Current year man said that Confederates fought mainly to preserve slavery

Current year man said that Confederates fought mainly to preserve slavery.
Is this true?
It doesn't seem true. Surely it one of the reasons, but not the main one?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qmevmxOwThE
mises.org/blog/southern-secession-was-one-thing-—-and-war-prevent-it-was-another
pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/why-was-cotton-king/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Yes it's true

>The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from the service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

From "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union"

>In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

From "A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union."

History is written by the winners. Of course the Union would frame the war as a victory for freedom. Whether it was or not, I'm not sure. I don't think the USA cared as much about freeing slaves as it did about keeping control of the south, it's land, resources, and people. The emancipation may have been the catalyst for secession, but if the Union was only concerned with abolition, it would've allowed the southern states to secede and then encouraged them to free slaves using means other than force. Perhaps buying and freeing them as Britain did all over the empire where possible.

>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. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics.

From "The Cornerstone Speech 21 March 1861, The Athenaeum, Savannah, Georgia" by Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the CSA

What's so confusing about it, friend?

The way the White man worships the Black man today by giving him his daughters and dignity, it's evident that atleast the Union was fighting to free those noble beasts.

It was about the states rights to have slavery

The union were the real racists.

>In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

From Article IV, Sec. 3 of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America

youtube.com/watch?v=qmevmxOwThE

They fought for states rights. States rights to slavery, but states rights nonetheless.

>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world
It always shocks me and my modern sensibilities just how much those guys were in love with the idea of slavery. Even the Romans were just sort of passive about it, but these fuckers thought it was God's own truth that some people just need a boot on their face, forever.

They claimed to fight for “states rights”, by which they meant primarily the right to own slaves

Slavery is still practiced and tolerated today. See pic related, for example.
>b-but it doesn't count, because they aren't humans
Exactly.

Look, I'm all for treating animals and livestock as humanely as possible, but your bait can fuck off.

terrible post considering that there are still literally millions of humans in slavery in the world today

More accurately, its about state's right.

State's right to slavery.

mises.org/blog/southern-secession-was-one-thing-—-and-war-prevent-it-was-another

>they don't know the war was about economy
I guess you guys think the First World War was about Gavrilo Princip too?

>Look, I'm all for treating slaves as humanely as possible, but your bait can fuck off.

>slaves
>nothing to do with the economy

>economy
It is the common strategy of dixiekrauts that when faced with an arguement they don't like, their solution is to go vague and take refuge in idealism so that you don't notice the man behind the curtain.

pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/why-was-cotton-king/

It was about larger economic policies than the meme issue of slavery. Whether America would be an agricultural exporter or an industrial powerhouse. Free trade or protectionism. That was the ultimate distinction between the North and South.
Even if the South had mantained it's independence, slavery wouldn't last 20 years more.

>dixiekrauts
I don't know where you're getting the idea that I support the South or slavery in any way.
You can no longer discuss historical facts without an implicit political or ideological interest. The state of public discourse in America, 2017.

And of course, here is their other favorite past time when faced with incontrovertible proof that their point is complete and total bullshit: playing the victim. It's a very passive aggressive means of arguing that cynically plays off of people's sympathies.

I'm more than happy to have a conversation about the "economy" because I've actually studied the economy, and can give you concrete facts about how important slavery was to the southern economy. But you don't want to hear it, you're just mad that I'm not playing your games

Please, just go back to /pol/ or wherever.

You're pathetic

That's just bullshit they teach in Southern schools. Secession was EXPLICITLY about slavery. It's not a "meme issue," it was the reason they themselves gave, to preserve slavery of black people forever. That was literally the only difference between the CSA constitution and the USA constitution - it was the only thing they wanted to do differently. You can claim it wouldn't have lasted long anyway, but it was certainly not their intention or expectation that it would EVER end.

Not this thread again..

>Let's have a civil war over our trade policy!

Gimme a break, user.

The confederate seceded due to "infringement of states rights" as they didn't think the federal govt had the right to force them to do something, which was, abolish slavery. So TECHNICALLY slavery wasn't their reason, but it you want to be realistic, it was because of slavery.

