Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Who was in the right during the Civil War?

blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 11:59:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I believe the south was in the right during the Civil War. They had not broken any laws in ther succession, and the war never would have happened if not for Abe Lincoln. All the south wanted was a stronger state government. They felt that their rights were being trampled and they had no power hence "The rights of the south at all costs".

I believe the north did nothing right or justified the entire war except for the Emancipation Proclomation. The war wouldn't have happened if Lincoln had pulled out of Ft. Sumter like he agreed rather than re-inforcing it. He did the same thing down in Florida. He also approved of Sherman's March. William T. Sherman took his forces on a march straight for Atlanta, Georgia. They burned, killed, and destroyed everything in their path. They didn't care wether their bullet was hitting a woman and her unborn child, a defenseless child or elder, or a soldier. Nothing stood in their way. That, my friends, is terrorism by today's standards. If anyone tried to pull that off now, they'd be tried and killed. John Wilkes Booth would have had his work cut out for him.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 12:23:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
What boundaries or rules do you think should be upheld regarding sucession? Is it okay if I declare my house to be "Zanderland" (My name is Alexander) and no longer part of the U.S.? If not why?
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 12:29:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 12:23:53 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
What boundaries or rules do you think should be upheld regarding sucession? Is it okay if I declare my house to be "Zanderland" (My name is Alexander) and no longer part of the U.S.? If not why?

Because the US has tanks they will park around your house like they did to Petoria.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 12:32:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 12:29:44 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 8/28/2011 12:23:53 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
What boundaries or rules do you think should be upheld regarding sucession? Is it okay if I declare my house to be "Zanderland" (My name is Alexander) and no longer part of the U.S.? If not why?

Because the US has tanks they will park around your house like they did to Petoria.

Thanks, I was hoping for a reference to Family Guy rather than an honest intelligent answer.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 12:34:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
No one, but the south was more wrong

At 8/27/2011 11:59:48 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
I believe the south was in the right during the Civil War. They had not broken any laws in ther succession
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."
The United States cannot guarantee any form of government to a state by permitting it to leave said government.

and the war never would have happened if not for Abe Lincoln. All the south wanted was a stronger state government. They felt that their rights were being trampled and they had no power
"I'm not in charge" and "My rights are trampled" are two very different propositions. Furthermore, those in power in the Southern governments didn't have any rights to trample, as they were slaveholders or accomplices thereto.

hence "The rights of the south at all costs".
Individuals have rights, not regions.


I believe the north did nothing right or justified the entire war except for the Emancipation Proclomation.
That's a big except. When one side emancipates slaves and the other doesn't, that's a pretty big argument to shut up and oppose the side that doesn't.

The war wouldn't have happened if Lincoln had pulled out of Ft. Sumter like he agreed rather than re-inforcing it. He did the same thing down in Florida. He also approved of Sherman's March. William T. Sherman took his forces on a march straight for Atlanta, Georgia. They burned, killed, and destroyed everything in their path. They didn't care wether their bullet was hitting a woman and her unborn child, a defenseless child or elder, or a soldier. Nothing stood in their way. That, my friends, is terrorism by today's standards.
Terrorism is a tactic where you target limited resources to maximize psychological effects, generally having rather low impact on the physical ability of your enemy to function. The annihilation of everything you can in enemy territory is known as total war.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 12:35:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
All the south wanted was a stronger state government.

I love how slavery is mentioned no where in this post. Nor is the fact that federal property was being seized left and right once the secession occurred. When did Lincoln agree to pull out of Sumter? If I'm not mistaken, he ordered Anderson's troops to stand their ground as he should as it's government property. I'm not going to justify everything the north did, but war is brutal. Scorched earth tactics are often essentially for cutting off the enemies economic resources and, like it or not, Sherman got that done.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 12:37:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
What kind of question is this? Anyone who has the capacity to sustain a logical thought process for more than 3 seconds would immediately find that the United States was indefinitely in the right.

The Constitution has more implications against secession, than it has for it. In the retroactive rule of the Supreme Court, secession was deemed illegal. Furthermore, the primary reason for the southern secession was to keep slavery!

Please pardon my rhetoric, but what kind of nut would actually believe that the South was justified in seceding?
"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
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 12:39:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 12:37:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
What kind of question is this? Anyone who has the capacity to sustain a logical thought process for more than 3 seconds would immediately find that the United States was indefinitely in the right.

