>the civil war wasn't about slavery

>>1752738

To be fair, I am not a Francoist, but he did not reinstall slavery.

>>1752738
>it wuz about states rights

To own slaves

>>1752838
The Northern states didn't have the right to abolish slavery in the South.

>>1752847
The southern states didn't have the right to send hundreds of people to Kansas to start a war over it.

File: 1387E77F000005DC-3287650-image-a-113_1445697792064.jpg (34KB, 306x415px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 306x415px

>>1752738
>a bunch of aristocrats convinced poor people to fight over the aristocracy's ability to own even poorer people

When will they learn?

File: 1447540464861.png (54KB, 1000x553px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1000x553px

>Heritage, not hate

>>1752738
>Lincolns the best prez cuz he was da first wite man to hate slaves n shiet

>>1752738
It was about sinking the economy of the Southern states, emancipation was never their main goal.

>>1752847
And the Southern states didn't have a right to secede.

>>1752864
That's the objective of every war.

>>1752868
Yes they did because the North violated their right to own slaves.

>>1752872
How? The union officially did not try to end slavery. Only to restrict it to the south. They tried to let Kansas vote on it and southerners flooded Kansas to fight for slavery being instated.

>>1752877
So the war wasn't about slavery then?

>>1752877
They were going to. It was a preemptive action.

>>1752864
>yeees let us destroy the economy of our own country for pure spite **evil yankee snicker**, and let FOOLS think we merely have some problem with owning other humans, AS IF ANYONE WOULD **uproarious cackle**

>>1752869
Tell that to the south, in most of their declarations of independence they directly say slavery is the source of the conflict

http://portside.org/2013-11-04/absolute-proof-civil-war-was-about-slavery

>>1752877
either the north violated the south's right to own slaves or it wasn't about slavery :^)

>>1752881
It was a common belief among the South and North alike that if slavery failed to expand it would collapse, and so the issue became extremely contentious, as evidenced by things like Bloody Kansas. Not to mention the South's fear that Lincoln would abolish slavery generally.

>>1752738
He made it seem about slaves so they could list moral superiority as a reason to beat the south.

>>1752895
>>1752881

There's a 3rd option. The states got butthurt about slavery and seceded. The Union got butthurt the south had the gall to secede. For the Union it was about secession. For the south it was about slavery.

>>1752738
The Civil War being about slavery is a northern capitalist bourgeois lie. They continued to exploit their workers like slaves years after the Civil War ended.

File: 1471187402092.jpg (92KB, 423x951px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 423x951px

Southerners will never- can never admit it was about slavery. Absolutely no amount of evidence or scholarship will make a difference.

For a hundred years after the end of the civil war the deep south was basically a scots-irish autonomous zone where it was completely normal for uppity niggers to wind up dead in the swamp. During the civil rights movement northern students went UNDERCOVER AS COTTON-PICKERS to register blacks to vote, for which several were killed by klansmen, local police or random townsfolk (they were pretty much one and the same.)

The south is basically america's own sunni triangle, it's just politically expedient to pretend they're integrated law-abiding civilized citizens. I say this as someone who has lived in the south about half my life. Don't bother talking to southerners, they're a sectarian honor culture like the arabs- they're not even necessarily on board with this whole "nation-states" thing.

>>1753015
>be oppressed by the capitalist yankees for years
>Porkies are mad that they're poor and backwards
Bourgeois hypocrites. Rich northern capitalists only hate the south because it's "uncivilized" and multicultural but the people there are living fine. Whenever porkies see that they have to end it.

See: colonialism

>>1752864

>It was about sinking the economy of the Southern states

Maybe basing your entire economy around slave labor was a bad idea familia.

>>1752872

>Yes they did because the North violated their right to own slaves.

The right to own slaves is not anywhere in the bill of rights.

>>1753137
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Yanks = Tyrants and opponents of the Republic
Dixie = Proud defenders of the constitution who Jefferson would approve of.

>>1753152

Jefferson did live in Northern Virginia (and owned slaves) so he probably would have been in the confederacy if he had somehow lived that long. However, that's a probability, not a certainty. It really doesn't matter either way however.

>>1752896

>Not to mention the South's fear that Lincoln would abolish slavery generally.

It's unlikely he would have done that. The platform for his party at the time makes no mention of abolishing slavery, although it does denounce any attempts to expand the domain of slavery.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29620

Interestingly enough, the platform for the democratic party from the same election condemns attempts by Northern states to undermine the Fugitive Slave Act. So basically, the Confederacy only support states rights when it came to owning slaves. They didn't recognize the Northern states as having any right to not support slavery.

