There are actually ameridiots on Sup Forums RIGHT NOW who believe that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery

>there are actually ameridiots on Sup Forums RIGHT NOW who believe that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery

Explain yourselves, hicks

It was economic, the agrarian south was being left behind by the industrial north and wanted sovereignty. Emancipation was a moral justification for the north to be aggressive with the south.

NTM rumor of freedom in the north led those in slavery to rebel against and destabilize the south's society and economy.

Are you so naive to think a racist man (Lincoln) in charge of a racist country, would fight brother against brother to free a bunch of niggers?

...

It was a british proxy war over using the southern states you stupid leaf. Why do you think their was a follow up war? Get your head out of liberal professors asshole and read civil war contemporaries economists.

...

It was the yuugest smear campaign in US history until Trump VS MSM

Very few people owned slaves in the South. Very few.

But then you have the Industrialized North, that doesn't understand your way of life, trying to lord over you and economically screw you over.

People don't like to be told what to do, especially by other groups of people.

Nobody's saying slavery was the sole reason for the civil war, or that the opposition to slavery was wholly moral instead of partially economic. But to pretend that abolitionist sentiments had nothing to do with the war is retarded. Stop being retarded.

I'd think another civil war is in order then
Gotta Straighten things out

The point is we're taught slavery was the main reason the civil war was fought when it wasn't.

It didn't though. It was about them wanting to secede.

But it was. The economic institution of slavery governed the entire tension between the North and South leading up to and beginning the Civil War. Southerners rightly feared that Lincoln was going to restrict slavery through legislation, as he had his political roots with abolitionists. More than half of the secession declarations from the seceding states explicitly mention preserving the institution of slavery as the reason for their secession.

To secede to preserve the institution of slavery. Jesus Christ your education system is awful

>To secede
Yes exactly. Glad we got that cleared up, comfy hat-kun.

But you seem to be implying the secession had nothing to do with slavery when it had everything to do with slavery

You seem to be putting words into my argument that aren't there. I'm just ignoring that, trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. You keep trying to imply things if you want, but I'm just glad we cleared up that bit about why the civil war started. Remember, the south wanted to secede, and Lincoln didn't want to let that happen.

So you admit that the reason that the Southern states seceeded was to preserve slavery as an institution?

Nope. I thought we just cleared this up? You even just said it yourself. Are you the same leaf that just posted before or have you been compromised?

There was no war fought over slavery. Secession was the reason for the war, the reason for secession was irrelevant. If the Southern states left for any other reason there still would've been war.

Lincoln only wanted to preserve the union. They even said so in their innauguration speech. Even the first draft of the emancipation proclamation said that states who rejoined the union by january x could keep their slaves. Lincoln voted against black rights previously.

Freeing the slaves was only a means to weaken the south.

Ah, and finally here's the obfuscation I'm trying to point out. Pretending that the secessions had nothing to do with slavery is completely dishonest, and historically illiterate

But the Southern states wouldn't have left for any other reason. The only reason they left in the first place was because of slavery. You can't have one side of the equation (secession) without the other (slavery) and I don't know how you guys can pretend otherwise.

Seriously, show me even the slightest bit of evidence that the states seceeded for a reason OTHER than to defend the institution of slavery.

Do some reading on Lincoln's early politics. He was basically swept to power on the backs of abolitionists, and even if he eventually did nothing, a more hard-line abolitionist candidate would have been fielded in the North in the immediate future.

>The only reason they left in the first place was because of slavery

That's not true.

It literally is. Again, provide me any sort of evidence that they left for any reason other than to preserve the institution of slavery.

didn't help that the south had 2-3 people running for pres instead of 1 candidate.

...

they left cause Lincoln won the presidency

>provide me any sort of evidence that they left for any reason other than to preserve the institution of slavery.

1828 tariff

>provide MEEEE with evidence

You could be looking up why an agrarian system was fresh meat to an industrial system and its' economy, instead of literally claiming that slavery was the root of the conflict.
Literally nobody gave a shit about slaves, in the same proportions that nobody actually gives a shit about nigger ghettos today. lrn2 empires you filthy leaf.

Hard to believe that Americans once fought a war so they could *keep* niggers.

I'd fight a war to get rid of the fuckers.

Slavery was the worst thing that happened to America because it brought millions of blacks to this amazing continent.

We should have sent them all back to Africa.

The real reason was state's rights, and the federal government over stepping its bounds in regards to those rights. It just so happened that the main policy issue at the time was slavery.

And nullified in 1833, decades before the Civil War began. Bad argument.

