What was the definitive reason for the civil war?Slavery? Debts? Power?
North wanted to centralize power which is the exact thing the americans ran from in the first place. South wanted to keep human beings as property which is the exact thing the americans ran away from in the first place (being a mere subject of a ruler). Both were wrong and it was a matter off time until the fighting broke out.
>>18099472The southern economy was getting crushed by European tarrifs that Europe placed on the import of American cotton. America had placed huge tariffs on imported manufactured goods from Europe, so that American industry could grow. In retaliation, the southern economy was getting crushed by European tarrifs that Europe placed on the import of American cotton. Rather than lose their whole way of life, the south would rather secede from the union. The north refused to allow it, and went to war against the south to preserve the union. The north alone was too weak to oppose Europe, needed the south or both would end up pawns of European powers. It became clear early that the north could not win in the war, and so to swing the balance they decided to free the slaves who created chaos in the south and made good cannon fodder. They established Liberia in Africa as a new home for the freed blacks, but few left of their own volition.
>>18099520>It became clear early that the north could not win in the warWhat a boldfaced lie
>>18099523It is no lie, it was well known from the beginning that the only path to victory was to unleash the terror of the negro to rampage upon the south. Lincoln would have taken any other path to victory, had any other existed.
Just didn't like 'em simple as
>>18099534Freeing the slaves in the south didn’t free slaves under southern control though. Can you give an example of the chaos it unleashed?
>>18099537Please do not play dumb. Once the blacks learned that victory for the north meant their freedom, all manner of revolts and sabotage ensued.
>>18099520Why do people like you try to downplay the abolition of slavery as a primary reason for the war
>>18099472Climate, banks, slavery, debt, finance, globalism, imperialism, new england, NYC illegal immigration, the constitution, canals and railroads, religious fervor, English underfunding of the colonies, natives, agriculture, settlement etc
>>18099547It never was. Read it from Lincoln himself >>18099534
>>18099534Retarded take
>>18099564Lincoln didn’t start the war, the south did primarily over concerns with abolition
>>18099520Why do pretty much all but 1 secession document brings up tariffs but over half of them brings up slavery? The OG Declaration of Independence in 1776 outlined like 30+ things King George + Parliament did, but the Southerners couldn't be bothered to plainly spell out tariffs as the primary cause? I don't buy the tariff argument because virtually every conversation from the time was protecting their material interests (read: slavery).>It became clear early that the north could not win in the war, and so to swing the balance they decided to free the slavesBut the declaration came after Vicksburg and Gettysburg, two major northern victories in 1963? It would support your argument more if they had several defeats and then Lincoln threw it out as a Hail Mary.
>>18099545Can you provide an example
>>18099600You dumb monkeys are so historically illiterate that I feel embaressed for you.
>>18099472stupid shitty /pol/ lost cause threadit was slavery. every southern state that issued secession documents put slavery front and center in them, the confederate constitution spent more time talking about slavery than any other issue, their vice president explicitly called slavery the cornerstone of the entire countryany argument otherwise is from bitter coping rebels after the war trying to downplay how central slavery was to their ideology.
Lincoln wanted to send slaves back to Africa (to Liberia) after the war.South wanted to keep them in place.War was fought, won by Lincoln. Then he saw the bill to transport all slaves to Liberia will be too expensive, cucked out.
>>18099623>please believe my nogroid centric revised history propaganda You dropped this.
>>18099604>some communist negro says black slaves had a disproportionate role in crippling the southinto the trash it goes
>>18099643No he didn't, he wanted to send them to Linconia in central America.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LinconiaWith the black approval ofc. So it was a big brained centrist take.
>>18099651low effort post
>>18099604>AI TOLD ME SO the dark ages are upon us
Slavery, duhWhy is it so hard for some people to believe that elites would go to great lengths for wealth and power in this ONE instance? Slavery is power over men, and extracting wealth from them. It's the most distilled form of what motivates men. These same people are sure that Yankee capitalists did everything to exploit the wageslave and dominate the Southern buck, because that is how greedy arrogant elites operate. But literal actual-ass slavery is just a minor detail to a Southern elite of men obsessed with, apparently, abstractions of principle. Color me puzzled, esp. because the Dixie elites told everyone exactly what they were fucking thinking at the time
>>18099472Bongs wanted their shit back. Financed the whole thing.
>>18099520This makes sense from every perspective >>18099732This sounds like emotional female screeching
>>18099520>It was the euro tariffs hurting the southIt was the northern tariffs. You don't even know of any euro tariffs on the US
>>18099485It never happened
>>18099860https://civilwarcause.com/relationship.htmlYou could read it, but you won't because the truth is not what matters to you here, only pushing your negro centered revised histories matters to you people.
>>18099947Tracts like this are post-hoc rationalizations and notedly unblemished with primary citations. It is in fact true that tariffs were a salient issue in the pre-war politic, but it dimmed to a low buzz in background of slavery. It's also true that there was negligible if any mention of tariffs in Secessionist rhetoric or documents, unlike slavery. If tariffs were A cause, they were at best secondary; seeing as they weren't hardly cited by contemporary actors, maybe more like tertiary.Tracts like this argue that it might have made sense for the South to draw a line in the sand over tariffs. Like, good for you. You can argue that. It isn't what happened though, it's just the idle alt-his musings of embittered apologists.It's worth noting that the Dems proposed the only high tariff regime of the period, and it was specifically designed to fuck the North, so even in this alternate history universe, who the fuck would they be to talk?
>>18099732>>18100057there's no real point in explaining reality to hardcore lost cause apologists. you could read the confederate constitution to them and they would claim its a jewish fabrication to undermine the morale of the white race
>>18100066It was but even if it was a real document the confederates were Zionist and morrocan slave traders worked with the secretary of state.Lack of Jewish influence in Confederacy is mostly due to its short lifetime and lack of economic resources and not actually lack of interest by Jews. The modern equivalent of the Confederacy is spics.
>>18099472From the Souths perspective states rights. From the Norths perspective preserving the Union
>>18099472Motherfucker.I get why this will be an eternal conversation, for the memes mainly. But it’s such a time wasting, overdone, clear cut topic, it’s like discussing the d day invasion of ww2.It was because of slavery and states rights. Like 75% the issue of slavery and 25% an issue of state rights. It was also 100% an issue of territorial sovereignty. There can be no secessions in the UNITED states of America. Secession is the death of traitors.
>>18099947These are tariffs the north put on the south smoothbrain
