Was Slavery the Main Reason for the Civil War ?

youtube.com/watch?v=SFwHQYDqf6c

So, Sup Forums, what do you think were the reasons for the civil war ?

Other urls found in this thread:

emarotta.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)
thetribunepapers.com/2014/01/05/true-causes-of-the-uncivil-war-understanding-the-morrill-tariff/
youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Tariffs
Slaves

Overall economic and social freedom

It was an international war because there was no such thing as "U.S. Citizenship." South Carolina decided to regain its full soverignty when they did their version of brexit from the American Union.

No. It was about States' Rights, self-governing and economic exploitation by the north. South couldn't trade cotton with foreign governments, they had to sell it cheap to factories in the north. Lincoln formally abolished slavery in Confederacy two years into the war, as a form of economic pressure.

i just have a very hard time believing that the civil war was just VAGUELY about slavery!

Never in the history of the mankind a person killed his brother for the rights of someone else. Especially , when both sides regarded the negros as inferior. There must be more to the story!

There were many reasons for the civil war. Slavery being one of them.
In the lead up to the war there had been decades of tension between the North and South due to an ever widening gap of culture, economics, and state's rights issues.
The North imposed tariffs on the South which had a crippling affect on their agricultural industry. Additionally, as is not surprising to any of us, the businesses that were allowed to avoid these tariffs were largely owned by the "elite" within the upper echelons of society. The victim of all of this was the common southerner.

Basically, slavery was just another one of those state's rights issues that the North attempted to control to the detriment of the South's agricultural industry. Most in the South had no issues with ending slavery; however, they recognized that they were not yet equipped for non-manual, non-slave labor.

War finally broke out in an attempt to fight off the North and reclaim the ability to determine their own futures.

The civil war was fought because both sides believed different things to be true.

No, Civil War started 1 year before Lincoln freed the slaves.

Fun fact : He freed the slaves only for Southern states first, and then for the northern states.

>Tariffs
> South couldn't trade cotton with foreign governments, they had to sell it cheap to factories in the north.

care to expand on this ?

disregard
covered this

great, clear answer btw. thank you.

No
>There was a 40 percent tax on southern states
The union army was the first to strike and >literally burn towns to the ground and murdered their populace
>Slavery only became an issue a year after the war had started
>4 union states voted against freeing the slaves
>Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacist

Slavery was a post war justification by the union just like "mug freedom" was a post war justification for the Iraqi war.

The union did not give a fuck about slaves.

to preserve the union

history 101

The "civil war" was really a battle Thimas Jefferson on the one hand and Alexander Hamilton on the other.

The Jeffersonians lost.

There were Jews that profited from the southern slavery system. There were Jews that wanted more control over the US banking system (they killed Lincoln for making greenbacks amongst other reasons). It was also used to consolidate power into the federal government.

Yes, especially in the economic sense. I mean, there were tons of reasons why the war happened really, the north and south had some serious issues for decades before the war began, in fact a civil war nearly happened back during Jackson's presidency but he was enough of an alpha to slap everyone the fuck down and delay it for a while. But, yes slavery was the single largest primary driving the country to the boiling point. Read up on Bleeding Kansas to see just how much animosity each side had for one another over the issue.

Its about was about slavery, but not in a moral sense but economically.

Slavery was the bedrock of the economy in the South, take it away in one fell swoop and the Southern economy would collapse.
The North exploited this for political and economic gain with Tariffs.

It would be like someone coming in and overnight wanting to remove oil from our economy overnight, it would destroy everything.

The civil war was as much about slavery as WW1 was about the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand

The Lincolnites thought that all they had to do was send their army marching south and it would be over just like that.

funner fact: One of Lincoln's general TWICE gave emancipations from the battlefield hoping it would harm the South and Lincoln rescinded them not wanting to anger Union slave states.

Think of it like this:
If a bunch of states seceded today because they rejected the idea that the federal government could coerce citizens to buy products and services from private corporations, and they lost the resulting war
The establishment winners would say that the secession and war was because those states didn't want to give free health care to their citizens

That's basically the equivalent of the first civil war. The South was already working on removing slavery, they weren't united in support of it, but they WERE united in the notion that the federal government had no right to wield such massive power in state's economies to just ban slavery like that. The South KNEW that once that precedent was set, the Federal government would just get more and more involved in state's economies. And that is exactly what happened, of course.

