So tell me /his/
Was the American civil war about freeing the slaves or were other motives behind it?
it wasn't so much that the north was trying to free the slaves as it was the south breaking away because they feared the federal government would end slavery, and thus cripple their economy. the war was then fought to end the rebellion, and the slaves were freed in the process
oh good its this thread again
>>421522
It was about states rights...
To own people as property.
Because that's what built the Southern economy
>>421522
Freeing the slaves was a big part of it, especially in the later parts of the war, but it was not the only reason. To your average Confederate soldier it was about repelling Northern invaders who invaded your country. Most didn't own slaves. In fact, many Confederate generals were either opposed to or uncomfortable with slavery, but fought anyways. In the North most were fighting to preserve the Union. Lincoln initially feared losing more states/volunteers if he made the war about freeing slaves.
The South seceded because they felt the North was infringing on their state's rights to self governance. A major aspect of these state's rights, as they saw it, was slavery. So even though people today say the war wasn't about slaves but state's rights, slavery was a major factor in these rights.
tldr: Pretty much
>>421571
Yeah it was Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. At the start of the war, slavery wasn't illegal where it previously existed. It was up to the states themselves to revoke slavery. New states got to vote on whether or not they would become slave states. It didn't turn out so well (See Bleeding Kansas).
>>421573
But doesnt that make it unjust for the North to declare war on the South, not to mention all the atrocities?
Lincoln wrote extensively that as President of the United States, his sole purpose was to maintain and preserve the union.
Lincoln literally wrote that if he could preserve the Union by freeing all slaves, he would do it - and that if he could preserve the Union by freeing NO slaves he would do it too.
While slavery was a major issue, the threat of secession by the south was the driving factor of the Civil War
>>421592
>But doesnt that make it unjust for the North to declare war on the South
Maybe, but even if it was completely legal and justified for the South to secede and form its own nation, it still was the one to declare war by attacking US Federal territory on Fort Sumter.
>not to mention all the atrocities?
There were atrocities on both sides.
>>421571
Some Union states did. Lincoln didnt want to abolish slavery before the Union had practically won the war because he was scared those states would leave the Union. One of those states was Maryland and Virginia was already part of the confederacy, so you can figure out why that was a big deal.
>>421592
In the eyes of North they were trying to keep the country together. Suppressing rebellions wasn't a controversial concept at the time. To the Southern states, many didn't really see the United States as a country, more of an organization. They saw it like "If we joined this union of states, we can leave it was well." Many Southerners saw the war as the "Second American Revolution."
>>421592
All depends on whether you see them it a rebellion or a clean separation of equAL members in a union.
>>421606
This seems to rather skip around the point.
Why was there a threat of succession from the South?
The people trying to make it not about slavery are BTFO because the truth every single state that seceded gave a statement as to exactly why they did it.
Every single one of them gave slavery as the reason.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html?referrer=https://www.google.co.uk/
The cause of the civil war was disunion, and every reason for disunion had its roots in slavery.
>>421657
Exactly.
>>421657
Bingo, nice and simple. It was a war of principals. These principals were on the line because of slavery.
>>421522
As a people we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race
-William T. Thompson
Lincoln wasn't fighting against slavery specifically
but the south was fighting for it
>>421607
Fort Sumter is in South Carolina. The union had no right to hold that base if South Carolina seceded. If any case it certainly wasn't an act of aggression, it was an act of preemptive self defense. To allow a foreign country to have a military base there is an affront to the sovereignty of South Carolina.
>>421667
They were also starving, killing, and burning their supposed countrymen. That'd make any man fight.
>>421689
It's just part of total war, even though its horrible. You could argue that if the Union hadn't done it the war might have lasted longer. But you're right, it did drive a lot of Southerners to enlist.
>>421644
The threat of secession by the Confederacy was the driving factor behind the Civil War. That is not skipping around the point, rather it is the point. The formal declarations and military actions taken at Sumter and others were not directly tied to slavery and marked the beginning of the Civil War.
>>421657
So if there can be found any reason for disunion that was not directly tied to slavery (constitutionality of secession, territorial claims, tariff laws) I suppose your claim would be false then?
>>421666
Unfortunately history can't be condensed into the "nice and simple" frame that we all would prefer
>>421522
Preservation of the Union.
>>421704
Southern Aristocracy clearly orchestrated the Civil War.
To the common man, the non-slave owner, it was a war of northern aggression.
