Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 09:45:31 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 09:42:18 PM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 09:40:56 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 09:27:20 PM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 09:16:46 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 08:54:01 PM

The North wasn't some crystal clear shining beacon of moral light sure, I agree, but the state rights the South wanted to cling on to was the right to own slaves and traffic humans.

You are a shining fuckin' beacon of swallowing whatever you're told.

Abolition WAS NOT going to happen by the end of the 1860s in the united states.
There was nowhere near enough support for the movement.

The only reason it did is because Lincoln used the war that the Union started and the deaths of people's sons that were his fault as a way to demonise the south, and he wanted to cripple them economically and made the emancipation proclimation. He basically made people put five and three together like they were two and two and people still buy into it to this day.

Is slavery an evil thing that still goes on?
Yes.

Was it the MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM that was causing our national government not to function AT ALL in the 1850s?

No.

That was an abhorrent and sudden increase in federal power that most states weren't ready for, and Lincoln was literally a dictator, and only made matters worse. The country was always before that, a much looser gathering of states than it is today, and I'm not saying that the current system is a bad one, I'm saying that the country was just not ready for it, and it was going to cause the ultimate failure of the nation.

Read a god damned book.

I want slavery apologists to leave.

Whatever the implications of the Confederate flag are is the by the bye, and is clearly something subjective that we all disagree on.

Slavery however, is demonstrably a lot less divisive.

You have literally just tried to justify the South's "right" to own people simply because it would cause economic ramifications to the nation. I want you to acknowledge this. Whatever the North's intentions were, it's irrelevant. Slavery was abolished, and the South, on aggregate, didn't want it to happen because the economy and political stability was more important than human liberty. That's morally, and objectively wrong. No two ways about it.

>"btu u should jus read a book"
>"muh state rights"

This kind of shit is precisely why people construe Southern pride and Southern culture with racism.

Did I not specifically state that slavery was evil in my post?

And you were right, telling you to read a book was the wrong response, because most of the books you might read are the very sources of your misinformation.

Its classic changing history, and because of it nobody knows why the civil war started.

But no, go on about how I'm a slavery apologist.

What about the South's attempt at secession wasn't to do with slavery? Please, elaborate without referring to state rights.

Well, the aboltion movement, (though much smaller than many are led to believe) certainly didn't help in the retention of southern states, but its ludicrous for you to ask me to tell you why something happened without reffering to the core causes of that event.

It's ludicrous to require you demonstrate your assertions? Are you deliberately attempting to be obtuse?

It's a simple yes or no question. Was the South's attempted secession to do with slavery or not?

Well its yes and no.
It didn't happen because of slavery, but slavery affected the way it happened.

You can't discredit all of someone's problems just because they were wrong about one thing, and then blow up the situation to make it seem like that's the only thing they were upset about, when really it was lesser because it wasn't as big of a problem to them as you're trying to make it out to be.

The question you are trying to ask is: would the southern states have tried to secede if slavery had been abolished?

The answer is yes.

However before the war and propaganda, slavery was nowhere near being abolished, it would have taken a decade or longer after it actually happened without that war.

So the fear of the abolition of slavery was not something to secede over in the year 1860, but it was something they would have seceded over if the final action had ever been taken or neared approval. Which it eventually would have, but at that point, who can say what would have happened?

Even the south would have changed in those fifteen years, and with the political stranglehold they were getting under, they probably would've reach forum adapted. Nobody can really say.

What matters is that they seceded, because they had lost a lot of state power that had been something they enjoyed historically, and while a result of the stranglehold would have been making the abolition of slavery easier when the time came for it, the immediate effect was that state legislators felt useless and the people felt voiceless, which is the reason the US declared independence in the first place.

And the final straw was when they actually elected a dictator president.

Everyone

just

shut up


and come inside


ITS BED TIME

Everyone

just

shut up


and come inside


ITS BED TIME

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 09:48:56 PM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 09:45:31 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 09:42:18 PM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 09:40:56 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 09:27:20 PM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 09:16:46 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 08:54:01 PM

The North wasn't some crystal clear shining beacon of moral light sure, I agree, but the state rights the South wanted to cling on to was the right to own slaves and traffic humans.

You are a shining fuckin' beacon of swallowing whatever you're told.

Abolition WAS NOT going to happen by the end of the 1860s in the united states.
There was nowhere near enough support for the movement.

