If the Civil War was about slavery then would the Federal government let a non slave slate leave the Union?
cheap bait.
p.s. Republicans freed the slaves
>>67436503
>p.s. Republicans freed the slaves
Correct
>>67436535
>No
The war was not about slavery or they would not let a free state leave?
>>67436322
PAY ATTENTION!!!!
THE WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION WAS FUELED NOT ONLY BY THE STATE'S RIGHTS DEBATE, BUT THE FACT THAT THE COST OF GROWING COTTON WITHOUT SLAVE LABOR WOULD BE MORE THAN ANY SOUTHERN FARMER COULD AFFORD, WHAT IF THE COMPANY THAT SUPPLIED PARTS TO GM SAID, OH BY THE WAY WE HAVE TO PAY OUR WORKERS 4X'S THE PRICE TO MAKE OUR CAR PARTS AND GM SAID FUCK YOU WE'RE NOT PAYING YOU ANYMORE THAN WE ALREADY DO! DO THE FUCKING MATH
>>67436928
The northern textile companies were unwilling to pay more for raw materials not grown with slave labor, unlike fucking hipsters paying $15/lb for organic free range chicken now, they said fuck you we're paying you the same raw material rate even if you don't use slave labor
>>67436928
>>67437157
So the war to free the slaves was also fought to effectively enslave the south's production?
>>67436322
U r a dum dum
The Proclaimation Emancipation only freed niggers in Confederate states, Kansas and a few other irrelevant states kept Slaves till the 13th amendment freed them.
>>67436322
Haha, no. The civil war could have been about anything and there would still been an anti-separatist war
>>67437368
any respectable southern cotton producer could not afford paying their labor for a crop that is the single most labor intensive crop to grow on earth. The fact that the smug northern companies were unwilling to pay a higher price for the raw materials and threatened to import carribean grown cotton just shows that they were trying to fuck the south's economy, they didn't care about niggers
>>67436928
>WE HAVE TO PAY OUR WORKERS 4X'S THE PRICE
Which would be $0/hour. Because they weren't employees, you fuck-tard: they were slaves for whom quitting wasn't an option.
Your analogy is bullshit.
>>67438011
There is still a cost too slave ownerhip
>>67438011
YOU'RE FUCKING BULLSHIT!! IMAGINE HAVING A $0/hr RATE JUMP TO $10/HR IN PRESENT DAY, YOU COULDN'T AFFORD TO KEEP UP PRODUCTION! THE GM EXAMPLE WAS JUST A SCENARIO MEANT TO MAKE YOU USE THAT BRAIN YOU SEEM TO LACK, IMAGINE THE COST OF GM SUPPLIERS IF THEY HAD FREE LABOR AND WERE THEN REQUIRED TO PAY $15/HR, IT WOULDN'T FUCKING WORK UNLESS THE IMPORTER PAID AN EXTREMELY HIGHER PRICE FOR THE RAW MATERIALS!
>>67437157
The North also got export tariffs put in place that would make it impossible for the South to sell their goods overseas in a bid to force them to sell to the north at below market rate.
>>67438127
it was considerably cheaper than regular labor, or they would've hired people, you can't sit there and tell me it was more expensive to use slave labor, that's fucking retarded
>>67438567
That's not what he said. Either learn reading comprehension or strawman somewhere else.
>>67436928
But why do I care about the well-being of people who enslave other people?
>>67438714
I have no hope for you, I don't speak with fucking niggers, I hope your family were slaves
>>67438365
So you go bankrupt and your business fails, you little piece of shit.
You don't wage war for the right to keep you employees as property.
>>67438567
>it was considerably cheaper than regular labor
Only when you factor in the cost of selling the children of your slaves, which is why expanding it into the territories and annexing latin American countries was so important to its long term viability
>>67436928
there was no threat to slavery before the civil war. Lincoln even reaffirm the south right to slaves. it was only in an attempt to cause a slave revolt did the goverment ever promise freedom for slaves.
>>67438716
CAUSE THEY GIVE YOU THE RAW COTTON MATERIAL YOUR FUCKING FACTORY USES!
The civil war was about control of resources so no, the US government would not allow a peaceful secession now any more than they did back then.
>>67438716
Why do I care about the well-being of African slaves?
>>67438934
"But businesses would fail!" is never, ever, ever going to make it ok to keep people as slaves, you fucking retard.
This is why southerners look like such retarded hicks to everyone else. No matter what mental gymnastics you attempt, guess what? NONE of them are excuse that makes slavery ok, you retarded hicks.
