War of Northern Aggression

What was it about then?

>>2391702
Because it was slavery.

Most of the other problems were around that fact, like King Cotton vs King Corn and the need to create "free" mobile workers to boost American industry.

>it's another "Cletus b8s /his/ with a low effort shitpost and it goes on for 300 posts" thread

>>2391702
>South is buttmad that the North will keep slavery out of new states
>South is afraid that the North will inevitably force them to end slavery
>QED, war is about slavery

You can dress it up in state's rights all you want, but it was an economic force, not a political one, that ultimate drove secession.

Also, fuck you if you think slavery was okay.

>>2391718
>>2391731
>>2391743

>Tariffs
>States rights (to own slaves, among other things)
>Southern nationalism and not identifying with the "yankee" American culture
>Perceived constitutional violations starting with expanding the federal government

File: 1827941978-lincolnslaveryequalrights.gif (35KB, 415x251px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 415x251px

>>2391734

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

>>2391772
That speech outlines economic and procedural reasons for secession in addition to slavery

>>2391702
>Why has the cause of the war been boiled down to 'MUH SLAVERY' in pop culture?

America is obsessed with black people and will always find a reason to make them the focus of a conversation.

File: Cleburne'sProphecyComeToPass.jpg (79KB, 624x352px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 624x352px

The South had its chance.

>>2391761
vague regional differences exist everywhere and are never the real reason for wars. The south didn't ceceed because of tarrifs or the same urban vs rural rivalry that exists in every society or any other silly reasons like honor or anything. It's always economic factors dressed up in ideological camouflage, and in this case the south held a collection of some of the last slaves on Earth in a world where most civilized societies had already abolished slavery. Naturally these were cherished and expensive commodities at this point and the south didn't want to give up their exclusive little slave society and lose money on having to actually give their workers a decent wage and treat them like human beings. In the fallout of the war, it was racial divides that hammered the nation hardest; for the next 100 years the true colors of the conflict showed themselves beyond any doubt. To try to mask your little rebellion as anything more than YET ANOTHER group of slave owners resisting the flow of the world for their own selfish gain is fooling nobody but yourselves

>>2391766
I always fail to understand why Lost Cause sympathizers continuously refer to this quote to "help" their argument. If anything, it proves the significance of slavery as a cause of the war.

>>2391868
>vague regional differences
The difference between the North and South was night and day, though. We're not talking about the minor regional differences you see today. In 1860 they were, for all practical purposes, two separate nations living in the same state. We're talking Scotland and England levels of different. It had been that way in America since day one and the divide had only grown over the 90 years proceeding it.

>for the next 100 years the true colors of the conflict showed themselves beyond any doubt
Historian's fallacy.

>>2391868
In every Civil War discussion there is always the handful of Northerners that claim the moral high ground and it never ceases to make me laugh

>Implying Northern factories paid their workers a 'decent' or even livable wage
>Implying the North wanted racial equality
>Implying there weren't any Northerners fighting for the Union that didn't own slaves

To quote an anonymous Pennsylvania private upon hearing of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863: "We thought we were fighting for the stars and stripes, but found out it is for the damned nigger"

>>2391881

If anything, it paints Lincoln as a man who tried bending over backwards in an ill-fated attempt to appease southern interests until their belligerence forced him to fight back.

The main thing you need to know is that it's the war that made this song a national symbol of the USA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai3_pTg560U

>>2391940
>who tried bending over backwards
He didn't do that, though.

>>2391940
>trying to appease Southerners

It was always a mistake. They're as whiny and rage-prone as the G*rmans. They were given concession after concession, and it was never enough for them. Even killing 1/3 of their military-age male population and burning half their cities to the ground only temporarily stemmed their autistic rage, which has continued to this day.

>>2391881
The logic is that if the war was ONLY bout slavery, then why wouldn't Southern politicians simply hear Lincoln out. There were Southern fire-eaters who would have wanted secession no matter what but they were the 19th century equivalent to the alt-right or SJWs; radical in their views, very vocal and in the minority

>>2391806
>America is obsessed with black people and will always find a reason to make them the focus of a conversation.
americans are obsessed with race in general desu, its like everybody's secret pet topic down there. left wing, right wing, really doesn't matter.

t. non-american.

>>2391702

>muh states rights.........................to own slaves

File: otherracesmakethisplaceworse.png (40KB, 452x421px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 452x421px

>>2391959
That's because everyone else just sort of accepts being racist.

File: nothing wrong.png (160KB, 1209x1106px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1209x1106px

there is literally nothing wrong with owning slaves

File: EjJopdbh.jpg (18KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 600x600px

>>2391951

>>2391954
It's true, though. Southerners left upon Lincoln's election because they saw a United States which was continually moving away from their interests and further stripping them of proper representation. The primary interest happened to be slavery, but really that's irrelevant because it wasn't the actual driving force for secession but the excuse. Had Lincoln lost the election and certain compromises been upheld some years back, then the Union would have been preserved. Instead, the opposite happened and the South felt it was in their better interest to leave the Union which they felt no longer properly represented them and continually (and often purposely) hurt their interests in favor of the North.

>>2391977

Weren't southern politicians running roughshod over the north?

File: 1475468808124.png (657KB, 600x473px) Image search: [Google]

657KB, 600x473px

>>2391927
>To quote an anonymous Pennsylvania private upon hearing of the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863: "We thought we were fighting for the stars and stripes, but found out it is for the damned nigger"

this is pretty close to the truth of the matter. the north largely fought for the sake of preserving the union and it's democratic institutes in a world where it was very much far from the norm and more progressive than nearly anywhere else on the planet. half of europe under absolute monarchs, the other have not too far from it beyond the UK and handful of others, nevermind the rest of the planet.

as to why the war is always boiled down to 'muh slavery' in pop culture, it is because depicting it as fighting for preserving the integrity of the union and the ideals it stands for is a concept abstract to begin with and very remote from contemporary america. loads of democracies out there with respect for personal rights, america is less unique in this regard than it used to be. so, an easier-to-digest depiction was found: the war was fought to abolish slavery.

>>2391988
Yeah, in fact the South had always been very highly overrepresented from the conception of the nation. They even were able to push the North into wars they didn't want (Mexican-American War was very unpopular, and New England literally threatened secession over the War of 1812) and push their laws on Northern states (Fugitive Slave Act being the most famous example).

Wasn't enough to stop their chimp-out. Again, trying to reason with Southerners is a mistake.

>>2391988
They were running roughshod over the West in an attempt to hedge against the North. Ultimately it didn't matter because when Southerner controlled territories would petition for statehood, they would be denied while Northerner controlled territories were regularly being accepted which meant the South was quickly losing control and an even representation. It was a race to status quo and the South was quickly losing.

>>2391963
ehh maybe on a personal level they can rationalize themselves being racist, but they always have a ton to say about the others (be they left, right, or whatever) being racist.

>>2392005
Many Union soldiers themselves saw it that way, that's part of why the Emancipation Proclamation was such a genius PR move.

Listen to any of the marching songs from that era. Easily half of them mention slavery as a reason for the fight. "John Brown's Body", "Battle Hymn of the Republic", "Battle Cry of Freedom", etc.

>>2392007
>Mexican-American War was very unpopular
This is false.

>New England literally threatened secession over the War of 1812
You mean Connecticut. The War of 1812 was caused by popular sentiment.

>Fugitive Slave Act
You realize that it just affirmed an Article in the Constitution, correct? Even then, it was only a compromise.

>>2392007
http://www.emarotta.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/

>>2391702
NYfag here.

Forest: slavery
Trees: states' and territories becoming states' rights to decide whether they would allow slavery and the Feds abusing their power.

The Constitution lays out the Federal Government's power. Anything not specified is left for the states to decide.

I grew up pro-yankee but now realize that the south (while their views on slavery were deplorable) were in the right and were in fact obligated by the Declaration, Constitution, and the American premise of limiting a central, federal government to secede ad resist.

>>2392071

Slavery shouldn't be a choice left up to the states.

>>2392113
Except slavery was codified in the constitution. The federal government had no right to touch it.

>>2392126

So the constitution shouldn't be modified even in the case of slavery?

>>2392144
You would require 2/3rds state approval. The federal government can't axe the constitution just because your feelings are hurt. In fact, it's entire purpose is the exact opposite of that.

>>2392126
which bits

>>2392164
Article 4 Section 2 Paragraph 3
>No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

If you give slave owners the constitutional right to reclaim their slaves, you give them a constitutional right to own slaves.

>>2392071

This>>2392113

Also nice state's rights meme. Friendly reminder that the confederate constitution explicitly enshrined slavery, forever prohibiting any state in it from being a free one, because states rights.

Also, demographic changes resulting in the south being unable to control federal government policy even with their jacked up 3/5ths representation for property through an otherwise fair and equal democratic body does not count as political repression.

And it's not politically repressive to demand states to not be politically repressive. "Muh limited central government" is a non-issue compared to having your own human underclass with the rights of cattle.

