The Instigator
Con (against)
16 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
13 Points

Pick your own debate... Regarding history!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
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 6 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,792 times Debate No: 10664
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (6)




Good luck, have fun and keep the topic and debate clean. : )

To be specific, I am willing to debate upon any historical topic, issue, controversial battle etc, so long as it occurred before 1950 and after 100 AD (I am well versed in this era, but I haven't any wish to debate a Biblical/Ancient/Greek controversy, at this time).

I ask that the topic be debatable, and not entirely one-sided. And, as I've stated before, a clean topic. I don't want to discuss some sort of war crime specifically involving rape or some equally as disturbing topic (though, perhaps, exceptions could be made if it were to be regarding something as 'worst leader in history').

I also ask that in the case of an English controversy, I be placed on the side of the English. ; ) Naw, I'm joking - that is your option. :D

Good, luck, have fun!


I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

Resolved: In the War Between the States, should we assume a moral high ground to exist (, the South had a higher moral ground than the North.

Contention 1: The Southern states had the right to secede.

The right to secede is not forbidden from the States in the Constitution; therefore, by the Tenth Amendment [1], the States had the right to secede.

Additionally, Virginia, New York, and Rhode Islan all included clauses in the ratifications that reserved the right to secede from an oppresive government [2a].

Finally, New England also threatened to secede from the Union during the War of 1812 [3a], so to disallow the South to secede would be hypocritical.

The reason the South seceded was to cancel high tarrifs that favored the North more than the South. There was nothing unconstitutional about this act of secession, so Lincoln had no right to send armed troops into the South.

Contention 2: The North cannot be justified through anti-slavery

The concept that the war was fought to free the slaves is false.

The border states kept slavery during the war, but remained in the Union [4]. If the war were about slavery, these states would have been kicked out.

The reason the North was against slavery in the territories, as David Wilmot said, was not about "morbid sympathy for the slave." He said, "I would preserve to free white labor a fair country, a rich inheritance, where the sons of toil, of my own race and color, can live without the disgrace which association with Negro slavery brings upon free labor" [2b].

The official goals for the War Between the States, as outlined by the Crittended-Johnson Resolution [5], was not to interfere with slavery, but to preserve the Union.

Abraham Lincoln expressed no sympathy for slaves at all [6][2c] (both sources use the same quote).

Now, one prominent abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison, said that abolition would be easier with a dissolved Union, because the North would no longer be obligated to return slaves to the South, increasing the cost of enforcement of slavery, so that slavery would collapse [2d]. This happened in Brazil with the lack of enforcement of a fugitive slave law, ending slavery within four years [2e]. Lincoln went against this, and ultimately caused more harm to slavery than good.

Contention 3: The South behaved more properly in the war

Now, the fact alone that the North was the one forcing the South into the choices of war or tranny makes the North lower on the moral grounds than the South.

Additionally, General Benjamin Butler issued Order Number 28 [7][2f], giving Northern soldiers a "right to rape," which violates the European code of war conduct.

I'll stop there. Good luck.

2. The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
a. The War Between the States, pg. 63
b. The North-South Division, pg. 45
c. The War Between the States, pg. 66
d. The War Between the States, pg. 64
e. The War Between the States, pg. 74
f. The War Between the States, pg. 72
3. The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers, by Brian McClanahan
a. James Madison, pg. 150
6. (Lincoln's Views on Blacks)
Debate Round No. 1


Greetings, mongeese.

To make my contention clear, I, in order to win this debate, merely have to demonstrate that the North's Moral High Ground was higher, or roughly equivalent to, that of the South.

I think it fitting to begin my argument with a quotation of Lincoln's, "Those who deny Freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." ~

I also think it necessary to rebut my opponent's arguments before pressing forth upon my own.

Negating Resolution 1 and 2.

It is easy to see that, with good reason, a State can secede from 'oppressive Government'. The Tenth commandment and the Clauses mentioned in the ratifications also granted the right to secede from 'oppressive Government'.

