To what extent was the american civil war "caused" by slavery?

personally i think it is fair to claim that slavery was the primary reason for southern secession. however, at the time of secession public support for invading the CSA for the purpose of preserving the Union wasn't particularly high. What gave the North "just" cause to invade the south was its refusal to cede Fort Sumter, which after the subsequent southern siege (during which nobody was killed or even wounded) they did.

How the fuck can you cede something you don't even own? That's like saying I own the car that belongs to my neighbor just because it's parked close to my house.

exactly, the north (unjustly) refused to unoccupy what was rightful southern property. they then cried foul once the south nonviolently reclaimed it.

>fighting for state's rights

>to own slaves

> How the fuck can you cede something you don't even own?

Fort Sumpter was in the South and like all Federal property, was paid for by ALL the people, so it stands to reason that the South should have gotten any Federal property within its area if it was (legally) succeeding.

Did Southerners have a claim on Fort Mackinac way up in northern Michigan? After all, they did contribute to its funding.

They do as citizens of America. Leaving would make them not citizens thus voiding their right. However secession is illegal anyway so it's a must point.

FPBP

does a sovereign state not have the right to decide whether or not it wants a foreign military institution on its soil?

Most if it, although there were disagreements that weren't necessarily about the concept of slavey, but had slavery in their root cause

The U.S government was not a foreign institution. But to humor you, Lawfully owned buildings like embassies, British Hong-Kong, etc. have generally not had to worry about changing governments voiding legal statuses.

>still even they would have to abolish it somewhere along the line, before the 20th century even

How could they not? I mean the second someone figures out a way to harvest cotton in a fast and efficient way without the need of manual labor, what would be the point of having slaves? What are they gonna do with all those nigs? How will the ruling class of the South LARP as Aristocrats then? It would've been going through a whole lot of trouble to fight for something so short term

At the time of secession, any Union persons or property in the CSA would be, by definition, foreign. Additionally, nations have the right to refuse another nation embassy and by extension the possession of any property within their nation.

Humans hold-on to lots of outdated things because "thats how things are" and the fact rulers often prefer ruling a pile of ash than sharing power in a utopia. Slavery would definitely not go away because Southern society and culture was entirely based upon it. Freeing the Slaves would have destroyed the caste system the Plantation aristocrats had set up with them on top as kings and needed it to keep the poor white majority in-line. They would have let the South collapse into anarchy before abolishing it.

>on its soil
That's the whole point, it wasn't on their soil.

you have a very nuanced view on things

100%. Secession is unconstitutional, so when the South elected to secede because they were afraid Lincoln would take away their slaves they went into open revolt against the Union, which required military force to put down. Also they fired first.

why did the north not immediately declare on the south? if they truly had a claim to southern lands, then why not press it immediately?

Well, the majority of the secessions occurred after Lincoln was elected (November 6, 1860) but before he took office (March 4, 1861). President Buchanan refused to act.

Lincoln didn't want to immediately declare war on the South because he knew it would create sympathy for them, and might lead to border states seceding and/or more support from the citizens - instead, he wanted to, if at all possible, make sure the South fired first. Plus, he was, as a new president, trying to install his cabinet and get the executive branch in order.

Still, it was only around a month after Lincoln took office that the battle of Fort Sumter occurred (April 12-13, 1861)

I'm not sure how to explain this to you again because your IQ seems to be south of 90. The state of South Carolina seceded. Fort Sumter was NOT a property of the state of South Carolina. Even if you think that seceding was 100% a legal/constitutional act, that still wouldn't entitle SC to the fort.

>Lincoln didn't want to immediately declare war on the South because he knew it would create sympathy for them
why do you think that is? subjugating another nation would have gone against the beliefs of most all Americans of that time period. Sumter held little defensive importance to the Union and was simply used by Lincoln to provoke war, he knew full well that supplying the fort would lead to war and he took action anyway.
Are you claiming that a sovereign nation has no right to determine whether or not foreign powers operate within its borders? The Union had no right to even be in the South, let alone hold a fort.

>Are you claiming that a sovereign nation has no right to determine whether or not foreign powers operate within its borders?
The fort wasn't within its borders you fucking idiot.
>The Union had no right to even be in the South, let alone hold a fort.
South Carolina herself ruled that Fort Sumter belongs to the federal government in 1836 you fucking idiot.
>The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
>Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
>Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.
South Carolina had exactly zero legal right to seize Fort Sumter, it was an act of aggression.

>agreement made under a union is still valid once the union is left
ishggydggy

It was state legislation ratified by the South Carolina House and Senate, are you an absolute mongoloid?

