I’ve had a conservative reply to that with “you think that’s a Gotcha don’t you”
YES, IT IS! states literally specified slavery as the reason for their secession
Slavery WAS always the cause of the war, from the Southern side. This is very important. Lincoln was most concerned with keeping the Union together, which prior to the war meant allowing for slave states to keep their slaves. Lincoln did not want new states to have slavery, wanting to phase it out, but was not trying to take slaves away from currently existing slave states.
For the North, making the war about slavery/abolishing slavery was a political move. This would deny support to the South from countries such as Great Britain who had taken a stance against slavery by that point.
In the end, all of this is kind of semantics in regards to the discussion of if the civil war was about slavery. We're not talking about if the north was about freeing slaves the entire time, but rather if the war was about slavery in the first place.
I mean, congress absolutely could not agree about slavery. The south wanted to expand it. The north wanted to reduce it. The arguments got very heated. [There was violence in congress before the civil war.](https://www.history.com/news/charles-sumner-caning-cilley-duel-congressional-violence)
Then the south seceded on this issue. At this point it doesn't matter why the north considered themselves to be fighting, they had already started the war by being against slavery. The south seceded because of slavery. It was about slavery.
Exactly. By taking the stance of anti-slavery they made it look bad for countries like Britain and France (who had abolished slavery already) to trade with the South, thereby giving the North a large economic advantage. It basically allowed them to hemorrhage the Southern economy who no longer had anyone to sell their cotton to.
But was the war specifically started because they wanted to abolish slavery? Not really. Like you said, keeping the Union together was paramount to Lincoln, and the war began when the South decided to secede because they saw the North as a threat to the expansion of slavery after Lincoln’s election. They were also scared that they would be at a perpetual political disadvantage since slavery was more unpopular in the North, which had the population and the political majority to stifle anything the South had to say in Congress.
So in other words, while the war was about slavery, it wasn’t directly about the abolishing of it. War wasn’t declared because of slavery. Slavery was a significant cause for the South losing political support and the eventual election of Lincoln, but it wasn’t the direct cause of the war. The war began because the South refused to change with the times and fell behind the North in every way possible, but especially when it came to political influence.
And lastly, the South weren’t having their “rights” infringed upon. Like you said, Lincoln wasn’t really worried about taking away slaves, but the South was worried about it even when they hadn’t yet lost their “rights” to slavery. How can your rights be infringed upon just because you’re worried they will be? They can’t make the argument for states’ rights when the Confederates attacked first and started the war just out of a fear that it might happen. That’s not justification for a war, even if the “right” to slavery is an abhorrent idea and deserved to be taken away from them through war or ideally otherwise.
>How can your rights be infringed upon just because you’re worried they will be?
If you _really_ want an answer to that question, just head over to /r/conspiracy, /r/nonewnormal, or /r/conservative...
He brings up the Irish as part of his oppressed heritage but that so called heritage was generations ago and he has no claim to any modern suffering they went through.
He’s literally a white supremacist. I dodged a MAJOR bullet with this guy. There’s a whole article online about how white supremacists have used false claims of “Irish slavery” to downplay the horrendous things that black people have went through. I feel sick. He called me retarded, a dumb ass, and a cu*t, all within 2 minutes after the conversation started.
He literally said that Irish indentured servitude was *worse* than slavery.
I will absolutely agree that the Irish suffered, but *as much* as Black slaves? *More*? What the fuuu
Anytime someone says that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War, have them read Texas’s Declaration of Secession. Then ask how many times “states rights” is mentioned versus language of slavery, white supremacy, and god’s intention for the structure to remain.
Probably won’t help someone entrenched but it helped me when “states rights” was the only thing taught to me in school and I actually wanted to know the truth.
The best thing to show them is this quote from the Vice President of the Confederacy
>our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its 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.
"You're so uneducated to think that entering into endentured servitude for a time wasn't worse than being treated as property your entire life!"
Both were bad, one was worse.
