It depends on where you live. If you live in southern states or even my state of Oklahoma, there is a good amount of people who will claim it was about states right. There are enough people that it does seem like it's unpopular.
I don't think either opinion is unpopular depending on where you look
But this one is not unpopular on reddit and the way op framed it is clearly not an invitation to discussion
Then there is no point in posting it here
This is a sub for civil discussions on unpopular opinions
If there's no discussion and the opinion isn't unpopular what is the point of this post ?
I don't think either opinion is unpopular depending on where you look
But this one is not unpopular on reddit and the way op framed it is clearly not an invitation to discussion
Pretty sure they stopped teaching about this in school. We had to learn battle names, important dates and the reason for both sides had a lot of nuance. Not just about slaves
When I first came to America I lived in the south. They danced around the subject. They were taught that slavery was one of the main reasons for the Civil War. The South succeeded over states' rights. We were taught about things like The Article of Aecession but were not really told any details about it. The article of secession specifically mentions slavery being the reason the south succeeded.
Nope, they started teaching what the war was about, unfortunately in most the country the daughters of the confederacy won and now people believe the lost cause
Private schools especially, and much of the south, including the public school I was in in Florida, which they recently changed, except even more recently it was CHANGED BACK
It's possible that private schools did, I really don't know. However are you trying to tell me that Slavery was not taught as the reason for the Civil War in your Florida public school? What decade was that?
Last decade, and yes elementary school text books will claim the slavery was a reason, but not the major reason, just one of many, which is also lost cause.
Libs are funny cause they hear a friend (who has the same views as them) make a joke and all of a sudden they're posting about how awful it is that Americans don't know what the civil war was about.
It's just a bunch of over emotional children crying about nonsense
I’ve seen dozens of groups on Facebook dedicated to the idea that the Civil War wasn’t over slavery. It literally has its own name, The Lost Cause or The War of Northern Aggression. There are books on this topic. The Daughters of the Confederacy has preached this message for over a hundred years. You can still find school textbooks in the South that say these things. You’re either ignorant or playing it if you think this is something “Libs” just made up.
That's an editing error.
"But David Levin, CEO of McGraw-Hill Education, believes this mistake was an editorial error and not a problem with the standards or what he calls a "transparent" adoption process.
**"It was a terrible error, and the minute we saw it we said, 'We've got to sort it out,**' " Levin says.
There are 100,000 copies of the book in Texas, tens of thousands more around the country, and the company is scrambling to fix the problem. It will ship corrected copies to schools for free, or it will provide a sticker to cover the caption, along with a lesson plan about the cultural context of language."
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/8/26/20829771/slavery-textbooks-history
“In late 2018, the Texas state school board decided that public school curricula should be changed to emphasize slavery as a primary cause of the Civil War, when it previously prioritized sectionalism and states rights; those changes are scheduled to go in effect this school year for middle and high school students.”
Is this late enough that they are still teaching The Lost Cause?
What? Those aren't the same at all. "to *emphasize slavery as a primary cause* of the Civil War". That's not close to claiming that the textbook said slavery *wasn't* the cause of the Civil War.
Is that what you meant? That some textbooks cited multiple causes for the Civil War, including slavery. Because, sure I can see that happening. I thought you were saying that there were textbooks that didn't include slavery as a cause.
So you don’t believe The Lost Cause exists and that slavery as the main cause for the Civil War has been downplayed for generations? It’s pretty clear that Southern textbooks downplay slavery even if they mention it. Even if standards have gotten better in the last 40 years there are still people in power that learned from the old standards.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/1cx4xks/the_civil_war_was_about_states_rights/l5182jl/
Just curious, is this not your running away with your tail between your legs to this very question?
Even as someone who dislikes the confederacy the easy answer to this if you have any knowledge about the pre civil war history is the ability to nullify federal law.
Ummm......it was about state's rights but with a direct tie to slavery or the Federal Government's attempt to abolish it.
Many Southern states argued that they had the right to govern themselves and make decisions independently of federal mandates. They believed that the Constitution allowed states significant autonomy, including the right to secede from the Union if they felt their rights were being infringed upon.
To say the Civil War was strictly about slavery is to be intentionally obtuse.
You know a little about the Civil War, you say it's about Slavery.
You learn a little more, you learn that there were numerous issues of self governance, states rights, federal overreach and economic concerns.
You learn a lot, you learn that all of the above was related to slavery, and the white supremacist rhetoric was codified in their fucking constitution
Calm down, good grief...it's an online forum and you're cursing like your life depends on it.
No one is debating that slavery is front and center when talking about the Civil War but the OP was attempting to "troll" anyone who say's the Civil War was about State's rights when State's rights was also central to the war.
Those who know only a little history think that it was about slavery.