The only reason it did is because Lincoln used the war that the Union started and the deaths of people's sons that were his fault as a way to demonise the south, and he wanted to cripple them economically and made the emancipation proclimation. He basically made people put five and three together like they were two and two and people still buy into it to this day.

Is slavery an evil thing that still goes on?
Yes.

Was it the MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM that was causing our national government not to function AT ALL in the 1850s?

No.

That was an abhorrent and sudden increase in federal power that most states weren't ready for, and Lincoln was literally a dictator, and only made matters worse. The country was always before that, a much looser gathering of states than it is today, and I'm not saying that the current system is a bad one, I'm saying that the country was just not ready for it, and it was going to cause the ultimate failure of the nation.

Read a god damned book.

I want slavery apologists to leave.

Whatever the implications of the Confederate flag are is the by the bye, and is clearly something subjective that we all disagree on.

Slavery however, is demonstrably a lot less divisive.

You have literally just tried to justify the South's "right" to own people simply because it would cause economic ramifications to the nation. I want you to acknowledge this. Whatever the North's intentions were, it's irrelevant. Slavery was abolished, and the South, on aggregate, didn't want it to happen because the economy and political stability was more important than human liberty. That's morally, and objectively wrong. No two ways about it.

>"btu u should jus read a book"
>"muh state rights"

This kind of shit is precisely why people construe Southern pride and Southern culture with racism.

Did I not specifically state that slavery was evil in my post?

And you were right, telling you to read a book was the wrong response, because most of the books you might read are the very sources of your misinformation.

Its classic changing history, and because of it nobody knows why the civil war started.

But no, go on about how I'm a slavery apologist.

What about the South's attempt at secession wasn't to do with slavery? Please, elaborate without referring to state rights.

Well, the aboltion movement, (though much smaller than many are led to believe) certainly didn't help in the retention of southern states, but its ludicrous for you to ask me to tell you why something happened without reffering to the core causes of that event.

It's ludicrous to require you demonstrate your assertions? Are you deliberately attempting to be obtuse?

It's a simple yes or no question. Was the South's attempted secession to do with slavery or not?

Well its yes and no.
It didn't happen because of slavery, but slavery affected the way it happened.

You can't discredit all of someone's problems just because they were wrong about one thing, and then blow up the situation to make it seem like that's the only thing they were upset about, when really it was lesser because it wasn't as big of a problem to them as you're trying to make it out to be.

The question you are trying to ask is: would the southern states have tried to secede if slavery had been abolished?

The answer is yes.

However before the war and propaganda, slavery was nowhere near being abolished, it would have taken a decade or longer after it actually happened without that war.

So the fear of the abolition of slavery was not something to secede over in the year 1860, but it was something they would have seceded over if the final action had ever been taken or neared approval. Which it eventually would have, but at that point, who can say what would have happened?

Even the south would have changed in those fifteen years, and with the political stranglehold they were getting under, they probably would've reach forum adapted. Nobody can really say.

What matters is that they seceded, because they had lost a lot of state power that had been something they enjoyed historically, and while a result of the stranglehold would have been making the abolition of slavery easier when the time came for it, the immediate effect was that state legislators felt useless and the people felt voiceless, which is the reason the US declared independence in the first place.

And the final straw was when they actually elected a dictator president.

So yes then, the South did indeed try to secede because they were afraid they were going to lose their slaves, thank you for clarifying.

I'm not asking for the moral positioning of the North and whether they were a political stranglehold on the South or not, that's irrelevant. If you want to talk about the totalitarian behavior of the Union that's for another discussion.

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 30, 2015, 09:49:56 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 30, 2015, 08:42:50 AM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 10:52:26 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 09:48:56 PM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 09:45:31 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 09:42:18 PM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 09:40:56 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 09:27:20 PM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 09:16:46 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 08:54:01 PM

The North wasn't some crystal clear shining beacon of moral light sure, I agree, but the state rights the South wanted to cling on to was the right to own slaves and traffic humans.

You are a shining fuckin' beacon of swallowing whatever you're told.

Abolition WAS NOT going to happen by the end of the 1860s in the united states.
There was nowhere near enough support for the movement.