Not to say the north actually cared about the rights of the slaves, the northern politicians just wanted slaves freed for economic reasons.

yeah, the northern industrialists donating to them were pissed that they were having to compete with the guys who didn't have to make payroll

>force them to do something, which was, abolish slavery
They didn't force them to do that, they said they don't care.
But the South was worried that something like that could come eventually.
In any case, it wasn't the only reason. That much is certain.

And the reason the _North_ went to war (an event different from the secession itself) was even less about slavery.

>They didn't force them to do that, they said they don't care.
>But the South was worried that something like that could come eventually.
basically the same thing though m8, as they laid the legislative groundwork for abolition of slavery, any anti-south government could just economically cuck them anyways

This is true, but there's additional context to consider.

The reason why Lincoln said "a house divided amongst itself can not stand" was because compromising between slave states and free states was only pissing people off. Making equal numbers of free and slave states was creating conditions of impossible political gridlock, they knew that something had to give, that the country would have to be a place where every state respected the institution of slavery, or none of them did. The way that they were going to do that was by creating new states, either every new state created would be a slave state, or every new state created would be free, and whoever had the larger presence in congress would be the one politically dominating the other. The election of 1860 was the deciding moment to see which side was going to be politically ascendant.

They were even willing to enshrine the rights of slave owners in the constitution, but under the pretense that no new slave states were going to be created. The south saw the writing on the wall, and that's why they attacked

Any argument about "infringement of states rights" is instantly void because of the fugitive slave act.

The states that sent their state's deputies and vigilantes into other states to enslave free men have absolutely zero right to talk about "muh state's rights".

...

it was over taxes and tariffs put on the Cotton and Tobacco Monopolies (owned by Sephardic Jews), and obtained through nearly free labor (Slavery). The white men, free farmers, were getting BTFO financially and there was no work, so the southern press convinced them the North was fucking THE FREE WHITE MAN. But in reality, it was fucking the Jew. The Civil War unironically started then modern media manipulation quest across the US and Europe, tricking our fellow brothers into the most brutal wars we've ever fought all for high finance.

Don't believe me? Judah P. Benjamin was a Sephardic Jew and he wrote the Confederate State constitution. There are still some Jews in the south and they love to brag about their families past, yet they have become completely secularized and hold absolutely no tradition what so ever.

the "labor" struggle during the Civil War started the Labor meme in the Democratic party and subsequently spread its way into Europe (Through Portugal & Spain via Sephardic Jews), which then had its inevitable effect of starting the Spanish Civil war which was a essentially a communist revolution targeting traditional Catholic power structures.

>implying they have everything to do
The war would have happened just the same if there were no slaves and instead coal was outlawed.

I really feel like most of this animosity could be cleared up by acknowledging that the primary reason the Confederacy was founded was to preserve slavery, but the vast majority of Confederate soldiers fought for other reasons. It's accurate, and everyone is happy.

black people were still basically slaves after civil war and reconstruction. They couldn't vote, couldn't own land much of the time, weren't offered jobs, redlined, lynched etc. So its impossible that it was fought over slavery because neither side actually ended the instiution and even enshrined it as a punishment for criminal behaviour.

That would mean the Southerners would have to admit wrongdoing, and they'd rather try for round 2 than do that.

>I might not own slaves but if they gonna set them niggers free n' us po' white folks won't have n' to look down on, plus my wife'll upgrade my tiny Southern dick to a big black one! to arms! ["dixie" plays]

The act that started the civil war was literally the faux-secession of hte CSA and their storming of Fort Briggs. Which they claimed as theirs because their state seceded from the union so everything on it is theirs as well. Proving that it was about states rights, because the first battle was over who owned the fort, the state it was own or the federal government

They still own slaves in the form of prisoners so you're argument is nonsensical.

>muh dick
>white people are hicks
this is the basis of the entire black history movement

Secede? That is the dumbest idea anyone can come up with. All eyes were all on the US at that point. A divided nation like that would have fallen to foreign influence.

It's literally what pro-union people have been trying to get them to admit since... basically the war ended.

>pro-union people
Never seen any of teh fags tearing down the statues wave an american flag in earnest. In fact, they disreecpt it, burn it, and attack people who wave it. If anything, they're just the lasted secessionsts as you can see in califronia.