winning team
Fought or fought with? Your poll seems to convey a different meaning from the thread's initial post.
Who was right? Which side would you have fought for, knowing what you know today? Explain, please.
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.
*The "right" for states to have slavery.I would of fought for state rights,
North, I am black and don't see any point in extending slavery any longer then it was. **** the south.
*The "right" for states to have slavery.
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.
Of course I understand your position, but can't you see any virtue at all in the traditional values of the South? Can you objectify the South, at least enough to acknowledge its traditionalism?
Slavery would've died out, eventually, anyway. Even Brazil gave it up, late in the 19th Century.
Depends. Which traditional values are we talking about, and how was the north trying to stamp them out?
I would also like to know why some people think something being a traditional value is an indicator of it being good?
Tell me more about why you don't like Lee. I always considered him a giant among men.
No state should have to the right to allow slavery within it's borders.
Of course I understand your position, but can't you see any virtue at all in the traditional values of the South? Can you objectify the South, at least enough to acknowledge its traditionalism?
The war was never about slaves. Ask the north why they attacked, property, ask the south why they defended themselves, property and the right to leave the nation.
What property did the north gain from the war? Certainly nowhere near enough to justify the costs of the war.
The war was never about slaves. Ask the north why they attacked, property, ask the south why they defended themselves, property and the right to leave the nation.
Why they left the nation is a completely different debate, but people like you decide to blend it together as if its the same. Its not.
You have to ask them why they attacked forts in the south when they left the nation.