So Sup Forums...

So Sup Forums, recently I got into an argument about the civil war with my family and everyone of them except me agreed that the civil war was about slavery. I hold that the civil war was about states rights and how their should be more power to the states.
redpill me on the civil war. I was taught that it was about states rights but everyone tells me I'm wrong.
What was the civil war really fought for, Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

americancivilwar.com/authors/Joseph_Ryan/Articles/Lincoln-Instigated-War/The-Buried-Fact-Record.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

From what I understand the abolishment of slavery was just a way to push the southern states to try and secede so Lincoln could bring them to heel and increase federal control significantly
I think from then on the idea of state identity began to wither away and lead to the national identity you have there today

It was mostily about slavery though.

Yeah it was about a states rights to keeps its way of life and economy secure. Both of which revolved around owning negroes

a state's rights to have slavery that is
or more specifically, the territories and whether they should have slavery or not (everyone is afraid their side will have less states behind their cause)

States rights for the infantrymen, regular folks.
Slavery for the wealthy landowners and very few who actually owned slaves.
Just like today. Economic interests for the wealthy.
Support my country for the regular folks.

>going to war for human rights
>ever

lol

not even once in history there was a war fought over slaves. Except maybe overt owning them. But that's it.

There is a much easier answer to all of this:

Imagine you wake up one day and some guy tells you half of your land is now his and so is half of your income.
Guess what happens next.

From a southern perspective it was probably rights. Which includes the rights to own slaves, but that's a tiny reason. As I said. Nobody goes to war over slaves. Never. Fucking. Ever.

It was about the rights of States. There were plenty of other issues that came to a head during the war between the States, like the idea of a military draft, taxation, etc. And among those rights, one of them was was about the right of a State to allow slavery or not.

Other issues had to do with political representation - the North had a higher population so Southern States were losing political power in the House and new non-slave States were joining which would have led to a loss of power in the Senate. Economics was another huge reason for the South to try and seceded

Slavery was absolutely an important element but it wasn't the only reason and to hyper-focus on it loses sight of all the other reasons that the South decided to try and leave the Union.

I should probably add:
The economic implications of owning slaves is a reason to go to war. But it is not a moralist decision as it is portrayed today.
It's an economic one.

Abe Lincoln didnt give two fucks about black people.

He did the emancipation proclamation as a chess move to keep France or England from backing the south.

Slavery was already out of fashion in those countries. With the emancipation proclamation Lincoln MADE the civil war about slavery.

England and France couldnt get their hands dirty helping the south after that. South had no resources. South choked to death and lost to the north.

The civil war was fought because Southern states seceded from the Union and attacked Union soldiers at Fort Sumter

then the south lost and butthurt Southerners started making shit up about "muh states rights" and "northern agresshun"

it was originally about states' rights. it changed via lincoln's personal shift and b/c it was politically popular in the north to outlaw slavery

>most of north was against slavery as an institution
>south wasn't
>even with the south a small pop, the north couldn't outlaw slavery for all states b/c 10A
>civil war happens
>perfect time to push it thru as only northern states could vote for emancipation
>"since you werent a part of the union, we could pass what we wanted ;)"

It was about states' rights but it also highlighted economic, political, and cultural differences b/w north/south. Lincoln MADE IT about slavery

>the south attacked at fort sumter
>it wasn't lincoln instigating the confederates into firing on the encroaching armada that was warned not to approach countless times ;)

yankee propaganda at its finest

From an outsider's educated perspective...

The money behind the war was was Big Bank's & Manufacturing in the North and Plantation Owners in the South.

It was largely, to them, about resources.

The people who fought for the "Union" were basically streams of migrant hoards who didn't give a shit about the US past getting a free path to citizenship and escaping Potato famines, religious persecution, and general poverty in Europe.

The people who fought for "Dixie" or "The South", believed that State authority trumped Federal authority. They wanted to be able to own their own land and do what they wanted on the land they owned.

