In a recent John Oliver episode, he said that the Civil War was "99% about slavery, and 1% about other stuff."

In a recent John Oliver episode, he said that the Civil War was "99% about slavery, and 1% about other stuff."

Is he correct?

>inb4 it's john oliver faggot, sage
Let's try to be intellectual honest and get this right.

Other urls found in this thread:

civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Georgia
youtube.com/watch?v=tLlXC4WUUx0
youtube.com/watch?v=uHDfC-z9YaE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

the civil war WAS about slavery, but slavery wasn't really that much about race

northerners were not not-racist, black people weren't even allowed in a lot of northern states, the reason they fought to end slavery is because of its threat to labor, which these days we just roll over on and let immigrants fuck us to death

it was for states' rights... to own slaves. most of the declarations of sessions mention slavery

If that is true why the black community was discriminated until recently?

Who cares. What matters is whether the modern US would be better off if the South had won.

civil wars dont start because of a single problem

Literally word for word this is the same post from last night. Fuck off.

only the 1% had slaves. it was never about race. it will never will.

>taking anything John Oliver says seriously
What the hell are you doing with your life?

The civil war was about slavery in the sense that if we had a second civil war and leftists won they would say that the war was about transgender rights.

It is in the fact that the leftists chose to make that the fighting ground, but the real issue is between encroachment of the federal government into States' rights.

This. Sure the literal declaration of war was over whether or not a state could leave the union, but the decision to leave the union was caused by the issue of expanding slavery to new territories. Southern revisionists like to push the view that the civil war was about states rights and literally nothing else, as if one day the south decided to leave the union just to see if they could.

The war was ultimately a battle over the limits of federal power, and that manifested itself in slavery. But it used largely similar arguments in the Nullification Crisis decades before.

Also, this.

No.

At the time of the Civil War only around 3% of the population actually owned slaves. The catalyst for the War had a lot less to do with slavery itself, and a lot more to do with the fact that the people were already getting sick of Federal control. Folks in the south felt like a bunch of East Coast fat cats were deciding what the rest of the country had to do, and what rules they had to live by. The Abolitionist were like modern day Liberals that had no idea of what was going on, but empathized with the "humanity" of it all. So, when Lincoln got elected, a guy who the rest of the country felt like they didn't really want, the mood was very poor. History today is sort of repeating this

Northerners like to make it seem like a bunch of white guys wanted to enslave niggers for the lulz. What is your point?

they cite an illogical moral uprightedness of the north, for the previous 20 years. slavery was just the established legal grounds.

pic related

>The war was ultimately a battle over the limits of federal power, and that manifested itself in slavery.
Now state power says we all get to be slaves. Hurray.

Any way you slice it, slavery was critical to the south's economic independence. They were agricultural and thriving and they didn't want to be exploited by northern industrialists coming down to "develop" them. Without slave labor, their economic way of life wasn't really sustainable.


I don't think it was like "evil south wants to keep slaves, heroic north wants to free slaves" but more a conflict about money and resources like every other conflict; slavery just happened to be a big resource in this one.

Leave the state. If you believe slavery is wrong why would you participate? Is slavery only wrong once the government says it's bad?

Technology from anti slavery states would create conditions for greater competition which would make slavery harder to accomplish. Slavery was expensive if you were not part of the upper elite. You would also have to deal with the boycott of your goods from people who do not want your slave trade items.

If they were better they would of won

The reason for the civil war was litterally about slavery. Which was tied to states rights, but it was mostly about slavery. See image: South Carolina secession statement.

jon oliver the british cuck is somehow an american history expert now

or maybe he's just a puppet for his lib trash writers who are also not american history experts

But that's not what I said.

Mississippi secession statement.

Sure only a small percent owned slaves, but then, as now, the rich appealed to the poor with what every they wanted to hear to get them to fight.

It was about the preservation of the Union. The South declared independence because they though slavery would be outlawed.

Statement.

I wonder if John Oliver has had 1 second of collegiate level education about the US civil war.

Nice

The short answer is yes. The long answer is a differences between what amounted to two different countries.

The War of Northern Aggression was caused by the undermining of our republic as founded by the literally mentally ill tyrant octoroon, Abraham Lincoln, the assassin of the American republic. The CSA opted to resist the tyranny. Everything else is just yankee apologetic.

I want moldbug to go on his show
I would fucking pay big money for it too

Texas secession statement

Reason: slavery

Yes, he is correct. Hundreds of thousands of white people died in horrific combat so black people could be free.

What have blacks done for whites since then of note?

If a southern victory would have prevented or delayed female and african civil rights then yes, without a doubt the US would be better.

Georgia statement. Reason: slavery

Have you tried the crack?

...

>Is he correct?

In the same way as someone who says we went to war with Iraq over wmds.

Yes, in the time of rampant racism, and slavery, suddenly half the country decided that they were not racist, and didn't want slaves anymore. Just like that.

hes a brit, he knows as much about the american civil war as he does dentistry.

This

As shown, the actual reason for the civil war as stated in the secession statements from the states themselves is SLAVERY. John Oliver is a cuck, but in this instance he is right.

Jefferson Davis sites slavery as the reason for going to war “A proclamation, dated on January 1, 1863, signed and issued by the President of the United States, orders and declares all slaves within ten of the States of the Confederacy to be free, except such as are found in certain districts now occupied in part by the armed forces of the enemy. We may well leave it to the instinct of that common humanity, which a beneficent Creator has implanted in the breasts of our fellow-men of all countries, to pass judgment on a measure by which several millions of human beings of an inferior race — peaceful, contented laborers in their sphere — are doomed to extermination, while at the same time they are encouraged to a general assassination of their masters by the insidious recommendation “to abstain from violence, unless in necessary self-defense.”

Of course they would put that the reason is slavery. Their entire economy was dependent on it. Prohibiting slavery would be like the government prohibiting electricity or gasoline.
They had no way of reorganizing their economy for anything different before the federal government just threw a bomb into the middle of it. The federal government has continued making these sweeping rulings that affect the lives of the entire county. It wasn't originally supposed to be like this.

The civil war wasn't technically about slavery. Just like how falling 40 stories technically doesn't kill you. And shitty people love being technically correct.

States Rights to do whatever they God Damned Well Pleased !!

Study Andrew Jackson presidency. The trail of tears was only approved because Andrew thought this would reduce tensions with the north and south. The argument was the north kicked out the natives, why can't the south do the same thing?

desu with you leaf, i didn't see the post from last night
this argument was currently going on /his/ so i brought it over here.
I wanted to compare /his/ responses to Sup Forums responses.

Redditors do always say technically correct is the best kind

"The subject of Slavery, in any and every view of it, was, to the Seceding States, but a drop in the ocean compared with those other considerations involved in the issue of secession". - Alexander Stephens

you fucks try to cut it nicely and fair as possible but the reality of it is:
civil war was about
1.slavery and the industrial revolution

america was oppresive as fuck towards people of color. to although they gave them freedom it was miles off compared to today. white people like to paint it as "and after lincon freed them, everyone lived happily ever after". this is the reason why white people have a hard time wondering why blacks still are oppressed and eat shit. its because of the fairy tale history they were given.

its going to take a few more generations before everything gets to be where it needs to be.

"If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them." -- Abraham Lincoln

You're all fucking retarded. So fucking retarded! God damn it, I expected more from Sup Forums. The Civil War was NOT ABOUT SLAVERY. The North was fighting to PRESERVE THE UNION, regardless of the issue of slavery. That was what their purpose was in war. And the South was fighting the North because they did not want union with the Northern states. This was during a time when states were continually being admitted into the Union. This was during a time when people thought that states could LEAVE the union. Want proof? Here's what Lincoln said in 1848:
>Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better-- This is a most valuable, -- a most sacred right -- a right, which we hope and belive, is to liberate the world-- Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it-- Any portion of the such people of an existing government that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit-- More than this, a majority of any portion of the such people of an existing government, -- may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement-- Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution-- It is not the qual a quality of revolutions, not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones

The South had every right, as far as EXPERTS IN THE 19TH CENTURY GO, to secede. And they SECEDED over the issue of slavery. But WAR is not SECESSION. If secession is a right, then secession is not an act of war.

So what was the war over? Well, the North didn't think the South could secede. So tell me, what was the war over?

The civil war just shows that as usual a fucking tyrannical republican president tried to keep democrats from providing blacks with jobs and housing.

>the grand chimp out of whenever the following happened i dont think it was 1776 because that's when the drunken masons coined "we need well regulated militia by saying we can never disarm anybody" and "these are the original amendments so we'll give them a title, the bill of rights, and nobody can ever change these even though that's all that makes these ones so speshul" *removes prohibition*:
>here, murka, have some free tea
>we cant gib free tea anymore
>WHY ARE YOU INCREASING TAXES ON ME WE DONT WANT THIS SHITTY NOT FREE ANYMORE TEA REEEEEEE *throws in harbour*
And this is the story of America.

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. - Alexander Stephens

hiiyyoo nice.

Slavery was the final straw. The South had been clamoring for secession for 45 years before slavery was even an issue. Slavery was legal in both the North & South at the start of the war. How can slavery be the reason for the war, when slavery was legal ?

I agree with you, but saying it wasn’t mainly about slavery is some ignorant bullshit, when the statement of secession literally say that was the main reason. Anyone who doesn’t think that slavery was the main reason for the civil war is retarded.

The non-slave owner in the south saw the north as an invading army and took up arms against them. This is also true.

This whole question of Slavery, was but one relating to the proper status of the African as an element of a society composed of the Caucasian and African races, and the status which was best, not for the one race or the other, but best, upon the whole, for both. - CSA VP Alexander Stephens, 1868

>preserve the union
>directly violate state rights
the federal government has been what it always will be, something that feeds itself. Make no mistake it wasn't about keeping the union together, it was keeping the nation bound to the fed

>Oppression
>People of color
>Still need more generations to get your own shit in order

Every time I read a cuck post like this I feel like buying ammo. One day I'm just going to start thinking the herd in my own.

Kind of, but it probably would have happened anyway.

The kind of democracy we have only functions if losers accept the results of our elections, and losers will only accept the results of the elections if:

1. They believe that their guy will win, sooner or later
2. That they haven't actually lost too much

The USA had been kicking the slavery can down the road since the very beginning. It'd start boiling over and they'd whip up a compromise that turned down the heat without solving the fundamental issue; shit would calm down for a few decades; and then it'd start boiling over again; compromise; etc. Confrontation was seemingly inevitable, but it it was more or less under control until 1860.

Dred vs Scott and Buchanan's involvement had pissed off Northern Democrats so much that the Democrat party was in total shambles. The Republicans took full control of Congress, and the North / South Democrats were split, leading to Republican Lincoln winning the election with no real support from the South. The way it was looking, they had no reason to believe any of their guys would win the Presidency any time soon, and since their input was totally unnecessary, the next boiling over wasn't likely to end in a compromise, so they said Fine, if the President can be elected with no thought or care to our views and votes, then this government doesn't represent us.

They didn't think their guy would ever win again, and they thought that losing elections would have really serious, personal consequences for them. Permanent rule of the South by Northerners.

Glad we can agree this guy was clear that "blacks being should be slaves" was the main issue user.

Leaf here so I am probably wrong but I heard somewhere that Lincoln saw the Confederacy as insurrection and considered it like treason, using military force.

Slavery and slavery-adjacent issues, yes.

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ...
>Abraham Lincoln

This is the same debate we are having today. Nationalism vs globalism. The south wanted to be left alone and the north wanted a large federal government.

How people do not understand this debate has been the main debate at the start of our nation is beyond me.

To clarify, for Lincoln and the North, not so much about slavery as “preserving the union”. The fight wasn’t about abolition and freeing the slaves - at all
For the south it was all about preserving slavery. You can read this in the statements of secession.

Sauce:
civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Georgia

Yes. And that's what the war was over.

IT WAS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY.

If I want to dance naked in my house, and my neighbor gets angry with me about dancing in my house and breaks through my door with an AK-47, and I defend myself by shooting him, I didn't shoot him because I wanted to dance naked in my house. I didn't shoot him because he DIDN'T want me dancing naked in my house. I shot him because he broke through my door with a gun.

The idea of the federal government invading a sovereign state was antithetical to the spirit of America at the time. And this is coming from someone who is proud of his forefathers who fought in the revolution and the civil war (on the side of the North).

If slavery is something to go to war about, why aren't we at war with half of Africa? Or Saudi Arabia? Or North Korea (yet)? We went to war within America because the North invaded the South.

Anything else is revisionist.

Slavery would have went away In time for the south.

People over look that the tractor wasn't invented till 1892. The north already had its industrial revolution thus did not need slavery.

IT had almost nothing to do with slavery.

Here is an hour long interview on the subject

youtube.com/watch?v=tLlXC4WUUx0

Listen to this and shut the fuck up.