>>67438011
Their owners paid for their food and accomodation though
>>67438857
>government enacts economically crippling price control policies to protect their favorite businesses
>lol it's your fault your business failed
Statists never change.
>>67439371
So therefore raising the cost of labor justifies war to ensure the continuing practice of slavery?
In what world is that supposed to be rational?
>>67439470
>anything
>therefore a war to keep humans as slaves is ok
Inbred hillbillies never change
>>67439572
>Inbred hillbillies never change
The 'hillbillies' in West Virginia and East Tennessee were pro Union you stupid nigger
>>67439572
>it was about this thing because I say so despite all evidence pointing to the contrary
No matter what I say you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and scream loudly because you've been indoctrinated since childhood to think a certain way and doing otherwise would completely shatter your worldview.
>>67439848
There is 0 evidence to the contrary. If the South had agreed to end slavery, the war was over and done. That's all there is to it. Instead, those cousin-fuckers had to be slaughtered.
>>67436322
The South was already transitioning and this was the chance for Northern banks to grab or destroy Southern wealth and to prevent the South from getting a position of influence and wealth post-slavery like they had enjoyed from before the revolution.
Imagine an alcoholic about to get clean: a van pulls up behind him, men tackle him and inject heroin. And all duscussion is limited to whether or not alcoholism is bad.
>>67439967
LOL, END SLAVERY AND PAY MONEY TO THE LABOR FOR THE MOST EXPENSIVE CROP TO EVER HARVEST!
LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT, EITHER DROWN IN DEBT, OR GO TO WAR????
I'M PROUD THEY SACKED UP AND KILLED A TON OF UNION CUNTS, LOOK AT THE KILL/DEATH RATIO OF SOUTHERN SOLDIERS, THEY PUT IN WORK, ONLY WISH THEY KILLED MORE YOU YANKEE FUCK
>>67439967
>If the South had agreed to end slavery, the war was over and done
WTF are you talking about?
Slavery was still legal in the Union/
>>67440253
this
>>67439140
yeah so what? that was no threat to slavery.
>>67436686
Yes, no
North wanted to keep the Union together, South wanted to secede to preserve slavery. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Southern faggots and shills are still crying over a hundred years later. To add to that dumbasses like OP don't stop asking these retarded questions trying to convince themselves their own narratives. So we end up with threads like this.
it wasn't about slavery
proofs: Maryland (a slave state) did not secede and kept their slaves until the 13th amendment rather than the emancipation proclamation
>>67439967
They were three years into the war before Lincoln's emancipation proclamation. It's the height of absurdity to believe that the Union would have stopped aggression and allowed secession if the Confederacy took an action that the Union gave zero shits about.
The American Civil War, like all wars, was economical in origin; not moral. It's all well and good to claim a moral victory after the fact in order to try justify it but that doesn't actually change the true cause of the war.
Regardless of the reason why the war happened, the US Constitution only allows states to join. It doesn't allow them to leave. There really should be an amendment added that provides this right and sets out a procedure for it happening if that's the will of the people.
>>67440399
But the reason the the North went to was was not to eradicate slavery but instead to preserve the Union.
I am actually fine with this, the war was to advance American interests. I just don't like this modern revisionist history that the War was about some noble Crusade to end slavery.
>>67440961
>the US Constitution only allows states to join. It doesn't allow them to leave
See the 10th amendment
In Texas v White they had to go to the Articles of Confederation something that should have no legal relevance
>>67438716
because they bailed you out of the American Revolution. Never trust a yankee
>>67440961
The way the nation was formed disputes the idea that a state is not allowed to leave the Union. Also, the constitution is not an list of what the people and states can't do, it's an exhaustive list of the powers of the federal government. The Constitution does not afford the federal government the power to stop a state from leaving the Union, therefore it has no authority to take such action.
>>67441006
>just don't like this modern revisionist history
Of course the North didn't fight it to end slavery. It was cold, pragmatic interests based decision making. However, the South DID secede to preserve slavery.
>>67441191
The 10th amendment's power has been regulated to meme tier. Supremacy of the federal government has been ironed out time after time to the butthurt cries of the states.
>>67441755
This.
"Enumerated Powers."
Insofar as the Constitution has anything to say about this, it is clear that anything they forgot to mention or discover in the future is a right of the people and off limits to government encroachment.
>>67443024
>the South DID secede to preserve slavery.
