The Instigator
Ron-Paul
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Lord_Logic
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Neither States Rights nor Slavery caused 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 5 votes the winner is...
Ron-Paul
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,932 times Debate No: 20222
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

Ron-Paul

Pro

For the debater who accepts, you can start posting arguments when you post your Round 1. In other words, fire the opening shots. And thanks in advance to the debater who accepts this debate, and make sure you are ready for a good debate.
Lord_Logic

Con

"Krakow! Krakow! Two direct hits!" ~ Calvin in Calvin and Hobbes. Ron-Paul told me to fire the opening shots, right?

I thank Ron-Paul for starting this history-related debate.
Resolution: Neither States Rights nor Slavery caused the Civil War.
As Con, I will be stating that states' rights and/or slavery caused the Civil War.

Definitons

As Ron-Paul says in the comment section, he states that Civil War will be defined as the United States Civil War.

I feel all other words should be self-explanatory.

Contentions

I have none for right now, because if I start my arguments on Round 1, Ron-Paul will have the disadvantage of having one less round for debating. Therefore, Round 1 will be treated as an acceptance round to ensure fairness in this debate.

I await Ron-Paul's opening shots, excluding my two "Krakow!" direct hits. I bet he must be bleeding by now.
Debate Round No. 1
Ron-Paul

Pro

Defense: I am not stating that neither of my debating topics had nothing to do with the civil war, but I am just saying that there is a bigger, underlying aspect.

Cause 1: Westward expansion. This is the only thing that slavery had any aspect on. Slavery had no other effect in the civil war. The civil war was not begun to end slavery. The westward expansion had several consequences in addition to the slavery question. And the underlying debate under the slavery question was whether the states got to decide whether to be free states or not, not the government. The underlying question was not slavery, but whether the individual states got to decide their fate, or if the government got to make a sweeping law that banned slavery in all states. This ruins the slavery argument. Know we are down to one debateable topic: states rights.

Cause 2: Kansas. In the late 1850s, a semi-War was erupting in Kansas. Same sides, but smaller scale. This was a precursor to war. Some of it was about slavery, but the majority was just serious tension, and the hundreds of Guerrilla War bands roaming around the state.

Cause 3: Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln's election let the fuse on the powder keg of rebellion. People who say slavery say that the south could not handle that Lincoln's on slavery. People who say state's rights say the exact same thing. They agree here. But there is something more underlying. Lincoln said that he would not stop slavery in the states that had already ratified it. This debate again stems from the statement "already ratified it". So in other words, the southerners were not concerned about their own states, but on the states that were being decided, such as Arizona and California. They questioned whether Lincoln had the power to prevent slavery in new states. This serves as backup to the anti-Slavery argument.

Cause 4: The weeks after Lincoln's election. South Carolina seceded 1 1/2 months after Lincoln was elected, and before he was even in office (due to the 1/20 step-out date for the previous president, James Buchanan). Lincoln already said what he was going to do to the western states regarding slavery. South Carolina could not handle it. The only way out: Secession.

Cause 5: South Carolina. The states in the deep south (i.e. the first seven states to secede) were waiting for an excuse or a fuse. When South Carolina seceded on December 20th, 1860, that got the ball rolling for the other six states in the deep south to secede.

Cause 6: Fort Sumter. This was the second biggest reason to the cause of the civil war. There was still a very likely chance before the firing on Fort Sumter that both sides would reach a resolution. War was not anticipated. But Lincoln was smart. As the southern states took possession of Federal Property, only two remained; Fort Pickens and Fort Sumter. Lincoln wanted to hold on to Fort Sumter for one reason: it was an excuse for war. The Confederate strategy was to starve Fort Sumter into submission. But when Lincoln called for a floatila of ships to resupply Fort Sumter under the flag of truce their plan would be foiled. But their was an alterior motive in Lincoln. If the Confederates did not fire at the ships to try to sink them, then Fort Sumter would remain a hazard to commerce in the Port of Charlestion due to it's position in the bay. If the Confederates did fire, Lincoln would have an excuse for war, which was what he was looking for. He realized the Confederates would most certainly fire. And they did. Thus, war.

