American Civil War was almost like a proximity war between Britain and France. Britain and the American South were butt buddies, and the North stuck with France since they helped them before being their oldest ally and gladly accepted their assistance.
>>558961 As every war - economy and influences. Freedom for slaves meme was made later to justify the war. Indeed southern economy was based highly on slaves work. It was basically cheap and northern states just couldn't compete. Also there were different view on politic and society aspects (north liberalism, south conservatism). Overall differences led to secession of southern states. Union couldn't allow this so as the solution they went on war. Successful secession of southern states would lead to complete economic crisis of union, as the most of American export in this time was from cotton, tobacco etc. produced on southern plantation with cheap slaves work. Americans call this Civil War. In my country it's named A Secession War, which in my opinion is better name of that conflict.
Go read the declarations of secession: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
Georgia: "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. "
Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. "
South Carolina: "We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."
Texas: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."
Religion hasn't been mentioned but it was one of the larger factors driving the abolition movement, many people felt god's law was being violated by slavery and it wasn't a matter of the federal gov. overstepping boundaries against the state, but the state overstepping god.
>>559442 Many people were also unhappy with these aristocrats undermining democratic and christian values. They held a great deal of power over all aspects of society and their influence was not always though of as positive. The planters were the patrons of many churches and schools, so they impressed their beliefs upon those institutions.
>>558961 The Illuminati wanted to regain control of the Americas. The North was to become a puppet of Britain and the South would be given to France, but Abe Lincoln wasn't having any of that. That is why he was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth who was a member of The Knights of the Golden Circle
>>559929 >you can't hate people who break laws without hating their entire ethnic group
You can, it's just that most times the """""""anti-illegal immigration""""""" crowd actually just hates swarthy people who speak Spanish. Breaking the law is totally cool when it's white rednecks fighting muh fedrull gurvmint.
As far as the opinion in the North goes, only a fairly small minority of Northerners were Abolitionists, but slavery was seen unfavorably by many Northerners because "the Slave Power" was seen to undermine free labor and democratic governance.
The Republicans, in a version of the old Jeffersonian tradition, widely believed in the advantages of "free labor" - essentially owning your own means of production, e.g. being a self-employed craftsman, a farmer, and so on. (The main point of the Homestead Act was to try to convert "servile" wage laborers and urban poor into virtuous free farmers in the West.) They didn't support this because it was best economically, but because it was best morally and politically - free labor was supposed to be the cornerstone of a functioning democratic society because it created independent-minded, virtuous citizens.
The existence of slave labor undercut the viability of free labor (because slaves worked for free), and if it was allowed to spread to the territories it would, in the Republican view, inevitably choke out the spread of free labor and stunt the development of American democracy. The standard Republican position, which Lincoln himself also held, was that slavery ought to be kept from expanding and kept confined to the South, where it would probably die out on its own or be phased out gradually at some future time.
So basically, a lot of Northerners were hostile to slavery as a political/economic institution, but few of them opposed it on a "human rights" basis like the Abolitionists did. The "plight of the negro" didn't really matter much to them; it was slavery as a labor system that they didn't like.
>>559549 >the most pressing topic of multiple topics on the issue of federal authority, off which the war was not fought for over specifically, that the north did not fight for and the south merely took its principle over, is now the entire war Fuck off
>>560270 Bingo, war was fight for unitary preservation. The south left because they felt that it was becoming a 51 dictates to 49 case and they shouldn't be controlled by a separate group of people. The primary, but not lone, topic in this was slavery.
>>559952 Not quite, I feel that illegal (I stress illegal) immigrants should be deported to their country of origin. I also feel that the immigration system is in need of reform. However, I am not sure what would be "better" than the current system. Yes, it sucks for 90% of potential migrants because the US really only wants the top 10%, the rest get in a literal lottery to decide if they get in. Imagine the powerball shit but with people coming into America instead of getting money for winning, and you have an idea of the odds. However, I am conflicted about this, as if the US was fair in its migration or didn't accept only the top 10%, there is a very good chance I would be born as a white in Rhodesia instead of America. I prefer America desu.
>>559034 >France >friendly with the United States during the Civil War Their invasion of Mexico would have been cause for war due to the Monroe Doctrine, if we didn't have more pressing concerns involving the whole secession thing. Additionally, they gave no support to the North, and actively participated in smuggling arms to the South. In short, France at best stayed neutral with the US, and at worse attempted to provoke war with the US.