The Constitution has more implications against secession, than it has for it. In the retroactive rule of the Supreme Court, secession was deemed illegal. Furthermore, the primary reason for the southern secession was to keep slavery!

Please pardon my rhetoric, but what kind of nut would actually believe that the South was justified in seceding?

just read this, please,...you need it. http://www.debate.org...
"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
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 12:49:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 12:37:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
We're on the same side here but your post was just too much fail and crap

What kind of question is this? Anyone who has the capacity to sustain a logical thought process for more than 3 seconds would immediately find that the United States was indefinitely in the right.
Argument from intimidation

The Constitution has more implications against secession, than it has for it.
That's not listing any rules it sets.

In the retroactive rule of the Supreme Court, secession was deemed illegal.
That's not an argument, that's just listing someone who agrees with you, and calling something "Retroactive" is typically a mark of denigration as the Constitution forbids retroactive legislation (or any legislation from the Supreme Court).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 12:56:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 12:49:42 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/28/2011 12:37:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
We're on the same side here but your post was just too much fail and crap

You're absolutely right, I lost my cool and didn't properly address the issue.

What kind of question is this? Anyone who has the capacity to sustain a logical thought process for more than 3 seconds would immediately find that the United States was indefinitely in the right.
Argument from intimidation

The Constitution has more implications against secession, than it has for it.
That's not listing any rules it sets.

In the retroactive rule of the Supreme Court, secession was deemed illegal.
That's not an argument, that's just listing someone who agrees with you, and calling something "Retroactive" is typically a mark of denigration as the Constitution forbids retroactive legislation (or any legislation from the Supreme Court).

You're not quite understanding the logic here. The supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Therefore, unless a new addition was made to the Const. and the ruling referred to that new addition, the rule will always be retroactive. Meaning, if the Supreme Court looks over the intent and the laws of the Constitution then decides that it means secession is illegal, then by its Constitutional authority, secession has always been illegal. The case of Texas v. White is my evidence.
"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
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 1:09:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 12:56:28 AM, 000ike wrote:
You're not quite understanding the logic here. The supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Therefore, unless a new addition was made to the Const. and the ruling referred to that new addition, the rule will always be retroactive.
It might be inevitable but it certainly isn't something to trumpet about positively.

Meaning, if the Supreme Court looks over the intent and the laws of the Constitution then decides that it means secession is illegal, then by its Constitutional authority, secession has always been illegal.
Or more precisely, it CLAIMS it always was. The Supreme Court stating doesn't make it so.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 1:14:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 1:09:33 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/28/2011 12:56:28 AM, 000ike wrote:
You're not quite understanding the logic here. The supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Therefore, unless a new addition was made to the Const. and the ruling referred to that new addition, the rule will always be retroactive.
It might be inevitable but it certainly isn't something to trumpet about positively.

Meaning, if the Supreme Court looks over the intent and the laws of the Constitution then decides that it means secession is illegal, then by its Constitutional authority, secession has always been illegal.
Or more precisely, it CLAIMS it always was. The Supreme Court stating doesn't make it so.

In the eyes of American law, the SupCt. claiming something certainly makes it so. What do you think, the decision of a SupCt. case is just a suggestion?
"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
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 1:18:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 1:14:08 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/28/2011 1:09:33 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/28/2011 12:56:28 AM, 000ike wrote:
You're not quite understanding the logic here. The supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Therefore, unless a new addition was made to the Const. and the ruling referred to that new addition, the rule will always be retroactive.
It might be inevitable but it certainly isn't something to trumpet about positively.

Meaning, if the Supreme Court looks over the intent and the laws of the Constitution then decides that it means secession is illegal, then by its Constitutional authority, secession has always been illegal.
Or more precisely, it CLAIMS it always was. The Supreme Court stating doesn't make it so.

In the eyes of American law, the SupCt. claiming something certainly makes it so. What do you think, the decision of a SupCt. case is just a suggestion?

It's an opinion-- it even says so at the top of the page!-- the one that decides how things will be treated, no doubt. But as the Supreme Court can and does overturn its own cases, the notion that the Supreme Court's claims make it so are inherently contradictory.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 1:23:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 1:18:22 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/28/2011 1:14:08 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/28/2011 1:09:33 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/28/2011 12:56:28 AM, 000ike wrote:
You're not quite understanding the logic here. The supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Therefore, unless a new addition was made to the Const. and the ruling referred to that new addition, the rule will always be retroactive.
It might be inevitable but it certainly isn't something to trumpet about positively.

