If the Civil War WASN'T fought over slavery, then what WAS it fought for?

At the time the south was openly declaring that it was about slavery. Nobody said otherwise, since it obviously, obviously was. It was only generations later when everyone basically agreed that slavery is despicable that dixieboo retards started distorting history.

The States must have rebelled since their rights as a state were being denied, if it was about states rights as you said. Something must've been being violated to cause the sates to not have their rights.

What was being denied?

literally secession

>What was being denied?
Their ability to govern for themselves

The response I usually hear is "muh tariff," as if that was somehow was more responsible for the Civil War than slavery, against all evidence and statements made by the secessionists and Southern leaders themselves

So why did the Southern states rebel?

Because their state rights were being violated illegally by the govt

In what way? What was being violated? Why specifically the south?

How the hell should I know I'm just a korean dixieboo

The north had been abusing power pushing economic reforms that harmed the south and benefited the north. Lincoln was elected with every single southern state voting against him.

If you have a democracy and the majority outnumber the minority so severely, how is democracy so different from tyranny?

>Lincoln was elected with every single southern state voting against him.

Lots of electoral maps look like that. That's a bullshit reason. The actual reason, AS THEY LITERALLY SAID AT THE TIME, was that they were worried Lincoln would abolish slavery.

>Lots of electoral maps look like that.
Try zero, you can see for yourself. We have access to the data for each election. Even then that was just an example. The point is politically the south was powerless at the time.

Slavery was the biggest issue leading to the division between the north and south, which invariably led to the civil war.

>Try zero

Wtf are you talking about, almost every U.S. election shows extreme regional divides.

There were slave owning states that didn't secede.

>The point is politically the south was powerless at the time.

No it was not, the south simply did not have the amount of support needed in the house and senate to prevail on the issue of slavery. Not willing to accept this, they went to war. That is literally what happened.

Damn nice digits

Kentucky and Missouri which were very divided and had two governments.

Maryland and Delaware which went with the Union but had numerous southern volunteers.

No free states had secessionist agitation.

So slave states: Either thought strongly about seceding or did. (And those that didn't tended to have internal divisions between southern parts that depended on slave labour and northern parts that did not.)

Free states: No thoughts of seceding.

Hmmm... what could this signify?

It had everything to do with prevailing the state of the Union, if the South wanted to seccede then this would create severe political chaos in the US, and the Union wasn't willing to let this happen.

>If WW2 WASN'T fought over Poland, then what WAS it fought for?
thats how stupid you sound

As every war - economy and influences. Freedom for slaves was later was made to be the justification for war. Indeed southern economy was based highly on slaves work. It was basically cheap and northern states just couldn't compete. Also there were different view on politics and societal aspects (in a nutshell: north=liberalism, south=conservatism). Overall differences led to secession of southern states. The Union couldn't allow this as successful secession of southern states would lead to complete economic crisis in the union so as a solution they went on war. Most American exports during this time were from cotton, tobacco etc products. produced on southern plantations with cheap slave labor. So yes, it was about slavery. But not the way it is always portrayed as nobody gave a damn about "the slaves" per se. Slavery, only in its function as an economic asset was the reason for the war. The Civil War happened over the economy, namely, taking away the South's slaves would make them an inferior competitor and dependent on the industrial north, thereby vastly reducing the influence Southerners would have over the direction of the country. So the war was about slavery: slavery as a pillar of the economy. Not owning people as if they were animals or inanimate objects as none but the most radical Northern leaders were staunch abolitionists. In my opinion a better label would be Secession War rather than Civil War.

is a complete faggot

is correct

Pretty sure it was Secession.

Nazi Germany invaded Poland to stop the spread of Bolshevism.

It was fought because of the secession of the South and the formation of the Confederacy, which the US Gov could not abide. The secession and indeed the entire north/south split though was largely caused by slavery. Apologists try to deflect with "muh states rights" but those rights just invariably came back to slavery.

Do not let revisionists try to bamboozle you: the core of the civil war was slavery. That said, the north didn't particularly give a fuck about the rights of blacks or freeing the slaves for the most part. The abolitionist movement was hardly universally popular in the North. The aggression of the USA against the CSA was 99% about preventing the loss of US territory, and 1% moral imperative.