>>559942 >Breaking the law is totally cool when it's white rednecks fighting muh fedrull gurvmint. One group are natural born citizens who feel their rights are being trampled, (whether they are or not is speculative), and the other is a foreign horde. It's perfectly logical to say that American citizens should have the right to fight our government if we don't like what it's doing while also saying that we shouldn't have unchecked immigration.
>>559034 >Britain and the American South were butt buddies >implying they didnt cut them off completely by 1863 and the civil war just forced them to utilize cotton in india and egypt as opposed to using hick slave products
>>560517 Same with Jefferson Davis and other Confederate leaders following the Civil War. Like the North wrote a faux history that the war was only about freeing the slaves, the Confederates wrote a faux history about states rights and Lost Cause. One of the few wars where the losers wrote the history
Something that people forget (or maybe don't even know) was that in the election of 1860 Lincoln a republican (still a novel coalition with a PROMINENT abolitionist wing) didn't win a single southern state, he didn't even appear on the ballot in a good number of them, and yet he still handily won the election by sweeping the north and winning California (another new free state, with Kansas joining it in the near future and few prospects for additional slave states meant that political dominance of the free states was becoming insurmountable).
This was the catalyst that lead SC to secede and the union to dissolve. The election results were alarming for the southern slaveholding states, that no matter how they voted a president could be elected over them that opposed their interests, and even more distressingly one who was famously a friend of the abolitionists. The election of 1860 confirmed southern states worst fears of political marginalization. Even if Mr. Lincoln was true to his world about not upsetting slavery where it existed it didn't change the fact that if another Republican came along who wanted to abolish slavery, there wasn't a damn thing the south could do to prevent their election.
It wasn't just "SLAVERY" that spurred the south to secede. It was the political security to defend slavery as well as all their interests political, cultural and economical that they felt were being usurped by these abolitionist upstarts that held a virtual monopoly on national representation.
>>558961 >South develops economy based on cash crops, which necessitate cheap, unwilling labor due to the nature of the work, and the profits required >North develop economy NOT based on slavery >Culture of North and South adapts to those conditions >Eventually Northern population growth begins to erode Southern influence in the Federal Government >A series of compromises is implemented, but the South consistently loses ground >Eventually only the Presidency is sympathetic >Then Lincoln gets elected on a "Fuck Slavery" campaign >The South chimps out, realizing that the end of slavery could be at hand >and with it, the end of their economy and social standing >They go full 'muh states rights' >Lincoln and friends go all 'muh federalism' >a few hundred thousand people die >'muh federalism' wins
TL;DR The South needed slavery to support its economy and society, but was facing a government increasingly opposed to it.
I find it funny that the normally taught mantra that the South fought for states rights and the North fought to free the slaves is the complete opposite of what was true. The South fought to maintain the institution of slavery and the North fought on the basis that states did not have a right to secede.
Did anyone else's middle school teachers try to convince them that the South secede to protect their right to secede? Top kek.
>>561188 You're lucky then. The ACW was pretty poorly taught for me, but I did go to a Catholic school through 8th grade. The only time it was brought up in high school was in a military history course that didn't dwell on casus belli.
Not American, but if I understand this correctly, There were disagreements and threats of secession before the civil war though right?
I mean if they wanted to seceded and be economically and politically independent then I don't see anything wrong with the Souths struggle that's what America did. They had refferendums. That's what America's war of independence was, it wasn't about taxes
Yes slavery was abhorent, but it was considered acceptable at one time or another by almost everyone. The south would become industrialized and free the slaves sooner or later.
>>559034 that is so unbelievably wrong....Napoleon III wanted to send troops to help the South and approached Palmerston about it. Palmerston was like "lol, have you seen how many people are getting killed?"
>>561299 >Napoleon III wanted to send troops to help the South and approached Palmerston about it. Palmerston was like "lol, have you seen how many people are getting killed?" Source on this part? I'm interested. I thought that Palmerston didn't want Napoleon getting anymore influence around the world, after what happened in Italy
Yeah, no, the South had no such thing. The referendums that were held didn't pass and when that happened, the state legislatures voted to secede anyway. From the outset of the war, there were pro-union guerilla forces operating within the confederacy because the confederate governments completely ignored the popular will.
Say whatever you like about the American Civil War, but secession was not democratic.
>>561407 >The referendums that were held didn't pass and when that happened
This isn't true.
While the power to secede did rest in the hands of the legislature, many states DID hold referendums and every single one was overwhelmingly in favor of secession. Many unionists simply didn't vote in them.
