Quit it with your revisionist history. The Civil War was expressly about the South's "right" to maintain the ownership, trade, and forced labor of black slaves.

The Civil war wasn't just about Slavery. While yes Slavery did play a part smallish in it, that's because Slavery was vital for the South's economy and Abraham used that so he could taint the Confederacy's look and further his harsh actions against them. The North wanted things to be controlled all by a single federal government (much like many things are currently in our country is today since the North won), but the Confederacy went by the Constitution and stated that the States should have the rights of making their own laws since it is the "United States of America". Besides, most slaves actually came from African tribes fighting each other and then selling off the captives so that we could have black slaves (so you can thank black people themselves for making black slaves as big as they are). I don't promote or support slavery nor do I support the Confederacy (I am kind of neutral in that because both sides didn't do very good things.), but the civil-war was about more things than just Slavery. Also, according to various sources the Union's work force was actually built up of a lot of Child Labor (In my opinion, that's worse than Slavery). I mean, did you know the North used slaves as well until the end of the war? According to various sources it's shown that Abolitionists were the ones with extreme ideals spouting nonsense about how the entire war was just over Slavery and Lincoln himself used that so he could (like I said in the beginning) further his harsh actions with limited consequence. I don't have the time to disagree, so I probably won't respond, but that's my opinion and facts on the matter.

So you believe in states rights to enslave people. And banning slavery is too much government control.
Gotcha.

Instead of twisting my words perhaps you should look at what you say yourself. I don't support slavery, and even the Confederacy (according to many sources both fictional and non-fictional) only used slavery because it was basically the only way their economy could survive. The Confederacy merely believed that the states should have the rights to make their own laws instead of having to follow the federal government's laws. You also act as if I believe all of the Confederacy's ideals are correct, and to that I say I don't.

Then their economy shouldn't have survived.
And that's bullshit anyway.

Their economy was headed down the toilet until the cotton gin appeared. That device, more than anything else except the practice of holding slaves in the first place, is what pushed the U.S to war. Interesting story, really.

That's just simply my opinion, we're entitled to what we think.

Here's what the Secessionist government of Georgia thought about it:

"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. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to THAT PROPERTY. . ."

[Emphasis added]

That's their Declaration of Independence, and the very first, most important issue they raise.

Here's what Mississippi's government had to say:

"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. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, NONE BUT THE BLACK RACE can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a BLOW AT SLAVERY IS A BLOW AT COMMERCE AND CIVILIZATION."

[again, emphasis added]

If the Civil War wasn't about slavery, can you fire up your time machine and let the leaders of the Confederacy know that? For they surely thought it was.

1. That was only 4 states that stated that.
2. According to the same website those same 4 states said that there were other problems as well.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession

Also, according to many sources they most likely would have slowly dropped slavery because of various problems if they had won and tried industrializing.

And Texas says: "[Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the INSTITUTION KNOWN AS NEGRO SLAVERY-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which HER PEOPLE INTENDED SHOULD EXIST IN ALL FUTURE TIME."

[emphasis added]

I found these at https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

This is just a quick note from a history major who hates seeing it maligned in a comment you made below; the racists and idiots who fly a rectangular stars and bars flag are NOT using a confederate battle flag. They made that symbol up for themselves. True battle flags are squares, which is hugely important to note because that means no true battle flag has been flown by anyone in these movements (including the capitol riot, your comment regarding which was the catalyst for this reply).

Just an interesting tidbit.

My only question is why we're arguing over this topic. It doesn't change anything, and it's not relevant.

It is, if people are still defending the Confederacy -- oh, and marching on the US Capitol waving Confederate battle flags.

"It is, if people are still defending the Confederacy -- oh, and marching on the US Capitol waving Confederate battle flags."

Do you think this disagreement is gonna stop people from protesting? No.

I hope that it will keep you, as a reasonable person from defending secessionists, 19th or 21st century editions. The next time you feel the urge to say "Well, it wasn't about slavery . . . it wasn't so bad . . . slavery actually helped keep Black people alive . . ." I hope that you'll take a deep breath, check some primary sources, and think differently.

Like I said, those 4 states may have said it was a problem (since yes, slavery was apart of the civil-war as many states knew it was a constitutional right to own slaves), but they also stated there were other reasonings as well.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession

They didn't just say it was a problem: they named it as their number 1 reason for seceding. Why is the idea that it wasn't about slavery so important to you that you need to find ways to argue with them about it?

