Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

407

i live in a northern state. school textbooks said the cause was slavery. and the north was justified to punish the south. even general sherman's destruction of georgia was portrayed positively. but, in the south, it's called 'the war of northern aggression'. and there's proof of the north mistreating the south, especially in commerce. northern factories needed southern raw materials. but northern factory owners didn't pay southern farmers fair prices.

slavery is hellish. but 2 things make me think that the civil was wasn't actually about slavery: 1. people in the north are proud about african americans' freedom from slavery. but, also, people in the north ignore the enslavement of african americans by the founding fathers. 2. there were european americans, especially irish, who were enslaved in the north. and people in the north didn't have a problem with it. p.s. communist / liberal media deny that irish americans were slaves.

i live in a northern state. school textbooks said the cause was slavery. and the north was justified to punish the south. even general sherman's destruction of georgia was portrayed positively. but, in the south, it's called 'the war of northern aggression'. and there's proof of the north mistreating the south, especially in commerce. northern factories needed southern raw materials. but northern factory owners didn't pay southern farmers fair prices. slavery is hellish. but 2 things make me think that the civil was wasn't actually about slavery: 1. people in the north are proud about african americans' freedom from slavery. but, also, people in the north ignore the enslavement of african americans by the founding fathers. 2. there were european americans, especially irish, who were enslaved in the north. and people in the north didn't have a problem with it. p.s. communist / liberal media deny that irish americans were slaves.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (31).
[–] • 1 pt

You are exactly right!

[–] • 0 pt

See, States Right to... own slaves!

[–] • 0 pt

Own slaves, interstate commerce, and other things. Slavery was a good theme to push the agendas via public education.

[–] • 1 pt

Only after the fact. No one at that point was willing to fight on behalf of the slaves. Southerners would fight to keep them, ie for money, I think, but abolition was not so popular that Northerners would fight to free them. Rather, they wanted to squeeze the South for money.

Basically, most wars boil down to old men fighting over money. Whatever casus belli they come up with is just an excuse.

[–] • 0 pt

Only 1% of people had slaves and most were jewish. It was about rejecting being told what to do by a central government. You see where that has led us. Now we can't even reject an invasion by hordes of low iq shitskins because DC wants it. Centralizing power is always bad.

[–] • 0 pt

We agree with the centralizing power statement.

[–] • 0 pt

It had nothing to do with slaves, slavery was abolished the year after the patent on a commercial cotton gin expired. Follow the money.