• 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
Kandahar said:
The north wasn't much better in terms of representative government. The US didn't become a de jure democracy until 1920, and a de facto democracy until the mid-1960s. Prior to that, the US was at best an oligarchy and at worst a totalitarian dictatorship, depending on where you lived and who you were.

My point isn't that the north was so much better than the south in terms of democracy, it's that all the talk about "states' rights" in the context of slavery is bull****, because A) basic rights are not subject to a vote, and B) the state had no democratic legitimacy to enslave its residents or secede from the country anyway.
Click to expand...

You're cheating yourself by looking at the period from a 21st Century perspective.
 
apdst said:
What did they do wrong?
Click to expand...

Their governments abused the rights of the people living within them. What makes the Southern United States circa 1860 any better than the Sudan today?
 
I don't know that "right" and "wrong" are the appropriate words. It's just something this country had to go through to become the nation the US is today. As I am quite pleased with this country, seems to me the proof is in the results and right "side" won.
 
apdst said:
Seizing the Federal arsenals isn't what kicked off the war. The Federal Army had abandoned all those installations.

The attack on Fort Sumpter started the war. The Northern saber rattling that went on prior to the bombardment was just for show. The North would have never invaded, premptively. Then, again, Lincoln knew that he wouldn't have to invade. He knew there were enough hotheads in the South that wanted to fire the first shot.

Gotta look at things in the proper perspective, dude.
Click to expand...

Seizing the Federal installations was cause for war... as was attacking Fort Sumpter, initiated by the South. Confederate militia attacked the fort, certainly an act of war. There was enough "saber rattling" going on with both sides, but this really isn't relevant. The south initiated hostilities by seizing Federal property and attacking a federal fort.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Seizing the Federal installations was cause for war... as was attacking Fort Sumpter, initiated by the South. Confederate militia attacked the fort, certainly an act of war. There was enough "saber rattling" going on with both sides, but this really isn't relevant. The south initiated hostilities by seizing Federal property and attacking a federal fort.
Click to expand...

Taking over the arsenals didn't start the war. Period. Lincoln never intended on invading the South prior to the firing on Fort Sumpter. Lincoln was hoping that he wouldn't have to invade at all, but he knew better.
 
Kandahar said:
Their governments abused the rights of the people living within them. What makes the Southern United States circa 1860 any better than the Sudan today?
Click to expand...

You're still looking at it through 21st Century glasses. You'll never learn anything as long as you keep clinging to your hatred of Southerners.
 
apdst said:
Taking over the arsenals didn't start the war. Period. Lincoln never intended on invading the South prior to the firing on Fort Sumpter. Lincoln was hoping that he wouldn't have to invade at all, but he knew better.
Click to expand...

Taking over the arsenals WAS an act of war and illegal. This and the attack on Fort Sumpter, attacking a Federal installation goes toward the presentation of the aggression of the south in this situation. Whether or not the North acted on the arsenal takeover is not relevant towards what they represented.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
They did attack something. YOU have your history backwards.
Click to expand...

Attacking and what the south did are not the same.

It confirmed that secession was not legal. Irrelevant as to when the case came to the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

By a liberal court that all didn't agree with succession a good 115 years after the civil war. It might as well not exist at all.

And I meant Federalist 6. Hit the wrong key... though Hamilton's discussion on the topic DOES continue in Federalist 7.
Click to expand...

As I said he didn't say any of what you said.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Taking over the arsenals WAS an act of war and illegal. This and the attack on Fort Sumpter, attacking a Federal installation goes toward the presentation of the aggression of the south in this situation. Whether or not the North acted on the arsenal takeover is not relevant towards what they represented.
Click to expand...

They did however act. They acted by starting a dispute over the land, and the fort. That later lead to them attacking the fort.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
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.
Click to expand...


The South certainly didn't see it that way; trade policies intended to force the South to buy from/sell to the North, instead of overseas, at worse prices, were one of the root causes of the War. A close second was the Nullification of such laws by southern states. A big part of the reason there was a war at all was the North's relative control of Congress, and how they used it as a blunt instrument for their own economic advantage.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Taking over the arsenals WAS an act of war and illegal. This and the attack on Fort Sumpter, attacking a Federal installation goes toward the presentation of the aggression of the south in this situation. Whether or not the North acted on the arsenal takeover is not relevant towards what they represented.
Click to expand...

