So Confusing...Who was right?

[MontyPython]

It's a difficult subject and no definite answer has been settled: Who was right? The North or South? In MY opinion I believe both side had a just cause to fight. The North was trying to maintain the Union, free the slaves, and settle the issues over the responsibilites of the Federal government in the lives of the States. The South had been treated unfairly even though slavery was disguting. However, the South didn't have to secede as soon as Lincoln became the president. Things didn't go the way they wanted so the pack up and leave? That seems childish to me. They could just as easily discussed the issue with Lincoln as his platform was abolition but with compromise. I just wanted to know the opinions of you guys out there. And don't rant and say Lincoln war a tyrant because thats not what this was about. He did what he had to do to reunite the Union, thats it. So what do you guys think? Did the South have the justification to start a war that claimed the lives of 600,000 men? Did they have the same grounds to start a rebellion as we all did back in 1776 (even though in 1776 we had NO representaion at all and in 1861 they were fairly represented)?

[JoelHenderson]

It's a difficult subject and no definite answer has been settled: Who was right? The North or South? In MY opinion I believe both side had a just cause to fight. The North was trying to maintain the Union,

Which was not a just cause, since every state was a sovereign nation under the law.

free the slaves,
That's false, as well as an illegitimate reason to conquer sovereign nations.

and settle the issues over the responsibilites of the Federal government in the lives of the States.

Those were already settled by law, in that the states were soverereign nations before and after ratifying the Constitution.

The South had been treated unfairly even though slavery was disguting.
It wasn't "disguting" enough for the North to accept the Southern secession, in order to embargo slave-state exports and offer asylum to fugitive-slaves; this would make slavery from a productive asset into an instant liability, and end it sooner than it did: the states would be forced to either free their slaves or go broke.

The North simply wanted absolute POWER, not freedom-- not for the South, and definitely not for the slaves.

However, the South didn't have to secede as soon as Lincoln became the president. Things didn't go the way they wanted so the pack up and leave? That seems childish to me.
Your opinion is not relelvant to the will of foreign sovereigns.
However you're obviousy brainwashed, since that's not how it happened: you aren't very well-read on the issue either. You argue like the average illiterate on the issue, speaking out of knee-jerk ignorance... and hence supporting Lincoln like any ignorant knee-jerk based on pure misinformation.
In short, public schools have done their job well.

In reality, Lincoln denied the sovereignty of the states prior to his election, claiming the right of the federal majority to pass any taxes or other laws whatsoever against them, and threatened to make war on them if they seceded.
He also promised to obey the Supreme Court's decision on Dred Scott-- then when the decision came down on the South's side, he did a U-turn and plotted with the Republicans to overturn the Supreme Court via his "House Divided" speech; and when he became president, he declared the Supreme Court virtually null and void, with the Republicans effectively mounting a coup to usurp complete national authority over the states, as well as the Court, suspending habeas corpus-- and branding the response a "rebellion" when in reality it was simply a sovereign act by independent nations. Tyrants in the 20th century would take lessons from Lincoln-- such as in "Mein Kampf" when Hitler wrote that "none of the American states could have had any sovereignty of their own," and used Lincoln's example in order to conquer the Germanic nations like Austria, claiming that they were all part of the Nation of Germany.

They could just as easily discussed the issue with Lincoln as his platform was abolition but with compromise.

What are you smoking, sniffing or snorting? Lincoln offered the Corwin amendment to make slavery permanent in the states where it existed, but denied Dred Scott in order to keep it from expanding into the new states; this was to give the Republicans a permanent majority so that they could raise taxes indefinitely, far beyond tyrannical levels.

I just wanted to know the opinions of you guys out there. And don't rant and say Lincoln war a tyrant because thats not what this was about.
Mass murder, total war, oppression and taxation is ALWAYS about tyranny.

He did what he had to do to reunite the Union, thats it.
False, since the Union was a voluntary association of sovereign nations, which therefore could not be re-united by force.
He did what he had to do to create an empire... and you sheep swallowed it hook, line and stinker.

So what do you guys think? Did the South have the justification to start a war that claimed the lives of 600,000 men?

Sovereign nations can't start wars by changing their foreign policy-- only by attacking other sovereign nations for doing so... like Lincoln did.

Did they have the same grounds to start a rebellion as we all did back in 1776 (even though in 1776 we had NO representaion at all and in 1861 they were fairly represented)?
Wrong on SO many levels.
First, a rebellion is an act AGAINST a sovereign, not an act OF a sovereign.
Second, the South was NOT fairly represented, since it was a minority, while the Republicans sought a permanent majority against it-- and likewise overthrew even the Supreme Court in order to mount a coup to usurp supreme imperial authority.
Finally, there is no "we;" the colonies declared independence as 13 sovereign nations, not ONE sovereign nation.
And the same went for all the new states-- each one was a sovereign nation unto itself, not the property of of a single sovereign nation.

[JoelHenderson]

It's not so complicated.

First off what you wrote down as the causes of the war and what people were fighting for is inaccurate.

Simple as that.

So let me make it simple for everyone.

The answer to your question is:

It depends on if you are in favor of a CENTRALIZED government...like we have now OR a DE-CENTRALIZED government, like our founding fathers created.

Whichever you are for is the side that is right, in your mind.

Actually that has no bearing on the law. By law, every state is and was a sovereign nation unto itself; and only a fool would claim that national sovereignty is a matter of opinion rather than law-- or should be heeded or ignored at whim!
That's a code of ANARCHY.

Here's the truth:
If you think that the states were sovereign nations under the law-- then you're right, since that's a fact.
If you think that the Union was one single sovereign nation: then you're wrong, since that's false.

The South thought that the states were sovereign nations: therefore the South was right.
The Republicans thought that the Union was one single sovereign nation: therefore they were wrong.
End of story.