The only reason it did is because Lincoln used the war that the Union started and the deaths of people's sons that were his fault as a way to demonise the south, and he wanted to cripple them economically and made the emancipation proclimation. He basically made people put five and three together like they were two and two and people still buy into it to this day.

Is slavery an evil thing that still goes on?
Yes.

Was it the MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM that was causing our national government not to function AT ALL in the 1850s?

No.

That was an abhorrent and sudden increase in federal power that most states weren't ready for, and Lincoln was literally a dictator, and only made matters worse. The country was always before that, a much looser gathering of states than it is today, and I'm not saying that the current system is a bad one, I'm saying that the country was just not ready for it, and it was going to cause the ultimate failure of the nation.

Read a god damned book.

I want slavery apologists to leave.

Whatever the implications of the Confederate flag are is the by the bye, and is clearly something subjective that we all disagree on.

Slavery however, is demonstrably a lot less divisive.

You have literally just tried to justify the South's "right" to own people simply because it would cause economic ramifications to the nation. I want you to acknowledge this. Whatever the North's intentions were, it's irrelevant. Slavery was abolished, and the South, on aggregate, didn't want it to happen because the economy and political stability was more important than human liberty. That's morally, and objectively wrong. No two ways about it.

>"btu u should jus read a book"
>"muh state rights"

This kind of shit is precisely why people construe Southern pride and Southern culture with racism.

Did I not specifically state that slavery was evil in my post?

And you were right, telling you to read a book was the wrong response, because most of the books you might read are the very sources of your misinformation.

Its classic changing history, and because of it nobody knows why the civil war started.

But no, go on about how I'm a slavery apologist.

What about the South's attempt at secession wasn't to do with slavery? Please, elaborate without referring to state rights.

Well, the aboltion movement, (though much smaller than many are led to believe) certainly didn't help in the retention of southern states, but its ludicrous for you to ask me to tell you why something happened without reffering to the core causes of that event.

It's ludicrous to require you demonstrate your assertions? Are you deliberately attempting to be obtuse?

It's a simple yes or no question. Was the South's attempted secession to do with slavery or not?

Well its yes and no.
It didn't happen because of slavery, but slavery affected the way it happened.

You can't discredit all of someone's problems just because they were wrong about one thing, and then blow up the situation to make it seem like that's the only thing they were upset about, when really it was lesser because it wasn't as big of a problem to them as you're trying to make it out to be.

The question you are trying to ask is: would the southern states have tried to secede if slavery had been abolished?

The answer is yes.

However before the war and propaganda, slavery was nowhere near being abolished, it would have taken a decade or longer after it actually happened without that war.

So the fear of the abolition of slavery was not something to secede over in the year 1860, but it was something they would have seceded over if the final action had ever been taken or neared approval. Which it eventually would have, but at that point, who can say what would have happened?

Even the south would have changed in those fifteen years, and with the political stranglehold they were getting under, they probably would've reach forum adapted. Nobody can really say.

What matters is that they seceded, because they had lost a lot of state power that had been something they enjoyed historically, and while a result of the stranglehold would have been making the abolition of slavery easier when the time came for it, the immediate effect was that state legislators felt useless and the people felt voiceless, which is the reason the US declared independence in the first place.

And the final straw was when they actually elected a dictator president.

So yes then, the South did indeed try to secede because they were afraid they were going to lose their slaves, thank you for clarifying.

I'm not asking for the moral positioning of the North and whether they were a political stranglehold on the South or not, that's irrelevant. If you want to talk about the totalitarian behavior of the Union that's for another discussion.

That's not what I said and it's not true, but I can't stop you from being delusional if you want to be.

I've done everything I can to point out to you that they version of history you're subscribed to is heavily revised, but if you're comfortable with what you're told and don't have any interest in accuracy, then you can go on being sheeple.

You literally just told me the South wanted to secede because they got bootytickled over the fact they weren't going to have slaves anymore. I'm not sure what else to say to you.

The fact that the North was expansionary, or whatever you think the North wanted to accomplish is irrelevant, but I'm willing to entertain a separate discussion on that issue. The fact of the matter is the South wanted to secede to continue owning slaves. End of.

I didn't say any of that.

You're just terrible at paying attention.