"They didn't just say it was a problem: they named it as their number 1 reason for seceding. Why is the idea that it wasn't about slavery so important to you that you need to find ways to argue with them about it?"

Those 4 states did, but the entire Confederacy didn't just say that. I didn't say Slavery wasn't a problem, I just said it wasn't the main problem. Also, I am not arguing about it (at least from my point of view), but I am simply disagreeing with you. It doesn't matter anyways, since even if one of our views were correct it wouldn't change anything that much.

"I hope that it will keep you, as a reasonable person from defending secessionists, 19th or 21st century editions. The next time you feel the urge to say "Well, it wasn't about slavery . . . it wasn't so bad . . . slavery actually helped keep Black people alive . . ." I hope that you'll take a deep breath, check some primary sources, and think differently."

1. I was never defending slavery nor did I ever say slavery wasn't "that bad".
2. Never said that, either.
3. Perhaps you should check your sources as well? I mean, it's clear that you didn't read your sources as I used them against you because they also supported my points.

Either way, people are entitled to their own opinion. I am simply stating mine and disagreeing with you, now I am gonna get some sleep since I have a lot of work I must do tomorrow.

(ALSO ALSO) It still would have taken them a long while to industrialize because of the way their lands and economy were

Child laborers in the North were still workers. They were paid, even if it was a pittance. They could quit any time they pleased. There were child slaves in the South, so I fail to see how child laborers in the North somehow make that less of a wrong.

Slavery was not a "smallish" part in it. You cannot honestly tell me that the Civil War would have occurred had slavery died out like the Founders anticipated. It was the fundamental cause of the war.

Lincoln prized the Union above all else, and was willing (though reluctant) to compromise on any other issue in order to prevent secession. Once that became impossible, he cracked down on slavery in the rebellious states (which he is on record as saying he abhorred, despite what Southern Revisionists say) by issueing the Emancipation Proclamation. This was a fantastic move, because it not only encouraged Union slaveholding states to remain in the fold and support the Northern war effort (to be dealt with after the war by Constitutional amendment), but it completely delegitimized the South's own cause for fighting the war in the eyes of the rest of the world. Even if you believe it didn't start over slavery, Lincoln MADE it about slavery.

All you're doing here is proving you've fallen victim to the Noble Confederacy myth that was propagated by Southern apologists after the war.

Serves them right.

I have to disagree. Free people are more productive. Peasant economies outperform serf economies. If free Blacks were getting paid, they'd have money to spend, which would have been a boost to the economy. If there was enough food and clothing with the forced extraction of their labor under the cruel system of slavery, there'd be enough with them as free, more productive workers.

The South was economically backward not despite slavery, but because of it.

Sure after a depression caused by the upending of the work force. Half of them would have left, and the other half would stay and demand higher wages causing prices to skyrocket.
We are seeing something similar after the covid hoax.

It was literally in the casus belli; it was the main if not only reason.

It could also be argued they wanted better trade deals with foreign nations that Washington previously allowed, but that's a very minor reason at best.

True. Have you read the cases belli?

While I probably should, I've thus far dismissed it on the grounds that I don't care...their cause was abhorrent and they had no moral high ground whatsoever.

Same, but it's good to have first hand knowledge what they discussed. Which it was pretty much a verbose document declaring war over slavery

I know more about the Civil War and its causes than most, which definitely plays into my disinterest. I'll put it on my to-research docket, which is currently clogged by a slew of geology papers caused by my trying to determine the formational history of the mountain on which I was hiking.

One book I'd recommend, if you've not read, is 'Grant' by Ron Chernow. Anyone who reads that and still contests that the North wasn't in the right and at least tried to do the right thing...well...they're lying when they said they read it.

Interesting, I'll have to read the synopsis

The only people I've ever found who hate it are people who've bought into the Noble Confederacy lunacy.

I gained a whole new appreciation for President Grant though. Very interesting and admirable person, despite his faults.

Better idea for you; READ the article and then decide whether you like it or not.

Otherwise don't go griping about people who blow off something you cite just because it came from what they perceive as "mainstream media" (CNN, MSNBC, NPR, etc)...you're just proving you're no less an idiot than them.

i read it

Good for you!

Might want to delete your comment then...it's not doing you any favors.

Do you hear how dumb you are? That's not the only article out there about it. But that's the problem with you liberals, you're close-minded unless it fits what you already believe or what MSM spoon feeds you.
How do you know it's a republican that wrote it? Because one of the lines reads "my democrat friends"

ik

The states only seceded because of slavery.