Total Posts:81|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Civil War: Who was right?

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:19:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Obviously the North. I will debate anyone who says otherwise.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:21:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I normally don't dive into politics (either due to a sense of unfamiliarity or fear of getting mauled at) but I agree that it was the north. Of course, that depends on whether or not the states had a right to secede and so forth....
"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
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:23:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Right about what?

Was the South right in saying it successfully seceded?

Did the South have a right to secede?

Whether the north or south started the civil war?

You gotta be more specific.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:25:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 9:25:33 PM, 16kadams wrote:
south

Want to debate that?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:28:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. The confederates where pushing for states rights (10th amendment)
2. Slavery would have been phased out over time as it would become looked down upon and human rights advocates would force it to be out.
3. It was an economic struggle and the south tired of the north abusing them.
4. Although the war was terrible secession right back then.
5. I'm from texas.
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
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:28:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think the North was right on slavery, though that wasn't the main issue most of the war.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:30:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well....states DID have the right to secede back then. Not only was it simply a given idea, but even three northern states expressly reserved the right to secede in their documents that declared their joining into the US.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:31:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 9:30:16 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Well....states DID have the right to secede back then. Not only was it simply a given idea, but even three northern states expressly reserved the right to secede in their documents that declared their joining into the US.

However, that being said, I'd say the North. The War was started by the unwarranted attack on Ft. Sumner/Sumter/whatever by the South.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:32:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The South because it was pro-Constitution, pro-States Rights and they demonstrated their ability to secede (for there is nothing in the Constitution saying that secession is illegal).

They were defending a lifestyle (rural) that was under attack from the north (industry) and to them they felt as if the north was doing everything in its power to strip the south of its commercial edge.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:32:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 9:30:16 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Well....states DID have the right to secede back then. Not only was it simply a given idea, but even three northern states expressly reserved the right to secede in their documents that declared their joining into the US.

The state documents are incredibly irrelevant. Those held no value as formal agreements. You're also very wrong in saying that states had the right to secede back then? Would you like to debate that?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:36:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 9:32:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:30:16 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Well....states DID have the right to secede back then. Not only was it simply a given idea, but even three northern states expressly reserved the right to secede in their documents that declared their joining into the US.

The state documents are incredibly irrelevant. Those held no value as formal agreements. You're also very wrong in saying that states had the right to secede back then? Would you like to debate that?

They weren't legally binding? They were the documents that spelled out the conditions for ratification.

And plus, at the time, every state joined the Union under the impression they could leave at will.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:39:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 9:36:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:32:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:30:16 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Well....states DID have the right to secede back then. Not only was it simply a given idea, but even three northern states expressly reserved the right to secede in their documents that declared their joining into the US.

The state documents are incredibly irrelevant. Those held no value as formal agreements. You're also very wrong in saying that states had the right to secede back then? Would you like to debate that?

They weren't legally binding? They were the documents that spelled out the conditions for ratification.

And plus, at the time, every state joined the Union under the impression they could leave at will.

lol no. do you want to debate it?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:41:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 9:39:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:36:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:32:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:30:16 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Well....states DID have the right to secede back then. Not only was it simply a given idea, but even three northern states expressly reserved the right to secede in their documents that declared their joining into the US.

The state documents are incredibly irrelevant. Those held no value as formal agreements. You're also very wrong in saying that states had the right to secede back then? Would you like to debate that?

They weren't legally binding? They were the documents that spelled out the conditions for ratification.

And plus, at the time, every state joined the Union under the impression they could leave at will.

lol no. do you want to debate it?

There's nothing that says you can't leave except for the precedent that was set during the Civil War and that was just a precedent with nothing backing it up save for the fact that they didn't want the country split up.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:41:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 9:39:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:36:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:32:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:30:16 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Well....states DID have the right to secede back then. Not only was it simply a given idea, but even three northern states expressly reserved the right to secede in their documents that declared their joining into the US.

The state documents are incredibly irrelevant. Those held no value as formal agreements. You're also very wrong in saying that states had the right to secede back then? Would you like to debate that?

They weren't legally binding? They were the documents that spelled out the conditions for ratification.

And plus, at the time, every state joined the Union under the impression they could leave at will.

lol no. do you want to debate it?

No. I'm in a debate tournament right now.

