• 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
Human rights violations like what was going on in the Northern factories? A worker was paid less than it cost to live and had to run a line of credit at the company store. He couldn't leave for a better job, until he paid off the company store, which would never happen. If he left the job, he would be imprisoned, then sent back to the same factory to go back to work.

Sounds alot like slavery, to me.

OK so bad things happened up North as well. That makes it all right. :doh
 
How on earth can we morally say that it would have been alright for slavery to continue even one day longer than it did?

I never said that. I was simply pointing out that conflict over slavery wasn't inevitable.
 
But, it should have the right to abolish it itself, without the threat of military intervention by a central government. Yes?

Umm no. The "right to abolish it itself" is really the "right to dither for a few more decades while human beings remained enslaved." No state has that right. Just like if one of our state governments decided to become totalitarian and start murdering its residents, you damn well believe the federal government would militarily intervene rather than respecting the states' "right" to sort the matter out for itself.
 
I would've been an abolitionist, so.....North.

An interesting argument, but I would say that its better to leave and be free if that is what is open to you, than to stay and be oppressed. And while it might be worth fighting for freedom if you wish to stay if we talking of land, it doesn't make much sense in a form of government, or at least to me. If it was me I would of decided to form a new government, then to waste my time working with men that are only interested in controlling me. That is the situation that south was in, the north wanted to control them, and the south wanted no part of the new controls being put in place. They had no reason to tolerate it, and no reason to stay and fight for change, specially when they were doing that for awhile already and getting no where. Their solution was peaceful, and solved their problems. It seems to me to be a fine decision on their part that I agree with fully.
 
So what? They wrote it into the Constitution, what does that tell you? I don't care any who served em, **** them to. If they were to stupid or misinformed to know what they were fighting to preserve, so what?

Black soldiers in the Federal Army were so informed that they enlisted, for half of what white soldiers were being paid and sent to Hilton Head to dig ditches, or to Fort Wagner to absorb Confederate artillery fire.
 
Violence was absolutely the answer. When the South seceded they should have seen the writing on the wall.

When they left in peace, and meant no harm to another, and when the nation was formed out of willing members I see no reason for violence. The only reason the north could manage was government property, and that was a weak one.
 
If you view human beings as property, I pity you.

There are people that would say the same thing about owning a dog, or a horse. In fact, there are members of the current administration that want to give animals the same rights as humans, which could eventually make animal ownership illegal. When you consider that fact, it's not a far stretch for Southerners to fear for their property rights.
 
An interesting argument, but I would say that its better to leave and be free if that is what is open to you, than to stay and be oppressed. And while it might be worth fighting for freedom if you wish to stay if we talking of land, it doesn't make much sense in a form of government, or at least to me. If it was me I would of decided to form a new government, then to waste my time working with men that are only interested in controlling me. That is the situation that south was in, the north wanted to control them, and the south wanted no part of the new controls being put in place. They had no reason to tolerate it, and no reason to stay and fight for change, specially when they were doing that for awhile already and getting no where. Their solution was peaceful, and solved their problems. It seems to me to be a fine decision on their part that I agree with fully.

First of all, let's clarify who you mean when you say "the south wanted no part of the new controls." You're referring to the governments of southern states which were not democratically elected and did not reflect the will of the people living in those states (and I mean ALL of the people living in those states). And even if they did, too bad. Human rights are not and should not be subject to a popular vote.
 
I voted north, but on further consideration, I'd change that to neither. Knowing what I know today, I'd just let them secede.
 
Umm no. The "right to abolish it itself" is really the "right to dither for a few more decades while human beings remained enslaved." No state has that right. Just like if one of our state governments decided to become totalitarian and start murdering its residents, you damn well believe the federal government would militarily intervene rather than respecting the states' "right" to sort the matter out for itself.

If the Noth could threaten the states with military intervention over slavery, then it would create a president for them to threaten military intervention over anything. The Constitution makes deployment of the United States military in the states illegal. You don't get to throw the law aside when it doesn't suit your agenda.
 
OK so bad things happened up North as well. That makes it all right. :doh

Just putting things into historical perspective, my man. Going along with your, "****'em", school of thought.
 
There are people that would say the same thing about owning a dog, or a horse. In fact, there are members of the current administration that want to give animals the same rights as humans, which could eventually make animal ownership illegal. When you consider that fact, it's not a far stretch for Southerners to fear for their property rights.

Umm, what? Are you seriously comparing owning human beings to owning a horse? Or are you saying that the southerners seceded to prevent the animal rights movement 150 years later? :confused:

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.
 
They seized many government buildings and property. They never compensated the North.

What would be the compensation? Money? If I recall it wasn't that easy. They wanted the forts, and the land it was on as compensation if I recall. Not an easy order for a nation that was being formed that no way to have a military or protections, specially if part of the deal is losing the land as well. If I am to allow the land to be of a different country that allows them to be in a situation where they are inside my country, a situation I have no interest to agree with. Would you actually agree with what they wanted if you were the south?
 
If the Noth could threaten the states with military intervention over slavery, then it would create a president for them to threaten military intervention over anything.

Not anything, just flagrant abuses of the Constitution (not to mention basic human rights) with belligerent state governments unwilling to yield.

apdst said:
The Constitution makes deployment of the United States military in the states illegal.

No it doesn't.

apdst said:
You don't get to throw the law aside when it doesn't suit your agenda.

Like the part in the Constitution about the federal government guaranteeing all states a republican form of government?
 
When they left in peace, and meant no harm to another, and when the nation was formed out of willing members I see no reason for violence. The only reason the north could manage was government property, and that was a weak one.

The South leaving in "peace" is revisionist crap. The south attacked and seized US federal property, an act of war. Also, secession was illegal, anyway. Texas v. White confirned this as did Federalist 7.

Oh... and I wold certainly be on the side of the North.
 
Last edited:
Umm, what? Are you seriously comparing owning human beings to owning a horse? Or are you saying that the southerners seceded to prevent the animal rights movement 150 years later? :confused:

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

You made that clear when the only argument you could muster was to put words into my mouth. What's next? You gonna call me a racist/homophobe?
 
What would be the compensation? Money? If I recall it wasn't that easy. They wanted the forts, and the land it was on as compensation if I recall. Not an easy order for a nation that was being formed that no way to have a military or protections, specially if part of the deal is losing the land as well. If I am to allow the land to be of a different country that allows them to be in a situation where they are inside my country, a situation I have no interest to agree with. Would you actually agree with what they wanted if you were the south?

They could have worked something out.
 
I voted north, but on further consideration, I'd change that to neither. Knowing what I know today, I'd just let them secede.

And let my ancestors continue to be slaves for another generation or so?
Real nice of ya.

As half black I vote for the North.
As half indian I vote for Manahasset being wrong for not wiping out the pilgrim when they had the chance,thus setting up my mother's ancestors centuries of ethnic cleansing and genocide.
 
First of all, let's clarify who you mean when you say "the south wanted no part of the new controls."

Clarify the actions being taken against states?

You're referring to the governments of southern states which were not democratically elected and did not reflect the will of the people living in those states (and I mean ALL of the people living in those states). And even if they did, too bad. Human rights are not and should not be subject to a popular vote.

This is piss poor argument. First, democratically elected officials has nothing to do with a government, but a form of government. Second, no matter the government you aren't going to get 100% approval of anything. Third, human rights as you know them weren't international issues like they are today.
 
You made that clear when the only argument you could muster was to put words into my mouth. What's next? You gonna call me a racist/homophobe?

You just compared owning slaves to owning horses. You tell me.
 
You just compared owning slaves to owning horses. You tell me.

What with your complete miconception of what I'm trying to tell you, I already knew that was coming.
 
First of all, let's clarify who you mean when you say "the south wanted no part of the new controls." You're referring to the governments of southern states which were not democratically elected and did not reflect the will of the people living in those states (and I mean ALL of the people living in those states). And even if they did, too bad. Human rights are not and should not be subject to a popular vote.

Seccession was put to a statewide referendum. So yes, seccession was the will of the people.
 
I'd rather be an organic farmer, lol.

If I must I'd fight the south on basis of slavery alone.

I dunno if ElCid is implying that fighting for the North was to fight for liberalism and immorality.

It's too bad diplomacy couldn't happen to prevent the bloodshed.

To be blunt it's easy for us to make such decisions because we live in this day and age. I'm sure our opinions would be different if we were from that time period.
 
Back
Top Bottom