Who was in the wrong here?

communists

>>1859861

emancipation on both sides was inevitable: the advance of the industrial revolution was making slaves more and more useless

this was entirely about Northern banks and corporations seizing control of Southern land, mineral rights, and cities

>>1859861
>Who was in the wrong here?

"If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." - Abraham Lincoln

>>1859869

Why does the Bible endorse it then?

>>1859861

North, the South had the right to secede.

>>1859873
>right to secede
citation needed.

>>1859873
>the bible cannot be wrong

Alluha Akbar!

File: yesthecivilwarwasaboutslavery.png (1MB, 1864x4327px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1864x4327px

>>1859868

retard

>>1859877
So once your state you have to be part of the union for eternity?

>>1859878

>slavery and eugenics are wrong

>who gets to be counted as a human with rights is based entirely on reproductive capabilities or neurological complexity both derived entirely from genetic processes

so which is it?

>>1859882

none of the stuff you just parroted addresses the issues I stated

>>1859877
The CSS was like a modern revolution era America, trying to break away from a one sided union they didn't want to be a part of.

>>1859901

You mean aside from the civil war being explicitly and primarily about slavery?

>>1859914

Not a citation. There is no right to secession explicit or implicit in the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps you could argue there should have been, but that's a different issue.

>>1859901
What is your point? That emancipation was inevitable in the South so people in the North should stop pushing for it?

>>1859915

>the civil war

the hard majority of the South were not slave owners, many were even tenant farmers akin to white slavery, so if the civil was fought on the basis of that which the majority of soldiers were fighting for; ergo it was not about slavery

>>1859883
changing the goalposts. where is this right to succeed?
>>1859914
false equivalence. the union was nowhere near the relationship between great britain and the colonies.

>>1859917
That's the point of "rebellion" though, right? They didn't have a "legal right" to do so anymore than the original 13 colonies had a right to break away from GB.

>>1859924
People fight for the same reason they have fought in every war, because their home is fighting someone else's home.

The war was started by the secession, which was brought about by the elite southern slave owners who controlled the political establishment of the South.

>>1859920

my point is stated explicitly in my first post

>this was entirely about Northern banks and corporations seizing control of Southern land, mineral rights, and cities

and can be backed up by correspondances ranging from the late 1700s to the 1850s between pioneer communities and Southern businessmen afraid of British-style colonialism, exploitation, and taxation from Washington and Northern banks

>>1859914
also, what statistics do you have to show that an overwhelming majority of southerners favored succession and weren't coopted into war by a simple majority?

>>1859861
>Wrong
>Implying either of them had honorable causes

>>1859945

So they seceded and wrote a constitution offering the exact same protections they already had from central government?

Barring slave clauses of course.

>>1859861
The South seceded to keep their right to own slaves, and the North fought to maintain the union.

In the end, both of them, but the South probably a little more.

>>1859934

Sure, so on what basis did they have a "right to secede?" You agree not a legal right. So perhaps a moral right, transcending law, because of the justice of their cause? But their cause was the preservation of slavery...

>>1859942

>"the political establishment of the South"

wasn't a single entity until it recognized the threat of Northern powers infringing in their shit as stated here

>>1859945

much of the South was still mostly virgin territory as the Louisiana purchase and Texas independence had occured only a few decades earlier

>>1859945
firsthand accounts needed.

>>1859945
>my point is stated explicitly in my first post

And was thoroughly refuted immediately.

>>1859949
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/how-many-southerners-favored-secession.23264/

Apparently a slim minority throughout the entire CSA, but after the bombardment of Fort Sumter a lot more.

That's like asking how many American colonist supported the revolution against GB though. Once the ball got rolling a lot more than the original elites who had something to gain from breaking away from an unfavorable system.

>>1859971
>infringing in their shit

i.e. stopping the expansion of slavery

Regardless, they are our brothers and they are forgiven.

