In today's world, people often have the notion in their heads that the American Civil War was fought over slavery, or the Southern states' rights to own slaves. In this writing I will explain to you why this was not the case. Let us discover the truth about the Civil War.
As many of you all know, even in the early days of the US the abolition movement was fairly active. Because of this, there was a deal among politicians that they could only add slave states to the Union when they had a non-slave state to add to the Union at the same time (and vice versa), to keep a "stalemate" between the two factions (slavery was ruled to be decided by the senate, not the house of representatives to maintain this stalemate). If this is sounding like a bad idea already, good. it was, at even the basic core principals, a bad idea.
This created two things: a tangible, geographical, and ideological political divide between the North and the South, and pure unadulterated violence between carpetbaggers (people moving to new territory specifically to vote one way or another). Check out "Bloody Kansas" for more information. Now, this may have "worked" for a while, except for two things: the Industrial Revolution and the War of 1812.
The Industrial Revolution in America caused a population boom in the North. people moved from all over to seek jobs in American factories, swelling the numbers or registered voters far beyond what was going on in the South (where the majority of the land and economy was based on "cash crops," instead of industry) however, these Northern industries sucked (compared to the British, which were far more advanced and capable at the time).
Enter the War of 1812. Britain embargoes the US for a few years while some unimportant (to this topic) fighting goes on. Then it ends. During the war, Britain's factories didn't stop making goods. The catch was that their biggest buyer couldn't buy the goods due to the embargo.
They were forced to move their products at a loss (and to great gain for the Southerners). The Northern factory owners started crying and throwing fits. "But Mr. Congressman! Those dirty stupid Southerners want to buy spades and shovels for $4 from England instead of paying me $8 for the same one! make it stop!"
So, Congress says "Hey, let's pass a ridiculous tariff and support our local sucky factories. Forget the South. They have money." The South doesn't like this. they would much rather that the North put out good products than have to pay more. Too bad. Due to the bigger population in the North this ridiculous tariff passes in the House of Represenetives. So now, the Southern farmers have to pay $8 for a Northern spade or $12 for a British one. At this point, they feel like they're being taxed unfairly, so they say "Look. States should be able to decide this kind of stuff, not the federal government." The federal government says "Screw you, give me money." The South then tthreatens to secede. Elections happen. One candidate is sympathetic to the South, the other isn't. You know who wins.
Therefore the South says "Forget this, we're out." At this point, the North is screwed and they know it. They can't survive without the South. That's where all the money is coming from (Southerners are the only buyers of their bad spades, since Britain is still selling theirs for $4 a pop to get rid of their excess). They know that if the South leaves the Union, they can't force them to buy their goods, and then the economy is going to flip.
The Confederacy is formed and the Civil War begins.
Jaxson Rodriguez
Now, up in the North, we have President Lincoln who suspends the writ of Habeas Corpus without Congressional approval. Anyone who speaks out against that is arrested and held without trial. Congress says "No, no, this is OK because we want it." Lincoln emancipates slaves ONLY in the South (Tennesee and good 'ol Kentucky are still rocking the automated farm equipment until after the war), then burns down Southern infrastructure. He pins a medal on Ulysses S. Grant for winning an inconsequential battle with several times more losses (just throw more conscripted men away. Eventually they'll run out of ammo!). He then proceeds to gets shot in the head. Now he's a hero who wanted to end slavery and anyone who says otherwise is evil.
And now you know the truth about the American Civil War. Thanks for reading.
Ryan Gomez
Well that was a nice load of total bullshit.
Here's what happened in reality, though: 1. Licoln got elected in 1860 on a platform opposing the expansion of slavery into the new states. 2. One month later, South Carolina declared itself withdrawn from the USA, declaring Lincoln's election to be an act of "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery." 3. While claiming a state's right to pursue slavery, they ALSO proclaimed that Northern states did NOT have the right to refuse slavery (the fugitive slave act). 4. Other cotton holding states followed suit and repeated the declaration. 5. War.
