Was the burger civil war about slavery or states rights?

State rights to own slaves

even most southaboos will admit the most important state right was the right to keeps slaves, with that being clearly understood it was indeed states rights

Nailed in one.

Those are just meme reasons. Real reason is it was about burgers. All of them.

Why did Arkansas secede?
Was is because they had no reason?

...

They wanted to make Aesthetic borders for the Confederacy

>Was the burger civil war about slavery or states rights?
Fun fact: Northern states ALSO fought for states rights.

One of the major complaints that the slave states had against the north was that the federal government wasn't doing enough to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. The state of Mississippi thought that New York had too much power because it wouldn't let delta planters bring their slaves to Manhattan.

States rights is one of those things that people love until they don't.

youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

Slavery. The Southern slavocracy wanted to expand slavery (by violent means if possible, look at the possies which were formed prior to war) and the North eventually found that intolerable.

States' rights to do what?

Slavery is the only answer there. It was 100% about slavery.

In fact, it was about the South trying to force slavery on the other states. The opposite of states' rights. The arguments in government started when the north refused to make slavery legal in all states.

Lincoln could have lost his presidential election in 1860 to a man named Stephen A Douglas, who was more popular and any of the other southern candidates. However, the part rejected him because Douglas believed the Western Territories had a the right of self-determination on the issue of slavery.

The south was actually against states' rights and just wanted slavery to be legal everywhere so their slave would stop escaping.

>Be NC
>don't want to secede
>all the neighbors secede
>your state will become a battleground if you don't secede
>secede to stay safe from having battles fought on your land
>1865
>battles are being fought on your land anyways
NC was the only state justified in seceding

For the south it was slavery
For the north it was preserving the Union

North: hey if its cool with you guys were going to elect a new president who will try to stop new slave states from being created, though we will still allow you guys to keep your slaves even though we think its morally wrong. Were also going to abolish the fugetive slave act since we think northern states hsould have to force slavery on people who escaped from it.

South: Tyranny! you will never take away our right to enslave blacks and enforce our right across boarders!

fpbp

I nominate this pussy-smasher right here for best post, even above my own

this.

north didn't give a shit.

>North burgers want cheap cotton products
>south burgers want to trade it internationally for big profits instead
>war

>more states mention states rights as the reason than slavery
>this is proof slavery was the primary reason
What did he mean by this?

They were against the taxation of trade routes by the Senate, which was strangling commerce.

The Republic was seen as distant, corrupt and innefficient, bloated with bureaucracy and deaf to the needs of the poorer and more distant members.

Of course, this was the official justification. In practice the Confederacy was driven by oligarchic cartels that did not want to lose their entrenched privileges, and they framed the civil war as a struggle for freedom when it was in fact a struggle against Federal oversight and increased civil rights which would destroy their oligopolistic hold over the Confederate territory.

Basically the Confederacy did not want to be modernized and turned into an industrial economy, and had to be dragged into modernity kicking and screaming.

Yes.

Yeah, people forget. The union back then was more like the EU than the modern US.

The CSA was pissed about more things than slavery, though that was the spark.
Constitutionally, Confederacy did some interesting things:
>CSA outright banned protectionism and subsidies for noncompetitive industry.
>CSA banned Congress from forgiving debt.
>CSA limited the president to one six-year term. United States enacted term limits on the presidency half a century later, and only after they had a de facto president for life.
>The president can choose to veto specific parts of any law sent to them.
>CSA explicitly banned the president from appointing someone during Senate recess if that person was rejected previously.
>CSA Constitution demands that each bill must deal with only one subject.

kek

For all his faults in world building, the clone wars was really a brilliant execution by Lucas with its parallels to real life that are easily grasped if you look for them but completely nonexistent if you don't
That's the mark of a good reference

>Louisiana
>no reason brah, just feel like it

both

I used to think this, but then I found out that the CSA constitution made it so states couldn't decided to outlaw slavery, states had more rights in the USA constitution. It wasn't about the states rights to legislate on slavery, it was just about slavery.

The expansion of slavery into new states was curtailed by growing Republican influence and Abraham Lincoln's election, so it seemed like the Republicans intended to outlaw slavery.

Blame the reactionaries in the south who saw slavery being confined to the south as a slippery slope towards slavery being outlawed. Abraham Lincoln was not in favor of outlawing slavery before the Civil War.

>oppose looney racists who want to immediately end slavery and ship blacks back to Africa
>reactionary

You seem to have your concepts in a bit of a twist there friendo.

It was about the preservation of the Union.

The North started the War.

It was about States' Right to possess and disseminate pregnant Anne Frank porn to fellow user States.

People like this ought to be banned from Veeky Forums. How historically illiterate can you get?

It was a religious war. The North and South were always fundamentally incompatible, because the North generally favored leftist forms of Puritanism with a strong favor for democracy, and the South generally had more organized and traditional religion and an actual aristocracy.

That's totally retarded

The Republican Party then, as it is now, was the party of northern industrialists. Donald Trump is from New York City

The Democratic Party then, as it is now, was the worker's welfare party, the only difference being that in those days it was a white worker's party. Bill Clinton is from Arkansas

Stop being a salty retard.

sorry user, God-trips speaks the truth: the attack on Fort Sumter is basic civil war knowledge

Lucas was the hero we all needed.

I miss bill.

George Lucas's flaws wasn't in his vision, it was in his execution: lazy directing and even lazier writing. He probably turned in the first draft of a script after rushing through it one weekend as he was up against a deadline and was like "ok, I'm done" and all of the people he hired to say yes to him were all like "oh wow, it's wonderful, terrific, the best ever!" and then proceeded to film a bunch of scenes of people walking and talking in front of a green screen at flat angles.

This explains why Republicans were anti slavery while Dems were pro slavery. It's all about which aristocravy they lobby for, Northern industrialist barons, or Southern slavery aristocrats.

exactly, and when your definition of "working class" doesn't include negroes you can argue that the CSA was a giant welfare state, using the government to steal labor from one group of people so that the privileged group can enjoy a life of relative comfort and ease.

Kek this

You realize the Separatists in Star Wars are more industrialized than the Republic right? How do you think they got all those droid armies?

>muh clicheclichecliche

Could the South have won if the North seceded too?

>You realize the Separatists in Star Wars are more industrialized than the Republic right? How do you think they got all those droid armies?
It was a joke post, I was trying to be ambiguous to show how well done that aspect of SW was, as my answer could be applied to both the US civil war and the Clone Wars.

I don't want this to turn into a SW autism debate, but I'll bite... the Republic was more industrialized. They held most of the Core Worlds including Corellia, Coruscant, Alderaan, Kuat and so on, and most of the heavy industry like Sienar Systems, Kuat Drive Yards, Corellian Engineering Corporation, etc.

While the Separatists held some notable industrialized worlds (notably Kato Nemoidia, Geonosis, Colla IV, and so on), it is stressed throughout the prequels and the EU that most of their worlds were poorer disfranchised Outer Rim worlds, disatisfied with the Republic.

The south, it was about the right to keep slaves. In order to maintain the social hierarchy. Southern Landed Gentry had disproportionate influence because of slaves.

the north it was about federal dominance. they didn't give a damn about the slaves. the emancipation proclamation was a ploy to encourage southern slaves to run away. causing the south to use more man power to keep the slaves and less on the war. the slaves in union states were not freed until the 13th amendment.

the 13th amendment was done to strip wealth and power from the south, and gain a huge voting bloc for the republicans.

For one you couldn't find Lincoln on any southern ballot. That is reason enough to leave.

>While the Separatists held some notable industrialized worlds (notably Kato Nemoidia, Geonosis, Colla IV, and so on), it is stressed throughout the prequels and the EU that most of their worlds were poorer disfranchised Outer Rim worlds, disatisfied with the Republic.

True, but the technological and industrial between the two was far more narrow than the US Civil War. The CIS also started out with and maintained a significant numerical advantage because they had been secretly preparing for war for a decade (the Republic didn't even have an Army until days before Geonosis) and droids are cheaper than clones.

>That is reason enough to leave.
Bringing violence and separatism to a democratic system just because you don't like the results of an election completely defeats the point of having elections.

>we rigged the election and he STILL WON

How is this an argument again?

>TFW there could have been a Northern Rebellion
>TFW that rebellion would have actually succeeded owing to the North's dramatic economic and industrial edge
>TFW the old government would have been destroyed, ushering in new society without the early compromises that fuck with our system to this day
>TFW Northern race-purists take over the new system and deport all the negroes back to Africa
>TFW Southern slaver culture would have been completely eradicated without all those built in compromises that make the government function even when it's being run by idiots.
>TFW modern southernfats would not be venerating a culture of traitors, welfare queens, and domestic terrorism while scapegoating the negro for all of his problems.

Man, why does real life history have to suck, so much?