would you have supported the North or South?

[trey4sports]

disclaimer: I am not a racist nor do I supported involunitary servitude (slavery) however as we all know the civil war had many complex issues below the surface.

quite simply, who would you have supported and why?

[torchbearer]

The south because the federal government was starting to become overbearing, telling the states what they could do...
This was not the intent... and why a Confederation was made in the south.

The war of nothern aggression should have never happened. States should be free to leave as they were free to join the union.

The war wasn't over slavery, and I would have been in favor of outlawing it and/or buying all the slaves to release them.

I'm with hank, jr. If the south would have won, we'd have it made.
People would be flocking here to escape the tyranny of the north.

In fact, with competing governments, tyranny may have been averted... because the two central governments would have to compete for people and resources.

[tremendoustie]

disclaimer: I am not a racist nor do I supported involunitary servitude (slavery) however as we all know the civil war had many complex issues below the surface.

quite simply, who would you have supported and why?

Neither. I would have opposed the north as imperialistic, and the south because of their immoral support for slavery.

[SigurdVolsung]

My sympathy would be for the South, as I do agree with their arguments over states rights, but in the end the Union must be preserved. A house divided cannot stand.

[torchbearer]

Neither. I would have opposed the north as imperialistic, and the south because of their immoral support for slavery.

Lincoln didn't oppose slavery.

[orafi]

I would have been fighting the Brits in India and fighting Hindus and Sikhs around that time. But if news ever reached me of a civil war, I would have sent some samosas and scimitars over to the confederates, and of course offer a daughter or two in marriage to President Davis.

[nate895]

My sympathy would be for the South, as I do agree with their arguments over states rights, but in the end the Union must be preserved. A house divided cannot stand.

We aren't a house, but a neighborhood. If this is a household, it is the most eclectic group of people to ever compose a family in the history of the world.

[torchbearer]

A house divided cannot stand.

Each state is its own republic.
What we have today is 50 wards to a central monolithic government.
The cliche you wrote doesn't hold water with me.
We don't have to be one republic to have a free society.
We can be a republic of republics also.

[tremendoustie]

Lincoln didn't oppose slavery.

I'm definitely no fan of Lincoln either.

[tremendoustie]

My sympathy would be for the South, as I do agree with their arguments over states rights, but in the end the Union must be preserved. A house divided cannot stand.

I assume you would have been with the redcoats in the revolutionary war then also.

[SigurdVolsung]

If you want to have a bunch of independent republics spread around this continent that's fine but the outcome probably wouldnt have been pretty. I dont agree with a monolithic central government, but there needs to be at least some kind of bond holding all of us together. Otherwise you will have escalating competition between states which could lead to actual war, or you have other powers sticking there nose into the North American honey pot and causing issues.

[Matt Collins]

The South had the legal (Constitutional) high ground

[tremendoustie]

If you want to have a bunch of independent republics spread around this continent that's fine but the outcome probably wouldnt have been pretty. I dont agree with a monolithic central government, but there needs to be at least some kind of bond holding all of us together. Otherwise you will have escalating competition between states which could lead to actual war, or you have other powers sticking there nose into the North American honey pot and causing issues.

Sure, but the bond should be voluntary. If a state wants to opt out, the rest have no right to use violence to stop them. Peaceable competition between states would be fine, and beneficial actually. If states decided to stay in the union, then they would be committing to helping with the common defense in case of foreign invasion, and they would also fall under the protection of the common defense.

[SigurdVolsung]

Sure, but the bond should be voluntary. If a state wants to opt out, the rest have no right to use violence to stop them. Peaceable competition between states would be fine, and beneficial actually.

Thats only if it remains peaceful competition, there are no guarantees it would be that way at all. German states in the Middle Ages fought brutal wars against each other numerous times, and lots of small ones and they were the same people speaking the same language. Europe is a good example of the outcome of competing states. I personally think competition in the long run strengthens, but it is definately rarely peaceful.

[Matt Collins]

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51a6BBfce1L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Civil-Guides/dp/1596985496/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231024034&sr=8-1)







The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South (and Why It Will Rise Again)
(http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-South-Again/dp/1596985003/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b)
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51VQ6D4QQPL._SS500_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-South-Again/dp/1596985003/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b)

[tremendoustie]

Thats only if it remains peaceful competition, there are no guarantees it would be that way at all. German states in the Middle Ages fought brutal wars against each other numerous times, and lots of small ones and they were the same people speaking the same language. Europe is a good example of the outcome of competing states. I personally think competition in the long run strengthens, but it is definately rarely peaceful.

