4 ms·
What a shit take. It was about slavery. Of course the north wasnt interested in war over slavery. The south WAS and they started it. If you read the individual
by breakyerself 6y ago
What a shit take. It was about slavery. Of course the north wasnt interested in war over slavery. The south WAS and they started it. If you read the individual states declarations they also state slavery and white supremacy as the overriding cause. When discussing states rights they were primarily angry at the northern states exercising their rights by refusing to return runaway slaves and by refusing to allow slaves to be returned to bondage after slaveholders brought them north for travel.
Of course you can abstract it all away by saying it was "economics" but the economics in question are the economics of slavery. The states rights are the rights as they pertain to slavery. It was slavery.
- coldtea 6y ago>What a shit take What a polite comment. >It was about slavery. Of course the north wasnt interested in war over slavery. That's kind of my whole point. The North wasn't interested in war over slavery, and the war wasn't about emancipating slaves rhetoric. It was about the North conflicting with the South over economic operation, interests, and state control. Slavery just happened to be the way that was expressed in the South, so it became the contentiuous issue, but as a second order effect.
- breakyerself 6y agoNobody argues that the north went to war with the south to end slavery. You're arguing against a strawman. The south went to war against the north to preserve slavery and white supremacy. Abstracting it away to be about them having dissimilar economies is just apologetics for an obscenity.