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 30, 2015, 10:35:14 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 30, 2015, 10:30:14 AM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 30, 2015, 09:49:56 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 30, 2015, 08:42:50 AM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 10:52:26 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 09:48:56 PM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 09:45:31 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 09:42:18 PM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 09:40:56 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 09:27:20 PM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 09:16:46 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 08:54:01 PM

The North wasn't some crystal clear shining beacon of moral light sure, I agree, but the state rights the South wanted to cling on to was the right to own slaves and traffic humans.

You are a shining fuckin' beacon of swallowing whatever you're told.

Abolition WAS NOT going to happen by the end of the 1860s in the united states.
There was nowhere near enough support for the movement.

The only reason it did is because Lincoln used the war that the Union started and the deaths of people's sons that were his fault as a way to demonise the south, and he wanted to cripple them economically and made the emancipation proclimation. He basically made people put five and three together like they were two and two and people still buy into it to this day.

Is slavery an evil thing that still goes on?
Yes.

Was it the MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM that was causing our national government not to function AT ALL in the 1850s?

No.

That was an abhorrent and sudden increase in federal power that most states weren't ready for, and Lincoln was literally a dictator, and only made matters worse. The country was always before that, a much looser gathering of states than it is today, and I'm not saying that the current system is a bad one, I'm saying that the country was just not ready for it, and it was going to cause the ultimate failure of the nation.

Read a god damned book.

I want slavery apologists to leave.

Whatever the implications of the Confederate flag are is the by the bye, and is clearly something subjective that we all disagree on.

Slavery however, is demonstrably a lot less divisive.

You have literally just tried to justify the South's "right" to own people simply because it would cause economic ramifications to the nation. I want you to acknowledge this. Whatever the North's intentions were, it's irrelevant. Slavery was abolished, and the South, on aggregate, didn't want it to happen because the economy and political stability was more important than human liberty. That's morally, and objectively wrong. No two ways about it.

>"btu u should jus read a book"
>"muh state rights"

This kind of shit is precisely why people construe Southern pride and Southern culture with racism.

Did I not specifically state that slavery was evil in my post?

And you were right, telling you to read a book was the wrong response, because most of the books you might read are the very sources of your misinformation.

Its classic changing history, and because of it nobody knows why the civil war started.

But no, go on about how I'm a slavery apologist.

What about the South's attempt at secession wasn't to do with slavery? Please, elaborate without referring to state rights.

Well, the aboltion movement, (though much smaller than many are led to believe) certainly didn't help in the retention of southern states, but its ludicrous for you to ask me to tell you why something happened without reffering to the core causes of that event.

It's ludicrous to require you demonstrate your assertions? Are you deliberately attempting to be obtuse?

It's a simple yes or no question. Was the South's attempted secession to do with slavery or not?

Well its yes and no.
It didn't happen because of slavery, but slavery affected the way it happened.

You can't discredit all of someone's problems just because they were wrong about one thing, and then blow up the situation to make it seem like that's the only thing they were upset about, when really it was lesser because it wasn't as big of a problem to them as you're trying to make it out to be.

The question you are trying to ask is: would the southern states have tried to secede if slavery had been abolished?

The answer is yes.

However before the war and propaganda, slavery was nowhere near being abolished, it would have taken a decade or longer after it actually happened without that war.

So the fear of the abolition of slavery was not something to secede over in the year 1860, but it was something they would have seceded over if the final action had ever been taken or neared approval. Which it eventually would have, but at that point, who can say what would have happened?

Even the south would have changed in those fifteen years, and with the political stranglehold they were getting under, they probably would've reach forum adapted. Nobody can really say.

What matters is that they seceded, because they had lost a lot of state power that had been something they enjoyed historically, and while a result of the stranglehold would have been making the abolition of slavery easier when the time came for it, the immediate effect was that state legislators felt useless and the people felt voiceless, which is the reason the US declared independence in the first place.

And the final straw was when they actually elected a dictator president.

So yes then, the South did indeed try to secede because they were afraid they were going to lose their slaves, thank you for clarifying.

I'm not asking for the moral positioning of the North and whether they were a political stranglehold on the South or not, that's irrelevant. If you want to talk about the totalitarian behavior of the Union that's for another discussion.

That's not what I said and it's not true, but I can't stop you from being delusional if you want to be.

I've done everything I can to point out to you that they version of history you're subscribed to is heavily revised, but if you're comfortable with what you're told and don't have any interest in accuracy, then you can go on being sheeple.

