Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Chibi Civil War by Arkham-Insanity Chibi Civil War by Arkham-Insanity
I like the idea of Alfred split into two versions of himself during the civil war.

just a little sketch dont expect to see more ;)
Add a Comment:
 
:iconmpcapruby101:
MpCapRuby101 Featured By Owner Jun 15, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Well...yeah it sums up about 70% of the conflict
Reply
:iconjack357xxx:
Jack357xxx Featured By Owner Jul 23, 2016
Lol..Funny, but not what the war was about.
Reply
:iconmister-crool:
Mister-Crool Featured By Owner Mar 2, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
I don´t even know how or what the war was about anymore. There are so many different versions of the reasons it gets confussing! Atleast WW2 is easier to understand. 
Reply
:iconvirtaashi:
VirTaAshi Featured By Owner Aug 9, 2015
I apologize for any misunderstandings or any more transgressions. It will not happen again.
Reply
:iconbriannabater:
Briannabater Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2015  Professional Photographer
Cute :)
Reply
:iconworldsmixer1234:
Worldsmixer1234 Featured By Owner Apr 22, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
That's how I explain the stuff I'm learning in History class to my 8-year-old sister. XD
Reply
:iconlonelynightrain:
lonelynightrain Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
Cute and hilarious.
Reply
:icongeneral-spitfire32:
General-Spitfire32 Featured By Owner Edited Feb 11, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Shame that's NOT how it went... though in context of the series it would work.
Reply
:iconbloodlily16:
BloodLily16 Featured By Owner May 27, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Yeah! And it would also be cool if Concederacy stuck around afterwards… After all, we still have Prussia and Romano!
Reply
:iconmorbiusx33:
morbiusx33 Featured By Owner May 16, 2014  Hobbyist Photographer
I'd come back and say, "Pick your own dang oranges, Yankee bastard and send your a**hole snowbirds back to the snowbelt, too!"
Reply
:iconforever---free:
Forever---Free Featured By Owner Apr 18, 2014  Student Writer
Hmm. SO FREAKING GLAD SOMEONE OTHER THAN ME THINKS ALFRED WAS SPLIT INTO TO FOR THAT WAR!!!!
Reply
:icondragobot:
Dragobot Featured By Owner Nov 13, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
uh.....huh...........:| (Blank Stare) 
Reply
:iconshootingstar12202:
Shootingstar12202 Featured By Owner Nov 11, 2013
I love it! It's so cute! Great job!
Reply
:iconkrazychick10101:
krazychick10101 Featured By Owner Oct 28, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Surprisingly, the civil war wasn't started over slavery. It was actually a war over states rights and import taxes. President Lincoln made it a war about slavery so that France wouldn't back The Confederate States Of America.
Reply
:iconbriannabater:
Briannabater Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2015  Professional Photographer
No, just no.

It turns out, states write down their reasons for leaving the US and then killing US soldiers.

www.civilwar.org/education/his…

At the time, the governments that decided to leave the US were crystal clear about why they left - they wanted to protect and expand the slave trade. 
Reply
:iconnarkauud:
narkauud Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2016
+Briannabater clearly you are a black person otherwise you wouldn't be so against the idea that slavery was not the main cause of the civil war. My professor, who had relatives fighting in the civil war and has been a historian for most of his life because he's like forty years old and only started teaching five years ago, says the civil war was not about the slaves in the beginning. The Union was losing faith and Abraham needed something to bring their morale back up. So he found evidence to support his statement that the civil war was about slavery. Slavery is wrong and is rightly looked down upon even though other countries still partake in it but it was NOT the reason for the civil war taking place at all in the beginning. I am going to leave you alone now, you seem to like flaming people I believe you might be an internet troll and will leave you to your business.
Reply
Flagged as Spam
:iconnarkauud:
narkauud Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2016
He is not Fictional no matter how much your little heart desires. He teaches at Wharton Junior College and has been a historian for years. His name is Professor Grubb and he is an amazing teacher and friend. I didn't say slavery wasn't the reason, I said it wasn't the main reason. Abraham Lincoln took that reason to bring up the soldiers morale.
Reply
Flagged as Spam
:iconnarkauud:
narkauud Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2016
No I am not saying that Lincoln forged them, I am saying that the war was started for many reasons, not just because of slavery. I do not think that you are white either. I do not mean to insult the black people, most black people are very good people. I do know that Professor Grubby is a history teacher and he loves history. He knows things that none of my grade history teachers did. He worked as a history guide for a long time. Even little facts that most people would like to pretend don't exist. Like the fact that the devils tower in Washington DC is not the tallest monument and the tallest monumento is one built by poor Americans back in Roosevelts New Deal. Saying that slavery was the only reason the civil war was fought for was slavery is like saying the Germans did not kill jews. If you took away the fact that everyone knows it really did happen. The Germans are very admitting of their past mistakes.
Reply
:iconkrazychick10101:
krazychick10101 Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Sorry if I posted this back when I was a childish brat who believed everything her parents told her man. I've grown up now.
Reply
:iconbriannabater:
Briannabater Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2015  Professional Photographer
That's very big of you to say.