Per the Southern states, their leaders, and their legal documents: the succession of the confederacy was about 1 thing: slavery.
You are wrong.
Christian Gomez
Show me one document.
Lincoln said that if he could keep the Union together without ever freeing a single slave he would.
>We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has >been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of >deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of >the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have >permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the >property of the citizens of other States.
Now admit your wrongness and go to bed.
Christian Nelson
The average Southern soldier was certainly not fighting to keep blacks enslaved. They were fighting because their land was invaded, 95+% of all battles in the Civil War took place below the Mason-Dixon line and the war was a direct threat to the Southern economic structure, which is no small issue.
The issue was money, not slaves. Slavery was the backbone of the Southern economy and had been for decades. I agree that slavery is inherently immoral and disgusting, but the fact of the matter is that it was very easy for Northerners to look down their noses at Southerners for supporting slavery since very little Northern economic activity was based on slavery, but in order to rid the South of slavery the entire economic structure of the region would have to be destroyed- leading to a devastating period of economic depression that would likely last generations. So essentially the Southern soldiers weren't fighting to "keep blacks enslaved because they are sub-human" like modern interpretations commonly imply, but instead they were fighting to keep their families from starving. Even families who owned no slaves faced complete economic devastation if the practice were to be abolished, and following the war the South did go through a decades-long economic depression.
Wyatt Nguyen
if only they haddent had their jobs stolen by cheap imported labor
Jace Cruz
Nope.
Per the leaders of the South, per their declarations, per their laws: succession was about slavery.
This cannot be argued against. It is fact. You are wrong. All that we have to do is read what they wrote.
The civil war was about exactly one thing: slavery.
have some education! great presentation from a Professor at West Point
Aaron Smith
Fuck off
Jacob Cooper
>it wasn't about slavery >it was about their economy >THEIR ECONOMY POWERED BY SLAVES >it's a totally separate issue
no one actually thinks the average southerner was deeply focused on there racial superiority as their reason for fighting. They were acting as cannon fodder for the rich southern landowners. They fought to defend their states from occupation by foreign powers and because of an unwillingness to allow their laws to be dictated by a culturally different north who saw them as backwards idiots.
In modern times no one actually believes republican voters are radically passionate about unrestricted capitalism either.
Brayden Ross
If I have to do something evil to make money and people want to revoke my right to do that evil thing I'm not going to retaliate because I want to defend my right to do that evil thing but rather because I want to keep making money.
Luis Martin
>MR SHEKELSTEIN HAS A RAGHT TO USE SLAVE LABOR TO DRIVE ME OUT OF BUSINESS >YOU HEAH ME?! >A RAGHT!
Jesus fucking Christ, you let a bunch of Yids and faux aristocrats who were less than 5% of the goddamn population treat you like garbage, you wage a civil war against your own countrymen when they try to stop you from being treated unfairly, and then you shoot the goddamn President for trying to stop the Yids from treating you like cattle once and for all?
How cucked can you Southerners get?
Jaxson Long
>succession HAHAHAHAHA THAT'S THE WRONG WORD! YOU FUCKING FAGGOT!
Bentley Sanchez
>faux aristocrats >faux Why weren't they aristocrats?
Jace Martin
>implying the North's goal was to try to liberate the oppressed members of the proletariat Kill yourself
Hudson White
>Well sure you have history and facts >But I call you names! You lost, OP. You are wrong, and I posted the facts and sources that prove it.
Go to bed.
Ayden Gonzalez
Well your fucking wrong and right on this one.
It would have been the same if the south went into the north and started outlawing factories. The factories of the south just happened to be niggers.
Jackson Phillips
K goodnight
Wyatt Perry
Right? Who cares about facts and sources when you can point out that someone spelled the wrong homonym on the internet?
Except I'm right, the sources back me up, and that's all there is to it.
Michael Ortiz
Bump
For interest
Elijah Myers
Interest in what?
OP claimed the civil war was not about slavery, from the point of view of the South.
