• 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
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.

Excellent post! I totally agree. And even then the Southern troops rallied.
 
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.

The entire war was an atrocity. You had American brothers killing themselves over a feud of human oppression. The north wanted to free slaves, the south refused to comply so they sacrificed thousands of lives to try and defend human oppression. There is a clear right and wrong.
 
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.

I believe Anderson was set up to fail, from the git-go. The North needed the Justification to invade Virginia. Although, I don't think that it was Lincoln that set him up. The Northern extremists needed their, "Pearl Harbor", to justify the brutal strategy they proposed in dealing with the Confederacy.
 
The entire war was an atrocity. You had American brothers killing themselves over a feud of human oppression. The north wanted to free slaves, the south refused to comply so they sacrificed thousands of lives to try and defend human oppression. There is a clear right and wrong.

The North didn't want to free the slaves. Your garden variety working stiff in the North didn't want to have to compete with former slaves for jobs. Plus, they didn't want a bunch of, "darkies", running around, free. In fact, Lincoln had planned to ship all the freed slaves back to Africa. Ever hear of Liberia?
 
The Northern extremists needed their, "Pearl Harbor", to justify the brutal strategy they proposed in dealing with the Confederacy.

However brutal the north's strategy against the Confederacy may have been, I'm pretty sure it doesn't top the southern states' own habit of subjecting their residents to rape every day of their lives, beating them into compliance, keeping them locked in animal sheds, and forcing them to do backbreaking work in the fields from sunrise to sunset.

But I guess that's just looking at it from a "21st century perspective." How silly of me. :roll:
 
Last edited:
The North didn't want to free the slaves. Your garden variety working stiff in the North didn't want to have to compete with former slaves for jobs. Plus, they didn't want a bunch of, "darkies", running around, free. In fact, Lincoln had planned to ship all the freed slaves back to Africa. Ever hear of Liberia?

To my knowledge, the northern (Union) states had freed their slaves and made slavery illegal. I won't deny that racism existed among citizens, but that is an issue for individuals. Slavery was abolished in the Union. Liberia was created as an option for freed slaves to go back to Africa if they chose to do so. The south wanted to preserve slavery and deny blacks their rights as human beings and free individuals. I do not believe this can be justified. The south was clearly at fault and is responsible for instigating the war that killed thousands of human lives. They fought to protect their warped view of human rights and the institution of slavery. They were wrong and their fighting is not justified.
 
In hindsight, the war achieved virtually nothing, while costing hundreds of thousands of lives and damage that lasted decades. The black man in the south was still persecuted mightily, and would have gotten true freedom just as quickly without the war as both technology and abolition continued their march forward.

Had Lincoln had any concept of the cost in advance, he'd have never fought it. He said so.
 
However brutal the north's strategy against the Confederacy may have been, I'm pretty sure it doesn't top the southern states' own habit of subjecting their residents to rape every day of their lives, beating them into compliance, keeping them locked in animal sheds, and forcing them to do backbreaking work in the fields from sunrise to sunset.

But I guess that's just looking at it from a "21st century perspective." How silly of me. :roll:

That's a gross over generalization of history.
Contradicted by many of the accounts given by former slaves to the Federal Writers' project.
 
To my knowledge, the northern (Union) states had freed their slaves and made slavery illegal. I won't deny that racism existed among citizens, but that is an issue for individuals. Slavery was abolished in the Union. Liberia was created as an option for freed slaves to go back to Africa if they chose to do so. The south wanted to preserve slavery and deny blacks their rights as human beings and free individuals. I do not believe this can be justified. The south was clearly at fault and is responsible for instigating the war that killed thousands of human lives. They fought to protect their warped view of human rights and the institution of slavery. They were wrong and their fighting is not justified.

Slavery was not officially ended until 1865, with the 13th amendment, at the end of the American Civil War.
So to say that the north was fighting to free slaves is entirely false.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a political tool to encourage slaves in the Confederate states to revolt.
 
