1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

What is the main cause for the American Civil War?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Bill3000, Jul 14, 2009.

  1. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,478
    Location:
    California
    ]Let me address your second point first, before moving on to your opening point. Indeed the North was hardly "high and mighty", and for so many of the reasons the "it-wasn't-slavery" crowd mention, the North as you put it wanted to change/abolish slavery. But you state "the only reason" which simply isn't true. The abolitionist movement, based on moral grounds, was growing politically. Northern culture was very heterogeneous so you had all kinds of political views from outright pro-slavery to industrial anti slavery to apathy to moral anti slavery and I'm sure more that I can't think of. So while much of the north was philosophically ass backward, a lot of it was also more progressive. One of the many reasons tension over slavery reached a breaking point was not where the North and South were with regards to liberty-philosophy, but where "everyone" (hyperbole, but still significant) knew the North and South were clearly going. My point here is that while yes, I am, in this argument, not putting my feet in the shoes of a 19th century white man, I am arguing from a point firmly rooted in available, widespread-enough information and political philosophy of the time, make my argument valid for both the 21st century and relevant to the 19th century. If this were a discussion on gay rights, for example, I would only be able to make a modern argument.

    Anyway, this brings me back to your first sentence. Yes and no. I see exactly what you mean and I addressed that earlier--the present-status of slaves at secession was almost exactly the same--they were still enslaved to the same degree. But as we remember with the Dredd Scott Case, even if a slave was legally property, he or she could still finagle ways to sue in a federal court under the right conditions. And white abolitionists could sue on slaves behalf--though I'm sure a myriad of laws made this extremely difficult on average. But you can't sue someone outside your own country without the right diplomatic circumstances, and secession cut the legal ties between the north and the south, making an unfriendly-but-employable court simply off limits. And that is taking away freedom, not just future, but present.


    I believe I just argued otherwise. I invite you to prove your point and will take it seriously.
     
  2. Ulyaoth

    Ulyaoth Emperor

    Joined:
    May 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,679
    Location:
    Long Island
    I've already argued my point. The actual action of seceding doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. Just because the cause of their secession was doesn't mean that seceding was, because it's a separate action, separate legislation. Seceding didn't make slaves slaves, even though it was done so that they would be made to stay slaves.
     
  3. candle

    candle Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Messages:
    331
    agreed no new slaves where added, and the people that had rights meaning the male land owners of the south did vote for this action to occur. It was a use of power and simply bulling by the South. If you want proof of there atrocities agasint the south and there bulling look at Shermans March and take a good hard look. Women and Children shot simply for supporting the south, or because a family member served the confederacy. Cities burned, crops destroyed, live stock slaughtered. Sherman under orders from Washingston slaughterd hundreds of innocent people, and the slave was included. If a slave tried to protect a little one sherman's men would attack that slave as well. His men looted and rapped and tore the south apart. While Davis was tring to send a diplomat to Washington to resolve the situation peacefully. When we left the truth is forming the confederacy wasn't the original goal of the movement, it was to make a point that we refuse to be bullied and taxed the same way England did a 100yrs prior. Washington was just as guilty as King George.
     
  4. Earthling

    Earthling Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Messages:
    8,518
    You know I just now realized that Bill opened a horrible can of worms with his thread title. Almost certainly would have been better to use the past tense: What was the main cause for the American Civil War.
     
  5. cardgame

    cardgame Obsessively Opposed to the Typical

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    15,044
    Location:
    Misery



    It was done to break their spirit and make them surrender.

    edit: As the saying goes, all's fair in love and war.
     
  6. choxorn

    choxorn Watermelon Headcrab

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    18,463
    Location:
    Honolulu
    Fixed. ;)

    Anyway, we aren't saying that Sherman's March was justified, but that's not the point of the thread.
     
  7. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,588
    Location:
    Moscow
    Speak for yourself. And while you're at it, keep ignoring all of the glaring inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the account of the march to the sea found in candle's post. I wish half the stuff happened the way he describes it.
     
  8. choxorn

    choxorn Watermelon Headcrab

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    18,463
    Location:
    Honolulu
    It's pointless to argue with him. The point of that was to say that that's pointless with regards to the thread's topic.
     
  9. candle

    candle Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Messages:
    331
    what it says in your history books, is not what it says down here and im more likly to belive the truth that is taught in the south about that monster. Why the south celebrates him, we denouce his very right to be honored at all. We have protested his grave site before does that give you a clue. Your hero is a murderer. What you are taught is a lie, come to the south and ask the truth about Sherman. Ask why many southern states actully declared him a criminal after the war was over. Did we declare him a criminal for no reason?
     

Share This Page