>>421707
>The threat of secession by the Confederacy was the driving factor behind the Civil War.
And the threat of secession was due to slavery.
>The formal declarations and military actions taken at Sumter and others were not directly tied to slavery and marked the beginning of the Civil War.
They were directly tied to slavery.
>>421707
>Unfortunately history can't be condensed into the "nice and simple" frame that we all would prefer
Surely, but it's the best short statement on it I can find.
>>421717
These principals and ideas were called together because of slavery. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.
>>421534
>South starts the war because they fear their slaves will be taken away
>Only ends with slavery ending even faster than if the war didn't happen in the first place
Ebin, simply ebin.
>>421592
Considering the fact that secession is unconstitutional and the South attacked first, no.
>>421723
>These principals and ideas were called together because of slavery.
I'm not necessarily saying the whole thing is simple, but it is all directly tied to slavery, as you appear to be conceding.
>>421677
Well since secession is unconstitutional, your whole point is moot anyways.
Sherman did nothing wrong.
>>421677
>Fort Sumter is in South Carolina.
No, for the last time, it isn't, and hasn't been since 1836, by the mutual agreement of the South Carolina state legislature and the Federal Government.
> "Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
>"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
>"In Senate, December 21st, 1836
South Carolina (and thus its successor state in the Confederate States of America) had NO CLAIM to Fort Sumter, by their own agreement. It was South Carolina that had no legal right to the fort.
>If any case it certainly wasn't an act of aggression, it was an act of preemptive self defense.
Just like the Japanese invasion of Pearl Harbor and the Philippines was an act of preemptive self-defense?
>
North had the population to control the government. South had the economy to pay the bills of the government. Over the decades the North kept squeezing the South. While the South just wanted the new territories and states to be half slave too, to keep at least some power through the senate.
Then the North started being the economically dominate one. Using all those Irish as cheap labor in the factories. South was heading towards ruin no matter what. Then the 1860 election happened. Where no one in the slave states voted for the president that won.
So the South decided that they might as well go all in and fight for their independence. To keep their economy and political power.
>>421677
Fort Sumter existed on federal property adjacent to South Carolina before the Confederate States of America even existed. The idea that somehow a newly independent nation is justified in seizing the property of its neighbor on the mere basis of geographic proximity holds no grounds whatsoever under any international conventions of the day, or of modern times.
>>421571
Several Union states did. The Civil War really wasn't about slavery. When the war started, the Union had no intention of freeing all the slaves. Sure, they didn't want it to spread much more (because that would give the South more power) but they were more than happy to let the people who agreed with them own slaves. Lincoln himself said if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave he would do it.
So really it's a combination of both. Both the North and South were assholes in their own ways. I'm more inclined to side with the South because they were more supportive of smaller state governments instead of bending over and letting the Fed fuck them in the ass. That and I'm a romantic and the Lost Cause appeals to me in a way
>>421677
Doesnt matter because Fort Sumter is fed property. If there is a CIA base in your neighborhood the home owners association cant evict them. Niether can North Carolina.
>>421745
Yes.
Saying that it was all southern slavery tends to be very misleading to people who don't get it like you and I.
Good video about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4
Thread music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jREUrbGGrgM
>>421858
>PragerU
Yeah, no.
>>421963
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdIGFOGzjJ8
more suited to your picture innit
>>422052
"But Erin's sons did loudly cry; "We'll die before we'll kneel!""
Crazy to think there were Irishmen on both sides of the American Civil War
>>422080
It's interesting to see marching songs from the two sides to the same tune
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQqO2x39FLs
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEma66TAseg
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir,
(...)
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." 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. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
>>422420
Is Lincoln not the most important voice in discussion about the American Civil War?
>>422430
Not particularly, because the Southerners seceded before he had been inaugurated and attacked federal land before he had taken any substantive action to reunite the states. The most important voice are those who took the first steps to separation and the first steps to open war, those of the South. And those were pretty explicit regarding whether it was about slavery.
>>422430
Not really. Lincoln wasn't calling for secession and Lincoln didn't start the war.
>>422581
>viewpoint
It's not really a viewpoint, it's a fact.
South Carolina seceded on December 24, 1860, Lincoln didn't was not president until March 1861.
>and attacked federal land before he had taken any substantive action to reunite the states.
