The civil war wasn't about slavery, it was about state rights!

Just tell them "State rights to do what", also point out that they were very merciless to anyone who wanted to split of from their "split off"

>States rights to do what
A lot of things, including slavery. See

>state rights to do what
Have a say in the governance of the nation. Lincoln was elected without winning a single southern state, and Lincoln was a proponent of centralizing authority and acting without congressional approval. The south did not want to be subject to the will of northern politicians and decided to leave and form a less centralized republic.

Also, It is facetious to imply that southerners wanted to secede over slavery because secessionist sentiment in the south had been around for a lot longer than abolitionism had been a major political force in the United States.

>tfw no slave gf

:(

The civil war wasn't about slavery, it was about state rights

The civil war wasn't about slavery or state rights.

It was about economics and making profit. Cotton gin made the south, the agricultural backbone of the US very very wealthy. And the south was no longer reliant on European exports, they also started cutting down on relying on northern industries. So to preserve the union, cough cough, I mean for the north to absolutely dominate southern economy, they had to stop the south from gaining political autonomy.

And that's why every single letter of secession by the Confederate states mentions slavery as the most important factor, right?

>le Northern Aggression maymay

The south had almost no industry, it's hard to believe they were about to become self-sufficient withouth either trading with Europe or the North. Sure they had a lot of cotton and other crops, but no heavy industry, which a modern state couldn't do without.

Also, producing cotton was so profitable because of slavery. Even if you focus on economics, slavery is still a central point, even if the North had other reasons to abolish it, not just moral ones.

I'm not even American, let alone a southerner. Just examining from a neutral, realpolitik perspective.

Yes and no. The south had no industry like the north, the north was resource scarce so they had to build up a large manufacturing base. However the south still had a large agricultural base, with the cotton textile industry added to that factor, the south becoming self-sufficient is not impossible. They might not successfully transition to a modern state like the US did later, but they definitely have the means to create a long lasting independent nation. Both the north and the south at the time wanted to cut off European imports because it was 1. helping the Brits get back on their feet and 2. it was undermining the domestic US industry.

Still, why would they want to create an independent nation? As far as I know, they didin't have very strong issues with the Washington government about taxes or tarrifs. The only really pressing issue was abolition of slavery. And if you are a slave owner, it really is a very scary prospect. You are going to lose your livelihood, you will even lose some of your land, which will be given to the slaves as reparation, and there is always a chance that they will come back to take revenge. Although today we condemn slavery, it's totally understandable that the slave owners would secede and go to war over it, rather then some abstract idea about states' rights.

And even the cotton growing wouldn't remain long since it kills the soil. George Washington carver was an advocate for changing farming practice sometime later to reduce the reliance on cotton farming and to restore the soul through various means like a peanut-cotton crop rotation. If the soil crash happened while slaves were still a thing a huge conflict could have been spurred.

Don't forget that the cotton boll weevil would've fucked them up big time in only a couple of decades.

I'm not an american, but it seems to me, based on all of human history, that no one starts a war for moral reasons. Wars mostly revolve around power and resources (but more often just power) and the moral issues that get thrown around are just a way to justify the war by showing how evil the other side is (especially effective when they are in fact engaged in some horrible shit).

>implying prostitution didn't exist
there were way more important issues surrounding the owning of slaves other than getting to fuck them. Fucking wizard fedora idiots won't shut up about muh harum

DUDE IF YOU LIKE GUNS ITS BECAUSE YOU HAVE A SMALL DICK LMAO!

>Let's leave out the parts about how imidately freeing all the slaves would be an economic and social disaster for the south.
>Let's leave out the parts about how the Republican party founds were largely abolitionists.
>Let's leave out the parts where states were deciding for themselves to do gradual emancipation as to not screw over their entire economy.
>Let's leave out the South in general shifting away from slavery, and even many of the movers and shakers referring to it as essentially a necessary evil for their survival.
It sure is black and white when you leave out most the information!
Also don't forget that Lee was pro giving blacks full rights after the Civil war, but now he is vilified by revisionists.

>it's another yankee shitposting thread

The north never threatened to free the south's slaves, they even passed the corwin amendment through congress which would have made slavery a constitutionally protected. The civil war was about southern secession and their had been a strong secessionist contingent since the nullification crisis. There's no question that the CSA was definitely pro-slavery but they didn't start a war over it.

Andrew Jackson said it best in 1833 "the tariff was only a pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question."

It's like you didn't read the states' declarations of secession. They literally bring up slavery in the first sentence of nearly every one.

Gradualism is just yet another way to ameliorate the crimes of the powerful against the powerless. If you are truly opposed to slavery you shouldn't be able to conscience it for even a day longer. Stop making excuses for an aristocracy which built it's fortune on an industry of human suffering.

The world is not black and white, if you think it is you need to spend some time out in the world.

user walks up to a slave being raped by her owner.

"Don't worry! We're working on freeing you. We can't free you right away because it'll wreck the economy, but just hold out another year or two (or three, or four...) and you'll be free. We just need to draft some terms of emancipation that the man raping you can agree upon and then take it to a vote in the state congress. Trust me, I'm as morally opposed to slavery as you are, that's why I'm doing everything I can to help you. Well, bye."

>as the most important factor
Except they don't. They mention it as a factor, but not the most important one.

it was about a state's right to own slaves

and? There were 11 states that wrote their own letters of secession. Some of them mentioned slavery a lot, some of them mentioned tariffs a lot, some of them mentioned neither. SC's the most important because they started it and they never accused the North of trying to end slavery in the south, only that they weren't upholding the constitution fairly. Literally the same copypasta they had from the Ordinance of Nullification.

After doing all the flag-saluting and allegiance pledging a child is required to do in grade school, people become innately hostile to the historical truth that, like virtually all other powerful nations in human history, America is an empire of blood built on human death and suffering. You can either be an adult and accept and acknowledge this fact or continue to attempt to live in your childhood, which will require you to devise increasingly tenuous justifications and defenses for increasingly indefensible atrocities.

What is your decision?

that's how the north did it.

>aristocracy which built it's fortune on an industry of human suffering.

welcome to the history of every country ever

>[insert every nation ever] is an empire of blood built on human death and suffering

yes and you reap all the rewards of it. It's kind of pathetic to demonize the people in the past who made your current comfort possible. Fuck off into the woods and then maybe you can whine about it.

This is one of the biggest objections to portraying WW2 as a just war because it undersells all the political and economic reasons the war happened.

*"that's how the north did it."*
I know, and that's the north's moral failing. However, they somewhat made up for it by beating the slavery out of the south with the butts of their muskets.

*"welcome to the history of every country ever"*
You think you're being pragmatic but you aren't. Moral pragmatism is about devising practical solutions with appropriate severity to moral quandaries. Moral pragmatism isn't about excusing the crimes you claim to oppose.

The appropriately severe response to slavery is to bring fire and bloodshed down onto slave owners until they reconsider their attitude towards slavery.

Reminding me that the abolitionists of the north didn't do this to the slaveowners of the north is an impeachment of the north, not a defense of the south.

What makes you think I don't live in the woods already?

>The appropriately severe response to slavery is to bring fire and bloodshed down onto slave owners until they reconsider their attitude towards slavery.
>Reminding me that the abolitionists of the north didn't do this to the slaveowners of the north is an impeachment of the north, not a defense of the south.
So you advocate the usage of fear and violence to push your agenda?
Seems a little fascist of you, rather then allow the proper due process of law or taking into account the full repercussions of actions you advocate for you instead say do it this way or I will hurt you.
That seems rather abhorrent, I personally can not stand militants, they disgust me.
But as you advocate for violence being allowed I am sure the Black Panthers would love you so you can get back at the white man for all the perceived injustices, you know ignoring the fact the slave trade was largely enabled because of the Africans who sold other Africans as slaves.

how can you be pragmatic without compromising on your morals? Also you're implying the north hated slaveowners, they hated secessionists/traitors so it's weird that you're misplacing their motives to fit your righteous agenda. Also there is something you're doing right now that will justify your butchering to some self-righteous looney some 200 years from now. probably animal rights or something. being moral isn't always easy, but it's easy for you because of your privilege.

your access to the internet is a privilege of the "empire" you constantly whine about.

