This is actually incorrect. The civil war was never about slavery. Freed slaves was an outcome of the civil war but not the reason it started. More Americans died under Abraham Lincoln than all other presidents combined.
Though from a legal perspective the justification is states rights the root cause of division was largely around slavery.
Slaves were not seen as humans but merely as property. As you would own a tractor or horse today. They were expensive to have and maintain and thus only the wealthiest people in southern society could really afford to own slaves. Slavery was always a point of contention since the founding of America and as the north became industrialized and the rise of an anti-slavery party (The Republican Party) the tension increased.
Slaves would run away and neither northern states or Federal govt would return the slaves. Not to mention when new states/territories joined the union the Republican Party would do everything they can to stop slavery expansion and prohibit trade. This was a huge attack on the southern way of life and economy.
So while yes, states rights was the justification, the difference in views over slavery was the main impetus and cultural divide that made war inevitable.
Yeah because the UK said if you want the debt to continue funding your war you need to drop slavery.
Remember the UK dropped slavery and the US was growing quickly but still smaller than the UK. Slave trade was helping that. (They didnt quite grasp the growth was due to freedom at this point) The UK was all for a long civil war ending in no slavery it allowed them to be the dominant empire for a few more decades.
Exactly. How could it be fought to end slavery if slave states such as Maryland were on the Union side. It was simply a violent rejection of a state's right to secede
My 8th grade U.S. History teacher beat this VERY point into our brains. Good old Coach Dupree...a patriot, back in the days when schools really TAUGHT history.
Because the federal government was tending to an oligarchy even then. If it were purely about slavery, the federal government could have paid for the freedom of the slaves and helped them transition for FAR less than the war cost in money alone, never mind the cost in lives. Funny that it never did so, nor did it even free the slaves in DC itself until well into the war.
It's impossible to deny that slavery did have a role, but it was an exemplar of a wider issue...a federal government that got too big for its britches and seeking to go back on the underpinnings of the Constitution itself
My entire education of u.s history has been a fucking lie. That one sentence you wrote could be taught to children very simply. U.s history never mentions that Andrew Jackson shot and killed bankers, never mention overreach of Lincolns america, never mentions JFK silver dollars. Dude! The deepstate has been at work since Lincoln!!!! I never knew that I could be further redpilled!!!!! What on EARTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So before lincoln, states had the option to "easily" secede the union??? Can you name 1 example of how it was tending towards oligarchy? Also compares to today? Was it not financial???
It was the first test of succession. Obviously it didn't go well.
As far as examples, one need only look at things that happened immediately after the government was set up: The Whiskey Rebellion. It is an immutable characteristic that all government tends to centralization, notwithstanding any documentation or principles to the contrary.
You caught my attempt at subterfuge lol I'm not an expert in that epoch of history and don't really wanna research to cite examples. So I went with something I knew off the top of my head that was consistent with the theme.
The way you are posting makes me think you disagree with the thesis. Which is fine. Can you post things from Lincoln's America that prove your point of view? I can use this as an opportunity to learn more and perhaps be persuaded
The union only went with anti slavery to get debt from the UK to fund the war. That meant that they could last longer than the south. Thats why the south needed a quick victory and why Gettysburg was such a disaster. They didnt have the funds to regroup and from then on they were done for. Plus the bankers prefer one central government over many individual states so it was good for them as well.
To a degree slavery yes. But that was the 3rd most cause of it. Number one cause of the Civil War was over States rights. People who poo poo you about states rights about being the cause of the civil war are wrongfully mislead. Learned this from a history class and the teacher was actually a Democrat legislature, go figure.
Since these assholes, liberals were not around when it happened. ( the idiots rewrote history ) So maybe we we need to shed more so these idiots see what is to fight a war at home.
One of my ancestors fought in the civil war in the north. These people asking for reparations can suck the sweat off the underside of my nuts in the middle of July on a Sunday.
The Union ransacked and burned the South. Atlanta burned. Heck, the people of Vicksburg lived in caves for months in fear of Grant's army. I mean, when Sherman began his march to the sea, it was basically a smash, burn and destroy party in many places.. It was only a matter of time after the Union had destroyed their supply lines. Why? Because it was a bloody, heated war and Lincoln was eager for it to end at all costs. For better or worse, 650,000+ (some even posit higher) died on both sides. Considering if you ask any High School History teacher the reason for the Civil War, they all respond in lock step that the reason was "slavery," you'd think enough blood has been shed over it.
When you consider all of the above, you can absolutely understand why the peoples of the former rebellion put up their statues. There were a defeated people who had to have the absolute evil of slavery cut out from under them in a bloody surgery without anesthetic. It is a shame they not only murdered the doctor in charge (Lincoln) but his successors lacked the willingness to handle the South properly during reconstruction, which is one of the reasons it took another 100 years and many other atrocities to make any meaningful change.
This is actually incorrect. The civil war was never about slavery. Freed slaves was an outcome of the civil war but not the reason it started. More Americans died under Abraham Lincoln than all other presidents combined.
You should read the declaration of secession from the states.
LINK: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
Though from a legal perspective the justification is states rights the root cause of division was largely around slavery.
