Hey guys, I tried calling everyone (or the numbers I had, I'll try to get the message around). Correct me if I'm missing anyone, but in our group we have:
Haley, David, Rodrigo, Julia, Tim, Rosette, Cait, Erin, Yue, Dan B., Dennise, Corey?, Kelly?, and others that I can't remember, I apologize.
Basically, we have our main idea for the debate, but I think we should think it over. If anyone has any more ideas, please type them here; comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I don't see what's wrong with debating that the Civil War could've been repressed by simply letting the South succeed. The North could've been well-off with their industry, connection to the Midwest & West with railroads, and they did have farming as well in the Great Plains states (Iowa, Illinois, upper half of Kentucky, western states). The South, on the other hand, was not connected to the West via railroads, did not have a booming industry like the North did, and didn't directly trade with Europe. They had raw goods that needed to be processed by the North before export.
If a different compromise was made that really was a 'compromise' for both the North and South, the moral issues of slavery would still have caused problems further down the road, and it would have been unavoidable.
Please tell me what you think.
signing in
Nice Erin. First of all before we argue that the Civil War is repressible, we have to know the main reason the Civil War occurred: states rights and slavery and the economical issue raised by slavery.
Now Summarizing what u said/What you should add:
1)North had little to worry about as they were well off, and were even benefiting during the early 1800's and the ensuing years of the cotton gin...South gave the cotton (raw goods). North produced finished product---sent it to ENG and the North even (Bailey says this) benefited more from this trade than the south-that is they got a bigger cut of the cash.
2) Another arguement: North had farming as u said...minus the moral issue..the North should have shut their mouths and let slavery have its course. The South were clearly behind economically.
im out, but ill be back at around
9:00pm-9:30pm or so. Maybe we should split sturf/arguements up
* I also realize I typed 'succeed' instead of 'secede'.
Excellent, Simeon. I hope more people check this.
If a different compromise was made that really was a 'compromise' for both the North and South, the moral issues of slavery would still have caused problems further down the road, and it would have been unavoidable.
I'm confused about this. If the a real compromise was made, the civil war would have been avoided. Because all the compromises made during the 1800's benefited the North more than the South, but enough concessions were made so that the South would allow it to happen. So if a real compromise was made immediately the South would have been satisfied and the Civil War would have been avoided.
Unless we can come up with an example of a compromise that benefits both sides (not anything like the MO Comp.) stopping the issue of slavery. The South depended on slavery. The North (for the most part) disagreed with its spread, but the US was still growing, territories still becoming states. That meant there would be no slavery in these states, which would give more power to the North as more were established without slavery. Obviously, the South wouldn't like it.
Now, I know we all know this, but what kind of compromise would make both the North AND the South happy?
So now we can't argue that the North couldn't have just let the South go. Great.
the crittenden compromise! If Lincoln would have allowed that...it would have been set!
we are SCREWED. No orginisation.
yes, we're bringing up the crittenden compromise. and I agree - no one really checked this. I tried to let people know.
Post a Comment