Friend, I can quote you the documents for secession that explicitly state slavery as the reason for many states leaving the Union if you want. I absolutely realize that the Southern economy could not keep up with Northern industrialization, ESPECIALLY if slavery were abolished, which is why they wanted to preserve the institution via secession.

Notice how I keep saying the institution of slavery, instead of just "slaves" or "slavery". The opposition and support of slavery was almost wholly economic, I'll never deny that.

>People don't like to be told what to do, especially by other groups of people.
You mean like slavery?

I almost feel bad for the southerners. Most of them died for rich plantation owners.

>More than half of the secession declarations from the seceding states explicitly mention preserving the institution of slavery as the reason for their secession.
Shhhhhh user.

No, most of them died defending their shit because Northern Yanks burned slave plantations and slave less farms alike. It was a war on the entirety of the south, not just the southern elite

But they left because of slavery, hence the war was fought over slavery. The south was assmad it couldn't own slaves so they seceded.

It had more to do with states rights, but whatever floats ur fuckin leaf.

>And nullified in 1833

And replaced with another tariff that was replaced with another tariff. The North had a very long history of passing laws that damaged the Southern economy. The civil war was a long time coming by 1860.

>hence the war was fought over slavery

Nope.

Started because the south couldn't take people pointing out their hypocrisy and barbarism. Then the general populace supported this.

Nice argument.

>Explain yourselves, hicks
Slavery was legal on both slaves

No, it was not replaced with another tariff like the one of 1828. Sure, there were other tariffs, but they were different. There are tariffs today, but nobody uses that as a justification for secession.

> explain yourself to ignorant leaf
No.

To be entirely fair, slavery was the norm of the world at the time. Imagine you own a factory that uses all these machines, most places in the world also have similar factories like this that use machines. This factory is your entire livelihood. Now some government that is hundreds of miles away from you in a different part of the country says your factories are bad and you are oppressing your machines, and you have to close your factory immediately. I refuse to look at the North as a noble champion of people's rights, given that they still treated blacks awful after the war and didn't give a shit about them. Their "moral" high ground is nonexistent, they didn't give a rats ass about slavery and just used the secession as a way to destabilize the South and completely fuck them over even more economically, as we can see during the reconstruction era. Southern economy suffered in order to make the rich Yankees richer

slavery was out of fashion at the time. At this time USA and Brazil were the last few western countries to have slavery.

>
doing gods work leaf. educate my fellow countrymen.

>leaf doesn't say shit for a while
>go to take a shit
>shit thread still up

Hoenstly surprised.

>Pretending that the secessions had nothing to do with slavery

Nowhere did I say this. Thanks for proving the point that your "argument" is based on misrepresentation of fact though. You never even asked me about my opinion on s;lavery in the south or what it had to do with the war. You only ever assertred your own belief as facts, then asked me if I agreed with them. Clearly I do not. You have no idea WHAT i believe, other than that I think the civil war was fought because the South wanted to secede. Rather than try to figure out what my beliefs were, you immediately characterized me in as negative a way as you could, Why? Because I disagreed with you. If I disagree with you, I must be the devil. At this point I'm 90% sure you vote liberal.

noone thinks it had nothing to do with slavery. It also was not only about slavery.

>People don't like to be told what to do, especially by other groups of people.

Hmm, that sounds really familiar.

>No, it was not replaced with another tariff like the one of 1828

It was.

>Tariff of 1832
>Tariff of 1833
>Black Tariff

Educate yourself.

How is it that you're still not understanding that it was a states rights issue? I bet you actually hate America and think the Fed should run everything, provided of course that all the branches were held by democRats.

>everyone else is doing it

>I refuse to look at the north as noble champion
Well I can see your point because at the time the war was launched by the north over the secession because the north was willing to compromise on slavery prior to that. However we weren't talking about the north we were talking about the south who were so morally bankrupt that they'd rather leave the country than even make concession to phase out the horrible practice.

Funny that the institution of slavery, the so called economic back bone of the south, was not only morally degenerate but economically non competitive. And Rebs died for rich plantation owners, to this day protect their masters while bitching about rich people in the north that were profitable without all the slavery the south had.

Many states in the north by that time outlawed the institution or were on the path to. The war gave the North the opportunity to once and for all get rid of it. You act like the north didn't want to get rid of slavery when they were so eager to seize the opportunity. And no it wasn't just an economic attempt to destabilize a portion of the country's own economy.

The reason for the war was secession, equating the reason for secession with the reason for the war is flawed logic.

Slavery was the issue chosen to fight over the structural issue of states' rights supremacy over the federal government. Slavery was only the bullet chosen. States' rights was the gun that fired it. They could have picked any other issue, but slavery was the most important to their economy.

State's right to own slaves. To strip other humans of the same rights you hypocritically champion. How a nation of protestants justifies that is abhorrent.

