Which side do YOU view as right?

Way to go Jeb! Brilliantly said! Besides for everyone who is still stuck on slavery.... Like it has been said SO many times... Only a small part of southerners owned slaves! General Lee himself did not own slaves during the war.

Thank you, Gen. Lee! The support is very much appreciated!

And come on, you yanks! Think up somethin' to talk about besides slavery, it's getting kind of old....

That could be said about both sides. No one at all? Are you certain about that? You cant generalize the entire population of the North. I refuse to believe that every soldier in the unions army was fighting solely because they were drafted into it and because they were told they were losing there biggest paycheck with the south splitting away. That is not a fact, that is an assumption based on it's leaders decisons and the majority of views at the time. And in case you forgot, moral is a part of this country and it's polotics, it always has been, straight back to the founding fathers. It will ALWAYS be a part of the debate, as long as the constitution survives. And if I was in Lincolns place, I would have done anything neccesary to end slavery. But I would not force my men to give their lives for the african slaves, I would have asked it. Ever heard of defending the innocent and helpless? Any consiencence man would have vouluntered.

And as for my comment on the South's way of life, if you re-read it, your description doesnt sound so appealing(which is what i was reffering to)

Hitler, come on guys, gimme a break.

"they were acting out of selfishness and greed"

And just what were the reasons for plantation owners for keeping slaves?

The Opposition wrote:

Any consiencence man would have vouluntered.

That's where you're wrong, Oppie. Again, you're forgetting that this was a different time and place, where 9 out of 10 people in the north thought it fine that the Africans worked the southern plantations, and that it was best for the "negroes." And please, let's move on past slavery.....unless that's your only card....

Very well, since your so touchy about it.

General Stuart wrote:

The Opposition wrote:

Any consiencence man would have vouluntered.

That's where you're wrong, Oppie. Again, you're forgetting that this was a different time and place, where 9 out of 10 people in the north thought it fine that the Africans worked the southern plantations, and that it was best for the "negroes." And please, let's move on past slavery.....unless that's your only card....

Where are you getting your figures Stuart, just curious.

Actually, I got those specific stats from a statement made by Seward to Lincoln, before the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Hmm, I will take your word for it.

To provide fair warning, if you yankees want to persist on the subject of slavery, I'll be happy to accomodate you. Just need to do some reading first in an excellent book I just found.... So go ahead. Keep the ball rolling.

Oh dont worry bout me Staurt, I wont dare speak of slavery again until I know I can crush you in my sleep.

I'll be waiting.......in your worst nightmare!

General Stuart wrote:

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?

Hahahahahahaah... I'm glad that you finally admit that what the South did was against the Constitution. Yes it was treason...and about what you say in another part of the constitution, where we are supposed to throw off such government, yeah I see your point, but it is only "legal" if they didn't form an alliance. Now isn't that true? Oh, and not to mention the fact that at first they didn't want to go to war but first sent a diplomat (or whoever it was...can't remember) to negotiate a treaty with the North. And of course, Lincoln refused to even talk to him. Why? Because that would be recognizing the South as a legit country, completely against what Article 1 Section 10 states. Only then did they attack. So don't give me the whole speech of "well they had the right to attack because the constitution said so." WRONG! By the point and time that they did attack they had formed their own constitution. If they had actually wanted to follow the constitution, they should've tried to overthrow the government in the first place without forming an alliance with themselves. They had commited treason, period.

And do I think that what the 13 states did was treason...WELL DUH!!! What else would you call it? And to the rest of your point, read above.

And what about, "Enigma, if the federal government (hypothetically) passed a law that
cut the West Coast economy off from doing trade with the world...." The fact of the matter is this would never happen. This shows just how much thought you care to put into the matter.

