Which side do YOU view as right?

About the foods, yes, certain foods from Mexico are banned because of the FDA regulations, and things like that. My aunt in Hawaii can't send fruits through the mail because of the risk of insects. And coby, it never did take affect, and this passed around 6-8 years ago. Infact, San Fransisco was one of the first cities in the nation to legalize gay marriage (no surprise there) but shortly afterwards it was nullified and passed to another state court to rule on. And that judge decided that it wasn't the right of any court to rule on an issue and make it law. In his opinion it was the duty of the legislature to do such. So it's been pretty much frozen.


And IBG, you really are starting to sound like a Southerner at heart, by the way you talk about states' rights. (just to play devil's advocate): Aren't we all one country anyhow? Why should we even have such deep seperations among us that can create civil war?

The north should have had the right to keep slave catchers out of their territory. But the federal government overruled them. From what you've said, you sound like you agree with me on this. But the federal government (along with congress, which represents the will of the people)sided with the south on this issue, and the north found it tolerable. I really can't find the point on which we disagree.....I can only think that we see this one subject from a like view.

Of course hes right! lol I'm still amazed at what he knows....

Well, the books are probably getting to my head. I support the South to a certain point. But, I support the north to a certain point to. It's all those bio's on Lee.

Hm...... Same here.

Lee is probably my favorite general. Hooker in my opinion is also pretty amazing in what he accomplished with what he had been given.

Still can't get past Hooker....

lol.

What lol? I'm totally serious!

I know why you can't get past the name. And its funny why you can't get past it.

Yeah I know. I'm weird like that

Civility_C wrote:

Of course hes right! lol I'm still amazed at what he knows....

awww, shucks....... I'm speachless!

Thanks! Hope I can continue to succeed to not bore you...lol

Iron Brigade General wrote:

Hooker in my opinion is also pretty amazing in what he accomplished with what he had been given.

Lol. Hooker had 163,000 effectives in his army at the start of the Chancellorsville campaign. Lee, after calling for reinforcements, had barely 70,000. I'd say that Hooker blew the biggest chance he ever had there, by not accomplishing anything with all that he had.

But you know all about Hooker, IBG. Maybe what you meant, was that it was amazing how he accomlished getting part of his army out of Virginia intact. (If only Jackson hadn't been wounded!)

No. I mean the pre-Chancellorsville record. I mean, he does alot of small stuff that has amazing results on the moral and fighting spirit of the AOTP. I mean, he is the first person to introduce hygine in the Army, he gets mail to them, creats the Corps badges, does all this stuff that drops the desertion and sick level down so low. He stops the smuggling of beer into the camps (although he has a personal stash) gets a very effective intellegnce agecny going, and reforms the Cavalry Corps into an actually fighting force, insteed of just being Stuarts play things.

Face it, Hooker was a good adminastator, and only a so-so general. And he was Lee's play thing.

Yep. When it came down to the wedding, he got cold feet. (pardon the joke)

IBG, You're getting burned...

ok, I guess you're just going to keep saying that......

Glad you liked it.

and you guys, I'm not here to "burn" IBG, but to only express my opinion, as much that it differs from his....but thnx anyway

I see your point.....but you really did lol. Both of you guys kknow alot. I'm just glad that the south got the better showing...lol

vindicator wrote:

I see your point.....but you really did lol. Both of you guys kknow alot. I'm just glad that the south got the better showing...lol

Soo, then you favor the south I presume?

General Stuart wrote:

There you go again, dragging slavery into the issue at hand....I will say it again: The South was fighting for a principle, not an institution. Left to their own devices, the south would have eventually seen that free labor is not, economically speaking, a feasible theory. The South would have grown into a "pyramid" society, with a few controlling the land and the labor to work it (slaves), and on the other hand, the many, the poor peasant class, with no work and little or no land, shelter, money, food, or clothes. It is easy to see that such a society can not exist long. Looking at Europe, a similar society existed in the form of France, but with no slaves. There, in an upheaval of society, the peasant class threw the heavy yoke of the noblemen and clergy off; seeing the brutal power of the masses in this, governments across Europe either adjusted, to pay more attention to all citizens, or, tightened their hold on the peasantry, which we can see only brought drastic change eventually, if not by pure revolution, then by the emergence of the principles of the enlightenment, and those ideals' effects upon society.

This holds especially true for governments of the 19th century, even more so, since at that the Industrial Revolution and its effects were sweeping across the earth. Any fault in the economical structure of a country would surely be righted immediately, in this age where industrial might meant world dominance. There could be no other way; either adjust and move on, or be left behind. Slavery cannot co-exist with industry. It is a fact of economics that history only helps to prove. Therefore, it is my humble opinion that, the South, left to its own devices, would have within a matter of years been forced to admit that slavery would have to go. Even then, the ideals of the Southern War for Indepence would not have been abandoned, not by any means. The South fought for a principle, not an institution, and that principle was the right of the people, and the states, to be able to defend and protect their rights and interests against the federal government.