The problem here is, where was that oppressive Government? I recall that the Republican Election was an honourable and uncorrupted affair, was it not? Lincoln was fairly elected with a platform (an anti-slavery platform) that could clearly be seen by all free/male voters.

And, my opponent's weak argument regarding High Tariffs is nonsense. The Republican Platform, and the tensions leading to the war, had very much to do with slavery. Every plantation owner in the South was outraged at the thought that the Government wished to control the expansion of slavery. Legislation was to be placed that announced that any other new State had to be a Free soil.

In Lincoln's 1858 House Divided Speech, he stated "...arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction."

The Missouri Compromise had already ensured the prevention of spreading in the North, until it was repealed in 1854 and replaced by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which was a high tension controversy in itself. The 'Bleeding Kansas' affair was entirely about slavery. As was most of the tension leading in the thirty or more years to the Civil War. Another example that denotes that the Slavery issue was on the foremost of minds in both the Representatives and Senate is the caning of Charles Sumner by fellow Senator Preston Brooks. This occurred after Sumner delivered a heated anti-slavery speech. ~

If, as my opponent claims, the secession was not largely about slavery, why did South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas all withdraw even before Lincoln was formally announced to office? This is especially curious after Buchanan made efforts to pacify the South by reminding them that the Dred Scott Decision was evidence that there was no reason for secession. He called for a last meeting to keep the Union together. The Southern renegades denied any reason.

Do you recall Vice President Stephens of the Confederacy? Why does his Cornerstone speech declare, "[ed] upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth". ~

To negate my opponent on his New England's threat of secession, New England did not secede, did it? The South did, and it wasn't the United States Union that first brought the conflict to arms. If I recall correctly (which I do), it was Jefferson who ordered that all bordering Union forts be conquered quickly and decisively. The Confederacy fired upon Sumter and the Star of the West, its supply ship. The Union had no choice but to bear arms in order to quell this aggression.

Oh yes, I agree that the Union's foremost goal, as outlined by the Crittended-Johnson Resolution, was to preserve the United States as a whole and to subjugate the unruly rebels. But to claim, after all I have presented, that slavery was not also weighing on the minds of the Southern Confederacy, of the Abolitionists and of the Northern Congress, one would be making a grave error and misconception of history.

Negating Contention 3.

I agree that the South was, for the most part, gentlemanly in conduct. I guess because they weren't Industrialized, growing extensively, and that all respectable plantation owners practiced some form of Christianity and knew morals and respectable status (emphasis on this. The entire life of the South was that of maintaining respectable status). However, who is to say that the Union didn't conduct themselves in an equally gentlemanly manner?

I could contest, on the other hand, that their treatment of the black soldiers was not gentlemanly... As it was as cruel (even moreso) as any action that the Union enacted.

"Even if Lincoln was not ready to admit it, blacks knew that this was a war against slavery." ~

From the ultimate result of this war - the re-uniting of brothers and the freedom of all slaves, one can see which two issues were truly foremost.

"In 1863 the Confederate Congress threatened to punish severely officers of black troops and to enslave black soldiers. As a result, President Lincoln issued General Order 233, threatening reprisal on Confederate prisoners of war (POWs) for any mistreatment of black troops. Although the threat generally restrained the Confederates, black captives were typically treated more harshly than white captives. In perhaps the most heinous known example of abuse, Confederate soldiers shot to death black Union soldiers captured at the Fort Pillow, TN, engagement of 1864. Confederate General Nathan B. Forrest witnessed the massacre and did nothing to stop it." ~

One of the example could be remembered of the Siege on Fort Wagner. The Confederates did not treat Shaw (a gentleman) with any respect once he was dead. Instead, they stripped him and his fellow white officers of their uniform, as well as the black soldiers of the 54th, and buried them all in a communal pit.

How about the Southern Concentration Camps? They stored Union soldiers in these, many of whom died of disease an malnutrition.