Cause 7: The aftermath of Fort Sumter and the Border States. Lincoln had the excuse he was looking for. The Confederates had assailed Federal Property, and thus there was grounds for war. As a result, Lincoln called for to raise 75,000 to put down the rebellion. One problem, the Border States. The Union without the border states was seperated for the Confederacy. A naval war would accomplish little, and an overland campaign would be impossible. If the Union or the Confederacy marched through the border states, they would side with the other side. Whoever held the border states essentially had the war. When Lincoln called for the troops, that was enough for Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Arkansas. They all seceded. They recognized they would be assailed by the Union. And the other three border states, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were on strenuous and complicated ties with the Union. Maryland's state Government had to be arrested, Kentucky fought it's own little Civil War, half of Missouri was recognized by the Union, and the other half by the Confederacy.

Cause 8: The aftermath of Secession: When all of the border state business was finished, Lincoln had to call for more troops. The little Unionist statement in the already seceded border states was effectively abolished, and only after Maryland's Secessionist Government had been locked away, and after the tide of battle was away from Kentucky and Missouri did the border state problem end. And even still there were hundreds of organized guerrilla raids in Missouri during and even well after the war.

Cause 9: The ending of the beginning. Thus the battle lines have been drawn. There was no going back. After Fort Sumter, only War could resolve the conflict.

Cause 10: The Battle of Manassas. Both sides were expecting one big battle to end the war. Thus it wasn't even a "war". It was just one battle. One battle would decide the war. But even though the Confederates routed the Yankees, after Bull Run, both sides realized that they had vastly underestimated the other side, and that a long war was in the process. Causes 1-9 started the first battle. Cause 10 started the war.

Cause 11: The Battle of Wilson's Creek and Ball's Bluff: Both were Confederate victories. This only solidified the long war theory from Manassas.

Cause 12: The Battle of Shiloh: This battle had more casulties than all other battle casulties in the US COMBINED. So the number of casulties in the Revolutionary War War of 1812 Mexican War Bull Run Wilson's Creek Ball's Bluff anything else still did not equal the number of casulties at Shiloh. This was the second big wake up call for both sides. Not only would it be a long war, but it would be a bloody war, a lot more bloody than even anticipated after Bull Run.

Cause 13: The Economy and Situation of Both Sides: This was the main cause. The North was industrialized, well in the times with the Industrial Age, and was fully modern. The South on the other hand, was mostly agricultural, barely into the Industral Age, and viewed by many to be backward. Because I am almost out of room, here three of the charts that are probably the most important (I will add more with the next post):

Northern Industrial Establishments in 1860: 110,274
Southern Industrial Establishments in 1860: 18,026
How many times more Establishments the North has: 6.11749

Tons of Northern Shipping mid 1860-mid 1861: 4,602,888
Tons of Southern Shipping mid 1860-mid 1861: 286,445
How many times more Shipping is done by the South: 16.06901

Northern Gross Domestic Product in 1860: $1,754,600,000
Southern Gross Domestic Product in 1860: $145,350,000
How many times more GDP is in the North: 12.07155

This seemingly irrelevant difference was actually played a big differnce in the Civil War. It had a profound effect on the start of the war and how the war was fought from a weaponery standpoint.
Lord_Logic

Con

Due to a lack of time and an immense amount of homework, I will not be able to post this round. I appologize in advance. -1 conduct if you want.
Debate Round No. 2
Ron-Paul

Pro

It's ok. My arguments from my Round 2 argument are extended into this round.

VOTERS: Please do not penialize Lord_Logic.
Lord_Logic

Con

Lord_Logic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Ron-Paul

Pro

Since my opponent has forfeited for a second time, I will close some loopholes in my argument.

