state! :p

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 09:40 PM
i know, it shapes how we are today no doubt, this war IMO hasnt ended yet, were still fighting some of the same issues

Yes we do. I sometimes face them in my professional life.

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 09:41 PM
No but as it has been stated, Slavery was not a main issue of the war. And please don't for one moment think that the north did not have slaves as well. They just didn't work in cotton fields.

This is ture, Mizzou, Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky didn't succeed, they kept their slaves long after the Confederacy because Emancipation Proclimation didn't effect them.

dragons08
03-02-2006, 09:41 PM
The confederacy may have experimented with primitive rockets, anyone watch mythbusters?
it was busted right?

Tigerjag
03-02-2006, 09:41 PM
In honor of Texas independence day lets change the houston soccer team back to houston 1836..

They haven't changed it yet. They are still playing as Houston 1836 and their record is currently 0-3. They lost to the Galaxy last night. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/3695366.html)

We decided not to go out to eat in celebration of Texas Independence Day, but I did buy a bottle of Texas wine which we'll open here shortly. (Llano Escatado is an excellent winery. I've had their merlot and their red table wine. Loved both.) I'm going to need a lot of wine if I continue to read this thread. Sheesh.

dragons08
03-02-2006, 09:42 PM
Yes we do. I sometimes face them in my professional life.
i rarely, if ever face these issues, its based on where i live IMO..i hate to say it, but southlake isnt real diverse, and the 'minorities' here in southlake, are cool with the 'sterotyping' for the most part, so if i leave and go to a more diverse place where it probally isnt accepted, itd be a major culture shock

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 09:43 PM
it was busted right?

The long range 300 mile rocket was busted, but they proved that short range rockets used by the confederacy was plausible.

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 09:45 PM
In honor of Texas independence day lets change the houston soccer team back to houston 1836...that ticked me off because my family has an ancestor who fought at san jacinto, his name is on a plaque in the san jac monument...he also was a founding member of Houston...im a 6th generation native houstonian (born there in 89)...o well, Happy Independence Day every one

Don't say that aloud the hispanic population might get its panties in a wad:eek:

dragons08
03-02-2006, 09:45 PM
The long range 300 mile rocket was busted, but they proved that short range rockets used by the confederacy was plausible.
true, but they go all out and try to find any way possilble to make the myths work, so the chances of some of them being possible is more likely than not busted if its plausible, but still a great show to learn a lot of stuff about, they need to do more histroy war things like that on there..

as much as i hate to say this, i love learning about american wars..(civil, revoltuionary, war of 1812, etc) its just something that strikes me that makes me want to learn more

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 09:45 PM
oh i know it wasnt all based on slavery..but what im saying is, slavery is part of it, and probally the worst that we view it as today..i know the north had slaves, but i wasnt nowhere near the same..worked in the factories for very little to no pay, were servants around the house, i hate to say this, but almost likke 'illegals' today....but alas, i know the REAL reason, you didnt want this to happen, most of southlake is from..not texas, so if this never happend, someone else besides southlake would win state! :p

So what is the difference between working in the fields for no pay and working in factories and houses for no pay.

I didn't know that most of Southlake is not from Texas. And someone else besides Southlake did win state in 2003. :D

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 09:47 PM
Again, D08 it was not really an opinion discussion. But since you asked. YES, I am pissed we lost. :D I am pissed we ever had to fight in the first place. I wish we could have been on big country with a southern half and a northern half and each would have respected the way the other lived and left well enough alone. :D

Didn't know you were a Confederate, Miss Kitty.....

yankee
03-02-2006, 09:47 PM
Joking about what?
joking about wishing the csa still existed and you lived in it.

Tigerjag
03-02-2006, 09:47 PM
someone else besides Southlake did win state in 2004. :D

2003, Miss Kitty, 2003.

Now I'm outta here!

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 09:48 PM
true, but they go all out and try to find any way possilble to make the myths work, so the chances of some of them being possible is more likely than not busted if its plausible, but still a great show to learn a lot of stuff about, they need to do more histroy war things like that on there..

as much as i hate to say this, i love learning about american wars..(civil, revoltuionary, war of 1812, etc) its just something that strikes me that makes me want to learn more

I love learning about our conflicts and everything our nation has been through. The only 2 wars i hate learning about are Korea and Vietnam, they went on for to long and were more of a political mess than an actual war.

dragons08
03-02-2006, 09:48 PM
So what is the difference between working in the fields for no pay and working in factories and houses for no pay.

