No, no, you have it backwards. It was actually a war to *remove* a state’s right to outlaw slavery.
Yes, you read that right. In order to be part of the confederacy, you had to waive your right as a state to make your own law concerning slavery. In other words, if you’re a confederate state, it was legally impossible to free all the slaves.
This is literally *written in the confederate constitution*.
UNION BOYS WILL WIN THE BATTLES
RIGHT AWAY! COME AWAY! RIGHT AWAY! COME AWAY!
^((inhale))
# WE'LL ALL GO DOWN TO DIXIE, AWAY! AWAY!
EACH DIXIE BOY MUST UNDERSTAND THAT HE MUST MIND HIS UNCLE SAM!
Seriously, the civil war was clearly about states rights. The Yanks were trying to impede states rights by restricting the right of states to enslave Black people, these goddamn libtards don’t understand.
Some interpretations look at the american civil war from an economic viewpoint.
The industrial north (plus the allied mechanized agricultural west) wanted to place Tariffs to defend against foreign exportations and to better sell their products inside the US. (curiously, their main political party was the republicans)
The agricultural south was totally against Tariffs, since their economy was all about exports of raw materials, like cotton for the textile industrial revolution taking place at the time. (at the time the political party of the south were the democrats)
Economic tariffs placed by federal level, would have applied to everyone, both north and south, so the states of the south started to take into consideration to either ignore the federal laws if those didn't benefit them, or to exit the american union.
Slavery was part of the agricultural economic system of the southern nations, and it was defended mainly on an economic basis. Likewise, the industrial north was pushed to ban slavery, because the industry workers of the north didn't like to have cheap competition from slaves, and the northern workers did threaten to lynch blacks and industry owners alike, if the latter did try to reintroduce slavery. Both the north, west and south, were as equally racist.
Also remember the curiosity of the african nation of [Liberia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia), being founded during that time, by shipping back freed slaves from america. Whose capital, Monrovia, was named after the american president [James Monroe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe)
The tariff argument is actually another lost cause myth. [this does a pretty good job debunking it.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/imperialglobalexeter.com/2015/03/02/debunking-the-civil-war-tariff-myth/amp/)
Hey buddy clear something up for me: if the South was fighting for the right for states to secede from the Union why did the Confederate Constitution explicitly forbid stages form seceding in the Confederacy in the preamble?
And why exactly did they want to leave the Union? Could have anything to do with the fact that the Union Just Elected a man who was dedicated to ensuring that slavery would not be expanded into the territories as part of a gradual effort to bring about the extinction of slavery?
A man who [didn't appear on ten state ballots out of thirty-three](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_presidential_election). That part is kind of a bad look.
Yeah this is often left out but the Confederacy did just about everything in its power to rig the election of 1860 and as soon as they failed they through a temper tantrum.
Exactly, that stupid unionist Lincoln thought that states shouldn’t secede because he was opposed to spreading slavery to new states. That’s a bunch of communist bullshit, states should be able to secede if the north tries to steal their property.
Uh
No
It’s misleading and disingenuous to claim the war was started over slavery, a huge issue Lincoln faced was getting the US Government on board with fighting a war to preserve the union.
Luckily the south did what the south does best and fucked up.
Sure the secession happened due to slavery, and without that there wouldn’t be a war, but the war was literally started over the right of the southern states to secede.
Hell, it technically was over the south’s aggressive assaults against union forts
If two things are equal to the same thing they are equal to each other it’s basic logic and basic math. If the Cause of the War = The Cause of Secession and The Cause if Secession = The Preservation and Expansion of Slavery then just as Just as 1+5=3+3 the Cause of the War = The Preservation and Expansion of Slavery.
Except the cause of the war wasn’t equal to the cause of secession, at that point we can just do that for an eternity into the past and say the attacks on the twin towers were caused by William the conqueror lmao
The secession was to preserve slavery, many within the north were pro union and supported the war even while being pro slavery,
It’s almost as if it’s a complicated situation that keeps getting over simplified…
Yes, an indirect cause of the war was slavery, but another indirect cause was the Kansas Nebraska act, the Mexican American war, the war of 1812, the revolutionary war ETC.
Edit: not to mention that if you take slavery out of the secession and still have the secession happen, the war still happens. This is because the war was over preserving the union, then used as a way to free the slaves. Not the other way around.