Last edited:
However brutal the north's strategy against the Confederacy may have been, I'm pretty sure it doesn't top the southern states' own habit of subjecting their residents to rape every day of their lives, beating them into compliance, keeping them locked in animal sheds, and forcing them to do backbreaking work in the fields from sunrise to sunset.

But I guess that's just looking at it from a "21st century perspective." How silly of me. :roll:

Compared to what in the North?
 
To my knowledge, the northern (Union) states had freed their slaves and made slavery illegal. I won't deny that racism existed among citizens, but that is an issue for individuals. Slavery was abolished in the Union. Liberia was created as an option for freed slaves to go back to Africa if they chose to do so. The south wanted to preserve slavery and deny blacks their rights as human beings and free individuals. I do not believe this can be justified. The south was clearly at fault and is responsible for instigating the war that killed thousands of human lives. They fought to protect their warped view of human rights and the institution of slavery. They were wrong and their fighting is not justified.

Digsbe, a common, although incorrect, assumption is that the Union states emancipated the slaves prior to the War Between the States. That is incorrect. As an example, many, many people in New York City, supported slavery.

Slavery was and is a horrible thing. I don't think that anyone here has defended the inexcusable institution. However, if you take the time to study history the idea that "North = Good and South = Wrong" is misleading and incorrect. As I mentioned earlier, the North ran the slave trade from Africa. The North controlled shipping and the Northern shipping industry controlled the slave trade from Africa. That's fact. I am not absolving the South of guilt. I am, however, saying that the North was also responsible for slavery. The North participated in slavery. People in New York City became wealthy from the trading of slaves and many were not supportive of ending slavery. When did New Jersey abolish slavery? Look it up.

IF the South fought only for slavery, as you posit, then you might have a valid argument, but if you will read about the history of the conflict you will see that slavery was an issue, but not THE issue for the war.
 
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.

Ah sorry, it wasn't 1976, my bad. I should of looked it up instead of using my memory. My point still stands though on the accounts.


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.

He was talking about the importance of a federal government and how without it the states would be jealous of each other. They needed some sort of conflict middle man to cool conflicts so they didn't arise to be more. You seeing things that aren't there is your problem, not mine.
 
Last edited:
You're confusing Lee with Grant. Your post describes Grant perfectly.

Well while Grant was a horrible general aswell, Lee had no strategical sense, he just wouldn't gauge a situation and would run into situations attacking things head first. His basic idea in war was that it was about strength and that if you pitted his army against another he would win in a head on approach. The proper way to fight war is fought seeking the least path of resistance. My problem with Lee and the reason I listed Gettysburg as my example of his ignorance and cockiness is because of this basic failure on his part.
 
However brutal the north's strategy against the Confederacy may have been, I'm pretty sure it doesn't top the southern states' own habit of subjecting their residents to rape every day of their lives, beating them into compliance, keeping them locked in animal sheds, and forcing them to do backbreaking work in the fields from sunrise to sunset.

But I guess that's just looking at it from a "21st century perspective." How silly of me. :roll:

No, you're just falling for a bull**** version of history. I'm not the least bit surprised that you buy into it, either.
 
To my knowledge, the northern (Union) states had freed their slaves and made slavery illegal. I won't deny that racism existed among citizens, but that is an issue for individuals. Slavery was abolished in the Union. Liberia was created as an option for freed slaves to go back to Africa if they chose to do so. The south wanted to preserve slavery and deny blacks their rights as human beings and free individuals. I do not believe this can be justified. The south was clearly at fault and is responsible for instigating the war that killed thousands of human lives. They fought to protect their warped view of human rights and the institution of slavery. They were wrong and their fighting is not justified.

But, not because they were black. You seeing it from the wrong perspective. The Confederate Congress debated a bill that put poor whites into slavery. You want to make it a race thing and put it into modern PC terms, but that's way off base.
 
Slavery was not officially ended until 1865, with the 13th amendment, at the end of the American Civil War.
So to say that the north was fighting to free slaves is entirely false.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a political tool to encourage slaves in the Confederate states to revolt.

I'll put it a bette way: the United States government didn't end slavery until 1865. Before that the states decided for themselves to abolish slavery.
 
Well while Grant was a horrible general aswell, Lee had no strategical sense, he just wouldn't gauge a situation and would run into situations attacking things head first. His basic idea in war was that it was about strength and that if you pitted his army against another he would win in a head on approach. The proper way to fight war is fought seeking the least path of resistance. My problem with Lee and the reason I listed Gettysburg as my example of his ignorance and cockiness is because of this basic failure on his part.

Grant didn't have to seek the path of least resistance. He had far more man power to draw than the South and therefore could absorb more losses. It was Grant's strategy to lose men at the same rate as the Confederates--or more--because he knew the Confederates weren't able to replace that combat power once it was lost.

An example of what I'm talking about: Company B, 46th Mississippi Infantry went to war with 112 soldiers in ranks. In '65, when it surrendered at Mobile, there were 8 men left in the company.
 
Some interesting arguments here, but I must rebut. The fundamental issue of the war was slavery. If one wants to call it "state's rights", the primary right was the existence of slavery. The South saw a creep towards abolition, with Northern states imposing their will on Southern states via the Federal Government.

The Emancipation Proclamation was more to rejuvenate the cause of the War, and not so much with an expectation of causing southern blacks to revolt. The victory at Antietam provided Lincoln with the foundation to make abolition the issue for the North, especially moving into the upcoming elections against the not-so-abolitionist Democrats. He also needed a Constitutional foundation, and if one notes, the slaves were only "emancipated" in the rebellion states. Not in such as Maryland, for instance. There was no legal basis upon which the Federal Government could free them in Northern States.

Prior to the War, there had been serious considerations in the Federal Government to come up with a formula to essentially "buy out slavery", that is to pass laws that phased it out state-by-state and to compensate the owners monetarily. This is likely what would have happened had there been no war. In the end, the cost would have been exponentially less than the War.

Lincoln and the rest of his generals thought that the War would be over in a month or two. It was a huge miscalculation. One for which Lincoln gets too much of a pass IMMHO.
 
Having the benefit of distance and history, I would say neither side was 'right'. The road that led to the civil war was created over economics. It became a pissing contest. It had little if anything to do with slavery as a matter of freedom for the slaves. The actions of the North AND the South created an environment where instead of the insitution ofslavery ending a natural death within a few years (as the North had done, many in the South had already done, and most of the rest of the world was doing at the time) , racial strife and tension still endure today.
 
Some interesting arguments here, but I must rebut. The fundamental issue of the war was slavery. If one wants to call it "state's rights", the primary right was the existence of slavery. The South saw a creep towards abolition, with Northern states imposing their will on Southern states via the Federal Government.

The Emancipation Proclamation was more to rejuvenate the cause of the War, and not so much with an expectation of causing southern blacks to revolt. The victory at Antietam provided Lincoln with the foundation to make abolition the issue for the North, especially moving into the upcoming elections against the not-so-abolitionist Democrats. He also needed a Constitutional foundation, and if one notes, the slaves were only "emancipated" in the rebellion states. Not in such as Maryland, for instance. There was no legal basis upon which the Federal Government could free them in Northern States.

Prior to the War, there had been serious considerations in the Federal Government to come up with a formula to essentially "buy out slavery", that is to pass laws that phased it out state-by-state and to compensate the owners monetarily. This is likely what would have happened had there been no war. In the end, the cost would have been exponentially less than the War.

Lincoln and the rest of his generals thought that the War would be over in a month or two. It was a huge miscalculation. One for which Lincoln gets too much of a pass IMMHO.

That's the same revisionist history that some of us have been arguing against. You average Southerner didn't care about slavery, one way, or another and sure as hell wasn't going to go die to preserve it.
 
That's the same revisionist history that some of us have been arguing against. You average Southerner didn't care about slavery, one way, or another and sure as hell wasn't going to go die to preserve it.

