Poll: Was the resolution upheld?

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 55

Thread: The South Was Right

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    169

    The South Was Right

    This debate will be about two things
    1) whether the Southern United States had the right to secede
    2) whether she was justified in doing so

    The resolution is as follows;
    Resolved, the South had the right to secede and was justified in doing so

    I desire to debate the affirmative side.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    169

    Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag!!!

    Here it goes;

    The South has been vilified by the Northern victor since before she seceded from the Union. It has been said they were "racists" and fought for the preservation of slavery or that they were "traitors." These claims are based on nothing but propaganda issued from the printing press of the aggressor. I will prove that the South had the right to secede, the South's so-called "racism" was never as bad as the North's, and the South fought fought for the preservation of her self-determination.

    Secession and states' rights are two controversial subjects in American politics and government. Although they are now contentious, these were some of the guiding principles in the early days of the Union. The people of the states believed that a government closer to home, such as those in the states, had the true interest of the people in their heart. The document that declared our independence from the crown declares us to be "free and sovereign states" and have all the rights of a sovereign state. Why would the founding document of the states say the states are sovereign if a central government had the authority to push them back into line? The assertion to any casual observer that a document that is itself is declaring independence, forbids it to others.

    The next document important to the development of the United States is the Articles of Confederation. In article two of the said document it states:
    II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
    If the Articles of Confederation didn't state it was perpetual, that would be enough. Explanation of the perpetuity clause; it was meant to say that the Articles didn't end just because it was passed a certain date, and need I mention that the Articles ended in 1788, after starting in 1781.

    Then the Constitution is the structure of the current government. In the Constitution it never declares that the states lost their sovereignty by ratifying, if that was the case I guarantee you that it wouldn't be ratified by any of the states. Many opponents of secession would say that the supremacy clause trumps this argument. This is ridiculous, the clause means that the states by ratifying are guaranteeing that they will uphold their end of the bargain, not that the federal government is supreme in all laws it passes, no matter what their contents. Otherwise Article I Section 8 is nothing but a waste of ink and parchment.

    The claims issued forth from Northern presses are also false when they claim that the South was motivated by "racism." If that is the case, so was the North the following is a quote from the much admired Northern general William Tecumseh Sherman:
    As long as a doubtful contest for supremacy exists between the two races they cannot control their choice; but as soon as we demonstrate equal courage, equal skill, superior resources, and superior tenacity of purpose, they will gradually relax and finally submit to men who profess, like myself, to fight for but one single purpose, viz, to sustain a Government capable of vindicating its just and rightful authority, independent of niggers, cotton, money, or any earthly interest.
    (O.R., Series I, Volume XXX, p. 234-235)

    If you don't believe he said this, go look it up in Official Record, Cornell University has it on their website. It looks like at least Sherman believes this. It is also widely acknowledged that Lincoln believed in "colonization" of the blacks, sending them back to Africa. This sounds like a policy of 19th century ethnic cleansing to me, hardly a policy of tolerance. The South on the other hand gave a plan to the European powers to recognize them in late 1864 on the basis of gradual emancipation. Why would a person fight for something it was willing to get rid of? That is a question the aggressor rarely likes to be faced with.

    My last point concerns the South's cause in seceding. Given the facts from the previous paragraph I feel that no significant argument is needed as to her cause. If her cause was not slavery or racism, how could anyone dispute her reason for her secession, it is a moot point. So we may philosophize about her reasons but they are really not of any note, other than to try to prevent future instances of secession.

    The South not only had the right to secede but wasn't motivated by "racism" or any other such cause. If you still wish to contend her cause, please elaborate on why you believe that she seceded from the Union for that purpose.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    169
    Is anybody willing to take this on, come on, everyone tells me I'm wrong and a racist for thinking this, and then won't debate with me on a level above theCAP0?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    They probably had the right to secede but the USA had the right to make sure they don't.

    Were they justified in doing so? No. Even Jefferson Davis admitted that things worked out in the way they should have.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    They probably had the right to secede but the USA had the right to make sure they don't.

