[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593037]they didn't even tell you what the fight was about? we learned about nearly every major war in every country (except europe because they had about 10 a week at the time) from 1800 on[/QUOTE]
the fight was about the right to keep slaves. yeah you could say states rights vs federal rights but i thought the issue it came down to was the confederacy refusing to abolish slavery?
I dunno why everyone thinks the South was the only one with slaves. The north had em too and the war was never about freeing them. The only reason the north abolished was to hurt the south's coin purses.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;33593043]i was under the impression that alot of pressure to have war with the south came from the many abolitionists of the north who wanted the slaves of the south freed? i'll admit i don't know that much about the issues, being from NZ and not really reading that much about it. i've only really seen movies about it, and i guess Glory didn't really glorify the south all that much :P[/QUOTE]
it wasn't abolitionists of the north wanting to free slaves of the south, it was abolitionists of the united states wanting to free slaves of the united states. the north had them too.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593051]do you even know what states rights means?[/QUOTE]
human rights mean more than states rights!
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33593017]They fought to defend their homeland against an army that burnt their cities and raped their women.[/QUOTE]
the confederacy attacked first in 1861 that doesn't make a lot of sense
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593061]it wasn't abolitionists of the north wanting to free slaves of the south, it was abolitionists of the united states wanting to free slaves of the united states. the north had them too.[/QUOTE]
ok i was under the impression that the majority of abolitionists (and especially the ones with political pull) were in the north.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593051]do you even know what states rights means?[/QUOTE]
no-one mentioned states rights except in the context of slaves. every time a state seceded it mentioned slavery as a primary reason.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;33593058]I dunno why everyone thinks the South was the only one with slaves. The north had em too and the war was never about freeing them. The only reason the north abolished was to hurt the south's coin purses.[/QUOTE]
The war was about freeing slaves, though. Lincoln was a staunch abolitionist, and the Republican Party was staunchly abolitionist. Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, many southern states didn't like it and seceded.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;33593052]the fight was about the right to keep slaves. yeah you could say states rights vs federal rights but i thought the issue it came down to was the confederacy refusing to abolish slavery?[/QUOTE]
slavery wasn't even a relevant problem until Lincoln made it a point to abolish slavery because the south had a lot of money in slaves. Lincoln himself did own slaves before his presidency, but if the south won the war Lincoln would have been out of office. He did what it took to stay in office, he didn't free them on an issue of morality.
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=thisispain;33593076]no-one mentioned states rights except in the context of slaves. every time a state seceded it mentioned slavery as a primary reason.[/QUOTE]
ok yes you've confirmed that you don't know what states rights means. read the tenth amendment, it's been in constant violation since the end of the war.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593061]it wasn't abolitionists of the north wanting to free slaves of the south, it was abolitionists of the united states wanting to free slaves of the united states. the [b]South[/b] had them too.[/QUOTE]
The biggest reason for the war was to keep the country united, but there's rarely (if ever) just one reason a war occurs. I'm sure there were loads of other socioeconomic factors that played a role.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33593082]The war was about freeing slaves, though. Lincoln was a staunch abolitionist, and the Republican Party was staunchly abolitionist. Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, many southern states didn't like it and seceded.[/QUOTE]
Refer to ButsexV3's post. Lincoln himself said that the war wasn't [i]initially[/i] about slavery.
If I'm not mistaken, the South was seceded from the North [i]primarily[/i] to maintain slave rights. However, the North could have let them do that peacefully; war was not technically necessary. The president did not did not decide to go to war based on a particular set of morals pertaining to blacks; rather, to keep the country united.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33593064]the confederacy attacked first in 1861 that doesn't make a lot of sense[/QUOTE]
The confederate army grew immensely when the Union soldiers moved into the South, though. Armies don't stay a static size. Also it's sort of hard to look at the rubble of your city and say "Well, our side attacked first, so I'll let this slide".
