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???
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.
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???
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.