No they left because restricting the expansion of slavery would have made them a permanent minority in a democracy
>>67443255
Only because of modern progressive courts
The Republican courts of the late 1800s were actually relatively pro states rights
>>67436322
The Civil War was about slavery.
Vice President of the Confederacy:
>"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. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
>>67436322
No. Lincoln and many other candidates were all about preserving the union regardless of slavery.
>>67443809
>Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong
yfw he was absolutely right. and exactly what plagues us now
>>67441755
>state is not allowed
The idea of state sovereignty has been stuck down multiple times by the Supreme Court
MucCulloch v Maryland
Worcester v Georgia
Gibbons v Ogden
The interpretation of the law creates just as much law as the actual authors. Based on Supreme Court precedent the compact among the states argument is invalid. States are nothing but convenient vehicles for the people. The Constitution is authorized by a referendum of the people, and who's sovereignty is attributed only to the Federal Government.
States cannot seceded, because they are not sovereign. Anyone who tries is violating the sovereignty of the United States and are traitors.
>>67444563
>and are traitors.
Treason is defined in the Constitution and says nothing about secession
>>67443344
And what would the majority who despises slavery eventually do? Conveniently forget not so long ago a bunch of southern slave holder forced them to compromised on their goals? No, they'll pass legislation which would either outlaw slavery outright or make it so slavery would be a disadvantage for the south to preserve.
Its called critical thinking. Try it out bro.
>>67443549
Courts have always stressed the power of the Federal Government ever since Maubury v Madison. Only time they really did otherwise was post Mexican War legislation where they attempted to make a ruling on the slave issue in an attempt to preserve the Union. Courts have a tendency to be a partner with one of the other branches of government in defining policy.
Something to keep an eye on when thinking about such issues.
>>67445230
>And what would the majority who despises slavery eventually do?
They were not a big enough majority to amend the Constitution
They did however have the power to raise tarifs
>>67445112
Treason is defined by the Constitution as levying war against it or adhering to its enemy. One could argue that violating US sovereignty is an act of war, in fact I'm sure that's part of the Geneva Convention.
By that enlargement the Constitution does address secession and you are wrong.
>>67445230
>Courts have always stressed the power of the Federal Government ever since Maubury v Madison
But they took a very narrow view of the 14th amendment in United States v. Cruikshank, Pace v. Alabama and Plessy v. Ferguson
>>67445594
The argument made was, the north was trying to prevent the expansion of slavery into the territories. What would eventually happen when these territories were admitted free and could vote in Congress?
The balance of power between slave and free would eventually come to a point where free would not have to bargain with the south over the issue of slavery. That is what the south was afraid of.
>>67444563
The colonies had no sovereignty therefore we are all traitors to the crown.
This is a stupid argument now and it was stupid when the SC made it after the war. To say a state cannot declare independence is to deny the right to free association and delegitimize the existence of the nation in the first place.
>>67446008
An actual constitutional amendment was still not anywhere near happening
>>67445950
Plessy v Ferguson was a case prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
They did however, take a narrow view in Wickard v Fillburn.
You have me there. From what I know, in cases where the Court does rule in favor of a specific law passed by Congress, it usually is made with an eye towards some other goal. Like expanding federal power by making a certain legal argument ( Dred Scott- Judiciary can decide who can and who cannot become a citizen)
(Maurbury- Court can rule acts of Congress Unconstitutional)
Judiciary can be cunts like that.
>>67446854
>Plessy v Ferguson was a case prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment.
No it wasnt it was 1896
>They did however, take a narrow view in Wickard v Fillburn.
Wickard v Filburn was modern courts gutting the 10th amendment
>>67446228
The colonies had their sovereignty legitimized as soon as they were recognized by the crown as an independent country. Every act by the colonies and the new country were then retroactively legitimized as well.
> to say states cannot into independence is dumb
Eh, no. States have no sovereignty. There is no denial of free association, you cannot become a free fucking country and everyone be fine with it. You can declare whatever you want, but you'll get laughed at and if you're serious you'll be declared a traitor and thrown in jail.
Do not forget, the colonies had to fight and make the crown accept its independence. Same would apply for any would be Revolutionary.
>>67446313
Ok, but its an eventuality. Whats your point?
>>67441006
>just don't like this modern revisionist history that the War was about some noble Crusade to end slavery.
I tell you what, why don't you write a lesson plan to explain one of the most complicated things in American History to children without embellishing or simplifying it in any way? Keep in mind you cannot spend more than 1 hour a day for less than a month or else you will get in trouble from the board for not teaching the rest of history.