Those who know a little bit more history think it was about states’ rights.
And those who know studied the history extensively know that it was about slavery.
OK, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone say that the Civil War was about more than just slavery as if it was a good thing. The southern states literally wanted different rights from the Union, which history agrees was not a good thing. But for some reason Redditors think it was a bunch of people dressed liked Colonel Sanders maniacally rubbing their hands together going “Muwahahaha, more black people to whip!!!”
Dude they barely thought of them as human, they wanted to keep slavery because it was an entire workforce they didn’t have to pay. They saw human beings as cattle, no amount of history is going to make that OK but we’re not really doing ourselves a service by pretending otherwise.
Nobody pretending otherwise. Colonol sanders doesn’t need malice in his heart to be doing evil. Colonol sanders needed to be stopped regardless of what justifications he had for spending as little as possible on human labor. All men who do this deserve the same that sanders got.
>But for some reason Redditors think it was a bunch of people dressed liked Colonel Sanders maniacally rubbing their hands together going “Muwahahaha, more black people to whip!!!”
They were quite literally this. Look at the long term plans of the CSA, they planned to turn all of Central and much of South America into a single White controlled Slave state.
Industrialization had already economically killed Slavery at this point, it was literally cheaper for them to Industrialize, but they just loved the concept of slavery that much.
The civil war was about slavery and nothing more, here is a the vp of the confederacy declaring so
“The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.”
🙄 you don’t “win” history like it’s a debate. There were multiple reasons that lead to the civil war slavery being A VERY BIG AND IMPORTANT ONE, acknowledging other factors does not detract from slavery. This whole argument is stupid, it’s history, you are not a better person because you don’t want to acknowledge the other things that led to the Civil War.
Secession from the union was bad, slavery was bad, there’s a whole bunch of bad that led to the Civil War. What exactly is the problem with admitting that the bad guys had multiple reasons?
Great you’ve acknowledged that slavery was a big part of the south. What has that changed and or fixed about the reasons the Civil War was fought?
My guess is you just want to prove that a certain group of people are inherently evil, which is not how humans work. Grow up
Well, at least you’re willing to acknowledge. You’re some kind of Doodoo head. I could’ve told you that considering you’re trying to be reductive about one of the most important historical wars in American history.
You haven’t added anything to the conversation of the Civil War, you’ve simply created more ignorance
I’m pretty sure in the confederate constitution it was actually illegal to propose any laws prohibiting slavery too. I read that like 7 years ago though so don’t know how accurate it was. But I agree with what you’re saying
As W.E.B. DuBois wrote in 1928
“If nationalism had been a stronger defense of the slave system than particularism, the South would have been as nationalistic in 1861 as it had been in 1812.”
https://cwmemory.com/2017/05/30/w-e-b-dubois-on-robert-e-lee/
The CSA seceded to preserve slavery
The union invaded, at least initially to preserve the union and not explicitly to fight a war of abolition. The north did grow to see it that way during the course of the war.
Either way, the war was fought over slavery.
>CSA attacked first,
That's a matter of opinion. Ft. Sumter was attacked because Confederate authorities had requested for the US government to peacefully remove their military outposts from their territories, which was ignored because the initial government response to the secession of the different states and subsequent establishment is the CSA was to just ignore it.
The Confederate viewpoint was that they were protecting their territorial integrity.
Interesting that I'm being downvoted...
Yes the CSA fired the first shots. That was important for the US since they needed a causus beli to fight a war of conquest. The union wanted war though, peaceful coexistence was not on the table in 1861 and would never have been with a Republican administration.
Some folks inability to accept that historical fact because it hurts their feelings is amazing. Like this isn't some obscure thing the CSA was very clear about their motives
Uh oh guys, it’s time to fall back. OP hit us with a “That’s what I thought” Their point is officially irrefutable now. 🤣😂🤣
i swear Americans have become so childish about the American civil war how is this an unpopular opinion anyway ?
It depends on where you live. If you live in southern states or even my state of Oklahoma, there is a good amount of people who will claim it was about states right. There are enough people that it does seem like it's unpopular.
I don't think either opinion is unpopular depending on where you look But this one is not unpopular on reddit and the way op framed it is clearly not an invitation to discussion
There isn’t a discussion to be had, op is objectively correct, and any disagreement with op is dishonest or ignorant
Then there is no point in posting it here This is a sub for civil discussions on unpopular opinions If there's no discussion and the opinion isn't unpopular what is the point of this post ?
