I literally already said this in the parent comment:
What started it was the south thought the feds should be able to enforce southern law (escaped slaves are still slaves, and northern states had to return them) and the Feds said they couldn’t force one state to follow another state’s laws.
Yes, that was the final reasoning that led to the Civil War.
At no point was anyone of substance attempting to federally outlaw slavery until about 2 years into the civil war. At which point it was done to make the plantations less valuable to European investors who knew the North would win, but that the South was desperate for money/supplies and would sell on the cheap.
By outlawing slavery during the war, Lincoln depressed the Southern land prices, otherwise it would have went on even longer.
It’s complicated shit. Which is why I take the down votes to explain it. Reducing it to “slavery” isn’t doing justice to all the shit that was going on. It makes everyone seem better, and because that’s the simplified version that makes it into highschool books, everyone keeps believing it.
You have said multiple times that the civil war was specifically about slavery. Which is exactly what the woman in the OP was denying. Why are you trying to argue semantics where none are required?
Trying to obfuscate the issue beyond that doesn’t really help. If slavery were removed from the equation the entire issue would be moot.
It’s not like we are talking about states rights to sell alcohol or do anything else.
It was specifically the rights of one state to force another state to enforce slavery. Again, if slavery were removed from the equation we would not be talking about the civil war as we know it. That doesn’t mean a civil war wouldn’t have happened for another reason, but it didn’t, and entertaining any other reality is just fiction.
It was specifically the rights of one state to force another state to enforce slavery
Exactly.
And the Northern states and the Feds were cool with maintaining the status quo of legal slavery until halfway thru the Civil War.
So if the South hadn’t gotten greedy and tried to force a strong federal government, slavery would have stayed legal. But they tried and both won and lost at the same time.
They got the strong federal government they asked for, it just wasn’t on their side.
I literally already said this in the parent comment:
So to recap, the American Civil War was about states’ rights to […] Force people who escaped slavery be returned to slavery. Is that right?
Yes, that was the final reasoning that led to the Civil War.
At no point was anyone of substance attempting to federally outlaw slavery until about 2 years into the civil war. At which point it was done to make the plantations less valuable to European investors who knew the North would win, but that the South was desperate for money/supplies and would sell on the cheap.
By outlawing slavery during the war, Lincoln depressed the Southern land prices, otherwise it would have went on even longer.
It’s complicated shit. Which is why I take the down votes to explain it. Reducing it to “slavery” isn’t doing justice to all the shit that was going on. It makes everyone seem better, and because that’s the simplified version that makes it into highschool books, everyone keeps believing it.
You have said multiple times that the civil war was specifically about slavery. Which is exactly what the woman in the OP was denying. Why are you trying to argue semantics where none are required?
Trying to obfuscate the issue beyond that doesn’t really help. If slavery were removed from the equation the entire issue would be moot.
…
Because details are important?
Why do you want to reduce an entire civil war down to one word in a way that makes both sides seem better than they were?
Literally the opposite of what’s happening here…
It’s not like we are talking about states rights to sell alcohol or do anything else.
It was specifically the rights of one state to force another state to enforce slavery. Again, if slavery were removed from the equation we would not be talking about the civil war as we know it. That doesn’t mean a civil war wouldn’t have happened for another reason, but it didn’t, and entertaining any other reality is just fiction.
Exactly.
And the Northern states and the Feds were cool with maintaining the status quo of legal slavery until halfway thru the Civil War.
So if the South hadn’t gotten greedy and tried to force a strong federal government, slavery would have stayed legal. But they tried and both won and lost at the same time.
They got the strong federal government they asked for, it just wasn’t on their side.
And in what way does that hypothetical make the American civil war NOT about slavery?
No one in the NBA was ever dunked on this hard.
Bravo for sticking with it.s
So, their right to own slaves.
You didn’t do too well on the SAT/ACT reading sections, huh…