So, in order to prevent peaceful competition from possibly becoming violent, we should use violence to force states to stay peaceful? :confused:

[SigurdVolsung]

So, in order to prevent peaceful competition from possibly becoming violent, we should use violence to force states to stay peaceful? :confused:

No, all I said was my personal opinion was to support keeping the Union whole. I was just commenting on what you said about peaceful competition. I dont mean to imply I think its a terrible idea, because its not, I was just using some of the lessons of history to look at the possible ramifications of such a course. One of those being a low probability of peace in the long term.

[orafi]

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War

[IMG]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51a6BBfce1L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Civil-Guides/dp/1596985496/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231024034&sr=8-1)







The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South (and Why It Will Rise Again)
(http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-South-Again/dp/1596985003/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b)
[IMG]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51VQ6D4QQPL._SS500_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-South-Again/dp/1596985003/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b)


I like some of the books but their publisher is biased towards bible thumpers.

[tremendoustie]

No, all I said was my personal opinion was to support keeping the Union whole. I was just commenting on what you said about peaceful competition. I dont mean to imply I think its a terrible idea, because its not, I was just using some of the lessons of history to look at the possible ramifications of such a course. One of those being a low probability of peace in the long term.

Ah, well, I agree that in the absence of an abusive central government, keeping the states in the union (meaning common defense) is in the best interests of all. I just don't think force should be used to keep the states in the union.

Competition, in a union, would be limited to actions which are mutually beneficial, instead of destructive. States could not impose tariffs for example. Yet, I think it would be a good idea to have states competing for business by offering lower taxes and regulations, for example, and competing for citizens by offering personal liberty. We could also have socialist states, and see how well they do.

[SigurdVolsung]

We had an argument about the use of force in my English/Philosophy course this semester. It was about 60% against force and maybe 40% that said force was necessary. The point that I made against people who thought force shouldn't be used is that in many of the cases where non violent resistance worked the country it was used in generally was founded on principles of democracy or equality of some sort. In America supposedly land of the free seeing us sick dogs on civil rights marchers pointed out the obvious inconsistencies in our policies of equal rights. Similarly in the Raj, Ghandi was attempting to gain political freedom from a country that ostensibly believed in human rights and political freedom.

The flip side of that coin is, try using non violent resistance against Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany. All you would do is bring the attention of the secret police to you for a quick execution. In some cases force can be the only option for recourse. Just as it was for the founding fathers in the Revolutionary war.

[Truth Warrior]

I'd have chosen and pulled a "Jeremiah Johnson". ;) :D

[tremendoustie]

We had an argument about the use of force in my English/Philosophy course this semester. It was about 60% against force and maybe 40% that said force was necessary. The point that I made against people who thought force shouldn't be used is that in many of the cases where non violent resistance worked the country it was used in generally was founded on principles of democracy or equality of some sort. In America supposedly land of the free seeing us sick dogs on civil rights marchers pointed out the obvious inconsistencies in our policies of equal rights. Similarly in the Raj, Ghandi was attempting to gain political freedom from a country that ostensibly believed in human rights and political freedom.

The flip side of that coin is, try using non violent resistance against Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany. All you would do is bring the attention of the secret police to you for a quick execution. In some cases force can be the only option for recourse. Just as it was for the founding fathers in the Revolutionary war.

That is a good and valid debate, and your points are good, but it is a debate between a nonviolent response to violence, or a violent response to violence. That is, the debate is between two forms of self defense. In no case is it acceptable to initiate violence.

[mediahasyou]

I do not support either. I do not support coercive government.

[Matt Collins]

I like some of the books but their publisher is biased towards bible thumpers.

1- How so? :confused:

and

2- And if so, how exactly does that invalidate everything that the publisher puts out? :rolleyes:

[SigurdVolsung]

That is a good and valid debate, and your points are good, but it is a debate between a nonviolent response to violence, or a violent response to violence. That is, the debate is between two forms of self defense. In no case is it acceptable to initiate violence.

