Remember, it was originally about states rights, not slavery. (Whether any state would have the right to leave the Union if they didn't like the way things were run)
2007-11-06 07:38:44 · 20 answers · asked by the_chief 6 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
I am for states rights but against discrimination. People tie slavery to the civil war which in reality it had nothing to do with it. In fact lack of states rights is probably the biggest reason that the US is in the situation it is now. The is no longer any sanity just a big federal government that does whatever it wants to do.
2007-11-06 07:43:22 · answer #1 · answered by Marshal Jed Cooper 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The argument that the war was really about states rights was made by the southern states as a way of pretending that it wasn't about slavery. But the only states right that was at issue was the right to have slaves. It's naive or dishonest to pretend that it was anything else.
While there were a few northerners who went south and vice versa, most people sided with the state in which they lived. I imagine that people today would do the same. As my state tried to stay neutral, I imagine I'd do the same while decrying all these silly people shooting at each other to settle something that could have been worked out over a few glasses of brandy.
2007-11-06 07:45:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
North.
If you say: 'South'... you're a revisionist dope who's just looking to 'stir the pot' with more nonsense that anything done by the South was justified. They were losers, and lost. And Republicans were the people that championed the END of slavery (and the Democrats across the South hated that). The Dems simply created the KKK after the 1870's -- and those associations went right through the next 70-80 years.
Why do you think MORE than 1 state was on the side of the "confederacy?"... for fun? The States in question knew all about what was in the air... with a Lincoln presidency in the 1st place, and the fact that he debate real-thoughts on the subject matter (as opposed to the nonsense of today's tv debates). You think States would want to go to WAR over something other than they're way of life, being readied to change in large-scale?
2007-11-06 07:41:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
The Union. Actually the biggest part was about the states rights to have slavery.
2007-11-06 07:42:21 · answer #4 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The South's stance of course.
Why should any state, or any person for that matter, be forced to remain in a Union? I don't believe in any sort of forced "citizenship" by the federal government, whether it's for an individual or for an entire state.
That's a type of communism, in my opinion.
Btw, I am a Southern woman and casapulla, your derogatory remarks are due to ignorance.
2007-11-06 11:34:42 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the main the British ever did replaced into render help to any of the slaves that made it to Britain. despite the fact that, in case you're questioning approximately our opinion on no remember if the British might chosen the North or the South, i might say the North, through fact of that slavery help ingredient.
2016-10-15 06:32:06 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I really don't know, because in spite of what some people may believe, I wasn't around back then. And because I wasn't, there is no way I can know based on the knowledge and mores of the time. We may think we know everything based on history books, but we don't.
2007-11-06 13:49:54 · answer #7 · answered by Sara 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Union.
2007-11-06 07:41:45 · answer #8 · answered by MJMGrand 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Union, because even the seceded states had their say in what laws were passed and lost fair and square. They ran away when gov't didn't do exactly what they wanted.
2007-11-06 07:41:45 · answer #9 · answered by xzorion54 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Southern Boy here so I reckon I would be fixin to join up with the Johnny Rebs since my State would be in the South!
2007-11-06 07:43:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