If you think the Civil War was about whether slavery should be legal…
You should read up on it, I mean, if you’re American someone should have taught you, but they clearly didn’t. So you should do it on your own at least.
The civil war was absolutely fought over slavery. That was the reason given by every state that attempted to secede. Any suggestion otherwise is historical revisionism based on the lost cause narrative.
My point is that the people/governments that start invasions of other people/governments often lie about why they’re invading someone
So when an invader and the person being invaded disagree on why they’re being invaded, it makes sense to not just believe the invader despite all evidence showing they just fucking lied
I hope this is all you need because I’m blocking you now.
In the future if you want someone to explain something to you, maybe ask politely?
You really should read the link, but since your couldn’t click it here’s a chunk:
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that–
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause–as cheerfully to one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution–to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause “shall be delivered up” their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States”?
One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive- slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.
The U.S. did not want slavery to to spread pay its current states. This is why Texas gave up land to Oklahoma.
So once again, what was the civil war fought over if you believe it wasn’t slavery?
If you think the Civil War was about whether slavery should be legal…
You should read up on it, I mean, if you’re American someone should have taught you, but they clearly didn’t. So you should do it on your own at least.
The civil war was absolutely fought over slavery. That was the reason given by every state that attempted to secede. Any suggestion otherwise is historical revisionism based on the lost cause narrative.
So…
You think Putin invaded Ukraine to fight Nazis too?
That’s what he said, and apparently you just trust what anyone says…
I’d hate to hear why you think the Nazis started WW2, would you just start repeating Nazi propaganda too?
I’ll never know if this worked, maybe if you’re nicer to the next person they’ll wait to see if you understand before they block you.
Best of luck!
What does this have to do what u/Stovetop said?
I’m gonna need you to clarify your point some more
On a four day old post?
A mod needs me to clarify my point?
My point is that the people/governments that start invasions of other people/governments often lie about why they’re invading someone
So when an invader and the person being invaded disagree on why they’re being invaded, it makes sense to not just believe the invader despite all evidence showing they just fucking lied
I hope this is all you need because I’m blocking you now.
In the future if you want someone to explain something to you, maybe ask politely?
What was the reason for the civil war?
The south wanted a strong federal government willing to go into Northern states and capture African Americans to send South so they could be enslaved.
Lincoln and the North refused, but if you think they wanted to outlaw slavery, I suggest you read Lincolns inaugural address:
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/lincolns-first-inaugural-address
It’s pretty much all about how they didn’t think the feds should have a say in slavery.
There wasn’t even talk of outlawing it till well into the war, and that was as an economic sanction.
I don’t know why it’s so hard for people to realize the Confederacy lied about why they started the war…
Its like modern day people saying trump got elected because African refugees were eating cats. That was just one of many lies that were told.
So slavery?
You really should read the link, but since your couldn’t click it here’s a chunk:
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that–
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause–as cheerfully to one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution–to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause “shall be delivered up” their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States”?
The U.S. did not want slavery to to spread pay its current states. This is why Texas gave up land to Oklahoma.
So once again, what was the civil war fought over if you believe it wasn’t slavery?
State’s rights?