It's like people don't even pay attention when reading American history.

The civil war was much less about slavery and much more about the Southern states RIGHT to secede from the Union.
And the Union decided that even though secession was legal and within the rights of those states, they would wage war to prevent it.
Why?
Cash crops like tobacco and cotton of course.

Like with many wars, the war which is basically taught as nice whites and saved blacks vs bad whites and slaves, was actually about money and power.
Not about people.
Oh an Lincoln wasn't exactly a savior of the black peoples either. He tried to get many of them to leave. Some to other colonization efforts in the Caribbean and Liberia.

Okay.  Say you're right, and it was about the Southern states' right to secede.  
Why were they seceding?

They wanted to maintain their economic competitiveness by preserving their system of free labor, duh. The Civil War was 100% about states' rights. The right of states to sanction slavery.

---

Okay.  Say you're right, and it was about the Southern states' right to secede.  
Why were they seceding?

They wanted to maintain their economic competitiveness by preserving their system of free labor, duh. The Civil War was 100% about states' rights. The right of states to sanction slavery.

Aww slow down now.  Let Mr. States' Rights answer this question.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Okay.  Say you're right, and it was about the Southern states' right to secede.  
Why were they seceding?

They wanted to maintain their economic competitiveness by preserving their system of free labor, duh. The Civil War was 100% about states' rights. The right of states to sanction slavery.

They "why" is irrelevant, the war happened because the South left and the North wouldn't let them go. Had the North not invaded the South then the economics of the time would've ended slavery on the power of poverty alone. You both know this, it's just easier to say "slavery bad" because we all agree with that position.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

It's like people don't even pay attention when reading American history.

The civil war was much less about slavery and much more about the Southern states RIGHT to secede from the Union.
And the Union decided that even though secession was legal and within the rights of those states, they would wage war to prevent it.
Why?
Cash crops like tobacco and cotton of course.

Like with many wars, the war which is basically taught as nice whites and saved blacks vs bad whites and slaves, was actually about money and power.
Not about people.
Oh an Lincoln wasn't exactly a savior of the black peoples either. He tried to get many of them to leave. Some to other colonization efforts in the Caribbean and Liberia.

Okay.  Say you're right, and it was about the Southern states' right to secede.  
Why were they seceding?

Because they wre being taxed to death by the north. Lincoln himself even said when ask why not let them go He said "I can't, who would pay for the government?"

---

Okay.  Say you're right, and it was about the Southern states' right to secede.  
Why were they seceding?

Because they wre being taxed to death by the north. Lincoln himself even said when ask why not let them go He said "I can't, who would pay for the government?"

Taxed to death by the North? What? Hahahaha

2018 and people are still trying to defend slavery?

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Okay.  Say you're right, and it was about the Southern states' right to secede.  
Why were they seceding?

Because they wre being taxed to death by the north. Lincoln himself even said when ask why not let them go He said "I can't, who would pay for the government?"

Oh really?  What taxes were those? Why did they impact the South more than the North?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Someone who is truly interested, and not simply looking for any excuse to remain in fantasy world, might try reading Madness Rules - Charleston, 1860 and the Mania for War, by Paul Starobin, published 2017.
"The Southern way of life", i.e., slavery, was at the heart and soul of the Southern resistance.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Because they wre being taxed to death by the north. Lincoln himself even said when ask why not let them go He said "I can't, who would pay for the government?"

Oh really?  What taxes were those? Why did they impact the South more than the North?

I believe the Federal government was funded mostly with tariffs at the time, and the South had large exports of cotton and other crops to other countries.

---

Whether the argument was economic, religious, or ideological, slavery was the underlying element in all of them. The American Civil War was waged over slavery. Plain and simple. Had slavery never existed in the South, the Civil War would not have occurred.

---

Oh really?  What taxes were those? Why did they impact the South more than the North?

I believe the Federal government was funded mostly with tariffs at the time, and the South had large exports of cotton and other crops to other countries.

Northerners and Southerners equally had to pay higher prices for imported goods due to the tariffs.
the tariffs were intended to make it more profitable to operate a factory within the US. The industries at this time relied on coal or Hydro power. The South did not have as much of either. But they did have some. And they did have some factories, like sugar Mills, sawmills, Cotton Gins, etc. Nonetheless the class of white people in the Antebellum South that controlled politics did feel like they were put at a disadvantage due to the system of tariffs and they felt like that from the very beginning of the country. Whether they were actually at any kind of disadvantage is unclear.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Whether the argument was economic, religious, or ideological, slavery was the underlying element in all of them. The American Civil War was waged over slavery. Plain and simple. Had slavery never existed in the South, the Civil War would not have occurred.

Bingo.

---

It's like people don't even pay attention when reading American history.

The civil war was much less about slavery and much more about the Southern states RIGHT to secede from the Union.
And the Union decided that even though secession was legal and within the rights of those states, they would wage war to prevent it.
Why?
Cash crops like tobacco and cotton of course.

Like with many wars, the war which is basically taught as nice whites and saved blacks vs bad whites and slaves, was actually about money and power.
Not about people.
Oh an Lincoln wasn't exactly a savior of the black peoples either. He tried to get many of them to leave. Some to other colonization efforts in the Caribbean and Liberia.

Okay.  Say you're right, and it was about the Southern states' right to secede.  
Why were they seceding?

C'mon man...
Firstly, let me go ahead and get this out of the way. Slavery is and was obviously very wrong.

However... it was well within their rights, no matter what the reasoning for it at the time. Outside of slavery (which was ONE issue) It was much more about government kinda over reaching, as it often does.
Lincoln was not THEIR president (man that sounds familiar) and they (the democrats) did what was well within their rights. The Union then decided to wage war (kinda a Republican thing to do I guess) and force a certain way of life on people.

Now... in hindsight, the Union was right to want to abolish slavery. But at the time they essentially broke the law and started a war for what we now perceive as the right thing. Lincoln was no angel however as I said... it really was more about those with money and power wanting more of it. (and with a lot of bloodshed got it)

Just to be clear... just trying to clarify how history actually went down instead of the cookie cutter crap they feed you in grade school.
Not trying to say "The South should have won, we will rise again!"

---

Whether the argument was economic, religious, or ideological, slavery was the underlying element in all of them. The American Civil War was waged over slavery. Plain and simple. Had slavery never existed in the South, the Civil War would not have occurred.

You can not say that for fact.
The South could have tried to secede based simply on the election of a Republican POTUS that they hadn't even put on most of their ballots 

The government has been screwing up and waging war on itself for the entirety of its existence we just do it with less bloodshed.

---

Whether the argument was economic, religious, or ideological, slavery was the underlying element in all of them. The American Civil War was waged over slavery. Plain and simple. Had slavery never existed in the South, the Civil War would not have occurred.

Slavery existed in the North as well, in fact, it took a Constitutional amendment for General U.S. Grant to free his slaves so to say the slavery was the reason for the was, it's dead wrong

---

Whether the argument was economic, religious, or ideological, slavery was the underlying element in all of them. The American Civil War was waged over slavery. Plain and simple. Had slavery never existed in the South, the Civil War would not have occurred.

Slavery existed in the North as well, in fact, it took a Constitutional amendment for General U.S. Grant to free his slaves so to say the slavery was the reason for the was, it's dead wrong

When slaves got freed back then, their lives didn't necessarily get better.  They were always at risk of getting kidnapped and sent back South.
So it may have been perfectly consistent for a slave owner to want to abolish slavery but not free his own slaves.  A magnanimous slave owner would view his slaves' welfare as his responsibility, and sending them out, with no patron, into a world that still thought of black people as slaves was not a clearly ethical response.  That said, most slave owners were not magnanimous by any stretch.

