Guys, help >most people at my work refers to Robert E Lee

>>3317828
get your GED and try to qualify for jobs outside the fast food industry?

File: brw6axgw116z.png (979KB, 1706x960px) Image search: [Google]

979KB, 1706x960px

>>3317828
I can help
step 1: Realize you're incorrect

>caring about normie opinions when cnn can change their entire worldview in a day

Don't waste your time m8

>>3317835
How do you think i'm paying for the classes for that degree?

Also, slight mistake. Should have been in past tense. Im not working there anymore.

>>3317828
This is the problem, you /pol/fags have no subtlety. I'm not sure if you think you're trolling anyone but it does not come across as anything other than the rantings of a 16 year old child.

File: 1377861697901.jpg (1KB, 100x100px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 100x100px

>>3317828

>>3317845
I'm not saying that slavery was not a reason at ALL, but that there is more to it than that.

File: AGCkgZM.jpg (162KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1024x683px

>>3317828
>What do I do? I'm just a lad who cares about people getting their history right.
Stop begging people to confirm your biases and go read a book from a respected historian

>>3317828
REL literally only fought for the CS because muh homeland. I doubt he was any more racist than any US general. Some others in the CS armed forces maybe, but REL was just fighting for his people. If you want to put blame on anyone it should be Jefferson Davis, not REL.

>>3317851
Don't bother backpedalling you underage faggot. Fuck off to /pol/.

File: map-slave-growth1.jpg (4MB, 1395x1967px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1395x1967px

>>3317857
Jefferson Davis was just the lapdog.

If you want to blame somebody, blame the people who dreamed of turning the Gulf of Mexico into a Pan-Caribbean Slaver's empire

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4&t=3s

>>3317828
It wasn't about slavery directly, but it had very much to do with the south's slave reliant economy

while the north industrialized, the south stayed very agrarian in nature and wa able to retain profits from this less-developed economy through slavery
also, certain trade partners were able to undercut the southern economy after tariffs were removed iirc which pissed them off a tad
the abolition of slavery would have broad implications across the south, forcing the region to undergo a giant shock, followed by a suffering economic transition
this broad economic devastation was what threatened the free lower class whites into fighting for the south
mind you, the whole reason for this situation to happen in the first place is the extremely wealthy plantation owner's hold over the south, and the refusal to change their economy, and they sincerely couldn't have given a shit about lower class whites other than using them as literal cannon fodder

those people must be quite arrogant and stupid to be perfectly honest

how ever did you fall in with them?

>>3318062
>It wasn't about slavery directly

Yes it was. That wasn't the only reason, but yes it was. The South chimped out because they were concerned with free states outnumbering slaves states.

>>3317838
>Arkansas
>no to everything

Why did they fucking secede then?

>>3318199

Because they can.

File: 1499519468849.jpg (16KB, 172x233px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 172x233px

>giving even the smallest fraction of a portion of your mental faculties to considering the opinions of normalfags on history

>>3318199

If the confederacy won then they got to be Kansas

>>3317828
>everyone keeps going on about how the Confederacy was all about "SLAVES SLAVES SLAVES"
Like how the Southern Democrats clogged up Congress and crippled the Federal Government with all their bitching about "SLAVES SLAVES SLAVES?"

File: Talleyrand_01.jpg (248KB, 1375x1700px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1375x1700px

>>3318220
>>3317828
Fargoth is right, OP. You should never, ever talk any advanced topics with stupid normalfags. They will never understand and they will never care.

Best to talk with people who actually know what you're saying rather than waste your time on these absolute numbskulls.

>>3317838
>NC
>No reason
"Fuck it guys, let's secede just to say we did it. Y'all good with that?"
And yet we still contributed a larger percentage of men than any other state.

Admit your wrong and move on with life

Lee was a traitor to the state that would have swung by the neck if Grant didn't decide to him alive out of respect

Stop trying to treat Lee like he is some national super hero that cared for puppies and kids

He was a traitor, the south fought for slavery, they lost let's move on.

>>3317828
I heard he was a racist who liked to lynch black people just for fun, and that he was a fan of Hitler.

>>3318199
>>3318246
Truly /ourstates/

>>3318289
Be glad lee didn't hang
Shit would have gone bad in the south if he did

How did Lee get memed to near-mythical status? Even people who hate the Confederacy will often romanticize him as this great moral gentleman and as ultimately good and respectable despite his flaws or something

>>3318357
It was mainly the lost cause movement that took place after the civil war.


He was an alright general yeah and treated his colleagues with respect however, over the years, a cult of personality around Lee grew up, hand in hand with the development of the "Lost Cause" mythos, and he became the symbol of the tragic genteel Southerner.

Some poor southerner who was "just fighting to defend the south" for the good of the people, something people can idealize and worship over. "HE DINDU NUFFIN but fight for us" shit like that.

It has also gave people a somewhat inflated opinion of his abilities as a general. While he was no slouch don't get me wrong, and won several important victories against larger and better-supplied armies, he was also out-commanded on several occasions. And it's frankly a joke that people compare him to Napoleon or Hannibal or Scipio.

Or to summarize the south just began to idolize him as the perfect tragic figure because they couldn't and still haven't accepted the fact they got their shit pushed in over a war about slavery.