Meaning, if the Supreme Court looks over the intent and the laws of the Constitution then decides that it means secession is illegal, then by its Constitutional authority, secession has always been illegal.
Or more precisely, it CLAIMS it always was. The Supreme Court stating doesn't make it so.

In the eyes of American law, the SupCt. claiming something certainly makes it so. What do you think, the decision of a SupCt. case is just a suggestion?

It's an opinion-- it even says so at the top of the page!-- the one that decides how things will be treated, no doubt. But as the Supreme Court can and does overturn its own cases, the notion that the Supreme Court's claims make it so are inherently contradictory.

How in the world is the Supreme Court's decision an opinion? Once they make a ruling, It is Law. Just because they can overturn their own cases does not mean that their rulings are invalid, or no longer retroactive. They are retroactive and law-binding until the ruling is overturned, then the new ruling becomes retroactive and law-binding.
"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
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 1:29:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I know this may seem controversial, but I sympathize with the south.

While I am personally against slavery, I realize that it is unavoidable. Slavery will never die, and it will always be present in some form or another.

However, that said, I believe the United States was from the beginning meant to be a type of "confederacy". Meaning that every individual state is meant to act as its own. For example, Illinois would be as any country in Europe. California would be as independent as Germany.

But, because we are in the "United States" type alliance, we agree to follow the bill of rights. By doing so, we gain the privilege of taking part in the federal government outlined in the constitution.

As time passed, the federal government managed to secure more power. Back in the early days of the United States, more emphasis was put on the state than the federal government. Now, most Americans are nationalistic towards the federal government than the state. In the beginning, capitalism is what ran things... Unfortunately, the institutions that succeeded at capitalism managed to assume control by manipulating the ignorance and/or complacence of the average citizen. We now live in a society where most people feel they have to be influenced by those who oppress us.

The oppressors only have power because we give it to them. If everyone was educated, there would be no oppression. Unfortunately, our oppressors wish to suppress the education of the masses.

The power always will be with the majority. It always has been. The problem is, the majority often times does not realize this. We are the ones who give our oppressors the power to oppress us.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 3:06:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 1:23:52 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/28/2011 1:18:22 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/28/2011 1:14:08 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/28/2011 1:09:33 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/28/2011 12:56:28 AM, 000ike wrote:
You're not quite understanding the logic here. The supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Therefore, unless a new addition was made to the Const. and the ruling referred to that new addition, the rule will always be retroactive.
It might be inevitable but it certainly isn't something to trumpet about positively.

Meaning, if the Supreme Court looks over the intent and the laws of the Constitution then decides that it means secession is illegal, then by its Constitutional authority, secession has always been illegal.
Or more precisely, it CLAIMS it always was. The Supreme Court stating doesn't make it so.

In the eyes of American law, the SupCt. claiming something certainly makes it so. What do you think, the decision of a SupCt. case is just a suggestion?

It's an opinion-- it even says so at the top of the page!-- the one that decides how things will be treated, no doubt. But as the Supreme Court can and does overturn its own cases, the notion that the Supreme Court's claims make it so are inherently contradictory.

How in the world is the Supreme Court's decision an opinion?
Let's take a look at a Supreme Court Case. Brown vs. Board of Education. Read the top of the document that outlines its decision.

"WARREN, C.J., Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

347 U.S. 483

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka"

The court decides which interpretation of the law will prevail until such time as has been overturned, including sometimes in regard to acts before the ruling.

Once they make a ruling, It is Law.
It's case law. That doesn't mean it's actually the constitution's law, saying such would lead to a contradiction.

Just because they can overturn their own cases does not mean that their rulings are invalid, or no longer retroactive.
If they can overturn their own cases, one instance had to be invalid

They are retroactive and law-binding until the ruling is overturned, then the new ruling becomes retroactive and law-binding.
If the new ruling is retroactive, the old one can't have been the law.

By the way, as my PLSC314 professor pointed out, not all Supreme Court decisions are in fact applied retroactively. Miranda, for example, was not: http://www.time.com.... The court has retroactivity as an option, not a requirement.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 3:10:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 12:23:53 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
What boundaries or rules do you think should be upheld regarding sucession? Is it okay if I declare my house to be "Zanderland" (My name is Alexander) and no longer part of the U.S.? If not why?