>Tariff of 1828
>Tariff of 1832
>Tariff of 1833

All nullified in 1833 retard.

>Black tarriff
instituted in 42, repealed in 46.

>Hmm, that sounds really familiar.
What do you mean?

No not at all. Slavery was the domino. It's fucking pathetic that southerners sit there like they have the high road when the reason they separated was because of something horrible they did.

It's like someone looting a store then bitching because the police were rough with them. Follow the logic of your post, because it's the same argument here.

Nevermind that slavery was not even the issue. The issues were entirely economic in nature. Slavery played a huge role in the economy of the south. So you've really got three degrees of separation here, not just two. But obviously, the North won and the logical arguments from the opposition were covered up with the most evil caricatures that could be imagined.

>They all just wanted to keep slaves!

why the fuck would poor Southerners want to die so the rich could keep the slaves? It just doesn't make sense.

>It's like someone looting a store then bitching because the police were rough with them
But slavery was completely legal

The nullification of those tariffs is irrelevant to my argument that the North has a long history of passing laws damaging the Southern economy.

If I rob a store to feed my starving family and get arrested is the reason for my incarceration "theft" or "trying to feed my family"?

Why would poor northerners want to die to free them?

I asked you if you admitted that the secession was driven by a desire to preserve the institution of slavery. You said no. If you feel this was an unfair characterization of your views on the matter, I'll ask you again.

To what extent was secession driven by the urge to protect the institution of slavery?

Also >At this point I'm 90% sure you vote liberal

Just kek. Just because I'm not historically illiterate, definitely doesn't make me a liberal, and CERTAINLY doesn't make me a supporter of the Canadian liberals.

>Slavery
>Justifiable

The poor didn't fight for that, they fought because a propaganda war was fought on their entire lives. It's essentially the same with liberals shitting all over conservatives today and demonizing them nonstop.

Interestingly enough, Lincoln was entirely willing to let the southern plantation owners (very few of the southern people) keep their slaves, making slavery a states rights issue, if the South was willing to stay in the Union.

The South was our breadbasket at the time, and a hugely important part of our economy, which was already a global thing at that point even. The North would've been facing a harsh reality of having to pay to import food from the South or from other countries. This right here is why they were so desperate to keep the South in the Union.

So desperate in fact, that they were willing to let those evil slave owners keep their slaves.

You're arguing that those tariffs were the reason for the civil war instead of slavery. I'm arguing that they're not as the South had a successful history of nullifying and overturning those tariffs, and could have continued to do so as part of the Union.

>rich people in the north that were profitable without all the slavery the south had.
You talk as if the factory owners gave a shit about there imported immigrant labor. And what happened when they actually freed the slaves? They let them starve while Sherman burned the south to the ground.

Yes because it was legal

Abe Lincoln was a tyrant.

Also ask this question on /his/ they are better equipped at answering it.

the secession documents were written by government and business elites. of course they were for free labor, the average southerner hated the free labor slaves supplied.

Stop pretending you know a fucking thing about my country, you worthless fucking leaf.

So you ignore that this bullet and gun was also the major political issue for the 40 years prior to the civil war? Rearing its head everytime a new state was being formed?

I'm arguing that secession and the war were a long time coming by 1860 and had been building up for decades before any talk of emancipation.

That's not just. Legal =/= Moral

To settle this down, slavery caused the civil war the way Franz Ferdinand being shot by a serbzerg caused WW1. It was a catalyser, à very good excuse to get shit going but the war would have happened even if the south freed its slaves. It's the sylbolic that every normie gives credit to as the starter in both cases, but no serious non biased historian will ever say it was the actual cause. It goes much deeper, eventually southern hillbyllies couldnt stand faggy yankees and vice versa, just like now, but at simpler times when war was a logical way to settle arguments, now replaced by countless bitxhing and ralbling on social médias in both sides.

expansionism and tariffs ere arguably just as big

And citizens that commit crimes still have rights. An officer can't just rough them up unless they are in that moment posing a threat.

Am I supposed to sympathize with the guy who just stuck up a store and shot someone because the officers responded by knocking him the fuck out?

The south practiced slavery on other humans. Even if you don't believe blacks are humans, it is undeniable that they possess a level of sentience in which they can express their desire for freedom. These so called protestants are completely morally reprehensible but they fucking double down. You can make anything legal, it doesn't make it right. The founders fought a war to throw off the shackles of unjust governance.

Too bad we are a nation of laws

Theft because you were desperate and wanted to feed your family.

You rob someone else's means of obtaining food to feed your own. The concept of the golden rule is the basis of civility. The southerns justifying slavery as a means to thrive at the expense of others' right to do the same for themselves is the height of hypocrisy and selfishness.

