The U.S. civil war...who was right?n or s?

So, now, I am a 'Militant." I am a subversive. WATCH OUT FOR THE COLONEL! HE'S A MILITANT!

PS. The term "The Man" has been used by comedians as well, dummy.



[Edited on 4-3-2004 by Colonel]

Originally posted by Colonel
So, now, I am a 'Militant." I am a subversive. WATCH OUT FOR THE COLONEL! HE'S A MILITANT!

I only mention that because many militant rascists use the same line of thinking that you do.

PS. The term "The Man" has been used by comedians as well, dummy.

WTF? What does that have to do with this? Let me ask you this, in what context do the comedians use it in?

I can tell that this is going to be a real adult conversation. How did you get to be a moderator with an attitude like yours?

Colonel, your reputation follows you from thread to thread. That's the way it goes. But in defense of you, "The Man" was the villian in one of my favorite movies, Undercover Brother. Solid!! Also, The Man isn't only a black/white thing, but is also used when referring to one in authority, specifically in a government position. Stand down, people.

McGotti, ignore those who are obviously lacking in knowledge and understanding of the issue with obvious deep-seated anger related to lack of knowledge. Remember, when you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it!
When I said that the Civil Police Action was basically the ruination of the nation, it is because it resulted in the destruction of the republic. By destroying the republic, the federal government found its way in controlling everything in every state. This paved the way for the willful and calculated deterioration of society by those who do not want a strong and moral foundation, but one that is narcissistic, rooted in no solid beliefs and easily molded and influenced. In doing this, the society was made to where it would rely on the government in almost all matters instead of themselves and their Creator, and would make it easier to move into a "global community". The end result was, indeed, moral deterioration, and yes, I suppose you could say that the Civil Police Action was the beginning of that.

Ok. A simple question. If the people of the South couldn't own slaves, what would happen to the finances of rich plantation owners? What would happen to the South's ECONOMY? So yeah, you're right it's always about money. Slavery=money.

Also, yes two northern states (or was it 3) had slaves. What was the government going to do, tell them to join the South because of this? These slaves were freed after the war along with those in the South. Those states just didn't need to be beaten into submission in order to do it.

I advise anyone studying the causes of the civil war to read about some of the events leading up to it. Specifically "Bleeding Kansas", the fight at Harper's Ferry, and the founding of the western territories.

By the way, whoever pointed out that many of the founding father's owned slaves, thank you. It shows this country was founded on the worst hypocracy.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Colonel, your reputation follows you from thread to thread. That's the way it goes. But in defense of you, "The Man" was the villian in one of my favorite movies, Undercover Brother. Solid!! Also, The Man isn't only a black/white thing, but is also used when referring to one in authority, specifically in a government position. Stand down, people.

Thnaks for the back up.

Also, yes two northern states (or was it 3) had slaves. What was the government going to do, tell them to join the South because of this?

Lets see here your are saying slave owning states attacked other slave owning states JUST to free the slaves? Think about that for a moment.

And again you ignore the FACT that Abe said that the south could keep there slaves if they rejoined the union.
But that dosent fit into warm fuzzy picture they paint for you does it.

It was about freeing the slaves like the Iraqi war was about freeing the Iraqis. In other words an excuse added on as an after thought.

But I will admit that freeing the slaves was the ONLY good thing that came from the war.

And Colonel.......

Its amazing that people call you names to get you into this thread and then bitch because you fight back.

Givem hell Dude

Originally posted by Amuk

Also, yes two northern states (or was it 3) had slaves. What was the government going to do, tell them to join the South because of this?

Lets see here your are saying slave owning states attacked other slave owning states JUST to free the slaves? Think about that for a moment.

And again you ignore the FACT that Abe said that the south could keep there slaves if they rejoined the union.
But that dosent fit into warm fuzzy picture they paint for you does it.

It was about freeing the slaves like the Iraqi war was about freeing the Iraqis. In other words an excuse added on as an after thought.

But I will admit that freeing the slaves was the ONLY good thing that came from the war.

Id argue all the warfare lessons were also good things, depends on how you look at it. Id argue battlefield medicine and modern engagment involving rifles and gatling guns are good precursors to the furte.

BTW. Id have to side with the south on this due to their just general competence in leadership. I agree that slavery was immoral and outdated but on a military scale I think Stone Wall and Lee just beat anything the north did in the war even if they were in the moral right.

But I will admit that freeing the slaves was the ONLY good thing that came from the war.

How about a Country that was much more unified than before?

I think Stone Wall and Lee just beat anything the north did in the war even if they were in the moral right.

Lee was one of the best Generals in history not just the war.

You know plantation owners werent the major proponents of the war. They realized that even without slavery black would stay on the land as tennant farmers. The real backbone of support came from the majority of poor white southerners who were clutching to the precious idea they could claw out from inbreeding and moonshine and make themselves something. Once again the ignorant masses are responsible for a war.

Originally posted by Amuk

But regardless, the south commited treason when they could have worked within the government.

Did America commit treason for rebeling against England?

we just happend to win

Originally posted by Amuk
Lets see here your are saying slave owning states attacked other slave owning states JUST to free the slaves? Think about that for a moment.

Huh? No that's not what I'm saying... I'm saying the rest of the northern states wouldn't have rejected these other states just because of slavery.

The fact that it was not the Southern Man that made a wealth of money with the trade of human slaves seems to be missed, as well it seems to be missed that the Northern states made a mint from the raw material that came from the South. Who were the ones that picked it? Also, it seems to have been forgotten that the wealthy slave owners were a minority, most of the South did not own slaves. I know, that isn't how the text books printed up North tell the tale, but as we all know, the history books are written by the victors.

Slavery was on borrowed time, as we all know. The quickening of the end was a good thing, as we can clearly see now. To judge people of those times with the clarity and understanding of our times is a bit harsh. But what we do now know is that while the nation was brought back together, we lost the Republic and with it, the dream of the Founding Fathers.

Huh? No that's not what I'm saying... I'm saying the rest of the northern states wouldn't have rejected these other states just because of slavery.

So you admit the north was ok with slavery? Why was slavery OK in the north but not in the South?

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by Amuk]

Originally posted by Amuk

Huh? No that's not what I'm saying... I'm saying the rest of the northern states wouldn't have rejected these other states just because of slavery.

So you admit the north was ok with slavery? Why was slavery OK in the north but not in the South?

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by Amuk]

I don't think most Northerners gave a # about slavery. Not even Lincoln. Doesn't matter, they served their purpose....results of the war were the same.

Can we really Kentucky and West Virginia in the North though? On the Union's side during the war (barely), but Northen states.....I'm not so sure.

I don't think most Northerners gave a # about slavery. Not even Lincoln.

Think you, that was my point the war was NOT about slavery.

If nobody gave a # about it how was the war over slavery?

And if you take away the slavery issue than the North has lost ANY morale high ground, and the war was no different than the American Revolution.

States Rights.....yes the Civil War was about state's rights. States' rights to keep slaves (along with other things). All that matters in my mind is the fact that they (the people who started the rebellion) wanted to keep slaves. So # states rights.

How does this fit in with the north not giving a # about slaves?

Originally posted by McGotti
So whos side are you on?? Your probably on the Federal side[the north].

But after I became interested in the civil war I think that I am now in favor of what the south was really fighting for....."The rights of the states"

The civil war was about the federal government trying to control all the states and the south was not to excited about the idea of complete Federal control..thus we had a war.

Although slavery is involved I believe even if the south would have won slavery would have ended anyway.[thats another subject]

So who was right??? The south or the North?

Please help me with your views on the civil war.

[Edited on 3-3-2004 by McGotti]

Neither was right... War sux!!! If thats not a cop out answer, I dont know what is, but it is mine

Slavery is a cop-out answer for the Civil War. Everyone knows slavery was about to die, the Civil War only quickened the abolition:

Slavery was generally being abolished in most civilized countrys world wide at the time.

Slavery was used to produce raw cotton, a product that fed the textile mills of the North and England.

England greatly relied on southern cotton to keep their very profitable textile mills going.

As the war progressed, southern cotton stopped flowing to England, the textile mills were in peril.

England began to grown cotton in their colonial holdings of India and Egypt, therefore becoming selfsuficient.

Therefore, the main culprit in the extension of slavery in the south (cotton being profitable) was severely crippled by the growth of cotton in English colonial holdings. Post-war economics show that despite the ultra cheap labor of black tenant farmers, cotton was no longer nearly as profitable because the demand had dropped world wide for southern cotton. As for the Civil War being started at Fort Sumter: The south told Lincoln NOT to sail a supply ship to Ft. Sumter, not only did Lincoln do so but he also placed troops on that ship. However, the first blood of the Civil War was not shed at Ft. Sumter, it was shed in Bleeding Kansas. If your not familiar, do your history.