My point is that we shouldn't always be in such a rush to look at what people do or did.  We are taught that anyone who doesn't practice what he preaches is a hypocrite, and this is usually true.  But when the "preaching" is about changing a law or a government policy, it's a very childish way to think.  It's usually not possible to "practice" until after the law changes.

Let me say it directly, specifically to you, The Drifter, because this is not the first time I've seen it from you: You think like a child.  Grow up.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Okay.  Say you're right, and it was about the Southern states' right to secede.  
Why were they seceding?

C'mon man...
Firstly, let me go ahead and get this out of the way. Slavery is and was obviously very wrong.

However... it was well within their rights, no matter what the reasoning for it at the time. Outside of slavery (which was ONE issue) It was much more about government kinda over reaching, as it often does.
Lincoln was not THEIR president (man that sounds familiar) and they (the democrats) did what was well within their rights. The Union then decided to wage war (kinda a Republican thing to do I guess) and force a certain way of life on people.

Now... in hindsight, the Union was right to want to abolish slavery. But at the time they essentially broke the law and started a war for what we now perceive as the right thing. Lincoln was no angel however as I said... it really was more about those with money and power wanting more of it. (and with a lot of bloodshed got it)

Just to be clear... just trying to clarify how history actually went down instead of the cookie cutter crap they feed you in grade school.
Not trying to say "The South should have won, we will rise again!"

---

Whether the argument was economic, religious, or ideological, slavery was the underlying element in all of them. The American Civil War was waged over slavery. Plain and simple. Had slavery never existed in the South, the Civil War would not have occurred.

You can not say that for fact.
The South could have tried to secede based simply on the election of a Republican POTUS that they hadn't even put on most of their ballots 

The government has been screwing up and waging war on itself for the entirety of its existence we just do it with less bloodshed.

You're talking yourself in circles.  You're trying to say that the election of Lincoln was not that different than any other election where one particular region didn't get its way.  But it was different, obviously.  Usually the one region that feels disappointed doesn't feel so disappointed that they want to secede.  So the South's disappointment was on a different level, and it was all to do with slavery.
You seem to want to apologize for the South in this case, perhaps because you feel a personal connection.  Comfort yourself in this: most white people in the South did not own slaves and did not benefit tangibly from the labor of slaves.  Most white people in the South could not vote.  They did not get any choice about whether their neighbors would own slaves, and did not get any choice about whether their state would secede. Their lives sucked.  The only benefit most Southern whites got from African slavery was an enhanced sense of self-worth that there were men down the road who had an even rougher life than them.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

C'mon man...
Firstly, let me go ahead and get this out of the way. Slavery is and was obviously very wrong.

However... it was well within their rights, no matter what the reasoning for it at the time. Outside of slavery (which was ONE issue) It was much more about government kinda over reaching, as it often does.
Lincoln was not THEIR president (man that sounds familiar) and they (the democrats) did what was well within their rights. The Union then decided to wage war (kinda a Republican thing to do I guess) and force a certain way of life on people.

Now... in hindsight, the Union was right to want to abolish slavery. But at the time they essentially broke the law and started a war for what we now perceive as the right thing. Lincoln was no angel however as I said... it really was more about those with money and power wanting more of it. (and with a lot of bloodshed got it)

Just to be clear... just trying to clarify how history actually went down instead of the cookie cutter crap they feed you in grade school.
Not trying to say "The South should have won, we will rise again!"

---

You can not say that for fact.
The South could have tried to secede based simply on the election of a Republican POTUS that they hadn't even put on most of their ballots 

The government has been screwing up and waging war on itself for the entirety of its existence we just do it with less bloodshed.