You literally just told me the South wanted to secede because they got bootytickled over the fact they weren't going to have slaves anymore. I'm not sure what else to say to you.

The fact that the North was expansionary, or whatever you think the North wanted to accomplish is irrelevant, but I'm willing to entertain a separate discussion on that issue. The fact of the matter is the South wanted to secede to continue owning slaves. End of.

I didn't say any of that.

You're just terrible at paying attention.

Explain how one long winded and apologetic post trying to justify "fuck you, don't take my right to own slaves" translates to me not paying attention.

That's uh... The reason they were long winded.

Because I spent the last day explaining and a half explaining exactly why slavery was not the underlying cause of southern secession.

Quote from: Cindo on June 30, 2015, 11:39:25 AM

So explain to me why the only books that WE have ever read are all revisionist history, but that you yourself - in your enlightened state - have managed to get to the truth of it all.

The vast majority all history is revisionist, and its unlikely we'll ever get to the bottom of all of it.

But a lot of work has gone into correcting many biased accounts of history, and the civil war is probably one of the most studied.

A lot like correction of American revisionism of their revolution, it's all free information you can access online or at your local library.

Could you give me some links to these corrections? I'd like to see them.

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 30, 2015, 11:57:48 AM

Quote from: Cindo on June 30, 2015, 11:39:25 AM

So explain to me why the only books that WE have ever read are all revisionist history, but that you yourself - in your enlightened state - have managed to get to the truth of it all.

The vast majority all history is revisionist, and its unlikely we'll ever get to the bottom of all of it.

But a lot of work has gone into correcting many biased accounts of history, and the civil war is probably one of the most studied.

A lot like correction of American revisionism of their revolution, it's all free information you can access online or at your local library.

Could you give me some links to these corrections? I'd like to see them.

If I had been actively looking this up while posting all of this, I would definitely link you, but I'm on my phone right now and it would be more trouble for me to do all of your research for you than its really worth.

But I've been citing most of this from memory of the last time I did research on the subject, for the same argument with someone else.

If you don't want to take my word for it, which is completely understandable, google is always open to you.

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 30, 2015, 10:37:10 AM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 30, 2015, 10:35:14 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 30, 2015, 10:30:14 AM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 30, 2015, 09:49:56 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 30, 2015, 08:42:50 AM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 10:52:26 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 09:48:56 PM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 09:45:31 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 09:42:18 PM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 09:40:56 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 09:27:20 PM

Quote from: Sᴏʟ Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ on June 29, 2015, 09:16:46 PM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on June 29, 2015, 08:54:01 PM

The North wasn't some crystal clear shining beacon of moral light sure, I agree, but the state rights the South wanted to cling on to was the right to own slaves and traffic humans.

You are a shining fuckin' beacon of swallowing whatever you're told.

Abolition WAS NOT going to happen by the end of the 1860s in the united states.
There was nowhere near enough support for the movement.

The only reason it did is because Lincoln used the war that the Union started and the deaths of people's sons that were his fault as a way to demonise the south, and he wanted to cripple them economically and made the emancipation proclimation. He basically made people put five and three together like they were two and two and people still buy into it to this day.

Is slavery an evil thing that still goes on?
Yes.

Was it the MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM that was causing our national government not to function AT ALL in the 1850s?

No.

That was an abhorrent and sudden increase in federal power that most states weren't ready for, and Lincoln was literally a dictator, and only made matters worse. The country was always before that, a much looser gathering of states than it is today, and I'm not saying that the current system is a bad one, I'm saying that the country was just not ready for it, and it was going to cause the ultimate failure of the nation.

Read a god damned book.

I want slavery apologists to leave.

Whatever the implications of the Confederate flag are is the by the bye, and is clearly something subjective that we all disagree on.

Slavery however, is demonstrably a lot less divisive.

You have literally just tried to justify the South's "right" to own people simply because it would cause economic ramifications to the nation. I want you to acknowledge this. Whatever the North's intentions were, it's irrelevant. Slavery was abolished, and the South, on aggregate, didn't want it to happen because the economy and political stability was more important than human liberty. That's morally, and objectively wrong. No two ways about it.

>"btu u should jus read a book"
>"muh state rights"

This kind of shit is precisely why people construe Southern pride and Southern culture with racism.

Did I not specifically state that slavery was evil in my post?

