The American Civil War

[Farnhamia]

Definitely the union, particularly because after all the doubletalk the civil war was unequivocally about slavery. The war was on it's surface about slavery but when you look a little closer it was about whether or not a state could secede from the union which they wanted to do because they were afraid of losing their slaves. Saying the civil war was about "states rights" is apologist bull and it's a blatantly heavy handed effort to put the south on the right side in a war about freedom. The idea that defending your home somehow justifies fighting for a genuinely abhorrent cause is ludicrous the simple fact of the matter is that the only reason anyone in the south had to be in danger was because they were trying to resist justice being done.

You know I've just realised something. The current Southern preoccupation with "states' rights" is exactly like a card carrying Nazi Alter Kampfer trying to defend himself after WW2 by saying he was only fighting to defend German women against the rapacious Red Army.

Just so. "Well, we ... we treated the slaves okay, I mean, come on, it was better than running around naked in the jungle. And ... and ... you wouldn't destroy your tractor if it didn't pull a big enough load or go 60 miles an hour, right?"

[Bornisia]

The war was quite dark, yet from it came a whole new era. Both sides had compelling arguements aswell. I can't say who I would support, I had 13 relatives that I know of that fought on both sides, they were all born in the South. It's not a joke when they say it split families apart.

[Noobubersland]

The war was quite dark, yet from it came a whole new era. Both sides had compelling arguements aswell. I can't say who I would support, I had 13 relatives that I know of that fought on both sides, they were all born in the South. It's not a joke when they say it split families apart.

No, the south had no good argument for it, the north did

[Bornisia]

The war was quite dark, yet from it came a whole new era. Both sides had compelling arguements aswell. I can't say who I would support, I had 13 relatives that I know of that fought on both sides, they were all born in the South. It's not a joke when they say it split families apart.

No, the south had no good argument for it, the north did

States Rights, the North's argument was the South was an unrecognized government.

[Farnhamia]

No, the south had no good argument for it, the north did

States Rights, the North's argument was the South was an unrecognized government.

What right was being taken away from the South?

[Myrensis]

States Rights, the North's argument was the South was an unrecognized government.

What right was being taken away from the South?

the right to expand slavery into the new territories and to require northern states to hunt down and return any of their escaped property.

[Farnhamia]

What right was being taken away from the South?

the right to expand slavery into the new territories and to require northern states to hunt down and return any of their escaped property.

Oh, right, I forgetted.

[Des-Bal]

consistently brilliant summary

That's pretty thorough but I think one major factor you didn't address is the role that foreign powers played by not getting involved. The south had cause to believe that Europe and particularly England would be the French to their Colonists and turn the tables on an otherwise thorough ass-kicking. The southern states were convinced that if England had to chose between getting their hands dirty and going without their cotton imports it would be a no brainer. The English being the English knew a little bit about what happens when an industrial power fights an agricultural power and pursued Egyptian cotton rather than getting involved. Not only did the south not get the aid they had hoped for after the war was over cotton was no longer as profitable with a new game in town.

[Asgard Delegate]

No love for the Union back then, considering that evil bastard Sherman burnt down my home city and many others.

Would fight for Dixie if it meant I could help stop her from being put to the torch.

[Laerod]

No, the south had no good argument for it, the north did

States Rights, the North's argument was the South was an unrecognized government.

The state right to slavery. States' Rights weren't something they were interested in. Read their constitution or their ordinances of secession. I know Farn and I have posted the latter here for everyone to see earlier.

[Farnhamia]

No love for the Union back then, considering that evil bastard Sherman burnt down my home city and many others.

Would fight for Dixie if it meant I could help stop her from being put to the torch.

No one would have been put to the torch if the Southern leaders had simply waited.

[Noobubersland]

No, the south had no good argument for it, the north did

States Rights, the North's argument was the South was an unrecognized government.

Was the south concerned about 'states rights' in the fugitive slave act? Or in dred scott vs sanford? Or bleeding Kansas/ Or when they tried to force states to accept slavery when the people didn't want it? They only cared about 'states rights' when it suited them

[Tmutarakhan]

The government of France has POWERS. The people of France have RIGHTS.

You''re applying American constitutional principles to a foreign government and people.

It is not any different in their system.

[Laerod]

Bal, fix your quote and spoiler tags please...

No love for the Union back then, considering that evil bastard Sherman burnt down my home city and many others.

Would fight for Dixie if it meant I could help stop her from being put to the torch.

So you wouldn't have.

[Des-Bal]

No love for the Union back then, considering that evil bastard Sherman burnt down my home city and many others.

Would fight for Dixie if it meant I could help stop her from being put to the torch.

I love how southerners become all about human rights whenever someone brings up Sherman while neglecting the entire cause of the war.

[Noobubersland]

No love for the Union back then, considering that evil bastard Sherman burnt down my home city and many others.

Would fight for Dixie if it meant I could help stop her from being put to the torch.

Shall I name what the confederates did during the war?

[Rick Rollin]

Who messed up the spoilers?

[Noobubersland]

Who messed up the spoilers?

The ghost of Jefferson Davis

[Frisbeeteria]

Who messed up the spoilers?

The ghost of Jefferson Davis

LIES! THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!

[Noobubersland]

The ghost of Jefferson Davis

LIES! THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!

Or maybe Lincoln now

[Genivaria]

Ok, who divided by zero?

[Bornisia]

States Rights, the North's argument was the South was an unrecognized government.

Was the south concerned about 'states rights' in the fugitive slave act? Or in dred scott vs sanford? Or bleeding Kansas/ Or when they tried to force states to accept slavery when the people didn't want it? They only cared about 'states rights' when it suited them

It was the priniciple of it, many Southern leaders were offended by the invasion of Northern policies on such institions, the turbulent years even before the war had split the nation, and the more slave states or territories then the better the Southern faction would be in terms of influence in the Government. The free states challenged this which led to civil hostilities and briefly halted with compromises.

EDIT: what's with the spoilers? I hereby secede from this madness!

[Rick Rollin]

[/spoiler]
LIES! THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!

Or maybe Lincoln now

BRING IT ON, DISHONEST ABE!

[Wamitoria]

No love for the Union back then, considering that evil bastard Sherman burnt down my home city and many others.

Would fight for Dixie if it meant I could help stop her from being put to the torch.

I love how southerners become all about human rights whenever someone brings up Sherman while neglecting the entire cause of the war.

And neglecting to mention how Sherman's army actually avoided civilian casualties.

[Rick Rollin]

Ok, who divided by zero?

The guy going at light speed.