Was the Civil War really worth fighting?

[Cd.]

I used to think that Lincoln was the man for dealing with those pesky southerners. But the more I think about it, why not let the southern states succeed?

Now sure there were slaves there. But if he just would have passed a law that any slave who comes north is free, and the slaves just tell their massahs to sod off and run away then the Confederacy would be too busy trying to put down its slave rebellions and such. Eventually the Confederacy would fall under its own weight and (like South Africa did) would have given up on the slave thing.

Now I would also say that a lot of the bullshit going on today in the US would probably be averted if we let the South Succeed. Consider, we would be a more liberal and freer nation. We would not have George W Bush Elected. In fact the US would probably be more like Canada or Europe. As for the South, they can have it their way and be as repressive as they want.

Now that I think about it, maybe we can give independence to all the south now!

[Alberto_Balsalm]

Was the Civil War really worth fighting?

Yes. Full stop.

[Šñøü†ê®]

Was the Civil War really worth fighting?

Absolutely not. The "civil war" was a disgusting breach of the Constitution and the country, meaning a satanic federal entity dictating to the various states failed and should be eliminated. Thus the various states should have drafted up another agreement should they have a desire for an umbrella entity not financed by the Rothchilds.

[Alberto_Balsalm]

why not let the southern states succeed?

As Lincoln said in his first inaugural address, unchecked unilateral secession from a government with democratic institutions could only result in anarchy or despotism as the greater whole disintegrated into smaller and smaller units. If the slave states were allowed to leave the Union on their own without any consent from the rest of the Union, how could the Union prevent the West from leaving or even New York City from doing so?

Even if it were to stop with the slave states' secession, the Union would have a problem on its hands with a foreign power controlling access to the Mississippi. Also, if the following were any indication:

-The Mexican American War
-The filibuster expeditions instigated by Southern landowners against Central American and Caribbean nations prior to the Civil War
-The Confederate invasion of the Arizona and New Mexico territories
-The Confederate Army's capture and enslavement of free black Pennsylvanians during the Gettysburg Campaign
-Confederate Secretary of War LeRoy Pope Walker's bragging that "before the first of May the flag of the Southern Confederacy will wave from the dome of the old Capitol in Washington and within a short time perhaps also from Faneuil Hall in Boston."
-The daydreams of Confederate movers and shakers about Confederate conquest of the Caribbean, Central and South America

one can be forgiven for assuming that the Confederacy would have been an armed missionary of slavery and white supremacism, perpetually at war with every nation and people in the Americas.

The "civil war" was a disgusting breach of the Constitution and the country

I agree with you. The slave states clearly violated the Constitution's Supremacy and Contract clauses when they attempted to unilaterally secede from the Union and set up an illegal regime.

[86Dùde]

Yes, it is enjoyable knowing that 700 thousands filthy yankee dogs died like the invading, foreign born maggots they were with countless hundreds of thousands more left disfigured or mortally wounded.

[colonel]

You folks really know how to hold a grudge.

[Freedom&Liberty]

In many ways the US still suffers the effects of the civil war. The states have few rights left and we have an oppressive police state that intrudes into the lives of citizens. The federal government is massive and deeply in debt as 10's of millions have traded their freedom for the slavery of the government plantation. This is absolutely NOT what the founders intended. Becoming a more liberal nation has made us less free.

[86Dùde]

You folks really know how to hold a grudge.

I could offer much substance to this conversation but it is only going devolve into mud slinger about slavery with retards like JoJO trolling it relentlessly so there really isn't much point.

[malishajohnjerri]

yes is wrong,The Civil War had an enormous effect on industry in the North. As a result, it helped change the U.S. from a country that was farm centered and plantation-centered to one that was mechanical

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

If Lincoln or any other Yankee had been really concerned about 'preserving the Union' they wouldn't have started railroading through the massive welfare programs for northern corporations at Southern expense, pretty much forcing the secession option. It's that simple.

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

I could offer much substance to this conversation but it is only going devolve into mud slinger about slavery with retards like JoJO trolling it relentlessly so there really isn't much point.

Yes. Anybody who thinks it was about 'freeing the slaves' is just an ignorant fool.

[Panzerkampfwagen]

Absolutely not. The "civil war" was a disgusting breach of the Constitution and the country, meaning a satanic federal entity dictating to the various states failed and should be eliminated. Thus the various states should have drafted up another agreement should they have a desire for an umbrella entity not financed by the Rothchilds.

But the CSA was a foreign country and so not protected under the US constitution.