I don't think there is a single source that suggests Fort Sumter was not the first act of war in the Civil War. And see >>421760 if you want to argue that the land on which South Carolina rested belonged at any point after 1836 to South Carolina or it wasn't United States land.
>The most important voice are those who took the first steps to separation and the first steps to open war
Given there would be no war if there was no secession, it comes to reason that individuals who knew secession may have come to war chose to do so.
>And those were pretty explicit regarding whether it was about slavery
Again, fact, not a viewpoint. See >>421644
>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
>>421522
>Was the American civil war about freeing the slaves
Mary mother of kek fuck no; it was just a bitter fight prompted by economic issues and slavery was incidental to that as the southern economy was largely based on slavery. The north fucked the south coming and going with muh tariffs and when the south tried to do more business elsewhere (thus depriving the north of a huge chunk of income) the north put on the screws and the south ragequit the US. Of course it's a bit more complicated than that if you want to get into more detail, but that's basically what happened.
IMO the north bears most of the blame for setting the stage for war but the south bears most of the blame for actually starting it.
I'd also like to add that General Sherman knew what was up. In 1864 he wrote:
"I notice in Kentucky a disposition to cry against the tyranny and oppression of our Government. Now, were it not for war you know tyranny could not exist in our Government; therefore any acts of late partaking of that aspect are the result of war; and who made this war? Already we find ourselves drifting toward new issues, and are beginning to forget the strong facts of the beginning. You know and I know that long before the North, or the Federal Government, dreamed of war the South had seized the U.S. arsenals, forts, mints, and custom-houses, and had made prisoners of war of the garrisons sent at their urgent demand to protect them 'against Indians, Mexicans, and negroes'. I know this of my own knowledge, because when the garrison of Baton Bouge was sent to the Rio Grande to assist in protecting that frontier against the guerrilla Cortina, who had cause of offense against the Texan people, Governor Moore made strong complaints and demanded a new garrison for Baton Rouge, alleging as a reason that it was not prudent to have so much material of war in a parish where there were 20,000 slaves and less than 5,000 whites, and very shortly after this he and Bragg, backed by the militia of New Orleans, made 'prisoners of war' of that very garrison, sent there at their own request."
William T. Sherman, American hero.
>>421522
States rights. States having the authority to decide for themselves on slavery was the prime issue at the time.
Its all economics though, when you fuck with peoples money conflict will arise. Had the issue of slavery not kicked the war off something else would still have kicked off the civil war most likely.
lot of factors caused by the growing division between the industrial economy and the slave economy. If slavery wasn't a thing, the slave economy wouldn't exist, thus most if not all of the factors of the civil war wouldn't exist.
tl;dr: it was about slavery
For FUCK sake.
This fucking thread every damn fucking day.
Yes, the Civil War was caused by slavery. Was it started to free them? No, but it became that. Now go do something else for the love of god.
Yes i'm mad.
I seem to remember a 7th grade final exam essay question very similar to OP's gay-as-fuck post
>Confederacy: "hey guys we wanna do our own thing so we're gonna still be a part of you, just not as involved"
>Union: "those motherfuckers, how dare they leave the only country they've ever known.... uh wait. forget that part, they may actually do pretty well on their own. but if we just snuff them out for wanting their own independence we'll look like bullies not only now, but in the future, so we'll ban slavery specifically to fuck them over since they need it to keep going and maintain their economy."
And that's why today the Confederate States are looked at as evil racists and even the South has fallen into the lie.
>>423531
>so we'll ban slavery specifically to fuck them over since they need it to keep going and maintain their economy."
Because the South was totally fucked over by the abolition of Slavery, right?
>>423816
It was just a reason to go to war with them.
>>423837
See >>422420
It was the CSA that decided it was a reason to go to war when they attacked Fort Sumter, which has not been part of South Carolina since 1834. Unless this was some elaborate false flag in which northern sympathizer Jefferson Davis decided to trick the South into a debilitating war by authorizing the South Carolina militia to take land that belonged to another country by force.
>>423531
>(Former) Confederacy: Well we're going to look extremely unreasonable in the future if we tell our children that we invoked our right to self determination and then invaded a foreign nation over our insistence of owning slaves, so we're going to say that we were justified in our preemptive attack by the possibility that the President and the North would abolish slavery and demolish the economy, even though said President hadn't yet been inaugurated or stated any intention to abolish slavery, our economy recovered within a decade in spite of the complete absence of the apparently integral institution of slavery.