File: 2194537843.jpg (57KB, 505x723px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 505x723px

Even if you take the secession for granted their first act as an independent nation was an unprovoked attack on their bigger richer neighbor's military base at Ft Sumter. The north had AMPLE casus belli no matter how you look at it. Sherman tried to warn them.

>>1753385
The fort was rightful CSA land thus it was justified.

>>1753398
Atlanta was rightful charcoal

>>1753401
>knows i'm right
>has to meme
nice one yank :^)

>>1753398
It wasn't actually. South Carolina had sold the land directly to the federal government. It'd be like modern Spain attacking Gibraltar while claiming to be on the defensive

>>1753385
Lincoln literally did everything he could to provoke it.

>>1753401
Niggers were rightful slaves.

>>1753420
Gibraltar is rightfully Spanish.

>>1753356
>an abolitionist party
>has no intention of abolition
Are you retarded? Honest question.

>>1753425

>Lincoln literally did everything he could to provoke it.

How?

>>1753438

The popular theory at the time was that slavery would collapse on its own if it weren't allowed to expand. This is why slave states were so desperate to get more slave states in the west. In other words, they were going to gradually phase out slavery over time.

>>1753443
They sent him multiple warnings that this was confederate property dont send ships down the river or else.

>no really bro for real this time

>dont do it

>fine fuck you have cannon

Was sending boats with supplies down stream when he was told theyd be fired on even if Lincoln thought the fort was the north's.

>>1753416
You know damn well that fort was federal land staffed by federal workers. CSA had no claim other than being kinda nearby

>>1753456

Ugh.....the president is the commander in chief. He can resupply any fort he wants to.

>>1753451
>In other words, they were going to gradually phase out slavery over time
That was not the plan of the Republican Party. You can argue that it was Lincoln's plan, but the Republican Party was staunchly abolitionist.

File: 1458938353697.png (168KB, 727x682px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 727x682px

>>1753456
By this logic you have 24 hours to vacate my new 2nd house or I'll be forced to kill you in self defense.

>>1753015
>"I Have Never Been to America: The Post"

>>1753462

>You can argue that it was Lincoln's plan, but the Republican Party was staunchly abolitionist.

Of course they were. But they also wanted to avoid a war, so they focused their efforts on stopping the spread of slavery westward as well as undermine the Fugitive Slave Act rather than trying to actually abolish slavery in the Southern states.

>>1753461
Commander in chief of the north. At that point the river was contested. He could have used diplomacy but instead was stubborn ignoring them and got war because of it. You don't just ignore belligerent states claims of violence specifically after what they had been going through.

>>1753465
Sept your not a country/state with any claim to land.

>>1753466
I have actually never been outside of america. I lived in georgia for 8 years before fleeing to upstate NY

File: Northern Aggression Illustrated.png (30KB, 1221x764px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1221x764px

>>1753484
Real upstate or middle state?

>>1753015
>good thing they cant see my leaf
>they will never know

>>1753416
You are wrong. It was federal land, not owned by the state. Stop being butthurt that your ancestors got raped by mine.

File: 1459122608231.png (27KB, 781x685px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 781x685px

>>1753483
Ah, good point. Let me try again:

>>1753456
By this logic the the CSA was warned multiple times that they were union territory

>>1753490
>>1753492
Real upstate, Buffalo suburbs

it wasn't
>>>/r/eddit

>>1753134
Fuck those Roman bigots, crash the slave economy with no survivors

>>1753499
Ya thats the point?

>claim to be trying to prevent war
>get threats and hear claims of land
>dont do dis its our land
>dont respond
>do it anyway
>but muh slavery

>>1753505
So Canada?

>>1753398
Military forts are federal land.

Also, if confederates were so concerned about states' rights wtf was the Fugitive Slave Act?

>>1753516
The Roman economy thrived on warfare and the expansion of Rome. After that stopped, Rome stagnated.

>>1753517
try again

>>1753541
Peach picking to reach a cobbled together just cause narrative.

>>1753548
The economy thrived with expansion because slavery was it's foundation

>>1752847
They never attempted to, only to restrict its spread, until the South chimped out and started the Civil War

>>1753551
Literally the exact reason the war started please go Canada man

>>1753562
>have military base on foreign land
>an act of war
>'b-but they started it!!1'
pathetic

>>1753562
The Seward amendment and others of it's like drafted to appease the south were willing to give the south their slavery, as long as they made it illegal for the practice to spread into western territories.

>>1753495
My ancestors killed 100,000 more yankees than they killed of us.

>>1752868
Right of secession is constitutionally implied

>>1753577
And they still lost.

>>1753562
>have military fort in another country's land
>they rightfully try to take it over
>you started it :^)

>>1753578
>fighting a war for greentext

File: 1455509269133.png (363KB, 440x426px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 440x426px

>>1753578
>Constitutionally Implied
Not according to the Supreme Court or the Civil War motherfucker.

>>1753591
>letting a group of 9 people interpret the constitution

>>1753591
>Not according to the Supreme Court
The same Supreme Court that ruled baby murder is ok
>Civil War
An invasion of a soveriegn nation

>>1753610
>not letting a group that is supposed to decide how the constitution is interpreted interpret the constitution

>>1753591
The founding fathers would've agreed with everything the CSA did.

What some fags said 90 years later is irrelevant.

File: Wirz-stamping.jpg (126KB, 447x344px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 447x344px

>>1753401

Northerners are rightful worm food for Southern flower beds.

We should have all followed Wirz's exampled and exterminated every last captured Yankee through labor and starvation.

>>1753620
>conjecture

>>1753616
>The same Supreme Court that ruled baby murder is ok
Baby murder has been conditionally a-ok for most of human history.

Nothing more human.

>>1753740
Murder is wrong
Read your Bible

>>1753655
>kill all the enemy POWs
>still lose the war
>have most of your general staff hanged
>occupation continues until the entire south are #REFUGEESWELCOME cumdumsters or anime is invented in Georgia

You have no idea how much I want this.

>>1753751
>Read your Bible
>what is separation of church and state?

File: low energy bait.jpg (120KB, 1000x997px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1000x997px

>>1753758

>>1753761
>>what is separation of church and state?
Not actually to be found in the constitution

>>1753751
I'm still on the old testament. Looks okay to me.

>>1753775
Thou shalt not kill

>>1753774
amendments are constitutional

>>1753751
Read your old testament. "And dash thy little ones heads upon the rocks..."

>>1753778
>When he came to Lehi, the Philistines shouted as they met him. And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him mightily so that the ropes that were on his arms were as flax that is burned with fire, and his bonds dropped from his hands. 15He found a fresh jawbone of a donkey, so he reached out and took it and killed a thousand men with it. 16Then Samson said, "With the jawbone of a donkey, Heaps upon heaps, With the jawbone of a donkey I have killed a thousand men."…

>>1753778
*unless i order the jews to or you're an agent of a Yahweh approved state

>>1753787
I know
It's not in any amendments either. The constitution is Pluralist, not Secular.
>>1753791
>Thou shalt not kill

>>1753794
>>1753797
Ceremonial law was fulfilled in Jesus Christ

>>1753806
>sending himself on a suicide mission and get to go to heaven forever afterward
wow what a sacrifice

>>1753801
"And... stoned to death."

Also biblical. Lots of killing was considered OK.

>>1753822
>>1753806

>>1753806
Last time I brought that up to someone quotting leviticus, he said jesus didn't necessarily fulfill all of the OT

So, did he fulfill all of it, or some of it?

>>1753829
>Ceremonial Law
You mean the entire old testament then?

>>1753844
no
>>1753841
He fulfilled all of the Ceremonial Law
Homosexuality is still a sin, but we don't punish it with death

>it's a history thread becomes theology episode

fucking hell

>>1753854
Fucking everyday

>>1752847
Nobody has the right to own human beings as property.

>>1753891
>right

>>1753891
>Thats not these papers say.

>>1753891
But they are my property, you are my property too spooky

>>1753913
>you are my property too
Only in theory. You need to get out there and exercise your power.

File: happy european.jpg (72KB, 640x539px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 640x539px

>"the civil war was about slavery"
>white people killing white people so that the black man could stick it in their women

>>1753947
>white people
Whi*e P*ople *

>>1753947
t. /pol/

>>1752847
Yeah but the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT did

>>1752847

>The Northern states didn't have the right to abolish slavery in the South.

The Southern states didn't have a right to send slave catchers into Northern states.

>>1754054
Dred Scott case says otherwise.

File: 1288911455556.jpg (6KB, 204x258px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 204x258px

>>1753947

>"Islam is a religion of peace!"

>>1753947
>roaches killing roaches while humans are killing them with bug spray

Fort Sumter was FEDERALLY CONTROLLED LAND YOU FUCKING HICS

Fucking christ. We should have destroyed your entire way of life,maybe then our country wouldn't be so ass-backwards. You've been nothing but a petulant child to the interest of this country since the Revolutionary War. Please go back to fucking your cousins if you actually believe the south wasn't responsible for the war.