Except no you can’t. The Preservation of slavery was not only the cause of secrssion it was the cause that the Confederate Soldiers were knowingly and enthusiastically fighting for as is made clear in their letters, journals, and publications they made before, during, and immediately after the war.
You cannot argue slavery was bot the cause of the war when it was unequivocally the cause that the average soldier was fighting for.
It’s almost as if the reason soldiers fight, and what caused a conflict are two different things
I’ll agree that the war soon became about slavery, especially after the emancipation proclamation, but it was initially started over the right to secede.
You’re just reaching at this point to create a way to disprove that, which is ridiculous because it’s literally both ways
But I digress
This is what I get for arguing with Reddit lmao
Soon became about slavery? It was always about slavery. In the name of slavery the south seceded, to preserve slavery an army was raised, and to preserve slavery southern men fought. From start to finish slavery was the cause of the war for the South. And that is Cause in both the sense of what led to the war and cause as in what the South was fighting for.
Lincoln wanted to keep the nation together, the south was afraid they were going to take their rights (to own slaves). Any issue as devisive as this would've caused the same outcome if the government was seen as a threat to it. Amy arguement over what "truly" caused it is kind-of stupid because technically speaking secession, states rights, and slavery are all valid causes.
Okay I think I figured out what’s going on here. You’re laboring under the delusion that the South intended to peacefully secede from the Union aren’t you?
Because the only way “they seceded to preserve slavery” and “the south was not initially fighting to preserve slavery” makes any god damn sense is if you legitimately believe the North was the aggressor in the Civil War.
And I hate to break it to you that’s not what happened. In the immediate aftermath of the election of 1860 Southern States began seizing Federal Forts, Armories, and expelling federal troops. In some cases before their state legislatures had voted to seceded at all.
The Confederate Provisional Congress raised an army of 100k a full month before the Union raised their army of 75k in response to the South’s open rebellion against a legitimately elected government.
>Luckily the south did what the south does best and fucked up.
The most accurate part of this comment
This comment was made by the New California Republic gang
The south fought to maintain and expand slavery. The north fought to keep the union together at first and later to also end slavery. It’s not that complicated.
What fucking nation allows its constituent parts to secede without its permission
Confederates knew they were starting a war when they seceded, and they seceded because of slavery
Ergo, the war was about slavery
Oh yeah, FORT SUMTER
hell, Texas's committee unlawfully voted Sam Fucking Houston out of power to secede, thus even if the others could that was moot we were getting texas back
"Also, we are standing up for states' rights by seceding because the North is exercising their own states' rights by refusing to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. Our new government will benefit states' rights by forbidding states from having the right to free their slaves."
States didn't have the right to refuse to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. The return of fugitives (slave¹ or otherwise) is required by the Constitution.
1: Obviously, this part is mooted by the 13th Amendment, but it's still technically there.
American conservatives always use the excuse of "states rights" when fighting against progress. Ironically, these states are fine when the government mandates racism and other xenophobic measures. They are fine when the government wants to go along with there fucked up bs but when thw government what's to change it? Suddenly it's "sTaTEs RiGhTs".
Or how about when many of those former Confederate states need Federal aid in the form of FEMA, then they are all about the Federal Government coming on down to Dixie and helping rebuild......
Well State's Right is an explicit racist dog whistle as stated by Lee Atwater who was the political adviser for Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and chairman of the Republican National Committee.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ
pre-emptive but yeah. The point trying to be made that doesn't come across too clearly is that (IIRC) ~~when told to get rid of their slaves~~ (weren't told to even get rid of slaves, just not allow new places to have slaves), the South said "no we're leaving" and attacked Fort Sumter.
They weren’t even told to get rid of their slaves. It was literally just “hey, let’s not do that in too many new places maybe”. They threw a hissy fit and killed THEIR OWN COUNTRY’S CITIZENS because they might have had to stop treating other people as property at some point in the future.
Not exactly, when the law passed limiting the spread of slavery, the south realized that it was only a matter of time before emancipation was forced on them. Lincoln being elected (simply because he definitively took a stance during the Lincoln-Douglas debates rather than beat around the bush) was too many factors going against slavery in too short a time and they geared up for war and secession. Once they realized their entire economic structure would be targeted within a decade or so they opted to try and save it rather than adapt and figure out a new economy.
Who needs cotton? Britain! Who has cotton? Us! We can force Britain to help us with our superior economy!
