Were the confederates ideological revolutionaries? take the

The Confederates weren't losing political clout with the federal government.The reason Lincoln won the 1860 election was that the Democrats had split their vote between Douglas and Breckenridge.Plus in Lincoln's inaugural address he basically says he's not going to mess with slavery.

>sole purpose of succession is to preserve the system in place
no

>>2646388
>The Confederates weren't losing political clout with the federal government

yes they were. The newly acquired western territories were all going to be free states, so free states would astly out number slave states.

Lincoln was an avid abolitionist, and they knew it was only a matter of time before it happened.

>>2646378

I always found it interesting that their seal had Washington on it.

Trying to frame the actions of successionists as pragmatic is a losing battle. You do correctly identify that the South was facing rising problems and that their actions were in their self interest, but that hardly makes them unradical. Radical action isn't defined by being purely ideological, almost no radical action is without personal gain. Nobody ever rose up because they thought there might need to be some policy or structural changes, people rise up because they feel they are persecuted or unjustly treated and their only recourse is through radical action. Whether there is no alternative recourse is another question. It can be argued that southerners did try to take pragmatic and measured actions to preserve themselves, but that's mostly malarkey. They didn't even wait to come under real attack, at the first sign that their way of life might come under siege, they took radical action and succeeded.

The north and south had been at a stalemate for decades, but the north had just gotten the upper hand. Rather than play defensive or recoup their losses the Confederacy flipped the table and said 'that's a stupid game, I'm not playing anymore'
That's an undeniably radical reaction without even mentioning slavery.

Don't try to hide your apologism, own it. Fly your flag, have your pride, and let loose your rebel yell. That's what the confederates did. At the very least it makes it easier to spot you retards.

File: abraham-lincoln.jpg (45KB, 1236x700px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1236x700px

Licoln started the war.

he repeatedly told union troops to stay in fort Sumter, which was southern territory, because he knew this would provoke an attack which would justify a war to bring the south back into the union since he knew there was no legal case or that he could convince them to come back.

>>2646699
Is it the dead guys fault for getting shot when he doesn't hand over his wallet?

Sumter was Federal Property. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

>>2646388
this honestly
lincoln only went through with the emancipation proclamation to help with the war, both in keeping britain and france who were anti-slavery (but wanted the south's cotton) out of the south's side and in encouraging slaves to run to the north for freedom.
If the war had ended within a couple years it was likely that slavery would have continued to exist for another generation.

>>2646699
no
The vast majority of Union troops were stationed on the western expanse to guard from Indian attacks. Lincoln did not anticipate the war at all. If the troops had been in the interior, it would have ended for quicker, like with Jackson and the Nullification Crisis, threatening martial law.

>>2646699
>which was southern territory
According to what legal documentation?

>>2646401
Exactly. Even if all the non-Lincoln votes were aggregated for a single anti-Lincoln, that candidate would have still lost the electoral college.

Interestingly enough, they would have won all the slave states plus California and Oregon.

>>2646748
I've never heard that, that's interesting. Do you have a source for that?

File: sherman8[1].jpg (56KB, 390x544px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 390x544px

it's another worthless lost cause thread where butthurt southerners desperately try to justify why they should have been allowed to own people

one march to the sea wasn't enough

>>2646401
>avid abolitionist

He disavowed himself from his abolitionist colleagues, what few were publicly so.

He never said he was an abolitionist, nor did he advocate emancipation in anyway. He said over and over that he was not going to touch slavery where it existed, only to limit its expansion. It took wartime necessity to free the slaves in the rebellious states, to prevent European interference and destroy Confederate infrastructure.

>>2646378
Not really. They were reactionaries to a t.

FULL LIST OF COUNTRIES WHICH RECOGNIZED THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA:

>>2646759
>According to what legal documentation?

The constitution and the agreement that states could leave the union at any time they wanted. This is why they had to specifically write that they couldnt after the war.

File: 1480204217228.png (942KB, 529x761px) Image search: [Google]

942KB, 529x761px

>>2646852
>>2647289