War of Northern Aggression

Yes. Yes. Yes. No, they should have just kept up the siege indefinitely, with a guarantee of safe passage if and when the garrison finally decided to evacuate.

File: 1493429690019.png (187KB, 869x499px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 869x499px

>>35026507
The war was started by Northern soldiers occupying a Confederate fort. It was waged so that the North could take back land that wasn't theirs. The North were Mongols.
The South had the right to secede, to deny this is un-American as secession from tyranny is our culture.
>Was Lincoln wrong to--
Yes he was wrong about everything.
As for the shelling see >>35026538

File: 1487523184530.png (591KB, 943x720px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 943x720px

>>35026564
Also worth stating I'm not from the South, I'm just literate and know right from wrong. Every single thing the Union ever did was unjustified.
t. Masshole Leeaboo

Both sides are at fault for the tensioms that led to conflict and the Confederacy fired first upon Fort Sumter which is federal property.

TECHNICALLY the Confederacy started it. Southerners just call it the War of Northern Agression as a psychological defense mechanism.

Also the war was NOT about slavery. It was about the RIGHTS of STATES to allow slavery.

>>35026507
AYO HOL UP
*Violates the Constitution*
SO WHAT YOU BE SAYIN IS
*Forcefully occupies a foreign military fort*
AYO WHAT YOU BE SAYIN WHITE BOY IS
*Invades foreign country to steal their land*
WHAT YOU SAYING WHITE BOY IS DAT
*Impromptu executes and rapes thousands of women and children*
WE WUZ MUFFUGGIN
*Destroys half the country just to maintain a large section of land at the cost of all culture and justice*
WE WUZ ABO-LEET-ON-USTS AN SHEEEEIT?

>>35026636
So the point of contention was slavery.

>one side calls it the Civil War
>one side calls it the War of (our opponent)'s Aggression
Hmm I wonder which side is more biased and upset about the outcome.

Also asking post /pol/ 4chan about the American Civil War is like pissing in the wind. The real truth is in reading history books and making up your own mind.

>>35026661
Some places were not slaveholding states but were effectively attacked by the union to keep them from supporting confederates. For them it wasn't muh slaves but fuck the union.

>>35026564
what are those two flags supposed to be? the one of the right looks like the flag of new england

>>35026683

I already have, I just wanted to see if other's on /k/ came to the same conclusion.

I am a Yankee, born and raised, I never gave a shit about the south, but as I have read more and more about it the South was 100% in the right.

They may have left for the wrong reasons, but they had every right to leave.

>>35026538
Not an argument

>>35026507
Waiting for the inevitable shitstorm that this thread will cause.

>>35026636
Not an argument

>>35026707
State flags. SC and MS

>>35026741
Not an argument

>>35026736
>>35026746
You are that faggot from that AR thread. Also saying "not an Argument" is not an Argument.

>>35026755
thats just the /pol/ack kneejerk reaction to thinking.

>>35026755
Was northern aggression justified? Yes.
Why? Because they won.
>Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just
Right of conquest, motherfucker

>>35026636
States rights weren't a southern problem exclusively and every state that succeeded mentioned slavery and their desire to continue it. So you're wrong, also not an argument

>>35026726
>100% right
You came to the wrong conclusion, desu. I hate telling people that because they immediately feel hurt and jump to defend themselves but in this instance I'm too tired to care.

The Civil War was literally my American History thesis in college so I know a few things. In short, the South and North were both at fault but the North more so due to their use of Federal power to get an upper hand. Call it a 40/60 South and North split respectively and that's reality.

FYI the southern states did not have a right to form a new country and leave the United States. That is a gross simplification but that's the simple truth argued large by many politicians of the day.

File: 1200px-William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg (277KB, 1200x1523px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1200x1523px

>Northern Agression

Weird way to say Southern Treason

>>35026795
>following the constitution
>treason
lmao

Of course the north was full of hypocrisy on this. The United States was, let's remember, founded in the secession of the 13 colonies from the British Empire. To suddenly cry and wail about treason when somebody does it to you - "How DARE you secede from our secession!" - is hideously unprincipled.

Can we just have a thread about the Civil War that doesn't devolve into /pol/ faggotry and questions of what it was over.

Like did the Civil War make America's future entry into WW1 less of a slog because the Americans had already seen how terrible trench warfare was?
By the end of the conflict, the US has perhaps some of the best fighting forces and weapons in the world. With Europeans being sent to observe the technology and battles.

>>35026782
They became a fucking issue when the union conquered multiple states and overthrew their state governments. Confederates were just an ally of convenience after that.

>>35026736
>Not an argument
Why the fuck isn't it one?

>>35026755
Still not an argument

>>35026774
Not an argument

>>35026831
now that's an argument

>>35026507
>Was the war really instigated by the North?
No
>Did the south have a right to leave the Union?
Yes
>Was Lincoln wrong to reject confederate attempts before war erupted to peacefully secede?
No
Was the shelling of Fort Sumter justified?
No, and the Confederates knew it.

>>35026856
>>35026865
what's an argument
never heard of one before

>>35026877
I'd say its more along the lines of.... Lincoln rejecting attempts to secede peacefully purposely instigated something like Sumter so they would have proper casus belli to put an end to it. It was inevitable and not specifically instigated by the north alone but Lincoln decided the timing to catch them mostly unprepared.

>>35026829
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

The US Federal government proved early on the whole revolution/fuck the govt strain was a one time dealie

>>35026829
>is hideously unprincipled.
Except the assertion was based on the Constitution and the North was not a kingdom controlled by a tyrant imposing a long and burdensome rule full of offenses against the People.

>>35026829
The Confederacy is no more! Whatever semblance of unity and protection it once provided is a phantom, a memory.

>>35026919
I mean, they kind of were. Secession wasn't against any laws and loads of the things the federal government did was tyrannical and exactly against those laws. Rather a short burdensome rule full of offenses against the people.

>>35026932
>short
Hence not within legal reason. It also implies the entire populace agrees, not just slave owning plantation owners and yeoman farmers brought along for the ride.

>>35026967
Taking out your own side's state governments is usually a no-no. Rightfully elected leaders imprisoned or exiled and replaced with unelected Union-supporting ones is about as tyrannical and anti-People as you can get.

Even states that didn't support the confederacy had to fight for them because the union was fucking their shit up. There were a few neutral states and more than a few factions within union states trying to just let the confederates go their own way and that was not an option for the federals. Union vs. Confederates was pretty legitimate but Union vs. Union was war crime as fuck.

File: thinking nike.png (660KB, 468x653px) Image search: [Google]

660KB, 468x653px

>the same people that autistically screech about MUH FWEEDUMBS support the aristocratic Euroboo Southerners and their total reliance on slave labor to perpetuate the landed gentry system of England and France

File: 1490398334054.jpg (69KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 600x600px

>tfw its been 152 years and the south is still salty

>sell land to federal government
>land gets used for federal fort
>years later, South gets mad that every future state might not perpetuate their abominable economic system
>chimp out when they lose an election and attack the fort on land sold under fair terms to federal government (which they themselves declared they were no longer part of)
>Northern aggression, guise
BTW, it was about slaves. No one's falling for your revisionist lies anymore, Cletus.

>>35027053
no one ever accused southerners of an overabundance of intellect

>>35027317
Or northerners of a lack of arrogance.

Due to destruction of the prosperous (albeit slavery - based) economy of the South; the jewish benefactors of Abraham Lincoln gained the most important resource ever: cheap labor.

>>35026919
I'm sure you'll be happy to show me where the Constitution as it was in 1861 said you couldn't secede.

File: 1504051626380.png (418KB, 770x648px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 770x648px

>>35027328
I'm pretty sure its far more arrogant to assume that you'll win against the far more populated, wealthy and industrialized north because muh noble fightin spirit

>>35027127
So you're admitting that the northerners killed hundreds of thousands of fellow whites for the benefit of niggers. Who was whose slave, again?

If you want me to be impressed that you fought a war so that 150 years later we could have gay "marriage" (via the 14th Amendment) and Blacked.com, I think you'll be disappointed.

I think we should let the south secede again. See how they enjoy not getting those federal tax dollars.

>>35027366
As long as we don't have those federal mandates for astronomical social welfare spending to subsidize the dysgenic breeding of 85 IQ nignogs and we can start enforcing immigration laws that keep out the flood of low-wage beaners, we'll do just fine, thanks.

>>35027354
Well the confederates had tons of foreign support they just got wrecked to shit and lost all their ports.

>>35027378
/pol/ please go

>>35027358
>If you want me to be impressed that you fought a war
I'm not 175 years old. I didn't fight for anything.
>gay "marriage"
lol. Put your trip back on Phil. Two gay dudes getting married doesn't hurt you at all, no idea why it pisses you old-timey moralizers so much. Yeah yeah, I'm sure you'll snap back with nonsense about AIDS and promiscuity, despite the fact that settling down in a monogamous relationship is like the exact opposite of that but whatever
>Blacked.com
Who cares? Don't like it, don't watch it. One studio makes memeable porn and you guys go crazy. Just ignore it lol

File: 1475752324876.png (157KB, 326x323px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 326x323px

Watching the First Battle of Manassas must have been one helluva an experience
>Go to have a picnic while watching a battle
>Think this silly Southern rebellion will be over after this one skirmish
>Fighting starts
>Union starts making some advances
>This will be a pretty short day and the US will have Richmond back by week's end
>Confederates take control of some US cannons and wreck the Union flank for a bit
>One guy in grey just sits on his horse like he's made of stone
>He gives an order to fire, his men do so and then charge across the field while screaming like the howl of Hell's winds
>Oh shit
>Day ends with panicked Union running through your meal site and then Confederate cavalry trampling you

"We're the side for states rights!"
lol no, you people were responsible for this abortion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
"fuck your laws against slavery, you have to enforce it now!"

