The Instigator
TheCounterArgument
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
tumeric
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The Civil War Was Caused By Slavery

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,073 times Debate No: 120704
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

TheCounterArgument

Con

The civil war wasnt caused by slavery. I will be arguing for the point that the civil war was caused by political instability and unequal representation in the government.
tumeric

Pro

I will argue that slavery was the primary factor leading to the civil war.
Debate Round No. 1
TheCounterArgument

Con

To start off my argument about how slavery wasn't the reason for the civil war I just want to state that there were northern slave states, Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, And Missouri. That alone makes the claim that the civil war was started by slavery and the north didn't want slavery complete hypocrisy. My next statement will be that president Lincoln's primary intention was not to stop slavery, But to keep the union together. His "primary" objective only switched to slavery a year into the war after the north was losing and they were losing funding for the army and had to get overseas funding. I lastly want to say that the disproportionate rate of northerners versus southerners was high, And because of this, The north made the 3/5 rule, Making every 5 slaves worth 3 votes. If the civil war was started by slavery, Why would the north allow this to be passed, When all this rule did was encourage slave owners to just buy more slaves. I rest my case.
tumeric

Pro

Of the states that seceded, Four drafted statements to explain why. All of them say it was about slavery:
https://www. Battlefields. Org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

GEORGIA
"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, Present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. "

MISSISSIPPI
"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, It is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. "

SOUTH CAROLINA
"We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, For years past, To fulfill their constitutional obligations, And we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, In its fourth Article, Provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, Under the laws thereof, Escaping into another, Shall, In consequence of any law or regulation therein, Be discharged from such service or labor, But shall be delivered up, On claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. ""

TEXAS
"The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, By solemn legislative enactments, Have deliberately, Directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, And laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, Designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions. . . "
Debate Round No. 2
TheCounterArgument

Con

The civil war would of happened with or without slavery. The disproportion was 21 million in the north and 5 million in the south. That is over a 4:1 ratio. Now including the 3/5 rule it is a 3:1 and still too different. That is the reason they wanted to leave. The north made laws that benefitted them but not the south. The final straw is when the north sent federal troops into the south. That is why they wanted to leave the union. Saying it was slavery is just a topic of it and not a major factor. Do you seriously think that the south would leave just because of slavery and have war against the military superpower that is the north. I don't think so. Vote Con.
tumeric

Pro

Disproportion of who? Con fails to specify what made the South different from the North. When the war began, It was those states who joined the secession vs. Those that stayed in the Union. But prior to that, It was slave-holding states vs free states. This conflict became critical as new western states were joining the country and had to be declared one or the other.

So con's argument may ultimately be correct, But misses a critical step in logic.

You can't just say that the South was outnumbered. Detroit is vastly outnumbered by not-Detroit -- that doesn't make them want to secede. What made the South secede must have been a difference of interests. That interest was slavery.

I've already given the reason for the Civil War by quoting from the secessionists themselves. I'll close with one more. Here is what Alexander Stephens, Vice president of the Confederacy, Said about the reasons for secession in his 'Cornerstone Speech' given just before the war began:

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions"African slavery as it exists among us"the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. "

So there you have it.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
@TheCounterArgument: Your arguments are correct, But you fail to substantiate them. You should've elaborated more on your arguments, And provided some sources for your statements. It doesn't bode well to simply state your arguments.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
It was a compromise. It benefited Neither
Posted by GeneralGrant 3 years ago
GeneralGrant
The three fifths clause could not encourage slavery. It took away power from the slave states who wanted the slaves to count as one person while denying them the right to vote.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
John C. Calhoun set the precede in trying to secede about 40 years earlier because of SLAVE TARRIFS. Key word-Slaves
Posted by Smug_Tomato 3 years ago
Smug_Tomato
Agreed.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
If Slavery did not exist, I think the Civil War would not have existed.
Posted by Smug_Tomato 3 years ago
Smug_Tomato
Slavery was the primary cause of the civil war. There were tons of other factors, But the central cause of the war points to slavery.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Actually, Representation went to the South.
Posted by TheCounterArgument 3 years ago
TheCounterArgument
@billsands then explain why the 3/5 rule was implemented when all it would do is encourage slavery more. I don't doubt that slavery had something to do with it, But it is not the major reason.
Posted by billsands 3 years ago
billsands
I have studied this for years, There is no doubt that the Civil War was a direst result of the conflict over the crime of slavery, To even think it had some other motivation is blind stupidity and denial by racism and rascists
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.