"The Civil War was about slavery"

>>3250657
>dixie niggers still buttmad

Seems like it's high time for another march to the sea.

>>3250672
Not an argument, so you admit the war was not about slavery?

>literally write the preservation of slavery into every CSA state constitution
>not about slavery

There may have been other points of contention, but the Civil War was definitely about slavery.

It was over Slavery.
Slavery drove much of the economy and many in the south justified their rebellion through the fact that Emancipation would further throttle a south that was already failing to keep up with the North's success in commerce, industrialization, etc.

It was first and foremost about power, as all wars are, but in this instance the preservation of power for the confederacy hinged on its established sovereignty and its continued use of slave labor. Both of which were a threat to the United States as a whole.

>>3250657
>southern ''''''education'''''''

When are Leeaboos going to stop the disingenuous bullshit and admit they still want niggers to be property?

>>3250657
I agree it wasn't about slavery, it was about preserving the Union. Lincoln assured the South and outright said he would keep slavery if it meant preserving the Union, that still wasn't good enough and they chimped out and seceded simply because their meme candidate had no chance to win the elections.

Could it possibly be that the war was over BOTH slavery and states rights? That the two terms became interlocked with eachother since they were a hotbed of contention?

Slavery, imho, is a moral wrong and heavily so. It was good that it was banned. States rights, however, is something I would (if I was an American) care about and want to defend.

Why can't a compromise be reached between the positions?

>>3250796
It was about the states' rights to own slaves.

>>3250796
States rights meme is completely idiotic because the CSA during the war was a far more tightly centralized country than the USA. The best part of it all is modern lolbergtardians becoming neo-Confederates, praising a heavily statist country that was on the verge of becoming a military dictatorship.

>>3250657
How long are you going to keep posting this?

>>3250788
but how could USA morally justify going to war just to preserve the Union, when they fought for independance from Britain just a bit earlier

>>3250882
A Seceding state is a threat to the US. That's simply a fact. You don't ignore threats to your sovereignty because 'its your turn.' In addition, a seceding state would subtract huge amounts of resources, manpower, and money from a nation that would inevitably clash with European powers again. "A house divided cannot stand" refers to the weakness of two feuding states, at a time when conquering the continental United Stated by land was still a very real possibility.

Moral justification is a mere afterthought in political dynamics.

>>3250657

"For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy."

From South Carolina's Declaration of Secession. Pretty clear they were pissed at the idea of giving up sipping mint juleps on the porch while black folks sweated for free in cotton fields. gtfo

>>3250909
I understand the geopolitical reasons, what i don't get is how can they possibly justify it morally.
Is it a case of might makes it right?

>>3250922
Why would they need to?

>>3250924
for domestic stability and good external relations

>>3250674
Are you a fucking idiot?
>inb4 not an argument
My argument is that your understanding of the material is so fundamentally wrong, you cannot even begin to argue about it. It's a shame all the rhetoric surrounding the conflict - the raison d'etre for the conflict - was about the economic importance of slavery.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
For something that ISN'T about slavery, this is assuredly about slavery and its symbolic importance. Secondly, the CSA was the creation of a small cadre of plantation-owning elites who didn't want to compete with Northern manufacturing and were terrified of the open settlement of the Louisiana Purchase's territories, which threatened also their agriculture.

>>3250672
DO IT AGAIN SHERMAN

>>3250882
Nobody gives a fuck about morals.

File: 1454119055747.jpg (37KB, 480x642px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 480x642px

>>3250949
Sure they do - don't be edgy. You'll cut yourself.

>>3250951
No, no country ever gave two shits about morals and no country ever applied the same standards to themselves as they apply to their enemies.

>>3250951
>>3250940
How did the US morally justify the japanese internment camps?
They didn't even try at the time, and everyone involved in that came out just fine.

File: 1343201.jpg (32KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 400x400px

>>3250940

>i understand the geopolitical reasons

>>3250951
>UK causes Bengali famine, starve Boer women and children in concentration camps, slaughters innocents all over the world
>somehow assumes moral highround when talking about the Holocaust, communism or slavery
Come on now.

>>3250954
>>3250956
>>3250961
>says broad qualifier of nobody
>move the goalposts
Weak. I remain correct.

: )

>>3250962
Show me a single country that consistently applied moral principles to everything, even to their own detriment. Hard mode: no fictional countries.

>>3250943
Not that Anon, so are you saying that at that time the Confederate States and secession in general was a majority elite position? It was it like today where every common moron was chanting about the South rising up? Honest question, maybe not phrased the greatest...

>>3250965
Federal Republic of Germany

>>3250965
>doesn't even read the post he's commenting on
Good job!

>>3250657
DO

>>3250922
>when they fought for independance from Britain just a bit earlier
Because in the Americans' minds British secession was caused by several things: 1. the unresponsiveness of a government thousands of miles away and 2. being ruled by a ""tyrannical"" king and a legislative body that would cede the colonies no legislative rights while taxing the colonies without their consent 3. unfair mercantilist policies hurting american traders and manufacturers.
also while the american revolution was still only a generation or two before it was by the time of the ACW at a safe distance that the circumstances of the two conflicts seemed to distant to each other, though the Confederates certainly saw this as a continuation of that tradition. I suppose Unionists would have focused more on the Aftermath of the revolution; i.e. the instability of the articles of confederation and states having too much power, the need for a strong federal government to defend the interests of the states against external enemies and unnecessary squabbling among themselves (the congress giving them a more legal forum to resolve their differences and conflicts with one another)

>>3251013
IT

>>3250982
>attacks Brazilian economic protectionism
>has its own protectionist zone called the EU
There you go.

>>3251059
>attacks Brazilian economic protectionism
proof?

>>3250657
You're right. Its not about slavery.

Its about state's right. The state's right to slavery.

>>3251063
Didn't find the Brazilian reference but here they are criticizing American protectionism:
http://www.dw.com/en/german-minister-trumps-protectionism-a-threat-to-germanys-economy/a-37372041

>>3251044
again

>>3251067
I genuinely, 100% believe that it wasn't about state rights at all. If Union amended the constitution to mandate slavery for every state while taking away all states rights, Southerners would take it in a heartbeat.

>>3250657
The civil war was about state rights vs federal rights when it comes to slavery.

everyone in this thread got their education about the war from jews and yanks
its all just fucking anti-south propaganda
sickening

File: 0239842.jpg (48KB, 865x760px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 865x760px

>>3251076
S H E R M A N

>>3251093
The Confederacy's secretary of state was a Jew tho

>>3251077
But that's what the proposed amendment was and the South still told the North to fuck off.

>>3251093
propaganda
>[citation need]

File: southball.jpg (1MB, 1072x4616px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1072x4616px

>>3251103
The CSA was a jew-friendly, nigger-friendly shithole full of jews and retards cosplaying as feudal aristocracy while the white laborers lived in squalor.

>>3251103
dont hate jews bro, just the globalist ones in power that want to destroy the west

>>3251124
But the secretary of state was a Jew who was in power.....

>>3251124
>muh good jews
Fuck off back to r/the_cuckold

File: 1498604016295.jpg (4MB, 3064x6096px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3064x6096px

The Civil War was about state's rights.

Specifically, a state's right to preserve slavery.

>>3251074
There is a difference of having certain regulations (EU), and threatening trade war to bully other nations, like Trump does

Basically it was a lil bit of both.
I mean slavery did fuel southern economy but there are documents which date to somewhere near the end of the war cant remember what year tho, in which it is stated the Southern government was considering abolishing slavery themselves.
However you wont learn this in any school cuz history is written by the victors amirite famalam
and cuz >muh evil dixie slavers

>>3251124
t. (((Judah))) P. Benjamin

>>3250657
Who cares what it was about?
>Rebellion happened
>Rebellion was ruthlessly crushed
>Rebel descendants cry endless tears about their failed rebellion like a bunch of Irish

>>3251150
No there isn't. I keep getting buttraped by the customs every time I order something from China or India.