>"So you advocate the usage of fear and violence to push your agenda?"

When my agenda is an anti-slavery agenda, FUCKING YES. Slavery is no better a form of violence than murder. Nobody complains when a sniper takes out a gunman with a pistol to the head of a hostage.

Your shitty attempts at moral equivalence don't convince anybody but idiots.

I'm wondering if you supported the British colonization of west africa in the 19th century? After all west Africa was ruled by numerous slave societies which the British broke apart and freed the slaves.

I guess you better fly to Africa right now then, and go start your moral crusade against the slavers there.
Oh wait you won't because you are talking out your ass.

Yes, but when SC tried to split in the 1820s nobody else was game. It was only when their slaves were threatened that secession became acceptable to them.

And you've made a critical mistake. To quote HL Mencken; "There is a simple solution to every complex problem. Clear, simple, and wrong."

The nebulous, messy, and correct answer is that a combination of longstanding anger over perceived federal favoritism towards northern industry, fear amongst slaveowners and poor whites of what freed slaves would do, a desire to hold on to slaves in order to keep cotton production artificially cheap, desire to maintain the de jure status of blacks as inferior to whites, and a presidential election which the south felt cheated by (even though they lost due to their own actions) all made rebellion attractive in 1860. The north, meanwhile, attacked not because they wanted the south's cotton trade, but because they saw the breakaway of states from the union as a threat to national integrity and to the sanctity of the constitution. New England had already threatened secession during the Mexican-American war, and the western states were under limited federal control, making a successful illegal separation by the south a death sentence for the young nation. By the 1860s northern industry was ascendant, the days of King cotton were long over.

Stopping modern day slavery is near impossible, especially the type goin in america, africa and slav shitholes.

I agree with most you said. However SC never tried to split and only nullified laws. While their was talk of secession, Congress compromised on the tariff issue pretty much emboldening their cause. Also New England threatened secession during the War of 1812, not Mexican-American war, the north was already in the driver's seat by that point so their was no reason for New England to leave.

It also seemed impossible back then, but people still worked for it, the abolitionists took on an insurmountable task and managed to succeed, you are just making excuses for yourself and why you are going to sit on your ass and talk from a moral high ground in regards to people whom you have no ground to stand on in relation to understanding the thought process of, or even make the attempt to understand.
You are just a shallow shitty person who would do something if it wasn't for everyone holding you back, but the person holding you back is yourself. But you have to make excuses to hide that reality.

>only nullified laws
Which was tantamount to secession.

>that was over the war of 1812
>mfw too tired to notice that I typed out wrong war for Hartford Convention

>there was no reason for New England to leave
At that time, sure. But from a federal perspective, any successful secession is an inherent threat to national integrity, and the fact that other regions had considered it in the past wouldn't make that threat seem less dire.

>Which was tantamount to secession.

how? they only nullified the increase in tarriffs and still forced ports to collect tarriffs under the old federal laws. There was no repudiation of the union, they did not secede in any way. They never even backtracked considering congress changed the tarriffs.

care to elaborate on the other reasons for succession?

what a waste of bandwidth

>A lot of reasons
>doesn't give any examples of other reasons

>what is the constitution of the confederate states

>Southern apologists/denialists pls go

Check the fucking secession statements. It was a grievance in a long list of grievances that varied from state to state.

Who the fuck cares? The North won and conquered like Rome. Point goes to the strongest. Stop making victims out of yourself, u hicks. We civilized you.

The problem was the Fugitive Slave Act. It meant that even free states had to participate in the institution of slavery.

Virginia, the largest state in the South, initially voted against secession until Lincoln called on their militia to attack South Carolina. Tennessee joined them for the same reason.

The call to arms against South Carolina is what provoked them and Tennessee to join the CSA, because they thought the federal government had gone crazy and had no legal right to force a state to remain in the union against their will.

What you liberals don't get that is that slavery would've ended sooner or later anyway, and peacefully too.

