Was it really about slavery?

Federal weren't trying to abolish slavery on the federal level before the war, that was the opinion of a few fringe lunatics at best.

Not sending blacks back to africa after slavery ended was america's biggest mistake and they'll forever regret this.

From South Carolinia's declaration of Secession
>We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

>In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

>The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

>This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

>The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

If you read the whole thing, there's all this language about states rights and a tyrannical North, but the only examples they cite of this has to do with the North not respecting the institution of slavery. So in other words, yes, it was about slavery.

The economic interests of Northeastern urban centers diverged from those of the Southern plantation class as the Industrial Revolution took off in North America.

Slavery--as a resource extraction economy--became an economic drag on the growing manufacture economy.

How many slaves were involved in the Ft Sumter crisis?

nice work sanitizing but the most used word in their letter is 'slave'

slave: 18
law: 14
rights: 6
tax/tariff: 1

rekt

That's literally my argument, idk how you thought I was justifying the South from that

woops
i took it as if you intentionally cut all the parts explicitly about slavery

>of slavery
No, of agriculture vs industry.

>to practice and uphold the institution of slavery
No, to pass and enforce laws without federal government interference.

>in attempt to abolish slavery
No, in order to create a central public banking, transport, and defence sector under the federal government, and passing restrictive laws, including tariffs, to selectively benefit regional interests.

>aka being a president
No, aka arresting political opponents and suspending numerous civil rights, most notably habeas corpus, as well as unlawfully occupying South Carolingian territory and attacking the territory of South Carolina.

>No, of agriculture vs industry.
agriculture performed using slave labor

>No, to pass and enforce laws without federal government interference.
passing and enforcing laws to uphold the institution of slavery

>No, in order to...
and also abolish slavery

>No, aka arresting political opponents...
citations please?

None of these things are incorrect in themselves but it's impossible to separate them from the fact that they all depended on slavery

>No, aka arresting political opponents and suspending numerous civil rights, most notably habeas corpus

All of this was after the South had seceded

Yes. The vast majority of financial power in the South was concentrated in small amount of people with the vast majority of the political power. Those people relied on slave labor to achieve and maintain their money.

The concept of tariffs and agriculture being the spark of the Civil War is silly because every state, both North and South, dealt with it equally. But because all the cash in the South was concentrated into slaves, any hint that it would be taken from them would ruin their wealth.

So they exercised their power to start a war and blamed it on things that were obnoxiously incorrect but was not only easy to pretend existed but also used cultural loyalty to get others to join in on the cause.

>Dixieboos cry about imagined attacks on their precious states' rights when the Union rightfully contests their illegal secession
>Don't bat an eye when the Fugitive Slave Act forced states where slavery was illegal to abide by their rules and allow Southern bounty hunters to kidnap people back into slavery, thus violating that very same principle

God I hate Southerners

Can we sticky this thread so we don't have to go over this again in two days?

If you want to get specific, the direct cause of war was secession but the primary and overarching cause of that secession was slavery.

nope, just like holocaust threads, these kinds of topics are just buzzing with shitposting flies ready to try and stir up the pot.

slavery played a big part in it. If someone really wants to try, they can go back all the way to 1776 to try to pinpoint all the factors. Slavery sums it up nicely though.

>No, it was about tariffs
Slavery tariffs
>economics
Slavery economics
>state's rights
To keep slaves
>federal overreach
on slavery
>Lincoln's tyrannical tendencies
ibid.

I know this is probably a hilarious hoax, but this shit is literally Gospel in Dixie's tattered, stickered-up schoolbooks.

FPBP /thread confederates btfo

"Fringe lunatics" who just won the Presidency and the Congress.

...

WTS should have kept burning it all down.

>enslave people
>"Lincoln's tyrannical tendencies"
classic Southern intellectualism

>agriculture vs industry
>There was no agriculture in the northern states

t. fat slob in New Jersey with an inferiority complex whos Italian grandparents came in 1910 living through a dead general

Pretty sure Sherman regretted doing what he did and basically told people stop idolizing it

>New Jersey
California.
>Italian
Basque/Irish, actually.
>1910
Try 1710.

I think you're projecting.

la cretura...

Even the President of the Confederacy disagreed with you.

I'm sorry you can't be part of the Pre-Indo-European Master Race user, but at least compose yourself.

>I think you're projecting
You just said you wished you could "burn it all down". Lol. That's called projecting. You either have a massive inferiority complex or are a psychopath. Either way, you're a Californian so your opinion is irrelevant to any serious discussion

Yes.
/thread

This is actually a pretty good point

>w-well you're from Califagia! haha look mom I posted it!

No, it was a about keeping things the way they are, as the South wanted, or kill all the Indians and steal their lands, as the racist North wanted. This is why some tribes fought for the south. There is also anecdotes of people in the north helping redskins to sneak into the south.

You just said you wanted a whole region of your own country to be burnt down. You're no longer allowed to pretend to be on a high-horse.

Right the south definitely didn't want to expand slavery into any of the other territories. It's not like the south sent bands of ruffians anywhere, especially not Kansas, to pressure people into accepting slave laws.

i'm not the one defending themselves against shitposts

It really was about slavery, no matter how many terms and meanings you use to hide the fact. And you know, I wonder why people see the Confederate States as a symbol for white supremacy when the war was fought for the sole purpose of keeping Negroes in America.
Hundreds of thousands of men died and hundreds of thousands more men wounded just because a bunch of rich guys were cheap fucks and would rather give work to some uppity negroes than pay pennies to white southerners. Race mixing was also a big thing, with people raping or marrying Negroes and then continuing to ramble about how they just hate all the "stupid niggers". It is even said that Jefferson Davis married a fucking quadroon.
The South loved eating up African culture and loved to make little mongrel babies to the point of trying to pass off quadroons as white. They fought to keep Negroes in this country just because they were so fucking lazy they couldn't even bare to pick cotton while Northerners were working 12 hours a day in textile factories. The Southern economy was basically broken thanks to slavery. Blacks were treated as inferior, yet at the same time whites just could not be any more excited to pick up on the new slangs Negroes came up with and the jungle beats produced.
The South today is just like how it was back then: A bunch of ignorant white trash who complain about niggers yet at the same time copy black thug culture and have tainted blood.

