• 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 Founding Fathers

The South was the one which desperately wanted war with Mexico in order to spread slavery. The north saw it as an unjustified land grab. Guess what we did?

The South was allowed to send squads of guerrillas to attack those who opposed slavery in places like Kansas and Missouri. Outlaws like the James brothers got their start in those roving bands of thugs, who were some of the most sadistic out there.

Time and time again legislation was pushed through to support or protect slavery and slavers. The Compromise of 1850, which was supposed to have settled the issue, was violated over and over in order to expand slavery as much as possible.

In the run up to the war southern sympathizers were allowed to loot federal armories to equip their slaver forces.

Southerners literally physically attacked those who opposed slavery on multiple occasions with impunity.

Southerners nearly got us into a shooting match with Spain over Cuba decades before the Spanish American War.

Pretending the South was oppressed is simply ignorant.

Well said. Your opponent seems to believe in the Lost Cause. Cotton and tobacco were the most lucrative trade items in the entire US at the time, all grown in the South. Slavery was the key and power sharing became the tool the South attempted with the Missouri Compromise and the war with Mexico. The South wanted more slave states so they could protect the institution of slavery from Northern Abolitionists. All the rest is Lost Cause garbage.
 
The South was the one which desperately wanted war with Mexico in order to spread slavery. The north saw it as an unjustified land grab. Guess what we did?

The South was allowed to send squads of guerrillas to attack those who opposed slavery in places like Kansas and Missouri. Outlaws like the James brothers got their start in those roving bands of thugs, who were some of the most sadistic out there.

Time and time again legislation was pushed through to support or protect slavery and slavers. The Compromise of 1850, which was supposed to have settled the issue, was violated over and over in order to expand slavery as much as possible.

In the run up to the war southern sympathizers were allowed to loot federal armories to equip their slaver forces.

Southerners literally physically attacked those who opposed slavery on multiple occasions with impunity.

Southerners nearly got us into a shooting match with Spain over Cuba decades before the Spanish American War.

Pretending the South was oppressed is simply ignorant.

Again, I don't know where you get your information, it wasn't the Southern States that wanted Cuba, it was the U.S. Government. The U.S government wanted Cuba to be a bulwark to protect the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico from outside interests. The U.S. proposed to buy Cuba from Spain but Spain declined to sale, this all took place back in the 1840's and it had nothing to do with slavery. I could go into detail on this but I'm afraid it would fall on deaf ears.
 
Again, I don't know where you get your information, it wasn't the Southern States that wanted Cuba, it was the U.S. Government. The U.S government wanted Cuba to be a bulwark to protect the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico from outside interests. The U.S. proposed to buy Cuba from Spain but Spain declined to sale, this all took place back in the 1840's and it had nothing to do with slavery. I could go into detail on this but I'm afraid it would fall on deaf ears.

Ostend Manifesto - Wikipedia

“ During the administration of President Franklin Pierce, a pro-Southern Democrat, Southern expansionists called for acquiring Cuba as a slave state, but the outbreak of violence following the Kansas–Nebraska Act left the administration unsure of how to proceed. At the suggestion of Secretary of State William L. Marcy, American ministers in Europe—Pierre Soulé for Spain, James Buchanan for Great Britain, and John Y. Mason for France—met to discuss strategy related to an acquisition of Cuba. They met secretly at Ostend, Belgium, and drafted a dispatch at Aachen, Prussia. The document was sent to Washington in October 1854, outlining why a purchase of Cuba would be beneficial to each of the nations and declaring that the U.S. would be "justified in wresting" the island from Spanish hands if Spain refused to sell. To Marcy's chagrin, Soulé made no secret of the meetings, causing unwanted publicity in both Europe and the U.S. The administration was finally forced to publish the contents of the dispatch, which caused it irreparable damage.”

“Cuba was of special importance to Southern Democrats, who believed their economic and political interests would be best served by the admission of another slave state to the Union. The existence of slavery in Cuba, the island's plantation economy based on sugar, and its geographical location predisposed it to Southern influence;[5] its admission would greatly strengthen the position of Southern slaveholders, whose way of life was under fire from Northern abolitionists.[6] Whereas immigration to Northern industrial centers had resulted in Northern control of the population-based House of Representatives, Southern politicians sought to maintain the fragile balance of power in the Senate, where each state received equal representation. As slavery-free Western states were admitted, Southern politicians increasingly looked to Cuba as the next slave state.[7][8] If Cuba were admitted to the Union as a single state, the island would have sent two senators and up to nine representatives to Washington.[note 1]”

No, it is pretty clear that it was southerners and slavers who desperately wanted Cuba in order to expand the “peculiar institution”. It had everything to do with slavery.

Again, your ignorance is showing.
 
If they were so smart, how come they didn’t foresee where the US finds itself today?


Tired of hearing about the FF and what they meant........

they did foresee where the u.s. finds itself today. it is the people who have failed. the people havent upheld the constitution.
 
Rich, most of the men that fought for the South never owned slaves, they were fighting because of the oppression of the Northern States on the South.


That's what the Southern middle class told them and used patriotism to get them to fight
In actual fact that "oppression" was a Northern inspired movement to free the slaves and thus present a threat to the wealth of the said Southern middle class


It's nothing new, 80 some years early the Northern middle class to use patriotism to rebel against British colonial rule, persuading colonists the were fighting against British "oppression"
When in reality, they were fighting for those middle class to make more money




No, the colonist did not fight for "nationalism" for each State at that time was a sovereign nation, each State fought to preserve itself. They band together because fighting as a collective is much better than fighting by ones self.

Preserve itself from what? British "oppression"

And when they had won, those same colonists were now what? Their situation hadn't changed.

Only about 6% of Americans could vote, so much for "no taxation without representation"

But the wealthy middle class now didn't have to pay taxes to Britain and so became ever wealthier.
 
Back
Top Bottom