It has been irrefutably demonstrated that, per the South, the act of withdrawing from the Union was instigated in an attempt to protect the institution of slavery.
There isn't really anything more to discuss.
Owen Hernandez
Nobody was fighting over succession, i.e. the transition of powers. It was a matter of secession, i.e. the ability of states to leave the Union. You got a basic fact wrong. Why are you claiming that your sources back you up when you're wrong about the nature of the debate?
Jayden Gray
Yes I spelled the wrong homonym. You are correct.
And yet: I'm still write.
Like that? Yeah you do. Dirty girl.
Nicholas Harris
>I'm still write LMAO you're so funny You're still fucking wrong It was secession, not succession. It's like you've never even read a fucking book. Kill yourself, you fucking double niggerfaggot.
Josiah Jenkins
Yes: we have established that.
It was about slavery, as I clearly demonstrated with a source from the South giving their reasons for secession in this post: Sorry babe, but you can't fixate on a misspelling and have that magically change facts to be in your favor.
Attempting to do so in an act of misdirection is a red herring, however. Which does sorta make you a little bitch.
Easton Hall
>babe I'm not your babe, you nigger. If you continue to act like I am, I'm going to sue you for raping me. Fact is that you don't know the difference between transition of powers and the concept of self-determination of peoples. Double nigger.
Brandon Davis
>Sure I'm wrong >But let's talk about something else.
The Southern states seceded from the Union because of slavery. The proof is here: You want to talk about something else and that's cool, sweetie. But I think you're in the wrong thread.
Brandon Long
Oh, and I don't think it makes much sense to take at face value the claims of a murder trying to justify his murder. Same for states justifying their actions. All Obama is doing in Syria is supporting democratic freedom fighters looking for a peaceful secular democracy in Syria; various sources close to his administration say as much! >sweetie Do you do this only to irritate people? Until you respond to me without using a word like 'babe' or 'sweetie' I'm going to assume that you're a shill or a troll.
Wyatt Nelson
>That doesn't prove that the civil war was about slavery! >It only proves that the South said that the civil war was about slavery! You are a ridiculous little lady.
Wyatt Ward
>little lady You're not responding to my criticism of the citation of primary sources as if they're actually self-explanatory, transparent accounts of the author's intent. I'm not saying the South didn't fight for slavery; I'm saying that there were other concerns, like self-determination, that are overlooked by a narrative in which a Confederate admission of guilt w/r/t wanting to maintain the institution of slavery is presented as the end-all be-all of the Civil War.
Adam Adams
You spent five posts with your "criticism" being that a misspelling had occurred.
I have no idea why you think we're in a debate between equals, babe.
Andrew Bennett
>babe Well, I know I'm trolling you, and I'm pretty sure you're trolling me, so either we're trolling each other and are equal, or you didn't notice that I was b8ing you with my consecutive posts accusing you of confusing succession and secession and I'm better than you. But let's get back to the matter at hand: Are primary sources universally reliably accurate?
Jordan Cooper
Sweetie, we're not trolling each other.
I'm right and you're wrong. And I have the sources to prove it. I quoted them, and I linked them.
You have argued "well but you misspelled something" and "well the reasons they said they seceded might not be the secret, REAL reasons!"
What sources do you want? Like, to bring them back to life and use our mind-reading machines to extract the secret truths? Because you know that neither of those actions is possible, right?
What we have is what they said their reason was. And what they said was: slavery.
This isn't trolling. This is me winning the debate.
Joshua Russell
I fucking hate liberal retards like you. I've argued with people of your type before. You come in and drop the single article you've ever read on a subject, drop it as if it is irrefutable proof that can't be argued against, and proceed to dimiss any and all opposition as wrong while belittling your opponent. People like you are an insult to human intelligence.
Carter Flores
It is irrefutable truth. Another word for that is "fact," by the way.
And my one source is the only source that anyone has provided, at all. If you'd like to get into an argument about which source is better? I suppose you could try having one.
Luke Parker
I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just calling you out on your insufferable attitude that makes any kind of meaninfgul discussion impossible. People like you need to stop breathing.
