>We have dissolved the late Union chiefly because of the negro quarrel. Now, is there any man who wished to reproduce that strife among ourselves? And yet does not he, who wished the slave trade left for the action of Congress, see that he proposed to open a Pandora's box among us and to cause our political arena again to resound with this discussion. Had we left the question unsettled, we should, in my opinion, have sown broadcast the seeds of discord and death in our Constitution. I congratulate the country that the strife has been put to rest forever, and that American slavery is to stand before the world as it is, and on its own merits. We have now placed our domestic institution, and secured its rights unmistakably, in the Constitution. We have sought by no euphony to hide its name. We have called our negroes 'slaves', and we have recognized and protected them as persons and our rights to them as property.
—Robert Hardy Smith, An Address to the Citizens of Alabama on the Constitution and Laws of the Confederate States of America, 1861.
>Georgia Democrat Alexander H. Stephens, who would become the Confederacy's vice president, also stated that the Confederate constitution was "decidedly better than" the American one, as it "put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution. African slavery as it exists amongst us; the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right
The Southerners should have struck first and on top of that, they really shouldn't have used slaves for domestic help. That's just an easy way to get glass shards in your intestines.
Carter Lopez
Are there people that deny that the US Civil war was over slavery?
The southerners weren't exactly renowned for their intelligence. Slavery will always BTFO its supporters in the end, humans aren't meant to be subjugated.
Pretty much every Southerner that flies the stars and bars and cries muh Southern pride when called a racist. Those faggots just need to own it. They are almost as whiny as the far left snowflakes.
Carter Cruz
Yes, because there were multiple causes in the lead up to the war. Saying slavery was the single issue is highly disingenuous.
There has only been one successful slave revolt in history and any non white country simply castrated or killed their slaves so they didn't pose a problem down the line. I'd say slavery served them well.
Xavier James
Yes. Because if you don't cherry pick some quotes and read an actual book you'll learn it was about state and federal rights. States thought, rightfully so I might add, that the federal government was over stepping its bounds by not allowing states to create all their own laws. Slavery was merely the main topic this precipitated around.
Joseph Perry
It was the primary cause. Any person who says "Le States rights" is a fucking idiot.
I remember an user made a post showing some piece of legislation that allowed slavery to exist and was agreed to by the north. I forget the details though.
Cameron Cooper
The Corwin Amendment theoretically would have settled the argument forever as it was a potential constitutional amendment forbidding Congress from making any law regarding slavery and leaving it up to the states.
Jaxson Clark
Georgia "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
Missippi
" 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."
South Caroline "These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor."
Evan Powell
cringe
Adam Young
>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. This doesn't make any sense since slavery was a small portion of the economy and wasn't even that profitable.
Nolan Rivera
Everyone agrees that secession was about slavery, user. But the war was not.
Wyatt Robinson
I'm sure you know more than the people who were actually willing to die attempting to preserve the institution.
You dumb fuck....The Civil War was about taxes. To get the south to abide Lincoln abolished slavery to piss off the south...it worked.The south was most butt hurt over abolishing slavery but that doesnt negate the fact it all stemmed from the souths kowtowing the Britain and lack of paying taxes.
Tyler Russell
Secession was about federal overreach on the states.
the issue at hand was at slavery. If the Civil War was "about" slavery then you would have to make some theoretical statements.
A. the Southern states do not secede, and slavery is abolished. the abolishment of slavery had no chance of happening at the time of secession.
B. the Southern states secede but rapidly are defeated by the North and reintegrated within the first couple campaigns. In this scenario, slavery would have been modified perhaps, but the likelihood of abolishing slavery over a short rift in the Union is highly unlikely.
C. Southern states secede, no war occurs. Obviously slavery wouldnt be abolished in this scenario.
D. South Secedes, puts up spirited defense, slavery is abolished to put economic pressure on the south.
This is the one that happened. Abolitionists as an organized philosophical group were small. Nobody was going to enlist in New Jersey to go march to Dixie and get their leg blown off for a slave. Nobody.
Lincoln made the emancipation proclamation to sow economic chaos in the south during the war, hoping that millions of slaves would revolt or stop working at the very least.
the abolishment of slavery had little to do with the civil war itself outside of a war aim and there are a myriad of likely alternate scenarios where it would not have occurred.
The civil war was about slavery in the same way the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were about Islam. Integral, but not the whole story. I doubt very few union soldiers fought believing they were on a mission to liberate the negro.
Blake Bell
>"But that was a very theoretical argument. Lots of mays and coulds. It is impossible to know for certain whether whites on net benefited from slavery at the time."
>"Whether whites in the US, on aggregate, gained AT ALL is more debateable and more sketchy. I strongly feel that we didn’t, but I don’t have any data to back it up, just economic theory and examples."
How does it feel to reply to someone posting historical documentation for people living at the time, with something written in 2016 by some random nobody? Please never reproduce.
Niggers had it good under slavery. Enslaved to a superior race like us is literally the only way their lives aren't gonna be short useless and retarded.
Did you read the article? It is certain that it was not significanlty more profitable than any other industry and that it accounted for a small percentage of the economy of the US. The North financed the South, not the other way around. What he's unsure of if there was benefit at all.
>historical documentation for people living at the time Don't believe everything someone in the past tells you. Data takes precedence over quotes. Also your graphs are unsourced. kys nigger lover.
> people will believe this without actually following up on the sources
Ryan Allen
Whatever Catalonia, your country still sucks. Go be gay somewhere else.
Jack Rivera
>economics in the south >not about slavery
t. brainlet
Nathan Martinez
>The combined production of hay and potatoes give “king cotton” a run for it’s money. see
Robert Harris
>Civil war was about the moral North not wanting slaves and the evil South wanting slaves >North didn't free slaves until after the war Slavery was a symptom. The cause was state rights. A million men didn't die because of slavery.
Nathaniel Adams
>arkansas why did they get dragged in then?
Luke Jones
No. Read the confedecuck constitution No right to seccede Right to put down rebellions No right to regulate slavery in your own state
Ian Stewart
Wrong. Primary cause, like all wars, was a dispute over economics.
Adam Morales
oy vey
Anthony Turner
lol dumb nigger
Landon Reyes
How fucking stupid are you two. Read my post again.
Robert Butler
Read the articles of secession
Caleb Jenkins
I've heard that the real reason behind it was to control pedagogics because southern politicians with their home+tutor based schooling, would run circles around northerners with more prussian upbringing.