Although, I do love your rebuttal. I'll have to use it sometime.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:43:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 9:41:30 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:39:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:36:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:32:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:30:16 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Well....states DID have the right to secede back then. Not only was it simply a given idea, but even three northern states expressly reserved the right to secede in their documents that declared their joining into the US.

The state documents are incredibly irrelevant. Those held no value as formal agreements. You're also very wrong in saying that states had the right to secede back then? Would you like to debate that?

They weren't legally binding? They were the documents that spelled out the conditions for ratification.

And plus, at the time, every state joined the Union under the impression they could leave at will.

lol no. do you want to debate it?

There's nothing that says you can't leave except for the precedent that was set during the Civil War and that was just a precedent with nothing backing it up save for the fact that they didn't want the country split up.

There was no precedent set during the Civil War, the Supreme Court did not add or change anything in the Constitution, they took it, and the saw that the document was very clearly opposed to secession.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:43:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 9:43:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:41:30 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:39:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:36:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:32:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:30:16 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Well....states DID have the right to secede back then. Not only was it simply a given idea, but even three northern states expressly reserved the right to secede in their documents that declared their joining into the US.

The state documents are incredibly irrelevant. Those held no value as formal agreements. You're also very wrong in saying that states had the right to secede back then? Would you like to debate that?

They weren't legally binding? They were the documents that spelled out the conditions for ratification.

And plus, at the time, every state joined the Union under the impression they could leave at will.

lol no. do you want to debate it?

There's nothing that says you can't leave except for the precedent that was set during the Civil War and that was just a precedent with nothing backing it up save for the fact that they didn't want the country split up.

There was no precedent set during the Civil War, the Supreme Court did not add or change anything in the Constitution, they took it, and the saw that the document was very clearly opposed to secession.

Where?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:46:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 9:28:05 PM, 16kadams wrote:
1. The confederates where pushing for states rights (10th amendment)
2. Slavery would have been phased out over time as it would become looked down upon and human rights advocates would force it to be out.
3. It was an economic struggle and the south tired of the north abusing them.
4. Although the war was terrible secession right back then.
5. I'm from texas.

You forgot cultural, and industrial differences.

The civil war was over nationalism. Lincoln wanted to nationalize the country, which meant industrializing the south, and changing their whole culture, and way of life. It was also about state rights. The south believed the government no longer represented them.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:46:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 9:43:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:43:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:41:30 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:39:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:36:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:32:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:30:16 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Well....states DID have the right to secede back then. Not only was it simply a given idea, but even three northern states expressly reserved the right to secede in their documents that declared their joining into the US.

The state documents are incredibly irrelevant. Those held no value as formal agreements. You're also very wrong in saying that states had the right to secede back then? Would you like to debate that?

They weren't legally binding? They were the documents that spelled out the conditions for ratification.

And plus, at the time, every state joined the Union under the impression they could leave at will.

lol no. do you want to debate it?

There's nothing that says you can't leave except for the precedent that was set during the Civil War and that was just a precedent with nothing backing it up save for the fact that they didn't want the country split up.

There was no precedent set during the Civil War, the Supreme Court did not add or change anything in the Constitution, they took it, and the saw that the document was very clearly opposed to secession.

Where?

Yeah? Where?
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:48:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 9:43:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:41:30 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:39:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:36:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:32:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:30:16 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Well....states DID have the right to secede back then. Not only was it simply a given idea, but even three northern states expressly reserved the right to secede in their documents that declared their joining into the US.

The state documents are incredibly irrelevant. Those held no value as formal agreements. You're also very wrong in saying that states had the right to secede back then? Would you like to debate that?

They weren't legally binding? They were the documents that spelled out the conditions for ratification.

And plus, at the time, every state joined the Union under the impression they could leave at will.

lol no. do you want to debate it?

There's nothing that says you can't leave except for the precedent that was set during the Civil War and that was just a precedent with nothing backing it up save for the fact that they didn't want the country split up.

There was no precedent set during the Civil War, the Supreme Court did not add or change anything in the Constitution, they took it, and the saw that the document was very clearly opposed to secession.

I'd take the 10th Amendment and apply it to secession and say that it's a decision in the hands of the States.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:56:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 9:41:36 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:39:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:36:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:32:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:30:16 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Well....states DID have the right to secede back then. Not only was it simply a given idea, but even three northern states expressly reserved the right to secede in their documents that declared their joining into the US.