Thus, I will make here a case that the Union's conduct was equally as gentlemanly as the Confederate's. Consider the surrender at Appotomax. Chamberlain wrote here that the surrender was made gravely, following all honourable conduct and not bragging of Union triumph. Rather, they acted like brothers and neighbors, neither leering triumph or gloating.

I'm running out of space, but let me point out one last act of charity and graciousness that one would never have seen in the Confederacy:

Lincoln's second inaugural address closed with these words:

"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right,
as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are
in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the
battle, and for his widow, and his orphan – to do all which may achieve and
cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations." ~ Source 8

Stay classy and thanks again. : )










I would like to thank my opponent for his response.

"To make my contention clear, I, in order to win this debate, merely have to demonstrate that the North's Moral High Ground was higher, or roughly equivalent to, that of the South."
False. If the South is demonstrated to be roughly equivalent to, but slightly higher than, the North, I win this debate. Just wanted to clarify that.

My opponent quotes Lincoln talking about Freedom, but he cannot be referencing blacks as well as whites as "others," as that would contradict the quote in which Lincoln expressed his feelings towards blacks.

Contentions 1+, 2+:

My opponent claims that the Federal Government was not being oppressive. However, they were most certainly being oppressive with their forcing of tariffs upon the South. South Carolina attempted to solve the matter peacefully by abolishing the act that it viewed as unconstitutional within its own boundaries, but the Federal Government denied them this power. In fact, Wisconsin even nullified fugitive slave laws within its own boundaries in 1859 [1][2a]:

"Resolved, That the government formed by the Constitution of the United States was not the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

Additionally, the tariffs themselves were highly unfair in their restriction on the South. Southern crops were generally exported worldwide, so tariffs would not protect them, but rather harmed by any counter-tariffs that would spring up in Europe. Meanwhile, Southerners had to buy highly priced goods from the North, whose main market was all of America, greatly protected by the tariffs. In fact, New England and Pennsylvania demanded that the tariff stay in place to continue to have more political and economic power than the South [3][2b] (see quote with "The city of New York...").
This blatant favoritism could most definitely be seen as oppressive by the South, thus justifying nullification, and, when that was denied, secession.
Finally, oppression has to be in the eyes of the beholder. If the South says, "Government, you are oppressive, and we wish to leave," of course the government would say, "What? No, we're not being oppressive." The least biased source would be the South, deciding that the benefits of the Union did not outweigh the oppression.

As for the matter of new states being of free soil, this was a threat of free soil power increasing in the Senate, oppressing the South to an even greater extent. Therefore, the only solution was to get away from this oppressive power.

My opponent asks why secession occurred before Lincoln took office. It was because the South decided that they could still end their oppression if they had a Pro-South president in the Fed. However, when this plan failed, the best option was to secede.

My opponent cites Vice President Stephens' Cornerstone speech. However, I would like to redirect everybody's attention to a similar statement made by Lincoln:
"And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. And I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
Lincoln was opposed to giving any equality to the black race.

My opponent criticizes the attack on Union forts. However, if the South were to have its rightful soveirgnity returned to it. The Confederacy offered to buy the land owned by the Union present in its own territory from the Union (although the federal government is not authorized to build forts), but Lincoln refused, requiring and justifying military force [4]. My opponent's claim that the Union had no choice is false.

Contention 3+:

My opponent criticizes the treatment of black soldiers in the war. However, assaults against armed military men cannot be worse than claiming the right to rape noncombatants.

I would like to point out that Shaw's parents said that Shaw could have been buried in "no holier place" than his communal pit with his soldiers [5].

I would like to introduce as a contention General William Sherman. He utterly ruined the cities of Vicksburg, Meridian, and Atlanta [6][2c].

As for concentration camps, the same could be said for the Union's.

My opponent's point of surrender is no contention for either the North or the South, as both sides acted respectfully.

My opponent adds Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, but it is actually a form of irony against Lincoln. He is the one who ordered the wounds of the nation to be opened. He also said that a house divided against itself cannot stand, but two houses can stand perfectly well.

Finally, as a closing, I would like to quote H.L. Mencken on the Gettysburg Address:
"The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves" [7].