>>1859969
I'd argue they ideologically felt they had a moral right. Same thing with the founding fathers. The north was assaulting their way of life, uprooting the established social order, limiting their rights, etc..

>>1859985

over 96% of the South owned 0 slaves

so that's incorrect

slavery and "keeping the Union together" were convenient excuse for "liberating" a giant area a of land of mostly virgin territory with vast amounts of resources with most of the ground work done for you by pioneers

>>1859873
>Why does the Bible endorse it then?
Nice meme, son

>>1860018
"slaves, obey your masters" - St. Paul

>>1859873
Secession is prohibited under U.S. constitution.

>>1859985


" The public does not realize that in all the conflicts within nations and in the conflicts between nations there are, besides the people apparently responsible for them, hidden agitators who with their selfish plans make these conflicts unavoidable. . . . Everything that happens in the confused evolution of peoples is secretly prepared in order to ensure the dominion of certain people: it is these people, known and unknown, that we must find behind every public event."

- 19th century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli

>>1859873
I don't care about what quote you pull out of your ass from Leviticus - the entire Bible is literally about how slavery is bad, there is no other way to take it.

What I think that confuses people is also that it is a history book so in these times, it was legal in many cases to take on slaves. Slavery was used as a way to pay off debts that one could not pay off themselves. People saw slavery as a necessary evil. Major projects couldn't get accomplished without slaves it appears from the texts.

The reader of today is okay to be shocked at how pervasive the slavery was, to the point of making an entire code of slave ethics and slave policies.

I think The Bible is trying to show how slaves are people too and they deserve to be treated with respect.

It goes into the taking on of young women as slaves and how the slaver needs to treat her under the law as a daughter. Its not like in Islam where if you get a female slave you can basically fuck her all day if you want because Allah gave her to you by chance or some shit.

Sex Slavery is forbidden entirely. When women have sex with their slaver its like marriage. If their husbands wrong them, they can be set free.

Eventually Slave became basically a profession. Then codes were written for them, Hammurabic codes and Hebraic codes.

When the Egyptians began abusing their slaves God intervened. There are other examples of slave revolts or other kinds of abuses punished by God.

The Bible shows Moses as a hero who freed his people from slavery. Everyone else was just following law.

To me I feel like The Bible is entirely about documenting Hebrew's fascination with law and order to the point of absurdity and callousness toward humanity, how Jesus came to cut through the legalistic crap and show the true word of God as simple, elegant, and beautiful without all of the human bullshit around it.

>it's a "racist autistic inbred neckbeards are still butthurt about being wrecked by based Lincoln" episode

File: IMG_1014.jpg (219KB, 980x748px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 980x748px

>>1859861
Lol southerners still defending the war in which the rich msnipulated them into fighting for something that didn't actually matter to them.

>>1860038


>“…I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

>“And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

>“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.”

>“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

>“Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”


and Lincoln was a neckbeard too

>>1860020
>be fringe religious cult in the height of empire endangered by intolerance
>tell your fellow men not to rebel against a system of slavery that was inherently different to the American slave trade in order to not offend your overlord

>>1859984
Exactly. With neither war justified by the will of an overwhelming majority, then what made southern succession similar enough to the American revolution as to be justified beyond rebellion for the sake of rebellion?(i'll give you a hint, the American revolution and the will of the founders was not an ideological basis for southern succession)

>>1860031
> Sex Slavery is forbidden entirely

Your kidding right? You know nothing about King Solomon, or the fact that countless other Jews utilized concubines.

>>1859996
The American Revolution was not about preserving the institution of slavery, so there's no real comparison to be made there.

>>1860066
>endangered by intolerance
About 1/3 of Americans supported secession from GB. That doesn't mean they were wrong.

If the majority will is always morally correct, what right did the Feds have in removing legalized segregation in southern states?

