Historical Flaws of the US Democrat and Republican parties..


  • abolitionists mean nothing. the vast majority of northerners were against slavery, but in a classic american style, only a small group tried to do anything about it. the rest just ignored it, since they lived up north. as for the south, id expect there to be low numbers of abolitionists, as slavery was part of southern culture at the time, whether you owned slaves or not.


  • @Janus1:

    As for Abe being a warmongerer, thats probably the first time Ive heard that opinion. While I could go off on a rant about this (because frankly I want to) Ill try to be a little more fair. What then, may I ask, is your opinion about Quebec trying to break away? And even if you think they should have been able to secede, do you think they should have been able to keep their slavery? Because thats what it boils down to, they seceeded over slavery. Yes, their were immediate causes, and other long-term tensions and issues, but the primary factor was slavery, and that was the symbol of the Northern/Southern rivalry.

    1. Quebec. You should see some of my Crypt vs. FinsterniS debates about this one. I believe that Quebec should be able to secede, but at the same time, that Quebec is divisible (i.e. that it would not be fair for all citizens to lose Canadian citizenship, particularly immigrants, anglophones, and natives). In fact, i wish that the francophone population would secede. That would make the rest of the country much more stable, and less money would be wasted on those blackmailling whiners.
    2. As far as slavery goes - i’m not an American, and even i know that the “civil” war (not so civil) was not so much about slavery as about federalism, and the rights of the southern states. They did not secede so much for the ability to keep slaves (which as a small part), however to put deeds to their voices of opposition to the north ordering about their lives. I believe that even if the south said “ok, we’ll do away with slavery, but we’re still seceding” there would still have been war. At the same time, if they did secede and maintained slavery, this is something that would have changed soon anyway.

  • o most definetly there would still be a war if they got rid of slavery but still seceeded. but what you said about opposition to the north ordering their lives was very much about slavery. a number of the immediate causes (dredd scott case (sp?), harper’s ferry, lincoln’s election) were directly related to slavery, and prompted many southerners to support secession for fear of losing their precious slavery. as far as long term, the economics of it and the slavery went hand in hand. the soutern economy being dependent on slaves, and the northern industrial economy exploiting them by pushing (to southern minds) unfairly high prices on them. and a deep seated resentment between the two areas was the fight over slavery (examples: missouri compromise, texas, california, kansas-nebraska, runaway slaves, etc.). no war is caused by any one thing, but one of the major causes of the civil war was slavery.


  • abolitionists mean nothing. the vast majority of northerners were against slavery, but in a classic american style, only a small group tried to do anything about it.

    I like to see proof backing this statement up. I will give you “provisional slavery” (or right-to-choose), though to say the majority of Northerners were against slavery outright is a lie.

    number of the immediate causes (dredd scott case (sp?), harper’s ferry, lincoln’s election) were directly related to slavery, and prompted many southerners to support secession for fear of losing their precious slavery. as far as long term, the economics of it and the slavery went hand in hand. the soutern economy being dependent on slaves, and the northern industrial economy exploiting them by pushing (to southern minds) unfairly high prices on them.

    Funny, you left out probably the most important cause of the war - the Tariff of Abominations, though I’ll let that slide… :roll:

    no war is caused by any one thing, but one of the major causes of the civil war was slavery

    Funny. This runs counter your previous statement, “…Because thats what it boils down to, they seceeded over slavery” Now it’s just one “major” cause? 🙂


  • I like to see proof backing this statement up. I will give you “provisional slavery” (or right-to-choose), though to say the majority of Northerners were against slavery outright is a lie.

    not so. passively, northerners were against slavery. as in, they didnt want slavery, didnt want the south to have it, but did not want to work against it for whatever reason. as for a specific source, i couldnt tell you, theyve all blurred together. i did this last year, so its all blocked from my memory.

    Funny, you left out probably the most important cause of the war - the Tariff of Abominations, though I’ll let that slide…

    :oops: forgot about that one, again, this was last year, so ive tried to block it out

    Funny. This runs counter your previous statement, “…Because thats what it boils down to, they seceeded over slavery” Now it’s just one “major” cause?

    it still boils down to slavery. if i said one major cause, then it was a mistake. it was the major cause, along with economy


  • not so. passively, northerners were against slavery. as in, they didnt want slavery, didnt want the south to have it, but did not want to work against it for whatever reason. as for a specific source, i couldnt tell you, theyve all blurred together. i did this last year, so its all blocked from my memory.

    This doesn’t sound very convincing to me.


  • eh, than dont believe me, or agree with me. this is one of a few topics i dont particularly care about.

Suggested Topics

  • 24
  • 29
  • 12
  • 65
  • 12
  • 70
  • 3
  • 8
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

63
Online

15.3k
Users

36.4k
Topics

1.5m
Posts