Sorry If I came off a bit too blunt.
Reply
:iconkrazychick10101:
krazychick10101 Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2015  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Nah that's alright I totally understand where you're coming from man.
Reply
:icongreepix:
greepix Featured By Owner Mar 4, 2014  Student General Artist
that's true 
as a researcher of the civil war, it's my pet peeve when people think it's about slavery
Reply
:iconbriannabater:
Briannabater Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2015  Professional Photographer
The research isn't that hard, though, right?

Southern States wrote down why they left in documents similar to the US's Declaration of Independence.

www.civilwar.org/education/his…

They mention slavery a LOT.
Reply
:icongreepix:
greepix Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2015  Student General Artist
"They" doesn't speak for the majority of the south. These men-the men that wrote the reasoning their secession- were the aristocrats of the South during this period, and although they represented the southern "interest," they by no means represented the true meaning of the war. If the research isn't that hard you could have just researched how much of the population in the South actually owned slaves at the time, which was less than 6%. Most of the southerners during the Civil War fought to defend the homeland that they had grown up on, because they believed that the Northern United States had been impeding on their rights. Even the aristocrats that drafted these reasons for secession felt they weren't being represented in government and therefore-- seceded. The taxes the South had been receiving years prior and leading up the Civil War were far greater than even the taxes the Rebels of the American Revolution had been receiving during the 1770s. 

Slavery wasn't even regarded as a major issue in the Civil War until 1863 when Lincoln realized that if he did not emancipate the slaves, the South could win the war. Previously, Abraham Lincoln's first priority had been preserving the Union at all costs, regardless of the existence of slavery in the United States. Again, most southerners especially the Mountain Southerners and even most of the Flatland Southerners did not own slaves, and were often thought of by Northerners and Slave owners as white trash or were a class level below slaves. So why would they fight to preserve an institution that would only serve to degrade them, or at best, not affect them at all? The common southerner fought to protect his homeland and his rights, NOT to defend slavery. Based on the knowledge that the majority of the Southern men were common men, and not the aristocrats that were able to represent the South, the true ideology of the war is theirs. But they aren't able to write the history books are they? 

The Civil War was more complex than a few simple documents of secession. It was years of neglect from the North, lack of representation, growing tensions, and the common man that believed in a personal cause to defend their homeland from a foreign invasion. I think people tend to also forget that although the North is often seen as a pious group of men who's soul purpose of fighting was to free slaves, racism and the support of slavery was present in both the South AND North. This war had so many aspects that caused it, but Slavery did not become a major one until halfway through the war. 
Reply
:iconbriannabater:
Briannabater Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2015  Professional Photographer
So you agree that the Southern governments seceded and declared war to defend slavery, but not the individual soldiers?

Sure.

Do you celebrate Nazi soldiers for the same reason?

The South was taxed at no different a rate than the North.  That's an absurd and revisionist argument. 

Again, claiming that slavery didn't become a major issue until half-way through the was is bat shit crazy given that the declarations of war mentioned slavery dozens of times.  Those, necessaritly happened at the beginning of the war.

