U.S. Civil War

>>3179877
It was becuase of slavery
Start here 1820 compermise:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise
Leads to calffiora and the Terrororys from the war being added to the union and the 1850 compromise:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850
Then start reading about the Kansas free staters and other links on those links,
Leading to the republicans being elected, with the Marjory party players incudling Lincoln and his major staff being against slavery extending into the western territories and for the eventual end of slavery in the south.
Inb4 someone cherry picks quotes from Lincoln saying the war wasn't about that (for political reasons)
>mah state rights
Yeah, it was about state rights if that right was the right to own slaves.
Also most of the major southern generals wrote in letters that the main rift was about slavery.
Becareful, there is ALOT of southern FUD about this, if they aren't refernceing orgidial soruces, they are useless.

>>3179907
Especially see the last 5 paragraphs of the first link and then read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas–Nebraska_Act

>>3179907
Lincoln wanted to violate state rights to end slavery so it was about state rights.

Secession was primarily caused over the Slave issue, but it was a symptom of a larger struggle between power of the Federal Government.

The War however occurred because of Federal war-mongering led by Lincoln. Ft Sumter was completely avoidable.

4 of the remaining southern states, including Tennessee and Virginia, seceded after Lincoln's call to volunteers to invade.

>>3179981
The right to slavery

>>3180036
Slavery was legal, violating state rights was not. The plantation owners could have never gained enough support for war if it weren't for Lincoln violating state rights.

>Lincoln runs for president
>"Hey southern states slavery it's cool if you guys have it and everything but I'm not really chill with having any new states admitted into the Union to allow it"
>"Once again, I have no issue with slavery existing where it already does"
>Southern states realize that by adding more free states and no more slaves states, they would end up at a huge disadvantage in the House/Senate
>got paranoid over the fact that even if Lincoln said he wasn't going to abolish it, they would have no way of preventing it from happening if there was a huge congressional gap
>Lincoln gets elected
>South gets mad and leaves

I also implore you to read Alexander Stephens' "Cornerstone Speech", in which he outlines the immediate reason (you'll never guess what it was) for secession

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

>>3180365

I also ask you to read Alexander Stephens' clarification on that speech.

You all always throw Stephens under the bus but conveniently forget he was Lincoln's old friend and colleague who was the only one Abe trusted to negotiate with at Hampton Roads.

>>3179877
Why do retards keep misspelling "secede" as "succeed"? It's not even a typo, they have completely different spelling and different meanings.

>>3179877
>but I have a hard time believing that was it.
>b-but my feelings!
/pol/ in a nutshell

File: 2yyvxLm.jpg (98KB, 576x768px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 576x768px

>I was curious about why the south succeeded from the US for the civil war.
So why don't spend some time reading the actual declarations of independence most of the seceded states published? You can start with https://deadconfederates.com/tag/causes-of-secession/ .

>>3179877
You're not thinking about slavery in the right way. It's the entire foundation of the South's economic system, not just in the sense that slaves picked the cotton that they sold, but since slaves were property they were used like any other financial instrument. Imagine a slave as being a gold bar, that's how important they were to the South. Now along comes someone who's threatening your gold bars, and the prospect of them becoming worthless looms on the horizon. Going to war over that doesn't seem so odd now, does it? Think about what would happen in the US if we had a president who was threatening to make stock certificates worthless, or to outlaw the lending of money for interest or something totally wild like that. Total economic collapse. You think a bunch of rich people are just going to take that lying down?

>>3181879
I think heavy industrial machinery would be a better analogy than gold bars, especially to explain why 2/3 of the southerner who didn't own slaves were ready to go to war for slavery. In the modern industrialized society only a small minority of people "own" industrial machinery, but it's so crucial for the prosperity of the entire society many would be ready to go to war if someone would try to ban them.
>a president who was threatening to make stock certificates worthless, or to outlaw the lending of money
To be fair, the first thing Lincoln said after being elected is that he wasn't going to ban slavery, and to be fair, he had no constitutional way to do it with the South in the senate. The immediate reason why the South ragequit is that he was against introducing slavery to the territories.

>>3181809
Because they are retards
>muh state rights
>totally not about slavery

>>3179877
Just read the declarations of secession. The confederate states weren't keeping their motivations a secret.

Spoiler alert: it was incontrovertibly about slavery.

File: 1487721036558.png (275KB, 700x453px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 700x453px

>>3179877
It was about a bunch of economic factors including but not limited to slavery. On a wider scale the southern upper classes wanted to keep profit margins high and the southern lower class didn't want to be told what to do by cultural outsiders and both hated niggers. Nobody with any serious ability to follow through on it actually had the intention of abolishing slavery entierly. It was done during the war to increase northern manpower and inspire unrest in southern blacks that heard the news. Ultimately the south would have been better off just voluntarily ending slavery and transitioning to a mixed industrial-agrarian economy. Slavery is less efficient and more expensive than wage labor in most cases, and the creation of synthetic fibers shortly after the war would have ruined the southern economy anyway because they relied too heavily on cotton. In short the southern powers were being dumb about money and the southern people were being dumb about culture. The northern people were being really preachy while also being generally better off than the southerners, which really had to sting. And radical Republican abolitionists kept stirring shit up which fanned the economic fears of the southern elites, eventually leading to a huge ideological disunity, that the cultural divide turned into a war.

>>3179877
southern elites had inflated political power due to slavery, and economic power due to slavery.

immigration, industrialization, and foreign competition put the southern elites in a position of decline. rather than give up on their class stratified society and their position at the top. they decided to risk it all in a war of secession.

>>3182079
The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to CSA slaves. Slaves in Union states weren't freed until the 13th amendment.

File: prefersfallout3.jpg (22KB, 510x364px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 510x364px

>>3179877

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9J8P6WfS7w

Here's a good vid about the rebel flag (and the war generally) by Shelby Foote, a southern historian. It's a good, balanced summary IMO.

File: IMG_6295.jpg (141KB, 700x465px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 700x465px

Abolitionists fantasized about the Haitian Revolution and wanted to inflict it on the people their own States had gotten rich off of selling slaves to. This led to a lot of resentment and radicalization of their political opponents and everything escalated from there. In the end, nig noggery prevailed and now both North and South have to deal with the results of short sightedness and maliciousness. Of course the side that lost knew exactly what would happen if their social order was reversed.
The war is the gift that keeps on giving.

>>3182123
>no soldier in both armies gave a damn about slaves
I guess this is why slaveowners were overrepresented among southern volunteers.

File: Battle of Devil's Den Dale Galleon.jpg (316KB, 1400x695px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 1400x695px

>>3179877

>succeeded

The South didn't succeed, but we should've.

File: nappo.jpg (43KB, 620x465px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 620x465px

The Southern officers and plantation owners should all have been hanged.
Radical Republican Reconstruction was the only solution, and its failure doomed this country.

>>3182172
Most of them were dispossessed of their property. Their descendants wallow in a morass of penury, addiction and violence. Some were able to claw their way back up, but the elite of the new south is absolutely not the elite of the old south-- despite whatever silly pretensions new south elites may hold.

>>3182186
They at least should have had their land confiscated and redistributed among slaves without the right to sell it for the next 50 years. Russians did something like this when they freed serfs in 1863 and by the early 20th century they had a strong agrarian middle class aka kulaks. Instead, the blacks were left totally impoverished, which quite expectedly resulted in Jim Crow, marginalization and lumpenization of the blacks, something the US has to deal with today.

>>3182227
But that was so long ago. Modern blacks are the actual racists, they just need to get over it and pull themselves up by the bootstraps, like my ancestors (Irish SLAVES) did.

The north was effectively making an existential threat to the south. They threatened to limit or eliminate the practice of slavery, the south only had agriculture for income, which relied heavily on slavery. The north had a more diverse economy so they didn't care. It was about states rights and the federal government enforcing its will on southern states, but the key example of that was the practice of slavery.

If slavery had never existed there probably would be no civil war. But who knows. Southerners talk about heritage and culture and what-not but don't realize that the confederacy was built on a culture of hate and racial discrimination, which can never be allowed.

t. a southerner

>>3182258
>Southerners talk about heritage and culture and what-not but don't realize that the confederacy was built on a culture of hate and racial discrimination, which can never be allowed.

What I don't get is, the Confederate Flag was re-popularized after WWII as an anti-integration symbol. Then ????? happens, and by the 1970s it's "ain't nuthin' racial 'bout this flag, never wuz damn Yankees. Heritage not hate, okay?"

File: Robert E. Lee pwning Unionists.png (291KB, 450x474px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 450x474px

>>3182186

Niggers and Northerners should all hang.

And they will.

File: crocodile.jpg (578KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

578KB, 900x600px

>>3182150
(citation needed)
And even if that is true, the majority of southerners didn't own slaves; I find it hard to believe that a majority of the kind of men who would enlist (that is to say, certainly not the wealthier planter types) would own slaves.

>>3182278
No, but honestly. Confederate sympathy should have been stamped out as aggressively and violently as possible. The country would have been much better off, and the South might have actually developed culture besides "Sheeyit, I may gots an IQ of 68 and my sister's cooch on mah breath, but at least I ain't a nigger, right Boss-man?"

File: csaball2.png (335KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 900x900px

>>3179877
>I was curious about why the south succeeded from the US for the civil war.
when asking these kinds of questions its always best to look up primary sources, what people said when these events happened. South Carolina was the first state to secede, here's their declaration of secession.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

It's mostly a legal justification on why they think breaking from the union is constitutional, however they do give 2 reasons for why they're choosing to break away now.

1. The federal government is not enforcing the fugitive slave act in good faith. Slaves are escaping to free states, and law enforcement in those states are sheltering them instead of hunting them down and returning them as they are legally required to do in accordance with federal law. The federal government is aware of this issue and doing nothing about it.

2. A republican was just elected president, and the eventual abolition of slavery as a long term goal is a primary part of the republican party platform. This is unacceptable.

File: Final Solution to the Ohio Question.jpg (110KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 960x720px

>>3182306

I will see to it that you and every other Unionist piece of filth is shoved head first into a gas chamber and an oven.

Kill all Northerners now. It's the only way to save America.

>>3182322
No you won't, you're an autistic LARPer on an anime forum.

>>3182258
sharecropping was far more profitable than slavery had ever been, it was known since the 1770s that slavery was an inefficient economic model which is why it had been done away with everywhere but the american south and brazil.

File: slaveholdingtable.png (33KB, 703x316px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 703x316px

>>3182304
>(citation needed)
https://deadconfederates.com/2011/04/28/ninety-eight-percent-of-texas-confederate-soldiers-never-owned-a-slave/
>Thus, volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.

>the majority of southerners didn't own slaves
1/3 of all families owned slaves, the rest benefited from the institution, see >>3181984 for the analogy.

>I find it hard to believe that a majority of the kind of men who would enlist would own slaves
Well, basically all the officers owned slaves, for starters. And you don't have to own slaves personally: if you're a volunteer in your 20s, it's probably you father is still alive and well and he owns all the slaves in your family, while you and your siblings benefit from it.

>>3182227
>They at least should have had their land confiscated and redistributed among slaves without the right to sell it for the next 50 years
fuck that, just send them all back to africa.

>>3182353
>magically raise the money and generate the political will to round up 1/10 of your population and ship them to a strange land they have no connection to because *autistic screeching and slapping thighs together*

Mmmm yes.

>>3182353
They should have done that, and then they themselves should all have sailed back to Europe.

>>3182368
there were genuine back to africa movements around that era and it wouldn't have been such a major transition. america wouldn't have to deal with blacks, and the blacks could go be kangs in africa.
everybody wins.

>>3182381
why would they do that?

>>3182391
>there were genuine back to africa movements around that era
They were memes. Very few ex-slaves actually supported it.

>>3182391
>there were genuine back to africa movements around that era and it wouldn't have been such a major transition.
Except for the fact that almost no one wanted to leave.
> why would they do that?
And why would they send blacks back to Africa? Most of them were born in the US, knew no other language than English and contributed a lot to the wealth of the nation.

>>3182401
too bad.

>>3182407
>And why would they send blacks back to Africa?
because they were no longer of use. it'd be better than to have them stagnate for centuries.

>>3182424
The non-autistic solution would have been to actually provide them with opportunities to succeed and not spend the next 100 years discouraging them from assimilating.

>>3182438
But that would be so ungallant, why would you want to actually punish traitors if you can just look away while they do all they can to return the blacks to the pre-war state?

>>3182438
you could've given each of them the equivalent of a million dollars and they'd still be struggling.

>>3179907
Yeah, nah. You know dick about history.

>have to consult the north for trade deals with foreign nations
>have to consult the north for industry
>north starts stripping southern rights

Slavery was a small part of the Civil War. Southern states had already organized a secession before slavery was outlawed. All it did was spur more states to secede. Lincoln didn't give a blue fuck about the niggers and anyone who tells you otherwise is a fucking liar. He outlawed slavery to gain the favor of voters and foreign nations who had already abolished it.

>>3179877
It was about slavery — its protection but also its expansion was necessary for the South. Now, there are several other reasons that all point back to slavery. The Southern economy was dependent on slavery and its expansion. The political clout of the South also rested upon slavery and its expansion. For the eighty years prior, the number of free to slave states had been carefully maintained to ensure the balance of power between Northern and Southern states, and a number of other deals were struck, like the Three-Fifths Compromise, to keep the free and slave states balanced. There was also (shocker!) a degree of racism involved. Northerners barely thought of blacks as human, but thought of them as human enough to have abolitionist leanings, which could not be said of Southerners. "States' rights" to own slaves was also a factor if you care to be a little redundant.

t. another Southerner

>>3182240
Keep making excuses for current black cultural failure. Today negros have the same rights and more opportunities than anyone else yet still squander them.

>>3182227
Should have sent them back. Negros and whites can't coexist.

>>3179877
My dude, it was slavery

>>3184943
You don't like the BBC?

>>3182322
>challenging Ohio directly
good way to reawaken the eternal Sherman (and Grant)

>>3182599
True but that attempt was many decades before and was put down by a southern president. The first one was about taxes, the second was about slavery and the balance of power between slave states and free states,

The North was founded by Puritans and Quakers, the South by Cavaliers and their indentured servants. Those two sides and their descendants could never have coexisted indefinitely.

>>3179877
It's very simple anon
>North didn't like slavery
>South liked slavery
>North started the abolition of slavery
>South didn't want them to do that

they justify it with "oh we thought we could just leave at any time because states are entirely different countries", but the south fired first

File: 12032281_1008540765843414_2982176733670639655_n.jpg (17KB, 358x337px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 358x337px

Thanks for the links guys. I have found events like WW1/2 easy to research. But I didn't even know where to start with the civil war. I appreciate the advice!