If you agree not to enter the borders of the US, I don't see why not.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 3:13:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 1:29:29 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I know this may seem controversial, but I sympathize with the south.

While I am personally against slavery, I realize that it is unavoidable. Slavery will never die, and it will always be present in some form or another.
Wat.


However, that said, I believe the United States was from the beginning meant to be a type of "confederacy". Meaning that every individual state is meant to act as its own. For example, Illinois would be as any country in Europe. California would be as independent as Germany.
Even the Articles of Confederation did not have the states as independent countries. Europe today is kinda fuzzy of course.


But, because we are in the "United States" type alliance, we agree to follow the bill of rights.
Actually, the Bill of Rights did not initially apply to the States, that began with the 14th amendment, and the 14th amendment doing that wasn't figured out till quite some time after it was passed.

In the beginning, capitalism is what ran things...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Add to this various river monopolies etc.

The power always will be with the majority. It always has been. The problem is, the majority often times does not realize this. We are the ones who give our oppressors the power to oppress us.
The majority is in favor of various oppressions, it is the oppressor.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 5:42:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 1:29:29 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I know this may seem controversial, but I sympathize with the south.

While I am personally against slavery, I realize that it is unavoidable. Slavery will never die, and it will always be present in some form or another.

However, that said, I believe the United States was from the beginning meant to be a type of "confederacy". Meaning that every individual state is meant to act as its own. For example, Illinois would be as any country in Europe. California would be as independent as Germany.

But, because we are in the "United States" type alliance, we agree to follow the bill of rights. By doing so, we gain the privilege of taking part in the federal government outlined in the constitution.

As time passed, the federal government managed to secure more power. Back in the early days of the United States, more emphasis was put on the state than the federal government. Now, most Americans are nationalistic towards the federal government than the state. In the beginning, capitalism is what ran things... Unfortunately, the institutions that succeeded at capitalism managed to assume control by manipulating the ignorance and/or complacence of the average citizen. We now live in a society where most people feel they have to be influenced by those who oppress us.

The oppressors only have power because we give it to them. If everyone was educated, there would be no oppression. Unfortunately, our oppressors wish to suppress the education of the masses.

The power always will be with the majority. It always has been. The problem is, the majority often times does not realize this. We are the ones who give our oppressors the power to oppress us.

First, there was great contention in the role of the federal govt and the amount of autonomy of the states. Alexander Hamilton would disagree with you greatly, in fact he was a strong believer in a national debt as a unifying mechanism for the country, and would provide a common cause for all to work toward as just one example of the Anti -Federalists intentions. In fact those who supported the stronger federal gov't and weaker state gov'ts point to the failure of the Articles of Confederation as testimony to the need of a stronger unifying force for the country.

Secondly, you really believe that if everyone was educated there would be no oppression? Sillyness. Regardless of education, there will be those who will oppress and those who will allow it, and or be oppressed.

Lastly, there is precedent in quashing secession movements, particularly in the northern states. After the war of 1812 there were northern states that wanted to leave the union and return to Britain. Because our history is written conveniently, they use the words rebellion instead of secession.

Much of the job of president at that time was just keeping the country together - literally.
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 8:00:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 12:23:53 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
What boundaries or rules do you think should be upheld regarding sucession? Is it okay if I declare my house to be "Zanderland" (My name is Alexander) and no longer part of the U.S.? If not why?

Well, considering that at the end of the Civil War the US Supreme Court declared secession illegal, it wouldn't work. If secession was legal, I don't think you'd be able to pull that off considering you're a single person or family unit, not an entire state. Once you secede, you'd either have to grow/produce all of your products on your property, or import them. You wouldn't have the money to pull it off I don't believe. Especially because you'd probably lose your job seeing as how you're no longer a US citizen. Even if you did keep your job, you have absolutely no rights. Your employer could fire you for any reason without any legal re-percussion. You'd have no welfare or anything to support you then. You'd also lose all of the money you paid to social security. You'd probably have to pass through a security station to go to the market or anywhere if you wanted to. I would be willing to bet that electricity and natural gasses aren't going to be supplied to your new country by the US. I think you'd have a helluva time pulling this off even if it were still legal.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 8:26:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 12:34:28 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No one, but the south was more wrong


At 8/27/2011 11:59:48 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
I believe the south was in the right during the Civil War. They had not broken any laws in ther succession
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."
The United States cannot guarantee any form of government to a state by permitting it to leave said government.

I understand your point, but find a document (pre-Civil War) that forbids secession.

and the war never would have happened if not for Abe Lincoln. All the south wanted was a stronger state government. They felt that their rights were being trampled and they had no power
"I'm not in charge" and "My rights are trampled" are two very different propositions. Furthermore, those in power in the Southern governments didn't have any rights to trample, as they were slaveholders or accomplices thereto.

I'm not quite sure were the "I'm not in charge" part came from. Plus, slavery was completely legal at the time. It was a right of those people to have slaves. If, though, you are starting to imply that the war was fought over slavery, then I am no longer going to waste my time discussing this with you.

hence "The rights of the south at all costs".
Individuals have rights, not regions.

Why should the region not have rights for their area?


I believe the north did nothing right or justified the entire war except for the Emancipation Proclomation.
That's a big except. When one side emancipates slaves and the other doesn't, that's a pretty big argument to shut up and oppose the side that doesn't.

That's all the north did the entire war that was good. Considering how they enforced the proclamation, and how they got to the point at which they could make it, it becomes a little less of a saint's action. I think you're a little confused here as well. Not all slaves were emancipated. The only people freed were those in areas to be conquered (and maybe already conquered). 4 states still had their right to own slaves totally intact. If the Emancipation Proclamation had freed all slaves, the south would have won because even if the already conquered states didn't rise again, the 4 slave owning states that hadn't left the union would have left and fought. They would have made the difference.

The war wouldn't have happened if Lincoln had pulled out of Ft. Sumter like he agreed rather than re-inforcing it. He did the same thing down in Florida. He also approved of Sherman's March. William T. Sherman took his forces on a march straight for Atlanta, Georgia. They burned, killed, and destroyed everything in their path. They didn't care wether their bullet was hitting a woman and her unborn child, a defenseless child or elder, or a soldier. Nothing stood in their way. That, my friends, is terrorism by today's standards.
Terrorism is a tactic where you target limited resources to maximize psychological effects, generally having rather low impact on the physical ability of your enemy to function. The annihilation of everything you can in enemy territory is known as total war.

Terrorism -the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion [1]
Terror - a state of intense fear; a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> [2]
Coercion - the act, process, or power of coercing [3]
Coercing - to restrain or dominate by force [4]

Are you going to argue that the north was NOT using terror as a way to coerce the south to surrender? Wouldn't you be fairly persuaded to surrender if you knew that your family would be killed if you didn't? Oh, and thank you for the total war term. I already knew what the tactic was referred to as. Regardless of the name you use, do you really think the same tactic would be justified nowadays? I have a feeling the general and president would both go on trial for war crimes.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 8:42:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 12:35:00 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
All the south wanted was a stronger state government.

I love how slavery is mentioned no where in this post. Nor is the fact that federal property was being seized left and right once the secession occurred. When did Lincoln agree to pull out of Sumter? If I'm not mistaken, he ordered Anderson's troops to stand their ground as he should as it's government property. I'm not going to justify everything the north did, but war is brutal. Scorched earth tactics are often essentially for cutting off the enemies economic resources and, like it or not, Sherman got that done.

From what I was taught and read, Lincoln said he just wanted to give his troops medical attention and food, and would pull out and leave the fort. Until I get the time to go and find documents proving that, though, I won't argue it. Also slavery wasn't mentioned in my post because that war was not fought over slavery. Slavery didn't become the battle cry of the north until after the Emancipation Proclamation. The phrase isn't war is brutal, it's war is hell, and I know that. I'm not arguing that. There are still things that shouldn't be done.

scorched earth policy - a military strategy of burning or destroying buildings, crops, or other resources that might be of use to an invading enemy force. [1]

total war - a war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used , the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded. [2]

As you can see, scorched earth is just the strategy to destroy buildings, crops, and useful resources. Total war is what was used. Total war has no restrictions whatsoever. I think you'll have a hard time justifying the murder of women and children and elders who are just trying to survive themselves. When you're behind enemy lines facing NO ARMY, there is no legitimate reason to consider these innocent people a threat. The south had very few factories to begin with, so there weren't many buildings to destroy. I'm not arguing against the burning of crops or the slaughter of livestock. I'm against the unnecessary massacre of the civilians. We were in a pickle in Somalia because we weren't shooting women and children who were intentionally working as meat shields. We weren't shooting them because they're women and children. You're telling me that it's perfectly fine to kill citizens playing no legitimate role in an ending war, but it's not okay to shoot citizens standing in front of enemy combatants in order to provide a shield? What about our policy currently? Don't fire until fired upon? I would be willing to bet that next to zero, if not zero citizens picked up a gun in Sherman's march if they weren't already carrying one into battle.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 8:44:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 8:42:02 AM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 8/28/2011 12:35:00 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
All the south wanted was a stronger state government.