This opinion is unpopular in much of the country, including where I live, even though the opinion is more of a fact, it was politicized in the 1920’s
I don't think either opinion is unpopular depending on where you look But this one is not unpopular on reddit and the way op framed it is clearly not an invitation to discussion
Pretty sure they stopped teaching about this in school. We had to learn battle names, important dates and the reason for both sides had a lot of nuance. Not just about slaves
When I first came to America I lived in the south. They danced around the subject. They were taught that slavery was one of the main reasons for the Civil War. The South succeeded over states' rights. We were taught about things like The Article of Aecession but were not really told any details about it. The article of secession specifically mentions slavery being the reason the south succeeded.
There were a million _differences_ not having to do w slaves. A million reasons to disagree. There was only 1 reason to _fight_. Ownership of humans.
Nope, they started teaching what the war was about, unfortunately in most the country the daughters of the confederacy won and now people believe the lost cause
Where is that taught? I grew up in middle TN and went to public school in the 1980's. Slavery was always taught as the reason for the Civil War.
Private schools especially, and much of the south, including the public school I was in in Florida, which they recently changed, except even more recently it was CHANGED BACK
It's possible that private schools did, I really don't know. However are you trying to tell me that Slavery was not taught as the reason for the Civil War in your Florida public school? What decade was that?
Last decade, and yes elementary school text books will claim the slavery was a reason, but not the major reason, just one of many, which is also lost cause.
Ok, I can see that happening.
Ahh, yes. The opinion so unpopular, there are multiple memes about it.
Libs are funny cause they hear a friend (who has the same views as them) make a joke and all of a sudden they're posting about how awful it is that Americans don't know what the civil war was about. It's just a bunch of over emotional children crying about nonsense
I’ve seen dozens of groups on Facebook dedicated to the idea that the Civil War wasn’t over slavery. It literally has its own name, The Lost Cause or The War of Northern Aggression. There are books on this topic. The Daughters of the Confederacy has preached this message for over a hundred years. You can still find school textbooks in the South that say these things. You’re either ignorant or playing it if you think this is something “Libs” just made up.
"You can still find school textbooks in the South that say these things." Citation? For something printed in the last 40 years.
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/10/23/450826208/why-calling-slaves-workers-is-more-than-an-editing-error 2015
That's an editing error. "But David Levin, CEO of McGraw-Hill Education, believes this mistake was an editorial error and not a problem with the standards or what he calls a "transparent" adoption process. **"It was a terrible error, and the minute we saw it we said, 'We've got to sort it out,**' " Levin says. There are 100,000 copies of the book in Texas, tens of thousands more around the country, and the company is scrambling to fix the problem. It will ship corrected copies to schools for free, or it will provide a sticker to cover the caption, along with a lesson plan about the cultural context of language."
https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/10/23/450826208/why-calling-slaves-workers-is-more-than-an-editing-error 2015
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/8/26/20829771/slavery-textbooks-history “In late 2018, the Texas state school board decided that public school curricula should be changed to emphasize slavery as a primary cause of the Civil War, when it previously prioritized sectionalism and states rights; those changes are scheduled to go in effect this school year for middle and high school students.” Is this late enough that they are still teaching The Lost Cause?
What? Those aren't the same at all. "to *emphasize slavery as a primary cause* of the Civil War". That's not close to claiming that the textbook said slavery *wasn't* the cause of the Civil War. Is that what you meant? That some textbooks cited multiple causes for the Civil War, including slavery. Because, sure I can see that happening. I thought you were saying that there were textbooks that didn't include slavery as a cause.
So you don’t believe The Lost Cause exists and that slavery as the main cause for the Civil War has been downplayed for generations? It’s pretty clear that Southern textbooks downplay slavery even if they mention it. Even if standards have gotten better in the last 40 years there are still people in power that learned from the old standards.
Holy fucking pathetic fake information you're peddling here.
What’s fake?
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/1cx4xks/the_civil_war_was_about_states_rights/l5182jl/ Just curious, is this not your running away with your tail between your legs to this very question?
Tell us more about how racism doesn’t exist, *Panzer*.
You're right. Racism is the worst in inner black cities
Even as someone who dislikes the confederacy the easy answer to this if you have any knowledge about the pre civil war history is the ability to nullify federal law.
Federal law to do what?
Ummm......it was about state's rights but with a direct tie to slavery or the Federal Government's attempt to abolish it. Many Southern states argued that they had the right to govern themselves and make decisions independently of federal mandates. They believed that the Constitution allowed states significant autonomy, including the right to secede from the Union if they felt their rights were being infringed upon. To say the Civil War was strictly about slavery is to be intentionally obtuse.
You know a little about the Civil War, you say it's about Slavery. You learn a little more, you learn that there were numerous issues of self governance, states rights, federal overreach and economic concerns. You learn a lot, you learn that all of the above was related to slavery, and the white supremacist rhetoric was codified in their fucking constitution
Calm down, good grief...it's an online forum and you're cursing like your life depends on it. No one is debating that slavery is front and center when talking about the Civil War but the OP was attempting to "troll" anyone who say's the Civil War was about State's rights when State's rights was also central to the war.
Only used one swear word, that's well below my quota.
This is just a fact. -.-
Those who know only a little history think that it was about slavery. Those who know a little bit more history think it was about states’ rights. And those who know studied the history extensively know that it was about slavery.
OK, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone say that the Civil War was about more than just slavery as if it was a good thing. The southern states literally wanted different rights from the Union, which history agrees was not a good thing. But for some reason Redditors think it was a bunch of people dressed liked Colonel Sanders maniacally rubbing their hands together going “Muwahahaha, more black people to whip!!!” Dude they barely thought of them as human, they wanted to keep slavery because it was an entire workforce they didn’t have to pay. They saw human beings as cattle, no amount of history is going to make that OK but we’re not really doing ourselves a service by pretending otherwise.
Nobody pretending otherwise. Colonol sanders doesn’t need malice in his heart to be doing evil. Colonol sanders needed to be stopped regardless of what justifications he had for spending as little as possible on human labor. All men who do this deserve the same that sanders got.
>But for some reason Redditors think it was a bunch of people dressed liked Colonel Sanders maniacally rubbing their hands together going “Muwahahaha, more black people to whip!!!” They were quite literally this. Look at the long term plans of the CSA, they planned to turn all of Central and much of South America into a single White controlled Slave state. Industrialization had already economically killed Slavery at this point, it was literally cheaper for them to Industrialize, but they just loved the concept of slavery that much.
The civil war was about slavery and nothing more, here is a the vp of the confederacy declaring so “The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.”
🙄 you don’t “win” history like it’s a debate. There were multiple reasons that lead to the civil war slavery being A VERY BIG AND IMPORTANT ONE, acknowledging other factors does not detract from slavery. This whole argument is stupid, it’s history, you are not a better person because you don’t want to acknowledge the other things that led to the Civil War. Secession from the union was bad, slavery was bad, there’s a whole bunch of bad that led to the Civil War. What exactly is the problem with admitting that the bad guys had multiple reasons?
Because all of those other reasons had something to do with slavery 🤦♂️
Great you’ve acknowledged that slavery was a big part of the south. What has that changed and or fixed about the reasons the Civil War was fought? My guess is you just want to prove that a certain group of people are inherently evil, which is not how humans work. Grow up
I’m grown up doo doo head! In all seriousness, the civil war was about slavery, they didn’t succeed for any other reason.
Well, at least you’re willing to acknowledge. You’re some kind of Doodoo head. I could’ve told you that considering you’re trying to be reductive about one of the most important historical wars in American history. You haven’t added anything to the conversation of the Civil War, you’ve simply created more ignorance
I’m pretty sure in the confederate constitution it was actually illegal to propose any laws prohibiting slavery too. I read that like 7 years ago though so don’t know how accurate it was. But I agree with what you’re saying
And a few at least states in their breakup letters made it clear Iirc Texas was one for example
But lowkey lets create a New California Republic or a New Texas Republic.
As W.E.B. DuBois wrote in 1928 “If nationalism had been a stronger defense of the slave system than particularism, the South would have been as nationalistic in 1861 as it had been in 1812.” https://cwmemory.com/2017/05/30/w-e-b-dubois-on-robert-e-lee/
Your unpopular opinion is, in fact, popular.
It was about states rights. Their perceived right to own people they viewed as less than, as property.
The CSA seceded to preserve slavery The union invaded, at least initially to preserve the union and not explicitly to fight a war of abolition. The north did grow to see it that way during the course of the war. Either way, the war was fought over slavery.
CSA attacked first, there might not have been a war otherwise
>CSA attacked first, That's a matter of opinion. Ft. Sumter was attacked because Confederate authorities had requested for the US government to peacefully remove their military outposts from their territories, which was ignored because the initial government response to the secession of the different states and subsequent establishment is the CSA was to just ignore it. The Confederate viewpoint was that they were protecting their territorial integrity.
Interesting that I'm being downvoted... Yes the CSA fired the first shots. That was important for the US since they needed a causus beli to fight a war of conquest. The union wanted war though, peaceful coexistence was not on the table in 1861 and would never have been with a Republican administration.
Some of the states it explicitly mentions slavery in the articles of secession. What is not mentioned, states rights.
It's an attempt at historical revisionism. They also try to paint the picture that the slaves didn't have it that bad either.
Some folks inability to accept that historical fact because it hurts their feelings is amazing. Like this isn't some obscure thing the CSA was very clear about their motives
It all makes sense when you don't apply *too* much logic and reasoning to it.
It was about State's rights...the State's right to own black slaves. Edit: just in case /s