I didn't know that most of Southlake is not from Texas. And someone else besides Southlake did win state in 2004. :D
haha i know, it was a joke...they did make little pay, almost nothing, but better than nothing..but some did make no money..a lot of blacks were captured in the north and sold back to the south, pretty pathetic..

well, a lot of my friends arent from southlake..its a affulent place as you know, so many of the people work in buisness's, so as they move through the ranks they moved here, or as their company got moved here, etc..lots of buisness owners in southlake

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 09:48 PM
This is ture, Mizzou, Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky didn't succeed, they kept their slaves long after the Confederacy because Emancipation Proclimation didn't effect them.

The reason they didn't SECEDE was 'cause Lincoln got a little scared and place Maryland (not sure about the others) under martial law.

lonny23
03-02-2006, 09:49 PM
2003, Miss Kitty, 2003.

Now I'm outta here!
She was talking about Tyler Lee.

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 09:49 PM
Didn't know you were a Confederate, Miss Kitty.....


Yep I am. Born and raised Southern Girl.

yankee
03-02-2006, 09:49 PM
So what is the difference between working in the fields for no pay and working in factories and houses for no pay.

I didn't know that most of Southlake is not from Texas. And someone else besides Southlake did win state in 2004. :D
african americans were paid, so techinically they werent slaves, even though it was a minute amount.

dragons08
03-02-2006, 09:49 PM
I love learning about our conflicts and everything our nation has been through. The only 2 wars i hate learning about are Korea and Vietnam, they went on for to long and were more of a political mess than an actual war.
yes that is true, can you count the Cold War as an acutal war? nothing was fired, just a 'we have more strenght than you' type war

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 09:50 PM
joking about wishing the csa still existed and you lived in it.

I believe it still exists on a much smaller scale.

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 09:50 PM
The reason they didn't SECEDE was 'cause Lincoln got a little scared and place Maryland (not sure about the others) under martial law.

That was just maryland and Lincoln did that because he didnt want dc to be a union island in the middle of conf. territory. It actually made the citizens of maryland want to SECEDE (they didnt want to when the rest of the csa was) but like u said it was under martial law.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 09:51 PM
Yep I am. Born and raised Southern Girl.

I suppose I am more or less....dad was born and raised in Virginia. I have a shelf in my room that is filled with Civil war books.

yankee
03-02-2006, 09:51 PM
I love learning about our conflicts and everything our nation has been through. The only 2 wars i hate learning about are Korea and Vietnam, they went on for to long and were more of a political mess than an actual war.
im with ya there. i have countless books on wars, i especially love the civil war, wwII, and vietnam. vietnam was a political mess, but it showed the us was not invincible and brought about many changes to the way warfare was waged.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 09:51 PM
That was just maryland and Lincoln did that because he didnt want dc to be a union island in the middle of conf. territory. It actually made the citizens of maryland want to SECEDE (they didnt want to when the rest of the csa was) but like u said it was under martial law.

Yeah, Lincoln was scared that his capital would be cut off from the Union.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 09:52 PM
yes that is true, can you count the Cold War as an acutal war? nothing was fired, just a 'we have more strenght than you' type war

Lol, there were a lot of shots fired....just indirectly.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 09:52 PM
Wars that would go into the Cold War would be Vietnam and Korea. And probably a few smaller ones.

dragons08
03-02-2006, 09:53 PM
this thread needs to go to the classics, IMO

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 09:53 PM
yes that is true, can you count the Cold War as an acutal war? nothing was fired, just a 'we have more strenght than you' type war

it was just something that happened to fill in history between ww2 and now. If the Soviets didnt have their nukes they actually would have been one of the lesser powers after ww2. Once you get past all the lies and extravagant military parades, most of Russia was a little above a 3rd world nation.

My history teacher has a good way to remember about Russia's situation.

No matter what period of history you are in, Russia is always 200 years behind:D

dragons08
03-02-2006, 09:54 PM
Lol, there were a lot of shots fired....just indirectly.
i know, but wasnt it just, to show off muscle, to scare eachother

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 09:55 PM
joking about wishing the csa still existed and you lived in it.

The CSA does exist. Not like it did but the Southern States will always be the Southern States. Being Southern was a way of life. Different from the Northern way of life. Not necessarily wrong, but different. I don't like it when anyone decides that someone should change their ways just because they are different than yours and you don't like it. Differences in people is not a bad thing.

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 09:55 PM
Wars that would go into the Cold War would be Vietnam and Korea. And probably a few smaller ones.

The invasion of grenada, afghanistan, hungarian revolt. These conflicts usually get past up so we can concentrate of vietnam, korea, and the missile crisis.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 09:55 PM
i know, but wasnt it just, to show off muscle, to scare eachother

Yeah, also to arm other countries to either fight the reds or to fight the red's allies.

dragons08
03-02-2006, 09:55 PM
it was just something that happened to fill in history between ww2 and now. If the Soviets didnt have their nukes they actually would have been one of the lesser powers after ww2. Once you get past all the lies and extravagant military parades, most of Russia was a little above a 3rd world nation.

