Civil war

not everyone went to school in Mississippi

>someguy who doesn't even show up on your voting ballot becomes president and starts talking about how slavery has to be ended despite the reprocutions that might have on the southern economy
Hmmmmmm really synthesizes my sympathizer

"If we ain't fightin for slavery then what the hell are we fightin for"
t. Nathan Bedford Forrest

>it was a conflict between the Republicans and Democrats
This conflict was severe enough to cause a war because both sides knew the republicans would eventually end slavery, or chip it away at to the point where it was effectively ended.

>states right

primilarily THE RIGHT TO FUCKING OWN SLAVES AND SPREAD SLAVERY WEST SOUTH OF A GEOGRAPHICAL EXTENSION OF THE MASON DIXON LINE WITH IN ORIGINS IN VARIOUS EPISODES SUCH AS THE MSSOURI COMPROMISE, THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT AND VARIOUS OTHER DISPUTES OVER THE PREVIOUS 50 YEARS WHICH WERE CLEAR TO ALL AT THE TIME WOULD EVENTUALLY LEAD TO CIVIL WAR

YOU FUCKING MONGOLOIDS

Well it wasn't about slaves themselves, so much as it was that the north felt the south had an unfair economic advantage what with all their slaves

...right?

It wasn't actually about morals and how people shouldn't have slaves because it's wrong

>economic advantage
I doubt it, if anything the north should have encourage slavery according to this logic. It would have kept the south a stagnant agrarian economy almost solely reliant on cotton while the north continued to diversify, and advance economically/technologically.

People didnt want faggots taking the good farmland up with more slaves whenthey could just farm it themselves

okay but it wasn't a moral war either tho right

Or was Lincoln actually a good person and thought that slavery should be abolished because it was amoral

Northern whites wanted to start their own family farms. Rich southern aristocrats wanted to set up more mega plantations farmed by slaves. In the end the good guys won.

Imagine the US as a house. And the civil war as a fire. Slavery was the match. Many other things made up the gasoline all over the floor.

The Southern economy was trash even WITH the slaves, the only reason they were so crazy about slaves was because such a heavily agricultural economy simply had no chance of competing with the industrialized North unless they had free labor. It definitely wasn't about morals on the part of the government officials, otherwise the South wouldn't have been allowed to lapse back into "slavery in everything but name" after the Civil War. It was really about the South and the North having opposing interests, and trying to wield the Federal government as a weapon against the other, the most extreme example being the Fugitive Slave Act which, despite all the neo-Confederate talk about the sanctity of states' rights, was actually a way to impose Southern slavery laws on Northern states.

No, the civil war was about burning down that shithole called the south

god bless Sherman, burn it all down again I say!

actually it was about ethics in slave journalism

>Many other things made up the gasoline all over the floor.
No it was literally slavery-specifically fugitive slave laws as the start of it, then the growth of abolitionist states.

Slave-owning states had a majority in congress, then they started not having a majority. Fearing enough abolitionist states would mean a federal ban on slavery they seceded.

Fuck you

Get fucked

Lincoln had neither the power nor the desire to end slavery, considering it was clearly enshrined within the constitution with the three fifths clause and the tenth amendment. It would have taken an explicit constitutional amendment to outlaw slavery.

Now the justice department not prosecuting people or states who were in violation of the fugitive slave act was another matter, but despite that slavery wasn't going anywhere.

are you ok user?

slavery had been proven by economists to be an inefficient economic model a century before the US civil war

Adam Smith talked a lot about it.

Certainly slavery was the main issue that the southern states were concerned about, but more broadly it was the sputh realizing that it was loosing yhe powerful and privileged position it held for the first 80 odd years of history. The South saw that the national governemnt would no longer follow it and thus they rejected it. So in other words they could not handle being a minority.

>free labor
the labor itself is free but when you combine the relatively low efficiency of slaves with the costs of buying slaves, feeding slaves, housing slaves, clothing slaves, paying people to make sure slaves don't run away, paying people to catch slaves that do run away, and replacing tools deliberately destroyed by slaves you start to see just how expensive slavery really is compared to using professional farm hands or sharecropping.

The state rights to have slaves.

No, it was about the south wanting to become it's own country independently from the union.

Ultimately it was a toss up between the increasingly industrialized and machine-run North and the slave-driven South. The south was going to be put out of business by the mechanized cotton pickers and processors anyway.

The south took the idea of states rights and applied it to an entire bloc of states united by their shared heritage and economic means of production.

It's a catch-22.

You are forgetting the Cotton Gin.

No it was about state's rights.... to own slaves.

Aswell as to limit the government... from using its laws to ban slavery.

lol

The point of slavery was the southern aristocrats saw it as their claim to being landed gentry. It's been said that King George III could have kept the southerners in line with a generous distribution of titles.

It was about industrializing North vs. resource-exporting South. Slavery was nothing more than political statement.

What about it?

It increased the productivity of cotton farming, not the efficiency of slavery. You can get more cotton cheaper from paid farm hands or share croppers than you can from a slave plantation.

it was about slaves, states rights, the power of the federal government, and industrialization.

don't believe the retards that argue it was about just one thing.

T. Sad European

There's an old chestnut about Civil War education that I think has some relevance here. As we like to say, students learning about the Civil War go through three distinct levels of thought concerning its cause:

First level: In middle school, you learn it happened because of slavery.
Second level: In high school, you learn it happened because of states' rights.
Third level: In college, you learn it really did happen because of slavery.