And that's why today the Confederate States are looked at as noble defenders protecting their way of life from Northern Aggression and even the North has fallen into the lie.
>>421522
>well you see, we had to declare war on the United States because they were killing our economy! The economy that became one of the largest in the world after they made sure by force that stopped exploiting the Chinese!
>Yes, our economy happens to be partially dependent on the violent exploitation of The Chinese, but you don't understand, our economy would be totally fucked without it.
>And look, they even have a military base right there in Hawaii, threatening us. It was a pre-emptive attack! The USA was going to attack us and force us to give up The Chinese from Hawaii! That's why we had to attack it and occupy it first!
>Hell, I bet the USA tricked us into this war. Saying it was all about freeing the Chinese during the war while strangling our economy with sanctions. They moved troops into Hawaii JUST to provoke us into attacking them. And then they said it was freeing the Chinese halfway through the war so they wouldn't look like assholes.
>See if the Americans didn't intend to attack our empire, why did they put soldiers in Hawaii, right in naval range of our new Co-Prosperity Sphere? Nevermind that Hawaii has been theirs for decades. It was a pre-emptive attack, we HAD to attack Hawaii, before even declaring war.
Replace Chinese with Slaves, Hawaii with Fort Sumter and the Co-Prosperity Sphere with the Confederate States of America and you have the southern revisionist argument, if the Japanese declaration of war said on the first page "Our position is thoroughly identified with invading China - the greatest material interest in the world."
>>421704
No it didn't. both sides were absurdly gentlemanly for the majority of the war, it wasn't until Shermans march to the sea that the southern states got a taste of what war really meant.
>>423969
tfw no comfy Dixie aligned with the co-prosperity sphere
>>422080
My family is Irish, they fought on both sides.
>>421522
The North fought primarily to restore the Union
The South fought to preserve slavery because they thought that Lincoln was going to go Obama on them and take their slaves
>>421677
Guantanamo is in Cuba, yet we are holding on to it
>>421772
Wrong, the South controlled Congress up until the 40s or 50s
Sectionalist dofferences more than slavery, but slavery was the spark that set it off
this should be a banned topic to discuss
>>421522
culmination of 80 years of economic warfare by the north on the south.
>>425584
>oy vey! Shut it down!
>>421522
The north fought to keep its power, the south fought to keep their slaves.
>there are tens of millions of people that legitimately believe in the Lost Cause
>>421586
MD and MO were not considered northern states. At least not back then.
>>421586
Missouri had its own intrastate civil war, with two different state governments claiming to be legitimate.
Its biggest cause was slavery but it was also about other things, for example, states' rights. The legality of slavery was one of those rights. The South also felt pretty left out of politics--Lincoln got elected without a Southern state at all. In addition, the North and the South were becoming two separate economies. It WAS two separate countries for all intents and purposes.
Any historian worth their merit won't tell you otherwise. Wars are rarely due to one cause or are so one-dimensional.
>>425791
Yep. The governor at the time was calling for secession but there was a coup.
>>421743
Secession wasn't unconstitutional at the time. It was assumed by the states when they first joined that it was a voluntary union of equals, kind of like the EU. The idea that you can't lave a voluntary union is ridiculous. The idea that a union needs to be preserved at the cost of countless lives when a union by definition exists only to serve the interests of its members is also ridiculous.
The North conquered the South because they would lose too much money if they let them go. That's the real reason for the Northern war effort. Their stated aim of preserving a voluntary union against the will of its members was always a nonsensical post-hoc rationalization
>>421522
I read someone on /his/ saying something like "People who don't know anything about the Civil War say it was about slavery, People who know a little about the Civil War say it wasn't about slavery, and people who know a lot about the Civil War say that it was mostly about slavery."
In any case, it is undeniable that the southern states seceded because of slavery, namely that because Lincoln was elected that he was going to abolish slavery and the South's economy ran entirely on the plantation system. Just look at Bleeding Kansas, which was basically a microcosm of a pre-Civil War.
But this was at the level of government and big business. For the average Southern soldier, it was about defending their homeland from the North; most were poor and didn't own slaves. Abolitionism was in fact a pretty niche belief in the early days of the Civil War, and only became stronger as the war waged on and it became more ideological.
Lincoln himself was not planning on making it about slavery, as he would lose the border states- Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky- that had remained loyal to the union (also remember that Delaware and Maryland surround Washington DC). The Emancipation Proclamation was actually a pretty brilliant piece of work, as it technically meant absolutely nothing but phrased in a way as to invoke ideological zeal.