My history teacher has a good way to remember about Russia's situation.

No matter what period of history you are in, Russia is always 200 years behind:D
heard about that..

what scares me about the Old USSR, is that when they broke up, they had about what is it 10 nukes? that have gone missing..so you almost KNOW those things are floating around on the black market..what's sad is some of those things are small enough to fit in a backpack, we had a long discussion last year in world geo, about this

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 09:56 PM
The invasion of grenada, afghanistan, hungarian revolt. These conflicts usually get past up so we can concentrate of vietnam, korea, and the missile crisis.

In fact the events that happened in afghanistan between the USSR and that nation (supported by us) is what set up the conflict there today.

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 09:56 PM
She was talking about Tyler Lee.

I just remember it as being Jamie's senior year. LOL Which was 2004. LOL :D

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 09:57 PM
The CSA does exist. Not like it did but the Southern States will always be the Southern States. Being Southern was a way of life. Different from the Northern way of life. Not necessarily wrong, but different. I don't like it when anyone decides that someone should change their ways just because they are different than yours and you don't like it. Differences in people is not a bad thing.

There are many people who believe the CSA should once again be brought back. But like you said the Southern way of life is still much different than the North.

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 09:58 PM
heard about that..

what scares me about the Old USSR, is that when they broke up, they had about what is it 10 nukes? that have gone missing..so you almost KNOW those things are floating around on the black market..what's sad is some of those things are small enough to fit in a backpack, we had a long discussion last year in world geo, about this

We had that same discussion in my us history class. I really hope a goal of the CIA, or FBI, or Homeland is to find all missing nukes because eventually those missing nukes will bite someone in the a$$ and more than likely it will be us.

And knowing the secrecy of the old soviets what they say is 10 is probably more like 30 or 40.

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 09:59 PM
african americans were paid, so techinically they werent slaves, even though it was a minute amount.

But some african americans were paid in the South too as were some not paid in the north. There really was not difference. Unfortunately the only ones you hear about are the ones that were abused.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 09:59 PM
Found a nice article from a while back about Lincoln and his stance on slavery.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/blacks.htm

dragons08
03-02-2006, 09:59 PM
There are many people who believe the CSA should once again be brought back. But like you said the Southern way of life is still much different than the North.
both ways of life are diffrent, inside the 'bubble' (southlake) i cant really notice, because its the same as illinois (as buisness way of life) but as i drive out of the DFW area more, you can begin to tell the way of life is diffrent, also when you go through New Mexico, Arizona, Georgia, Flordia, Alabama, etc you can see a huge diffrent between the north and the south

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 10:00 PM
There are many people who believe the CSA should once again be brought back. But like you said the Southern way of life is still much different than the North.

It would take an unprecedented event i cant even fathom to cause the usa to actually fracture apart into a north and a south.

At most i see a revolt among a minority or something scattered across the nation, but i don't think we will see a large scale civil war for a while.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 10:00 PM
But some african americans were paid in the South too as were some not paid in the north. There really was not difference. Unfortunately the only ones you hear about are the ones that were abused.

Even some blacks served in the Confederate military...

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 10:00 PM
It would take an unprecedented event i cant even fathom to cause the usa to actually fracture apart into a north and a south.

At most i see a revolt among a minority or something scattered across the nation, but i don't think we will see a large scale civil war for a while.

I didn't say that they would. I'm saying that a Northerner lives much different than a Southerner. They have different views on almost everything.

dragons08
03-02-2006, 10:01 PM
We had that same discussion in my us history class. I really hope a goal of the CIA, or FBI, or Homeland is to find all missing nukes because eventually those missing nukes will bite someone in the a$$ and more than likely it will be us.

And knowing the secrecy of the old soviets what they say is 10 is probably more like 30 or 40.
im sure the fbi is already working on that! (i hope they are)

sidenote, does your school have a Intro to Homeland Security?? i know carroll is introducing this class, due to the increasing amount of jobs i guess involed in this..

i wonder if the USSR, acuttaly had many of these get destroyed?

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 10:02 PM
both ways of life are diffrent, inside the 'bubble' (southlake) i cant really notice, because its the same as illinois (as buisness way of life) but as i drive out of the DFW area more, you can begin to tell the way of life is diffrent, also when you go through New Mexico, Arizona, Georgia, Flordia, Alabama, etc you can see a huge diffrent between the north and the south

There are way to many ties between north-south-east-and west. While its obvious things are different in some places they are not nearly as different as they were 150 years ago. Besides what would the coutnry revolt against, afirmitive action? Gay rights? Those are not causes worthy of dying for.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 10:02 PM
im sure the fbi is already working on that! (i hope they are)

sidenote, does your school have a Intro to Homeland Security?? i know carroll is introducing this class, due to the increasing amount of jobs i guess involed in this..

i wonder if the USSR, acuttaly had many of these get destroyed?

