The Instigator
nmccormack
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
PatriotPerson
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Confederates really won the Civil War

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,087 times Debate No: 39036
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

nmccormack

Pro

We should all know what the Civil War was all about -- State rights. The Confederacy was created under the intention of this notion. No, the Civil War was not started over slavery, though that was an issue that had arisen during. Even though the abolishment of slavery was considered a Union victory, the states were also given more rights, which would be a Confederacy victory.
PatriotPerson

Con

I accept this debate as I am against the resolution. My opponent claims that the civil war was about state's rights. This is false. The Confederates fought tooth and nail for slavery, their excuse was state's rights. The civil war obviously was started over slavery, why else would Lincoln sign the emancipation proclamation and be assassinated for doing so?
Therefore, since the Confederates did not REALLY fight for state's rights, I ask you, how was their any victory on their part?
Debate Round No. 1
nmccormack

Pro

The Emancipation Proclamation was signed on September 22nd, 1862, during the Civil War, not before. Also, if the challenger were to read the proclamation, this was written for the ten succeeded states, not the Union.

If the challenger would look at the link below, and excerpts of the book I previously mentioned, the challenger would see that the Civil War began based off the fight for state rights and a weak federal government.

http://www.civilwar.org...

Also, may I argue that slavery was considered a state right that the Confederacy wanted? Therefore, state rights really was the reason behind the Civil War.

Due to state's rights, the Civil War Amendments were not enforced until mid-20th century. There were still many laws (mainly Jim Crow laws) enacted through the states to promote segregation and there were little to no consequences to the lawmakers. Was there unfair treatment much better than the abolishment of slavery?

If the challenger would look at statistics shown on how many soldiers were killed in the Civil War, the Union suffered the most casualties (373,000 vs 260,000). This is nearly a 3:2 ratio, very significant.

On a side note, also within the Civil War was the civil war of class. The South was victorious in which poor or middle-class were now able to hold office and the farmers who rebelled now earned a decent payment for their crops. The North, an industrious nation, would still have severe class separation, even today.

Looking overall at the United States today, we could see that the Democrats (who are for state rights) have a slight advantage over Republicans (who are for federal rights). Since the Civil War, we have focused more on state rights: abortion, terrorism, electoral college, etc.
PatriotPerson

Con

"During the civil war, not before."
I know. I never said it was signed before the war.

"this was written for the ten succeeded states, not the Union."
False. From ( http://www.archives.gov... ) The opening paragraph states as follows:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or
designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion
against the United States (1), shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and
the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval
authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons(2), and
will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts
they may make for their actual freedom."

1. Yes, this part declares that all slaves in the rebellious states (the south) are to be freed.
2. This part of the declaration, however, recognizes that all slaves are free. You see, it says the UNITED states will also recognize the proclamation. During the civil war, America split into the USA and the CSA, the USA being the North. Thus, with this proclamation, the Northern and Southern states alike are now free of slaves.


And from ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ), "The main explanation is slavery, especially Southern anger at the attempts by Northern antislavery political forces to block the expansion of slavery into the western territories. Southern slave owners held that such a restriction on slavery would would violate the principle of states' rights."

From this statement, we can see that the Confederates (Southerners) fueled their excuse of bad states' rights by the real problem of slavery. So your claim of the war not being about slavery is just outright wrong.

_____________________________________________________________
"Was there unfair treatment much better than the abolishment of slavery?"
In what way was the abolishment of slavery unfair?

"The Union suffered the most casualties."
Caualties do not matter in deciding who wins a war. The South surrendered, and that right there proves that they lost. About casualties not mattering (I'm gonna go a little off topic here) look at WWII. The Soviets suffered the most casualties in the war (about 30 million), yet we couldn't have won the war without them.
Debate Round No. 2
nmccormack

Pro

"...from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit: Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
"

When continuing to read the Emancipation Proclamation, the term 'States' is addressed as the Confederacy States of America. The proclamation only addresses the cities and states above, consequentially all Southern parts.
Also, upon the challenger's quote, it is recognized by the Executive Government of the United States, not the United States as a whole.