>>2392071
Virginian here, I appreciate that we have some common ground. 20/20 hindsight shows us that slavery was an immoral institution and a major cause of the war but ignoring the constitutional issues raised by the South erases context and oversimplifies the conflict. What annoys Southerners the most today is what annoyed us back then; Urban Northerners thinking they are better than us and claiming moral superiority while completely ignoring their own ethical failures. Getting called an ignorant redneck by a Philadelphia hipster is just as infuriating as getting lectured on the ethics of slavery by a factory owner that uses child labor and wage slavery

>>2392184
>What annoys Southerners the most today is what annoyed us back then; Urban Northerners thinking they are better than us

So we show it by painting giant rebel flags on our beat up pickups.

>>2392177
>If you give slave owners the constitutional right to reclaim their slaves, you give them a constitutional right to own slaves.

It simply means that escaped slaves cannot be relinquished of their status by escaping to a different state. It makes no mention of their change of status by other means, such as a constitutional amendment that does not directly contradict the clause in question. Namely, the 13th.

>>2392213
>It makes no mention of their change of status by other means
I'll say it again: If you give slave owners the right to reclaim their slaves, you give them the right to own slaves. You're not wrong by stating it can't be taken away by an amendment (just as it was, whether or not that amendment was forced at gunpoint upon certain states aside), but to say that it can be taken away by anything other than that is wrong.

File: three hipsters.jpg (231KB, 552x315px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 552x315px

>>2392200
I'll take that over this pretentious crap any day of the week

>>2391743
do you ever get a sick feeling in your pit when you realize our founding fathers knew exactly the kind of evil going on right in front of God when they drafted the Constitution but didn't end slavery? Wasn't it NOT the norm for blacks to be held as slaves by europeans around that time? Weren't black men generally not a slave race during the Roman Empire? As in, you had to really fuck up to become a slave.

>>2392228
>I'll say it again: If you give slave owners the right to reclaim their slaves, you give them the right to own slaves.
It gives them the right to reclaim their slaves in the instance of which they attempt to change their status by relocating to a different state. It does provide for reclamation when that change in status is by other means. The 13th amendment did not take away this right, it merely made it redundant.

>>2392238

Most of the country that still shits on the south/southern pride are not hipsters.

>>2391766
that's politispeak. Lincoln's whole mantra was abolition and he was often chided for it by political opponents during debates and what not. The only reason Lincoln said things like this on record was to give the impression of him being a centrist and balanced, when in fact everyone knew it was only a matter of time before slavery was abolished if he became president. He was called Abolitionist Abe in the South leading up to his election, which is why the South was in such a roar and why they started the Civil War even before he had a chance to emancipate the slaves.

So don't be fooled by this quote. Trump does similar things where he says something to sound balanced, but we all know his true stance on issues.

>>2392249
The constitution was written in the 1770's. African slavery still existed in England and all of her colonies (America, Canada, India, etc.). It also existed in Portugal, Spain, the Carribean and most of South America at this time.

>>2392265
>Trump does similar things where he says something to sound balanced, but we all know his true stance on issues.

There's no need to mention Trump on the matter. As you said, it's politispeak, and this is something that is general to those hoping to have a career in politics. Or, more bluntly, everyone does it, man.

>>2391927
>>Implying Northern factories paid their workers a 'decent' or even livable wage

The Northern factories didn't have to litteraly hold their workers captive

>>2392261
And most Southerners/Southern pride people aren't ignorant rednecks, but hey whatever makes you feel morally superior Yankee Bill. You guys were always the best at talking down to others after all.

>>2392269
do you think our founding fathers saw the freedom of blacks and nonwhites in the Roman Republic as part of the reason it fell to degeneracy?

>>2392249
Most of the founding fathers were slave owners and few actually had moral qualms about it. All men can be created equal. Some men can be free and others in bondage. That does not prevent them from being created equal.

>>2392257
Except that's not how American law works and it's the reason Dred Scott lost (along with Article II of the constitution). Slavery had been codified in the Constitution through the rights of slave owners explicitly stated in the Constitution. As such, the federal government had no place to abolish slavery without constitutional amendment. The only thing the federal government could do about it was legislate interstate slave trading which is why the only laws passed were regarding that. I have no idea why you're debating this. It's the sole reason the 13th amendment was an amendment and not some congressional bill. The law would be unconstitutional otherwise as it deprived slave owners the rights granted to them in the constitution.

>>2392269
The Constitution was written in 1789.

>>2392158
>slavery being a matter of feelings

>>2392286

I never said they were ignorant rednecks.

I've lived in Mississippi and north Florida (which is southern as fuck). You can't deny that the ones that are most in your face about southern pride are fucking trashy.

>>2392184
>What annoys (blacks) the most today is what annoyed us back then; (Redneck Whites) thinking they are better than us and claiming moral superiority while completely ignoring their own ethical failures

>>2392278
just trying to draw a super simplified connection to the present. Not here to talk about him, just pointing out how this kind of politispeak thing has been going on...people use the abe lincoln quote a lot to defend their racist viewpoints but lincoln was truly one of the morally pure presidents we've had. Our founding fathers had pretty racist pasts, but Lincoln is in a league of his own. I have yet to see any true stories about him which bring his question into character

>>2392311
The issue of slavery is literally a matter of feelings.

>>2392282
Except they did.
>Factory owner/industrialist builds a housing complex for workers
>Charge $12 a month for rent
>Pay workers $10 a month
>Workers become indebted and cannot leave
>Work 12 hours a day in hazardous conditions to pay off factory owner while just getting deeper in debt
>The ultimate Catch 22

How is that any better than Southern slavery

>>2392319
>Slavery is not wrong because morallity is a spook
>Attacking slavers is morally reprehensible. How could they do such a thing those yankee monsters!?!
Every time

File: teletubbie.jpg (23KB, 399x430px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 399x430px

>>2392310
Realized my mistake a minute after posting, was thinking of the Declaration

>>2392328
The part where the factory owners couldn't legally rape their workers and rip families apart on a whim.

>>2392184
>getting lectured on the ethics of slavery by a factory owner that uses child labor and wage slavery

How many average yankees have you talked to who are okay with wage slavery and child labor? Better yet, how many factory owners have you talked civil war politics to, ever? Because that sounds like a really lovely strawman that would feed right into your persecution complex.

Also, wage slaves can wield political power, and have legal rights, making their position pretty objectively superior famalam. That meant that they could and did eventually usher in reform in the progressive era. 13th amendment and civil rights would have never happened without the south being dragged along kicking and screaming via reconstruction and liberal courts.

Flipping your tendies and throwing away 2% of the population in war in order to prevent completely constitutional, legal, and morally righteous federal laws from possibly stopping your institutionalized denial of human rights to people living in your territory will never be anything even parallel to a noble cause, no matter how imperfect the northern states were on other issues. If people calling it as it is without derailing into irrelevant non-civil war related issues bothers you, I suggest you decouple your ego from the actions of your ancestors as though it's relevant to you and base your ego on the actions of yourself instead.

>>2392333
>Slavery is not wrong because morality is a spook
>Butthurt southerners getting BTFO'd by a superior force is also okay because morality is a spook

your strawman is a failure

>>2392333
There are arguments for slavery outside of the moral. There are no arguments against slavery that don't come from morality.

>>2392310
> Slavery had been codified in the Constitution through the rights of slave owners explicitly stated in the Constitution
You've given me one paragraph, and you originally argued it to be implicit as opposed to explicit. Which is it?

Ah, yes, Dred Scott. Would you be so kind as to be the one to elaborate on the decision taken by the court?

>>2392312
I'll concede to that.

>>2392333
>l-law isnt a spook

what did southerners mean by this

>>2392338
Read the Jungle by Upton Sinclair

>>2392340
You seem to forget the part where whenever we have these threads, southern apologists always pass off slavery like it is nothing but claim that the north not accepting their secession is a crime against humanity.

>>2392345
Just off the top of my head, i know it stagnates innovation and that any economic gains from it will not be unavailable to large swathes of the population rendering it useless.

>>2392369
I have. Northern factories are still not anywhere as bad as southern slavery.

>>2392249
It was pragmatism, pure and simple.

It's not so much that most of the founders liked slavery, although a disappointing amount of them viewed it more of as a bad habit rather than an evil and massive hypocrisy in a republic.

It's that slavery was going to exist no matter what, and they had to play ball with the southern states to unify the country. They knew they were just kicking the can down the road though.

>>2392351
>You've given me one paragraph, and you originally argued it to be implicit as opposed to explicit. Which is it?
Please do not make me say it a fourth time. I know you're capable of basic reading comprehension.

>Dred Scott
> Finally, territories or states where slavery had been abolished were not entitled to free slaves, because this would be a deprivation of a slaveholder's "property" rights
Oops. It's almost as if this property right was codified in a certain Article of the constitution which I enumerated previously.

>>2392374
>i know it stagnates innovation
Cotton gin. Also myth of progress.

>that any economic gains from it will not be unavailable
I'm assuming you mean available. I'm also guessing that slave owners do not require goods and services beyond their slaves in your world.

>>2392249
Many of them may have been slaveholders themselves but they also knew the way the wind was blowing and a huge faction supported trying to restrict slavery in the Constitution.

