Finish this sentence:

nothing

A rep pill and a Kek, Veeky Forumsis amazing.

I’m not doing your own paper for ya bud.

Do your own research into the Civil War, historiographical processes and the theories of causes for events. Then you will (hopefully) see that having a debate over the Civil War every week on Veeky Forums is retarded.

Most historians view it as in defense of slavery as an institution. It is pleb tier to pretend "multiple causation" or "states rights" etc etc, the fact you immediately retreated when asked to expand pretty much proves OP's point.

>most people think this
>pleb tier
ew

I retreat not because I can’t, but because I don’t want to spend an hour writing on a meme post. Sure slavery was a major, major part of starting the war, but denying states rights is equally wrong. You can debate slavery was more important but the causes definitely flew together when southern governments seceded. Saying that meme garbage is the same as saying “nationalism caused ww1”. It’s a stupid simplification that gets posted too much.

freedom from northern oppression

States rights such as......

States rights to allow slavery

Das raits.

...keeping on existing as a political entity. What you meant to ask is
>the southern states chose to secede because of ________

>"cmon yall lets bayonet charge their entrenched position so we can own slaves."

Freedom*

*terms and conditions apply

self defense.

fpbp

I don't think even a single Confederate soldier who didn't own slaves before the war believe he would own slaves after the war.

There is a difference between retardation and delusions

Northern Aggression

>Slavery
>Tariffs
>Social and economic divides which long predated the United States
That about sums it up

>Southerns still unironically say this when the first shot fired was a Southern cannon at a Union fort built on Federal land

>Muh State Rights!
>Forces Free states by federal law to return run away slaves back South with the fugitive slave act

Eat a cock you South apologist.

>...so our 1% can own slaves while we return to subsistence farming and competing with plantations

Why are the Souths such braindead sheep? At least the North troops can claim they're defending the Union.

/thread

DO IT AGAIN UNCLE BILLY

Making the greatest nigger hate thread ever.

freedom, American values and American culture.

Alternatively,

because they wanted to go.

If I'm gonna die for a word I want mine to be 'poontang'.

youtube.com/watch?v=84wEWP-vWQk

>filename is pepe nietz
>Image is of max stirner pepe

what did user mean by this?

wealthy landowners.

more like the right to pay for tyrone.

the 1%

that's both.

>morality is ______________

Independence for the slave owning elite.

...winning the war.

Damn...

It doesn't help that saying it was anything other than at least 80% about wanting preserving slavery specifically due to racism gets you a decent chance of becoming persona non grata.

It isn't enough that you just focus on slavery, the popular narrative specifically focuses on slavery as a social institution motivated by bigotry. Talking about the broader economic and historical picture in even a basic sense or how blacks weren't seen any more favorably by the average Northerner is too complicated, I guess. And once you remove the "racism vs equality" angle and replace it with "racism vs slightly different racism" it becomes difficult to create parallels with how we view race today and becomes more of a discussion about economics. But at this point you're "trivializing the racism of the South" and have lost anyway.

Slavery, states rights issues, and economic squabbles with the North. Anyone who refuses to include one of those issues is a biased faggot

>Most historians view it as in defense of slavery as an institution.
Except they don't? It's actually a very contested issue. Also
>What is an ad populum appeal

Yes but that is nuts like saying Columbus was genocidal.

They wanted to keep their slaves. They were losing ground with the Federal government, and it was soon going to be EXPENSIVE to keep slaves. So they declared independence, and fully intended to leave in peace. Then it was some people on their side that fired first, not in an attempt at a crippling strike, but in error, against a military fortification that was now part of their new sovereign territory. The people who joined up and tread in mud for the CSA did so to keep out the Federals, and to protect their way of life, which included eventually owning slaves (ideally).

If you have a PARAGRAPH to describe what happened, very little of that text should be about slavery. If you have a WORD, it's slavery.

rich southerners wanted gibs

woah...

This is more accurate than a lot of people wish it should be

>against a military fortification that was now part of their new sovereign territory.
lol
>sell territory to federal government for fort
>years later secede from said government
>lol that contract is now bunk because I say so
Doesn't work that way

>Doesn't work that way
Sure, certainly a lot of contemporary legal precedent to draw from in order to reach that well thought out conclusion. Oh wait, no there isn't, you're just talking out of your ass.

SHINKANSEN

Independence. Anyone arguing otherwise is a mental gymnast. Reason for the declaration of independence =/= reason for war. The reason for independence were state's rights to own slaves. The reason for war was attaining independence trough force when the federal government refused to accept the facts on the ground.

Not like the union sent troops in the south to free slaves, it sent them to assert control over the rebel states. Slavery became a secondary issue.

Southern independence

The United Kingdom

The south had the overall better aesthetic, prove me wrong.

Yeehaw murica fredum

Butternut < Blue

Imagine the smell of these guys