would you have supported the North or South?

[Truth Warrior]

I'd have chosen and pulled a "Jeremiah Johnson".

 

[tremendoustie]

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.

That is a good and valid debate, and your points are good, but it is a debate between a nonviolent response to violence, or a violent response to violence. That is, the debate is between two forms of self defense. In no case is it acceptable to initiate violence.

 

[mediahasyou]

I do not support either. I do not support coercive government.

 

[Matt Collins]

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

1- How so?

and

2- And if so, how exactly does that invalidate everything that the publisher puts out?

 

[SigurdVolsung]

That is a good and valid debate, and your points are good, but it is a debate between a nonviolent response to violence, or a violent response to violence. That is, the debate is between two forms of self defense. In no case is it acceptable to initiate violence.

Doesn't have to be violence, we were just talking about methods of achieving change. Or redress of grievances, could be something like the Stamp Act, or a concentration camp and anything in between.

 

[Number19]

The tide of history was already moving in a moral direction. It would have taken time, perhaps a long time, but slavery would have ended before the turn of the 20th century. When major social change occur voluntarily through the legal process, then the social fabric is not torn. Slavery was ended by war and we had segregation until the 60's. It's now almost 150 years and our society is still rippling under the effects of Lincoln's ill-advised war.

 

[torchbearer]

The tide of history was already moving in a moral direction. It would have taken time, perhaps a long time, but slavery would have ended before the turn of the 20th century. When major social change occur voluntarily through the legal process, then the social fabric is not torn. Slavery was ended by war and we had segregation until the 60's. It's now almost 150 years and our society is still rippling under the effects of Lincoln's ill-advised war.

I've seen an interesting article that said that the advancement in farm implements would have made slavery obsolete eventually.

 

[orafi]

1- How so?

and

2- And if so, how exactly does that invalidate everything that the publisher puts out?

i never said it invalidates them, otherwise i wouldnt have a liking for a few of their books.

have you checked out their books on islam and the bible for their politically incorrect series? wtf? talk about cherry picked and contrived bull shit typical western propaganda (for the first book).

anyways
!

 

[wizardwatson]

Slavery was an injustice, but waging war is another injustice, especially if that war is to keep the states in a state of "involuntary servitude" to the federal government.

No slaves were freed in the civil war, the whole country became slaves.

 

[asimplegirl]

I would have supported the south just as my ancestors did.

Reasons? To get the federal government out of my business, and to have state's rights. That way, no matter which state you lived in, you would have one atleast that matched your views.

And, on slavery, the issue was not brought up until a year into the war, and oddly enough not even by Lincoln.

In January 1862, Thaddeus Stevens, the Republican leader in the House, called for total war against the rebellion to include emancipation of slaves, arguing that emancipation, by forcing the loss of enslaved labor, would ruin the rebel economy. In July 1862, Congress passed and Lincoln signed the "Second Confiscation Act." It liberated slaves held by "rebels".[3]

The Emancipation Proclamation consists of two executive orders issued by United States. The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. The second order, issued January 1, 1863, named the specific states where it applied.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished and continues to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was adopted on December 6, 1865, and was then declared in a proclamation of Secretary of State William H. Seward on December 18.

 

[Time for Change]

The South

 

[demolama]

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.

That is why the federal Constitution outlawed states keeping troops in times of peace. They didn't want states to battle eachother. They also added the commerce clause to keep the states from taxing products from other states and crippling the economy like they did during the Articles time.

 

[AggieforPaul]

Neither. The North was protectionist, hawkish, and authoritarian. The South was collectivist (racist). Both sides printed money to pay for the war.

 

[krazy kaju]

South because states rights > federal gov't and slavery was on its way to extinction naturally, anyways.

Less bloodshed + less federal government power + end of slavery = win

 

[nate895]

Neither. The North was protectionist, hawkish, and authoritarian. The South was collectivist (racist). Both sides printed money to pay for the war.

If you are going to say he South was racist, you have to also say the North was ten times more racist. Northerners wouldn't even hire blacks. 50,000 free blacks moved from the North to Virginia alone in the 1850s since Southerners actually hired black people and didn't feel it was an insult to "free white labor".

 

[satchelmcqueen]

from all the history ive read , that goes beyond the public schools teachings, ild go with the south.

 

[SigurdVolsung]

That is why the federal Constitution outlawed states keeping troops in times of peace. They didn't want states to battle eachother. They also added the commerce clause to keep the states from taxing products from other states and crippling the economy like they did during the Articles time.

True, but as soon as secessions begin the rules can change from state to state. Each state would at least maintain their equivalent of a National Guard, it would also depend on how the splits started to occur. One of the reasons NA is pretty free of violence is because there are pretty much only 3 countries on the continent. If you split yourself up into a bunch of enclaves you just have to open a history book and see what the end result will probably be given enough time.

 

[nate895]

True, but as soon as secessions begin the rules can change from state to state. Each state would at least maintain their equivalent of a National Guard, it would also depend on how the splits started to occur. One of the reasons NA is pretty free of violence is because there are pretty much only 3 countries on the continent. If you split yourself up into a bunch of enclaves you just have to open a history book and see what the end result will probably be given enough time.

We would live on a continent of Republics. The people of America don't have much desire for war with each other, they tend to like peace and freedom much more. We have no princes to send us to war to increase their tiny dominions. On the contrary, since we live in republics, our power would be decreased if we conquered more people and territories.

 

[SigurdVolsung]

We would live on a continent of Republics. The people of America don't have much desire for war with each other, they tend to like peace and freedom much more. We have no princes to send us to war to increase their tiny dominions. On the contrary, since we live in republics, our power would be decreased if we conquered more people and territories.

Possibly, and very well probably would start out as such, but I wouldn't bet on the state of affairs remaining as idyllic for any long portion of time.

 

[slacker921]

When the war started were both sides equally represented in wealth? ...

Are we in similar circumstances today? Is that why the question is being raised?