Also anybody trying to start some shit about "muh Northern Aggression" is full of shit, the South fired first and Sumter was federal land. It doesn't matter if Lincoln was baiting them, they still took the obvious bait.
>>421758
REMOVE GEORGIA remove georgia You are the Atlanta stink you are the atlanta smell March to the Sea best day of my life
>>423531
>muh war of northern aggression
>LINCOLN IS COMING TO TAKE UR SLAVES GUISE
>>425890
>
Also anybody trying to start some shit about "muh Northern Aggression" is full of shit, the South fired first and Sumter was federal land. It doesn't matter if Lincoln was baiting them, they still took the obvious bait.
The South clearly stated that resupplying the fort would be considered an act of war. Lincoln then attempted to resupply it, thus committing the first act of war and calling their bluff. If the South hadn't shelled the fort at that point they would have lost all credibility in the international arena, and with it the hope of European intervention.
The whole Fort Sumter incident was just a stupid little dance that both sides did to try and point the finger at the other for starting a war that both parties intended to start regardless. Pinning all the blame on the side that shot first when the other side was planning to invade anyway is faulty thinking. By that logic Mexico was solely responsible for starting the Mexican-American War.
>>425930
Sumter was on federal land and supplied on federal roads by federal troops.
Also Europe was NEVER EVER going to support the South, especially England who was playing world police in the slave trade at the time, and in any case Lincoln was a much better politician than Davis.
>>425830
>The North conquered the South because they would lose too much money if they let them go.
Get over yourself. You know what other countries had an economy dominated by large plantations and cash crop exports? Banana Republics, and as far as their place in the global economy the CSA was just as important as a Banana Republic.
Southerners were all confident about how absolutely vital they were to the cotton industry and how the Brits and French would be running back to save King Cotton or its precious tobacco or indigo. Turns out that they could just push a plantation economy onto Egypt or India. The strength of a 19th century economy came from its industry, not from bales of cotton or tobacco. The CSA's wealth and economy was as vital to the North (and to the world at large) as some far-flung disease-ridden colony running plantations on slave labor, and the civil war proved it.
>>421522
The buyers are profitable than serfs for a private capital based economy.
>>425930
>The South clearly stated that resupplying the fort would be considered an act of war.
And what business does one foreign nation have in telling another what to do with its land?
>thus committing the first act of war and calling their bluff
Lincoln literally told them beforehand "we won't shoot unless shot at."
>If the South hadn't shelled the fort at that point they would have lost all credibility in the international arena, and with it the hope of European intervention.
It never had any great hope of European Intervention.
>>425930
>The South clearly stated that resupplying the fort would be considered an act of war.
> On April 6, Lincoln notified Governor Pickens that "an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, [except] in case of an attack on the fort."[23]
Well how dare the Federal government send food to the garrison of a fort on their territory when the Confederate government had cut off any trade between the fort and Charleston? How is feeding people on your own territory an act of war?
>>425947
The North was financially dependent on tariff revenue largely paid by Southern states. If it lost that tariff revenue, it would have to make up for it by forcing the South to trade with the North directly instead of with Europe. If the South was as economically irrelevant as you claim, the North never would have put so much effort into invading and reabsorbing it.
>>425939
Maintaining a military installation so close to the territory of a sovereign nation without its consent is an inherently hostile act, even if you are the legal owner of said installation. Allowing such an installation to exist without challenging it is an act of weakness that would have cost the South all credibility in the world of blustering 19th century realpolitik. European intervention wasn't going to happen, but the South didn't know that at the time and in any event would have needed European recognition at some point to be considered a full-fledged member of the international community of nations, which would have never happened if they did things like allow a foreign power to keep and resupply a military installation so close to one of their vital ports.
>>425983
>The North was financially dependent on tariff revenue largely paid by Southern states.
Do provide figures on exactly how much of the Union's GDP came from these tariffs and how important they were to the North.
>If the South was as economically irrelevant as you claim, the North never would have put so much effort into invading and reabsorbing it.
[citation needed]
Maybe they wouldn't have put that much effort into invading and reabsorbing it if you hadn't shot at them first.
>>425983
The North still did nothing illegal though, the Union can do whatever the fuck it wants on its land. The South were the ones who fired upon a federal fort on federal land, which is an act of war.