Which is why they gave the Eastern part to the Soviets

Money. Yes, they were getting the money from slavery, so it was ultimately about money, if slavery wasn't profitable to the handful of southern upper class they would just abolish it.

Northern side? Money as well.

The North didn't care about slavery.

The South was willing to secede over slavery and the North was unwilling to let them go.

Then why didn't the North just allow slavery?

At least the south won!

>Also there were different view on politics and societal aspects (in a nutshell: north=liberalism, south=conservatism). Overall differences led to secession of southern states.
How is it that differences in political are possible. If wars are always and only fought for strictly economic reasons, it stands to reason that, like their stated reasons for secession, Southern Conservatism is a sham to hide naked economic interest?

Secondly, if Southerners fought for strictly ecoomic interests, how do you explain them continuing the war even after Northern Armies reached their borders?

Lastly, since the south fought the war for no sincere reason other than economic interest, shouldn't rememberences for the confederate war dead be abolished, as they were no better than petty criminals?

Many of the northern states had either already abolished slavery on their own or never had it to begin with. The Republican party at the time was concerned with stopping the spread of slavery to the new western territories, abolition only became a mainstream issue after the war had started.

>if slavery wasn't profitable to the handful of southern upper class they would just abolish it
This is a misguided view. People do not make purely economic decisions like this. In fact, by the time of the civil war slavery was already becoming outmoded in the south as technology progressed. In another 50 years slavery would have been eclipsed by modern farming equipment completely, but I doubt the south would have been eager to free the slaves. Because it had become an ingrained part of the culture, there was a sense of natural order in the slavery of the blacks and the alternative, freeing them, was actually frightening to many people. It wasn't like the north, there were so many more slaves in the south and there was fear of uprising or revenge taken on white slave owners by tens of thousands of angry former slaves.

Now imagine you are a Dixiecrat who enjoys popular support from wealthy slave owners and the general public because they are afraid of the growing abolitionist movement in the north and what it might bring to the south if it ever caught on. Of course you're going to be mad as fuck about these northern assholes pushing to free slaves cause they don't have to deal with tens of thousands of them all at once if it happens. Even if slaves are growing less and less economically viable as the years pass by, public sentiment plays a very large role in determining policy.

That's not an explanation, that's just a repetition of the fact that the north did not legalize slavery. How do you explain this behavior?

The Abolitionist movement. It was very popular among the Northern political class. The lower classes and immigrants didn't really care about it at all, but they didn't have much pull in deciding policy. Many northern states did away with slavery all on their own due to the agitation of the Abolitionists, and there was fear among the southern Dixiecats that it would be pushed on them and would lead to widespread unrest and economic turmoil. These fears were somewhat reasonable, but things escalated very quickly and led to the formation of the CSA. If things had managed to stay calm it's quite possible the Abolitionists could have brought the Dixiecrats to the negotiation table a few decades later after the economic viability of slavery had decreased dramatically.

They did allow it in the south. What happened:

>slavery is legal in the south and illegal in the north
>north bends over backwards to the south with Fugitive Slave Act and other horseshit just to appease them and prevent them from seceding
>Republican northerner wins the election and manifests he can do so without a single electoral vote from the south
>he repeatedly says he will keep slavery if it means preserving the Union
>the south still chimps out just because he HAS THE POWER to abolish slavery even though he isn't even planning on doing it, simply because he CAN do it
>South unilaterally secedes, north does effectively nothing other than bolstering its garrisons
>the state of South Carolina goes full retard and starts firing on a federal fort that doesn't even belong to South Carolina in any way or form, starting the civil war
>south places a extremely risky bet that Britain will help them because of cotton imports
>Britain does jack shit

All the train of southern actions is such a cyclopean amount of pure, undistilled retardation one cannot even describe with words. It's like seeing a 3 year old with Down's syndrome and severe low functioning autism play a Paradox game.

Now, try to square that with the idea that nobody in the Civil War cared about slavery.

