You must log in or # to comment.
“The Civil War was about states’ rights!”
Yes. States’ rights to own slaves.
Not even that. The first paragraph of each letter of secession say unequivocally that it’s about slavery. Most don’t even mention states rights.
You can argue that it was set off when the Northern states passed laws that freed any slaves who set foot there and the Southern states demanded that the laws be abolished and all states be required to enforce slavery. They didn’t get their way so they decided to throw a tantrum.
Of course even with that slavery remains the lynchpin of the whole thing.
The southern states really wanted to have some kind of heritage so they chose being losers. Truth.
They had so many options, and still they went with being racist losers. Smh.
“Economic factors”
It’s always an interesting question when you raise the issue of what the South’s entire economy was dependent on.
Economic factors is the number one reason given for violating civil rights
Texas was created for slavery.
Oklahoma has its panhandle due to slavery. It used to be part of Texas but Texas gave it up rather then give up slavery.
West Virginia isn’t really thought of as being the nicest of states, but they were the only state created explicitly to combat slavery - so that’s pretty cool.
They had two civil wars over it. First when México outlawed it and again when the USA did.
I don’t get it. Is that not the most common reason given?
Unfortunately, many claim nonsense like “It was about states’ rights!”
I’m sure there were many reasons that led to it, but I think ending slavery mainly in the confederate states is considered the big, and most public one.
States rights to have slaves
It had been an issue for a long time before the civil war. Suddenly when the south started trying to industrialize it became the biggest reason. These are things you can find out in the boring history books. So sure it was the given reason and it was a good reason to be sure but it wouldn’t have happened without other issues. Why do you think the north let them create The Jim Crow Laws? The laws that allowed the virtual continuation of slavery up in to the twentieth century. The root cause which is still causing all kinds of trouble today as we fall toward fascism.
Suddenly when the south started trying to industrialize it became the biggest reason.
Fucking what.
I’m saying the north made slavery their battle call only after other factors motivated them. The proof they didn’t give two shits about black folk were the jim crow laws they allowed the southern states to adopt during reconstruction.
Edit: ignorance of the truth will not change the reality of it. Sure there were many in the north who were against slavery. As there were some in the south at the time who were against it. When the south started trying to purchase manufacturing equipment from Britain the north imposed restrictions on its import in the form of… You guessed it tariffs. This caused much back and forth and when the north needed a reason they had a just one in the form of slavery. Somehow people seem to miss this with our dumbed down education system. They make slavery the only reason and forget how politics works. Looking at our current shit show why do you think anything has changed in all that time?
Eduacate yourself and quit repeating nonsense
https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war.html https://ourhistorynow.com/tariffs-taxes-and-the-twilight-of-a-union-how-economic-tensions-shadowed-the-road-to-the-civil-war/ https://www.nps.gov/articles/industry-and-economy-during-the-civil-war.htm
I could go on but if you can’t be bothered to learn the truth of then how could you ever hope to understand the situation today.
https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war.html
https://www.nps.gov/articles/industry-and-economy-during-the-civil-war.htm
I love how the sources you edited in actually refute your claims, lmao.
Fucking illiterates.
I’m saying the north made slavery their battle call only after other factors motivated them.
There were three compromises proposed before-and-in-the-early Civil War by which slavery would be forever enshrined in the US Constitution, in exchange for the South refusing secession. All three were rejected by the North.
Don’t confuse the offer of isolation and a ‘slow death’ of slavery, as was a common abolitionist position of the time, with being neutral on slavery. The war was always about the fate of slavery; the position of the North only changed from “We will isolate slavery to ensure it dies” to “We will ban slavery to ensure it dies.” Prominent voices in the North repeatedly expressed this view, and prominent voices in the South expressed understanding and horror of that view - with the South recognizing that slavery could not survive isolated in the US South, and had to expand to survive.
The proof they didn’t give two shits about black folk were the jim crow laws they allowed the southern states to adopt during reconstruction.
After the end of Reconstruction, when the Northern-supported Republicans lost control of the Southern states due to the Federal government pulling out, with the Feds pulling out due to a corrupt bargain that resulted from a disputed presidential election.
Also, SCOTUS struck down Federal anti-segregation laws during Reconstruction.
The north rejecting the souths comprimises is in no way proof that it was only about slavery. Its proof the north wanted to keep control, nothing more. There were no comprimies. None. Not on the souths attempts at industrialazation and none on the self serviing tarrifs. The fact the battle cry was slavery was a easy sell to the northern whites. Kinda like round of all the browns and throw them out is today. The very fact that you think the corruption of post war america was somehow separate from the repulicans of the time is silly.
Finally how is SCOTUS striking down anti segragation laws in any way conflict with jim crow? The north had what they wanted and were apathetic to the fate of the former slaves.The north rejecting the souths comprimises is in no way proof that it was only about slavery. Its proof the north wanted to keep control, nothing more.
“Keep control”
… this the same USA which was dominated by Southern politics all the way up to 1860.
Not on the souths attempts at industrialazation
What attempts at industrialization.
and none on the self serviing tarrifs.
Fucking what.
The fact the battle cry was slavery was a easy sell to the northern whites.
“Northern white folk were invested in the Civil War because of the call to anti-slavery action, but the North also didn’t care about slavery”
Are you being fucking serious right now.
The very fact that you think the corruption of post war america was somehow separate from the repulicans of the time is silly.
Jesus fucking Christ, I’d give you a lesson on the context of 1876 election if everything you’ve said up to this point wasn’t reflective of a frightening level of motivated ignorance.
Finally how is SCOTUS striking down anti segragation laws in any way conflict with jim crow? The north had what they wanted and were apathetic to the fate of the former slaves.
“The North didn’t give two shits about Jim Crow!”
“The North literally passed Federal laws against segregation. They were struck down by the Supreme Court.”
“How do anti-segregation laws in any way conflict with Jim Crow???”
Are you fucking stupid.
I’m just gonna answer the last one. No I’m not fucking stupid and I’ve read more civil war history than you have. You are pretty typical for someone who says they read about history. You pick and choose to match your opinion. Nothing more. You claim to know the history but claim don’t know about how tariffs of the time were geared toward northern interest. You claim you don’t know about the souths attempts to industrialize. You don’t know much or you do and choose to ignore it. I’m done. Cause I don’t have to ask if you are fucking stupid.
I’ve read more civil war history than you have. You are pretty typical for someone who says they read about history. You pick and choose to match your opinion.
The Civil War was about capitalism. The ability for capitalists to keep their labour costs down, way down.
The Southern Aristocracy was very much operating on a pre-capitalist economy, with a system of pseudo-feudalism predominating in the slave economy. If the US Civil War was about capitalism, the northern industrialists, who benefitted from the Southern feudal economy keeping costs low, would have supported the South’s war for slavery, not the North’s attempts to end it.
Oh, say what is it called when someone is forced to work against their will for no money? I know there’s a word for it…
Slavery, which can and is employed in capitalist systems when there’s opportunity to do so.
