>The empire of Brazil and the empire of the ottomans had slaves

because they tore up the union just because of slavery

I don't really care what your opinions are, the historical fact is that the south was fighting to preserve slavery

the reason the war happened was because of the southern economy was almost completely based on slavery and the south threatened to sell cotton to europe and asia instead of the north. think about the poverty that would happen if all the sudden 18 wheelers were illegal.

anybody who tells you the north was fighting for virtue or the south was fighting for independence is full of it.

>Start a revolution over "muh represention" and "muh taxes"
>Less than a century later crush a rebellion over "muh states rights" and "muh economy"

I assume this is a gross over-simplification but how are the Yankee's not hypocrites?

>>2944257
I never said that slavery wasn't the reason for the civil war. I agree with that. But still, people treat them like they're Nazis. I mean, slavery was their only source of income and they certainly paid their price,

>>2944273

Because those were not the reasons for the civil war. The South seceded explicitly in order to preserve the institution of slavery indefinitely. They literally said that was the reason at the time. Having that as their cause makes them the "bad guys." No way around it. Sorry.

>>2944257
They were fighting to preserve state's rights and challenge the idea that the federal government of the union constituted a nation and that states could not enact their own economic policies. Slavery was one of the main points, but you need to understand that the entire economy of the south hinged on slave worked farms. Southerners however, were outnumbered by northerners, whose economy was becoming industrial, and they didn't need slaves, and since classical "first world problems" style liberalism was beginning to be born in the burgeoning new upper middle class, they didn't want slaves because slavery made them look like a bunch of backwards dirt farmers, so they voted against the economic interests of the south. And when imported European goods became cheaper than American made goods, they voted for harsh tariffs, forcing the non-industrialized south to pay more for things, for no good reason, when their economy was already lagging behind. And when all the south united against a republican northerner candidate and lost, and the federal government wouldn't let them set their own economic policies that suited them, they seceded because they felt that they could never have a voice in the union with the way that the USA's style of democracy works, and that the federal government had far overstepped its mandate and become a nation.

>>2944291

>I mean, slavery was their only source of income

I'm not sure what you think that would make them more sympathetic. It makes them look like tools who refused to diversify.

>>2944293
Actually it was states rights and economy, but it's just that their economy was based on slaves and they believed it was a constitutional right to be able to own slaves

>>2944306
It was the 1860s, slavery wasn't the worst thing going on. The British were doing some horrible shit as well as the french

>>2944306
They did not have the resources or money to industrialize, and the policies the north was imposing on them were bleeding their wallets and making them even less able to diversify.

>>2944304

>They were fighting to preserve state's rights

They didn't give a damn about "states rights" when it came to grabbing freed slaves living the Northern states.

>>2944319
But that was already legal with the fugitive slave act so that wouldn't be a reason for secession

>>2944291

>enslave other human beings in chattel slavery
>fight with north for decades on the issue of slavery through policy and law making
>decide to go against the command of the union you are a part of
>secede, as traitors, attack the north
>willing to have your people killed, property destroyed, and the union destroyed solely for your right to enslave other human beings as property

gee idk why

>>2944324

I'm not sure how that counters my point at all. Under the laws of northern states, those people were legally free. If the South was so fanatical about states rights, why didn't they respect the rights of Northern states?

>>2944319
they did that when it was legal, and that law was pushed through for the sake of appeasement

>>2944324

That's the point. The very moment they realized they won't be able to abuse to their ends the whole system of national politics, they seceded. Said ends being the protection and expansion of slavery.

>>2944339
>the command of the union you are a part of
you have a very different view of what 'the union' is than the southerners did, and entirely different from what the founding fathers intended

>>2944363
>unanimously vote for something as a group
>rest of the country says lol no
>just say ok and accept that you can not ever have a say in this "democracy"
what kind of cuck would do this?

>>2944339
The union unnecessarily destroyed tens of thousands of their own lives and much more property, including many cities just because their generals were so stupid that they couldn't defeat a force a gird their size. Also, the southern economy, again, depended on slavery and cotton, and they weren't densely populated, so when they saw that lincoln won the election with no southern vote, they has reason to think they would have less government power. It only makes sense to elect your own president and make a new nation when you aren't populated enough to defend your different way of life and economy

>>2944366

Daily reminder that George Washington personally put down a rebellion against the U.S. federal government as president. As in he literally rode in front of an army on a horse down to where the rebellion was occurring and put a stop to it.

>>2944363
That's a fairly decent reason to secede. You can't defend what you believe is a constitutional right, so if you want to keep that right, you have a reason to secede. I'm not saying the secession was a good choice but it wasn't very unjust

>>2944374
Washington was badass

>>2944354

Under the laws of Northern states, those people were legally free. Why didn't the South respect states' rights?

>>2944387
No, since it's illegal for a slave to do that so they'd have to go to prison at best

>>2944400

So state's rights apparently means that southern state laws supersede northern state laws.

>>2944424
So what you're saying if a fugitive crosses state lines, they should be fine?

>>2944427

If you're in a state where slavery is illegal then you're obviously not a slave anymore.

>>2944427
If it isn't against the law in the other state then yes.

>>2944434
it was a crime for slaves to escape. And nowhere in the union is there legislation that if you commit a crime in some other state that isn't a crime there, you are absolved and protected from punishment. Nor should there be.

