I said slavery was the ultimate cause of the Civil War. I then provided Civil War era documents proving southern states left the union because of slavery. They even stated so in their "Declaration of Secession" documents.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ai_4v9xhy_ByrvBDkjzwA3_Y7BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20070913160244AApBKAp
Had the southern pro-slavery candidate won the election of 1860, the South would not have seceeded.
"State-rights" is just an excuse southerners use when they are out of national power. Once they have it, they go about destroying it. Modern example: Bush ran on state rights in 2000, but has since used the power of the federal government to oppose California's medical marijuana laws, Oregon's right to die laws, and Massachusetts gay marriage laws.
2007-09-13
12:29:31
·
15 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Hmm. Don't see no movon.org links do you? I got Yale University links though.
2007-09-13
12:35:41 ·
update #1
Mel.
How sad. I posted EVIDENCE in the form of civil war era documents in which the states themselves say they left the union because of slavery.
All you got is well you're wrong cause I said so. Wah.
2007-09-13
12:36:59 ·
update #2
So you're saying that if slavery had been allowed to continue, the Civil War would not have started.
And this is a good thing... how?
And this is news... how?
And this is "facts"... how?
2007-09-13 12:37:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by null 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
So you like to twist facts and claim the high ground well lets look at your facts for a minute you say you have proof that the southern states left the Union due to slavery and not states rights this alone is a contradiction in your statement and by the evidence of your own admission anyone with a little common sense can see you intellect has made you blind the southern states were making a statement to the fact that they had the right to own,keep and continue in slavery and that if a Union a individual states acting as a collective body was going to force any state to discontinue the practice of slavery then they felt that if they disagree then they had a right to remove themselves from that collection of states in favor of the right to determine their own course on that matter,so by leaving the Union over slavery they were in fact leaving over the individual states right to determine there own destiny. How you in any way intend to tag GWB with the issue of slavery,The secession of the south,or the civil war is a stretch of huge proportions but that has never stopped a liberal before
2007-09-13 12:48:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by Big Daddy D 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Heres the thing, states rights have a limit. Oregons right to die is not a good thing. Everyone deserves to live or have a chance to live. euthanasia cuts the chances of survival to zero. whereas a miracle could've happened had it not been for the euthanasia.
Slavery did not cause the civil war, at least not directly. The south seceded and lincoln wanted to preserve the union. Lincoln did not want to ban slavery because that might cause the border slave states to secede but he did so that the unions progress would cut off the souths economy. (had it not been for the war freedom for slaves would have been delayed.)
gay marrage creeps me out, but its not killing anybody, and im not sure that marijuana actually does anything besides get people addicted and ruin lives (so it might cause death due to depression and suicide or directly) and i oppose unjust death (i consider iraq and afghanistan justified cause we are killing terrorists which cant kill more people)
2007-09-13 12:53:18
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Lets come forward just a bit in history and recall that "Bull" Connor was a democrat, along with Robert KKK Byrd, and that democrat Oval Fabush was the governor of Arkansas who tried to stop those African American kids from going to the all white high school. Along those lines, democrats block school vouchers that would help minority kids escape poorly performing inner city schools, whose unions contribute heavily to democrats. How about those facts?
2007-09-13 12:40:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
you're suitable on many info. It grew to become into through fact of Neville Chamberlain's wimpiness that Germany grew to become into waiting to rearm itself and start up WWII. FDR started the cradle to grave rules so needed by ability of socialists. as a question of actuality, had WWII no longer happened throughout the time of his presidency, FDR would have long gone down in history as a failed president. not one of the classes he started for the period of the Thirties did any sturdy in ending the melancholy. The social risk-free practices device has grew to become into the largest albatross on united states of america of america's neck.
2016-11-10 09:12:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
your facts are wrong! it was all about $$$$$.the north was loosing industry that was moving south because of cheap labor.sound familiar?you were spoon fed the lib revised education program.
2007-09-13 12:36:29
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Why do you present partial truths as complete facts and refer to factual responses as opinions? Typical lib, you can't get it straight no matter how hard you lie . . .
2007-09-13 12:35:53
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
When has any Neo-Lib on this board EVER used facts?
2007-09-13 12:38:44
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Why is this a conservative - liberal thing? Geez, I hate this turning every issue or disagreement into libs and cons.
2007-09-13 12:38:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by x2000 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
Oh, you know, they are just smarter than the rest of us!
2007-09-13 12:34:04
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