Money, power or to otherwise try and prove a manhood they never had. Same as today.

I'm not that guy, and my point wasn't that nobody cared about slavery. And actually looking his post that wasn't his point either. He said the North in general didn't care about slavery, but it was the main reason the south seceded, which is mostly true. It's a bit misleading to say the north didn't care about slavery because some parts of the north did, mainly the educated middle and upper classes. But they are not the majority. The larger majority, the working classes, didn't care about slavery and indeed many of them hated blacks. But if you were to term "the North" as "the Northern army" then yes, the Northern Army definitely didn't give a fuck about slavery because it was almost entirely made up of lower classes.

only 2% of southerners owned slaves, most of them upper class, very few of them fought on the battlefield, the gross majority of southern soldiers were non-slave owners

"it was about slavery" is a blatant spit in the face of those who fought, died, or were mutilated in the Civil War on behalf of those who never owned slaves

it is no coincidence that Northern financial institutions that funded the war then proceeded to buy up Southern land after it and the dawn of the industrial revolution and mineral discovery such as gold and oil in the US, fresh settled land devoid of its violent natives and pesky settlers ripe for the plucking

but whatever dude, "it was about slavery" bro

See The only thing the war did is kill hundreds of thousands of white people (mostly northerners, southerners don't properly count as white). Was it even worth it to secede and start the war?

Lincoln wanted a war to get the southern states back. You think if they didn't fire on Sumter the north wasn't going to start attacking? Why was Lincoln resupplying the fort?

Because he thought southerners are going to attack it and he was right.

>Was it even worth it to secede and start the war?

Was it worth it to the North to invade the South and steal what was essentially virgin property just at the dawn of the industrial revolution, the oil boom, and mineral discovery? Yes.

>only 2% of southerners owned slaves

wew lad, the percentage seems to shrink every time Cletus posts here.

In truth the amount of slave-owners was 5%, but the amount of slave-owning households was around 31%. According to 1860 US census, in the Lower South (SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, FL -- those states that seceded first), about 36.7% of the white families owned slaves. In the Middle South (VA, NC, TN, AR -- those states that seceded only after Fort Sumter was fired on) the percentage is around 25.3%, and the total for the two combined regions -- which is what most folks think of as the Confederacy -- is 30.8%.

The slaves in the household were all owned by the patriarch, but everyone in the family benefited from it.

>It's like seeing a 3 year old with Down's syndrome and severe low functioning autism play a Paradox game.

The history of the American South in a nutshell, from being a hotbed of loyalism in the Revolution to being the prime force behind the Indian Wars and Mexican-American wars to the Civil War itself.

If someone gets stabbed are you gonna say:
"That person died because steel was invented"?

>census records without a posted source from a time and place where most people didn't live near a post office are valid

Not to mention people beyond the family. One man owning 1,000 slaves on a plantation is a negligable portion of the population. But then of course, 1,000 slaves take numerous enforcers to manage, they need a merchant to handle the cotton produced etc. etc.

>All the train of southern actions is such a cyclopean amount of pure, undistilled retardation one cannot even describe with words. It's like seeing a 3 year old with Down's syndrome and severe low functioning autism play a Paradox game.
This is what happens when you let Ulster Scots run things.

Actually, it was even better, because perfidious Albion just cornered the cotton market instead.

>without a posted source

Here you go, Cletus:

civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

The state with the highest incidence of slave ownership was Mississippi at 49% of families, while the lowest in the future Confederacy was Arkansas at 20%.

That too, yeah. I know I should be surprised at this point but Veeky Forums doesn't understand economics or even basic scale at all.

This is offset by the fact that "white" southerners actually are partial niggers, they descend from both the slavers and the slaves. So technically there's no ancestral guilt, as their white ancestors just oppressed their nigger ancestors.

Southerners are still a stain and holding this country back.

They can't help it. It's their black genes. There's a reason why places like Uganda, Liberia or Alabama are shit.

Daily reminder that the right to own slaves was specifically enshrined in the CSA constitution, despite what you may tell yourself as you prostrate before your Robert E. Lee shrine.