I love how slavery is mentioned no where in this post. Nor is the fact that federal property was being seized left and right once the secession occurred. When did Lincoln agree to pull out of Sumter? If I'm not mistaken, he ordered Anderson's troops to stand their ground as he should as it's government property. I'm not going to justify everything the north did, but war is brutal. Scorched earth tactics are often essentially for cutting off the enemies economic resources and, like it or not, Sherman got that done.

From what I was taught and read, Lincoln said he just wanted to give his troops medical attention and food, and would pull out and leave the fort. Until I get the time to go and find documents proving that, though, I won't argue it. Also slavery wasn't mentioned in my post because that war was not fought over slavery. Slavery didn't become the battle cry of the north until after the Emancipation Proclamation. The phrase isn't war is brutal, it's war is hell, and I know that. I'm not arguing that. There are still things that shouldn't be done.

scorched earth policy - a military strategy of burning or destroying buildings, crops, or other resources that might be of use to an invading enemy force. [1]

total war - a war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used , the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded. [2]

As you can see, scorched earth is just the strategy to destroy buildings, crops, and useful resources. Total war is what was used. Total war has no restrictions whatsoever. I think you'll have a hard time justifying the murder of women and children and elders who are just trying to survive themselves. When you're behind enemy lines facing NO ARMY, there is no legitimate reason to consider these innocent people a threat. The south had very few factories to begin with, so there weren't many buildings to destroy. I'm not arguing against the burning of crops or the slaughter of livestock. I'm against the unnecessary massacre of the civilians. We were in a pickle in Somalia because we weren't shooting women and children who were intentionally working as meat shields. We weren't shooting them because they're women and children. You're telling me that it's perfectly fine to kill citizens playing no legitimate role in an ending war, but it's not okay to shoot citizens standing in front of enemy combatants in order to provide a shield? What about our policy currently? Don't fire until fired upon? I would be willing to bet that next to zero, if not zero citizens picked up a gun in Sherman's march if they weren't already carrying one into battle.

Sorry, I forgot the links.

[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 9:00:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 12:37:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
What kind of question is this? Anyone who has the capacity to sustain a logical thought process for more than 3 seconds would immediately find that the United States was indefinitely in the right.

Most people would also say that the war was fought over slavery in three seconds. This is a fallacy. Lincoln would have been perfectly content keeping slavery.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." [1]

The Constitution has more implications against secession, than it has for it. In the retroactive rule of the Supreme Court, secession was deemed illegal. Furthermore, the primary reason for the southern secession was to keep slavery!

The Supreme Court deemed secession illegal AFTER the Civil War. It was NOT illegal before the war. If you read my above quote, the south was not at risk to losing their rights to slavery under Lincoln's presidency. That risk might have become a viable one with the next president, or any number after that, but it was not a viable risk with Lincoln. Lincoln was an abolitionist, but his main concern was the state of the country. Considering the fact that outlawing slavery would have caused him to lose a large chunk of the country, he never would have outlawed it before the war began. When half of the states vote for one president, and lose by landslide, I'd imagine they'd be a little dissatisfied. The South was losing power with every new president and state brought into the union. They realized that their votes no longer mattered, and that wasn't something that made them happy.

Please pardon my rhetoric, but what kind of nut would actually believe that the South was justified in seceding?
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 9:02:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 9:00:12 AM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 8/28/2011 12:37:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
What kind of question is this? Anyone who has the capacity to sustain a logical thought process for more than 3 seconds would immediately find that the United States was indefinitely in the right.

Most people would also say that the war was fought over slavery in three seconds. This is a fallacy. Lincoln would have been perfectly content keeping slavery.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." [1]

The Constitution has more implications against secession, than it has for it. In the retroactive rule of the Supreme Court, secession was deemed illegal. Furthermore, the primary reason for the southern secession was to keep slavery!