Cameron Brown
Right? Those people with facts on their side are always so insufferable in the face of stupidity and bullshit. It's really annoying. Why won't they just let everyone make things up and treat bullshit as just as valid as history?
Tyler Watson
Responding with rhetorical questions and smug sarcasm is just making you look worse. Stop embarrassing yourself. The fact that you would go to such lengths to belittle people you think are wrong is pathetic.
David Taylor
>Sweetie, we're not trolling each other.
EIther this isn't true, or I've successfully trolled you for almost this entire thread and you're too fucking stupid to realize that there's literally no other reason for somebody to treat a misspelling the way I've treated it. >What sources do you want? Like, to bring them back to life and use our mind-reading machines to extract the secret truths? Because you know that neither of those actions is possible, right? I have a degree in history, kiddo. You and I both know that people have been writing histories of the Civil War for the past 150 years. Presenting a few lines of text written by the Confederate government and saying "See? See? This is what the war was about!" is like taking the Declaration of Independence at face value while ignoring the fact that the Founding Fathers owned slaves and clearly didn't value universal equality after all. Are you going to answer my questions about the universal reliability of primary sources to reveal their author's thoughts? Odd that you'd write >extract the secret truths dismissively while claiming to have extracted secret truths from the Confederate text you've posted ITT. >This isn't trolling. This is me winning the debate. What debate? This is Sup Forums. There's nobody to declare a winner; there are no terms agreed upon.
Christopher Long
Look worse to whom?
The people in a thread arguing with me that facts aren't relevant to discussions?
You wound me, sir!
David Roberts
I can tell how wounded you are, given how much you're thrashing about throwing a tantrum like a bratty child because those big dumb idiots on the internet disagree with you. Either regain your composure like a big girl or stop posting.
Chase Thompson
>I have one fact >Therefore I have all the relevant facts I sincerely hope that this is bait.
Carson Bell
>dismissively while claiming to have extracted secret truths from the Confederate text you've posted ITT. You're confusing "secret" and "explicit."
I'm happy to admit that there is nuance, if you'd like. As long as you're willing to concede that the instigating event that precipitated the secession of the South from the Union, as demonstrated by the legal opinions of the members of the South that seceded from the Union, was an attempt to preserve the institution of slavery.
And that the claim that it had anything to do with "state's rights" is off the table, since the South flatly stated that the refugee slave act must be upheld by the fed regardless of the rights of the Northern states.
>What debate? This is Sup Forums. There's nobody to declare a winner; there are no terms agreed upon. There is a winner because anyone with a mote of education can read the text of the thread, and will reach the conclusion that I presented facts and sources that cannot be refuted. And that you whined that I misspelled a word.
You're confused. I presented one fact.
Which is one fact more than anyone else has.
If you would like to present at least that many? I will be happy to present more.
Joseph Sanders
Slavery played a role in the Civil War and also embodied the philosophical differences between the North and the South. To say that the Civil War was purely about slavery seems to be a tad bit misleading, as slavery is inherently tied with racial superiority, but it played a role. Everyone arguing that slavery wasn't a factor and everyone arguing that slavery was the factor are equally retarded.
The Federal Government should not have made the South pay a disproportionate amount of tax, when compared to the North, in order to subsidize Northern industrial efforts, and the South shouldn't have imported niggers to begin with. Indentured servitude was the right way to go. There's a reason the white man votes Republican.
And, if we'd like to say the Civil War was solely about slavery, okay, I'll bite. This means that the North slaughtered white Southern Americans to prevent the South from bringing their filth westward. In fact, a large chunk of Northern written works specifically discuss the repatriation of niggers after they are freed. So the Civil War was about slavery. More specifically, the Civil War was about removing the negro.
