The civil war was about slavery

>the civil war was about slavery

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_(American_Civil_War)
archives.gov/education/lessons/blacks-civil-war
abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/abraham-lincolns-contemporaries/abraham-lincoln-and-black-soldiers/
bartleby.com/251/pages/page358.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850
vine.co/v/MiXdj7hXOW1
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Yes, it was.
Stop being contrarian, it makes you look historically illiterate

If it was about slavery does that mean they would have let a non slave state leave?

True the north wanted to preserve the Union and its lawmakers didn't really give two fucks about black lives, but with the success of California, the North realized that cotton plantations would never generate as much capital as factories, thus, if plantations spread to the west covering up prime railroad land, well that would have been a damn problem, wouldn't it?

>"Hey, do you know why we're killing our own countrymen?" "To free the slaves, of course." "Oh yeah. That's right."

you northerners should've let us keep our pet monkeys

it wasn't about slavery

look up border states who still had slavery but didn't secede

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_(American_Civil_War)

I doubt we had a war about niggers.

Even Jew history says that it was about Industrial economy vs Agrarian economy. The people that say "niggers" are like the surface level idiots. They definitely skipped that high school class for sure.

Irish were slaves

If you think the civil war was "about" slavery. Just research what Lincoln had to say about the blacks prior to the emancipation proclamation. Slavery was a PR tool to justify a war about commerce.

It may very well have been, but based Stonewall Jackson treated his slaves better then the North treated free blacks.

desu the best part about the civil war was the fact it erased millions upon millions of future white American racist trump supporters.

Cucks nowadays would gladly kill their countrymen for some (sand)niggers' rights.

Bring it

No. You would have turned the south into Haiti. That shit was getting completely out of hand.

Lincoln changed his stance on African emigration to Africa after he was lobbied by abolitionists (including Frederick Douglass) asking him to recruit blacks into the Union army.
After having been told by generals of the successes black soldiers had, Lincoln felt that they had earned their freedom and a place in America.
>archives.gov/education/lessons/blacks-civil-war

It was about Whig History

Here's a better source
>abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/abraham-lincolns-contemporaries/abraham-lincoln-and-black-soldiers/

give it up for Abe, break those false paradigms.

When/where did he say this? It's too fucking easy to fake AZQuotes.

It was more about the economic models between the labour one in the North and slavery one for the South so wait a minute...Oh.

Good thing the radical Republicans bitchslapped some sense into Lincoln

bartleby.com/251/pages/page358.html

now what you want to deny?

Fun fact they also disagreed with Texas v White

I've never understood why it's so hard for so many people to comprehend the simple possibility that two belligerents could fight the same war over different aims.

The south fought the war and seceded over the issue of slavery, specifically regarding the expansion of that institution into the western territories and what this expansion would mean for the balance of power in the federal government. For a people and a region whose entire economy depended on this 'peculiar' institution (regardless of moral concerns), they weren't about to let their fate be decided by people who either had no stake in the matter or were openly hostile.

The north fought the war to quell a rebellion in the southern states due to the judgement that secession was politically intolerable. While the abolition of slavery became a "rallying cry" during the war, the primary issue was always, controversially, over the legality of secession. The northern states weren't nearly as unified during the war as the post-war narrative would have us believe. Luckily, the Union leadership at the time recognized the political opportunity to end slavery along with the war. The Union war effort was always seen by the leadership as an effort to suppress a rebellion, not a great moral struggle.

You realize, of course, this is after the "union" justified their war. Prior to even the war he was a factory of racist statements.

it was about states rights. before the civil war, states were much more independent of each other. now we're all part of the stupid fucking union and there is no such thing as state identity anymore. the union is to america what the EU is to europe. britain is lucky they were allowed to leave the pussy EU without a fight. the south wishes they had that luxury

saying the civil war was about slavery is like saying brexit was about refugees. if you think that, you are missing the big picture

The war was about slavery but not because the north thought slavery was wrong.

there, /thread

I'm not denying anything, just needed a source friend.

