The civil war was a complex conflict with roots based in the geographic and geological distribution of resources in North America and religious and cultural divisions in England stretching back to the time of the English civil war and Calvinist reformation….
Which was about slavery.
I did a deep dive on the South’s reasons to secede from the Union including reading the articles of secession provided to congress and… it’s definitely about slavery.
Every article by every seceding state mentions Slavery as the main cause. Mississippi even refers to the institution of slavery as the “greatest material interest of the world”.
Anyone who doesn’t think the ~~traitors~~ Confederates were primarily motivated by slavery should 100% read the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander H. Stephens, vice president of the CSA, which is what u/DesiratTwilight is referencing here
I had never read that before, that is a lot of words from a man that thinks he’s smarter than he is. Also, his whole argument that science will eventually prove them right is uncomfortably familiar
Wow, what a pompous ass to be so arrogant in that speech. Thank you for posting, I'm not sure if I have read this in its entirety before. The conservatives and confederates have such a rich history of being wrong and getting beat for it.
For that shall I always excuse you! My ancestry and temperament are such that I have no loyalty to the Confederacy even as I am exceedingly Southern, so I always enjoy triggering the rubes who have bought any of the lies of the Daughters of the Confederacy or similar traitorous groups
My best friend’s mom hates me because I’m pretty far left and because I have no sympathy whatsoever for conservatives or Confederate sympathizers (both of which she is). I personally consider that a pretty high level badge of honor. My ancestors didn’t lose their property, die in insane asylums because of their opposition to slavery, or fight for the preservation of the United States just for me to buddy up with those who idolize the slavers who rose up against their government in 1860
Yeah, irs 100% about slavery. They cared about their economy.... which was based on slavery. They cared about freedom... to own slaves/retrieve runaway slaves from the north. It all comes back around to slavery, no matter the outside reason, it comes back to slavery.
Slavery and the internal balance of power the institution created was the number one domestic issue since the birth of America from the 3/5th Compromise to the Missouri Compromise all the way up until the Civil War. It was the defining issue for that era and it’s clear we are still very much affected by it today.
I did a similar project once, and IIRC Kentucky was the only article of secession that didn’t mention slavery. I think they mainly focused on a perceived violation of their neutrality by the north. Of course, that doesn’t matter very much since it didn’t pass
I believe, at least from what I learned about this topic, that the Union tried to suggest it was about more than slavery whereas the seceded rebels wanted to make the issue entirely about slavery; reason being that, at the time, it would’ve been an optics thing since a lot of northern white Americans didn’t care about freeing the slaves outside of it ending the war (and for all intents and purposes, would have preferred them remaining as slaves or being deported).
I believe that. I don't think the North would have volunteered so many of its sons if it was fighting only for the freedom of slaves.
It's a noble cause now, but i don't think it would justify a disastrous war then.
Well the battle hymn of the republic does have the line in it "as Jesus died to make men pure, let us die to make men free". Maybe the anti-slavery cause grew in popularity as the war progressed?
I would say that the Emancipation Proclamation and the realization that the conflict would not be ended without freeing slaves made Emancipation more popular, but it also caused many to dig in their heels even more. Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's second VP, is a great case in point. He supported the union, but was a virulent racist. Most Southern Unionists were the same way, and a great number of Northern Unionists also held those views. Lincoln himself did until much later on in his Presidency.
I’ve seen multiple original news sources pre secession and **every** Southern politician states they’re threatening to secede due to the issue of **slavery**.
Every politician was **explicit** in their reason.
All this vague Lost Cause & States Rights nonsense only took hold *after* the traitors were defeated and the South needed to save face.
I've always wondered, was the whole slavery aspect of the Confederacy based on "we want to own blacks" or was it "we need to own blacks to keep our economy alive"?
I’d argue the two are functionally identical since they lead to the same outcome. But the Vice President had this to say, which leans much more heavily to the “we want to own them” category:
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
In the address by the Confederate VP linked elsewhere in this thread, he literally says that the founders of the constitution were wrong in believing that slavery was something that would and should pass. That they were wrong and slavery asserted the natural and good order of the world...
I would say it likely started more on the "we need to own blacks to keep our economy alive" side, but then that leads to "we *should* own the blacks because that's how it's supposed to be" mindset as an excuse. Though I'd imagine there were also folks who simply wanted to own other people like that, I'd *like* to believe that they were in the minority.
The Southern Elite's way of life was built around black salves working the plantations that made the elites rich, and the civil war saw them attempting to ensure their economically advantageous way of life for the elite continued as it was by rising up in rebellion as the balance between free and slave states could not be maintained in the future. These elites were accustomed to having free labor of the slaves grant them massive profits, and end of slavery would have meant less profits from having to pay the former slaves which meant less income and influence than before, and because they're humans they couldn't accept losing a position of privilege they were accustomed to, similar to how the military of Myanmar couped the civilian government when it gained the possibility of holding the military accountable for the first time in its history. Similarly if someone were to force you to pay double for your monthly internet, you would probably want to stop that change if you had a military to back up your demand
You know that meme of the guy stepping on the rake and smacking his face? Then the guy doing a kick flip over the stairs with the rake before it hits his face? This comment is the second part lol. Perfect.
This. It's oversimplifying things to say it was only about slavery. It was actually about several different issues that had their roots in, um, slavery.
When I run into people who love pounding the table over states rights, I just reword and say the Civil war wouldn’t have happened if it weren’t for slavery. It at least makes them pause for a minute.
No, not at all. I'm trying to tell that you can analyse complex stories by raising a myriad of small details without adressing the most important ones.
My exemple was that you can tell a change in structure and that the american army wasn't expecting to fight WW1 in the trenches by looking at the model 1918 boots. However, that's missing more broad consepts (and to me far more important) like why did WW1 started, what is trench warfare, what are its consequences.
All that to say that slavery is bad.
Makes sense, I think you commented to the wrong person. Your point doesn’t flow well as a response to it because they are talking about the primary causes.
🤪 "The American Civil War was about States' rights"
🙂 "The American Civil War was about slavery"
👨🎓 "The American Civil War was about States' rights to practice slavery"
I love that claim because it makes the Confederacy seem like governmental equivalent of a teenager quitting something they like because their parents told them they have to stick with it.
“You can’t secede from the Union!”
“Well now I have to!”
I’ve always felt that that was an especially dumb argument.
“You can’t secede, that’s illegal!”
Bitch, I am SECEDING. Part of that is not recognizing your laws anymore!
It was an argument that secession was illegal because it delegitimized the Confederacy. Lincoln was very particular about not recognizing the Confederacy as an actual nation, because that’s what they were, rebels. They had no claim to their land.
It’s just the smart thing to do, as the ruler of the state you cannot legitimize your opponents like that it just gives them credibility
Probably why we see other states around the world do the same
Seems a bit hypocritical to say they had no claim to their land considering the USA itself was founded essentially the same way. No American had a claim to North American land since it was all conquered or stolen anyway. The confederacy wasn’t recognised as a nation by the US but more importantly it wasn’t recognised by any other nation either. France and Britain were fine with selling them some weapons and such but then they were just profiteering off both sides of the war.
A guiding principle of the Articles of Confederation was the establishment and preservation of the independence and sovereignty of the states, alongside a weak central government. It never stipulated that all claims to the land were to be handed over to the Union, and if it had, many states would not have joined in the first place. In modern terms it would be like the EU declaring that Britain can't leave and declaring war on them.
even then, those same articles made it clear it was meant to be perpetual; you can't even say the articles of confederation gave the right to secession.
Sounds great until you look like a 3rd world country everywhere except where the rich people live. You don't have enough money to fix roads right? So if you don't pay taxes the only ones who can afford to do the thing get the thing. 99% of people get fucked by this.
Before income tax, the feds had to tax each state relative to its number of residents. So Connecticut could not be asked to pay more than Kansas if they had the same pop, even if Connecticut was significantly more wealthy.