Doesn't have to be violence, we were just talking about methods of achieving change. Or redress of grievances, could be something like the Stamp Act, or a concentration camp and anything in between.

[Number19]

The tide of history was already moving in a moral direction. It would have taken time, perhaps a long time, but slavery would have ended before the turn of the 20th century. When major social change occur voluntarily through the legal process, then the social fabric is not torn. Slavery was ended by war and we had segregation until the 60's. It's now almost 150 years and our society is still rippling under the effects of Lincoln's ill-advised war.

[torchbearer]

The tide of history was already moving in a moral direction. It would have taken time, perhaps a long time, but slavery would have ended before the turn of the 20th century. When major social change occur voluntarily through the legal process, then the social fabric is not torn. Slavery was ended by war and we had segregation until the 60's. It's now almost 150 years and our society is still rippling under the effects of Lincoln's ill-advised war.

I've seen an interesting article that said that the advancement in farm implements would have made slavery obsolete eventually.

[orafi]

1- How so? :confused:

and

2- And if so, how exactly does that invalidate everything that the publisher puts out? :rolleyes:

i never said it invalidates them, otherwise i wouldnt have a liking for a few of their books.

have you checked out their books on islam and the bible for their politically incorrect series? wtf? talk about cherry picked and contrived bull shit typical western propaganda (for the first book).

anyways
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::eek::cool:!

[wizardwatson]

Slavery was an injustice, but waging war is another injustice, especially if that war is to keep the states in a state of "involuntary servitude" to the federal government.

No slaves were freed in the civil war, the whole country became slaves.

[asimplegirl]

I would have supported the south just as my ancestors did.

Reasons? To get the federal government out of my business, and to have state's rights. That way, no matter which state you lived in, you would have one atleast that matched your views.

And, on slavery, the issue was not brought up until a year into the war, and oddly enough not even by Lincoln.

In January 1862, Thaddeus Stevens, the Republican leader in the House, called for total war against the rebellion to include emancipation of slaves, arguing that emancipation, by forcing the loss of enslaved labor, would ruin the rebel economy. In July 1862, Congress passed and Lincoln signed the "Second Confiscation Act." It liberated slaves held by "rebels".[3]

The Emancipation Proclamation consists of two executive orders issued by United States. The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. The second order, issued January 1, 1863, named the specific states where it applied.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished and continues to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was adopted on December 6, 1865, and was then declared in a proclamation of Secretary of State William H. Seward on December 18.

[Time for Change]

The South

[demolama]

Thats only if it remains peaceful competition, there are no guarantees it would be that way at all. German states in the Middle Ages fought brutal wars against each other numerous times, and lots of small ones and they were the same people speaking the same language. Europe is a good example of the outcome of competing states. I personally think competition in the long run strengthens, but it is definately rarely peaceful.

That is why the federal Constitution outlawed states keeping troops in times of peace. They didn't want states to battle eachother. They also added the commerce clause to keep the states from taxing products from other states and crippling the economy like they did during the Articles time.

[AggieforPaul]

Neither. The North was protectionist, hawkish, and authoritarian. The South was collectivist (racist). Both sides printed money to pay for the war.

[krazy kaju]

South because states rights > federal gov't and slavery was on its way to extinction naturally, anyways.

Less bloodshed + less federal government power + end of slavery = win

[nate895]

Neither. The North was protectionist, hawkish, and authoritarian. The South was collectivist (racist). Both sides printed money to pay for the war.

If you are going to say he South was racist, you have to also say the North was ten times more racist. Northerners wouldn't even hire blacks. 50,000 free blacks moved from the North to Virginia alone in the 1850s since Southerners actually hired black people and didn't feel it was an insult to "free white labor".

[satchelmcqueen]

from all the history ive read , that goes beyond the public schools teachings, ild go with the south.

[SigurdVolsung]

That is why the federal Constitution outlawed states keeping troops in times of peace. They didn't want states to battle eachother. They also added the commerce clause to keep the states from taxing products from other states and crippling the economy like they did during the Articles time.

True, but as soon as secessions begin the rules can change from state to state. Each state would at least maintain their equivalent of a National Guard, it would also depend on how the splits started to occur. One of the reasons NA is pretty free of violence is because there are pretty much only 3 countries on the continent. If you split yourself up into a bunch of enclaves you just have to open a history book and see what the end result will probably be given enough time.