It was the 'norm' but by 1789 things were changing in society. Industrialization was really taking hold by this point and many foresaw an eventual end to slavery as bare worker productivity began to increase so dramatically (they didn't realize at this point that industrial inventions could also help slavery like the invention of the cotton gin or industrial textiles serving as great sinks of demand for slave-produced products). Enlightenment ideals also saw the rise of the rights of man and every citizen stuff take foothold among the elite and the philosophers.

By the time they had taken their turns ruling the country, after the Missouri Compromise people like Jefferson and Adams began to foresee the far black clouds that was their failure to conclusively settle the slavery question on the horizon but could do little about it.

>>2392399
>Cotton gin
Ooooh one invention. The scientific prowess is astounding.

>I'm assuming you mean available. I'm also guessing that slave owners do not require goods and services beyond their slaves in your world.
So what you are saying is that you will consider it a prosperous society by just pretending that the non-prosperous parts don't exist.

What benefits can you name for slavery?

>>2391766
>and I intend no modification
It's really simple Cletus. All things being equal he wanted all men be free. But he was willing to throw niggers under the bus to preserve the Union. But you had to do your autistic screeching and you lost your slaves, when Lincoln was willing to compromise and let you keep slaves even though he didn't like slavery.

>>2392434
>Ooooh one invention. The scientific prowess is astounding
Not an argument. Also, again, myth of progress.

>So what you are saying is that you will consider it a prosperous society by just pretending that the non-prosperous parts don't exist.
You're pretending that a society is non-prosperous by pretending that the prosperous parts do not exist.

>What benefits can you name for slavery?
Greater production of raw goods for use in production which leads to cheaper goods and a more productive and prosperous society. An individual's right to own property or become property if they so choose.

>>2392444
>when Lincoln was willing to compromise and let you keep slaves even though he didn't like slavery
It's almost as if the war was about more than slavery, even if it was a (or even the) primary component.

>>2392453
>productive and prosperous society
But putting value to production and prosperity are spooks.

>individual's right to own property
but property rights are spooks

>>2392459
If those things are spooks, along with morality, then you have no argument against slavery.

>Lincoln elected
>Says he will not take away slaves but probably wont allow them in new states
>southerners get mad they can't own human beings anymore
>draft a declaration about there reasons for leaving
>literally 3/4s of it is about slaves and how they want to take away new state's rights ;^) to own slaves
>despite having economic dominance over northerners lack industrialization and transportation due to their sheltered agricultural state
>Literally the only reason their """""secession"""""" isn't put down in three months is because of great generals, some of whom were conflicted about the war and sided with confederates only because of their state
>Lose as soon as northern generals start to push them in
>Botched reconstruction leads to south still being the cousin-fucking idiots they are today
>People like OP try to pretend the Civil War was about "muh heritage"

>>2392453
>It's almost as if the war was about more than slavery, even if it was a (or even the) primary component.
Who cares? Here are the facts:
>Slavery is evil
>Lincoln was a relatively moderate Republican who although he was an abolitionist, held the pragmatic view of simply stopping slavery from spreading
>the south chimped out before he ever even took office, let alone did anything to harm them or their precious black bulls
>the south got their asses handed to them

>>2392479
>Slavery is evil
Not an argument.

>held the pragmatic view of simply stopping slavery from spreading
People had a right to choose whether slavery would be legal in their territories.

>the south chimped out before he ever even took office
Because it was evidence to the South that the Union was no longer representative of their interests, including slavery, so they left.

>the south got their asses handed to them
Blatantly false.

>>2392462
And you have yet to provide any proof that it is beneficial.

>>2392493
I already did using the standards you set before me. If those standards are spooks then you have no argument.

>>2392497
You claim human rights to safety and security against violence is a spook yet claim that such a nebulous idea as property rights to be not only tangible but sacrosanct . You claim to be above base emotional arguments but you use them yourself.

>>2392399
>>i know it stagnates innovation
>Cotton gin. Also myth of progress.

Slavery did not cause the cotton gin. It was imported from England and led to the revitalization of the slave trade, but slavery had no hand in starting it.

>>2392485
>Not an argument.
Whatever
>held the pragmatic view of simply stopping slavery from spreading
Black people deserved the right not to be eternally enslaved.

>Because it was evidence to the South that the Union was no longer representative of their interests, including slavery, so they left.
It was a stupid move and likely led to slavery being destroyed faster than if they'd fought back through conventional political means.
>Blatantly false.
The south surrendered unconditionally and was occupied by Union forces. Also, pretty much all of the physical and economic damage of the war was suffered by the south since it was fought there. They didn't come out better for it.

>>2392473
>having a child's perspective of history

I envy your innocence

>>2392399
Please, do not make me say it a fourth time. And I'm only on the second, aren't I?

let me give you an example of explicit and implicit: say it was written in the constitution "no laws will be passed that prohibit or restrict slavery within the territories that constitute the United States of America" would be explicit. Implicit would be "no man can be deprived of his livelihood without justifiable cause", in which case we could get an implicit conclusion based on our interpretations of the terms "livelihood" and "justifiable cause". These are all fictitious of course, but I hope they've been educational.

>Oops. It's almost as if this property right was codified in a certain Article of the constitution which I enumerated previously.
Sure, if Chief Justice Roger B. Taney had cited your single paragraph in his decision. But given that it was not explicit, he had a rather roundabout way of going about it, didn't he?
And in any case, Taney argued that the fifth amendment covered the matter of the right to property, not article 4 section 2 paragraph 3.

>>2392506
I'm not arguing against myself. I simply used the standards you set before me to counter your arguments. The only actual argument you've made that can't be countered is one of morality which is, in fact, the only argument AGAINST slavery. Either my arguments are spooks and so are yours, in which case you have no argument against slavery. Alternatively, the standards you set are not spooks, in which case you lost the debate. Congratulations, you played yourself.

>>2392522
Not an argument

>>2392511
Successfully fending off a superior force for four years isn't getting your ass handed to you, especially while maintaining that positive K/D ratio

>>2392511
>Black people deserved the right not to be eternally enslaved
You realize that not all blacks in the United States were slaves, correct?

>>2392534
>that positive K/D ratio

Why is it that Cuckfederates always like to pretend POWs aren't a thing? Same with Wehraboos.

>>2392534
>especially while maintaining that positive K/D ratio
What's so great about a positive K/D ratio
when you lose anyways
war isn't a vidya game bruv

>>2392529
Your original point was that the argument for slavery has points that don't involve morality but when asked to list them you went straight for intangible factors based in value judgements.

>>2392534
>K/D ratio
Fuck off with this dumb meme.

File: lena-dunham-clenched-teeth.jpg (83KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 300x300px

>>2392534
Bragging about K/D ratio when you lose the war is like bragging about the popular vote when you lose the elections.

>>2392537
>union deaths: 360,000
>confederate deaths; ~260,000

Also winning roughly half of battles and skirmishes is no small feat

>>2392544
>you went straight for intangible factors
Goods production is exactly a tangible factor. It's basic math, actually. My original point (since you want to put words in my mouth so badly) was that there was no valid argument against slavery outside of (feelings) morality. There are valid arguments for slavery outside of it. You listed an economic reason against slavery, I countered it with one for it. You resorted to spook-calling. Again, where we've arrived is that either the arguments are spooks in which case you have no argument against slavery OR the standards you set are not spooks in which case the only case against slavery IS feelings and you have lost. It doesn't matter how much you try and squirm out of it here, you played yourself.

Yankees are way worse than niggers

>>2392541
>>2392545
Butt mad yankees pls. The positive K/D ratio destroys the notion that the North "blew us out of the water". You weren't given that victory, y'all had to work for that shit.

>>2392549

So a completely legitimate grievance?

>>2392563
>hard working, industrious, frugal, northern white folk
vs
>lazy, dumb, race-mixing, flamboyant, drunkard southern mongrels

Not a hard choice really.

>>2392531
Why would I argue with a child

>>2392550
One, that's incorrect. You're counting Union POWs who died in prisons and then not doing the same for the Confederates. Should be 290,000 total dead.

Second:

>Confederate POWs captured: 462,634
>Union POWs captured: 546,091
>combined Confederate dead+POW (excluding DOW): 722,634
>combined Union dead+POW (excluding DOW): 546,091

Irrecoverable losses from the Cuckfederates far outnumber those of the Americans. Again, this is reminding me of those Wehraboos who scream about how the Soviets had two or three times as many dead on the Eastern Front as the Germans and American/British deaths on the Western Front roughly equaled German deaths, while ignoring the millions of POWs taken.

>Also winning roughly half of battles and skirmishes is no small feat

True, but a lot of this was because the generals in the Eastern Theater were consistently terrible, and later on because the defender had a huge advantage in trench warfare. The Western Theater was a consistent series of Union victories.

>>2392557
>Goods production is exactly a tangible factor
but why is goods production the highest good?

>You listed an economic reason against slavery, I countered it with one for it.
You thing one invention which >>2392510
said didn't even come out of slavery as a reason to believe that slavery hasn't stagnated economic development.

>>2392557
>>2392588
think*

>>2392580
>>Union POWs captured: 546,091

Should've typed 211,411, sorry.