Alright, I'll stop messing with him.

>"The war of Northern Aggression was about slavery!"
>"What about any other possible reason?"
>"Also slavery!"

Why are Yankees so braindead? Do you not understand the concept of falsifiability?

what is falsifiable about slavery being the foundation of every other proposed reason for the civil war

>muh war of Northern Aggression

I spit on you

>implying this niggardry would be popular if people like Sumner Redstone and other media giants weren't pushing it
>implying alphabet agencies aren't involved in the media as well

Ok

No. Nor was it about states' rights. It was about sectional power. A new free state means two senators for the North, and a free state culture that will eventually yield many congressmen. A new slave state meant the same for the South.

Slavery was a proxy for sectional contention and controversy over proper constitutional construction.

By that logic the revolution was about taxes.

The founders were fine with expansion. Since slave importation had been banned, it only meant that population of slave owners would disperse and have to assimilate to the greater northern populous.

This has always been a piss poor argument since slavery, like taxes, is not necessarily an issue in and of itself. It could and did function as a proxy.

Btw, why do you fags always have the same two or three cheap tactics? But Jeff Davis said this! Jeff Davis did not represent the general sentiments of the south any more than Trump represents your average evangelical.

>Jeff Davis wrote South Carolina’s Declaration of Secession.

>autist can't into rhetoric

The average man probably wasn’t fighting for any reason other than to defend his family but the cause of the war was ultimately governors and richfags that wanted to keep their slaves

War is old men talking and young men dying

El abominacion...

You're a fucking idiot. Lincoln repeatedly said he'd keep slavery if it means he could preserve the Union, and considered the likes of John Brown to be madmen.

>why do you fags always use cheap tactics like analyzing primary sources

>People who know nothing about the civil war say it was about slavery.
>People who know a little bit about the civil war say it wasn't about slavery.
>People who know a lot about the civil war say it was about slavery.

>People who know a lot about the civil war say it was about slavery.
kek'd hard
there isn't a single living person who knows "a lot" about the civil war

>what is falsifiable about slavery being the foundation of every other proposed reason for the civil war
Nothing, that's the point. Any theory of value must have a way to be not true, that is, there must be a false to define the true. Since "muh slavery" revisionists cannot accept any theory on the cause of the war not being slavery, the theory is not falsifiable, and therefore worthless.

>"People who say it had nothing to do with slavery are just as wrong as people who say it had everything to do with slavery."

How does one man manage to be so based?

Not him but
>my mental gymnastics are why you can't use slavery as an argument
Not an argument, slavery literally is the driving cause.

this is your brain on ben shapiro

Great contribution to the thread. Thank you, Cletus.

>u no more u agree wib me
>"no one really knows much about it"
>nice argumend
lol how's your extra chromosome?

And States rights, economic squabbles, and cultural differences that all went beyond slavery.

Of course Yanks love to romanticise the period so they *want* it to just be about slavery

Go back to watching Ice Road Truckers, Billy Bob. Adults are talking.

Yeah, because Southshits don't romanticize it at all.

>Adults are talking.
lol back your position up or admit to the extra chromosome u fat fag

The blood spatter is unironically an improvement given how shitty Amtrak paintjobs are

Not the slavery aspect ya dufus , of course they all know slavery was a major cause but it wasn't the only one.a

You're right user, it was about States Rights.
>States Rights to own Slaves.

>no argument, just blanket statement
>reddit spacing
>unnecessary capitalization
why is reddit still here lads?

fuck off stormfront

>literally no actual arguments
>just name calling and ad hom endlessly

is his always like this?

>fuck off stormfront

it is in these threads. it's pol bait to keep them out of real threads

Maybe you should read about the differences in the Union and. Onfederat Constitutions m8

>muh pol
you're doing it too

Yes, Yankees have no arguments and just call you /pol/ endlessly

Like I'm a leftist ffs , why am I suddenly /pol/?

Have you seen the TV show "Teen Mom"?
Or, in the South, it's just called "Mom"

>Having a problem with teenage pregnancy
Literally everyone else but Yanks think teenage pregnancy is normal. No really, black, white, Hispanic, it's all considered normal.

The real issue is teenage pregnancy out of wedlock. The differences in statistics in that regard are due to beliefs in abortion

>reddit "humor"

Each state wrote a constitution when seceding. Most said "preserve slavery" in them

Any other answer is pathetic apologia.

Le ebin outnumber your enemy military genius

Better than being outnumbered innit?

So tyrannical they secede before he even takes office

Does it really matter? Obviously he didn't care enough about the constitution to abide by it

Slavery and political franchise, yeah, which had a lot to do with slavery. With slavery being kept from spreading to new territories and states, the slave states saw political control of the Union inevitably falling into non-slave/abolitionist hands, and after enjoying political domination on the federal level for so long, they spat the dummy and decided to quit the Union, the catalyst being Lincoln winning an election without the vote of a single slave state.

The Republican party was founded partially on an abolitionist platform, the only question was how to implement it, whether slowly or with more speed.

>and after enjoying political domination on the federal level for so long