6 word story

To find better life includes Sacrifice.

were they really free?

The effect of the Reconstruction made it seem as if the slaves were set free? but were they? Sure they weren't considered slaves any longer , they could go to school , and do other things but they were very limited on what they can do but not on what they can not do . It seems as if that whole thing of setting the slaves free was kind of a joke because if you think about it where are free slaves supposed to go ? how are they going to get income to buy things that they need to survive? and most importantly many of the slaves had no education and were illiterate so what else did they know besides cleaning and doing yard work? And even after the slaves where free it was still the same on how they where viewed and treated by white people. just because they weren't consider slaves any longer  doesn't mean that white people didn't have the same attitude towards blacks. African Americans still weren't allowed to purchase or rent land, and marry whites.  In addition , majority of blacks ended up staying on white landowners lands and work there under unfair conditions that the landowners decided. so i honestly think that there really isn't any difference between before the Reconstruction and after.

why give amnesty?

I personally feel that the South shouldn't have been granted amnesty. I understand that Lincoln thought by granting amnesty to the South that the North and South could be together as one, but lets face it, this is reality not everyone is going to agree with him . Then because of him granting amnesty to the South the effect ended up being that many people in the North were angry at him. Who wouldn't get angry ? Especially the North who just finish loosing love ones in this chaotic war. Although Lincoln was trying to do what he thought was right , northerners  probably saw it as a bad thing because in other words they fought a war and lost love ones for nothing if hes just going to forgive the south and act like nothing ever happened.

we're fighting for each other in the end..

Was Lt. Col. Chamberlain right? Can a moral idea win a war?

I personally feel that he was completely right without a doubt. The states shouldn't have been separated with a line from free state to slave it should have been equal like it is today. I mean wasn't that what America stood for , freedom. Not judgment , on who you are or who you want to be. What ever happen to back then with "this land is your land , this land is my land". America is suppose to be a land of opportunity not segregation. We all live under one nation .and whether they liked it or not we fought for one another. If your fighting for the United States , then your fighting for everyone living in that country not just yourself. We as citizens of this country make up the United States with different talents we have, and backgrounds. Imagen how boring it would be to live under a nation where everyone is the same , in taste , food , language, ethnicity and so on. we all have value and no matter who you are. In addition i also think that a moral idea can win a war because don't you need ideas in order to figure out strategies in what type of techniques your going to use during the war in order to win.

its easy to judge but never understand!

Why do you think that stereotypes are so widely known by so many in our society?

There are stereotypes everywhere you go ,whether if your in school , at work or even while watching tv. The reason why I think people tend to stereotype a lot is because its more convenient for them to judge then to actually get to know someone and who they truly are. which is wrong because not everyone is the same. We as humans just tend to be lazy and not want to make an effort in getting to know someone, as to we feel that it wastes our useful time. A big thing that people tend to stereotype a lot on is ethnicity, they always have rude remarks or comments on someone and how there going to be without actually knowing there name first or who they are. which to me is dumb , how can someone assume what a persons going to be like or act like just based on there ethnicity? like  for example if  someone saw a Muslim person ,they would quickly assume that they're a terrorist who wants to do harm to the U.S. Which isn't true , not all Muslims or Arabic's are terrorist. But because of the way the media puts these people and their ethnicity down we assume that all of them are like that and its okay to say that, when its really not.

lie after lie..

"History is the lie commonly agreed upon." What did Voltaire mean by this quote?

What i think Voltarie was trying to say was that how we as people seem to agree on things that we were taught  before and keep teaching other people what we know from our understanding. But what we do not know is that many of the historical events on how the United States puts it as "we never loose" are lies the United States has failed several times and surrendered . And not only that but in addition there are many events never mentioned in textbooks that we use in school . So it isn't fair how we only get to hear one side of the story and what ever they want us to hear and not hear what really happen.

why not tell them?

 Should we change the way we teach younger students about the history of the United States?
Explain  I honestly think we should .  I mean why make history sound so happy and jolly that we won all the time when in reality we didn't. We're just basically lying to innocent kids who should have the right to know the truth. If some stories are to violent then don't sugar coat it and make it sound like we Americans always won and defeated a battle. Just wait till you think that the students are old enough to hear about it. That way they'll really know the truth in history instead of seeing it as in a one person point of view thing