[nate895]

True, but as soon as secessions begin the rules can change from state to state. Each state would at least maintain their equivalent of a National Guard, it would also depend on how the splits started to occur. One of the reasons NA is pretty free of violence is because there are pretty much only 3 countries on the continent. If you split yourself up into a bunch of enclaves you just have to open a history book and see what the end result will probably be given enough time.

We would live on a continent of Republics. The people of America don't have much desire for war with each other, they tend to like peace and freedom much more. We have no princes to send us to war to increase their tiny dominions. On the contrary, since we live in republics, our power would be decreased if we conquered more people and territories.

[SigurdVolsung]

We would live on a continent of Republics. The people of America don't have much desire for war with each other, they tend to like peace and freedom much more. We have no princes to send us to war to increase their tiny dominions. On the contrary, since we live in republics, our power would be decreased if we conquered more people and territories.

Possibly, and very well probably would start out as such, but I wouldn't bet on the state of affairs remaining as idyllic for any long portion of time.

[slacker921]

When the war started were both sides equally represented in wealth? ...

Are we in similar circumstances today? Is that why the question is being raised?

[libertarian4321]

The North, because that's where my ancestors lived at the time and where I probably would have been drafted, even though I live in the South now.

[nate895]

When the war started were both sides equally represented in wealth? ...

Are we in similar circumstances today? Is that why the question is being raised?

They were about equal in wealth, but the South paid around 90% of the tax burden.

[nate895]

Possibly, and very well probably would start out as such, but I wouldn't bet on the state of affairs remaining as idyllic for any long portion of time.

I'd imagine that each union would maintain its own military forces, but I cannot foresee them battling it out with each other. As long as each union maintained a free republic, then they'd be at peace. If one became totalitarian, then there would be war, but that will happen under totalitarian regimes, even if they are consolidated.

[Chosen]

This is a very easy answer for me. I would chose what my ancestors did and side with the South. It is very simple, the legal and moral ground sided with the Southern States. Slavery was NOT the cause of the war, but the recruitment slogan for the average sloth thrust into the Army of Northern Aggression.

As quoted many times, a Southern soldier was asked why he was fighting the North and he answered: "because they're down here." This puts the conflict in the simplest and most honest of terms. It also prudent to point out the the South had no desertion on principle, troops left only to defend their families, while the North had massive desertions based on low morale. The Northern army was a revolving door of recruits and deserters. This shows you the feelings of the average soldier and where the morality lies.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

I would have been a Confederate without question. My ancestors were Confederate soldiers and sailors and I would have been as well. All of the other reason for why I would have been a Confederate have been mentioned already.

Deo Vindice indeed

[LibertyEagle]

I'd have chosen and pulled a "Jeremiah Johnson". ;) :D

He fought.

[Pauls' Revere]

I'd have chosen and pulled a "Jeremiah Johnson". ;) :D

I was thinkin sorta like Montana or somethin myself

[raiha]

I would have been fighting the Brits in India and fighting Hindus and Sikhs around that time. But if news ever reached me of a civil war, I would have sent some samosas and scimitars over to the confederates, and of course offer a daughter or two in marriage to President Davis.

:D:D Yes indeedy, India and the South share hospitality as a positive quality.

I would have been in the Jeb Stuart's cavalry...who cares if i' a female.

For those who say the South was racist...who WASN'T then? New York was built on slave cotton money. Massachussets and New England spun the cotton...474 looms they had in NE. Money yum..
Who built the slave ships in the first place?
How many slaves were burnt at the stake, hanged and/or sent packing back to their slave masters during the New York riots?
Why did Mr Lincoln send a whole pile of them "back to where they came from" where they didn't speak the lingo, it wasn't home, they didnt know anyone. Liberia. In the Haiti experiment they died in their droves of hunger and disease.
Best send them back to Africa thought Abraham befoe they start thinking about marrying white Illinois girls.
A new zealander shouldn't reeeaaaally be giving you history lessons about what really happened. As usual the victors of war get to write the fables/ i mean, history.

[psywarrior13]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd1oA47Ti0I

The CSA

Edit: NOT advocating violent revolution

[Kilrain]

The South, for a multitude of reasons.

