If the Civil War was about Slavery, then why would the South

>>137748469
It was a war of economic repression

>>137748593
Northern industry want to wipe out their only competition, Southern slave labor. Wasn't a war about freeing the blacks and giving them equal rights, it was about destroying the Southern way of life

>>137748469
Why do you care?

>>137748469
>>137748469
Why would every state that succeeded write that in their declaration of independences that slavery was a major reason why?

cough cough

"well we wrote this, but we didn't really mean it"

/thread

Is the civil war a false flag?

I really can't see whites killing each other

>>137748469
it was about state rights

>>137750346
the right to keep slaves. remember the declarations

meh

fuck niggers

>>137750094
That's what the politicians said who owned slaves. The common man could care less

>>137750516
The north was able to industrialize and move away from slavery. Then increased economic sanctions on the south to prevent their industrialization. Then radical northerners started inciting slave riots. If you were a southern senator and representative what choice did you have but succeeded from the union? The states were within their rights in 1861 to leave the union.

The north was trying to ruin the southern economy simply because it industrialized first, but refused to help industrialized the south. Why do you think southern states are still the poorest in the nation?

>>137748469
>federal govt
>"you guys can't own slaves"
>south
>"thats just like, your opinion man"
>north invades
>south defends itself
>150 years later everyone thinks 300000 people died so they could keep being evil racist slave owners

It's scary how easily history can be rewritten

Anyone here have bloodlines traceable to the confederates? Two of my distant great uncles fought for the CSA and I'm worried the small statue in my town bearing their names will be destroyed. I hate living in this time line.

>>137751540
>>137752154

Uh huh

it's like we wrote this but we don't agree

guys guys

I know it sucks, but the whole war was about slavery.

the fucking declarations of independence of every fucking state wrote about it.

get over it. it sucks but that's all it was. it was bunch of rich white slave owners buying up a bunch of politicians (yes guess who funded the war) and those politicians convincing a bunch of poor southerners to fight for the rich slave owners to keep their slaves

it's in writting

get over it once again

>>137748469
I always thought it was meant to preserve the union?

>>137752631
Thomas Dunbar, fought with the 14th Tennessee Infantry Regiment from 1861-65. Fought at Gettysburg and was captured there, was let go then finally captured again at Hatcher's Run.

>>137752750
Slavery was a symptom of the civil war, not its cause. Wake up, read a fucking history book. Hundreds of thousands of Americans didn't fight to keep the slaves or fight for their freedom. That's not how you motivate men to fight. But it is a way to morally justify a civil war and the hundreds of thousands dead.

>>137752750
Right. Just like the American revolution was about greedy business men who didn't want to pay taxes and convinced a bunch of poor whites to fight for them so they didn't have to pay taxes.

>>137750516
Slavery was legal in the Union

you probably won't believe this but the original americans had very strong moral compasses. uncle tom's cabin was and still is the historical best seller, in terms of copies sold per capita. it was bigger than the da vinci code, not that you little kids are even old enough to remember how big that was.

northern whites literally saw slavery as a moral evil that they were willing to stand up against. they also disliked drunkenness and catholics and a bunch of shit that really isn't too complicated but is far beyond you idiots understanding.
but you asked why people in the south cared.
the answer was they were mostly subservient little bootlicks, or more precisely sycophants. they knew slavery was wicked but they were willing to corrupt their souls for personal gain, in essence they were a lot like the people who post on this board, wretched little worms that know they are evil but don't care.

File: 1502885687992-pol.png (554KB, 3555x2198px) Image search: [Google]

554KB, 3555x2198px

>>137748469
It was about economics and how the South was exporting to England against Congressional approval creating a possible powerful southern economic center.

>>137752750
>but the whole war was about slavery
Except ol tyrant Abe didn't give too shits about it and would have let the south keep them if they "behaved".

>>137748469
I love how yankees fought so noble for their blackie friends when the war was useless, the slaves didn't even have jobs after the war they stayed working at their plantation farms, plus no one wanted to invest in the south leaving it in ruins. Thanks for nothing Abe.

>>137753055
>but but but it was symptom

Dude, in legal fucking documents they purposely preserved for history they wrote it was a primary reason. all the states.

>>137753268
they didn't want to pay taxes without representation but nice try there
>>137753421
and the south was scared lincoln was going to take their slaves
you guys are arguing with no points and are not even trying to counter the fact

because you can't.

the civil war was all about slavery. get over it

>>137748469
Fuck you faggot
>ROPE DAY

>>137752631
I have direct 3 and 4 great grandfathers who fought for the Union and Confederacy not to mention various uncles and cousins.

>>137748469
The average Southern white is a cuck to the rich. This is socioeconomic knowledge 101

>>137748469
Secession was about economics which slavery played a large part of.