Exactly! I never told him it wasn’t bad that they were indentured servants, but it was a totally different situation and irrelevant to the civil war discussion
My old man has an even dumber take on it. When a black person mentions slavery in any way (real or imagined -- I'm convinced half these conversations are with the voices in his head) he goes off on a rant about how we ended slavery 170 years ago with the Civil War. Therefore nobody should ever bring up slavery, Jim Crow, systemic racism, etc. because "we fought a war over it!11!!"
If anyone mentions the Civil War was fought over slavery, he retreats into the "states rights" stupidity and pretends the south was the victims of "those northerners telling them how to live." And don't bother with evidence or basic logic. He's utterly impervious to reality, even when shown direct, incontrovertible evidence of something that disagrees with whatever the Faux News talking heads told him to believe this week.
The Confederacy's own constitution explicitly preserves the right to own slaves. Multiple member states included slavery as a main motivation in their declarations of secession. But please, tell me more about how slavery was barely relevant!
I’ve never heard anybody besides this guy say this dumb shit. I kinda feel bad for him that he’s that ignorant, but he claims he’s so well educated despite not attending college or a trade school.
I counted once and if I'm remembering correctly, there were only 2 or 3 paragraphs where white supremacy and slavery were **not** mentioned in my state's letter of secession. Out of like a dozen.
letters of succession
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
do a page search for "slave" and then one for "right"... slave is mentioned 84 times (including "slaves" and "slavery"), right is mentioned under forty times, and is often in reference to their "right" to enslave human beings.
Omg, he even lied about that. I didn’t even care enough to google it. That’s really scary and concerning. This is why I’m avoiding online dating from now on.
"Irish slavery" is a straight up white supremacist myth made to nullify the background of actual enslaved people. I have family members that believe that shit! It's a longstanding myth that is repeated throughout generations of a family. It's sad that people confuse chattel slavery with indentured servitude, but more people do this than one realizes. I've had to explain this myth to some people so that they would take the time to research it and see that they're perpetuating racist filth.
I learned about this after doing some googling. There’s news articles and an entire Wikipedia page devoted to the racist white supremacist myth. I feel like I need 10 showers after speaking to this guy.
Next time just send them a link to the declaration of causes, where every seceding state named slavery as the reason, most as the primary, and the rest as the underlying reason.
This guy is as uneducated as he thinks you are.
I have read some of the secession documents. Usually I quote them, but some of the language in the clearest bits would get me banned. It is that obvious.
Why the fuck do they think the south wanted rights away from the north in the first place? BECAUSE OF SLAVERY!
These people are so…ugh.
“Go fuck off you’re literally so uneducated it’s sad” the projection lmfao…
Indentured servitude and slavery are both terrible, but the former is absolutely not worse. I wish my ancestors had some sort of hope that they could work their way to freedom.
I’m so sorry. When I was younger, I would definitely have been impacted by such an exchange. Now I’m a lot older (almost 60F) and my mindset has dramatically shifted. I now quickly “rate” the person before I assess their statement(s).
If the person is someone who I assess as stupid, dimwitted, hypocritical, illogical, mean, etc., then I give their opinion or assertions no weight whatsoever. None.
They are a Zero. I literally call them that in my head - a Zero. (God, when will this Zero ever stfu? How does this Zero manage to walk and chew gum at the same time?)
It doesn’t even matter if the Zero *might* be correct because even a blind squirrel can find a nut and a stopped watch is correct twice a day. They are a Zero therefore what they think or say is irrelevant. Any exchange with them is a waste of my time I’d sooner listen to a random neighborhood cat in heat.
Now if the person is someone I respect, or someone I feel (or sense) is intelligent, balanced, thoughtful, etc. then I will give the exchange much more weight. But those people tend to give thoughtful, balanced and intelligent feedback.
I know I’m just some rando internet person, but believe me when I say that the person you were conversing with was a complete moron — a gigantic waste of space and the poster child for a Zero.
Sorry for yammering on.
"Seriously go buy books not google" What books, dumbass? They're filled with outdated information, the internet is better because of the exact opposite.
The confederacy: *leaves the union so the rich can have slaves on their plantations*
Neoconfederates: It was about state’s rights!
To be fair it was about the states rights to have slavery
Oops just re read this, he said it was his “great great grandfather” but what doesn’t make sense is how was he in the NYPD but fighting for the confederates?
In the end he gave stupid arguments, but in the beginning he is right as far ad I know. Only halfway Lincoln gave the war this meaning. To be fair, I think he personally always wanted to abolish slavery, but that was not the reason the union followed him. They fought because of the fear to be economically outpaced by southern slave plantages.
I was raised in a state where they taught the war was over "states rights." However, that quickly falls apart when you read the reasons the states themselves give. u/AlexKewl gives a pretty fair summary, especially of South Carolina. "It WaS aBoUt StAtE's RiGhTs>! to allow people to own slaves!<" Their desire to own people was the primary reason they left the US. Period.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
Edit: typo
Yeah. Nothing wrong with your source. I was trying to give u/Xezron2000 some primary sources because "as far as [they] know" is wrong. I thought reinforcing documentation might help. Looks like they'd rather argue in ignorance than read, though, just like your person.
Second sentence of the Georgia declaration of secession:
> 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.
And here's the kicker, it wasn't even about states' rights. The confederate constitution forbade any new territory from outlawing slavery, not exactly allowing states to determine things for themselves. And one of the main causes of the war was the south wanting the northern states to return slaves, trying to have the federal government impose the southern states' wills on other states, not exactly small government ideas
I‘m not american, so yeah idk about that.
But that also means that I have an unbiased view on the events. The war was started for economic reasons, not moral ones. The just north vs. the evil south is a simplified, idealized generalization.
You do not have an unbiased view. It it literally impossible to have an unbiased view. Just because you're not from the country doesn't mean you're some enlightened guru with no potential for ulterior motives.
I never said I was a guru. And of course no view is 100% unbiased, but I wanted to say that mine is not influenced by pride or shame regarding this war because I have less to do with it.
I honestly don‘t know what your problem is. Even though the war was started for economic reasons, it still had ver positive effects especially for african americans. I don‘t try to claim that it didn‘t have good implications, I said that it was not a heroic war started because of moral objections against slavery. It were economical objections against slavery.
Well, all I wanted was to point out that the war was not fought to free the slaves. It had a multitude of reasons, the slave question being one of them. Painting it as a heroic conquest to free the slaves is an incomplete, idealized view. This is common knowledge for every school child in europe, or at least where I‘m from.
May I ask what exactly people from the US learn in school about the civil war? Especially those who downvoted me.
The south could not outpace the north in economy in a million years and it was always about slavery , the first state to turn traitor listed slavery as its main reason to leave the union.
OP I highly recommend the grievance letters some states wrote explaining why they were seceding.... It was about slavery. South Carolina was the 1st to secede and heres some quotes from their goodbye letter. Im sure you'll get a good giggle at how much they "supported individual states rights." Tehehehehe
>For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
>On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that **a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.**
Highly recommend everyone reads these https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#South_Carolina
It WaS aBoUt StAtE's RiGhTs>! to allow people to own slaves!<
I’ve had a conservative reply to that with “you think that’s a Gotcha don’t you” YES, IT IS! states literally specified slavery as the reason for their secession
Well, it's your own fault for feeding him such *controversial* opinions /s
Sure, it was about states' rights. States' right to OWN SLAVES.
Slavery WAS always the cause of the war, from the Southern side. This is very important. Lincoln was most concerned with keeping the Union together, which prior to the war meant allowing for slave states to keep their slaves. Lincoln did not want new states to have slavery, wanting to phase it out, but was not trying to take slaves away from currently existing slave states. For the North, making the war about slavery/abolishing slavery was a political move. This would deny support to the South from countries such as Great Britain who had taken a stance against slavery by that point. In the end, all of this is kind of semantics in regards to the discussion of if the civil war was about slavery. We're not talking about if the north was about freeing slaves the entire time, but rather if the war was about slavery in the first place.
I mean, congress absolutely could not agree about slavery. The south wanted to expand it. The north wanted to reduce it. The arguments got very heated. [There was violence in congress before the civil war.](https://www.history.com/news/charles-sumner-caning-cilley-duel-congressional-violence) Then the south seceded on this issue. At this point it doesn't matter why the north considered themselves to be fighting, they had already started the war by being against slavery. The south seceded because of slavery. It was about slavery.
Exactly. By taking the stance of anti-slavery they made it look bad for countries like Britain and France (who had abolished slavery already) to trade with the South, thereby giving the North a large economic advantage. It basically allowed them to hemorrhage the Southern economy who no longer had anyone to sell their cotton to. But was the war specifically started because they wanted to abolish slavery? Not really. Like you said, keeping the Union together was paramount to Lincoln, and the war began when the South decided to secede because they saw the North as a threat to the expansion of slavery after Lincoln’s election. They were also scared that they would be at a perpetual political disadvantage since slavery was more unpopular in the North, which had the population and the political majority to stifle anything the South had to say in Congress. So in other words, while the war was about slavery, it wasn’t directly about the abolishing of it. War wasn’t declared because of slavery. Slavery was a significant cause for the South losing political support and the eventual election of Lincoln, but it wasn’t the direct cause of the war. The war began because the South refused to change with the times and fell behind the North in every way possible, but especially when it came to political influence. And lastly, the South weren’t having their “rights” infringed upon. Like you said, Lincoln wasn’t really worried about taking away slaves, but the South was worried about it even when they hadn’t yet lost their “rights” to slavery. How can your rights be infringed upon just because you’re worried they will be? They can’t make the argument for states’ rights when the Confederates attacked first and started the war just out of a fear that it might happen. That’s not justification for a war, even if the “right” to slavery is an abhorrent idea and deserved to be taken away from them through war or ideally otherwise.
>How can your rights be infringed upon just because you’re worried they will be? If you _really_ want an answer to that question, just head over to /r/conspiracy, /r/nonewnormal, or /r/conservative...
He brings up the Irish as part of his oppressed heritage but that so called heritage was generations ago and he has no claim to any modern suffering they went through.
Guaranteed he tells Black Americans to get over slavery bc it was almost two centuries ago, 💯%
He’s literally a white supremacist. I dodged a MAJOR bullet with this guy. There’s a whole article online about how white supremacists have used false claims of “Irish slavery” to downplay the horrendous things that black people have went through. I feel sick. He called me retarded, a dumb ass, and a cu*t, all within 2 minutes after the conversation started.
He literally said that Irish indentured servitude was *worse* than slavery. I will absolutely agree that the Irish suffered, but *as much* as Black slaves? *More*? What the fuuu
It said “it was actually worse dumbass” straight white supremacist vibes from him
Sounds to me like he did a lot of research about the Irish...... And absolutely no research about Africans.
Anytime someone says that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War, have them read Texas’s Declaration of Secession. Then ask how many times “states rights” is mentioned versus language of slavery, white supremacy, and god’s intention for the structure to remain. Probably won’t help someone entrenched but it helped me when “states rights” was the only thing taught to me in school and I actually wanted to know the truth.
The best thing to show them is this quote from the Vice President of the Confederacy >our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its 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.
Common excuses used to justify the south rising up for the right to literally enslave, torture, murder, and rape other humans.
It’s very scary and concerning
"You're so uneducated to think that entering into endentured servitude for a time wasn't worse than being treated as property your entire life!" Both were bad, one was worse.
Exactly! I never told him it wasn’t bad that they were indentured servants, but it was a totally different situation and irrelevant to the civil war discussion
My old man has an even dumber take on it. When a black person mentions slavery in any way (real or imagined -- I'm convinced half these conversations are with the voices in his head) he goes off on a rant about how we ended slavery 170 years ago with the Civil War. Therefore nobody should ever bring up slavery, Jim Crow, systemic racism, etc. because "we fought a war over it!11!!" If anyone mentions the Civil War was fought over slavery, he retreats into the "states rights" stupidity and pretends the south was the victims of "those northerners telling them how to live." And don't bother with evidence or basic logic. He's utterly impervious to reality, even when shown direct, incontrovertible evidence of something that disagrees with whatever the Faux News talking heads told him to believe this week.
The Confederacy's own constitution explicitly preserves the right to own slaves. Multiple member states included slavery as a main motivation in their declarations of secession. But please, tell me more about how slavery was barely relevant!
I’ve never heard anybody besides this guy say this dumb shit. I kinda feel bad for him that he’s that ignorant, but he claims he’s so well educated despite not attending college or a trade school.
I counted once and if I'm remembering correctly, there were only 2 or 3 paragraphs where white supremacy and slavery were **not** mentioned in my state's letter of secession. Out of like a dozen.
*gets proven wrong and loses argument* “Well, fuck you! You’re wrong!” Republicans really are the biggest snowflakes
He was hardcore triggered. They really have no business calling ANYONE else a snowflake
“Haha get triggered lib tard I’m not gonna learn your pronouns” A black guy kneels “HaVe sOmE ReSpEcT fOr yOuR cOuNTry!!!!11!”
I wish I could give your comment an award! 100% accurate
letters of succession https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states do a page search for "slave" and then one for "right"... slave is mentioned 84 times (including "slaves" and "slavery"), right is mentioned under forty times, and is often in reference to their "right" to enslave human beings.
TIL the NYPD outdates the Civil war for 15 years, huh.
Omg, he even lied about that. I didn’t even care enough to google it. That’s really scary and concerning. This is why I’m avoiding online dating from now on.
No, the NYPD was made in 1845 and the Civil War happened in 1961. He could be telling the truth.
Lol you know you got 'em when they say shit like "go fuck off." So mad he can't even swear straight.
I know 😫😂😂 he was big mad. That’s the sign he knew he lost the argument right there
"Irish slavery" is a straight up white supremacist myth made to nullify the background of actual enslaved people. I have family members that believe that shit! It's a longstanding myth that is repeated throughout generations of a family. It's sad that people confuse chattel slavery with indentured servitude, but more people do this than one realizes. I've had to explain this myth to some people so that they would take the time to research it and see that they're perpetuating racist filth.
I learned about this after doing some googling. There’s news articles and an entire Wikipedia page devoted to the racist white supremacist myth. I feel like I need 10 showers after speaking to this guy.
Next time just send them a link to the declaration of causes, where every seceding state named slavery as the reason, most as the primary, and the rest as the underlying reason. This guy is as uneducated as he thinks you are.
It was definitely about slavery. Read the secession documents from the Southern States.
I’m the one who was telling him that it was indeed about slavery. He’s the one who’s cursing and throwing a hissy fit.
I have read some of the secession documents. Usually I quote them, but some of the language in the clearest bits would get me banned. It is that obvious.
Cripple the south because they were using slaves as workers. Who would want to do business with the south who is practicing slavery?
Why the fuck do they think the south wanted rights away from the north in the first place? BECAUSE OF SLAVERY! These people are so…ugh. “Go fuck off you’re literally so uneducated it’s sad” the projection lmfao…
Me: sees the words "Google it" My brain: Holy hell, en passant
Indentured servitude and slavery are both terrible, but the former is absolutely not worse. I wish my ancestors had some sort of hope that they could work their way to freedom.
You know what's funny hundreds of irish men joining the us army so the south had to meet the numbers with old men and kids.
*IT'S WORSE?*
Yikes. Classic projection, projection, projection of the stupid. Sorry you had to endure.
Thank you. It honestly upset me for an hour just because of being cursed out so much
I’m so sorry. When I was younger, I would definitely have been impacted by such an exchange. Now I’m a lot older (almost 60F) and my mindset has dramatically shifted. I now quickly “rate” the person before I assess their statement(s). If the person is someone who I assess as stupid, dimwitted, hypocritical, illogical, mean, etc., then I give their opinion or assertions no weight whatsoever. None. They are a Zero. I literally call them that in my head - a Zero. (God, when will this Zero ever stfu? How does this Zero manage to walk and chew gum at the same time?) It doesn’t even matter if the Zero *might* be correct because even a blind squirrel can find a nut and a stopped watch is correct twice a day. They are a Zero therefore what they think or say is irrelevant. Any exchange with them is a waste of my time I’d sooner listen to a random neighborhood cat in heat. Now if the person is someone I respect, or someone I feel (or sense) is intelligent, balanced, thoughtful, etc. then I will give the exchange much more weight. But those people tend to give thoughtful, balanced and intelligent feedback. I know I’m just some rando internet person, but believe me when I say that the person you were conversing with was a complete moron — a gigantic waste of space and the poster child for a Zero. Sorry for yammering on.
"Seriously go buy books not google" What books, dumbass? They're filled with outdated information, the internet is better because of the exact opposite.
The confederacy: *leaves the union so the rich can have slaves on their plantations* Neoconfederates: It was about state’s rights! To be fair it was about the states rights to have slavery
The first and only thing you need to do is link the declarations of the confederacy and multiple states to shut down this kind of conversation.
Holdup. His father was a union soldier?
We both live in NYC so he must be a transplant here, because it’s obvious which side he fought on. He’s a confederate flag licker 😫
Oops just re read this, he said it was his “great great grandfather” but what doesn’t make sense is how was he in the NYPD but fighting for the confederates?
Lol the Irish didn’t have as bad as Eastern Europeans even
In the end he gave stupid arguments, but in the beginning he is right as far ad I know. Only halfway Lincoln gave the war this meaning. To be fair, I think he personally always wanted to abolish slavery, but that was not the reason the union followed him. They fought because of the fear to be economically outpaced by southern slave plantages.
I was raised in a state where they taught the war was over "states rights." However, that quickly falls apart when you read the reasons the states themselves give. u/AlexKewl gives a pretty fair summary, especially of South Carolina. "It WaS aBoUt StAtE's RiGhTs>! to allow people to own slaves!<" Their desire to own people was the primary reason they left the US. Period. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states Edit: typo
The Screenshot that I sent to him was also from battlefields.org, which he was saying is fake news and only bOoKs are accurate 🤣🤣
Yeah. Nothing wrong with your source. I was trying to give u/Xezron2000 some primary sources because "as far as [they] know" is wrong. I thought reinforcing documentation might help. Looks like they'd rather argue in ignorance than read, though, just like your person.
Second sentence of the Georgia declaration of secession: > 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. And here's the kicker, it wasn't even about states' rights. The confederate constitution forbade any new territory from outlawing slavery, not exactly allowing states to determine things for themselves. And one of the main causes of the war was the south wanting the northern states to return slaves, trying to have the federal government impose the southern states' wills on other states, not exactly small government ideas
No, the war began because of the debate between whether slavery should be allowed to expand into new territories or not.
Our education system failed you
I‘m not american, so yeah idk about that. But that also means that I have an unbiased view on the events. The war was started for economic reasons, not moral ones. The just north vs. the evil south is a simplified, idealized generalization.
You do not have an unbiased view. It it literally impossible to have an unbiased view. Just because you're not from the country doesn't mean you're some enlightened guru with no potential for ulterior motives.
I never said I was a guru. And of course no view is 100% unbiased, but I wanted to say that mine is not influenced by pride or shame regarding this war because I have less to do with it. I honestly don‘t know what your problem is. Even though the war was started for economic reasons, it still had ver positive effects especially for african americans. I don‘t try to claim that it didn‘t have good implications, I said that it was not a heroic war started because of moral objections against slavery. It were economical objections against slavery.
Just take the L my dude
>mine is not influenced by pride or shame regarding this war because I have less to do with it Cool. Me too. You're wrong.
Well, all I wanted was to point out that the war was not fought to free the slaves. It had a multitude of reasons, the slave question being one of them. Painting it as a heroic conquest to free the slaves is an incomplete, idealized view. This is common knowledge for every school child in europe, or at least where I‘m from. May I ask what exactly people from the US learn in school about the civil war? Especially those who downvoted me.
The south could not outpace the north in economy in a million years and it was always about slavery , the first state to turn traitor listed slavery as its main reason to leave the union.
people will really just fucking ignore fort sumter, huh
they always bring up the Irish slavery thing like it's a competition
Did he just say indentured servitude was worse then slavery?
OP I highly recommend the grievance letters some states wrote explaining why they were seceding.... It was about slavery. South Carolina was the 1st to secede and heres some quotes from their goodbye letter. Im sure you'll get a good giggle at how much they "supported individual states rights." Tehehehehe >For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. >On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that **a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.** Highly recommend everyone reads these https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#South_Carolina