File: sherman.jpg (342KB, 1280x1624px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1280x1624px

I told you bro

File: the war of northern aggresion.png (30KB, 1221x764px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1221x764px

>>35026636
And the RIGHTS of STATES to not follow the fugitive slave laws too

>>35027328
You get to be cocky when you win.

>>35027637
do it again uncle billy

>>35027637
Do it again uncle billy!

>>35027637
Do it again uncle billy!

>>35026920
It is time to move on to the new era!

File: 1499797427067.png (469KB, 800x903px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 800x903px

>>35027637
DO IT AGAIN, UNCLE BILLY

>>35027637
Do it again, Uncle Billy!

File: bbc89a561e3e05579eb3890a77a4f0bd8894e48577dcf566441a24745d769839_1.jpg (59KB, 637x495px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 637x495px

>>35026726
>I am a yankee
>t. Cleetus Lee Spuckler

File: Sherman.jpg (62KB, 401x488px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 401x488px

>>35026507
No.
No.
No.
No.

>>35026795
Speaking of, let's hear what this wise man had to say about Southern miscalculation:
>You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it … Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.

>>35026788
>FYI the southern states did not have a right to form a new country and leave the United States.
Plus this.

>>35027488
And this. Plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

I like how everyone ignores that the North tossed Irishmen into the meatgrinder without remorse as soon as they stepped off the fucking boats

>>35026507
>Did the south have a right to leave the Union?
The Constitution never laid out rules for secession, and it's because states do NOT have the right to secede.

>>35026564
>The south had the right to secede

If we're going by the Constitution, states cannot secede, and have never been able to legally. If you're referring to a right to self-determination, that's moving into the realm of opinion.

>>35028877
>tossed
If I was an Irishman off the boat and some American soldier said "get 3 hots and a cot and pay by signing up here" I would do it. That's why so many did.

>>35028884
>>35028911
Yeah, and according to Britain we weren't supposed to push their nasty ass tea into the ocean and then BTFO them. We still did it.

>>35026820
Secession from the US is considered unconstitutional, like it or not.

>>35026660
You really don't know anything about the constitution, do you?

>>35028884
>>35028850
>>35028928
The Constitution gives all rights not listed to the States themselves so.... yeah, there's your legal justification to leave. Of course we know NOW that right is dead and buried after the war over it. Hell, the states didn't even have the right to stay in the country and not personally support the war effort.

>>35028926
Irrelevant, secession still isn't permitted under the constitution.

And really, slavery was holding the South back. It stifles innovation and inhibits industrialization.

>Why should I bother with this newfangles steam engine, I'll just buy more slaves

>>35028958
Actually, secession is covered under the Treason segments since you're technically giving land to a foreign power.

>>35028959
The constitution doesn't "permit" anything, it constrains the federal government (and later the states) from doing specific things. It doesn't grant rights or any of that nonsense. The rights are right there as long as you're willing to take them and the government can't legally stop you.

>>35028967
I'd say that if they were say... forced to rewrite a state constitution that would become a foreign power. The Constituents were the non-foreign powers. Like how the confederate states were forced to rewrite their constitutions they never really re-joined the union as such. Their statehood was just sort of handwaived.

File: 1496548364222.png (472KB, 1280x719px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 1280x719px

>>35027127
Please take your b8 else where

File: IMG_3963.jpg (148KB, 600x693px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 600x693px

>>35028926
>then BTFO them
With best ally giving a lot of support

>>35028959
Slavery wasn't the issue so much as States rights.

The problem with slavery is we became dependant on their workforce. That's why we didn't ship them back to Africa like the original plan.

>>35028978
I'm lost, are the states part of the US or aren't they?

>>35028990
If we're talking states rights then the FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT directly violates that.

So no, the South applied southern law on northern states first.

>>35028994
Well the land is the State's but while a part of the US, the state is part of the US. If they're NOT part of the US, the land isn't the Union's to be taken from them. Federals don't get to dictate what happens within states, only between two or more states. The treason stuff is silly, giving your land to yourself as a foreign power.

>>35028987
France Bros and US bros are Bros, bro.

Thanks for Statue of Liberty.

>>35026636
>There are human beings that go around every day doing regular human being activities that have this much cognitive dissonance.

Jesus how terrifying.

>>35029003
How does it violate it? It wasn't written in the Constitution, therefore the 10th Amendment allows it.

>>35029008
>Well the land is the State's but while a part of the US, the state is part of the US. If they're NOT part of the US, the land isn't the Union's to be taken from them.

The federal government also is the only one allowed to negociate with foreign powers in regards to ownership of land. The States never had the authority do do that since the Articles of Confederation self destructed.

>>35029018
Because the North didn't have slavery or any laws pertaining to it. Indeed, if you were in the North you were a free man. The Fugitive Slave Act meant that men in the North could be enslaved to southern owners in clear violation of the North's laws.

>>35026636
>>35028990
>>35029003
Honestly for the SOUTHERN states it was all about slavery. There were MULTIPLE Confederacy-friendly states that were straight up conquered by the Union to stop supporting them who didn't secede though.

Virginia was half and half, Kentucky was fucked. Missouri was forced against the Union despite pledging to remain neutral. Maryland government was straight up arrested, arrest was declared unconstitutional by the supreme court, then lincoln said "Fuck you Constitution" and went along with his bullshit.

>>35029020
The federal government doesn't own/control the land if they leave though. As a member of the UNION they would have to have the federals negotiate for them but as a non-Union state they wouldn't.

>>35029033
>>35029034
Actually...

It was because the US was expanding westward. The North and South came to an agreement, hence blacks were considered 3/5th a person

The problem came because we were creating new states, and there was a dispute if they should be allowed to have slaves.

>>35029055
That was like the 50 years previous to the war, yeah. There were also smaller wars going on within territories like Kansas before the civil war broke out. It was all slavery though, unrelated to actual territories except where those territories were either designated pro-slavery or later decided their own stance specifically on slavery.

>>35029067
This is what people don't get

>HURR IT WASN'T ABOUT MUH SLAVURRY IT WAS STATES RIGHTS!
States rights about what?
>SLAVURRY BUT THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE
Oh I see. So it was about slavery.
>NO REEEE GET OUT YANKEE BASTARD

>>35029034
>The federal government doesn't own/control the land if they leave though. As a member of the UNION they would have to have the federals negotiate for them but as a non-Union state they wouldn't.

This implies that the States are in some kind of weird selective membership state of both being part of and not part of the Union. Pun not intended.

Legally, this doesn't make sense. If the Confederacy is created first then the States negociated with a foreign power without Federal authority.

If the land was transfered before the Confederacy was established then there's nobody to transfer ownership to.

>>35029088
I mean slavery wasn't the only facet of it. Slave-owners having control over their slaves' votes let them control a disproportionate amount of the federal government too. They weren't just slaves out in the fields but 3/5ths of them were adding to the one person's votes and that let them control ALL policy decisions not just economic ones.

Of course that hasn't changed much today with Democrats having city-like plantations full of voters vs. freeholding rural chads.

>>35029101
They had to secede to join the confederacy. They remove their property from the collective union and then its theirs to do with whatever the fuck they want, excepting explicitly FEDERAL LAND such as Fort Sumter. That would have to go back.

>>35026507
This thread seems a bit biased towards the south.

>>35029088
The 10th Amendment you backwards shit.

Like how California and New York and Colarado and other communist rape gun rights.

How are they able to do this? State rights.

>>35029111
>They remove their property from the collective union and then its theirs to do with whatever the fuck they want

Except they don't have a right to make a legally binding agreement with said Confederacy. You can't have it both ways.

>>35029128
They have every right to do that shit once they've seceded. Secession is saying "I am my own nation and no longer part of nor bound by the laws of the United States."

The US law ceases to apply to a seceded state flat out.

>>35029142
But then they're negociating with themselves to create said foreign power.

Which is still treason.

And if they aren't part of the US they aren't protected under US law. The US can claim they're defending themselves from foreign conquest as a huge part of their territory now belongs to a foreign power without their consent.

>>35026634

>Have fort in foreign country that you do not diplomatically recognize and claim as your territory
>Get buttmad what said country takes it back

>>35029160
... No, it's not treason because they're not part of the Union. They can't be traitors to a country that isn't their own. Thats like saying an American is committing treason to France.

America straight up DID declare war on them the second they tried to secede, then re-conquered them. Nobody's arguing the US can't conquer a foreign power next door if they say... attack a still-American fort. USA's gone to war for way less than an actual attack.

>>35029174
>... No, it's not treason because they're not part of the Union. They can't be traitors to a country that isn't their own.

They also didn't have the right to renounce the US since that counts as treason under the Magna Carta holdovers.

>>35029194
It's literally not treason.

Now I'm not saying what the Union did was actually legally justified in the way I framed it. They did a whole lot of antiConstitutional bits too and then skipped the Constitutional parts of re-admitting seceded states thus faking the secession's illegitimacy. So while the states had every right to secede and applied that right by being conquered they were illegally re-admitted to the union and then all sorts of other fuckery like not having to re-ratify the constitution or the constitutions of their own states to become part of the union. The whole completely-fuck-the-constitution part the federal government did was really a hackey patch on top of a literally already broken union to pretend that it never happened. The whole thing is pretty illegitimate.

>>35029194
>Magna Carta

Different guy, but once the US established the Constitution all that old English bullshit law went out the window, null and void.

File: IMG_5232.gif (2MB, 377x311px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 377x311px

>>35029010

>>35029211
Individual states do still practice and have legalized some parts of common law. Louisiana I think has parts of French common law because they weren't coming from England.

In the USA though there is no law that is outside the Constitution though.

