So...

So, I overheard a conversation today between two people over what the real reason why the South succeeded from the North. The first person stated that it was State's Rights, while the other argued that it was solely about slavery.

So, who's right, Sup Forums? From what I studied in college, the bigger picture was about states rights while slavery was the catalyst. And researching this topic has left me confused. All the sources I looked up say that states rights was a myth. This baffled me because I remember there being a lot of tension between the North and South that was non-slavery related such as which annexed states get to be part of the North or South and how much political power the North had against the South. Are these details really insignificant because slavery was the bigger incentive?

state's rights is the later revisionist version. original declarations of war by the southern states are available online. all put slavery as the first, often sole, issue.

Bot generated thread.

Lolwut? Is this topic seriously posted here enough that people think I'm a bot?

except for Virginia this is correct. They seemed to think it would be best not to include that in their declaration even though it was the main topic in the debate.

It was about money and power. Just like every war ever.

Not all the States issued a reason for war. It should be noted however, that since all of the states that succeeded also joined the Confederacy, they put their lot in with the States fighting for slavery, whatever their reasons might have been.

That isn't to say the North fought to free the slaves. They were just fighting to preserve the union. After the war was over both sides demonstrated how little they cared about the lives of the people the war was fought over.

Honestly at first it was totally about slavery and stuff but then Sherman's March and well once you start bribing cities and shooting a few civilians suddenly it wasn't about slavery which is why that was the stupidest stategic move they could have done. The union gave the confederacy which historians argue was already low on morale by the beginning of the march something to fight for. Plus at the end Lincoln was a dick and only freed southern slaves

Economics and tyranny.

States rights to maintain their economy. It would be like telling Venezuela that they cant drill oil any more, and take a look at how thats turning out. A lot of our industry was wiped out back then which was absoluteluy terrible. Google "Wilson's Raids".

The bigger implication has ultimately been states power versus federal power. Which is more important I ask you, the "freedom" of a certain set of people or the power of a central government 500 miles away telling your state what it can and cannot do?

It really was comparable to the revolutionary war in that regard.

At the bottom of it all, the north used slavery as propaganda to justify destroying the south.
The bigger question is why did the north want to (((actually))) destroy the south?
So you could say both because slavery was used as a propaganda tool and the south legitimately was fighting over states rights. I bet you learned in school that slaves were universally treated horribly and white people where awful, but this simply just isnt true. Of course there are outliers where yes they were treated bad, but there were also blacks who wished to stay with their masters because their lives were better under them. Take a look at George washington carver. Adopted and raised by his german master.
The states rights war had been going on since jefferson mind you. ie the Alien and Sedition acts.

Im proud you Sup Forums

north wanted to tax labor
south wanted free labor

Dude... No. I don't know where you learned that but it's not true. At first Lincoln only "freed" southern slaves because they classified them as instruments of war and were open to confiscation. All slaves were covered by the emancipation proclamation and even more so by the thirteenth amendment, which Lincoln fought hard to pass.

I don't care what it was about, I just want a rematch.

Yes please
>tfw when we have Ft Benning

Yup. In most of my gradeschool education, a slave owner was almost always depicted as an evil tyrant that beat his slaves 24/7. In college, I learned that it was more practical to hesitate to whipping them as much as possible sine it disabled them from doing hard labor.

*since

Oh yeah, here where I live black folk have family reunions at the plantation their family is from. Considering how much these plantation owners payed for the slaves its a joke that they would be seen as anything besides valuable.
After slavery ended you had the sharecropper phase which is how all of the blacks here where I live survived. Im sure there are some books or articles that talk about how difficult it was for the sharecroppers because they werent as good at farming with out a master. I have read a few stories about how some blacks opposed the end of slavery because ironically they had a better life under the master as I said before.

And Im sure we all know a lot of whites were also slaves, but I just assume everyone here knows that already.

What about the tariffs earlier in the 19th century? There was a lot leading up to the civil war throughout that century, it wasn't so simple as just slavery.

My family owned slaves and we're very accommodating to them before and after emancipation. Many descendents still live in the area and most still work in either agri or agri support businesses.

There isn't this dark cloud of resentment like libtards want you to believe. I did have ancestors that fought in the war, and much of our property was destroyed in the Red river campaign, but southern blacks generally don't like Yankees any more than southern whites do.

They're both right and both wrong. It was about money.

Ive met some of the nicest black people in the south. Notice our blacks dont get too uppity down here like they do up north.

both actually, Slavery was the lit match that was thrown into a room full of dynamite

I would add that folks in Northern states, New Englanders in particular, wanted to keep their political power over the country. More slave states meant they would have less influence.

absolutely my friend, it was exactly as I say. Go back to the Alien and Sedition acts with Thomas Jefferson and you will see he fought those acts in congress before it cumulated into the civil war as we know it. He even created a new political party because of it. How ever I have never seen this comparison been made before and I have no idea why. It is a clear one to one comparison because Jefferson wanted bigger states rights.