Before the federal government got so involved in the state's economies, the Union was really more like a federation of sovereign states. Now we might as well be one country, one state, with the actual states just doing the day to day administration while the federal government wields most of the power.

Literally both sides thought that the war would be over after the first large battle. Sherman actually immediately recognized that the war was going be long, bloody, and costly unless the North was willing to go full black flag on the South and they called him insane for it.

They're still butthurt over it which is why they're attacking brass and stone today.

Spiritually, the South was never defeated until the current year.

I like to say the Civil War was about slavery in the same way the Revolutionary War was about taxes. Sure, both were the catalyst to the war starting, but there were many events leading up to the war that made a conflict inevitable. Also, Lincoln is on record stating that he would allow the south to keep the slaves, had that meant keeping the Union together.

great analogy.

looking up a few keywords you guys gave me i stumbled on this:

emarotta.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/

sums it up pretty well i think ?

>"duur lets just ignore the fact that many of the states explicitly state they're breaking off for the preservation of slavery"
You have to be an idiot or a revisionist to think it wasn't about slavery. The South sperged out because they thought Lincoln would eventually take their salves, even though he said he wouldn't. They seceded knowing it would start a war. Lincoln fought to preserve the Union, the South fought to preserve slavery, or as retards like to call it "muh state's rights"

The South generated large amounts of wealth through the sale of materials overseas but had a relatively lower population.
The North had a higher population but was poorer economically and wanted/needed capitalization to expand industrialization.
The North used its dominance of the House of Representatives to force through a major tariff in the 1840's that was very obviously designed to heavily tax the South to subsidize the North's economic expansion.
South Carolina said 'fuck off, you can't rob us!' and there was almost a civil war a generation before Lincoln! The situation was calmed down a great deal, but it continued.
At that time Senators were appointed by state legislatures (as the Constitution originally said) so as states were added whether or not their legislatures would support the North's goal of increasing tariffs or the South's goal of free trade were absolutely critical.
Abolition was a popular movement among citizens to end slavery that was popular among some religious groups but was never widely embraced by the political class because it would be so economically disruptive. But it became a shorthand for which faction you supported because the South's agrarian raw materials economy still relied upon it.
Poor Northerners supported abolition for a number of reasons, including their hope that tariffs would lead to more jobs in the North.
Poor Southerners opposed abolition because they knew it would both crash the local economy and increase the number of laborers competing for jobs.
"Was slavery the main reason?' is the wrong question -slavery was so closely wrapped up with economics, politics, and even religion that it was arguably the main reason *and* not the real reason at all.

The Congress at that time heavily favored the industrialized northern states, to the point of demanding that South must sell raw materials only to the northern factories, rather than to other countries. The Congress also taxed the northern produced materials, making final products unaffordable for the South. Most southerners did not even own slaves or plantations, they were just small farmers.

Case in point, they were fighting to maintain their rights, lifestyle and independence, without the United States government dictate. As this one here said , imagine EU declaring war on UK for Brexit.

No. Economics was.
No one was ideologically committed to the principle of slavery, of blacks or anyone else.
Rich slave owners wanted to stay rich. The rest knew that the southern economy would collapse if slavery was outlawed over night.
They put their *own* well-being over any concern for other human beings or moral principle of equality. They were selfish. In other words, they were human.
That they were defending the enslavement of blacks is entirely incidental. If their well-being had depended on some other 'commodity' (e.g. oil, water), they'd have defended it just as passionately.
That's not apologia, by the way. I think slavery is one of the few true evils. That people could defend even that just goes to show how far we'll go to protect our position, if there is no social cost to us.
All humans have shown this potential, regardless of ethnicity. Culture is the only constraint. *We* haven't evolved. Our culture has. Take away the culture that defines a society's taboos, or constrains behaviour, and you'll arrive back here in short order.

what do you have to say to this tho ?