The Civil War started because the Department of war ordered union soldiers to take Fort Sumter. They did and aimed its cannons at the city and refused to leave.

So the South Carolina Militia bombarded the fort 3 died on militia and 2 Union.

>>137752750
Those documents don't mean shit. The US Declaration of Independence acknowledged all the colonies as sovereign states. Under the US Constitution, that was no longer the case, and in the Constitution prior the 13th amendment slavery was protected property as affirmed in the Dred Scott case. The Confederate Constitution permitted states to abolish slavery without interfering with the property rights of those from other states (full faith and credit as also seen in the US Constitution but was not being adhere to) as well as banning the slave trade from everywhere except the US. There are more non-slavery differences between the Constitutions. The Confederates wanted to secede to form a nation based on what the US was intended to be in ways including but not limited to slavery.

>>137753930
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/southcarolina_declaration.asp

>But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government

>but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress.

>and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery

>a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.

>"Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

>that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

These are the mentions of slavery in the South Carolina declaration. Read. Your. Fucking. History.

The south had no other option to secede because no other option was offered to them by the federal government and the north.

>>137754427
So you're point is the United States declaration of independence doesn't mean shit......

Dude, you are reaching

>>137753930
They didn't want to pay taxes. They wanted representation so they could have someone advocating for them to pay less taxes. That's the revolution in a nutshell

>>137754573
>so the north became anti slavery and that's why we left


you just played yourself

>>137754718
umm no they wanted representation so they had a choice in where they taxes went seeing how the king of england kept getting in wars they didn't want a part in and made them pay
nice try again

>>137748469
because that 5% ran the states as they were the richest people there and because of gerrymandering of slave districts had even more political control than they should
>bbbbut wars aren't started to benefit the elites

>>137753930
Lincoln endorsed the Corwin Amendment. The North also proposed the Crittenden Compromise. They were bending the knee on the slavery issue but the South rejected all those proposals because they were all about slavery and not the other issues like unconstitutional federally funded internal improvements or tariffs designed to protect certain industries over agriculture. Read the Confederate Constitution, it's a carbon copy of the US one but more worded in a more explicit way as of the Southern interpretation of it.

>>137754588
It was a symbolic document meant to be propaganda against the Crown. It isn't a true legal document.

File: 1493064304642.jpg (48KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x600px

>>137752265
History is written by the winners not by facts

>>137755151
>umm no they wanted representation so they had a choice in where they taxes went seeing how the king of england kept getting in wars they didn't want a part in and made them pay
nice try again

Soo taxes. The gist of this is taxes. It was the crowns right to taxes his subjects.

>>137752631
>CSA
Cock
Sucking
Association

Look, I'm sourthern by birth. My whole family has been Virginian and Alabaman since they first came to this country. My dad was a historical expert on the Civil War and the Confederacy. The Civil War was IN MOST PART about Slavery. Yes, states rights was a factor, yes, breaking away from northern taxation was a factor... But the main factor was Slavery.

If you do not believe me on that. READ THE CONFEDERATE CONSTITUTION.

Read it. Read it on every possible place it is posted. Go to almost ANY civil war mueseum and you can read actual copies of it.

Article VI Section 2.1
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

Article VI Section 3.3
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.

"In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government:"


Any state that joined the Confederacy READ THIS CONSTITUTION, They looked at it, read it, AGREED with it. AND JOINED IT.

>>137755786
You shouldn't talk about your mother like that.

>>137751540
>The common man could care less
The common man thought of his home state as his home country, and pointed almost all his patriotism at that. They volunteered because they were at war, even though WHY they were at war had nothing to do with their way of life.

imo , the south didn't want to live with them. who would want slaves dumped into their communities and told you had to live with them. you are both equal now. deal with it. what a joke while we wait for your 400 year assimilation after slavery ends you rip our cities to shit and rob and steal every chance you get. whatever, mbn

>>137755864
There are more non-slavery differences from the US Constitution. Slavery wasn't big enough of a factor for the South to accept the blatantly pro-slavery proposals of the North like the Crittenden Compromise or Corwin Amendment. They only addressed slavery and none of the other issues so the South rejected them.

>>137752265
>north invades
>What is fort Sumter?

File: 1499900604819.png (689KB, 966x720px) Image search: [Google]

689KB, 966x720px

>>137756014

>>137756160
Part of south Carolina

File: 1468021521052.jpg (96KB, 960x768px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 960x768px

>>137748469
And when are we gonna get a single " thank you" for that civil war thang anyways?

>>137756160
The Confederates wanted to negotiate a peace treaty with the US and even raised money to buy federal property in their states. Lincoln refused to even bother. Lincoln promised the state of Virginia federal forts would be evacuated if they didn't secede but he broke his promise thus the attack on Ft. Sumter and Virginia and other states joining the Confederacy after the war broke out.

>>137750346
It was the right to keep using eco friendly farm equipment vs the norths pollution friendly industrialism. They were the first eco warrior hippies fighting for mother Earth

>>137755151
While the leaders of the movement may have at least claimed that they were only opposed to the lack of representation, most of their followers literally just didn't want to pay taxes, and that's why the continental congress couldn't levy taxes, and why the Whiskey Rebellions happened immediately after the first federal taxes were levied.

File: 1469635644490.jpg (77KB, 607x773px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 607x773px

>>137748469
More slavery facts.......

South America had 3x the slaves North America did.

Many white people were poor as dirt and couldn't and didn't want a jigger you couldn't even communicate with runnin around.

because if a family of 5 owns slaves only the head of household is counted as a slave owner

the south cited slavery in their various documents effecting secession

>>137748469
The war was against yankee forcing niggers on white folk, thanls to yankees our women are raped 40k+ a year with tons of nigger spawn and murders.

>>137749874
This is what the 4.9% of the population that owned slaves and controlled the vast majority of farmland and economy in the south convinced all the dum dums it was about.

No. It was about slaves.

File: confederates_flag_black_texed.jpg (138KB, 714x546px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 714x546px

>>137748469
?

>>137748469
because the north wanted to fight them

it was called "the war of northern aggression"

it was a war over whether or not the North (the liberals in cities with denser populations) would rule over the South.

One of the primary issues was whether the federal government or the States decided who was a citizen and who was not. The States lost the right to decide who was an American citizen in that war.

File: racist stupid false meme .jpg (33KB, 500x357px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x357px

>>137756939
Remember to thank a yankee wgen youbget murdered by a nigger thank q yankee for detroit ferguson abd all the niggers you see.

If I see anyone justifying negroids I would cave tgeir face in with my boot.

>south will rise again!!!!

>tttthanks for tearing down our racist statues mister black man

Hahahahahahah

>>137757397
Did you type this with your toes?

>>137752750
the whole war was about the federal government overthrowing the states you retard

>>137753055
>>137754573
how has noone mentioned this ID?

>>137753055
>ID

The economy dumbass. The structure of the south

File: superultranigger.jpg (100KB, 641x486px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 641x486px

>>137757141
it was big business that had all the slaves.

Just like today except now they are hidden on small islands stuffing cotton into walmart goods cause we got that picking part down already.

File: truth.png (56KB, 737x513px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 737x513px

Its funny, the South didn't even chimp out because slavery was being threatened in their states, it chimped out because they wanted an exactly equal number of slave and free states made out of the territories, like an autist.

it was literally always about slavery, and the funniest part is that they didn't consider them citizens, but got the US government to count them as mostly people just to pad out their political representation

File: 43245254234.jpg (48KB, 849x600px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 849x600px

>>137750094
>>137750516
>can't see the forest for the trees
>democrap flag fag talking about slavery
>/threading your own comment
aren't you adorable
North/federal government was violating the constitution by trying to force the South to give up their slaves, which they would have done anyway because buying a cotton gin is cheaper than housing and feeding a plantation full of niggers.

>>137748469
The narrative changes every few years. When I was in school they taught it was about a state's right to decide its economic path. When my youngest brother went to school is was "Slavery". Soon it'll be "To Holocaust the innocent black people!"

Newsflash: You know who controlled the slave trade? Niggers selling their own family members and raiding other tribes to capture them and sell them. The Arabs transported them on the Horn and white people on the west coast. But it was their own family and fellow tribes that allowed the slave trade to thrive as long as it did.

File: 1383648030968.jpg (47KB, 600x615px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x615px

>>137758681
>North/federal government was violating the constitution by trying to force the South to give up their slaves

that never happened

>>137758468
Slavery was only an issue in the civil war because of the Kansas Nebraska Act undoing the Missouri Compromise, it was a railroad shill bill but Stephen Douglas believed in states' rights so much he though they should all democratically decide instead of Washington so he included a provision to do such if they allowed the railroad to go through. Slavery was one of several other issues the modernizing North and traditionalist South quarreled over. The Dred Scott decision in 1857 affirmed the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional anyway and Lincoln denounced it in the 1860 election, he won without virtually any Southern support and the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress and were going to do all sorts of things the South didn't like. It was about the Constitution. It was worded in such a broad way that there came to be conflicting interpretations. The South was right about it. The North took control and were trampling all over the Constitution. The Confederate Constitution mirrors it but worded in a more explicit manner the way they already interpreted the US Constitution.

File: DHUKPi8W0AEvMDu.jpg (138KB, 1164x768px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1164x768px

>>137748469
Bingo, most didn't give a shit about negroes.
We fought because we thought they wanted our women, once we found out the yankees wanted our niggers we gave up.

