Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The South was right

Calvincambridge
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 8:12:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This does not concern slavery. I mean the south had equal right to suceed from the union as much as the colonies had the right to suceed from Britain. Either the South had the right to suceed from the union or it did not but the colonies were not justified to declare independence either.
Trying to figure out women is like trying to solve a Rubik's cube with missing pieces. While blind. And on fire. And being shot.-Agent_Orange
Dude. Shades
That is all.- Thaddeus Rivers
One thing that isn't a joke though is the fact that woman are computers.Some buttons you can press and it'l work fine, but if you push the wrong one you'll get the blue screen of death.
silly, thett. girls are only good for sex. being friends with a female is of no value.-darkkermit
Calvincambridge
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 8:27:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 8:12:53 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
might makes right.

that is bull. Morally.
Trying to figure out women is like trying to solve a Rubik's cube with missing pieces. While blind. And on fire. And being shot.-Agent_Orange
Dude. Shades
That is all.- Thaddeus Rivers
One thing that isn't a joke though is the fact that woman are computers.Some buttons you can press and it'l work fine, but if you push the wrong one you'll get the blue screen of death.
silly, thett. girls are only good for sex. being friends with a female is of no value.-darkkermit
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 8:29:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
As far as I am concerned, they had no right to liberty because they were committing the most egregious violations of rights possible: denying others the right to bodily integrity as well as preventing them from pursuing their own ends.
Calvincambridge
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 8:33:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 8:29:14 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
As far as I am concerned, they had no right to liberty because they were committing the most egregious violations of rights possible: denying others the right to bodily integrity as well as preventing them from pursuing their own ends.

That would have naturally withered away. And the Colonists made England fight a war for them and then refused to pay for it. Brats.

So give the South their freedom or go back to mother England.
Trying to figure out women is like trying to solve a Rubik's cube with missing pieces. While blind. And on fire. And being shot.-Agent_Orange
Dude. Shades
That is all.- Thaddeus Rivers
One thing that isn't a joke though is the fact that woman are computers.Some buttons you can press and it'l work fine, but if you push the wrong one you'll get the blue screen of death.
silly, thett. girls are only good for sex. being friends with a female is of no value.-darkkermit
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 8:35:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 8:33:01 AM, Calvincambridge wrote:
At 7/10/2012 8:29:14 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
As far as I am concerned, they had no right to liberty because they were committing the most egregious violations of rights possible: denying others the right to bodily integrity as well as preventing them from pursuing their own ends.

That would have naturally withered away.
That's the most pathetic argument I have ever heard. Why? Because people deserve their rights NOW, not later. I don't care if it would have withered away in four generations, two generations, one month, or even three days. It is still an injustice that must be dealt with using violence if necessary.
And the Colonists made England fight a war for them and then refused to pay for it. Brats.

So give the South their freedom or go back to mother England.
They don't deserve freedom because they denied it to others.
Calvincambridge
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 8:46:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 8:35:01 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/10/2012 8:33:01 AM, Calvincambridge wrote:
At 7/10/2012 8:29:14 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
As far as I am concerned, they had no right to liberty because they were committing the most egregious violations of rights possible: denying others the right to bodily integrity as well as preventing them from pursuing their own ends.

That would have naturally withered away.
That's the most pathetic argument I have ever heard. Why? Because people deserve their rights NOW, not later. I don't care if it would have withered away in four generations, two generations, one month, or even three days. It is still an injustice that must be dealt with using violence if necessary.
And the Colonists made England fight a war for them and then refused to pay for it. Brats.

So give the South their freedom or go back to mother England.
They don't deserve freedom because they denied it to others.

