What really prompted the south to secede?

Does the reason transcend slavery?

Other urls found in this thread:

abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Američki_građanski_rat#Ropstvo_i_proturopstvo
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Nothing to do with slavery for sure

Tariffs. Far and away the country's biggest issue from it's founding until then. People have a hard time understanding that because it's been a meme issue since then until Trump dusted off the old playbook.

States' rights

niggers

But's that's just blatantly false and you know it.

But let me amend that. Slavery is what sparked it, it's a myth it didn't. What made it blow up into an all out war was tariffs though.

No. "States rights" = "States rights to let people own slaves"

Bunch of pussy traitors who got their shit pushed in like the bitches they are.

Little wonder why that entire region is basically subsaharan africa-tier.

A lot of core infrastructure was razed to the ground too. Civil wars are always so brutal.

150 years ago. Using that as an excuse for how impotent and flaccid the american south is these days is the equivalent of WE WUZ KANGS

A letter to Horace Greeley from Abraham Lincoln 1862

>If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union;

forgot link:
abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

For the South it was definitely fought for slavery. For the Union it was fought to keep the Union together. It was indeed in large part about slavery.

Slavery and tariffs, but slavery was the primary reason. The South was already on edge due to tariffs pushed primarily by Northern politicians in previous decades and the issue of slavery pushed them over the edge.

It's important to understand the Republican Party was founded as an abolitionist party. Abolishing slavery was THE primary and unifying goal. When Lincoln won the Presidency in 1860, Southern States began to secede before he even took office.

Slaveholding states were very direct about their concerns over the anti-slavery stance of the Republican Party in the Declaration of Causes of Seceding States.

You can read the full text here: civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

Nice unsupported assertion

Msybe for the rich Jews and aristocrats that owned slaves it was an issue, for the average southern man it was not.

People forget that "American" just like "Chinese" doesnt really exist
You are either an Afroamerican, a yankee or a dixie
The South was always Texan and Dixie, yankees started more and more to settle on dixie land, they enforced laws over them that were written by yankees and only suited them
The south was only seen as new meat to create craftsmen and workers for factories, the freeing of slaves was decided mid war so that the north could secure more troops and possibly spart slave rebelions to weaken the confederacy.
Today only in US schools its tought that slavery was the main reason for the war, becouse durr rednecks wanted to keep the black man opressed

Free trade, slavery, and cultural identity. They had every right to do so up until the North fundamentally changed the nature of the Fed and its relationship to the states.

>Balkan education

What's funny is that the right to own slaves played a bigger role in the American Revolution than the American Civil War. It just doesn't get talked about because the pro-slavery side won.

Yes, the north was wrong. They used their industrial & economic power to bully a few southern states....less than 1% of the total US population utilized slave labor....both north & south.... But the south was wrong also....southern populations were a fraction of the northern populations and incredibly poor...not educated either.... Lincoln would have sent all the negroes back to Liberia had he lived.....so the nation got all of the bad and none of the good from the whole deal....we killed ourselves over a bunch of ungrateful, violent predators.....ugh...it makes me weep to think we are so foolish

I always imagined that the Confederate soldiers saw themselves as Patriots fighting against a tyrannical government. Similarly to the colonist revolting against the British.

>American Education
You do understand that every nation on this planet is making fun over your shit education
You litteraly waste a quarter of your life and you learn nothing. You end up educated only in one branch, with minimum knowleage of other branches.

You've said nothing to defend your revisionist history which has no basis in fact and which no source would support.

Tariffs and state's rights. At the crux of the state's rights argument was slavery. On top of that, 2/3s of all slave owners weren't white.

bingo

also, slaves were a very important part of their economy

the north was asking them to committ fiscal suicide

Well done, I grew up in the South so I heard only the "other side" but I always knew that the South was in the wrong. FWIW they were fighting for a much broader way of life including feudalism and agrarianism, all wrong. This is what "Gone with the Wind" romanticizes.

I wish people kept this perspective when looking at Assad's decisions in his own civil war.

The slavery part was welded into the whole economy of the place back then. Getting rid of slavery = crashing the southern economy.

Can you blame them for seceding? Just based on their rational interests?

Are you retarded or just pretending?
Charlesa Beard said that the main reasons for the war were constiturional disputes and differences in economical systems between the south and the north.

