"The Civil War was started over slavery"

>"The Civil War was started over slavery"
Does anyone else get upset when this is stated? Especially when a professor or teacher teaches it as an absolute truth

It sort of was.
I mean not really. But slave dosh played a MAJOR role.

people just don't get it, slavery was not abolished for noble heroic reasons, slaves just became obsolete as machinery and industry developed

What was it started over?

no.

it was an issue, but it was more of an "oh yeah and this too" kind of thing. it would have happened even if slavery ended under washington.

Schools don't really teach the real reasons for conflicts or accurate history for that matter. I don't even think it's a conspiracy or anything, it would just take way too long and people not studying to become historians don't really have time to learn the real reasons.
Much easier to teach
>WW2 started because hitler was evil and wanted to genocide literally everyone
>US Civil War started over slavery

>a professor or teacher
>teaches
EL OH EL

I mean I could have phrased it differently. It was over the rights of the states, including the right to secede from the Union. If the north abolished slavery overnight it would have ruined the southern economy
[spoiler]Unless I'm wrong in which case someone correct me[/spoiler]

This is probably the cringiest, hardest to defend of the common alt-right arguments. To say that slavery wasn't at the heart of the north-south cultural divide is totally ignorant of history.

The Civil War was started over slavery. Rednecks like to say "states rights", but it's the states rights to have slavery.

States don't have the right to destroy the union.

Read the secessionist papers man. Read fucking almost every historical document concerning slavery at the time.

The war WAS over slavery, and that shouldn't mean the South should be any more ashamed of that glorious past.

That's what I don't get to.

What worries me the most was that the confederates would of restarted the slave trade and imported enough blacks to turn it into South Africa 2.0

>States don't have the right to destroy the union.
Except they literally do.

Your union can go fuck itself, the US is not a single country, and you federalist cunts will never make it so.

Best post

Yes you can say state rights, but that was the state rights to own slaves.

northern troops not evicting from southern forts.

seccession was (still is) a recognized ability in the new york, maryland, virginia, and conneticut state constitution, and was a major stipulation to new york ratifying the constitution.

seccession happened because some states belived in the practice of nullification, whereas some didnt, this is related to deciding whether the states or the feds held the power in the us, and is commonly referred to as "states rights".

No, they literally don't. Stop smoking meth and fucking your sister, dude.

Go to Civics class, you stupid millennial.

>Civil war wasn't about slavery

I love this meme

1. The civil war occurred because the southern states tried to secede from the union.

2. They tried to secede from the union due to the North's attempts to abolish slavery.

The end.

>the US isn't a single country

How stupid are you?

the north only threatened to ban slavery after the south had already started seceding to try to scare them into coming back

Unilateral secession is unconstitutional. Secession could be possible if all states consent to it

There were monetary reasons and financial reasons. If I remember correctly there were some serious disagreements over money issue and banking. I'll look it up and try to post more details in a few minutes.

Lincoln only freed the slaves because he needed bodies because he was losing the war.

Then why did thye secede?

The civil war was mainly about states rights to slavery, so yes it was about slavery even if it was states rights

Slavery was the primary cause of the South's secession, but the South's secession was what caused the Civil War. It's easy to get cause and effect mixed up here: Even if slavery had not been an issue, the North still would have waged a Civil War for its own national interests. The idea that the Civil War was fought "to free the slaves" was Northern propaganda: Truthfully, the reason the South had slaves and the North didn't is because of their respectively agrarian and industrial societies. Slavery would have ended naturally in the South as they progressed technologically, because in an industrial society, it's beneficial to have workers that are also consumers. It wasn't really a "moral" thing at all on behalf of the North.

No. The war was fought over the right to secede.

Because the federalists wanted a single entity to control every state, kind of like what the EU is trying to do.

Didn't the south come close to the end of the war due to manpower shortages/Gen. Lee? Or is that false

The causal chain can go as far back as you want. The only relevant "cause" is the proximate cause of the war, which is the right to secede.

Otherwise you can go back and blame Columbus for the war because he discovered the Americas, and the Civil War wouldn't have occurred but for Columbus discovering America.

>Columbus discovered America

I don't really buy the 'slavery would have ended naturally' meme. The South was willing to split the country and go to war over their right to keep it. If they were so worried about the economic effects of abolishing it, you would think they might also have been concerned about the economic effects of civil war.

slavery was an issue, but it was not the first, nor the most important. slave ownership was to the civil war as "the children" are to gun control. it got the public in a panic and got the polititians what they really wanted, which was primarilly different tarriff and import/export regulations. specifically ones that that were highly profitable to the cotton farming, cargo fleet sailing, slave owning, office holding, southern elite.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
--Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The U.S. Constitution is silent on secession. Ergo it falls under States rights.

So it was just a coincidence that all the slave states rebelled and all the free states didn't?

>Does anyone else get upset when this is stated? Especially when a professor or teacher teaches it as an absolute truth

It was though.

Southerners felt that Lincoln was going to outlaw slavery through 1000 cuts (which he probably would have tried to do), destroying their livelihood and prosperity.
When they lost the election due to the north's superior numbers, the south chimped out and left the Union completely, which probably would have allowed them to balkanise had they not done the ultimate chimpout and attacked the Union first, allowing the Union to declare war with a good propaganda boost for a fight that Northerners didn't especially believe in.

The emancipation proclamation came later on when Lincoln needed an righteous ideal for the northerners to fight for, since at that point the war seemed like a needless waste of life to northerners.

In short, the South fucked themselves by attacking a much more powerful enemy first and then not beating them. If they had allowed a cold war to develop and forced the Union to strike first or not at all, the Confederacy would probably still exist.

This.

Prior to the war, people would use the phrasing "The United States are..."; only after would they say "the United States is..."

It was about Northern federal cont....

You know what aus? Stay stupid

What I said comes from your Supreme Court who's job is constitutional interpretation.

ding ding correct answer

>Australian shitposters trying to tell us about our own Civil War

Give me a fucking break you morons. Go talk about your Emu War or whatever your schools teach you.

They had slaves in the north too, not as many, but they had them.

Texas v. White was wrongly decided.

What is kentucky and west virginia

>interpretation
well there you go

>Uneducated Amerifat doesn't understand his own history or legal system
>Gets rekt by an Australian with superior intellect
>S-S-SHITPOSTER! EMU WAR!

>Get schooled on his own history by a forienger.
>MUH EMU WAR

I can see there's probably more than a little drop of negro in your admixture there, m8e.

>No slave is allowed to be free unless all the other slaves and the master agree to it
Epic, simply epic.

The North had slaves AFTER the south did, chronologically.

Why are we even debating US history and law with foreign shitposters who know nothing?

>Forgetting Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware were all slave states and part of the union
Maybe you didn't forget and you're just fucking stupid.

Ok I gues you would know better than the Supreme Court

If wasn't for the north we wouldn't have this spook promblem, Kings ya know.

>foreign shitposters get triggered by the Emu War

Every time. Too bad it's the only relevant military history your shit country has.

The war was over secession, secession was legal, deal with it fags.

>le Supreme Court is always right meme XDDDDD

Yes yes, tell me more about Plessy v. Ferguson.

It did. Niggers aren't humans thus can be owned as property.

It's one of those rare things where the ultimate bluepill is also the ultimate redpill. It was started over southern states' right to own slaves.

But the other state rebelled specifically to protect the institution of slavery.

You can cite "States Rights", but it was the right of states to own slaves. You can cite "Discontent with Lincoln not getting any Southern votes", but Lincoln didn't get too many Southern votes specifically because he was feared to be a quasi-abolitionist. And you can state "Cultural differences from the North", but those differences ultimately stemmed from the planter economy.

not all the slave states left.
not all the free states stayed voluntarilly.

the first state to ever threaten secession wasnt even a future confederate state, that title goes to maryland when it wanted to introduce import taxes to goods travelling across state lines. maryland was in debt, new york had its crops fail, virginia had surplus crops. I think you get where that went.

The Supreme court is by definition always right because they are the last fucking word until they overturn their own decisions or the law is changed.

It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not, what they say is the law is the law.