>>3317828
Up to 50% of all households in the Confederate States owned slaves. They were very much "about slavery".

>>3318246
We only seceded to defend our louder, dumber imouto (aka South Carolina)

File: quote-people-want-to-know-why-the-south-is-so-interested-in-the-civil-war-i-had-maybe-it-s-shelby-foote-62-70-61.jpg (93KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 850x400px

>>3318357
Proud yankee, here,

The thing about Lee is that he earns his accolades in battle. Before Gettysburg, Lee was essentially unbeatable. Even Antietam was pretty much inconclusive and at best a minor victory for the union. He often went up against armies that vastly outnumbered his and walked away victorious. While Grant was spanking confederates up and down the Mississippi, Lee was making a mockery out of the Grand Army of the Potomac. No matter what, he

The funny thing about Lee was that he was opposed to both slavery AND secession, and even his descendents have come out in favor of removing confederate statues from state property. He fought for Virginia, the people he knew and cared about.

What often goes unmentioned in these kind of debates is the respect that either side developed for each other. Confederates went into the war thinking that good ole' country hosses were going to stomp city-slicking northern dandies. Yankees went into the war thinking that the US Army was going to steamroll all over the country blumpkins playing soldier. The first Battle of Manassas humbled the Yankees, The Battle of Shiloh humbled the Confederates.

Years after the war, veterans of the battle of Gettysburg recreated the famous charges of that battle, only instead of shooting at each other, they ran out into the fields and embraced each other in brotherly camaraderie.

>>3317838
>lincoln is totally okay with the south keeping their slaves
>OMG WHAT IF HE MAKES US GIVE UP OUR SLAVES?
>start a war
>lose
>end up having to free your slaves

Was the south smoking crack or something? Complete overreaction.

>>3318434
Unironically this

Sherman actually recognized this and quit burning when he reached NC.

>>3318442
Very good analysis. I heard Robert Lee III on the radio talking about his complicated family history and opinion. Was pretty good stuff. Also because reconstruction was poorly handled, a lot of unread Dixie's have a fairly visceral reaction towards the North too this day.

File: Sneden_watercolor_of_Battle_of_Malvern_Hill.jpg (93KB, 556x304px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 556x304px

>>3318442
>Before Gettysburg, Lee was essentially unbeatable.
July 1, 1862
Battle of Malvern Hill

For the preceding six days, George McClellan's Army of the Potomac had been retreating to the James River, pursued by Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia.

McClellan himself was not present on the battlefield, having preceded his army to Harrison's Landing, and Porter was the most senior of the corps commanders. The slopes were cleared of timber, providing great visibility, and the open fields could be swept by deadly fire from the 250 guns placed by Col. Henry J. Hunt, McClellan's chief of artillery. Three gunboats on the James River added even more firepower. Beyond this space, the terrain was swampy and thickly wooded.

Rather than flanking the position, Lee attacked it directly, hoping that his artillery would clear the way for a successful infantry assault (just as he would plan the following year in Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg).

The advancing columns of Confederate infantry were blasted to pieces by the massed artillery. Even more terrifying were the huge 50-pound shells lobbed from the three gunboats.

Across the entire line of battle, the Confederate troops reached within 200 yards of the Union Center and were repulsed by nightfall with heavy losses. As the sun was going down, Isaac Trimble of Ewell's division began to move his troops forward. Jackson stopped him and asked "What are you going to do?" Trimble replied "I'm going to charge those batteries, sir!" "I guess you'd better not try it." Jackson said. "General [D.H.] Hill has just tried with his entire division and been repulsed. I guess you'd better not try it."

>>3317828
friendly reminder to all normalfags that:
>the soldiers that fought for the CSA didnt own slaves, yet they were extremely enthusiatic and had high morale throughout the war.
>the south was molded into a chattel slave based economy by northern tariffs and restrictions, which turned it in to a pseudo-colony with no rights or economic representation, and incentivized raw material production (done through slavery).
>slavery was already a dying system, and would have likely ended within a decade or two regardless of the war.
>neither the south or the north will ever be able to have true self-determination under the tyranny of the majority.
>there is literally no democratic justification for preventing succession

>>3317828
>you live in a time where people actually unironically think Robert "Bobby" E. Lee is some kind of super villain or bad guy solely for being the chief Confederate Army commander
I hate this world.

>>3317868
>PragerJew

>>3318462

Lincoln was chill with states that had slavery to keep it.

He wasn't chill with new states having it.

The South figured that this would eventually make them a huge minority in the House and Senate, so even if Lincoln was cool with slaves, the South feared that if eventually someone wanted to outlaw it, there's nothing they could do to stop it

So they left

>>3318289
>Union couldn't even prove Jeff Davis committed treason

Lol yelling Traitor doesn't make it true.

>>3318442

Lee owed most of his success to Tom Jackson

>>3318650
they didn't care about the north or free states, they cared about the Republican party which was basically an antisouthern party.

