So, let's get this straight once and for all....
Was the American Civil War fought over slavery or over the federal government's right to interfere in state matters?
I personally support the "state's rights" position since Lincoln clearly stated on several occasions that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave he would do it. Also, he avoided freeing the slaves in Union-allied states.
>>338665
Lincoln fought against state rights, the south fought to preserve and spread (that last part is often overlooked and proves that the south didn't give a fuck about states rights) slavery.
>>338686
>the south didn't give a fuck about states rights
Absolute bullshit. The South, and for that matter the North as well, valued state's rights extremely high. Everyone in that time period did. The North just didn't care as much because slavery was not important to them.
The South fought to "spread" slavery only in the sense that they believed that the new territories deserved the right to vote on whether or not they were a slave state. The federal government had been pushing laws that prevented certain territories from becoming slave states while allowing others to. Most politicians from the South simply wanted to allow them to vote on it.
These laws were put in place because the North was well aware of the fact that many settlers in the West might have been supportive of slavery.
>>338665
>Was the American Civil War fought over slavery or over the federal government's right to interfere in state matters?
yes
The South fought to preserve the institution of slavery. They tried to force measures through the federal government to protect slavery, to force non-slave states to arrest escaped slaves, or to allow slave-owners to use their slaves in non-slave states, but this was not successful.
The North fought to preserve the Union. To control the Mississippi.
The amazing thing is that now all secessionist movements are tarred with the slavery brush. Even suggest that Texas should be allowed to hold a vote on independence, and the most reasonable people start frothing at the mouth.
if you took a random southern soldier out of the line while they were marching north and asked him, he would statistically not own any slaves and would say he was fighting for the souths sovereignty
>>339621
Was this man given a vote on whether to secede and whether to go to war?
>>339637
i dont know, but does it matter with respect to ops question?
>>339637
Well considering there was no public vote on secession, no.
However it wasn't as if that soldier was drafted either.
>>339645
The South fought to preserve their right to keep slaves, that is the reason their leadership gave for seceding, for fighting, and I believe them.
The two sides fought for different reasons. It was not a Civil War, it was a War of Independence where the side that wanted independence was defeated.
>>339648
The average soldier fought for his home, wherever that was, more rarely for the ideal that they could one day own a slave, or that there should not be slavery.
>>339637
That man probably had an opportunity to vote on a local delegate to send to a state succession convention.
>>339648
Actually, the CSA instituted the draft before the Federals did. So it was extremely likely he was drafted.
>>338665
Both. There were federalist undertones, but by far the most pressing issue was that of slavery. The south wasn't against using the federal government to enforce slave-state-friendly legislation. See: Fugitive slave Acts.
>>338665
Why were zouave uniforms so shit?
>>341122
Zouave's look pretty fly tho.
I've always been partial to the Iron Brigade look personally.
>>338686
>Lincoln fought against state rights
Actually, Lincoln wasn't going to do jack shit. South jumped the gun.