[queenlillian1962]

Nope, should have let them secede, totally not worth it and one of my ancestors would have lived past his 21 birthday and had a family.

Your right we could have just given santuary to the escaped slaves and watched the little racists bleed out of their "antique farm equipment". Slaves would have had an uprising and cut the throats of their Massers and burned the South to the ground cause that's what always happens to elitest assholes who care more about the bottom line then human suffering.

North would have helped smuggle arms into help the slaves fight and the slaves could have turned the south into another Haiti. In the end it would have been all good for us and we wouldn't have to hear them bitch for the last 150 years.

[queenlillian1962]

Yes. Anybody who thinks it was about 'freeing the slaves' is just an ignorant fool.

Your right, it was about the South feeling as unrepresented as the slaves they held. Funny how karma works.lol

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

Nope, should have let them secede, totally not worth it and one of my ancestors would have lived past his 21 birthday and had a family.

Your right we could have just given santuary to the escaped slaves and watched the little racists bleed out of their "antique farm equipment". Slaves would have had an uprising and cut the throats of their Massers and burned the South to the ground cause that's what always happens to elitest assholes who care more about the bottom line then human suffering.

North would have helped smuggle arms into help the slaves fight and the slaves could have turned the south into another Haiti. In the end it would have been all good for us and we wouldn't have to hear them bitch for the last 150 years.

This is all pretty funny stuff, considering the talking point in selling Northern voters on the war was it would keep those awful, smelly Negroes out of the North, so all those Irish and Pollock drunks wouldn't have to compete with them for jobs and land, eh? Being completely ignorant of geography, they actually believed slavery was viable outside of the Cotton Belt. The gibberish about Northerners supporting a slave uprising among blacks is just ludicrous fantasy; they hated blacks worse than southerners did, and still do.

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

Your right, it was about the South feeling as unrepresented as the slaves they held. Funny how karma works.lol

Nah. It was all about massive land giveaways to railroads, and high tariffs that would force the Southern states to subsidize Northern capitalists. Nobody in the North cared about slaves or black people, and there is far more than enough in historical records to prove it beyond doubt. Your Hero Abe Lincoln in fact helped formulate the Black Codes in Illinois forbidding blacks to own land there, for instance, and of course Sherman and other Northern generals forced all the 'freed' slaves they could catch into 'property camps' to keep them from fleeing North after being 'liberated', and those that didn't starve to death or die from diseases were forced to build railroads and other construction for Sherman as well.

[86Dùde]

If it weren't for the civil war I wouldn't have all this valuable civil war stuff to dig up and put on my wall.

[queenlillian1962]

This is all pretty funny stuff, considering the talking point in selling Northern voters on the war was it would keep those awful, smelly Negroes out of the North, so all those Irish and Pollock drunks wouldn't have to compete with them for jobs and land, eh? Being completely ignorant of geography, they actually believed slavery was viable outside of the Cotton Belt. The gibberish about Northerners supporting a slave uprising among blacks is just ludicrous fantasy; they hated blacks worse than southerners did, and still do.

ROLMFAO! Wow your a bigger fucking idiot then I thought!

[queenlillian1962]

Nah. It was all about massive land giveaways to railroads, and high tariffs that would force the Southern states to subsidize Northern capitalists. Nobody in the North cared about slaves or black people, and there is far more than enough in historical records to prove it beyond doubt. Your Hero Abe Lincoln in fact helped formulate the Black Codes in Illinois forbidding blacks to own land there, for instance, and of course Sherman and other Northern generals forced all the 'freed' slaves they could catch into 'property camps' to keep them from fleeing North after being 'liberated', and those that didn't starve to death or die from diseases were forced to build railroads and other construction for Sherman as well.

Nobody cared about black slaves in the north? does the word abolitionist and John Brown ring any bells? How about Mason Dixon line? Missouri Compromise? Why would all the legislation and fuss over slave and non slave states even have occurred if NOBODY in the north cared about slaves. Face it the South is still pissed off that the North forced them do the right thing because they wouldn't do it on their own.

[86Dùde]

Queen I hate to say it but there is some truth in what he's saying. Take the emancipation. Abe didn't emancipate shit. They were still allowed to have slaves in the border states, and in places like Vicksburg and New Orleans. THe principle of Abe's party as it was created in the 1840's was centered around the fact that the union could not exist without being whole. The principles as they belived were set forth in the declaration, the articles of confederation and in the constitution. The abolitionist movement was largely a religous crusade that caused more problems than it solved. I've said it many times and it is worth repeating: Nation states don't go to war over principles. Perhaps their soldiers do, but they're misled. They go to war for themselves.