• 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
Actually, the South and in particular Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia were unjustly taxed to the point that the South was paying 75% of national federal budget and only about 10% of the money was returned to Southern states. The agricultural South was without question financing the industrial North. The North wanted Southern resources for pennies on the dollar.

Because...of the anti-Southern majority that existed in Congress, hence the reason the South felt like their rights were being violated.

I have an idea. Let's change gears a little and talk about the Red River Campaign of 1864 and how it was less about military strategy and more about capturing Southern cotton, to shipped up North to the textile mills.
 
Last edited:
I think people need to recognize that neither side was right and wrong. Both sides were at fault. The South was mostly agriculture while the North was industrial. The South didn't want to become industrial and wanted to stay with what they new. i.e slaves and planting. The North wanted to become more industrial and technological. The North was trying to force the South into the industry, while the South was pushing away. Now, every country must have a civil war. Korea had it, Israel had it, Afghanistan had it, and we had ours. In order for us to see each other and unify, or separate like Korea, we needed to be at war with our selves. The Civil War would have came anyway, if it was then or even now. We needed the Civil War in order for us, as a country, to be unified and raise to our ability we have today. We can't say that if the South won it would have been the same outcome, no one has the right to say that. It could have been it could not have been, but one this for sure the outcome we had is how we came to be one of the best nations in the world.
Also, recognize that technology always wins, no matter what. So the North would have won any way. It happens all the time. World War I and II, we had better technology than others so that is why we won. We had bombs in WWII, it was the very best in that time, we dropped them and won the war. It dose not matter if the South had better generals, the North had better weapons and had money and trade going on. They. Were. Going. To. Win.
 
I think people need to recognize that neither side was right and wrong. Both sides were at fault. The South was mostly agriculture while the North was industrial. The South didn't want to become industrial and wanted to stay with what they new. i.e slaves and planting. The North wanted to become more industrial and technological. The North was trying to force the South into the industry, while the South was pushing away. Now, every country must have a civil war. Korea had it, Israel had it, Afghanistan had it, and we had ours. In order for us to see each other and unify, or separate like Korea, we needed to be at war with our selves. The Civil War would have came anyway, if it was then or even now. We needed the Civil War in order for us, as a country, to be unified and raise to our ability we have today. We can't say that if the South won it would have been the same outcome, no one has the right to say that. It could have been it could not have been, but one this for sure the outcome we had is how we came to be one of the best nations in the world.
Also, recognize that technology always wins, no matter what. So the North would have won any way. It happens all the time. World War I and II, we had better technology than others so that is why we won. We had bombs in WWII, it was the very best in that time, we dropped them and won the war. It dose not matter if the South had better generals, the North had better weapons and had money and trade going on. They. Were. Going. To. Win.

That's not necessarily true, either.
 
I think people need to recognize that neither side was right and wrong. Both sides were at fault. The South was mostly agriculture while the North was industrial. The South didn't want to become industrial and wanted to stay with what they new. i.e slaves and planting. The North wanted to become more industrial and technological. The North was trying to force the South into the industry, while the South was pushing away. Now, every country must have a civil war. Korea had it, Israel had it, Afghanistan had it, and we had ours. In order for us to see each other and unify, or separate like Korea, we needed to be at war with our selves. The Civil War would have came anyway, if it was then or even now. We needed the Civil War in order for us, as a country, to be unified and raise to our ability we have today. We can't say that if the South won it would have been the same outcome, no one has the right to say that. It could have been it could not have been, but one this for sure the outcome we had is how we came to be one of the best nations in the world.
Also, recognize that technology always wins, no matter what. So the North would have won any way. It happens all the time. World War I and II, we had better technology than others so that is why we won. We had bombs in WWII, it was the very best in that time, we dropped them and won the war. It dose not matter if the South had better generals, the North had better weapons and had money and trade going on. They. Were. Going. To. Win.

Very flawed. Germany had better technology always. They lacked numbers.

The South had better generals and tactics, but lacked the numbers as well.
 
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.