Chase Lee
>You're confusing "secret" and "explicit." I don't think so. I'm implying that the reasons given explicitly by an actor who did something for doing it may not be the actual reasons, or may not take into account things of which he was unaware. We can talk about the 'explicit' nature of slavery as being defended, but how about the 'implicit' nature of slavery being under attack? Radical abolitionism instigated Southern states. >If you would like to present at least that many? People have been writing histories of the Civil War since the 1860s. Not the first fact I've presented. >And that the claim that it had anything to do with "state's rights" is off the table, since the South flatly stated that the refugee slave act must be upheld by the fed regardless of the rights of the Northern states. Nobody's arguing that the North or the South were ideologically consistent. You're moving goalposts, here, as must anybody claiming that the Civil War had one easily identifiable cause when they're presented with the fact that this simply isn't the case.
Elijah Lee
>There is a winner because anyone with a mote of education can read the text of the thread, and will reach the conclusion that I presented facts and sources that cannot be refuted. And that you whined that I misspelled a word. LMAO Is this your first time posting on Sup Forums?
Cooper Roberts
Lincoln is not the SJW liberals want to think he was
Juan Diaz
So my source is the legal document of secession from the first state to do so.
Yours is people in general.
And you wanna pretend that our arguments are somehow on equal footing?
Colton Fisher
>arguments Your argument hasn't been made yet. All you've done is present a fact and claim that this fact makes your argument for you. I'm trying to get you to provide an argument, not just a primary source. You literally just linked to a .pdf of the Declaration of the Immediate Causes. Key word in that title, anyway, is "immediate." If you admit that there were other factors not mentioned in the text you cuntpasted ITT and that the North wasn't a nation of abolitionists fighting under President Moral Lawgiver, I'll just leave you alone.
Zachary Butler
>Is this your first time posting on Sup Forums? There are no upvotes to win, sweetie. My argument stands on its merits, as does yours. Mine has some, and yours doesn't. That's all that there is to it.
What? Yes, it has been, repeatedly. Young ladies should not be getting drunk by themselves.
If you need some help, though, I am happy to reiterate: The instigating cause of the civil war was the secession of the southern states from the union in a bid by them to protect the institution of slavery.
David Turner
>Mine has some, and yours doesn't. That's all that there is to it. Too bad there's nobody here to check this for you :( >If you need some help, though, I am happy to reiterate: The instigating cause of the civil war was the secession of the southern states from the union in a bid by them to protect the institution of slavery. Did you even read my last post? Do you not understand what I'm telling you? Do you not understand that primary sources like this one, especially, can't be taken at face value? Or is it just that you don't know what 'immediate' means?
Lincoln Mitchell
The North won.
Nathaniel Cook
>look at me I'm a smug faggot
please learn how to have a conversation. So many liberals talk just like you because they are incapable of critical thought. Have you ever thought for even a moment that maybe you're wrong about something?
Brody Carter
I know that you have 0 sources. And are arguing that we cannot believe that secession occurred for the reasons that the people seceding claimed to do so.
Which is nonsense. There are facts, and then there are your claims of secret reasons that are unverifiable and indefensible.
But if you don't like my "one" source then...
Hudson Parker
Georgia, on secession: >For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.
Mississippi on secession: >Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
South Carolina on secession: > in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
Texas on secession: >She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.
Virginia on secession: >The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.
Jordan Wood
We only talk like this to conservatives because you guys spend so much time denying facts and being wrong that we kinda just assume you're a buncha retards. And you always seem to prove us right. It's hard not to be smug about it, at some point.
James Morgan
no, I have liberal friends they even talk like this to each other. It's one big smug-circle jerk and it's infuriating.
I swear, people like you aren't even self-aware.
Logan Sanchez
Nice, more primary sources presented with nothing to explain their context. You're helping yourself a lot here. >and then there are your claims of secret reasons that are unverifiable and indefensible. I'm defending the value of secondary and tertiary sources, actually. You know, the things you've consistently failed to provide ITT? The kinds of things that would mention the North's economic development and things like that?
Justin Sullivan
My question is, if OP is wrong what was lincolnun purpose
Jose Bell
Ah, did it hurt your feelings?