[QUOTE=thisispain;33593076]no-one mentioned states rights except in the context of slaves. every time a state seceded it mentioned slavery as a primary reason.[/QUOTE]
States rights in the context of slavery was definitely the [i]primary[/i] reason.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593089]slavery wasn't even a relevant problem until Lincoln made it a point to abolish slavery because the south had a lot of money in slaves. Lincoln himself did own slaves before his presidency, but if the south won the war Lincoln would have been out of office. He did what it took to stay in office, he didn't free them on an issue of morality.
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
ok yes you've confirmed that you don't know what states rights means. read the tenth amendment, it's been in constant violation since the end of the war.[/QUOTE]
Um Lincoln did abolish slavery out of morality. Lincoln was an abolitionist.
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;33593070]ok i was under the impression that the majority of abolitionists (and especially the ones with political pull) were in the north.[/QUOTE]
They were. Slavery didn't develop well in the north, and so it cultivated a lot of abolitionists and progressive minds.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593089]
ok yes you've confirmed that you don't know what states rights means.[/QUOTE]
i do know what states rights means but you are engaging in historical revisionism by diminishing the role of slavery in not only the secession but also the civil war. states rights is all good and fine but in this context they were talking about the right to keep slaves and have the right to secede.
these arguments aren't new, they've been constantly brought up and every single time they have failed because it's quite crystal clear when reading what the confederates wrote.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593089]slavery wasn't even a relevant problem until Lincoln made it a point to abolish slavery because the south had a lot of money in slaves. Lincoln himself did own slaves before his presidency, but if the south won the war Lincoln would have been out of office. He did what it took to stay in office, he didn't free them on an issue of morality.
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
ok yes you've confirmed that you don't know what states rights means. read the tenth amendment, it's been in constant violation since the end of the war.[/QUOTE]
how was it not a relevant problem? i thought the right to keep slaves was the right that the southern states seceded over?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33593120]Um Lincoln did abolish slavery out of morality. Lincoln was an abolitionist.[/QUOTE]
He only did it to cripple the South's economy.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;33593142]He only did it to cripple the South's economy.[/QUOTE]
but the souths economy was already crippled by slavery? didn't the european powers not want to trade with them due to them keeping slaves?
[QUOTE=-nesto-;33593142]He only did it to cripple the South's economy.[/QUOTE]
they had the debate about slavery long before the south seceded. all northern states began slowly abolishing slavery in the early 1800's and congress also banned its trade.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;33593140]how was it not a relevant problem? i thought the right to keep slaves was the right that the southern states seceded over?[/QUOTE]
Again no, it was about states rights.
The United States isn't supposed to be a nation, it's supposed to be a union. it's right there in the name. As is the federal government is the top power and what they say goes no matter what the states say, but that's not how it's supposed to be. the federal government is meant to be a catch all law system that accounts for laws not in place by the individual states.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;33593142]He only did it to cripple the South's economy.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure there was a bit of both involved.
If I'm not mistaken the South was actually the first to offer freedom for fighting against the opposition. It wasn't until after that that the North did so as well. But I may have the reversed. Either way, I'm pretty sure both sides were offering freedom for fighting on their side.
I might add though; even after the war was over, the South was severely punished for several years afterwards.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;33593171]but the souths economy was already crippled by slavery? didn't the european powers not want to trade with them due to them keeping slaves?[/QUOTE]
Hell naaaaw. They didn't give 2 shits.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593197]Again no, it was about states rights.
The United States isn't supposed to be a nation, it's supposed to be a union. it's right there in the name. As is the federal government is the top power and what they say goes no matter what the states say, but that's not how it's supposed to be. the federal government is meant to be a catch all law system that accounts for laws not in place by the individual states.[/QUOTE]
I agree with that, but Slavery was a [i]huge[/i] part of those state rights.
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=thisispain;33593176]they had the debate about slavery long before the south seceded. all northern states began slowly abolishing slavery in the early 1800's and congress also banned its trade.[/QUOTE]
The debate was decades long and they always tried to push it off.