>>3250657
summarizing:
>who has the sovereignty, states or congress?
that's the question
>why were they asking the question?
slavery

That's it guys.

>>3251181
>there are documents which date to somewhere near the end of the war cant remember what year tho, in which it is stated the Southern government was considering abolishing slavery themselves.
It's not "stated" it was a congressional meeting where Jefferson Davis and co. were debating abolishing slavery in a last ditch effort to gain British support for Southern Independence. Davis and actually a lot of others supported the measure. It's discussed in "Battlecry of Freedom", so it's not fucking "hidden".

I think you're right in a way that Southerners, at this point, were willing to give up slavery if it meant winning the war and establishing the independence of their political class from the north. But, for one thing, they never did abolish slavery in those last days and, furthermore, the extreme circumstances of those final months of the war, where the Confederacy was clearly losing, had forced them into this position. Had they really given up slavery in the end it STILL would have been extremely reluctantly and with great reservations.

File: Shermans-marsh.jpg (94KB, 597x467px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 597x467px

>>3250657
>152 years later, they're still mad

>>3253452
Who gives a fuck why they're asking it? When you're teacher asks you two plus two, you fucking answer it. You don't get to skip the test because you don't like the framing.

>>3253625
>worrying about "answering the question right"
never gonna make it

File: 7913674a950b9e95b20bcbece800efe4552502e85b1df9ed97432fbb6d793c20(2).png (851KB, 1974x2183px) Image search: [Google]

851KB, 1974x2183px

He should have let them secede.

Curious about this. Do the states in USA vary in how they teach the Civil War?

>>3253638
>avoiding questions altogether because of their framing

may as well turn in your white privilege card and move to namibia

>>3250657
>the war wasn't about slavery, it was about states rights!
>look at this proposed amendment to help guarantee states rights! and look how the South still told them to fuck off!
So your argument is that the war wasn't about slavery, but rather the South just being populated by retarded manchildren?

>>3250976
most of the people that fought in the war were poor farmers who believed in southern independence and shit. the big wigs pulling the political strings were trying to keep their oligarchy, which would have been impossible without slavery a

>>3250657
The civil war was about slavery. Don't take our word for it. Take it from the secessionists themselves.

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession

>>3250815
>a country needs centralization when facing a bigger power

Woah

>>3250909
So americans don't give a shit about freedom and would rather have security, right?

>>3254854
>excuses
National draft, outright ignoring state governors, hyperinflation, fiat currency, deficit spending, national enforcement of slavery, high taxes, government regulated infrastructure, etc. You should look into the quarrel Joseph Brown had with Jefferson Davis, Davis was arguably even a bigger centralist than Lincoln and this goes back into pre-war days. Hardly the Jeffersonian Democrat people portray him as nowadays.

>>3251059

DESU Brazil's protectionism is just next-level retarded.

Here's some personal experience.

> Import duties on product that we sell is over 200%
> Completely not price-competitive with domestic Brazilian competitors, despite the fact that they make a piece of shit.
> Management decides to partner with a Brazilian company to license produce our product in Brazil (which is what the tariffs are supposed to encourage)
> Discover none of the Brazilian companies have the expertise to make the parts we need
> "We'll just ship them the finished sub-assemblies (tariffed at a lower rate), have the Brazilians do big-boy lego final assembly, and slap a "Made in Brazil" sticker on.
> Every part has to be cleared by Brazilian customs for every shipment, same part, repeat shipment, needs re-clearance. Delay between parts sent from our side to receive at Brazil site often reaches a month
> Customs clearance would be granted, then revoked, at random
> Brazilian customs has it in for one our parts that we licensed from a German company
> Refuses to even let the part into the country, says it's a "finished product" and subject to their absurd tariffs.
> Management finally says fuck it after half a decade and countless millions sunk into Brazilian operations. Poach the good Brazilian employees with American visas
> Brazilians still using their shitty domestic goods today.

>>3253504
But if sacrifimg slavery in favour of winning the war was an option, which it clearly was, this means that keeping slavery was not the objective. You don't sacrifice your objective to win a war because then that means there's no victory.

