Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Civil War: States Rights v. Slavery????

YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 11:00:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Was the civil was about states rights, or was it about slavery?

Obviously, it was about state's rights to enslave Africans -but if you were living in 1859, what would you have thought?
Tsar of DDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 11:05:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 11:00:37 PM, YYW wrote:
Was the civil was about states rights, or was it about slavery?

States rights over slavery


Obviously, it was about state's rights to enslave Africans -but if you were living in 1859, what would you have thought?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 11:07:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 11:05:38 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/26/2012 11:00:37 PM, YYW wrote:
Was the civil was about states rights, or was it about slavery?

States rights over slavery

That sounded wrong. The war was over the view states have the right to have slavery.



Obviously, it was about state's rights to enslave Africans -but if you were living in 1859, what would you have thought?

Do I carry my current mental capacity or am I just a mainstream person gathering opinion?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
imabench
Posts: 21,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2012 11:30:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 11:00:37 PM, YYW wrote:
Was the civil was about states rights, or was it about slavery?

The Civil War was fought to retain the Union of the United States. The South used States rights to justify their secession which the Union didnt allow, and thus the war started. Slavery was merely the reason the South acted under States Rights to secede.

Obviously, it was about state's rights to enslave Africans -but if you were living in 1859, what would you have thought?

I live in Florida right now so if it were 1859 and I was in Florida I probably would have been undecided over the whole matter or just kept my mouth shut (slavery focused on Cotton picking which wasnt a huge industry in Florida at the time so Florida didnt really need to secede to protect slavery since Cotton wasnt the staple of its economy)

On a second thought I would have most likely been the village idiot.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 12:57:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Better question: How would you, whoever you are, with your current knowledge, frame the civil war?

What was it fundamentally about?
Tsar of DDO
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 1:24:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 12:57:16 AM, YYW wrote:
Better question: How would you, whoever you are, with your current knowledge, frame the civil war?

What was it fundamentally about?

Trolling? The Civil War was about the north side saying that they want their black bretheren to join up with them silly crackahs and be all happy fun time (if you get my drift) together.

South side said "Hell naw crackah, you just got yo'seff a beef." and went away all finger-snapping-in-a-z-formation.

Seriously? Civil War was ultimately about slavery. South wanted it, as it was necessary for their economy to function. North thought it was bad (or at least, owning slaves was bad) and wanted it abolished (so they could kick them all out to Africa, which I find mildly ironic and hypocritical but anyway). South used the ol' "States Rights!" ruse (because that worked so well when my boy Tommy J. thought it up in the 1700's) to justify their owning of slaves by saying that "State law came before federal law in each applicable state. You can't control us.". Union said "You wanna act like that, peace out." They left. War started. Union won. Yadda yadda yadda (wow now I'm seriously tired .-. coincidence? I THINK NOT).
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 1:25:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 1:24:07 AM, Zaradi wrote:
At 8/27/2012 12:57:16 AM, YYW wrote:
Better question: How would you, whoever you are, with your current knowledge, frame the civil war?

What was it fundamentally about?

Trolling? The Civil War was about the north side saying that they want their black bretheren to join up with them silly crackahs and be all happy fun time (if you get my drift) together.

South side said "Hell naw crackah, you just got yo'seff a beef." and went away all finger-snapping-in-a-z-formation.

Indeed. lol
Tsar of DDO
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 7:05:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The claim that the South fought the war over states' rights is nothing short of revisionism. (In fact, it is well documented that revisionists have attempted to reduce the role that slavery had in the South). The Southern states threatened to secede if Lincoln won the election. Why? They thought that Lincoln, who had already decided to prevent the expansion of slavery into new territories, would end slavery. The South explicitly seceded because they wanted slaves. The North may have fought for a different reason, but the South, the side that started the war, created the conflict due to slavery.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 4:48:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 12:57:16 AM, YYW wrote:
Better question: How would you, whoever you are, with your current knowledge, frame the civil war?

What was it fundamentally about?

Slavery.

I probably would have been loyal to whatever State I was raised & resided in, although I like to think differently.
"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
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 5:00:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Would it be safe to say that the civil war, based on my sketchy memories of my classes on it, was based on the two that cohabited to form the main cause or question behind the momentum of the war?

While the states right issue surely was the direct question as confronted in the schism and the threat of secession, it was preceded, at least when considering a continuum, by the emerging tensions over slavery and its ethical and moral proportions; thus, as a roughly-drawn conclusion, would it be safe to conclude that if we were to consider the prewar, antebellum society and its times and increasing duress, that the issue was expanded or applied to other fields directly responsible for the secession that precipitated the war??
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 5:02:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 5:00:05 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Would it be safe to say that the civil war, based on my sketchy memories of my classes on it, was based on the two that cohabited to form the main cause or question behind the momentum of the war?

While the states right issue surely was the direct question as confronted in the schism and the threat of secession, it was preceded, at least when considering a continuum, by the emerging tensions over slavery and its ethical and moral proportions; thus, as a roughly-drawn conclusion, would it be safe to conclude that if we were to consider the prewar, antebellum society and its times and increasing duress, that the issue was expanded or applied to other fields directly responsible for the secession that precipitated the war??

In other words, could have the issue of slavery triggered the commotion that regarded the question of state's right and secession?

I'll have to apologize for this but my history education was uniformly poor, or at least rudimentary.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 5:12:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For the North: stopping secession (generally arseholes).
For the South: perceived threat to slavery (generally arseholes).
: 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.
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 5:35:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Does it matter? My side lost. And it was probably a good thing to. However, I would say it is both. Whoever owned slaves was doing it for slavery, and whoever in the South that found slavery morally wrong still did it for states rights and such. You mix those in with Southern Nationalism and that was what started the war.
"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."
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 2:13:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
According to Alexander Stephens: Slavery was the "immediate cause of the....present revolution." He said that the U.S. was founded under the false assumption that all men were created equal and that "the great truth is that the negro is not equal to the white man...."

Fun fact: The Confederacy had the first conscription laws on the North American continent.

Fun Fact 2: The South never had support from the British and the French.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Shisno
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 2:39:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It was over which should have more power: the state government or the national government.
"To the gentleman who spoke just now... Excuse me, but would you care to die?"
-Shelly de Killer
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 8:07:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It wasn't really over slavery. Here are three good reasons:

1. 90% of the South's population didn't even own any slaves. Why would they want to preserve a tradition that they can't benefit from, is giving them less work, and is giving them less money?

2. Lincoln's election may have caused the war, yes, but not because it affected slavery. They didn't want a statist war mongerer as president.

3. The Union was fighting to preserve the Union. Slavery didn't become an issue until 1863, and even then it was half-hearted and just an excuse for higher morale and mobilization.

The South was not fighting for slavery and the North did not really fight to end it.
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 8:08:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 2:39:42 AM, Shisno wrote:
It was over which should have more power: the state government or the national government.

+100. Seconded.
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2012 8:17:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/26/2012 11:00:37 PM, YYW wrote:
Was the civil was about states rights, or was it about slavery?

Obviously, it was about state's rights to enslave Africans -but if you were living in 1859, what would you have thought?

I think I would have been opposed to the whole premise of "state's rights". The state is neither an individual, nor a corporation. Why would we extend the state any rights in regard to liberty?
The state has license, not liberty. Two different concepts. I think I would have raged against the Government establishing "rights" for itself in any regard.
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
Justin_Thiel
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 2:14:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Civil War was multifaceted. Slavery was only an issue to piss everyone off enough on both sides to make it a reality. It was all about money and power like it always is. The north had big money aristocrats funding the industrial machine and saw that the southern states were a threat to that power and money by their huge slave driven industry. Most of these same people were bankers or in with the bankers... And guess what the most profitable situation in human history is for bankers and the market economy? War. The war driven machine is one of the most important factors in human history. The big money players at the top were playing the game like they always do... Using slavery as a motivator was just a useful tactic. One that worked well because they all got filthy rich and powerful because of that war. That is the time period when all the power and wealth really started consolidating. It's just snowballed since then.

Slavery is always wrong and has always been wrong. But as long as we have humans who wield enough power of force and immorality to create slavery.. It will always be in society in some way, shape, or form.