Good luck.

2. The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
a. American Government and the "Principles of '98", p. 39
b. The War Between the States, p. 68
c. The War Between the States, pp. 72-3
Debate Round No. 2


I am, first, going to lead with several contentions that the North was, indeed, of a higher moral standard than the South.

1. The South betrayed its country by first seceding and then calling for Foreign aid.

2. The South fought for its rights to keep people in bondage and servitude.

3. The South's post-war conduct was atrocious, including the formation of the Ku Klux Clan among members of 'Honourable' society.

4. Southern Behaviour leading to the war was something to be desired. As previously stated, Senatorial caning, bleeding Kansas and the capture of Union forts. The Southern politicians deliberately attempted to halt any legislation that might possibly be beneficial to the North (such as the Homestead laws and Pacific Railway bill that never passed due to Southern interference)

5. The South interfered with the North's rights, rather than vice versa. If anything, it should have been the Union that started the war, even though they did not. Such examples are the 'Fugitive Slave Law', 'Nullification Crisis' and the trial leading up the the Five Points Compromise of 1850, Dred Scott Decision and the like all interfered with the anti-slave sentiments and rights of the North.

6. Slave owners were so bold as to enter Canada in pre-Civil War in order to hunt down 'their' slaves. Each of these people deserved to be beaten down by Canadian citizens (many were).

7. Knights of the Golden Circle founded in the South and attempted aggression and slavery expansion.

8. The tariffs my opponent is referring to. The so called 'oppressive' Walker tariffs were substantially decreased to the contentment of both factions in 1846.

9. The South refuses to re-negotiate with the Union in order to keep a whole country.

10. The South used Highway bandits to interfere with Union shipping. They used privateers (pirates) and outlaws for blockade runners and Confederate raiders. In essence, they benefited from organized crime.

11. Concentration and poorly run prison camps as Camp Sumter were despicable. The Union at least attempted to keep their prisoners fed. ( )

12. Wirz (a Confederate) was one of the only officers on both sides tried for war crimes.

13. Lastly, Abraham Lincoln was shot by a Confederate, John Wilkes Booth, whom was a part of a Conspiracy - more organized crime.

14. Johnston did not give up the war once Lee honourably surrendered. He carried it on for several more days, determined that the South was not yet lost. Other such radicals fought on for months in the desert and in guerrilla style.


Now I will rebut my opponent.

Lincoln is a politician. Not only is he a politician, but he, like many others, viewed natives or people with a different skin colour as roughly inferior to white people. This is clear in the quotations that you have provided. However, his actions are also not consistent with the quotations (Thus the indication that he is a politician) that you provide. I believe some state that "Actions speak louder than words." Lincoln even engaged himself in the famed series of debates on slavery with Stephen A. Douglas.

My second argument is that not once in the quotations that you have provided did Lincoln advocate the bondage of fellow human beings. Rather, he campaigned against it. Yes, he may not have viewed the two races as equal in social status, but he also did not wish that they remain in barbarous servitude. This is clear in his campaigns, his actions and his speeches - even the speeches that you provided. Note the 'when they gained freedom' in his deportation plans. He, like most others (albeit abolitionists of the time), just wished that if there were to be a superior and inferior race, that the white remained on top until a time could arise that the two live in social equality.

Back to my first argument in this post. "Actions speak louder than words." Lincoln campaigned for the possibility of blacks being able to vote, did he not?

Perhaps he had initially not viewed it this way, but once he saw the black soldiers fight honourably and courageously, he obviously changed his opinions.

And even if, before the War, Lincoln's opinions of a black man were not that of equality, it is much more than the South's opinion of a black man being naught but a slave and an 'animal'. He, at least, viewed African Americans as People. As did the Abolitionists of the North.

I already negated that the High Tariff is not an 'oppression'. Tariffs are laid upon a country as a whole. It is just unfortunate that the South stood to lose upon the passing of it. Also, it is not an oppression, because, as I pointed out above, the Government lowered the tax a few years before the war, to the approval of both factions.