>>1753610
That's how the Constitution works son. It's the Supreme Court's job to interpret it.

>>1753620
The founding fathers were fundamentally divided on the issue of slavery. Even Thomas Jefferson, notorious for owning slaves, had complex views on the issue. He pushed for the ban against the transatlantic slave trade, and his original draft of the Declaration of Independence had a bit which criticized slavery (which was, of course, removed).

Any time you have a thread debating whether the Civil War was about slavery, just post this:

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

Straight from the horse's mouth. It was unquestionably about slavery. Obviously there were other causes, everything has multiple causes, but slavery was at the forefront.

>>1754306

>Even Thomas Jefferson, notorious for owning slaves, had complex views on the issue. He pushed for the ban against the transatlantic slave trade, and his original draft of the Declaration of Independence had a bit which criticized slavery (which was, of course, removed).

Jefferson's views on slavery can be summed up as:

"Slavery should be abolished, just wait until after I'm dead, okay?"

>>1754192
u mad

>>1754321
The federal government had no right to abolish slavery.

>>1754341

>The government can't create laws.

>>1754343
It was against the 10th amendment for the federal government to abolish slavery.

It was a muh feelings against MY PROPERTY thing

you niggers would never understand

>>1754341
Southern states started seceding before Lincoln even got into fucking office, even though he took an intentionally moderate position on the issue to appease them. But the South was full of paranoid hicks clinging to a doomed institution.

The ironic thing is that slavery probably would have lasted longer if the Civil War never happened. It would have been whittled away at, rather than abolished altogether.

>>1754367
u mad boi

>>1752738
More like, basic economics and salves were a factor that contributed the south's wealth, which the south didn't wish anyone to intervene with.

>>1754349

The word "slavery" doesn't even appear in the 10th amendment. The slave trade was simply a form of commerce and under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution congress has the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the states, and with the Indian tribes.

>>1754395
The federal government has no right to tell states what to do.

>>1754401
>The federal government has no right to tell states what to do.
>The slave trade was simply a form of commerce and under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution congress has the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the states
>among the states

Delusional

>>1754417
Slave trade =/= slave ownership.

>>1754401
Uhhh no that's not even remotely true. Read the Constitution from start to end, don't just cherrypick it. There's a reason the founders replaced the Articles of Confederation.

>>1754401

Article 1 of the Constitution very clearly says that the federal government has the power to regulate commerce. If we accept slaves as property then the slave trade is a form of commerce that Congress has the explicit authority to regulate throughout the states.

>>1754421
And how did they acquire slaves?

>>1754421

So if we accept that view, then Congress could have passed a law saying that nobody could import, buy, or sell slaves anywhere in the US from that point on. Which would have been de-facto abolition of slavery over time. Keep in mind, this is the route that the Republican party probably would have gone if the South had not seceded.

>>1752738
CONFEDERATES DINDU NUFFIN!

File: 1470966609679.png (134KB, 614x432px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 614x432px

>>1752752
FPBP

>>1753610
>>1753616
> the workings of the federal government and the constitution are only correct and just if they work out in my favor.

>>1752856
>>1752914
>hasn't read what Marx had to say about the American Civil War

>>1754608
>federal government
>the constitution
Pick one

>>1754622

>federal government
>the constitution

Pick two

>>1754622
Not even sure what this implication is supposed to be.

>>1754622
???

>>1754636
>>1754637
Federalism is unconstitutional

>>1754641

So is slavery.

>>1754641
For the love of fuck, read the Constitution. Start to end. Go do it right now. Don't just cherrypick shit you got from who knows where.

>>1754648
Bible > Constitution

>>1754648

You don't need to read it start to end. The enumerated powers of Congress are in Article 1.

File: 1474246069694.png (1MB, 956x1176px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 956x1176px

>>1754641
Aaaaaand we're done here

>>1754657
Yes but it's a nice short read, and it's something every citizen should do but most never get around to.

File: 1470016431132.jpg (138KB, 970x582px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 970x582px

>>1754641
>Federalism is unconstitutional

REMINDER: The constitution was not a document built to limit the scope of government but to actually expand it after the articles of confederation failed miserably.

checkmate "princpled" cuckservatives :')

File: USAUSAUSA.png (113KB, 1020x593px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1020x593px

>the civil war wasn't about slavery
<the civil war was about slavery

both are gross over-simplifications, as if the need for war just suddenly suddenly appeared in a day. The desire for self governance had been building up for years due to increased feeling of political disenfranchisement, and differing cultures. And the threat of slavery being restricted got the upper class motivated as well.