>The courts are valid when they rule about succession
>they're invalid when they rule about MUUHH CRAYY

Pick one southerner scum

>what would be the point of having slaves?
Don't underestimate the bonds of cultural tradition.

>What are they gonna do with all those nigs?
House slaves could have easily remained a thing. Gentlemen aren't going to easily give up their sex slaves.

Reminder that all dixieboos are unamerican fifth columns. This is regardless of north and south at this point.

> They do as citizens of America. Leaving would make them not citizens thus voiding their right.

And by leaving, the North no longer had any claim on Federal property in the South, unless you’re suggesting the South should have also been remunerated for Federal property in the North, that it had contribute to funding and that it was giving up?

I’m no Southern apologists, they were fucking retards who got shit loads of people killed so that a tiny parasitical minority of rich planters could keep slaves but the “legal” argument that the North somehow still owned Fort Sumpter is bullshit.

Ratified under union, just as the constitution was. Both documents were void as the union was dissolved. When one governing body separates itself from another the laws of the old do not apply to the new.

>the state of South Carolina decides it no longer wants to be a part of the USA, and wants to be a part of the CSA
>Fort Sumter doesn't belong to the state of South Carolina and is in fact federal property
>therefore Fort Sumter cannot be a part of the claim to secession
>therefore Fort Sumter isn't legally a part of CSA
>therefore CSA attacking Fort Sumter, a property of the USA, is an act of aggression
I mean this isn't really that hard to figure out unless you're a 90 IQ Southern brainlet with African blood in his veins.

Confederacy attacking Fort Sumter would be like Micronesia attacking Guam, Dominican Republic attacking Puerto Rico, or Argentina attacking the Falklands for that matter. Literally no legal claim to it but "it's close to our borderds so it should be ours." Pure idiocy unless you a Dixie or an Argie.

All this talk of whether or not Fort Sumter belonged to South Carolina after secession is pointless because secession is unconstitutional. The articles of confederation specified a perpetual union, and the constitution that replaced them created a more perfect union. The perpetual nature of it still held.

The point is even if secession is legal, attacking Fort Sumter would still be illegal. What was seceding were the states, it was a confederacy of states. Not federal lands.

Saying the war was purely about slavery means:

>ignoring the upward trend industrialization in the North vs. lack thereof in the South
>ignoring the Southern interpretation of homestead laws as basically breeding dissent in the ranks of those who supported plantation farming
>ignoring the urbanization in the North
>ignoring the massive Irish and German immigration to the North
>ignoring that all immigration largely situated around the North
>ignoring the fact that most immigrants viewed slavery with disdain
>ignoring the fact that the Northern political affiliations underwent significant tonal changes whereas the Southern political depictions largely remained stagnant for half a century if not more
>ignoring that these political differences already tainted any Southern impression of the North's ideological basis at least 2 decades before the war
>ignoring that politics in general was undergoing a widespread boom in voter participation effectively making it form of entertainment
>the split of the Protestant church into Baptists, Protestants, Presbyterians, and Methodists all of which taking various stances on the matter
>ignoring the American land grabs in the early 1800s and the dispute on institutional slavery's expansion
>ignoring the Southern planter class' perceived loss of political sway
>ignoring the Southern planter class' influence upon the lower classes due to technological advantage
>ignoring the Southern planter class' influence up the lower classes by allowing them conditional social status elevation via overseer positions
>conflating secession with the civil war
>ignoring the Northern invasion's primary motive being unification

By the time the war erupted, the North and the South were practically different countries occupying the same border in a sense. The trouble had been brewing for years. Slavery was more of a focal point emblematic of the Southern fear of progressivism and modernization than say the be-all-end-all cause of the Civil War.

Doesn't work like that idiot.

>Saying the war was purely about slavery means:
> *snip*

All of which goes right back to slavery.

It was caused by the economic differences between an industrialized North and an agrarian South. The North wanted to abolish slavery because it would have had virtually no economic downsides for them, while the South would have been massively impoverished by abolishing slavery.

So it was both entirely about slavery and not at all about slavery.

>People don't want to risk their lives, their children's lives and have to watch their friends, brothers and leaders die simply because they want to enslave members of another race so bad that they would die fighting for it.
They would and did because of a little book called the Bible.

Almost of your bullet points go directly back to slavery as a root cause.

>implying the South doesn't inherently hate Yankees

>A lot of Southerners fought for the Union
>Its another thread where Veeky Forums shits on those Southerners who were loyal and not wanking the rich circle jerk land owners.
Every time.