>Slavery was the bedrock of the economy in the South, take it away in one fell swoop and the Southern economy would collapse.
The North exploited this for political and economic gain with Tariffs.

isnt there a difference in wanting to preserve slavery for a time to prevent the sudden collapse of your society, and in wanting to preserve it purely because of racial supremacy ideas ?

Slavery was considered, but there was mounting pressure on Southern states from a northern majority to increase tariffs.

There was also the theory of Nullification, started by Senator John C. Calhoun, that if states do not consider federal laws to be constitutional, the states could ignore those laws, or nullify them in a sense.

Think about how much power this reserved to the states that the federal government couldn't delegate over. This is truly why the war was fought.

nah, it was about the north punishing the south for wanting to leave. You have to be an idiot or a revisionist to think it wasn't about this. Slavery was on it's way out naturally soon, but the north decided instead of waiting 5 years to do this

>"Was slavery the main reason?' is the wrong question -slavery was so closely wrapped up with economics, politics, and even religion that it was arguably the main reason *and* not the real reason at all.

nicely put

>imagine EU declaring war on UK for Brexit.

had this in mind the whole time reading answers desu

>
Just to follow up, here's the wiki on Nullification theory. Never upheld in federal courts, wonder why?

Right. And consider what happens in the future if the Obamacare precedent is allowed to stand.

They will sooner than you think require every citizen to purchase an electric self-driving car or pay a huge tax for the 'privilege' of driving an old normal car.
They will justify this on the grounds that an electric car is much better for the environment and that self-driving cars have less accidents.
But really they are doing it to make their crony Elon Musk rich and control your travel behavior; self-driving cars won't be able to travel to certain areas, especially based on your record.

It will be hell, and they'll just do more and more stuff like this to defund every industry that contributes to republican politicians, such as oil/fossil fuels, until eventually there is only one party rule because that party keeps forcing you to buy stuff from their cronies.

Yes. Read each states reason for succession. They made it quite clear it was slavery.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)

I'm retarded

Some people are too intellectually challenged to figure out that the post-war Yankee anti-slavery propaganda that they've swallowed whole is bogus and they're butthurt that sane rational people won't endorse their delusions.

I really hate Democrats, now.

thetribunepapers.com/2014/01/05/true-causes-of-the-uncivil-war-understanding-the-morrill-tariff/

>That they were defending the enslavement of blacks is entirely incidental. If their well-being had depended on some other 'commodity' (e.g. oil, water), they'd have defended it just as passionately.
>That's not apologia, by the way. I think slavery is one of the few true evils. That people could defend even that just goes to show how far we'll go to protect our position, if there is no social cost to us.
>All humans have shown this potential, regardless of ethnicity. Culture is the only constraint. *We* haven't evolved. Our culture has. Take away the culture that defines a society's taboos, or constrains behaviour, and you'll arrive back here in short order.

you guys are the kind of people i still come here for

So you're saying the South sperged out because Lincoln voiced some abolitionist sentiment, but clearly said he wouldn't follow through, and decided to leave the Union to preserve slavery?
>isnt there a difference in wanting to preserve slavery for a time to prevent the sudden collapse of your society, and in wanting to preserve it purely because of racial supremacy ideas ?
No, they also state that they want to preserve the natural order of blacks being beneath them kek that's why they chimped out for 100 years after the government said they have to treat them equally
>Slavery was on it's way out naturally soon, but the north decided instead of waiting 5 years to do this
This is like revisionist heaven

Jefferson understood nullification, too.

Northern states nullified the Fugitive Slaves Act on their territories.

Do you think that nullification and secession are exclusive Yankee monopolies?

Why did this war have such a massive body count? There were more deaths at Shiloh than the entire American Revolution, and that wasn't even near the bloodiest engagement. I always thought it was the advent of rifled muskets becoming standardized but I've also read that the average soldier was not much more accurate with one than a smoothbore.

>The Congress at that time heavily favored the industrialized northern states

They favoured it for a very specific reason though and that was federalisation. The North was already centralising power and there was such a stark dichotomy in the south that is would always be confederation. Fuck Texas is STILL the Lone Star state.

It was some hillbillies and fat cats fighting over issues they could have solved politically.

History is written by the Victor

>economic exploitation by the north
northern businessmen were sick of carrying dead weight of southern slavery, too much lost revenue compared with modern wage slavery

so that had to go, also the southern political establishment had to go, southern congressmen were well versed in rhetoric and able to craft compelling arguments, northerners were stodgy and did not communicate well, this had to be changed so the south had to go

If the federal government can remove slaves then they can do whatever else they want too, which they were. The southern states had no power. None of them even voted for Lincoln. That's why many in the south thought they were fighting the second American revolution. Nobody gave a fuck about slaves. It was about precedent and principle

>well versed in rhetoric
>compelling arguments

Yes so eloquent and well spoken, such gentlemen.

It didn't help that the Confederacy declared itself a free trade zone; an intolerable red flag to the Southern hating Yankees.

Right, just like if states seceded today and specifically said it was because of obamacare people would still believe it was because they didn't want to give citizens "free healthcare", not because of how fucking stupid it is for the government to force you to buy shit from private companies run by one party's cronies.

It was basically as if the north and south were two different countries competing with each other, except the north had all the executive powers which was understandable seen as unfair to the south.

And their fake propaganda history will destroy them because their are too many twits who swallow it whole and then run amok destroying brass and stone that offends their sensibilities.

It won't stop with statues.

>because they thought Lincoln would eventually take their salves, even though he said he wouldn't.
dumbass.
Once the federal government exercises a power, that's it, it is a precedent and the fed gets to do that and worse forever. It is just how our legal system works. Lincoln basically played dumb with the "Lol slippery slope fallacy dummies" card, but slippery slope is real in our legal system.

Everyone serious knew that it wouldn't stop with slavery, the fed would just exercise more and more control over the states internal economies. And that is exactly what happened. Tons and tons of regulations and bullshit.

When the union was set up it was supposed to be more like what the European Union is today, with each state having a lot of sovereignty. Lincoln ended all that and now we're just like one big state, and the state governments just administer the bullshit the federal government passes down.
Again, it didn't matter what "Lincoln promised" he would or wouldn't do. Once precedent is established, it opens up a huge legal can of worms that cannot be stuffed back in.

It was mainly about states rights. Granted it was the right to own slaves, but it's still states rights.

Same fight as usual

South wanted to be independent

North said NOPE

Slavery was just 1 issue under the unbrella of making decions for themselves

States rights meant that it was up to each state to decide if slavery was legal or should be abolished on their territory. Congress had no say in the matter.

I tend to not think it was the main cause, but ive recieved a lot of rebuttals concerning the fact that almost every southern state made keeping slavery a big point in their documents concerning their declaration of secession.


wondering what Sup Forumss take is.

>This is like revisionist heaven
I can tell you haven't done a bit of research beyond what the fed government curriculum told you in school and maybe a bit of wikipedia.
Licoln was going to exercise powers that would set precedent for the federal government to be hugely invasive in the economic affairs of states.
Imagine today if states seceded because they rejected the idea that the federal government had the authority to coerce citizens to buy products from private companies, knowing it wouldn't stop at health care, that the fed would soon after force people to buy self-driving electric cars or pay a massive tax/fine.

But the school books and shit would teach you that they only seceded because they were mean and didn't want to give their citizens "free health care". That's the equivalent of the first civil war.

P.S. Did you know that Karl Marx was in correspondence with Lincoln? Lincoln was the beginning of this country's descent into Marxism, literally.

Econonomics was just a secondary effect of the bigger issue, which was the North practically having control of the south. Nobody on either side gave a damn about slaves.
And even if you wanna say it was about slaves, then you still can't pretend like the north was doing it for moral reasons. Nobody except Jews were blue pilled on race back then and the north would absolutely not have faught a war just to free a bunch of niggers who they know good and well can't into civilization (Many Africans were actually happier as slaves. The literate ones would write letters talking about how they miss their master taking care of them and providing food and shelter and safe land to live on). The north thought they were fighting to hold the union together. Again, nobody cared about the niggers - they were seen as subhuman; Lincoln even said so himself

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

I mean, do you even know there were slave states in the union during the civil war?