Cause 1: At first, this my seem about states rights for slavery. But one, slavery is irrelevant because the states are questioning how much power the Federal Government can have. They are not just questioning how far the Government can get into slavery. Slavery is just one of the many factors. So one down, one to go. True, states rights did have more of an effect than slavery did, but it is still not the number one cause. So states rights can be attributed to this issue, but the only one.

Cause 2: This tension in Kansas (or the mini-Civil War) just made the issue worse.

Cause 3: Again, at first, this my seem about states rights. This was not just about states rights though. This one is about the extent of Federal Power (you can argue the two are the same thing, but they are not).

Causes 4-5: The war still could have been prevented even after the seven deep south states had seceded. But this led to Fort Sumter.

Cause 6: Since war could still have been prevented, Fort Sumter, after it's surrender, becomes the second biggest cause of the war because this essentially started the war. Three days after it's surrender, Lincoln calls for 75,000, which makes the border states secede, and you have a war. This was the explosion of the powder keg.

Cause 7-9: These causes just solidified the situation of the border states. This just alowed for the overland campaign to take place, and it allowed for thousands of more troops to fight in the war, since more states had declared their allegiances.

Causes 10-12: These causes just crushed the belief of a one quick battle to decide it all. Causes 10 and 11 made sure the war would last a lot longer, and Cause 12 just made the war a lot bloodier.

Cause 13: Again, this cause may seem irrelevant, but it had a big part in lighting the powder keg of war. The economic differences sparked a big contrast in economies. The two could not survive together. And the South was the one that would most certainly fall because the North's economic position was 10 times better than the South's economic position. And the only way to save the South's way of life: Secession. Why? Because then, the North and the South would be two seperate nations with two seperate economies that could function in the way that the people saw fit. Here are some soruces for the economic differences and for how it caused the civil war.

http://shs.westport.k12.ct.us...; shows the two sides' economic differences.
"This disparity between the two set up a major difference in economic attitudes. The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. On the other hand, the South continued to hold onto an antiquated social order.": http://americanhistory.about.com....; This site says that the economic differences were the number one cause of the Civil War. Check if you doubt me. This is the main site to debate currently.
http://www.shmoop.com...; another article on the differences between economies.

VOTERS: At this time, I would like to ask that each voter give me the conduct point. All can see why. Two forfeits by my opponent.

LORD_LOGIC: I generally allow one forfeit with an explanation for that forfeit (or I ask the voters to decide, and advocate for a tie for the conduct point). But since this is your second time, and you provided no explanation, I have asked voters for the conduct point. To try to salvage this debate, debate me, and you can still very possibly win. I only have one guaranteed point. You can still capture six. It's not over yet.
Lord_Logic

Con

Lord_Logic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Ron-Paul

Pro

Vote Pro.
Lord_Logic

Con

Lord_Logic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
lol cause 3 is about slavery and states rights
Posted by shift4101 5 years ago
shift4101
I'm pretty sure cause 3, the straw that broke the camels back, was about states rights. He said he was going to prevent any new states from becoming slavery states. That translates pretty easily into "When I am president, I am going to end all free states rights to become slave states"
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
For imabench: Well then there was just a astounding upset. I am talking about the US civil war. You can't pick that up from the title?
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
99% chance the pro is referring to any other civil war and not the US civil war....
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
For Lord_Logic: Exactly. But I am drawing fire from both sides. Sooner or later, someone is going to accept this. Probably a Yankee.
Posted by Lord_Logic 5 years ago
Lord_Logic
Ron-Paul should win this debate in just 2 Rounds. 1 argument beats any argument Con makes.
Posted by Lord_Logic 5 years ago
Lord_Logic
I would be Pro if I took this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Ron-PaulLord_LogicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff.
Vote Placed by Crayzman2297 5 years ago
Crayzman2297
Ron-PaulLord_LogicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
Ron-PaulLord_LogicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: smh...
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Ron-PaulLord_LogicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
Ron-PaulLord_LogicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Hmm. Conduct goes to pro due to the ff. Furthermore, his arguments seemed superior and more convinciing