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.