The Supreme Court deemed secession illegal AFTER the Civil War. It was NOT illegal before the war. If you read my above quote, the south was not at risk to losing their rights to slavery under Lincoln's presidency. That risk might have become a viable one with the next president, or any number after that, but it was not a viable risk with Lincoln. Lincoln was an abolitionist, but his main concern was the state of the country. Considering the fact that outlawing slavery would have caused him to lose a large chunk of the country, he never would have outlawed it before the war began. When half of the states vote for one president, and lose by landslide, I'd imagine they'd be a little dissatisfied. The South was losing power with every new president and state brought into the union. They realized that their votes no longer mattered, and that wasn't something that made them happy.

Please pardon my rhetoric, but what kind of nut would actually believe that the South was justified in seceding?

Sorry, I forgot my source again.

[1] http://showcase.netins.net...
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 9:21:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 12:39:55 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/28/2011 12:37:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
What kind of question is this? Anyone who has the capacity to sustain a logical thought process for more than 3 seconds would immediately find that the United States was indefinitely in the right.

The Constitution has more implications against secession, than it has for it. In the retroactive rule of the Supreme Court, secession was deemed illegal. Furthermore, the primary reason for the southern secession was to keep slavery!

Please pardon my rhetoric, but what kind of nut would actually believe that the South was justified in seceding?


just read this, please,...you need it. http://www.debate.org...

I didn't even bother reading past your first negation. You have no sources to support what you wrote. You're winning that debate because most people think the war was fought for slavery. At least, that's what I think. I know secession became illegal. The problem that continues to show up with what you say is that you don't have any way of proving that it was illegal BEFORE the states seceded. The Supreme Court declared it illegal AFTER the end of the war. This fact is included in a middle school education. At least it was in mine.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 9:25:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 3:10:57 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 8/28/2011 12:23:53 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
What boundaries or rules do you think should be upheld regarding sucession? Is it okay if I declare my house to be "Zanderland" (My name is Alexander) and no longer part of the U.S.? If not why?

If you agree not to enter the borders of the US, I don't see why not.

And how would that not lead to Anarchy? If you didn't want to pay taxes or get arrested for a crime and it was okay to secede, what would stop large amounts of people from declaring their own property seperate nations and then stop paying taxes and refuse arrest by U.S. police officers on the grounds that they are a sovereign country.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 9:34:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 12:56:28 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/28/2011 12:49:42 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/28/2011 12:37:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
We're on the same side here but your post was just too much fail and crap

You're absolutely right, I lost my cool and didn't properly address the issue.

What kind of question is this? Anyone who has the capacity to sustain a logical thought process for more than 3 seconds would immediately find that the United States was indefinitely in the right.
Argument from intimidation

The Constitution has more implications against secession, than it has for it.
That's not listing any rules it sets.

In the retroactive rule of the Supreme Court, secession was deemed illegal.
That's not an argument, that's just listing someone who agrees with you, and calling something "Retroactive" is typically a mark of denigration as the Constitution forbids retroactive legislation (or any legislation from the Supreme Court).

You're not quite understanding the logic here. The supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Therefore, unless a new addition was made to the Const. and the ruling referred to that new addition, the rule will always be retroactive. Meaning, if the Supreme Court looks over the intent and the laws of the Constitution then decides that it means secession is illegal, then by its Constitutional authority, secession has always been illegal. The case of Texas v. White is my evidence.

This is your failing. This case occurred AFTER the Civil War ended. You cannot argue that the south committed an illegal by seceding seeing as how the Supreme Court ruling of this occurred AFTER the war had ended. What you're implying is the same as my following scenario. Say I live in a country where stealing has not yet been declared illegal. I go to the local jewelry store and steal $100,000 worth of gold and diamonds and other stuff. Then, 8 years later (or any amount of time after i stole the stuff) the country that I'm living in decides that stealing is illegal. They could not win a case against me saying that I committed an illegal act considering the fact that I committed the act BEFORE it became illegal.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 10:06:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
From what I was taught and read, Lincoln said he just wanted to give his troops medical attention and food, and would pull out and leave the fort. Until I get the time to go and find documents proving that, though, I won't argue it. Also slavery wasn't mentioned in my post because that war was not fought over slavery. Slavery didn't become the battle cry of the north until after the Emancipation Proclamation. The phrase isn't war is brutal, it's war is hell, and I know that. I'm not arguing that. There are still things that shouldn't be done.

