• 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
Better than being a slave. Of course you don't care because of political reasons. Makes perfect sense to me. :roll:

Just because I'm informed enough to not believe in the revisionist version of history, doesn't mean I condone slavery. That's a cheap shot.
 
I know it was not, but I don't care. Slavery is abhorrent and cannot be justified for any reason in a so called civilized nation.

So again I say **** the south and all who supported it.

**** the north too right?

They owned slaves in the north DURING the civil war.
:roll:
Just not in the amount that was necessary in the south to run their agriculture based economy.
 
Just one question: Do you play war simulation games? COD, Starcraft, etc....?

Do I play popular games that everything that plays games has tried at least once? Yes, I have played those games.

Oh, and by the way, when I meant pro government and anti-tax, I meant regulations upon companies such as emissions, borrowing, and everything but taxes. The world doesn't have to be black and white you know. In fact, you're the only person who complained of it

Alrighty.
 
I bet before now, all of the, "I da South", crowd didn't even know that there were any free blacks living within the Confederacy.

Kinda blows the, "it was all about owning black people", revisionist history out of the water. Eh?

That is stupid, of course people new that. Why would you assume such an asinine thing? Not exactly a secret.
 
**** the north too right?

They owned slaves in the north DURING the civil war.
:roll:
Just not in the amount that was necessary in the south to run their agriculture based economy.

So what? The North eventually freed the black man while the South wanted to keep him subjugated. So no, **** the South.
 
Just because I'm informed enough to not believe in the revisionist version of history, doesn't mean I condone slavery. That's a cheap shot.

Revisionist history my ass. They wanted to keep slavery so bad they wrote it into their constitution.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Maybe you would like being owned, sorry I don't. Not for political reasons either.
 
Last edited:
You didn't know it! :rofl

That's what I mean. I knew it, but it makes no difference. Please do not assume to you know anything I do.

You think people are stupid enough to think that no free slaves existed in the South?

What does this tell you about your opinion? :doh
 
So what? The North eventually freed the black man while the South wanted to keep him subjugated. So no, **** the South.

The slaves in the north were never freed by the emancipation proclamation.... just the slaves in the south....

So.... technically..... you are wrong.....

Even if the south was under no obligation to follow any proclamation made by a foreign country.

Face it, Slavery had absolutely nothing to do with "da black man". If Indian (dot) or Chinese or South American Slaves were cheap as dirt in the 1500s and 1600s.... they would be the ones that are crying about their great great great great gramma being a slave. And YOU kind sir, would still be in Africa kicking rocks and trying to grow yams.
 
Last edited:
The slaves in the north were never freed by the emancipation proclamation.... just the slaves in the south....

So.... technically..... you are wrong.....

It's funny. Whenever someone uses the term "technically you are wrong" they are actually saying you are right but here is an excuse. :lol:

Fact: North made blacks free before the South did or wanted to. /debate.

Even if the south was under no obligation to follow any proclamation made by a foreign country.

They lost so no one really cares but according to the SCOTUS, they could not and were not considered separate or a "foreign" country, period. They could not succeed legally.

Face it, Slavery had absolutely nothing to do with "da black man". If Indian (dot) or Chinese or South American Slaves were cheap as dirt in the 1500s and 1600s.... they would be the ones that are crying about their great great great great gramma being a slave. And YOU kind sir, would still be in Africa kicking rocks and trying to grow yams.

Just wow.
 
Slavery would've died out, eventually, anyway. Even Brazil gave it up, late in the 19th Century.
Had you been a slave, you would not have that that repugnant attitude..
And there are nations (so-called) that still have not given up slavery.
 
Just wow.

Care to tell me how that was wrong? If black slaves weren't cheaper, then they wouldn't have been used.

They WERE cheaper, and thus they WERE used.

It has absolutely nothing to do with race. Do you honestly think a businessman would spend hundreds (alot back then) more for a black slave than a chinese slave because, "I don't much like me none o dem dere black savages" No. He wouldn't. He'd buy the cheaper slaves and keep more profits.
 
Care to tell me how that was wrong? If black slaves weren't cheaper, then they wouldn't have been used.

They WERE cheaper, and thus they WERE used.

So what? This has nothing to do with my statement.

It has absolutely nothing to do with race. Do you honestly think a businessman would spend hundreds (alot back then) more for a black slave than a chinese slave because, "I don't much like me none o dem dere black savages" No. He wouldn't. He'd buy the cheaper slaves and keep more profits.

Again has nothing to do with my statement.

Does not matter what color they happened to be, they were black. The South AGAIN wanted to keep the institution alive, the North did not.

The South got it's ass kicked, end of story.



Try and tell me he is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Somehow I knew the thread was eventually get down to this. And here we are.

Adios
 
This stupid yhread deserves a stupid answer. I am from south Carolina and love my home state bit the north winning helped make America a better place. Otherwise this is a retarded thread.
 
Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy
No, Redress. Strategy can be both of an overall campaign sense or a battle sense. Remember... battles are not fought as one singular event. With armies the size of these, a strategy must be prepared to fight a battle, too.
Strategy is used to fight a collection of battle...a campaign. Tactics are used to fight battle one at a time. Redress nailed it.

My exposure to strategy and tactics was through my study of the Great Patriotic War. The Soviet Union dealt with the same issues you two are debating. They added one more:
Strategy: Driven by the goals of the war or campaign (what is the point of the fight?)
Operational Art: Ties strategy to tactics (where are we going to fight, with what resources and at what time?)
Tactics: How are we going to conduct the fight? Will we attack, defend, delay, withdraw?

Of course, long after I retired I discovered that the Soviet Union had drawn on Western European experiences to develop those concepts they worked out.
 
Neither. I would have been a draft dodger. The Civil War was a complete waste and simply should never have been fought. It's a gross oversimplification to say things like "the North was fighting to free slaves" or "the South was fighting for states rights." The causes of the war were too numerous and complex to be reduced to one or two major issues. None of the issues were worth the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men on both sides of the conflict, in my opinion. The South would have eventually had to change its plantation-based economic system; it simply was unsustainable. The Southern states should not have broken away from the Union, but the North should not have resorted to force to keep them from seceding.

My great-great grandfather was conscripted into the Confederacy right off his farm in Alabama. Leaving my great-great grandmother to care for their 4 kids and the farm.
He developed either pneumonia or measles and being too sick was left behind the troops in a battle. Was never heard from again and presumed died or the Yankees got him.
My great-great grandmother in the meantime had the advancing Yankees come through and take all her chickens and food for the Yankee troops.
They suffered miserably from this war. My family wasn't really too much a fan with either side.
 
Back
Top Bottom