Like when people say it was over “states rights” but ignore the Feds sided with state’s rights, and the South was the one arguing for a stronger federal government.
States rights to force other states to follow their laws…
No, because Lincoln wasn’t going to outlaw slavery before the civil war.
As I said in the very first comment:
What started it was the south thought the feds should be able to enforce southern law (escaped slaves are still slaves, and northern states had to return them) and the Feds said they couldn’t force one state to follow another state’s laws.
The South thought an escaped slave in a state where slavery was outlawed was still a slave. And that meant they were property and Northern states should have to capture them and send them back.
That was the line.
Saying it was just slavery is reductionist and doesn’t make it seem as bad as it was.
You’re giving them too much credit. And I don’t know why you want them to seem better than they were.
From the first paragraph of the Mississippi declaration of cause of secession:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
I literally already said this in the parent comment:
What started it was the south thought the feds should be able to enforce southern law (escaped slaves are still slaves, and northern states had to return them) and the Feds said they couldn’t force one state to follow another state’s laws.
Yes, that was the final reasoning that led to the Civil War.
At no point was anyone of substance attempting to federally outlaw slavery until about 2 years into the civil war. At which point it was done to make the plantations less valuable to European investors who knew the North would win, but that the South was desperate for money/supplies and would sell on the cheap.
By outlawing slavery during the war, Lincoln depressed the Southern land prices, otherwise it would have went on even longer.
It’s complicated shit. Which is why I take the down votes to explain it. Reducing it to “slavery” isn’t doing justice to all the shit that was going on. It makes everyone seem better, and because that’s the simplified version that makes it into highschool books, everyone keeps believing it.
You have said multiple times that the civil war was specifically about slavery. Which is exactly what the woman in the OP was denying. Why are you trying to argue semantics where none are required?
Trying to obfuscate the issue beyond that doesn’t really help. If slavery were removed from the equation the entire issue would be moot.
It’s not like we are talking about states rights to sell alcohol or do anything else.
It was specifically the rights of one state to force another state to enforce slavery. Again, if slavery were removed from the equation we would not be talking about the civil war as we know it. That doesn’t mean a civil war wouldn’t have happened for another reason, but it didn’t, and entertaining any other reality is just fiction.
Basically “states rights to be able to do what exactly?”
States rights to force other states to follow their laws…
Their laws to do what exactly?
I mean, ultimately it’s about states rights, but mostly states rights to own other human beings and treat them as cattle.
No, because Lincoln wasn’t going to outlaw slavery before the civil war.
As I said in the very first comment:
The South thought an escaped slave in a state where slavery was outlawed was still a slave. And that meant they were property and Northern states should have to capture them and send them back.
That was the line.
Saying it was just slavery is reductionist and doesn’t make it seem as bad as it was.
You’re giving them too much credit. And I don’t know why you want them to seem better than they were.
You should read the declarations of succession which clearly state that slavery was the reason.
https://lemmy.world/comment/11343369
Tldr:
The slave states lied to make themselves sound better.
Edit:
Listening to the slave states for why the civil war started is like asking a trumpet at his rally what 1/6 was.
They aren’t going to give you an answer based in reality, so why are we listening to them?
From the first paragraph of the Mississippi declaration of cause of secession:
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/secession-acts-thirteen-confederate-states
But sure, they were lying about it in their official documentation.
Specifically…
I literally already said this in the parent comment:
So to recap, the American Civil War was about states’ rights to […] Force people who escaped slavery be returned to slavery. Is that right?
Yes, that was the final reasoning that led to the Civil War.
At no point was anyone of substance attempting to federally outlaw slavery until about 2 years into the civil war. At which point it was done to make the plantations less valuable to European investors who knew the North would win, but that the South was desperate for money/supplies and would sell on the cheap.
By outlawing slavery during the war, Lincoln depressed the Southern land prices, otherwise it would have went on even longer.
It’s complicated shit. Which is why I take the down votes to explain it. Reducing it to “slavery” isn’t doing justice to all the shit that was going on. It makes everyone seem better, and because that’s the simplified version that makes it into highschool books, everyone keeps believing it.
You have said multiple times that the civil war was specifically about slavery. Which is exactly what the woman in the OP was denying. Why are you trying to argue semantics where none are required?
Trying to obfuscate the issue beyond that doesn’t really help. If slavery were removed from the equation the entire issue would be moot.
…
Because details are important?
Why do you want to reduce an entire civil war down to one word in a way that makes both sides seem better than they were?
Literally the opposite of what’s happening here…
It’s not like we are talking about states rights to sell alcohol or do anything else.
It was specifically the rights of one state to force another state to enforce slavery. Again, if slavery were removed from the equation we would not be talking about the civil war as we know it. That doesn’t mean a civil war wouldn’t have happened for another reason, but it didn’t, and entertaining any other reality is just fiction.
So, their right to own slaves.
You didn’t do too well on the SAT/ACT reading sections, huh…