The North abondoned slavery in the favour of industrialisation while the south remained traditional.
In cities like Baltimore, Louisville and St. Louis slavery completely disappeared becouse of the rapid industralisation and urbanisation.
The price of cotton rose and so did slave prices, and the fear of slave rebelions and slaves seeking revange turned most dixies to be strongly anti abolicionistic.
Many dixies saw that the north was constantly changing while the south remainded traditional, sticking to the values of the Founding fathers of which many hold slaves.
Out of every 8 new european migrants 7 migrated to the North and many dixies migrated to border states or new england


hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Američki_građanski_rat#Ropstvo_i_proturopstvo
Here, the croatian wiki page about the Civil war becouse the English is missing one big paragraph, Regional interests.

Yankee economic imperialism. The eternal yank wanted to turn the south into an agrarian colony for economic exploitation.

As for slavery, the north had been more than happy to protect slavery before the war. They just used it for propaganda after the war.

Does this sound similar to any other war?

“I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our Constitutional right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination.” – President Jefferson Davis, Confederate States of America

>wikipedia as a source

Are you the retarded one here?

“The North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the Constitution and the fundamental principles of the government…We propose no invasion of the North, no attack on them, and only ask to be let alone.” -General Pat Cleburne

“Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many many other evils … the quarrel between North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel, nothing else.” – Charles Dickens, as editor of All the Year Round, a British periodical in 1862

Reminder that Arizona Territory (southern half of Arizona and New Mexico) and Indian Territory (Oklahoma) seceded also.

You know there is something called "references", which are marked with numbers that have links on the bottom of the page

Also do you really want me to flick out my history books and quote them all?
Here, some in german
"Meine vornehmtesZiel dei dieser Auseinandersetzung besteht in der Rettung der Union und nicht in der eibenhaltung oder Abschaffung der Sklaverei" - Horace Greely 1862
"Dier Ursache des Kreiges ise dier tief greifende wirtschaftliche und soziale gegenstanz zwiched dem agrarischen Sueden und dem industrialisierten Norden."
From a german history book called "chronik der weltgeschichte"

Take the ultimate red pill and read pic related.

"My prime objective in this conflict is to save the Union and not to save or abolish slavery"
"The cause of the war is the profound economic and social differences between the agricultural south and the industrialized north."

What you've linked provides zero sources. It is a small section of an article on Wikipedia, which could've been added by anyone, and whoever added it could not provide a single source. It is nothing more than the opinion of a single author.

This does nothing to factually support your assertion that cultural differences were the primary force, that Northerners were moving South to impose laws on the South, or that Southern labor was being exploited by the North.

The only relevant law the North had ever "imposed" on the South was that of tariffs, done nationwide through Congress as was their authority per Article I Section 8 (first clause), an authority the Southern States agreed to at the founding. One such tariff had led to the Nullification Crisis of 1832. Tariffs had since been lowered, most relevant to 1860 in the Tariff of 1857. Higher tariffs were part of the Republican Party platform in 1860, but only one State, Georgia, makes mention of this in their Declaration of Causes of Seceding States.

This is not a cultural issue. This is not Northerners moving into the South and imposing unjust laws on the South. This is not Southern labor being exploited by the North.

Even worse for your argument, the rest of the wikipedia page, where sources are provided, directly contradicts this:
>Today only in US schools its tought that slavery was the main reason for the war, becouse durr rednecks wanted to keep the black man opressed

Slavery was the primary cause of secession. The seceding States said so themselves, as I've already linked evidence to: civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

>You know there is something called "references", which are marked with numbers that have links on the bottom of the page
The Ropstvo i proturopstvo section of the page has zero references. Zero.

>Traditional hierarchies are wrong
its because of fags like you that buy into the equality meme that the western world is getting flooded by shitskins. History has proven the South right

I was talking about "Regionalni interesi" not "Ropstvo i proturopstvo"
Also litteraly the first line in "Ropstvo i proturopstvo" says that historianls hold the reasons i said as the main reason for the war, until the 1960s
Uh, and you really think that Robert E. Lee would send a letter to Lincon saying "you know pall, the differences in our economical systems are too big to oversome, also our traditionalist wasy dont really go along the new northern urban ones, also could you stop settling dixie land becouse we might attack them too. also abolition slavery? no way! xoxo Robby"

World war 1 was also declared becouse of the murder of franz ferdinand, but its just the drop that overflowed the glass

They are probably the largest homogenized group in the US thats why

Slavery was a big issue...yeah.....but it's way more complicated than just slavery.

Basically it was two ways of life colliding, and the south getting pissed that the north could consistently outvote it on a federal level, and they were basically subservient to them.

The south was based off the jamestown, slavery embracing, megafarm colonists, while the north was based off the puritan, subsistence farming, kinda-sorta slavery embracing, pompously righteous colonists. They kind of never got along, and didn't really see each other as countrymen from the get-go.