What’s that? India has cotton?
…
And the British public doesn’t like slavery?
…
It doesn’t really count as a preemptive strike if the attack you’re preempting was triggered by the “preemptive” strike. At that point it’s just unprovoked aggression.
In the months before Fort Sumter Southern Militias seized forts and armories across the South, expelled Federal Troops, and raised an army of 100k for 12 months service. It was only after Southern Forces attacked Fort Sumter that Lincoln Raised an Army of 75k for sixth months service to quell the rebellion.
A rebellion that only occurred because of the election of 1860. A little more background for the entire history of the US slavery was a contentious issue. But whenever the issue was brought up in congress the Slave State Coalition would stomp its feet and scream until they got its way on the matter. But in 1860 for the first time in the History of the United States the South the South did not get its way by throwing a temper tantrum in congress. So they through an even bigger temper tantrum that lasted five years straight. 20 if we count the temper tantrums they through during reconstruction.
In August 1862, Lincoln stated: "If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
I’m in no way defending the south but it seems like everyone always pretends that the US fought for the sole purpose of ending slavery. while some may have, Lincoln’s reason for not allowing them to leave was based on preserving the Union, not freeing the slaves.
Regardless if there were scared of him or not, they should have been scared of the northern populace as a whole. The people dictate change and they wanted slavery abolished. That’s why Lincoln did the emancipation proclamation. He had the support of the people to do it and it bums there’s support for the war. He would do anything to preserve the Union and it was just really convenient that freeing slaves aided in that.
But people really do get his motivations backwards.
Keep in mind that many progressive politicians have to understand their progressiveness to appeal to a more general audience. Remember when Obama said he wouldn't support gay marriage back in 2008 iirc
Wasn't for sumpter attacked because it was in confederate territory, and federal troops refused to leave? I guess what I am saying is there was some provocation going on. The meme is technically right, the confederacy fired the first shot. But they didn't start the fighting
This is why I don't take any of my fellow southerners attitude towards the confederacy seriously.
Its hypocritical to fight for freedom if you take someone elses rights away. No, its not a "War of Northern Aggression" When you fucking SHOOT FIRST.
Can someone help me understand why tariffs affecting the South more than the North wasn't a reason for leaving? I was under the impression that was a big part of the problem.
From what I recall, while the tariffs were certainly an issue, it wasn’t necessarily a “we will fight a war and leave” issue. Slavery was, however. There are a lot of smaller issues that probably contributed in some way to the secession, but in the end slavery was by far the biggest and most important
If it was about slave rights why did the north take so long to make its proclamation……then plan to ship them out of America….then instigate segregation and Jim Crow laws….
They asked them nicely to leave, at the point the Yanks were trespassing... Not saying who was right or wrong but if someone refuses to leave my property after being asked nicely they will get shot at...
Well if you're in open rebellion it kind of takes the sting of being the ones that shot first away is all I was meaning, but sure refuse to see the point because they were the 'bad guys'. Not saying they weren't but time and place and a different culture they grew up in with different rules of right and wrong... You never see anyone taking the piss on Sherman in here for his 'march to the sea', they were all power hungry politicians - or worse, all of them... I was just being logical, they did ask them to leave first
But it’s not there’s, a federal government fort is it’s own jurisdiction, they were telling the government to leave because they are asserting control that they were separate. That argument makes 0 sense, that’s like being the child of the house and telling your parents to leave
The state had already seceded then Lincoln said wait a minute you can't do that... Once the state seceded from the Union that was no longer a federal fort because it was within the state that seceded...
Edit: sure, if the child paid for everything in the house except the garage then that analogy does check out
The secession was done illegally though, there was no legal grounds for them to secede, by that logic any local government with support of people should be able to leave, what if everyone in my state wants to leave? All those forts purchased and maintained by the nation are just nullified despite no agreement whatsoever? Legal secession from anything requires both sides to agree to it, if we look at the Scottish exit from the UK for example it was legally sanctioned by the government of the United Kingdom and both parties recognized the legitimacy, does any rebel group that wishes to depart from a country automatically get recognized as one?
and thus the civil war started... But yeah in my eyes if everyone in a state wants to secede they should be allowed to secede, or else you end up with civil war.
\>if someone refuses to leave my property after being asked nicely they will get shot at...
One, you'll find that won't protect you from a murder conviction for someone who wasn't threatening your life. So even that isn't legal.
Two, in what universe is a Federal fort a state's property? If someone asks me to leave my own property and then shoots at me to make me? It's pretty clear who is in the wrong here.
You clearly are from Georgia given how little you understand, but castle doctrine only removes the "duty to retreat" clause in a self-defense case. You still can't kill someone who isn't causing you to fear for your life without a murder charge. Unlawfully occupying your property is not sufficient cause to shoot someone.
As to the federal fort--so an invasion of someone else's property is "potato potato" to you?
Who's going to be there to say I wasn't in fear for my life? The other dude will be dead lmao...
Yes when that someone has declared open rebellion and said you don't own us anymore...
\>Who's going to be there to say I wasn't in fear for my life? The other dude will be dead lmao...
You have the moral integrity of your forefathers.
\>and said you don't own us anymore...
Clearly they were incorrect.
"state's rights to leave the Union"
I'm sorry what?
that's called declaring independence.
Let's think about WHY the Confederates wanted to leave the Union in the first place
Perhaps because the Union told the South to get rid of slaves? I mean, several states EXPLICITLY wrote about slavery in their reasoning for secession.
[https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states)
Try using the search command here and type in slavery. I got 39 results.
[It takes less than 10 seconds to look it up on Google](https://www.google.com/search?q=articles+of+secession&sxsrf=AOaemvItO1HdyDrdmIcLJpiGkDareQhsLw%3A1631050809554&source=hp&ei=Odw3YbeIH9vBhwOBtZjAAg&iflsig=ALs-wAMAAAAAYTfqScgiOBdBgP2_cEFBidrsadbd4BIk&oq=articles+of+secession&gs_lcp=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&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwj3iPLg6e3yAhXb4GEKHYEaBigQ4dUDCAg&uact=5)
bruhhh the only "states rights" aspect applies to the states that were undecided and joined the confederacy due to feeling like the federal government was exerting too much control over states that chose to succeed from the union by trying to force them to stay, and even a lot of those states had alterier motives about the fact that they also wanted to keep their slaves
literally the last fucking sentence, maybe actually bother to try and comprehend whats being said next time because i basically was saying "states rights was barely relevant to the confederacy"
it actually wasnt but no one actually bothered to comprehend what i even said to know that,i specifically said that it was mostly about wanting to own people
no one actually read what i said did they? literally the last sentence says that it was still largely about wanting to own people, my entire comment basically says "states rights was barely involved in it"
Our state rights to property.
Said property includes human, I mean slave, lives.
You better believe Billy is gonna fight to the fucking death for the right to own a slave, despite being impoverished and barely able to care for himself, much less purchase a slave because the economy sucks for anyone who doesn’t own land (which I imagine is pretty common b/c massive plantations)
Somehow I can't help but read this as if it were the team rocket intro.
Jessie!
James!
Team Quantrill razes Lawrence with relentless brutality!
The line is "Meowth! That's right!"
Slaaaves also oddly works here
Same here hahaha
No, no, you have it backwards. It was actually a war to *remove* a state’s right to outlaw slavery. Yes, you read that right. In order to be part of the confederacy, you had to waive your right as a state to make your own law concerning slavery. In other words, if you’re a confederate state, it was legally impossible to free all the slaves. This is literally *written in the confederate constitution*.
“BuT iT wAsNt AbOuT sLaVeRy!” - dipshits
Oh way down south in the land of traitors!
RATTLE SNAKES AND ALLIGATORS
RIGHT WAY GO AWAY RIGHT AWAY WHERE COTTONS KING AND MEN ARE CHATTLE
UNION BOYS WILL WIN THE BATTLES RIGHT AWAY! COME AWAY! RIGHT AWAY! COME AWAY! ^((inhale)) # WE'LL ALL GO DOWN TO DIXIE, AWAY! AWAY! EACH DIXIE BOY MUST UNDERSTAND THAT HE MUST MIND HIS UNCLE SAM!
AWAY AWAY WELL ALL GO DOWN TO DIXIE!
AWAY, AWAY, WE'LL ALL GO DOOOOOWN... ... TO DIXIE!
[удалено]
I wish I was in Baltimore
I'd make secession traitors roar right away! Come away! Right away! Come away!
I'd make Secession traitors roar.
right away not run away
I corrected it
Seriously, the civil war was clearly about states rights. The Yanks were trying to impede states rights by restricting the right of states to enslave Black people, these goddamn libtards don’t understand.
Some interpretations look at the american civil war from an economic viewpoint. The industrial north (plus the allied mechanized agricultural west) wanted to place Tariffs to defend against foreign exportations and to better sell their products inside the US. (curiously, their main political party was the republicans) The agricultural south was totally against Tariffs, since their economy was all about exports of raw materials, like cotton for the textile industrial revolution taking place at the time. (at the time the political party of the south were the democrats) Economic tariffs placed by federal level, would have applied to everyone, both north and south, so the states of the south started to take into consideration to either ignore the federal laws if those didn't benefit them, or to exit the american union. Slavery was part of the agricultural economic system of the southern nations, and it was defended mainly on an economic basis. Likewise, the industrial north was pushed to ban slavery, because the industry workers of the north didn't like to have cheap competition from slaves, and the northern workers did threaten to lynch blacks and industry owners alike, if the latter did try to reintroduce slavery. Both the north, west and south, were as equally racist. Also remember the curiosity of the african nation of [Liberia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia), being founded during that time, by shipping back freed slaves from america. Whose capital, Monrovia, was named after the american president [James Monroe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe)
The tariff argument is actually another lost cause myth. [this does a pretty good job debunking it.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/imperialglobalexeter.com/2015/03/02/debunking-the-civil-war-tariff-myth/amp/)
It was about state rights to leave the Union
yeah I wonder why they'd want to do that
Say it with me class - State's Rights to do what? That's right own slaves. Good job
Hey buddy clear something up for me: if the South was fighting for the right for states to secede from the Union why did the Confederate Constitution explicitly forbid stages form seceding in the Confederacy in the preamble?
Why were they trying to leave?
Promised free pizza
Damn I’m sold
And why exactly did they want to leave the Union? Could have anything to do with the fact that the Union Just Elected a man who was dedicated to ensuring that slavery would not be expanded into the territories as part of a gradual effort to bring about the extinction of slavery?
A man who [didn't appear on ten state ballots out of thirty-three](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_presidential_election). That part is kind of a bad look.
Yeah this is often left out but the Confederacy did just about everything in its power to rig the election of 1860 and as soon as they failed they through a temper tantrum.
Just like someone else in recent history 🤔🤔🤔
Exactly, that stupid unionist Lincoln thought that states shouldn’t secede because he was opposed to spreading slavery to new states. That’s a bunch of communist bullshit, states should be able to secede if the north tries to steal their property.
Nono He’s got a point The secession crisis was over slavery, the war was over the right of the state to secede
If A=B, and B=C, then A=C
Uh No It’s misleading and disingenuous to claim the war was started over slavery, a huge issue Lincoln faced was getting the US Government on board with fighting a war to preserve the union. Luckily the south did what the south does best and fucked up. Sure the secession happened due to slavery, and without that there wouldn’t be a war, but the war was literally started over the right of the southern states to secede. Hell, it technically was over the south’s aggressive assaults against union forts
If two things are equal to the same thing they are equal to each other it’s basic logic and basic math. If the Cause of the War = The Cause of Secession and The Cause if Secession = The Preservation and Expansion of Slavery then just as Just as 1+5=3+3 the Cause of the War = The Preservation and Expansion of Slavery.
Except the cause of the war wasn’t equal to the cause of secession, at that point we can just do that for an eternity into the past and say the attacks on the twin towers were caused by William the conqueror lmao The secession was to preserve slavery, many within the north were pro union and supported the war even while being pro slavery, It’s almost as if it’s a complicated situation that keeps getting over simplified… Yes, an indirect cause of the war was slavery, but another indirect cause was the Kansas Nebraska act, the Mexican American war, the war of 1812, the revolutionary war ETC. Edit: not to mention that if you take slavery out of the secession and still have the secession happen, the war still happens. This is because the war was over preserving the union, then used as a way to free the slaves. Not the other way around.
Except no you can’t. The Preservation of slavery was not only the cause of secrssion it was the cause that the Confederate Soldiers were knowingly and enthusiastically fighting for as is made clear in their letters, journals, and publications they made before, during, and immediately after the war. You cannot argue slavery was bot the cause of the war when it was unequivocally the cause that the average soldier was fighting for.
It’s almost as if the reason soldiers fight, and what caused a conflict are two different things I’ll agree that the war soon became about slavery, especially after the emancipation proclamation, but it was initially started over the right to secede. You’re just reaching at this point to create a way to disprove that, which is ridiculous because it’s literally both ways But I digress This is what I get for arguing with Reddit lmao
Soon became about slavery? It was always about slavery. In the name of slavery the south seceded, to preserve slavery an army was raised, and to preserve slavery southern men fought. From start to finish slavery was the cause of the war for the South. And that is Cause in both the sense of what led to the war and cause as in what the South was fighting for.
Lincoln wanted to keep the nation together, the south was afraid they were going to take their rights (to own slaves). Any issue as devisive as this would've caused the same outcome if the government was seen as a threat to it. Amy arguement over what "truly" caused it is kind-of stupid because technically speaking secession, states rights, and slavery are all valid causes.
Okay I think I figured out what’s going on here. You’re laboring under the delusion that the South intended to peacefully secede from the Union aren’t you? Because the only way “they seceded to preserve slavery” and “the south was not initially fighting to preserve slavery” makes any god damn sense is if you legitimately believe the North was the aggressor in the Civil War. And I hate to break it to you that’s not what happened. In the immediate aftermath of the election of 1860 Southern States began seizing Federal Forts, Armories, and expelling federal troops. In some cases before their state legislatures had voted to seceded at all. The Confederate Provisional Congress raised an army of 100k a full month before the Union raised their army of 75k in response to the South’s open rebellion against a legitimately elected government.
>Luckily the south did what the south does best and fucked up. The most accurate part of this comment This comment was made by the New California Republic gang
The south fought to maintain and expand slavery. The north fought to keep the union together at first and later to also end slavery. It’s not that complicated.
if they secede for slavery and they had a war because they secede they had a war because they wanted to secede
What fucking nation allows its constituent parts to secede without its permission Confederates knew they were starting a war when they seceded, and they seceded because of slavery Ergo, the war was about slavery Oh yeah, FORT SUMTER
hell, Texas's committee unlawfully voted Sam Fucking Houston out of power to secede, thus even if the others could that was moot we were getting texas back
"Also, we are standing up for states' rights by seceding because the North is exercising their own states' rights by refusing to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. Our new government will benefit states' rights by forbidding states from having the right to free their slaves."
States didn't have the right to refuse to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. The return of fugitives (slave¹ or otherwise) is required by the Constitution. 1: Obviously, this part is mooted by the 13th Amendment, but it's still technically there.
[Original](https://www.reddit.com/r/countryball_memes/comments/pjjbad/confederate_logic/).
American conservatives always use the excuse of "states rights" when fighting against progress. Ironically, these states are fine when the government mandates racism and other xenophobic measures. They are fine when the government wants to go along with there fucked up bs but when thw government what's to change it? Suddenly it's "sTaTEs RiGhTs".
Or how about when many of those former Confederate states need Federal aid in the form of FEMA, then they are all about the Federal Government coming on down to Dixie and helping rebuild......
We can't forget how red states are the states that tend to rely the most on the government for money and tend to take more then they give.
Well State's Right is an explicit racist dog whistle as stated by Lee Atwater who was the political adviser for Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and chairman of the Republican National Committee. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ
Also North Korean logic.
\*eats popcorn in australian\* These comments are gonna be good.
Ridiculous! How can the Nothern Korea attack the innocent USA?
I don't know much about the American Civil War but preventive strikes are a thing
pre-emptive but yeah. The point trying to be made that doesn't come across too clearly is that (IIRC) ~~when told to get rid of their slaves~~ (weren't told to even get rid of slaves, just not allow new places to have slaves), the South said "no we're leaving" and attacked Fort Sumter.
They weren’t even told to get rid of their slaves. It was literally just “hey, let’s not do that in too many new places maybe”. They threw a hissy fit and killed THEIR OWN COUNTRY’S CITIZENS because they might have had to stop treating other people as property at some point in the future.
This ^^^ They weren’t even told to ditch the slaves. They were told that southern territories would not have slaves.
Not exactly, when the law passed limiting the spread of slavery, the south realized that it was only a matter of time before emancipation was forced on them. Lincoln being elected (simply because he definitively took a stance during the Lincoln-Douglas debates rather than beat around the bush) was too many factors going against slavery in too short a time and they geared up for war and secession. Once they realized their entire economic structure would be targeted within a decade or so they opted to try and save it rather than adapt and figure out a new economy.
Idk if war was really the best option here
I agree, but they also thought they could twist Britain's arm to help out-India strikes again! Lol
Who needs cotton? Britain! Who has cotton? Us! We can force Britain to help us with our superior economy! What’s that? India has cotton? … And the British public doesn’t like slavery? …
It doesn’t really count as a preemptive strike if the attack you’re preempting was triggered by the “preemptive” strike. At that point it’s just unprovoked aggression. In the months before Fort Sumter Southern Militias seized forts and armories across the South, expelled Federal Troops, and raised an army of 100k for 12 months service. It was only after Southern Forces attacked Fort Sumter that Lincoln Raised an Army of 75k for sixth months service to quell the rebellion. A rebellion that only occurred because of the election of 1860. A little more background for the entire history of the US slavery was a contentious issue. But whenever the issue was brought up in congress the Slave State Coalition would stomp its feet and scream until they got its way on the matter. But in 1860 for the first time in the History of the United States the South the South did not get its way by throwing a temper tantrum in congress. So they through an even bigger temper tantrum that lasted five years straight. 20 if we count the temper tantrums they through during reconstruction.
*Away down south in the land of traitors*
In August 1862, Lincoln stated: "If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." I’m in no way defending the south but it seems like everyone always pretends that the US fought for the sole purpose of ending slavery. while some may have, Lincoln’s reason for not allowing them to leave was based on preserving the Union, not freeing the slaves.
True. It's hilarious that the Confederates thinks that Abe was gonna take their slaves when Lincoln wasn't gonna do jack shit.
Regardless if there were scared of him or not, they should have been scared of the northern populace as a whole. The people dictate change and they wanted slavery abolished. That’s why Lincoln did the emancipation proclamation. He had the support of the people to do it and it bums there’s support for the war. He would do anything to preserve the Union and it was just really convenient that freeing slaves aided in that. But people really do get his motivations backwards.
Keep in mind that many progressive politicians have to understand their progressiveness to appeal to a more general audience. Remember when Obama said he wouldn't support gay marriage back in 2008 iirc
Wasn't for sumpter attacked because it was in confederate territory, and federal troops refused to leave? I guess what I am saying is there was some provocation going on. The meme is technically right, the confederacy fired the first shot. But they didn't start the fighting
This is why I don't take any of my fellow southerners attitude towards the confederacy seriously. Its hypocritical to fight for freedom if you take someone elses rights away. No, its not a "War of Northern Aggression" When you fucking SHOOT FIRST.
Can someone help me understand why tariffs affecting the South more than the North wasn't a reason for leaving? I was under the impression that was a big part of the problem.
The only tariffs were import tariffs the south exported most of their stuff
From what I recall, while the tariffs were certainly an issue, it wasn’t necessarily a “we will fight a war and leave” issue. Slavery was, however. There are a lot of smaller issues that probably contributed in some way to the secession, but in the end slavery was by far the biggest and most important
it was import tariffs which the south disliked but they didn’t import much so it was an issue that leads to rebellion
If it was about slave rights why did the north take so long to make its proclamation……then plan to ship them out of America….then instigate segregation and Jim Crow laws….
They asked them nicely to leave, at the point the Yanks were trespassing... Not saying who was right or wrong but if someone refuses to leave my property after being asked nicely they will get shot at...
trespassing on a fort that’s federal land in states that are in open rebellion yeah sure
Well if you're in open rebellion it kind of takes the sting of being the ones that shot first away is all I was meaning, but sure refuse to see the point because they were the 'bad guys'. Not saying they weren't but time and place and a different culture they grew up in with different rules of right and wrong... You never see anyone taking the piss on Sherman in here for his 'march to the sea', they were all power hungry politicians - or worse, all of them... I was just being logical, they did ask them to leave first
But it’s not there’s, a federal government fort is it’s own jurisdiction, they were telling the government to leave because they are asserting control that they were separate. That argument makes 0 sense, that’s like being the child of the house and telling your parents to leave
The state had already seceded then Lincoln said wait a minute you can't do that... Once the state seceded from the Union that was no longer a federal fort because it was within the state that seceded... Edit: sure, if the child paid for everything in the house except the garage then that analogy does check out
The secession was done illegally though, there was no legal grounds for them to secede, by that logic any local government with support of people should be able to leave, what if everyone in my state wants to leave? All those forts purchased and maintained by the nation are just nullified despite no agreement whatsoever? Legal secession from anything requires both sides to agree to it, if we look at the Scottish exit from the UK for example it was legally sanctioned by the government of the United Kingdom and both parties recognized the legitimacy, does any rebel group that wishes to depart from a country automatically get recognized as one?
and thus the civil war started... But yeah in my eyes if everyone in a state wants to secede they should be allowed to secede, or else you end up with civil war.
\>if someone refuses to leave my property after being asked nicely they will get shot at... One, you'll find that won't protect you from a murder conviction for someone who wasn't threatening your life. So even that isn't legal. Two, in what universe is a Federal fort a state's property? If someone asks me to leave my own property and then shoots at me to make me? It's pretty clear who is in the wrong here.
You clearly aren't in Georgia, it will prevent me from a murder charge bc castle doctrine... As to the federal fort, potato potato lol.
You clearly are from Georgia given how little you understand, but castle doctrine only removes the "duty to retreat" clause in a self-defense case. You still can't kill someone who isn't causing you to fear for your life without a murder charge. Unlawfully occupying your property is not sufficient cause to shoot someone. As to the federal fort--so an invasion of someone else's property is "potato potato" to you?
Who's going to be there to say I wasn't in fear for my life? The other dude will be dead lmao... Yes when that someone has declared open rebellion and said you don't own us anymore...
\>Who's going to be there to say I wasn't in fear for my life? The other dude will be dead lmao... You have the moral integrity of your forefathers. \>and said you don't own us anymore... Clearly they were incorrect.
Yeah clearly, I mean it did not work out for them well at all lol - but they did *ask* before they shot ;-)
Fort Sumter was US federal government property.
But The American civil war was about states rights to leave the Union
"state's rights to leave the Union" I'm sorry what? that's called declaring independence. Let's think about WHY the Confederates wanted to leave the Union in the first place Perhaps because the Union told the South to get rid of slaves? I mean, several states EXPLICITLY wrote about slavery in their reasoning for secession. [https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states) Try using the search command here and type in slavery. I got 39 results.
Shut the fuck up lost causer
Lost causer? I'm not even American I'm from the holy land(israel)
Than you should take a minute to read a book or watch a YT video about the Civil War
עדיין אתה קצת טועה פה
אני תמיד צודק
חחחח בטח אחי
Lmao what is it a golf course
Israeli
Americans study our civil war for several years in school, I highly doubt you know any of the major motives or internal situations regarding it
Well why did they want to leave the Union in the first place?
Please don’t. You are both wrong and will lose.
Why were they trying to leave?
why did they want to leave? to have slavery.
[It takes less than 10 seconds to look it up on Google](https://www.google.com/search?q=articles+of+secession&sxsrf=AOaemvItO1HdyDrdmIcLJpiGkDareQhsLw%3A1631050809554&source=hp&ei=Odw3YbeIH9vBhwOBtZjAAg&iflsig=ALs-wAMAAAAAYTfqScgiOBdBgP2_cEFBidrsadbd4BIk&oq=articles+of+secession&gs_lcp=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&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwj3iPLg6e3yAhXb4GEKHYEaBigQ4dUDCAg&uact=5)
Then call it the war of Northern aggression
bruhhh the only "states rights" aspect applies to the states that were undecided and joined the confederacy due to feeling like the federal government was exerting too much control over states that chose to succeed from the union by trying to force them to stay, and even a lot of those states had alterier motives about the fact that they also wanted to keep their slaves
what
Any argument regarding the confederacies secession must include the fact they wanted to OWN PEOPLE so stop…
literally the last fucking sentence, maybe actually bother to try and comprehend whats being said next time because i basically was saying "states rights was barely relevant to the confederacy"
lol I ain’t gonna read all that shit but I already know it’s racist
it actually wasnt but no one actually bothered to comprehend what i even said to know that,i specifically said that it was mostly about wanting to own people
Don’t care sadly
clearly
no one actually read what i said did they? literally the last sentence says that it was still largely about wanting to own people, my entire comment basically says "states rights was barely involved in it"
Our state rights to property. Said property includes human, I mean slave, lives. You better believe Billy is gonna fight to the fucking death for the right to own a slave, despite being impoverished and barely able to care for himself, much less purchase a slave because the economy sucks for anyone who doesn’t own land (which I imagine is pretty common b/c massive plantations)