The civil war wasn't about slavery

That's the objective of every war.

Yes they did because the North violated their right to own slaves.

How? The union officially did not try to end slavery. Only to restrict it to the south. They tried to let Kansas vote on it and southerners flooded Kansas to fight for slavery being instated.

So the war wasn't about slavery then?

They were going to. It was a preemptive action.

>yeees let us destroy the economy of our own country for pure spite **evil yankee snicker**, and let FOOLS think we merely have some problem with owning other humans, AS IF ANYONE WOULD **uproarious cackle**

Tell that to the south, in most of their declarations of independence they directly say slavery is the source of the conflict

portside.org/2013-11-04/absolute-proof-civil-war-was-about-slavery

either the north violated the south's right to own slaves or it wasn't about slavery :^)

It was a common belief among the South and North alike that if slavery failed to expand it would collapse, and so the issue became extremely contentious, as evidenced by things like Bloody Kansas. Not to mention the South's fear that Lincoln would abolish slavery generally.

He made it seem about slaves so they could list moral superiority as a reason to beat the south.

There's a 3rd option. The states got butthurt about slavery and seceded. The Union got butthurt the south had the gall to secede. For the Union it was about secession. For the south it was about slavery.

The Civil War being about slavery is a northern capitalist bourgeois lie. They continued to exploit their workers like slaves years after the Civil War ended.

Southerners will never- can never admit it was about slavery. Absolutely no amount of evidence or scholarship will make a difference.

For a hundred years after the end of the civil war the deep south was basically a scots-irish autonomous zone where it was completely normal for uppity niggers to wind up dead in the swamp. During the civil rights movement northern students went UNDERCOVER AS COTTON-PICKERS to register blacks to vote, for which several were killed by klansmen, local police or random townsfolk (they were pretty much one and the same.)

The south is basically america's own sunni triangle, it's just politically expedient to pretend they're integrated law-abiding civilized citizens. I say this as someone who has lived in the south about half my life. Don't bother talking to southerners, they're a sectarian honor culture like the arabs- they're not even necessarily on board with this whole "nation-states" thing.

>be oppressed by the capitalist yankees for years
>Porkies are mad that they're poor and backwards
Bourgeois hypocrites. Rich northern capitalists only hate the south because it's "uncivilized" and multicultural but the people there are living fine. Whenever porkies see that they have to end it.

See: colonialism

>It was about sinking the economy of the Southern states

Maybe basing your entire economy around slave labor was a bad idea familia.

>Yes they did because the North violated their right to own slaves.

The right to own slaves is not anywhere in the bill of rights.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Yanks = Tyrants and opponents of the Republic
Dixie = Proud defenders of the constitution who Jefferson would approve of.

Jefferson did live in Northern Virginia (and owned slaves) so he probably would have been in the confederacy if he had somehow lived that long. However, that's a probability, not a certainty. It really doesn't matter either way however.

>Not to mention the South's fear that Lincoln would abolish slavery generally.

It's unlikely he would have done that. The platform for his party at the time makes no mention of abolishing slavery, although it does denounce any attempts to expand the domain of slavery.

presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29620

Interestingly enough, the platform for the democratic party from the same election condemns attempts by Northern states to undermine the Fugitive Slave Act. So basically, the Confederacy only support states rights when it came to owning slaves. They didn't recognize the Northern states as having any right to not support slavery.

Even if you take the secession for granted their first act as an independent nation was an unprovoked attack on their bigger richer neighbor's military base at Ft Sumter. The north had AMPLE casus belli no matter how you look at it. Sherman tried to warn them.

The fort was rightful CSA land thus it was justified.

Atlanta was rightful charcoal

>knows i'm right
>has to meme
nice one yank :^)

It wasn't actually. South Carolina had sold the land directly to the federal government. It'd be like modern Spain attacking Gibraltar while claiming to be on the defensive

Lincoln literally did everything he could to provoke it.

Niggers were rightful slaves.

Gibraltar is rightfully Spanish.

>an abolitionist party
>has no intention of abolition
Are you retarded? Honest question.

>Lincoln literally did everything he could to provoke it.

How?

The popular theory at the time was that slavery would collapse on its own if it weren't allowed to expand. This is why slave states were so desperate to get more slave states in the west. In other words, they were going to gradually phase out slavery over time.

They sent him multiple warnings that this was confederate property dont send ships down the river or else.

>no really bro for real this time

>dont do it

>fine fuck you have cannon

Was sending boats with supplies down stream when he was told theyd be fired on even if Lincoln thought the fort was the north's.

You know damn well that fort was federal land staffed by federal workers. CSA had no claim other than being kinda nearby

Ugh.....the president is the commander in chief. He can resupply any fort he wants to.