It was about "muh states' rights" because washington tried to dictate what everyone could or couldn't do which went against the principles of the union

It wasn't started for moral reasons. The South felt threatened by the North and that's why they seceded. But just allowing the South to secede would have been a huge blow to the Union's legitimacy. Lincoln's election and his anti-slavery policies was the primary reason the South rebelled. So the war was about the South trying to secede and the North trying to stop them, but the war was caused by the slavery issue.

it made the free states follow the constitution...

>Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3
>No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.

>What you liberals don't get that is that slavery would've ended sooner or later anyway, and peacefully too.
l o l

A country in the modern era where half the workforce is comprised of illiterate slaves producing raw resources is 3rd world tier.

There comes a point when slavery is unprofitable in an industrial society. The turn away from slavery wasn't down solely on moral grounds, you know.

Y'all niggas need jeff hummel

>The civil war comes down to two questions
>why did the south secede
>why didn't the north let them
>keeping in mind both knew slavery couldn't survive outside union

>slavery was becoming less profitable
user that is wrong, the domestic slave trade was continually growing in both size and profit. As slave owners mover to frontier territories slave markets only grew in importance.

Obligatory

They wanted to sell themselves to Europe, so we had to beat some backbone into them.

Its true though only two countries in history ended slavery with violence Haiti and the US all the others managed it peacefully.

I'm assuming the african nations that fought for it to continue (and the ones that won said fight and continue the practice to this day) don't apply to that statistic.

>'m assuming the african nations that fought for it to continue (and the ones that won said fight and continue the practice to this day) don't apply to that statistic.

When it comes to those countries it wasnt so much that they fought and won the right to do so as much as the practice sprung up as a result of war or was never actually suppressed in the first place. Even then its mostly contractual/bonded labour rather than chattle slavery like we saw in the New World.

Legally based on the US Constitution in the early 1860s did states have the right to secede non violently?

I don't recall leaving the union to be a something denied by the national government, so wouldn't that have been a power given to states?

Pretty much all of north africa was practicing full slavery or chattel slavery as you prefer to call it since Rome and it spread south quickly after the islamic expansion.

This is also where the new world got most of its slaves because the practice was already common.

I think you are kind of missing the point which was demonstrating that a civil war wasnt necessary to abolish slavery which seems to be the current narrative.

The proper answer is
>The US Civil War happened for a multitude of reasons that coalesced into the chain of events leading to the secession. One of the prime reasons was slavery, but it wasn't the only reason.

What would be the bloodless approach?

Places like the UK just compensated slave owners with government money right?

Of course all these now more enriched white men would just pass Jim Crow laws and "apprenticeship" laws that kept blacks as slaves in all but name.

Friend I'm not sure which clickbait articles you've been reading most countries where it was abolished without bloodshed were european(hint, most slaves were in the colonies not the mother countries). Brazil had dozens of bloody revolts before it was finally outlawed and it wasn't the only one. Did these countries erupt in a civil war as big as the united states? No. Were they violent? Most definitely.

>Places like the UK just compensated slave owners with government money right?

Its farily simple - ban the trade - rule that from a certain point all children of existing slaves would be born free and provide some compensation for owners.

>Of course all these now more enriched white men would just pass Jim Crow laws and "apprenticeship" laws that kept blacks as slaves in all but name.

As opposed to having a civil war that kills 600K- to one million people that keeps blacks as slaves in all but name. Notice how other countries in the New World did this without keeping blacks in all-but-name-slavery and in genrally have better race relations as well?

Seriously speaking however once you break chattle slavery and the economies depdence on it it can be remedied via labour laws like we saw in Europe and the New World which ended bonded slavery.

>Friend I'm not sure which clickbait articles you've been reading most countries where it was abolished without bloodshed were european(hint, most slaves were in the colonies not the mother countries). Brazil had dozens of bloody revolts before it was finally outlawed and it wasn't the only one. Did these countries erupt in a civil war as big as the united states? No. Were they violent? Most definitely.

Which ones erupted into civil war?

>Were they violent? Most definitely.

