Was it about slavery or was it about states' rights?

It was about justice.

>>17866944 (OP)
South wanted to preserve slavery, North wanted to crush states' rights.

>secede from england citing economic and political disenfranchisement, based around oppressive import/export duties and massive inflation and usury
>create sovereign states that can do whatever they want based on the preexisting colonies
>crap we need more power to fight the british, lets form a union to centralize command of our military
>okay but as long as states are still sovereign
>yeah sure
>fast forward 20 years
>okay we're going to start economically and politically disenfranchising you based around oppressive import/export duties and massive inflation and usury
>south: ....

Both but more about crushing states rights.

>>17866944 (OP)
>>17866963
South wanted to preserve slavery by crushing states rights

>>17866944 (OP)
It was about Buck Breaking.

>>17866963
South wanted to preserve State's Right to choose the North wanted to end Slavery.

both can be true and were historically so.
the question of slavery begged the question of state vs federal government sovereignty
the war answered.
“these united States” died.
The United States was born.

>>17866944 (OP)
It was about states’ rights… to have slavery.
>Our new government['s]...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.

Here's the question I think everyone should be asking instead of "was it about slavery or states' rights?"...

Would the Civil War have occurred without slavery?

Let's say slavery winds up being outlawed at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 after George Washington gave some really impassioned speech advocating abolition that swayed everyone to vote for it on the spot. Would the Civil War still eventually happen due to other issues that would still have been relevant such as Nullification or people getting mad over taxes (which triggered the the Whiskey and Shay Rebellions that presaged the Civil War)?

>>17867360
>>17866944 (OP)
>>17866960
>>17867309
It was aout Slavery
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
>For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

Dixoids who say it wasn't are dishonest and/or don't even know or understand the failed-state that they continue choosing to back
Slavery is abolished in the North
Wealthy slave owners move to southern states
Southern politics become dominated by wealthy slave owners in an attempt to protect their interests
It's really not that hard to understand

>>17867368
Also notable is the lack of presence of words like “tariffs” in the secession documents, which the revisionists claim was the real reason for the war.

In my opinion people who can’t grasp what the civil war was about are the same as the Africans who believe Mozart was black because of some facebook meme (which civil war revisionists no doubt find hilarious, which it is to be fair).

>>17866944 (OP)
The South wanted to maintain the institution of slavery because it gave them political power through population. The election of Lincoln and the end of new slave states was seen as the beginning of the end of slavery and therefore a decline in their political power.

>>17867403
Also because they liked it. And they correctly believed freeing millions of enslaved people who they had not been the kindest to would be a major problem.

>>17867360
Not having slavery would create a ton of butterfly effects, without slavery the south wouldn't be able to compete with the north with cheap slave labor and would be forced to industrialize faster to keep up. The northern-southern cultural divide would likely not exist or much less pronounced. Demographically there would be less black people and racism wouldn't be as big of an issue, there would likely never be segregation or Jim Crow policies. Most likely the Civil War would not happen but American history would be completely different so it's impossible to know for sure.

>>17867414
>without slavery the south wouldn't be able to compete with the north with cheap slave labor
But that's wrong
A slave-driven economy is bad for economic growth for the simply fact that the salves that contribute to the economy cannot participate in it.
Slavery wasn't about some broad economic idealism, it was about the slave owners themselves, slave owners made more money at the expense of literally everyone else involved. That's why it was abolished in the North in favor of industrialism, because it just makes more economic sense, but for slave owners, this was obviously a threat to their bottom line specifically, hence why they chose to defend it to the bitter end.

>>17867120
Buck status?

>>17867368
If the South had seceded for any reason, there would have been war.
If a legislative compromise had been reached allowing slavery to continue, there would not have been war.

>>17866944 (OP)
>*US declare independence on UK*
FUCK YEAH MUH FREEDOM
>*south declares independence on US*
WAIT NO NO NO NO YOU CAN'T JUST DO THAT NOOOOOO

>>17867503
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/
>No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
You lost Cleetus

we've been over this, anon

>>17867542
The CSA were insurrectionists because their independence was never recognized. The US operated under the idea that they were just temporarily taken over by violent retards and despite their best efforts they could not gain international recognition. The Patriots during the American revolution for example gained recognition by France and Morocco during the Revolutionary war. The South couldn't because nobody wanted to associate with a slave owning state at that point. You're trying desperately to make the Southern cause out to be the same as the revolutionaries but it just isn't.

>>17867360
>Would the Civil War have occurred without slavery?
THE civil war that we talk about? no of course not. could A civil war have occurred? yeah, there's no reason to assume the us would've been a happy utopia had slavery been abolished from the get go.

>>17867503
you either win your war of independence or get executed as traitors, thats how it always has been and always will be
the 13 colonies won and the confederates lost. moral arguments are irrelevant

>>17867368
>it was about slavery
you say this because you want to condemn the South and slavery is a slander.
Slavery isnt wrong, and blacks have not earned their freedom.
>dixoids
you are anti-White
>dishonest
its not dishonest, numerous letters state they just didnt want foreign men occupying their homes.
>failed-state
Failed state has a proper definition, most africans produce failed States, the South was not a failed state.
Slavery wasnt "absolished in the North", Northern slave states still existed.
>>17867481
They did reach a legislative compromise allowing slavery, the South still seceded.

>>17867421
>slaves can not participate
so what? They dont participate when theyre free anyway lol
>it does not grow
It does, it actually was more productive than free blacks.
slave-driven economies, which the South wasnt, work.
Having slavery does not make an economy slave-driven.
>slave owners made money at the expense of literally everyone
They didnt.
You want to frame them as the "Hitler" of capitalism vs labor.
Slavery is a much more humane and friendly form of vertical integration for races who's genetic IQ ceiling is in the low 90s.
>thats why it was abolished
It was abolished literally because of moral reasons because Whites are bizarrely the only race on the planet who actually take morality seriously.
>defend it to the bitter end
They defended their homes to the bitter end, not slavery.
If they were all so tied to slavery theyd have moved to a slave country like Brazil, instead we see only a fraction leaving the country, the vast majority it seems did not care about slavery as much as they cared about preserving their homeland.

Slavery isnt a bad economic form, it avoids the problems of our current economy, and its not morally wrong, every people has practiced it throughout history.

Unless you want to prove God and therefore objective morality, you can not raise any objective to slavery.
Furthermore, blacks flourish MORE under slavery than attempting to conform to modern society.
Its a moral imperative to maintain a benevolent form of slavery such as what the American South possesed.

>>17867552
Nobody wanted to help the south because Russia was threatening a world war if they did

>>17867963
>They did reach a legislative compromise allowing slavery, the South still seceded.
Obviously not a compromise that made the South consider staying in the Union though.

>>17868212
Or maybe the fact this actually happened and they still seceded means it wasn’t driven solely by slavery.

>>17866944 (OP)
It happened because of Tariffs, actually.

Beautiful tariffs other countries paid to the USA. The South couldn't deal with how hard the USA was winning, so it started a war. Very bad people. They should've just paid the tariffs.

>>17868261
It was about railroads

>>17868279
Fact of the matter is, it probably was, capitalist industrial progressives hailing by Prussia and Scotland from the North coming into conflict with the traditional English liberals of the South, it was a contradiction that had to be resolved. Angolems being prone to chimpouts was merely a catalyst. It didn’t necessarily need to go hot but it’s easy to see how the race that produced FDR and Churchill would immediately take it to a level of unreasonable violence especially when faced with Nordic Excellence.

>>17866944 (OP)
Alway states right.

>>17868321
Are you implying that the South was Nordic? That's the most retarded thing I've read here

>>17868321
The north was going to use their tariff money to build a massive cross country railroad that wasn't going to connect anywhere to the south

>>17866944 (OP)
Mutts, do it again please. That war was absolutely kino. They wanted to mimic Europe so bad.

>>17867963
>you say this because you want to condemn the South
>Slavery isnt wrong
Retards will say this yet would never want to be enslaved themselves. You're an aphant that cannot picture the apple.

Yes.

>>17866944 (OP)
States' right to be horrible pieces of shit and practice slavery.

>>17869673
Wasn't technology making it obsolete anyway?

>>17869700
The opposite. It was on the decline until industrialization brought its numbers back up.

