what the fuck was the american civil war about and were confederate

Union were wrong for the right reasons. Confederacy was tight for the wrong reasons.

That being said, very few Americans known anything about that period aside from pop culture

>>3248943
Can you elaborate without falling into pol or his memery?

>>3248937
My guess was it was about the lagging economy of the south. Slavery was inefficient compared to the factories of the north, and the two sides were growing apart because of that.
The north tried to get the south to adapt to their more efficient form of industry but the southern elite resisted, probably because they felt they had it nice and didn't want to compete with the north. The southern commoners saw it as northerners trying to rule them, and became more and more rebellious.
The north realized that there only method left was to drag the south into the modern era by force, so they put out propaganda about how southerners were abusive to their slaves (despite that making no economic sense since slaves were expensive, the modern cost of a car) and generally just backwards stupid people.
They got their armies and told any southern states that agreed to be modernized would be allowed to keep slaves (as slavery wasn't a problem for most people at the time).
So the war was fought, south lost, north intended to rebuild the south but I guess northerners hated the south so much from the power of the propaganda that the project was mostly abandoned.

Only 1% of Whites owned slaves at the peak of slavery. The reason why they opposed abolition was because of what happened in Haiti. Why would you free a bunch of incredibly strong but low-IQ men into society and expect only the best?

It's also about States rights, the union victory reinforced that states do not have more power than the federal government.

>racists

By today's standards, but then so was a lot of soldiers on the Northern side.

>traitors

Yes.

File: 1502763380329.jpg (131KB, 720x614px)

131KB, 720x614px

>>3249044
>despite that making no economic sense since slaves were expensive, the modern cost of a car

>>3249044
>The north tried to get the south to adapt to their more efficient form of industry
That's some loaded way of viewing things

>>3249071
Why would you not take good care of your slaves? That is like letting your dairy cow starve.

>>3249071
>>3249072
Could you guys explain where I'm wrong instead of meme?
My post was a guess, not objective fact. If I'm wrong somewhere I'd like to know.

>>3249071
The average slave had a higher caloric intake and longer lifespan than the average white factory worker in the north. "Lynchings" and "whippings" were more rare than you probably thought too. Slaves were seen as capital and if you beat them to the point where their limbs were broken, or didn't feed them enough to be strong (or live) then you were wasting money, which they ended up doing anyway since the masters had to pay out of pocket for all their food, housing, clothing, etc. Please go back to rebbit until you learn to how to properly research a topic before shitposting

>>3249080
You can still beat summon into submission and deny them quality of life, and keep the reasonably healthy enough to do labor.

>>3249087
If you want then to do hard labor then that beating was probably very light.
Im not condoning it but all modern media that shows slaves getting beaten to near death are retarded.

>>3249091
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Cicatrices_de_flagellation_sur_un_esclave.jpg .

>>3249091
http://www.historyonthenet.com/black-peoples-of-america-slave-punishments/

>>3249091
>but all modern media that shows slaves getting beaten to near death are retarded.

Not necessarily. You wouldn't have Daily Beating Hour, but you can't enslave a person that isn't afraid of you. Harsh, public punishments are necessary.

>>3248937
>were confederate soldiers really all racists and traitors?
They were traitors to the union, but not t their states. And just-about everyone was racist back then.
The Civil War was because of slavery, but the individual soldiers were just fighting for their people.

>>3249086
/pol/ pls

>>3249044
It's a good thing you said it was a guess because you're way off dude.

>>3249091
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqIE36qrmWs

>>3249113
a single picture is not an argument, maybe the slave tried to escape or something
also
>posting links to images on 4chan

>>3249118
that site is garbage

>>3249091
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/81/fe/fc/81fefc800389d1830cb6da70a6515a79.jpg

>>3249113
>>3249137
Welcome to 4chan

>>3249134
>a single picture is not an argument, maybe the slave tried to escape or something
also
That doesn't make it any less wrong.

>>3249137
A fan of BDSM I see

>>3248996
The Union sentiment was that the States could not secede from the union as once accepted into the Union the bond was permanent, and that if you didn't like the results of what happens after you joined tough balls that's democracy for you. The south believed this was bullshit and that the constitution gave no statement on the rights of secession, and thus by the tenth amendment the power fell back to the states, and on an even broader level, the Constitution was designed so as to give power to minority opinions and ideas, and if a majority continued to trample on the rights of minority then you weren't living up to the ideals of the Republic. The main issue that animated this discussion was the question of slavery and its expansion, which the North opposed and the south supported.

Go watch Ken Burns Civil War. Even if you're earnestly asking and not trying to bait these threads always turn to shit because this isn't something we can have a civil discussion about here

>>3249113
"Overseer Artayou Carrier whipped me. I was two months in bed sore from the whipping. My master come after I was whipped; he discharged the overseer. The very words of poor Peter, taken as he sat for his picture."
Sounds like the overseer was the one at fault. Unless I'm reading it wrong.
>>3249118
That website is kinda crappy. Doesn't explain why slaves which costed a lot of money were horror movie tier tortured.

None of it makes sense.

>>3249044
>The north tried to get the south to adapt to their more efficient form of industry but the southern elite resisted

Imagine working in a cramp, damp, factory surrounded by machines which did nothing except generate massive amounts of heat. Now imagine doing that in the Southern Climate during the height of summer. Furthermore, population density was often too low to support the necessary surplus town population needed in order to have a people's dependent of wage based jobs.

>>3249129
Could you give me some criticism?

>>3249158
>Doesn't explain why slaves which costed a lot of money were horror movie tier tortured.
The same reason why roman crucified people.
The same reason for any public execution or torment. It instills fear in other subjects of an abusive system. "This is what happens to you if you resist," mentality.

>>3249162
>Imagine working in a cramp, damp, factory surrounded by machines which did nothing except generate massive amounts of heat. Now imagine doing that in the Southern Climate during the height of summer.
Was this a concern of the south that was documented anywhere? I mean it seems like a valid reason but hindsight is 20/20.
>Furthermore, population density was often too low to support the necessary surplus town population needed in order to have a people's dependent of wage based jobs.
It could have been built up, no?

>>3249171
Ok but what about the inefficiency created from killed or crippled slaves? They weren't cheap. I can understand some "making an example" behavior as back then they did that for everyone, ie public lynchings of criminals.

>>3249044
>>3249165
There was no vocalized attempt by the North to modernize the South pre-war.

Reconstruction sucked so bad not because all Northerners hated the South, but because a select few important Northerners (Andrew Johnson to name one) hated the South.

You're right that the mistreatment of slaves was overblown. Yes, some had it pretty bad. But it's not like fuckin Django Unchained nonsense where people tortured slaves for fun.
"I just spent a fortune buying this slave, better chop off his hands so I get no return on investment."

>>3249174
>It could have been built up, no?
Not really. People only breed so fast. Plus, the North had all the good ports, so that's where factories went.

>>3249182
Reconstruction also sucked due to lincoln getting murdered.

>>3248937

The Southern States developed into a slave society (think intensity of slavery and its impact on society on the scale of the Romans and Ancient Greeks) while the North was developing into an industrial society. Because of the moral repugnancy of slavery, abolitionism flourished in the North which eventually culminated into the election of Lincoln and the Republican Party -- back then, the Republican Party was a collection of different groups that were united under abolitionism.

The South, correctly seeing the writing on the wall that it was only a matter of time before the abolitionists gained enough political power to end slavery, seceded from the union before Lincoln was inaugurated as President in a last ditch attempt to stave off abolitionism. The North considered Disunion to be antithetical to the Constitution and proceeded to put down the rebellion.

Things to consider...

1. While the South wrapped their defenses of slavery within an argument of defending state rights, slavery was the only issue they were willing to go to war over.
2. Slavery's presence in national politics was constantly felt from the beginning of the Republic (various compromises, dividing up the territories equally for new slave and non slave states, etc.)
3. The South was willing to violate state rights in order to further their agenda of slavery. See Fugitive Slave Act.
4. While the Casus Belli the North fought the South over was over disunion, disunion was preceded by a perceived violation of state rights of which only slavery was enough for the South to risk war.

Basically, slavery was the central point over which the civil war was fought over. Now, whether you consider rising up against your country to defend the rights of men the ability to subject people to one of the worst possible states of human existence to be traitorous and evil, I leave that up to you.

>>3249194
Yeah, mostly cause that meant Andrew Johnson would be in charge.

>>3249182
>There was no vocalized attempt by the North to modernize the South pre-war.
Could it have been subtle behind closed doors attempts? Like regulations that attempted to force the southrn economy away from slavery or other things? I guess I need to read more about the northern overreach on the south that caused them to get pissed off.

Thanks for the post.

>>3249178
Perhaps it was done to slaves who were already handicapped from labor, also stuff like whippings doesn't stop you from performing labor. Also, torture isn't execution, you can seriously abuse and fuck with someone without ever hurting them. Take Chinese water torture, or you can hurt them to the point where the damage is very visible. But perhaps it's not crippling but only further motivation for compliance. You can cut off a man's dick, but that won't necessarily impair his labor skills. You can cut off a finger or a toe, or an eye. But as long as you can still function, it doesn't matter.

>>3249205
It seems like you're just looking for sources to support what sounds like an apologist view of the Confederacy. This post is right on the money: >>3249200

>>3249200
>one of the worst possible states of human existence
Because wage slavery in some Northern factory is so much better?

>>3249221
Nice whataboutism

>>3249200
>>3249217
Why didn't the North ban slavery in their own states then?

>>3249223
It's not whataboutism. I'm asking what is the difference between being enslaved to a plantation owner to being a wage slave for a factory owner?

>>3249217
Also, I'm not looking for an apologist view, but I don't play this stupid fucking game of one side was evil and one side was good. The world doesn't work according to that bullshit.

>>3249224
They did. If your'e talking about this >>3249221, well that wasn't technically slavery, and it hadn't gotten to that extreme yet.

>>3249237
>They did
They didn't. Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri did not secede but still held slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free them either.

so based on the fact that a relatively small percentage of southerners owned slaves why would it make sense for thousands of non-slave owners to fight and die so the elite could continue owning slaves? Am I really supposed to believe that the average confederate soldier was risking his life for that?

>>3249259
For freedom amd against invading yanks.

>>3249248
Those weren't northern states and today aren't northern states. They were border states. And Kentucky and Missouri did secede, just didn't join the confederacy. Maryland was going to, but the us military intervened and arrested a ton of leading politicians there. Plus the union didn't make them immediately abolish slavery to prevent them from seceding again after occupation during the war. It was a necessary strategic move.

>>3249221
Categorically, it was far better. As a free person working in the factory, you were not subjected to arbitrary violence by a master, you were not subjected to rape by a master, you did not have to fear about a master selling you away from your family, you did not have to worry about an unfair representation before the law, and that is only touching some of it. You can go further and look at the opportunities a free man had in improving his situation, despite how small that chance might be, compared with that of a slave in which he was forever trapped in his position until the day he died.

Factory life sucked back then, no doubt, but to even compare remotely close to actual chattel slavery is stupid.

>>3249259
I think both sides were heavily manipulated by the elites of their side. Southern commoners thought it was about independence from northern tyranny, northerners thought it was about stopping a bunch of evil sadistic monsters.

>>3249259
Yes, just like you're supposed to believe that every single person in the North, even the ones like Lincoln who said “there is a physical difference between the white and black races that will for ever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality.”, was actually liberal arts major-tier egalitarian.

>>3249259
Yeah it's not like anyone could bamboozle a bunch of poor people into fighting and dying for something they themselves had no interest in. That's never happened at any point throughout history, the hoi polloi always see through the elite's lies.

>>3249274
>ask for better treatment as slave
>master shoots you

>ask for better treatment as factory worker
>owner hires pinkertons to shoot you
wow so much better

>>3249248
The 13th amendment freed them and the 14th was passed to protect the rights of newly free slaves. What is your point?

>>3249288
The whips and the chains are always to much.

>>3249290
>13th and 14th amendment
Both came after the war.

>>3249288
Are you a stupid commie or something?

>>3249296
And? Once again, your point being?

>>3249307
The North had not freed all their slaves. Delaware and Maryland are both Northern states too; Washinton DC is further south than most of Maryland and half of Delaware.

>>3249259
Slavery as an institution was very popular among poor southern whites, even though few would ever be able to attain a slave. A group to be superior over, a goal to one day own a slave, and the fact that slavery was central to southern society.

And as far as a small percentage is concerned, about 25 percent of white southerns owned at least one slave. Not a majority, but still something I wouldnt call a miniscule amount.

>>3249314
Are you telling me that yanks had slaves too?

And that the war wasn't fought, just because the south didn't wanted to keep hitting his blacks?

>>3249314

I thought you were implying a form of illegitimacy from the North due to them having some slave states. I was not the original guy you replied to, but if it was just a historical correction, then okie dokie.

File: 1502546709525.png (1MB, 1864x4327px)

1MB, 1864x4327px

>what the fuck was the american civil war about
Slavery

>>3249314
Retard, Maryland is below the MAson Dixon Line.

>>3249224
Slavery was already banned in most Northern States. As for why the others had not such as Missouri and Kentucky, that was due to it being either politically infeasible or undesired.

>>3249314
Also What did you not understand about it being a political stunt to keep peace in MAryland. The capital is between maryland and virginia, do you understand what happens if both secede.

>>3249352
They were not part of the confederacy though which I think is the point that is being made.

The Union army invaded and occupied all four of those states because they either wanted to remain neutral or were very pro-southern.

>>3249365
They were forced to remain in the union. By time they had began to think about seceding military action was already taken.

>>3249071
>Be a modern confederaboo
>Dont care about slavery
>Just liked the CSA, Lee etc.
>People make memes against you, but go after slavery instead of other obvious pitfalls.
Case 14869 proving that liberals and leftists can not meme.

>>3248937
It's complicated. If slavery wasn't the big hot-button issue when it came to states rights, the South would have probably come off as the more sympathetic party. The North seemed to run everything on the Federal level while not giving a shit about their Southern brothers, their culture, or their economic situation. The anger and fear in Dixie was 100% understandable. Unfortunately, slavery happened to be the big point of disagreement, something inherent to said culture and economy. While slave ownership mostly affected wealthy land owners, the common Southern man resented the way those damn Yankees were (it appeared) perfectly willing to wield their influence like a sledgehammer. So the issues ended up getting bundled together.

>>3249071
Why is the face not that of Davis Aurini?

Confederates were shitheads but at the same time state secession should be allowed

prove me wrong

>>3249146
The south was in the right for legality of secession, but slavery made them wrong

I heard from a reliable source that slaves were so inexpensive that it was cheaper to work them to death and buy a new one than it was to keep any alive and fed.

>>3249146
except youre actually retarded and there is a way to lawfully seceed from the union. Our constitution was written as a living document and the mechanisms for change exist within it. You can change literally anything about the constitution with a 2/3rds vote of either the states or both houses of congress. In fact, the constitution has changed, lawfully, plenty of times. Its called the amendment process. Southerners did not have the means to lawfully seceed since thats how our constitution works and leaving the precedent of allowing minority factions to split off without overwhelming agreement from the entire country would be retarded. This is basic fucking "how do I into a state 101."
Southerners frame the discussion like theyre being denied some sort of right that they never had in the first place. Its not like northerners could seceed without 2/3rds either, nobody has that right. And what a stretch with the 9th, literal rebellion is not justified by the 9th amendment you literal retard.

>>3250006
>prove me wrong
>the Supreme Court already proved you wrong in 1860
What's it like being purposefully historically illiterate

>>3250052
depends where and when. Haiti, sure. 19th century US? Not so much since them being illegal most places by that time made them a special commodity

>>3250052
your ass and /pol/ aren't reliable sources dipshit

Friendly reminder that Confederates were literally the original #NotMyPresident folk