The civil war was not about slavery so you must stop using it as an argument. Lincoln even said in the emancipation proclamation for blacks to gtfo of America. So the south had slaves while the north banned blacks. Not much difference.
Trying to figure out women is like trying to solve a Rubik's cube with missing pieces. While blind. And on fire. And being shot.-Agent_Orange
Dude. Shades
That is all.- Thaddeus Rivers
One thing that isn't a joke though is the fact that woman are computers.Some buttons you can press and it'l work fine, but if you push the wrong one you'll get the blue screen of death.
silly, thett. girls are only good for sex. being friends with a female is of no value.-darkkermit
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 8:51:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 8:46:56 AM, Calvincambridge wrote:
At 7/10/2012 8:35:01 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/10/2012 8:33:01 AM, Calvincambridge wrote:
At 7/10/2012 8:29:14 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
As far as I am concerned, they had no right to liberty because they were committing the most egregious violations of rights possible: denying others the right to bodily integrity as well as preventing them from pursuing their own ends.

That would have naturally withered away.
That's the most pathetic argument I have ever heard. Why? Because people deserve their rights NOW, not later. I don't care if it would have withered away in four generations, two generations, one month, or even three days. It is still an injustice that must be dealt with using violence if necessary.
And the Colonists made England fight a war for them and then refused to pay for it. Brats.

So give the South their freedom or go back to mother England.
They don't deserve freedom because they denied it to others.


The civil war was not about slavery so you must stop using it as an argument.
Yes, it was. The reason the South seceded was because they feared Lincoln would own slaves.
Lincoln even said in the emancipation proclamation for blacks to gtfo of America. So the south had slaves while the north banned blacks. Not much difference.
Slavery is a more extensive violation of rights than denying someone entry to the nation, but both are unjust. That doesn't mean that the South was justified, however, and the Radical Republicans (not Lincoln, but people like Seward) were taking steps to eliminate slavery and bring about equality.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 8:51:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 8:51:23 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/10/2012 8:46:56 AM, Calvincambridge wrote:
At 7/10/2012 8:35:01 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/10/2012 8:33:01 AM, Calvincambridge wrote:
At 7/10/2012 8:29:14 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
As far as I am concerned, they had no right to liberty because they were committing the most egregious violations of rights possible: denying others the right to bodily integrity as well as preventing them from pursuing their own ends.

That would have naturally withered away.
That's the most pathetic argument I have ever heard. Why? Because people deserve their rights NOW, not later. I don't care if it would have withered away in four generations, two generations, one month, or even three days. It is still an injustice that must be dealt with using violence if necessary.
And the Colonists made England fight a war for them and then refused to pay for it. Brats.

So give the South their freedom or go back to mother England.
They don't deserve freedom because they denied it to others.


The civil war was not about slavery so you must stop using it as an argument.
Yes, it was. The reason the South seceded was because they feared Lincoln would end slavery.
Lincoln even said in the emancipation proclamation for blacks to gtfo of America. So the south had slaves while the north banned blacks. Not much difference.
Slavery is a more extensive violation of rights than denying someone entry to the nation, but both are unjust. That doesn't mean that the South was justified, however, and the Radical Republicans (not Lincoln, but people like Seward) were taking steps to eliminate slavery and bring about equality.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 9:48:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I agree. Would you stop an unhappy wife from divorcing? Most of the North didn't even care about freeing the slaves, at least not until latter, and Lincoln said if he could stop the South from seceding while still keeping slavery completely legal, he would do it. Most people seem to think slavery was the main factor in the war, which is far from the case.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 9:54:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
To reclaim the millions of slaves' right to liberty, was it worth forcing hundreds of thousands of soldiers on both sides to forfeit their right to life?
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:01:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 9:54:19 AM, mongeese wrote:
To reclaim the millions of slaves' right to liberty, was it worth forcing hundreds of thousands of soldiers on both sides to forfeit their right to life?

Yes.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:04:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 9:54:19 AM, mongeese wrote:
To reclaim the millions of slaves' right to liberty, was it worth forcing hundreds of thousands of soldiers on both sides to forfeit their right to life?