>>2392570
>The positive K/D ratio destroys the notion that the North "blew us out of the water"
Except the bit where you lost
seriously buddy what do you think war is
what is its ends

>>2392580
Nearly half of all Confederate POWs came after the war was over. Also, I don't know where you're getting those numbers but they are way off.

>Wehraboos
Most German POWs also came after Germany surrendered.

>>2392588
>why is goods production the highest good
Because you claimed economic gains which is tangible through goods production and consumption.

>as a reason to believe that slavery hasn't stagnated economic development
Prove slavery stagnated economic development (or even technological development which you appear to actually be claiming but aren't articulate enough to do so). You can't because the goods from slave economy in the South drove the industrial economy in the North.

>>2392328
Coz it gives workers the power to fight for their rights in the future coz they are not slaves? Which they did?

I genuinely hope you are pro labour and not using this point as a massive whataboutism?

>>2392650
This implies that slaves cannot fight for their "rights" in the future which implies Haiti does not exist.

>>2392660
There's legal protections for me if I decide to "fight for my rights" as a legal citizen.
There's not quite as much if I am a slave.

>>2392666
So one is legally sanctioned and thus is okay and the other is not legally sanctioned and thus is not?

>>2392610
>Nearly half of all Confederate POWs came after the war was over

The war isn't over until the Confederates surrender thus making every soldier essentially a disarmed POW.

>Also, I don't know where you're getting those numbers but they are way off.

National Park Service. But I suppose you have the much better source of your asshole.

>Most German POWs also came after Germany surrendered.

Wrong. In the west, 3,404,950 were taken after the surrender of Germany, 4,209,840 before. In Italy/North Africa, all were taken before the surrender of Germany. In the East, 4.3 million were taken before the surrender and only about a million afterward.

>>2392671
Well I should prefer a system that gives me legal protection if I wish to assert my own interests as a working individual, as opposed to the one that does not, shouldn't I?
Is there something wrong with this sort of reasoning?

>>2392660
And they can fight for their rights better by not being slaves in the first place. Plus the slavery situation in the south can't hardly compare to Haiti. It is not as if the slaves could carve out an island nation somewhere in the South

>>2392675
>But I suppose you have the much better source of your asshole
Yeah, the Department of fucking Defense. You know, the place were casualty statistics actually reside. https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/pages/report_principal_wars.xhtml

Also NPS only shows 436,000 Confederates captured, of which 200,000 were from after the surrender of the Confederacy.
>>2392684
Slave revolts occurred and were equally deadly.

>>2392699
So you mean to tell me that a slave revolt is not only possible in the south, but can eventually lead to an independent nation from both sides of the Civil War?

>>2392710
Slaves outnumbered the confederate military nearly 3 to 1 and made up nearly 40% of the population of the Confederacy. To make matters worse, they were almost entirely situated along the Mississippi and Tennessee Rivers (the modern Black Belt). If they revolted, there wasn't much the Confederacy could have done about it.

>>2392534
>successfully fending off a superior force
Only in the east, and even then only until mid 1863 -1864. The south got their asses handed to them in the western theater from the get go, which is what really lost them the war. New Orleans was captured only like a year after the war started and the mississippi was almost cut in half by then.

File: abraham_lincoln_quote.jpg (47KB, 400x277px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 400x277px

>>2391702
>War of Northern Aggression
More like the great redneck chimp-out

>Why has the cause of the war been boiled down to 'MUH SLAVERY' in pop culture?
Because you have to beat it into the heads of braindead southern fats who are prone to falling for "muh heritage" memes

>>2391702
major redpill: the civil war was not about states rights or slavery but industrialization vs agriculture

>>2392453
>It's almost as if the war was about more than slavery, even if it was a (or even the) primary component.
The war was about slavery. Lincoln was willing to throw slaves under the bus to avoid war.

>>2392876
Slave agriculture

>>2392903
>Lincoln was willing to throw slaves under the bus to avoid war
If this was the case, then war would have been avoided.

>>2392934
No, as noted by other people, the South was chimping out before he even got into office.

>>2392966
And as noted by other people, it was because his election signaled many things for the South and set off many alarm bells. If it was solely about slaves, then the South would have stayed as soon as Lincoln said he would not abolish slavery.

>>2392660
Oh boy, you haven't looked at U.S. slave rebellions were slaves were further stripped of rights each time.

>Black preachers limited
>No more guns for slaves
>No passage without papers or escort
The Institution was designed around maintaining slave isolation from other plantations and farms to prevent cooperation. Nat Turner's rebellion helped to empower the argument of paternalism in the relationship between owners and slaves, where the owners were "civilizing" them.

Saint Dominique's rebellion inspired fear that was confirmed by Turner and resulted in even harsher treatment and tightening of control.

>>2392992
>were further stripped of rights each time
This implies that slaves had rights in the first place, which they did not, hence rights being in quotation marks.

the south may have been fighting for slavery but the north wasn't fighting to free the slaves

>>2392979
Lincoln's platform was not abolition.

His highest priority was preserving the union and he flat out stated that if it took freeing all the slaves or not freeing a single one, that's what he would do.

Lincoln was a compromise moderate elected on a platform of preventing slavery's spread to new states. Southerners saw this as political checkmate when the free states begin outnumbering slave states.

The irony is that in all his private correspondences Lincoln personally detested slavery and that it was only through exercising emergency war time powers that emancipating the slaves became politically feasible.

>>2391702
The defense of Fort Sumter sure was violent, look at that northern aggression as they fight on the defensive.

>>2393039
We're on the same page, m8. Reread the post. Also Lincoln was very openly abolitionist. It wasn't a private matter, whether he campaigned on it or not.

>>2391702
Theres something that boggles my mind and it seems that many people dont understand, or rather choose to ignore. Yes, the south cared about slavery, they wanted to keep it as an essential institution for their way of life, economy and racial beliefs. BUT the key point, from a political, free of morality, point of view is still secession, the rights of the states. If the south had wanted to secede because they wanted to bake apple pies and the north said "no, apple pies are disgusting" the south would still have had the right to secede. Lincoln and the political actors that agreed with him trampled all over that because they wanted to keep the full Union at any costs. Slavery is a very important discussion, but whenever someone tries to discuss the legality of the conflict as opposed to the morality of it everyone cries bigot and racist.

>>2393351
>legality of the conflict
Confederacy fired the first shot. What was the Union supposed to do, ignore it?

File: based_sherman.jpg (65KB, 470x813px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 470x813px

The Carolinas are all right

>>2392580
Your numbers are straight up false retard

>>2392580
http://www.historynet.com/civil-war-casualties

>>2392598
I'm gonna have to repeat myself because apparently you're retarded; there's a difference between losing a war and getting BTFO. You would have been one of those "war will be over in a month" yankees back in 1861

>>2392872
>>2391766

The South will not rise again

>>2392238

I won't

>>2393818
No one in this thread has said that it will

>>2391702
No slaves in North.
Slaves in South.
North goes to war against South.
North frees slaves in South (kinda).
War against Slavery.

It's not that difficult.

>>2391702
If it wasn't for the civil war, there would still be slavery in the south for at least 100 years.

>>2393351

The only reason why anyone cares about the legality of ending slavery is because they're butthurt.

>>2394230
Slavery never ended, now it's just called minimum wage.

>>2391718
Based on this movie, it was about not being ruled by a king across the sea, and be independent without England.

File: the-patriot-mel-gibson-impales-an-evil-british-so_imagelarge.jpg (32KB, 298x430px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 298x430px

>>2394247
Fuck, this movie

>>2391702
The South failing to secede was the best possible thing that could have happened to it.

>South successfully secedes like Dixiefags wish it had
>Economy goes to shit as soon as it's biggest consumer (Britian) stops buying, as they can get Egyptian cotton for cheaper and without the moral baggage of slave produced goods.
>Boll weevil migration in the 1890's further destroys whatever crop the Confederacy harvested, destroying the cash crop that propped up their economy as well as bankrupting dozens of Plantation owners
>The Souths third world tier economy is completely outpaced by leaps and bounds by the North, as nobody wants to invest in the pariah state that still has legal slavery.
>Poor white sharecroppers and black slaves stage numerous rebellions that culminate in what amounts to a mirror of the Mexican Civil War
>Slaves eventually outbreed whites in most states by a large margin and start killing whites en masse, Haiti style, in said states.
>What's left of the Confederacy that hasn't broken off into its own separate nation or rejoined the USA is, per capita, poorer than Mexico with its economy in shambles. Parts of the country are so bad that they resemble countries like Haiti or Brazil more than anything.

Inb4 Dixiecucks claiming that this isn't exactly what would happen.N

>>2394250
I honestly can't tell if this is b8 or if you just really don't know the difference between the Civil War and the Revolution

>>2394384
>inb4 someone calls bullshit on my bullshit ramblings

>>2394418
What part of my post was bullshit or too implausible to happen? Enlighten me.

>>2391959
This.

This is what everyone outside of the US thinks of the US.