You're talking yourself in circles.  You're trying to say that the election of Lincoln was not that different than any other election where one particular region didn't get its way.  But it was different, obviously.  Usually the one region that feels disappointed doesn't feel so disappointed that they want to secede.  So the South's disappointment was on a different level, and it was all to do with slavery.
You seem to want to apologize for the South in this case, perhaps because you feel a personal connection.  Comfort yourself in this: most white people in the South did not own slaves and did not benefit tangibly from the labor of slaves.  Most white people in the South could not vote.  They did not get any choice about whether their neighbors would own slaves, and did not get any choice about whether their state would secede. Their lives sucked.  The only benefit most Southern whites got from African slavery was an enhanced sense of self-worth that there were men down the road who had an even rougher life than them.

What??

How did you get all that from what I said?
Talking in circles... not at all, just wanted to clarify the position I was taking, which was not one of pro-south or pro-slavery which is where this board is likely to place someone who says "the civil war was not all about slavery"
History is what it is. How it is taught in public schools is one often trimmed up to the federal government's liking. Like how most of Chris Columbus lessons are about his "discovery of America".
Apologize for the South? Why would I do that...?
As I've already said before, this war was much more about rich whites vs poor people and control of cash crops than the slavery itself. And yes, the rich whites in the south wanted to keep their free labor.

Lincoln was talking about drastically changing the way people did things, they didn't like it, they didn't vote for him, and they seceded when he won.
And it was well within their rights to do so.
Period.

Technically speaking... I believe states still have that right, though the federal interstate system surely makes it difficult (among many other things) for states to do so.

---

You're talking yourself in circles.  You're trying to say that the election of Lincoln was not that different than any other election where one particular region didn't get its way.  But it was different, obviously.  Usually the one region that feels disappointed doesn't feel so disappointed that they want to secede.  So the South's disappointment was on a different level, and it was all to do with slavery.
You seem to want to apologize for the South in this case, perhaps because you feel a personal connection.  Comfort yourself in this: most white people in the South did not own slaves and did not benefit tangibly from the labor of slaves.  Most white people in the South could not vote.  They did not get any choice about whether their neighbors would own slaves, and did not get any choice about whether their state would secede. Their lives sucked.  The only benefit most Southern whites got from African slavery was an enhanced sense of self-worth that there were men down the road who had an even rougher life than them.

What??

How did you get all that from what I said?
Talking in circles... not at all, just wanted to clarify the position I was taking, which was not one of pro-south or pro-slavery which is where this board is likely to place someone who says "the civil war was not all about slavery"
History is what it is. How it is taught in public schools is one often trimmed up to the federal government's liking. Like how most of Chris Columbus lessons are about his "discovery of America".
Apologize for the South? Why would I do that...?
As I've already said before, this war was much more about rich whites vs poor people and control of cash crops than the slavery itself. And yes, the rich whites in the south wanted to keep their free labor.

Lincoln was talking about drastically changing the way people did things, they didn't like it, they didn't vote for him, and they seceded when he won.
And it was well within their rights to do so.
Period.

Technically speaking... I believe states still have that right, though the federal interstate system surely makes it difficult (among many other things) for states to do so.

I should amend what I said before.
In states like Virginia, poor whites couldn't vote.
In states like South Carolina, poor whites could vote, but the districts were drawn such that wealthier areas had fewer people per district while less wealthy areas had more people per district, and the wealthier areas got much more seats.
In either case, poor whites didn't have a say in how the state was run.
The decision to secede belonged to the wealthy, slave-holding elite of white people without much input from other whites.  If you are saying that slavery was just part of a rich-poor dynamic in the South, and that poor whites were also victims of the rich whites, I don't disagree, but blacks were the main victims.  Slavery was the main issue.  Wealth inequality was an issue too, but slavery was a big part of that wealth inequality.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I believe the Federal government was funded mostly with tariffs at the time, and the South had large exports of cotton and other crops to other countries.