This seems a good thread to plug my all-time favorite movie, available in four parts here:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=gettysburg&emb=0&aq=f#

"Gettysburg" June 30, 1863

"Gettysburg" July 1, 1863

"Gettysburg" July 2, 1863

"Gettysburg" July 3, 1863

[TruthisTreason]

disclaimer: I am not a racist nor do I supported involunitary servitude (slavery) however as we all know the civil war had many complex issues below the surface.

quite simply, who would you have supported and why?

The South. The reason I would have supported the south is simple. The north invaded, the north were pushing massive tariffs, secession should be recognized by the other states of the "United States" and last but not least Abraham Lincoln, The Dictator.

Not all southerners own slaves. And I know this southerner doesn't want ANY!;)

[RJB]

I would have went west.

[mconder]

The south. Slavery would have ended peacefully just as it did in England.

[Kludge]

I would have joined the ten-person group of grumbling libertarians representing the combined states of Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.

[Aratus]

i'd have supported abe lincoln over jefferson davis and/or thaddeus stevens and
hopefully andrew johnson over edwin stanton and the same said thaddeus stevens.
over time, amendments 13,14 and 15 became the law of the land, and the latter
two achieved this status over a string of vetos by a sitting and very legal potus...

the tragedy of the civil war is if slavery is the primary fuse, then why not compensate both
slave and master insted of having all those inflationary paper monies printed thusly to wage war...

[Cowlesy]

Great x 3 Grandpa Alfred (I think..me, dad, grandpa, great grandpa jim, great-great grandpa horace, great-great-great grandpa alfred) hid slaves in his house and then under hay on his wagon as he transported them from his farm up to the NY State border (he was in PA), so I would have sided with Freedom.

[gaazn]

the Indians in Oklahoma.

[torchbearer]

Great x 3 Grandpa Alfred (I think..me, dad, grandpa, great grandpa jim, great-great grandpa horace, great-great-great grandpa alfred) hid slaves in his house and then under hay on his wagon as he transported them from his farm up to the NY State border (he was in PA), so I would have sided with Freedom.

My family back then didn't own slaves, they were indentured servants.
Not every person in the south was a slave owner, just a few big rich white plantation owner.
How many of the guys who died for the south actually owned slaves? How many were former indentured servants...
Had I picked up a rifle for the south, I would have picked it up for my state because it was a soveriegn republic, and the country I am a citizen of...
That is the fight for freedom. State rights vs Central Government.
Central Government won in 1865.
Do you feel very free today with 50 wards to a central planner?

[torchbearer]

the Indians in Oklahoma.

Some of my family are cherokee from fort smith, ark and del city, ok.
Those natives also fought with the south and for similar reasons as I state above.
The federal government is the one who drug them from their homes and put them on the reservations.

[Chosen]

The South. The reason I would have supported the south is simple. The north invaded, the north were pushing massive tariffs, secession should be recognized by the other states of the "United States" and last but not least Abraham Lincoln, The Dictator.

Not all southerners own slaves. And I know this southerner doesn't want ANY!;)

Yes this is a point that always seems to be overlooked. Next time you go to a bus stop, count the number of multi-millionaires waiting for the bus. This would provide the correct ratio of slave owners to the population in the south. Slaves cost about $1200 and up to $1800 dollars in 1860. The average income of a very successful plantation was around $900-$1200 annual before the war broke out and rapidly declined during and after.

[gaazn]

The problem with the South is that they seceded from the Union, which would kill any democratic republic. What is the point in voting when a state can refuse to recognize the results of the vote?

[tremendoustie]

The problem with the South is that they seceded from the Union, which would kill any democratic republic. What is the point in voting when a state can refuse to recognize the results of the vote?

The federal government should be doing a lot less. What's more, if a state did decide to secede, they would risk losing benefits, such as common defense.

Voting at the federal level should primarily regard foreign policy, making sure interstate commerce is free, perhaps running the post office, things of that nature. The federal government should not be imposing its will on the states.

[worl]

The south & if the south had won we would'nt be fighting now against the same oppressive central gov. we have now. Of course if your gov. educated & trust the fed. gov. you will be taught that the war was fought to end slavery. I suspect our fed. text books will also be full of legitamate reasons for the Iraq war & every other illegal war.

[torchbearer]

The problem with the South is that they seceded from the Union, which would kill any democratic republic. What is the point in voting when a state can refuse to recognize the results of the vote?