Perhaps from your modern perspective, however that's not what got things kicked off and Lincoln had never intended on responding to the seizure of the arsenals, since no Federal troops were involved. Again, the arsenals had been abandoned by the Federals and left to the Confederates.
 
Henrin said:
Attacking and what the south did are not the same.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are.

By a liberal court that all didn't agree with succession a good 115 years after the civil war. It might as well not exist at all.
Click to expand...

Just because the decision differs from your position doesn't make it invalid.

As I said he didn't say any of what you said.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it did. Read it again.
 
Henrin said:
They did however act. They acted by starting a dispute over the land, and the fort. That later lead to them attacking the fort.
Click to expand...

The fort was Federal property. Attacking a federal installation is an act of war.
 
apdst said:
Perhaps from your modern perspective, however that's not what got things kicked off and Lincoln had never intended on responding to the seizure of the arsenals, since no Federal troops were involved. Again, the arsenals had been abandoned by the Federals and left to the Confederates.
Click to expand...

All of which remains irrelevant, apdst. What was intended or what was done doesn't matter as to the legality of taking the arsenals.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
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.
Click to expand...

The anti-Southern Republicans had a strong majority in Congress and had the White House. The South didn't feel like they were being represented.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
All of which remains irrelevant, apdst. What was intended or what was done doesn't matter as to the legality of taking the arsenals.
Click to expand...

The North's point of view, at the time, isn't irrelevant.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Objectively, it is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Objectivity? Ok, be aware of the fact that Lincoln ceded that the arsenals were on Confederate soil, hence the reason he abandoned them. Lincoln also believed that Fort Sumpter wasn't within Confederate waters, hence the reason he didn't abandon it.
 
First and foremost, Cid, it was not a civil war. Get it right. There was no law that prevented succession. The South succeeded and became a separate nation. It was the War of Northern Aggression. The South did not invade the North until later in the war and it did so defensively. Bobby Lee could have and should have prosecuted his invasion of the North early on as eventually did. The war would have ended much sooner. The South lost and the North wrote the history, often incorrectly.

My great, great grandfather and my great, great uncles served under Maxcy Gregg in the 12th South Carolina Volunteer Infantry and fought in many of the big battles including the Wilderness and the Bloody Angle.

Slavery was wrong, though my family owned slaves. When my great, great grandfather left he freed his slaves and gave them the option of leaving or sharing in ownership of the farm. I'm not excusing his actions. It is what it is. My grandmother died when she was 107 and my great, great grandfather died when he was 92. I am fortunate that my family history was fairly current in that regard. I don't know how many slaves my family owned or how many elected to stay. I do know that two slaves, "Aunt Mandy" and "Uncle Ease" elected to stay and stayed throughout the war. They were given some of the land that belonged to my great, great grandfather. It wasn't worth much by then as Sherman's troops stole and burned damn near everything.

What would I do today? That is not a fair question as the zeitgeist of that time and now as so vastly different. Southern born and bred people - white and black - still today identify themselves by the Southern heritage above even their national heritage. Southern culture would not be what it is without black and white people. We share so many things in common. We would not be who we are without each other.

I do believe that had the South won the war slavery would have ended anyway, and that there wouldn't be the racism in the South that exists today.

The war was largely a war between two vastly different cultures and two distinct economies. Was slavery a factor? Yes, I believe it was. Was it the single reason? Was it the reason that the South continued the fight after such terrible and tragic losses? Was it the reason that Bobby Lee's army begged him to continue on after Gettysburg and Appomattox? No, it was not.
 
Henrin said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is a rather uninformed response. I'm trying to be nice when I say that. ANY student of the war would never make such a ignorant statement. I would ask you to document your position or to remain quiet and informed and objective people continue the discussion.
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

The North owned the slave trade. The North owned slave shipping. No CSA flag ever flew over a slave ship.
 
apdst said:
Objectivity? Ok, be aware of the fact that Lincoln ceded that the arsenals were on Confederate soil, hence the reason he abandoned them. Lincoln also believed that Fort Sumpter wasn't within Confederate waters, hence the reason he didn't abandon it.
Click to expand...

No, Lincoln didn't abandon it because it was Federal property. He also ordered all of the forts and arsenals that were seized in the seceeding states to be retaken.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The fort was Federal property. Attacking a federal installation is an act of war.
Click to expand...

The fort was federal property, but they didn't' attack it. You need to watch your terms that you use.

You know, since you always harp on it, I see no reason to not do so here. D:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom