Which side do YOU view as right?

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.

Now lets not call names here! If you are going to call the country I support something a little better than Communism I might get upset. Seriously that statement is basically calling everyone who supported (or supports) the CSA a nazi supporter....
#1 I am not a nazi or a nazi supporter.
#2 The south wasnt fighting for slavery and until you can prove it was you cant call them names.
#3 If the North was so righteous why didnt they free their slaves if it was a little better than murder keeping them in bondage? As long as it had slaves too the north was no better than the south therefore it was no better than Nazi germany too.
#4 as stated before slave owners were the minority in the south... As were the northern slave owners.

Your humble yet very offended friend General Lee

I don't believe it was name calling - just a comparison (which could be called name calling, but there is a difference). However, I do agree with you on the fact that it was slightly harsh. I bet that the majority of slave owners did not torture their slaves or starve them. They were slightly smarter than that. Now, I have heard of rape stories and such, but I believe this happened rarely. If you beat up your slaves, malnourish them, etc. then how are you going to get a full day of work out of them? That is why that comparison is just a little harsh.

Just a side note: if you are hardcore, however, and only see black and white, then yes the comparison is justified.

No it wasnt exactly name calling. (and I am not upset)
And enigma7 your last post is right on.

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

No it wasnt exactly name calling. (and I am not upset)
And enigma7 your last post is right on.

I agree it was harsh, and I apologize for not using a more friendly term, and perhaps a more accurate one.

enigma7patriot wrote:

I don't believe it was name calling - just a comparison (which could be called name calling, but there is a difference). However, I do agree with you on the fact that it was slightly harsh. I bet that the majority of slave owners did not torture their slaves or starve them. They were slightly smarter than that. Now, I have heard of rape stories and such, but I believe this happened rarely. If you beat up your slaves, malnourish them, etc. then how are you going to get a full day of work out of them? That is why that comparison is just a little harsh.

Just a side note: if you are hardcore, however, and only see black and white, then yes the comparison is justified.

I often do see things in black and white, but often times it's not as simple as it seems.

Civility_C wrote:

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.

Alright, clearly you didnt appreciate my comparision, but my oppinion still stands on the fact that suppressing one people because of there color or race is wrong. And, the south was obviouslly trying to keep it's rights to keep blacks as slaves. Granted there was slavery in the north still, but like i said before Lincoln had his reasons for what he did.

What is this: The South was no better then Nazi Germany? The South wasn't led by a bad person. They didn't exterminate the lives of everyone they didn't like.

enigma7patriot wrote:

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 know enigma didn't mean anything by it, but I don't appreciate the Civil War being compared to the abortion movement. What principles are the pro-abortion faction promoting? Freedom of speech? I don't think so, they should be more concerned with the voice of the unborn child. And how does 'freedom of speech' protect such an act? I for one, hear the term "freedom of expression" way too much. Where is that in the Constitution? Don't look for it, you won't find it. It is used way too often, as though it is a valid part of our law system. The same is true for "a wall between church and state," that phrase was merely borrowed from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a religious institution; it is nowhere in the books of law.

Anyway, enigma, I don't support slavery at all. However, I am conservative enough to realize that the south had a more valid reason to leave the union than the north had to start a war. If I didn't specify clearly enough in my post, I was only defending the principle of states' rights. You sound alot like me sometimes, we both know that we are much better off today because the north won than we would have been otherwise. Infact, I think everyone can agree on that. But I like to go deeper than that. I already have two posts describing my theories on what would have happened had the south won; the one you quoted was the optomistic one, I think my darker view of the situation is near the beginning. I only feel that the south had the better arguement constitutionally. I've said this before, but I'll say it again: the meaning and function of the constitution is to provide a clear, definite boundry for the federal government, to stop it from growing exceedingly and to stop it from infringing on the rights of the states and people. Nowhere, in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, or the US Constitution, is it stated that the states are not allowed to leave the union. Actually, the sovereignity of the states is never called into question at all, because where does the federal government get its power, if not from the states?

And I think it was Oppie that stated that the south was like a spoiled child, who had grown and thought itself strong enough to take on the establishment. Actually, the opposite is true, because if you pay attention to the state of the colonies when the union was formed, the south had far more land and population (and I'm not talking about slaves). That is exactly why the slavery issue was not dealt with at the Constitutional Convention; the North was the one who felt weak and vulnerable, and didn't want to push the envelope. However, when the north industrialized and had an immigration boom from Europe, it suddenly felt strong enough to mess with its neighbors, but even then, the fight wasn't over slavery, it was over -you guessed it- money and power. The south's export-based economy was better suited for low tarriffs, and the north's was better suited for high. I was totally honest with myself during my research on this subject, and I was forced to admit that the North's interests in the war and the quarrel that started it were all selfish ones.

Haha! Good point IBG...

The Opposition wrote:

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:

Ok, Oppie, you have some of your points alittle confused. You are really desperate when you say that the south was as bad as Nazi Germany (talk about sounding like a fanatic!).....

You have to understand that by 1860, the north's population outnumbered the south's so vastly it wasn't even funny. The south had no representation in the House of Representatives. Thus the huge debates over letting states in slave or free; the south's only hope of being represented in congress was the Senate, and even then, it was only half-and-half between free and slave. That is also why it was SO important for the Democrats (the conservative party at the time) to win the white house; only then would the south have a fair showing in Washington DC. A U.S. representative's district is decided by the number of people within it. The south didn't want slaves to vote, but to be counted as part of the population, possibly giving that state additional representitives and electoral votes. However, the north was so power-obsesive (either that or very racist, most likely both lol) that they only consented to allow a single black man to count as 3/5 of a white man. This still didn't help the south much in the House, but it did give the southern states another electoral vote to help elect a democratic president.

Looking at it from this, a political point of view, it is easy to see the south was up against the wall and in extreme political danger. They were being backed into a corner that they didn't like, and they tried to get out before it was too late. But it already was too late.

Jeb all your posts are right on. (except the part about believing that the world is better off since the south lost... lol this is a belief which is rather unfounded either way)

Thanks. But I actually believe that this country is better off for it....How else could we have become the greatest nation on earth?

General Stuart wrote:

I know enigma didn't mean anything by it, but I don't appreciate the Civil War being compared to the abortion movement. What principles are the pro-abortion faction promoting? Freedom of speech? I don't think so, they should be more concerned with the voice of the unborn child. And how does 'freedom of speech' protect such an act? I for one, hear the term "freedom of expression" way too much. Where is that in the Constitution? Don't look for it, you won't find it. It is used way too often, as though it is a valid part of our law system. The same is true for "a wall between church and state," that phrase was merely borrowed from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a religious institution; it is nowhere in the books of law.

Anyway, enigma, I don't support slavery at all. However, I am conservative enough to realize that the south had a more valid reason to leave the union than the north had to start a war. If I didn't specify clearly enough in my post, I was only defending the principle of states' rights. You sound alot like me sometimes, we both know that we are much better off today because the north won than we would have been otherwise. Infact, I think everyone can agree on that. But I like to go deeper than that. I already have two posts describing my theories on what would have happened had the south won; the one you quoted was the optomistic one, I think my darker view of the situation is near the beginning. I only feel that the south had the better arguement constitutionally. I've said this before, but I'll say it again: the meaning and function of the constitution is to provide a clear, definite boundry for the federal government, to stop it from growing exceedingly and to stop it from infringing on the rights of the states and people. Nowhere, in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, or the US Constitution, is it stated that the states are not allowed to leave the union. Actually, the sovereignity of the states is never called into question at all, because where does the federal government get its power, if not from the states?

And I think it was Oppie that stated that the south was like a spoiled child, who had grown and thought itself strong enough to take on the establishment. Actually, the opposite is true, because if you pay attention to the state of the colonies when the union was formed, the south had far more land and population (and I'm not talking about slaves). That is exactly why the slavery issue was not dealt with at the Constitutional Convention; the North was the one who felt weak and vulnerable, and didn't want to push the envelope. However, when the north industrialized and had an immigration boom from Europe, it suddenly felt strong enough to mess with its neighbors, but even then, the fight wasn't over slavery, it was over -you guessed it- money and power. The south's export-based economy was better suited for low tarriffs, and the north's was better suited for high. I was totally honest with myself during my research on this subject, and I was forced to admit that the North's interests in the war and the quarrel that started it were all selfish ones.

As far as I know freedom of speech = the so termed "freedom of expression." I read articles about this topic all the time. For instance, a bunch of teenagers a couple of months ago decided to go nude for hours at a time - in a shopping center. They hung around it, did not go in the stores, but still were exposing their bodies to the public. Why? Their answer - freedom of speech. Unfortunately, every word in the Constitution isn't taken literally. If it was meant for every word to be taken literally, the Constitution would be a document that was five miles high and would stretch from the east coast to the west. And what is wrong with comparing it to the abortion issue today? I don't see your point...because according to you, it seems to be the same thing for me. Pro-abortion people are fighting for the principle of having the ability to choose. The South was fighting for the principle of having more equal state rights. Both are standing behind immoral "icons" shall we call them in order to prove their point.

And I thought that the government got its power from the people. And what is up with the Articles of Confederation? Aren't they null and void at this point in time. This paragraph is very sketchy at best, and I must do more research on your point.

And I still agree with Oppie on the point that the south had become a spoiled child and thought it was strong enough to back talk. Who supplied all the slaves coming in to the U.S.? I believe in another forum it was said that the North did. They kept supplying the South with the manpower it needed to produce so much product. However, the South realized it was easier and cheaper to "home grow" your own slaves - otherwise couple two slaves together so that they make more slaves. In addition to this, it also helped the South control their slave population, because slaves attached to a family are less likely to run away. So what did this do to the slave market in the North? And then, from what I know, the south was exporting mucho product to Europe and not the North. The South was being paid better for King Cotton in Europe than in the North I presume. So, this leads to the fact that the North wants in on the money the South is making - money that is otherwise being denied them by the South because they aren't allowing them to manufacture their goods. And the North is able to get away with making these changes because, as you have mentioned before, they hold the majority. What does this lead to? The South gets ticked off because they don't have "equal" representation in the House I guess. What would have been like had they both worked together? The South produces the raw product and the North manufacture it, and then it is sold and the profit is gained. If you ask me the central government was not strong enough to handle the situation (but now we get into communism and such, so obviously this wouldn't work in a democracy). But no, everyone wants the money and the power (North wants money and South wants power).

General Stuart wrote:

Ok, Oppie, you have some of your points alittle confused. You are really desperate when you say that the south was as bad as Nazi Germany (talk about sounding like a fanatic!).....

You have to understand that by 1860, the north's population outnumbered the south's so vastly it wasn't even funny. The south had no representation in the House of Representatives. Thus the huge debates over letting states in slave or free; the south's only hope of being represented in congress was the Senate, and even then, it was only half-and-half between free and slave. That is also why it was SO important for the Democrats (the conservative party at the time) to win the white house; only then would the south have a fair showing in Washington DC. A U.S. representative's district is decided by the number of people within it. The south didn't want slaves to vote, but to be counted as part of the population, possibly giving that state additional representitives and electoral votes. However, the north was so power-obsesive (either that or very racist, most likely both lol) that they only consented to allow a single black man to count as 3/5 of a white man. This still didn't help the south much in the House, but it did give the southern states another electoral vote to help elect a democratic president.

Looking at it from this, a political point of view, it is easy to see the south was up against the wall and in extreme political danger. They were being backed into a corner that they didn't like, and they tried to get out before it was too late. But it already was too late.

What do you mean up against the wall?? Because they are outnumbered? Well, that is how it is supposed to work, the majority rules. If you had given the South its wish, it would've have become the elitists of the U.S. They would've have suited themselves, the MINORITY over the MAJORITY the North. The reason you let the majority rule is because they are....the majority. Let us say there was a new law that mandated everyone to die their hair pink (a hypothetical situation obviously). The North - the majority - votes no. The South - the minority - votes yes. In this case we have a winner right? Most everyone is happy because most everyone voted no... Now let us consider just alternate hypothesis. The South wants more representation for a smaller population. So we give it to them. The same new law is put up to vote on and same outcome. However the South WINS. Guess what, a whole bunch of people are really, really mad while the minority is very happy with themselves. But the problem is that most of the people in the nation are very upset and "Houston...we have a problem."

And I find it a joke that they considered slaves for 3/5ths of white man. How can you be 3/5ths human?

Iron Brigade General wrote:

What is this: The South was no better then Nazi Germany? The South wasn't led by a bad person. They didn't exterminate the lives of everyone they didn't like.

IBG if read back alittle ways you will see what my latest thought's are.

The Opposition wrote:

Alright, clearly you didnt appreciate my comparision, but my oppinion still stands on the fact that suppressing one people because of there color or race is wrong. And, the south was obviouslly trying to keep it's rights to keep blacks as slaves. Granted there was slavery in the north still, but like i said before Lincoln had his reasons for what he did.

His reasoning started way back in the late 1820's when he went to New Orleans. It was there when he tried to free the slaves in Washington. So can you really say that Lincoln didn't know what he was doing? Give the man a little more credit.

Iron Brigade General wrote:

What is this: The South was no better then Nazi Germany? The South wasn't led by a bad person. They didn't exterminate the lives of everyone they didn't like.

You know what, Hitler, if you asked any German wasn't a bad guy, but just the opposite - a hero! He led Germany out of their horrid economical conditions and brought them into a world power status. Bad guy in that he exterminated millions, yes. But, the pres of the South wasn't really given time to materialize. So really, the statement "The South wasn't led by a bad person" isn't quite justified in this instance, considering the time both were able to lead their countries. However, I do see your point, and as I have said before, some are hardcore and others aren't. It seems that Oppie is just what he is - hardcore, black and white.

enigma7patriot wrote:

Iron Brigade General wrote:

What is this: The South was no better then Nazi Germany? The South wasn't led by a bad person. They didn't exterminate the lives of everyone they didn't like.

You know what, Hitler, if you asked any German wasn't a bad guy, but just the opposite - a hero! He led Germany out of their horrid economical conditions and brought them into a world power status. Bad guy in that he exterminated millions, yes. But, the pres of the South wasn't really given time to materialize. So really, the statement "The South wasn't led by a bad person" isn't quite justified in this instance, considering the time both were able to lead their countries. However, I do see your point, and as I have said before, some are hardcore and others aren't. It seems that Oppie is just what he is - hardcore, black and white.

Dont feel inclined to defend me Enigma, I am completely fine with taking a few hits. It only builds my knowledge on the subject and gives me a broader point of view.

However you are bringing up some good points Enigma.

He said he was going to deliver, and he did! That is the only thing I think makes him seem okay, is the fact that he did led his people from being in the dumps to being very advanced. Right before he started taking land back, he was making drills with his army using cardboard planes and tanks. Europe laughed. They thought he was crazy. Well, they weren't laughing when suddenly out comes all these real tanks.

Prove to me from the constitution that either secession or nullification were illegal and where government imposed high tariffs were legal I will reconsider my stance.

(Btw Hitler was evil and I still dont see you comparison of the South to Nazis. It seems all alittle unfounded to me....

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

Prove to me from the constitution that either secession or nullification were illegal and where government imposed high tariffs were legal I will reconsider my stance.

(Btw Hitler was evil and I still dont see you comparison of the South to Nazis. It seems all alittle unfounded to me....

Okay, in Article One, Section 10, the Constitution states: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation(sound familiar?); grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." The fact of the matter is that they made an alliance between themselves and formed the Confederate States. In addition to this, they were on the UNION LAND. It did not belong to them but the government. This is also explained in the constitution.

And also, the Congress has the power to create the taxes, not the states.

Ok, enigma, you stated earlier (before we went off topic about Hitler lol) that you seriously believed that the abortion movement is similar to the south's fight. First of all, the abortionists are NOT fighting for a true principle, unless you call the right to kill people a principle. When you are fighting for the 'right' to be able to kill another human, you are stepping out of your natural rights, by trying to affect the natural rights of others. Make sense?


Now, about "freedom of speech." Personally, I hate the term "freedom of expression," because it is almost always used as an excuse for an idiotic act. To use your example, when a group of people go nude in public, they are affecting people who are forced to see them who have higher standards. How are they affecting them, you say? When a group of people such as these disregard the rock-bottom standards of the times by forcing themselves and their offensiveness on other people, they shouldn't complain if those people turn around and try to press charges. After all, they were affecting other peoples' freedom of "expression" too you know. I realize this is a very touchy subjuct, but I think that we might as well think about the rights of the people who are offended too. They are people, after all lol. And when they offend others, they shouldn't be able to hide behind a phrase that we'll just "assume" was meant in the Bill of Rights. And enigma, if the constitution was meant to be taken literally, we wouldn't have courts, would we?