Northerners and Southerners equally had to pay higher prices for imported goods due to the tariffs.
the tariffs were intended to make it more profitable to operate a factory within the US. The industries at this time relied on coal or Hydro power. The South did not have as much of either. But they did have some. And they did have some factories, like sugar Mills, sawmills, Cotton Gins, etc. Nonetheless the class of white people in the Antebellum South that controlled politics did feel like they were put at a disadvantage due to the system of tariffs and they felt like that from the very beginning of the country. Whether they were actually at any kind of disadvantage is unclear.

There was nothing equal about how the tariffs worked.

The initial idea was that the tariffs would create a self sufficient internal market that would be beneficial to both regions, but the reality turned out to be the north didn't have the industrial capacity to make this a mutually beneficial relationship. The truth is the motivation behind the tariffs changed from beneficial to exploitative.

Due to the fact that the north didn't have industrial capacity for the south's raw materials or to provide an adequate amount of manufactured goods, Britain remained the south's largest trading partner. Since the south was by far the largest importer and exporter of goods, they took on a very inequitable burden in regards to tariffs.

Over time, unscrupulous northern lawmakers learned that tariffs could be used artificially drive off international demand for the south's raw materials forcing them to sell to northern manufacturers at below international market prices and also to drive up the price of imported manufactured goods thus opening up the market for the north's higher priced goods. These tariffs also caused Britain to look for cheaper alternatives and was a factor in them taking over India for it's ability to grow cotton which further reduced demand and pushed down prices. Even after this inequity became apparent, northern lawmakers continued to push these tariffs and even reversed attempts to lower the tariff burden in order to line their and their constituency's pockets to the south's dismay.

Even though the bulk of the tariff income was earned in the south, the bulk of that income was spent developing the north. The need for water power, which is why early industrialization happened in northern cities, became a non factor with the development of steam power. Yet the northern controlled legislature continued to spend the bulk of the money developing industries and infrastructure benefiting solely the north leaving the south undeveloped and reliant on their antiquated slave economy further stirring animosity. So it can be said the north actually perpetuated the institution of slavery in the south.

As far as the whites who controlled politics being the only ones affected by tariffs could not be further from the truth. Most whites in the south were either non slave holding farmers, farm hands, or worked in raw material producing industries. These tariffs, by lowering the prices of what they produced, decreased the wages and earnings of the average southerner while increasing the cost of manufactured goods they needed at the same time. So in reality, the average white person in the south was hit hardest by the double whammy of tariffs and this fact was not lost on the average southerner.

---

Northerners and Southerners equally had to pay higher prices for imported goods due to the tariffs.
the tariffs were intended to make it more profitable to operate a factory within the US. The industries at this time relied on coal or Hydro power. The South did not have as much of either. But they did have some. And they did have some factories, like sugar Mills, sawmills, Cotton Gins, etc. Nonetheless the class of white people in the Antebellum South that controlled politics did feel like they were put at a disadvantage due to the system of tariffs and they felt like that from the very beginning of the country. Whether they were actually at any kind of disadvantage is unclear.

There was nothing equal about how the tariffs worked.

The initial idea was that the tariffs would create a self sufficient internal market that would be beneficial to both regions, but the reality turned out to be the north didn't have the industrial capacity to make this a mutually beneficial relationship. The truth is the motivation behind the tariffs changed from beneficial to exploitative.

Due to the fact that the north didn't have industrial capacity for the south's raw materials or to provide an adequate amount of manufactured goods, Britain remained the south's largest trading partner. Since the south was by far the largest importer and exporter of goods, they took on a very inequitable burden in regards to tariffs.

Over time, unscrupulous northern lawmakers learned that tariffs could be used artificially drive off international demand for the south's raw materials forcing them to sell to northern manufacturers at below international market prices and also to drive up the price of imported manufactured goods thus opening up the market for the north's higher priced goods. These tariffs also caused Britain to look for cheaper alternatives and was a factor in them taking over India for it's ability to grow cotton which further reduced demand and pushed down prices. Even after this inequity became apparent, northern lawmakers continued to push these tariffs and even reversed attempts to lower the tariff burden in order to line their and their constituency's pockets to the south's dismay.