THe majority of states should not force its will on other states, even by majority vote.
The purpose of the federal government is to provide for a common defense... and, if ALL the affected states agree... a post office and interstate road systems...

That is why each state was given two votes in the senate... and why the socialist posers wanted the senator directly elected by the people.
The senate gave the states power to fight bullshit "mob democracy".
This isn't a democracy, its a republic. Rights can not be taken by majority vote...
Government shall be used as self-defense.
Federal government- defense from outside invasion
State/Local government- defense from your neighbors.

[Standing Like A Rock]

here is a good question:

Who held slaves after the conclusion of the civil war, Union General Grant or Confederate General Lee?













Answer: Grant held slaves.

The civil war was not about slavery, Lincoln just made it about slavery. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation because he was loosing the war and needed to give the north another reason for fighting than just to preserve the union. The proclamation also did not abolish slavery in all of the US, only those states in open rebellion at the time of the proclamation. He even told the confederate states that if they stopped rebelling, they could keep their slaves. But the south was fighting for their independence, not their slaves, and therefore kept fighting.


I would throw my full support towards the south, by the way.

Long live the confederacy!!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/CSA_Flag_21.5.1861-2.7.1861.svg/800px-CSA_Flag_21.5.1861-2.7.1861.svg.png

[dr. hfn]

the south, they would eventually have given up slavery

[Mesogen]

Neither. I would have opposed the north as imperialistic, and the south because of their immoral support for slavery.

I think this is pretty close to my opinion as well.

I think that the way the North went about 'preserving the union' was all wrong but those were still the days of guts and glory.

If I had to chose one to support, then I'd have to go with the North as the lesser of two evils. But they were still evil. The crap they did to the Indians and how they acquired new land was shitty. The whole GD country was evil at the time.

Here is something written about the "Slave Power" of the South and why it was actually antithetical to "states rights."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Power

"Between the slave power and states' rights there was no necessary connection. The slave power, when in control, was a centralizing influence, and all the most considerable encroachments on states' rights were its acts. The acquisition and admission of Louisiana; the Embargo; the War of 1812; the annexation of Texas "by joint resolution" [rather than treaty]; the war with Mexico, declared by the mere announcement of President Polk; the Fugitive Slave Law; the Dred Scott decision — all triumphs of the slave power — did far more than either tariffs or internal improvements, which in their origin were also southern measures, to destroy the very memory of states' rights as they existed in 1789. Whenever a question arose of extending or protecting slavery, the slaveholders became friends of centralized power, and used that dangerous weapon with a kind of frenzy. Slavery in fact required centralization in order to maintain and protect itself, but it required to control the centralized machine; it needed despotic principles of government, but it needed them exclusively for its own use. Thus, in truth, states' rights were the protection of the free states, and as a matter of fact, during the domination of the slave power, Massachusetts appealed to this protecting principle as often and almost as loudly as South Carolina."



Lincoln didn't oppose slavery.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

He was politically opposed the to "Slave Power" of the South and he didn't like slavery itself, but he was not a strong political opponent of the practice of slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_on_slavery

In a letter to Horace Greely:

" I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."


His first priority was to keep the country together, and if he could do that without freeing slaves, he'd live with that. He didn't really like slavery, but it was something he could live with.



I assume you would have been with the redcoats in the revolutionary war then also.

There is a difference between fighting for freedom and fighting for slavery.

[Mesogen]

the south, they would eventually have given up slavery

Then why did they preserve and protect it in their constitution?

The constitution of the CSA:

http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.


In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

[Mesogen]

As quoted many times, a Southern soldier was asked why he was fighting the North and he answered: "because they're down here." This puts the conflict in the simplest and most honest of terms. It also prudent to point out the the South had no desertion on principle, troops left only to defend their families, while the North had massive desertions based on low morale. The Northern army was a revolving door of recruits and deserters. This shows you the feelings of the average soldier and where the morality lies.

The South started to lose when they went "up there" and invaded the North for the second time.

[Mesogen]

The south & if the south had won we would'nt be fighting now against the same oppressive central gov. we have now. Of course if your gov. educated & trust the fed. gov. you will be taught that the war was fought to end slavery. I suspect our fed. text books will also be full of legitamate reasons for the Iraq war & every other illegal war.

You're right. 2 countries would be fighting 2 oppressive central governments.

