The Instigator
theunionforever61
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
tyrob99
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The South did secede in order to protect slavery

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  
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: 4/8/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 678 times Debate No: 51949
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

theunionforever61

Pro

The South did secede in order to protect their peculiar institution and I aim to defend this assertion in this debate. Con will argue that the South did not secede over slavery. First round is for acceptance and making any opening statements, such as what you think the south seceded for. Please only accept if you are going to debate seriously, thanks. And good luck to my opponent.
tyrob99

Con

Ok, one, even though slavery was a big part of it, there were other causes such as land and population issues, along with secret organizations that were extremists. They were trying to keep rights(such as with keeping their slaves), but they also wanted more land. They were still trying to figure out who would get what. Plus, even after the Civil War and he "freed" the slaves, Lincoln deported a lot of the slaves back to Africa because he did not think they should stay in the United States, rather than their mostly poverty-stricken background.
Debate Round No. 1
theunionforever61

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate.
First, I would like to deal with your contention that Lincoln deported many freed slaves after the war.
Lincoln was assassinated on April 14th. Lee had surrendered the main confederate army on April 9th. So Lincoln had only 5 days to "deport a lot of the slaves back to Africa". In any case, he didn't want to force the slaves back to Africa. Lincoln had supported voluntary colonization early in his presidency, because he believed Blacks would find better lives in "their own native land". Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles noted in 1862, 'the President objected unequivocally to compulsion. Their emigration must be voluntary and without expense to themselves.' Lincoln did not want to force blacks onto ships then off to Africa as you suggested.
One of Lincoln's secretaries and his closest friend in the white house, John Hay, noted on July 1, 1864 in his diary that "the President has sloughed off that idea of colonization." So Lincoln had in fact abandoned the idea of colonization well before the war had ended, and thus did not deport any slaves back to Africa.

"there were other causes such as land and population issues"
I am assuming that you are referring to the western lands won in the Mexican war. The reason the land issue was an issue at all was because of slavery. The north wanted the lands to be free of slavery, because many northerners disapproved of slavery and also because they believed that it should be used to give ONLY white laborers and farmers a new start. The South wanted to open the territories to slavery because they believed that it was their right. They also felt slavery needed to expand or it would eventually die out. This was the plan Lincoln and the republicans had in the beginning to deal with slavery: ban it in the territories so that it would eventually die out in the south. There was a lot of tension between the North and South over this issue, and eventually the Compromise of 1850 was figured out. This had everything to do with slavery, and nothing to do with just land.

I'm not sure entirely what you mean by population issues, but I'm sure you will explain it when you respond to me.

"along with secret organizations that were extremists"

The only secret organization that had anything to do with the Civil War was The knights of the Golden Circle. This secret society was, in the years before the Civil War, dedicated to... expanding slavery. It wanted to annex or conquer the Caribbean and Central and South America and spread slavery to these areas in order to make the South (and slavery) more powerful. In fact, in the 1850s, there numerous "filibuster" expeditions which tried to put this into practice. Filibusters were Southern mercenaries who invaded other countries in Central America and the Caribbean in order to annex them to the US and expand slavery. They did not have the authority of the government, but did have the blessing of the South. They invaded Cuba twice, and briefly took over Nicaragua (where they reintroduced slavery).
So in conclusion, the secret societies were based around expanding slavery.

"They were trying to keep rights(such as with keeping their slaves), but they also wanted more land."

What other rights were in question other than keeping their slaves and taking their slaves into the territories?
They wanted more land so that they could expand slavery into them. As I explained above, the land would not have been an issue had slavery not existed in America.
tyrob99

Con

This is really hard to refute mainly because I know that the south seceded to protect slavery(some although were to protect a right that America promised, even though it is an ironic freedom because it takes one party's freedom away). It is a well-known fact. I purely wanted to see if I could even muster a semi-strong argument. As I suspected, I could not because if I know something for a fact, i can not fight against it. I concede.
Debate Round No. 2
theunionforever61

Pro

Well alright. I appreciate your honesty. Vote pro, since con agrees with me also.
tyrob99

Con

tyrob99 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
theunionforever61

Pro

I extend my argument again.
tyrob99

Con

tyrob99 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Impact94 3 years ago
Impact94
I'll admit, this was a disappointing debate... You know what, I'd debate you on this topic if you challenged me to it.
Posted by theunionforever61 3 years ago
theunionforever61
What is ELO?
Posted by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
I considered, but I want to face members with +2,000 ELO
Posted by theunionforever61 3 years ago
theunionforever61
I would appreciate it if you did come debate me. You seem like a thoughtful, serious debater, based upon your earlier debates. I also looked at your profile, and it said you are a libertarian. I've always wanted to debate a libertarian about this issue.
Posted by Impact94 3 years ago
Impact94
I want to try my hand at this debate, but I'm already in another tricky one as it is. Decisions, decisions...
No votes have been placed for this debate.