Not per the U.S. Constitution. The role of the Supreme Court is to regulate disputes between the Executive and Legislative branch. Checks and balances. No where in the U.S. Constitution does it state the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution. Otherwise, the Federal government would be dictating how much (unlimited) power it can have.

Marbury v. Madison is the case where the Supreme Court (unconstitutionally) seized this power. They continue to hold it via force majeure.

Yes, slavery was the primary issue. The abolition of slavery is why the southern states seceded, it's why they went to war.

People like to argue that "but it was over state rights" or some bullshit without actually researching the civil war because they don't want to support an institution that wanted slavery or they don't want to believe their home states fought to preserve slavery.

If you took 30 seconds to sit and think about what you just wrote, you would realize how stupid it is.

The war was fought over the right to secede, roach.

west virginia didnt exist during the war and is a perfect example of the norths hypocracy on the issue of seccession.

>The war was over secession, secession was legal, deal with it fags.
Secession is a priori treason. Treason is a criminal offense. Ergo, secession is illegal.

But why, pray tell, did the states seek to exercise their claimed right to secession? Just for the fuck of it?

>The U.S. Constitution is silent on secession.
I take it you didn't read things like "a more perfect Union" or Article I's "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation?"

Or as stated by CJ Chase:
>The authority for the performance of the first had been found in the power to suppress insurrection and carry on war; for the performance of the second, authority was derived from the obligation of the United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government. The latter, indeed, in the case of a rebellion which involves the government of a State and for the time excludes the National authority from its limits, seems to be a necessary complement to the former.

it was over states right

the state's right to decide if slavery was legal

it was about slavery you fucking leaf.

...which they wanted to do because of the slavery issue

Secession is not treason ding dong.

It was over the states' right to secede. Try again.

I'm serving for your freedom in Incirlik, faggot.

And slavery existed because people wanted cotton. Why did people want cotton? To make clothes. Why did people want clothes? To not be naked.

Wow, people not wanting to be naked was a factual cause of the Civil War!

You morons need to learn the difference between factual and proximate causation.

Fuck off and die Yankee scum.

Judicial Review isn't illegal retard. It's the natural derivation of the power granted in the Constitution. They have to resolve disputes between legal officials, as in Marbury V. Madison. In order to do so, they had to refer to the law- IE, the Constitution. And they had to rule that the Constitution did not grant the power of Writs of Mandanus.

It was over slavery though, or more specifically, the financial aspect of slavery.

The South was making bank not having to pay people money for labor, and the North didn't like it.

So they wanted to add tariffs and tax the fuck out of the South so they weren't such stiff competition. That pissed the South off and they began with that "muh state's rights" stuff.

It was over slavery, but I would say it was more about money. The Revolutionary War was over money too. "Wahhh these taxes are too high. We're gonna secede!" *couple decades later taxes are even higher* Way to go, Patriots!

Gee, if only we had some kind of great dialogue at some point in this country's history to resolve that argument. Oh wait, we did. You can eat a cock sister-fucker, secession is not legal in this country.

Wow, judicial review is legitimate because judicial review says it's legitimate!

Ever heard of bootstrapping you dumb fuck?

And the states wanted to secede primarily over the issue of slavery

Have you ever read Hamilton or Montesquieu?

If you had you would know a little more about the separation of powers inherent to the US constitution

Secession is 100% granted as a right by the Constitution.

And slavery was because people wanted cotton. OMG, the Civil War was fought over cotton!

>muh factual causation

Might as well blame the parents of OJ Simpson for the murders he committed, because without them the murders wouldn't have happened.

Oh wait, OJ was found not guilty, and courts are always correct just like Texas v. White :^)

>this is the kind of cuck that will grow up to be allowed to vote
>this is the kind of cuck that will give the fed more power in someone's state

see
THE RIGHT OF SECCESSION WAS A PIMARY STIPULATION TO NEW YORK RATIFYING THE CONSTITUTION, WHITHOUT CLARIFICATION ON THAT RIGHT EXISTING, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE RATIFIED.

IT IS STILL A RECOGNIZED RIGHT OF THE STATE TO THIS DAY AS PER THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION.

When the States seceded they were no longer part of the Union. They were no longer States subordinate to the Federal government.

>Secession is not treason ding dong.
Holy shit you must have nigger level IQ

>trea·son
>ˈtrēzən
>noun
>The crime of betraying one's country... or overthrow the government.
Hmm... what would you call literally declaring the country's authority null and void in a specific territory? And levying war against the Sovereign?

>an Australian shitposter asking if I've read Hamilton or Montesquieu

Insulting. Secession was legal and judicial review is a sham.

No, the Constitution necessitates that the power of Constitutional review resides in the Judiciary. When there is a disagreement between the Legislature and the Executive over what the Constitution means when making law (legislating) based upon the powers in the Constitution and applying the law (executing) based upon powers in the Constitution you believe we shouldn't have anyone interpreting the Constitution? Or that either the Legislature or Executive is a more constitutionally sound source of interpretations of the Constitution?

>The war was over secession

And the southern states seceded because they believed that Lincoln was going erode their slavery laws. How fucking brain dead are you, lad?

>Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware

The Union slave states stayed on because they shared borders with the non-slave states of the union and saw seceding as a strong economic and military risk since they would have been on the front lines of any sort of union agitation or offensive, particularly since their states already had anti-slavery sentiments and they could have faced internal conflict and aggitation, had they seceded.
Staying in the Union allowed them to keep their slaves for the time being, while also protecting them from Union aggression. Their failure to secede was 100% realpolitik in action.
What do they even teach you at school?

Yes Slavery was a means to an end, but the contentious question of the day was about the means, not the end.

Secede in response to slavery laws they didn't agree with. Stop being such a fucking apologist. Southerners were asspained that the majority of people in the union didn't want slavery to exist (and they were right) so they thought they could pick up their ball and go home. Revisionism isn't always a good thing.

The legislature and executive have as much of a right to interpret the Constitution as the judicial branch does you stupid faggot.

>When the States seceded they were no longer part of the Union.
Then the part of the Constitution that prevents states from forming treaties, alliances, etc. was just empty words as the state could just seceded whenever it wants to and form an alliance or confederation?

It seems you overlook the how the Constitution actually functions in a desperate search for specific dicta.

Expansion of slavery to the west, states' rights and the ethics and moral debate of slavery, in that order.

What is the point when all three branches are working together to screw the states?

>all these idiots admitting that secession was the cause of the war but still trying to pretend that slavery was the cause

Two cavemen fucking thousands of years ago was the cause of the Civil War too!

>judicial review is a sham.

Ok, just give all power to the executive and legislature. What could go wrong?

>The legislature and executive have as much of a right to interpret the Constitution
How do you come to that conclusion? Simple understanding of the conflict of interests would undermine that position.

Overstepping enumerated powers is illegal.

So how do you propose the Supreme Court resolve disputes over the Constitution if no one is able to say what anything actually means? Because literally any ruling as regards the Constitution could be considered "illegal interpretation". If they don't have the power to make any ruling regarding the constitution, they can't do their fucking job as prescribed in the Constitution.

>This is what confedefags actually believe

>Get BTFO
>M.. Maybe if I just say it again they'll agree with me??

>Secession is 100% granted as a right by the Constitution.
[Citation Needed]

What does this question have to do with the point about the power of constitutional review being structurally integrated into the Judicial branch? Simply airing your anti-federalism feelings regardless of the point?

Actually they don't.

Why is it that the biggest 'muh constitution' fanatics seem to know less about the constitution than a random Australian shitposter on a Tibetan basket weaving enthusiasts forum?

missoiri and kentucky stayed because lincoln immediate sent troops into the states after declaring martial law and arresting a majority of those states politicians.

they did not stay voluntarilly.

Goddamn right. This country is far better united under a strong federal government than it would be if it were split up into squabbling petty states.

Strawman.

Courts can make whatever ruling they want. Other branches don't have to follow or enforce it. Congress could get rid of the federal courts if it wanted to.

I am actually an attorney (shocking I know), so if you dumb fucks had gone through law school and spent years reading up on this stuff it would be more valuable talking to you.