Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The CSA fighting for Slaves or States Rights?

jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 8:33:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
As a supporter of the states rights side of the debate, I often find it discouraging to see how many people have a negative view of the late Confederacy. Furthermore, I find those negative views are often due to a lack of detailed information regarding the period.

What are your thoughts, do you have supporting evidence that is more than conjecture?
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 8:35:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The South was for States Rights, and one of the MAJOR rights they wanted to exercise without Federal consent, was the "right" to capture, torture, own, and enslave people whose skin wasn't white.

The South's position on Slavery doesn't discredit the "States Rights" idea, but it does disqualify the South itself.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2013 11:25:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 8:35:50 PM, HPWKA wrote:
The South was for States Rights, and one of the MAJOR rights they wanted to exercise without Federal consent, was the "right" to capture, torture, own, and enslave people whose skin wasn't white.

The South's position on Slavery doesn't discredit the "States Rights" idea, but it does disqualify the South itself.

Great, thanks for your reply HPWKA! This is actually a great example of what I'm talking about. Your statements seem to indicate that the South was holding slaves against Federal consent. However, you are totally mistaken. Slavery was federally legal and thus, had federal consent. It was not illegal until after the war was basically over.

Moreover the slave trade had been legally ended for a number of decades and the motion to pass that law was split as evenly as possible between the existing northern and southern states of that time.

It's a really interesting period of American history, perhaps the most interesting. If you are going to have as tough a stance as you seem to regarding the south, you owe it to yourself to be able to back up that opinion with historical accuracy.
PatriotPerson
Posts: 1,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2013 8:01:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Slaves.
"Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan" -JFK
"You all stink like poo poo" - Rich Davis
"That idea may just be crazy enough... TO GET US ALL KILLED!" -Squidward Tentacles
"My heart is always breaking for the ghosts that haunt this room." -Nate Ruess
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 6:24:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/29/2013 8:01:02 PM, PatriotPerson wrote:
Slaves.

Thanks for your input on the first question! What evidence has lead you to believe the South was fighting for slaves?
PatriotPerson
Posts: 1,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 8:25:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 6:24:32 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 8:01:02 PM, PatriotPerson wrote:
Slaves.

Thanks for your input on the first question! What evidence has lead you to believe the South was fighting for slaves?

'Cause that's what the whole war was over.
"Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan" -JFK
"You all stink like poo poo" - Rich Davis
"That idea may just be crazy enough... TO GET US ALL KILLED!" -Squidward Tentacles
"My heart is always breaking for the ghosts that haunt this room." -Nate Ruess
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 8:42:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 8:25:24 AM, PatriotPerson wrote:
At 10/30/2013 6:24:32 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 10/29/2013 8:01:02 PM, PatriotPerson wrote:
Slaves.

Thanks for your input on the first question! What evidence has lead you to believe the South was fighting for slaves?

'Cause that's what the whole war was over.

Wonderful, what evidence leads you to believe the CSA fought the civil war for the purpose of pro-slavery rather than states rights?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 8:51:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What is discouraging is people being taught that the war was fought over a single issue. It does a disservice to the complex social, political and economic climate of the time to try and distill the issue as merely "States Rights" vs. "Slaves."
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2013 10:14:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/30/2013 8:51:14 AM, drafterman wrote:
What is discouraging is people being taught that the war was fought over a single issue. It does a disservice to the complex social, political and economic climate of the time to try and distill the issue as merely "States Rights" vs. "Slaves."

I agree with your view in the abstract. Which is why I feel defining the South as "fighting for slavery" automatically makes the Civil War a single issue event in most peoples mind.I disagree, however, with the contention that "states rights" are a single issue.

States rights encompass a wide range of the social, political and economic issues that were very much inherent in the climate of that time. Slavery, on the other hand, insinuates that one side was fighting for it and one was fighting against, which obviously was not the case.
CoachJones
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2013 3:20:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Basically any historical study on the topic all leads to the fact that the South Seceded because they feared that Lincoln was going to free the slaves and damage their way of life. As simple as it may sound, the Civil War was fought for the State's right to keep slavery legal.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2013 8:53:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/31/2013 3:20:31 PM, CoachJones wrote:
Basically any historical study on the topic all leads to the fact that the South Seceded because they feared that Lincoln was going to free the slaves and damage their way of life. As simple as it may sound, the Civil War was fought for the State's right to keep slavery legal.

