at least this is an informative battle.

i belive it's really all about opinion. there may be no real fact. people think it'll be the same if the south won. others think it'll be totally different and some other things. this topic just may be completely opinionated.

the only reason people continue arguing about it is that they want more and more people to believe what they think. swaying the advantage toward their opinion.

justgiving MY two cents. i wouldnt think too much of it since i'm a stupid little 14-year-old, but i felt like i needed to give my opinion in this topic . .

P.S. flame me if you wish. i dont mind.

PINOY YOU STUPID $%@#$%% WHAT THE #@$#@ DO YOU KNOW ABOUT ANYTHING YOU ARE SO @$#$@ING RETARDED!

the emanciapation did jack shit for the border states with slavery on the unions side and in certain areas that werent "rebellious"


all it did was in "end slavery" in states (and citys) in rebellion. areas of Virginia wernt effected by this. and it came 2 years into the war almost as an after thought at a battle in which the south won casualty wise (antitem) (sp). also the union couldnt enfource the emanciapation in areas it was not yet occupying. its was like the equivilant of telling hitler not to kill jews. sure it was symbolic but we couldnt stop it if our forces wernt there.

Yep, my point exactly

also by lee winning bull run (i think it was bullrun) he ruined slavery for the south by effectivly extending the war.

if the union had won, and defeated the south quickly chances, and lincoln who wanted the union in one peice, would have probly allowed slavery but once you start talking about that its more a matter of opinion then fact

so i guess whatever i had said made no impact in here. oh well.

nope. not one bit.

Hmm if slavery was still here i wonder how this country would look like.

just imagin people in Time Square in the street yelling out Niggas for sale 5 for
20! Get yours NOW!

Sorry to bring this topic back up but i have to disagree with LordClevage. As i am sitting today at work, shredding some documents i pondered on the subject and i came to a few conclusions.

First thing first, they would not use African Americans to fix machinery. Im not sure if you know this or not, but most slaves were very under educated and would not be able to do such things. And teaching slaves how to fix the machinery would take money, and time in which they would not have spent. Besides, why would you want to educate a slave? that would probably be the worst thing possible to do.

Another thing, kid i hate to tell you this but the cotton gin was made long before the civil war even took place. The Civil war started in 1861, the cotton gin was created in 1793, and they were not hard to repair, and i guarentee you the slaves did not try and repair this equipment.

I agree with Judi, or was it kicked? don't really remember. If the south would have one, slavery would have ended sooner or later. The two sides would eventually come together and form the united states. The thing that i have been thinking about is this

Things would have changed, our minds would evolve and see the reason that we are all equal, and that slavery would just make us look bad to the other countrys. Besides, just because the south won doesn't mean the freedom fighters wouldn't have emerged. Martin Luthor king and others would have stepped up, and things would have changed. As our minds evolve we see the idea of "Humanity" and slavery was not apart of your hUmanity. And besides, have slaves denied our own constitution which would have made us look bad once again.

The proclamation was a VERY BIG STEPPING STONE TO FREEDOM YOU DUMBASS.
Clevage, you really should go back and learn your history. The Proclamation accepted slaves into the Union army and the navy. This allowed the free slaves to fight for their liberation, and turn the whole war into a fight for freedom. Even though this document did not assert them to freedom immediatly, it did give them a big push.

The thing to look at is this was not a fight for freedom to begin with. The Union was not after the south because of slavery, they were just pissed off that the south had so much political power/influence. They used slavery as an excuse.

The South used slaves to their advantage yes, but the South wasn't fight for their slaves back. They were fighting for their land, their homes, and their way of life. Transgression withought slaves was difficult as F*CK, but they survived. The confedrate flag, and im sure you have seen this slogan but "Heritage, not hate" or "Pride, not hatred" or something of another is correct. How would you feel if an army came through burning your houses, destroying your property, and taking everything you have ever worked for? Now remember, they did this because they thought the south was to strong. ;)

Have a nice day. :)

ocelot once again you need to complete your basic middle school class before you argue with me


the emanciapation did not allow them to join per se. all it said was the union armies had to recogoznize that they were free.