File: fuck svg files.png (106KB, 901x541px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 901x541px

>>35026507
No. Sumter was basically Pearl Harbor.
No. The South was not given the right to secede by the constitution.
No. Lincoln had it right. See >>35026795
No, just as Pearl Harbor wasn't justified. Anyone who denies this is a fucking retard.
Burn the Confederacy to the ground. They can keep their shitty flag, but if they ever get uppity, they'll show their true colors as whigger-faggots.
>inb4 "S-statist b-b-b-b-bootlicker!"
>inb4 implications that the South deserved to be soveirgn
>inb4 inbreeders start coming after me

>>35029218
That's fine, I accept that. If we choose to keep old laws, and ratify them.

I was just saying other countries laws no longer applied, unless we chose to adopt them.

>>35029246
Right, but they have an actual legitimate place within the structure of US law and that is where States individually support them and nowhere else.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land.

>>35027637
DO IT AGAIN, UNCLE BILLY

>>35026660
>>35026820
>>35026919
>>35026932
>>35028884>>35028928
>>35028958
>>35028959
>>35028968
>>35028978
>>35029018
>>35029111
>>35029142
>>35029160

The Constitution DOES NOT forbid the right to leave the union of states and the 10th amendment reads

>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So leaving the union is perfectly legal. The Constitution no longer applied to the states as they have voluntarily left the agreement they have voluntarily joined. Thus Article 1 Section 10 (Powers forbidden to the states) no longer constrained them and Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3 made it impossible for Congress to make it illegal ex post facto.

>>35029285
They still haven't made it illegal either, how bout that?

>>35029244
The Eternal Yankee everyone

The simple fact that this thread started with the title "northern aggression" shows what kind of people are going to post here.

>>35029367
Some of us in the border state brigade hate slaveowners and the union equally. Don't step on me or my freedmans snek ever again.

>>35029367
The majority of states in existence didn't even exist back then. But most of us came from those states. Opinions may vary.

File: nice shot faggot.gif (2MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x180px

>>35029325
>tfw you wear the title "Yankee" with pleasure
You can't hurt me Cletus.

We can come to 2 obvious conclusions, that everyone should agree with.
1. Slavery is a state right so neither side is wrong but in the modern context slavery isn't relevant so it's better to think about it as a war over states rights
2. Without the rejoining of the union none of us would be enjoying modern life in america in quite the same way.

File: 1495946247139.gif (1MB, 500x350px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x350px

>>35027637
Do it again, Uncle Billy!

>>35029168
Are all Southerners this retarded? It was a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FORT that the south stole by attacking.

>>35027637
DO IT AGAIN UNCLE BILLY

>>35028877
I love how everyone ignores how the South tossed poverty stricken sharecroppers into the meatgrinder without remorse as soon as they stepped off the cotton fields.

>>35029941
Those volunteers who were defending their homes? At least the slaves had a goddamned job.

JWB did nothing wrong.

>>35029957
Defending their bosses property, more like.
That is the whole point of sharecropping, you don't actually own the land you farm.

>>35029941

Difference is we didn't have to import our patriots because our cause was righteous, but nobody wanted to fight for the Yankees so they had to assemble a mercenary army of white and black niggers to fight their battles for them.

>>35027637
DO IT AGAIN UNCLE BILLY

>>35029986
>muh righteous cause
remind me again who wanted to keep indentured slaves
and no, don't give me that crap about poorly paid immigrant workers being the same as people forced to work under threat of violence with no pay

File: 2nd burning when.jpg (53KB, 329x400px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 329x400px

>>35027637
Do it again, uncle billy

>>35030007

Legally they were property and not people. No different than guns.

>Government says they're going to come take your guns because guns might violate human rights.
>Governments says they're going to come take your farm equipment because organic property might violate human rights.

Slavery was still widely accepted around the globe at the time as an essential form of commerce, it was still legal in the North throughout the war, and the only reason there was a push to eliminate slavery was due to Antisemitism. Jews owned the plantations and a combination of Anglicans, Quakers, and self-hating Jews wanted to put an end to it.

Louis Chamerovzow, the man who helped John Brown in the 1850's, guess which tribe he belonged to?

Thomas Pringle blamed the Jews for slavery. He was a founding member of the later English abolition movement.

https://books.google.com/books?id=x3c_CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA126&lpg=PA126&dq=Thomas+Pringle+jew&source=bl&ots=vVnn9WryaX&sig=K__a6i7fKsrUEobejEv1mXGPrqI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipnfGn9YHWAhVBQiYKHXB7BM4Q6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=Thomas%20Pringle%20jew&f=false

War of Northern Aggression was carried out to strip wealth from Jewish allies and to secure the Lincolnites/Satanists at the top of the throne. Why do you think the Jews have been spending the past 150 years trying to destroy Western society and America in general? It's retribution for Lincoln stripping the Jews' wealth.

>>35026753
>Not an argument

An argument could be made that anon's statement is, indeed, an argument. The statement very clearly defines his position on the matter, therefore it could be considered to exist in a pre-argument state. This pre-argument state, simply by existing, creates a favorable condition for an argument to form. The segue from pre-argument to argument is very subtle, thus hard to define. Therefore, the pre-argument condition coexists on the same gradient as the argument condition, with no clear delineation betwedn the two; hence, pre-argument is the same as argument, only lacking intensity.

Tl;dr- you're wrong.

>>35030099
>Slavery was still widely accepted around the globe at the time as an essential form of commerce

Not in any countries worth emulating.

>>35030109

British Empire started fighting against slavery to starve the Jews. France did the same thing. The fight to end slavery directly resulted in the Jews mission to subvert Western Culture that continues today. If the West had left slavery alone, the Jews would not do what they do today. But the Brits in particular got greedy and they couldn't stand actual merchants competing with the East India Company. Why did France and England decline to support the government of Judah P. Benjamin when both countries had qualms against the US government? The only American country to have a Jew in a position of power and a campaign of systemic elimination was carried out to prevent said country from flourishing and maintaining independence.

>>35028877
Reminder that was the Jewish and Protestant southerners who came up north after the war and started shitting up New York for the Irish because they were so butthurt about being so BTFO.
>t. member of an Irish/German-American family
Suck my dick, namefag.

>>35030150

You deserved it for not leaving us alone.

Remember that it had nothing to do with slavery despite it being an explicitly stated reason

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/secession.html
>In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

>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. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

File: literal garbage.jpg (13KB, 224x216px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 224x216px

>>35030156
>be Irish
>try to escape starvation in the New-World
>butthurt protestants come after you, autistically screeching something about you following the Pope's laws before following America's laws
>wut
>manage to escape persecution from Cletus, spend entire life trying to make enough money to get your family started in the New-World
>the whole time anti-immigrant sentiment from Protestants, Jews, and Blacks harasses you
>die leaving behind a family that will have to drag itself out of poverty
>100 years go by
>your family lineage drags itself out of the dirt and into the upper-middle class
>100 years later, lower class Cletus tells your family "You deserved it for not leaving us alone."
And here we have proof that if there is an untermensch, it's protestant Anglos.

>>35029325
I say that with PRIDE

>>35026507
>Was the war really instigated by the North?
Yes.

>Did the south have a right to leave the Union?
9th and 10th amendments say yes. Lincoln was a commie.

>Was Lincoln wrong to reject confederate attempts before war erupted to peacefully secede?
Yes.

>Was the shelling of Fort Sumter justified?
Declaration of independence suggests yes.


t. califag

File: IMG_2596.jpg (33KB, 222x227px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 222x227px

Even if the war was instigated by the North, the South deserved it. You can't bitch about northern tyranny while literally owning people.

>>35030223

>Irish

You're all British subjects, and I say this as a full-blooded Protestant Anglo American that can trace his roots from Surrey England to 1600's Virginia. My family has been here 400 years. Maybe if you guys didn't spend centuries being drunks, you might have accomplished something. ;)

>>35030244

/thread

Everything was fine until Lincoln usurped his way into the Republican Nomination and won an "election" with 39.6% of the vote with no support in the South, and then started demanding what the South do, which his predecessor had not done.

Reminder that my people were loyalists to the Crown and we did not want any part in Yankee tomfoolery to start a revolution, but we ended up single-handily saving the American nation because the Continental Army were a bunch of aristocratic pansies and the British turned on us by assuming we were guilty by association.

>but when we declare we want independence 80 years later, the very people that led us into the first war were like "you can't do that".

Lincoln was no different than King George III.

>>35030278

>*owning property

Niggers were no different than horses or cows.

>>35030133
You seem to forget that all of Europe was leaving slavery and serfdom behind and adopting more modern methods of harnessing labor and beginning the second industrial revolution. The Russian Empire, the most archaic and backwards of Europe's great empires abolished serfdom in 1861. Also most of Jews in the US are descendants from those who came over during the massive immigration from central Europe during the late 1900's and early 20th century.

>>35030278
If the concept of self ownership is legitimate, and the concept of selling one's labor is legitimate, then the concept of owning another is legitimate.
If you don't support property rights, you are communist.

>>35030278
>>35030293
Nah the south had it coming, they were totally unprepared for a war and they jumped the gun on sumter. They didn't deserve Reconstruction though and the border states didn't deserve to get raped by both sides.

>>35029957
Technically, they were in no danger of loosing their homes. Most southerners weren't slave owners nor part of government so they'd be able to keep their property no matter how the war turned out.

Really, it was the cottonocracy that had the most to loose as almost all large cotton plantations had overwhelming slave populations. The Twenty Negro Law is what really seals it. Any man that owns at least 20 slaves was exempt from conscription. Most Southerners didn't even own slaves so only the wealthy plantation owners would get this.

>>35030297
The 13th amendment says otherwise.

My bad was under the impression the 13th included consumption.

File: confederate.jpg (22KB, 360x441px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 360x441px

>>35030293
>and then started demanding what the South do

Yes, such a terrible man, demanding the south end slavery. Isn't it a God-given right to own another, to force him to do whatever you so desire, and to torture him as you see fit if he does not, or if you merely think it'd be funny? To deny someone this is a most flagrant assault on fundamental human rights!

>>35030331
That involuntary servitude is illegal in the United States.