I am not sure what you mean. Slavery was at the heart of the issue. Primarily because of its economic value to King Cotton. Abolition was sweeping the North. Issues involving the admission of states in pairs so as to have one slave, one not-slave. State nullification of Federal Law, again primarily in how those laws would impact all things slavery, as that meant the economy.

That the average Southernor did not so much care about slavery, as he owned none, may be true. However, he did care about being told how his state would behave by a Northern Government. And when the rebel-rousers in the South did secede, he was all for it, especially when Southern soil was invaded by a Northern Army.

Here is a start for those interested: Top Five Causes of the Civil War
 
I am not sure what you mean. Slavery was at the heart of the issue. Primarily because of its economic value to King Cotton. Abolition was sweeping the North. Issues involving the admission of states in pairs so as to have one slave, one not-slave. State nullification of Federal Law, again primarily in how those laws would impact all things slavery, as that meant the economy.

That the average Southernor did not so much care about slavery, as he owned none, may be true. However, he did care about being told how his state would behave by a Northern Government. And when the rebel-rousers in the South did secede, he was all for it, especially when Southern soil was invaded by a Northern Army.

Here is a start for those interested: Top Five Causes of the Civil War

Meh...anything after the first 2 reasons are simply revisionist history at work. The avergae northerner cared about as much about blacks and slavery as did the average southerner. When the slaves wanted to go north and settle into the northern cities...do you think they all said "hellz yeah...come on in...work with us...date our daughters..." No...they said "easy there nigger Jim...we meant you should be free down THERE...."

It was all about econimcs. Slavery WOULD have ended. Society was evolving. The north could have worked much more efficiently to bring about social change than they did. It became SOLELY about sovereignty. Tragic.
 
Meh...anything after the first 2 reasons are simply revisionist history at work. The avergae northerner cared about as much about blacks and slavery as did the average southerner. When the slaves wanted to go north and settle into the northern cities...do you think they all said "hellz yeah...come on in...work with us...date our daughters..." No...they said "easy there nigger Jim...we meant you should be free down THERE...."

It was all about econimcs. Slavery WOULD have ended. Society was evolving. The north could have worked much more efficiently to bring about social change than they did. It became SOLELY about sovereignty. Tragic.

I have argued that the War was stupid. Avoidable. However, when you say "it was about economics", I am saying that the economics revolved around abolition. In particular, Lincoln was seen as one who advocated abolition, and that his election was a threat to continued movements against slavery, either by Amendment, or less obvious means, such as stacking the Congress against slavery by admitting more non-slave states.

I have documented my position, and could continue to do so ad-nauseum. Can you document that the primary economic issues involved were not primarily slavery-associated ?

FYI, the "average northerner" and the "average southerner" did not start the war. We are talking about who did, and why, are we not ? The powers in the South wanted to be free of any impositions from the North. Most of those impositions were inter-twined with slavery.
 
I have argued that the War was stupid. Avoidable. However, when you say "it was about economics", I am saying that the economics revolved around abolition. In particular, Lincoln was seen as one who advocated abolition, and that his election was a threat to continued movements against slavery, either by Amendment, or less obvious means, such as stacking the Congress against slavery by admitting more non-slave states.

I have documented my position, and could continue to do so ad-nauseum. Can you document that the primary economic issues involved were not primarily slavery-associated ?

FYI, the "average northerner" and the "average southerner" did not start the war. We are talking about who did, and why, are we not ? The powers in the South wanted to be free of any impositions from the North. Most of those impositions were inter-twined with slavery.

I simply disagree. Anything beyond the northern industrialists being upset over the unfair economic advantage southern businessmen had by not having to pay employees is overstating the period historical reality. The southerners rebelled against being told what to do by the north. Technology was making plantation slaves irrelevant and if anything a financial burden. And horrifically, we had hundreds of thousands of people dead, maimed, families devastated...and it simply never had to happen.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom