If the civil war wasnt about Slavery, what was it about?

the states right to own slaves.

Southern autism.

>>3162123
>IT WAS A BOUT STATES RIGHTS!
>Ok, which one?
>NO BRO, NOT WHICH ONE, ALL STATES RIGHTS AND THE FREEEEEDOM OF STATES TO MAKE OWN LAWS!!!!
>What did the federal government do for you to be so mad.
>THEY MEDDLED WITH STATES RIGHTS!
>How
>T-T-T-THEY AB-B-BOLISHED S-S-SLAVERY!!!!
Summarized how this thread will go.

>>3162123
Slavery was part of what the Civil War was about. The Civil War was mainly about keeping the union together, modernizing the South (via breaking up the cock land owners had there).

Mostly economics and politics. Richfags in the South wanted to continue holding power, under the pretense of "muh individual state rights", "big government is bad" they started a rebellion and got their shit kicked in by the organized big government. I'm butthurt the confederacy left my state a battleground and did fucking nothing for it.

I'm glad Sherman did his march. Fuck the other states in the confederacy.

>>3162130
hard more: Lincoln was elected in large part because the Dred Scott case weakened Northern State's right to keep slavery illegal.

>>3162133
They were taking advantage of the resources and agriculture of the south while allowing low tariffs on these same goods from outside the country therefore leading to a devalue of the South's industry. This was legislation that was straight beneficial to the north while detrimental to the south.

It was obviously about slavery, but you're still a faggot for that obnoxious post.

>>3162150
>They were taking advantage of the resources and agriculture of the south while allowing low tariffs on these same goods from outside the country therefore leading to a devalue of the South's industry.

you mean cotton...? who was the US importing cotton from in the 1850s?

Money

>>3162160

I apologize. I remembered this wrong. The tarrifs were opposite, but the effects and main idea were the same.

Look up Tarrif of Abominations. That's all I can remember off the top of my head, but it's a clear grievance that created a lot of animosity, and there are others related to gerrymandering in the west which lead to the southerners feeling misrepresented by the national government. Enough legislation got passed that screwed the south over that talks of Independence came about. Slavery is one of those, which I am not out to argue as being not one of the largest grievances.

File: Jefferson Davis.jpg (64KB, 600x551px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 600x551px

>>3162123

The right of states to sever ties with the national government and form their own government

>>3162813
So they could own slaves.

the southern elites were losing their dominance in politics and economics. industrialization, shrinking export market share, and immigration was weakening the south and strengthening the north. the southern elites decided the best course of action was to try and make their own nation.

File: never-against-virginia.jpg (146KB, 672x504px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 672x504px

>>3162828

You'd be surprised at how reluctant Confederate leaders were about secession actually.

Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Albert S. Johnston, and James Longstreet had all cautioned against or privately opposed secession and only severed their ties with the Federal government after their respective states joined the Confederacy.

Just going to save this thread 300 replies of headache and head it off now by reminding everyone that every single confederate state listed preserving slavery as their motive for leaving the union in their secession declarations, most of them mentioning it explicitly as the first and primary reason. There's not really much of anything to debate.