>>137759329
The Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott decision that slaves were indeed property and the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional anyway. There's a fugitive slave clause, a 3/5ths clause, and a clause that extended the international slave trade until 1808. Many of the framers owned slaves. The South was right about the North violating the Constitution and because it was state sanctioned violation they decided to secede. The Confederate Constitution just used explicit wording of how they already interpreted the US Constitution to remove the ambiguity of the US one that gave rise to conflicting interpretations.

>>137756935
https://eh.net/encyclopedia/slavery-in-the-united-states/
Wrong. I manged to find the number of people who owned at least one salve in the south. The number is much smaller than the overall whit population in the South with 4.9% of southerners owning slave as of 1860.
Yes the Southern politicians did seceded with a primary season of wanting to keep slaves but the south overall didn't give a shit. It was only until Lincoln put soldiers on Fort Sumter that Southerners felt an obligation to fight, seeing this action as an act of invading their home.

>>137748469
The war of Northern agression wasn't entirely about slavery. Why the fuck would regular working class Southerners give a shit if rich crackers weren't allowed to own slaves?

>>137748469
If banning trans people from the military is about saving money, why does it cost more taxpayer dollars with them gone as opposed to leaving a non issue alone?

>>137753055
>Hundreds of thousands of Americans didn't fight to keep the slaves

I always thought that, but now I see this is just a jew spread propaganda!

You forgot to change your ID sweety.

>>137753592
You type like you have a severe schizophrenic or bipolar disorder. I genuinely felt a pang of worry come over me reading your post--as if it was written in some lunatic's manifesto.

Please don't reach into your backpack around people in any crowded area, because I guarantee you it will scare the fuck out of them. Go to counseling.

>>137760140
I know the South was right because James Madison, the father of the Constitution, vetoed the Bonus Bill of 1817 because he didn't believe federally funded internal improvements were constitutional. The Confederate Constitution explicitly forbids such except for dealing with waterways. It also forbids tariffs designed to protect certain industries and mandated congressional bills stay on one topic to prevent riders and earmarks and gave the President the power of line item veto and to only serve one six year term as well as the power to suspend habeas corpus unlike Lincoln. States could negotiate waterway treaties with each other and could impeach judges and federal officers in their states as well as emit their own bill of credit. They did have more states' rights overall despite losing a couple rights that US states have. They even made the amending process easier requiring only 3 states to propose amendments and only 2/3 of states to ratify it and didn't require congress to vote on it. They also just had an all around better federal system. Too bad they lost the war and US never adopted their non-slavery policies.

File: Ta-da.png (50KB, 184x148px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 184x148px

According to the 1860 US census, among the states which attempted to secede, 30.8% of families owned slaves:
http://www.civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm

The vast majority of soldiers owned slaves:
https://deadconfederates.com/2011/04/28/ninety-eight-percent-of-texas-confederate-soldiers-never-owned-a-slave/

According to the exhaustive study of the Army of Northern Virginia performed by historian Joseph Glatthaar, about 10% of the 1861 enlistees personally owned slaves (along with more than half of the officers), and very nearly half either owned slaves or lived in a slave-owning household:
https://www.amazon.com/General-Lees-Army-Victory-Collapse/dp/1416596976/

nd non-slaveholders had plenty of reason to fight to maintain these slave relationships: they had friends and neighbors who owned slaves; who ran businesses which rented slaves; they made their money by doing business with slaveowners; they aspired to own slaves; or they simply believed that slavery was morally right and liked having someone to feel superior to. So sure, less than one person in three owned slaves, but when you consider the Glatthar study and other factors e.g. the manpower required to enforce slavery on a domestic and national level e.g. Overseers, domestic help on plantations etc, then it's likely that more than half the CSA's free population benefitted from, or depended on slavery:
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/why-non-slaveholding-southerners-fought

Then there's the Crittenden Compromise, which consisted of proposing a series of amendments to the Constitution dealing solely with slavery:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crittenden_Compromise

It never occurred to anyone to prevent war by offering the South a non-slavery-related compromise.

Anyone who thinks the American Civil War wasn't about slavery, is either stupid or willfully ignorant.

>>137759696
>undoing the Missouri Compromise
the Missouri Compromise wasn't the perpetual law of the land, southerners just thought it established a precedent when it didn't.
>he won without virtually any southern support
yeah, because he wasn't even on the ballot in the states that seceded
>trampling the constitution
where in the constitution did it say there needed to be a perfect balance between slave and free states?
>their interpretation of the constitution
so you recognize that the republicans simply had a different interpretation, not that what they were doing was illegal?