>>1860081
Not one founding father forced pure racial egalitarianism in the original government. The right to own slaves is a right, albeit one based upon social hierarchy. Plus a richer and more populous north posed a threat imposing their morality upon the south while not living their is very similar to the American revolution.

>>1860003
Supporting the owning of slaves does not require you to own them. Just like how being a proponent of alternative energy doesn't mean that you have to live exclusively on wind power and solar panels.

>>1860082
You didn't read the post. It didn't say that succession from GB was wrong or right based on it's number of supporters. I didn't say and it isn't even implied by that post that the majority will is always correct. Read more carefully and then follow up with me on what you are confused about.

>>1860065
>endangered by intolerance

Probably the most embarrassing statement I've ever seen posted .

>>1859969
>But their cause was the preservation of slavery...

And the Founder's cause was a repeal on tea taxes.

the South had the same natural right to self determination that the whole USA had exercised against the North, sure they had no explicit right to do so but the constitution only deals in negative rights, and there is no clause stating that you can't secede, so you can.

>>1860103
See >>1860095

>>1860066
>With neither war justified by the will of an overwhelming majority, then what made southern succession similar enough to the American revolution as to be justified beyond rebellion

What? You realise the Revolutionaries only had a slim majority of support in the colonies? It's exactly analogous, and both times the wrong side won.

>>1860003
More than 20% of the population of the south were slaves.

>>1860095
That's a fallacy. Just because they didn't all support pure racial equality doesn't mean they intended for it to be a right and that none of them intended for it eventually be eradicated though legislative means.

You last statement is nonsensical. War between factions where a stronger faction threatens to impose something on another faction can be applied to a great number of conflicts in human history and doesn't say much about the morality of either side. Neither does it have much to do with the justifications for American independence against Great Britain which were much more serious than, "dear king george, you're stronger than us but we want out so bye bye. fight me faggot."(Jefferson,Franklin, and Company)

>>1860105
>Early Christians were not persecuted

Probably the most embarrassing statement I've ever seen posted .

>>1860119
I already stated that both were not fought with the initial support of an overwhelming majority. That's nothing but a vague similarity. Again, the ideological and moral justifications for the two wars were completely different, so they're simply not "exactly analogous".

>>1859861
Both of them, in varying ways and degrees. But mostly Thomas Jefferson.

>>1860108
Not an argument. That's like going before a court of law and arguing that you don't except the court's judgement because you succeed from society to go live at the bottom of the sea. "But, there's nothing exactly stipulating that I can't!"

>>1860195

Jefferson was long dead at this point.

>>1860108
Also, that's an oversimplification. The founder's succeeded, among other reasons, because taxes were being levied without representation in parliament. The Southerners had self-determination aside from the slaves themselves.

>>1860214

>The Southerners had self-determination aside from the slaves themselves.

Actually, the South had disproportionate representation because slaves were counted as being 3/5 of a person when determining electoral college votes per state despite the fact that they could not actually vote. So the system was actually biased in the South's favor.

>>1859873
The Bible endorses a lot of bullshit. (You)

>>1860185

No, they weren't. They both wanted to exercise their god-given right to self determination against what they portrayed as intolerable tyranny. When you look at the reality of their claims, they were all petty shit like MUH TEA and MUH SLAVES. You just romanticise the US Revolution because you're and Anglo and it had such a formative influence on your culture.

>>1860225
>south had disproportionate representation
Oh, yeah? Well, Abraham Lincoln was murderer.
You like wage slavery?
You like factory work?
No? Fuck, you. Union Jews did 9/11.

>>1860214
>without representation

As was the case in Britain at the time. Yes it needed to be fixed but seriously, a revolution? Bit excessive don't you think? Britain solved the same problem in Canada with a Canadian parliament, you think the same couldn't have been for America?

Meanwhile, the South is defending it's very economic basis.Not some lofty notion of political spookiness but the actual economic and cultural basis of their whole way of life.

>>1860241
I can't tell if you're serious. Have you read any of the nations founding documents?