I've got an idea: wanna stop that smugness? Try being right, sometimes. Think anything I've said in this thread is wrong? Let's see you use sources to demonstrate that. 'Cuz so far? I've posted 5 and the counter argument has posted 0.
Right? How dare I take a plain-text reading of the statements about secession, and draw the conclusion that those statements are the reason for secession.
But if my sources of "what they said they were seceding over" are so horrible: let's see yours.
>I'm defending the value of secondary and tertiary sources, actually. No, you aren't. To do so? You'd have to have one.
Easton Diaz
>No, you aren't. To do so? You'd have to have one. I've got several on my shelves. I'm not the one putting forward the claim, though-you're taking primary sources and treating them as self-explanatory. There are no self-explanatory primary sources.
Colton Hernandez
Probably to build a child-sex cabbage-shop in DC.
John Martinez
you're not even open to other ideas.
someone is trying to have a discussion with you, and you smugly dismiss everything he has to say, and keep deferring to that same primary document.
He's talking about that primary document, and you're refusing to talk to him.
You clearly don't care about the truth, or you'd actually engage. You decided at the start you were right, and I imagine you do this in every other conversation.
That's why you think you're always right.
Levi Murphy
No, he wanted to increase immigration from Ireland to popularize pizza shops to hide the Abolitionist sex-ring in a D.C. pizza shop. No, person I'm arguing with (not that either of us is making an argument), you shouldn't bring PIzzagate into this.
Mason Torres
>Ireland I obviously meant Italy.
Colton Martin
huge faggot
Kevin Ramirez
>Its about muh slaves,
The right to own anything is not primarily the right itself to own?
This is where i seriously have a hard time figuring out why people were so bought into this mindset that the south literally breathed slavery. I'm not going to romanticize shit in this response. I don't need a document either than the constitution, the basis for the republic and a good understanding of what the founding fathers thought the states should have the right to do in a situation like this.
Constitutionally, its not illegal to secede from a union. There's no clause in the Constitution itself that can actually deny secession whilst violating the 5th amendment, preferring 1 state or a group of states over another. The North did just that it was illegal to discriminate upon them by not allowing them to have slaves. Im not defending slavery, I'm telling you why your "Muh slaves" makes you look poorly educated as to the actual function of states vs federalism in this case.
Several of the founding fathers would not allow a democracy, so they enabled an expansive republic, with the balance of power required to actually mandate the debate of slavery, the north was impeding on the 5th amendment every time they try to undercut the south in a vote, they gave the south a legal legitimate reason to secede. It wasn't the premise of Lincoln's election that was their bullshit excuse, the Fifth amendment clearly states that you cannot favor 1 state over another through federal government. It's unconstitutional, the South never would of ratified the amendment in the first place abolishing it. So it real aspect, the south was fighting northern aggression,
>inb4 they fired first at fort Sumter
If you payed attention to what i just said, the south had a legal option to secede, the federal government was ignoring the constitution. Lincoln would of attacked them anyways in due time.
any argument the union had with the south was weak and purely "Muh Feels".
Luke Stewart
What ideas? Present them. Source them.
I have presented primary sources in which the subjects stated their intentions of being a reliable source from which to conclude what their intentions were.
You have presented nothing.
Yep: I'll take my primary sources over nothing. So would any other reasonable human being.
John Moore
I've asked you for secondary sources. I haven't done much else except remind you that primary sources don't speak for themselves. I don't have to do much else. If you refuse to provide supporting arguments for your claim based on a single primary source (other than primary sources made by individual states acting as a collective under a confederate government, which are effectively statements by the same entity and therefore not very useful in determining the causes of its existence with additional sources to its own account being cited as a primary source), then you clearly aren't interested in supporting your argument with intellectual rigor. Here's what you should do: just post a secondary source (X) supporting your claims or trollface.jpg (Y). Don't do anything else (Z). You'll be amazed at what will happen to your argument! (a) It'll get better! It may even be valid in some notations! TL;DR ([XvY] & ~Z) --> Ba
Angel Clark
~Z should perhaps just be Z.
