Was slavery really the main civil war reason?

Or was it states rights?

1 Like

Mostly slavery mixed with state rights. The souths economy was centered around slavery.

1 Like

Isaac298 - Mostly slavery mixed with state rights. The souths economy was centered around slavery.

I would say the opposite. The south only needed slave labor to compete and pay the massive tariffs the north subjected on them.... I believe it was said that the only reason slavery was added to the succesion articles was because they knew that would provoke the war they wanted to leave.

1 Like

I dont agree

Yes. Take them at their word.

Isaac298 - I dont agree

Cool..... Many here should learn that this is how you can civilly disagree....


Cheers...

3 Likes

jukie - 

Yes. Take them at their word.


This

Only if you go by the Confederate's seccession documents.

states' rights to succeed... over slavery

2 Likes

Whether or not it was the main reason for the American Civil War, it appears to now be the main reason for this civil war.

1 Like

ksacs revenge - 

Only if you go by the Confederate's seccession documents.


Which, as I stated, was put there to get the result they wanted. There ws no war if was only over states rights. They needed an angle to get the north, whom by the way owned many slaves, to fight.

ksacs revenge -

Only if you go by the Confederate's seccession documents.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states


 


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

So the bad thing is the Confederate soldiers didn't have the money to own slaves. So they were putting their lives on the line for the wealthy.

Sound familiar?

3 Likes

RhinoHog -
ksacs revenge - 

Only if you go by the Confederate's seccession documents.


Which, as I stated, was put there to get the result they wanted. There ws no war if was only over states rights. They needed an angle to get the north, whom by the way owned many slaves, to fight.

Well, so far I can read official documents from them stating slavery as a reason. What do you have backing up your claim?

Peixes - 

states' rights to succeed... over slavery


This is correct. Source: I am a historian. (No i'm not, but i still think this is correct.)

ksacs revenge - 
RhinoHog -
ksacs revenge - 

Only if you go by the Confederate's seccession documents.


Which, as I stated, was put there to get the result they wanted. There ws no war if was only over states rights. They needed an angle to get the north, whom by the way owned many slaves, to fight.

Well, so far I can read official documents from them stating slavery as a reason. What do you have backing up your claim?


I admitted they put it their succession documents.. What I;m saying is, it was there to get the outcome they wanted, They were opressed by the North and needed slave labour to compete. If they would have had a fair deal, they wouldn't have needed slaves. And war over trade wasn't going to happen.


Hisory, read some non-cnn based history. Not saying what I read is 100% accurate, but it's what I read.

bartos -
Peixes - 

states' rights to succeed... over slavery


This is correct. Source: I am a historian. (No i'm not, but i still think this is correct.)

I am, and you're right that he's right. It was slavery at the base, slavery all the way down.

2 Likes

RhinoHog -
ksacs revenge - 
RhinoHog -
ksacs revenge - 

Only if you go by the Confederate's seccession documents.


Which, as I stated, was put there to get the result they wanted. There ws no war if was only over states rights. They needed an angle to get the north, whom by the way owned many slaves, to fight.

Well, so far I can read official documents from them stating slavery as a reason. What do you have backing up your claim?


I admitted they put it their succession documents.. What I;m saying is, it was there to get the outcome they wanted, They were opressed by the North and needed slave labour to compete. If they would have had a fair deal, they wouldn't have needed slaves. And war over trade wasn't going to happen.


Hisory, read some non-cnn based history. Not saying what I read is 100% accurate, but it's what I read.

Actually I was asking you to back up your assertion, not state it again.

ksacs revenge - 
RhinoHog -
ksacs revenge - 
RhinoHog -
ksacs revenge - 

Only if you go by the Confederate's seccession documents.


Which, as I stated, was put there to get the result they wanted. There ws no war if was only over states rights. They needed an angle to get the north, whom by the way owned many slaves, to fight.

Well, so far I can read official documents from them stating slavery as a reason. What do you have backing up your claim?


I admitted they put it their succession documents.. What I;m saying is, it was there to get the outcome they wanted, They were opressed by the North and needed slave labour to compete. If they would have had a fair deal, they wouldn't have needed slaves. And war over trade wasn't going to happen.


Hisory, read some non-cnn based history. Not saying what I read is 100% accurate, but it's what I read.

Actually I was asking you to back up your assertion, not state it again.


Google. I read it many years ago. You want me to find 20 year old articles ? It's well known past articles that go against globalism mysteryously disappear from the internet. I'm not kidding.