>>3317838
>>3317845
>>3317847
>>3317854

Sad but hardly surprising to see liberals substitutimg ideology for facts. Reading the memoirs or Sherman, Grant, Davis and others who fought in the war make it clear that they were fighting for more than "muh slaves". I would highly recomend Co Aych the memoir of Sam watkins a soldier for the confederacy who clearly explains why he was fighting without any mention of slaves. Im sure liberals are certain they know better than the people who lived through it and will prefer to get their info from (((respected historians))) rather than actual primary sources but for those on the bpard whos minds are actually open its not hard to undermine the current narrative. Even in the union side they werent fighting to free thr slaves as the Crittenden resolution makes clear

>>3318670
Why was it fought?

>>3318427
The real number was 1.6% so maybe you wanna rethink that

>>3318670
Confederate soldiers =/= The Confederacy

Nobody should have to tell you this, anon.

>>3318677
Before 1863 the north was fighting to preserve the union, Lincoln repeatedly made clear in speechs and private correspondance that he considered the acts 9f secession to be illegitimate and that the south had never really left the union. The southerners had no sense of natuonal identity and did not consider themselves americans so much as south carolnians, or tenneseans. Regionalsm was a potent force 8n american social life, beyond that the fact that Lincoln had been elected without any electoral votes from the south led many to feel that he was a leader who represented only the north and that the american experiment in representitive government had been a failure. Since the federal government did not reflect their interests they felt a duty to support a government that did

>>3318652
>literally defects from the union to fight for the succeeding confederate states
>not a traitor
>t. dixieboo
anon please your going to have to actually try

File: 1503819733207.jpg (65KB, 728x748px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 728x748px

>>3317828
You're wrong.

>>3318289
USA was founded by traitors m8

>>3317828
Go read them some of Lee's post war words, he was a civil rights advocate after the war.

>>3318442
>they ran out into the fields and embraced each other in brotherly camaraderie.
n-no homo

>>3317828
most people are a bit brainwashed when it comes to history, they refuse to consider both sides and always tend to pick a "good" guy and a "bad" guy

people will focus on the slave part to virtue signal

>>3319286
He was born a Virginian and served Virginia his entire life. Like I said, there's a reason that charges of treason didn't hold up in court.

>>3317828
The civil war was fought over slavery, you can not make a logical case that it would have happened with out slavery ever being introduced in america.

>>3319999
what about the traitorous rebel part

File: 1499391616990.jpg (29KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 480x480px

>>3318713
>Citizens of a country do not make up a country

>>3320012
You couldn't make a logical case that the US would have existed without the introduction of slavery.

>>3318738
Thanks, pal. Weren't there a lot of famous speeches given by Confederate leaders that stated they went to war due to slavery, or at least in great part because of slavery?

>>3318462
fear and paranoia are the essence of the southern mindset

>>3318685
1.6% is the number of individual slaveholders. Think about this for a second: in an ordinary family, does every member of the household own an equal amount of the family's property? Typically all the slaves were held in the name of the master of the house. His sons and grandpappy and cousins who live on the plantation, manage the negroes and depend on slavery for their livelihood do not own the slaves.

If you look at census data and see which HOUSEHOLDS own slaves, the number is anywhere from 30 to 50% depending on the state. SC was nearly half before the war broke out.

So, yes, far more than 1.6% were from slaveholding families. Just because pappy held the title doesn't mean 98% of Southrons weren't part of the slave economy.

File: 1477531445462.png (43KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 320x320px

Georgia:
>The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

Mississippi:
>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.

South Carolina:
>We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

Article I, Section 9 (4)
>No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Really roasts my walnuts.

>>3321683
Op said it was about more than just slavery. Your shitpost doesn't disprove him.

You're that autist in the workforce that constantly tries to correct people. No one likes you.

>>3317828

>people are talking about confederate statues
>point out Lee himself was against confederate statues since it would hinder the reunification of the country.

>>3318125

It was also to a very large extent about protectionism and tariffs. The north wanted to protect industry, the south wanted to protect trade. It's counterintuitive since the roles have reverse somewhat recently.

File: 1412040849863.gif (4MB, 394x310px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 394x310px

>>3320021
>everyone in a country has the same political opinion

>>3317838
Goddamn I hate my fellow Texans.

>>3321782
He was against building them immediately after the war because it would trigger the federal occupiers, not because he was against the concept.

>>3321850
>federal occupiers
dumb revisionist dixieboo. Read up on Lee's actual feeling about reconstruction and repairing ties between north and south before you post.

File: XwN1clW.gif (4MB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 300x225px

>>3321763
Nigger, that's not a shitpost. He's posting primary sources, which is something you'll never fucking see a lost-cause loser doing

>>3317838
God damn this makes me proud to be a floridean

>>3321912
>proud to be a floridean
Every native Floridean I ever knew was a flaming hillbilly

>>3321855
>saying the federals occupied the post war south is now "revisionist"

kek

Lee's exact quote on the subject of monuments was

>As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated; my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; & of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour. All I think that can now be done, is to aid our noble & generous women in their efforts to protect the graves & mark the last resting places of those who have fallen, & wait for better times.

This was only a year after the war ended and the south was completely devastated. It's pretty inconclusive on whether he would be against monuments built later down the road.