And about your main point, enigma, you say that the constitution says that the south had no right to seccede. How much do you want to bet that it was against the (standing) law for the 13 colonies to declare their independence? My point being, that if all of the 'good' people followed all of the rules, the 'bad' people would be the only ones in control. Therefore, (to quote the Declaration of Independence) "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." The men of the south had to do what they thought was right, and it does no good for us to look back in hind-sight and declare their acts as "treason," which would be the only reason for the north to go to war with the newly risen nation. Enigma, you, like many northeners before you, try to simplify the war and its causes down to a sickeningly ignorant conclusion. Please try to understand that the South was up against a wall. When you say that it was similar to "dying everyone's hair pink," well, that just shows exactly how much thought you care to put into the matter. The South's whole way of life was at stake. If the north-controlled government was to take away the slave, well, try to imagine a Great Depression in the south, worse than anything that the 1929 crash would create. This actually did happen in the South, too, after the war, but by that time the country was so impoverished, it was scarcely noticable, especially once the yankees moved in for "reconstruction." Slavery was a matter that would have had to of been settled in a logical, timely way, if ever (peacefully).

Enigma, if the federal government (hypothetically) passed a law that cut the West Coast economy off from doing trade with the world, and these western states were prepared to fight for the regaining of these rights, to the extent that they were prepared to seccede from the union, would you site "Article 1, Sec. 10?" Especially if you knew that the execution of this law would mean that you, along with millions upon millions of other people, would lose your jobs, then your homes, and then your lives?

Stuart said->"The South's whole way of life was at stake. If the north-controlled government was to take away the slave, well, try to imagine a Great Depression in the south, worse than anything that the 1929 crash would create. This actually did happen in the South, too, after the war, but by that time the country was so impoverished, it was scarcely noticable, especially once the yankees moved in for "reconstruction."

Hmm, it's hard to settle things logicaly when there are thousands of people in chains and you know that your the only one that can and will make a difference. And the south's way of life was a mistake, it should have been done away with a long time before the war happened.


"Slavery was a matter that would have had to of been settled in a logical, timely way, if ever (peacefully). "

Slavery was power, and when have you ever seen power surrendered in a peaceful way? Especially when, like you said yourself, it was the foundation for the south's way of life.

Lol. Oppie, you are acting just like a typical, self-rightous, radical abolitionist. You are trying to turn this into a moral debate. Of course this would bennefit you, because nobody is going to stand up and say they think that slavery was a good thing. First of all, I thought this was a political forum. If it was a religious one, I would have done some more bible study lol. Secondly, please remember that no one in the north was acting out of pity for the black man...they were acting out of selfishness and greed. This is a fact, so face up to it. At the time, it was totally acceptable to think that slavery existed in the US. You have to remember, this was a different time, with different standards and a different status quo.


And my last point, if YOU were in Lincoln's place, would you want to do away with slavery in the US? Fine, now answer this: would you be willing to sacrifice the lives of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of your fellow countrymen, and the arms and legs of even more, in order to end slavery in the US? Assuming that you are a human being capable of feelings of humanity, I will guess that you say 'no.' Then, why not let the South go, and fall on its face, and with it, slavery? Because it wasn't about freeing the slave, to the North. The north felt that the south was its own property, just like most people felt that the slaves were property. Enigma's statement, that the south was on "UNION LAND" tells volumes....and proves that sadly enough, our country is to this day still full of such liberals who will spew forth such filth. The North never even considered the last option because they were afraid that the South wouldn't fall on its face! Infact, they had every reason to believe otherwise; and do you think that those power-hungry, profit-seeking northern businessmen who controlled the government were going to let their biggest profit-maker slip away? I don't think so.

And Oppie, it had become a habit in our country by 1860 to peacefully transfer power (think of every time a new party takes office in the white house, congress, etc.). This issue could have destroyed our country in the election of 1800, which is probably one of the most important elections in our history, but thanks to God and an unseen guiding hand, our nation lived through the crisis.

Oppie said: "And the South's way of life was a mistake, it should have been done away with a long time before the war happened."

Tell me, who is starting to sound like Hitler?