>>35030339
*18th

>>35030344
>involuntary servitude is illegal in the United States
not an argument.

File: IMG_2438.png (197KB, 504x504px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 504x504px

>>35030297

Holy shit, are you actually trying to square classical liberalism and slavery? If self ownership exists and is inherent then you can't take it away from somebody without their consent dipshit, meaning you can't force somebody into slavery. Actually read a book you mongoloid.

>if you think slavery is wrong then you are automatically a communist

Also the fact that you think that communists have no belief in property rights is retarded, they just think that capitalist property relations are bad. Communists still support personal property (nobody can take your toothbrush) and the right of the community at large to the means of production (ie public property).

>>35030357
And calling people you disagree with communists is?

>>35030197

So the North forcibly compelled white men to fight and die for a bunch of niggers?
You lose either way paco

>>35027637
Do it again, uncle Billy

>>35030366
>Holy shit, are you actually trying to square classical liberalism and slavery?
Someone is a statist... (you)

>If self ownership exists and is inherent then you can't take it away from somebody without their consent
Correct. However if entities have sold me a male dog, and a female dog, and I breed them, the sellers do not own the pups. I own the pups.

If a man sells himself to me, and a woman sells herself to me, and I breed them, then I own their children.

>Communists still support personal property
Some communists.

>>35030387

The South started conscription before the north and forced their supposedly free white men to die for the interests of a few rich plantation owners.

>>35030366
why are you even arguing against him, you know he'll just sputter out some tired /pol/ meme about "le niggers aren't peepo xD".

>>35030367
>If you believe X is legitimate, and you believe Y is legitimate, then you must believe that Z is legitimate if you want to be logically consistent.
>Z is illegal

See why I said "not an argument"?

>>35030407
>If a man sells himself to me, and a woman sells herself to me

They weren't indentured contract labor, they were either the descendants of or are persons unwillingly placed in bondage.

>>35030297
>Being sold into slavery against your will doesn't violate the NAP!
Are you seriously retarded?
Indentured servitude, where you willingly sell your freedom, is not the same as slavery.

>>35030420
>then you must believe that Z is legitimate if you want to be logically consistent.

Except that that isn't logically consistent, because a slave isn't selling their labor.

>>35030439
By the same logic birth violates NAP...

File: teaniggers cant fucking stop us.gif (4MB, 376x328px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 376x328px

>>35030293
>You're all British subjects
First off, incorrect. Britain has no control over American citizens. Second, tiocfaidh ár lá, teanigger.
>Surrey England to 1600's Virginia
And 175 years afterwards, your family sided with that faggot king of yours, whereas the German immigrants in my family sided with best country.
>My family has been here 400 years
Inbreeding like a family of rabbits, I presume?
>Maybe if you guys didn't spend centuries being drunks
Lie perpetrated by Jews and Protestants to stir up anti-Irish sentiment in the late 1800's. Your argument has no legs to stand on.
>;)
It's ":^)," Bubba
>Everything was fine until Lincoln usurped his way into the Republican Nomination and won an "election" with 39.6% of the vote with no support in the South
Kinda hard to have your name appear in a ballot box when you name isn't allowed on a ballot, dumbass. The south rigged the elections and you know it.

>>35030459
It's selling one's labor forever.

>>35030407

>someone is a statist

Right, I'm the evil authoritarian statist when you're the one who literally thinks it's okay to forcibly take away all of people's personal freedoms and turn them into literal property. Also "statist" just means anybody who thinks a state ought to exist, so basically anybody who isn't an anarchist. It is not synonymous with authoritarian.

By your logic in order for confederate slavery to be legitimate you would have to prove that the original Africans voluntarily sold themselves into slavery (they didn't). Even if that were the case that isn't how self ownership works. Dogs don't have any self ownership, but it's inherent to each and every individual human from birth. Meaning that it can't be given away in advance of that person's actual existence and consent.

Also since you are invoking Lockean self ownership you should probably know that he argued that even voluntarily giving up ownership of oneself is impossible because it is entirely fundamental to human existence. Read the Second Treatise of government.

>>35030476
They never sold it in the first place, nor did their descendants. They were forced into it, which contradicts your statement because their labor ie. there property was seized without their consent.

>>35030476

They aren't selling it, the slave owner isn't obligated to give anything in return. Furthermore it is being done involuntarily under threat of force.

Are there seriously people who try to argue that libertarianism and slavery are compatible? Just admit you hate freedom or don't see blacks as people or something instead of keeping up this sad attempt and saying "No YOU'RE the oppressor if you try to stop me from torturing people for fun!"

>>35030463
>being captured and forced into slavery against your will is the same thing as being born
I'm really interested in seeing you explain this
The VAST majority of American slaves were themselves or were the descendents of people who did not agree to being slaves and were sold against their will. This is a violation of the NAP, plain and simple. Their ancestors were not rightfully owned and so they were not rightfully owned.

>>35030488
>forcibly
Implying

>Also "statist" just means anybody who thinks a state ought to exist
They are someone who believe the state should be/is supreme in all matters.

>It is not synonymous with authoritarian.
Correct.

>By your logic in order for confederate slavery to be legitimate you would have to prove that the original Africans voluntarily sold themselves into slavery (they didn't).
Claims of wrongdoing lose legitimacy with time. There is a phrase for this, but idr it. Basically, good luck finding any property that is not or did not use/contain property that was under disputed ownership at some period of time.
If it was 1690 you would have a reasonably strong case. By 1850 you're full of shit.

Also my logic doesn't require that, it only says that if it can be proved that they willingly sold themselves, then it is legitimate. It doesn't make the claim you that say it makes.

>but it's inherent to each and every individual human from birth.
Disagree. Self ownership means it is assumed that a person owns themselves from birth, not that they absolutely do or must.

>Also since you are invoking Lockean self ownership you should probably know that he argued that even voluntarily giving up ownership of oneself is impossible because it is entirely fundamental to human existence.
I tend to disagree with arguments that are based on "because" that don't almost certainly benefit all.

>>35030490
>>35030503
You're talking about african slaves, so your comments are irrelevant to a general hypothetical discussion.

>Are there seriously people who try to argue that libertarianism and slavery are compatible?
Yes.

>just admit you hate freedom
I don't, that's why I am a libertarian. If I can own myself, then I can sell myself. If one can sell their labor, then I can buy ones labor.

>don't see blacks as people
Keep in mind that humanity and personhood are distinct.
No, I do not believe that being black inherently precludes one from being being a member of humanity or having personhood.

>"No YOU'RE the oppressor if you try to stop me from torturing people for fun!"
But I offered to pay them to let me torture them for fun, and they consented.
Fuck off statist.

>>35029111
>Alaska's legislature declares itself seceeded from the Union
>promptly hands itself over to Russia
>no it's okay guys we seceeded because we wanted to be free from D.C., the joining Russia thing only came after
You're literally describing the state level analogue to straw purchasing. The individual states didn't individually secede then decide they may as well form a new nation, they seceded with the express intention of joining another nation. You can't dissociate the two actions, which means the Confederate states straight up committed treason by colluding to join a foreign power.

>>35030505
Pain is inherent to life, I did not consent to birth, life or pain. My mother violated NAP.
Using a rube goldberg machine to violate NAP still violates NAP.

Also african/arab slave trade comments don't fucking matter for a general discussion. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE


>This is a violation of the NAP, plain and simple.
Yes.

>Their ancestors were not rightfully owned and so they were not rightfully owned.
That is time dependent. Yes, being ideologically/logically pure in this matter would be ideal, but reality says that that is a shit idea.

>>35030568
>You're talking about african slaves, so your comments are irrelevant to a general hypothetical discussion.

This is a civil war thread, people will assume you are talking about the chattel slavery that went on in that period.

File: 20953915_825452260956939_2132024979678842049_n.jpg (14KB, 320x400px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 320x400px

>implying the South didn't attack Sumter, an act of war against what they themselves would consider federal land
>implying the United States doesn't have the constitutional ability to crush insurrection
>implying a general shift in policy and sentiment to the South's barbaric hypocrisy is "intolerable oppression" necessary to invoke the natural right to revolution that would make secession from the Union justifiable
>implying the confederates didn't use pretend to be oppressed to start a war they lost only to continue pretending to be oppressed

for people who bitch about blacked.com confederate fags sure are a bunch of impotent cucks

>>35030616
So? As a seceded nation they can do what they want. Texas did it to join the USA.

>>35030616
so if a state seceded from the union today, it would be just if they didn't join another union? are you saying that if california were to leave the union and form it's own entity, that it would be legal because it wasn't joining a new nation? seems to me that in your mind it wouldn't be treason just to leave the union.

>>35030632
>>implying the United States doesn't have the constitutional ability to crush insurrection
It doesn't... And it didn't at the time.
>>meme phrasing for the war wasn't justified
It was.
>>conferederates weren't oppressed
They were. Arguably they still are, but that argument only works from a cultural standpoint, so it's a kinda weak argument.
The north hated the south for decades before the civil war and repeatedly enacted tax/regulations/tarrifs just to spite the south...


t. califag

>>35030632
>>35030666
There are no constitutional provisions for either, you'll both be going around in circles all day.

>>35030568

It's not "selling your labour" if it's involuntary dipshit. You clearly don't care about freedom because if you did you would see the obvious glaring problem with forcing people into slavery against their will.

Owning yourself DOES NOT mean you can own other people, and the entirety of libertarian political theory, from Locke to Mises says this. Self ownership is inherent and inalienable.

>>35030683
>constitutional provisions for either
10th amendment says you're wrong.

>>35030731
That's pretty ambiguous.

>>35030666
>>35030683
Article 1 Section 8 powers of congress

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

Retard.

>slaves weren't oppressed this is actually classical liberalism oh btw the south is oppressed because of tarifs

lol

btw if you treat the CSA a legitimized foreign entity with the right to secede the US still had every right to make war on them for attacking Sumter and their annexation was simply a consequence of surrender

>>35030730
See: >>35030568
>You're talking about african slaves, so your comments are irrelevant to a general hypothetical discussion.
Literally the first fucking line...