>americans don't know their own history
first and foremost, it wasn't a civil war. the confederacy didn't fight for control of the union. they fought to secede from the union and become their own nation, as was their right.

the south seceded because, along with being taxed for shipping raw materials to the northern textile industry, they were taxed again for the refined goods being sent, and then bought, back.

also, the north hated the south. from literature to theatre, rarely was a good word said. the north had control of congress and kept it that way by implementing the 3/5 rule, and just fucked the south over on everything they could. they even put a man as president who wasn't even on the ballot in some of the southern states. feeling they were being dishonoured with this, and under the opinion lincoln would abolish slavery and financially ruin the south, they left the union to govern themselves.

of course, history is written by the victor, so instead of the south legally and peacefully seceding from the union because they weren't being represented properly, and then attacked by the union, having cities and towns and fields burned to the ground, we have the inbred raycis rednex trying to destroy the union, and good ol' abe savin the day

Read the thread, faggot

Right but when you entertain the word "about" in what was the civil war "about." The fault lays with the entity declaring the actual war, not the act of secession. The North had the option of letting it go and instead responded with war. Slavery was an "element" of the civil war, but not what the civil war was about at it's heart.

The war definitely was about maintaining the unity of the Union, but it was also hugely about preserving or outlawing slavery, and if you pretend otherwise you're retarded.

stupid niggers think theyre special enough that we would fight a war over them. even Lincoln thought they were inferior and he was about to send them back. it could have been any issue. it's just the fact that the states didnt like that they had to bend the knee to other places for every little thing. people today dont understand because in current year we are all american all one (((unified))) people. state identity was stronger than national identity. today national identity has taken over state identity. this is a problem because it puts big government closer to the individual person. before the civil war, you had the state as a buffer for your interests from the fed

>state identity was stronger than national identity
>implying
I'm a Californian, not an American
I refuse to be associated with irrelevant, racist flyover states

>outlawing slavery,
even though it was still legal in the Union

>Brit thinks he knows American history

First and foremost, it was a civil war because the formation of the Union is such that state control is an integral part of the American system of governance. Anyway, it's a silly fucking semantics argument that only first-year students (and those who have no advanced beyond that stage of development) ever bring up.

the North hated the South for good reason, and the South shared that hatred for equally good reason. they lived in totally different and increasingly divergent societies, yet spoke the same language and occupied the same physical and political space. there was never going to be a peaceful solution, since both sides were a bunch of hardasses and neither wanted to budge.

>muh peaceful secession

That's why the first shots fired were on a Union fort, right? And everyone knows you can totally have socially diametric and philosophically antognistic societies right next to each other with no negative consequences? you're a fucking idiot. stick to your gay little Cromwell dick-sucking and leave history for the real English speaking world, thanks.

I hear what you're saying, but I have to disagree. Lincoln nailed it in his 2nd inaugural address.
>"...slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war."
That third paragraph says it all. It's remarkably even handed writing as well. It's a very honest speech.

False.
In 1804 all northern states officially outlawed slavery, though enforcing it was weak. The latest records of slaves being owned to Northerners ends in the 1850s in Connecticut when no more than 12 slaves were recorded in a census

Here's how it was
The South seceded and fought because muh slaves
The North fought to restore the Union, and later on, slavery was tacked on

I wanted to be repilled on Civil War for the longest time and always wonder who was in the wrong and who was in the right?

What about Maryland Delaware Kentucky and Missouri?

You're still bluepilled if you think any historical event is black or white, right or wrong, good or evil

>South starts getting annoyed by the disproportionate taxes that the north keeps raising on them, CFA comes into existence
>Lincoln gets elected using bribes, having soldiers intimidate voters at polls, has soldiers straw voting
>Says that there's nothing the federal government cant do to the states and that it should and will hold total dominion over them
>Forces them into the war by supplying fort sumter, makes them take the first shot
>illegally declares war without congress
>proceeds to use military force to silence negative media opinions in the north
>puts dissenting or critical northerners (including politicians) in indefinite detention, suspends habeas corpus
>puts southerner POWs in gulag-level concentration camps (Camp Douglas)
>Condones the systematic annihilation of southern cities, farms, industry, resources, to a point where even the former slaves found the destruction atrocious
>eventually kills 600,000 americans to prove a point and inflate his ego

He didn't even give a shit about slavery until after the war started. Before becoming president he supported legislation that made slavery constitutionally protected, supported the Black Laws and the Fugitive Slave Act. After the war he drew up plans to ship the freed slaves off back to africa and the carribean. The Emancipation Proclamation was nothing but a war tactic to put the south in further disarray and provide new meat for his war machine, and to send a message.