If you succeed, you'll make a fortune selling it.
>>67447637
Slavery remaining legal was not an immediate concern
>>67447860
If it wasn't clear, people say the civil war was about slavery for the exact same reason they say there are only 8 planets orbiting the sun.
>>67447860
Its not complicated
The Union was worried about the South falling under the influence of European powers so they went to war to keep them inline
>progressives resent southern culture
>progressives resent self-determination and gun rights
>progressives want to south to stay, however, and its residents to live under circumstances contrary to our interests
Quite a shame, desu.
>>67447439
Hypocrisy in action. You cannot claim the American colonies were justified in their independence and then deny that the Confederacy was justified in independence. There is no moral difference between the two.
>>67448065
No they say it is about slavery for modern political reasons
Things like nationalism are considered taboo
>>67448255
I guess mentioning Eris is also against modern political reasons?
>>67447901
Depends what you consider immediate. More free states means more representatives in the legislature, means more votes to a non slave loving president who appoints non slave loving justices to the bench.
Having all three branches of the federal government not nice towards something you consider part of your core culture is not something they wanted to wait around for.
19th Cent, they're really not much to do to distract you from thinking about your concerns.
>>67448065
That's a terrible analogy.
Something more apt would be to teach kids that nitrogen is what keeps our bodies functioning because it's too difficult to explain the chemical composition of air. It doesn't matter if it's a simpler explanation, it's not factual.
>>67448240
Moral arguments are for pussies bro, I'm not making any moral argument. I'm nor a hypocrite either.
If you south wanted to secede they had to win the war, they didn't so they're still part of the union.
If any state wanted to secede today, they can try , but then the rest of the states are free to pump them full of lead.
Legitimacy is won first and foremost through force. That has been a constant throughout all of human history.
>>67448711
It would be closer to saying "air is made of oxygen"
Which is what kids are actually taught all the time.
>>67448902
No it wouldn't. "Air is made of oxygen" is a true statement even if simplified. "The Civil War was fought over slavery" is not just a simplification, it's not the truth. If you need to simplify it for school children, saying "the civil war was fought for a number of reasons including economic policy and domestic issues" is not significantly more complicated that to just put it all down to slavery.
>>67449950
The south wanted to leave to preserve slavery, the north to preserve the union which was in danger because of the issue of slavery. Simplifying it does leave out some of the nuance but it isn't the worst simplification
>>67451325
>The south wanted to leave to preserve slavery
No they wanted to leave because they no longer had a reason to stay
>>67451597
No, they wanted to leave to preserve slavery.
>>67436322
the civil war wasn't about slavery. the end of slavery was a result of the civil war, but the war wasn't fought to end it.
fuckers keep juxtaposing upon historical events. it pisses me off.
it was about preserving the union. the southern states felt that with the election of lincoln, their ability to use slave labor would be in jeopardy. and so, they left the union. the federal government sent supplies and gunships to south carolina, which was construed by south carolina as an act of war--given that the lands that comprised south carolina were considered "sovereign" land of the state of SC.
in essence, the feds started the war since the southern states had every right to leave the union. however, since the underlying issue was slavery, lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation to incite slave rebellions in the south (it freed ONLY slaves in the south), and then pressured congress to abolish slavery in the remaining border states that remained with the union.
if the war was promoted as being "to end slavery" then very few white northerners would've enlisted and would've willingly gone along with conscription.
>>67440663
Because they held Baltimore Hostage, and DC is right there.
>>67451780
Lincoln was not an abolitionist
What reason did they have to stay?
>>67451791
>Mfw everyone in modern day talks about how the war was to end slavery
>Northerners literally didn't give a fuck and looked at slaves as dogs just as much as the South at the time.
Why are the North the good guys again considering they were just as bad?
>>67451878
But they were allowed to keep their slaves during the war
Abolitionism was punishment for the war not the reason for it
>>67451956
What is your argument?
>>67452035
>Northerners literally didn't give a fuck and looked at slaves as dogs just as much as the South at the time.
They were more concerned with slave owners taking up all of the land instead of free white men
There is a reason there was a huge overlap between nativists and free soilers
>>67452035
my ancestors who resided in the US at the time of the war all fought for the union. they didn't fight because of abolitionism; they fought to preserve a united states.
(even into the 1980s my yankee family held racially biased beliefs. all educated, a middle/upper class, and all racialist in worldview.)
>>67436322
Ask yourself this question.
Did white people really sacrifice 600,000 of themselves for the negro. Does that pass your smell test?
>>67452309
That the election of Lincoln did not mean the end of slavery
Also my argument was they no longer had any reason to remain in the Union
Why would anyone want to remain in a Union where you will be part of a permanent minority ?
>>67452320
>concerned over plantations and access to land
nope. not in the least. there was plenty of land in the south, and plenty of land in the west.
easy access to land didn't end until the 1890s ("the end of the west").
>>67452605
there was alway competition for desirable land
google free soilers
>>67452101
I don't think you get it.
Maryland did have slaves, that is correct. However, the Port of Baltimore was by far the most important asset the state had for itself, and the fact that it borders DC is a good reason for the Union to put Cannons on a hill overlooking the harbor (Fittingly named Federal Hill). Because the state wasn't willing to lose the harbor, they did not secede, as the state was probably on the fence.
Maryland didn't stay in the Union because they were allowed to keep the slaves, Maryland stayed because the port would have become a naval graveyard (and thus blocked) had they joined the Confederates.
>>67452500
How does the first part of your argument support the ladder, if Lincoln was not an abolitionist why would the states leave?
To actually address your question. The Union is not a damn country club. Its a fucking country, that states are free to try to leave if they want to, but you can expect they will have to fight in order to be recognized as such.
>>67452804
i'd advise that you google "free soilers."
the free soiler movement had nothing to do with "access" to land, and everything to do with ideology: free soilers wanted to prevent the expansion of slavery due to abolitionist sentiments.
>>67452919
>Maryland didn't stay in the Union because they were allowed to keep the slaves
I never said they did
I was just pointing out that you cant have a war to abolish slavery while simultaneously having slavery legal in your own country
>>67452919
also lincoln jailed secessionist marylanders, snuffing the movement before it even began.
>>67452945
>if Lincoln was not an abolitionist why would the states leave?
Because he was going to restrict the expansion of slavery
>that states are free to try to leave if they want to
I never said they were not
All I am arguing is that the war was about unionism not slavery
>to abolitionist sentiments.
Most didnt give a shit about black slaves
>>67453129
Fuck, I see what you were getting at now.
Well, at least now you know some of Baltimore's history. My work as a Marylander is done here.
>>67453544
My family was actually from Delaware owned slaves and fought for the Union
>>67436574
and republicans turned into racists to attract the Dixie-crats who are south democrats, the democrat party turned non racist, and then all the dixie crats went to the republican side.
and now republicans have trump, who is a racist and winning. you can even be right about other races - mexicans could be rapists and drug dealers - but judging somone based on their race LITTERALY makes you a "racist."
it is what the word means, so i want to see you proudly proclaim your racisim. if its not wrong, why feel ashamed and hide behind softer words?
>>67454015
>the democrat party turned non racist
hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha
>and now republicans have trump, who is a racist and winning. you can even be right about other races - mexicans could be rapists and drug dealers - but judging somone based on their race LITTERALY makes you a "racist."
The Republicans have always been anti immigration
>>67453332
Ok you don't make any attempt to tie your first point with your second.
>Lincoln was not an abolitionist...states had no reason to stay....Lincoln was going to restrict slavery
Sounds like a bunch of random statements strung together instead of a coherent argument.
>War about Unionism
Ok, now we can actually have some back and forth. YES, the North wanted to preserve the Union, that is why it fought the war. The South attempted to leave the Union to preserve slavery. There can be different reasons for fighting the same war. No, Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist, but he was a Republican which operated almost exclusively in the north, Lincoln did not carry a single southern state, and he was going to look to restrict the expansion of slavery.
A restricted institution of slavery would to: Loss of southern power in Congress, less chance of a southern sympathizer being voted as President, less southern sympathizers on the bench. Basically, they would have lost all bargaining power in the country when it came to slavery. The south was under the presumption that the original purpose of the Constitution was as a device through which northern and southern interests could be bargained over in equal terms. ( A south controlled House and Presidency and a Northern Senate). By this balance of power being upset, they were looking at the North dictating to them how the country would be run, especially when it comes to slavery. They didn't like this and decided to leave. That is why the south tried to secede
> abolitionist sentiments
When did I say anything about abolitionist sentiments?
>>67454015
>He doesn't know that the left is much more racist than the right
>Somehow intentionally creating ethnic ghettos where crime, drug abuse, and poverty flourish while education dies is not racist