If you discount Hati then it looks like less than 1000 people were killed in non USA slave conflict. Which for the time - considering that murdering or shooting striking workers was something that occured is pretty peaceful.

>If you discount Hati then it looks like less than 1000 people were killed in non USA slave conflict. Which for the time - considering that murdering or shooting striking workers was something that occured is pretty peaceful.

You're joking right. There have been countless slave rebellions throughout history resulting in thousands of deaths. Christmas rebellion and Spartacus probably being the most famous.

Im still waiting for you to show another country other than Hati that errupted into civil war.

>Christmas rebellion and Spartacus probably being the most famous.

I should have clarifyed I thought we were talking about the New World. Still even with the Christmas Rebellion you still haven't cracked the 1K figure.

Its pretty bad for your argument if you have to go back close to 2000 years to find an example

Why is there a picture of a whipped slave? Is the problem that slaveri is allowed, or that the whipping of slaves is allowed? Why outlaw slavery, when we can just outlaw the whipping of slaves?

Brazil alone is over a thousand. Why are you talking out of your ass?

Just relying on wikipedia

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malê_Revolt

>The Malê Revolt (also known as The Great Revolt) is perhaps the most significant slave rebellion in Brazil

>+80 dead
>300 captured

The fact that this was the largest revolt and didnt even crack 100 and the other revolts dont even bother mentioning casulty numbers is what led me to this answer.

You still havent provided an example regarding civil war

>Its farily simple - ban the trade - rule that from a certain point all children of existing slaves would be born free and provide some compensation for owners.

Yes, because pro-slavery and anti-slavery/abolitionist sentiments reached points of open warfare in the Kansas Territory. Surely, the slave owners would accede to this proposition to ending what was such a profitable business with the invention of the cotton gin that caused an explosion in the internal slave trade, where slaves from the upper South went down into the Deep South.

>Seriously speaking however once you break chattle slavery and the economies depdence on it it can be remedied via labour laws like we saw in Europe and the New World which ended bonded slavery.

The issue is, the United States was attempting to do that during the Reconstruction. It obviously failed terribly due to corruption.

Local populations were still exploited in an unfair balance of income by the Spanish in their remaining holdings until Bolivar's wars for independence. It certainly isn't slavery, but the exploitation of those populations still remain close. The British holdings didn't necessitate slavery anyways since they exploited their Indian holdings that turned to the crown after 1857. Slavery in Brazil ended in the late period of the 19th century anyways, due to the fact immigrants were a better source of labor at the point anyways. But to answer the original point: There really isn't any slave revolt that dealt mass loss of life since the slaveholders were supported by states that had troops at hand that could deal with the situation.

However, I think the discussion of slave rebellions is moot in this cause of Civil War discussion. Slaves didn't directly rebel under their own banner in a widespread manner, some escaped as contraband of war beyond the Union lines.

The civil war was about taxes. Lincoln was elected entirely by northern votes, and he enacted a tax that entirely fucked southern states.
Taxation without representation, etc. There were even people still alive in the south who fought the British for a less offensive tax.

>No taxation without representation
>without representation
>The south
>In America
The hell are you saying?

>Yes, because pro-slavery and anti-slavery/abolitionist sentiments reached points of open warfare in the Kansas Territory. Surely, the slave owners would accede to this proposition to ending what was such a profitable business with the invention of the cotton gin that caused an explosion in the internal slave trade, where slaves from the upper South went down into the Deep South.

You make it seem as though free slaves would suddenly have the same rights and organisational skill as other segments of society which I already explained is not the case and would take time to resolve. They still would have had their cheap labour.

>The issue is, the United States was attempting to do that during the Reconstruction. It obviously failed terribly due to corruption.

No the issue was that they resorted the most violent war in all American History to abolish a practice that had been abolished peacefully in every other developed country in and outside the new world.

>Local populations were still exploited in an unfair balance of income by the Spanish in their remaining holdings until Bolivar's wars for independence. It certainly isn't slavery, but the exploitation of those populations still remain close. The British holdings didn't necessitate slavery anyways since they exploited their Indian holdings that turned to the crown after 1857. Slavery in Brazil ended in the late period of the 19th century anyways, due to the fact immigrants were a better source of labor at the point anyways. But to answer the original point: There really isn't any slave revolt that dealt mass loss of life since the slaveholders were supported by states that had troops at hand that could deal with the situation.

