Did the South have a right to secede?

[Ceannairceach]

Such a statement implies that the southern secession was in any way similar to the American secession.

Yeah they were.

How so?

[Neo Arcad]

Every nation (not state or country, but nation) has the right to self-determination. It was wrong of the United States government to suppress them.

[Ceannairceach]

Every nation (not state or country, but nation) has the right to self-determination. It was wrong of the United States government to suppress them.

Is it not equally wrong for the CSA to oppress its slaves?

[Greed and Death]

Every nation (not state or country, but nation) has the right to self-determination. It was wrong of the United States government to suppress them.

Is it not equally wrong for the CSA to oppress its slaves?

Yes, two wrongs do not make a right.

[Hellenic Protectorates]

Every nation (not state or country, but nation) has the right to self-determination. It was wrong of the United States government to suppress them.

Is it not equally wrong for the CSA to oppress its slaves?

Different argument entirely. The war did not begin over slavery.

[Ceannairceach]

Is it not equally wrong for the CSA to oppress its slaves?

Different argument entirely. The war did not begin over slavery.

And? The secession certainly was influenced by slavery. It is my opinion that if they wanted to secede, they should have outlawed slavery.

[Ceannairceach]

Is it not equally wrong for the CSA to oppress its slaves?

Yes, two wrongs do not make a right.

Most agreed, but that does not apply in this case. The CSA oppressed slaves, and whether it was their goal or not, the USA's war with them certainly went a long way towards emancipating them.

[Hellenic Protectorates]

Different argument entirely. The war did not begin over slavery.

And? The secession certainly was influenced by slavery. It is my opinion that if they wanted to secede, they should have outlawed slavery.

That doesn't make a single bit of difference. The war didn't start over slavery. The north needed a reason to legitimize their war in 1862-63 because public support was waning in the wake of the draft riots. They chose to say that they were freeing slaves.

Hell, the emancipation proclamation even ignored any slaves being held in Maryland, who weren't freed until the amendment passed. The North went to war with the South because the South was where the money was.

[Hellenic Protectorates]

Yes, two wrongs do not make a right.

Most agreed, but that does not apply in this case. The CSA oppressed slaves, and whether it was their goal or not, the USA's war with them certainly went a long way towards emancipating them.

Correlation =/= Causation. You're using a bevy of logical fallacies. Though, to be fair, you have to in order to support the Civil War as a "moral" war.

[Ceannairceach]

And? The secession certainly was influenced by slavery. It is my opinion that if they wanted to secede, they should have outlawed slavery.

That doesn't make a single bit of difference. The war didn't start over slavery. The north needed a reason to legitimize their war in 1862-63 because public support was waning in the wake of the draft riots. They chose to say that they were freeing slaves.

Hell, the emancipation proclamation even ignored any slaves being held in Maryland, who weren't freed until the amendment passed. The North went to war with the South because the South was where the money was.

South where the money was? On what source do you make that argument?

I hardly care about how the United States used slavery as a motive. The Confederate States maintained slavery as a reason for their secession from the Union, a point that was unjustifiably wrong. If they wanted to use the right of secession, they shouldn't have refused rights to others.

[Greed and Death]

Yeah they were.

How so?

People in the US felt the King was going to take their stuff.
People in the Confederacy felt the Federal government was going to take their stuff.

[Greed and Death]

And? The secession certainly was influenced by slavery. It is my opinion that if they wanted to secede, they should have outlawed slavery.

That doesn't make a single bit of difference. The war didn't start over slavery. The north needed a reason to legitimize their war in 1862-63 because public support was waning in the wake of the draft riots. They chose to say that they were freeing slaves.

Hell, the emancipation proclamation even ignored any slaves being held in Maryland, who weren't freed until the amendment passed. The North went to war with the South because the South was where the money was.

The emancipation Proclamation only applied to states in Rebellion Maryland was never in Rebellion hence it did not apply.

[Hellenic Protectorates]

That doesn't make a single bit of difference. The war didn't start over slavery. The north needed a reason to legitimize their war in 1862-63 because public support was waning in the wake of the draft riots. They chose to say that they were freeing slaves.

Hell, the emancipation proclamation even ignored any slaves being held in Maryland, who weren't freed until the amendment passed. The North went to war with the South because the South was where the money was.

South where the money was? On what source do you make that argument?

You know what? Because I pity you, I'll cite my source.

[Ceannairceach]

Most agreed, but that does not apply in this case. The CSA oppressed slaves, and whether it was their goal or not, the USA's war with them certainly went a long way towards emancipating them.

Correlation =/= Causation. You're using a bevy of logical fallacies. Though, to be fair, you have to in order to support the Civil War as a "moral" war.

