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

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk



I think Abe is trying to tell you something: "One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war."



And this was after or toward the end of the war?

Kinda like everyone knows this war was to free the iraqis


Ok, let's just stop arguing, because we're not going to get anywhere because we're both pretty much close-minded on this. You've made some good points that i agree with, and I think I've made some good points, too. I now think that the reason for war changed over the years, from saving the union, to a new birth of freedom, and in the end mostly slavery.




posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 09:06 PM
link   


Ok, let's just stop arguing,


Again we agree


but Im right



posted on Mar, 14 2004 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk



Ok, let's just stop arguing,


Again we agree


but Im right


No, I'm right.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 06:08 PM
link   
In a nut-shell what was the summary reason for the civil war, and could it have been avoided? Or was it merely inevitable?



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 08:52 PM
link   
today was the last day of my 400 level history class on the civil war, so this is all real fresh.

my personal feeling is it was inevitable.

i also feel that slavery was 100% wrong, but the south was 95% right in this war.

i went through school all my life and had to get to college to find out the truth about what happend in my own state in the war. Lincoln sent federal troops into my home state of marylands capital and suspended the writ of habius corpus (spelling?).

that is the right not to be jailed without fair trial
(it seems like this has happend again recently, *cough*patrioit act*cough*)

so lincoln threw all the pro-states rights senators into prison and forced maryland to remain in the union. even though they had not left the union yet! Maryland was still in the union when he jailed those people.
THAT WAS ILLEAGAL

if the federal governemnt can do what ever they want without regard to the law then they can do it anytime they want, and they are. now, today, sure its terrorist right now, but whos a terrrorist? am i for typing this?

anyway the souths declaration of independance says it the best when jefferson davis said "all we want is to be left alone"

but the federal government wont leave you alone.

also the 14th ammendment didnt free the slaves, it made us all slaves. if anyone cares at all i could go more into this.

but to sum it up slavery was wrong, but the south was working to get rid of it. the reason they didnt right away is because it would collapse their economy instantly. it would take time like the rest of the world it was a slow process. Lincoln didnt want that, he wanted total control and could care less about the south. look at shermans march, is that what you do to your fellow citizens?

the south was right and we are still paying for it today with the big government.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 09:28 PM
link   

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?



but the english were being tyranical towards the colonies. i dont recall the union doing anything similar to the south before the cession of the war.



posted on Nov, 17 2004 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Not many of the CSA soilders even owned slaves. It was about state rights mostly and the fact that the North and the South had started going separate ways from each other long before the start of the war on a lot of issues. Slavery was only one of these issues. The reason slavery was an issue is because of so many states being let in as "free states". The South started haveing less political power, even though it had to pay high taxes to the Union.
I side with the South because it had the constitutional RIGHT at that time to secede from the Union if it wanted to.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 03:39 AM
link   
.
I am less sanguine about the North winning the civil war these days.
I was brought up with all the standard selling points of, maintaining the union and ending US slavery.

In older age, viewed from an amoralistic viewpoint of the above results, there are a lot of problems with a monolithic government in Washington. I am a social liberal and economic moderate/conservative. If i could find a state that operated on those parameters I would much prefer living there.

Obviously for black people the North's abolishment of slavery was a heaven sent event [for which many of them, who were able, fought].

For fighting WWI & WWII it was probably better to have a strong unified nation.

But for engendering diverse societies that do things in different ways, like a social experiment, one size forced to fit all, is not the way to do it.
When Democrats or Republicans [or anyone else] tell everyone they all have to live a certain [supposedly superior] way, please gag me with a spoon.

I fantasize a third front on the civil war that would abolish slavery, have us work together when any other state was attacked, but left each state free to find it's own economic and social way into the future.

It is sort of like the Mormans wanting to consensually practice polygamy. What skin off my nose is it if they can create a socially & economically sound unit that can raise kids decently?
.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by elaine
I side with the South because it had the constitutional RIGHT at that time to secede from the Union if it wanted to.


Not a very good reason to side with them. They also had the RIGHT to own slaves. Just because they have the right to do something doesn't mean it's right and they should do it.


Was it about state's rights? One reason, sure. But besides slavery what other "state right" did they feel they were going to lose? And why didn't the union also feel like they were losing state rights?


"But it brought about a big centralized government"

What the south lacked was foresight. I agree the US gov. is too big, but there is absolutely no evidence that thier vision, the way they wanted the US, would have worked. That's because it wouldn't have worked. Had they won the US (especially the south) would be at least 50 years behind where we are today, socially (especially in regards to race relations), economically, and in just about every other category. We wouldn't be the superpower we are today.
The U.S. is a lot like your body. It works much better with the brain in control, because your foot or ear may want to go and do something stupid. It's not a bad thing to have something keep them in check. Still each limb, etc. is still able to function independently. The right hand can care less what your left leg does.
That's just the way we are. People may not like it, but it works....



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 03:48 PM
link   
for those who still think the war was about slaves consider the 1st Louisianna Native Guards.

they were comprised completly of free black men from New orleans who volunteered to fight for the Confederate States of America.
the reasons they fought was they considered themselves southerneners and didnt want a northern invasion. also it gave them equality with white southerners fighting, but also blacks fought up north. The ones that fought up north also fought so they would be seen as equal by the whites they were fighting with. But neither army was allowed to have "colored" soldiers at the begining of the war. why? cause both governments were racist and it wasnt about race.

not until lincoln did the emancipation proclimation that freed blacks not in union control did the war become about slavery. he did this strictly out of politics because he was getting beat in the war.
it was about states rights



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   
"The U.S. is a lot like your body. It works much better with the brain in control, because your foot or ear may want to go and do something stupid. It's not a bad thing to have something keep them in check. "

i agree and disagree with you on this. i think the reason the war happend was because the "brain" was getting to power hungrey. now a federal government or brain is a needed thing in our government. thats why it was created the way it was but federal government was not supposed to have a limitless exspansion.

now if you want to use the analogy of the body its more like this.
the body is weak and atrophied after sending most of its resources to the brain which has exspanded to be 50 times its original size. the body can barly move, see, or function and it spends most of its time during the day, 38- 48% (Taxes) to supporting the brain.

thats not balence

but once again i do agree with you about how a federal government is needed, but it too has to have limits.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join