>>>>>>Think BrExit.

Britain thought the EU was a good idea for interstate commerce and trade, but soon the EU wanted more and more power to the point British fishermen were no longer allowed to fish.

Britain is now in the process of leaving that cluster fuck.

"The South" thought that "The Union" was great for regulating interstate trade & commerce.

However, the Southern States had no desire to be legally ruled over by some ding-bat in Washington who in no way represented them or had their best interested in mind.

Abraham Lincoln. A complete freak who won in a four way cluster fuck of an election. He was an atheist, sadist and the closest thing the US has had to a dictator.

He thought that it would be fun to kill 1,000,000 Americans in the name of capturing resources and basically making giving the "Federal Government" monarchy like powers over all states.

Under Lincoln, the "United States" were now all "Subjects" of the Washington DC Government.

The civil war had nothing to do with slavery outside of states saying they had the right to make their own laws in regard to slavery.

Americans are just extremely ignorant / poorly educated and get very emotional very quickly about what they "believe". Very depressing.

I really wish the day would come sooner when the world's population was limited down to 500,000,000.

>A fucking leaf making up shit again

Why don´t you go jerk off a horse

While there was a rising abolition movement in the nation at the time...

Most of the northern states were perfectly fine with slavery in the south. The issue was the spread of slavery into the western territories and the effect that spread would have on the balance of power in the federal government. The south wasn't too thrilled about the prospect of becoming a permanent political minority. While Lincoln himself wasn't explicitly an abolitionist, in the past he had expressed sympathies toward that movement. With Lincoln's election in 1860 the south thought, "Well, it's now or never."

Slavery was the "mean of production" in the early-mid 19th century. It wasn't only a source of labor, but a source of capital as well. Almost all wealth in the 19th century was held as credit. Imagine 19th century spreadsheets. There was no Scrooge McDuck treasure room for people to dive into. Hard currency, whether paper or specie was rare. Slaves, or their value, was borrowed against in order to procure loans. The abolitionists were seeking to extinguish the southern economy without any system to replace it.

Many southerners saw and understood the moral conundrum. They simply weren't ready and willing to give up their wealth AND the means to create new wealth. That's saying nothing of demographics. Were these southern whites supposed to be minorities in their own states suddenly surrendering political control to a majority with no knowledge or training to politically or economically order themselves or their states?

you're factually wrong. But I wouldn't expect an inbred to be able to read lincoln's letters and diaries.

He knew shit was brewing in the south and made a promise in his inaugural address to not forego any land but also not use any force. He was warned multiple times but he couldn't let a slight like that slide, so he instigated an attack.

americancivilwar.com/authors/Joseph_Ryan/Articles/Lincoln-Instigated-War/The-Buried-Fact-Record.html

>leaving a frozen-island nigger to learn north american history

It was about state rights vs federal power.

The Confederacy was right and Lincoln is a tyrant falsely portrayed as a hero.

That's not even insulting

I actually would like to jerk off a thick, warm horse cock.

Both of you are wrong. It's about the slaughter of the poor Scots-Irish infantryman by rich, land owning, English-descended officers.

>tfw support the union
>tfw still feel bad for Lee

WEW LAD THAT ID

>sadist
lol what?

(((central banks))) (((money changers))) want to split usa into mulitple countries like europe. there's more control for them and less for us.
see how imf treat greece today?
don't let usa get fractured into multiple countries. lincoln prevented it, bless his heart.

the tldr slavery, economics, is a grade 5 explanation to (((banking)))

hi Ted Turner

also lincoln kicked out the banks and issued his own national currency, the green back. that's why he was killed.
kennedy did the same thing and was killed. same with andrew jackson.
same with hitler, sri lanka, japan, saddam hussien, quadaffi, assad, and iran.

bring it bitches.

Slavery was at the root of many of the cultural and economic differences of the north and south

This.