Now, the "third level" outwardly appears to be a gross oversimplification and no better than the "first level," but it's a pithy way to express a really important observation about the human race. Whenever we read decent, plausible criticism of what we've learned in the past, the great temptation is to give in to outrage that the wool was pulled over our eyes, and to be satisfied that we finally know the truth. (This is typically accompanied by great smugness that we know more than other people). But the reality is that, while we have a more advanced understanding of the issues, the only thing we've really done is pick up another incomplete (sometimes dangerously incomplete) perspective.

This is why Zinn's A People's History of the United States and Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me blow: They will advance a reader from the first to the second level of understanding about an issue, but they'll stop there. Both books were meant to criticize how history is/was commonly taught in American schools, and I would argue that Zinn in particular had a beneficial effect on how the "first level" of history is taught. That's why "second level" works are written; most aren't intended to replace the history being taught, they are intended to supplement and criticize the dominant narrative. But you shouldn't consider yourself educated on American history if you read them, because reading criticism of the dominant narrative doesn't help you understand how or why the dominant narrative exists in the first place

It's similar to fascism

The motives behind the war was, of course, states rights to own slaves, but as we know the vast majority of southern whites didn't own slaves. I think it was something like 5% or less that did. Southerners were fighting for their new country, the CSA.

Just like how not every Wehrmacht soldier was a Nazi who believed in national socialism. They were merely protecting their nation.

This is why stuff like the iron cross is less offensive than the swastika. Flying the actual confederate flag is extremely autistic but so uncommon people don't really take offense to it. Offense is taken to the stars and bars battle flag which is fucking stupid since that flag itself had nothing to do with slavery.

Lmao fuck off

What's wrong with Lies My Teacher Told Me.

No he abolished it because so many slaves were coming North seeking asylum and sorting out their return to legal owners was too much of a hassle

>south fought to protect the economic institution of slavery
>north fought to preserve the union and not because they gave a flying fuck about the rights of blacks
Is everyone happy now?

>The right to own slaves
>Which Lincoln in no way intended to interfere with
The war was about the right to spread slavery to other states against the will of the local population. Bleeding Kansas illustrated perfectly that the south would do anything to continue spreading slavery.

>While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for slaves to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand for both land and slave labor.

how many times do I have to say it, it costs more money to use a slave than it does to pay someone to do the same job

I think he's just tired of this question being asked. When did it become popular to say the war wasn't about slavery? Around the time when people called the confederate flag racist?

That might of had something to do with it.
Lincoln literally only did it because people in the north didn't want slavery anymore because they felt it was immoral. Now the problem comes in when new states are introduced, should they be slave or free states? Well of course they slave states wanted them to be slave states and the free states wanted them to be free not only for moral reason but also so the other side couldn't vote against them to ban slavery/make it easier. Lincoln felt the Union couldn't exist like this so his options were to make it legal everywhere or make it illegal everywhere. Though this is only my understanding of it so I might be wrong.

Yes

The whole ' not all wehrmacht soldiers'- narrative has been debunked countless times, just look at the popularity polls of Hitler in pre-war germany

>but as we know the vast majority of southern whites didn't own slaves. I think it was something like 5% or less that did.
Nationally it was 1 in 10 families.
In slave-owning states it shifted between 25%-50%.

The

It was about the south wanting a focus on state government while the north kept pushing federal, so the south fought for state's rights. Slavery was just a key issue in the argument prior to the war, since the north wanted to get rid of slavery but the south didn't.

Except the South held a majority in congress at the time, and it came down to the fact that as states continued to be made they were turning abolitionist.

The biggest problem for the South was that fugitive slave laws were legal at a federal level but at the state level abolitionist states refused to enforce it.

Oh here come the dixieboos claiming it was about states' rights when the south was afraid slavery was going to be abolished as a result of Lincoln getting elected even though he had no intention. Even your hero Robert Lee became a huge proponent of reunion and reconciliation after the war. You plastic confederates are just LARPing over the deadliest war in human history not turning out in your favor.

>the deadliest war in human history
What

The small number of owners is misleading though. For one, you may have had an entire extended family living on the plantation, all directly benefiting from the one male in their family who was the owner of all the slaves.

And then there's the concept of "king cotton": virtually their entire economy revolved around cotton production, and most whites were employed by it in some way. Even a poor white knew that if he fell down on his luck, he could grab his gun and join an anti-slave militia, terrorizing slaves into keeping their quotas up, transporting them, or capturing runaways.

The decline in total number of slave owners reflects the stratification of their society. Instead of like in revolutionary times where gentlemen farmers may have owned a few dozen slaves, you now have powerful plantations with tens of thousands of them.

Both sides fought for states rights. One of the South's main gripes which led to secession was that the federal government wasn't upholding the Fugitive Slaves Act

youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

WOW what an insightful comment, really explains things

>slavery in the 19th century
A national embarrassment worth starting a war over.

those persons owning 500 or more slaves were a extremely small minority of slave holders

I was actually arguing that it wasn't a small number of owners- In Southern states up to half of all families owned slaves.

yuros and as*ans aren't human

SHERMAN DO IT AGAIN

Yes it was only about slavery. The righteous and tolerant north defeating the evil and bigoted south

>The deadliest war in American history
I think that's what he meant to say, because that one is true. We lost more people in the civil war than we lost in any war before or since.

It was about the Southern Elites losing their influence due to immigration, shrinking exports, and industrialization. So they flipped out and got hundreds of thousands of lower class people killed. Trying to form a new nation to preserve the Southern Elites' position in society.

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. [Crowd applauded.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. " - Alexander Stephens, First Vice President of the CSA

racism was used to keep the work poor whites aligned with the aristocracy and against the blacks. Otherwise the poor whites would rise up against the rich.