Thats a long way of saying "no I dont have any examples and yes I was speaking out of my ass when I mocked you for saying there was less than 1000 people killed"

The fact that you are trying to move goalposts to include merely unequal labour practices is just deceitful.

>However, I think the discussion of slave rebellions is moot in this cause of Civil War discussion. Slaves didn't directly rebel under their own banner in a widespread manner, some escaped as contraband of war beyond the Union lines.

Its directly relevant. I stated that Slavery was for the most part ended peacefully and you came out guns blazing about how horrifically violent it was in those other examples to the point it couldnt be honestly said to have been resolved peacefully.

The country was ran by a president elected with zero southern votes.
Nobody in the south wanted Lincoln. NOBODY. He was voted in entirely by the north, and he immediately proposed a tax that would destroy the south.
That was more or less an act of war.

>The nebulous, messy, and correct answer is that a combination of longstanding anger over perceived federal favoritism towards northern industry, fear amongst slaveowners and poor whites of what freed slaves would do, a desire to hold on to slaves in order to keep cotton production artificially cheap, desire to maintain the de jure status of blacks as inferior to whites, and a presidential election which the south felt cheated by (even though they lost due to their own actions) all made rebellion attractive in 1860. The north, meanwhile, attacked not because they wanted the south's cotton trade, but because they saw the breakaway of states from the union as a threat to national integrity and to the sanctity of the constitution. New England had already threatened secession during the Mexican-American war, and the western states were under limited federal control, making a successful illegal separation by the south a death sentence for the young nation. By the 1860s northern industry was ascendant, the days of King cotton were long over.

None of that is mutually exclusive to what he said about economic reasons though.

Didn't the States ratify an amendment guaranteeing slavery on the condition that they stay united?

You sound triggered, babbydick.

You can't have slaves unless you violently punish them when they disobey you, you dumb fuck.

Contemporary history would have us believe the north was willing to send 100000s of white folks to their deaths to free the slaves yet were unwilling to spare enough grain to stop freed slaves from starving in the aftermath of the war among other things. This is a contradiction plain and simple, criticizing the mainstream view does not mean I support the view it had nothing to do with slavery, I just want a more accurate view of what happened.

The chattering classes may have believed in the moral cause, but not the elite whose goal was to undermine the 10th amendment. Though no attempt to nullify laws succeeded, the federal government always had to err on the side of caution until after the civil war, afterwards they were free to raise taxes and tariffs, pass laws favorable to their businesses and financial institutions and engage in military adventurism without much opposition.

It is important to distinguish the ambiguous "privileges or immunities" clause from the rest of the 14th amendment. If someone said "I propose a motion to nail user's penis to the floor to stop slavery" you would rightly point out that nailing your penis to the floor had nothing to do with slavery. In much the same way the 14th amendment stipulates that federal law should be universal like constitutional law and mixes this up with the equality clause, in the aftermath of the civil war and the belief that the Southern states posed a threat this wasn't really questioned.

>talks about how the Declaration lists a lot of reasons for secession
>proceeds to cherry pick solitary statements from the confederate statements to create a narrative
Obligatory. indeed.

Well seeing as I explicitly stated that the southern cotton economy was already going down and that Northern industry was a rising star, it kinda is. The idea that the war was motivated by economic reasons requires the belief that the south wasn't, by 1860, a backwards top-heavy mess that had little economic value to the north. Which is a view my post explicitly shat on. The reasons the North desired the maintenance of the Union were purely political. No country in it's right mind would annex the south in 1860 for economic reasons, the entire region was an unindustrialized agrarian backwater with few natural resources, propped up only by employing vast amounts of unpaid labor, and even with the propping up it was still incredibly fucked and doomed to completely collapse within a couple of decades at most. Which is why even at the height of confederate power, every state that seceded was dealing with several insurrections against the secession government within its own territory.