>>421573
>in fact, many confederate generals were either opposed or uncomfortable with slavery
citation needed
>northern invaders who invaded your country
who fired the first shots again?
I mean I realize that the average Confederate soldier didn't own slaves and probably painted the war in more romantic terms, but I'm pretty sure that most Confederate soldiers still believed strongly in the institution of slavery and the inferiority of blacks.
>>425983
Yeah, fucking bullshit, the foreign military installation predates the existence of the country itself. Was Imperial Japan justified in invading the Phillippines, Singapore and Hong Kong because they were adjacent to parts of the empire of Japan that had only existed for years? Would the Spanish be justified at any point for invading Gilbraltar because there happened to be a military garrison there? Is Germany entitled to invade France because Verdun and Toul, fortresses that literally predate the nation of Germany, happen to be manned on the French Border? Your argument that
>Maintaining a military installation so close to the territory of a sovereign nation without its consent is an inherently hostile act, even if you are the legal owner of said installation.
is bullshit and has NEVER been a proper justification in a historical context.
>>425983
Tariffs that were passed on March 1861, months after the State of South Carolina had seceded, and only passed because all the Southern members of congress that would have otherwise have blocked such legislation had already left to form their own rebel state?
>>425991
The North did nothing strictly illegal, but it maintained and supplied a military installation that was within firing distance of an important Confederate port. In the world of 19th century gunboat diplomacy, this was an unacceptable provocation tantamount to an act of war. The fact that the North did all this legally was a testament to Lincoln's skill as a statesman, but it doesn't change the fact that both sides were spoiling for a fight and share the blame for starting it.
>>425987
Tariff revenue was the government's primary source of income and protected Northern industry from foreign competition. The South's economy was based largely on exporting goods abroad. This created a financial conflict of interest that put northern and southern capitalists in a mutually hostile position. this is such basic level stuff that you should really know it already, I'm not obligated to spoon feed you facts and figures that you should have learned in high school
What you know about based Sherman, /his/?
>>424904
and then all the Irish and germans arrived in the north.
>>426022
>Tariff revenue was the government's primary source of income and protected Northern industry from foreign competition.
Numbers, please and citations. HOW MUCH of US Federal income came from Tariffs, and tariffs on what?
>The South's economy was based largely on exporting goods abroad.
So was the North's, you're making up a false dichotomy. See >>425947
> this is such basic level stuff that you should really know it already, I'm not obligated to spoon feed you facts and figures that you should have learned in high school
Meaning you're pulling it out of your ass.
>>426041
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history
>Tariffs were the main source of all Federal revenue from 1790 to 1914.
>The Democrats in Congress, dominated by Southern Democrats, wrote and passed the tariff laws in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s, and kept reducing rates, so that the 1857 rates were down to about 15%, a move that boosted trade so overwhelmingly that revenues actually increased from just over $20 million in 1840 to more than $80 million by 1856.[25] The South had almost no complaints but the low rates angered many Northern industrialists and factory workers, especially in Pennsylvania, who demanded protection for their growing iron industry. The Republican Party replaced the Whigs in 1854 and also favored high tariffs to stimulate industrial growth; it was part of the 1860 Republican platform.
One of the most important tipping points is when (due to increasing populations and the addition of new free states) the North finally had enough of a super-majority in both the Senate and House to have forced through a constitutional amendment banning slavery. They didn't but it's an important thing to keep in mind.
Why is it important you ask? Because it never happened. The South got paranoid about "muh ancient institution" and started phase 1 of their chimp-out before Lincoln even took office rather than continuing to work through the political process. Not only did Lincoln never announce any intentions to ban slavery nationwide (he thought if it was contained from spreading West it would die out eventually from economic forces), but there was never a mathematical chance of that happening in the first place. "The South was forced into the war", "The War of Northern Aggression" etc. is one of the biggest lies in American history.
>>426068
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise_tax_in_the_United_States#Historical_background
>When the United States public debt was finally paid off in 1834, President Andrew Jackson abolished the excise taxes and reduced the customs duties (tariffs) in half.
>Excise taxes stayed essentially zero until the American Civil War brought a need for much more federal revenue. Excise taxes were reintroduced on a wider range of items and income taxes were introduced.
Notice how the Republican Tariffs weren't passed until March, 1861. AFTER half the southern states had already left the union. How were tariffs ever a problem to the south if they were introduced after they had already left?