They left in peace and were causing harm to the slaves, who were not willing members of the Confed

Personally I would have liked to see a massive slave rebellion that massacred the slave owners and those that supported the slave owners. Their corpses could then have been fed to the pigs
s
 
Adpst is arguing that the right of the state and government outweigh the rights of the individual? Ya I get it, the states have rights but do they outweigh the rights of the individuals who were slaves? Granted they had no legal rights at the time, but wouldn't you agree that they had natural rights which transcended the laws of man?

I don't claim that everything was honky dory up North, or that the Civil War settled the issue forever, but still it was a step in the right direction and if it being "right" isn't good enough it was a necessary step. But I don't want to interrupt this new found respect for the power of gov't that you have, please go on.
 
They left in peace and were causing harm to the slaves, who were not willing members of the Confed

Personally I would have liked to see a massive slave rebellion that massacred the slave owners and those that supported the slave owners. Their corpses could then have been fed to the pigs
s

And then what?

I'll tell you what: out of fear, the rest of the white population in the South would have killed slaves by the hundreds of thousands, probably with the help of the Federal government. Kinda like the Dred Scott uprising.

BTW, Canada sided with the South during the Civil War.
 
Adpst is arguing that the right of the state and government outweigh the rights of the individual? Ya I get it, the states have rights but do they outweigh the rights of the individuals who were slaves? Granted they had no legal rights at the time, but wouldn't you agree that they had natural rights which transcended the laws of man?

I don't claim that everything was honky dory up North, or that the Civil War settled the issue forever, but still it was a step in the right direction and if it being "right" isn't good enough it was a necessary step. But I don't want to interrupt this new found respect for the power of gov't that you have, please go on.

Nope, I'm not arguing that at all.

It's assinine to suggest that since I don't take the far Left, 21st Century, historically inaccurate point of view on period, that I approve of slavery, or believe that the right to keep slaves as property outweighs the right of a person to be free.
 
Nope, I'm not arguing that at all.

It's assinine to suggest that since I don't take the far Left, 21st Century, historically inaccurate point of view on period, that I approve of slavery, or believe that the right to keep slaves as property outweighs the right of a person to be free.

Fair enough, you're taking the view of a Southern gentlemen during the time period. I entirely agree that the actions of individuals in the past shouldn't be judged through a modern set of values and views on life, its just the way **** was done at the time. Well thats a bit simplistic I know, but we can agree on it in general right?
 
Adpst is arguing that the right of the state and government outweigh the rights of the individual? Ya I get it, the states have rights but do they outweigh the rights of the individuals who were slaves? Granted they had no legal rights at the time, but wouldn't you agree that they had natural rights which transcended the laws of man?

I don't claim that everything was honky dory up North, or that the Civil War settled the issue forever, but still it was a step in the right direction and if it being "right" isn't good enough it was a necessary step. But I don't want to interrupt this new found respect for the power of gov't that you have, please go on.

I am sure that Adpst can speak for themselves, but I have to take issue with what I believe is yoru flawed logic.

The Founding Fathers themselves realized that slavery was not to be decided simply by the "rights of the individual outweighing the rights of the state". Were that the case, the institution of Slavery is made illegal in the Constitution from the beginning. America did not create Slavery. It came with those who settled here from elsewhere.

The issue was not Slavery, good or bad, but rather how does one undo it. The South was not ready to give up the economy of Slavery, and especially not by the legislative force of the North.
 
Fair enough, you're taking the view of a Southern gentlemen during the time period

No, I'm looking at the issue through the eyes of your average Southern working stiff. The guy who didn't and never would own slaves and probably felt that slavery was wrong, but still felt a petriotic obligation to protect his homeland. Southerners knew--rightly it turned out--that an invasion by the Federals would put their homes and families in danger. There were thousands of atrocities committed by Federal troops, all over the South: rape, murder, burning of homes, looting. Crops desturction caused thousands of Southerners to starve to death.

Always remember the words of Sherman:

“I would not if I could abolish or modify slavery. . . . Negros in the great numbers that exist here must of necessity be slaves.”

“The cause of the war is not alone in the nigger, but in the mercenary spirit of our countrymen.”

You think Sherman was fighting to end slavery?
 
No, I'm looking at the issue through the eyes of your average Southern working stiff. The guy who didn't and never would own slaves and probably felt that slavery was wrong, but still felt a petriotic obligation to protect his homeland. Southerners knew--rightly it turned out--that an invasion by the Federals would put their homes and families in danger. There were thousands of atrocities committed by Federal troops, all over the South: rape, murder, burning of homes, looting. Crops desturction caused thousands of Southerners to starve to death.

Always remember the words of Sherman:

You think Sherman was fighting to end slavery?

Im not so naive to believe the North was fighting for the highest moral reason, nor that they were fighting to end slavery, I know most Northern stiffs as you say probably didn't give two ****s about slavery in the South and looking back at the time an individual was probably just as racist if not more than his Southern couisins. Heck they were so racist the biggest race roit occured not between blacks and whites but between the Irish and other whites, although there were race riots in the North as well between blacks and whites. All this I acknowledge, and frankly I can relate to an individual wanting to protect his family and land from war and avoid being swept up into its destruction and change to his lifestyle when all wants to do is farm his acres peacefully. I know that man and many many like him existed.

Frankly there's no correct answer, both sides were wrong in their own ways which is what happens when you take a complex issue and break it into a binary system, but that's the nature of warfare and the mankind. The working stiff can't help be swept up in all the destruction which he would gladly sit out because he's part of that society. So yes I see the virtue in protecting one's homeland, but I also see the freedom of millions of men which was made possible through a denial of that man's peace, that freedom which was just the first step in a long long road to equality.

In other words, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Yes innocent people suffered, thats what happens in war I obviously don't need to tell you that, don't take it as an insult.
 
The south seceded, the north had every right to attack the treasonous rebellion.

No I don't think so. States could vote to enter the union and nothing says they couldn't vote to leave.

I suspect if the founding fathers wanted to prohibit secession they would have, but they didn't because they themselves did the same thing. They didn't include a secession provision in the Constitution because they didn't want to openly endorse it, but I believe they left that window open.

I don't believe the south should have seceeded though, as well as I don't believe the north should have invaded.
 
Im not so naive to believe the North was fighting for the highest moral reason, nor that they were fighting to end slavery, I know most Northern stiffs as you say probably didn't give two ****s about slavery in the South and looking back at the time an individual was probably just as racist if not more than his Southern couisins. Heck they were so racist the biggest race roit occured not between blacks and whites but between the Irish and other whites, although there were race riots in the North as well between blacks and whites. All this I acknowledge, and frankly I can relate to an individual wanting to protect his family and land from war and avoid being swept up into its destruction and change to his lifestyle when all wants to do is farm his acres peacefully. I know that man and many many like him existed.

Frankly there's no correct answer, both sides were wrong in their own ways which is what happens when you take a complex issue and break it into a binary system, but that's the nature of warfare and the mankind. The working stiff can't help be swept up in all the destruction which he would gladly sit out because he's part of that society. So yes I see the virtue in protecting one's homeland, but I also see the freedom of millions of men which was made possible through a denial of that man's peace, that freedom which was just the first step in a long long road to equality.

In other words, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Yes innocent people suffered, thats what happens in war I obviously don't need to tell you that, don't take it as an insult.

I am of the inclination that even with generalities, you have to look at it in the smaller slices that escalated things. We would probably all agree that the overwhelming majority of participants were neither passionate about prolonging slavery, or ending it.

However, secession, with slavery as the central issue, had been on the table for decades, and always the can was kicked down the road. Those that were the movers behind secession in SC anticipated a weaker response from the Federal Government. Just as Lincoln et al believed it would be easy to subdue the South. After those initial decisions, folks lined up behind where their heritage lay, and things kind of mushroomed, didn't they ? Lincoln may have been a brilliant politician, but he was a lousy President in the biggest decisions that he made, IMMHO.
 
Last edited:
Let's try an analogy:

If Rick Perry turned Texas into his personal fiefdom and started gunning down his political opponents, would the president be justified in sending in the military to provide for the common defense and guarantee a republican form of government, as per the Constitution? I would hope that we would all agree that the answer is yes. What if Perry then responded by seceding from the United States (against the wishes of most of Texans)? Should the federal government just throw up its hands and bow to "states' rights"? Of course not.

Is this hypothetical situation somehow different from the situation in the south during the Civil War?

Could Perry secede or wouldn't they have to vote on it, either democratic or republican style?(as in form of voting, not party)

On a different note with Texas-I believe they should have been a seperate country BEFORE the Civil War after the fight with Mexico, but it wouldn't make sense to leave at this point.
 
No I don't think so. States could vote to enter the union and nothing says they couldn't vote to leave.

i don't think anyone expected becoming a state would be a temporary or reversable thing. if it was to be reversable, the Constitution would have set terms and rules for how a state could secede.

every state has rules for how towns, cities, and counties can secede...but the Federal govt. has no such rules on how parts of the nation, could leave. Im sure that was done on purpose.
 
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.

Most southerners and even northerners didn't think of blacks as human beings. But they were and should have been freed and they were.

But I wouldn't demonize those that owned slaves, most where born into the culture of racism and/or slavery and were ignorant to morality.
 
The North....
Why?
Because they were morally and factually right...
 
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.

There are two sides. You stated one.

The other is that those asenals and installations were illegal occupations, also worthy of being called acts of war.
 
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.

Sharecropping was virtual slavery, excellent point.
 
BTW, Canada sided with the South during the Civil War.

I'm not sure that is accurate and I doubt it, but it would make sense. Maybe from a non-official standpoint.

To my knowledge the only notable entity that officially recognized the south as a seperate country was the Catholic Church, not that it matters.
 
i don't think anyone expected becoming a state would be a temporary or reversable thing. if it was to be reversable, the Constitution would have set terms and rules for how a state could secede.

every state has rules for how towns, cities, and counties can secede...but the Federal govt. has no such rules on how parts of the nation, could leave. Im sure that was done on purpose.

Did you read the rest? I believe they left the option open without coming across as openly endorsing it.
 
As for the question:

The South

My great, great grandfather was the grandson of a man named John who owned a 720 acre farm during the Civil War in upper Georgia. His father was a Scottish immigrant so he was a second generation American. He bought his land before the Civil War and he had come over with his brother and a slave woman named Millie(the only one he owned). At the time of the war he was 53. By this time John had married a wife, 42, and had 5 sons and a daughter. John and two of the sons joined regiments; one of the sons died in a war prison. When northern armies drew closer John returned home and decided to bury his gold. The person in the household he trusted the most, the slave woman Millie, was the only person he showed the hiding place of the gold to and entrusted her with keeping it until he returned from fighting. I can infer from this that Millie must have been more family than slave. A few months afterwards the battle of nearby Chickamauga commenced and the house served as a hospital. The plantation was destroyed by the fighting that spread across the surrounding area(John rebuilt it with the gold). Thankfully when the yankees showed up in the front yard they never mistreated any of the family or Millie, which was rather lucky considering they ravaged the south.

I also have trackable relations to General Robert E. Lee, who I admire for defending his family, land, and neighbors from invasion, burning, and pillaging. And that is exactly what I would have done.

Bear in mind I strongly condemn slavery, but that wouldn't have been my reason for fighting. I would be fighting for my life.
 
Sharecropping was virtual slavery, excellent point.

I am sure it has been debated in some circles, and I believe referenced here once or twice. I believe that had the South transitioned to non-slavery on its own, the repression of free blacks in the South would have endured less hostility than with what we saw during Reconstruction and beyond. By how much, and with what lingering issues, its still a bit of guesswork.
 
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.

This is pretty accurate. The South required the War to be short. They could outstrategize the North, but they could never win a war of attrition.
 
Back
Top Bottom