The state documents are incredibly irrelevant. Those held no value as formal agreements. You're also very wrong in saying that states had the right to secede back then? Would you like to debate that?

They weren't legally binding? They were the documents that spelled out the conditions for ratification.

And plus, at the time, every state joined the Union under the impression they could leave at will.

lol no. do you want to debate it?

No. I'm in a debate tournament right now.

Although, I do love your rebuttal. I'll have to use it sometime.

Okay then, I'll argue it here.

Prior to the Constitution the U.S was governed by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (hint hint,). Of course the Articles were inadequate because the federal government was too weak, we switched to the Constitution to make the federal government more powerful, more useful. As such, the opening of the Constitution reads, "....to form a more perfect union..." A union more perfect than what? Than the one established by the Articles.

In the words of Chief Justice Chase, "The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

In addition, the federal government stood as a binding compact of a solitary nation, not an association of sovereigns.

I think Andrew Jackson explains it well here:
"But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense."

In short, the States relinquished some of their sovereignty, the sovereignty that permits them to secede through signing the Constitution. If some people get together with planks of wood to build a house for them all to live in. No one person can take back his plank and make the house collapse because he engaged in commitment and relinquishment of total ownership of that plank for a joint ownership of the house. Secession is a genuine breach of governmental contract in forming a united nation.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 9:59:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 9:46:37 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/1/2012 9:28:05 PM, 16kadams wrote:
1. The confederates where pushing for states rights (10th amendment)
2. Slavery would have been phased out over time as it would become looked down upon and human rights advocates would force it to be out.
3. It was an economic struggle and the south tired of the north abusing them.
4. Although the war was terrible secession right back then.
5. I'm from texas.

You forgot cultural, and industrial differences.

The civil war was over nationalism. Lincoln wanted to nationalize the country, which meant industrializing the south, and changing their whole culture, and way of life. It was also about state rights. The south believed the government no longer represented them.

Well, I wouldn't quite say that.

I think, more accurately, he wanted to nationalize the economy.

How would we have accessed all that oil in the South that helped fuel the Industrial Revolution if a whole bunch of farmers with no interest in the oil owned all the land?

Well, that's only one, relatively minor concern. Speaking more generally, farmers that used slaves were essentially living in spite of what we now accept is the general economy.

Think about it. There would otherwise be entire regions of the United States that literally owned people that do not pay taxes and do not contribute to the general economy -- only them. As a result, they pay very little for machinery, supplementary expenses (oil, fuel, repairs, etc.) and they don't pay their slaves, so they literally have free labor that will provide for them everything to make tools and machinery most farmers use today entirely extraneous. Practically, an agricultural corporation with no wage overhead, no wage taxes, and entire expense journals from the accounting ledger missing.

That's bullshtt, it simply wouldn't work. Thus, they needed to eradicate that way of doing business, which was essentially counterintuitive to progress through laizzes faire development. The Industrial Revolution.

That's what the Civil War was about. The point is, the way of life that you've come to love, defend, and depend on is actually what the Confederates didn't care for or about -- they wanted things to stay exactly as they were, as they profited from it and it was to their benefit.

But, that's essentially how everyone thinks anyway, isn't it?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 10:04:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Too late to say inb4 conservatives saying the South and liberals saying the North?
: 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.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 10:41:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lincoln was going to appoint Lee as General in the Union army, but lee declined because his state seceded. It was a war over nationalism.

Before the civil war the US was seen soley as a Federation, now it's seen as a more as a Nation. The Civil war nationalized the US.
Thats why the south chose to form a confederation.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 10:42:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 10:04:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Too late to say inb4 conservatives saying the South and liberals saying the North?

What about libertarians? I said North.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 10:43:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 10:41:19 PM, DanT wrote:
Lincoln was going to appoint Lee as General in the Union army, but lee declined because his state seceded. It was a war over nationalism.

Before the civil war the US was seen soley as a Federation, now it's seen as a more as a Nation. The Civil war nationalized the US.
Thats why the south chose to form a confederation.

Yes, Lee said he owed his allegence to his state over his Nation. It was a form of nationalism.
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 10:47:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
South. They only were wrong about slavery, everything else they were totally justified in doing.
"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."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2012 10:50:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/1/2012 10:42:46 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 1/1/2012 10:04:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Too late to say inb4 conservatives saying the South and liberals saying the North?

What about libertarians? I said North.

you didn't respond to my argument
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault