American Civil War

>>138005386
You don't even need to look at the civil war itself. Just the outcome: 14, 15, and 16th amendments. It was absolutely about slavery.

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

>>138005386
>Northern states are starting to undergo industrialization and fill their factories with newly arriving immigrants, some Northern states still have slavery
>Southern states are still very agricultural and a big part of that economy is sustained through use of slave labor
>The issue of slavery has always been touchy but accepted as necessary, at least until things change
>Compromise that for every two new states admitted to the Union, one will prohibit slavery and one will allow it
>Lincoln gives his "house divided" speech that says the US is eventually going to have to decide if it allows slaves or not, the half and half thing won't last forever
>It fires up Abolitionists who primarily live in the North
>Election of 1860
>Newspapers convince Southerners that Lincoln is an Abolitionist
>If this is true then Lincoln's election could mean the South losing it slaves and destroying its economy, the North in comparison would barely be effected
>Lincoln is elected
>South fears the worst, that their affairs will be determined by people not familiar with their situation, and says "Not my President"
>Secession
>Confederacy formed
>Eventually US Fort Sumter is fired upon by Confederates who see it as a foreign military in their land
>Civil War starts

>>138005386
It was pretty much over slavery. That was the reason for secession. If you want to go deeper into it, the southern elite who owned the slaves needed/wanted new slaves states to be admitted. That would increase the demand for slaves, which would have increased the value of their stock. With Lincoln's election, there was a fear that no new slave states would be admitted, so they took the second best option, secession. This may or may not have been legal, but they fired on a Federal fort, which was sufficient casus belli to go to war.

The Civil War was not over states' rights, which was a post hoc justification. Before the war, there was a Federal law called the Fugitive Slave Act that required free states to return escaped slaves. The free states were lax in carrying this out. The southern states wanted more Federal oversight, to force the free states to obey the Fugitive Slave Act. They were federalists, not states' rights advocates. After secession, they wrote an analog of the Fugitive Slave Act into their constitution. Their constitution also required that any territory they acquired would also have slavery; they would not admit a free state. Other than that, their constitution was basically a copy of the USA constitution.

>>138006299
That fort is the key to the start of the war.

Imagine a military building in the south owned by the US that suddenly the confederates take over. No compensation. Just it is ours now.

I could see this scenario happen again. Texas has a lot of US government property.

>>138006720
No, Sumter was then in Confederate lands but manned by Union troops. They were given several days(this was before hostilities) to evacuate and withdraw freely, but they chose not to.

Eventually the south went all "GET OFF MY LAWN" and the war started.

>>138005386
>I can someone give me the non-Google approved™ TL;DR of the civil war?

Most of the popular support for the war in the North was based on keeping the Union together. Most of the popular support in the South was about states' rights. Most people in the South didn't have slaves and it wasn't important to them.

>>138006582
Unfortunately the South didn't have much a choice but to try to cling to slavery. Those slaves were incredibly valuable too since (legally) no more could be brought over from Africa since 1807, so the only slaves were coming in through being born and sold in the US.
The South's economy needed a lot of workers and slavery was how it had been done so that's how they kept it. Most immigrants stayed north in the cities.
They also didn't have the luxury of the British Empire where slavery could be abolished because there were colonies you could have grow your cotton, tobacco, etc.
The whole thing is certainly disgusting and would have no place in today's world, but then was not today. Though some people insist on judging people from then by today's standards.

File: Civil War Dead Antietam.jpg (239KB, 464x398px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 464x398px

>>138005386
Slavery was the reason but the question wasn't "Can slavery continue or not" but rather "Does the government have the right to abolish it?"

States Rights vs Federal Power was an issue and focus was on Slavery

Sadly, this meant that when the South lost the Fed reigned supreme over the states thereafter


For any war to determine the motivation just look at where the money is. Fact is, slave owners didn't want to use their slaves. They said state sovereignty guaranteed that the Federal government had no authority to take those slaves away. So when it looked like this was inevitable they decided to leave the Union and make a new one.

Northerners did NOT go to war to end slavery but to preserve the Union. Slavery was only ended later, and not in the North at first, for STRATEGIC reasons

>>138006958
>>138006720
The Confederates offered to buy the fort from the Union

They fired on it when Lincoln sent down a ship to evacuate, or the the South thought, reinforce the Fort

>>138005386
the current left vs right bullshit is trying to balkanize america, just as the civil war tried to. lincoln stopped teh balkanization. andrew jackson shut down the illegal bank which is why he was demonized just a few short years ago as a racist.

no, there's no proof or correlation or links. you just have to see the cycle of civilization.