on the machinery thing ill give you that point


but then we also got to look at that half the slaves or so did not even work in the fields, and lived in the city. most city slaves had a considerablly better life then plantation slaves, and a lot more freedom


as for the reason the union fought the war was simple. lincoln was not about to let america be torn apart. for you people that think they coulda been two different countires you are very wrong. if there was a major mountain range, or huge river inbetween then yes, but the mississippi and the apalachin mountains run the wrong way :)


another note is that robert e lee himself disagreed with slavery, he was fighting for his homeland virginia. the one time he did own slaves was when someone in his family (i forgot who) died and they inherited them for a short period to sell.

another thing on the emancipation is more symbolic then effective. say you owned slaves in the deep south and you herd about the emancipation, are you going to just release your slaves? hell no. would you tell them about it? once again hell no. it only affected slaves after the union armies marched though. the people in non rebellious areas and border states were able to keep there slaves. which is why we have the 13th admendment.


we could also get into the fact if the south really did seceed, lincolns 10% plan, and how his assassination acctually hurt the south. but that is a different arguement.


(and just to let you know im taking a collage lvl history class and we just got done with the civil war so im ready for anything you wish to argue with, to be honest i like this kind of debate)

This "debate" is lacking in clash. You both seem to be sort of saying random points...I'm not sure what the positions you're defending are anymore. To use a debate analogy, your arguments are like two ships passing in the night...nothing really takes out what the other is saying.

No my points were quite valid, and right. Im ignoring his post now because he just typed in random stuff. All of my points contradicted his own. I have no idea why he presented some of that stuff, as it wasn't even relative.

Ok, my first part at tearing your post apart, piece by piece. Apparently your "College Level Class" didn't help you any.

Quoted from the Proclamation itself " And I further declare and make known that such persons of suitable condition will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service. "

This translated means that all slaves were able to join the Union army and the Navy. Ok, you are owned on this part, lets move on.




Hmmm where did this come from? not sure what you are talking about here, explain better.



Ok first off, that's nice, lincoln can think what he wants. He fought the war for that reason, but what started the war was as usual, Politics. The south had grown rich, and were rising at such levels that the union states begain to worry and get edgy. What is the perfect excuse to attack them? Oh thats right they have a bunch of slaves! don't forget the fact that we have some to.

You see the point i was trying to make is that even if the south would have won the war, the United States would have still formed, and slavery would have ended. So you just got off subject here.






Umm getting off topic again? i don't see the use of this information.



The Proclamation was effective in the north, as it freed all slaves. How could it work in the south? it didn't applie to the south, the south seceded and was not part of the goverment any longer. Another excert straight from the Proclamation

"Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terre Bonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued."



The south did seced* spelling error fixed there. And the rest of that is not valid.

Im done now.

I think I read a total of 2 posts in this whole thread.. To long guys :(

come on guys...without blacks college football, nba, college b-ball, nfl, track n field would all suck.

Point taken. White people are just too slow and uncoordinated.

Umm..we didn't say anything about their not being any blacks o_o :P

Teehee. I think it needs to be fixed more :/

Iowa State for the win!

You do realize the North invdaded the South because they declared their independence right... the North didn't just decide to invade one day... Lincoln was elected on a platform of keeping America as one so the natural result was to invade upon sucession. The North also never used slavery as justification for the invasion, Lincoln has been quoted saying somthing to the effect of "if i could maintain this union without the emansipation i would do it in a heartbeat", but without freeing slaves the country would remain dvideded. The emancipation proclamation wasn't a goal of the war, simply the only way from preventing it from happening again.

As to your "real point", you don't provide any evidense as to why this may or may not be true. The South would have no incentive to rejoin the Union if what you say about the Souths massive wealth is true, (which its not, the North was acctually much richer than the South), because the South could sustain its own economy. The South even had its own president, it would simply remain its own nation, its not like there has to be a physical boundry between nations, look at Europe. Additionally, slavery is all about profit-motive, making it inevitable in a world where it is not prevented. Slavery is simply the best way to go about the platation, agricultural way of life in the South. If the South wanted to maintain its wealth it would have to keep slavery. When was the last time someone didn't act in their own best interest?

Who cares anyways, the crunch is coming, we are all going to die. (keke Judicator)