>Owning yourself DOES NOT mean you can own other people
It does, otherwise ownership of a person, even oneself, would not be permitted.

>>the entirety of libertarian political theory, from Locke to Mises says this.
>Letting others think for you.
WEW
Ideological writings are for consideration, not blind faith.

>Self ownership is inherent and inalienable.
Then it is meaningless and does not exist. I choose to believe and assert that self ownership is meaningful and exists.
Fuck off commie.

>>35030759
>>That's pretty ambiguous.
>If not prohibited or granted to the federal government, then it belongs to the states.
>If not prohibited or granted to the federal government, then it belongs to the states.
States have a right to secede because congress didn't say they didn't and state-secession can not be an individual power.

>>35030764
Sure, insurrections are illegal. Secession isn't that.

Attacking Fort Sumter though was an act of war so the South totally got what was coming.

>>35030788
Pretend the third greentext says states and people.


>>35030791
>the South totally got what was coming
probably, but debatable and non-definite.

>>35030788
Ok, let me clarify.
Yes, the power of state secession can belong to the people if it is initiated by the people rather than by representatives, however that does not prohibit the representatives from initiating state secession.
All it would do is prohibit state governors from initiating state secession.

>>35030802
Even if they had legitimately seceded and formed a new country and everyone was 100% cool with it
>trying to renig on a land deal with USA
>attacking another country's rightful land for no good reason
Yeah, bad move when you're already on a shit war footing. They were provoked as hell but the goal was to have the South start the hostilities.

>>35030654
Texas fought and won it's independance, then decided by popular vote to join the Union. That's perfectly reasonable, and if they wanted to today Texans could try to become independant and then join Mexico if they felt it was in their best interests. The important difference is that that the Texas Revolution was a populist struggle/violent uprising, not a decision by the leadership to turn over their state to a foreign power.

>>35030658
There's actually a real push for this to happen by a small number of people in California. The same logic applies. If the people really want to revolt and violently expel federal forces from their land, they're free to try, but California's legislature can't just arbitrarily redraw the borders of the US to exclude them, that makes them traitors and a rogue state that just annexed US territory.

This was Lincolns statement in regards to the Texas Secession from Mexico.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."

The southern states upon secession planned to establish a 10% flat tariff that would've crippled Northern Imports with their 47% tariff on top of the Southern Ports becoming a free trade zone.

"In his book Reassessing the Presidency, John V. Denson relates that Lincoln called a cabinet meeting for March 15, 1861 and asked each member of his cabinet to submit in writing their view of what should be done with regards to Fort Sumter. Every member, except Postmaster General Montgomery Blair, voted against resupply and voiced their opposition to send reinforcements. Blair’s wife was brother-in-law to Gustavous Fox, a Naval Officer who had submitted a reinforcement plan to the President. Blair believed the plan had merit and petitioned Lincoln to give it consideration."

"Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Welles, stated “By sending, or attempting to send provisions into Sumter, will not war be precipitated? It may be impossible to escape it under any course of policy that may be pursued, but I am not prepared to advise a course that would provoke hostilities.”

"As well, Generals Winfield Scott and Joseph G. Totten both opposed Fox’s plan, with General Scott recommending immediate evacuation of the Fort. These men, and others in Lincoln’s cabinet recognized that an attempt to re-provision Sumter would constitute an inauguration of war."

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/review/ft-sumter-the-first-act-of-aggression/

Literally EVERYONE in Lincolns cabinet said reinforcement of the fort would directly lead to war. Hell Major Anderson commanding the fort told Fox the same thing.

>>35030857
>populist struggle/violent uprising
>more legitimate than a populist legal secession and voting to join a new nation

>>35030791
even the articles of confederation declared the Union permanent

Secession is an extraconstitutional, extralegal right only in the face of extreme oppression and injustice.

The federal government met none of these conditions in their treatment of southerners and the question of slavery.

>>35030880
>extraconstitutional
>which is explicitly constitutional because 10th amendment
It's just a normal regular everyday guaranteed right, like everything else the federal government has no control over.

>>35026726

Might makes right. They lacked might.

>>35030915
>Might makes right.
This is why we have a constitution.

>They lacked might.
This is why lincoln was a commie faggot oath breaker.

Even if you argue that it's legal for the South to secede, what's then illegal about the US making war on a foreign power to gain territory? We'd done it before.

>>35030952
>then illegal about the US making war on a foreign power to gain territory?
The lack of a declaration of war.

>>35030952
>>35030967
The confederacy LITERALLY declared war on the USA, the secession was legal but then so was the war and re-conquering of the South.

>>35030945

You mean the same Constitution that the South abandoned out of fear that demographic trends would lead to enough free states joining to outlaw slavery nationwide?

>>35030977
Japan 'declared war on' the us, we still have a declaration of war against japan.
Obey the constitution or kill yourself.

>>35030978
>abandoned
You mean in the same way that america abandoned english common law?
Oh wait...

>>35027088
Town Line, NY only officially rejoined the Union in 1946.

>>35030991
Can't have a declaration of war without a congress. Responding to a formal declaration of war isn't particularly unconstitutional even without that sort of extreme circumstance.

I mean Lincoln did TONS of unconstitutional shit but that wasn't one of the things.

>>35027354
t. France 1914

It's amazing how butthurt rednecks get over a war that their great-grandpappies fought and lost to keep people in chains. Really just pathetic.

Split hairs over "legality" all you want - it's not like state-level actors have ever truly given a single fuck about what is or is not "legal". The South attempted to break away to preserve the practice of slavery, and the USAA fought a war to prevent the reduction of its power and the rise of a peer competitor on its borders and won. Pieces of paper mean nothing.

>>35026507

Eh, instigation in a civil war is a matter of semantics which isn't particularly helpful
Yes
No
Irrelevant

>>35030772
If mental gymnastics were an Olympic event you'd get all the gold medals

>>35031025
imagine if the US had allowed a bunch of slave traders to establish what would become a third world country on their southern border

>>35031037
>Yeah, you own X. But you're not allowed to sell, rent, or lease it to anyone else.
>Don't get the wrong idea, you totally own it. Ignore the part where your ownership of X is devoid of all aspects of ownership.
I'm the one with mental gymnastics?

>>35026507
>Was the war really instigated by the North?
No. The Southern States left the Union, and they were the first to attack any Union troops.
>Did the south have a right to leave the Union?
No. Article I Section 10 of the Constitution states that States are not allowed to enter into any confederation. It can be argued that by accepting the Constitution, the States lost all rights to claim to be independent countries, and by forming the Confederate States of America (already against the Constitution), they were being the aggressors and seizing land from the US.
>Was Lincoln wrong to reject confederate attempts before war erupted to peacefully secede?
You do realize that Lincoln was only president for about a month before the attack on Fort Sumter. The Confederate States of America was founded a month before Lincoln took office (under Buchanan). Any intital attempts at depolmacy and subsiquent failures should fall on him. Actually I blame most of the Civil War on him, as he just kicked the can that was the divide between the north and south down the round but by putting it off, it only became worse.
>Was the shelling of Fort Sumter justified?
Is that attack against a US fort by illegal troops justified, no.

When things come down to a war of succession, the three big factor that make you right are
>can you win a war or sustain it long enough for the other side long enough for public opinion to sift in your favor
A prolonged war was unwinnable by the South (the North out produced by industrially and agriculturally the South on top of having a larger population).
>do you have legitimate cause
The cause that the South used as a reason was Lincolns election (and his anti-slavery position). The thing is, the South voted in his election and the candidate they wanted lost.
>can you get notable outside countries to recognize you
No major European Country acknowledged
the CSA. Contracts don't count.

>>35026507
Yes. The North taxed the South with ridiculously high taxes and didn't bother using those taxes from the South on Southern infrastructure. The South had every right in the world to secede. Each state even today has the right to secede. It's the United States of America. It's a union. If one state wants to pull out, they can. Lincoln was wrong about everything during the war. The South was still doing better prior to reconstruction though.

>>35031061
Union States aren't allowed to enter into confederation, seceded states aren't union states.

Also had the confederacy not fucked up their import situation and had any chance of standing up to the north I bet someone would have allied with them if only to fuck over some other northern ally nation.

>>35031061
>I blame the leaving president who had a month of negotations over a matter that would have centuries of impact instead of the guy who had multiple months of preparation and said "fuck it, fuck the constitution, fuck the south"... WEW LADIR

>illegal troops
wew. No such thing (in terms of how you are using it).

>>35026726
A state only has the right to seccede if the federal state is violating the social contract. That said, there is no legal precedent for succession, so the only recourse of the Confederacy would be to declare the then current federal government illigitamate, and proclaim themselves the legitimate United (Federal) states of America, at which point they could write an amendment to the Constitution allowing for it's dissolve and replacement with an article of confederation.

But rational politics based upon natural law was the 18th century, and this is the 19th, you cotton pickin' Yella belly

>>35031057
Not that anon, but yes, you are cletus.

>>35030870
Might makes Right trumps all laws, that's why I'm saying an armed uprising is "legitimate". A single state trying to redraw a country's border for their own self interests is not legitimate, however populist it may be. The people arguing for it may even have a legitimate point, but they're deluded if they think they can become independant without fighting for it. The federal government would weigh the interests of the people in that one state over those of the rest of the country. At that point it's majority rule, and the majority says "no, you jackasses can't just take a tax base/natural resources and compromise national security."

>>35031132
The government is limited by its constitution though, without that it's not legitimate at all. Might makes a broken piece of shit out of actual countries. Thats why the union lasted all of a hundred years.

>>35031079
>Union States aren't allowed to enter into confederation, seceded states aren't union states
I argue by accepting the Constitution they lost the right to be an independent country.

