Which side do YOU view as right?

Thank you at least someone here has a clear perspective. (No offence Stuart haha)

I think the South would have had a good chance if Jackson hadn't of been shot by his own men. And if Johnston hadn't of been shot at Shiloh. And if Stuart hadn't of gone down in combat.

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 did not say they were fighting for Slavery. Not technically, but, they were fighting for the right to keep them. The reason why they succeded was they were afraid Lincoln was going to take them away. Along with the Fed government.

I get what you're saying IBG, cause thats what we are doing to day trying to protect are rights from the Government.

They considered the blacks as property. Chattel. And, they had the right to have them. There was nothing in the Constitution against it becasue the South would not have it.

wich in my opinion is wrong.

Morally, it is not. But, nothing was against it. Listen to this about States Rights. When the Fugitive Slave Laws came out, several northern states had laws on them saying slave cathers can't come and take slaves. However, the South desregarded the rights of northern States and took the slave and free blacks as they wanted. The Federal government took the Souths side in this. The North had as much right as the South to be crying about not getting fair represntation.

the south should have respected the norths views and obeyed their laws. I'm not saying the north did, but they should have, and I'm not happy with a lot of the things the Norht did. but I think we should learn from the past and try not to make the same mistakes.

you know the only right side is mine.

True, the south lost alot of generals hit in combat. Just to name a few:

Thomas J. Jackson
A.S. Johnson
J.E.B. Stuart
James Longstreet
A.P. Hill
John B. Hood
T. Ashby
Patrick Cleburne
Louis A. Armistead
Barksdale
E. Pelham
R. Ewell
H. Heth
J. Pettigrew
W. Pender
W. Kemper
K. Garnett
McColough
J.E. Johnston
R. Semmes


Anyway, IBG, you still seem to think that slavery caused the war. They say it takes two to start a fight, so let's think of what both sides were fighting for. The north: to preserve the union, or stop the south from breaking away. The south: to preserve the sovereignity of the states, or exersizing the freedom of breaking away from the union. If they both agree with each other on that much, how can you argue with it?

The only reason that their is nothing against it in the Constitution, IBG, is that the northern states wouldn't press the matter at the time, because the southern states were stronger. But by 1861, the north, along with the federal government felt strong enough to force the issue, and so the south tried to break away.

About the Fugitive Slave Laws, before that was passed, the south had no choice but to respect the northern states' laws. But once the Federal government passed those acts, making them national laws, the northern states were overruled. Who's cryin' states' rights now, brother?

General Stuart wrote:

Anyway, IBG, you still seem to think that slavery caused the war. They say it takes two to start a fight, so let's think of what both sides were fighting for. The north: to preserve the union, or stop the south from breaking away. The south: to preserve the sovereignity of the states, or exersizing the freedom of breaking away from the union. If they both agree with each other on that much, how can you argue with it?

slavery didn't cause the war but it was a part of it.

Well you could argue that, but it seems the only person that wanted to do away with slavery was Lincoln, and it wasn't even part of his agenda until late, late '63.

I never said Slavery did, now did I Stuart? I said it was only one of many causes. And, if the South really cared about States Rights, why didn't they follow Northern Laws in thier states? Because, they cared only about thier own soverignty, not the norths. To be sure, the north didn't care about the Souths status as an Agriculturual society, but, where's the reports of them going south to capture run away prisoners or such?

Lol, this is too much fun IBG. I know, you never said slavery caused the war, but you do keep hinting at it, and dragging it back up lol. Anyway, the whole point of states' rights and sovereignity is to be able to protect yourself from the central government. Tell me, why would the south want to follow the laws of the northern states? Lol. They would respect them when in that state, but obey them in your own territory? That would erode the very idea of individual states, state borders, state rights, and a state's ability to chose its own laws, though they might differ from a neighboring state. Once again, once the federal government passed the fugitive slave laws, they suposedly overruled the northern states' laws. That's when the north wished they had some rights as states, but they didn't want to go to war over it. Well, a few years later, something happened that made the south want to. Thus, civil war.

It's like this. Let's say I went to California, and they had certain rules. They would expect me to follow them. If I didn't I could get in trouble, unless I didn't know the rules. Same principle here.

this is fun, I like arguing about topics just to see other peoples point ove vew. you could still get into trouble if you don't know the rules thats why you need to find the rules out when you go some where new.

I don't think you got my point IBG; the south did respect the northern states' laws and sovereignity. But when the federal government passed the Fugitive Slave Laws, Washington gave southerners free reign to chase their property northwards. The passing of this federal act overruled the northern states' laws. Don't you see?

You don't get what I am saying. The laws in the states were passed before the FSL and the slave catchers were still going in those states. When the Fugitive Slave Law came out, the laws of those states were just what they were, scribbles on pieces of papers.

So you are denying the whole concept of state's rights? You think that it is reasonable that the federal government can turn your state's laws into scribbles on a piece of paper?

It's happened before. Such as here in Idaho they've overturned laws stating wolves must be limited and they have turned whole packs loose in Idaho.

it sucks how they allow panels of judges to overturn the will of the people. We've had that happen quite a few times here in California. Just a few years ago we had a proposition banning gay marriage that passed by a mile. But a court judged it unconstitutional, and it never took affect.

We just voted on an amendment on not allowing gay marrigaes. So, do they still have the laws on certain type of fruit going in the state in California? Like, you can't bring ceratin type of foods into the state?

what is up with that!!! if it passed by a mile it should have whent into affect what's wrong with that judge.