Who Do YOU View As Right; Part 2; Stuart turns Yankee

If the CSA honered the Constituion why would they make one to replace it. Thus, saying that it is a cheap imiatation and that the CSA didnt honor the consitution coincide. I dont understand where the confusion is.

It didnt replace it... it just built on it... if they didnt honor it they would have scraped it.

It replaced it Lee, disregarding an intire goverment includes disregarding its laws and transcrips, which is why The CSA edited it.

Oh... So the constitution is a infallible document which can not be improved on? Thats silly. Thats like saying if you cut the swearing out of a pretty good movie (except for the swearing), you dont respect the movie. That is just silly.

Your friend General Lee

Stop calling me silly silly. That document was founded by our forefathers. Who I might add were devout Christians. Well most of them that is.

Thats not the point. the Point is that the CSA wasnt despising the constitution they were trying to make it better... now if you can prove to me that by editing something you are despising it I might believe you. lol Your friend General Lee.

Ouch....using my own words against me, eh Lee?

Back to Lincoln's voting record, you cannot prove that he didn't agree to compromise some of his beliefs in order to be accepted by the new party, which would in turn agree to nominate him for President of the United States. And the Republican Party was not a reincarnation of the Whig Party, far from it. How can you explain the fact that the South decided and won every presidential election, based upon the North's division and indecision? If this was the same party, how did it manage to unite the entire North, and win its second major election bid, when the "same" but previous party hadn't been able to do so in several decades? The fact is, that they weren't the same party, they were very different. It was the new feel to the Republican Party that gave it such a strong initial backing, right from the start throughout the north and the west.

About "editing" the constitution, Oppie, you're wrong in your point, the South "copying" the constitution and at the same time despising it do NOT coincide. I have already posted my views on this, some of which Lee re-posted on this topic, but I'll continue to attempt to debate from the perspective of the North.

The South undoubtedly approved of the Constitution, thus the reason why they "copied" it, or drew their own based upon it. But, it cannot be denied that they also definitely resented certain parts, thus the "revisions". This fact being obvious, it cannot therefore be denied that they were unwilling to live and abide by the U.S. Constitution, or change it, as it completely legal, by constitutional procedures, i.e. admendments. I think that this proves that the South wanted to keep and promote those parts of the Constitution that suited their cause, but there were all too eager to dispose of a few passages. Of course, this is natural, and would be the response of anyone in a similar position. However, the South actually resorted to solving its grievances by throwing in the towel, diplomatically, and secceeding.

Furthermore, they went so far in their hot-headedness as to provoke war upon their prostrate and vulnerable nation, and pushed an issue that had been simmering, though near-boil, for months without resulting in armed conflict, by firing upon Federal forced garrisoned within Fort Sumter. Thus, they not only couldn't live happily within the United States, but they couldn't even leave without resorting to warfare, and upon their former brothers at that.

This act of war would percuade even the most peaceful-minded nations to seek revenge. The United States of America was no exception.

True, and what you said is what I meant. Hating a part means in essence that you hate the whole. Ofcourse there were only certain parts they disliked. You should know what I meant Stuart.

Hating a part doesn't mean hating the whole in essence, but, nevermind.

Guess what Oppie? I hate some parts of the constitution! but guess what else?! I dont hate it all! So get lost Oppie and pick on the Abolitionist who would call the constitution a "compact with the devil" and BURN copys of it to celebrate the 4th of July.

Back to the person Im supposed to be debating... Show me how the two parties differed in their platforms

*Civ rocks back and fourth in the corner*
This isn't right, this isn't right, this isn't right....

See what you have done to me Stuart?

Lee, you didn't respond to my two other points, that 1. the South threw in the towel diplomatically, proving that they were unwilling to live and function under the laws of the Constitution, and that 2. the South provoked war when Big Bad Lincoln had refrained from such a conflict for months already. Please answer these...

As to the difference in the parties' platforms, I could just as easily ask you to prove to me that they were exactly the same. I already gave my reasons for believing they were different, by the fact that they were responded to by the general public in such extremely different tones. You, however, haven't given yours. Please do so...

And Civ, I'm sorry for being the cause for any internal conflict, if that is the case. But please remember, I already knew all of this before I came to this site, and I still supported the South. And I still do, I am only trying my hand at supporting the other side, if only to further my knowledge of both sides' arguements.

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

Guess what Oppie? I hate some parts of the constitution! but guess what else?! I dont hate it all! So get lost Oppie and pick on the Abolitionist who would call the constitution a "compact with the devil" and BURN copys of it to celebrate the 4th of July.

Back to the person Im supposed to be debating... Show me how the two parties differed in their platforms

Oh dont get your knickers in a twist.

General Stuart wrote:

Lee, you didn't respond to my two other points, that 1. the South threw in the towel diplomatically, proving that they were unwilling to live and function under the laws of the Constitution,

Im abit slow... what does them throwing in the towel prove?

General Stuart wrote:

2. the South provoked war when Big Bad Lincoln had refrained from such a conflict for months already.

Since I know that you know that Lincoln started the war Im not going to answer you here and get on a huge rabbit trail.

