Amazon.com Widgets
  • Screw The South!

    The south is made up of ignorant and selfish conservatives. Who cares about them? We shouldn't be held back from social progression because of a bunch of right wing nutjobs! Fuck them, fuck conservatives, fuck the south, fuck slavery, fuck the ignorant, and fuck this whole debate. It's one big mess.

  • They Wanted to Go

    They wanted to go. How do we say that it would be good to have a nation where so many people would not want to be a part of it. It just led to further divisiveness and differences. The whole was never really healed. Live and let live--as two different nations.

  • South needed slaves

    The south was a very different place than the north. The economies were completely different. The south needed to have slaves and if Lincoln had really wanted to end slavery he should have phased it out slowly. After the south lost their slaves their economy completely fell apart due to he lack of work to have a huge plantation.

  • Freedom should prevail

    It was repression to use military force against peoples of states who did not any longer want to remain part of a union it did not want to belong to. On the other hand, abolishing slavery did gave Lincoln a good cause and the South a foul one. The states should have been free to make their decision but slavery condemned like apartheid later was.

  • No question, YES

    A nation is defined by a common connection between it's people, regardless of how you define that common connection. We as American's clearly don't share common values, and it's distinctly obvious when comparing the north vs. South. That's ok because we're a diffrent people, with a different culture, who believe in different values. I often hear about shared American values, but it's only in the vaguest sense could claim we share said values. Freedom, Liberty, Equality, Morality, and Ethics are almost complete polar opposites between the two people. In america we constantly justify our nation's continued existence by our shared values, this is because we don't use race, religion, or culture. The truth is hard to swallow, but we just don't share the same values. Please have anyone read my post tell me I'm wrong! I'm now begging someone to show me how we can justify not separating two distinct people in their own nations. This isn't about north vs south, this is about self-determination and self-sovereignty, and not having the other people oppress each other to the continued benefit of special interests. We can even become great allies, for all I care, but let BOTH people finally be free.

  • No question about it, YES

    A nation is defined by a common connection between it's people, regardless of how you define that common connection. We as American's clearly don't share common values, and it's distinctly obvious when comparing the north vs. South. That's ok because we're a diffrent people, with a different culture, who believe in different values. I often hear about shared American values, but it's only in the vaguest sense could claim we share said values. Freedom, Liberty, Equality, Morality, and Ethics are almost complete polar opposites between the two people. In america we constantly justify our nation's continued existence by our shared values, this is because we don't use race, religion, or culture. The truth is hard to swallow, but we just don't share the same values. Please have anyone read my post tell me I'm wrong! I'm now begging someone to show me how we can justify not separating two distinct people in their own nations. This isn't about north vs south, this is about self-determination and self-sovereignty, and not having the other people oppress each other to the continued benefit of special interests. We can even become great allies, for all I care, but let BOTH people be free already.

  • Would Have Prevented Warfare

    If Lincoln had allowed the south to secede, America wouldn't have had a Civil War. The civil War took many lives and resources and none of these repercussions would have occurred if he had let the south secede. If he let the south secede the southerners would have been happy and would have not started a war.

  • Consent of the governed

    People should be able to choose what government controls them. Are the atrocities of the Civil War really worth the preservation of worthless political borders? The Civil War was the bloodiest war in US history, it devastated the South's economy, left millions disabled, and created a bitterness that lasts to this day.

  • The rights of states.

    When the United States was formed from the original thirteen colonies, the colonial leaders were under the impression that these newly formed United States was a voluntary union and that at any time they would be allowed to leave. An argument can even be made based on the constitution as to the rights of states being allowed to leave the union.

  • Letting the South secede would have benefited both the South and the Union.

    The immediate result of a decision to allow the southern states to secede - besides the saving of +600,00o lives lost on both sides - would have been the ability of the North to concentrate on Westward expansion,while at the same time allowing the South to develop a manufacturing base. As far as the issue of slavery goes, the probability is that it would have been abolished within 10-15 years anyway, because the two countries that would have been the South's primary trading partners, England and France, had already abolished slavery themselves years before, and their respective populaces simply would not have continued to allow trade with slave nations for much longer - the way that we are no longer willing to purchase goods made by child or convict labor. Since there would have been no "reconstruction", the resultant hostility towards the Union states, and towards the Southern blacks as well,would never have reached the levels that we saw during the "Jim Crow" period, meaning that area would today - in all likelihood - be more culturally and socially advanced than it is. Finally, without the negative influence of the Southern politicos - both democrat and republican - the United States itself would undoubtedly be a more egalitarian and socially conscious society!