>>138006299

So Lincoln was a victim of fake news like Trump is?

>>138008141
In a way, yes. Some Southern States didn't even put him on the ballot and Lincoln didn't win a single state in that region but still won the White House.
Lincoln only became an Abolitionist as the war progressed and even then he didn't try to outlaw slavery nationally until after the war with the 13th Amendment. The Emancipation Proclamation applied only to the rebelling states. During the Civil War, there will still four US states allowed to keep their slaves.

File: USA USA revolution.png (128KB, 1264x640px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1264x640px

>>138005386

the civil war was entirely about states rights, that is the right of states to determine if you could own people. anyone who says "the civil war was more about states rights than slavery" isn't wrong, they're just willfully ignorant.

>>138009039
fuck off, if rich, slave owning aristocrats can fight for self governance in 1776 then they can in 1861 too

>>138005386
it wasn't about slavery until half way through the war when the north needed to justify why they were throwing so many bodies into a meat grinder. there were several slave states in the north that were exempt from the emancipation proclamation. lincoln even returned slaves to the south after a confederate officer removed all the slaves from his local district. the man was a tyrant. also, look up why every prosecutor assigned to the jefferson davis case quit, because they said it was an open and shut case for him to win, which would mean that the entire war was unlawful tyranny. that's why they pardoned everyone in the south. because they fucked up and realized they needed a way out.

>>138005386
Technically about a single state's right (the right to succession)
South asserted that they had a right to succeed, which they exercised in anticipation of anti-slavery laws
North asserted that they did not have a right to succeed, and used force to support their assertion

>>138005386
also, it was about money, like everything else. a disproportionate amount of the tax dollars were being spent in the north and the south feared taxes that would hurt them. they opened a duty free port in the south and the north couldn't allow that because it would hurt their economy too much.

File: slavery, BLM, crime statistics race blacks whites leftists communists.jpg (43KB, 480x726px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 480x726px

>>138006299
>could mean the South losing it slaves and destroying its economy
Slavery was destroying the South's economy. It only benefited the industry of elites making more profit. The very few % who owned slaves. It seriously hurt and depressed wages of everyone else in the region. It's the same effect a flood of outside cheap/free labor would do to any region. People are so fucking retarded for not understanding this but it's no wonder given the ludicrous BLM communist narrative promoted that "slaves built the country".

>>138005386
Everybody was a racist in those days. Keeping that in mind, why would over 600,000 Americans risk their lives for niggers in the first place?
Both sides had Irish Catholic regiments that were enlisted as soon as they got to America. What were they fighting for?

After Lincoln passed the Morrill Tariff, it went down hill from there. The confederates were the patriots. They had every right to secede as stated in the constitution.

>>138006958
>They were given several days

They were given months, also no one fucking died. The Norths plan was to always invade the South and force the southern states to rejoin the Union. This idea that the South "started" anything his hilarious.

>>138007708
This.

Also another question was whether or not new admitted states and terretories should have slavery or not.

Niggers want everything to be about them.
There is even a BLACK biker rally in South Carolina every year, and they all ride foreign bikes. lmfao. They love being around white people, and stealing their culture.

Pretty sure the whole issue of taking away slaves only came about AFTER the succession. There were a handful of border states within the Union that allowed slavery because they were in it. Lincoln didn't want the South to have slaves if they weren't going to play ball with the North.

>>138010786
>Both sides had Irish Catholic regiments that were enlisted as soon as they got to America.

The North famously exploited its immigrants during the war. The 11 Corps was famous for being filled with German immigrants and got constantly shat on by northern newspapers for being an "ineffective" fighting force. Disregarding the fact many of its officers were professional soldiers from Prussia.

>>138005386
cause stupid marks wanted to fight for the rights of plantation owners. that's why nick saban is still paid in cotton and chickens. fucking faggot.

>>138011159
''WHILE THE NORTH INVADES THE SOUTH, THE IRISH INVADE NEW YORK''

>>138005386
A big reason was the attack made by John Brown and his sons, in which he killed several southern whites and attempted to start a massive slave rebellion. It terrified the south and made them fear Union terrorism, contributing to the "Union just wants to subjugate the south" narrative

>causes of the secession
>one post barely mentions tariffs

No one's mentioned the 1862 elections. Lincoln was trailing heavily, and some Northern states he bagged up in his first election swung for the other guy. When Lincoln won, a lot of people suspected fraud, and this invigorated the Southern armies. People always talk about the men who were on the fence or reluctant about joining because slavery didn't affect them: this election is what drove those men to join and fight and die for the South. Slavery was a factor, yes, but it was not THE driving factor and practically fell to the wayside after 1862.