>>3252677
Importing from China and India is hell easy, you must be doing something wrong or ordering specific goods that do get monitored.

>>3254897
>>3254897
objectives change over time. they're not a unchanging set of principles. as i said, by the time this slavery had come up for discussion the Southern elite had already committed significant resources and emotional investment in their cause. They were willing to win at all cost. One of the reasons was pride, but fear probably played just as much a part. Many wondered whether their losing the war would also mean losing their heads, losing their economic and social status. If winning the war meant freeing the slaves, it might also raise their standing among the white troops they sacrificed in the tens of thousands. Besides that, the Union already threw in the gauntlet by declaring freedom of southern slaves unilaterally, so abandoning slavery might have preempted a much feared slave revolt or a further mass defection of slaves (which was already happening) had the southerners won. Then there's the fact the blacks could be made into soldiers, as southerners proposed promising their freedom for fighting on their side. Blacks slave also were hugely important in field hospitals, canteens, transport, in the crash industrialization programs and the whole homefront effort. So it's not so simple as saying the Southern elite ultimately had good hearts. The course of events forced them to rethink their position, even if that original position was what the war was fought on in the beginning.

>>3250943
>South supported free trade because "didn't want to compete with Northern manufacturing"
>North pushed high tarriffs because they didn't want to compete with british manufacturing

really activates your almonds

File: download (16).jpg (9KB, 200x252px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 200x252px

>>3250672
fpbp

>>3254900
>specific goods
Yes, medicine.

>>3255017

Yea well no shit, the Chinese equivalent of the FDA is pretty worthless, and moreover too understaffed to deal with all of China. Customs wants to make sure what you are bringing into the country is actually not medicine and will do what it's supposed to do.

It seems historians are adamant with absolutes. The war was about slavery or it wasn't about slavery at all. No nuances allowed. Which begs to question why so many confederate officers, from the highest rank, and soldiers wanted to free the slaves in exchange for military service? If the only goal was to maintain slavery, why abolish, or put it on a definitive course towards it, in order to win the war?

>In January 1864, General Patrick Cleburne and several other Confederate officers in the Army of Tennessee proposed using slaves as soldiers in the national army. Cleburne recommended offering slaves their freedom if they fought and survived.

>...whenever the subjugation of Virginia or the employment of her slaves as soldiers are alternative propositions, then certainly we are for making them soldiers, and giving freedom to those negroes that escape the casualties of battle.
>Nathaniel Tyler in the Richmond Enquirer

>On January 11, 1865 General Robert E. Lee wrote the Confederate Congress urging them to arm and enlist black slaves in exchange for their freedom.[39] On March 13, the Confederate Congress passed legislation to raise and enlist companies of black soldiers. The legislation was then promulgated into military policy by Davis in General Order No. 14 on March 23, 1865.[40] The emancipation offered, however, was reliant upon a master's consent; "no slave will be accepted as a recruit unless with his own consent and with the approbation of his master by a written instrument conferring, as far as he may, the rights of a freedman."[40] According to historian William C. Davis, President Davis felt that blacks would not fight unless they were guaranteed their freedom after the war.[41]

>After the war, the State of Tennessee granted Confederate Pensions to nearly 300 African Americans for their service to the Confederacy

>>3255472
> The war was about slavery or it wasn't about slavery at all. No nuances allowed.
>source: my asshole

>>3255539
If the war was about slavery why did so many men fight while at the same time lobbying for emancipation trough military service? It clearly stands to reason that their primary aim of the war was not maintaining slavery but independence even at the cost of slavery.

also, fuck off faggot

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-17 at 4.46.42 AM.png (33KB, 916x60px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 916x60px

>>3255472
first of all, see pic related. then, >>3254939

all of the things you post are dates at THE END OF THE WAR for the reason, because the course of events forced their Confederate's hands. They were short on manpower, the emancipation proclamation opened the prospect that slaves would increasingly defect and they hoped for British support at the promise of ending slavery. And as your own sources say
>was reliant upon a master's consent;
Indicating that the decree was a very tentative step which falls under the expression "too little too late". It's not clear whether Davis could have forced the elites to accept emancipation and whether such an emancipation would be a sleight of hand, as it very much was in the South after the war with the sharecropping system.