[Standing Like A Rock]

You're right. 2 countries would be fighting 2 oppressive central governments.

or we may be speaking Japanese... you never know...

[zade]

The South had the legal (Constitutional) high ground

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was 'legal' and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was 'illegal.' " -Martin Luther King Jr

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[trey4sports]

The South.

My two cents on the Civil War:

The south was clearly under represented in government at a national level. Which led to decades of taxation and policy that further economically disadvantaged the south. Eventually a few states succeeded.

Then the federal government said no you can't secede. And further said, if you continue on this course we are going to raise an army and use it on domestic soil to prevent you from seceding. That led to other states succeeding because they did not believe the federal government had the constitutional authority or power to use military force to coerce a state.

Not only did the south have the moral and constitutional high ground. They clearly repelled everything the north was able to initially muster. The war did not turn against the south until they became the aggressor.


i have always wanted to get a tattoo that says "Live Free or Die"

[Mesogen]

i have always wanted to get a tattoo that says "Live Free or Die"

Like Ron Paul said: "I'd Rather Be Free AND Alive."

[tonesforjonesbones]

The South of course! My ancestors fought for the Confederacy...General Alexander P. Stewart and Dr. Benjamin Stewart who was a physician for the Confederacy..and I am sure there were more. It is strange to think my grandfather was born only 16 years after the War of Northern Aggression ended. He died when I was 3 years old..maybe 4. he was 75..he got a late start. He was a Southern Gentleman from Chatanooga Tennessee.

General Alexander P. Stewart is googlable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_P._Stewart

[nate895]

Then why did they preserve and protect it in their constitution?

The constitution of the CSA:

http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.


In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Where does it state that states cannot take legislative action, nor that the Constitution be amended?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[xd9fan]

I'm from the North......and I LOVE my birthstate.

I'm an Anti-Federalist (which of course means pro-federalism)
I would have supported the South.
Slavery could never have kept going....never.

[Theocrat]

I definitely would have supported the South simply because of the unconstitutional tyranny emanating from the North. Also, I would have loved to been in General Robert E. Lee's and General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson's brigades because they both were badasses. :D

[gaazn]

Also, I would have loved to been in General Robert E. Lee's and General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson's brigades because they both were badasses. :D


The only man who could have won the war for the South was Nathan Bedford Forrest. Everyone else was second rate.

[SovereignMN]

I definitely would have supported the South simply because of the unconstitutional tyranny emanating from the North. Also, I would have loved to been in General Robert E. Lee's and General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson's brigades because they both were badasses. :D

If the good Lord blesses me with another, my next son's name will be "Thomas Jackson". :D

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

disclaimer: I am not a racist nor do I supported involunitary servitude (slavery) however as we all know the civil war had many complex issues below the surface.

quite simply, who would you have supported and why?

disclaimer: I too am not a racist having owned a black dog. Also, it is believed that one of my grandmother's pedigree may have been part Jewish. Plus I was a sophisticated student once who attended a University.

Okay. This answer will take many parts.

Part 1. This first part deals with the Puritan socio-economic cultural aspects woven into the fabric of the American way. The early American settlers ancestors did not know how to farm, they having crossed the ocean as artisans and master craftsmen.
This is why early Americans almost starved. Farming was thought to be menial labor beneath the dignity of most who desired to rise in social ranking. Ironically, it wasn't the growing of food that saved the early settlers but the growing of tobacco. They learned to grow the tobacco to trade for food.

The solution which enabled the artisan and master craftsman to take up a life of farming? The Puritan work ethic. Work oneself to death.

Next: Part 2 to this fascinating personal enrichment question.

[Kalifornia]

I'd have headed West. Both sides were in the wrong. Slavery was BS, but so was the idea that states couldnt leave the Union if they wanted to.

I wouldnt have signed up to die for either concept.

[torchbearer]

I'd have headed West. Both sides were in the wrong. Slavery was BS, but so was the idea that states couldnt leave the Union if they wanted to.

I wouldnt have signed up to die for either concept.

How is that monolithic federal government treating the western states these days?
Can you still go furthur west to avoid it?
Or has it pushed freedom completely into the pacific?

[M House]

Anybody go for blockade runner?

[nate895]

Not only did the south have the moral and constitutional high ground. They clearly repelled everything the north was able to initially muster. The war did not turn against the south until they became the aggressor.