>>3321904
>that's not a shitpost.

well yours is

File: 16a9061cd1c863b70f676a3d07ba56dc.jpg (108KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 640x640px

>>3321949
Fuck you, it's a totally valid point worth mentioning that OP hasn't given a single shred of evidence to validate his claim, like all lost-cause losers who only have unsourced lies, ridicule, and socio-political hyperbole to support their arguments, versus the Yankee sympathizer who went back to the source to find out what the actual confederates had to say for themselves.

File: George Wyth Randolph 2.png (3MB, 2512x3248px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2512x3248px

>>3321977
>Fuck you, it's a totally valid point worth mentioning that OP hasn't given a single shred of evidence to validate his claim
except you didn't say that, in fact you didn't really make a point at all. You just spouted off some ad hominems. It was and is a shitpost.

Like I said above, OP didn't disagree with slavery being a major cause of secession. Since you're spazzing out about primary sources, here's something about the valid economic reasons for secession that you can chew on. Now fuck off.

>>3318199
They only seceded after ft Sumpter when Lincoln called on every state to raise troops to put down rebellion. They felt secession was right, and that the USA was in the wrong for not just allowing the csa to leave.

However there was a very divided opinion in the state, with many Arkansas residents defecting, and an active pro-union resistance in the north of the state. Although there weren't separate union and Confederate governments like in Kentucky and Missouri. Towards the end of the war they even tried to secede from the csa to broker a more favorable separate peace with the USA.

All in all they were a rather reluctant state but there were Arkansas units in the army of northern Virginia. It's kind of returned to the spotlight here now with all the Confederate monuments in little rock. There sure are a lot of them considering how little enthusiasm there was for the csa during the war, they were almost universally built in the 1920s by wewuzzers rather than veterans.

File: 1455145888559.gif (2MB, 380x285px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 380x285px

>>3321977
>socio-political hyperbole

kys

>>3317838
Seems more mentioned states rights than slavery.
Are Arkansians autistic?

>>3318442
Only good comment ITT.

>>3319286
>comparing the modern US to the much looser Union of the 1800s
Kill yourself, retard.
The Civil War was closer to France leaving the EU and setting off a war as the EU tries to keep them in, the state was more important to the average American than the nation. That only really changed after the Civil War.

>>3322032
>Hai look guys, I found a speech which supports my claim
For every one you can find about economic trivialities which probably could have been settled peacefully, I can find dozens discussing the "Peculiar institution" of slavery which people were prepared to fight and die over

http://www.civilwarcauses.org/quotes.htm

>m-muh ad hominens
fuck off, all you're trying to do is build false equivalences and then playing victim when you got called on your bullshit

File: can't think, post memes.jpg (387KB, 872x571px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 872x571px

>>3322057
>kys
ohhh, you'd like it if I did that, wouldn't you, Cletus?

Stop pretending like this isn't a game of right-wingers pointlessly romanticising a historic regime because it fits their political biases rather than any authentic interest in factual history

>>3322242
>economic trivialities

economic power and political domination aren't trivialities you dolt. If all they cared about was just keeping slaves then they'd just accept the corwin amendment and stay.

File: 513px-US-SlaveryPercentbyState1790-1860.svg.png (74KB, 513x572px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 513x572px

>>3322377
>economic power and political domination aren't trivialities
yes they are. People don't go to war over a tariff, all of the economic problems could have been easily solved with legislation easing the south into the industrial era. The north actually produced MORE food crops than the south, the south was fixated almost exclusively on cash crops like cotton and tobacco.

>If all they cared about was just keeping slaves then they'd just accept the corwin amendment and stay.
But that's not what they just cared about. They didn't want to just keep their slaves, they wanted to make new slave states. They wanted to spread slavery to Mexico and the Caribbean, and fashion a slaver's empire for themselves.

Literally everywhere else in the world ended slavery with simple compensatory emancipation. That's where the government buys all of the slaves at a fair market value and frees them, leaving their former owners with a generous chunk of capital to invest in their new lives as capitalists. For the vast majority of them it was a major blessing because it was their ticket out of a dying industry. And yet, it is ONLY in the south where compensatory emancipation was not only rejected, but starkly rejected. It wasn't even conceivable for them to consider it because slavery wasn't dying in the south, it was growing exponentially, right along with the rest of of the population, and they saw no reason for it to be any different.

>>3320021
I can't even begin to imagine how retarded someone has to be to even try to argue this point.

>>3322247
I'm an Unionist and a right winger. Stop trying to appropriate the Union as your own, leftist coon.

>>3321683
>some people say they like slavery
>therefore the war is about slaves

>>3322398
>slavery was growing exponentially
>show the amount of slaves going down

>>3317828
The "cornerstone" of the Confederacy was slavery. That was what the war was about.

So I guess it was just a coincidence that slave owning states pushed for secession when it became clear the slave trade wouldn't be allowed to spread to the new territories?

And then they fought a war for a reason wholly unrelated to that cause?

>>3323303
It had been clear for a few years before then

>>3323198
I never said that you couldn't be a unionist and a right winger. In fact I would argue that the parties are still more or less the same that they are today: Republicans are the party of northern industrialism, Democrats are a worker's welfare party, and that the civil war was specifically the victory of modern capitalism over reactionaries trying to preserve a feudal state built around expropriated labor fueling a welfare state for whites. But you'll be very hard-pressed to find a left-winger who is an out-and-out supporter of the confederacy.