My opponent's claim upon rightful Sovereignty of the South in regard to Federal forts is absurd. It is the South that seceded, knowing that Union fortresses still lay upon its boundaries. My opponent will have to give his source on the regard that the Federal Military is not justified to build fortresses for protection against alien and foreign assault.

This still does not excuse the firing upon Fort Sumter and the Star of the West, and the many bordering Union forts.

Also, it stands that, for defensive purposes, once the Confederacy raised a mass army, the Union should also do so to ensure that the 'loos cannon' of the South did not assault it and gain much territory.

I am glad you have brought up Butler, again, as it is clear that you have misinterpreted the context of his order:

Issue 28: "As the officers and soldiers of the United States have been subject to repeated insults from the women calling themselves ladies of New Orleans, in return for the most scrupulous non interference and courtesy on our part, it is ordered that hereafter when any female shall, by word, gesture or movement, insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States, she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation. By command of Major General Butler."

This merely means that Butler will try any woman who mocks or expresses contempt of his army as a Prostitute. Even so, this is quite the controversial order (especially considering that all that they may be doing is protesting his invasion of their very homes as his headquarters), and it is quite good that he was Removed (emphasize that) from command by Grant and Lincoln. In fact, Grant had little use for Butler and plead several times that Butler be removed. Sadly, Butler had strong political connection in Congress and it took a little longer than either Lincoln or Grant would have liked.

1. Lincoln's views on liberating African Americans:


I will now refute my opponent's contentions.

Note: * means that I acknowledge my opponent's claim to be heavily under sourced, as most of them are.

1* . The Union was no longer the South's country. My opponent does not source his foreign aid claim, and even then, calling for foreign aid would hardly be immoral. America got help from France in the Revolutionary War, and we certainly don't call this immoral.

2. False. The Border States were part of the Union, yet practiced slavery. The Union would have turned on the Border States if my opponent's claim were true.

3. Post-war conduct is irrelevant, as the resolution only concerns the war. Otherwise, I would mention the horribly anti-South policies enacted by the Radical Republicans. If you want to debate Reconstruction, I'd be happy to in a later debate.

4*. The South had the right to interfere with any national legislation, because it's part of the legislation. Additionally, what about the mad John Brown, who led a murderous slave revolt [1]?

5*. The North agreed to the Fugitive Slave Law as a compromise [2] with complete Northern consent. The North did not have the right to impose taxes on the South oppresively, making the Nullification Crisis justified. Dred Scott had nothing to do with Northerners' rights. And again, these are pre-war.

6*. How does this affect the War Between the States?

7*. Completely irrelevant to the War that this debate concerns.

8*. The South still desired the unfair tariff to be lower still.

9*. A complete repeal of the tariff and the granting of the rights to Nullification would have done nicely.

10*. Benefiting from organized crime by turning them into effective military units decreased attacks on the South, and as the Atlantic Ocean was a war zone, attacking belligerent ships was perfectly okay.

11. The Northern Blockade from Lincoln's Anaconda Plan was one of the contributing factors to the food shortage [3]. The North can be blamed for their prisoners' hunger, as well as the hunger of most of the South.

12*. That's because only the winning side gets to try the losing side for war crimes. The Union wasn't going to persecute its own war criminals very much, making for a very biased judge.

13*. That was post-War.

14*. Johnston Who? Lots of Johnstons show up in a Google search for (Johnston Civil War).


So, the politician Lincoln was a corrupt liar. That's good to know. Lying is immoral. In most cases, being a politician is immoral.

My opponent does not bother to cite Lincoln's "famous" debates with Douglass.

Lincoln did not believe that as long as there must be superior, it should be the whites. He believed that there would always be the need for a superior race, forever. I would also like to point out that quite a few Southern leaders (Robert E. Lee, for example [4]) viewed slavery as a moral evil to eventually be abolished. There were also four times as many abolitionists in the South as there were in the North [5].
Given that both the North and South had some leaders against slavery, and both regions had slave states, there's really not too much of a discrepancy here. Lee probably would have been elected president after the war (as most successful generals are, such as Washington and Grant) and would have made attempts to limit and eventually abolish slavery.