File: 00ae1e81321f6f6fe8aca847b8484dff105c1082_full.jpg (11KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 184x184px

>The South seceded because of slavery
>The North went to war because the South seceded
I love when Lost Causers try to use the second point to argue that the war wasn't about slavery. It absolutely was and to argue otherwise is retarded.

Did the North go to war to free the slaves? Fuck no. They went to war to keep the South. But the South seceded to keep their slaves.

The Civil War was about slavery.

>>2394430
Its because race in the US is in many ways synonymous with class (used to be literally what defined class when Jim Crow was around). Race consciousness is what passes for class consciousness because your race determines your standing more so than your class does (which is what makes it unique among Western nations). You can see the divide clear as day when comparing white vs. black SAT scores as well as their median wealth and crime rates/rates of conviction.

>>2394430
It's easy to ignore race when you live in a homogeneous county

>>2394454
*country

>>2394445
>>2391766
>>2391954

File: JRp4MDK.jpg (64KB, 460x459px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 460x459px

>>2394454
I don't, I live in another ex-colony, we have no problem calling blacks our equivalent of nigger, or calling natives indians, and we have a ton of arabs and turks, and even some chinese and japanese people, and whites from all around Europe.

>>2394430
who gives a shit what people outside the US think?

>>2394470
Which country?

First paragraph of the Mississippi Declaration of Secession:

>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. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

It's a primary source, not "pop history."

>>2394384
The South produced a greater quantity of higher quality cotton that the British and other Europians would have eventually started buying despite 'moral baggage'. Cotton also wasn't our only export (i.e. tobacco, rice, dye). The Southern constitution also outlawed the importation of slaves which would have allowed them to keep the slave to white ratio under control. As for successful slave rebellions and boll weevil plagues, we can only speculate. To say anything is 100% certain when talking about contingency is flat out false.

>>2394470
Tell me your country so I can look up stats and show you how you are empirically no where near as diverse as us

>>2394496
You might as well look up South America as a whole because we're all the same in this regard.

>>2392178
according to your 21st century morals.

>>2392071
>>2392184

what gets me is this guy >>2392113

They always accuse the people making the states rights argument as being pro slavery...Slavery is fucking terrible and I very much agree with Thomas Jefferson and John Adams that the Declaration of Independence should have freed them. Hell, slavery/involuntary servitude is still legal...read the amendment "…except as punishment for a crime…" Fed prisoners work in factories making things for companies like Victoria's Secret and in fields for 2-14 cents/hr with no worker protection...


Each state was it's own sovereign territory with it's own gov't and constitution. They only united to defeat the British and to conduct free commerce with one another. The endgame was not a strong Federal gov't, the federal gov't was set up to ensure it couldn't beeome too strong...

File: IMG_0318.jpg (34KB, 467x255px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 467x255px

>>2394508
>implying any South American country is this diverse

>>2394488
>The South produced a greater quantity of higher quality cotton that the British and other Europians would have eventually started buying despite 'moral baggage'
Maybe for 10 or so years. The Brits had already begun ramping up production in India and Egypt and were flooding the market with the stuff. I don't see how roughly 4 million black slaves are going to be able to compete with the 100+ million Indians.

>Cotton also wasn't our only export (i.e. tobacco, rice, dye)
None of those does a stable industrial economy make. Also the vast majority of rice and dye imported to Europe also came from Indonesia and India respectively.

>The Southern constitution also outlawed the importation of slaves which would have allowed them to keep the slave to white ratio under control

Which was a contentious issue iirc as there was a faction of Dixiecrats in government who had Hitler tier delusions of restoring the transatlantic slave trade and spreading slavery to South America (muh Golden Circle etc).

>As for successful slave rebellions and boll weevil plagues, we can only speculate. To say anything is 100% certain when talking about contingency is flat out false.

Sure, nothings set in stone, but you'd be hard pressed to deny that many Southern politicians during the Confederacy's short existence weren't insanely regressive. It would have taken a hardcore reformer to turn the Confederacy into anything more than a Brazil tier shithole.

>>2394562
Btw 5.1% Asian population in America means we have over 16 MILLION Asians

>>2392339
Where does this meme that slaves had literally no rights come from?

You do know you couldn't actually treat your slaves like literal trash, right? You do know you still had to provide them with the bare minimum to keep them alive, right?

You do know that it was pretty fucking retarded to pay big bucks for a slave and then have him get sick and die, right?

You do understand that slaves weren't just cheap replaceable things that you could just throw away in a whim, right? They were actually very expensive, that's why only the richest people could afford them.

>>2394562
Brazil is, also Americas problem isn't diversity, that's actually its strength. It's problem is that a specific ethnic group (i.e. Black Americans), have been both systemically and culturally shat on for pretty much the entirety of its history to the point that they're de facto second class citizens despite de jure having equal rights. None of this is anyone's fault rather its what was deemed culturally acceptable by everyone around them.

>>2392374
>it stagnates innovation

Yes because any sensible businessman will have 1000 people working their fields while having to keep them alive and healthy when they could instead have 1 person driving a machine.

>>2394582
>You do know you couldn't actually treat your slaves like literal trash, right?

It wasn't Belgian Congo tier but it was still pretty brutal regardless. Slaves weren't exactly favored to win a court case against their masters.

>>2392479
>slavery is evil
Not a fact.

>>2394045
Unlikely. And if it did it would become a very irrelevant thing.

It would of most likely been abolished by peer pressure by other countries and by the simple fact that it makes more sense to use machines rather than human labour in general.

>>2394562
That's literally pretty much how every country in America is, most of us, tho, don't have a separate tab for "hispanic" and "white", and we have far higher native american populations and far smaller black populations.

>>2394596
Blacks in the US have been treated too nicely. White guilt has basically made them a privileged group of sorts. despite most of them still living in ghettos and being poor because idk, I guess only the dumb blockheaded ones got shipped out of Africa I imagine.

I say they should of kill'em all, worked for us, but now it's too late, so they'll have to deal with it.

>>2394608
Truth, but I will always argue that you can't fix a problem by making more laws if your problem is that the law isn't being enforced properly to begin with.

That's the same argument used to shit on the Spanish crown during the conquista, even tho the crown protected all the natives and take them as citizens of the empire, and the abuse was committed by private individuals who were basically breaking the law.

>>2394646

Owning slaves woudn't stop being a social status symbol overnight.

Picking cotton isn't the only things slaves were capable of doing. Domestic help was always a thing and factory work still required human input in dangerous, low skill ways.

Reminder that the cotton gin, a machine, revived slavery rather than killed it.

Even if slavery would have begun to wither, it still would very much be relevant and it would require definite and motivated political will that the south didn't have to get rid of it through law.

>>2391766

>Lincoln is cool with slave states keeping their slaves
>Wasn't particularly cool about adding more slave states in territory out west
>Southern states fear that by adding more free states out west, the free to slave state ratio would go opposite of them
>Slave states would be the minority in the HoR and Senate
>figured eventually they would try to end slavery where it existed
>Lincoln wins
>South ass-blasted
>leaves

Effectively how it happened.

>>2394846
The only people that actually care about those kinds of status symbols are poor people.

Rich people don't buy gold cars just because they can, and yes, slavery for house chores would of been a thing, probably, but for how long can you justify the expense? Factories need skilled labor, and all the way into the 1960s we are already looking at mostly automated production anyway.

File: 2b41934dabcd80e2e4d772b0a62ba3010ca24ff2.png (239KB, 553x369px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 553x369px

>mfw Southerns are willing to pretend to be pro-labour/leftists in order to whatabout Nothern's shit treatment of its own labour
What a thread to witness

>>2394582
>Where does this meme that slaves had literally no rights come from
When they can't vote and enjoy actual rights

>>2395003
Do you know what a right is?

The North should have burnt the South to the ground. All of these butthurt Sothernfags are annoying; acting like they were there.

>>2395350
>North burns South to the ground
>North wins war
>North inherits smoldering crater of the Southern states which is a drain on its resources
>Shear economic deadweight brings the country to its knees before the start of the 20th century

You're quite the tactician

File: laughing slut #34.gif (995KB, 280x201px) Image search: [Google]

995KB, 280x201px

>>2395003

>>2394715
Can this hispanic meme of calling South America and Mexico "America" just die already

>>2395373
Your feelings won't change the fact that the entire continent was called "America" by the people who discovered.

>>2391702
>Why has the cause of the war been boiled down to 'MUH SLAVERY' in pop culture?

Because for anyone who isn't some Southern propagandist (ie retarded) that's basically what it amounts to. The slave-owning aristocracy in the South didn't like the prospect of free ftates outnumbering slave states and having to change their way of life so they chimped out.

>m-muh states rights

The USA and CSA constitutions were practically identical, although in the CSA states did not have the right to be free states.

In addition to this, the CSA shot first, which drops any amount of sympathy I might have had for them.

>m-muh tariffs

Was never brought up at the time

>>2395420
>CSA and USA Constitutions were identical
No shit. Southern sentiment was that Northern states were impeding on their Constitutional rights by exerting the power of the federal government in areas that were explicitly delegated to the states

>Tariffs were never brought up at the time
Oh shit I didn't know I was talking to an actual retard, sorry to bother you nevermind

>>2395387
It's two separate continents and names change over time. We don't call Vietnam Indochina even though that was its original name because that would be retarded. Intiendas José?