Even though the bulk of the tariff income was earned in the south, the bulk of that income was spent developing the north. The need for water power, which is why early industrialization happened in northern cities, became a non factor with the development of steam power. Yet the northern controlled legislature continued to spend the bulk of the money developing industries and infrastructure benefiting solely the north leaving the south undeveloped and reliant on their antiquated slave economy further stirring animosity. So it can be said the north actually perpetuated the institution of slavery in the south.

As far as the whites who controlled politics being the only ones affected by tariffs could not be further from the truth. Most whites in the south were either non slave holding farmers, farm hands, or worked in raw material producing industries. These tariffs, by lowering the prices of what they produced, decreased the wages and earnings of the average southerner while increasing the cost of manufactured goods they needed at the same time. So in reality, the average white person in the south was hit hardest by the double whammy of tariffs and this fact was not lost on the average southerner.

Why didn't the South just set up its own textile factories?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

There was nothing equal about how the tariffs worked.

The initial idea was that the tariffs would create a self sufficient internal market that would be beneficial to both regions, but the reality turned out to be the north didn't have the industrial capacity to make this a mutually beneficial relationship. The truth is the motivation behind the tariffs changed from beneficial to exploitative.

Due to the fact that the north didn't have industrial capacity for the south's raw materials or to provide an adequate amount of manufactured goods, Britain remained the south's largest trading partner. Since the south was by far the largest importer and exporter of goods, they took on a very inequitable burden in regards to tariffs.

Over time, unscrupulous northern lawmakers learned that tariffs could be used artificially drive off international demand for the south's raw materials forcing them to sell to northern manufacturers at below international market prices and also to drive up the price of imported manufactured goods thus opening up the market for the north's higher priced goods. These tariffs also caused Britain to look for cheaper alternatives and was a factor in them taking over India for it's ability to grow cotton which further reduced demand and pushed down prices. Even after this inequity became apparent, northern lawmakers continued to push these tariffs and even reversed attempts to lower the tariff burden in order to line their and their constituency's pockets to the south's dismay.

Even though the bulk of the tariff income was earned in the south, the bulk of that income was spent developing the north. The need for water power, which is why early industrialization happened in northern cities, became a non factor with the development of steam power. Yet the northern controlled legislature continued to spend the bulk of the money developing industries and infrastructure benefiting solely the north leaving the south undeveloped and reliant on their antiquated slave economy further stirring animosity. So it can be said the north actually perpetuated the institution of slavery in the south.

As far as the whites who controlled politics being the only ones affected by tariffs could not be further from the truth. Most whites in the south were either non slave holding farmers, farm hands, or worked in raw material producing industries. These tariffs, by lowering the prices of what they produced, decreased the wages and earnings of the average southerner while increasing the cost of manufactured goods they needed at the same time. So in reality, the average white person in the south was hit hardest by the double whammy of tariffs and this fact was not lost on the average southerner.

Why didn't the South just set up its own textile factories?

Because they didn't have the infrastructure to make that feasible, and the tariff money they were most responsible for paying was being used to build that infrastructure in the north for northern interests.

Fast forward 50 years when the infrastructure is finally in place, the efficiency of textile mills being in the south ran the northern mills out of business.

The tariffs weren't being used for the good of the nation, they were being used for regional self interest. If national interest were at heart, then the infrastructure and investment would have happened in the south where non slave labor was cheapest and raw material was abundant easily accessible. It was these very qualities that in later years allowed the south to dominate the global textile market.

But it was sectionalism and northern greed that prevented the south from developing a viable economy that wasn't so dependent on slavery. If these steps had been taken in the years preceding the war, it would have given the south a viable out from a fading institution. Unfortunately, this didn't happen and the south was stuck with the choice of slavery or economic destitution.

We now have 600k deaths to remind us of what happens when sectional interests are put ahead of whats most beneficial for the nation.

---