>>561159 except the southern economy was already beginning to shift away from slavery. The majority of the slaves were in a very small percent of the population. Not only this but German non-slave farms were far out producing their slave counterparts. The constant bickering about the slaves was from the upper crust of the south who were protecting their assets. When you look at the public support when it comes to secession it hardly made it above 50% in many southern states. Honestly if the North hadn't antagonized the south, and i'm not blaming them only pointing out a possible alternate route of history, by stirring up the idea of making new states free states and voting to outlaw slavery it would have largely died out within the next 20 years in the south.
Also lincoln didn't run on a fuck slavery campaign it was a status quo we won't extend it and we won't abolish it platform
>>558961 I remember I had a history teacher that said if Europe paid closer attention to the American Civil War, there might have been a lot less casualties in the beginning of WWI. I don't remember his reasoning, though
>>561918 The age of mobile warfare was superseded by a well equipped army with high power weapons in positions that no commander had anything but theoretical knowledge of how to assault. Look at Pickett's charge, look at how Jackson died. Both are examples of old military tactics being the undoing of a battle or notable person. Tl dr if Europe had figured the war wasn't going to be like previous European conflicts out they would've been prepared. But in your defense, the Teacher in question requires too many hypothetical hoops for his statement to be widely applicable, considering the US obviously didn't learn much from it, judging by their performance.
>>562019 Lincoln was in many ways amoral, copying the corrupt system of government plaguing the Midwest during his time in office there and writing about spreading it to the White House when he won it. He had plans to ship all blacks to Africa if they wanted it, and was as racist as they came (most Northerners were kind of racist, just not as much as the South). He freed all slaves in the South as a military tactic to try to have slaves rebel and join his army, and only later did slaves in the North become free.
So Lincoln's only a good guy because he held the Union together imo, which I am glad he did. It's just that the actual man pales in comparison to his mythos.
The election of Lincoln, his party was the first sectarian party ever elected that made it a platform to favor one part of the country over another. That's why the south voted to secede. There had been various secession movements throughout the early republic, most notably in New England and South Carolina. Likewise, slavery became a national issue for the 30 years preceding the civil war, even Jefferson bitched about abolitionists before he died so it was a long running problem. Whigs and Democrats never took a stance on the issue, the Republican party was the first blantantly anti-slavery party. The South saw this as a sectarian takeover of the federal government and the constitution as a compact that they could leave, again Jefferson's idea. The North saw secession as an open revolt and also couldn't afford to lose New Orleans considering the Mississippi was the economic backbone of the Midwest.
This is why I never understand why historians blame Buchanan for the civil war. It wasn't his fault Lincoln was elected.
>>562088 Don't get me wrong, he was good for the country. This spat was going to get ugly at some point, and he stuck through a lot of problems in DC to finish the war and keep the country in one piece without giving in the radicals on either side. But he was by no means the superhero anti-slavery lover of blacks that he's portrayed as. He's much more complex than that, as is most history I suppose.
I can appreciate him as he was, he was but a man after all.
>>562085 Southern relations of production were holding back the forces of production. In this sense it was a continuation of the extensification of capitalism and the rights of man as in the first major armed portion of the US revolution.
>>562088 Nah, most modern historians suck rad republican cock. But only so they can feel an ethical high ground. Yeah, the rad republicans were morally right but they were also absolute fucking idiots. They were akin to Bush and the neocons thinking they could create a democracy in the middle east. Go read up on radical reconstruction, probably the dumbest idea ever devised. They actually took away the vote from white southerners and gave it to illiterate slaves, and to no one surprise the south devolved into ethnic conflict on a assivr scale. Daniel Chamberlain, northern republican reconstructionist governor, wrote about how much the rad republicans fucked up reconstruction. You can find his writings on Google.
>>562154 I didn't say I was a rad rep fan or that they made good decisions, but saying the South "devolved into ethnic conflict" when it was entirely white southerners trying to terrorize the negros back into subservience is some straight up bullshit
Also there is literally no problem with disenfranchising traitors. Hell, there are some states in the US today where felons of any kind are disenfranchised for life. Every man who held any kind of office or held a rifle for the Confederacy should have been stripped of voting rights for the rest of their lives DESU.
>>561900 You are fucking retarded if you think any soldier in history has ever been motivated to fight without promise of wealth and land. Its about being a soldier and making money, that's what drives the fighting forces, not patriotism.
Secession wasn't even deemed unconstitutional until the 1870s. There was a reason Lincoln ordered quick reentry of southern states under white control. Sherman followed these leniant orders until the radicals ordered him to change them.
>blacks dindu nuffin
blacks have committed massive amounts of crime ever since crime stats have been recorded. You think black crime miraculously started during the first year they were recorded.