"...Southern slave owners held that such a restriction on slavery would violate the principle of states' rights."

I had addressed the situation of slavery in my previous argument as a state right.


"So your claim of the war not being about slavery is just outright wrong."

Also, I ask the challenger to please quote any previous statements in which I said that the war was not about slavery. I merely said that it was not what started the war.


"In what way was the abolishment of slavery unfair?"


The challenger has read my statement wrong. I wrote: "Due to state's rights, the Civil War Amendments were not enforced until mid-20th century. There were still many laws (mainly Jim Crow laws) enacted through the states to promote segregation and there were little to no consequences to the lawmakers. Was there unfair treatment much better than the abolishment of slavery?"
I do recognize my spelling error of 'there' not 'their'. But the paragraph is intended to show the treatment of segregation laws, Ku Klux Klan, etc. compared to slavery in the hundred years after. In no such way have I intended to say that abolishment of slavery is unfair.

"Caualties do not matter in deciding who wins a war. The South surrendered, and that right there proves that they lost."

It makes a significant difference when you see the reason behind why they surrendered, as shown in the link below:

http://www.americaslibrary.gov...


As Robert E. Lee himself put, he did not want anymore bloodshed. The Union had recieved more bloodshed, and yet Lee was the one to first surrender.
PatriotPerson

Con

"The term 'States' is addressed as the Confederacy States of America."
Yes, but it is also proclaimed that the United States does the same. Proclamations proclaim all that is said, so all states are free of slaves.

"I had addressed the situation of slavery in my previous argument as a state right."
Yes, a state right to the stubborn and lavy slave owners in the South. But what about all those poor slaves they held? It's their rights that matter, and they got those rights...that's why the Union won the war. You're kind of missing your own resolution here.

"In which I said the war was not about slavery."
You claimed that the South's excuse (States' Rights) was the stronger reason. I was saying why slavery was the real reason.


Surrendering can be for many reasons. You're out of supplies, you know you will lose, too many people are dying, etc. The point is that Lee surrendered, and that alone disproves the resolution, which is my job to do. You see, the title and resolution was and has been, "Confederates really won the Civul War". In that case, you were supposed to be arguing that they did win, and I was supposed to be arguing that they didn't.

So I ask you, if the Confederates won, how come there are no slaves in America? How come this country is called the UNITED states of America? And, Lee's surrender alone proves that the Confederates lost.

I have one final statement, this one goes to the voters:

VOTE CON!!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by nmccormack 3 years ago
nmccormack
Lee's surrender was due to his troops' starvation and he didn't want anymore bloodshed as I previously quoted. Grant could've easily surrendered for the same reasons, but Lee decided to be the first one to call it off. Just because someone had the sense to call off a war, doesn't make them a loser.

As for your claim of why we are called the United States of America, that is completely irrelevant. The name was made when there was slavery and was still there after it was abolished.
Posted by nmccormack 3 years ago
nmccormack
You still did not read the full Emancipation Proclamation..
Here are some sources to prove it freed slavery only in Southern states:
http://www.civilwar.org... (#2 on their list)
http://www.ourdocuments.gov... ("..which stated that slaves in those states or parts of states still in rebellion as of January 1, 1863, would be declared free)
http://www.history.com... (..all slaves in the rebellious states "shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free." While the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave, it was an important turning point in the war..")

This debate was not for literal translation of who won, but symbolic. The Union may have won in context, but abolition of slavery would not be enforced for several years and African-Americans would not achieve equal rights for another hundred years.
Is that the real reason behind the South's demand for state rights, because they did not want slavery?

One more source I just wanted to share with you, if you have the time to read it:
http://www.staff.fcps.net... (This is a summary of a chapter in Zinn's book "Problems in U.S. History)

This shows that slavery was not a key issue in the Civil War. Economic reasons were. In this aspect, the South did win: Unions were formed, better working conditions, and the poor became more politically represented. Zinn has several sources to support his claim.
Posted by nmccormack 3 years ago
nmccormack
Thank you, PatriotPerson, for making my first debate so compelling! I had fun.
No votes have been placed for this debate.