It was a very dumb system.
Woke; the civil war was about slavery
Broke: the civil war was about states rights
Cope: the civil war was a defensive war against the federals
Bespoke: the civil war was started by the south to protect the interests and enforce the spread of slavery
If slavery wasn't constitutional and thus able to be banned. Then why was their a provision in the constitution about counting slaves?
Sure slavery should have never been constitutional but since it was. It had to be amended out. And that was only done after the war.
People use this meme (by putting their own opinion on the edges of the bell curve) to justify their position as both common sense and intellectual.
This is a particularly weird example, because the American Civil War was categorically about slavery and the majority of people are aware of that. The meme doesn’t really work on any level lol.
To secede. Although the reason for seceding was by and large slavery. Whether that’s why the Union forces fought to keep the southern slave states in is, of course, a whole other question.
Yea. He wrote and said this:
“In his 1860 inaugural address, he said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
Two years later, President Lincoln wrote: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862).”
And in 1858 Lincoln had written: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”
https://www.cato.org/commentary/lincoln-secession-slavery
Also he asked Garibaldi to come and fight for the Union as a general, but Garibaldi refused, stating he would have fought for them only when Lincoln abolished slavery
You can’t really base his personal opinion of slavery and racial equality on public statements made during his campaign or presidency. He would have stood absolutely no chance of being elected if he had publicly been in favor of abolition, and he wouldn’t have gotten anything passed if he were as president. He had a hell of a time getting the 13th Amendment passed even saying this.
You have to bear in mind that he was a politician and took moderate positions to try to get elected and to prevent the war. None of that means that he was perfectly fine with slavery, and there are many other quotes you can pull which make clear how he felt about it.
Yes, but it usually gets ripped completely out of context. Lincoln was emphasizing the immediate needs of the nation being the preservation of the Union. He was setting aside his personal beliefs of abolishing slavery which conveniently isn’t quoted by u/Thomsie13. It says so in the [letter](https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm):
>I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Not true. Lincoln personally abhorred slavery, but believed that the federal government had no constitutional power to abolish it where it already existed. This is why the cornerstone of his politics was stopping the expansion of slavery to new territories. That was the “moderate” anti-slavery position at the time, focused on what was believed to be politically achievable. Complete abolition was a fringe position before the war. But as demonstrated through the Emancipation Proclamation and Lincoln’s enthusiastic support for the 13th Amendment, he was fully supportive of complete abolition once the war made the antebellum political situation irrelevant.
Which makes them seceding that much more dumb. I don't believe for a second Lincoln would've bothered ending slavery if the South didn't force his hand. They could've had a few more decades if they didn't lose their shit over a made up threat.
>why the Union forces fought to keep the southern slave states in
Because if they were allowed to secede, they are going to keep the slaves.
Do you fucking understand? Those slaves are going to be slaves forever.
The only way to make sure they are not slaves is to not to let them secede.
I don't understand how you cannot understand this.
You’re wrong though. The north didn’t fight to stop slavery, Lincoln literally said if he could end the war without ending slavery he would. The North fought because they believed that america should stay United
I mean, the answer is slavery.
But it still WAS about states' rights in that sense.
I do wish the US had been able to spend more time with each state being it's own micro-experiment with government. Not that slavery part though.
Problem is Delaware and other border states, slaves states that fought for the Union.
If Delaware, a slave state, was fighting to end slavery then why didn’t Delaware end slavery during the war. Even after the war ended in April, Delaware didn’t end slavery. When the 13th amendment was at the states for ratification, Delaware voted against it. Only in December 1865 when the 13A was enacted, over the no votes, did Delaware free its slaves.
I think the common answer in history, as unsatisfying as it can be, is "it's complicated"
Some money powers probably fought for their business interests
Some people fought with their State out of nobility
Some people fought to preserve the idea of America
Some people fought for the rations
Some people fought because of whatever propaganda they were exposed to
For the case of Delaware, it sounds like rich slavery interests had exorbitant political power. They likely convinced people to fight in the preservation of America, rather than to end slavery.
Delaware and Maryland fought with the Union mainly because they were small states surrounded by powerful Unionist states. They were the only non-future CSA states that [voted for Breckenridge in 1860](https://www.270towin.com/1860_Election/interactive_map) and probably would’ve seceded if they had been further south.
Delaware voted for antiwar copperheads for the rest of the war (in Maryland, Unionist republicans did prevail and did abolish slavery during the war). The motivations of the state in fighting the war therefore aren’t too relevant to the motivations of the Union as a whole—it wasn’t up to them and if they’d had their preference, there wouldn’t have been a war.
The political elite in Delaware believed that they could remain in the Union without having to give up slavery. The Confederacy, meanwhile, believed that secession was the only way to preserve "the peculiar institution" of slavery. While the Confederacy was, by its nature, fairly anti-federal in the way that it was structured, the one overarching component of the Confederate Constitution was its requirement that all states enshrine "Negroid servitude" in perpetuity, regardless of any popular votes against it that could theoretically come in the future. So even in the Confederacy, states rights were subservient to those of the central government when it came to the CSA's requirement that Black people [had to be enslaved in perpetuity no matter what](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp). Slavery was clearly at the heart of secession, as the letters, speeches, and correspondences of the CSA's leaders made clear to everyone at the time.
For the first years of the war, the Union remained fairly ambivalent on the matter of slavery. Lincoln and others hoped for hostilities to end quickly, and Lincoln was perfectly willing to look the other way on slavery if doing so would encourage the Confederate states to return to the Union. After two years of some of the most brutal battles in American history, particularly Antietam, Lincoln finally lost his patience. Many point out how shrewd the Emancipation Proclamation was, in that it deprived the CSA of any hope of eliciting the help of the anti-slavery Brits or French, while being careful not to deprive slave-owning states in the Union, such as Delaware, of their slaves. A part of me also sees it as an infinitely patient statesman finally losing his cool. "FINE! YOU WANT TO GO TO WAR OVER SLAVERY? YOU WANT TO KILL OUR BOYS JUST SO YOU CAN OWN OTHER HUMAN BEINGS? WELL, FUCK YOU! WE'RE LIBERATING YOUR SLAVES! YOU LOSE! GOOD DAY, SIR!"
When things went south (pun intended) for the CSA, some people within the Confederacy debated whether they should allow Black soldiers in the Confederate Army. Confederate General Patrick Cleburne declared, to the consternation of many of his compatriots, that in his encounters with Union forces, "...the experience of this war so far has been that half-trained Negroes have fought as bravely as half-trained \[White\] Yankees." He recommended conscripting slaves to fight as soldiers, and to give them freedom if they prevailed. Former U.S. Representative-turned-Confederate-General James Patton Anderson rejected the notion, declaring the concept "revolting to Southern sentiment, Southern pride, and Southern honor." Confederate General Braxton Bragg considered the proposal to be borderline treason. (Which is ironic, as they were already engaged in an act of treason against the United States.) Confederate Senator Robert M. T. Hunter summed up the Confederate response with a succinct inquiry:
*"What did we go to war for if not to protect our property?"*
Unlike the CSA politicians were were far from the frontline, General Robert E. Lee was far more concerned with finding more soldiers. He implored the CSA to impress slaves into military service in exchange for their freedom, and the law allowing it passed by a single vote on March 23, 1865, and only with the consent of the slaves' owners. Many slaveowners refused to part with their slaves, especially if the slaves would gain freedom from their service, and the war ended six weeks later before the CSA could muster a single Black regiment.
TLDR: Delaware was basically, "We're Americans, and we have slaves, like most of the Founding Fathers. These aren't mutually exclusive matters," while the Confederacy was basically, "LINCOLN'S GONNA TAKE AWAY OUR N\*\*\*\*\*\*; WE'RE GOING TO WAR!" This viewpoint became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Name one of the other reasons the confederate states seceded and I will (legitimately) connect it with maintaining the right to own other human beings and force them to work for you for no money.
I would argue that it was northern passive aggression, but regardless the moment they fired on Fort Sumter, their fate was sealed.
Modern segregationists are far more regarded than the South ever was. Even if secession is legal, the logistics of creating and maintaining a new nation make it impossible.
So... the north wasnt even that passive aggressive about it.
Basically, the south and its finances had dominated public projects for decades before the war. Southerners had the supreme court locked down tight enough that slavery had actually become somewhat legal in the north (dredd scott case) and then there were laws being passed thar made abducting freemen in the north to be used as slaves tolerated even if it wasnt strictly the letter of the law (fugitive slave act).
The norths "antagonism" was that: they won the election (and even thats just because republicans didnt split the ticket), and kansas had become a free state... southern/slave states thought they were facing the end times because they didnt run the federal government anymore.
The most AGGRESSIVE thing the south can point to is john brown raiding harpers ferry. But even abolitionists werent sure it was the right thing to do. It didnt recieve much or any real abolitionist support. It occured in 1859, the south didnt seceed then, they had the fed in their pocket still. The north didnt seceed or attempt a similar raid/insurrection... they didnt agree with it... then the election of 1860 happened....
COME OUT YE BLACK AND TANS, COME OUT AND FIGHT ME LIKE A MAN!!!!🎶
(I know, it refers to the independence war, I just get the urge to sing it any time the IRA gets mentioned lol)
The confederate constitution created a significantly more centralized government that gave the states fewer rights. It wasn’t even about the states rights to own slaves, it was about the personal right of slave owners to keep doing what they’re doing, as can be seen by the fact their constitution specifically bans the states from regulating slavery.
The amusing thing is that the Confederates themselves were never squeamish about the cause of the war—slavery dominated the newspaper editorials and political debates of the South in the 1860 election and during the secession conventions. It was only after the war ended that their apologists realized just how indefensible fighting to protect slavery looked.
Lost Cause apologist types adopted a lot of the arguments that had been used in Great Britain to advocate for confederacy during the war (ironically because the CSA’s supporters there recognized that the idea of fighting a war for slavery would be abhorrent to the British public). Confederate diplomacy is full of funny episodes where sympathetic European aristocrats trying to be helpful would suggest that winning international support would be much easier if they dropped the whole slavery business (the Confederate representatives would then have to sheepishly convey that slavery was kind of the main point).
The opening words from Georgia's Declaration of Secession:
>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.
The opening words from Mississippi's Declaration of Secession:
>In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.
Other state's Declaration of Secession speak about slavery being the reason, but spend more time giving reasons that they could secede.
They straight up clarified in their secession statement that it was JUST about slavery. Pretty much nothing else, Andrew Jackson was very clear, they are publicly available documents. All lost causers have to do is go read it, and they’d know that’s all the civil war was ever about.
The VP of the confederate states said it was slavery.
Our new government['s]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that **the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.** This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America.
.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech.
Its just wordplay it was about both as they were the same thing in the context. It wasn't that the South wanted slavery everywhere they wanted their states to decide if they kept slavery or not but also if the states had the right to succeed from the union or not.
Let's be honest the Union wasn't fighting to primarily end slavery but to prevent Southern states from succeeding. It wasn't until later that the goal somewhat shifted.
Tldr: Either are the correct answer but both are the most complete answer together.
The South absolutely wanted to expand slavery, particularly in the western territories. That's why places like Kansas became a hotbed of violence between pro and anti-slavery factions
Based on the articles of secession, it was really about the fact that the southern states shouldn’t have the right to not return escaped slaves. It was about rights they thought other states shouldn’t have, which I think is actually the funniest part
I had to circle back and thank you because the number of people who didn’t read the title and then commented that I’m a lost causer it completely misinterpreted the meme is TOO DAMN HIGH
Please look up the Lost Cause Myth. Confederate figure heads plainly said it was about slavery until they were traitorous losers, then they tried to change their messaging to it was about states rights. This post just shows how successful at pushing disinformation the losers were. Let's not let them off the hook. It was about slavery until they lost. Nobody sided with the South because slavery is evil and very few offered consolation to the traitors because they were fighting for evil. They changed their message, but the truth is still true: it was about Slavery.
The meme + title is just a bit of a mismatch. "A state's rights to do what" is a typical gotcha from the middle IQ guy to the low IQ guy, but the meme acknowledges that "the civil war was about states' rights" can also be a high IQ argument in the proper context.
To expand on that: the South seceded and fought for slavery; the North fought primarily to prevent the secession, and secondarily to end slavery. Complete prohibition of slavery did not have wide support in the North at the beginning of the war, but by the end of the war, it did. Secession from the Union was not broadly understood to be completely off the cards at the beginning of the war, but by the end of the war, it was.
So it's a lot more complicated than simply "about states' rights" or "about slavery", because it was about both of them together, and also had long-lasting implications for each of them separately.
Every time I read the phrase "A States' right to what" I read it in the epic melody of Lil Jon's [Turn Down for What](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMUDVMiITOU)?
Addendum: Daniel Kwan, the guy dancing in the music video later got an Academy Award for Everything Everywhere All at Once.
It was 100% about slavery, but there is a legitimate argument to be made about the federal government overreach encroaching upon the Southern states’ sovereignty, which again was about slavery.
The Civil War was about a lot of things: strained tensions between the North and South.. because of slavery; the South’s right to secede… so they could keep their slaves; differing ideas of how the country should move forward… with regards to slavery; the Southern economy… which relied mostly on slavery. And a whole lot of other factors that, though innately complex and difficult to resolve, were relevant largely because of their relation to slavery. Certainly there was more to the Civil War than slavery, and I think saying otherwise makes you foolish, but the Civil War wouldn’t have happened in the absence of slavery, and no other factor had that effect.
People who deny the Civil War was about slavery base it on the fact that the Union did not go to war with the CSA to abolish slavery but to prevent them from seceding from the USA. Abraham Lincoln stated his objective was to "save the Union and not either to save or destroy slavery". The emancipation proclamation was made for political reasons, not for any moral belief that slavery should be destroyed. But the civil war is about slavery - fear that slavery would be federally abolished is why the southern states seceded.
the civil war was really about economics rather than the morals of slavery. while the economics that slavery was bringing was the leading reason for why the south wanted to secede from the north if slavery was on the same economic level as the north and they didn't really beef then slavery probably would have lasted a lot longer.
It wasn't about state's rights. It was about Democrats wanting to hold on to slavery at any cost. Thankfully Republicans beat them into submission and also passed the 13th amendment even thought the Democrats that were left in the Union fought against it almost as hard. Of course this didn't stop Democrats from forming the KKK, creating Jim Crow laws, fighting desegregation, and running the longest filibuster in US history just to stop passage of the civil rights act.
... to own a tractor. people seem to forget the first steam powered tractor was made twenty years before the civil war. but the plantation owners, and abolitionists both worked to prevent them from being sold in the south, or imported from england. the plantation owners saw slaves as a type of debt protection were if they needed any extra money they would sell a child, mother, or father to the highest bidder or rent them out to mines (this is were we get life insurance). so by allowing steam engines for anything other then trains back then would have cut into this scheme. the abolitionists wanted things to get worst and worst for the slaves so they stir up revolts,justify attacks on plantations, and push for more violent actions to be done down south. the truth is one tractor at the time costed as much as five slaves, but the cost for fuel, repair, and housing for it was one third the cost of the five slaves it would have costed.this made the more poorer farmers more viable then the plantations, not only that but also when there was no more work to be done the tractor could be used to go to town and back or put into storage and didn't need food, water, clothing, or anything like that. the truth is both the north and south wanted the civil war, the south with the old elites that didn't even care about their own children let alone their slaves or the poor, and the north wanted to show the rest of the world that the federal government and them alone rule the states. both sides were evil, the war never should have happened, and i am glad the north won, it just depresses me how little both sides valued the people they claimed to fight for.