>>137760140
the fugitive slave clause, 3/5ths clause, and the statues of slavery in the southern states weren't even on the chopping block, anon, the south was just worried that they wouldn't have exactly equal representation in the government when their population wasn't as big as the north, and most people moving to the territories didn't actually want them to be slave states (aka, both completely fair)

>>137761789
>wasn't about slavery
>Crittenden Compromise which the South rejected
>The vast majority of soldiers owned slaves
>link literally says 98% of Texas Confederates never owned slaves
>30% isn't a majority
>a whole bunch of guilty by association bullshit
I guess you're a Jihadist cause you buy oil from companies that do business with ISIS.

>>137759696
>The Confederate Constitution mirrors it but worded in a more explicit manner the way they already interpreted the US Constitution.

Among other things, it explicitly refers to Africans or Negros and Slavery, whereas the US Constitution exclusively uses the term "Person[s] held to Service or Labor".

Yes, the Confederacy was very up-front and clear about what they felt. What they felt was, "I don't want to pick my own cotton, and I don't want to have to actually PAY people to do it, and the only people who should be doing it are niggers."

>>137762271
>link literally says 98% of Texas Confederates never owned slaves.

I'll thank you to actually follow the link, where you'll find that the title of the post is ironic, in the actual sense of the word - "the use of words or phrases to convey a meaning other than their literal intention".

Here, I'll do some legwork for you, the first two paragraphs of the page:

>It would be a shame to let April slip by without a mention of Texas State Senate Resolution No. 526, which designates this month as Texas Confederate History and Heritage Month. The resolution uses a lot of boilerplate language (including an obligatory mention of “politically correct revisionists”), and also makes the assertion that “ninety-eight percent of Texas Confederate soldiers never owned a slave.” This is a common argument among Confederate apologists, part of a larger effort to minimize or eliminate the institution of slavery as a factor in secession and the coming of the war, and thus make it possible to maintain the notion that Southern soldiers, like the Confederacy itself, were driven by the purest and noblest values to defend home and hearth. Slavery played no role it the coming of the war, they say; how could it, when less than two percent (four percent, five percent) actually owned slaves? In fact, they’d say, their ancestors had nothing at all to do with slavery.

>But it’s wrong.

>It’s true that in an extremely narrow sense, only a very small proportion of Confederate soldiers owned slaves in their own right. That, of course, is to be expected; soldiering is a young man’s game, and most young men, then and now, have little in the way of personal wealth. As a crude analogy, how many PFCs and corporals in Iraq and Afghanistan today own their own homes? Not many.

>>137761789
>ninety-eight-percent-of-texas-confederate-soldiers-never-owned-a-slave/
nigger what

>>137762271
>Crittenden Compromise which the South rejected

The point is this last-minute desperate grasp to prevent secession and war dealt entirely with slaves. It never occurred to anyone, North or South, to attempt to make a compromise based on anything OTHER than slavery.

So either everyone, North and South, was monumentally stupid (in that they "knew" that the war was about something other than slavery but chose not to attempt anything other than a slavery-based compromise); or else everyone, North and South, understood that the war was fundamentally about slavery, and that the only compromise which would work was one centered on slavery.

>30% isn't a majority

It's enough to form a solid and influential block. Look at what Trump accomplished with a "base" of just 24% of the electorate.

>>137762981
Maybe if you actually follow the damn link...

>>137748469
The emancipation proclamation was always one of Lincolns key driving points

it was however not the cause of the war, he just used the victory as leverage to put it into action

people on both sides where against the emancipation proclamation, just as people on both sides where fore it

the war was in simple, basic terms fought because of

BIG SHOCKER HERE SO WATCH OUT """"MONEY"""""

>>137762008
The Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because federal bans on slavery were unconstitutional, part of the compromise was no slavery above the 36 parallel except Missouri. When that was done away already with via the Kansas Nebraska Act people from both sides flooded into Bleeding Kansas, the decision just affirmed slavery was solely a state issue. That didn't lead directly to civil war, the 1860 elections did when anal Yankees ran a campaign based on bitching about the Dred Scott case and wanting to undermine the system in their favor since the Taney court kept ruling against them. The issue of free and slave states was only concerned insofar as the way the North wanted to go about overhauling things.
>the fugitive slave clause, 3/5ths clause, and the statues of slavery in the southern states weren't even on the chopping block
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prigg_v._Pennsylvania
The Confederate Constitution also explicitly protects the rights of sojourning slaveholders among many other things not about slavery. They even banned the slave trade from everywhere except the US and permitted states to decide on slavery otherwise.

>>137763369
Money derived from what, sir?

Jews owned the slaves, jew masons were southern generals. the whole thing was arranged to murder goyim.

>>137763457
You're citing a court case from 1842, the ramifications of which were dealt with already in the Compromise of 1850, ten years before the Civil War.

>>137748469
If the Civil War was about slavery, why didn't Lincoln end slavery in union slave states?

Because someone is using history to push a false narrative.

>>137762387
There are also numerous other non-slavery differences.
Slavery was a cause, not the cause.
>>137762663
It's a bunch of guilty by association bullshit. The title isn't ironic.
>>137763234
Ummm...no, the South rejected it because it only dealt with slavery and none of the other issues. And the Crittenden Compromise was not last minute, it was put forth prior to any states actually declaring secession and was soundly rejected, it was slightly modified and put forth again at the Washington Peace Conference and rejected again. A part of it became the Corwin Amendment which was endorsed by Lincoln, passed both houses of congress without the presence of southerners, and ratified only by a few union non-slave states by the outbreak of the war.

Because it was about getting the blacks the right to vote so republicans would usurp power over the union.

>>137763823
>If the Civil War was about slavery, why didn't Lincoln end slavery in union slave states?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

>"While under the Constitution, the President plays no formal role in the amendment process, the joint resolution was sent to Lincoln for his signature. Under the usual signatures of the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, President Lincoln wrote the word "Approved" and added his signature to the joint resolution on February 1, 1865."

He also made his support for the Amendment generally known.

Saying "The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave" also handily ignores that it

a) freed any slaves in Southern territory currently controlled by the North; and

b) would go on to free any slaves in Southern territory that the North gained control of.

>>137763470
well you got me there

but the south was quite stubborn on sharing all that money

listen im not saying slavery did not play a part in it, its just money played a bigger part
take away the slaves from the situation replace them with cheap labour and things would probably have played out the same way
the south would have been rich even if they hade to pay their labour (if i recall correctly the majority of labour was actually paid for)

>>137763814
It wasn't dealt with, the personal liberty laws were constitution as states don't have to enforce federal laws but can't interfere with those from other states or federal authorities themselves. The Compromise of 1850 included a new federal fugitive slave law that was tougher than the 1793 act but compelled states to enforce it as the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution.
>No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.

File: IMG_9203.png (802KB, 749x499px) Image search: [Google]

802KB, 749x499px

>>137752631
all i know is my moms side all live in kentucky and lived there since coming here from northern england in the 1760s. they owned niggers. a lot of them actually took their name after they were freed so there's a bunch of niggers with my maternal grandpas name niggering around in kentucky. it's very likely that i have great great grandparents that fought for the confederates but i don't know for sure

>>137764838
To clarify how it wasn't dealt with states continued to defy the law and the Constitution.

The common American doesn't give a fuck about the Middle East but look at all the wars we fight there.

>>137748469
Marxism vs Liberty

File: O VEY.jpg (134KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 900x675px

>>137757141
If that's true, why was Lincoln willing to keep slavery to avoid war? Why did the war continue?

>>137757141
citation needed

>>137764351
By 1860, the Republicans already controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

Stop being stupid.

>>137764179
>it was put forth prior to any states actually declaring secession

Technically South Carolina's General Assembly had already resolved to secede back in November and simply had not yet gone through the official motions of a formal declaration, and other States were by that point making their intentions plain, but sure, let's pretend that the fact that the Union was about to break wasn't known.

It was also put forth (18 December) just 2 days before South Carolina actually did formally leave the Union (20 December), and less than a month before Mississippi, Florida, and Alabama (January 9-11, 1861).

> the South rejected it because it only dealt with slavery and none of the other issues.

Again, the question becomes why the North thought ONLY resolutions regarding slavery would salve the South. You're presuming an awful lot of stupidity on the part of the Union.

>>137765379
This
The government with the influential slaveholders were concerned about slavery. The common men had many other beefs with the US. The Confederacy was basically a pure populist movement, all the issues are thoroughly dealt with in the Confederate Constitution. It goes beyond slavery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution

File: Asylat.jpg (189KB, 1243x664px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1243x664px

>>137748469
you should have a strong focus on freemasons , they have to leave your country ( or a Plan B solution ) - find information about lodges and post them here every day at 23°° CET . do not forgive - do not forget - the mason is THE ENEMY

>>137748469
Because slavery is amoral and DISGUSTING

>>137749962
Why do you caer why he cares?

>>137749874
Wrong. It was a war to keep blacks down. The North wanted to free the blacks from feudalist tyranny

>>137751540
Yeah and the common man didn't want the war

>>137765590
What the North though is irrelevant, the South wasn't seceding just over slavery.
No secession, no war.
No constant violations of the Constitution by the North, no secession.
It's not rocket science.

>>137752265
That's exactly what you just said. North invaded because slaver

File: 1387996465119.gif (1MB, 416x308px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 416x308px

>>137763457
>The Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because federal bans on slavery were unconstitutional
If the south didn't want it, they shouldn't have agreed to it. On top of that, the Louisiana Purchase in general was unconstitutional, so its not like anyone was actually following an established precedent in the settlement of the west, they were trying to MAKE precedent. This is seen in the aftermath of the Kansas Nebraska Act. As soon as the south saw they were about to have a bit less power than they thought they would, they chimped out.
>yankees bitching about Dred Scott
and they should, since apparently the south gets to impose their laws on the north without their consent. When there was even a whiff of things changing the other way (without it actually having happened, of course) the south chimped out.

>>137765590
I hate to play devil's advocate but that was self caused by the south too because the Democrat vote was split between two candidates which gave Lincoln the victory. Same way Woodrow Wilson won years later.

>>137765871
No they didn't. The vast majority remained in the South after the war cause Northerners didn't want them. They freed the slaves as to enfranchise them to be pawns. That didn't last too long cause of the 1876 election being inconclusive hence the compromise of 1877 that ended Reconstruction and allowed the South to instill Jim Crow with no Northern intervention.
The 14th and 15th amendments aren't even legitimate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957_Georgia_Memorial_to_Congress

>>137748469
Plantation owners were already getting rid of slaves slowly. What happened was the federal government declared them all to be criminals, began a scorched earth policy and forced them into war to protect what little infrastructure they had and their families.

>>137765581
SEE >>137761789

>>137764838
You were originally responding to someone who said that "the fugitive slave clause, 3/5ths clause, and the statues of slavery in the southern states weren't even on the chopping block" and responded with Prigg v. Pennsylvania.

You handily ignored that Prigg v. Pennsylvania was;

a) 18 years before the Civil War;
b) found in favor of a pro-slavery stance (i.e., the Pennsylvania state law that prohibited Pennsylvanian blacks from being taken from Pennsylvania and sold into slavery, was deemed unconstitutional).

My point is that, if you're trying to use it as an example of the various Constitutional sections and clauses dealing with slavery "being on the chopping block", it's a bad example.

>>137766056
Yes. The north went to war over slavery and the south went to war to defend itself. Pretty cut and dry

>>137766081
The South didn't want the compromise abolished. The issue only arose after the passing of the Kansas Nebraska Act doing away with it. It was unclear if the area above the 36 parallel were applied to with the slavery provision of the act.
>impose their laws on the north without their consent
See: fugitive slave clause of the Constitution

File: 1496152033479.jpg (33KB, 720x701px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 720x701px

>>137756710
Underrated.

>>137748469
If the civil war was about doing away with slavery then why did the south strike first?

>>137766318
It lead to the fugitive slave act of 1850 which actually worsened the Northern offending of the Constitution. It's not far fetched you dumb redditors.

>>137766473
See: >>137756659

>>137757141
Why did lincoln let the union slave states keep their slaves post war?

>>137748469
Can anyone give me some red-pills? Particularly on what the Union did to essentially break the constitution and force the Confederacy into war (don't know if that is accurate at all, I haven't really read anything on the Civil War).

>>137765882
>the South wasn't seceding just over slavery.

They were extremely obtuse and vague about their other reasons, and all of their other reasons that I can think of ultimately come back to slavery anyway.

The singular exception that I'm aware of is Texas' declaration of secession stating displeasure in the Federal government's attempts to help Texas deal with Comanche raiders, and even that was a secondary, basically tacked-on reason.

If you can think of anything else actually cited in any of the declarations of secession that don't relate to slavery, by all means, be my guest and point them out.

>>137766084
>because the Democrat vote was split between two candidates which gave Lincoln the victory.

Actually, no. Abraham Lincoln got 180 out of 303 electoral votes, or in other words even if it was just two candidates (say, Lincoln v. Breckinridge), Lincoln still would have won 180 to 123, or 59.4% of the electoral vote.

Oh, and that's leaving aside that in a two-party race, it'd pretty likely that a lot of the 39 votes that went to John Bell (running in the Constitutional Union party, which was anti-secession) might have gone to Lincoln instead, as well as some of Stephen A Douglas' 12 Northern Democrat votes.

It's also rather telling that

>>137748469
What people fail to see that was never a racial thing. Sure, the union wanted to end slavery and free the slaves, but it wasn't because of their skin color. just like it never really was about skin color

>>137766611
Then use the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 as your example, not Pennsylvania v. Prigg. I'm not a redditor, but even if I was, that doesn't change that your example was a bad, nonsensical example.

>>137767511
>What people fail to see that was never a racial thing.

The South disagrees, given that the Confederate Constitution was explicit in naming African or Negro slaves, whereas the US Constitution consistently instead uses the phrase "Person(s) held to Service or Labor".