Then in the civil war you had the issues of the new territories being colonized, and the issue was who's laws and ways of life would be embraced there? The north or the south? If it's the north then the south would get even more consistently outvoted. So they said fuck that shit, and eventually started a war after years of covert fighting in the territories.

Slavery is mixed up in all that, sure...but it was a political war above anything else.

>The seceding States said so themselves

States have also said that our reason for fighting wars is 911 or wmds or a number of things that have been proven to not be the case.

Governments rarely ever go to war for the reasons they SAY they're going to war.

>explain the tariff situation

Dabbing

leaf nooo

actually, if you don't include the hoodrat schools and other stupid ass schools then the US has the best education system, the problem is the lazy fucks who don't even try, they typically happen to be the black and mixed-race hoodrats and the lower-class white people.

Slavery was an underlying issue, but it was almost completely to do with state's rights

Germany has a similar system to the US one
the think i see as a problem is that you learn very little outside your branch, its great for preparing you for work while countries with the austrian system focus on creating intellectuals and give priority to gymnasium schools over field ones

well too bad for the Confederates, they should've just worked other than getting slaves to do shit for them, poor parasitic Democrats.

The immediate reason was that the South was now butthurt that their states were no longer as politically relevant as they used to be, as Abraham Lincoln was able to win without being on the ballot in several southern states, and it was no possible for the North to pursue a political agenda without their input.

>Does the reason transcend slavery?

Yes. Lincoln was infringing on the State's Rights. The final push by Lincoln was demanding that the Sate of Virginia supply regiments of soldiers to fight in the union army. A standing army is unconstituional as it does not fall under the Department of the Navy from Article 1 Section 8 in the constitution.

So Virginia and the South raised their regiments and broke off from the voluntary union. Which under Amendment 10 they have the right to do.

Saw a speech once by General Lee where he calls out Lincoln and tells him here are his soldiers. Pretty good speech. Wish I could remember where I read it.

/thread

Economics, the south was a huge raw material producer and the north was industrial. Naturally the best economics for the south would be for high exports and low imports but the north wanted high imports and low exports. Basically the north was trying to strangle the south economically. No one gave a shit about the niggers. The north was anti slavery due to unions (don't think they were called unions but workers rights groups) not wanting cheap labor moving in.

>The north was anti slavery due to unions
well I mean, why the hell would we need Slavery in the first place?

Part of it was ethnicity. The Southerners were feudal Scots (trailers, KKK, Clan Tara burining crosses, whiskey) and some English aristocratic families who just did not want to belong to the North with its separate ethnic and cultural identity. White Southerners are a race. as is obvious in their border country faces-though most of them will lie and claim to be Highlanders.

>t. spoiled delusional child who thinks he would be at the top of any "hierarchy"

Sad!

northern pride!

You think those factories really wanted to pay workers? A slave would be cheaper than even the kids they were working at the time.

Slavery is a big inexorable part of it. But for the common man just freedom was important. Not that many people actually owned slaves.

Also the people who cared about slaves wanted that over states rights as one of the points when they left was they wanted to bring their slaves into the non slave states without freeing them.

>I can't be the King so lets just drag everyone down to my mediocre level instead

well slaves didn't get paid either so yeah. Better to work for your stuff than to get someone else to do it by force.

This

Pretty much every war ever is fought over shekels. I wonder why

>Also litteraly the first line in "Ropstvo i proturopstvo" says that historianls hold the reasons i said as the main reason for the war, until the 1960s
The one with no citations. Great.

You've made zero attempts to address the Declaration of Causes of Seceding States. If you want to ignore the plain writing of the governing bodies of the Southern States, who made explicit their reasons for secession for the federal government to read, and who were the people actually deciding on secession for their States, that's your decision. I only ask you don't spread your ignorance.

Scot here. Can confirm muh Southern cuzins are bros.

>transcend slavery?

Nigger that shit has NOTHING to do with slavery.

If it was about slavery then why did Lincoln wait until after the war to emancipate Northern slaves?

Right, so you think they really wanted to cultural and economic reasons, but instead of putting those terrible and unjustified caused in writing, they decided to make up lies about how they were concerned about anti-slavery movements and how worth protecting slavery was as their moral cause.

That's logical.

Coppied this from the document south carolina produced upon declaring session.

>The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

>This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

>The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

cont...

The question wasn't why the North went to war, but why the South seceded.

Why the North went to war does not answer why the South went to war.

The North went to war to preserve the union, not to abolish slavery. It was a response to secession by Southern States and their actions immediately following secession.

The South seceded primarily over slavery, along with longstanding concerns over tariffs.

Those who know nothing about the civil war say it was slavery.
Those who know some things about the civil war say it was about a number of things.
And those who know much about it say it was about slavery.