>>2395453
Except the CSA constitution actually limits State's Rights more than the Constitution does. Not to mention that "States Rights" was only brought up with the whole Lost Cause after the war. But, please continue to stay Chimpin.

>>2395453
Also, show me where in any of the letter's of secession where tariffs were brought up.

>>2395471
They're not 2 separate continents you fucking retard, the channel of Panama is the closest thing to a physical breach between the 2.

>>2391959
>>2394430
>>2394448

You also have entire cities that are divided among racial lines that are hotbeds of civil strife, take Los Angeles for example.

>>2395562
They occupy 2 separate continental plates. If they aren't separate continents, then Africa, Asia, and Europe are all part of one continent

If there's still this much animosity and debate between the two sides, maybe you should have just let them leave? That way, when they inevitably went bankrupt from clinging to an outdated system, they could have come to the realization themselves and begged to be let back in.

>>2392312
that has nothing to do with the opinions of intelligent people changing, it has to do with how socially acceptable it is to align to that cause.

An intelligent person is going to understand the position they'll be in if they're openly pro-south, as opposed to a less intelligent person.

Trust me, I've lived in North Georgia and Vicksburg for a most of my life.

Most people don't care, and those that do and are worth listening to fly under the radar to avoid being a social pariah.

>>2395582
They are.

"The old world". The continental plates have nothing to do with it, they were named and divided centuries before people knew what the fuck that even was.

>>2394448
>poor white people don't exist
Spoken like a typical clueless coastal faggot.

>>2395552
>Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.
>The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

Georgia letter of secession

>>2395646
Holy shit I knew education in Latin America was bad but not this bad

File: IMG_0319.jpg (36KB, 535x274px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 535x274px

>>2395562
Here you go cholo

File: IMG_0320.gif (33KB, 609x318px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 609x318px

>>2395646

>>2395368
Better than what we have.

File: mapa mundo.png (72KB, 725x454px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 725x454px

>>2396157
Are you suggesting the continents were divided after the discovery of the tectonic plates?

>>2396175
>muh anglo-centric views of the world are the universal views of the world.

The spaniard got to America first.

>>2396313

Why would ANYONE care what a non-Anglo thinks? Least of all, on an Anglo basket-weaving site!

File: xxx3.jpg (122KB, 503x540px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 503x540px

>>2396334
You speak hard words for a pseudo-empire that's lasted all in all literally fuck-all in the scale and is already looking like is about to collapse.

>>2393655
>getting completely dominated and conquered is not getting BTFO

>>2396200
>Nothing is better than something

Do you go to school? Do you even have parents?

>>2396344
>Patriots beat the Seahawks 27-25
>Lol they lost the game that means they got BTFO

>>2396343
Remember when we would toy with your region's politics just to suit our political agenda in the Cold War? Your countries are literal pawns on the global chessboard for super powers to dispose of as we please. The big boys get to make the rules, and we say North and South America (as do the modern day Spaniards). Now go mow my lawn for $3 an hour

File: adhiash.png (369KB, 546x362px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 546x362px

>>2396502
>The North had a full-fledged functioning economy while also fielding a numerically and technology superior force.
>The South lost a significant portion of its male population and its economy took decades to recover
>27-25

>>2396561
>South fended off the North for 4 years despite population and industrial advantt
>North lost over 100,000 more men than the South
>Northern president gets shot in the back of the head

Sounds pretty close to me

>>2396561

the entire country lost 1/5 males dude, the North bled just as hard.

also

>numerically and technology superior force
>still floundered about for years getting btfo repeatedly by literal shoe-less

>>2396587
>North lost over 100,000 more men than the South
Uh, no. Most estimates put the number of casualties at pretty close to even, before counting Southern civilian deaths which were significant.
I'm not saying the South weren't some scrappy fuckers but they absolutely got BTFO.

>>2396588
>North had more than double the population of the South
>Lost a bit under the same number or people
The North's economic production never even missed a beat. There are areas of the American South that arguably still haven't recovered from the Civil War.
There's more to who wins wars than the number or casualties.

File: 1456989129869.jpg (591KB, 2688x1520px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 2688x1520px

>>2396639

you know it's not a mark of skill to lose as many men as your opponent if you outnumber him, right?

also

>Confederacy: 290,000+ total dead, 137,000+ wounded
>Union: 365,000+ total dead, 282,000+ wounded

hmm

>a bit under the same number

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

File: Daffy duck.jpg (12KB, 162x195px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 162x195px

>>2391702

There already was a cultural rift. Anyone of the period could tell you there was a clear divide between being up north and down side. Economics drove it, and people were starting to become aware of the issue Slavery had to democracy. Industrialization to farming had made slavery a moot point but alot of the south were unwilling to let go of their slaves.

This issue also is what helped spark the war with Mexico because Texans wouldn't let go of their fucking slaves.

Mexico let them settle land that was theirs, but they had to let go of their slaves. They refused, Mexico got pissed off and sent the army, and then suddenly the US was at war with Mexico cause "Remember the Alamo!" which was largely Texas's fault in the first place.

And you know what? Screw the confederacy too. They were planning after the war to invade Mexico and the Carribean too. I have no pity for people who claim to be all about "muh rights" then take away others.

>>2396700
>Industrialization to farming had made slavery a moot point but alot of the south were unwilling to let go of their slaves.
Industrialized farms wouldn't over take plantation output for nearly 30 years after the Civil War ended.

>>2396661
>Mark of skill
Yeah that super mattered in the long run huh? Fact is it's harder to conquer and occupy hostile territory than it is to defend it.

>Confederacy: 290,000+ total dead, 137,000+ wounded
>>Union: 365,000+ total dead, 282,000+ wounded
Those numbers haven't been considered valid for a long time, anon. The North lost ~6% of its male population 14-45. The South lost ~18%.

>Population in 1860:
>North: 22,100,000
>South: 9,100,000

>Population in 1864:
>North:28,800,000
>South: 3,000,000

Once again, "who kills the most" isn't a valid metric for who won a war, and even then there's a LOT more to even those numbers than simply "one is higher than the other"

There is no metric for measuring the Civil War in which the South didn't get utterly devastated. They accomplished none of their war goals, they lost an obscene proportion of their population.

>>2396724

Perhaps, though it didn't have the economic appeal before. Though the European nations were able to outlaw slavery before we could so that must say something.

Regardless, slavery was becoming economically unfeasible through the changing times and tech. Even if it would take alittle while longer, it was still a issue that a democracy would have to answer to. I mean, how do you be a democracy and still have slavery?

File: 1358738178453.jpg (16KB, 170x250px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 170x250px

>>2396661

Read a book on warfare son.

War isn't won by numbers(At least not numbers alone). War is won based on the nations ability to make war. A nation must direct its populations and resources to war and no more is it true than the Industrial era of warfare.

The North was superior in a number of ways. Tech wise they weren't too far from each other, but what killed the South was the lack of industrialization and nationalization they did. Lincoln nationalized the railroad and made use of it in wartime which gave the Union and edge. Economically it was doing better in a way too and with a higher population to boot.

The South did everything wrong. Yeah, it managed to get a sling of victories under its belt and even threatened the US capital, but this was the high point of what they could do. They were doomed to lose if they couldn't achieve victory quickly.

The South had no way to win a war in a long run. Its industry is laughable and a large chunk of its population strength was slaves(Which they actually started to consider conscripting at one point), and the railroad was not as well developed and was not nationalized.

To make it worse, Some of the Southern States actively went against the Confederacy and in one case(i forget which) even basically seceded from it more or less. It was like the Confederate leaders had no understanding of what a "Confederacy" is and wanted to stay with "Muh rights."

The South would just of balkenized the US into a ungodly mess.

>>2396745

>muh six million

pls those figures are completely retarded

>>2396870
Those figures are from the US census you dipshit.
It doesn't mean 6,000,000 Southerners died in those 4 years. It means 6,000,000 less people lived in the South after the war than before.

>>2396800

>War isn't won by numbers
>r-read a book

*cough*

I never suggested the South should have won, I'm just pointing out the massive Union lack of competency to get btfo on the field for years despite having every conceivable advantage outside of their lack of a skilled officer corps.

In the end Grant just meatgrindered his own men until the numbers advantage ground the South down. You consider this to be a positive? At least Sherman was efficient.

>>2396901

>You consider this to be a positive?

I never suggested that. I'm just pointing out numbers don't always mean anything. The south had its fair share of idiots too, considering Roberts gamble at Gettysburg.

So yes, r-read a book buddy.

>>2396890

didn't know there was a census in 1864, funny

>>2396935
No but there was a census in 1860 and 1870, and there's a ton of data on immigration, war records, and settlement between the frontier and reconsolidating the South into the Union.

They're decently reliable population numbers. The South was devestated by the war and a lot of people just fucking left.

>>2396962

sry, I'm not autistic

>>2396800
>muh industry

The south lost because of manpower issues. The white south had 1/4th of the population as the white north and they couldn't sustain the heavy losses over 5 years. The fact that the south was able to pull together a competitive army that went toe to toe with the federal army (and won in a lot of cases) is incredible. This is where the whole Lost Cause circlejerk came from.