It's impossible to destroy a nuclear bomb without detonating it. Which would defy the purpose of destroying it.

yankee
03-02-2006, 10:02 PM
Even some blacks served in the Confederate military...
they thought it was a better alternative to the horrific life they led in the cotton fields. unfortunately, they were not treated any better in the armed forces.

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 10:03 PM
I didn't say that they would. I'm saying that a Northerner lives much different than a Southerner. They have different views on almost everything.

true that

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 10:03 PM
There are way to many ties between north-south-east-and west. While its obvious things are different in some places they are not nearly as different as they were 150 years ago. Besides what would the coutnry revolt against, afirmitive action? Gay rights? Those are not causes worthy of dying for.

Those basically fell under states rights....

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 10:04 PM
they thought it was a better alternative to the horrific life they led in the cotton fields. unfortunately, they were not treated any better in the armed forces.

Some were treated well. Heck, blacks in the North weren't even treated as well.

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 10:04 PM
im sure the fbi is already working on that! (i hope they are)

sidenote, does your school have a Intro to Homeland Security?? i know carroll is introducing this class, due to the increasing amount of jobs i guess involed in this..

i wonder if the USSR, acuttaly had many of these get destroyed?

They dont offer the class now, but they might be. I havent seen what classes are coming out next year cuz i dont have to worry about hs next year:D

dragons08
03-02-2006, 10:04 PM
It's impossible to destroy a nuclear bomb without detonating it. Which would defy the purpose of destroying it.
did not know that, i thought it was possible to just take it a part type thing

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 10:05 PM
did not know that, i thought it was possible to just take it a part type thing

You can destroy the computer stuff of it. But not the actual uranium. That's why they store it and make big deals about guarding it.

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 10:06 PM
It's impossible to destroy a nuclear bomb without detonating it. Which would defy the purpose of destroying it.

Really? I thought a whole series of reactions and mechanics had to go off to prouce the explosion.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 10:08 PM
Really? I thought a whole series of reactions and mechanics had to go off to prouce the explosion.

There's some mechanical stuff that "detonates" the uranium. You can destroy the mechanical stuff but the uranium will never go away.

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 10:08 PM
they thought it was a better alternative to the horrific life they led in the cotton fields. unfortunately, they were not treated any better in the armed forces.

Believe it or not. Not all of the slaves were treated so badly. Just the ones you hear about.

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 10:09 PM
There's some mechanical stuff that "detonates" the uranium. You can destroy the mechanical stuff but the uranium will never go away.

I see, I would much rather have a small area contaminated with uranium rather than a whole city destroyed by an atomic explosion.

Of course I would much much much rather have neither

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 10:09 PM
Believe it or not. Not all of the slaves were treated so badly. Just the ones you hear about.

And some(if not most) slave owners worked out in the fields with their slaves. People just need to find ways to make things sound more terrible than they are. Example, the media in Iraq.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 10:10 PM
I see, I would much rather have a small area contaminated with uranium rather than a whole city destroyed by an atomic explosion.

Of course I would much much much rather have neither

That's why they seal the uranium off and make big deals about securing it.

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 10:10 PM
And some(if not most) slave owners worked out in the fields with their slaves. People just need to find ways to make things sound more terrible than they are. Example, the media in Iraq.

You are so right.

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 10:11 PM
Believe it or not. Not all of the slaves were treated so badly. Just the ones you hear about.

This is true. When you picture slavery, you picture a number of abused africans working in an alabama cotton field, not the ok treated house servent in a baltimore apartment.

Reaganrattler07
03-02-2006, 10:13 PM
This is true. When you picture slavery, you picture a number of abused africans working in an alabama cotton field, not the ok treated house servent in a baltimore apartment.

Even some in the south tended to large mansions and never saw the fields.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 10:14 PM
Believe it or not. Not all of the slaves were treated so badly. Just the ones you hear about.

And Africans were not the first race to be enslaved. But I'm not going to get into that.

CNN Article is done...

dragons08
03-02-2006, 10:14 PM
heres a question to really ponder about, what did the civil war accomplish?? we still fight many of those same problems today...it united the states, but what there isnt really much more, if you look at what were fighting still today

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 10:16 PM
And Africans were not the first race to be enslaved. But I'm not going to get into that.

CNN Article is done...