And you were right, telling you to read a book was the wrong response, because most of the books you might read are the very sources of your misinformation.

Its classic changing history, and because of it nobody knows why the civil war started.

But no, go on about how I'm a slavery apologist.

What about the South's attempt at secession wasn't to do with slavery? Please, elaborate without referring to state rights.

Well, the aboltion movement, (though much smaller than many are led to believe) certainly didn't help in the retention of southern states, but its ludicrous for you to ask me to tell you why something happened without reffering to the core causes of that event.

It's ludicrous to require you demonstrate your assertions? Are you deliberately attempting to be obtuse?

It's a simple yes or no question. Was the South's attempted secession to do with slavery or not?

Well its yes and no.
It didn't happen because of slavery, but slavery affected the way it happened.

You can't discredit all of someone's problems just because they were wrong about one thing, and then blow up the situation to make it seem like that's the only thing they were upset about, when really it was lesser because it wasn't as big of a problem to them as you're trying to make it out to be.

The question you are trying to ask is: would the southern states have tried to secede if slavery had been abolished?

The answer is yes.

However before the war and propaganda, slavery was nowhere near being abolished, it would have taken a decade or longer after it actually happened without that war.

So the fear of the abolition of slavery was not something to secede over in the year 1860, but it was something they would have seceded over if the final action had ever been taken or neared approval. Which it eventually would have, but at that point, who can say what would have happened?

Even the south would have changed in those fifteen years, and with the political stranglehold they were getting under, they probably would've reach forum adapted. Nobody can really say.

What matters is that they seceded, because they had lost a lot of state power that had been something they enjoyed historically, and while a result of the stranglehold would have been making the abolition of slavery easier when the time came for it, the immediate effect was that state legislators felt useless and the people felt voiceless, which is the reason the US declared independence in the first place.

And the final straw was when they actually elected a dictator president.

So yes then, the South did indeed try to secede because they were afraid they were going to lose their slaves, thank you for clarifying.

I'm not asking for the moral positioning of the North and whether they were a political stranglehold on the South or not, that's irrelevant. If you want to talk about the totalitarian behavior of the Union that's for another discussion.

That's not what I said and it's not true, but I can't stop you from being delusional if you want to be.

I've done everything I can to point out to you that they version of history you're subscribed to is heavily revised, but if you're comfortable with what you're told and don't have any interest in accuracy, then you can go on being sheeple.

You literally just told me the South wanted to secede because they got bootytickled over the fact they weren't going to have slaves anymore. I'm not sure what else to say to you.

The fact that the North was expansionary, or whatever you think the North wanted to accomplish is irrelevant, but I'm willing to entertain a separate discussion on that issue. The fact of the matter is the South wanted to secede to continue owning slaves. End of.

I didn't say any of that.

You're just terrible at paying attention.

Explain how one long winded and apologetic post trying to justify "fuck you, don't take my right to own slaves" translates to me not paying attention.

That's uh... The reason they were long winded.

Because I spent the last day explaining and a half explaining exactly why slavery was not the underlying cause of southern secession.

There's explaining something which I asked you specifically to explain (which you haven't at all done) and then trying to tenuously justify something which isn't ethically or objectively justifiable. You have literally just danced round my question this entire discussion and then gave some half assed answer as to why the South was entitled to own slaves.

I've always been under the impression that the secession was due to the South falling behind in economical prowess and voice in government due to a number of laws and such passed by the North in the years leading up to it. Slavery was definitely a big part of it, but it was as it was related to what little remained of the South in terms of economic viability (as in the Southern trade would have crashed due to abolition).

But that's probably just my Georgian education talking.

The civil war was fought primarily over political and economic reasons, it's just that these reasons happened to revolve around slaves because that's what the southern economy was reliant on

Thus why the reconstruction period sucked so much dicks for everyone in the south

I mean

They kinda were

Once again, pretty much every Declaration of Secession mentions slavery in some form or fashion and how it was necessary to the southern economy. Some go as far to mention how absurd it is that blacks and whites should be considered equal.

Not wanting the economy to drop like a rock isn't that silly.

not if you believe that basic human rights out-prioritize the economy

in which case, yeah, i think a solid case could be made to say it really does stop at slavery

because if someone had decency, and cared about the welfare of all human beings, and recognized slaves as such, would it really make a difference to them if the economy fell as a result of the abolition?... i don't think so