Joshua Evans
I want a cookie. You have two cookies. I tell mom that I would like a cookie. Mom says "give him a cookie." You state "mom said to give you a cookie, not give you THIS cookie. I will give you a cookie at some point in my life, thereby fulfilling mom's request."
Are we arguing about who gets the cookie, or about what mom said?
I presented my argument. I defended my argument with sources. You have presented an argument relying on nothing, except that your claim that my sources are not good enough. I would like to see your sources in defense of that claim.
Because my source for the intention of the slaveholding states is the legal opinions of the slaveholding states. Your source that my sources are not reliable is... nothing.
There is absolutely no reason to doubt the express, explicit statements made by the south about why they seceded. If you believe otherwise? Back that claim up with something.
Or don't--it's all good.
Colton Smith
>I haven't done much else except remind you that primary sources don't speak for themselves What do you base that claim on?
Let's see your source.
William Morales
>There is absolutely no reason to doubt the express, explicit statements made by the south about why they seceded. If you believe otherwise? Back that claim up with something. I'll ask you again if you know what 'immediate' means. Also >That cookie metaphor This may be the most sanctimonious thing I've ever read. It's also pic related.
Tyler Taylor
This thread is happening right now. You can go back and scroll through it. Point out where I'm wrong.
Ryan Hughes
You understand that you're making claims without sources, right?
Oliver Wright
I found, like, one or two, maybe, but note that I'm not the one claiming to have a lot of sources backing up my claims. You're the one claiming to have all the relevant sources at hand or reason to believe that no sources you aren't aware of are relevant. I'll ask you this outright: are secondary sources valuable?
Gavin Morgan
This is called a red herring. It is what you tried earlier by pointing out that I misspelled a word, once.
You claim that statements by the Southern states over why they seceded are not reliable sources for determining why they seceded.
I would like you to back that claim up.
Josiah White
The legality of secession was decided after the war had taken place at Appomattox, your arguement is an afterthought representation of modern day law trying to claim something is illegal after it had already taken place but had been intensely debated with no legality or mention of secession being mentioned in the constitution in the first place.
The south had a legal measure to secede under perceived tyranny since the federal government was ignoring the 5th amendment clauses.
Cameron Wood
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_source en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_source This should tell you all you need to know :^) Did you go to college? You're the kind of person I would laugh at from the back of the room and post on /lit/, /his/, and Sup Forums about while complaining about you to my friends IRL. Total garbage. You got an education and you don't even understand this, the most basic of things? What are you, a science person? Why the fuck do you feel qualified to argue like this? I'm doing a disservice to scientists; at least they can't get away with the kind of unawareness to process that you seem to live for. In the humanities, people like you go to class to get a moral high off of information you can understand, not to learn new ways of understanding what you don't understand. Did you not go to college? Then my diploma is effectively enough to make my posts authoritative on this matter. I'll invoke my own authority and education if I absolutely must, if you admit that all you have is a high school diploma or a semester of college.
So you have no source to defend the claim that the statements are unreliable.
That's exactly what we both already knew.
Carter Fisher
Reminder that slavery was symbolic of the entire Southern way of living. Without slaves, the South had absolutely no platform of existence. To say that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War is categorically incorrect. Now, if you really want to get into the politics of the time, it's basically the difference between Republicans and Democrats now, but if the Democrats were wanting to seize all production jobs from the Republicans. So, it's less of a singular cause, and more of a single impetus that gave the South an excuse to secede when Lincoln got elected.
Jace Long
You really are thick, aren't you?
Carson Edwards
You have not defended your claim. You seem to be trying to do so by implying that primary sources are never reliable. That is also indefensible, and you have never attempted to defend it here. You are making nebulous references to "but secondary sources!" That is not meaningful. Primary sources are not inherently unreliable in all things, and your wikipedia links agree with that fact.
You want to claim that these sources can not be relied on in this matter. Defend that claim, if you can. Pro-tip? You can't.
Sorry hun.
