📝☕TW Public Debate Forum☕📝
Forums › General Discussion › 📝☕TW Public Debate Forum☕📝-
HELLO TURF WARS! The ideas put forth in these forums are many times filled with nonsense getting quite difficult to put up with after a while. Therefore I would like this thread to be dedicated to serious debating on two new topics every week. Please, for the sake of those who enjoy debating do not make the choice of debating or not debating a topic up for debate in this thread, Thank you.
Basic Flow:
I will be posting two, usually historical topics that have meaning, unlike topics like "iPhone 5 vs. Samsung Galaxy III" or "should Havoc have retired or not?" I will post a new thread each week with different topics and give an unbiased opinion of which side did the better job of debating their side's views at the beginning of every new thread from now on.
-
Rules:
I ask for no cursing or profanity, we are civilized human beings and are quite capable of expressing ourselves without the use of such vain language. The main goal here is to have fun expressing your opinion (hopefully based on research) and reading the opinions of others, so don't make it too much of a fight here, however, feel free to quote people's comments showing how they are wrong or other methods of proving your point.
Now, the winning side of last week's debate was those who argued that Hitler was a worse dictator than Stalin🎉🔔🎉
Ok, Today's topic is:
Should the Southern States have seceded from the Union or should they have stayed under the power of the Union? -
I might also put forth the question, "would I be asking this If the South had won??"
-
Either way they lost.
-
They should of realized that the slave trade had already been abolished and that seceding was a terrible alternative to the good solution of playing nice and allow the slaves their deserved freedom. This would have saved an innumerable amount of American lives. This is of course my opinion and I respect the opposition entirely.
-
I am disappointed that the South had to get up and leave the Union only to be forced back by much blood shed on both sides. I honestely believe that they should have simply accepted that human slavery is abominable in every aspect of the thought, and put down their differences from the Union and stay put. I am personally a Southern so my opinion is true, and I think also that both sides had valid reasons for what they did. The reasons are many so as to prevent me from listing them here, but the main one probably being that in society the Southern states were severely opposite in too many aspects.
-
I am taking this deeper than slavery. It was more like states rights, it just happened to be slavery as a main conflict. I think they had every right to secede, they wanted to run things one way, the north wanted it another, why not secede rather than arguing and getting nothing done.
The north were just being assholes to the south IMO. They ganged up on them (granted for a good cause) and slavery had been acceptable at this time (not saying it is acceptable).
-
jake rock wrote:
Should the Southern States have seceded from the Union or should they have stayed under the power of the Union?
Being that the 7-state Confederacy's attempted secession from the United States is what caused the civil war, I would say the short answer to your question is no. Almost every constitutional expert at the time rejected the legality of secession and not one foreign government recognized the Confederacy. They basically stole property from the United States and the civil war was about reclaiming that property. The Confederate states had earlier agreed to the terms and protections of the US Constitution and should have known better, the choice to secede or not was never theirs to make. -
The south's secession was based on how southern slave holders viewed Abraham Lincoln and his cabinet and their political views. The south at this time was composed of 99% of people who were not slave holders. The other 1% who were just happened to control everything. So, the southern 1% projected that Lincoln would enforce the abolitionist cause on them and get rid of slavery, so they seceded. But, Lincoln was not an abolitionist, his whole mantra was to ensure the longevity of the union. With the south seceding, and with northern dependence on southern agriculture, the north declared war. But final answer, no, the south seceding was stupid, as Lincoln had no intention of freeing the slaves.
-
E=MC(Hammer) wrote:
I believe the percentage of southerners who owned slaves was more like 25%, not to mention that even those that didn't had friends and relatives that did own slaves and saw how it benefited the southern economy. There probably was actually a majority that supported the right to own slaves, not 1% or anything close to it. Your point still stands that the monied and powerful interests dragged the masses into armed conflict, but that's the case in all wars.The south's secession was based on how southern slave holders viewed Abraham Lincoln and his cabinet and their political views. The south at this time was composed of 99% of people who were not slave holders. The other 1% who were just happened to control everything. So, the southern 1% projected that Lincoln would enforce the abolitionist cause on them and get rid of slavery, so they seceded.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
Oh, my bad. I meant to say 1% owned 100 or more slaves. That those people ran the economy and everything else.E=MC(Hammer) wrote:
I believe the percentage of southerners who owned slaves was more like 25%, not to mention that even those that didn't had friends and relatives that did own slaves and saw how it benefited the southern economy. There probably was actually a majority that supported the right to own slaves, not 1% or anything close to it. ✂The south's secession was based on how southern slave holders viewed Abraham Lincoln and his cabinet and their political views. The south at this time was composed of 99% of people who were not slave holders. The other 1% who were just happened to control everything. So, the southern 1% projected that Lincoln would enforce the abolitionist cause on them and get rid of slavery, so they seceded.
-
hey just keep making the exact same thread until one of em sticks k?
-
ᏟᏞᏫNᎬ wrote:
I agree to most of this but I don't think it was State's rights as much as slavery. Slavery was questioned starting in the late 1700s, early 1800s. It started to get really heated and instead of change their entire way of life, they seceded.I am taking this deeper than slavery. It was more like states rights, it just happened to be slavery as a main conflict. I think they had every right to secede, they wanted to run things one way, the north wanted it another, why not secede rather than arguing and getting nothing done.
The north were just being assholes to the south IMO. They ganged up on them (granted for a good cause) and slavery had been acceptable at this time (not saying it is acceptable).
-
For those not in the US, which side liked Coke and which were Pepsi again?
-
⚡🏀ʟєցi†ßɑʟʟєʀ🏀⚡ wrote:
No, it was all about states rights and not about slavery. Until the cotton gin came about, slavery was fading away naturally. Once cotton production was spurred, slavery came back stronger. And, as time and institutions go by, slavery started fading again, so much that it really wasn't that much of an issue except when john Calhoun thought Lincoln would abolish it. States rights and intranational dependence were the prevailing issues.ᏟᏞᏫNᎬ wrote:
I agree to most of this but I don't think it was State's rights as much as slavery. Slavery was questioned starting in the late 1700s, early 1800s. It started to get really heated and instead of change their entire way of life, they seceded.✂
The north were just being assholes to the south IMO. They ganged up on them (granted for a good cause) and slavery had been acceptable at this time (not saying it is acceptable).
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC