Redpill me on the Civil War

>>132153711
They fought for honor. Most freed their slaves before the war started.

>>132153711
what they did was legal and slavery was on the downslope
Lincoln was just an asshole and could have won the war in a much less violent and authoritarian way

File: 1494445777628.jpg (1MB, 1072x4616px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1072x4616px

>>132153711

Ask yourself is the American Revolution was good, and whether the U.S.A. had a right to separate itself from a government that imposed unequal economic burdens on it.

Now ask yourself why the standard is different for southern secession. Keep in mind that even if you accept that the South was only interested in seceding in order to maintain slavery as an institution, nobody believes that that's why the North went to war to stop it. No historian today will say that the North was fighting to end slavery -- they were fighting to keep the South in their Union. Why did they have such a right?

Lincoln was elected without a single Southern vote cast in his favor. The North was making steps to end slavery, basically putting the entire Southern economy into crisis leading to widespread poverty and starvation. The American revolution was fought for pretty much the same reasons as the Civil War. If George Washington is a hero then how can you not see Robert E Lee as one as well?

>>132154220
Stopped reading at lazy when niggers are good for nothing lazys who couldn't stand like Jews being put to work for a living.

>>132154220
>when your fight a war for independence over unfair taxes and your new nation is just supposed to be a union of soverign states but the northern states get fat off of leaching off of the southern state's economy and selling them their factory goods made by cheap immigrant labor but the south gets fed up and decides to start importing industrial goods from europe and the north imposes heavy tariffs on industrial goods to keep that fat southern money pouring in and the south says fuck it we'll have our own war of independence and you say lol no and post hoc say its because you care about blacks

File: 1495318805657.jpg (55KB, 796x582px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 796x582px

>>132154767
>When last time you were pissed that we burned Atlanta but now you are ready to do it yourself

>>132155175
>Unironically using a gadsden flag while promoting a strong federal government over states rights
>setting niggers free in the south and making fun of us for niggers nigging in our cities
wew lad

File: 1200px-William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg (200KB, 1200x1523px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1200x1523px

The Confederates cause was perhaps one of the most dumbest political causes in history. Only dumb fuck revisionists and edgy contrarians think otherwise.
>>132153947
>they fought for honor

Honor for what? To keep niggers? No, they fought because they wanted to keep slavery and they were paranoid that the North was going to take it.
>>132154094
Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution says:
>No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation….
It was indeed illegal. Lincoln didn't even do anything to prompt the Southern States to separate. They literally wrote in each of their justification causes published by their State legislature that they feared the Union was bound to encroach on them in the future with slavery, and decided to get out now. The Southern States even went as far to prevent Lincoln's name from appearing on any of the ballots in the 1860 election. They were literally a bunch of dumb faggots that deserved to be rekt

File: IMG_20170702_230628_304.jpg (73KB, 600x588px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 600x588px

>>132154454
>>132154462

He says that you guys lack knowledge about the period of time.

>>132155548
You know the Americans declaring independence was illegal too, right? Was that only different because they won? I'm all for "might makes right" but at least be honest.

the south could've kept slavery for another 10 of 20 years if they hadn't flipped shit about lincoln. he didn't even want abolition only not bringing in any new slaves.

>>132155560
He's being dishonest. Yes, the south wanted to keep slavery. That doesn't make the rest false, and it doesn't explain why the North fought to keep the union in tact.

>>132155175
>we

File: IMG_20170702_231340_500.jpg (54KB, 600x945px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 600x945px

>>132155927
Lol he blocked me

>>132153711
RURAL RETARDS IN THE SOUTH HAD THEIR AGRICULTURAL BUSINESS MODEL THREATENED BY TECHNOLOGY FROM THE NORTH, WHILE THE NORTH RELIED ON DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES NOT CONTINGENT ON SLAVERY

CIVIL WAR WAS FUCKING BRUTAL THOUGH, ALONG THE MASON DIXON LINE YOU HAD FAMILIES AND FRIENDS FORCED TO KILL EACHOTHER

ALL 100% AMERICAN CASUALTIES, BETTER WE GO FUCK UP SOME DUNECOON SHITSKINS WITH A K/D RATIO OF 1000:1

>>132154462
>Lincoln was elected without a single Southern vote cast in his favor
Because they didn't put him on the ballot, retard.
>The North was making steps to end slavery, basically putting the entire Southern economy into crisis leading to widespread poverty and starvation

No, it meant that instead of literally owning niggers, they would just have to give them rights and use a share-cropping system that would be slightly less profitable. But none of that matters, because the Southern States were a bunch of hypocrites that cried whenever Northern States didn't return runaway slaves and expected them to obey by THEIR rules and laws. Why, if you start shit, you get hit, that's what I believe.
>If George Washington is a hero then how can you not see Robert E Lee as one as well?
Southern States had representation in the nation they were apart of. The colonies didn't, and instead had Governors and magistrates that answered to the Crown and not the people.

>>132153711
It comes down to the Dred Scott Decision. Dred Scott was an ex-slave who fled to a free state and was granted citizenship. His owner said that he was a slave and not a citizen of the US and therefore had to be returned. The Supreme Court ruled that under the Constitution slavery was legal everywhere in the US, that ex-slaves couldn't be given citizenship and that northern states had to return all ex-slaves to southern states.

Northern states said, "Fuck that." They refused to follow the Supreme Court's ruling, and gave the finger Constitution. "Even if that's what the Constitution says, we're not going to follow it."

Southern states petitioned the federal government and demanded that it force the northern states to obey the Supreme Court's ruling. But the federal government refused to do so.

So the southern states were left with a dilemma. Were they going to stay a part of the US, even when northern states refused to follow the laws and the Constitution, and the federal government refused to enforce the laws an the Constitution? How could they ever trust the government? How can you have a country when states feel they are free to ignore the Constitution whenever they want?

So the southern states chose secede, as they considered the way the northern states refused to follow the Supreme Court ruling, and the federal government refused to enforce it, to be a "breech of contract." In other words, they already considered the Constitution to be null and void.

>>132156252
Why did the North fight the civil war? If the south was such a backwards economic drain, why did the north insist on keeping them?

>>132155718
Yes, but their reasoning was far better than the Souths'.

>>132153711
Watching how Merica turned out, nobody was good. Watching how the UK turned out, it was marginally the right descision.

>>132156475
What was their reasoning? Nobody claims the north was fighting for blacks rights.

File: Jeffersonslavery.png (89KB, 940x714px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 940x714px

>>132155548
>founding fathers repeat a million times not to create sectarian parties based on regional bias
>Washington makes his entire farewell address about this
>Federalists, Jeffersonians, Democrats, Whigs, Know Nothings all comply
>Republicans make a party based only on northern interests
>"we dindu nuffin"

>>132156252
>Because they didn't put him on the ballot, retard.
lies, the upper south had him on the ballot and he never got over 2% of the vote. That's a dumb argument anyways considering the North didn't include Breckenridge or Bell on theirs.

>>132156475
they were living independently from the north but being taxed and generally overall poorer than industrialist states also slightly different traditions, cultures and variations of faiths being born around this era

>>132156458
To set an example, to deter any other future insurrections from occurring, and to prevent the South from becoming a troubling rival if it were an independent nation,

File: 1476874386318.png (492KB, 540x663px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 540x663px

>ywn live in the timeline where Lincoln lived long enough to send the slaves back to Africa after winning their freedom.

File: 1464242685235.png (99KB, 258x330px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 258x330px

>import niggers
>niggers breed
>North tries to stop this
>South wants "muh free labor"
>Abe BTFOs South, about to deport niggers
>oy vey, we can't have that
>John Wilkes Booth kills Abe
>South ensures that white guilt and niggers stay
>retards on /pol/ post that the South was right
>mfw

>>132157010
The EUs anti-Brexit actions can be defended with the exact same logic. Do you side with the EU? Me, I believe in sovereignty.

>>132156252
representation doesn't mean shit if the north just ignored the constitution. The republicans allowed northern states to ignore the fugitive slave laws, however when South Carolina didn't want to obey federal tariffs they were threatened with federal invasion.

>>132156456

Uh...I'm not in favor of slavery or anything, but does anyone else see the parallels between this shit and our current war against illegal immigration/sanctuary cities?

Civil War 2 when?

>>132157078
>slaves
>free

They were expensive as fuck and would have been replaced by machinery ASAP. Still should have sent them all back though.

>>132156600
>What was their reasoning?
To preserve a stable and prosperous nation, which the South succeeding would not allow for that.
>>132156679
>founding fathers repeat a million times not to create sectarian parties based on regional bias
not all of them, and those were suggestions, not rules. The Federalist party explicitly appealed more to classical New-England and merchant coastal areas more in it's history. Also, the South literally had like 3 different special snowflake Democratic parties, which 2 of them were marketed exclusively to the South.

>>132159026
>not all of them, and those were suggestions, not rules.
Putting aside regional differences was the entire idea behind the constitution. It's why there were so many supposed checks and balances between the federal government and states. Southerners like Calhoun soon realized that the constitution didn't mean shit if the larger party can just ignore it.

>The Federalist party explicitly appealed more to classical New-England and merchant coastal areas more in it's history.

Prominent southerners like John Marshall and Charles Pinckney were Federalists. Pinckney was basically the top dog in South Carolina and was nominated as the Federalists presidential candidate twice.

>Also, the South literally had like 3 different special snowflake Democratic parties, which 2 of them were marketed exclusively to the South.

lol which ones? The Jeffersonians and Democrats were extremely popular in the middle colonies. Most the Democratic presidents prior to the Civil War were northerners.

Ever hear of the Corvin Amendment?

Lincoln's Rethuglican Party were preparing to pass it, when the secession of the Southern States made it irrelevant. This amendment would have prohibited the Federal Government from interfering with the institution of slavery. This would have made the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional. The Republicans were buying their own propaganda. The reason the South seceded was unreasonably high tariffs(40%) levied on imports. Lincoln invaded the South to enforce the collection of those tariffs.

That's all there is to it, however, fighting over tariffs doesn't make Yankees look good; so they pretend it was all about slavery.

kerdasi amaq

The average Confederate soldier was a good person. Even most of the generals were good. However the history books aren't entirely lying when they say it was about slavery. The aristocrats did fear losing slavery because they were greedy kikes who refused to pay poor southern whites wages to pick the cotton and tobacco. This is why West Virginia broke off and states like Tennessee were heavily divided between secessionists and unionists. Now secession wasn't just because of slavery it involved other economic factors in general. The easiest way to understand the war was northern industrialists and southern rural aristocrats hated each other and northern and southern whites were forced to fight their slap fight. The Confederate soldier deserves praise for fighting for defense of his home and people. The southern unionist deserves praise for staying true to the union despite the hate from their neighbors. Even the average yank deserves praise for fighting. Fuck the industrialists and fuck the aristocrats though. Especially since said aristocrats hated Lincoln yet he, Grant, and Sherman was the conservative branch of the Republican Party. They should've started panicking if the radical Republicans won.