• 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
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.

Back it up! Trot out your truth. You do not know what you are talking about. Show us. Give us many examples.
 
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:

They fired on the Fort. That's an attack. I used the correct word.
 
Yes, they are.

No, attacking a fort is hardly the same.


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

That isn't what I said. What I said is that it was more than a hundred years after 1861, and the people on the court would of never sided with secession. Its meaningless to bring it up.


Yeah, it did. Read it again.

No, I explained what he was doing, but you took it as if to say he meant something he didn't.
 
Last edited:
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.

What part is uniformed again?
 
Back it up! Trot out your truth. You do not know what you are talking about. Show us. Give us many examples.

Oh so, when I say Lee was horrible general, you have a problem with it. I see. Well, I have moved on from that, but feel free to look at his strategies on your own.
 
No, attacking a fort is hardly the same.

They attacked the fort. That is the same as "attacking the fort".

That isn't what I said. What I said is that it was more than a hundred years after 1861, and the people on the court would of never sided with secession. Its meaningless to bring it up.

Texas v. White wasn't 100 years later. It was from 1869. It is completely appropriate to bring it up. Though precedence and usage of the Founder's interpretation of the Constitution, it demonstrated that secession was illegal.


No, I explained what he was doing, but you took it as if to say he meant something he didn't.

No, your interpretation is not accurate. Hamilton was clear about the importance of a strong central govenment and the importance of no dissension or hostility between the states in order to support the central government.
 
To answer your question: both sides were right. The South was fighting to protect it's rights. The North was fighting to preserve the Union.

The south was fighting for the right to own human beings. How on earth could you side with that?
 
It seems odd to me too, which is why I don't buy your theory. If the Union was that concerned about getting its property back, it wouldn't have destroyed the forts when it was more convenient to do so.

Indeed! Three forts controlled Charleston Harbor: Sumter, Moultrie and Pinckney. Lincoln, wrongfully, as it turned out, believe that most of the South would not rally to succession. Charleston Harbor was critical to the South. The "ownership" of Sumter was contentious (issues under Buchanan). Lincoln could have fortified the forts, he chose not to do so.

One man died at Ft. Sumter due to a power explosion, not Southern bombardment. IMHO the worse thing that happened as a result of Ft. Sumter was P. G. T. Beauregard!
 
Oh so, when I say Lee was horrible general, you have a problem with it. I see. Well, I have moved on from that, but feel free to look at his strategies on your own.

Can't back it up? LOL! I KNOW his strategies. YOU made the statement. Back it up!
 
Even if I was southern, I would've defected to the north.

Not for any honorable reasons, but simply because the south never had a chance in hell of winning that war.
 
Even if I was southern, I would've defected to the north.

Not for any honorable reasons, but simply because the south never had a chance in hell of winning that war.

Actually, they did. No doubt know what we know now, Jeff Davis, Lee and his generals would have changed decisions made early on. In the early stages the South could have won the war. There were great generals on both sides, but the South had the great number of brilliant military strategists. I don't know that anyone has argued otherwise successfully. The South had little chance in a protracted war, even though it had the heart for it.

Beyond all that it wasn't about being on the winning side. The fact that the war lasted as long as it did is a testament to that.
 
The north was right, and it's a good thing that they had won the war.
 
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.

For the last time, Lincoln ordered the arsenals and forts in secceeding states abandoned. They were never, "taken", by the Confederates, so therefore no order was issued to, "retake", them prior to the attack on Fort Sumpter.
 
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.

You're confusing Lee with Grant. Your post describes Grant perfectly.
 
The north was right, and it's a good thing that they had won the war.

Whether, or not they were, "right", is open to debate, but I'll admit that the country is better off with the Federal victory; even though the Federals mishandled reconstruction nine ways from Sunday and committed numerous atrocities during the war.
 
Even if I was southern, I would've defected to the north.

You don't know that.

Not for any honorable reasons, but simply because the south never had a chance in hell of winning that war.