>>426068
>The goal of using higher tariffs to promote industrialization was urged by the first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, and after him the Whig Party.
>They GENERALLY FAILED because Jeffersonian and Jacksonian Democrats said the tariff should be only high enough to pay the government's bills; otherwise, it would hurt the consumers.
Notice how this supposed Economic War was dominated by the South all the way until they voluntarily left the United STates and were incapable of voting against an increase in Tariffs.
Also notice how the Confederate government did the exact same shit.
>The Confederate States of America (CSA) passed its own tariff of about 15% on most items, including many items that previously were duty-free from the North. Previously tariffs between states were prohibited. The Confederates believed that they could finance their government by tariffs.
>>426068
From the same page you cite:
"Historians in recent decades have minimized the tariff issue as a cause of the war, noting that few people in 1860–61 said it was of central importance to them. Many compromises were proposed in 1860-61 to save the Union, but they did not involve the tariff.[28] Some secessionist documents do mention the tariff issue, though not nearly as often as the preservation of slavery."
Your belief that the specter of Northern Tariffs or economic warfare constituted the primary threat to Southern Interests was neither shared by the Confederacy nor the Union.
>>426083
Tariffs were still the primary source of revenue for the government even at their historic low point on the eve of the war. The fact that tariffs were so low was a huge irritant for the North, and the fact that the Republicans planned to jack it up after their electoral victory was a huge irritant for the South.
The war wasn't about slavery or preserving the union or states rights or any of that stuff. Those were just slogans to get the people to put on uniforms. The war was fought because the Northern and Southern leaders had mutually opposed economic interests and the rising power of the North upset the balance of power that had previously forced the two camps to avoid open conflict. The South realized their days as an economic and political equal were over and tried to get out.
>>426115
>Tariffs were still the primary source of revenue for the government even at their historic low point on the eve of the war. The fact that tariffs were so low was a huge irritant for the North, and the fact that the Republicans planned to jack it up after their electoral victory was a huge irritant for the South.
The South would have been able to block tariff legislation as they had for the last two decades if they had remained in the Union congress.
>The war wasn't about slavery or preserving the union or states rights or any of that stuff. Those were just slogans to get the people to put on uniforms.
I like the part where you insist that you know the motivations of the Confederate States better than the people who wrote the declarations of secession, saying that "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest in the world."
>Those were just slogans to get the people to put on uniforms.
Okay so if the vast majority of southerners and northerners thought the war was about preserving the Slavery or the Union, I don't see how the schemes of a shadowy figures you seem to indicate knew better than the entirety of the Southern delegation matter at all.
>and the rising power of the North upset the balance of power that had previously forced the two camps to avoid open conflict.
The South upset the balance of power by completely vacating their half of the see-saw by seceding and allowing the North to pass the Morill Tariffs. They engineered their own downfall if this was their primary concern.
>>426115
>Literally every single confederate state claims the preservation of Slavery as the primary reason they seceded
>"I-it was totally all about the tariffs guys, they were only pretending to be retarded!"
>>421522
Most in the north didn't give two shits about the slaves, they fought the war to preserve the union
>>426132
Slavery was the hot button issue of the day and stood as a proxy issue for Northern and Southern economic and political interests. Southern declarations of secession talk about it because that was the line of attack they believed the North would take in its mission to dominate their region politically and economically. If the North can restrict slavery then it can restrict the political and economic growth of the South. If it can restrict the South's growth, the South will become weaker over time. If the South becomes weaker over time, it will eventually come to be subordinate to Northern interests.
>>425997
The southern troops in response to Union men refusing to leave a fort that was in the Confederacy's borders. No one died in the siege and it was because the Union was trespassing on Confederate soil.
>>426146
>Slavery was the hot button issue of the day and stood as a proxy issue for Northern and Southern economic and political interests.
And what are you basing this belief on? Do you have any private writings or records of any of the major leaders of the confederacy at all claiming that tariffs was the primary issue? We have letters from Lee and Beckinridge, memoirs from Davis and I'm sure many of the South's politicians, which of the ones that led the southern states in departure claimed tariffs as their greatest grievance?
>If the North can restrict slavery then it can restrict the political and economic growth of the South.
The North has restricted slavery north of the Mason Dixon Line since 1780. That's a state's right, you know, to abolish slavery.
>>426157
>The southern troops in response to Union men refusing to leave a fort that was in the Confederacy's borders.