>>1860270

Yes it's all lofty woowoo notions of MUH LIBERTY and MUH NATURAL RIGHTS. Just spooks. The South was fighting for its bread and butter, not just a bunch of memes.

>>1860263
The south would have had agriculture as its basis no matter what and slavery was becoming highly unproductive and inefficient at the time.

>>1860292

Absolutely true. The South would have had to adapt to mechanisation eventually, and probably emancipation, too. But those were the South's problems to fix, no-one else's.

>>1860275
No it wasn't you retard. The southern economy would have been agricultural based either way, the only difference is that former slaves would have been payed a wage which would have been much more efficient considering the cost of maintaining the slave system, made especially inefficient with new farming techniques and harvesting technologies of the time.

>>1860308
>the only difference

That, plus the complete destruction of the Southron economy, culture and traditions? The South would have had to emancipate eventually, as all other countries have, all of them without fighting a war over it.

>>1860314
hahahah, so all you can do is take, "the only difference" out of context. Learn to read. The "only difference" in the economy. And I just explained how emancipation would not be the "complete destruction" of the southern economy.

>>1860342

So you're saying the South wasn't burned to the ground and then carpetbagged into a poverty that has lasted until the modern day? Emancipation doesn't have to involve the destruction of a whole culture and the slaughter of a whole generation, it happened everywhere on earth eventually without massive bloodshed.

Daily reminder that secession was democratic and 100% legal.

>>1860354
That's a strawman you moron. I didn't say the emancipation had to occur along with a civil war. You're just desperate to win an argument at this point.

>>1860369

How is it a strawman to point out the poverty and suffering your little "only difference" elided? A million dead, way of life gone forever, an unprecedented increase in the power and prestige of the POTUS, none of that matters because slavery is inefficient?

Market forces would have drive slavery out of business in the South, no need for a war or even a change in the law, it was a doomed institution because it no longer made economic sense.

>>1860447
You still don't understand do you?

> The South was fighting for its bread and butter, not just a bunch of memes.


>The southern economy would have been agricultural based either way, the only difference is that former slaves would have been payed a wage which would have been much more efficient considering the cost of maintaining the slave system, made especially inefficient with new farming techniques and harvesting technologies of the time.

Do you see now that the reply was constrained to economics?

Also, the inevitability is a fallacy. First you're presuming that the south wouldn't have implemented strong protections for slavery despite market forces. You reinforce this idea when you claim that the south was fighting for "a way of life."

>>1860171

I never said Christians weren't persecuted in the Roman Empire (though if you read the Bible you'd know Roman officials were protecting Christians from the Jews in various circumstances during the time period the actsl)

Your unintelligent use of the word "intolerance" doesn't even come close to describing the Roman Empire's view on religion.

>>1860509
inevitability *argument is a fallacy, i mean

>>1860509

You seem to think its no difference at all WHO owns and controls an economy, simply that it exists?

And yes a way of life can survive the transition from slavery to emancipation, as it did elsewhere in the world, without the need for an overwhelmingly brutal scorched earth war.

>>1860369
> I never said emancipation had to occur with war

How else would it have occurred?

Your the one who claims the Civil War was about slavery, and now all of the sudden they attempted to seceded from the union which instigated a devastating war when it could have been avoided.

>>1860206
And yet his legacy of shitposting at the Convention lived on.

>>1860532
Strawman again, I never said that a way life couldn't survive without the need for a brutal and scorched earth war. You should have enough respect for people than to put words in their mouth to win an argument.

Also, you seem to be under the assumption that the institution of slavery and the way of life it produced wouldn't have been fundamentally altered by a truly free market system.

>>1860566
>Also, you seem to be under the assumption that the institution of slavery and the way of life it produced wouldn't have been fundamentally altered by a truly free market system.

To the degree it was by the war?

>>1860552
>> I never said emancipation had to occur with war
>How else would it have occurred?