If you want to defend slavery, go for it.  But don't construct this rationale to defend slavery and then pretend that's not what you're doing.
Reply
:icontsowin:
tsowin Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2015  Student Digital Artist
I'm sorry apparently you don't understand how to read a debate or you have forgotten the original point you were trying to defend and the one I was rebutting. I was not DEFENDING slavery. I was simply stating that the Civil War was not started because of slavery and that the Civil War was not purely about slavery. Did you even read what I wrote? Because apparently you just skimmed over it and completely missed the fact that I was only stating the TRUE causes for the Civil War, and not defending the institution of slavery? I just don't understand where you managed to get that from my argument? Did I ever explicitly state in there that I backed their decisions, or agreed with the racist ideology of the South? No! I am POC, why in God's name would I do that?? I'm not biased towards either side, I was merely stating the actual reasons for the Civil War. 

What I don't understand is why you people all tend to spray out the same Nazi argument. It wasn't even the same thing? I have studied European history and American history, and the Nazi party came to rise with COMPLETELY different ideology than the Confederacy. The Nazis took advantage of the weak German State that had been stripped of power after World War 1. Their radical political and racial views are completely different than the United States issue with slavery-- which not only was 100 years prior, but had been instilled in the country since its birth! The Nazi regime had been a result of years of oppression and war reparations! The United States and specifically the Confederacy first of all: 1) DID NOT have RADICAL RACIAL IDEAS?? 2) DID NOT HAVE A RADICAL LEADER or reason for war like Hitler did! Hitler specifically wanted more "living space" for his Aryans, when the Confederacy was literally fine with their land and was in fact defending it from invasion!! The Nazi soldiers willingly fought for the elimination of races under them, while most Confederate soldiers fought for protection of their homeland, and upholding their way of life, need it be, continuing the institution of slavery. Let me state this again because you seem to be confused. Just remember that BOTH sides were equally corrupt and racist! They had selfish motives, and one was not more pious than the other. I was not CELEBRATING slavery? Please read my argument again then we can talk. Honestly I find it offensive that you're tell me that I'm defending Nazi ideology of White supremacy when I'm part Jewish and POC? 

Now onto the South being taxed at a different rate. Would I make this up? Like what? Why? I'm just confused? You think I just brought that up out of thin air? You're only rebuttal for this is just saying that it's made up when I'll bet that you didn't even research if my statement was true. Please research the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861, one of many that caused tensions between the North and South. 

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.  I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so,"  Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year.

There is no proof of Lincoln ever declaring the war was fought to abolish slavery, and without such an official statement, the war-over-slavery teaching remains a complete lie and offensive hate speech that divides Americans, as is being done now by the media and politicians regarding the Confederate flag in South Carolina." (As long as we're using articles, I'd like to bring this one up, one of many. :^) ) www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2…


Don't try to debate something that you clearly have not researched, or have any experience in. If you're going to rattle on about the same two articles you seem to be posting on everyone's comment, that's fine but that doesn't mean you're credible just because you have a two articles to back you up. As someone who used to believe in the same ideas you do--taught to me through biased textbook propaganda during years of school, I think you should go ahead and spend 2 1/2 years ACTUALLy researching the Civil War, it's motives and real causes before you start going on about this. 

I'm laughing right now, I'm just so confused by your last line. Defend slavery? Oh my God, where did you get that? Just? I'm so confused?? If you'd have even READ my argument you would actually have something valid to say. 
Reply
:iconbriannabater:
Briannabater Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2015  Professional Photographer
First of all, it's against DA's terms of service to use an alt account to talk to someone who has blocked you. 

That's harassment.  Your profile has been reported. 

Kid, the Civil War was started over slavery.  I've shown you the official declarations that say as much.  It's not hard unless you're just DYING to celebrate the Confederact, but you know slavery is frowned upon now-a-days.   

Don't believe me?  Listen to the head of the History Department at West Point - www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV…

The Morrill Tariff started after the South seceded.  You're claiming that it caused things that had already happened? 

Sloppy, pathetic shit. 

You should ask for your tuition money back. 
Reply
:iconkrazychick10101:
krazychick10101 Featured By Owner Mar 4, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Thanks bro
Reply
:iconvirtaashi:
VirTaAshi Featured By Owner Oct 1, 2013
Seems like there's an awful lot of debate.

It wasn't Slavery that caused the Civil War. Not initially.

Tensions were rising in the North and South since the late 1700s anyway. The claiming of new land was a factor, as well as the awful lot of slander coming from the North about the South. And remember, by the Civil War time, most the world had already done away with slavery. This, along with Lincoln's possibly less that legal election as president, and possibly a few other things I've missed, hit the snapping point. South Carolina succeeded, and things kept getting worse.

Add to the mix of state rights, the fact that Lincoln actually started an army before any really government actions began, and then boom.

Slavery just added fuel to the fire, and while its not a good thing, it sadly seems to overrule what was going on at the time.


To add to this confusion, lets jump to the Confederacy itself. Most of its generals didn't care for Slavery to begin with. They were on the Confederate side because their State was on that side. Yes yes, there probably were those to defend the right for slavery, but that's beside the point. Near the end of the war, the Confederacy was already doing away with slavery, they were even adding black regiments to their armies. Funnier thing is, the black regiments of the Confederacy were being paid in equal amount the white Confederate regiments, unlike the Union.

And for more things added, any one every hear of a "Carpetbagger"? What happened after the Civil war could be considered worse, as the South wasn't "Recontructed" per say, as it was raked. The South was ravaged after the war by the North. Land given to people who didn't know what they were doing to Carpetbaggers taking all they could from it.



Wow, I think I just rambled again. I really need to stop doing that.

Cute picture by the way.
Reply
:iconbriannabater:
Briannabater Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2015  Professional Photographer
It turns out, states write down their reasons for leaving the US and then killing US soldiers.

www.civilwar.org/education/his…

At the time, the governments that decided to leave the US were crystal clear about why they left - they wanted to protect and expand the slave trade.

And this happened before Lincoln even made it to DC to start governing, so it doesn't make much since to blame him, right?

As for Confederate black soldiers, that was approved in the final days of the war when the Confederacy had no other choice.  Also, these people were slaves and not free www.history.com/this-day-in-hi…

“What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?”
“If slaves will make good soldiers, our whole theory of slavery is wrong.”
Reply
:iconvirtaashi:
VirTaAshi Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2015
...You decided to fight an argument a very long time after I even made a statement. Minds change, and so do mine. I don't nessesarily support any kind of theory, and is simple tired of people calling those who fought for the simple reason that if they didn't, their families died, anything else be damned.

But if you wish to make an argument....

Give me five other links from several different sites going for and against your argument (Each), from the same user account, you get no help in this, and then explain in exceptional detail of why you are right and I am wrong and why I should eat my words. Other restrictions are you can't use government sites or anything written by the mid-west US and you can't use anything associated with any groups that are known for being derogatory or dangerous to anyone especially if Halloween is apart of their wardrobe.

And once you do that, I want a full history report on the Slave Trade Everywhere Period. From before colonization of the Americas.

And if you have the patience after that, or if I've driven you crazy enough, when before you tell me anything about the report....

Tell me Why You Don't Click on Strange Links From Strangers On the Internet.
Reply
:iconbriannabater:
Briannabater Featured By Owner Aug 8, 2015  Professional Photographer
You seem awfully offended by someone who simply posted a few historical facts and links to primary source documents.

There's no "fighting" going on here. 

Again - I posted the actual declarations of secession written by the confederate governments.  If you want to support the Confederacy, but don't believe it when the Confederate governments tell you they left the US to support slavery, then I just don't know what to tell you, kid. 
Reply
:iconvirtaashi:
VirTaAshi Featured By Owner Aug 9, 2015
Offended? Parish the thought madam, I'm challenging. I find arguments, as long as they aren't touched with any significant seriousness, to be all in good fun.

Support the Confederacy? Madam, you don't have to support anything, but you will defend your own values even if that means either willingly or being forcefully conscripted into something. A majority seems to believe that guilty by association automatically makes you the eviliest thing alive. Sometimes, they are right, sometimes they are wrong, but mostly misunderstood.

Or perhaps its better to think like this, if one of your top values is your family, and you are on the side of the war that possibly fighting for a great evil (depending on what society is upholding at the time) then you are going to fight for that side to protect your family, because the opposing side is going to do horrible things simply because of association and/or the side you're fighting for will to make you fight.
  The greatest issues of simplifying Wars with Nations, especially if its the nations themselves trying to simplify it, is that the Winners Write the Rules (and damn anyone else) and that you're trying to simplify thousands of people, and Governments will make their own assumptions and generalizations and most of the time follow their own views because they can't understand what millions of voices are telling them, or don't want to.