>In other words, they were going to gradually phase out slavery over time
That was not the plan of the Republican Party. You can argue that it was Lincoln's plan, but the Republican Party was staunchly abolitionist.

By this logic you have 24 hours to vacate my new 2nd house or I'll be forced to kill you in self defense.

>"I Have Never Been to America: The Post"

>You can argue that it was Lincoln's plan, but the Republican Party was staunchly abolitionist.

Of course they were. But they also wanted to avoid a war, so they focused their efforts on stopping the spread of slavery westward as well as undermine the Fugitive Slave Act rather than trying to actually abolish slavery in the Southern states.

Commander in chief of the north. At that point the river was contested. He could have used diplomacy but instead was stubborn ignoring them and got war because of it. You don't just ignore belligerent states claims of violence specifically after what they had been going through.

Sept your not a country/state with any claim to land.

I have actually never been outside of america. I lived in georgia for 8 years before fleeing to upstate NY

Real upstate or middle state?

>good thing they cant see my leaf
>they will never know

You are wrong. It was federal land, not owned by the state. Stop being butthurt that your ancestors got raped by mine.

Ah, good point. Let me try again:

By this logic the the CSA was warned multiple times that they were union territory

...

Real upstate, Buffalo suburbs

it wasn't

Fuck those Roman bigots, crash the slave economy with no survivors

Ya thats the point?

>claim to be trying to prevent war
>get threats and hear claims of land
>dont do dis its our land
>dont respond
>do it anyway
>but muh slavery

So Canada?

Military forts are federal land.

Also, if confederates were so concerned about states' rights wtf was the Fugitive Slave Act?

The Roman economy thrived on warfare and the expansion of Rome. After that stopped, Rome stagnated.

try again

Peach picking to reach a cobbled together just cause narrative.

The economy thrived with expansion because slavery was it's foundation

They never attempted to, only to restrict its spread, until the South chimped out and started the Civil War

Literally the exact reason the war started please go Canada man

>have military base on foreign land
>an act of war
>'b-but they started it!!1'
pathetic

The Seward amendment and others of it's like drafted to appease the south were willing to give the south their slavery, as long as they made it illegal for the practice to spread into western territories.

My ancestors killed 100,000 more yankees than they killed of us.

Right of secession is constitutionally implied

And they still lost.

>have military fort in another country's land
>they rightfully try to take it over
>you started it :^)

>fighting a war for greentext

>Constitutionally Implied
Not according to the Supreme Court or the Civil War motherfucker.

>letting a group of 9 people interpret the constitution

>Not according to the Supreme Court
The same Supreme Court that ruled baby murder is ok
>Civil War
An invasion of a soveriegn nation

>not letting a group that is supposed to decide how the constitution is interpreted interpret the constitution

The founding fathers would've agreed with everything the CSA did.

What some fags said 90 years later is irrelevant.

Northerners are rightful worm food for Southern flower beds.

We should have all followed Wirz's exampled and exterminated every last captured Yankee through labor and starvation.

>conjecture

>The same Supreme Court that ruled baby murder is ok
Baby murder has been conditionally a-ok for most of human history.

Nothing more human.

Murder is wrong
Read your Bible

>kill all the enemy POWs
>still lose the war
>have most of your general staff hanged
>occupation continues until the entire south are #REFUGEESWELCOME cumdumsters or anime is invented in Georgia

You have no idea how much I want this.

>Read your Bible
>what is separation of church and state?

...

>>what is separation of church and state?
Not actually to be found in the constitution

I'm still on the old testament. Looks okay to me.

Thou shalt not kill

amendments are constitutional

Read your old testament. "And dash thy little ones heads upon the rocks..."

>When he came to Lehi, the Philistines shouted as they met him. And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him mightily so that the ropes that were on his arms were as flax that is burned with fire, and his bonds dropped from his hands. 15He found a fresh jawbone of a donkey, so he reached out and took it and killed a thousand men with it. 16Then Samson said, "With the jawbone of a donkey, Heaps upon heaps, With the jawbone of a donkey I have killed a thousand men."…

*unless i order the jews to or you're an agent of a Yahweh approved state

I know
It's not in any amendments either. The constitution is Pluralist, not Secular.
>Thou shalt not kill

Ceremonial law was fulfilled in Jesus Christ

>sending himself on a suicide mission and get to go to heaven forever afterward
wow what a sacrifice

"And... stoned to death."

Also biblical. Lots of killing was considered OK.

...

Last time I brought that up to someone quotting leviticus, he said jesus didn't necessarily fulfill all of the OT

So, did he fulfill all of it, or some of it?