>Also had the confederacy not fucked up their import situation and had any chance of standing up to the north I bet someone would have allied with them if only to fuck over some other northern ally nation.
Most European countries were more concerned about losing long term trade with the Northern states. At the time the US was considered some backwoods country and the only reasons that Europe paid any attention was to ditch the soon to be obsolete muskets and to check out the latest guns in action. The most likely country to officially ally with the South would have been France, who was equally worried what Austria and Russia would do as well. As such France was not going to act without at least one ally on their side, namely the UK.
Also the South didn't have a real navy. Yes, they had privateers, runners and some seized Union ships but the simple numbers don't compare to what the Union had at the start and what the Union put out by the end of the war. At the end of the war, the single largest navy in the world belonged to the US, not the UK (a navy that was quickly dismantled due to cost reasons).
The final nail in the coffin for the South and any chance they would have had in any offical support from Europe was the battle of Hampton Roads. When the Merrimack/Virginia sank several traditional warships, it paniced the reports frightened the Europeans. It proved that nearly their entire fleets were not just obsolete, but completely useless against one of those ships. When the reports of the Monitor classing with the Merrimack/Virginia came in, it just completely solidified their position of official neutrality (all it would have taken is just one of the ships to wipe out an entire fleet).

>>35031241
It might seem like a dumb loophole but there's literally no Constitutional way to leave the Union and thus there must be a State-guaranteed right to do so or literally null and void constitution. Either way they're out.

As for the northern states long term trade, they were just shipping guys. The south had all the goods that the north was shipping. The north had industry but nothing of value TO EUROPE. Of course that's meaningless because like you said, the south had a shit navy and couldn't even control their own ports. It would have been dumb for anyone to pledge to the confederacy before ensuring they could at least hold open some line of trade anyway. And yeah there wasn't a lot of opportunity in terms of idle maritime navy just chilling around in europe to dedicate to them anyway. Shit was getting pretty fucked up over there, too.

>>35031241
>I argue by accepting the Constitution they lost the right to be an independent country.
I argue by accepting the constitution, they gained affirmation of the right to be an independent country.

>>35031080
I blame Buchanan because instead of making a solid position on the whole leaving the Union thing, he waffled. I am not the only individual who believes that. Quite a few cite his attempts to "keep the peace" as a reason the Civil War was as intense as it was. The Civil War was a thing that was going to happen one way or the other but if Buchanan had been a better president, it may have been just a few quick conflicts not a drawn out war that lead to nearly a million casualties and the near complete destruction of Southern industry.

For the record, I also blame the post war Republicans for "punishing" the South. They forced social reforms and refused to rebuild the industry destroyed during the war. The forced social reforms lead to Jim Crow laws being enacted when the South finally got control of their government back, which prolonged racial tensions in this country at least 50 years, if not more. The damage to the Southern industry is still felt today as the south still is not as industrialized as it was before the war today.

>>35031319
>The south had all the goods that the north was shipping
The North produced a lot of goods being sold all over Europe. It was heavily industrialized and did quite a bit of back and forth trading with Europe. The South's main export was cotton and the two biggest recipients of the cotton were France and the UK (who recently got access to Egyptian cotton so it was not a big thing to them).

>>35031328
>I argue by accepting the constitution, they gained affirmation of the right to be an independent country
That was actually the prevailing belief before the war. None the less, as I stated before, if you can't physically stop your parent country from taking you over, you really don't have the right to be independent (might makes right).

>>35031241

At this point England was looking to their own colonies for cash crop production, particularly cotton which was increasingly grown in Egypt. They had little to gain in alienating or potentially going to war with the legitimate United States to import goods they were producing on their own.

>>35031319

Ahistorical. The North outstripped the south even in agriculture.

>>35027483
We did route those federals, that we did.

>>35029325
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5ra9cXx1-o
Don't make us Ohio boys come down there again.

File: robert e. lee pwns battle of glendale.png (1MB, 884x642px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 884x642px

>>35026507

The South is always right.

>>35026507
the south objected to the illegal election of lincoln to the presidency. he wasnt even on the ballot in 10 states. it was a fucking northern rigged coup, of course the south was pissed and seceded.

imagine if next election, kim kardashian "won" the presidency without even appearing on your state ballot, because the powers in washington decided it was her turn

File: Flag_of_Mississippi_(1861-1894).svg.png (35KB, 750x450px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 750x450px

>>35026707

The first two states to leave the Union, South Carolina and Mississippi

The Constitution does not specifically prohibit secession, this secession is retained as a state right due to the 10th amendment.

The end.

>>35029957
conscripts actually. The south made extensive use of it.

File: The Eternal Federal .png (214KB, 658x688px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 658x688px

>>35030322
>Technically, they were in no danger of loosing their homes.

Tell that to Phil Sheridan, W. T. Sherman, and the Bummers

>>35031401
>They had little to gain in alienating or potentially going to war with the legitimate United States
Exactly. I have made quite a bit of personal research into how Europe was acting during the war. They found the war great as they loved how they could send observers to view how the latest troop tactics and weapons of war were used (and promptly ignored all of that, see Franco-Prussian War).
They also loved the ability to dump all of the obsolete and soon to be obsolete weaponry they had in stockpiles. Practically every European country sold off their entire stock of muzzle loading muskets to either or both sides of the Civil War.

I always wonder what the war would have looked like if Europe had gotten directly involved (and it would have sparked a world war 50 years early).
I can imagine French generals ignoring their Confederate counterpart and marching in formation right into a line of artillery or gattling guns. Large British fleets engaging a handful of Monitor class ships. Multi-nation civil war style maneuvers across Europe.

>>35026831
>Like did the Civil War make America's future entry into WW1 less of a slog because the Americans had already seen how terrible trench warfare was?

Any advantage America may have had was quickly outstripped by the years Britain, France and Germany spent fighting. The US military was hideously underprepared to fight the first world war, needing to borrow large quantities of equipment from France and Britain, particularly machine guns in addition to being trained by the British and French in order to get them up to speed with modern trench warfare.

>Europeans being sent to observe the technology and battles.

Unfortunately no lessons were learned from this, the Boer war or the Russo Japanese war since they were generally looked down upon due to the belief that the forces involved were of a sufficiently low quality.

This lead to the under rating of the machine gun and indirect fire artillery, to fairly devastating effect during the early war.

>>35026636
>>35026661
>>35026782
>>35027596
it was about taxes. the south was unfairly carrying the burden of national export taxes. tehy south were the only states exporting anything of value (cotton, tobacco, etc) and they were getting raped on taxes federally without having any vote or say in it. sound familiar? it should, it was the reason the 13 colonies seceded from the british.

anyone trying to imply or argue that white northerneers were altruistically risking their lives to free black southern slaves is a fucking moron

yes there were some fanatical abolishionists but they were a fractional minority. like ANTIFA, a very violent, fervent, fanatical small group of people who were very loud. most northerners couldnt give two shits about blacks or slaves and sure as hell werent going to risk dying in war for them

it was a white mans war, fought not over slavery as the fundamental issue, but over state rights of secession from the union, taxes, and to a more minor extent, the right to continue slavery. which should be noted, that slavery was on its way out anyway

>>35031478
war is all hell bitch

>>35031430
>it was her turn
We've been facing the same intent with the opposite strategy.
Have more votes than registered voters.

>>35031501
"Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" clearly stated that the primary justification for South Carolina's secession (the first state to do so) was "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery" but keep telling yourself slavery was just an itty bitty footnote and not the primary "states rights" issue confederate cuck

>>35031566
"As Lincoln would reply to Colonel John B. Baldwin who had suggested that the South should be allowed to secede peacefully: “And open Charleston, etc as ports of entry, with their ten percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?”

Howards Ray White, author of the four volume Bloodstains, states the following:

"The March 18 issue of the Boston Transcript presented the underlying Republican argument for a Federal conquest of the Confederacy: specifically to keep prices of manufactured goods high by ensuring collection of Federal import taxes , not only in seceded States, but in Federal States as well. The Confederate Constitution prohibited all but modest taxes on imports, far below the Federal tax rate, which Republicans would soon triple on average: The Transcript argued “it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding States are now for commercial independence."

"As White relates, “Recognizing that it would be impossible to stop the smuggling of heavy taxed goods across the very long land boundary between the Confederate States and the Federal States, the newspaper alleged that the Federal States west of the Appalachian Mountains would ‘find it to their advantage to purchase their imported goods at New Orleans rather than New York City, where the Federal tax could be efficiently collected.’” White continues by saying “the Lincoln administration could have obtained help from the Confederate government in enforcing Federal tax laws pertaining to Federal commerce had it been willing to talk to Confederate Commissioners, who were patiently seeking an audience with Abe Lincoln.”

>>35030866
"Sure I hit him first, but he was acting like an asshole!"
How do you think the cops are going to respond to that one Johnny

>>35031584
Were people so economically ignorant that they didn't understand that lowering tarrifs by ~400% would mean they would earn more?

File: 18119405_1987345501494345_3592674083763084474_n.jpg (79KB, 960x635px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 960x635px

>>35031584
hmmm so on one side we have the actual declared reason for secession by the first state to do so

and on the other we have one alleged quote from Lincoln about economic reality. and a random newspaper.

>>35031620
>>35031630

If, as some allege, Lincoln felt any anguish over the Sumter issue, it was clearly related, not on how to peacefully settle the issue, but on how to act provocatively without appearing the aggressor.

Senator Orville Browning, a close friend and confidant of Lincoln’s, advised him:

"In any conflict…..between the government and seceding States, it is very important that the traitors shall be the aggressors, and that they be kept constantly and palpably in the wrong. The first attempt……to furnish supplies or reinforcements will induce aggression by South Carolina, and then the government will stand justified, before the entire country, in repelling that aggression, and retaking the forts."

Two of Lincoln’s trusted secretaries, John G. Nicolay and John Hay, disclosed that:

"President Lincoln in deciding the Sumter question had adopted a simple but effective policy. To use his own words, he determined to ‘send bread to Anderson’; if the rebels fired on that, they would not be able to convince the world that he had begun the civil war."

After the fact, Lincoln on May 1, 1861 wrote to Gustavous Fox, who commanded the naval detachment charged with resupplying Sumter, the following:

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."

>>35031430
HILLARY WON THE POPULAR VOTE THO!

>>35031637
none of this is proving that slavery wasn't the CSA's primary issue

it is proving the confederates were retards who took the bait.

>ABLOO BLOO LINCOLN REINFORCED A FORT IN SEPARATIST TERRITORY HE MADE US FIRE ON IT HE SHOULD HAVE JUST HANDED IT OVER

truly pathetic lmao

>>35031501
>without having any vote or say in it
Maybe, just maybe if the Southern states didn't just hold onto slavery with such a death hold, the Democrat party would not have split in two in all but name. They effectively created a four party system of North Democrats, Southern Democrats, what was left of the Whigs and the new up and comers, the Republicans.
The Republicans, whose primary goal was to get rid of slavery, would do whatever they could to hurt the slave trade. The Whigs promoted expanding government control, so would approve any new tax or increase in government control. Lastly the Northern Democrats were like the never-Trumps of our time and often voted against their own party half the time (although by 1860, they were the larger of the two Democrat groups in Congress).

What happened is in 1860, the Southern States voting block became such a minority and when they could no longer stop congress from passing laws against slavery, so they threw a fit and tried to leave the Union.

>>35031630
Yeah, there were other states seceding for other reasons, of course. Plenty of the confederate states had barely any slaves but jumped on that shit just because.

Maryland rejected secession but got conquered by the union anyway because it wouldn't support them. Missouri rejected secession but got attacked by the union because some of the citizens supported the confederates and everyone fucking hated kansas. Kentucky got occupied by fucking everyone and about lost any sovereignty.

>>35031667
>just because.
There was more to it than just that...

Who's got ancestors that are Civil War veterans? Blue/gray mutt reporting in, 8th Ohio and Virginia Militia lineage.

File: 7fee37e55fccef01df288a320128c57e.png (247KB, 392x318px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 392x318px

The South deserved to lose.

>>35031501
>without any vote or say in it
But thats wrong you fucking retard. The south had representation in congress, more than they should have because they had the 3/5ths compromise bumping up their influence.
If you thought taxes were undue then take it up with your representatives. The united states formed because we were being taxed without representation.

>>35031637
"He was asking for it!" -man being dragged away by the police

>>35031682
Mine came sometime around 1880, so no.

>>35031660
Southerners were fine with exploiting the legislative process to push their agenda until they stopped winning and then it suddenly became oppressive aggression

>>35031667
This doesn't change the fact that slavery was the primary states rights issue and like the other anon said underscored most of the legislative penalties the south was facing. The declaration of Virginia's cessation, and I shouldn't have to tell you Virginia's importance to the CSA, directly " the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States". Case in point, the idea of oppression to southerners hinges primarily on slavery. It was job one on the laundry list of Southern gripes with the North.

>>35031714
Oh no totally fuck those slaveowners but they brought down a shitstorm on everyone allies or not. Fuck the confederacy but also fuck the union.

>>35031682
Virginian slave owners of (((Anglo))) decent on one side, Ohio farmers of German descent on the other. I got the German name tho so I got to rep their side, which thankfully is the easy one.

>>35031430
>he wasnt even on the ballot in 10 states
Did he have a chance in those 10 states? Whats that? "No?"
Did he need those 10 states to win the electoral college? Wait, was that again a "No?"
Should he, a third party candidate, who most likely didn't think he would have won the election waste money in a state he has no chance on winning? Wait is that a third "no?"

Here is the thing people don't realize about elections back then, often the winner wasn't even on every states ballot (I think this actually started in the 20th century). Why waste the money, resources and time getting yourself on the Georgia ballot, when you are against slavery and have no chance of winning that state?

>>35031703
They lucked out, they missed the carnage.

>>35031726
Has anyone ever unironically thought less of you or made accusations about your character over the slave owner thing? Just curious, because my girlfriend doesn't tell anyone she's descended from SS brass for this reason.

>>35031682
I have an ancestor who fought for an Ohioan unit as well (either 8th or 18th, I really should put some more research into this).

>>35026507
The South was looking for a reason, Lincon knew this, but nothing justifies treason.

It wasn't a "war of norther aggression" the south lost, and its time they got over the cult of the lost cause.

>>35031750
this is not to mention ballots were supplied independently by candidates at the time, usually through partisan newspapers or other organizations and there was no secret ballot, meaning southerners would have been free to beat and ostracize Lincoln supporters. Not that I'd expect pro-CSA retards to know that.

but no Lincoln did all the electioneering.

>>35031700
>beg, plead, throw money at, repeatedly attempt diplomatic and peaceful measures
>have an entire administrations cabinet except 1 guy who is married to a navy captain who wants war be completely against opposing secession and all wish it go peacefully go ahead
>get told repeatedly by even the Fort commander NOT to send supplies as it will only cause war
>Do it anyways to appear "just and right" when it does lead to war

File: 13533300_1655733354749173_7690733668243503649_n.png (427KB, 600x473px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 600x473px

>>35027637
Do it again uncle billy!

>>35031800
Yep, I mean the war was inevitable but lincoln was a pretty slick guy in terms of winning a fucking awful war. Without mercy.

>>35031800
>get pressured by appeasers and pussies not to risk provoking them hostile rogue states
>ignore them

failing to see the problem here

>>35031812
This, this is what I can get behind the Leeaboos on. Most of the militias were blue collar guys with muskets only in it to defend their home, especially massacres like this. They went down using the 2nd Amendment against government troops showing no mercy.

>>35031863
The CSA was an organized military, not a militia.

And I really can't get behind the cult of the lost cause at all, they keep reminding me of historical revisionists trying to create a version of history to fit their 21st century political narrative.

>>35031875
I'm not defending the CSA in that post, just the militias that were solely defending their homes.

>>35031863
>>35031875
CSA had an army but they also briefly officially supported "partisan rangers" or something which basically meant anyone who wanted to pick up a gun. That meant general banditry (focused on Union soldiers) and other non-confederate armies. Quantrill may or may not have been that.

>>35026564
>Confederates state had 0 Federal property
>Ft. Sumter not being Fed land
>Fed not having the right to occupy Federal assets
Hoo boy oh boy. What was the South's plan for paying the Fed for assets that were theirs. What was the South's plan for legally reimbursing all Federal citizens for the benefits that the gov provided were? Oh right there were none.

>>35031863
The 2nd amendment applies to citizens of the United States. Not to traitors who renounced the Constitution. It was war.

>>35031944
Second amendment doesn't apply to citizens at all, it applies to the government. Still up in the air as to whether the constitution applies to noncitizens and other countries.

>>35031944
If you and I were to use our 2nd Amendment rights today to defend our homeland, we'd be called either insurgents or domestic terrorists depending on where the opposing military was from. Sound familiar? Also, by that logic the men at Valley Forge were traitors to the Queen. I understand why you, myself, and most people oppose the morality of the South during the Civil War. However, this doesn't mean the North was all noble and that there were not honorable men fighting solely in defense of their homeland.

>>35031772
I mean, If I told a blue hair they would probably say I should pay reparations or something but I don't go around telling people that unless we are talking about family origins and I identify more with the German side of the family anyways. So to answer your question, no.

>>35031020
What kind of retarded comparison is that?
The germans were every bit as populous and industrialized as the frogs, they were famous for banging out high quality industrial machinery before the war for fucks sake. Meanwhile the South was an agrarian shithole where the biggest driver of the economy was cotton. The two situations are hardly comparable, try reading a goddamn book you dumb nigger.

>>35032065
also I live in Southern Ohio so no one around here is going to give me shit about it, hell Oberlin is probably the only place in the state that I will find people that will genuinely find people who hold it against me.

>>35027338
The fuck are you talking about? Slavery is the ultimate form of cheap labor. It doesn't get cheaper than literally owning someone.

>>35027637
DO IT AGAIN, UNCLE BILLY

>>35032144
Slaves are incredibly expensive.

File: 1476685871150.png (330KB, 414x499px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 414x499px

>>35029381
This

>>35030407
>Ad Hominem
>No true Scotsman

Please debate without using logical fallacies and provide evidence for your arguments, thanks.

>>35032163
its got a steep initial investment but once you got the infrastructure in place to house and feed the slaves it will end up cheaper in the long run than paying people a wage.

>>35031478
That was actually after some time into the war when the North got desperate. Initially, there was no risk and even after the war there was significant compensation in the form of the Reconstruction.

>>35031682
I've got 27 ancestors on the Union rolls and 1 confederate.

Must have made family reunions awkwards.

>>35032501
>27

Lawdy

>>35031501
Basically this sums it up, and I'm a yankee. North was fucking the south with tariffs and taxes, which were primarily spent on northern industry and infrastructure

>>35027637
Do it again Uncle Billy!

>>35032144
With a slave you not only pay upfront but also pay for their room and board. If a slave gets crippled or is otherwise underperforming you're basically stuck with him. You can cut your losses and kill him but that doesn't bring your initial investment back.

With workers you pay their wages as you go. If a worker underperforms you fire them and hire someone else. Your net losses are just what the worker cost you.

And Then There's Industry. Slaves can't make improvements and slave owners have no need to make improvements. As a result, the economy stays how it is and doesn't improve.

>Why should I buy labor saving farming tools, I'll just buy more slaves

>Why should I care about preventing mine collapses, I'll just buy more slaves

>Why should I pay for some newfangled steam engine, I'll just buy more slaves

And so the South stagnated as the North raced ahead and that's why the South lost.

>>35032556
My family has been in this country since before it was a country.

We,uh, got around.

