New Southern Avenger over Confederate History.

[BamaFanNKy]

YouTube - SA@TAC - Slaves to 'Settled' History

 

[low preference guy]

Watching that video made me think about the justification for the Civil War. Do you think it was justified? I don't. Here is my argument:

Some claim that the Civil War was justified because it ended slavery.

But Union soldiers were drafted. Many men did not want to die, so they opposed joining the Union army. Yet they were forced into it and many of them died. Is it justified to trade the freedom and life of one man to gain the freedom of another? Of course not, so the Civil War was not justified.

The slavery argument could be used only if the Union forces were completely voluntary. But the draft enslaved one group of people to free another.

What do you all think?

 

[BamaFanNKy]

It ended slavery quicker BUT, slavery was banned in 1833 in the UK. I have no doubt our own Wilberforce would of come about.

That said, if that was the reason... yes I agree with the war BUT, it was not.

 

[BuddyRey]

Bump!

 

[Matt Collins]

Jack Hunter is great.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

The south had the right to secede but not a right to victory. There was a war and while they certainly fought well considering the disadvantages (especially in army size)...the Confederacy lost the war, the end.

 

[low preference guy]

The south had the right to secede but not a right to victory. There was a war and while they certainly fought well considering the disadvantages (especially in army size)...the Confederacy lost the war, the end.

You are missing that while the South had a right to secede, the North didn't have a right to stop them.

 

[catdd]

Another winner by SA.
Man, I despise Chris Mathews.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

the North didn't have a right to stop them.

There were a lot of other wars you could ask if there was a right to fight also. Did America have a right to break away from England? A right to take Indian lands? The questions though are irrelevant, there were wars to settle those disputes.

 

[low preference guy]

There were a lot of other wars you could ask if there was a right to fight also. Did America have a right to break away from England? A right to take Indian lands? The questions though are irrelevant, there were wars to settle those disputes.

Apparently you have no idea of what "having a right" means.

With your argument, if some government thug comes and punch you in the face, whether or not you have a right is irrelevant, because he did it anyway.

 

[nate895]

The south had the right to secede but not a right to victory. There was a war and while they certainly fought well considering the disadvantages (especially in army size)...the Confederacy lost the war, the end.

Argumentum ad baculum

 

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

Apparently you have no idea of what "having a right" means.

With your argument, if some government thug comes and punch you in the face, whether or not you have a right is irrelevant, because he did it anyway.

Sounds like the tyrannical "might makes right" Machiavellian ideology

 

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

Seeing as how there were slaves in Union territory well after the war was over. I think it's quite obvious the US wasn't justified in it's invasion. Besides, we're all non-interventionists here anyways right???

 

[low preference guy]

Seeing as how there were slaves in Union territory well after the war was over. I think it's quite obvious the US wasn't justified in it's invasion. Besides, we're all non-interventionists here anyways right???

Not only that, Lincoln used conscription to build his army, i.e., he had a slave army. If ending slavery was his true goal, he wouldn't have agreed to trade freedom and liberty of one man for the freedom of another.