Was the civil war really about slavery? I can understand why

>>1742147
The North fought to preserve the union. The South fought for states rights (to own slaves).

>this thread again

South seceded over slavery.

North fought to restore the union and because the South attacked a federal fort.

>>1742147
Its was about the North being unionist dicks that couldnt stand the idea of a non united America.

>>1742166
>wanting a balkanized America

>>1742185
>Wanting an oppressive government

>>1742156
>>1742157
/thread

The war was fought over the expansion of slavery into federal territory out west. Lincoln cited the Northwest Ordinance, which outlawed slavery in federal territory. The southern states knew that slavery would be outlawed eventually as the balance of power established in the Missouri Compromise evaporated as more free states entered the Union. So, they seceded. In my opinion, the secession in defiance of a Constitutional solution is treasonous and it was a shame that the perpetrators did not have their property confiscated at the wars conclusion.

>>1742147
I hate most of the prager uni videos where they shame millenials-males on a daily basis, but their civil war video was great.

>muh state rights
State rights for what?

Reminder that the south was treated incredibly fairly compared to the losers of just about any other civil war and that southerners are the most assblasted whiny pussies in the world.

>>1742147
It was never planned to be a long costly war, the south never had the resources to hold out for any length of time.

The only hope they had was to quickly knock the northern forces in away to bring about terms of surrender as to keep the south independent.

That didn't happen.

entirely states rights, slavery meant something but the real issue was northern imperialism.

>>1742438
Yes fairly, you mean economically enslaved, and its governments controlled strictly from Washington for another half century.

>>1742438

after the palestinians

>>1742198
>wanting to own humans

>muh oppression

File: 1474495469101.png (1MB, 1864x4327px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1864x4327px

>>1742147
>Was the civil war really about slavery?
Yes.

>>1742455
The issue was slavery and "states rights" would be the northern states right to refuse to return escaped slaves, if anything. Read >>1742457

>>1742457
>federal troops pull out
>South immediately enacts black codes and makes blacks 2nd class citizens

Yeah real oppression for you poor traitors.

>>1742147
It was slavery* but I would include an enormous caveat because leaving it at that is grossly and criminally oversimplified.


A more complete but still simplistic explanation is this:

The south was a culture that over specialized in the agricultural sector and that brought with it a counterpart to the industrial tycoon: the plantation owner.

Now think of the power of industry, it's all in economics right? The rich guys have money. Well the plantation owners had money too, barrels of it and it all talked.

So you have all these guys with money and some gup runs for office with views that are anti-you. He might not specifically say "I'm gonna end those guys", but his speeches and history reveal his sympathies. So they go into panic mode and chimp out and have a lot of money to chimp out with.

Lots of wars have similar stories. Pissing off a lot of people with deep pockets tends to start wars.

I can go on about cultural tensions, the concentration of wealth in landowners instead of producers, the class divide in the US and what difference region has on that. However that's the basic point, rich people got pissed and it was over slaves which were a means of production and wealth.

>>1742147
short answer: Yes
long answer: Yes, but it's complicated.

>>1742564
>>1742569
These two

>>1742476
>support civil union to mitigate oppressive federalism
>"what are you some kinda cracker??"

Get fucked ya dumb cunt

>>1742457
As opposed to mass executions/imprisonment and/or stripping of land and titles, yes that's incredibly kind. The fact that people are still allowed to openly support this treasonous shit to this day shows how kind the US is compared to almost any other nation when it comes to treason.

South only wanted to enslave blacks

but Lincoln wanted to enslave the whole country

File: das rite whitey.jpg (498KB, 750x549px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 750x549px

>giving up your lives for a bunch of dumb house zenci's
I doubt the American people were that stupid even with all that anglo admixture in their blood.

>>1742157
One of the primary reasons for secession, and arguably the most prominent reason, was slavery. The South did not seceded solely over slavery.

>>1742494
>cherrypicking
There are many, many reasons in each declaration of secession and amendments in the Confederate State constitutions.

>>1742658
And yet nearly all of them start with 3 to 10 paragraphs going over slavery and how the North oppressed them by not letting them own humans.

>>1742697
And yet they turned down a constitutional amendment that would have made the institution of slavery unassailable for the foreseeable future.

>>1742147
It was really about sinking Southern economy,the emancipation of slaves was never their main concern.

>>1743585
Actually, the disagreeing point to the seward amendment and others like it was that Lincoln refused to sign one that would allow the expansion of slave holding territories.

The south wanted to protect its slaves and their right to institute such practices across the west.

It was over the states right to protect and propagate the enslavement of man. It's okay to admit it.

>>1742198
All sources indicate the South would have been even more oppressive than the Union, even to whites.

>>1743614
This