  • The Civil War was a price that needed to be paid.

    Slavery represents a deep stain in American history. Letting South Carolina secede would have shown that the country, as a whole, wasn't fully against slavery. The purpose of a union is to have all parties together and on the same page. As a country, we needed this. As a result, Lincoln made the right choice by risking war for the betterment of the country's future.

  • It would have been far worse if they were allowed to succeed

    I do think the Northern States and the USA as a whole would be better without the former CSA. Those states are just backwards in thinking politics you name it. They are also a drain on the federal budget just about all the former CSA gets more federal $ than it puts in, in federal taxes. Plus this is stretch I can't really say this but I think socially maybe without the stupid south the north might tolerate black people more like Canada currently does. Without the stupid ignorant south I think we would have a more progressive government in general. I mean all the draconian abortion anti-gay laws come from southern states all the really stupid congressmen come from there.

    As much as I'd love the stupid south to not be a part of the USA it would be worse without them. I don't think anyone realizes just how much sectionalism there was in the 1860's. It wouldn't be a far stretch that if the CSA was allowed to leave other parts of the country would have as well. There was not as much support for the war in say the Midwest than there was the northeast. That Midwest was a lot different than the northeast culturally and economically than the Northeast and new England. If the CSA left we could have seen the Midwestern States want to succeed. I think the USA would be better off without the CSA but would we be better off with a "Confederation of the great lakes as well?". We could have the west coast secede and without those states westward expansion would not have happened the way it did.

  • Noooooo no no no

    No no no no no no no no no no no no no nono no no no no no nono no no no no no nono no no no no no nono no no no no no nono no no no no no nono no no no no no nono no no no no no nono no no no no no no

  • Noooo never do it

    NO, NEVER GIVE UP, NEVER SURRENDER. Abe Lincoln had a good idea to say that they could keep slavery but not let it grow. This way he would let the south keep slaves and the south and north would both be satisfied. I don't know what i'm writing, i just wanted to vote.

  • Noooo never do it

    NO, NEVER GIVE UP, NEVER SURRENDER. Abe Lincoln had a good idea to say that they could keep slavery but not let it grow. This way he would let the south keep slaves and the south and north would both be satisfied. I don't know what i'm writing, i just wanted to vote.

  • Common sense people

    You're stupid if you think that lincoln SHOULD HAVE let the south secede because slavery was one of the most terrible things that has ever been around in american history and IS JUST PLAIN HORRIBLE AND YOU MUST BE BRAINDEAD IF YOU THINK THAT LINCOLN SHOULD HAVE LET THE SOUTH SECEDE

  • Slavery isn't a reason to leave

    When the Puritans first came to America, they left for a great reason. Not for slavery or for something that they were doing that was not right. They left because of the prosecution of there religion. Then when America was built and they wanted to make the Declaration of Independence they were also totally right and the had a HUGE reason to leave declare independence. The soldier were treating the people horribly and were beating innocent people on the street. There was unlawful taxing and all of the stuff going on with the Quartering act. My point is that the Colonists were totally just in separating from the British because they had a good reason. Slavery is a belief and a lifestyle that was horrible and wrong that was not even near a good enough excuse to succeed from the union. Lincoln made the correct decision for the country and for that was remembered as one of the most amazing presidents.

  • United we stand, divided we fall.

    Lincoln was correct to preserve the union. Allowing states to secede when a leader they dislike is democratically elected would have set a dangerous precedent for the nation. Furthermore, allowing states to leave the union over a moral evil such as slavery would have set the history of our continent back hundreds of years.

  • Lincoln was correct to not keep a border between the nation.

    Lincoln said that a house divided can not stand. He is exactly correct. People cant stay divided forever or else the nations government and peace would've been destroyed forever without the war. The war helped all the people realize something: the nation cannot stay in argument anarchy forever. This whole slavery issue put everyone on the same page, as well as Lincoln( with the war that is of course).

  • Yes he should have let them secede

    Lincoln should have let them go because that just caused a huge war and what is the point of our Union if it was people unwillingly in it. Lincoln did not need to hold them against there will that was just irresponsible and we lost a lot of people, goods, houses, ammo, weapons, good, and soldiers.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.