Neck yourself, yankee cunt.

california regularly tries to suck the fed's dick. you fucking commies love big government and would prefer if states rights were abolished completely. you are the opposite of what i'm talking about. typical delusional leftist

>Delaware had, proportionally, the largest free black population of any state. This was not merely a statistical abstraction, but it was known and commented upon by the people in Delaware at the time, as in the Wilmington newspaper of 1850 that noted that Delaware "has more free colored in proportion to its population than any state in the Union."

>By the time the Civil War began, fewer than 1,800 slaves lived in Delaware, and 75 percent of them were in Sussex County, mostly in the Nanticoke River basin in the far southwest of the state. In the fall of 1861, Lincoln proposed to George P. Fisher, Delaware congressman, a plan to compensate Delaware's remaining slaveholders from federal funds if they would free their slaves. Lincoln hoped that, if this could be shown to work in Delaware, it could be done as well in Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri, and eventually become a model for the states then in the Confederacy. In his proposal to Fisher, he called it the "cheapest and most humane way of ending this war and saving lives.

You automatically assume I'm a bay area liberal instead of a based rural gun and property rights fag
kill yourself, demagogue

Was slavery legal in the Union yes or no?

no u

It was illegal
But it was not enforced and yet at the same time, the north had to recognize slaves as property and were obligated to return them to their owners
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850

Lincoln got his start with the free soilers and had a strong abolitionist streak. Additionally, the issue had boiled to a point following the Dred Scott decision that either the whole of Union would allow slavery, or the whole of the Union would outlaw it. Southerners were definitely correct in their fears that Lincoln was aiming to undermine the institution of slavery, and he likely would have crippled it in some way (freedom of womb, or something similar) if the Civil War had not occurred

>It was illegal
No it wasnt
There were 4 slave states in the union durring the civil war

The border states were slaves states, but not New England, like I posted earlier

> but not New England, like I posted earlier
I never said it was
All I said is it was legal in the Union

>I think when two countries go to war, they are neither wrong or right.

Fuck off faggot.

vine.co/v/MiXdj7hXOW1

Ideology is a fucking meme

I'll remember those words when I'm removing kebabs.

The reason why they left was slavery

>Here's how it wasThe South seceded and fought because muh slavesThe North fought to restore the Union, and later on, slavery was tacked on

actually the union put massive tariffs on imports of finished goods from Europe to protect American manufacturing (predominantly in the north). Europe retaliated by raising tariffs on imports of cotton from America (predominantly exported from southern states). The south was in a double bind, they couldn't sell their cotton and they couldn't buy finished goods, cause they couldn't sell their cotton...

So the south said fuck America we want to be able to import finished goods without tariffs from Europe so they wont put tariffs on our exports of cotton, we are no longer part of the union.

Abe and the northern states decided that since they didn't need slaves as badly as the south did and the political winds were moving in the direction of abolishing slavery anyways (Europe already did it) they could hurt the southern states ability to fight the war by "freeing the slaves". The strategy worked, black people freaked out all over the south and (to use modern parlance) became terrorists. Lots of blacks were allowed to form all black army regiments for the north and were sent into combat as cannon fodder.

Eventually the south conceded and time moved on.

Somewhere along the way the official narrative about the reasons for the civil war got changed to make the north look noble righteous even though the issue of slavery actually had zero to do with the war.

I'm not even pro slavery but the story about the war being about slavery doesn't even make sense. No country would go to war just to abolish slavery, that's stupid on the face of it.

even though it was still legal n the union

You're still hung up on this?
>4 border slave states that refused to join the south to suck on the teat of the Union
>therefore in the entire Union slavery was legal

You idiotic dumbfuck. The core states of the Union, that is, New England, outlawed slavery in 1804. Remember this now, faggot, it will help you later. What you're saying is fallacious, that since border states had slaves, the entire Union had slaves. Fix your shit

>the issue of slavery actually had zero to do with the war
Sounds like you completely missed the point of the westward expansion of slavery, which was a centerpiece of the war -- control over the destiny of the western territories