That's not true. All the military talent of the day, served in the Confederacy. Militarily, the Confederate Army was superior to the Federal Army.
 
What part is uniformed again?

YOU said:

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.

There you go. I'll sit back and wait while you educate us on Lee being a rotten general. YOU made the statement. I'm asking you to back it up. In advance I'll tell you that Lee most assuredly made mistakes, but comparatively few. YOU said he was a cocky little general that didn't know anything about war. How? One or two examples won't get it. Give me enough to prove your point. I'm willing to read everything you can send my way.
 
Last edited:
The south was fighting for the right to own human beings. How on earth could you side with that?

I'm not siding with that. I'm only seeing things from their perspective vice the Left Wing, "they were all racists", bull****. You're making the same mistake alot of people do, by looking at it from a modern point of view and it usually leads to the usual misconception that the war was, "all about slavery".
 
Actually, they did. No doubt know what we know now, Jeff Davis, Lee and his generals would have changed decisions made early on. In the early stages the South could have won the war. There were great generals on both sides, but the South had the great number of brilliant military strategists. I don't know that anyone has argued otherwise successfully. The South had little chance in a protracted war, even though it had the heart for it.

Beyond all that it wasn't about being on the winning side. The fact that the war lasted as long as it did is a testament to that.

Had Jackson not been killed, the Federals would have been forced into a cease fire deal after Gettysburg.
 
For the last time, Lincoln ordered the arsenals and forts in secceeding states abandoned. They were never, "taken", by the Confederates, so therefore no order was issued to, "retake", them prior to the attack on Fort Sumpter.

Essentially correct. If I am not mistaken Anderson moved troops from Moultrie to Sumter because he had jack squat to defend the harbor. Anderson, a valiant man, and a Southerner, had little to defend the harbor with. (I know preposition, end of sentence) There is no way Anderson could have defended Sumter. He had 2 companies that comprised of less than 90 men, as I remember. In addition, he knew the fit was about to hit the shan.
 
Had Jackson not been killed, the Federals would have been forced into a cease fire deal after Gettysburg.

Absolutely. Lee said that he lost his right hand when Jackson died, and he did. Jackson was often the brash warrior and more than a few times, but not always, he convinced Lee to allow him to take the bold approach.
 
Essentially correct. If I am not mistaken Anderson moved troops from Moultrie to Sumter because he had jack squat to defend the harbor. Anderson, a valiant man, and a Southerner, had little to defend the harbor with. (I know preposition, end of sentence) There is no way Anderson could have defended Sumter. He had 2 companies that comprised of less than 90 men, as I remember. In addition, he knew the fit was about to hit the shan.

Lincoln was in position that made sending reinforcements a direct provocation.
 
Lincoln was in position that made sending reinforcements a direct provocation.

He was, and I believe that is why Anderson was chosen to defend Charleston Harbor. Anderson became a hero and rightfully so, but he was chosen IMHO as a lesser. He rose to the occasion and performed his duty with great honor. He could not win, but he exhibited great valor.
 
For some reason, when I read "cocky little general", I lol'd hard.
 
Absolutely. Lee said that he lost his right hand when Jackson died, and he did. Jackson was often the brash warrior and more than a few times, but not always, he convinced Lee to allow him to take the bold approach.

Not only bold, but an expert tactician. His expertise in economy of force, along with Stuart's expertise in cavalry operations made the Army of Northern Virginia unstoppable.

Jackson was killed at Chancellorsville. Stuart did what he did during the Gettysburg Campaign--and I'm not even getting into that. Lee had a heart attack the night of the second day of Gettysburg. Hood was badly wounded at Gettysburg and was never the same. Armistead and Garnet were killed in Pickett's charge. Then Stuart was killed in '64. After all that, the Army of Northern Virginia was doomed.

The mistakes that were made at Gettysburg wouldn't have happened, had Jackson been there. Hell, I have my doubts if the battle would have even been fought, had Jackson been there.
 
Back
Top Bottom