Negroes were what we used before machinery

The civil war was a lot like WWI n that regard. 18th century tactics hadn't caught up to the sheer killing power of modern machine warfare. In many cases (Fredricksburg, Gettysburg) generals were just sending ranks of troops marching headlong into fortified enemy positions just to get mowed down. Petersburg was a pre WWI example of trench warfare. The European observers were horrified because they knew what a modern war would look like.

Right, like you should have the individual right to buy health care or not. Because now that the precedent is set that the fed can force you to buy health care, the next thing will be that they force you to buy an electric self-driving car from Elon Musk or one of the Dem's other crony capitalists. And if you don't buy a fancy new car from Musk you'll have to pay a huge tax because you're destroying the environment and have a higher risk of accident. And maybe after that you have to buy a gps chip installed in your body or pay a tax, because gps chip will save the government money and reduce crime. And it just won't end.

But if you seceded over Obamacare they would say you just didn't want to give people "free healthcare". It would be total bullshit propaganda.

Right, it doesn't change that the stated reason for the civil war by the states that succeeded themselves, was slavery.

You can cry "muh states rights" until you are blue, we have the documents that clearly states it was due to slavery and mainly to Lincoln's promise of no new slave states or territories. Not removing slavery, but because they knew the writing was on the wall long term.

No brother would kill another brother for any slave. Lincoln himself said it wasn't about slaves and that he'd let the South keep them if that would hold the Union together.

Brothers kill brothers because of either pride, selfishness or because the government forced you. Just look at WWII. Germans killing Germans.

If you had asked the Union army what they were fighting for; they would have said to preserve their worthless Union: Vietnam style.

That's written within the wider context of the federal government not interfering in states economies.

You can cherry pick whatever quotes you want, but when it came down to it, the south's economy was dependent on slavery, they WERE working to end it in a way that wouldn't crash their economies, and they weren't about to let the federal government gain new powers to interfere in states economies.

Again, if you seceded today over Obamacare because you think the fed shouldn't be able to force you to buy crap from private companies, the establishment would say you just didn't want poor people to have "free healthcare". You'd be a monster. You wanted people to die so you can be rich. Etc etc.

But if Obamacare stands, next you'll be forced to buy electric self-driving cars from Democrat cronies like Elon Musk. Buy a new Tesla or pay a fat tax for destroying the environment.

>Implying Taylor Swift writes her lyrics

Mass produced shit.

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science."

You tell me

youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

yes it was slavery anyone who says otherwise is a southern apologist; its not even questionable really

Cherry pick quotes? Have you read the actual Declarations of Succession? If not I suggest you do.

Why are libtards such nigger-worshipping fucks?

What is their obsession with grovelling before obsolete farm equipment and then getting butthurt when sane, sensible people won't join in, in their self-abasement?

How are you unable to process this? Yes, it was states rights in general. The particular example of states rights was slavery. Once the federal government sets the precedent of exercising power over a particular incident, it also gains the power over that whole category IN GENERAL.

If you seceded over Obamacare IN PARTICULAR, because you didn't want the government to force you to buy from private companies IN GENERAL, because next they will force you to buy electric self-driving cars from their crony Elon Musk or tax you for destroying the environment and being more a risk of accident - then the establishment will still make you out to be a monster and say you just didn't want poors to have free health care.

By ending slavery in particular, the federal government set the precedent that it can do basically whatever they fuck they want to states economies in general.

The United States was originally supposed to be a union of fairly sovereign states. Since the civil war when the federal government gained massive control over the economies of every state, it is a joke to say that any state is in any way sovereign. Since the civil war, state governments just administer whatever bullshit the federal government passes down. The federal government was not supposed to have that much power, that isn't what those states signed up for.

"Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth" - VP of the CSA


I love the revisionists history that ignore the people that actually lead the south. It was always about slavery.

Slavery was a main reason. That problem was baked into the nations founding. There were other reasons especially on a personal level but slavery is inexorably linked.

>muh states rights

They cared so much about states rights that the instituted conscription in 1862?