I know that this is way back in the forum, however, I was disturbed enough to write upon it. "There you go again, dragging slavery into the issue at hand....I will say it again: The South was fighting for a principle, not an institution." Particularly this part of the qoute. Perhaps they were. So what about Pro-life and Pro-abortion? Pro-abortionists are 'fighting' for a principle. Does this make them right(assuming you are all Christians or have conservative views)? Or should I say does the end justify the means? Standing behind something that is immoral just to fight for a principle? I mean, if you are fighting for a principle, i.e. freedom of speech, then so state.

And concerning the populatioin, from what I have learned, it was like 10% of the South's populatoin near this period were slaves. That is a very small percentage of white and a very large percentage of slaves - a perfect opportunity for the Union to take advantage of.

And I apologize if something like this or anything in this post has already been posted.

I think I like this guy.

Since it was brought up again, I am inclined to comment on it. Eh hem.

As far as i'm concerened the south was no better then natzi Germany, with the exception of one thing. They were using their captives to make them money, not exterminating them. Lincoln opposed slavery but he believed that the constitution forbid him from doing anything about it where it already existed. But he was determined to keep it from spreading any further. Therefore you have the restrictions of imports agreeed upon y both sides. And yet the trade in the south continued to flourish Eh hem, so you cant say that Lincoln didnt care about slaves from the start, regardless of what you have interpreted from his speeches.

The south wanted one thing, it's rights protected. But, if they had stayed within the union they would have had all of these rights, with the exception of being able to own slaves and use them for profit. The south was becoming increasingly paranoid about it's lack of representation in the senate. the north's argument was that if the blacks were merely property, then they shouldent be aloud to vote. the south argued that blacks were human beings and that they should be able to vote, and yet they kept them as slaves. Therefore, you have, wah lah, the compromise. Every five slaves equals 3 free men, as far as voting goes. Represenation in the senate equaled power, the power to have an influence in the nations decisions. And even though the south wanted a voice in the senate they didnt want to pay up just like everyone else was doing. And since the south didnt LIKE the laws of the north even though they were legit, they decided they could play hookey and split off from it's government. Do you think it were justified by this passage?

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

Dont think so.

Now I dont believe that the south was being oppressed with a long list of abuses andusurpations. Certainly not enough for it to dissolve it's bonds with the government. I think that the south was acting like a spoiled kid who began to grow large enough to back talk without getting a slap on the behind.

:afro:

As for who do I think is right? I have sided with the Union. But let's face it - it all comes down to money and trying to keep the majority on your side. That is the reason Lincoln presented his emancipation proclamation - and why he freed only the slaves in the South. Lincoln knew what he was doing, he was playing both ways. Free the slaves in the south - the population majority down there, but don't free them in the north yet, so you keep the rascists happy up here. That way, Lincoln gained the most people for his cause and thus gave himself an advantage.

And I side for the north because they had the best in store for this country - preservation of the union. The North needed the South and the South needed the North. The south, like The Opposition stated, "...was acting like a spoiled kid who began to grow large enough to back talk without getting a slap on the behind."

Now I don't usually comment on this part of the forum, but here I am.

The Opposition wrote:

As far as I'm concerened the south was no better then natzi Germany, with the exception of one thing. They were using their captives to make them money, not exterminating them.

Natzi Germany? Hm.. I'm not even going to begin.

The Opposition wrote:

Lincoln opposed slavery but he believed that the constitution forbid him from doing anything about it where it already existed. But he was determined to keep it from spreading any further.

Maybe he should have started in Washington...

The Opposition wrote:

...And yet the trade in the south continued to flourish Eh hem,

As it did in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri.

enigma7patriot wrote:

I know that this is way back in the forum, however, I was disturbed enough to write upon it. "There you go again, dragging slavery into the issue at hand....I will say it again: The South was fighting for a principle, not an institution." Particularly this part of the qoute. Perhaps they were. So what about Pro-life and Pro-abortion? Pro-abortionists are 'fighting' for a principle. Does this make them right(assuming you are all Christians or have conservative views)? Or should I say does the end justify the means? Standing behind something that is immoral just to fight for a principle? I mean, if you are fighting for a principle, i.e. freedom of speech, then so state.

And concerning the populatioin, from what I have learned, it was like 10% of the South's populatoin near this period were slaves. That is a very small percentage of white and a very large percentage of slaves - a perfect opportunity for the Union to take advantage of.

And I apologize if something like this or anything in this post has already been posted.

I do agree Jeb..... you should have specified that they were not fighting for the institution of slavery but for the principle of states rights.