The US Civil War was fought over slavery


[Read the post]


The States’ Rights to Keep and Bear Dupes Shall Not Be Over-turned by the Federated Media.


Although this video seems straightforward, “Prager University” generally raises an ideological red flag. The purpose of these courses is to counterbalance liberal bias. That doesn’t mean they’re wrong; just make sure you have your skepti-goggles on the right setting.


I suspect that one of the reasons the myth that the fight wasn’t about slavery exists is that it was difficult to motivate the common people to fight about slavery. In the south only the wealthier folks owned slaves. In both the north and the south, especially among the Irish immigrants in the north, freedom for millions of slaves would bring more competition for jobs to the lower economic classes. Thus the leadership had to promote other reasons for the war–preservation of the union in the north and states’ rights in the south.


On merit of the video alone, however, it is spot on.


Also: “here is ten dollars and a rifle” and “do what you’re told, son.”


Indeed, that seems to be the case on their site.

But, revisionist history regarding the causes of the Civil War is more on the conservative side of the aisle, no?


/mic drop


When I saw the “Prager U” thing, I almost didn’t watch it. But it’s a pretty good, no nonsense fact hammer. I like it. The pro military ending was probably unnecessary, but makes sense coming from the narrator.

Prager has some straight up buuuuuullshit videos on race though.


This deserves repeating.


Dupes are compliments proving the item was worth posting


Why does this question remain controversial?

I think this is only controversial in the same way, and largely to the same people, that evolution is considered controversial.


The Articles of Secession for multiple states make it perfectly clear that they were seceding primarily (if not solely) because of slavery.


But poor white southerners also benefited from the system, if only because it guaranteed there would always be someone lower on the totem pole than they were. All you had to do to sell the cause to a non-slave owner was to say “if we end slavery, you’ll be no better than that guy.”


[quote=“CLamb, post:4, topic:63637”]
In the south only the wealthier folks owned slaves.[/quote]

Even if poor whites couldn’t afford slaves, they got the intangible benefit of being able to look down on someone.

And after the war, they fought like hell to maintain that privilege. #JimCrow


Several Northern states, exercising their states’ rights, decided that they would not return escaped slaves to their self-styled “owners”.

The South disagreed, believing that the Federal fugitive slave law should preempt states’ rights.

Thereupon the Southern states seceded in order to form a new federal government of their own, under which states were not free to make their own laws regarding slavery.

So yes! the Civil War originated as a states’ rights issue. It’s just that the North was the pro states’ rights side…


It was about ethics in 19th century succession movements.


Thanks for clearing that up, army guy.


I recollect my reactionary US history teacher in High School working really hard to convince us all that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery… I got a crappy US history education as a result, there.


Indeed. That’s pretty much what many in the South have been saying for the last 150 years. (Grew up there. Escaped as soon as possible. Couldn’t pay me to live there. Etc.)