Oh that is a whole different subject. I could hang with you on that one too. :D

lonny23
03-02-2006, 10:16 PM
it was just something that happened to fill in history between ww2 and now. If the Soviets didnt have their nukes they actually would have been one of the lesser powers after ww2. Once you get past all the lies and extravagant military parades, most of Russia was a little above a 3rd world nation.

My history teacher has a good way to remember about Russia's situation.

No matter what period of history you are in, Russia is always 200 years behind:D
Basically Russia raped and pillaged the other republics of the USSR to get the industry, trees, and resources. My time in Kyrgyzstan makes me view them as a second world country. They aren't poor across the board, but they lag far behind the U.S.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 10:16 PM
Oh that is a whole different subject. I could hang with you on that one too. :D

I don't want to get that subject started because someone would for sure get banned...

Miss Kitty
03-02-2006, 10:17 PM
And Africans were not the first race to be enslaved. But I'm not going to get into that.

CNN Article is done...

Congrats on getting the article done.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 10:18 PM
Congrats on getting the article done.

Thanks. I need a writer though....I don't think I did a very good job on that aspect of it.

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 10:24 PM
heres a question to really ponder about, what did the civil war accomplish?? we still fight many of those same problems today...it united the states, but what there isnt really much more, if you look at what were fighting still today

The Civil War ended the institution of slavery in the USA, something that was long overdue. It pretty much confirmed that the union was indivisble and that together we are strong while seperated we are weak. It was the war that began our transition from a 2nd class agrarian "republican experiment" into a world power nation that has found the perfect mixture of industrialization and agriculture.

The civil war is without a shadow of a doubt one of the most important events in our nations history.

Firebird
03-02-2006, 10:25 PM
Some interesting opinions about the former USSR. This happens to be something I know a lot about --- check out my signature line below. A few corrections

A. The old Soviet Union had a stockpile of several thousand nuclear warheads (Not 10), along with the delivery systems (ICBM's, Nuclear Missle submarines, long range bombers, etc., etc.) A shooting war between the USSR and the Soviet Union would have almost certainly destroyed most of civilization. As of now, both countries are working on scaling back their arsenals. Currently, Russia posseses close to between 2,000 and 3,000 warheads, the United States and Russia are bilaterally reducing that stockpile, by dismantiling the warheads.

B. While the technology used by the average Soviet citizen certainly was not up to par with Western standards, the gap between the West and the USSR was nowhere near as great as some of the real hardline anti-communists would have you believe. Consider-- The Soviets launched the first satellite, put the first living creature into space, and put the first human into space. Soviet phycisists such as Sakharov made huge strides in the fields of nuclear technology, and many of their smaller, non strategic weapons far outstripped what the West offered-- example, the AK-47 and Mig Aircrafts (Up unitl the late '70's.). They always had one of the world's largest standing armies, and even today Russian and Soviet technology is in demmand around the world. It is true that by the time Gorbachev began to open Soviet society, much of the country's military systems were in decay, but at one time, they were new. Even in the state of decay, their available weaponry posed a serious threat to the West. It is also worth noting that currently the Russians are the only nation with the ability to consistenly get astronauts to the international space station.

C. Russia (and the old Soviet Union) never approached 3rd world status, save for a few emergency years in the '90s. Even today, true 3rd world countries send their students to Russia to study in their technical and medical schools, which remain world class. After the war, no other nation had to rebuild as Russia did. This is because, contrary to the version of WWII presented in the US, the Soviets indeed bore the brunt of the load in defeating the Nazi Germany. Russia was not 200 years behind after the war, and is not 200 years behind now.

What did do the USSR in? It's complicated. The primary reason, is that indeed Soviet Communism did not fulfill its promises, and the regime could not keep its dirty secret-- that people under the evil capitalist regime had it better-- secret from the populace. By the time of the pall one PAGE of Cosmopolitan magazine sold on the streets of Moscow for 200 dollars. In the end, our fashion and our ideas, not our military might, brought down the USSR.

dragons08
03-02-2006, 10:25 PM
The Civil War ended the institution of slavery in the USA, something that was long overdue. It pretty much confirmed that the union was indivisble and that together we are strong while seperated we are weak. It was the war that began our transition from a 2nd class agrarian "republican experiment" into a world power nation that has found the perfect mixture of industrialization and agriculture.

The civil war is without a shadow of a doubt one of the most important events in our nations history.
right, i guess i worded my post wrong..but yeah thats a good answer

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 10:27 PM
The Civil War ended the institution of slavery in the USA, something that was long overdue. It pretty much confirmed that the union was indivisble and that together we are strong while seperated we are weak. It was the war that began our transition from a 2nd class agrarian "republican experiment" into a world power nation that has found the perfect mixture of industrialization and agriculture.

