Would the ACW have happened over something other than slavery anyway? It seems like Dixie apologists say it was about "states' rights", they mean the principle of having legislature enacted by individual states independent of federal inquiry or political pressure from other states.
Slavery being the cause only under the specific context of the era and cultural boundaries here. Had the country ever gotten just as close to a civil war on the same scale over anything other than slavery before?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Also why did Lincoln think slavery would "..die a slow death" if confined to the South?
Because slavery was clearly an outdated institution repudiated by the rest of the civilised world. Southern slave owners had to create some insane mental gymnastics to justify the morals of their actions.
because it would have. The south was fricking over, there was a new kid in town. Maybe you heard of him -- the west. If they weren't able to expand there, slavery was done as a big money industry.
ah yes, the deserts of arizona
prime farming territory
further..
oh you mean the state that was given away to the northern industrialists long before the civil war that was full of gold and oddly half of the west coast
Yes.
okay so what's the significance of california being given away before the civil war
they were out of options
so you're saying the north effectively stealing California was a power play?
Dunno. Was the rest of the world banning slavery a power play?
what does california's statehood have to do with banning slavery? Are you moronic?
Why not just have slavery there then?
Arizona actually has a lot of good farmland
no it doesn't
Probably talking about california. which to be fair did have a very popular movement to split the south in two lead by butthurt southerners and angery californios that wanted all the yankees to frick off. Their referendum even ent to congress but by the time it reached the capital the civil war already started.
The state ould have been named colorado IIRC.
after the river which it barely touches.
Definitely, much like how maine was created out of butthurt because missouri wanted to be a slave state.
Because western expansion would mean new free states which would ultimately hold farm more power in government than the slave states. And because slavery was blatantly opposed to the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, capitalism, and any reasonable concept of moral decency, only people in slave states would ever support it. Hence Southern autism about forcing slavery on territories that had negative economic reasons to desire it.
legitimately only communists bring up the declaration of independence in a slavery debate
>legitimately only communists bring up the declaration of independence in a slavery debate
Them and everyone since 1776 who read the damn thing. Even Jefferson got uncomfortable bringing up the topic around his French friends, like Lafayette, who were all raising eyebrows at the blatant contradictions.
>how can ze americains fight for liberte when they have les slaves?! sacre bleu!
>zis sugar from saint-domingue es magnifique!
Mon ami, the French national assembly literally did abolish slavery and support the Haitians, it was Napoleon who brought it back.
They even had a former slave become a National Deputy in France, pic related.
french homosexuals are hardly a model
>France literally becomes the most powerful state in Europe that can only be taken down by a coalition of 5+ great powers
>French become role models for everyone for the remainder of the 19th century and every modernizer from Turkey to Japan looks to them for inspiration
>Literally reform life in Europe from Moscow to Lisbon by standardizing Metric measurements, establishing the Napoleonic code, abolishing serfdom, creating modern military organization, founding the Grand Ecoles, pioneering modern engineering principles, etc.
Oh yeah and Thomas Jefferson, along with every other well off Southerner, was a massive Francophile too lmao
>turkey and japan
two irrelevant countries
>Moscow
shithole
>abolishing serfdom
lol
leave it to midwits to worship despots to fill up their powerpoint presentation
>Ignores 80% of things listed
I don't know why you brought up Moscow, it was only being used for geographic indication of how extensive the French empire got. Plus, Moscow itself is genuinely a more grandiose and nicer city than most US cities tbh, their Metro fricking mogs everything in the New World or even the rest of Europe.
>Japan
>Irrelevant
Literally world's third largest economy and major player in East Asian politics, only temporarily subdued by America, but will inevitably become an active actor once again when China begins to ape out (also, the Chinese were also inspired by France. Deng Xiaoping literally lived in France)
>JaPaN HaS LaRgE EcOnoMy tOdAy sO0 ThEY WerE ReleVaNt
calm down kid, don't have an aneurism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_4_February_1794
Yes, without slavery there would still be a divide betwixt the Americans.
Its not apology, its just a fact, it was about rights, it was about a man's right to choose whether or not to own slaves, I dont own slaves, I dont like slavery, but I respect the right to choose.
