they're next to each other though. Washington D.C. and Washington State are on different coasts
Civil war between north and south
Daniel Jones
Alexander Price
Kansas was only a state for a few months when the war started; despite the violence of a few years earlier, the state was strongly supportive of the Union war effort. It contributed 17 regiments to the Union army and 20,000 volunteers, above the 17,000 quota set by the state government. While not many significant battles occurred in the remote frontier state, there were many raids and guerrilla actions especially William Quantrill's massacre in Lawrence in the summer of 1864.
Sebastian Harris
Being next to each other makes it worse desu.
Hunter Allen
what dye think of general e lee
youtu.be
Connor Butler
We know the truth, don't we...
Nolan Nguyen
should've been hanged for treason
Blake Stewart
y*nkee filth
Hudson Long
The best part was that the capitol of the U.S. and the capitol of the Confederate states (Richmond, Virginia) are only like 100 miles apart, and neither side ever attacked the other. I have no idea why they didn't, but I imagine it had something to do with honor (or maybe bad memories from 1812?) All I know is that future generations haven't given half a shit about fire bombing capitols, so I guess the sentiment died.
The Missouri Compromise was one of the things that led to the Civil War. Basically, the South recognized that banning slavery in new territories/states would eventually gut their political power in the federal government, which would allow the fed to ban slavery. The Missouri compromise basically said that Missouri could be a slave-state (while it admitted Maine as a free state), but that slavery would be banned from the 38th parallel up (basically everything North of Missouri).
There were a bunch of these compromises that happened. Basically, from the beginning only the South wanted slavery. The founding fathers (even though plenty of them owned slaves) wanted to ban slavery, since slavery actually devalued the work of individual white farmers (how do you compete with free labor? you don't) and only the Southern agricultural states even benefited from it. One of the first compromises in our history was allowing slavery (that was the only way the Southern states would ratify the constitution and join the U.S.), but banning all new slave trade after like 20 years from the signing. It was also largely unprofitable until the invention of the cotton gin.
Along with stuff like the Fugitive Slave act, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas Nebraska Act, basically the whole situation was that the Southern elite (since the average man was actually getting fucked by slavery existing) didn't want to lose their economic or political power, and fought to keep slavery around.
Cooper Sanchez
Carson Wilson
Cont from The other side of the coin, and I can't stress this enough, was that the North wasn't exactly interested in human rights or anything. There were certainly plenty of elements in the average population like Abolitionists who wanted to ban slavery, but most of the political action was about securing economic and political influence. The Northern politicians were mostly interested in protecting economic interests (again, slavery gutted the value of working white men, so they didn't want it in their states; also, cotton become a billion dollar industry) and their political interests (more slave states meant more political influence by slave states in the federal government).
It was all basically one massive, shitty powerplay that ran for damn near 100 years because a bunch of rich cocksuckers were too busy trying to fuck each other over. That's the entire reason slavery persisted until the Civil War, and the Civil War had to be fought. Welcome to American History.