would you have supported the North or South?

[trey4sports]

disclaimer: I am not a racist nor do I supported involunitary servitude (slavery) however as we all know the civil war had many complex issues below the surface.

quite simply, who would you have supported and why?

 

[torchbearer]

The south because the federal government was starting to become overbearing, telling the states what they could do...
This was not the intent... and why a Confederation was made in the south.

The war of nothern aggression should have never happened. States should be free to leave as they were free to join the union.

The war wasn't over slavery, and I would have been in favor of outlawing it and/or buying all the slaves to release them.

I'm with hank, jr. If the south would have won, we'd have it made.
People would be flocking here to escape the tyranny of the north.

In fact, with competing governments, tyranny may have been averted... because the two central governments would have to compete for people and resources.

 

[tremendoustie]

disclaimer: I am not a racist nor do I supported involunitary servitude (slavery) however as we all know the civil war had many complex issues below the surface.

quite simply, who would you have supported and why?

Neither. I would have opposed the north as imperialistic, and the south because of their immoral support for slavery.

 

[SigurdVolsung]

My sympathy would be for the South, as I do agree with their arguments over states rights, but in the end the Union must be preserved. A house divided cannot stand.

 

[torchbearer]

Neither. I would have opposed the north as imperialistic, and the south because of their immoral support for slavery.

Lincoln didn't oppose slavery.

 

[orafi]

I would have been fighting the Brits in India and fighting Hindus and Sikhs around that time. But if news ever reached me of a civil war, I would have sent some samosas and scimitars over to the confederates, and of course offer a daughter or two in marriage to President Davis.

 

[nate895]

My sympathy would be for the South, as I do agree with their arguments over states rights, but in the end the Union must be preserved. A house divided cannot stand.

We aren't a house, but a neighborhood. If this is a household, it is the most eclectic group of people to ever compose a family in the history of the world.

 

[torchbearer]

A house divided cannot stand.

Each state is its own republic.
What we have today is 50 wards to a central monolithic government.
The cliche you wrote doesn't hold water with me.
We don't have to be one republic to have a free society.
We can be a republic of republics also.

 

[tremendoustie]

Lincoln didn't oppose slavery.

I'm definitely no fan of Lincoln either.

 

[tremendoustie]

My sympathy would be for the South, as I do agree with their arguments over states rights, but in the end the Union must be preserved. A house divided cannot stand.

I assume you would have been with the redcoats in the revolutionary war then also.

 

[SigurdVolsung]

If you want to have a bunch of independent republics spread around this continent that's fine but the outcome probably wouldnt have been pretty. I dont agree with a monolithic central government, but there needs to be at least some kind of bond holding all of us together. Otherwise you will have escalating competition between states which could lead to actual war, or you have other powers sticking there nose into the North American honey pot and causing issues.

 

[Matt Collins]

The South had the legal (Constitutional) high ground

 

[tremendoustie]

If you want to have a bunch of independent republics spread around this continent that's fine but the outcome probably wouldnt have been pretty. I dont agree with a monolithic central government, but there needs to be at least some kind of bond holding all of us together. Otherwise you will have escalating competition between states which could lead to actual war, or you have other powers sticking there nose into the North American honey pot and causing issues.

Sure, but the bond should be voluntary. If a state wants to opt out, the rest have no right to use violence to stop them. Peaceable competition between states would be fine, and beneficial actually. If states decided to stay in the union, then they would be committing to helping with the common defense in case of foreign invasion, and they would also fall under the protection of the common defense.

 

[SigurdVolsung]

Sure, but the bond should be voluntary. If a state wants to opt out, the rest have no right to use violence to stop them. Peaceable competition between states would be fine, and beneficial actually.

Thats only if it remains peaceful competition, there are no guarantees it would be that way at all. German states in the Middle Ages fought brutal wars against each other numerous times, and lots of small ones and they were the same people speaking the same language. Europe is a good example of the outcome of competing states. I personally think competition in the long run strengthens, but it is definately rarely peaceful.

 

[Matt Collins]

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War









The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South (and Why It Will Rise Again)


​

 

[tremendoustie]

Thats only if it remains peaceful competition, there are no guarantees it would be that way at all. German states in the Middle Ages fought brutal wars against each other numerous times, and lots of small ones and they were the same people speaking the same language. Europe is a good example of the outcome of competing states. I personally think competition in the long run strengthens, but it is definately rarely peaceful.

So, in order to prevent peaceful competition from possibly becoming violent, we should use violence to force states to stay peaceful?

 

[SigurdVolsung]

So, in order to prevent peaceful competition from possibly becoming violent, we should use violence to force states to stay peaceful?

No, all I said was my personal opinion was to support keeping the Union whole. I was just commenting on what you said about peaceful competition. I dont mean to imply I think its a terrible idea, because its not, I was just using some of the lessons of history to look at the possible ramifications of such a course. One of those being a low probability of peace in the long term.

 

[orafi]

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51a6BBfce1L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg[/URL]







[B][URL="http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-South-Again/dp/1596985003/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b"]The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South (and Why It Will Rise Again)
[/URL][/B][URL="http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-South-Again/dp/1596985003/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b"]
[IMG]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51VQ6D4QQPL._SS500_.jpg[/URL]
[/CENTER][/QUOTE]

I like some of the books but their publisher is biased towards bible thumpers.​

 

[tremendoustie]

No, all I said was my personal opinion was to support keeping the Union whole. I was just commenting on what you said about peaceful competition. I dont mean to imply I think its a terrible idea, because its not, I was just using some of the lessons of history to look at the possible ramifications of such a course. One of those being a low probability of peace in the long term.

Ah, well, I agree that in the absence of an abusive central government, keeping the states in the union (meaning common defense) is in the best interests of all. I just don't think force should be used to keep the states in the union.

Competition, in a union, would be limited to actions which are mutually beneficial, instead of destructive. States could not impose tariffs for example. Yet, I think it would be a good idea to have states competing for business by offering lower taxes and regulations, for example, and competing for citizens by offering personal liberty. We could also have socialist states, and see how well they do.

 

[SigurdVolsung]

We had an argument about the use of force in my English/Philosophy course this semester. It was about 60% against force and maybe 40% that said force was necessary. The point that I made against people who thought force shouldn't be used is that in many of the cases where non violent resistance worked the country it was used in generally was founded on principles of democracy or equality of some sort. In America supposedly land of the free seeing us sick dogs on civil rights marchers pointed out the obvious inconsistencies in our policies of equal rights. Similarly in the Raj, Ghandi was attempting to gain political freedom from a country that ostensibly believed in human rights and political freedom.

The flip side of that coin is, try using non violent resistance against Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany. All you would do is bring the attention of the secret police to you for a quick execution. In some cases force can be the only option for recourse. Just as it was for the founding fathers in the Revolutionary war.