I said that certain right-wingers are trying to paint the conflict as northern big government liberals vs southern small government conservatives, when the reality was far more complex than their simplistic bromides

>>3323237
see
>>3317868
for a visualization of the way slavery was expanding in the United States

File: Confederate declarations of secession.jpg (59KB, 700x430px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 700x430px

>>3323230
Nigger, those quotes were directly lifted from the declaration of secession, the document each state wrote specifically outlining why they were seceding. He also directly quotes from the Confederate constitution where they make slavery about as difficult to repeal as the bill of rights.

Yeah buddy, I'm sure Robert E Lee and the Civil War comes up all the time at work. All those normies just can't stop talking about him. You live in bizzaro America where normies actually care about history, right?

'slaves' (if we're even going to call them that) were hardly oppressed. The only reason the civil war happened was because the north was trying to take over the south economically, and the south acted defensively from that. Learn the truth

Secession and the civil war were two distinct events.
Secession was primarily about slavery.
The civil war was about states rights and the belief of Lincoln that states could not secede from the union and had nothing to do with slavery.

File: 1492952155303.jpg (1MB, 1072x4616px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1072x4616px

>>3317828
there were many reason for secession

one as that Lincoln was seen as a tyrant because he literally did not appear on the ballot in most southern states, the reason for this was because the founding principle of the republican party was the abolition of slavery

another was the economic difference between north and south, the north was an urbanized industrial manufacturing economy based on wage labor, the south was a rural farming economy based on slave labor

there is of course the states rights reason for secession, specifically that southern states viewed teh federal government as having clear intentions of interfering with their states rights to determine property laws, specially property laws regarding slavery

there were cultural reason aswell, the northern yankee society was a highly multicultural society that in many ways prided itself on being free of the restrictive class systems of Europe, this was seen as incompatible with the very much codified and class based southern dixie culture based, at its core, on a certain peculiar institution known as slavery

another large factor causing the war was freedom, and differing interpretations of it. northerners viewed slavery as an affront to freedom, southerners viewed the north as infringing on their freedom to own slaves.

there were also legal tensions and incompatibilities between the states. secifically regarding the legal status of an escaped slave in a free state, southerners viewed escaped slaves as being their property regardless of where they were, northern states viewed them as free merely by being present in a free state and abhorred having to legally enforce slavery by sending them back to their southern owner

clearly the civil war was about more than slavery

>>3318523
>anyone in the Civil War
>extremely enthusiastic and ha[ving] high morale throughout
pick one

File: Lincoln on freedom.jpg (67KB, 342x460px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 342x460px

>>3323894
>another large factor causing the war was freedom, and differing interpretations of it. northerners viewed slavery as an affront to freedom, southerners viewed the north as infringing on their freedom to own slaves.

"The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty"

~Address at a Sanitary Fair

Abraham Lincoln
Baltimore, MD
April 18, 1864

>>3324247
>Meanwhile the shepherd genocides the Redman and takes his land all the while bitching about morality

Really makes you think

>>3322398
>He's a golden circle conspiratard

Wew, well at least you showed your autism before I had to converse with you any longer

>>3324323
The vast majority of indians abandoned their traditions and integrated into white culture, taking white spouses, working white jobs, and living in white houses. That's why so many Americans are like, 1/16 Amerindian.

The ones who refused were the warlike tribes like the Apache, Sioux, Seminole, and the Shawnee, were the ones who preyed onbother Amerindians like wolves. As these were the ones sitting at the top of the social ladder, these were the ones who didn't want to see their life of pillaging and ravaging be replaced by one of peaceful productivity, and why they resisted to the bitter end. But there was never any concerted attempt to eradicate them the way that the Jews or the Tutsi were.

The one who got the rawest deal were the Cherokee, who had struck a middle ground between cultural conservatism and progress and were thriving before being scapegoated by Andrew Jackson to draw attention away his "small government" economic reforms which would leave the country crippled for a generation.

>>3324369
Slavery was growing, and the south chimped out because the North said "no more slave states". The only autists are the ones too dense to grasp this basic fact about the civil war.

>>3324323
>b-but whatabout when...
Solid falacy

>>3318670
The fact is that almost all professional historians agree that slavery was the primary cause of the civil war. It might not have been the motivation of every solider or politician but it was the casus belli.

That southerners cited "states rights" means very little in this regard, because the state right they were most interested in protecting at the time was a states right to continue the institution of slavery without federal interference.

>>3317828
Lee himself defended slavery as an institution beneficial for black men, and strongly opposed giving them the vote after the war. He was for his entire life an opponent of black civil rights

He was, by any common definition a racist.

>>3324392
The initial quote by Lincoln was whataboutism as well.

>>3324369
>golden circle
Both James Polk and Franklin Pierce attempted to purchase Cuba from Spain specifically because its slave-infrastructure made it attractive to southern politicians as another potential slave state.

It's not a conspiracy when there's actual evidence for it

>>3317828
Civil war and CSA were about slaves but Robert E. Lee was personally against slavery and only joined CSA because his home state of Virginia was in them.

Tell them that.