>who just stuck up a store
What was sticking up the store
Slavery, secession or shelling fort Sumter?

Fuck off Canuck.

Where's your degree in American History?

So right and wrong change based on the state's decree?

>>To what extent was secession driven by the urge to protect the institution of slavery?

Very little. Very few people in the South even owned slaves. Most people were not rich enough to buy other people. Most people worked their own farms themselves. Their slaves were mules, horses, and cows. They still are actually. This is the only form of slavery still permitted on Earth.

Some farmers started making enough money that they could afford slaves to do the work for them, which make them more money for more slaves, so they could start profitting even more hugely from things that weren't even food crops, like tobacco or more famously cotton. This didn't apply to all farmers, just a couple who got rich and made huge successful businesses out of it.

The characterization of the South as being made up entirely of slavers is absolutely just an example of winners writing history and characterizing the fallen as despicably as possible in order to justify their actions in war. Not based on facts.

I am not a supporter of slavery, in any form. I hope you will stop being so closed minded and confrontational, but since I've said something to contradict your closely held beliefs, I doubt that will be the case.

You don't actually believe this, right? The common Southern man, brainwashed by a special brand of Christianity and philosophical concepts like herrenvolk democracy actively supported the expansion of slavery westward, even though it was absolutely to their economic detriment. Southerners still overwhelmingly vote against their own economic interests today, so I can't say I'm surprised.

Well that's wrong, emancipation talk existed as long as the United States did. It may have been a long time coming, and I won't deny tariffs influenced it, but when you get down to the moment of secession and the surrounding events, slavery was the chief cause for secession and the resulting civil war.

Yep as I mentioned earlier. The north was even willing to compromise with the south but the south was so goddam set on slavery they wouldn't even compromise. The events that transpired from this allowed the north to go one step further past compromise and strip the institution all together.

It had nothing to do with slavery. Are you retarded OP. Slavery only was brought to the table because Lincoln thought it'd be a good idea to have slave revolts in the south, so offered them freedom should they rebel. However the Northern slaves would still be slaves. Pick up a history pick you fucking idiot.

no they are just irrelevant when we are talking about legal matters

Not only that but after the war all the ultra rich Yankees pretty much bought out the South and repurposed it for profit for themselves. I'm not tryin to justify slavery, but the South should have been able to decide when to be rid of slaves themselves. By the time the cotton gin was invented, they probably would have moved on towards abolishment without Yankee interference and eventually either ship Blacks back to Africa or bring them up to white citizen standards without all the BS northern propaganda machine telling blacks constantly that Southerners are Satan incarnate. The civil war is what happens when you try to force change rather than let it happen naturally

Reading through this thread getting all sides of the discussion was interesting. I knew I came to this board for some reason even after all the bait shitting up the catalog.

That said I just took a step back and asked myself one simple question. Why the fuck does it matter? Yep sure thing, the South wanted to keep them niggers chained up and whipping them and fucking the house niggers on the side. Sure thing, guys. What does it matter baka senpaitachi

No I don't. That's shifting the goal posts. There's a difference between voluntary immigrant labor and the freedom of employees and employers and slavery. The CEO of the company I work for gives two shits about me let alone knows who I am.

>slavery is a hugely contentious issue in the writing of the constitution
>north's abolition of slavery somehow didn't cause the civil war
Sup Forums is objectively wrong on this one

The robbery analogy was an example of a despicable act, not a law being broken.

>but the war would have happened even if the south freed its slaves
How? The south would not have seceded if not for slavery. No secession, no war.

>The north was even willing to compromise with the south but the south was so goddam set on slavery

How does that make sense? The North is willing to let them keep their slaves. But apparently, this is a problem for them? Seems to me like the issue wasn't actually slavery at all, since the North being willing to let them keep slaves wasn't enough for the South to stop trying to secede.

>ask a bunch of commie liberals on a board whose threads are always at least 50% about how Hitler was a gay Jewish nigger faggot

slavery

Yes, at the height of slavery in 1860, only 5% of whites in the South were slaveholders.

But these whites were the wealth producers and the backbone of the economy, and it's totally disingenuous to pretend that slavery didn't form a fundamental pillar of Southern economy from the founding of the Union until the Civil War. Even today, a small amount of people tend to be responsible for the majority of wealth creation in the economy. I never intended to suggest that the majority of Southerners were slavers, but the majority of Southerners were absolutely slavery-supporters.

If you truly don't understand how vital slavery was to Southern economic development, please read a book on the matter. To threaten the institution of slavery was to threaten the livelihood of the entirety of the South. Lincoln DID threaten that institution and so the South responded with secession.