It was about slavery, friendo.
Nothing wrong with that.

>The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

In the end the slave states were pissed that their slavery laws were not enforced in the non slave states. They believed the constitution guaranteed it and the non slave states did not believe this extended. Just from a quick search the word slave or slavery appears in this document 88 times so it was worth talking about in relation to session.

As a lawyer I will now educate you simpletons.

The Constitution was a contract between nations and as such to get out of the contract you needed to rely on a breach. You cannot simply say "hey fags I want to Welch on my debt, so see ya!"

When the Southern States said they were seceding due to slavery it was because they assumed that would be the best legal argument that the contract of the Constitution was breached.

And they were foolish because the Northern barbarians don't give a fuck about contract, they want your sheckles.

Yes and no. Slavery permeates the whole thing but you also have to consider that Lincoln wasn't on the ballot in any of the southern states and he was elected president. Additionally in 1860 the only people who did not understand that a state or group of states did not have the Right to leave the union if they wished to was Lincoln and a few of his friends.

Then you are ignoring the documents we do have in favor on your own interpretation of their motive.

You are ignoring the actions taken by both governments in favor of what was basically a press release.

Btw whenever my wife tries to leave me I beat the shit out of her and call it "preserving our Union"

150 years is a short time for a developing state. You forget that growth is exponential, and being reduced to zero would have been a death sentence if it weren't for the federal government and Reconstruction, which of course had significant drawbacks.

Reeee Yankees get off of my board

It was a war over states rights and federalism vs a confederacy that stemmed from unsolved problems in the making of the constitution/80 years prior

Now while it was not a war over slavery, slavery was definitely the key issue that brought about the secession

Slavery had been a hot topic for decades ever since the enlightenment, and a problem that started in 1776 (source: TJ writing into the Declaration of Independence a section about blacks deserving freedom but then was made to scratch it out) and had been boiling up until 1860 where it finally reached its breaking point

The whole thing was that northerners tried to be gay and called for abolition in the south, whereas southern states said "no fuck off you're in another state" (read:country). It's like when France and Germany tell Poland to take in more refugees; they have no place to tell them that, but their mentality is that they're one Europe and not separate countries

The mentality in the southern states was the same: they were separate states that had seperate governments and would come together in times of need, but with a weak central government that didn't interfere. Ultimately this would be their downfall but that's besides the point

Lincoln declared war because, as he said, he would do anything to preserve the union

The end. I worked hard on this post can I have (You) now?

It was about state's rights and inadequate representation in congress. The northern states had much more representation than the southern states in Congress. IIRC the house was alrdy dominated by the north but the south maintained equal footing in the senate so it was still fine until a non slave state joined and tipped the balance in the senate.
They basically thought they were fighitng off a tyrannical government like they did in the Revolution.

Lincoln's second inaugural address hits the nail on the head. It's a speech that's known for "With malice toward none and charity for all..." but it's first couple of paragraphs sum up the civil war, it's causes, and the contemporary circumstances brilliantly.

The civil war was about slavery. It was this issue that had divided the country and which there was no political solution. Slavery was everything to the south. It was not only a source of labor, but a source of capital as well. Southern social life revolved around slavery as an institution. Although Lincoln himself wasn't an abolitionist, he certainly identified with their cause. Upon Lincoln's election, the question for the south was, "If not now, then when?"

The south seceded over the issue of slavery but the north didn't fight for abolition. The north didn't take up arms because they were so nice and wanted to help those poor, poor slaves in bondage. For the north the war was fought over the issue of political separation being intolerable. While abolition was certainly used as a rallying cry among the populace and northern leaders had the good sense to see opportunity for abolition, the north and south fought for very different reasons. Among the southern leadership the war was spoken about in terms of independence. Among northern leadership the war was spoken of in terms of rebellion.

contd,
their whole states' rights thing caught up with them and ended up losing them the war, since none of the states ended up cooperating for a joint effort. eg. Texan soldiers didnt want to go defend South Carolina.

What is the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850?

That some individuals refuse to comply with a law is not justification to claim the law does not exist or there is no attempt to enforce it.

Even worse, such an argument defies logic. "We're concerned because you're not returning the runaway slaves as competently and completely as we desire, so we will now abandon the Union to ensure you return none of them"?

Southern States were afraid of losing slavery as an institution, not just individual slaves who were running away. They saw both the expansion of anti-slavery states and the activists who encouraged slaves to revolt and escape as a threat to the institution.

The rapid formation and rise of an abolitionist party, the Republican Party, terrified the South.

Banning slavery in new states would upset the balance between free and slave states and would result in the northern free states dominating the country