Yes.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:05:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 9:48:46 AM, phantom wrote:
I agree. Would you stop an unhappy wife from divorcing? Most of the North didn't even care about freeing the slaves, at least not until latter, and Lincoln said if he could stop the South from seceding while still keeping slavery completely legal, he would do it. Most people seem to think slavery was the main factor in the war, which is far from the case.

Slavery was a direct factor in the war. The states seceded on the fear that Lincoln would abolish slavery after he won the election. Plus, the states were fighting for "state rights" to enslave others. They forfeited their rights when they violated those contractual agreements with the slaves.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:10:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:04:09 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/10/2012 9:54:19 AM, mongeese wrote:
To reclaim the millions of slaves' right to liberty, was it worth forcing hundreds of thousands of soldiers on both sides to forfeit their right to life?

Yes.

I'll clarify. It wasn't just a small amount of liberty that as being violated; rather, it was their bodily integrity and autonomy. Their lives had been reduced to such meaninglessness that even death was better than life.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:36:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here's the deal. Neither the South nor the North were right. They were both just a group of people trying to force their own view of the world on everyone else. The South in regards to their slaves and the North in regards to their slaves AND trying to keep the South in a state of pretty much slavery to the Union. But this historical fact doesn't actually mean anything in regards to either the actual right to secede or the supposed right to hold slaves. I pretty much hold the view of Lysander Spooner on this point. The South had a right to secede, slaves had the right to kill their "masters" and use any other means of violent revolt. The North didn't have a right to keep the South a part of the U.S. and the South didn't have a right to recognize slavery.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2012 10:51:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:36:38 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Here's the deal. Neither the South nor the North were right. They were both just a group of people trying to force their own view of the world on everyone else. The South in regards to their slaves and the North in regards to their slaves AND trying to keep the South in a state of pretty much slavery to the Union. But this historical fact doesn't actually mean anything in regards to either the actual right to secede or the supposed right to hold slaves. I pretty much hold the view of Lysander Spooner on this point. The South had a right to secede, slaves had the right to kill their "masters" and use any other means of violent revolt. The North didn't have a right to keep the South a part of the U.S. and the South didn't have a right to recognize slavery.

This. I can see why the South felt victimized by the North, accept that the South was victimizing slaves (to a greater extent than the North). But yeah, the North mostly wanted the South for economic reasons.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 6:38:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Again, this is also Politics, and arguably Society or Philosophy. We don't need a History forum.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 5:57:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 10:36:38 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Here's the deal. Neither the South nor the North were right. They were both just a group of people trying to force their own view of the world on everyone else. The South in regards to their slaves and the North in regards to their slaves AND trying to keep the South in a state of pretty much slavery to the Union. But this historical fact doesn't actually mean anything in regards to either the actual right to secede or the supposed right to hold slaves. I pretty much hold the view of Lysander Spooner on this point. The South had a right to secede, slaves had the right to kill their "masters" and use any other means of violent revolt. The North didn't have a right to keep the South a part of the U.S. and the South didn't have a right to recognize slavery.

+1
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
Cobo
Posts: 556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 7:16:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 8:51:46 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/10/2012 8:51:23 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/10/2012 8:46:56 AM, Calvincambridge wrote:
At 7/10/2012 8:35:01 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 7/10/2012 8:33:01 AM, Calvincambridge wrote:
At 7/10/2012 8:29:14 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
As far as I am concerned, they had no right to liberty because they were committing the most egregious violations of rights possible: denying others the right to bodily integrity as well as preventing them from pursuing their own ends.

That would have naturally withered away.
That's the most pathetic argument I have ever heard. Why? Because people deserve their rights NOW, not later. I don't care if it would have withered away in four generations, two generations, one month, or even three days. It is still an injustice that must be dealt with using violence if necessary.
And the Colonists made England fight a war for them and then refused to pay for it. Brats.

So give the South their freedom or go back to mother England.
They don't deserve freedom because they denied it to others.