General Stuart wrote:

As to the difference in the parties' platforms, I could just as easily ask you to prove to me that they were exactly the same. I already gave my reasons for believing they were different, by the fact that they were responded to by the general public in such extremely different tones. You, however, haven't given yours. Please do so...

Just because the public responded different doesnt mean a thing... The Whig party carried alot of unwanted baggage with it and that is why it was not excepted. Not so with the Republicans.

My reasons for believing that there was not a lot of difference... Their platforms were the same... You still have not showed me how their platforms were different which is what I asked you to do... and I asked first so till you answer I wont either. lol

The Opposition wrote:

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

Guess what Oppie? I hate some parts of the constitution! but guess what else?! I dont hate it all! So get lost Oppie and pick on the Abolitionist who would call the constitution a "compact with the devil" and BURN copys of it to celebrate the 4th of July.

Back to the person Im supposed to be debating... Show me how the two parties differed in their platforms

Oh dont get your knickers in a twist.

git lost Oppie lol jk

1. If you'd read the next dozen words or so, Lee, I stated that by throwing the towel in, the South proved that they were unwilling to submit to the ultimate form of law in a nation that they had helped form, and legally entered. I'm not saying that they weren't allowed to leave, but it proves that they were unwilling to live and obey the laws of the Constitution. And this in turn proves that if they could not live in one democracy, the government that they were secceedig in order to create most likely wouldn't have been a true democracy either.

2. The fact stands, that Lincoln didn't immediately choose to pick a fight with the South, but the South forced the issue and commenced hostilities. AND PLEASE DON'T USE MY OWN WORDS AGAINST ME ON THIS.

3. By admitting that one party carried baggage, and the other didn't, you're admitting that YES, they were very different. Remember, the Whig party was a very old party, dating back to pre-revolutionary war England, and its platform was mostly founded upon older issues, that held no relevance to the political topics of mid-19th century America. Whereas the Republican Party was created to provide the public with a fresh and new look from the same perspective. They catered to the same political crowd, but went further in atracting more support. Because why? Because they were different.

Jeb I know this sounds pathetic but I am tired of debating you. I will never win, you will never lose. you know all the answers to your questions and so do I, and I feel like I dont have the time to reply. Really sorry but I feel like giving up because I say one thing then you say another and then I repeat what I said and then you repeat what you said. Its not that I couldnt continue but Im very tired of it all. Im not giving up on you.... you might see the light and get turned confederate by someone but I am to bored to be the one to do it. sorry if I dont make sense Im sleepy.

Like I said, I am NOT pro-Union. I had already considered most of the arguements I am now presenting before I ever came to this site, and I still supported the South. I'm not saying that the South was 100% right on every issue, but I firmly believe that they were completely justified in their actions, and I hole-heartedly support their cause.

I am only trying to further my knowledge on the subject by observing it from the opposite perspective, and at the same time provide some debate. But I understand what you're saying, Lee.

I know that you are all for the South I was just joking about you getting convinced.

See this is what happens when only one pro-union guy(who is not extremely knowledgable on the many aspects of the war) debates an entire forum of Southers hahaha. I am swamped. Stuart I know your trying to spice things up a bit but you dont belong on the union's side. Its not what you believe.

I'll tell you what, I'll do my best to get some competetion on here for you, and in the meantime further my own knowledge. Alright?

Oppie~

Alright! I'm fine with that. You're move. And please don't use my arguements. At least, not my own words.

Opposition,

Reinforcements have arrived!

The union was right,
1) The south didn't play fair--even in 1856, many southerners said, if a republican wins, we leave. Talk about do it my way ro or I'll take my marbles and go home!
2) They didn't beleive Lincoln when he said he would respect the constitition--why did they think he was a liar? My guess is paranoia.
3) Southerners kept urging the takeover of Cuba, the Yutucan, etc. to expand slavery

Reb, what kind of name is that if you think the North was right? Anyway, I'm happy I can now debate from my true point of view.

Firstly, how did the South "play unfairly"? This stems from the seccession debate; if you don't think the States had a right to secceed, then we can argue that point. But you know the Constitution does not forfeit the States' sovereignty.

2) Who is "they"? Anyway, that's true, the South didn't give Lincoln time to live up to his words or not. But they were acting upon their natural rights as States of the union.

3) Reb, ever since the dawn of Manifest Destiny had Americans, North and South, urged for the conquering of Mexico, California, Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc. It wasn't only the South, and it wasn't only for the sake of spreading slavery.

Rebel thunder wrote:

Opposition,

Reinforcements have arrived!

The union was right,
1) The south didn't play fair--even in 1856, many southerners said, if a republican wins, we leave. Talk about do it my way ro or I'll take my marbles and go home!
2) They didn't beleive Lincoln when he said he would respect the constitition--why did they think he was a liar? My guess is paranoia.
3) Southerners kept urging the takeover of Cuba, the Yutucan, etc. to expand slavery

Hey Reb, I'm kinda out of the fight now. Sorry.....

And because of a certain event thats takin place in my life, I'm not quite certain which was was actually in the wrong. I need to do some more research. If its something i choose too pursue

oh, and p.s get ready to be slammed by a very persistant (and knowledgeable) young confederate belle.


DUCK AND COVER!