Slaves were not seen as humans but merely as property. As you would own a tractor or horse today. They were expensive to have and maintain and thus only the wealthiest people in southern society could really afford to own slaves. Slavery was always a point of contention since the founding of America and as the north became industrialized and the rise of an anti-slavery party (The Republican Party) the tension increased.
Slaves would run away and neither northern states or Federal govt would return the slaves. Not to mention when new states/territories joined the union the Republican Party would do everything they can to stop slavery expansion and prohibit trade. This was a huge attack on the southern way of life and economy.
So while yes, states rights was the justification, the difference in views over slavery was the main impetus and cultural divide that made war inevitable.
Civil war started April 12, 1861. Emancipation Proclamation wasn't issued until January 1, 1863.
Yeah because the UK said if you want the debt to continue funding your war you need to drop slavery.
Remember the UK dropped slavery and the US was growing quickly but still smaller than the UK. Slave trade was helping that. (They didnt quite grasp the growth was due to freedom at this point) The UK was all for a long civil war ending in no slavery it allowed them to be the dominant empire for a few more decades.
So for the UK bankers and Lincoln it was ideal.
Exactly. How could it be fought to end slavery if slave states such as Maryland were on the Union side. It was simply a violent rejection of a state's right to secede
My 8th grade U.S. History teacher beat this VERY point into our brains. Good old Coach Dupree...a patriot, back in the days when schools really TAUGHT history.
Holy shit I no longer like Lincoln.
Why did the south want to secede
Because the federal government was tending to an oligarchy even then. If it were purely about slavery, the federal government could have paid for the freedom of the slaves and helped them transition for FAR less than the war cost in money alone, never mind the cost in lives. Funny that it never did so, nor did it even free the slaves in DC itself until well into the war.
It's impossible to deny that slavery did have a role, but it was an exemplar of a wider issue...a federal government that got too big for its britches and seeking to go back on the underpinnings of the Constitution itself
My entire education of u.s history has been a fucking lie. That one sentence you wrote could be taught to children very simply. U.s history never mentions that Andrew Jackson shot and killed bankers, never mention overreach of Lincolns america, never mentions JFK silver dollars. Dude! The deepstate has been at work since Lincoln!!!! I never knew that I could be further redpilled!!!!! What on EARTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So before lincoln, states had the option to "easily" secede the union??? Can you name 1 example of how it was tending towards oligarchy? Also compares to today? Was it not financial???
It was the first test of succession. Obviously it didn't go well.
As far as examples, one need only look at things that happened immediately after the government was set up: The Whiskey Rebellion. It is an immutable characteristic that all government tends to centralization, notwithstanding any documentation or principles to the contrary.
Honest question, whiskey rebellion was 1790s. Right? How does that relate to the oligarch tendency of Lincolns America?
You caught my attempt at subterfuge lol I'm not an expert in that epoch of history and don't really wanna research to cite examples. So I went with something I knew off the top of my head that was consistent with the theme.
The way you are posting makes me think you disagree with the thesis. Which is fine. Can you post things from Lincoln's America that prove your point of view? I can use this as an opportunity to learn more and perhaps be persuaded
Well, it is both.
The union only went with anti slavery to get debt from the UK to fund the war. That meant that they could last longer than the south. Thats why the south needed a quick victory and why Gettysburg was such a disaster. They didnt have the funds to regroup and from then on they were done for. Plus the bankers prefer one central government over many individual states so it was good for them as well.
Wasn't over slavery.Was over states rights.
... To own slaves
To a degree slavery yes. But that was the 3rd most cause of it. Number one cause of the Civil War was over States rights. People who poo poo you about states rights about being the cause of the civil war are wrongfully mislead. Learned this from a history class and the teacher was actually a Democrat legislature, go figure.
Since these assholes, liberals were not around when it happened. ( the idiots rewrote history ) So maybe we we need to shed more so these idiots see what is to fight a war at home.
One of my ancestors fought in the civil war in the north. These people asking for reparations can suck the sweat off the underside of my nuts in the middle of July on a Sunday.
A lot of republicans died for that. Dems giving us reparations ?
Paid for in full.
The merchants who brought them here never paid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Lopez
The Union ransacked and burned the South. Atlanta burned. Heck, the people of Vicksburg lived in caves for months in fear of Grant's army. I mean, when Sherman began his march to the sea, it was basically a smash, burn and destroy party in many places.. It was only a matter of time after the Union had destroyed their supply lines. Why? Because it was a bloody, heated war and Lincoln was eager for it to end at all costs. For better or worse, 650,000+ (some even posit higher) died on both sides. Considering if you ask any High School History teacher the reason for the Civil War, they all respond in lock step that the reason was "slavery," you'd think enough blood has been shed over it.
When you consider all of the above, you can absolutely understand why the peoples of the former rebellion put up their statues. There were a defeated people who had to have the absolute evil of slavery cut out from under them in a bloody surgery without anesthetic. It is a shame they not only murdered the doctor in charge (Lincoln) but his successors lacked the willingness to handle the South properly during reconstruction, which is one of the reasons it took another 100 years and many other atrocities to make any meaningful change.
No, I feel strongly that reparations are a joke.
you still pay for it right now in welfare...
Mostly white blood, in fact.