• 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!

The Civil War

Who was right: North or South?

  • North

    Votes: 34 77.3%
  • South

    Votes: 6 13.6%
  • Neither

    Votes: 4 9.1%

  • Total voters
    44

ElCid

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
1,784
Reaction score
233
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Who was right? Which side would you have fought for, knowing what you know today? Explain, please.
 
Last edited:
Fought or fought with? Your poll seems to convey a different meaning from the thread's initial post.
 
Fought or fought with? Your poll seems to convey a different meaning from the thread's initial post.

Which side? Who would ya'll 'RIDE FOR', Steel, knowing what you know about America today? I say The South. Yeah...............I grew up with the standard liberal garbage shoved down my pie-hole on a daily basis. At 53, however, I feel differently about the U.S. Civil War. I WOULD'VE FOUGHT FOR THE CONFEDERACY. Hellz, yeah, Dog. Hellz yeah.
 
Who was right? Which side would you have fought for, knowing what you know today? Explain, please.

I would of fought for state rights, but I would of never allowed Lee to lead that didn't understand you don't fight to fight, but to win. He was a cocky little man that didn't understand anything about war.

Though lets all remember the south didn't start aggression.
 
Last edited:
North, I am black and don't see any point in extending slavery any longer then it was. **** the south.
 
I would of fought for state rights, but I would of never allowed Lee to lead that didn't understand you don't fight to fight, but to win. He was a cocky little man that didn't understand anything about war.
Though lets all remember the south didn't start aggression.

Tell me more about why you don't like Lee. I always considered him a giant among men.
 
North, I am black and don't see any point in extending slavery any longer then it was. **** the south.

Of course I understand your position, but can't you see any virtue at all in the traditional values of the South? Can you objectify the South, at least enough to acknowledge its traditionalism?
 
*The "right" for states to have slavery.

Slavery would've died out, eventually, anyway. Even Brazil gave it up, late in the 19th Century.
 
I would of fought for state rights, but I would of never allowed Lee to lead that didn't understand you don't fight to fight, but to win. He was a cocky little man that didn't understand anything about war.

Though lets all remember the south didn't start aggression.

No state should have to the right to allow slavery within it's borders.
 
Of course I understand your position, but can't you see any virtue at all in the traditional values of the South? Can you objectify the South, at least enough to acknowledge its traditionalism?

Depends. Which traditional values are we talking about, and how was the north trying to stamp them out?
 
Slavery would've died out, eventually, anyway. Even Brazil gave it up, late in the 19th Century.

In 1860, half the wealth of the south was in the form of slaves. That's a pretty strong economic incentive. You're right that eventually it would have died out, but it could have easily taken another 50 years or longer. It is unacceptable for a nation to tolerate such grotesque human rights abuses within its own borders.
 
Depends. Which traditional values are we talking about, and how was the north trying to stamp them out?

I would also like to know why some people think something being a traditional value is an indicator of it being good?
 
I would also like to know why some people think something being a traditional value is an indicator of it being good?

I would also like to know how the North exhibited LACK of traditional values, and how the North was trying to attack these values.
 
Tell me more about why you don't like Lee. I always considered him a giant among men.

Killing men is not the goal of war, but to Lee that was all he appeared to be interested in. There is numerous accounts where he fought battles in ignorant and resource hogging ways or examples where he would go out of his path to go to battle with an enemy that played no strategic advantage for him to fight. He ignored that war is about the mind, that war is meant to be fought with as little resources as possible, not to throw men at the enemy like they are fodder waiting for something to change. A great strategy for him would of been to take out soft targets at the same time in different sides of the field to avoid battles to move his enemy to his advantage and keep them off balance, not knowing where exactly he is, but he instead keep them knowing right where he is with his head on approach, that could make sense if you have had greater numbers than your enemy or weren't at all interested in men. All of this is seen in the best example of his ignorance when he was managing how to deal with Gettysburg. He was in the process of actually doing almost what I just said, going to a soft target, but when he heard news of an army going across the land, he decided to abandon this and run over to fight them for no reason what so ever. Then when he got there he decided to fight the enemy uphill sending men up the hill to be killed. He could of just avoided the fight, or when he got there killed them quickly by surprise to his advantage, but no, he fought them head on, when they had higher ground. I have no respect for a man that uses men like fodder, sorry.
 
Last edited:
No state should have to the right to allow slavery within it's borders.

The war was never about slaves. Ask the north why they attacked, property, ask the south why they defended themselves, property and the right to leave the nation.

Why they left the nation is a completely different debate, but people like you decide to blend it together as if its the same. Its not.
 
Of course I understand your position, but can't you see any virtue at all in the traditional values of the South? Can you objectify the South, at least enough to acknowledge its traditionalism?

If that "value" involves me bing a slave? **** them and their ****ed up values.
 
The war was never about slaves. Ask the north why they attacked, property, ask the south why they defended themselves, property and the right to leave the nation.

What property did the north gain from the war? Certainly nowhere near enough to justify the costs of the war.
 
PS The North won either way. So...

My eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!
They kicked the **** out of the South and left it burned and very scorched.
So death to all those slave holding states and to The North they swore!
Blackdogs truth is marching on!

Glory! Glory Chocolate Thun-der!
Spud who always lives Down un-der!
Goshin who's always speaks and plunder!
Blackdogs truth is marching on!
 
What property did the north gain from the war? Certainly nowhere near enough to justify the costs of the war.

You have to ask them why they attacked forts in the south when they left the nation.
 
The war was never about slaves. Ask the north why they attacked, property, ask the south why they defended themselves, property and the right to leave the nation.

Why they left the nation is a completely different debate, but people like you decide to blend it together as if its the same. Its not.

The south seceded, the north had every right to attack the treasonous rebellion.
 
You have to ask them why they attacked forts in the south when they left the nation.

Oh come on. The value of those forts was minimal compared to the cost of the war, especially considering that the north itself was more than willing to shell them and/or burn them down once they were in Confederate hands. If their casus belli was protecting their own property (i.e. the forts), they would have taken more care to not destroy it.

Ultimately there wasn't enough property at stake, from the north's perspective, for them to have cared about going to war. The primary reason was genuine revulsion at slavery.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think that slavery would have died before 1900 if not much sooner. During the Civil War, Great Britain greatly increased its cotton imports from India and Egypt. The North's blockade no doubt played a large role in this, but the trend was inevitable, especially after the Suez Canal was built. However, the Civil War was not all about slavery. The South felt threatened by abolition; the Wealthy were afraid of its damage to their profits, and the working class Whites were afraid of having to compete with freed Blacks and having them on a similar social standing as them. Slavery was holding back the Southern economy, but many did not feel that way. As the saying went, "Cotton is King."

However, the North was much more interested in preserving the Union. I'm a pretty strong Unionist, and the South's seizure of Federal property without compensation would be reason enough for my support of the North. I also see this as a separate issue from the American War of Independence, where we used violence to secede from Britain, because the South had ample representation in Congress unlike the 13 Colonies in Parliament.
 
Back
Top Bottom