My opponent claims that Lincoln campaigned for black suffrage. However, he only considered this AFTER the War, as he says, "I cannot see, if universal amnesty is granted, how, under the circumstances, I can avoid exacting in return universal suffrage, or, at least, suffrage on the basis of intelligence and military service" [5]. He claims to have been forced into his position of granting universal suffrage.

The South did not view African-Americans as animals. There were plenty of free blacks in the South to be treated as humans, and many enslaved blacks in the Border States as well. I have already shown how Lee was personally against slavery, so he obviously did not consider blacks to be animals. How many Southerners actually did? At most, not many, and at least, none.

The tariffs were still an oppression. My opponent even acknowledges that it was better for the North that the South. The South then demanded that it be repealed for fairness. When this did not occur, it was oppressive to the South.

My opponent does not contend the idea that oppression could only be determined by the victim of oppression, and therefore concedes it.

My opponent provides no alternative for what the South to do about the Union fortresses on its territory. The South offered to buy them, but eventually had to take over the forts. The Union could have easily rebuilt them and built new ones on the new border. However, why would the South be so immoral as to openly cross an established border and attack a non-belligerent country, like the North did? The South wasn't looking for a war on the North. It just wanted freedom.

My opponent does not give any reason to hold Butler and Sherman any higher than the Confederate soldiers. He also concedes Shaw's burial to be holy.

In conclusion:

The South was trying to get away from an oppressive government run by the power-hungry North.
The war was NOT about slavery.
The Confederacy did not utterly destroy Northern cities.
The North praised John Brown for leading a mental slave revolt.
The Union refused to sell its forts to the Confederacy.
The Confederacy's prison camps were poor due to the Union's blockade.
Lincoln was a corrupt politician who looked down upon blacks with the majority of Americans.
Conduct after the war is irrelevant.
Vote PRO!

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, and look forward to debating him sometime in the future!

5. The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
Oh. Whoops.
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 6 years ago
You shouldn't be griping. You voted for yourself and I did not.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
We never got any of those promised RFDs...
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
A fine debate, one of the best on ddo. After a first reading it seems like a tie. Both sides had valid claims to the moral high ground. I'll ponder it some more.
Posted by Discipulus 6 years ago
An excellent debate! +1
Posted by Xer 6 years ago
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, by Thomas E. Woods, Jr."

Good book. And great topic choice mongeese.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
Actually, if the US showed Europe to be on the side of the South, that would play very negatively for the Union's morality.

*insert indoctrination statement here*
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 6 years ago
The Confederates considered what they did to Shaw to be a desecration and disrespect of the body and of the burial that he deserved. Shaw's parents, being faithful abolitionists, stated that it was most likely a way Shaw would wish to be buried, since he fought so adamently against slavery and bravely lead black soldiers into battle.

"The South did not view African-Americans as animals. There were plenty of free blacks in the South to be treated as humans. "

LOL Wow, what mirth did that statement thus provoke. I think that depends on your definition of 'treating one as human'. :P Even in the post-war period, most in the South treated blacks abominably (even moreso than the North).
Thanks, Sherlock. :D Sadly, I can't vote, so it appears I already am at a disadvantage.

Good debate, mongeese. Congradulations

It was Joseph E. Johnston.

And I dearly hope that all whom read this debate realize about the foreign aid that the South received. England, France and Spain all had economic interests in the South. In fact, the South equipped many of its Blockade runners and outlaw raiders in English ports. If one doesn't know that England almost joined the war, initially, on the side of the South, US history curriculum is sadly lacking...
Posted by sherlockmethod 6 years ago
Good debate guys. Give me some time to RFD before voting. I have to look at a few points closer. Nice job, a pleasure to read.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
Oh, okay. That'll help shave off a few characters from an argument.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by pbplk58 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Vote Placed by username03 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mongoose 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 6 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Vote Placed by mongeese 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05