What mainly caused the Civil War?

[??????????]

The Civil War had many causes... but one catalyst.

Due to the bloody-minded attitude of the Sthn states - they did without the technological advancements that made the North so much economically stronger. They found themselves in a situation where they had nothing but cotton, and could not survive without slavery.

There's a great saying about the Confederacy and State's rights... "died of a theory".

Actually, tax revenues from the south were much higher then the north. The south was paying the largest majority of the federal tax bill and getting very little in return. The idea that slavery solely revolved around the south is fiction and the proponents of that lie are those who want to sell Yankee propaganda. Northerners, especially Mass. and NY, were raking in huge amounts of profits from slave trading, etc. The belief that abolition was popular in the Northeast is complete bunk and the only ones who even teach that are the liars in the public screwl system.

[??????????]

The Civil War had many causes... but one catalyst.

Due to the bloody-minded attitude of the Sthn states - they did without the technological advancements that made the North so much economically stronger. They found themselves in a situation where they had nothing but cotton, and could not survive without slavery.

There's a great saying about the Confederacy and State's rights... "died of a theory".

Actually, tax revenues from the south were much higher then the north. The south was paying the largest majority of the federal tax bill and getting very little in return. The idea that slavery solely revolved around the south is fiction and the proponents of that lie are those who want to sell Yankee propaganda. Northerners, especially Mass. and NY, were raking in huge amounts of profits from slave trading, etc. The belief that abolition was popular in the Northeast is complete bunk and the only ones who even teach that are the liars in the public screwl system.

That's a lie.  By the time the Civil War started the only Northern states with slaves were New Jersey and Delaware with a combined 1,816 slaves.  Meanwhile the entire slave population of the United States was approaching 4 million.  Also, slave trading was based nearly exclusively in Virginia and the Carolinas, with a little expansion to Kentucky and Tennessee at certain points.  Let's also not forget that both "President" Davis and "Vice President" Stephens stated themselves that the war was caused by slavery.  And if by "tax revenues" you mean tariff revenues, then you are correct in your tax assertion.  Not to mention that the infrastructure improvements in the South paid for by the federal government seem to be a fair trade for the moderately higher impact of tariffs on the region.  The claimed benefit to the North from slavery is a bit of a stretch as well.  The United States' benefiting as a whole from the cotton trade that relied on slavery does not exactly imply that the Northern states were exclusively "raking in huge amounts of profits."  In fact, without the immense exporting capacity of the North, the South's cotton industry wouldn't do much good.

No, it's the truth. Most of the very wealthy in Boston and New York made their fortunes on the trade and sale of African slaves. That's an undeniable fact. I don't even think the brainwashing liars in the public school system deny that fact anymore.

[??????????]

So, um if it was "illegal" I beg you to tell me how Grant owned slaves right up until the passage of the 13th amendment. Plus, slave importation was illegalized, not slave trade within the United states. On top of that the whole black market system came into play as well.

[??????????]

So, um if it was "illegal" I beg you to tell me how Grant owned slaves right up until the passage of the 13th amendment. Plus, slave importation was illegalized, not slave trade within the United states. On top of that the whole black market system came into play as well.

The shrinking arguments are amusing but beside the point.  I'll humor these questions anyway, since they are easily debunked.  The internal trading of slaves was based, as I said, in Virginia and the Carolinas, and to a point Kentucky and Tennessee.  Back in that time it would have been a ridiculous notion for a Boston man to own slaves in Tennessee and run his trading business from his home in Boston.  It's just a foolish concept in so many ways.  Also, the intense anti-slavery sentiment of the North, especially in New England, made the already minimal black market almost non-existent as it pertained to slaves.  So the idea that the only thing bringing in money to Boston's big wigs was slavery is just nonsense.

Nothing left worth arguing. We aren't going to agree on anything and your cocky ego will just continue to grow. Then you'll just continue to spew your ancient fictional "North was morally superior" trash.

[??????????]

The "truth" you spout is more like a proven lie. Keep on believing that your side was "right" and continue to cover up the rape, murder and destruction your people waged on the south. The facts are that many northerners made their fortunes off the slave trade and covered up their sins with the sham called "abolition". The fact is your side raped, pillaged and murdered citizens of an independent nation. The fact is your side, the lying federal government, had its filthy president throw innocent civilians in jail for speaking out against northern aggression. The only "justification" that your side could come up with was "maintaining the union" which only 30 years before the start of the war half of your states wanted to separate from.

[??????????]

The Confederate states were not an independent nation as they had no right to secede in the first place.

Could you point to exactly where in the Constitution it says that states have no right to secede?

It doesn't say that there is not a right to secede, but the document's legal status makes it so secession is illegal.  The Constitution, like any other legal contract between multiple parties, cannot be voided by a singular party without that expressed right being specifically written into the contract.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say any participating party can secede and thus void the contract that is the Constitution.  If you don't believe me, I refer you to the Supreme Court.  They ruled on several occasions that secession was unconstitutional.

If secession were not legal why did the southern states have to be readmitted to the Union?

[??????????]

The Confederate states were not an independent nation as they had no right to secede in the first place.

Could you point to exactly where in the Constitution it says that states have no right to secede?

It doesn't say that there is not a right to secede, but the document's legal status makes it so secession is illegal.  The Constitution, like any other legal contract between multiple parties, cannot be voided by a singular party without that expressed right being specifically written into the contract.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say any participating party can secede and thus void the contract that is the Constitution.  If you don't believe me, I refer you to the Supreme Court.  They ruled on several occasions that secession was unconstitutional.

If secession were not legal why did the southern states have to be readmitted to the Union?

Speaking from a legal standpoint, just because something is illegal doesn't mean people don't do it. The southern states DID secede, legal or not, so to handle it as if they didn't would be quite idiotic, don't you think?

Agreed. The Federal Govt including Lincoln said the southern states never left the south. Hell, the US Flag throughout the war was kept with the stars of every state.

[??????????]

Dibble,

The definition of a civil war is two factions fighting over control of a government. This is not this case in the war between 61-65. The more accurate description would be what you called it the Confederate Revolution or more correctly The Second American Revolution.