>>137767359
>It's also rather telling that

Meant to delete this line, mea culpa.

>>137766473
Hahahaha wew you fags really don't know history do you haha

>>137767254
Money, central banking, forcing north's debts on south, death of the republic, tyranny of the Lincoln.

The interesting thing I dont think there are any memorials in the US to the confederacy. I believe all memorials are to confederate soldiers.
The better question to ask is why did the confederate soldiers fight. I think the meaning can be found in why Gen. Lee fought.

At which point the question must be asked regardless of why the war was fought do these men who fought and died for their homes deserve to be demonised. Regardless of the political reasons behind it?

>>137756659
>The Confederates wanted to negotiate a peace treaty with the US and even raised money to buy federal property in their states.

I can't find anything to support this. The most that I can find is Alexander Stephens (The CSA Vice-President, he of the "Cornerstone Speech" fame) readily accepting that the South fired first at a "hostile fleet", that "hostile fleet" being the civilian and I believe (but could be mis-remembering) unarmed relief ship under Federal contract to bring Federal supplies and Federal relief troops to a Federal fort with the intent of supplying and relieving Federal troops.

>>137767254
Slavery was a big part of the 18th century economy. During the 19th century the northern states industrialized and could afford to do away with slavery, which caused a massive surge in virtue signalling abolitionists like John brown who went around renouncing slavery. The South hadn't yet industrialized and wasn't ready to get rid of slaves.

The north then tried to force the issue, which then caused the south to say "you know, fuck this. The federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to tell the states what to do with slaves, those powers are reserved to the States themselves (10th amendment)". The South also correctly pointed out that nothing in the constitution made the union between the states binding and perpetual. So they seceeded from the United States and retook ft Sumter which was now a us military base on foreign soil. The north then invaded which triggered the rest of the states on the fence about secession to join the fight to defend themselves.

To the south, the federal government was overstepping it's authority and in their eyes they were rejecting that authority much like their grandfather's rejected the unwanted authority of great Britain.

>>137768561
>do these men who fought and died for their homes deserve to be demonised.

They could have just as easily fought and died for their homes by trying to end the rebellion against the Union that was being conducted by Southern slaveocrats, as indeed a large number of them did.

So, while I don't think they should necessarily be demonized, they certainly shouldn't be immortalized, in statue or any other form.

>>137768597
>During the 19th century the northern states industrialized and could afford to do away with slavery

It helped, perhaps, that they never had that many slaves to begin with.

>The South hadn't yet industrialized and wasn't ready to get rid of slaves.

The South was in fact actively pushing against industrialization.

>The north then tried to force the issue

...by holding a legal US Presidential election on schedule and running a candidate who swore up and down that he had no intention of ending slavery?

> The South also correctly pointed out that nothing in the constitution made the union between the states binding and perpetual

Evidently there was some disagreement on that matter RE: The preamble, which explicitly states that it is trying to form "a more perfect union", that more perfect union being better than the one that existed on the Articles of the Confederation, which WAS explicitly perpetual. A perpetual union cannot be made "more perfect" by its dissolution.

This was the actual legal argument of Lincoln and others at the time, by the way, as well as the general stance of the North. The issue was murky throughout the War and wasn't resolved until 1867's Texas v. White Supreme Court case, wherein the conclusion was reached that UNILATERAL secession is indeed illegal (due to the reasoning outlined above). However secession via working with Congress is theoretically perfectly legal.

>and seized ft Sumter, a US military base in an area under occupation by Secessionist rebels

Fixed it for you.

>The north then invaded which triggered the rest of the states on the fence about secession

But interestingly only the parts of them that actually had slaves - RE: West Virginia.

>the federal government was overstepping it's authority

...by winning a legal election?

>>137751540
>That's what the politicians said who owned slaves. The common man could care less

This is such a shit line of reasoning. Do you think all of the American soldiers fighting and dying for the US are doing it because they agree with the war effort? Or even fully understand it?

Your framing of this is ridiculous. The official reason they declared secession and started a war was so they could continue to have slaves. That not every confederate soldier was a slave owner is irrelevant, as they were fighting on the side of a war where the declared purpose of it was to retain slavery rights.

>>137768988
Then what of the little big horn monument and any other monument to American soldiers though worked hard on displacing the native American indians. Or the American soldiers who died occupying the Philippines. All unjust battles, yet they did what their homeland asked of them. It is a bit rich to criticize monuments to confederate soldiers and remove their monuments and not do the same for US troops who fought in unjust/unpopular wars. Best start tearing down the Vietnam war memorial.

>>137748469

Because 90% of its economy was cotton. And slaves picked, ported and sorted cotten all day and night. The remaining 10% was also agriculture...

So basically the economy of the South, an agro economy, was fueled by free labor.