First time I've heard people say that the Civil War wasn't about slavery on here , is that the truth? Have my history teachers been lying to me all these years? was slavery just part of it or the main reason?
>>767392
It's an oversimplification, really. It's like saying WW1 was fought over Ferdinand getting shot.
It was about money. On both sides.
the south seceded because of slavery
the war was fought because of this secession
The industrial based north had imposed a collection of taxes and rules that hurt the agriculture based south which left the union to try and preserve it's already broken economy. Slavery was the catalyst for them leaving the Union, however it was not the only reason. Like most historical event it is far more complex than "Muh we cant whip blacks, muh secession"
>>767392
Slavery was a major part of the war but it wasn't the only thing that caused it.
It, like almost every other war, was fought over money. Or rather the assurance of making money
>>767392
Power, control, greed, manifest destiny, slavery.
Specifically, the south seceded over their States rights to own slaves. The North fought to recover the lost states.
In the grand scheme of things it can be viewed as part of the great historical continuum among the English speaking peoples of conservative elements battling republican/liberal elements, beginning with the English civil war, continuing in the new world with a Republican victory with the American revolution, and culminating with their final victory during the acw and slow destruction of monarchist power in Britain.
According to the whole, unaltered real truth that this board allows, it had literally nothing to do with it
slavery was a part of it
the south didn't really like the national government, they wanted states to be free to make their own laws
the north wanted the national government to be the absolute power in the nation, superseding the decisionmaking power of the states
the north decided to try enforcing this train of though, and the south seceded
this made the northern gubmint freak out because they didnt believe the nation could stand divided, and didnt want the land controlled by two separate forces
it was basically a reunification war where the south said "we can do what we want" and the north said "no you can't"
>>767392
It was over slavery.
Southerners try to lie about this but Confederate leaders and their government documents explicitly list the institution of slavery as the reason.
/thread
>>767539
>this made the northern gubmint freak out
>"How barbaric that those men want absolute control over our lives! I want the right to have absolute control over niggers lives! Time to attack the north!"
This is how retarded you sound
>>767418
All conflicts trace back to power. Money, politics, religion, etc. are just expressions of power.
>>768013
It was over WMDs
Liberals try to lie about this but American leaders and their government documents explicitly list WMD as the reason
/thread
I suppose all the traitor states just wrote and signed these ordinances of secession that outright say it's about slavery on a lark. Those kidders!
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp
>>767392
I've heard it said somewhere that:
>People who know nothing about the Civil War say that it was about slavery
>People who know a little about the Civil War say that it wasn't about slavery
>People who know a lot about the Civil War say that it was probably about slavery
No, it was about slavery.
See, the war really annihilated the South. All the decent, honest, brave men went off and died in the actual war itself. Those men of the South who had survived the war were the draft dodgers and deserters and generally cowards and liars.
So when it came to raising up the next couple of generations of Southerners, they raised them to be awful people, like themselves. So while everybody in 1866 agreed that the war had been about slavery, a couple of generations later, when their grandkids had finally figured out how to read and write books, there was this massive new wave of historical revisionism that swept through the South. They completely tried to dodge the issue of slavery. Tried to play up "Northern Aggression." It coincides too with the rise of the KKK and taking out all their frustrations on innocent black people.
To this day they're still trying to do it, and you'll probably find a few of the dipshits in this thread itself.
>>768979
Well stated.
>>768988
Are you seriously saying it was the "decent, honest, brave" men were the ones who fought FOR slavery? If you actually look at history you see it was the most ardent supporters of the confederacy who went on to support the revisionism and groups like the KKK.
>>768846
for what? if you're going to sperg at least give us an idea over what.
>>767392
A major part of it was about slavery, but not in the moral sense (abolitionism was still kinda niche before and during the first years of the Civil War except for a few hotspots). The South was almost completely agrarian and its entire population was based around the plantation system, where slaves cultivated tobacco and cotton. This is compared to the rapidly industrializing North, which was modernizing fast and becoming much more powerful, while the South became more and more irrelevant (or at least felt that they were).
This led to a lot of power squabbles as the South believed that they were being underrepresented for being half of the nation (despite having much less population density). Many in particular felt that the North was essentially bullying them around, and they were resentful that a bunch of Yankees who had never been South was making decisions that were affecting their economic power without their say. Moreover, the North being anti-slavery (who wants to deal with that shit in factories) led to them wanting to establish new territories as anti-slavery states, and the South saw this as the North trying to expand its influence and suffocate them. This led to a sort of proto-Civil War conflict called Bleeding Kansas.
When Abraham Lincoln was elected president, the South was pissed off because nobody in the South had voted for them. Wealthy plantation owners managed to rile up the population with rhetoric that Lincoln was gonna take away the slaves (and although most Southerners didn't own slaves, slaves still drove the economy), which led to secession.
Remember that most of the soldiers were likely poor farmers and shit, they didn't own slaves. For them, it was about protecting their state from Northern aggression. But the motivation of the Southern aristocracy to rile up the population was definitely slavery.
>>769021
No, the really brave, decent ones were the ones who went to the North to fight for the Union.
Those that remained were scumbags who all favored slavery. It's just that those who fought and died were at least of better moral character than the scumbags who ran away.
>>769094
I want liberals who don't understand the concept of context to die.
>>769031
Taking them at their word within the context of the time is stupid. Most of it was grandstanding on the part of the deep southern states by trying to galvanize support from the other southern states by declaring the north was going to destroy all slave states. The populated southern states (TN, VA, NC) only seceded after Lincoln ordered an invasion of the deep south. In fact you can find many southern unionists making the case that staying in the union was the best way to ensure slavery. I'd agree, considering congress just passed and send the states the corwin amendment making slavery a constitutional right. Seceding would seem to be the dumbest thing you could do if you only cared about keeping slaves.
To understand the reasoning behind the civil war, you'd have to go back to the beginning. The North and South were at each other's throats as soon as Cornwallis surrendered and it only got worse after Washington died. Whether it was about banking, national debt, expansion, tariffs, war mongering, or finally slavery. The south wasn't the only part of the country chimping out, as New England threatened secession numerous times during the early days, most memorably during the war of 1812. When South Carolina went through it's nullification crisis over tariffs during the 1830s, Jackson said, "the tariff was only a pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question."
>>769094
In that case all the men of moral character should have fought for the loyalists during the revolution as the British declared all slaves of patriots to be free just like Lincoln did at Gettysburg.
The South almost seceded during Andrew Jackson's presidency.
>>769094
Man you're retarded.
civil was was about one thing: money lending
good times to be a banker.
these days, times are changing.
Only the southern states supported slavery. Slavery was already banned in the northern states. Literally no slaves in the Union.
That's why the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the South.
That's why a Constitutional Amendment wasn't needed to abolish slavery entirely.
>>768013
>/thread your own post
lurk moar