Oh, no doubt correlation does not equal causation. But that does not apply here. Are you implying that, considering Lincoln's declaration involving the emancipation of slaves in states that seceded, the war between the United States and the Confederacy had nothing to do with the emancipation of southern slaves and the eventual outlawing of slavery? in the USA?

Who said I support the Civil War as a moral war?

[Hellenic Protectorates]

That doesn't make a single bit of difference. The war didn't start over slavery. The north needed a reason to legitimize their war in 1862-63 because public support was waning in the wake of the draft riots. They chose to say that they were freeing slaves.

Hell, the emancipation proclamation even ignored any slaves being held in Maryland, who weren't freed until the amendment passed. The North went to war with the South because the South was where the money was.

The emancipation Proclamation only applied to states in Rebellion Maryland was never in Rebellion hence it did not apply.

Exactly.

[Hellenic Protectorates]

Correlation =/= Causation. You're using a bevy of logical fallacies. Though, to be fair, you have to in order to support the Civil War as a "moral" war.

Oh, no doubt correlation does not equal causation. But that does not apply here.[...]

Logic doesn't apply here?

Alright. Bye.

[Ceannairceach]

How so?

People in the US felt the King was going to take their stuff.
People in the Confederacy felt the Federal government was going to take their stuff.

"Stuff" for the colonists being taxes, "stuff" for the confederacy being... What?

[Ceannairceach]

Oh, no doubt correlation does not equal causation. But that does not apply here.[...]

Logic doesn't apply here?

Alright. Bye.

What? No. Your insinuation that I have made a fallacy does not make sense, because a fallacy was not made.

[Ceannairceach]

South where the money was? On what source do you make that argument?

You know what? Because I pity you, I'll cite my source.

Oh, you have got to be joking. Please tell me you are.

[Hellenic Protectorates]

You know what? Because I pity you, I'll cite my source.

Oh, you have got to be joking. Please tell me you are.

Oh, I assure you I am not.
http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/articles/291 ... -civil-war

First paragraph.

On the eve of the American Civil War in the mid-1800s cotton was America’s leading export, and raw cotton was essential for the economy of Europe. The cotton industry was one of the world’s largest industries, and most of the world supply of cotton came from the American South

Checkmate, bub.

[Ceannairceach]

Oh, you have got to be joking. Please tell me you are.

Oh, I assure you I am not.
http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/articles/291 ... -civil-war

First paragraph.

On the eve of the American Civil War in the mid-1800s cotton was America’s leading export, and raw cotton was essential for the economy of Europe. The cotton industry was one of the world’s largest industries, and most of the world supply of cotton came from the American South

Checkmate, bub.

I disagree. While certainly a fine industry, the northeast was far more financially important than the cotton-producing south.

[Hellenic Protectorates]

Oh, I assure you I am not.
http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/articles/291 ... -civil-war

First paragraph.



Checkmate, bub.

I disagree. While certainly a fine industry, the northeast was far more financially important than the cotton-producing south.

I cited my source. You do the same, otherwise you're ignoring a checkmate, which is against the rules.

[Greed and Death]

People in the US felt the King was going to take their stuff.
People in the Confederacy felt the Federal government was going to take their stuff.

"Stuff" for the colonists being taxes, "stuff" for the confederacy being... What?

Stuff would be property including slaves.
Stuff in the south would be property especially slaves.
IF you doubt it read the parts of the Constitution that were overturned or are no longer applicable. Most copies have them printed with a line trough them. The 3/5ths and no end of the slave trade until clauses.

[The UK in Exile]

I disagree. While certainly a fine industry, the northeast was far more financially important than the cotton-producing south.

I cited my source. You do the same, otherwise you're ignoring a checkmate, which is against the rules.

http://trighloinedorcha.wordpress.com/2 ... ng-cotton/

[Seattile]

Different argument entirely. The war did not begin over slavery.

And? The secession certainly was influenced by slavery. It is my opinion that if they wanted to secede, they should have outlawed slavery.

Most people during that time weather from the North or South were more loyal to their state than the United States. People like Robert E. Lee did not agree with slavery or secession but they were loyal to their states. And slavery was not a goal to end the civil war until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation that only freed the slaves from the CSA and not the whole US because the four slave states that remained in the Union would of joined the CSA if it affected them. The slave states that stayed in the union were Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, and Kentucky, and slavery was more of a Northen reason to raise moral to fight the Confederacy. Plus Lincoln said himself if he didn't have to free a signal slave in the south to win the war he wouldn't of freed them until after... if at all. And the Emancipation Proclamation was really the only reason that European nations like England or France didn't send troops or more supplies to the south. It was more of poiltical thing than a moral thing.