The civil war is without a shadow of a doubt one of the most important events in our nations history.

True, because states couldn't get back in without doing away with slavery.

IDK if the civil war is the most important, but is def. one of them, along with the constitution (and all its ammendmants) and the revolution.

dragons08
03-02-2006, 10:29 PM
True, because states couldn't get back in without doing away with slavery.

IDK if the civil war is the most important, but is def. one of them, along with the constitution (and all its ammendmants) and the revolution.
the Revolution is defintaly the most important, it allowed all the other things to fall into place, it allowed the civil war to happen (articles of confederation)

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 10:30 PM
the Revolution is defintaly the most important, it allowed all the other things to fall into place, it allowed the civil war to happen (articles of confederation)

What about the Boston Tea Party? the Intolerable Acts?

dragons08
03-02-2006, 10:33 PM
What about the Boston Tea Party? the Intolerable Acts?
those weren't a war..but can be classified under revo war

Firebird
03-02-2006, 10:35 PM
Basically Russia raped and pillaged the other republics of the USSR to get the industry, trees, and resources. My time in Kyrgyzstan makes me view them as a second world country. They aren't poor across the board, but they lag far behind the U.S.

There is always two sides to the story. Few would argue (including me) that the USSR was anything but morally bankrupt in its expansion and treatment of the citizens of other Soviet republics. However, Russians themselves insist (with some justification) that the people of the republics were subjected to less repression, and indeed that the Russians worked while the other nationalities (particularly Caucasians and Central Asians) benefitted. It is certainly true that what technology and infrastructure many of the republics have, came from Russians. And, save for Central Asian oil and Ukranian farmland, most of the resources came from Russia proper. Russia has immense mineral and timber wealth, including the some of the world's largest heavy metal deposits and largest forests.

However, in point of fact, the republics never WANTED Russian (or Soviet) civilization-- but they got it anway.

When talking about Russia,bear in mind the words of a Moscow business man in the early '90's:

"Right now, Russia is on her knees. But when she gets up, she'll remember how she was treated".

Russia is never as big a threat as the West imagines, or in as big a mess as we would like.

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 10:35 PM
Some interesting opinions about the former USSR. This happens to be something I know a lot about --- check out my signature line below. A few corrections

A. The old Soviet Union had a stockpile of several thousand nuclear warheads (Not 10), along with the delivery systems (ICBM's, Nuclear Missle submarines, long range bombers, etc., etc.) A shooting war between the USSR and the Soviet Union would have almost certainly destroyed most of civilization. As of now, both countries are working on scaling back their arsenals. Currently, Russia posseses close to between 2,000 and 3,000 warheads, the United States and Russia are bilaterally reducing that stockpile, by dismantiling the warheads.

B. While the technology used by the average Soviet citizen certainly was not up to par with Western standards, the gap between the West and the USSR was nowhere near as great as some of the real hardline anti-communists would have you believe. Consider-- The Soviets launched the first satellite, put the first living creature into space, and put the first human into space. Soviet phycisists such as Sakharov made huge strides in the fields of nuclear technology, and many of their smaller, non strategic weapons far outstripped what the West offered-- example, the AK-47 and Mig Aircrafts (Up unitl the late '70's.). They always had one of the world's largest standing armies, and even today Russian and Soviet technology is in demmand around the world. It is true that by the time Gorbachev began to open Soviet society, much of the country's military systems were in decay, but at one time, they were new. Even in the state of decay, their available weaponry posed a serious threat to the West. It is also worth noting that currently the Russians are the only nation with the ability to consistenly get astronauts to the international space station.

C. Russia (and the old Soviet Union) never approached 3rd world status, save for a few emergency years in the '90s. Even today, true 3rd world countries send their students to Russia to study in their technical and medical schools, which remain world class. After the war, no other nation had to rebuild as Russia did. This is because, contrary to the version of WWII presented in the US, the Soviets indeed bore the brunt of the load in defeating the Nazi Germany. Russia was not 200 years behind after the war, and is not 200 years behind now.

What did do the USSR in? It's complicated. The primary reason, is that indeed Soviet Communism did not fulfill its promises, and the regime could not keep its dirty secret-- that people under the evil capitalist regime had it better-- secret from the populace. By the time of the pall one PAGE of Cosmopolitan magazine sold on the streets of Moscow for 200 dollars. In the end, our fashion and our ideas, not our military might, brought down the USSR.