Robert E. Lee was indeed against slavery, but he was an exception to the rule among the southern political and economic elite (the two being nearly indistinguishable anyway.

>>3255574
also forgot to mention that by this time the Union had CAPTURED the most slave intensive parts of the country, namely Mississippi Louisiana and other plantation regions heavily reliant on slavery. Not to mention that those areas suffered a lot of economic destruction or abandonment from raiding, requisitioning, pillaging, burning and the like. In other words, the union destroyed the southern economy thereby taking the most important reason for slavery, namely their economic value. You're also forgetting that there's a difference between saying something and executing or doing something. To put it another way, it's one thing to talk about freeing slaves, its another thing to actually put it into action. The southerners never put radical plans for slaves into action despite the possibility of doing so and arguably, their ultimate hesitation to do so DOES prove that they were too wedded to slavery rather than doing everything necessary to secure independence.

>>3250657
>union offers the south to have slaves
>still chimps out and attacks the union unprovoked
>OP tries to argue how the union was in the moral wrong for retaliating and how they could even think that they could justify such a heinous and inhumane act
>even though it's a text book case of chat shit get hit


I really hope your family was in the direct line of Sherman.

>>3255017
Anon, why are you buying medicine over the internet, from China?

>>3250815
Seriously? I thought certain states were threatening to secede from the CSA and go it alone when they didn't get their way. While Abe could wield power throughout the federal government and issue orders to armies in the field, Davis was kinda just making strongly worded suggestions. Was this an incorrect understanding?

>>3250657
>confusing the claim 'it was about slavery' with the claim 'it was about ending slavery'

>>3254864
>So americans don't give a shit about freedom and would rather have security, right?

Most of them yes. The NSA and the Federal Reserve still exist.

>>3250815
>[citation needed]

>>3250788
>Lincoln assured the South and outright said he would keep slavery if it meant preserving the Union, that still wasn't good enough and they chimped out

Because he would ONLY keep slavery in the Southern States. Every new state admitted under him would be free, and the balance of power in the Senate between slave and free would be radically tipped in favor of free. Even if slavery itself was untouched, with a majority of Senators voting Free, and House already long gone, stringent policies could be enacted to make slavery and thus the whole agrarian economy of the south non-viable. Tariffs on imported goods for the sake industry, special taxes on cash crops, non-enforcement on slave retrieval legislation, bureaucratic legislation to slow down the exportation of certain goods, public works projects to create avenues of trade which bypassed the South and rerouted them North. Instead of swift destruction, it would be the slow dissolution Southern life, and the economy.

>>3253683
wtf I love North Dakota now

>>3250657
>I'm fighting for my "freedom" to keep other people as slaves.

Then why did they secede? What right were they were concerned about losing? Tell me dixieboos I'm waiting.

>>3250882
The USA seceded from the empire because they weren't allowed to have a single seat at the parliament in London.

The CSA seceded from the Union because they wanted to keep niggers as their property.

>>3257184
not that guy but Battlecry of Freedom describes this

>>3257185
You make some good points, but I think you give the South too much credit for their frankly self-serving behavior. You make them out to be victims when, as a whole, they ruthlessly exploited their power as a section in the US government starting in 1889.

> Every new state admitted under him would be free, and the balance of power in the Senate between slave and free would be radically tipped in favor of free.
Yes. But let's consider what happened and what alternatives there were. Let's consider how the Southern politicians in Washington ruthlessly pursued aggressive foreign policy to secure the future of slavery, needlessly provoking the crisis in the name of an imperialist ideology, "Manifest Destiny," by attacking a fellow republic, Mexico, and seizing its territory. Consider how many times Southerners tried to annex Cuba (something like a dozen times prior to the ACW iirc).
In short, forcing Imperialist expansion made the question of slavery more prominent than it need to have been. If North and South had resolved to stop expanding, consolidate what they had, and settle for the balance of power in Congress as it had already existed, the issue of slavery need not have exploded as it did, nor did it have to force Northerners to reconsider their attitudes toward it (remember, a lot of Northerners didn't care, liked slavery because it kept blacks from stealing northern industrial jobs and there was a popular movement for settling slaves back to Africa through philanthropic operations. Radical abolitionism had VERY little support, even during the Civil War).