How about you read a book, you moron? The rest of the world abolished slavery without wars, some countries (Britain) even managed it a generation before America.

>>1859882
>what is a pretext

If the south only cared about slavery, they would've just accepted the Corwin Amendment.

>>1860552
It's a claim that is substantiated by the founding documents of the confederacy. The South could have recognized and accepted that slavery would have become noncompetitive and untenable without strong economic protections for it and could have bargained for a timeline of emancipation, with buy-offs of slaves by the federal government, a slow transitions so southern free men wouldn't have their lives abruptly altered by a sudden influx of new competition, enough time to invest in and implement new farming techniques and harvesting technologies, and generous subsidies if need be. But the South would have none of that, because the Aristocracy wanted to preserve its "way of life."

File: 1472262034408.png (1MB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 960x720px

>>1860552

>Your the one who claims the Civil War was about slavery

The founding documents of the confederacy say it.

>>1860074
Fuck off back to /pol/ you human garbage.

>>1860594
>The South could have recognized and accepted that slavery would have become noncompetitive and untenable without strong economic protections for it and could have bargained for a timeline of emancipation,

none of that is true

>with buy-offs of slaves by the federal government

these were never seriously offered.

well it ain't called the War of Northern Aggression for nuthin

>>1860636
How can southerners even live in a permanent state of being cucked by north?

>>1860577
> The rest of the world abolished slavery without wars, some countries (Britain) even managed it a generation before America.

Missed my point entirely. I was referring to the unique situation of the CSA specifically, who obviously weren't willing to give up their right to own slaves by verbal command.

>>1860627
That makes no sense. It is true that they could have bargained for those things, we're not arguing the matter being created or destroyed.

Second, any offer would have been pointless because the South was intent on keeping slaves for moral and political reasons as well economic reasons, but in fact an offer was made by Abraham Lincoln himself, see here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/03/05/letters-suggest-lincoln-wanted-to-buy-slaves-for-400-apiece-in-gradual.html

>>1860655
>>1860627
Sorry, I mean we're not arguing over matter being created or destroyed.

>>1860594
>The South could have recognized and accepted that slavery would have become noncompetitive and untenable without strong economic protections for it and could have bargained for a timeline of emancipation

It could have, in a different world with different circumstances. However as things were, Southerners felt highly alienated about their future in the world. Free states were multiplying and had no indication of stopping. Soon the rest of America could do anything they wanted politically and they would be powerless to stop them. One of those things they could and certainly would do was emancipation. They saw emancipation as leading to Nat Turner style gangs rampaging through the south, and John Brown style white northerners wringing their hands with joy over it. Not to mention the economic turmoil they anticipated it would bring.

Its not that they wanted to be top dog assholes that could torture and exploit blacks. They saw themselves as victims. And for them, slavery was the armor that would protect them from harm, and they believed the North was trying to strip them of that armor to deliver the killing blow.

>>1860611
Old Testament Jews practicing sexual slavery isn't /pol/, its History.

and if it makes you this upset maybe your not cut out for it.

>>1860668
citations needed

>>1860673
Your retarded interpretation of The Scripture isn't history. It's just just an obvious /pol/-tier attack on the jewish people.

>>1859861
What was their endgame?

>>1860688
Keeping black man in chains forever.

>>1860685
It was just a 'harsher form of indentured servitude, right? Anon, pls...

>>1860707
Just fuck off. You know nothing about jewish history.

>>1860722
Oh, but I do. And please be polite. There's no cause for swearing at me.

>>1860728
>brings up racist garbage
>wants people to be polite

>>1859861
The South, though the North did some fucked up shit in the war, it was the South who fired the first shots [spoiler]which is why I always chuckle when someone calls it "the War of Northern Aggression [/spoiler]. While they did have the right to secede, the North didn't start to force them back in until Fort Sumpter. That being said, the North should have followed Lincoln's reconstruction plan, not the radical's.