By the way, there are more slaves today in the world than back then. Technology doesn't prevent slavery

>>17866944 (OP)
States rights to own slaves

>>17869656
Nice try. Europe wanted to mimic America

>>17866944 (OP)
The North very easily could have deescalated at Fort Sumter but decided not to because Lincoln didn’t want to look weak and the Northern press was out for blood. Remember, that before Sumter, the rest of the south hadn’t seceded yet. Their libtard bloodthirst over a purely military installation in the middle of the Charleston harbor led to the entire upper south seceding and thus the beginning of the Civil War. Otherwise, the war would have been much smaller in scale or perhaps not even happened at all.

>Muh slavery
This isn’t Reddit. Moral arguments about slavery don’t mean anything here. The fact that the Deep South decided to secede when they realized they lost all electoral power when they could’ve coup’d the government instead and installed a planter dictatorship is honestly quite a lot of restraint for a government in the 19th century Americas.

>>17869810
>This isn’t Reddit. Moral arguments about slavery don’t mean anything here.
Do you want to be a slave?
No?
Then slavery is wrong
>they could’ve coup’d the government instead and installed a planter dictatorship
They seceded because they knew that would never work. Most of the American population in general lived in Northern Free states, they were outnumbered. Secession was basically their only option and they carried it out because wealthy slave owners in an attempt to protect their interest had infested Southern politics like a disease

>>17869782
>Nice try. Europe wanted to mimic America
America was a 3rd world shithole until the late 1800s, you are fooling nobody.

>>17869821
Why not just let them secede and have their planter government then?

>Slavery is wrong
Not saying it’s good but I’m not gonna moralfag over it like a redditor. Otherwise we’d have to judge every historical conflict going back to Sumer based on how le good one side treated its slaves.

>>17869850
>Why not just let them secede and have their planter government then?
1.) Insurrection is against the law according to the constitution, and the CSA never gained recognition by any foreign or domestic powers, thus they were treated by Northern states as such
2.) Lincolns justification was that if states could unilaterally secede, then there would be no point in even having a federal union of states to begin with
3.) The Rebels started the war when they fired on Fort Sumter
4.) States like Kentucky were basically pressured into joining the Confederates against their own will as rebels were threatening violence if they didn't

>>17869857
>Insurrection is against the law
The American Revolution was also against British law. Laws are social constructs.

>No point in a federal union
If people hate the Union so much that it needs to be held together by force of arms then perhaps that Union is fucked from the beginning, and honestly the current political divisions in the US kind of prove that.

>Rebels started the war when they fired on Fort Sumter
One could easily say the federals started the war when they kept resupplying a purely military installation within the Charleston harbor.
>Kentucky
Kentucky declared itself to be neutral but mostly sided with the North throughout the war. By contrast, Missouri and Maryland were actually forced to stay in the union against their will by armed force.

>>17866944 (OP)
>Was it about slavery or was it about states' rights?

For the South it was about the states' right to practice slavery.
For the North it was about holding the union together and not letting the states do whatever the fuck they wanted, degrade the authority of the federal government, and create a situation where every state thought they could just betray them at their own convenience.

I feel like this is an important distinction to make because the North's long-term plan was simply better than the Souths' idea about what they "'oughta be doing", and would have turned them into Brazil or even smaller balkanized states that America and Mexico would eventually get around to picking apart. The "state right vs slavery" argument ignores the reality that the South was just holistically making a bad decision.

>>17869821
I dont want to pay taxes, I dont want to be told what to do, I dont want to restrain myself from smacking a tard who says something stupid.
Are those things all morally wrong? Is the moral solution to someone saying something pants-on-head stupid to smack them because thats what I am feeling at that moment?

Your framework for morality is that of a child... or a negro.

>>17869663
I dont want to keep myself from punching you in the face 20 times, am I immoral for going against my personal interest in punching you?
Your post perfectly encapsulates negro morality - its whatever you personally feel like at the moment, literally "I did have dinner last night" moment.

>>17869912
states' rights is about states having sovereignty. the constitution codifies slavery. They had had just enough and wanted to be left alone. The north didn't lift a single finger to try and resolve the issue peacefully. Actually they sent terrorists to kill people

both, honestly.

>>17869926
Would you want to be punched in the face yourself?