Slavery was a vehicle and the largest difference, but it wasnt the only difference nor was it alone a pivotal difference, had Lee been defeated at Second Manassas and Grant running over the Tennesseans at Shiloh, slavery would still exist. Think about that for a moment, if the war ended in 61 and early 62, slavery doesnt slave.
It would be phased out, which is what happened in the North.
it was in fact already being phased out as Virginia had become more industrialized and prior to the slave rebellion of 1832 their anti-slavery movement was immense.
>we are seceding over the issue of slavery
and they also are seceding over the issue of freedom, taxes, culture, all things they mentioned as well, as many quotes as there are about slavery, there are equally as many that it was about culture and not slavery.
>you got bullied by black kids
pure projection, blacks always say this because they can not fathom that people wouldnt immediately love them and their bizarrely high criminality, unproductivity, and garish feminine behavior.
stop having a chip on your shoulder and grow up, no one has to like you and crying to White to punish people who dont like you is what b***hes, literal b***hes, women and dogs, do.
how is it outdated if its been on the rise since 1950?
>the rest of the White world
oh right lmao.
the soon to be Confederates, as young men, at West Point would get into fights with "the Yankees" and when they would teach their students they favor Southern Students over Yankees.
There was clearly animosity between North and South.
You are too low IQ and obsessed with White people to see the truth.
The North and South divide goes back to 1066.
>The North and South divide goes back to 1066.
why do people pretend that the rulers of the south were all normans when in reality most southern nobility were the descendents of merchants who had worked their way up the social ladder?
robert e lee was a descendent of cotton merchants
Mostly because even if they worked their way up the ladder they still assimilated into a culture that liked to LARP as being noblemen, arguably because it was founded by seething cavaliers fleeing cromwell. Which would define virginia and most of the south.
>The North and South divide goes back to 1066.
You people are beyond autistic. English colonists in America were all plebs, no landed aristocrats from Norman families bothered uprooting themselves to a wilderness just to die of dysentery in a timber hut
racial autism was the topic that helped rally the cause, if not for that it may never have gotten enough support
anybody that says it is about slavery is ignoring about 40-50 years of politics while also knowing nothing nuanced about the political, social and economic situation in the north or south
the blackpill is even if you explain to people WHY it wasn't because of slavery only about the top 10% of people would ever have had the capacity to understand why in the first place, then about 75% of those people will have a political reason to not want to believe it anyway
>Seceding Southern states: We are seceding over the issue of slavery
>Random 21st century white kid who got bullied by black kids in school: well ackshually...
>yeah but its slavery though
congrats, you're a midwit
I wonder what the key issue of those 40 to 50 years of politicking was. I really can't quite remember. Do you happen to know?
there was no key issue, it's an amalgamation of hundreds of issues
I can't help but think...that both sides were actively preventing the creation of states...and creating entirely new political movements...because of some key issue...
nope
>It wasn't about slavery because...it just wasn't, okay?!!
>It was about everything..and nothing!
Speaking of midwit. Sit down, kid.
life isn't a highschool powerpoint
Well see, it's not about powerpoints, it's really a much more nuanced issue that we really can't pin down to anything
it is because you think everything is like a highschool powerpoint, that's why you're a midwit moron
Just give me one single reason, just one, as to why slavery wasn't a very important issue between north and south.
what like your highschool powerpoints? didn't you fail highschool history, I don't think more powerpoints will help you
you're doomed to be moronic
>he consneeds to losing the argument by ridiculing the previous poster, thusly having run out of arguments
this is cope
>I'm so smart, but refuse to elaborate
have a nice day
If you weren't moronic you would have figured it out by yourself
>it wasn't about slavery because ....
>Idk le joos or something I guess
Kek why do you people even come here
how many times are you going to post the same thing
>Would the ACW have happened over something other than slavery anyway?
A new one happened on Jan 6 2021, a day that will forever live in infamy. Unlike the Confederacy, Drumpfs Stormtroopers took hold of the capitol making it the most successful insurrection in US history.