But that is another can of wyrms all together.
Reply
:iconbriannabater:
Briannabater Featured By Owner Aug 9, 2015  Professional Photographer
It's not a matter of "guilt by association"

If you want to argue that individual soldiers in any conflict, might be good people, that's fine.  I agree with that.

But any historian and any primary source document you can find makes it clear that the Civil War was fought over slavery.

So why do you wish to pretend otherwise?
Reply
:iconvirtaashi:
VirTaAshi Featured By Owner Aug 9, 2015
You seem to think I'm denying something, madam. I deny nothing, which is why I point out everything. Details tend to be a fine thing in art, they are even finer everywhere else.
Reply
:iconbriannabater:
Briannabater Featured By Owner Aug 9, 2015  Professional Photographer
"It wasn't Slavery that caused the Civil War."

Yes.  That's a denial.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconprincedumuzi:
PrinceDumuzi Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2013
You get a :iconfreeinternetplz: for this btw.
Reply
:iconprincedumuzi:
PrinceDumuzi Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2013
I love your comment. Seriously. Northerners are really dumb on it most of the time. Shit I'm from IL and it least I went and looked into it.  I heard the South wanted to be it's own country too cause the North treated it like a colony and really didn't respect it.
Reply
:iconvirtaashi:
VirTaAshi Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2013
From TX here, right in the South.

I wouldn't say Colony, as several of the states of the Confederacy were part of the Original Thirteen, but yeah.

And lets not forget the States in the Middle of the North and South, most which were slave states but were Union supported and/or neutral, and those got torn up really bad in the war.
Reply
:iconprincedumuzi:
PrinceDumuzi Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2013
Ja, and Texas? Lucky...I love Tex-Mex food. I have a Confederate Flag in my bedroom, as well as a bandana somewhere.
Reply
:iconvirtaashi:
VirTaAshi Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2013
Make sure its the actual Confederate Flag, and not the Battle flag.
Reply
:iconprincedumuzi:
PrinceDumuzi Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2013
I zhink it's zhe battle flag. o2o or 'rebel flag'.
Reply
:iconvirtaashi:
VirTaAshi Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2013
If its got the X with stars, the usual Iconic one, then yeah, that's the Battle Flag. The Virginian Flag specifically.

Its mistaken for the "Stars and Bars", which is actually something more akin to a mix of the Colonial American Flag and the Texas flag. A flag with a blue square at the right corner, containing a circle of stars, exact upgrade of it increased enough stars to match the Confederate States, which include Missouri and Kentucky. It also has one white strip and two red.
Funny enough, Stars and Bars is based off of the Stars and Stripes, makes sense for the Colonial American flag influence.
But the issue with this one was the confusion it would cause because it looked a lot like the Union flag.

There are two others, the Stainless Banner, which had the Battle Flag in the corner while the rest was white. This was used as a Naval flag and as a partial Battle Flag. However, there were complaints that the flag was too white, and would be signaled as surrender. (Reminds me of Italy from Hetalia, go figure.)

Then the Blood Stained Banner. This one was the last National flag, and it was said to have influences of British and France (They can't seem to make up their mind). Like the Stainless Banner, this one only different was the red strip on the left of the Battle Flag design.
Reply
:iconprincedumuzi:
PrinceDumuzi Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2013
I know what the battle flag is. I got it at the mall. owo;;
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconoye22:
Oye22 Featured By Owner Sep 20, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
Why is her hair brown... it should be darker DX
Reply
:iconmsiefker14:
msiefker14 Featured By Owner Sep 18, 2013  Hobbyist
hey Texan-Rebel im with  you all the way. I'm a Civil War reenactor, so i know alot about the Confederates.
Reply
:iconmarpmarps17:
MarpMarps17 Featured By Owner Jul 17, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
o.o AMD THEN ENGLAND BURST IN AND SAVES THEM ALL!!! *inner fangirl*
Reply
:iconsmokehunter2:
smokehunter2 Featured By Owner Jun 19, 2013  Student Artist
This makes everything so innocent. I'm almost angry but I just can't help smiling that somebody has done this.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
September 25, 2010
Image Size
84.9 KB
Resolution
620×396
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
37,621 (7 today)
Favourites
1,082 (who?)
Comments
301
Downloads
1,296
×