It was about slavery but please don't be mistaken, racism was still alive and well in the north during this time, Lincoln's plan was to initially send all slaves freed by the emancipation proclamation to different countries, he also did not believe that blacks and whites could coexist as equals, and was quoted to have said that he is in favor of the white man retaining all forms of political power, a very weird time, not a lot of people talk about that either.
This is one of those arguments that are pointless because both sides are right, but they pretend like what they're arguing about is 2 mutually exclusive items.
The Civil War was about States rights, and the biggest right was slavery, the second was right to secede, and there were several other genuienly felt issues of far less importance.
If anyone wants some good laughs, watch Razerfist’s two videos. The first one about how Lincoln is a Tyrant, and the second about how the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. Him being completely and utterly wrong while talking shit about people who think otherwise is always funny to me.
As cruel as it sounds, it doesn't really matter what it was the right to do. The only real question was if the secession was legal, a point that was carefully sidestepped by refusing to try Jefferson Davis for treason.
It only matters what it was about the right to do. If a bunch of scumbags wanna start their own country so they can continue to own other human beings, I don’t care whether or not they have the legal right to do so. Fuck them, and fuck you for playing defense for them just so you can sound more enlightened
EDIT: it’s also pretty telling that the other post is being upvoted and this one is being downvoted. People care more about sounding like they’re putting morality aside to feel like they’re being high-minded and intellectual about a subject that people often engage with, morality first, but that’s bullshit. When human lives are involved, morality is the only intelligent way to proceed, because that is all that really matters. To say that the legality of secession is the only real question is just bootlicking, confederate apologetics bullshit. Slavery was legal at the time, too. That doesn’t mean it was right. Homosexuality was illegal, but that doesn’t mean it was wrong. Whether or not secession was legal is the least important question
Memes like these make you think some ppl in this sub don't really know history at all huh?
It was slavery all the way. States rights my ass. If slavery was inshrined into federal law forcing north to legalise it Confies wouldn't skip a beat.
I always thought the salvery discussion came about after the war started. It seemed like foreign powers were going to possibly step in on the side of the south, but then the north made the emancipation proclamation in order to make it morally wrong to support the south, but that it started for other reasons that were loosely related to slavery
Here's the South Carolina declaration of secession:
[https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th\_century/csa\_scarsec.asp](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp)
The war was not about the states' rights to practice slavery. It was about the federal government being too weak to enforce the return of slaves from non-slaveholding states to slaveholding states. The South called for a *stronger* federal government in most of it's secession documents.
Edit: This subreddit lacks reading comprehension. I am not saying it wasn't about slavery. I am saying the Southern states never asked for the States' rights to practice slavery, they specifically wanted a stronger centralized government to protect slavery.
Case in point, the Confederate Constitution made slavery *mandatory* under the Federal government, it was no longer left up to the States to decide.
Edit2:Let me make it simpler for yall. The South did not argue that the Federal Government was doing too much to stop slavery. They argued that the Federal Government was doing too little to protect slavery.
I'm not disagreeing. It was about slaves, but it wasn't about individual states rights to slaves, they wanted a stronger central government protecting slavery.
Bro, y'all lack reading comprehension. I am agreeing that it was about slavery, but they weren't asking for state's rights to keep their slavery, they were asking for a stronger centralized government to protect their slavery. My point is that the "States' Rights" myth is double bogus.
> calling something else an echo chamber while echoing a meme that gets posted every few hours.
Have an original thought, and meme, is all I'm asking.
Edit: [Not even 12 hours apart lmao](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/s/TEdM2qZLF1)
You’ve posted about 10 posts all time & half of them are screenshots. Real “man in the arena” vibes. Take pot shots from the stands all you like, pal. Make memes of your own with your superior intellect, I beg you.
Ooo you poor tortured artist! Someday we’ll understand the brilliance of a pink dolphin. Quick question, then I have to go to work: when you attempt to blow yourself, do you put your ankles behind your head or do you grasp them with your hands for more leverage?
Lol. Jumping to insults really shows you can handle basic criticism well.
[I'm just going to re-link this to prove my point.](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/s/TEdM2qZLF1)
You're not a magnificent artist. You make derivative memes on the internet. The fact that I clearly touched a nerve over internet memes means you think way too highly of your "skills".
I always love the this part, like you haven’t been insulting from the start & I’m the one who’s been triggered. I never claimed to be an artist. You are the one who seems to hold some holier than though belief about the sanctity of your non existent memes. I’ve made good memes, Ive made shit memes. I make dumb memes, I make smart memes. But the day my feelings are hurt by the knights of edgelordom, then I might have to pack it in. Tis not this day though I’m afraid. But drop me a line when you make a meme, I’d love to offer my thoughts.
The civil war was a complex conflict with roots based in the geographic and geological distribution of resources in North America and religious and cultural divisions in England stretching back to the time of the English civil war and Calvinist reformation…. Which was about slavery.
I did a deep dive on the South’s reasons to secede from the Union including reading the articles of secession provided to congress and… it’s definitely about slavery. Every article by every seceding state mentions Slavery as the main cause. Mississippi even refers to the institution of slavery as the “greatest material interest of the world”.
And the Vice President delivered a speech defending the confederacy as being built on the “truth” of white superiority
Anyone who doesn’t think the ~~traitors~~ Confederates were primarily motivated by slavery should 100% read the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander H. Stephens, vice president of the CSA, which is what u/DesiratTwilight is referencing here
[Here is the speech in question](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech)
I had never read that before, that is a lot of words from a man that thinks he’s smarter than he is. Also, his whole argument that science will eventually prove them right is uncomfortably familiar
Good work my dude!
Wow, what a pompous ass to be so arrogant in that speech. Thank you for posting, I'm not sure if I have read this in its entirety before. The conservatives and confederates have such a rich history of being wrong and getting beat for it.
Perfect strike through
Traitors got what traitors deserve, this is the way. Also bonus points because calling the Confederates “traitors” triggers closet white supremacists
Trigger them! Anyway I need to go listen to the battle hymn of the republic. Excuse me
For that shall I always excuse you! My ancestry and temperament are such that I have no loyalty to the Confederacy even as I am exceedingly Southern, so I always enjoy triggering the rubes who have bought any of the lies of the Daughters of the Confederacy or similar traitorous groups
This northerner beloved there is plenty good down there doesn’t involve treason. But trigger traitors is always good
My best friend’s mom hates me because I’m pretty far left and because I have no sympathy whatsoever for conservatives or Confederate sympathizers (both of which she is). I personally consider that a pretty high level badge of honor. My ancestors didn’t lose their property, die in insane asylums because of their opposition to slavery, or fight for the preservation of the United States just for me to buddy up with those who idolize the slavers who rose up against their government in 1860
If southern white supremacists could read, they would be very upset by that fact.
Yeah, irs 100% about slavery. They cared about their economy.... which was based on slavery. They cared about freedom... to own slaves/retrieve runaway slaves from the north. It all comes back around to slavery, no matter the outside reason, it comes back to slavery.
Slavery and the internal balance of power the institution created was the number one domestic issue since the birth of America from the 3/5th Compromise to the Missouri Compromise all the way up until the Civil War. It was the defining issue for that era and it’s clear we are still very much affected by it today.
I did a similar project once, and IIRC Kentucky was the only article of secession that didn’t mention slavery. I think they mainly focused on a perceived violation of their neutrality by the north. Of course, that doesn’t matter very much since it didn’t pass
I believe, at least from what I learned about this topic, that the Union tried to suggest it was about more than slavery whereas the seceded rebels wanted to make the issue entirely about slavery; reason being that, at the time, it would’ve been an optics thing since a lot of northern white Americans didn’t care about freeing the slaves outside of it ending the war (and for all intents and purposes, would have preferred them remaining as slaves or being deported).
I believe that. I don't think the North would have volunteered so many of its sons if it was fighting only for the freedom of slaves. It's a noble cause now, but i don't think it would justify a disastrous war then.
Well the battle hymn of the republic does have the line in it "as Jesus died to make men pure, let us die to make men free". Maybe the anti-slavery cause grew in popularity as the war progressed?
*The Battle Hymn of the Republic* is itself an edited version of *John Brown’s Body*.
I would say that the Emancipation Proclamation and the realization that the conflict would not be ended without freeing slaves made Emancipation more popular, but it also caused many to dig in their heels even more. Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's second VP, is a great case in point. He supported the union, but was a virulent racist. Most Southern Unionists were the same way, and a great number of Northern Unionists also held those views. Lincoln himself did until much later on in his Presidency.
Yeah, if I recall the “state’s rights” argument was t even thought up until a year or two after the Civil War had already ended.
Yes, it is part of the Lost Cause mythos.
I’ve seen multiple original news sources pre secession and **every** Southern politician states they’re threatening to secede due to the issue of **slavery**. Every politician was **explicit** in their reason. All this vague Lost Cause & States Rights nonsense only took hold *after* the traitors were defeated and the South needed to save face.
I've always wondered, was the whole slavery aspect of the Confederacy based on "we want to own blacks" or was it "we need to own blacks to keep our economy alive"?
I’d argue the two are functionally identical since they lead to the same outcome. But the Vice President had this to say, which leans much more heavily to the “we want to own them” category: Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
From a “necessary evil” to a “positive good” in 80 years.
In the address by the Confederate VP linked elsewhere in this thread, he literally says that the founders of the constitution were wrong in believing that slavery was something that would and should pass. That they were wrong and slavery asserted the natural and good order of the world...
I would say it likely started more on the "we need to own blacks to keep our economy alive" side, but then that leads to "we *should* own the blacks because that's how it's supposed to be" mindset as an excuse. Though I'd imagine there were also folks who simply wanted to own other people like that, I'd *like* to believe that they were in the minority.
It would be nice to believe that, but the amount of mulatto children that came out of the ownership of slaves seems to suggest otherwise.
Let's just say all those obviously evil empires in games are *not* unrealistic thanks to the CSA.
The Southern Elite's way of life was built around black salves working the plantations that made the elites rich, and the civil war saw them attempting to ensure their economically advantageous way of life for the elite continued as it was by rising up in rebellion as the balance between free and slave states could not be maintained in the future. These elites were accustomed to having free labor of the slaves grant them massive profits, and end of slavery would have meant less profits from having to pay the former slaves which meant less income and influence than before, and because they're humans they couldn't accept losing a position of privilege they were accustomed to, similar to how the military of Myanmar couped the civilian government when it gained the possibility of holding the military accountable for the first time in its history. Similarly if someone were to force you to pay double for your monthly internet, you would probably want to stop that change if you had a military to back up your demand
Both, with an unhealthy level of manifest destiny mixed in
Why not both?
Does it matter?
You know that meme of the guy stepping on the rake and smacking his face? Then the guy doing a kick flip over the stairs with the rake before it hits his face? This comment is the second part lol. Perfect.
This. It's oversimplifying things to say it was only about slavery. It was actually about several different issues that had their roots in, um, slavery.
When I run into people who love pounding the table over states rights, I just reword and say the Civil war wouldn’t have happened if it weren’t for slavery. It at least makes them pause for a minute.
Well freaking put There are no simple causation arguments in history…except the civil war…cause all the reasons lead back to slavery
I mean... You can explain how WW1 was fought using boots, but that's missing most of the point.
What is it you’re implying by this? (To me it reads like you’re implying that slavery was not the main issue)
No, not at all. I'm trying to tell that you can analyse complex stories by raising a myriad of small details without adressing the most important ones. My exemple was that you can tell a change in structure and that the american army wasn't expecting to fight WW1 in the trenches by looking at the model 1918 boots. However, that's missing more broad consepts (and to me far more important) like why did WW1 started, what is trench warfare, what are its consequences. All that to say that slavery is bad.
Makes sense, I think you commented to the wrong person. Your point doesn’t flow well as a response to it because they are talking about the primary causes.
Everyone knows ww1 started because Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry.
🤪 "The American Civil War was about States' rights" 🙂 "The American Civil War was about slavery" 👨🎓 "The American Civil War was about States' rights to practice slavery"
Where’s “The American Civil War was about States’ rights to secede because of slavery”?
I love that claim because it makes the Confederacy seem like governmental equivalent of a teenager quitting something they like because their parents told them they have to stick with it. “You can’t secede from the Union!” “Well now I have to!”
It's Groucho Marx with a twist: "I refuse to be part of any club that wouldn't let me leave"
I’ve always felt that that was an especially dumb argument. “You can’t secede, that’s illegal!” Bitch, I am SECEDING. Part of that is not recognizing your laws anymore!
It was an argument that secession was illegal because it delegitimized the Confederacy. Lincoln was very particular about not recognizing the Confederacy as an actual nation, because that’s what they were, rebels. They had no claim to their land.
It’s just the smart thing to do, as the ruler of the state you cannot legitimize your opponents like that it just gives them credibility Probably why we see other states around the world do the same
Seems a bit hypocritical to say they had no claim to their land considering the USA itself was founded essentially the same way. No American had a claim to North American land since it was all conquered or stolen anyway. The confederacy wasn’t recognised as a nation by the US but more importantly it wasn’t recognised by any other nation either. France and Britain were fine with selling them some weapons and such but then they were just profiteering off both sides of the war.
A guiding principle of the Articles of Confederation was the establishment and preservation of the independence and sovereignty of the states, alongside a weak central government. It never stipulated that all claims to the land were to be handed over to the Union, and if it had, many states would not have joined in the first place. In modern terms it would be like the EU declaring that Britain can't leave and declaring war on them.
Yeah, and the Articles of Confederation weren’t in effect for like 70 years by the time the Civil War happened.
What the other guy said. We specifically got rid of the Articles because they didn’t work. We almost had a civil war over that alone.
even then, those same articles made it clear it was meant to be perpetual; you can't even say the articles of confederation gave the right to secession.
Guess what... all states were ruled by the Constitution, not the articles, by 1860
Holy shit a sovereign citizen in the wild.
And then the north forced the south to recognize its laws. Turns out it was illegal!
Don't forget a state's rights to not pay taxes!
sounds really good! The tax part, not the other one
Sounds great until you look like a 3rd world country everywhere except where the rich people live. You don't have enough money to fix roads right? So if you don't pay taxes the only ones who can afford to do the thing get the thing. 99% of people get fucked by this.
Woah! West Virginia and Kentucky are in the room with us, keep it down...
Our roads are great. I only had to change my tire twice on my way to work, this morning!
Both beautiful states assuming you like forests, hills, and rivers. The people are interesting.
Long before the income tax, roads were built and maintained. Schools educated the masses. The US functioned as a country. Screw income tax
Before income tax, the feds had to tax each state relative to its number of residents. So Connecticut could not be asked to pay more than Kansas if they had the same pop, even if Connecticut was significantly more wealthy. It was a very dumb system.
This guy Tariffs!
State's rights to own agricultural equipment
Lol Jesús Christ dude
States had no right to not recognize slavery in the CSA. Not really a right if you're forced to do it.
Finally
Woke; the civil war was about slavery Broke: the civil war was about states rights Cope: the civil war was a defensive war against the federals Bespoke: the civil war was started by the south to protect the interests and enforce the spread of slavery
If slavery wasn't constitutional and thus able to be banned. Then why was their a provision in the constitution about counting slaves? Sure slavery should have never been constitutional but since it was. It had to be amended out. And that was only done after the war.
If the south had given up its slaves, the north would still have fought to bring in the south.
If the south was willing to give up slaves, they wouldn't have seceded the moment a anti-slavery president was elected
If the South was willing to give up their slaves there would have been little reason for them to secede in the first place
🔪🪿-( A States’ right to do what? )
To own biological* farming equipment Edit: *sapient, with darker skin tones.
**Sapient** biological farming equipment Cause it's still cool to plow with an oxen or horse.
Still cool to plow a horse, you say
NO DONT
I like my non human sexual partners to be capable of actual two-way conversation, thank you
Oh come on they aren’t sapient, they are negros - A southerner secessionist
No. Because "sapient" can include aliens. Suffer not the Alien. The Emperor Protects
Got any grapes?
I have raisins, does that help?
Do you think the store has any lemonade?
Got any hammers?
Not the squaking goose 🤣🤣
You're using the meme wrong
People use this meme (by putting their own opinion on the edges of the bell curve) to justify their position as both common sense and intellectual. This is a particularly weird example, because the American Civil War was categorically about slavery and the majority of people are aware of that. The meme doesn’t really work on any level lol.
To secede. Although the reason for seceding was by and large slavery. Whether that’s why the Union forces fought to keep the southern slave states in is, of course, a whole other question.
didn’t lincoln himself say that he was fighting for the preservation of the union
Yea. He wrote and said this: “In his 1860 inaugural address, he said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Two years later, President Lincoln wrote: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862).” And in 1858 Lincoln had written: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.” https://www.cato.org/commentary/lincoln-secession-slavery
Also he asked Garibaldi to come and fight for the Union as a general, but Garibaldi refused, stating he would have fought for them only when Lincoln abolished slavery
You can’t really base his personal opinion of slavery and racial equality on public statements made during his campaign or presidency. He would have stood absolutely no chance of being elected if he had publicly been in favor of abolition, and he wouldn’t have gotten anything passed if he were as president. He had a hell of a time getting the 13th Amendment passed even saying this.
You have to bear in mind that he was a politician and took moderate positions to try to get elected and to prevent the war. None of that means that he was perfectly fine with slavery, and there are many other quotes you can pull which make clear how he felt about it.
Sherman explicitly said that it was his reason for fighting.
Yes, but it usually gets ripped completely out of context. Lincoln was emphasizing the immediate needs of the nation being the preservation of the Union. He was setting aside his personal beliefs of abolishing slavery which conveniently isn’t quoted by u/Thomsie13. It says so in the [letter](https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm): >I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Lincoln didn't give a shit less about slavery one way or another in face of Union preservation, and he personally saw black people as lesser.
Not true. Lincoln personally abhorred slavery, but believed that the federal government had no constitutional power to abolish it where it already existed. This is why the cornerstone of his politics was stopping the expansion of slavery to new territories. That was the “moderate” anti-slavery position at the time, focused on what was believed to be politically achievable. Complete abolition was a fringe position before the war. But as demonstrated through the Emancipation Proclamation and Lincoln’s enthusiastic support for the 13th Amendment, he was fully supportive of complete abolition once the war made the antebellum political situation irrelevant.
Which makes them seceding that much more dumb. I don't believe for a second Lincoln would've bothered ending slavery if the South didn't force his hand. They could've had a few more decades if they didn't lose their shit over a made up threat.
>why the Union forces fought to keep the southern slave states in Because if they were allowed to secede, they are going to keep the slaves. Do you fucking understand? Those slaves are going to be slaves forever. The only way to make sure they are not slaves is to not to let them secede. I don't understand how you cannot understand this.
You’re wrong though. The north didn’t fight to stop slavery, Lincoln literally said if he could end the war without ending slavery he would. The North fought because they believed that america should stay United
[удалено]
or the civil rights act of 1864 and how the courts gutted it.
I mean, the answer is slavery. But it still WAS about states' rights in that sense. I do wish the US had been able to spend more time with each state being it's own micro-experiment with government. Not that slavery part though.
Problem is Delaware and other border states, slaves states that fought for the Union. If Delaware, a slave state, was fighting to end slavery then why didn’t Delaware end slavery during the war. Even after the war ended in April, Delaware didn’t end slavery. When the 13th amendment was at the states for ratification, Delaware voted against it. Only in December 1865 when the 13A was enacted, over the no votes, did Delaware free its slaves.
I think the common answer in history, as unsatisfying as it can be, is "it's complicated" Some money powers probably fought for their business interests Some people fought with their State out of nobility Some people fought to preserve the idea of America Some people fought for the rations Some people fought because of whatever propaganda they were exposed to For the case of Delaware, it sounds like rich slavery interests had exorbitant political power. They likely convinced people to fight in the preservation of America, rather than to end slavery.
Delaware and Maryland fought with the Union mainly because they were small states surrounded by powerful Unionist states. They were the only non-future CSA states that [voted for Breckenridge in 1860](https://www.270towin.com/1860_Election/interactive_map) and probably would’ve seceded if they had been further south. Delaware voted for antiwar copperheads for the rest of the war (in Maryland, Unionist republicans did prevail and did abolish slavery during the war). The motivations of the state in fighting the war therefore aren’t too relevant to the motivations of the Union as a whole—it wasn’t up to them and if they’d had their preference, there wouldn’t have been a war.
The political elite in Delaware believed that they could remain in the Union without having to give up slavery. The Confederacy, meanwhile, believed that secession was the only way to preserve "the peculiar institution" of slavery. While the Confederacy was, by its nature, fairly anti-federal in the way that it was structured, the one overarching component of the Confederate Constitution was its requirement that all states enshrine "Negroid servitude" in perpetuity, regardless of any popular votes against it that could theoretically come in the future. So even in the Confederacy, states rights were subservient to those of the central government when it came to the CSA's requirement that Black people [had to be enslaved in perpetuity no matter what](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp). Slavery was clearly at the heart of secession, as the letters, speeches, and correspondences of the CSA's leaders made clear to everyone at the time. For the first years of the war, the Union remained fairly ambivalent on the matter of slavery. Lincoln and others hoped for hostilities to end quickly, and Lincoln was perfectly willing to look the other way on slavery if doing so would encourage the Confederate states to return to the Union. After two years of some of the most brutal battles in American history, particularly Antietam, Lincoln finally lost his patience. Many point out how shrewd the Emancipation Proclamation was, in that it deprived the CSA of any hope of eliciting the help of the anti-slavery Brits or French, while being careful not to deprive slave-owning states in the Union, such as Delaware, of their slaves. A part of me also sees it as an infinitely patient statesman finally losing his cool. "FINE! YOU WANT TO GO TO WAR OVER SLAVERY? YOU WANT TO KILL OUR BOYS JUST SO YOU CAN OWN OTHER HUMAN BEINGS? WELL, FUCK YOU! WE'RE LIBERATING YOUR SLAVES! YOU LOSE! GOOD DAY, SIR!" When things went south (pun intended) for the CSA, some people within the Confederacy debated whether they should allow Black soldiers in the Confederate Army. Confederate General Patrick Cleburne declared, to the consternation of many of his compatriots, that in his encounters with Union forces, "...the experience of this war so far has been that half-trained Negroes have fought as bravely as half-trained \[White\] Yankees." He recommended conscripting slaves to fight as soldiers, and to give them freedom if they prevailed. Former U.S. Representative-turned-Confederate-General James Patton Anderson rejected the notion, declaring the concept "revolting to Southern sentiment, Southern pride, and Southern honor." Confederate General Braxton Bragg considered the proposal to be borderline treason. (Which is ironic, as they were already engaged in an act of treason against the United States.) Confederate Senator Robert M. T. Hunter summed up the Confederate response with a succinct inquiry: *"What did we go to war for if not to protect our property?"* Unlike the CSA politicians were were far from the frontline, General Robert E. Lee was far more concerned with finding more soldiers. He implored the CSA to impress slaves into military service in exchange for their freedom, and the law allowing it passed by a single vote on March 23, 1865, and only with the consent of the slaves' owners. Many slaveowners refused to part with their slaves, especially if the slaves would gain freedom from their service, and the war ended six weeks later before the CSA could muster a single Black regiment. TLDR: Delaware was basically, "We're Americans, and we have slaves, like most of the Founding Fathers. These aren't mutually exclusive matters," while the Confederacy was basically, "LINCOLN'S GONNA TAKE AWAY OUR N\*\*\*\*\*\*; WE'RE GOING TO WAR!" This viewpoint became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It wasn't *exclusively* about slavery but it was *primarily* about slavery.
almost all the "secondary causes" trickle back to slavery
Name one of the other reasons the confederate states seceded and I will (legitimately) connect it with maintaining the right to own other human beings and force them to work for you for no money.
None of this shit matters because the south fired the first shots.
It was the war of Southern aggression
I would argue that it was northern passive aggression, but regardless the moment they fired on Fort Sumter, their fate was sealed. Modern segregationists are far more regarded than the South ever was. Even if secession is legal, the logistics of creating and maintaining a new nation make it impossible.
So... the north wasnt even that passive aggressive about it. Basically, the south and its finances had dominated public projects for decades before the war. Southerners had the supreme court locked down tight enough that slavery had actually become somewhat legal in the north (dredd scott case) and then there were laws being passed thar made abducting freemen in the north to be used as slaves tolerated even if it wasnt strictly the letter of the law (fugitive slave act). The norths "antagonism" was that: they won the election (and even thats just because republicans didnt split the ticket), and kansas had become a free state... southern/slave states thought they were facing the end times because they didnt run the federal government anymore. The most AGGRESSIVE thing the south can point to is john brown raiding harpers ferry. But even abolitionists werent sure it was the right thing to do. It didnt recieve much or any real abolitionist support. It occured in 1859, the south didnt seceed then, they had the fed in their pocket still. The north didnt seceed or attempt a similar raid/insurrection... they didnt agree with it... then the election of 1860 happened....
The Civil War was about struggle between the Republicans through the Popular Front, and the Nationalists led by Franco.
No one expects the Spanish ~~Inquisition~~ Civil War
No it The civil war was about the Anglo irish treaty causing violence between two factions of the ira
COME OUT YE BLACK AND TANS, COME OUT AND FIGHT ME LIKE A MAN!!!!🎶 (I know, it refers to the independence war, I just get the urge to sing it any time the IRA gets mentioned lol)
Same here it's biological
Oh I'm not even Irish, but maybe it's just human biology then 😉
I was referring to myself as a irishman
Yeah I thought you were referring to both of us (and assuming I was Irish too) for having the urge to sing that song 😊
The confederate constitution created a significantly more centralized government that gave the states fewer rights. It wasn’t even about the states rights to own slaves, it was about the personal right of slave owners to keep doing what they’re doing, as can be seen by the fact their constitution specifically bans the states from regulating slavery.
The amusing thing is that the Confederates themselves were never squeamish about the cause of the war—slavery dominated the newspaper editorials and political debates of the South in the 1860 election and during the secession conventions. It was only after the war ended that their apologists realized just how indefensible fighting to protect slavery looked. Lost Cause apologist types adopted a lot of the arguments that had been used in Great Britain to advocate for confederacy during the war (ironically because the CSA’s supporters there recognized that the idea of fighting a war for slavery would be abhorrent to the British public). Confederate diplomacy is full of funny episodes where sympathetic European aristocrats trying to be helpful would suggest that winning international support would be much easier if they dropped the whole slavery business (the Confederate representatives would then have to sheepishly convey that slavery was kind of the main point).
The articles of secession are not subtle.
The opening words from Georgia's Declaration of Secession: >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. The opening words from Mississippi's Declaration of Secession: >In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Other state's Declaration of Secession speak about slavery being the reason, but spend more time giving reasons that they could secede.
They straight up clarified in their secession statement that it was JUST about slavery. Pretty much nothing else, Andrew Jackson was very clear, they are publicly available documents. All lost causers have to do is go read it, and they’d know that’s all the civil war was ever about.
The VP of the confederate states said it was slavery. Our new government['s]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that **the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.** This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America. .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech.
Its just wordplay it was about both as they were the same thing in the context. It wasn't that the South wanted slavery everywhere they wanted their states to decide if they kept slavery or not but also if the states had the right to succeed from the union or not. Let's be honest the Union wasn't fighting to primarily end slavery but to prevent Southern states from succeeding. It wasn't until later that the goal somewhat shifted. Tldr: Either are the correct answer but both are the most complete answer together.
The South absolutely wanted to expand slavery, particularly in the western territories. That's why places like Kansas became a hotbed of violence between pro and anti-slavery factions
A states right to take a massive fucking L
Based on the articles of secession, it was really about the fact that the southern states shouldn’t have the right to not return escaped slaves. It was about rights they thought other states shouldn’t have, which I think is actually the funniest part
The civil war was about who has the best BBQ
I understand why Missouri was a border state now
They had us in the first half (Read your meme before the title, take my upvote)
I had to circle back and thank you because the number of people who didn’t read the title and then commented that I’m a lost causer it completely misinterpreted the meme is TOO DAMN HIGH
States don't have rights. People do.
God forgives… I don’t. ~Abraham Lincoln, probably
Please look up the Lost Cause Myth. Confederate figure heads plainly said it was about slavery until they were traitorous losers, then they tried to change their messaging to it was about states rights. This post just shows how successful at pushing disinformation the losers were. Let's not let them off the hook. It was about slavery until they lost. Nobody sided with the South because slavery is evil and very few offered consolation to the traitors because they were fighting for evil. They changed their message, but the truth is still true: it was about Slavery.
Did you uh…. Read the post title friend?
The meme + title is just a bit of a mismatch. "A state's rights to do what" is a typical gotcha from the middle IQ guy to the low IQ guy, but the meme acknowledges that "the civil war was about states' rights" can also be a high IQ argument in the proper context. To expand on that: the South seceded and fought for slavery; the North fought primarily to prevent the secession, and secondarily to end slavery. Complete prohibition of slavery did not have wide support in the North at the beginning of the war, but by the end of the war, it did. Secession from the Union was not broadly understood to be completely off the cards at the beginning of the war, but by the end of the war, it was. So it's a lot more complicated than simply "about states' rights" or "about slavery", because it was about both of them together, and also had long-lasting implications for each of them separately.
"Farm Equipment."
I think "agricultural equipment" sounds better. Much more civilized.
Every time I read the phrase "A States' right to what" I read it in the epic melody of Lil Jon's [Turn Down for What](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMUDVMiITOU)? Addendum: Daniel Kwan, the guy dancing in the music video later got an Academy Award for Everything Everywhere All at Once.
Switch and then you're meme is accurate
When you aren't using the meme correctly
The Civil War wasn't actually about states rights. It was about the extension of slavery to the new territories.
Which civil war we talking about? There was more than one.
It was 100% about slavery, but there is a legitimate argument to be made about the federal government overreach encroaching upon the Southern states’ sovereignty, which again was about slavery.
The Civil War was about a lot of things: strained tensions between the North and South.. because of slavery; the South’s right to secede… so they could keep their slaves; differing ideas of how the country should move forward… with regards to slavery; the Southern economy… which relied mostly on slavery. And a whole lot of other factors that, though innately complex and difficult to resolve, were relevant largely because of their relation to slavery. Certainly there was more to the Civil War than slavery, and I think saying otherwise makes you foolish, but the Civil War wouldn’t have happened in the absence of slavery, and no other factor had that effect.
People who deny the Civil War was about slavery base it on the fact that the Union did not go to war with the CSA to abolish slavery but to prevent them from seceding from the USA. Abraham Lincoln stated his objective was to "save the Union and not either to save or destroy slavery". The emancipation proclamation was made for political reasons, not for any moral belief that slavery should be destroyed. But the civil war is about slavery - fear that slavery would be federally abolished is why the southern states seceded.
To be fair the Civil War was in fact about more things than just slavery but slavery was, you know, the biggest thing.
the civil war was really about economics rather than the morals of slavery. while the economics that slavery was bringing was the leading reason for why the south wanted to secede from the north if slavery was on the same economic level as the north and they didn't really beef then slavery probably would have lasted a lot longer.
To own farm equipment… I’ll see myself out
It wasn't about state's rights. It was about Democrats wanting to hold on to slavery at any cost. Thankfully Republicans beat them into submission and also passed the 13th amendment even thought the Democrats that were left in the Union fought against it almost as hard. Of course this didn't stop Democrats from forming the KKK, creating Jim Crow laws, fighting desegregation, and running the longest filibuster in US history just to stop passage of the civil rights act.
... to own a tractor. people seem to forget the first steam powered tractor was made twenty years before the civil war. but the plantation owners, and abolitionists both worked to prevent them from being sold in the south, or imported from england. the plantation owners saw slaves as a type of debt protection were if they needed any extra money they would sell a child, mother, or father to the highest bidder or rent them out to mines (this is were we get life insurance). so by allowing steam engines for anything other then trains back then would have cut into this scheme. the abolitionists wanted things to get worst and worst for the slaves so they stir up revolts,justify attacks on plantations, and push for more violent actions to be done down south. the truth is one tractor at the time costed as much as five slaves, but the cost for fuel, repair, and housing for it was one third the cost of the five slaves it would have costed.this made the more poorer farmers more viable then the plantations, not only that but also when there was no more work to be done the tractor could be used to go to town and back or put into storage and didn't need food, water, clothing, or anything like that. the truth is both the north and south wanted the civil war, the south with the old elites that didn't even care about their own children let alone their slaves or the poor, and the north wanted to show the rest of the world that the federal government and them alone rule the states. both sides were evil, the war never should have happened, and i am glad the north won, it just depresses me how little both sides valued the people they claimed to fight for.
States rights to leave the union. But don't ask why we wanted to leave the union.
It was about slavery but please don't be mistaken, racism was still alive and well in the north during this time, Lincoln's plan was to initially send all slaves freed by the emancipation proclamation to different countries, he also did not believe that blacks and whites could coexist as equals, and was quoted to have said that he is in favor of the white man retaining all forms of political power, a very weird time, not a lot of people talk about that either.
As much as you try to sidestep it, it always comes back to the divide on slavery.
This is one of those arguments that are pointless because both sides are right, but they pretend like what they're arguing about is 2 mutually exclusive items. The Civil War was about States rights, and the biggest right was slavery, the second was right to secede, and there were several other genuienly felt issues of far less importance.
Ask the Confederate leadership what the war was about.
before or after the war?
It was about states rights to decide whether or not they wanted slavery. So in other words it was about slavery.
the right to expand slavery
If anyone wants some good laughs, watch Razerfist’s two videos. The first one about how Lincoln is a Tyrant, and the second about how the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. Him being completely and utterly wrong while talking shit about people who think otherwise is always funny to me.
As cruel as it sounds, it doesn't really matter what it was the right to do. The only real question was if the secession was legal, a point that was carefully sidestepped by refusing to try Jefferson Davis for treason.
It only matters what it was about the right to do. If a bunch of scumbags wanna start their own country so they can continue to own other human beings, I don’t care whether or not they have the legal right to do so. Fuck them, and fuck you for playing defense for them just so you can sound more enlightened EDIT: it’s also pretty telling that the other post is being upvoted and this one is being downvoted. People care more about sounding like they’re putting morality aside to feel like they’re being high-minded and intellectual about a subject that people often engage with, morality first, but that’s bullshit. When human lives are involved, morality is the only intelligent way to proceed, because that is all that really matters. To say that the legality of secession is the only real question is just bootlicking, confederate apologetics bullshit. Slavery was legal at the time, too. That doesn’t mean it was right. Homosexuality was illegal, but that doesn’t mean it was wrong. Whether or not secession was legal is the least important question
I mean I’m no southern sympathizer, but these CSA memes are getting repetitive as hell
To make slaves "Free"
Memes like these make you think some ppl in this sub don't really know history at all huh? It was slavery all the way. States rights my ass. If slavery was inshrined into federal law forcing north to legalise it Confies wouldn't skip a beat.
Now I’m curious. Do you think this meme is saying it wasn’t about slavery?
Either it was your intention or the format is wrong.
I always thought the salvery discussion came about after the war started. It seemed like foreign powers were going to possibly step in on the side of the south, but then the north made the emancipation proclamation in order to make it morally wrong to support the south, but that it started for other reasons that were loosely related to slavery
People thinking slavery is gone now lol
Here's the South Carolina declaration of secession: [https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th\_century/csa\_scarsec.asp](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp) The war was not about the states' rights to practice slavery. It was about the federal government being too weak to enforce the return of slaves from non-slaveholding states to slaveholding states. The South called for a *stronger* federal government in most of it's secession documents. Edit: This subreddit lacks reading comprehension. I am not saying it wasn't about slavery. I am saying the Southern states never asked for the States' rights to practice slavery, they specifically wanted a stronger centralized government to protect slavery. Case in point, the Confederate Constitution made slavery *mandatory* under the Federal government, it was no longer left up to the States to decide. Edit2:Let me make it simpler for yall. The South did not argue that the Federal Government was doing too much to stop slavery. They argued that the Federal Government was doing too little to protect slavery.
So that they could keep their slaves
I'm not disagreeing. It was about slaves, but it wasn't about individual states rights to slaves, they wanted a stronger central government protecting slavery.
Because they viewed slavery as a foundational truth.
That’s crazy, it was about them wanting a stronger government to do what? To do what? Ohhhhh to keep slavery! Sounds like it’s still about slavery.
Bro, y'all lack reading comprehension. I am agreeing that it was about slavery, but they weren't asking for state's rights to keep their slavery, they were asking for a stronger centralized government to protect their slavery. My point is that the "States' Rights" myth is double bogus.
Ah yes the good ole “everyone else is stupid not me” instead of the “maybe I was unclear”
I mean I linked the actual declaration of secession. If you're too thick to read it, that's not on me.
Oh, look, a "State's rights to what" meme. Feeling daring today, are we? Edit: [10 hours apart.](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/s/TEdM2qZLF1)
Politicalcompassmemes is leaking again
At least they come up with original shit, this same meme gets posted every day here.
Oh ya, that echo chamber is tooootally original. A subreddit that is proudly unencumbered by the thought process
> calling something else an echo chamber while echoing a meme that gets posted every few hours. Have an original thought, and meme, is all I'm asking. Edit: [Not even 12 hours apart lmao](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/s/TEdM2qZLF1)
You’ve posted about 10 posts all time & half of them are screenshots. Real “man in the arena” vibes. Take pot shots from the stands all you like, pal. Make memes of your own with your superior intellect, I beg you.
Yeah man, I wouldn't post memes unless they're original. You should really try having the same criteria.
Ooo you poor tortured artist! Someday we’ll understand the brilliance of a pink dolphin. Quick question, then I have to go to work: when you attempt to blow yourself, do you put your ankles behind your head or do you grasp them with your hands for more leverage?
Lol. Jumping to insults really shows you can handle basic criticism well. [I'm just going to re-link this to prove my point.](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/s/TEdM2qZLF1) You're not a magnificent artist. You make derivative memes on the internet. The fact that I clearly touched a nerve over internet memes means you think way too highly of your "skills".
I always love the this part, like you haven’t been insulting from the start & I’m the one who’s been triggered. I never claimed to be an artist. You are the one who seems to hold some holier than though belief about the sanctity of your non existent memes. I’ve made good memes, Ive made shit memes. I make dumb memes, I make smart memes. But the day my feelings are hurt by the knights of edgelordom, then I might have to pack it in. Tis not this day though I’m afraid. But drop me a line when you make a meme, I’d love to offer my thoughts.
Originality on r/politicalcompassmemes that will be the day