If it hadn't been over slavery then what it would have been over? This might be the economic reductionist inside me speaking, but to me it appears that had slavery been abolished in the South, then something would have changed in their society so drastically that it would no longer be certain if the civil war would have happened.
trains
Redpill me on the train issue.
trains were the nuclear weapons of the 1800's. It used to be steamboats for a short period which is why a small amount of canals were built. but trains quickly took over in an era where cars didn't exist. if you owned the railway you dictated who went where, for how much, what they brought with them everything. If you controlled the trains you controlled the economy. Around this time a new political party was created with a foundation of "give railways government backed money with a central bank to expand and something good will happen". The main coalition against this political party was, you guessed it, southern democrats.
The north had more railroads but the south had plenty as well, with much of the endless manual labor done by slaves. One regional beef in the 1850s not directly related to slavery was which route a proposed transcontinental line would take. Once the war kicked off the Union just started building west from Omaha, though construction didn’t really get going until after the war.
While Republicans favored federal support of infrastructure (many ex-Whigs like Lincoln the railroad lawyer) they didn’t fund railroads directly but used land grants. An interesting difference between north and south is that many southern railroads were state owned while Yankees used private capital. I’m not sure why but it led to some b***hy feuds during the war where southern governors wouldn’t give up control of their railroads for military purposes—just one more reason the south lost.
>An interesting difference between north and south is that many southern railroads were state owned while Yankees used private capital.
Lol what, did you just make that up? Or are you talking about after the civil war when the south was taken over politically by northern carpetbaggers
>>An interesting difference between north and south is that many southern railroads were state owned while Yankees used private capital.
Lol what, did you just make that up? Or are you talking about after the civil war when the south was taken over politically by northern carpetbaggers
No, I’m talking about the antebellum era, when some southern railroads were built by the states, which wasn’t as common in the north. I’m a train and Civil War autiste and you can read about it in Railroads of the Confederacy by Robert C. Black iii.
>some southern railroads were built by the states
One of the most difficult speedbumps to the South during the Civil War was their desire to not take over all the privately owned railroads and use them for war, are you basing this on anecdotes?
The Western and Atlantic was owned by the state of Georgia and their Atlanta to Chattanooga mainline played a crucial role in the war. Georgia governor Joe Brown gave the government and military a hard time over “his” line, just like he did with matters involving Georgia troops or supplies. While most southern lines were privately owned, the W & A is one example of autistic states rights getting in the way of the Confederate war machine.
Georgia didn't even have hardly anybody living in it until the 1800's, so of course they didn't have as many railroads.
It almost happened over tariffs and nullification 30 years prior.
Thats true, people don’t remember, but even northern state legislatures like Rhode Island discussed seceding and allying with the British again over fricking taxes during the era of the Articles of Confederation.
Early America was held together with bubble gum and shoe strings and had a weak central government and strong state militias which made floating the idea of secession common when a state wasn’t getting its way.
>had a weak central government and strong state militias which made floating the idea of secession common when a state wasn’t getting its way.
How would this play out if allowed? I find the idea of a single federal government beholden to ALL states interesting.
The pro is its cheaper and state militias can defend the homeland without getting into costly foreign entanglements (in money and manpower) like the European imperialists were constantly doing. The founding fathers were trying to avoid getting drug into constant foreign wars.
The downside is, several states can pool their manpower together and threaten the federal government. And other states in the Union can just drag their feet commiting their forces to protect the federal government, because there’s no centralized command.
>The year is 1867
>Missouri, both carolinas and kentucky march their militias to the capital over something stupid.
>The mid atlantic and midwest are being pissy homosexuals about tariffs and try to extort the federal government, plus new york thought it'd be a good idea to block the new england autism squad from rushing reinforcements into the capital
>Federal government ends up relying on fricking delaware, maryland and ends up begging the mormons to help them in exchange for leaving them to their polygamy.
Oh the great autism.
>Tariffs
Wow an economic issue
Almost as if... The economy of a certain region was structured around a specific economic activity which did not benefit from tariffs, like an export cash crop based plantation economy or something...
You know the north specifically targeted southern industry with tariffs right? Why do you think south Carolina wanted to secede in the 1830's? That would be like California tariffing corn production in the midwest
>Would the ACW have happened over something other than slavery anyway?