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;33593171]but the souths economy was already crippled by slavery? didn't the european powers not want to trade with them due to them keeping slaves?[/QUOTE]
The South was the provide of most of the worlds cotton.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593197]
The United States isn't supposed to be a nation, it's supposed to be a union.[/QUOTE]
is that really relevant when debating what the flag represents and what the confederacy stood for?
[editline]5th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=OvB;33593215]
The debate was decades long and they always tried to push it off.
[/QUOTE]
right but they didn't ban slavery just to spite or crush the south's economy.
Lincoln was one of the worst presidents in history and his only shining achievement is freeing the slaves, but even then his intentions were foul.
Unfortunately freeing the slaves was seen as such a big deal all the people now see him as one of the greatest presidents ever for that one achievement.
What nobody seems to get is that there is absolutely no black and white when it comes to war, but billions of shades of grey. The way I see it, the CSA's side was just a little bit lighter.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;33593142]He only did it to cripple the South's economy.[/QUOTE]
No, he did it because he thought that slavery was evil.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery[/url]
"Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature -- opposition to it is in his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks, and throes, and convulsions must ceaselessly follow. Repeal the Missouri Compromise -- repeal all compromises -- repeal the declaration of independence -- repeal all past history, you still can not repeal human nature. It still will be the abundance of man's heart, that slavery extension is wrong; and out of the abundance of his heart, his mouth will continue to speak. "
"This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave."
[QUOTE=thisispain;33593224]is that really relevant when debating what the flag represents and what the confederacy stood for?
[editline]5th December 2011[/editline]
right but they didn't ban slavery just to spite or crush the south's economy.[/QUOTE]
No... they did. That was the primary reason. I'm sure there was some morals mixed in there on a decision like that, but the [i]main[/i] reason for making a call like that was to fuck the South.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593197] As is the federal government is the top power and what they say goes no matter what the states say, but that's not how it's supposed to be. the federal government is meant to be a catch all law system that accounts for laws not in place by the individual states.[/QUOTE]
Those two sentences contradict each other. If the Federal Government is a catch all then it is the top power.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33593248]No, he did it because he thought that slavery was evil.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery[/url]
"Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature -- opposition to it is in his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks, and throes, and convulsions must ceaselessly follow. Repeal the Missouri Compromise -- repeal all compromises -- repeal the declaration of independence -- repeal all past history, you still can not repeal human nature. It still will be the abundance of man's heart, that slavery extension is wrong; and out of the abundance of his heart, his mouth will continue to speak. "
"This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave."[/QUOTE]
If I'm not mistaken, he only started saying shit like that [i]after[/i] the war started and he realized he could use anti-slavery to damage the South. Didn't he own slaves?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33593248]No, he did it because he thought that slavery was evil.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery[/url]
"Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature -- opposition to it is in his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks, and throes, and convulsions must ceaselessly follow. Repeal the Missouri Compromise -- repeal all compromises -- repeal the declaration of independence -- repeal all past history, you still can not repeal human nature. It still will be the abundance of man's heart, that slavery extension is wrong; and out of the abundance of his heart, his mouth will continue to speak. "
"This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave."[/QUOTE]
from a prepared speech. I can sugar coat things too
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33593260]Those two sentences contradict each other. If the Federal Government is a catch all then it is the top power.[/QUOTE]
catch all as in whatever falls through the cracks in the state.
[QUOTE=Master X;33593256]No... they did. That was the primary reason. I'm sure there was some morals mixed in there on decided that, but the [i]main[/i] reason for making a call like that was to fuck the South.[/QUOTE]
umm what do you have to prove this?
[editline]5th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593270]from a prepared speech. I can sugar coat things too
[/QUOTE]
ultimately it's the word of a former united states president against yours. yawmwen posted something that shows he did think slavery was evil and simply insisting that he didn't believe that isn't very strong evidence.
unless you can read zombie minds
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.