>>2396749
>Though the European nations were able to outlaw slavery before we could so that must say something
Completely different situation. Slaves in Europe were primarily used as house servants and such. France and Britain, despite nominally outlawing slavery, still had slaves in their colonies contrary to popular belief. This is particularly true in Africa.

>Regardless, slavery was becoming economically unfeasible through the changing times and tech
I honestly can't concede that since we never saw what an industrialized plantation could produce. I'm quite sure that it would out produce a free industrialized farm though.

>how do you be a democracy and still have slavery
Simple: by having a republic

>>2396745
http://www.historynet.com/civil-war-casualties

Read it and weep fuckboi

File: 1380697092809.jpg (42KB, 479x720px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 479x720px

>>2391702
>The civil war was about state's rights

>>2391718
Southerners wanting to be more equal than anyone else and chimping out when someone who wasn't even going to free slaves got elected.

And them being bitter that they threw a tantrum, got spanked, and dragged kicking and screaming into a functional socioeconomic model.

>>2391743
only a small minority of southerners owned slaves.

It had a lot more to do with differences in culture and stats rights on top of slavery.

>>2391806
>America is obsessed with black people
This is only a counter-cultural effect of blacks being suspiciously absent from American culture despite making up about 10% of the population and also still being an influence on the American culture.

>>2399481
>only a small minority of southerners owned slaves.

Intentionally misleading, since slaves were always owned by the patriarch of the household. Counting by household, over a third of Southern households owned slaves. Many of the ones that didn't directly benefited in different ways by having jobs related to slavery.

File: 1486346138678.png (585KB, 718x802px) Image search: [Google]

585KB, 718x802px

>>2399563
>Everyone benefits in some way from something else

>>2391734
We've almost reached the goal

>>2391702
Slavery WAS the main reason for the war, but it was mostly for economical reasons, i mean sure the south was racist but so was the north too. The difference was that the north was industrialized and didn't needed slaves while slavery was vital to the south economy.

When we won the Civil War all Southern traitor soldiers should've been lined up in the street for high treason like the dogs they are, and their lands given to the true Americans. The South forgets that we went easy on them in the first place.

>>2394513
These were the morals of almost every single other civilized nation in the West, especially England which had already abolished slavery a couple hundred years ago.

>>2400176
>we

>>2400495
Don't make me come back down to Atlanta fucking rebel scum

>>2396977
You're posting on 4chan.

>>2397595
> honestly can't concede that since we never saw what an industrialized plantation could produce
That's like saying you don't know what a vegetarian slaughterhouse could produce because you've never seen one.

>>2400858
>Thinking I'd ever live in Ape Town, USA

If you burn it down I'd join you

>>2399141
>http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/recounting-the-dead/

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

1MB, 1864x4327px

>confederate constitution requires that every state allow slavery
>it's constitution takes away rights from states
>IT WAS ABOUT STATE'S RIGHTS

>>2400934
You're implying that an industrialized plantation can't exist which is untrue.

File: obesity_map_6_white_people.0.png (325KB, 1700x1080px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 1700x1080px

>>2400999
Don't worry southern fat, When that anon and I come for you you won't be safe in Frogballs Arksansas, either

>>2391702
States don't have the right to bombard a Federal Fort, faggot.

>>2391702
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DJR6yUulro
>this triggers the Southerner

>>2402276
As long as you don't get swamp ass and die from dysentery like your mick ancestors.

>>2402276
>Michigan
Literally the Mississippi of the north

>>2402678
>mick ancestors
Says the fucking southerner. You are nothing but Micks and Ulster trash while the north is largely German.

>>2402685
ulsters are from scotland and northern england, very few actual micks migrated south. Also the g*rms mostly came after the civil war. But I forgive you're ignorance.

>>2402699
Try reading Cracker Culture from McWhiney, it will explain a lot about your ancestry.

>>2402276
>fattest category of states
>five union states
>four csa states

really makes you think

>>2402704
>get proved wrong
>can't think of coutner agrument
>pivot and tell him to read some shitty pop history

I expect no less from a papist mick

>>2402718
I'm a German Lutheran.

>Grady McWhiney
>pop history
Top lel. He's a southerner too by the way.

>>2402719
>Muh celtic confederate heritage

It's stupid pseudo history. Most of the CSA leadership and Officers were Anglo-Saxon. The entire planter class was mostly Anglo-Saxon. Yes there were a lot of ulster-scots in the south (as well as the north and pretty much everywhere in the frontier) but even most ulster-scots had their ancestry in England. Even Mr. Scotch-Irish himself, Andrew Jackson, was descended from Northern English colonists to Ulster.

>I'm a German Lutheran.

yes and I've never met a person named Cletus in my life, it's just banter

>>2402745
>CSA leadership
>planters
Those constituted like what, 1% of the population? It's like saying modern Americans are Jewish just because the elite is.

>>2402749
Planters and land owners made up a disproportionate amount of the Confederate forces. The vast majority of the white south was of english descent. The "celtic" hillbillies were pretty ambivalent towards the civil war and tended to switch sides a lot. Appalachia was very pro union and hillbillies made up a large part of the Union's Army of the Cumberland and Army of the Tennessee.

Go to any CSA graveyard and you're just going to find mostly english names.

>>2402708
>really makes you think
Yeah, the union had to cut a lot of deals in order to keep some of those border states on the winning side. Probably by stuffing a shitload of Burger King Whoppers in their face while clapping along to Bible-pop and shooting off automatic rifles

>>2402776
>this qualifies as humor in the north

leave the jokes to your jewish landlord

>>2394409
one was started by traitorous slave owners chimping out in boston harbor and the other was started by traitorous slave owners chimping out in charleston harbor.

>>2402769
>The vast majority of the white south was of english descent.
Wishful thinking, bognigger.

>>2391702
The "War on Northern Aggression" is propaganda spread by the KKK. The Civil War was the greatest act of treachery in American history that cost out great nation hundreds of thousands of deaths. Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis should've been hanged and left for the crows to eat. May they rot in hell with Judas, Brutus, and Cassius.

>>2402745
>I literally discovered the book 5 minutes ago on wikipedia but let me tell you it's pseudo history

>>2402789
The joke wasn't meant for you southern-fat so shut your cake hole. I knew damn well when I wrote it that it would fly right over your flabby head

>>2402812
>that qualifies as high brow in the north

If the joke wasn't meant for me then why does the post include a massive (You).

>>2402800
nice argument, I'm sure you can find another thread that is more your speed. I suggest /humanities/

>>2402804
>Brutus and Cassius in hell
Now I know youre memeing

>>2402819
Because it was made at your expense, smart guy

heeeeere's your sign

>>2391702
The President-elect won the election with less than 40% of the popular vote but had the majority of electoral votes. The Republican Party had put forth a candidate to win several crucial states that could swing the electoral college. The election was a bitter one with the Democratic Party fractured between two candidates.

The incoming President received so many death threats that he chose to arrive in Washington in secrecy. The security for the inauguration was the tightest ever with troops stationed on buildings throughout the day. This was an unprecedented amount of protection for any President-elect. Many members of Congress chose not to attend the ceremony. Despite all this Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as our 16th president on March 4, 1861.

Just some food for thought

>>2402830
>>2402830
>Probably by stuffing a shitload of Burger King Whoppers in their face while clapping along to Bible-pop and shooting off automatic rifles
>I knew damn well when I wrote it that it would fly right over your flabby head

>>2402828
Have you never heard of Dante's Inferno?

>>2391702
"MUH SLAVERY" was the cause, but not in the sense most people portray it.

The North was not some benevolent force of freedom and egalitarianism. They simply had no need for slave because the industrial nature of the North's economy. The North found it was more profitable to exploit the wave of immigrants coming to the big industrial hubs in the northeast. They had their own, equally deplorable system of exploitative cheap labor. The north just happened to pay their workers, which suddenly make it justifiable.

On the other hand the South was an agricultural society. There where no immigrants to use for cheap labor. In turn the South had a much higher need for slaves.

It was not a question of morality, it was economics. Slavery was going to die out anyway.

>>2402845
>still doesn't get the joke
you ARE the joke.

>>2392328
Show me the part where factory owner held the workers at gunpoint telling them to buy this property and to work this factory.

>>2402871
>They had their own, equally deplorable system of exploitative cheap labor.
Right, because marching your workers in chains out into the fields and lashing them severely for trying to improve themselves is the equivalent to giving someone citizenship and an honest day's wages
> The north just happened to pay their workers, which suddenly make it justifiable.
And grant them citizenship, which was the key. People were willing to deal with crap living conditions if it meant that they could live in a country that rewarded them for working hard and gave them a say in how they were governed. Anyone could come to America and be an American, that has always been and will be the core of the Union's strength and what made the industrial era possible, and precisely why the CSA was build on a house of cards whose economy had ossified around a single industry

>Slavery was going to die out anyway.
That was the cop-out position adopted by the founding fathers to kick the can down the road, none of whom predicted how profitable the cotton gin would make slavery.