I'm aware that Lincoln wanted to reinforce it, which was what got the south up and arms. I don't see how you can ignore slavery as it was the bedrock of southern economic life for the elite and a major issue of the times and the north-south split. The south was livid that the north ignored fugitive slave laws, the memory of john brown was still firmly in the southern mind, and the issue of slavery in new territories was a highly contentious issue. Lincoln didn't want to declare slavery as a cause at the start because he didn't want ruin the morale of his soldiers, and after EP was announced there were desertions. If you look at the "immediate causes" that the southern states put forth after secession, you'll find frequent and direct references to the importance of slavery [3].

scorched earth policy - a military strategy of burning or destroying buildings, crops, or other resources that might be of use to an invading enemy force. [1]

total war - a war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used , the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded. [2]

As you can see, scorched earth is just the strategy to destroy buildings, crops, and useful resources. Total war is what was used. Total war has no restrictions whatsoever. I think you'll have a hard time justifying the murder of women and children and elders who are just trying to survive themselves. When you're behind enemy lines facing NO ARMY, there is no legitimate reason to consider these innocent people a threat. The south had very few factories to begin with, so there weren't many buildings to destroy. I'm not arguing against the burning of crops or the slaughter of livestock. I'm against the unnecessary massacre of the civilians. We were in a pickle in Somalia because we weren't shooting women and children who were intentionally working as meat shields. We weren't shooting them because they're women and children. You're telling me that it's perfectly fine to kill citizens playing no legitimate role in an ending war, but it's not okay to shoot citizens standing in front of enemy combatants in order to provide a shield? What about our policy currently? Don't fire until fired upon? I would be willing to bet that next to zero, if not zero citizens picked up a gun in Sherman's march if they weren't already carrying one into battle.

I never said it's fine to kill unarmed civilians and you seem to take it for granted that Sherman routinely rounded up and massacred southern civilians and I just don't think thats the case.

"It must be emphasized that Sherman's forces refrained from raping white women and from killing civilians." [1]

"Northern soldiers did not directly shoot civilians."

I certainly wouldn't call Sherman's marches "humane," but I'm fairly certain he wasn't routinely rounding up villagers and massacring them. The south had their own set of "war crimes:" Andersonville POW camp was brutal and almost 1/3 of the 45,000 inmates died as a result of malnutrition, starvation, and disease.

[1]http://www.answers.com...

[2]http://www.lewrockwell.com...

[3]http://www.politicususa.com...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 10:22:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 9:34:19 AM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 8/28/2011 12:56:28 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/28/2011 12:49:42 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/28/2011 12:37:09 AM, 000ike wrote:
We're on the same side here but your post was just too much fail and crap

You're absolutely right, I lost my cool and didn't properly address the issue.

What kind of question is this? Anyone who has the capacity to sustain a logical thought process for more than 3 seconds would immediately find that the United States was indefinitely in the right.
Argument from intimidation

The Constitution has more implications against secession, than it has for it.
That's not listing any rules it sets.

In the retroactive rule of the Supreme Court, secession was deemed illegal.
That's not an argument, that's just listing someone who agrees with you, and calling something "Retroactive" is typically a mark of denigration as the Constitution forbids retroactive legislation (or any legislation from the Supreme Court).

You're not quite understanding the logic here. The supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Therefore, unless a new addition was made to the Const. and the ruling referred to that new addition, the rule will always be retroactive. Meaning, if the Supreme Court looks over the intent and the laws of the Constitution then decides that it means secession is illegal, then by its Constitutional authority, secession has always been illegal. The case of Texas v. White is my evidence.

This is your failing. This case occurred AFTER the Civil War ended. You cannot argue that the south committed an illegal by seceding seeing as how the Supreme Court ruling of this occurred AFTER the war had ended. What you're implying is the same as my following scenario. Say I live in a country where stealing has not yet been declared illegal. I go to the local jewelry store and steal $100,000 worth of gold and diamonds and other stuff. Then, 8 years later (or any amount of time after i stole the stuff) the country that I'm living in decides that stealing is illegal. They could not win a case against me saying that I committed an illegal act considering the fact that I committed the act BEFORE it became illegal.

As Ragnar_Rahl pointed out, not all cases are retroactive, but many are, including Texas v. White. Key word here is RETROACTIVE"the Supreme Court in Texas v. White gave its retroactive approval to the verdict of the Civil War battlefield." (http://writ.news.findlaw.com...)(http://secondcircuitcivilrights.blogspot.com...) " the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede"(http://en.wikipedia.org...) This means that regardless of the time in which the ruling was set, it is still applicable to the situations occurring before it. Therefore secession was never legal.
"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