When did they become the aggressor? I think you are confusing aggression, which is a political or social tool to force some person or entity to do something that is beyond your rights, and offensive military tactics, which are simply a tactic used to defeat your enemy military, whether you are aggressive or not in doing so depends entirely on what your objectives are in the war. The South's goal in invading the North was to force them to recognize the independence of their sovereign states, a goal which is entirely within their right and therefore, despite the fact that they were using invasion as a military means to their political end, they were not committing aggression.

Separately, you can fight a defensive war on your own soil and be the aggressor. Hitler is a prime example, even though his troops were fighting for their own soil in Western Germany, he was the aggressor because six years earlier he invaded another sovereign country with the goal of conquering it, (obviously) outside of his rights, and then he proceeded two years after that invasion to declare war against the United States despite the fact that they had not committed any aggression against Germany.

[travisAlbert]

I would be in support of the north. We tried to kill off the idea of an aristocracy in 1776 and it survived in the south through the institution of slavery. Although I do not like Lincoln, I hate slavery even more. In fact, I probably would have fought with John Brown, or I would have done John Brown like missions where I would have gone around murdering lazy, fat-ass, scum-fucking slave owners. If it takes a war of aggression to end a practice that was not only embarassing, but also fundamentally racist and contradictory to the principles of liberty, then so be it.

[heavenlyboy34]

I would be in support of the north. We tried to kill off the idea of an aristocracy in 1776 and it survived in the south through the institution of slavery. Although I do not like Lincoln, I hate slavery even more. In fact, I probably would have fought with John Brown, or I would have done John Brown like missions where I would have gone around murdering lazy, fat-ass, scum-fucking slave owners. If it takes a war of aggression to end a practice that was not only embarassing, but also fundamentally racist and contradictory to the principles of liberty, then so be it.
:eek:
Gosh, that's not a very nice way to go about it! :( I don't think RP would approve.

[anaconda]

The South had almost no social infrastructure. All of it's trade was import/export with Europe. Few business people holding vast lots of acreage of cotton & tobacco. Cheap labor. But, as many have observed, slavery was not the real issue. Probably more like unwanted tariffs. I have heard the argument that technology would have replaced the need for slave labor. As unfortunate as slavery was, perhaps the states would have evolved.

[nate895]

I would be in support of the north. We tried to kill off the idea of an aristocracy in 1776 and it survived in the south through the institution of slavery. Although I do not like Lincoln, I hate slavery even more. In fact, I probably would have fought with John Brown, or I would have done John Brown like missions where I would have gone around murdering lazy, fat-ass, scum-fucking slave owners. If it takes a war of aggression to end a practice that was not only embarassing, but also fundamentally racist and contradictory to the principles of liberty, then so be it.

Because violence is always the way to solve social ills. Slavery would have died in the South over time anyway, probably by the turn of the century, maybe a little bit after. Instead of that, they got a massive invasion which freed slaves who were not ready to be free in a land where all the wealth had been burned to the ground, forcing the slaves (and some whites) to become roving bandits stealing for a living, which caused tension between the races that led to segregation and racism the likes had only before been seen in the North. One of the reasons why Southerners did not free the slaves in 1832 after Nat Turner's rebellion was because the only real option was to colonize the slaves, and they didn't do that because a bond of affection had developed in between the master and slave.

[Dianne]

I would have to choose the south over the north, only because we have all the guns down here, lol...

The south was pretty rebelious until the government started putting crap in our food and our prescriptions. Now most of the oldtimers I meet, look much like a stepford wife; totally bombed out and incoherent.

[ihsv]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8NHVaRL_FQ

:D

[teshuah]

Some of my family are cherokee from fort smith, ark and del city, ok.
Those natives also fought with the south and for similar reasons as I state above.
The federal government is the one who drug them from their homes and put them on the reservations.

my gggrandfather was a Blackfoot Indian in Alabama who fought in the Civil War for the South

[nate895]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8NHVaRL_FQ

:D

Huckabee star=bad, and not Confederate

[Uriel999]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8NHVaRL_FQ

:D


Huckabee star=bad, and not Confederate

Yeah screw huckleberry.

[Conservative Christian]

Huckster is just another RINO and phony conservative that the Republicrats have tried to pawn off on us.


.