>>2944293

I'm aware of that anon, but wouldn't the abolition of slavery be even more economically crippling for the South than the increased taxes that were placed on the 13 colonies? To my knowledge this is what pushed Southerners to actually rebel against the union

File: 1474752009751.jpg (100KB, 600x699px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 600x699px

>>2944234

Honestly. Might makes right and the South lost the only war they fought. So no. They were wrong on their views.

>>2944456
Yes, that is true

>>2944465
That's the biggest load of bull shit I've ever heard. There are a ton of wars in which the "bad guys" won

File: 1471748190079.jpg (249KB, 864x1105px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 864x1105px

>>2944483

That's where you wrong kiddo. If you win a war it means god is on your side. Lose and you were wrong.

So you better start believing that when a bad guy wins that he was right.

>>2944494
But what if wars contradict each other (e.g. Commies win the Russian revolution but then lose some other Revolution)

>>2944494
Also what makes you think god chooses wars ends?

File: 1474778078510.jpg (131KB, 1038x1200px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1038x1200px

>>2944509

God used the atheist communists to make the USA religious again resulting in a right wing victory in 2016. You gotta think long term about these things.

>>2944446

>And nowhere in the union is there legislation that if you commit a crime in some other state that isn't a crime there, you are absolved and protected from punishment

Except the North states literally had such laws.

>>2944529

>the USA is religious again
Is it?

>>2944529
Sonyou think almost 100 million deaths is worth a 4 years of the dontron? Donald wouldn't be needed if the commies hadn't poisened young minds

>>2944465
>might makes right
Ugh

>>2944543
Good point it isn't even more religious than old times

>why do Americans find CSA imagery more offensive than European imagery?

That' what you sound like you fucking moron.

>>2944291
>But still, people treat them like they're Nazis.
That is because Marxist subversives exploited anti-Nazi sentiments to crush any resistance to the idea of """civil rights""" enforced at bayonet point.

By linking American reactionary impulses with Nazism they have been able to preemptively bind most opposition to whatever anti-American agenda they push, no matter how contrary it is to America's founding principles. After all the Founding Father's were just a bunch of slave owning white guys, which is basically the same thing as Nazis, so who cares what they think?

>>2944339
>chattel slavery
Nice meme.
Slavery is slavery.

>>2944570
Fuck, I think I'm gonna cry

>>2944562
I don't see anything odd about that question.

>>2944456
>but wouldn't the abolition of slavery be even more economically crippling for the South

Sure, because they built their entire society around slavery. That doesn't exactly make it better.

File: 1455120482612.png (1MB, 1864x4327px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1864x4327px

>>2944307
>Actually it was
Slavery, you dumb cuck.

>>2944273
>Muh states rights
>To force new states to adopt slavery
Lincoln had zero intentions of outlawing slavery until the civil war broke out, the south was just butthurt that they couldn't keep spreading slavery to new states.

>>2944456
The difference is that the South had legal representation in the government, the colonies didn't.

>>2944293

>The South seceded explicitly in order to preserve the institution of slavery indefinitely.

Because of the same exact reasons the founding fathers were opposed to British taxation. It was the exact same scenario played out over again; A handful of slave-owning whites used some vague notion of liberty and independence to justify a separatist movement aimed at severing themselves from commercial dependency on their master state.

>>2944537

And those laws were illegal.

>>2945578

The South not only had legal representation, it had disproportionately high representation thanks to the 3/5 compromise. The system was explicitly designed to favor them, and give them disproportionate influence!

>>2945590

>state's rights only apply to Southern states

>>2944234
>>So /his/, why do you guys think confederate symbolism is so hated?They don't seem that evil compared to lots of European empires that would follow.

Because we have higher expectations of our compatriots than we do of old world savages.

>>2944456

> but wouldn't the abolition of slavery be even more economically crippling for the South than the increased taxes that were placed on the 13 colonies

Then it's the southern's fault for developing their economy into a slave labor dead end instead of reforming their economy to not be dependent on slavery. They had 80 years to do it.

None of the major agricultural powers today rely on slave labor.

>>2944234
>Brazilian "Empire"

what did he mean by this?

File: Brazilian_battleship_São_Paulo_trials.jpg (164KB, 1200x709px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1200x709px

>>2945737

Brazil stronk.

Nick Land was right.

>>2944234
They fuck with the best and die like rest

>>2945616
Because the confederate flag isn't really the flag of the confederacy.
They constantly try to white wash it.
Basically the U.S needs to sit the South down grab a thick history book and bitch slap it yelling "read ya dumb fuck READ!" repeatedly because doing it the nice way has not worked at all.

>>2946021
No, it is the battle flag, which is the part of the Confederacy that is admired. No one cares about the government of Jefferson Davis.

File: Omer_Pascha_Lith.jpg (641KB, 1652x2500px) Image search: [Google]

641KB, 1652x2500px

>>2944234
>Brazil and the Ottoman Empire intervene on the Confederate side to protect slavery

what happens?

>>2944304
that's some amazing bull-shit you're spreading/

>>2944306
>It makes them look like tools who refused to diversify.

they kinda were, especially in the king cotton states. it was another reason they got their asses kicked.

>>2944291
>people treat them like they're Nazis

they were and still are

>>2944307
>Actually it was states rights

what is the Dred Scott decision? it was that steaming pile of slave-owning horse shit that made the North more hard-line.

File: spiderman.gif (95KB, 200x162px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 200x162px

>>2944234
>USS Monitor

>>2946055

That's not the Monitor, it's the Virginia.

>>2946021
Let me guess, you're one of those "right side of history" fags?

>>2946049
All this tack does for you in 2017, is make people think that maybe the Nazis weren't so bad after all.