The Instigator
theaceb
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
jackpool
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The Civil War was an unjustified invasion and the Southern states should have been allowed to secede

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,676 times Debate No: 982
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (9)

 

theaceb

Pro

First of all I totally disagree with the practice of slavery, which was one of the primary reasons for the southern states' secession.

However I believe that the American Civil War was an invasion of a foreign nation by the United States. In seceding the southern states were attempting to form their own nation so they could govern themselves the way they wanted, because they saw the way the United States government was treating them was oppressive and unfair, which was exactly the justification for the American colonies to declare independence from Britain. In both cases Britain and the United States invaded their opponents for economic reasons, because the colonies and the south both provided valuable resources for their respective mother country. The reasons for the Union invasion were not humanitarian ones.

I understand the argument that the Civil War was historically a good thing because it expediated the abolition of slavery and expediated the acceptance of blacks into
society. However I contend that it is more important for a people to be able to declare its' independence from a government that is perceived as oppressive. The fact that the Union invaded the Confederacy to forcefully bring it back to the United States, sets a precedent that people will not be able to secede from the U.S. if they want. Some people say that this precedent would not be applicable today, in case of secession, because more diplomacy exists currently, and that a war broke out in the 1860's because there was a lack of diplomatic mentality back then. To this I would point to the fact that from before Revolutionary War, up until the outbreak of the Civil War, there were numerous diplomatic attempts to rectify disputes between the two sections of the country. If a section of the nation tried to secede today, I believe it is highly probable that the U.S. would forcefully keep the section from declaring independence.
jackpool

Con

It was the right of the government of the United States of America to enforce law. The secession of people and land by the South was illegal. Who was right or who was wrong is inconsequential on the moral level. The issue is that all land in the United States is property of the US Government. Taking this land bought with blood is illegal. If the inhabitants of the lands bought in the Louisiana purchase decided to take their land back for themselves after it was bought from Napoleon, is it any less so stealing from the government?

Proper channels must be followed for the proper usage and appropriation of Federal lands and property as well as the emigration of all those people. The South and North had been balancing slave and free states for many years, so the South had its ability to choose to apply for secession through the Federal system. 'Justified' implies Justice, and just or not, it is the responsibility of the US government to protect and enforce its laws for/against its people and property--it can't allow people to desert with land and goods, that is piracy.
Debate Round No. 1
theaceb

Pro

I first wanna give a shout out to my opponent, he ain't so bad, he's a cold mother with bro skills that'll make you say WHOMP!

Anyway let's ice it up

"The issue is that all land in the United States is property of the US Government."

This is not true, land in a certain state is owned by the state government and the national government. But in this case I would say that the state has precedence because of the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The power of ownership of land is not exclusively granted the U.S. government by the constitution, so therefore when there is a conflict this right is to be held by the states.

Also the example of the states existing in the Louisiana Territory seceding and therefore stealing that land from the national government, is not fully comparable to this situation. Only Arkansas and small parts of Louisiana and Texas was part of the Louisiana Territory, the vast majority of the seceding states were on land not bought by the U.S. government.

"The South and North had been balancing slave and free states for many years, so the South had its ability to choose to apply for secession through the Federal system."

That may be relevant if the only reason for the south's secession was slavery. While I believe it was a large reason, I believe the tariffs and states rights issues were larger reasons. Most of the concessions, as you said, were in regards to balancing slave or non-slave states, such as the Compromise of 1850. However these compromises did not address the larger problems of tariffs and states rights. Like I said the north and the south had been trying for almost a century to legally resolve their disputes, but the south became so upset with the way the national government was treating them, they seceded.

"'Justified' implies Justice, and just or not, it is the responsibility of the US government to protect and enforce its laws for/against its people and property"

Justify is defined as: "to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right" (http://dictionary.reference.com...). Being justified does not necessarily mean being legal, it extends beyond the realm of laws, it deals with what is morally right.

This is in response to clsmooth's comment

I agree that the tariff issues were a greater reason for the secession, however, while slavery did exist the north, it was much more a part of the southern states' economy and lifestyle. People were pushing for amendments to ban slavery before the war, the south wanted to free itself from U.S. jurisdiction before that happened. Slavery was a southern reason for war not a Union reason for war.

"there were still slave states loyal to the Union."

Many of the slave states that supported the Union were forced by Lincoln to remain part of the Union, notably Maryland, because DC resides within it's borders and if Lincoln hadn't done this, Maryland would have probably joined the Confederacy.

Also I never said I agreed with the view that the Civil War was historically a good thing, I just said I understood it.

As far as Lincoln being a neocon Hamiltonian, I'm totally with you.
jackpool

Con

jackpool forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
theaceb

Pro

WOOOOOO YEAHHH DEBATE MAESTRO PULLING THE STOCKS ON THE LOCAL TUBES, THESE COLORS DON'T RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jackpool

Con

jackpool forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by theaceb 9 years ago
theaceb
Also how is the Ayn Rand cult a neocon death cult?
Posted by theaceb 9 years ago
theaceb
I'd actually like to see some of those quotes, because I agree that he was a statist, but I haven't heard much about him being a white supremacist, thanks.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
If you don't think Lincoln was a vitriolic white supremacist, then again, you have bought into liberal statist propaganda. But you shut down the "debate" and won't admit any of the mounds of quotes I could reproduce that make David Duke look tolerant by comparison, so I won't bother. Just shut your ears and believe the liberal-statist propaganda. I'm not surprised you're an Ann Coulterite.
Posted by Capt.Herp 9 years ago
Capt.Herp
A vicious white supremacist? Tell that to Frederick Douglass.