At the end of the day, the main thing about slavery is that it was about wealth and power since the slaves were worth a lot of money when you add it up. Some historians say the slaves in total were worth more than all the railroads and factories combined, comprising the single largest financial asset in the United States.
>Had the country ever gotten just as close to a civil war on the same scale over anything other than slavery before?
Don't think so but end of Reconstruction coincided with the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 which was so large that it caused the northern industrialists to break from the radical wing of the Republican Party for an alliance with the recuperated southern planter class that they had just fought a war against because the unrest was so bad they feared a repeat of the Paris Commune.
How much richer would the south be had they accepted compensated emancipation? Sure they're only probably going to get half or less the value of each slave, but that's still a frickload of money being transferred from North to South.
compensated emancipation was never on the table because the war wasn't about slavery, lincoln invaded the south because they seceded, not because of slavery
and the south left over slavery, and you can't even argue they didn't because they themselves outright stated thats why they tried to leave
not really
>bro I know they outright stated they are leaving over slavery but uhhhh they actually had other reasons, they just didn't mention them for uhhhh reasons
whats funny is you never bring up any other reason
I mean they can have other reasons other than slavery.
then why didn't they list them, why was the only major change between the USA and CSA constitution is that slavery was not only protected but outright mandated, and why was the only complaint they had with Lincol being he wanted to bar slavery in the territories because that meant they could no longer spread it, seems like for the South it was explicity about slavery
I think you find there are many social (slavery), religious (slavery), political (slavery) and economic (slavery) reasons
When you're wanting to politically crucify somebody you don't usually tell people you're trying to convince of their evil their actual motives
The entire course of the country would've been changed, and the industry of the US would've been more equally spread out.
not that much richer, Slavery wasnt a significant part of their economy nor did it produce a lot of wealth and it wasnt worth a lot of wealth.
>muh blek pipo made amarikkka
its a sweet thing to tell blacks that they contributed to the country, but the reality is the South was an agrarian village which was only productive in places where you have industry such as Virginia and Coastal areas.
Virginia was so industrialized it was wealthier and more productive than the other 12 combined.
you can because they said they left over many things, slavery being one of the issues.
They outright stated it was because they were being politically abused which they were.
they openly and frequently say its about irreconciable conflicts of which slavery was a catalyst.
>the only major change
except for taxes, culture, way of life, their entire folkway STILL makes them distinct from Northerners TO THIS DAY.
>Slavery wasn't a major part of the Southern economy
I've heard all kinds of ridiculous things in civil war discussion, but this is a new low
youre a fricking moron.
The Confederacy was very poor, and most of them didnt have slaves, and the wealthy who could afford slaves did not make much money off of their slaves. Slaves maintained and produced very little surplus, but them being free labor that small surplus adds up over decades and so the wealthy never lose their wealth, but they never become fabulously rich.
In 1860 according to the census measure of wealth, that being real and personal property, the average Southern white male was nearly twice as wealthy as the average Northern white man
Source: Lee Soltow, men and wealth in the United states 1850-1870, 65
They did have less spare cash, as most of this wealth was invested in land and slaves. Slave agriculture yielded as great return on capital as potential alternative investments.
Source: Kenneth M Stamp, The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Antebellum South; Alfred H Conrad and John R Meyer, The Rconomics of Slavery in the Antebellum South, Journal of political economy, 66, 95-158; Fogel and Engerman, Time on the Cross.
Now shut the frick up you know-nothing
This whole debate is so utterly absurd and hilarious. Confederates in their time had no qualms about saying it: they supported slavery and they were seceding to preserve it. They genuinely believed their cause was fully justified because at the time it was generally accepted that Africans were not equal to Europeans and therefore there was nothing wrong with enslaving them like animals, in the eyes of the Confederacy.
Alexander Stephens wasn't going to beat around the bush and try to adhere to Liberal morality and belief in equality, he did not believe in equality and he did not believe in Whig Liberalism, the guy had his own ideals and was more than happy to express them.
Watching 21st century Confederate apologists try to erase this is like watching Communists pretend that Lenin never actually wanted to abolish private property and that his real motivations were to make Russia great again. Just let historic figures have their real motivations lmao, who cares if they're polemic in contemporary mainstream society?