>>3324440
>Both James Polk and Franklin Pierce attempted to purchase Cuba from Spain specifically because its slave-infrastructure made it attractive to southern politicians as another potential slave state

Or you know because it was extremely profitable and manifest destiny was in full force. Polk and Jeff Davis also tried to accept an offer to annex the Republic of the Yucatan (where slavery was illegal) but the Senate blocked it. Yucatan rejoined Mexico instead.

>>3324410
Holy shit source because that is the most bullshit i have ever read aboyt the man

>>3324535
Which reinforces my point nicely: just because they were incompetent about it doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of documentation regarding southerner's intent to expand slavery into the Caribbean and Midwest.

>>3318670
>direct quotes from the declarations of independence of the confederate states
>hurr its liberal ideology

stay mad dixiecuck

>>3324539

His own words

"I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy."

“You will never prosper with blacks, and it is abhorrent to a reflecting mind to be supporting and cherishing those who are plotting and working for your injury, and all of whose sympathies and associations are antagonistic to yours. I wish them no evil in the world—on the contrary, will do them every good in my power, and know that they are misled by those to whom they have given their confidence; but our material, social, and political interests are naturally with the whites.”

“the negroes have neither the intelligence nor the other qualifications which are necessary to make them safe depositories of political power."

>>3324588
You claimed Polk's expansionary beliefs were based off the desire to expand slavery or at least appease those wanted to expand slavery, which it wasn't.

>>3324372
>Guy whining about slavery goes full whitewash mode on the ethnic cleansing of Indians

Jesus Christ mate, I'm not even American so I don't have a dog in this fight but you lose the moral high ground when you say stuff like that.

>>3324666
I never once tried to whitewash anything, I called out the bad behavior on both sides. I'll be the first to talk about the raw end of the deal that many Indians got from unscrupulous white speculators, and how none of this has anything to do with Abraham Lincoln or the "peculiar institution" of slavery, because it's not like the Confederate States of America would have been any nicer to them, and I'm sure whatever country you're from has colonial skeletons in its closet, as well.

>>3317828
>>most people at my work refers to Robert E Lee as "that racist fuckhead"
Tell them he was a far better man, of better skill, willing to sacrifice much more for his men and home than they ever have or will.
Then call them filthy yank shits.

>>3324662
again, regardless of the nuances of individual opinion, there was a large, concerted desire to expand slavery, both into places like Cuba and the Midwest.

The compromise that nobody wanted was for them to just keep making slave states and free states at an equal rate. The slave states wanted political leverage, look up Bleeding Kansas and the Free Soilers coming to blows with southern transplants because their livelighoods were being threatened by the guys who didn't have to make payroll. They wanted the United States to be a majority slave-owning country, and the Caribbean was a very attractive place for them to look for slave states because so much of the slave-managing infrastructure was already in place.

>>3323881
>owning people as property is hardly oppression
>muh economics

>>3324680
>The ones who refused were the warlike tribes like the Apache, Sioux, Seminole, and the Shawnee, were the ones who preyed onbother Amerindians like wolves. As these were the ones sitting at the top of the social ladder, these were the ones who didn't want to see their life of pillaging and ravaging be replaced by one of peaceful productivity, and why they resisted to the bitter end

this reads like White Man's burden fanfic

Daily reminder that the South chimped out over losing a democratic election. They were the original #NotMyPresident folk.

>>3324394
Yeah 19 century americans would totally start a bloody fight over some nigger rights. Many such cases!

>most people at my work refers to Robert E Lee as "that racist fuckhead"

He was.

>everyone keeps going on about how the Confederacy was all about "SLAVES SLAVES SLAVES"

It was.

>>3317828

next time you go to work take a gun

It was about slaves.

The government wouldn't pass a national law making slavery legal in all states, which is what the south was mad about. They wanted to stop their slaves escaping North. (The opposite of "state's rights.")

>>3321850

You are completely missing the point, since it was in response to a question about how to insert positive anecdotes about R.E. Lee into a sjw discussion. KYS

>>3320160

like 5% of ppl in the south had slaves

they fired on fort sumner because the US refused to vacate it and it was being leased by the govt from the state despite the fact all other forts were turned over, it was within their rights being a soverign state to blow the yankees the fuck out of there, as soon as they did lincoln sent in the armies and the other states rallied to help defend them

>>3317828
Slaves. Slaves. Slaves.
You don't like having that pointed out do you? It's just the fly in the soup, huh?

>>3326046
>like 5% of ppl in the south had slaves
So like anyone who could afford to?

File: 1385168534291.jpg (48KB, 624x938px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 624x938px

>>3325112
Ask the Amerindian victims of the Sioux and the Apache what they thought of these tribes. Oh wait, you can't because they were ruthless butchers and wiped them out. Going full retard with the noble savage meme is just as historically wrong-headed as going full white-washing mode. The whole reason why Jackson scapegoated the Cherokee was because of violent indian raids on the frontier and the Cherokee were a convenient target to punish.