>>3257671
1789*

>>3251011
>says slavery is good
>somehow this means the war is about slavery

>>3253531
>get your country burned down
>be mad
Makes sense

>>3250796
In the 90s even my nig friends knew the it was states rights

>>3257671
>>3257671
Yes, northern jingoists certainly existed. Some northerners even tried to annex Canada in the 1830s. The Oregon question also stoked nationalist fervor. However, as we well know, northern jingoism did not have political force in Congress, but Southern jingoism DID because the Constitution, as it was written, happened to give the Southerners more power incommensurate with their actual numbers. What made this worse was that the Presidency had been dominated by Southern politicians for a majority of the Early Republic's history, and unsurprisingly these Presidents favored Southern domestic and foreign policies. This is most evident in Polk's presidency, where Polk pursued a war that blatantly favored Southern interests and institutions in a snub to Northern Jingoism over Oregon and the British.
But one has to wonder whether Northern Jingoism would have EVER been as aggressive as the Southern strand. Going back to the Canada issue in the 1830s, we see Northern and Military Authorities stopping an unofficial attempt to annex Canada. We know that after the ACW, a "Northern" dominated (if you can really call it that) government pursued no "serious" territorial expansion akin to the Early Republic or the European Empires of the New Imperialism of the 1880s and 90s. Southern Jingoism, on the other hand, was part and parcel of the Southern society and economy. One, was the inherent insecurity about the "Peculiar Institution," as slavery was called. Insecurity because the South felt isolated on its reliance on that institution. The North had slowly phased out slavery and the founding document, the Constitution, had written within it an implicit condemnation of slavery. It was hard to argue on grounds of equality and liberty of man that slavery was fair. Therefore, expansion became a means to "confirm" the righteousness of the institution. (cont.)

>>3257751
The logics to expansion something like this, I imagine: "if all of these other States had slavery, and even more territories are scrambling to have themselves admitted as slave States, than why are you trying to condemn such a popular institution that whites benefit so much from?" The Freesoiler movement, then, whose main platform was to preserve the West for White people exclusively by stopping the expansion of slavery (and therefore blacks, really) from defiling those pristine lands with their inferior blood, was also a denunciation of the Southern elite's way of life. If slavery wasn't allowed to expand because the Northerners valued free labor more, what did that say to Southern elites? I'll tell you; it was an assertion that slavery was morally wrong, that Southern elite should be ashamed of themselves for profiting off an institution that denied men civil rights, degraded the labor of politically free white men by making them compete with an allegedly inferior and degraded race of black men. To put it another way, how would that make you feel if someone said your entire way of life was immoral?

>>3257751
>But one has to wonder whether Northern Jingoism would have EVER been as aggressive as the Southern strand.

No, because the British Empire was a way more powerful opponent than Mexico and the native tribes.

>>3257788
>>3257788
So, as I see it, expansion was necessary to easing the Southerners' conscience over the righteousness of their owning slaves. But, to lay down a second point, there was a strong economic logic to expansion. Plantation agriculture exhausted soil. That is why Westward expansion was so swift in the South (and the domestic slave trade from Virginia to the Black belt of Alabama and Mississippi, for that matter). There was also the expectation of growing demands for cotton, which were exponentially rising to sate Britain and other industrializing economies' demands for raw material for textiles. Cotton turned people from rags to riches. Jefferson Davis, for example, became a millionaire from plantation farming after having been born. The price of cotton was doubling every decade since the 1810s. Slavery, then, seemed to offer hope to many poor white southerners that they might some day become rich slaveholders. It was an irresistible dream that led people to stake out claims further west to become their own entrepreneurial plantation millionaires. To deny westward expansion of slavery, then, was to also deny the hope of upward mobility of Southerners, of having a second chance, of becoming men of independent means.