Read
and don't be stupid

What's wrong with slavery, you twit, other that a tiny bunch of self-righteous sanctimonious Yankees decided that they'd hate it?

wow this is a massive non sequiter. try again. use your brain.

>states rights
>forces free men to join national army

Youre an idiot

Just cite the Cornerstone speech and the South Carolina article of secession and you'll btfo delusional revisionists. I'd trust the source material rather than the bullshit cocked up by southern ""historians"" in the '90s.

No one fights for those things. They're intangible. 'Freedom' isn't even an old concept. The earliest mentions in the historical record are found in the writings of classical Rome, as a propaganda device.
Caesar notes in Bellio Gallicio that 'no one wants to be enslaved'.
Tacitus develops the concept further, in his account of the speech of Calgacus of the Caledonii (great speech, probably never happened).
The device serves dual purposes. It portrays the enemy as a "noble savage", a "worthy foe". But savage, nonetheless. Unreasonable. Uncivilised.

Gauls were portrayed as noble but unsophisticated barbarians. In fact, Gaul was a sophisticated society, with a highly evolved trade network. Caesar himself notes they kept meticulous records written in Greek. It's likely that Caesar, steeped in debt and under increasing pressure from the Roman patrician class, aimed to secure control over the amber and tin routes. The Venetii and their allies sought to maintain control.
But the plebs weren't to know that. Instead, Rome was civilising a bunch of backward savages, more concerned with irrational notions of 'freedom' than in civilised pursuits. Give them wine and fine threads, and they'll soon come to their senses.
The 'freedom' meme really came to life in the "Declaration of Arbroath", which greatly influenced the "Declaration of Independence".
But it's still a meme. It's sold as an absolute, a divine principle, when it can only ever be relative. Ask yourself, how much freedom of thought and action do you really have? How much would you really want? And what would you be willing to sacrifice for it? How much 'wine' or 'fine threads'?

>revisionist heaven
Ironic that you imply this, as you are the one ignoring history. The rebellion in Haiti set the precedent for abolishment of slavery throughout the Atlantic world, including the US.
It is widely accepted that the people of the time recognized that slavery was a fading institution, and the only reason it still remained at the time was because the southern economy relied so heavily on it and needed to transition away from slavery before full abolishment.

And then the war happened.

It was about state rights. The south believed that the government had too much power so they left the Union.

Yes, that still doesn't change why the South seceded. The Northern states understood thta Lincoln wasn't going to abolish slavery.
You have not idea what you're talking about

You fucking retard the South controlled the Senate and the Supreme Court. Slavery was in no sort of danger.

That said the war absolutely was about slavery.

>being purposely obtuse to "win" an internet argument
wew

Money like most wars. The union could of gave two shits about slaves.

>It is widely accepted that the people of the time recognized that slavery was a fading institution
>Decide to fight a war to preserve it instead of following the example of the Union slave states
They fought to not only preserve slavery, but to keep blacks beneath them. The way they behaved directly after the Union soldiers pulled out shows this to be true.

Then why was slavery outlawed in the western territories if the south controlled the congress?

It was fought for the same reason the revolutionary war was.

Fake and gay.

nice.

Taxes and states rights. Slavery was a small part of it, iirc General Lee was disgusted with slavery.

this

PS. slavery had, inherently, nothing to do with the race of the enslaved

says the guy denying the war was about slavery despite the overwhelming primary sourced evidence to the contrary.

Face it kiddo great great great granpa died because he wanted a pet nigga

Hmm, are Yankee liberals the top concern trolls?

They conceal their hatred of blacks by concern trolling them.

>continuing to think war is so simple
Why even bother commenting if you aren't going to at least try to understand the conflict in question? They wanted to preserve slavery to protect the economy after seeing what the north wanted to do to them. The protections for slavery is a reaction to the north, and a way to unify the south in the face of conflict. If you bothered to read any writing from the time, you would see that many southerners recognized the decline of slavery, and were accepting of it, so long as the economy remained stable. Of course, you will deny this because it doesn't fit with what your shitty teachers taught you in grade school.
Your brand of anti-intellectualism is what is killing this nation.