You fail to see my main point here (ya know with the south being up against the wall). They were outnumbered in the gov because guess what - they didn't have as large a pop. as the North did (a fact that you stated in your previous posts). Political parties come and dominate and then they fade away. Obviously the South was too stupid to realize this fact. They felt "oh poor me" and felt that they were being intimidated. I will always love how Oppie compared the South to a spoiled little kid how got big enough to back talk (very roughly quoted). And he was right. They felt they had an ace up their sleeve - King Cotton. And what a marvelous ace that was to be sure - before the war. Yeah I guess they felt up against the wall:scratch:. They wanted to be treated as an elitist society (you must have missed this part in my previous posts). The same thing that our country wanted to get away from when they fought the Brits. The South wanted Equal state Rights, and the North wanted to acknowledge the fact that every man was created equal. The South wanted to be acknowledged as greater then they actually were, whereas the government was setup for the majority. Why did the peasants in England have no say - oh yes that's right, because the monarchy controlled everything, unfairly might I add. This wasn't the case in the U.S. The North was playing by the rules, and the South didn't like that fact I guess. That was apparent when they nearly beat a senator to death during a secession in congress. But, my main point here is that the South wanted more for nothing. They wanted more representation in the gov. even though they had less population (and their slaves shouldn't have even been considered as their population. The south considered them property! Does property count as human population, um no).

"That was apparent when they nearly beat a senator to death during a secession in congress."

Hhahaha I remember reading about that. Shame on you, you evil southern congressman(and stuck up).

South didn't have the laws to validate it, but, there was nothing to really stop it.

Ok point number one: You said that what the 13 colonies did was treason? If that is so, then treason isnt bad You say the South commited treason.... If you define treason the same in both instances you are absolutely right! So you win! The 13 colonies commited treason as did the South! lol (whats your point?) Actually that is our point if the secession of the 13 colonies was right then the South also had the right to secede.

(Unless you believe that the 13 colonies should never have seceded and then you need to prove that point too.)

Okay, Lee, you are making this a little more complicated than it needs to be. What the 13 colonies did was against the law of England. What the south did was against the law as well. If you had actually stuck to the original question/statement of "Show me where in the Constitution it states that it does not allow the states to seced." And I answered that question. Don't try to make me look wrong even though I am right. I have resolved that conflict. Now, if you want me to resolve this new question I will. At this point in time you are becoming very ignorant. Yes, the 13 colonies did commit treason - for the right reasons. The south committed treason - for the wrong reasons. They wanted to be treated as an elitist society. They were for equal state rights not for the fact that every man was created equal (as stated in the U.S. constitution). What you are getting into is morals. As Stuart had so blatantly put it in one of his posts "I thought this forum was political. If it had to deal with morals I would have done some more bible study lol." The fact is it isn't abou politics anymore. Nor, judging from the content of all the other topics has it ever been. And now it becomes opinionated. That is what you have brought up in your last post Lee. And in the bible, it states that every man was created equal - exactly what the North was stating and exactly what this country fought for its Independence for. The South wanted more equal state rights, and rather than go with population, they wanted to have equal say - something that looks strikingly familiar to what the union fought its independence from England for.

Ha, trying to catch me in my own words? Very good Lee. However you have utterly failed. Had you tried that on me like 2 years ago you would've succeeded.

Point one: you did NOT prove that the South could not suceed. You merely proved that while in the union a state could not make a confederation with another state.
Point two: prove to me from quotes and such that the South was fighting to be an elitist society.
Point three no matter your intentions you are sounding arogant, and better than thou. just thought Id let you know before your next post.

Your friend General Lee

Btw Im not trying to make you look wrong Im am just trying to prove my point.

Once you finsh repling to my last post please do the same to this one. Thanks.

Ok so why were the colonies right and the South wrong?

Your friend General Lee

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

Once you finsh repling to my last post please do the same to this one. Thanks.

Ok so why were the colonies right and the South wrong?

Your friend General Lee

To some degree yes, the north was not abusing them like Britain was to the colonies.

Ever heard of the tariff of abominations? This Tariff was about 40% for atleast some product if not all. Here let me quote Lincoln.



Asked Of Abraham Lincoln...

"Why not let the South go in
peace?"



Response Of Abraham Lincoln...

"I can't let them go. Who would pay
for the government?"

It still wasnt cause far a revolution as i'm concerned, Britain's taxes were far worse then anything the north imposed on the south.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right
to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits
them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, which we hope and
believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which
the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any
portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so
much territory as they inhabit." -- Abraham Lincoln

If you asked me the south may have deserved those tarrifs, and dont use Lincoln on me:afro: Besides the south wasnt happy with ANYTHING the north did.

First you have to prove that they deserved those tariffs. And Lincoln is fun to use because Yanks love him so much lol jk