Was it a retaliatory shitshow? yes. Were white people just as often the instigators of oppression? Sure, but they weren't really any worse than what any other country of white people were doing to their brown-skinned indigenous populations, and whatever you want to call it, it wasn't a genocide. There was never a concerted effort to exterminate the Amerindians. White culture simply grew faster than Amerindian culture did. Over the span of only a few generations there went from being no white people in the land to there being so many white people living in so many farming communities that the Amerindians previous lifestyle of leisure-hunting and ritual battles was simply no longer feasible. What gives a man the right to hundreds of square miles to call his own and violently exclude anyone he doesn't like, which is everyone but his own tribe? Especially when there are huge numbers of farmers ready to settle and make the place peaceful and prosperous, what should they have done? Got on a boat and go back to overcrowded, crime and war ridden Europe?

>>3325398
They started a fight over secession, which came in reaction to the federal government barring the spread of slave states. You're just being purposely obtuse here.

Also, the right to not be property is pretty basic as far as rights go. Slavery was seen as backwards even in the 19th century, and plenty spoke out against it.

>>3325613
Hey, only the ruling upper class who ran the confederacy had slaves. Everyone else was only dying for their benefit. Get it right cuck.

File: 1495558357285.png (434KB, 500x730px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 500x730px

>>3326046
>like 5% of ppl in the south had slaves
That's a misconception, and only reflects just how stratified southern culture had become.

In the south, entire extended families of blue-blooded aristocrats would be supported by a single slave owner, the oldest man, who was the only one who lawfully owned the 10,000's of slaves working his property. Distant relatives would enjoy a life of leisure, supported by slave labor.

You also had the fact that any white person, no matter how down on his luck, could grab his rifle and his club and go enlist as an overseer at a plantation, or join an anti-slave militia whose express purpose for existing was to terrorize slaves into timid pacifism, in order to keep them from revolting, but also to hunt down and return runaways.

You also had the huge number of white people employed in the business of managing the shipping and maintenance of slaves. You had white people employed in the business of selling the slave produced product on the market. The whole point of this arrangement was that whites got to enjoy an easy comfortable life on the backs of an expropriated labor force, and not many people needed to lawfully own the slaves because so few southerners were independent property owners at that point. They called it "King Cotton" because it had come to totally dominate the southern economy

>>3317828
>I'm just a lad who cares about people getting their history right.

No, you are just a dixieboo revisionist.

At some point you need to accept you're either okay with black slaves or that the Confederacy had to die. Your answer is fine whatever it is, just stop dancing around.

>>3326113
Yeah, but dude, other stuff. Other stuff.

File: 1503079628480.png (1MB, 1864x4327px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1864x4327px

>>3317828

>>3326115
Can't be a dixieboo if you live in the south yankee cuck

>>3327054
The South had a right to secede, it was their right to keep & own niggers who are by definition not humans.

>>3327068
>Lives in the south
>bitching about how normies at work keep bringing up the peculiar institution of the south
>"HURR DURR NORMIES WHY DON'T YOU LOVE ME?! I'M SO ALONE!!!!!"
sorry cletus, not even your own people agree with you. you're a Dixieboo
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/us/robert-e-lees-grandson-comments-on-statue-removal/index.html

>>3327070
>it was their right to keep & own niggers who are by definition not humans.
Then by that logic, it's the Yankee's right to impose their definition of freedom on you, since they clearly proved themselves the superior race by beating yours in war. Vae Victus

>>3326091
About 30% of white families in the confederacy owned slaves, up to 49% in Mississippi. They were a minority, but not a small minority by any measure. Even those without slaves would have generally had family or friends who owned slaves, and had religious beliefs that sanctified slavery. Many confederates who didn't own slaves would aspired to own one eventually anyway, or simply feared black people being free.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

>>3327070
If they weren't humans why did they count for electoral votes?

File: ss+(2017-09-03+at+02.06.34).png (51KB, 829x722px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 829x722px

>>3327082
Posting that as an image so the cotton kikes itt have no excuse not to look at it.

>one-half of South Carolinian families own slaves and the state was majority slaves as a proportion of the entire population
>"b-but it wasn't about s-slaves"

>>3326081
>There was never a concerted effort to exterminate the Amerindians.

They literally killed the buffalo in order to starve them, and some tribes were straight up pushed onward in death marches until they were killed from exhaustion. It was genocide. Decentralized in many ways, but genocide nonetheless. Manifest Destiny was basically a polite way of phrasing it.

>>3327076
Most of the south loves the confederacy. 1 faggot who's probably a libtard from carpetbagged Virginia doesn't change that.

This isn't Germany where we disgrace our ancestors like cucks.

>>3327099
Your ancestors disgraced themselves.

>>3327104
Our ancestors killed 300,000 yanks and were better fighters than yankee pussies which is why we honor them today instead of turning our backs on them like cucks.

I'm proud to say my ancestors fought to keep niggers as the subhumans they are.

>>3327112
>I'm proud to say my ancestors fought to keep niggers as the subhumans they are.

kind of based, kind of cringy

>>3327097
>It was genocide
Pure hyperbole, just because some tribes were violent warmongers and merited a harsh response to pacify them doesn't mean that the U.S government undertook a systematic effort to wipe them out.

>>3327114
Don't care what anti social redditards think is cringy kek. I know how fucking butthurt you are that i'm defending slavery instead of bending over like a cuckservative apologist.

Libtards aren't trained by John Oliver to confront actual racists so they just shut down into literally shaking mode.

>>3327112
You are also a disgrace. We should have deported your ancestors to Africa along with the niggers.