>>3257743
Let's be real here, you've 1) never had a black friend, 2) never spoken to a black person willingly, 3) haven't spoken to anyone irl in weeks

>>3257829
>No, because the British Empire was a way more powerful opponent than Mexico and the native tribes.
That was one factor, but that didn't stop Americans during the War of 1812 or from attempts to annex Canada. In the end, I get the impression that it was strengthening anglo-american kinship among the political elite. But there was huge anglo-phobia among the common people.
Also, you're ignoring the fact that annexing California and accepting Texas was done on the assumption that England had an eye on these territories. The fear was very real that Texas might become a client state of the British used as a stick to beat the Americans with. The British were also thought to be thinking of annexing California.

>>3257848
Canada in the 1830s*

>>3257832
born poor* fug

>>3257185
>stringent policies could be enacted to make slavery and thus the whole agrarian economy of the south non-viable.
How about from the Northerner's perspective? The Southern denial of Northern desires for tariffs was plain callous. I can't name the exact cases but several political rows broke out in the late 1820s, 1830s and 1840s over the Southerner's blatant disregard for Northern tariff demands.
>special taxes on cash crops,
Very unlikely
>non-enforcement on slave retrieval legislation
You think this is GOOD? Using the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to enforce the rights of states at the expense of others. It's effectively a federal sanction of slavery and everyone in the North thought as much.
> bureaucratic legislation to slow down the exportation of certain goods,
depended on the state. those methods be hard to implement in the south
>public works projects to create avenues of trade which bypassed the South and rerouted them North
Nope.jpg. The South denied public works on the grounds that ANY federal attempt to build public works for the good of the WHOLE nation was a direct violation of states' rights, and a slippery slope on the way to the government intervening in slavery. You can't have it both ways, shithead; enforcing other states to pick up your slaves for them yet deny national infrastructure on the grounds that it might lead to the delgitimization of your economic and social system.

>>3257185

>He wuz a gud boi

>>3253683
>Califonian iQ
Every time kek

>>3253683
Why is Mississippi the most miserable state? I can't for the life of my figure out why people would want to live there or move.

>>3251104
They wanted to retain slave ownership across state borders even in states where it was illegal, and feared union with abolitionists would lead to a creeping effect and whittle away the social order if slavery gradually. The South started the war anyway.

>>3260216
*of slavery gradually

>>3251124
I love how this is a """""moderate""""" position on 4chan.

>>3259744
>with no regard for every other metric
I'm sorry to say that you and California share a positive correlation.

>>3257743
>calling your alleged friend a "nig"

Okay

>>3257185

And yet the South still lost.

>>3260257
Tyrone doesn't being mind called a 'nig', what's your problem?

>>3260257
I call my gay friends faggots all the time.

>>3250672
Fuck off Larper. You didn't even know how to shoot a gun.

File: 1502249151173m.jpg (122KB, 654x1024px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 654x1024px

>>3250657
Why does this trigger Yankees so much?
>Durr the souf only fought becuz muh slaves

The infamous "cornestone speech" which liberals cherrypick to be about only anti-racial egalitarianism and pro slavery

>This new constitution. or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited. In reference to it, I make this first general remark: it amply secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and liberties. All the great principles of Magna Charta are retained in it. No citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers under the laws of the land. The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated. Some changes have been made. Some of these I should have preferred not to have seen made; but other important changes do meet my cordial approbation. They form great improvements upon the old constitution. So, taking the whole new constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment that it is decidedly better than the old.

>Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new.

>>3262294
>Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power, claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one; it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or to all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country, according to population and means. We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost of not less than $25,000,000.

>>3262300
>All this was done to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and the equipment of our roads was borne by those who had entered into the enterprise. Nay, more not only the cost of the iron no small item in the aggregate cost was borne in the same way, but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere? The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality, to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it. If Charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston bear the burden. If the mouth of the Savannah river has to be cleared out, let the sea-going navigation which is benefited by it, bear the burden. So with the mouths of the Alabama and Mississippi river. Just as the products of the interior, our cotton, wheat, corn, and other articles, have to bear the necessary rates of freight over our railroads to reach the seas. This is again the broad principle of perfect equality and justice, and it is especially set forth and established in our new constitution.