I give up, ain't no changing a mindset like yours. You win. Please don't bother challenging me to a debate.

I have to admit, as a former forum administrator for Ann Coulter, this has to be the first time I've been called a liberal who claims to be a conservative.

I'll have to put that definition of neocon down with the other fifty or so I've collected.

Have a good day.

Herp
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Oh yeah, I did say that. My bad. Point to you. I didn't deny my sentiments, I just wasn't aware I posted that here.

Those "greatest presidents"lists are dominated by liberal revisionists. The presidents who expanded government most are ranked the highest. FDR is typically #2, TR is high, as is Wilson. The truly greatest presidents, such as Cleveland and Coolidge, are in the middle or near the bottom.

A neocon is a liberal who claims to be a conservative. A liberal who favors the Hamiltonian/Whig/Lincolnite centralist agenda, admires FDR and the New Deal, and believes in a Wilsonian/Rooseveltian liberal interventionist foreign policy. This is what I mean by neocon.

Lincoln hated the founding ideals of the country. He was a vicious white supremacist and rabid anti-capitalist. He was a tax-hiking, fiat-money-loving, Constitution-shredding, welfare statist wealth redistributor. The Hamiltonians could not defeat the Jeffersonians in the marketplace of ideas, so under Lincoln, they crushed them with brutal force. If that's your idea of a "great statesman" then it just helps delineate the difference between conservatives and fascists.
Posted by Capt.Herp 9 years ago
Capt.Herp
Define "neocon," which I view as some term intended as an insult which no two people define the same way. In short, it's a nebulous meaningless term, so I'm not insulted.

As for not comparing Lincoln to Hitler, here's what you said to me earlier:

"Tyrant is too soft of a word for such a dictator, whose evil is only rivaled by Hitler -- a fervent Lincoln admirer, by the way -- in all of human history."

That's not comparing Lincoln to Hitler, saying Lincoln's evil rivals Hitler's? I went to college -- that's what I get out of it.

By the way, MY view, along with historians who routinely list Lincoln as number 1 of all US presidents every year, is that Lincoln was the greatest statesman and President we ever had. If that makes me a "neocon," so be it. I don't particularly care, because, as I noted, that term is thrown around so much, originally by liberals, and now by anyone who wants to stifle discussion, that it's meaningless anyway.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
1. I am not a southerner and I am not a confederacy apologist.

2. I didn't compare Lincoln to Hitler, I only noted that Hitler was a fan of Lincoln. This alone doesn't even diminish Lincoln. Castro said he was a fan of Thomas Jefferson. But in the case of Hitler/Lincoln, it is instructive if you know WHY Hitler was a fan of Lincoln -- because he was a lawless centralist. Also, like Hitler, Lincoln was a white supremacist. Although I didn't compare Lincoln to Hitler in my previous comment, I will now. Lincoln was possibly not as evil as Hitler, but he is the closest thing we've seen to Hitler in America. And this has nothing to do with Jews.

3. That the North won is not relevant unless you are a southern-hating Neocon who thinks Might Makes Right. Mao won in China and Lenin won in Russia. The Viet Cong won, and so did Castro. Should Cubans just "get over it"?

4. Lincoln did speak out against the Constitution as a Whig, and I will find your precious substantiation. But ultimately, his actions speak louder than words. Lincoln eviscerated the Constitution, set the stage for a liberal activist central state, and effectively ended liberty in the United States. No matter what he said or when he said it, these facts remain.

Do the neocons hate the South or do they just hate reality? Or is it both?
Posted by Capt.Herp 9 years ago
Capt.Herp
You just gotta be a Southerner. Note: it was over 150 years ago. The South lost. Time to move on.

Incidentally, while it is the vogue these days to compare everyone to Hitler, i.e. "Bush is Hitler," "Hitlery Clinton," etc., all it does is insult the Jews by diminishing what one of the worst mass-murderers in the history of the world did to them.

In short, when you compare someone to Hitler, they'd better have run a whole lot of concentration camps (sort of like Andersonville?) and murdered a lot more people, or otherwise the comparison's ridiculous.

And I'm not surprised that we get no substantiation of Hitler being a big Lincoln fan other than a throwaway comment.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
I'm still searching for the citation of Lincoln's anti-constitutional "speechifying" -- it exists, but I haven't been able to find it.

But the Hitler fandom is easy. It's right in Mein Kempf.
Posted by Capt.Herp 9 years ago
Capt.Herp
Additionally, I forgot: I'd like a legitimate link to anything that quotes Hitler as being a "fan" of Lincoln.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
theacebjackpoolTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
theacebjackpoolTied
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 
Vote Placed by Evan_MacIan 9 years ago
Evan_MacIan
theacebjackpoolTied
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 
Vote Placed by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
theacebjackpoolTied
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 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
theacebjackpoolTied
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 
Vote Placed by l2jperry 9 years ago
l2jperry
theacebjackpoolTied
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 
Vote Placed by theaceb 9 years ago
theaceb
theacebjackpoolTied
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 
Vote Placed by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
theacebjackpoolTied
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 
Vote Placed by Capt.Herp 9 years ago
Capt.Herp
theacebjackpoolTied
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:03