All very ture. The 200 years thing is a joke and actually between the dawn or time and about 1900 was close to being very true. A war between both nations could have been disastorous but I was stating that if nuclear weapons had for some reason not been invented and were not a factor, the US would have beaten Russia in a full scale war (though a war, even without nukes, would have been terrible and due to the vast size of russia could have easily have ended in stalemate)

The 10 weapons d08 was reffering to are 10 missing (unaccounted for) nukes in Russias massive stockpile. I beilve the Russian number is totaled around 1500-2000 (due to secrecy it may be 3000-4000) and I believe the US's is still very high to this day (8000?).

Soviet military equipment is on demand mostly in black market or poorer nations that need ok equipment fast. Iraq was using soviet equipment, Iran has it, many of your 2nd rate countries use soviet stuff because its abundant, somehat reliable, and relativley cheap.

The Russian space porgram is something for that nation and all of mankind to be proud of.

I believe your topic C argument and your closing statement is pretty much airtight and correct.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 10:37 PM
those weren't a war..but can be classified under revo war

the constitution wasnt a war either...

dragons08
03-02-2006, 10:39 PM
the constitution wasnt a war either...
who said it was?

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 10:40 PM
There is always two sides to the story. Few would argue (including me) that the USSR was anything but morally bankrupt in its expansion and treatment of the citizens of other Soviet republics. However, Russians themselves insist (with some justification) that the people of the republics were subjected to less repression, and indeed that the Russians worked while the other nationalities (particularly Caucasians and Central Asians) benefitted. It is certainly true that what technology and infrastructure many of the republics have, came from Russians. And, save for Central Asian oil and Ukranian farmland, most of the resources came from Russia proper. Russia has immense mineral and timber wealth, including the some of the world's largest heavy metal deposits and largest forests.

However, in point of fact, the republics never WANTED Russian (or Soviet) civilization-- but they got it anway.

When talking about Russia,bear in mind the words of a Moscow business man in the early '90's:

"Right now, Russia is on her knees. But when she gets up, she'll remember how she was treated".

Russia is never as big a threat as the West imagines, or in as big a mess as we would like.

I think Russia is a big threat. They (or at least forms of government) have always been histroically semi anti-western (Monarchial Russia never followed the lead of England, France, and Germany.) Russia is also been a very athoritarian society.

Keep in mind something in current events, Vlad Putin has quietly collected more and more power into the Russian executive office. I don't think he's a dicatator, but I do believe that the exectuive office of Russia is qickly becoming very powerful and one day another autocrat may seize power.

Firebird
03-02-2006, 10:42 PM
All very ture. The 200 years thing is a joke and actually between the dawn or time and about 1900 was close to being very true. A war between both nations could have been disastorous but I was stating that if nuclear weapons had for some reason not been invented and were not a factor, the US would have beaten Russia in a full scale war (though a war, even without nukes, would have been terrible and due to the vast size of russia could have easily have ended in stalemate)

The 10 weapons d08 was reffering to are 10 missing (unaccounted for) nukes in Russias massive stockpile. I beilve the Russian number is totaled around 1500-2000 (due to secrecy it may be 3000-4000) and I believe the US's is still very high to this day (8000?).

Soviet military equipment is on demand mostly in black market or poorer nations that need ok equipment fast. Iraq was using soviet equipment, Iran has it, many of your 2nd rate countries use soviet stuff because its abundant, somehat reliable, and relativley cheap.

The Russian space porgram is something for that nation and all of mankind to be proud of.

I believe your topic C argument and your closing statement is pretty much airtight and correct.


Actually, I ran a fact check real quicly, and we both underestimated. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists estimates Russia's total stockpile to be about 5,800 warheads, 3,000 of which are deployable immediately. That is reduced from Soviet levels.

Most of their current military technology really is quite good, especially things like trucks, tanks, and small arms, and their radar and early warning systems are up to date. China's current advances are built of off Soviet platforms and with the help of Russian scientists. The USA far outstrips them when it comes to things like guidance systems, aircraft and naval technology and general equpment for troops.

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 10:43 PM
the constitution wasnt a war either...

The revolution included the war, the events that caused it (intolerable acts, tea party) and the period directly after it.

The Constituational Convention was a whole other thing (about 10 years after the rev war; we were governered by the incredibly weak and unclear articels of confederation which caused the need for a strong constitution)

Both events are VVVEEERRRYY important in our history no doubt.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 10:45 PM
The revolution included the war, the events that caused it (intolerable acts, tea party) and the period directly after it.

The Constituational Convention was a whole other thing (about 10 years after the rev war; we were governered by the incredibly weak and unclear articels of confederation which caused the need for a strong constitution)

Both events are VVVEEERRRYY important in our history no doubt.

Well, they didn't actually convene to write the constitution. They convened to revise the Articles of Confederation and they wrote the Constitution.