Slavery was exploding in the south, which is why they were looking to extend their territories west and south, and why they were that buttblasted about Lincoln promising to let them keep their slaves in exchange for not making any more slave states

>>2402871
>equally deplorable

>>2402900
The only reason northern factory owners didn't do that is because there was an ample supply of prospective workers that would line up as soon as there was an opening to work. Also, immigrants who didn't work would starve anyways. There was a figurative gun to the head of a Northern factory worker, using a real one would just be inefficient. In other words, factory workers where kept in line by their economic status, and the sadly naive hope that they could better their lot in life. The use of force by southern slave owners is just easier to demonize.

You can justify it an say a factory worker had the choice to leave, but how can you leave when you have no savings, and you rely on your next payment just to pay rent and get just enough food to survive? The things that a Northern factory worker had to pay for was provided by slave owners to their slaves for the most part. Also what good is pay when it only covers the absolute basics of survival, its just a different form of slavery.

Slavery is unjust, don't get me wrong, but there is no moral high ground to take between the two choices here.

>>2402923
>and the sadly naive hope that they could better their lot in life.
Irish, German, Chinese, and Italian households seem to be doing just fine these days. It usually takes a few generations to go from working class bitch-labor to middle class

>Slavery is unjust, don't get me wrong, but there is no moral high ground to take between the two choices here.
false equivalence. The difference is that union workers had a means of improving their lot. Slaves by definition do not. That alone makes the Union morally superior to the CDA

>>2391702
Slavery, domination, dominion...it's all the same, and it's likely been since the very first person looked and walked upon this earth. I think we should blame her more than anyone, except maybe her first son (the second child to walk this earth).

>>2401639
Prove me wrong. Developing Industrialization and slavery are not economically compatible.

>>2402796
lol

>>2402923
The north didn't claim factory owners deserved extra votes or withhold the vote from their workers, you bible belt monkey.

>>2406288
Industrialization was built on goods produced by slaves.

>>2406316
Literally the opposite. Slaves hurt industrialization, they don't help it. This is why places that relied on slavery the most (US South, Brazil, African West Coast, Barbary states etc) were the most backwards shitholes while many countries that never participated in slavery such as Germany industrialized fairly quickly.

>>2406329
>Literally the opposite
Yeah, neither Britain nor yankees nor Germans were overly dependent upon Southern cotton for their textile mills (the universally accepted first industrialized are).

>>2406343
British textile industry was dependent mostly on Indian and Egyptian cotton which is why they didn't bother to intervene in the Civil War on Southern behalf.

>>2406352
>Mostly on Egyptian and Indian cotton
A development that occurred during the war. Russia was the big deterrent for Britain.

>>2406372
>during the war
Sure if the Civil War happened in the 1820s.

>>2406421
>Records of British Imports of Cotton in 1860 (cwts.)
>From the United States..................... 9,963,309
>From British East Indies.................... 1,822,689
>From Egypt...................................... 392,447
>From Brazil...................................... 154,347
>From other sources.......................... 86,304
>Total................................... 12,419,096

http://www.nytimes.com/1861/06/01/news/england-and-the-cotton-supply.html

Pull your head in m8. 3/4 of Britains cotton supply came from the United States at the outbreak of the civil war.

>>2406421
>>2406471
Also here's more info on how slave driven cotton plantations drove the industrial revolution:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/britain-1700-to-1900/industrial-revolution/the-cotton-industry-and-the-industrial-revolution/

Literally fuck off.

>>2406316
And the south wasn't remotely industrialized.
Coincidence?

>>2406483
At the time, slave plantations were outproducing free "industrialized" farms. There was no reason for them to switch. Industrialized farms wouldn't reach a level of output greater than plantations until the 1890s.

>>2406493
Of course they were. Slavery disincentivizes technological labor-saving (or labor-amplifying) development. There is no reason to make each laborer more productive when more labor is the next best thing to 'free'. You clothing-wearing chimp.

They were also actively resisting industrialization lest mobility empower potential slave rebellion to spread.

>>2406512
>slave plantations were the only farms in the entire in 1860 and thus crippled development everywhere
"No."

>There is no reason to make each laborer more productive when more labor is the next best thing to 'free'
Are you retarded? Slaves weren't free. They cost more than hiring free farmers. They just produced ~30% more, even if the paid workers use those labor saving developments. Just because plantations didn't use them (because they didn't need to) doesn't mean they weren't being developed. In fact, there was a FUCK TON of farm related inventions prior to 1860.
https://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farm_tech.htm

tl;dr
Stop being retarded

>>2401040
>unironically citing a nytimes article regarding history

>>2406529
>slaves
>cost more than hiring free farmers
Stopped reading there. You're beyond retarded. The only costly thing was the initial purchase (a good young male slave cost about as much as a house), which was absolutely nothing compared the kind of money the owner would save on wages, not to mention breeding and selling more slaves.

>>2406536
A fucking blog at that.

What would the south be like today if the CSA managed to win and last to the present day?

Would it be like a big redneck Anglophone Brazil? Or would it be first world?

File: let_s_go_to_school.png (2MB, 1566x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1566x1080px

>>2406536
>>2406542
>Reading the url but not the sourced, cited, methodologically-sound content

>>2406544
>Would it be like a big redneck Anglophone Brazil?
Essentially. Fuck, it's barely above that even today and they actually got helped when so many blacks migrated north.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_%28African_American%29

>>2406539
>Thus the value in today's dollars of a slave during the antebellum period ranges from $45,000 (in 1809) to $134,000 of a slave's expected revenue less maintenance costs. If we assume, for example, that the average slave will live 20 more years, then today's price for a slave valued at $400 in 1850 could be interpreted as the $82,000 in wages plus the 20 years of room, board, and clothing that it would take to hire unskilled workers today to perform the lifetime services expected of a slave.13. Unlike hired hands, slaves were responsible in large part for producing their own room, board, and clothing. Given that the work week today is significantly shorter than in 1850 and that slaves were made to work harder during the same amount of time as free workers, it would take more than one hired hand today to replace the labor supplied by a slave then

https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php
Get fucked.

Slaves may have produced more, but they were more expensive than hired hands.

>>2406529
> >slave plantations were the only farms in the entire in 1860 and thus crippled development everywhere
Can you at least finish the sentences before you try to shove them into my mouth? Pretty please? And maybe make them related to the post you're pointing at? I'd really appreciate it.

The south had shit-all in the way of factories, foundries, and railroads. This was not by accident. This was a direct result of the institution of slavery that they decided they would like to die and kill to defend. If slaves cost more than hiring "free farmers", why weren't they replaced with that?

>>2406554
Have you actually read the post you replied to or are you just pretending to be retarded?

>>2406558
>The south had shit-all in the way of factories, foundries, and railroads. This was not by accident. This was a direct result of the institution of slavery that they decided they would like to die and kill to defend
And again, this is irrelevant as developments were made using capital from goods produced from slave-produced goods. Something you're willfully ignoring.

>If slaves cost more than hiring "free farmers", why weren't they replaced with that
They produced more as well. You realize that these aren't mutually exclusive, yes? A free farmers wage is cheap. A slaves life is not. There's a reason few in the South actually owned slaves, but instead invested in hired hands. It was a very expensive, if lucrative enterprise. As Sam Walton used to say (paraphrase): "You lose on the individual but make up for it in bulk."

>>2406560
Except it wasn't the only costly thing. Room, board and medical assistance were more costly than a daily wage. This is particularly true when you realize that slaves had no real use outside of the growing and harvesting seasons. Also no citations were given, I gave one. Fuck off.

>>2406571
>Unlike hired hands, slaves were responsible in large part for producing their own room, board, and clothing.
Literally from your own quote you fucking imbecile.

>Also no citations were given, I gave one.
Which isn't supporting your point in any way.

>Fuck off.
Kys yourself, cuckfederate.

File: lol.png (367KB, 901x689px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 901x689px

>>2402276
lol
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/prevalence-maps.html

File: cotton.png (23KB, 500x429px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x429px

>>2406343
>textile mills
That's only one tiny aspect of industrialization.

Mining - free labor
Steel - free labor
Glass - free labor
Corn - free labor
Wheat - free labor
Timber - free labor
Meat - free labor
Mechanical manufacturing (ships, trains, all kinds of shit) - free labor
etc

Literally the only thing slavery was ever good for was crop growing, specifically sugar and tobacco, even other crops like corn could be grown far more effectively using free labor.

And if slavery somehow fuels industrial growth and social mobility, how come the antebellum US south was basically medieval Russia tier in development?

>>2406593
>black
???

>>2406779
He's a southerner, he's probably incapable of imagining a non-black state.

>>2391970
It fucks up your economy in the long run, cucks plebs out of jobs, and creates a lazy degenerate class that can't even wipe their asses without having a slave do it.
On the other hand, I literally do not care about niggers or their plight; we should have shipped them all to Liberia

>>2406635
>And if slavery somehow fuels industrial growth and social mobility, how come the antebellum US south was basically medieval Russia tier in development?

dude never said slavery fuels industrial growth in the slave states themselves, he said it fueled growth in the states that they exported to

>>2391734
We've exceeded your prediction