>>3327112
> were better fighters than yankee pussies
Spoken like a true armchair general who doesn't actually know jack shit about the civil war.

Ulysses S. Grant had no problem spanking Confederates up and down the Mississippi. Once Grant was unleashed east, it was curtains for the confederacy. The only thing keeping it all together was Robert E. Lee, a guy who was expressly opposed to the idea of both slavery and secession.

>I'm proud to say my ancestors fought to keep niggers as the subhumans they are.
Your ancestors are the reason why there are so many in this country to begin with

File: The historically accurate Confederate Flag.jpg (7KB, 400x308px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 400x308px

>>3327120

>>3327124
We killed more yanks than yanks killed of us. We are by definition better fighters which is why pussy yankees are getting hormone surgeries to become girls kek.

Niggers weren't a problem when they were on our plantations and segregated into their own nigger shitholes.

>>3327125
Ain't the first time i've seen a redditard make this joke, won't be the last.

>>3327131
>We killed more yanks than yanks killed of us.
Because battlefield conditions favored the defender. When the tables were turned, Gettysburg happened.

>We are by definition better fighters
But we are by definition better nation builders

>Niggers weren't a problem when they were on our plantations and segregated into their own nigger shitholes.
You're just buttblasted because they took away your race based welfare state

>>3327131
ain't the first time i've seen some piece of dixie trash jerk off about men he never knew doing things he'll never equal rather than strain himself thinking critically about history. suckstart a shotgun and raise the trailer park's average iq, you cotton kike traitor loving faggot

>>3327117
I didn't say there was a single "effort". There were multiple things designed to displace and destroy them that added together, like killing off their food sources, skirmishes and forced relocations. While most infections that killed the natives were not deliberate, some Europeans like Jeffrey Amherst deliberately spread them. It wasn't just Europe and the US, either, Mexico had some hand in it.

>What gives a man the right to hundreds of square miles to call his own and violently exclude anyone he doesn't like, which is everyone but his own tribe?

Which is literally what white "colonists" did.

File: 591f924e1cd0a.image.jpg (155KB, 1191x1739px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1191x1739px

>>3327131
>Ain't the first time i've seen a redditard make this joke, won't be the last.
Southerners never did let facts get in the way of wallowing in their own ignorance

>>3327151
>I didn't say there was a single "effort".
There's a difference between cultural conquest and outright extermination pogroms. The Indians were conquered, not exterminated. Some integrated peacefully, and were allowed to without incident. Others fought to the bitter end and required extreme measures to pacify them. You're right that it was a messy affair, and it's precisely for that reason why calling it a genocide is such a tenuous stretch.

>Which is literally what white "colonists" did.
And also what the Indians did, so why are the colonists "evil" just because they were better at it? Because white people fight to win instead of drawing out the suffering in elaborate ritual warfare? There were many very warlike tribes, why do they get a pass when they were far more cruel to their victims than white people ever were?

>>3318442
>only instead of shooting at each other, they ran out into the fields and embraced each other in brotherly camaraderie.
Scenes women will NEVER understand

>>3320016
The Confederacy was already its own nation by the time war broke out. There was no "treason", merely a fight between nations

Sherman wad too soft on these faggoty traitors. He should have burned every town, city and farm and turn their owners into homeless beggars. T

>>3318670
Individual soldiers had nothing to do with the secession. Their reasons for fighting are irrelevant

>>3323822
According to this graph, every state had didfeeent reasons for secession. So there's more nuance then we thought?

Confederacy was one of the most evilest regimes in human history, on par with nazi Germany desu.

>>3328613
>what is the Khmer Rouge
>what is any communist regime
>what is pre Enlightenment Europe

>>3328617
They had slavery and fought for it in the 1860s, think on that. Evil, evil people.

>>3328623
>what is Qatar
>what are POWs

>>3328623
Also
>implying Europe never had slaves

>>3328626
Qatar is evil too, do you argue against it?

>>3328628
Europe in 1860s didn't have slaves. Only evil people had slaves then.

>>3328634
I never said it did.
>wow, a different part of the world has didffernet cultural values and morals, who would've thought
>>3328629
I was providing an example of a way more evil regime

>>3328642
>wow, a different part of the world has didffernet cultural values and morals, who would've thought

This is morally bankrupt cultural relativism. Southern culture was defending slavery, that makes it an evil culture.

>>3328666
Nice buzzwords Satan.
>the entire culture of a country can be boiled down to one thing

>>3328678
>we can't judge mongol atrocities because a different part of the world has didffernet cultural values and morals,

said no good person ever. We can say that evil cultures like mongols and confederates are evil.

>>3328602
It shows two things

1. Yes, of course there is nuance to the situation. It was a major historical event, after all.

2. Slavery was the unifying concept, the fulcrum around which all other issues were revolving around. South Carolina didn't have a thing to say about military protection against warlike Indian tribes and Mexican raiders like Texas, nor did it have anything to say about economic issues like Georgia, but slavery was the unifying theme which all three made it a point to discuss, and South Carolina is the outlier for wanting to talk about States' rights to the extent that it did, while the rest vigorously defended the "peculiar institution" of the south.

>>3328688
>strawman

>>3328700
those are literally your words

>>3328701
They're not