Debate:Which was worse, the Civil War or effects or slavery?
|!||THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting
If you take one position it needn't mean you're negating the gravity of the war or that we should have kept slavery because it wasn't worth abolishing. The purpose of this discussion is to learn more about the War and slavery, perhaps lead us to talk of whether the current war is worth fighting. --Steve 22:42, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
I think that because of the affects of the Amendments resulting from the War, the Civil War was worse. The Fourteenth Amendment in particular, was the beginning of when the Bill of Rights stopped protecting the people from the government, and became a tool of the government to limit other citizens. --Steve 22:55, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
- Maybe, but slavery in itself wasn't a means of restricting rights? Any rights that might have been restricted under a different interpretations of the bill of rights don't even begin to compare with the restriction of rights that result from slavery. I can't think of anything worse than having your life completely owned and being subject to brutality and losing all free will. Even losing your right to bear arms or freedom of speech would be much, much better than being a slave? DanH 23:42, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
Your race suffers very greatly, many of them by living among us while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each sid. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least, why we should be separated.
Unfortunately, I will quickly tire of playing the "Devil's Advocate," and join the side that I believe. I argued the way I did, not because I'm racist; I thought I'd learn more and you guys gave me some great information. This "debate" will probably run out of gas after I stop disagreeing with you, but it was educational while it lasted. Thanks. --Steve 07:25, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
Ultimately the effect of slavery on the U.S. was a civil war between slave states and free states. Slavery still exists in other countries around the world. But it isn't any question of whether military action was necessary at that time. It was unique to this country and that it holds no relation to other wars since then.--Roopilots6 11:54, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
This is a flawed question. It is like asking what is worse, war or disease. They are not really comparable as one is man's doing the other is natures doing.
With that said, was slavery in the USA was worse than the war of Northern Aggression? I'd say The War of Northern Aggression was worse because its effect was to reduce liberty for all in transforming our republic from a voluntary compact of Sovereign States to control people at the point of a gun. Slavery was on its way out and could have peacefully ended in a generation or two, if not sooner if the Northern slave traders returned the money they sold slaves for where the buyer expected a lifetime worth of return on investment. --Peterporcaro 15:40, 11 November 2009 (EST)
This question implies two untrue statements: (1. The Civil War was fought to end slavery. (2. Slavery could not have been abolished without it. Neither of these is true, so the question is flawed.--Lordofthemarsh 00:44, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
- The reasons for secession all led back to the question of slavery. Slaves were considered property in slave states. The question as to then whether the Federal Government was able to take a persons private property was paramount for the reason to secede. The selective picking of events while ignoring the reasons they happened is a political tact common since the end of the American Civil War. If not after the first State seceded. That slavery could have been abolished without a Civil War is mute since secession was in fact a Declaration of War against the Union.--Roopilots6 10:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)