>>35031991
The men fighting at valley forge didn't have a constitution.

Also nothing in the second amendment says people aren't going to shoot back at those invoking it because that's impossible to establish. It simply establishes that an armed citizenry is necessary to a free state should the need arise. These were combatants in wartime fighting in a campaign to destroy the south's will to fight via attrition. Either leave your shit or die.

>>35026795
>first_lord_of_cinder.jpg

>>35032468

But it's not.

>own slaves
>have to care for them
>they get sick - you pay
>they need food - you pay
>they need housing - you pay
>substantial investment per unit

Meanwhile, post-war sharecropping:

>don't "own" slaves
>pay them a measly sum of cash
>charge them for housing
>charge them for food
>they get sick - their problem
>minimal investment per unit, plus most of them already had farming experience

By 1860, the only advantage to keeping them in bondage was keeping crime low.

>>35026538
Fpbp

File: 1494019739835.jpg (62KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 600x600px

>ITT a bunch of assmad rednecks can't get over a war they lost 152 years ago

>>35032695
You seem to not understand what I'm saying. If soldiers, whether foreign or domestic violently invade your homes (as in, the homes of militias that had not been fighting elsewhere) you are not invoking anything by returning fire. The Declaration of Independence addressed the right to bear arms being restricted as a grievance, anyways, which was instrumental in the forming of the Bill of Rights/United States Constitution. Besides, even though it's not nearly as valid as the United States', the Confederacy had their own Constitution which included the right to bear arms. Also, you can call it "destroying the South's will to fight via attrition", or you can call it excessive, uncontrolled, and unapologetic violence.

>>35029211
That's absolutely untrue, at least on the state level. Anything not explicitly replaced by post revolution law is still in effect.

You see this in a few of the old colonies that have colonial laws or grants of land still enforced.

>>35032144
>It doesn't get cheaper than literally owning someone.

Federal minimum wage is $7.25, which assuming a 40 hour work week gives us just over $15,000 a year. This is not a lot of money, and without government assistance an individual cannot afford food, housing, and transportation for this amount. In other words, you, as an employer, are not required to pay out an amouth equal to what it would cost to shelter and feed your employee.

Now as a slave owner, while costs may be marginally lower, you're still going to have to feed and shelter your slaves by virtue of wanting them to be efficient workers. Not only this, but it can also be assumed that some level of security will have to be provided, in addition to the cost of providing basic healthcare.

In other words, you're going from a business owner to a very high-paid babysitter.

>>35026507
No, the South freaked out that they couldn't stop the election of Lincoln (who was interested in keeping the Union together more than he was emancipation) even if they voted en bloc. Realizing they had lost the political war to keep slavery alive, they started to secede.

No, and they knew it. That's why they started arming immediately.

No, they were in rebellion and they fired first.

Absolutely not: even if they had the right to leave the Union, that doesn't invalidate prior treaties and obligations. We keep Guantanamo Bay using the same logic, despite how pissy the Cubans get.

>>35031941

They actually tried to do that. They sent various representatives to discuss payouts for federal property and peace.

Lincoln refused peace. He wanted war, because he foolishly assumed the Confederacy would be push overs and collapse after a few fights. That mistake cost 650,000 Americans their lives

>>35032904
>They actually tried to do that. They sent various representatives to discuss payouts for federal property and peace.

How naive can you get?

>>35032811
You literally own people. Cruelty to chattel laws were barely enforced and you were free to do with them as you pleased. You owned their children; you could sell them off if you wanted.

>>35032904
That's because there is no world where they could have ever paid out. Southern states were playing at being good, but were aiming to abscond with the property of the people of the USA, ironically while owning people stolen that they used to voice their opinions, but gave no representation to. Whether or not you believe in state's rights as vehemently as some claim, the South is a great example of revision ignoring the point. They were fighting to protect an immoral and indefensible institution. They made plenty of other missteps, but when the justness of your cause rests on the wholesale of people you have already lost. The South fought for slavery and lost because all they could have ever hoped to have done is delayed until European actors convinced the North to respect their sovereignty. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

>>35032920

Primary sources faggot

http://dotcw.com/operations-in-charleston-harbor-52/

>>35032904
A narrow view. No nation can afford to simply let it's members leave. It sets a bad precedent that allows for the nation to collapse in short order.

>>35032953

>Hurr durr, no they were just lying.


Not an actual argument you fucking retard

>>35032959
No, I mean they were naive to think they could think they could take that land and just pay for it and that everyone would just go home.

>>35032983

It's hard to have a leg to stand on arguing nation's can't just let their members leave when your own country just left England 70 years ago, and your founding document starts like this: "hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

>>35033022
The colonies were never a true part of England and left over a critical lack of representation (well lets be real we left because FUCK PAYING TAXES). Considering that Southern citizenry had the boon of representing some 1 million plus enslaved persons weighting their votes even more that argument doesn't really stand.

>>35033003
It was working with every single other Fort in the secession states with the exception of Fort Moultrie and Sumter had willing changed hands with no bloodshed.

Fort Moultrie happened to be the Fort that Major Anderson torched, spiked his guns and then garrisoned Fort Sumter which previously only had a Lighthouse Keeper on it and then literally held Charleston Harbor hostage under his guns and position of the strongest constructed fort in the world at the time.

Diplomacy works especially in now Foreign Nations when local commanders don't burn shit to the ground and then turtle up in previously ungarrisoned positions. Then Diplomacy can still work if Presidents don't exasperate the situation by literally inciting a war on purpose.

>>35033157
>how dare the military take up defensive positions in an insurrection!

File: Are you being serious now pullo..png (202KB, 319x403px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 319x403px

>>35033157
>The big meanies didn't let us run away with half the country

File: Why are we here, just to suffer.png (483KB, 800x1020px) Image search: [Google]

483KB, 800x1020px

>>35032811
>tfw realizing huge numbers of southern boys were tricked into fighting and dying for a small group of rich plantation owners

Poor dumb bastards

>>35029142
The issue with this is the unilateral nature of the declaration. You can't become a US state on your own unilateral declaration, and so if you want to leave, you're going to have to get a declaration allowing you to leave to pass the Senate.

This is why unilateral secession is illegal.

>>35033205
Says who? If it isn't written down then it's not a real law even if disallowing it will preserve the union and save the world and all that. That sure does SOUND like a real interpretation of real written laws... but it's not. There's nothing to even hint it except that it sort of worked after the Civil War.

If you go around enforcing illegal unconstitutional laws then your union's not worth shit anyway.

>>35033201
thats the way it always is, isn't it?

>>35031319
>It might seem like a dumb loophole but there's literally no Constitutional way to leave the Union and thus there must be a State-guaranteed right to do so or literally null and void constitution. Either way they're out.
You add a state to the union by voting to submit a treaty to congress asking to be admitted to the Union (like the Republic of Texas did when they realized they didn't have the industrial capacity to fulfill their own needs for finished goods). Therefore, the process of legal and peaceful secession must also be bilateral.

>>35033304
Why must it? It's all specifically not written down that way. Why can a state amend its constitution if the constitution that existed at the time of joining is what defines the contract between state and union? Why can the federals force rewriting a confederate state's constitution and keep it in the union if that's not bilateral?

Your argument is very nice and fair but completely baseless. Even if things were nice and fair it's already too late to matter because no matter which way you look at it under a legal context the civil war broke the contract.

>>35033226
It's not a ordinance, it's contract law and diplomacy.

You can't unilaterally dissolve a bilateral agreement like that unless you're willing to bet you aren't going to get bitchslapped because it's inconvenient or unachievable for the other guy to fight you over it.

Problem was you were creating one of the longest borders in the world by violating that agreement, and the people poised to bitchslap you had ten times your industrial capacity and a significantly larger free population.

>>35033413
You can totally unilaterally dissolve it if it's written "You may unilaterally dissolve this contract" in the contract. Which it is.

I'm not arguing that the war wasn't perfectly legal, too. I'm arguing that it was a war between two+ neighboring nations and not a single union cause the secession was valid. Legitimately secede only to throw everything away cause dumb rednecks hated a fort on US property.

>>35029122
Correct, and the reason no conservative Congress or sitting president has ever asked for a federal concealed/open carry statute is that of the bad precedent it would set.Liberals will always win out in the end. They've convinced the world that progress is a moral compulsion. Abortion and gay marriage are now federal law rather than the state. States rights will be eroded further until someday the nation as a whole will live by a standard set of laws. It's only progress guys.

>>35032736

We never lost. There was no formal surrender. The only "acknowledgement" is Andrew Johnson stating in 1866 that the insurrection was over in Texas, which means jack shit. Robert E. Lee taking the cowards way out doesn't count. He wasn't a political leader. Jefferson Davis had no authority at the end of the war, being a coward himself.

File: autismlevel++.png (170KB, 1080x434px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1080x434px

>>35029244
>YOUR WRONG AM RIGHT NANANA

File: 1425675226202.jpg (55KB, 796x582px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 796x582px

>>35027637
do it again uncle billy

>>35033022

That's a null point as Britain was lawful in their persecution of the American Rebellion and all the members of the Continental Congress acknowledged that what they were doing was treason.

If we're talking guilt then remember that many states of the Confederacy were part of that revolution.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Ergo, the right to secede.

>>35033806

Yeah, but they committed treason to England because they believed people have the right to political self determination. They knew it was illegal but felt is was morally correct.

So maybe starting a war with people trying to exercise similar self determination peacefully is a giant slap in the face to the principle the country was founded on.

>>35033634
No true scotsman fallacy. You're implying that anyone that surrendered also didn't have the right to surrender.

>>35033833
>They knew it was illegal but felt is was morally correct.

It wasn't so much a moral decision as an economic one. The 13 colonies couldn't support those taxes as they could sell finished goods under Britain's economic policy.

Slavery was crippling the South in the long term as the only thing it did was make a few hundred white dudes very, very rich. Those white dudes didn't want things to change.