Slavery was not the main reason for the war. It was the final straw for Southern aristocrats. Secession had been brewing since 1816. The Nullification Crisis was from 1832-37. The South Damn Near Seceded in 1850. All these major incidents had been brewing for Four Decades before slavery was even an issue. Slavery was the final straw on a long list of grievances that had going on for generations, long before slavery was ever mentioned. By 1860, the South has had enough of the bull shit, and they says Fuck All Y’all, and left.

Stop conflating democratic secession with war you fucking retarded cuckistani faggot

It was about the North trying to seize the means of production and the South going REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

bonus captcha: edge postal

This is almost good enough bait to be an auspost

See you over in the Nigger Hate Thread.
Last night’s thread was a good one.

no, as usual he is intentionally spreading disinformation for his own gain. The right to own slaves was a rallying cry for both sides in the war, the south said "fight to keep ur slaves" and the north said, "fight to stop the slaves, dear brothers" when it was really just the north wanting to keep more power over them.

It's john oliver faggot, sage.

People who say "people of color" are faggots

So, basically it will take the amount of time it takes for niggers to drag everyone down to their level.

The south fought for slavery, the north just wanted to keep the union together.

and the same debate the Federalists and Anti-federalists were having before, in micro

3,000 years of white oppression

>Leaf Here

I agree that we are given fairy tale history but only on subjects like the holocaust

Slavery was the moral justification for the millions of other reasons on why the Civil War happened.
First off you had for years the unstable power dynamic between "slave" states (agriculture and farming centers) and "free" states (industrial centers) that got much worse because both sides supported Manifest destiny in order to gain control over the other. Once a territory was gained both slave and freed states flooded the country in order to make it either industrial or agricultural, which caused multiple skirmishes. Then you had the stark cultural differences between the North and the South, with the south having sort of a hierarchical society and the north having a industrial one. And also there was the longest running reason which stretches back to post revolution times, the arguments over representation in the federal system. The biggest reason why southerners wanted states rights is because northern states where already populace AND getting flooded with immigrats, which made their electoral votes much higher than the still scarcely populated South, resulting in the federal government getting stacked with people who are more in tune with industrialized society rather than agriculture one.
And these are just three reasons, their is probably a book filled with all the greviences that each side had towards each other that made civil war a reality

It was mostly about increasing federal control over states that enjoyed their autonomy and had a culture dedicated to preserving said autonomy. Slavery was bad and everyone knew it, but Southerners sure as fuck weren't happy about the federal government using it as excuse to increase federal control over them. Over focusing on the racial aspect is mildly retarded if you're trying to understand why the war happened.

Even if the South never had slaves, the civil war would still have likely happened regardless. Does it demonize the South? No, and that's why the racial aspect is focused on so much because it does a good job of demonizing the fuck out of the South.

What is scary is how this debate is growing. First it was just a few states now it's the entire world. Where does it end at a galactic conference?

Have fun!

How people do not understand this is beyond me.
I think about this every day.
Comparative Issues, then & now.
So many similarities.

It was not about slavery. Slavery became a component of it. The north feared an industrializing south, and having slaves intensified all their worst fears about being able to compete with an industrializing south.

How can anyone possibly believe that's true?

Most Confederate states seceded before Lincoln's inauguration, and his whole campaign trail he kept saying he wasn't trying to free the slaves. He even said it at his inauguration.

>america was oppresive as fuck towards people of color

Nigger, half of all slaves arrived in the 60 years leading to the civil war. Do you understand just how extraordinary it is in the history of human races to go from being a slave in a tribal West African society without literacy, mathematics, philosophy, historical theory, musical theory, painting, and science, to being a slave under Whites, to being FREED into a society that's 3,000 years more advanced, ALL WITHIN A LIFE-TIME?

hundreds of thousands of white men died fighting to free the slaves, but white people are mean and wacist and are the source of all evil

States rights. Dont take my word for it, listen to some old civil fag explain it to you. 13mins in

youtube.com/watch?v=uHDfC-z9YaE

The seceding states literally state that it was about slavery.
civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#Georgia

Mississippi couldn’t be more clear: “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."

inb4 "why do you post this thread every 7 hours?"
die

The scary thing now is we are allowing other bad cultures and races into our society.

At least before we were all the same color and similar cultural background.

>tribal West African society without literacy, mathematics, philosophy, historical theory, musical theory, painting, and science,
what is egypt and islam

>ctrl-f: jews
>0 cases
the fuck is wrong with you today, pol?