File: UKUKUKUK.png (446KB, 1020x996px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 1020x996px

>>1754801
the elections preceding Scottish independence referendum for example. Another clear cut case of political disenfranchisement = desire for self governance.

>>1754801

>The desire for self governance had been building up for years due to increased feeling of political disenfranchisement

But the Southern states were not disenfranchised. If anything, they had the system rigged to give them disproportionate influence! Slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of determining electoral college votes despite the fact that slaves couldn't vote at all. This gave the slave-owning states an unfair advantage in congress.

File: happier european.jpg (78KB, 640x539px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 640x539px

>"YEAH BOII, LOOK AT EM CRACKAS KILLIN EACH UTTAH FOO US"
>"DIS A GUD TIEM TO FUCK EM WIMMIN WHILE DEM STUPID WHITEYS R OUT IN DEM TRENCHES KILLIN OFF DEM OWN RACE, DAYUM DEM FUCKERS R STUPID"

>>1754819
>But the Southern states were not disenfranchised
I literally posted a picture which proves this statement wrong. Not a single southern state voted for Lincoln, yet they all voted for the same candidate. You'd have to be pretty politically illiterate to not realize this would lead to secession, no matter what the differences between the candidates.

File: back to pol.jpg (136KB, 546x700px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 546x700px

>>1752847
According to the constitution they did.

>All men are created equal

>>1754824

Hey man, I hate the electoral college. I think it is the worst electoral system in the world. It's true, Lincoln didn't win by a majority, he only got 40% of the vote. But my point is that Southern states literally had the electoral college system rigged in their favor because it counted slaves as being 3/5 of a person for the purposes of determining representation in Congress despite the fact that slaves couldn't vote! So the unfairness was actually in the South's favor in that election. They had an unfair advantage over the rest of the country.

>The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
BUT IT TOTALLY WASN'T ABOUT STATES RIGHTS BRO

>>1754834
You're technically right in the first bit, but "All men are created equal" is from the Declaration of Independence which is not a legally binding document. At best it's a historical document which can be used to gauge the intent of the founders.

If you want to cite the Constitution, use Article I Section 10.

>>1754864
Go back to /pol/ and defend the indefensible there.

>>1754864
Nice cherrypicking.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

If you don't want to read the whole thing, just Ctrl-F "slave". Have fun.

>>1754869
Facts are indefensible?
Go back to >>>/r/eddit and defend the retarded there

>>1754877
That's 5 different declarations.

>>1754899
Of course it is, that's called being honest. What you did was cherrypick a small part of one of them in order to push a revisionist agenda.

>>1754906
They are not all the same
>revisionist
Lol, you're the revisionist, friend. What you're defending is artificial "history".

>>1754912
You're not even making sense now. You realize that the Confederacy was made up of more than South Carolina, right? Stop talking nonsense.

If you're capable of reading, you would know that even the secessionists themselves claimed that the main issue at hand was slavery. The first few seceded even before Lincoln got into office, because he was the candidate for the newly formed abolitionist Republican party.

That's not revisionism, that's accepting the facts. It doesn't require any kind of ideological lens like yours does. Notice how in order to support your position, you're forced into dishonesty. You're forced to cherrypick specific portions of a text in order to advance your own position. You should really stop doing that.

>>1754926
I have proven that reasons for secession were states rights. You are contesting a proven fact. You lose, kiddo.

>>1754932
It's very sad when people are forced into acting like trolls when they get destroyed. Very sad.

File: strongly approve.gif (2MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x480px

>>1754926
>>1754937
I've been keeping an eye on this thread.

Keep making faggots mad while I make faggots mad in the A-bomb thread.

>>1754912
>>1754926

The South Carolina declaration also mentions slavery quite a bit. Of the five, none fail to mention the desire to preserve the institution of slavery as a primary motivation for secession.

>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.

>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.

>She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

It's really sad. All these people throwing down their lives for such a hideous cause.

>>1754950
>>1754959
This isn't /pol/, /v/, or /b/, friend. This is /his/. You'll have to do better than that.

>>1754965
You're a communist. Need i say more?

File: 909[1].png (324KB, 600x699px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 600x699px

>>1754965

You know that meme where the ball is anarcho-capitalist? We need to make one of those but for the confederacy. I would do it by I don't know how.

File: salty southerner.jpg (258KB, 678x674px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 678x674px

>>1754959
Fuck off back to /pol/ with your MUH CIVIL WAR WAZNT ABOUT SLAVERY meme

>>1755003
>das raycis