>>558961 Two economies, one government. Industrial economies benefit from uniform market policies which allow them to harness the economies of scale. Industrial economic activity congregates in corridors along logistically-beneficial paths. They also benefit from free movement of labor, both domestic and foreign. Agrarian economies are distributed, don't require uniform policy across a polity, and benefit from static labor (read: serfs, slaves, peasants). The anxieties caused by the rapid immigration and settlement of Northern states, which gave them the advantage in the House and in Presidential elections, were realized once a President was elected without a single Southern vote. Too little too late, however; had they acted even a decade earlier, they would have been outnumbered to a lesser degree by the North, and the British (not having fully realized their totally-not-slave Cotton production capacities in Egypt and India) would have been more reliant on Southern cotton.
>>562068 Well ww1 and two are rather unique, you saw the focus in warfare go to defensive deadlocks with little territorial progress by either side. Then within 20 years mobile warfare made a resurgence with the application of combined arms tactics, and within a further 20 years moved to nuclear warheads and ways to disable/misdirect them, along with air superiority in general being stressed. Now we have UAV's, and what that bodes is rather new. But either way wars have seemed to evolve much faster as of late than most could have guessed 300 years ago.
>>562185 >there is no problem with fucking people over for life over some shit they did years ago >WHY ARE THEY SO ANGRY? FUCKING CRIMINALS Go fuck yourself, taking away the boring right of a felon is a fucking joke and constantly pushing said felons away from any employment or any opportunities is one of the many reasonsw e have a thriving criminal underground because you may not know they have families to feed. Disenfranchising felons is an idea ripped straight from statist ideals. Should we blackball possible communists too? Fucking moron.
>>561918 >>562025 Germany's invasion plan was largely based on their successes in the Franco-Prussian War. The original idea was to use bypass heavily fortified positions and leave French armies encircled, which could have worked in theory. Obviously it didn't.
>>562333 That's why I said theoretical knowledge. >>562325 The story goes the pickets thought he and his mounted lads were Union cavalry and one of the pickets panicked and fired on him, but he actually died because of pneumonia, after getting the arm that his soldier shot off amputated. Why you should always have communication with your hq/clearly visible chain of command
>>561918 >I remember I had a history teacher that said if Europe paid closer attention to the American Civil War, there might have been a lot less casualties in the beginning of WWI. I don't remember his reasoning, though
>>562025 >Tl dr if Europe had figured the war wasn't going to be like previous European conflicts out they would've been prepared.
there had been plenty of european or europeans-involving wars which saw everything that went on in acw well before ww1 (some even before the acw in fact, and most of the acw was actually rather backwards in terms of military thinking, not really offering much for the europeans to learn - e.g. the defficiencies in the use of cavalry or insistence of using massed blocks of infantry the at a time when european infantry was broken into loose infantry chains and batallions/platoons) there were no lessons that could possibly be learned from the acw that were not or could not have been learned elsewhere - of course whether everyone had actually learned them is a different matter altogether
>>562673 I don't really believe anything could have prepared anybody for what the western front turned out to be. Sure, for a few months, but not for basically the entire war. That's kind of new. Now of course you also had the much more mobile eastern/middle eastern fronts, but those aren't regarded as much (I still think the ME front of WW1 is the best study ever)
>>562704 yes that is a good point, no amount of studying over any of the previous conflict would really prepare anyone for a prolonged industrial conflict on a massive scale like that, and with some rather important technical/tactical peculiarities and innovations to boot i was just pointing out that whatever they could study or learn that might have happened in the acw, they did, or at the very least they had the opportunity, elsewhere, and the rest, like you say, they couldn't possibly have learned anyhow
>>561459 The framers of the Constitution thought that slavery would wither away reasonably quickly. They further expected that the Federal government would attempt to hurry said withering, as evinced by the lines delegating immigration control to the states until... 1808.
By the time of the American Civil War, the pro-slavery faction had concluded that the only way to retain slavery locally was to expand the institution. Slavers moved into free territories; slave raiders operated in free states; slaveholders had just *invaded another country* and carved off an enormous chunk of it. Take a look at a map of the US and note just how large a chunk Texas and Occupied North Texas are.
While it's theoretically possible that it would die on its own, Americans of the prewar period, regardless of which side they were on, did not expect it to.