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 10:46 PM
Actually, I ran a fact check real quicly, and we both underestimated. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists estimates Russia's total stockpile to be about 5,800 warheads, 3,000 of which are deployable immediately. That is reduced from Soviet levels.

Most of their current military technology really is quite good, especially things like trucks, tanks, and small arms, and their radar and early warning systems are up to date. China's current advances are built of off Soviet platforms and with the help of Russian scientists. The USA far outstrips them when it comes to things like guidance systems, aircraft and naval technology and general equpment for troops.

Really, I thought Russia was still using old soviet stuff? In fact I was watching this thing on the sub Kursk that sank in 2000. The Russian navy was unable to save survivors because their rescue craft were very old, under funded, and very dangerous (weak metal, valves, poor batteries)

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 10:46 PM
Really, I thought Russia was still using old soviet stuff? In fact I was watching this thing on the sub Kursk that sank in 2000. The Russian navy was unable to save survivors because their rescue craft were very old, under funded, and very dangerous (weak metal, valves, poor batteries)

Never mind i just saw where you said naval tech. my bad::p

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 10:48 PM
Never mind i just saw where you said naval tech. my bad::p

you did that on purpose so you could quote yourself and get an extra post:mad::D

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 10:49 PM
you did that on purpose so you could quote yourself and get an extra post:mad::D

my bad again:p

And i don't think 1 post is going to cause a big dent in lonny's record:p

Firebird
03-02-2006, 10:50 PM
Interestingly enough, the Kursk sunk during a trial fire of a new torpedo, that, had it been successful, would have revolutionized the way the world thought about torpedos.

But in general, the Russian navy is rusting away at the docks, although they do still build the world's only titanium hulled submarine. They have other things to think about than the Navy. Plus, military strategists have serious doubts about the usefulness of large surface fleets in the event of a major war between two true powers.

dragons08
03-02-2006, 10:50 PM
you did that on purpose so you could quote yourself and get an extra post:mad::D
no that doesnt sound like rocketTRN at all..:rolleyes:

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 10:50 PM
I didn't even notice that i quoted myself, i thought i was quoting him, my bad again:p

And i don't think 1 post is going to cause a big dent in lonny's record:p

LOL. I was just kidding though:D

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 10:51 PM
no that doesnt sound like rocketTRN at all..:rolleyes:

Yeah, no wonder I have almost 2100 posts:rolleyes:

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 10:52 PM
Interestingly enough, the Kursk sunk during a trial fire of a new torpedo, that, had it been successful, would have revolutionized the way the world thought about torpedos.

But in general, the Russian navy is rusting away at the docks, although they do still build the world's only titanium hulled submarine. They have other things to think about than the Navy. Plus, military strategists have serious doubts about the usefulness of large surface fleets in the event of a major war between two true powers.

I guess with the davent of modern globe streching airforces the need for a navy isn't what it used to be.

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 10:53 PM
I guess with the davent of modern globe streching airforces the need for a navy isn't what it used to be.

advent:D

the Navy is still important though. We can't load all our troops on planes and fly them in....yet

Firebird
03-02-2006, 10:54 PM
That, and the advances in submarines. The U-Boats took an incredible toll in WWII, and it is nothing to what would happen with modern submarine techology. They are quiet, can stay under for ages, and don't have to surface to fire. Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks for subs.

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 10:54 PM
I was just wondering do we send this thread to classics for the sheer fact that we've gone from Texas independe to the civil war to modern US-Russian rivalries

or do we send it to a university proffessor for analysis?

dragons08
03-02-2006, 10:55 PM
which military branch, does the most? is the most useful...i know their all important, but doesnt hte marines be the first ones in, last ones out?

Firebird
03-02-2006, 10:55 PM
Definite classic.

dragons08
03-02-2006, 10:55 PM
I was just wondering do we send this thread to classics for the sheer fact that we've gone from Texas independe to the civil war to modern US-Russian rivalries

or do we send it to a university proffessor for analysis?
haha i sent it to classic submission, only waiting upon admins approval..haha you can send it to a profesor!

Slim-Rob
03-02-2006, 10:56 PM
I was just wondering do we send this thread to classics for the sheer fact that we've gone from Texas independe to the civil war to modern US-Russian rivalries

or do we send it to a university proffessor for analysis?

we don't want it going classic yet though. once it goes classic we cant post:(

CLFalcon2006
03-02-2006, 10:56 PM
That, and the advances in submarines. The U-Boats took an incredible toll in WWII, and it is nothing to what would happen with modern submarine techology. They are quiet, can stay under for ages, and don't have to surface to fire. Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks for subs.

100 years ago Battleships were the most important ships in navies, 50 years ago aircraft carries took that title, and now subs are in the lead. I wonder what new thing will be the nest ship in 50 more years?