It is was not in the Confederacy's borders, it never was because it hasn't been part of South Carolina since 1836, see >>421760. As it was never a part of South Carolina it was never part of South Carolina's declaration of secession and thus has never been the territory of the Confederate States of America prior to its invasion.
> No one died in the siege
Not from lack of trying
>and it was because the Union was trespassing on Confederate soil.
It was never confederate soil. It wasn't even South Carolina soil.
>>421522
http://portside.org/2013-11-04/absolute-proof-civil-war-was-about-slavery
And from Texas declaration of war and joining the confederate union: We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity
And Alexander H Stephens Vice-President of the CSA
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions--African slavery as it exists among us--the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution [...] The general opinion of the men of that day [Revolutionary Period] was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution [slavery] would be evanescent and pass away [...] Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its 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.
>>426204
No, anon, you are misled. Apparently all the Confederate leadership was secretly mad.
mad about tariffs.
Slavery was just a rallying point for stupid poor southern farmers.
You see, they were so secretly mad that they left no evidence of their anger, but we in the 21st century totally know their goals and motivations.
>>426169
I didn't say tariffs was the primary issue. I said mutually opposed economic and political interests was the primary issue.Tariffs were an important part of that. It was in the interest of Northern business and political leaders to centralize the country and remove regional power blocs that got in the way of industrialization. The South and its distinct economic system was the biggest obstacle and they sought to surround it and gradually restrict it so it wouldn't hurt their interests either in the federal government or in the western territories. The South sought to do the opposite, expanding its system and interests at the expense of the North. The North and South were basically two totally distinct countries with mutually opposed interests. Their alliance of convenience against the British never should have been extended into a permanent arrangement. Some sort of conflict was inevitable. The flashpoint that sparked the fire happened to be slavery. If it had sparked in the 1830s it would have been tariffs. If it had sparked in the 1870s it may have been something else.
>>426239
>I said mutually opposed economic and political interests was the primary issue.
The most important economic and political interest in 1860 being Slavery. So yes to OP, the damn war was about slavery.
>The South and its distinct economic system was the biggest obstacle
I didn't know a banana republic plantation economy was distinct. And I think they were quite happy with the South not getting industrialized, since the whole point of tariffs was to make sure the South was buying Northern manufactured goods.
>The North and South were basically two totally distinct countries with mutually opposed interests.
No, they were generally agreed on the most part and had been able to pave over both the tariff and slavery problem for decades--not to the satisfaction of either, of course, but compromise is the cornerstone of democracy.
>Some sort of conflict was inevitable.
Hindsight is 20/20.
>>426267
The South's cash crop economy was distinct from the Northern economy, and has nothing to do with a banana republic which is a form of government, not an economic system.
Their compromises worked until 1860 because until then they were close to one another in power. As soon as the balance of power became lopsided, conflict broke out.
>>421522
The popular historical meme is that the war was "about slavery". They phrase it so broadly because the war was "about slavery" in the sense that the economic and political factors that actually led to the conflict arose because of the slave economy. However, people don't go to war over morality, and certainly nobody was going to fight a war to "free the slaves". Freeing the slaves was a strategic decision during the war. It was sold to the public with a bunch of morality and emotion based propaganda that some less careful historians like to quote as if it were the real motivation.
>>426103
>preservation of slavery
>which the feral government had no power to abolish
Expansion =/= preservation, even if the Southern elite managed to brainwash people into thinking it was.
>>426410
federal
>>425890
>Lincoln was elected that he was going to abolish slavery
He wasn't. He was just going to make it preemptively illegal in the new incorporated states in the mid west and beyond.
>>426023
i keep a framed picture of him above my dining room table.
If I let dixieboos into my house I can only hope it triggers them into a coma.
>>426023
He's my favorite general officer of all time.
This man says it wasn't about slavery, and I'm inclined to believe him above just about any anon on /his/
>>426023
Sherman told the confederates they were going to get BTFO, proceeded to BTFO them, and the very mention of his name still bootyblasts neo-confederates to this day.
He is truly the hero our nation deserves.
>>421522
For the confederates, yes. For the union, no.
>>426820
He's got a really cool voice desu senpai
>>426768
I had meant to say that the South was afraid that Lincoln was going to abolish slavery. I agree that he originally didn't intend to.
>>426023
>that cranium
Did he bend the south's rails with his mind?