    Were they justified in doing so? No. Even Jefferson Davis admitted that things worked out in the way they should have.
    Where did Jefferson Davis say that, and the South surely wasn't better off for losing the war. Davis refused to give up, he kept up the effort for independence until he was dead.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by nate895 View Post
    Where did Jefferson Davis say that, and the South surely wasn't better off for losing the war. Davis refused to give up, he kept up the effort for independence until he was dead.
    He said it after the war and many people were upset with it. They do a big thing on it when you tour his house in Richmond.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    He said it after the war and many people were upset with it. They do a big thing on it when you tour his house in Richmond.
    He was one of the most eloquent defenders of the cause after the war, and I have searched the internet and not found an instance where he renounced the Confederate States of America or her cause. In fact he wrote A Short History of the Confederate States of America, a defense of the secession argument, 2 months before his death.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by nate895 View Post
    He was one of the most eloquent defenders of the cause after the war, and I have searched the internet and not found an instance where he renounced the Confederate States of America or her cause. In fact he wrote A Short History of the Confederate States of America, a defense of the secession argument, 2 months before his death.
    Well what can I tell you? It is hard to show you since it was at a museum in Richmond. I am not sure he meant it to mean they weren't right in secession. The exact phrase escapes me but it was something like "things worked out the way they should have". I'm in Richmond pretty often and perhaps I'll get an exact quote sometime if you are really interested in this stuff.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    Well what can I tell you? It is hard to show you since it was at a museum in Richmond. I am not sure he meant it to mean they weren't right in secession. The exact phrase escapes me but it was something like "things worked out the way they should have". I'm in Richmond pretty often and perhaps I'll get an exact quote sometime if you are really interested in this stuff.
    If you can find a legitimate source to say that Davis said that, like a letter, a journal, contemporary newspaper article, I will accept and then just try to prove why he is wrong, so what one mare sort-of opponent in a sea of millions.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by nate895 View Post
    If you can find a legitimate source to say that Davis said that, like a letter, a journal, contemporary newspaper article, I will accept and then just try to prove why he is wrong, so what one mare sort-of opponent in a sea of millions.
    Well true, it doesn't prove anything but the south still had no legitimate reason for seceding. The war was about slavery and they were wrong on the issue. It is that easy.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    Well true, it doesn't prove anything but the south still had no legitimate reason for seceding. The war was about slavery and they were wrong on the issue. It is that easy.
    Prove that it was about slavery. Most European scholars of the period looked upon the war as fiscal in nature, and many openly favored the South to the point of lobbying their governments recognition. In the end only the Pope recognized the Confederate States. I found that interesting when I learned about it, the Pope even gave Davis a crown of thorns while he was in prison, hoping to get a trial, if only he had gotten his wish.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by nate895 View Post
    Prove that it was about slavery.
    Prove it? Email this guy: http://www.history.vt.edu/Robertson/

    When every leading and respected civil war historian says it was mostly about slavery then you tend to believe them.

    While I agree it wasn't solely about slavery it was the "base" of the war as Robertson says:

    "What’s one of the greatest misconceptions people have of the Civil War?

    Probably that slavery alone was responsible for the war. I think that’s the greatest misconception. Slavery was certainly the base of the war. Without slavery, there would have been no war, but there were many other factors that played a role in the war coming and it coming when it did. " ~James Robertson

    http://www.collegiatetimes.com/news/1/ARTICLE/5714/2005-09-23.html?sid=2b50d93b0b46a9acda1cf96fa0dda698

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    Prove it? Email this guy: http://www.history.vt.edu/Robertson/

    When every leading and respected civil war historian says it was mostly about slavery then you tend to believe them.
    But are they respected because they are correct, or because they are politically correct?

    Look to the facts, not to the talking heads.
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote View Post
    But are they respected because they are correct, or because they are politically correct?

    Look to the facts, not to the talking heads.
    I agree with Symbiote. Also, many third party observers from Europe supported the South, and people who live in the time and are able to observe from a nonpartisan point of view are much more reliable than modern Professors about what happened when they were alive and why.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Symbiote View Post
    But are they respected because they are correct, or because they are politically correct?

    Look to the facts, not to the talking heads.
    Because they are correct and this guy is hardly politically correct. I've heard him speak a few times.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •