• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House votes to restrict Confederate flag in national cemeteries[W:707]

TheGoverness said:
No, this was most definitely a civil war.

That's why it's called the AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.
Click to expand...

nope. a civil war is a fight between citizens. the south left. they did not identify as citizens, and did not fight to control the union

do you call the Revolution a civil war too?

COOKOO COOKOO
 
ARealConservative said:
do realize this all started by me pointing out this was revolution, not a civil war?

so thanks for agreeing with me
Click to expand...

It wasn't a revolution, though. There was no fundamental change in society--- it was a bunch of reactionaries(which is a word I hate using, but in this case it fits too perfectly not to) who wanted to keep everything exactly the same, with themselves lordinibg it over the African Americans as well as other Caucasians.
 
ARealConservative said:
do realize this all started by me pointing out this was revolution, not a civil war?

so thanks for agreeing with me
Click to expand...

Better tell your fellow neo-confederates....they argue over and over the south "just wanted to be left alone."

That would be in sharp contrast to a revolution, that is, an attempt to "alter or abolish" the government, and create a new one.

Which is what our DoI spoke of, and which most people agree is a right.

But you better be prepared to win it -- or <finger chop across neck>
 
Tigerace117 said:
It wasn't a revolution, though. There was no fundamental change in society--- it was a bunch of reactionaries(which is a word I hate using, but in this case it fits too perfectly not to) who wanted to keep everything exactly the same, with themselves lordinibg it over the African Americans as well as other Caucasians.
Click to expand...

was it an attempt by many people to end the rule of one government and form another?
 
ARealConservative said:
nope. a civil war is a fight between citizens. the south left. they did not identify as citizens, and did not fight to control the union

do you call the Revolution a civil war too?

COOKOO COOKOO
Click to expand...

OF COURSE the Revolutionary War was a civil war. The Revolutionary War fits all of the classifications for what constitutes a civil war, so it's not off-base to consider it as a civil war.

And regardless whether you choose to accept the facts of reality or not, the American Civil War WAS a civil war.
 
I'll further note, many of those in the Confederacy, with VP Stephens championing it often, said the CSA was formed on the exact opposite ideals of the US Constitution.
 
Paperview said:
they argue over and over the south "just wanted to be left alone."

That would be in sharp contrast to a revolution, that is, an attempt to "alter or abolish" the government, and create a new one.
Click to expand...

no contrast exists with the above. they wanted to be left alone. It was an attempt by many people to end the rule of one government and start a new one <--textbook definition of revolution
 
Historical tidbit:


Ten years before the war, 1850 - 51, when South Carolina was flouting around with secession and held their Convention - but couldn't get the other states to join them --

Lookie here, Mississippi held a Convention too, and what did they say?

"Resolved, further, 4th, That, in the opinion of this Convention, the asserted right of secession from the Union, on the part of a State or States, is utterly unsanctioned by the Federal Constitution, which was framed to establish, and not destroy, the Union of the States; and that no secession can, in fact, take place, without a subversion of the Union established, and which will not virtually amount, in its effects and consequences, to a civil revolution."

- 1851 Mississippi Secession Convention

Source: The rebellion record a diary of American events with documents narratives

The Congressional Globe Volume 24 Part 1 Thirty-Second Congress First Session Page 35 UNT Digital Library

Ten years earlier, Mississippians --> saying 'nope, secession was Unconstitutional.

Mississippi!

Howzabout that?
 
ARealConservative said:
was it an attempt by many people to end the rule of one government and form another?
Click to expand...

Nope. They still would have been a "democracy"(with the south, the quotation marks are highly appropriate)---they just would shave kept slavery and been a bit more decentralized.
 
TheGoverness said:
OF COURSE the Revolutionary War was a civil war. The Revolutionary War fits all of the classifications for what constitutes a civil war, so it's not off-base to consider it as a civil war.

And regardless whether you choose to accept the facts of reality or not, the American Civil War WAS a civil war.
Click to expand...

Yep.

It doesn't become a revolution unless the rebellion succeeds.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Nope. They still would have been a "democracy"(with the south, the quotation marks are highly appropriate)---they just would shave kept slavery and been a bit more decentralized.
Click to expand...

you might want to look up the definition of revolution - this clearly fits the bill
 
Paperview said:
Yep.

It doesn't become a revolution unless the rebellion succeeds.
Click to expand...

everything except the original etymology of what a civil war meant.

and the definition of revolution does not require success - you added that
 
ARealConservative said:
you might want to look up the definition of revolution - this clearly fits the bill
Click to expand...

"A forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor a new one".

In other words, The Civil War wasn't a revolution.
 
"The war between the States," which a good many Southerners prefer, is both bookish and inexact. "Civil war" is an utter misnomer. It was used and is still used by courteous people, the same people who are careful to say "Federal" and "Confederate." "War of the rebellion," which begs the very question at issue, has become the official designation of the struggle, but has found no acceptance with the vanquished. To this day no Southerner uses it except by way of quotation .... "The war of secession" is still used a good deal in foreign books, but it has no popular hold. "The war," without any further qualification, served the turn of Thucydides and Aristophanes for the Peloponnesian war. It will serve ours, let it be hoped, for some time to come. [Basil L. Gildersleeve, "The Creed of the Old South," 1915]
 
Tigerace117 said:
Revolution | Define Revolution at Dictionary.com

The relevance, of course, of whether it was a "revolution" or a civil war has yet to be discusses, especially since the treasonous activity was crushed.
Click to expand...

an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.

this happened. A new government was formed and it lasted a while so your own links agree with me

PWNED X2
 
ARealConservative said:
an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.

this happened. A new government was formed and it lasted a while so your own links agree with me

PWNED X2
Click to expand...

A whole five years. Whoopdie ****ing do.
 
ARealConservative said:
what is the time requirement for a repudiation
Click to expand...

Well, if the revolution lasts----and leaves a lasting change on the governmental system either in the host country or overseas---then it's generally accepted.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Well, if the revolution lasts----and leaves a lasting change on the governmental system either in the host country or overseas---then it's generally accepted.
Click to expand...

I see. your debate strategy is to make **** up.

good luck with that!

ps the incorporation of the bill of rights had wide reaching effects - so you even lose on this new definition
 
Tigerace117 said:
Uh huh. Good luck with your whiny ass pro Confderate shtick.
Click to expand...

who is pro confederate?

I'm pro common sense. I think words have meanings. the patriot act wasn't patriotic and the civil war wasn't a civil war
 
Tigerace117 said:
Well, if the revolution lasts----and leaves a lasting change on the governmental system either in the host country or overseas---then it's generally accepted.
Click to expand...
If we had lost the Revolutionary War, there's no doubt in my mind it would have been referred to as a civil war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom