Was the civil war really about slavery?

The next one is gonna be about masks, I can tell you that.

please stop being such a reductivist retard. do you really think you're not about to get 40 replies? or is that your goal

Attached: 1580314063660.jpg (646x729, 97.08K)

All wars are about control of economies. All the social and moral issues are just a ploy to trick u into fighting for the "good guys"

Did you make your own Nike's? If the purpose of the war was anti slavery, why did they literally enshrine the institution of slavery as a punishment for incarceration with the 13th amendment?

Why haven't you taken this poll yet?
strawpoll.me/20458996

Britain saw the writing on the wall when France got invaded by Germany. Britain knew that they were next to get invaded

I never said the war was for an anti-slavery cause. The north just wanted it so that no new states became slave states

I have descendents who wrote letters. 2 volunteered for the confederacy, 2 were later conscripted, and 2 were conscripted into the union. Most of my family is from western NC but we had some living near Roanoke VA
People fought because they didn't want the union to come and burn down their homes and farms for free. The government wanted people to fight to preserve states rights free from federal oppression and taxes. It wasn't about slavery, northerners owned slaves during the conflict and for a short time after. It was all about the norths big government wanting to gain control of the year-round fertile lands of dixie and the southeast ports to open trade to south america.

jew York vs freedom.

Jew York won.

by the same logic, germany saw the writing on the wall and knew they were going to be invaded. and britain and france were the REAL aggressors.

you can do this all day. the facts are that the blame for the wars is shared and they never should have happened

I don't know, but the next one will be.

They were also levying tax's on the south to pay for their industrialization and borrowing the $ from the (((bank of England))), desu it was pretty much the American Revolution pt.2 for those paying attention

If slavery was the primary issue, the Emancipation Proclamation would have been issued in 1861, not 1863, two years after the start of the war.

The south literally controlled the federal government before they seceded.

It was about economic control
The south had a monopoly on textile ingredients, cotton.
Which meant they could charge whatever price they wanted and the north had to pay, they tried at least hamper their economic growth by going after their slaves. The south said no, it's our rights as states of this union to determine our own rules, feds and the north said no. South said fuck you. Civil war. If the south didnt have a monopoly on cotton, civil war wouldve never happened

Attached: unnamed (9).jpg (512x401, 100.13K)

There's a vid floating around with an actual old timer Black Confederate soldier in the early 1900s that was asked what was the cause of the civil war, and his reply was State's Rights. ironically, it seems the video is scrubbed from youtube now.

Civil War was about maintaining the political unity of the US or moving towards a more EU-like model. slavery was just the wedge issue that proved impossible for the political system to resolve.

if the Confederacy had won, or not lost, the US would have been too divided and weak to function as a world power like it has in the 20th century, the same internal drama would have played out but also impacted military and foreign policy.

Eventually.
In the begining it was about preserving the union.

No, but this next one will be.

Attached: 1588570400582.png (832x1000, 328.98K)

Britain was the main market for cotton, not the North.

without slaves the South couldn't produce cotton in the same amounts anyway, so claiming the North was going to benefit from ending it for that reason is a fantasy.

Nice get. When the next one kicks off, im doing a reverse sherman on the hood

Why don't you just visit the archives? There are only about 100,000 post on this topic.

The north was the one turning cotton into products, which britian bought. Dont be an idiot and claim just because britian was buying the finished products, meant they were to ones to benefit from cheaper raw cotton

In international relations global hegemony is near impossible. Think about it, Hitler would of had to kill nearly every country in existence and replace its populace in order for world domination, the way its colloquially defined.. that is just mathematically and therefore logistically impossible. His goals were establishing Germany as a regional hegemon with global superiority, much like the US is the worlds hyper power today. We would have lived in a fascist new world order instead of a liberal one. Whereas independent fascist states would exist in harmony with others, a complete separate world where we recognize differences between people’s, religions, genders, etc.

the south got baited because of federal power over state but south like north actually fought for the banksters it was just a carefully crafted schem to kill able bodied mans nothing more. It was a battle of ideology before anything else. Different meaning for being free. Sound a whole lot like today if you ask.
Maybe it's history repeating itself maybe it's just some nepotistic inbred who like to play with cattle. Who knows.