How important really was the slavery question in what caused

State's rights.

>>3305959
did the south had a democraticaly elected gvt ?

File: smug pepe that is also black.png (114KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 420x420px

>>3305957
it was the underpin of the southern aristocracy's wealth and power and what kept them at least somewhat economically on par with the north

so ya pretty important

>>3305957
Oh look! Another bait "was it slavery?" thread.

Yes. Without slavery, no desire to secede. Without desire to secede, no war.

>>3305957
Hey look it's this thread again.

Can you not even pick a different OP image?

>>3305976
>>3305987
why would white northerners die for it ?

>>3305995
Die for what? A new OP image? I dunno, seems like an alright cause to me.

File: confused.jpg (13KB, 224x224px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 224x224px

>>3305959
>secession was over states rights
>CSA constitution gave less power to the states and more the federal government than the USA constitution
>states were expressly forbidden from ending slavery

File: war horse.jpg (204KB, 1280x1109px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 1280x1109px

>>3305987
this better?

>>3306003
>seems like an alright cause to me.
is it enough to die for it for a northerner white male ?

>>3306005
I feel like we're getting closer, it's still missing something though.
>>3306007
I get English isn't your first language, so why are you trying so hard?

>>3306010
>I get English isn't your first language, so why are you trying so hard?
> I have no argument, let's change subject

>>3305959
Yep, state's rights to have slavery.

Actually, most yankees hated nigs too, they weren't then black-fetishizing SJWs or whatever. The general consensus in the north was that black africans should be shipped back to Africa, as soon as possible. They didn't have slaves, but they didn't want millions of free blacks swarming in, either. This was Lincoln's sentiment.

The real reason the north fought was A) can't let federal power be challenged, or it'll be the Europeans and Mexicans getting uppity again, B) the US was just starting to expand and fill in the west. This was more about whether new states would be slave states or not.

California and Texas were new to the union, as were the upper midwest. Illinois, Michican, Wisconsin... "Bleeding" Kansas, most famously. Pioneers settlers were already flowing in, and the source was generally the more populous north (which received more immigrants). The economic system as such did NOT WANT new states to be slave states, as it would undermine new settler's economic interests. Why move out west to open a stable when a nig can be whipped into doing it for free? So nuh-uh can't have that.

>>3306027
so the objective of abolishing slavering was to cancel the nigger immigration in the US ?

>>3306027
>state's rights to have slavery.
I used to say this before I learned that the CSA constitution barred states from deciding the issue of slavery on their own, and any statewide emancipation or manumission would have required a constitutional amendment.

It wasn't about the states having the right to legislate on the issue of slavery, rather than have emancipation dictated to them by the federal government. It was just about slavery.

>>3306027
>Why move out west to open a stable when a nig can be whipped into doing it for free? So nuh-uh can't have that.
no man
The importation of slaves into the United States, including the South, had already been illegal since 1808

>>3305995
Soldiering is regular pay for the cannon fodder poorfags it swept up, and propaganda encouraged it.

Slavery was not the primary concern for the war in the minds of most men, not at the start. Only after the start of the war later on did it become a convenient moral wedge.

The aristocracy could raise and lead its own regiments very easily, so long as they made a donation to the (Union) gov. They then raised grunts, and the gov then gave them arms and some supplies. This was how dozens of vanity regiments were created. The other benefit was that this would expand the army, as some of these vanity regiments could be expected to raise battle-experienced and trained 'professional' officers. This was a specific goal, too. Remember, the West was not yet won. Mexico and to an extent the European powers were still a threat. (From our POV we see that apart the Europeans never tried to militarily meddle in young US affairs again, but this was not 100% certain at the time).

>>3306035
That is true
Article I Section 9(4)
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

>>3306044
I find it hard to believe

>>3306014
The entire point of my posts is that there is nothing to argue about my friend.

>>3306050
Why did people go to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight and die?

>>3306033
It wasn't exactly a thought process that looked very far into the future and all practicalities, but basically yes. The North envisioned poorfag Irish, German and Pole sharecroppers doing field work, not unpaid blacks.

>>3306035
Yes, because they knew southern state legislatures would most likely not issue emancipation edicts. Lincoln decided to stick his thumb in the eyes of the Southerners with the Emancipation Proclamation, something he'd never do in peacetime. I mean, slavery was certainly unsustainable economically and ethically, but you can understand why Southerners have held a grudge. The Civil War was abuot bringing them to heel.

>>3306042
Who said anything importing slaves? There was already a healthy domestic slave-rearing process.

>>3306050
I'm not sure what's so hard to believe.