That's interesting! As someone who reads a lot on the subject, I've not witnessed this universal opinion you suggest. How did those studies account for the four states that didn't secede until after Lincoln called forth an invasion army on the South? Or the numerous quotes from Lincoln indicating he had no interest in interfering with slavery where it legally existed?

I've always understood opinion to be that the first Confederate States seceded due to Lincoln's stance that slavery could be legally excluded from all US territories. They believed this to be an unconstitutional attempt of gaining supremacy for his political party as the nation grew to add more non-slave states. The subsequent states seceded, as is my understanding, because they did not believe Lincoln had constitutional authority to use military force to prevent a perfectly legal secession.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2013 6:25:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Kid, most people in the country and the world view the Confederacy in a negative light, for good reason.

They were fighting to keep non-whites enslaved. Sure, one CAN argue that slavery wasn't the MAIN platform of the Confederacy, but its UNARGUABLE that it was ONE of the platforms.

The South lost, and the confederates who fought against the North deserve to be shamed throughout history, as they are throughout the world, except in a little pocket called the deep-south.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 10:33:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 8:33:14 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
As a supporter of the states rights side of the debate, I often find it discouraging to see how many people have a negative view of the late Confederacy. Furthermore, I find those negative views are often due to a lack of detailed information regarding the period.

What are your thoughts, do you have supporting evidence that is more than conjecture?

I agree with some caution. As someone who admires the original Scottish settlements in Darien, Ga., and the Confederacy, I don't think Davis was a true Confederate. He was a Yankee, reluctant to secede. He only did it because citizens forced him to. Slavery came under an Anglo-Saxon (later to be the Union) flag, not a Scottish flag. And in some cases, the real Anglo-Saxons were worse than Normans.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 3:38:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/8/2013 6:25:42 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Kid, most people in the country and the world view the Confederacy in a negative light, for good reason.

They were fighting to keep non-whites enslaved. Sure, one CAN argue that slavery wasn't the MAIN platform of the Confederacy, but its UNARGUABLE that it was ONE of the platforms.

The South lost, and the confederates who fought against the North deserve to be shamed throughout history, as they are throughout the world, except in a little pocket called the deep-south.

Hi HPWKA,

I'll assume you didn't mean to be blatantly condescending by calling me kid. Hopefully you and I can have a meaningful discussion regarding our opinions on this subject.

The South already had the right to keep non whites enslaved. So did states in the North, all the way through the civil war. If both sides have and exercise the right to own slaves, why is it wrong for one side to fight to preserve that right in the face of subversive and unconstitutional attempts to ensure its future extinction? I don't want you to think I'm saying I am definitively right, I would just like to hear the historically factual evidence that leads you to believe I am wrong.

Regarding the shamed throughout history bit....VA isn't the Deep South and we have monuments abound to our confederate dead. We also have a multi million dollar tourist industry dedicated to the civil war that brings interested tourists from all over the world. I lead a number if these tours in my free time and can assure you, your opinion is not nearly as universal as you seem to indicate. Have you ever heard of steel battleships?Armed submarines? Defensive interlocking trench designs? Well if you haven't, the US military has, and they owe that all to Confederate history. Not terribly shameful if you ask me.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 3:45:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 10:33:28 AM, Adam2 wrote:
At 10/28/2013 8:33:14 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
As a supporter of the states rights side of the debate, I often find it discouraging to see how many people have a negative view of the late Confederacy. Furthermore, I find those negative views are often due to a lack of detailed information regarding the period.

What are your thoughts, do you have supporting evidence that is more than conjecture?

I agree with some caution. As someone who admires the original Scottish settlements in Darien, Ga., and the Confederacy, I don't think Davis was a true Confederate. He was a Yankee, reluctant to secede. He only did it because citizens forced him to. Slavery came under an Anglo-Saxon (later to be the Union) flag, not a Scottish flag. And in some cases, the real Anglo-Saxons were worse than Normans.

Hello Adam,

While I do believe Davis was true to his cause, he certainly was not without personal fault. And I typically do not try to shrink from the idea that southerners owed slaves, regardless of origin. I think most people try to instill the values of modern America with the social and political structures of that time. Unfortunately it can't be done. Blaming an American for owning slaves during the 1800's is like blaming a Neanderthal for rape during the dawn of mans existence..
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 3:50:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 3:45:24 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 11/9/2013 10:33:28 AM, Adam2 wrote:
At 10/28/2013 8:33:14 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
As a supporter of the states rights side of the debate, I often find it discouraging to see how many people have a negative view of the late Confederacy. Furthermore, I find those negative views are often due to a lack of detailed information regarding the period.

What are your thoughts, do you have supporting evidence that is more than conjecture?

I agree with some caution. As someone who admires the original Scottish settlements in Darien, Ga., and the Confederacy, I don't think Davis was a true Confederate. He was a Yankee, reluctant to secede. He only did it because citizens forced him to. Slavery came under an Anglo-Saxon (later to be the Union) flag, not a Scottish flag. And in some cases, the real Anglo-Saxons were worse than Normans.

Hello Adam,

While I do believe Davis was true to his cause, he certainly was not without personal fault. And I typically do not try to shrink from the idea that southerners owed slaves, regardless of origin. I think most people try to instill the values of modern America with the social and political structures of that time. Unfortunately it can't be done. Blaming an American for owning slaves during the 1800's is like blaming a Neanderthal for rape during the dawn of mans existence..

But I have my reasons. The South often prides itself as being Scots-Irish, with some truth to it. The original founders of the colonies like Darien were Scottish. However it was the English (specifically Anglo-Saxons) who brought slavery to the colonies. And I highly doubt that the English slaveowners really liked a group of "savage Highlanders" wanting to "start trouble." I'd say they were on par with the Yankee Northerners. Only difference is that they were against slavery, and the South favored it. Davis really wasn't originally gonna form the Confederacy. It was the people to thank for it.
SeventhProfessor
Posts: 5,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 3:51:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 8:33:14 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
As a supporter of the states rights side of the debate, I often find it discouraging to see how many people have a negative view of the late Confederacy. Furthermore, I find those negative views are often due to a lack of detailed information regarding the period.

What are your thoughts, do you have supporting evidence that is more than conjecture?

I may be wrong, but I believe the northern states wanted to make slavery illegal for the whole nation, while the CSA wanted to make it a state decision. While this may not be true, I do know that slavery wasn't a very big part in starting the war.
#UnbanTheMadman

#StandWithBossy

#BetOnThett

"bossy r u like 85 years old and have lost ur mind"
~mysteriouscrystals

"I've honestly never seen seventh post anything that wasn't completely idiotic in a trying-to-be-funny way."
~F-16

https://docs.google.com...
Adam2
Posts: 1,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 4:01:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 3:51:43 PM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
At 10/28/2013 8:33:14 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
As a supporter of the states rights side of the debate, I often find it discouraging to see how many people have a negative view of the late Confederacy. Furthermore, I find those negative views are often due to a lack of detailed information regarding the period.

What are your thoughts, do you have supporting evidence that is more than conjecture?

I may be wrong, but I believe the northern states wanted to make slavery illegal for the whole nation, while the CSA wanted to make it a state decision. While this may not be true, I do know that slavery wasn't a very big part in starting the war.

Technically the United States (which started slavery) may have ended slavery, but they ushered in another monster -- and that was called penal labor.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 6:05:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1.) No, I meant to be condescending, as this kind of revisionist history that goes on in the South is only a step-above flat-earthers or Holocaust deniers.

2.) Neither the South nor the North had the right to enslave non-whites. Nobody has that right. The North, though grudgingly, began to breakaway from Slavery. The South wanted Slavery to remain. This, among either States Rights issues, was why the Civil War was fought.

3.) Their are Nazi Germany tourist sites that millions visit every year, that doesn't mean those people regard Nazi's with anything more then disgust.

Again, everywhere but the south (deep/shallow/ whatever), the Confederates are regarded as racist hillbillies who are best utilized as fertilizer. I believe 38% of Southerners (CNN poll) think the confederates deserve some sympathy, the highest rate in the world. Whatever, they are the last of an old, bitter, dying breed.

Nobody cares what the Confederates contributed to history. Nazi Germany also made great strides in technology. We can acknowledge that, while also saying that both people's are better off pushing up daisies.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 7:27:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 6:05:03 PM, HPWKA wrote:
1.) No, I meant to be condescending, as this kind of revisionist history that goes on in the South is only a step-above flat-earthers or Holocaust deniers.

You disagree strongly, so it's ok to be rude.....understood

2.) Neither the South nor the North had the right to enslave non-whites. Nobody has that right. The North, though grudgingly, began to breakaway from Slavery. The South wanted Slavery to remain. This, among either States Rights issues, was why the Civil War was fought.

Sorry, but the federal government very clearly defined that right. Your philosophy on rights is completely irrelevant as it applies to reality. I'm sure your emotion based argument holds up well with your friends though. The north did not end slavery any faster than the south did, you are wrong, and history is clear on this. And since we are being condescending, I think you meant "other" and not "either"......idiot

3.) Their are Nazi Germany tourist sites that millions visit every year, that doesn't mean those people regard Nazi's with anything more then disgust.

Do those sites have monuments to dead Nazis that are funded by the federal government? (that's means your taxes retard) A small minded and I'll conceived comparison makes you look simple. And, it's "than" not "then"......idiot

Again, everywhere but the south (deep/shallow/ whatever), the Confederates are regarded as racist hillbillies who are best utilized as fertilizer. I believe 38% of Southerners (CNN poll) think the confederates deserve some sympathy, the highest rate in the world. Whatever, they are the last of an old, bitter, dying breed.

I'm sure saying this over and over helps you to believe it, so please continue to ignore logic so you can keep warm in your blanket of ignorance. I've toured with Canadians, Yankees, Cubans, Colombians, and British. Each of them came in great reverence of the Confederacy and the cause for which it stood. I'm sure they are racists bigots too, since they don't agree with you, but that doesn't negate their existence.

Nobody cares what the Confederates contributed to history. Nazi Germany also made great strides in technology. We can acknowledge that, while also saying that both people's are better off pushing up daisies.

Right, who cares about armored battleships and submarines in this day and age. You're right, forget those losers.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 8:52:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sorry, but the federal government very clearly defined that right. Your philosophy on rights is completely irrelevant as it applies to reality. I'm sure your emotion based argument holds up well with your friends though. The north did not end slavery any faster than the south did, you are wrong, and history is clear on this. And since we are being condescending, I think you meant "other" and not "either"......idiot

I think we are misunderstanding what each other means by "rights". For instance, you believe that if its government instituted, its a right. By that logic, since Nazi Germany made it a "right" to hunt Jews and boil them alive, then its okay? Its not so much an "emotion" as it is a sense of morality, something the South didn't have.

The North DID end slavery faster then the South, who only let it go because it was wrenched from their hands, and even then continued abusing blacks with laws and terrorism for decades.

Do those sites have monuments to dead Nazis that are funded by the federal government? (that's means your taxes retard) A small minded and I'll conceived comparison makes you look simple. And, it's "than" not "then"......idiot

Its not a comparison, its an analogy. So your standard is it has to be pro-state-funded? Okay, there are state-funded memorials to mass murderers in the Middle East. That doesn't make it mainstream or okay on its own.

I'm sure saying this over and over helps you to believe it, so please continue to ignore logic so you can keep warm in your blanket of ignorance. I've toured with Canadians, Yankees, Cubans, Colombians, and British. Each of them came in great reverence of the Confederacy and the cause for which it stood. I'm sure they are racists bigots too, since they don't agree with you, but that doesn't negate their existence.

I'm not sure you know what logic means. I'm using national polls to show that most Americans disapprove of the Confederacy; you are using anecdotal evidence from some guys you saw some time.

Via a PEW poll. Most Americans say its unacceptable to praise Confederate leaders, and 3x as many people view their flag in a negative light compared to a positive one.

The only segment of people polled who held the Confederates in a nice light, were self-described white southerners, with/and less then a High School Education. That is the DEFINITION of racist-hillbilly, which is what the South is known for.

There aren't any stats for the whole world, but its reasonable to believe they share the anti-Confederacy view of most Americans, since much of the developed world was cringing at our institutionalized slavery before the Civil War even happened, much less now.

Right, who cares about armored battleships and submarines in this day and age. You're right, forget those losers.

Well, yes. I mean, we acknowledge their contribution, but that isn't a redeeming quality on the South/Confederates at all. They were racist, violent, psychopaths, who had some nice toys...cool.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 10:29:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 8:52:00 PM, HPWKA wrote:
I think we are misunderstanding what each other means by "rights". For instance, you believe that if its government instituted, its a right. By that logic, since Nazi Germany made it a "right" to hunt Jews and boil them alive, then its okay? Its not so much an "emotion" as it is a sense of morality, something the South didn't have.

Though your hyperbolic example is pathetically off mark, yes that is what I am saying. Slavery was a government sanctioned right. Shared and jointly expressed by states fighting for the Union and the Confederacy all the way until the 13th amendment. A moral argument against this right, in support of the North, would only be applicable if the North did not exercise it. Which, obviously was not the case, read a book!

Nothing to say about being twice illiterate I see. Well at least you're not willing to blindly defend everything you say.

The North DID end slavery faster then the South, who only let it go because it was wrenched from their hands, and even then continued abusing blacks with laws and terrorism for decades.

THAN the South......lol

Read a book kid-o, The 13th amendment ended legal slavery in America. DE, MD, KY & MO all had slaves right up until this time. This is not up for debate, ask an adult if you don't believe me jr.

Its not a comparison, its an analogy. So your standard is it has to be pro-state-funded? Okay, there are state-funded memorials to mass murderers in the Middle East. That doesn't make it mainstream or okay on its own.

Lol, look up the definition of analogy, then look up the definition of semantics.....idiot.

Kid you are grasping here and you look like a fool, I didn't insinuate a standard for anything. YOU SAID "the south was shamed throughout the world except in that little pocket called the Deep South." You then tried to discredit civil war battlefields and monuments by equating them to holocaust exhibits. Federally funded means that our ENTIRE country, through the terms of our government, agreed to honor our Confederate dead through a number of different monuments and gestures. Your comparison is retarded. There are no national monuments to Nazis in Germany. You lose, let it go....

I'm not sure you know what logic means. I'm using national polls to show that most Americans disapprove of the Confederacy; you are using anecdotal evidence from some guys you saw some time.

Via a PEW poll. Most Americans say its unacceptable to praise Confederate leaders, and 3x as many people view their flag in a negative light compared to a positive one.

The only segment of people polled who held the Confederates in a nice light, were self-described white southerners, with/and less then a High School Education. That is the DEFINITION of racist-hillbilly, which is what the South is known for.

Speaking of less THAN a high school education, where did you study again? You have no idea how much my wife has enjoyed your illiteracy. You may not see the irony in this, but she certainly does.

There aren't any stats for the whole world, but its reasonable to believe they share the anti-Confederacy view of most Americans, since much of the developed world was cringing at our institutionalized slavery before the Civil War even happened, much less now.

I NEVER stated or implied that pro confederate feelings were a majority opinion. I believe the very fist post in this forum states my opinion in that regard. Again, let's follow the discussion. I offered these examples as a counter to your assertion that
"everywhere but the south (deep/shallow/ whatever), the Confederates are regarded as racist hillbillies who are best utilized as fertilizer." Do you remember that? I think you have realized how absurd and untenable this position is and have adjusted your argument accordingly. The majority of this country are opposed to carrying a firearm, that hardly means I agree, or that they somehow are more righteous in their beliefs than I am in my own. Since we are using Nazi examples, you know they represented the majority opinion in Germany at the time, right?

Well, yes. I mean, we acknowledge their contribution, but that isn't a redeeming quality on the South/Confederates at all. They were racist, violent, psychopaths, who had some nice toys...cool.

These accomplishments do not deserve to be "shamed throughout history" simply because they are associated with a cause you don't believe in. That stance is childish, but I think you have realized this as well.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 10:33:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 8:33:14 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
As a supporter of the states rights side of the debate, I often find it discouraging to see how many people have a negative view of the late Confederacy. Furthermore, I find those negative views are often due to a lack of detailed information regarding the period.

What are your thoughts, do you have supporting evidence that is more than conjecture?

There are some people who think that the Civil War was about slavery. There are others who think the Civil War was about state's rights.

Both are correct.

The Civil War was about State's Rights to enslave black men, women and children.
Tsar of DDO
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 6:10:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 10:33:31 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/28/2013 8:33:14 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
As a supporter of the states rights side of the debate, I often find it discouraging to see how many people have a negative view of the late Confederacy. Furthermore, I find those negative views are often due to a lack of detailed information regarding the period.

What are your thoughts, do you have supporting evidence that is more than conjecture?

There are some people who think that the Civil War was about slavery. There are others who think the Civil War was about state's rights.

Both are correct.

The Civil War was about State's Rights to enslave black men, women and children.

Thanks for posting YYM!

I appreciate your opinion. Since both sides enslaved black men, women and children, why were they fighting each other over this right?
samstone
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 10:33:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Although this seems a little off-topic, I believe it's worth adding if anything of worth is to be gleamed from this. OP, I respect you're passionate about the topic and as I'm not a expert on the Civil War, I will refrain from getting into it. Rather I would like to offer some advice as to your method.

It's hard to take you seriously when you use ad hominem attacks, it's that simple. Calling someone an "idiot" or "retard" isn't a viable debate strategy and should be avoided. If they are being crass to you, it doesn't mean you should be crass back and lower yourself to their level. Although it may seem witty to do so, it only distracts from your argument.

Speaking of distractions from your argument, correcting the man for his grammar is also quite distracting. Especially when you, yourself have grammatical issues in your own writing. Perhaps your goal in that defense was to appear to lack seriousness due to your disinterest in the man's argument against your own, and in that case I apologize.

My final piece is that it would be very helpful if you were to cite your sources when you make claims and provide "evidence." Anyone can say anything, but unless they have proper citations to cross-reference then it's really quite worthless. No doubt you've read numerous books and articles on the topic, but if you just regurgitate what you've learned without giving us the location in which you learned them then how are we supposed to learn?

I do not mean to belittle or mock you with these suggestions, I'd just like to see someone who is passionate about their topic excel.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 5:54:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 10:33:37 AM, samstone wrote:
Although this seems a little off-topic, I believe it's worth adding if anything of worth is to be gleamed from this. OP, I respect you're passionate about the topic and as I'm not a expert on the Civil War, I will refrain from getting into it. Rather I would like to offer some advice as to your method.

It's hard to take you seriously when you use ad hominem attacks, it's that simple. Calling someone an "idiot" or "retard" isn't a viable debate strategy and should be avoided. If they are being crass to you, it doesn't mean you should be crass back and lower yourself to their level. Although it may seem witty to do so, it only distracts from your argument.

Speaking of distractions from your argument, correcting the man for his grammar is also quite distracting. Especially when you, yourself have grammatical issues in your own writing. Perhaps your goal in that defense was to appear to lack seriousness due to your disinterest in the man's argument against your own, and in that case I apologize.

My final piece is that it would be very helpful if you were to cite your sources when you make claims and provide "evidence." Anyone can say anything, but unless they have proper citations to cross-reference then it's really quite worthless. No doubt you've read numerous books and articles on the topic, but if you just regurgitate what you've learned without giving us the location in which you learned them then how are we supposed to learn?

I do not mean to belittle or mock you with these suggestions, I'd just like to see someone who is passionate about their topic excel.

Lol......you have got to be kidding me!

So you just happen to open your account on DDO, immediately go to forum discussions, find a history post and make precisely one comment on one thread about MY conversational conduct with another perfect stranger?

Give it up man, you're not dealing with an idiot. If you just apologize for being a rude little jerk and admit you don't know everything you thought you did, then we can have a simple discussion without all the derogatory non sense. That you would sooner try to hide behind another screen name than admit you're wrong should tell you something about how rigidly entrenched you are in your own views.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 8:07:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/28/2013 8:33:14 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:
As a supporter of the states rights side of the debate, I often find it discouraging to see how many people have a negative view of the late Confederacy. Furthermore, I find those negative views are often due to a lack of detailed information regarding the period.

What are your thoughts, do you have supporting evidence that is more than conjecture?

I guess not. Thanks for playing everyone. It's always fun to see how many people are willing to blindly support an opinion that they are unable to defend!

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity" - MLK Jr.
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 10:19:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
They were fighting for slavery, using states rights as the guiding philosophy. Kind of similar to how the revolution was fought over a number of grievances, but the guiding philosophy was the work of people like Locke and Rousseau
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 7:31:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 10:19:22 PM, thett3 wrote:
They were fighting for slavery, using states rights as the guiding philosophy. Kind of similar to how the revolution was fought over a number of grievances, but the guiding philosophy was the work of people like Locke and Rousseau

Thanks thett3! Why do you think they felt a need to secede and fight for something that was already legal in the North and South?