The civil war was not about slavery so you must stop using it as an argument.
Yes, it was. The reason the South seceded was because they feared Lincoln would end slavery.

Actually with the advancement of technology, slavery was outdated going to end regardless...
Church of the BANHAMMER GODS priest
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 11:23:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 8:12:03 AM, Calvincambridge wrote:
This does not concern slavery. I mean the south had equal right to suceed from the union as much as the colonies had the right to suceed from Britain. Either the South had the right to suceed from the union or it did not but the colonies were not justified to declare independence either.

Generally, there is a difference here. We, the United States, were recognized by France, the South was not recognized by anyone, thus the South is not an actual country, just a belligerent power during the war which is not an actual nation.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 2:06:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 11:23:24 AM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 7/10/2012 8:12:03 AM, Calvincambridge wrote:
This does not concern slavery. I mean the south had equal right to suceed from the union as much as the colonies had the right to suceed from Britain. Either the South had the right to suceed from the union or it did not but the colonies were not justified to declare independence either.

Generally, there is a difference here. We, the United States, were recognized by France, the South was not recognized by anyone, thus the South is not an actual country, just a belligerent power during the war which is not an actual nation.

Ya I don't think that makes any sense at all. During the Revolutionary war France had a big reason to support us, not so much in the civil war to support the south. This all assuming you're somehow right in your assumption that the legitimacy of a state is decided by whether or not it's recognized by other countries yet.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 4:07:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I thought the South declared independence pre-emptively (because of Lincoln's election), whereas the Colonies did so after attempts at redress of grievances?
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 10:08:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/10/2012 8:29:14 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
As far as I am concerned, they had no right to liberty because they were committing the most egregious violations of rights possible: denying others the right to bodily integrity as well as preventing them from pursuing their own ends.

If the African Slaves wanted to be free they would have rebeled against their masters. But, they didn't so they were technacally allowing their rights to be violated.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 10:16:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Isn't there a saying something about but when its successful, none dare call it treason.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 11:16:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 10:08:20 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 7/10/2012 8:29:14 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
As far as I am concerned, they had no right to liberty because they were committing the most egregious violations of rights possible: denying others the right to bodily integrity as well as preventing them from pursuing their own ends.

If the African Slaves wanted to be free they would have rebeled against their masters. But, they didn't so they were technacally allowing their rights to be violated.

They did try to rebel in some cases; fruitlessly so.
turn down for h'what
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 11:17:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 7:16:56 PM, Cobo wrote:

Actually with the advancement of technology, slavery was outdated going to end regardless...

Nope, the government of the south socialized the costs of owning slaves, so that peculiar institution could have waddled on into the 20th century.

As far as I know, there are three methods of ending slavery:
1. Economics. Governments stop socializing costs of owning slaves (Brazil).
2. Morality. People realize that slavery is immoral, and it dies out as an abomination.
3. Warfare. Abolishing slavery by adding it on as a rider to the slaughter of 600,000 human beings.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 11:29:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Dont listen to what the books tell you, your first mistake. The south was nor more for slavery than the north. Lincoln only banished slavery to win the war. The war was about individual state rights to decide for themselves separate from the union. Everything would be handled by the stsates themselves not unitified or government ran.
TheAsylum
Zaradi
Posts: 14,127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2012 11:36:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/21/2012 11:29:08 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Dont listen to what the books tell you, your first mistake. The south was nor more for slavery than the north. Lincoln only banished slavery to win the war. The war was about individual state rights to decide for themselves separate from the union. Everything would be handled by the stsates themselves not unitified or government ran.

What did the south want the right to do? Own slaves you say? Right...

Sure states rights is a reason the south secceeded, but that reason ultimately collapses into slavery. The south weren't even the ones who pioneered the idea behind states rights; that was done way back in the 17th century by Jefferson and Madison (I may be wrong on the dates, but it's the best I can remember from APUSH right now.)
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...