File: William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg (908KB, 2364x3000px) Image search: [Google]

908KB, 2364x3000px

>>1859861
Shermann said it best, "I notice in Kentucky a disposition to cry against the tyranny and oppression of our Government. Now, were it not for war you know tyranny could not exist in our Government; therefore any acts of late partaking of that aspect are the result of war; and who made this war? Already we find ourselves drifting toward new issues, and are beginning to forget the strong facts of the beginning. You know and I know that long before the North, or the Federal Government, dreamed of war the South had seized the U.S. arseuals, forts, mints, and custom-houses, and had made prisoners of war of the garrisons sent at their urgent demand to protect them 'against Indians, Mexicans, and negroes'."

The king of civil war trolls. Top kek.

>>1860731
The South was a sovereign nation. The Union troops were occupying Confederate soil. They made it clear if the Union didn't vacate Fort Sumter, it would be war. When the north responded by running a resupply ship to the fort and not leaving, the message was clear.
>We don't recognize you as a nation and our soldiers will go where we like.

>>1860707
Actually, the jewish people saw concubines as legitimate secondary wives. The act lf sex was considered marriage which is why rapists had to pay the father of the victim a sort of wedding gift in the shape of cattle. Of course this is if he was caught.

It was considered wrong to play favorites or discriminate between concubines and wives. Which is why in the texts the favorite wives are often stricken barren or bare forth "rotten fruit". It's often the children of the least favorite who become relevant in the bible.

File: The Eternal Northerner.png (113KB, 603x712px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 603x712px

>>1859861

Beware the Eternal Unionist.

>>1860511
How the fuck is the usage of intolerance "unintelligent" in this case especially if you even admit that Christians were persecuted? By being persecuted for not accepting the divinity of the emperors the Pagan Romans were in fact intolerant against the Early Christians (and Hebrews to the extent), this is out of question

File: Sherman.jpg (50KB, 594x722px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 594x722px

You're in the South and this guy slaps your Georgia's ass. What do you do?

File: Freedompepe.jpg (28KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 320x320px

>>1861121

> MFW Confedacucks are still assblasted after all these years.

stay mad :<)

File: Robert e lee pwns nuking the north.jpg (115KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 960x540px

>>1861226

You ain't gonna be so smug when we return the favor for '64 faggot.

>>1860354
The South was poor before the war. The industrial output of CSA was less than the state of New York. It took Birmingham some 20 years to become an industrial city.

>>1861215
You cry for a hundred years

File: Muh_Big_Gubment.png (308KB, 600x515px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 600x515px

>>1861243

> He wants to pay us back

You can start by not being a net negative on the Federal Budget, Cletus.

>>1860651

There was nothing unique about it, slavery existed everywhere at some point and Brazil (for example) had the same demographic distribution of white freemen and black slaves, but they didn't need a civil war to abolish slavery.

>>1861265

And it would have been poor without the war too, only much less poor and with its unique culture intact.

File: 39th New York.jpg (51KB, 603x720px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 603x720px

Tis my delight to march and fight like a New York volunteer

>Article I Section 9(4)
>No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

It was about states' rights.

>>1861243
>Washington DC
Washington was Southern culturally.

>>1861776
And yet the Constitution of the Confederacy changed nothing but actually removed some state's rights. Almost specifically in matters dealing of slavery.

And almost every declaration of secession said nothing of States right and everything about the Union's infringement on slavery.

>>1861365
The saddest part about the Civil War is it prevented an actually organic society from forming in the South, instead choosing to strangle it in a rootless sea of Northern federalism.

>>1859861

http://www.nber.org/papers/w8778

The northern Jewish capitalists. The abolition of slavery competed down wages just as intended.

>>1861358

The CSA was unique, like apartheid South Africa in the 80s. It's uniqueness doesn't lie solely in the fact they practiced slavery, something you don't understand because you only define the CSA by their use of slaves.