Angel Edwards
What did i just say, it was decided at Appomattox as an afterthought, and source after the civil war is invalid in this discussion. We're talking about the legal proceedings of secession, which is only applicable to literature and legality concerning pre 1865. T V white doesn't do shit for your argument and stop citing Wikipedia.
Kayden Wilson
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source In many fields and contexts, such as historical writing, it is almost always advisable to use primary sources if possible, and that "if none are available, it is only with great caution that [the author] may proceed to make use of secondary sources."
James Hill
>There's no clause in the Constitution itself that can actually deny secession nor a "bitch clause" that says we have to let them
Nathaniel Kelly
>Primary sources are not inherently unreliable in all things, and your wikipedia links agree with that fact.But that has never been my claim, you illiterate bastard. I've said that they aren't self-explanatory and that it's important to use secondary sources to ascertain their context, meaning, and general significance within a greater historical frame of reference. You have repeatedly refused to admit that the latter statement carries enough weight for you to bother doing a quick Google search and finding an article defending your point. Not saying you're wrong, just pointing out that this was the SCOTUS case that determined the constitutionality of secession. It may have been an afterthought at Appomattox but that wasn't the end of the matter.
Grayson Cooper
>You have repeatedly refused to admit that the latter statement carries enough weight for you to bother doing a quick Google search and finding an article defending your point. I have presented five sources to defend my claims. You have claimed that my sources (the people making the statements that I am relying on) are not reliable. You have presented no source to defend your ludicrous claim.
You are correct: I feel no obligation to provide you even MORE sources.
Adam Jenkins
slavery guy has presented convincing info here. OP better defend himself better.
Evan Rodriguez
Holy fucking shit is some retard actually arguing AGAINST primary sources AND combining that with an appeal to authority based on his (clearly nonexistent) college degree? Just when you think people can't get any stupider.
Brody Lopez
Oh also pic related: Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary souces all in one.
Henry Baker
Interesting. I've got a degree in history and I was taught in every single course that it's important to use secondary sources to back up claims about primary sources. In constructing a historical argument, just saying "X said Y on Z date" and showing the document in which the statement is made is only enough to show that the fact itself is true. When discussing the causes and context of a war, I see no reason to think that secondary sources wouldn't be valuable in determining the significance of long-term trends of which the actors involved in writing the primary source were unaware. I have claimed that they aren't self-explanatory; this is the claim that I have explicitly put forward at least three times now; please get it straight. >MORE You haven't provided a single secondary source.
Caleb Miller
>AGAINST I'm arguing in favor of secondary sources. Some retarded faggot hasn't posted any.
Carson Adams
Of course it is important in peer-reviewed articles. This is not a peer reviewed article. This is me claiming that "these guys said that this is why they did it." And you claiming "we can't trust them that they did it for those reasons!"
The reason that you provide secondary sources in a peer reviewed article is so that you can, in the article you are having reviewed by your peers, demonstrate that arguments they might present that "your primary sources are not reliable" might be headed off before they are made.
But this isn't a peer-reviewed article. It's a conversation. I presented the primary source. You want to claim it is unreliable. Ok: back up your claim.
Nicholas Anderson
>I've got a degree in history no you don't because no professor in the fucking world would pass somebody who not only offers no sources whatsoever, but who thinks a secondary source bears more weight than an actual historical primary document. Of course we know the context, it's in every fucking history book that ever was. Now that we know the context we analyze the primary source. Looks like the primary sources all say it was about slavery.
Carson Scott
>This is me claiming that "these guys said that this is why they did it." And you claiming "we can't trust them that they did it for those reasons!" No, this is me asking you for a secondary source. >You want to claim it is unreliable. Ok: back up your claim. No, faggot, I want to claim that it isn't self-explanatory and that other sources can and should be used to back up claims made in reference to them.
Eli Roberts
>No, this is me asking you for a secondary source. I do not need a secondary source unless my primary source is being challenged.
It isn't being. What is the opinion you want me to defend it against? Present and defend that opinion.