File: 1502248985637.png (45KB, 589x743px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 589x743px

>>3262302
On the topic of war, because Yanks accuse the South of being warmongerers for firing at Ft Sumter after the North decided it was a good idea to not head the warnings of the South that reinforcing the forts was a declaration of war.

>War can be of no more benefit to the North than to us. Whether the intention of evacuating Fort Sumter is to be received as an evidence of a desire for a peaceful solution of our difficulties with the United States, or the result of necessity, I will not undertake to say. I would feign hope the former. Rumors are afloat, however, that it is the result of necessity. All I can say to you, therefore, on that point is, keep your armor bright and your powder dry.

Yet somehow the South was just a bunch of evil slavers whose sole existence was to beat up slaves and make war...

>>3255812
He's probably ordering meds from India. India has no patent protection on drugs because they can't into intellectual property. So they make generics of everything almost as soon as they come out.

>>3251093
>their propaganda isnt my propaganda reeeeeeeee

>>3262320
Doesn't change the fact that they did in fact start the war

>>3250675
Thing that the war was about slavery is just the new popular opinion

Fact is, the war was fought by many people, and they all had their own reasons for it

>>3255472
>1864 and 1865
They were losing and desperately needed any manpower they could get at that point.

>>3262362
not everyone is a special snowflake though. its safe to say that most adhered to a few different reasons for joining the war. while other ones might have flourished i reckon that those were in the minority.

>>3262320
>the North decided it was a good idea to not head the warnings of the South that reinforcing the forts was a declaration of war.
You think the Southerners were idiots? They put a blockade on fort sumpter for a reason, namely cause they didn't want it to get resupplied.

>>3262320
>Yet somehow the South was just a bunch of evil slavers whose sole existence was to beat up slaves and make war...
"evil" is relative. but yes the southerners were belligerent, why are you trying to deny this? they wouldn't have gone to war if they hadn't been belligerent nor would Lee have been so overly aggressive in his tactics.

>>3250657
The South won the war.

>Southern economies are diversifying while yankee states are turning into snowy shitholes like detroit.
>Tyrant ape got BTFO by a based southern man.
>More yanks got killed than Dixons
>The South still has the same mindset as before the war

The only thing they accomplished was freeing niggers which became a parasite on the US anyways. IF the US lost Vietnam than the Yanks lost the Civil War. It's a fact.

>>3251130
>t.3 month newfag who came here because being le alt fag is the new edgy kewl conter-culture thing to do, signaling how much of a le oldfig he is

>>3262808
>yes we won 150 years later even though the southern states are the poorer and less developed by every measure compared to the northern states XDD

>>3262294
>>3262300
>>3262302

>cornestone speech
>not the Articles of Secession themselves which explicitly cite slavery and the preservation thereof as the Confederate States' primary motivation for secession
>or the CSA constitution which doesn't empower the states at ALL besides some waterway taxing power but empowers the Federal Govt (of the CSA) to REQUIRE states to allow slavery

Sorry, what did you mean by 'cherrypicking'?

File: 1423444490210.jpg (107KB, 1250x862px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1250x862px

>>3262320
>>3262294
>denies facts
>posts meme ball
hmm

>>3262808
>our constitution is null and void
>all of our sovereign holdings are occupied by an enemy force
>our own military has surrendered
>our govt has conceded defeat
we totally won guise

>>3262808
>the South is a total shitheap for a hundred and fifty years
>recently a bunch of Yankees move to the Sun Belt
>All of the sudden the economy becomes really strong and diversifies
Really makes me think.

Why am I hearing proper citation of historical documents and rational argument making on 4chan

FOURCHAN. What the everloving FUCK happened to this universe that this cesspool is the bastion of logic and reason.

We are in the universe that the time travelers are trying to avoid. But they just created a new, better universe.

But we're still here. And we can't escape.