>>562837 >The framers of the Constitution thought that slavery would wither away reasonably quickly
They had reason to believe this too because at the time of the constitutional convention there was an overabundance of slaves on the Atlantic coast. Washington himself lamented how he had more slaves than he knew what to do with, which was a common problem for much of the southern aristocracy at the time. The natural consequence was a vast market of selling slaves inland to the new western southern states. Many people believed that the biggest roadblock to emancipation was the fear by whites of being outnumbered by blacks who in many areas of the south made up a large percentage of the local population, thus it was theorized that the movement of slaves west would cause a dilution of blacks across the vast territory of the US in such a way that would make gradual emancipation agreeable.
What they failed to foresee was the invention of the cotton gin and the enormous potential of cotton on the southern economy. The cotton gin reinvigorated demand for slaves and made them one of the most valuable assets in all of America. There was such a demand for slaves after this point that the idea of re-opening the Atlantic slave trade was proposed by some southerners (and there was a small black market operation of transporting new slaves to America).
I think op is asking why slavery, because it wasn't just "we're a free nation!" Union mentality. Lots of Northeners would've preferred a gradual emancipation in order to protect white jobs and properties from being "taken" by the blacks. North and south economies also somewhat thrived on the plantation system with the cotton gin obviously producing more cotton and the North producing more textiles with the cotton increase.
I just know that if there was a second civil war I'd fight for my state's rights. NC reporting in, and I want carpetbaggers and beaners to leave. Y'all are making this state like a Northern shithole, especially our three decent cities.
What always gets me though is that the northerners that live down here will complain about it whilst remaining firmly rooted here and not leaving. Fucking cunts.
>>564559 >The Unions goal was preserving the Union, however the reason for succession of Southern states can be pinpointed at the core to slavery and their fear of forced emancipation of their black population.
>>559990 You might want to read about the History of the Illuminati and other secret societies, friend. You can look it all up in Encyclopedia Britannica for starters, but obviously you'll want to examine as wide a range of sources as possible, as a Historian.
The main thing was the concept of slavery, but all civil wars have multiple causes and a catalyst to get the reaction going.
Different economies, different cultures. Washington, D.C. (The North basically) was also imposing high tariffs on the South's crops. Eliminating/Limiting slavery could also be seen as a precedent to limit other states' rights. Lincoln was also elected without a single Southern state's electoral vote, so they felt powerless and more or less cucked to put it in ebin meme terms, and was the catalyst.
The war was about the nation's two main regions not seeing eye to eye and had diverging goals and outlooks on the then future as well as spiteful views of one another in the then present.
The Deep South seceded and fired on Fort Sumter because they were afraid that Abraham Lincoln's election, which happened without him carrying any electors from the Southern states, meant that the South would no longer be able to control the political destiny of the country like it had in the past. They thought that the election of a president sympathetic towards abolitionism meant that they would be powerless to stop what they perceived would be gradual but inevitable restrictions on slavery until it was finally abolished. The Deep South did not understand why the North had become more powerful and held steadfastly to the idea that racial slavery was a superior system to free labor, both economically and socially, and that it was a cornerstone of civilization. Virginia and a lot of the upper South joined the seceding states after they learned that the federal government planned on retaliating against South Carolina for Fort Sumter because they (incorrectly) thought that the secession was lawful and moral.
>>559920 >Yes. It was about slavery. But not the way it is always portrayed. >Slavery, only in its function as an economic asset was the reason for the war.
The issues were even deeper then that. The North via having more seats in congress had favor with the federal government and the south had disfavor in spite of the fact that they were the ones paying most of the federal taxes ( mostly Tariffs). Because of that southern states that needed help with Indian problems like Texas and Florida got jack and shit for help. The Central Texas "Latin settlements" ( aka south German settlements founded by liberal intellectuals displaced by the the springtime of nations) were VERY anti slavery. However due to having one of there settlements being burned to the ground by comanches and getting a very repley to their pleas for help they very the settlements that voted in favor of secession by the largest majority out of all of the communities in Texas.
The Civil War was a bloody unfortunate affair. After the 1860 DNC there was a large schism between the Southern Democrats and the Northern Democrats, which radicalized the Southern Dems. They were fighting first and foremost for slavery, the whole reason they split with the Democrats in the first place was because the moderates disregarded the Dred Scott case, and advocated for Western states to vote on the expansion of slavery. There was also underlying distrust and nationalist sentiment in the South, tariffs were a big thing and many Southerners felt like they were being jilted by the Northern politicians. Anyone who tries to tell you it is about states rights is a fucking meme. The moderate Democrats were the real advocates for states rights, and the Southerners were directly opposed to them.
>>559952 Do you have any actual proof that that's only a handful of people though? Can you actually present any kind of proof that anti-immigration = racist other then dated stereotypes about southerners and rural people?
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.