>>138005386
basically it was United States vs. terrorists

File: 1502318759367.png (32KB, 630x620px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 630x620px

one keyword that newfaggots havent said: FEDERALISM

look it up, thats everything you need to know

Nobody who fought in the confederate army or the union army cared about slaves. At least they weren't fighting for or against slavery.

>>138009854
It would've been pretty funny to have this be the first war in history whose outcome was reversed by a judge.

It was generally about states rights but primary right the south was concerned with was the right to own slaves

>>138010403
Which is why Reconstruction not only helped mend the divided country, but also fixed the South. their reliance on one crop and one source of labor was going to drag them down.
After the war, their cities were rebuilt to be more industrial, a sharecropping system replaced slavery (No longer did only one wealthy class have a stake in the land), and Westward expansion created new opportunities.
By getting the bad blood and fighting out of the way, both sides were able to accept the outcome and focus on a better shared future.

A liberals opinion on the subject=racism, racism, racism, racism, slavery, slavery, slavery, states rights to own slaves, states rights to own slaves, states rights to own slaves, slavery, racism.

>>138005386
Here's the real deal tl;dr:
Slavery was just the straw that broke the camel's back. The South and North were two very different places going back to even before the REVOLUTIONARY War. Much of this had to do with how the South was primarily peopled by the British while a whole bunch of different peoples ended up in the north. Fast forward to the mid 19th century expansion and slavery becomes an issue with how new states are let into the union because as an institution it was actually coming to an end (the South's biggest trading partner: the UK was damn near refusing to do any business with them if they didn't get rid of slavery). A lot of the sentiment in the South (by that I mean the ones with money whose opinions on such actually mattered) was to keep it going for as long as possible, but here's the big thing: they didn't want someone in some other state being able to tell them what they could or couldn't do. This is what drew the common man into the fight. The common man really didn't give two shits about slavery in either direction. His life was shitty with or without the blacks being freed, but, he wasn't about to get told what to do by someone in New York City, Boston, or wherever.

It was about state's rights and self determination, but the specific issue that brought it to a head was slavery.

>>138007929
Sounds like someone gave them false information deliberately.

>>138006299
You should also mention that, by the time of the Civil War, most states had already abolished slavery, and a few that still had slavery were part of the Union. Slavery was already on its way out.

>At the start of the Civil War, there were 34 states in the United States, 15 of which were slave states. Eleven of these slave states issued various emergency declarations of secession from the United States to form the Confederacy and were represented in the Confederate Congress.[14][15] The slave states that stayed in the Union, Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky (called, border states) were seated in the U.S. Congress.

Stole this, but it's worth stealing:

The whole thing was more or less perpetuated by Northern industrialists in competition with Southern plantation owners and how even though the English route to abolishing slavery was open multiple times (as automation was picking up), it was in the industrialists favor to go to war. It was more of a conflict between southern plantation capitalists, who were beginning to feel the pressure from the emerging northern factory model and whos entire economy depended on slaves, and the nothern factory capitalists who needed both control of the cotton prices in the south as well as the removal of influential plantation owners with weapon and ship constructers also benefiting greatly. Slavery only really came to the limelight as both a way to cripple and agitate the south as their money was more or less in the slaves (pre-war) and as moral justification to rally support (during the war). Its a lot easier to say to abolishionists and non-slave state citizens "We are fighting to unite the union and liberate slaves" instead of "We are fighting for industrialists economic interests and to build factories during reconstruction". Again not defending the CSA, its good that they're gone and they're removal was vitally necessary to get where we are now, but I always feel the focus on slavery distracts from the actual economic reasons it was done.

>>138012704
While events like bleeding Kansas were definitely the powder keg that eventually caused the whole thing to go off and the attitudes of the pro-slavery groups were both reactionary and ideological, we have to look at the economic self-interests of the capitalists of the time and the strict material conditions of the states involved. There was a lot of economic meddling ocurring in a lot of states and nothern industrialist were securing monopolies across the US (monopolies which would carry far post war) with very wealthy southern landowners funding pro-slavery groups like the ones in Kansas as a way to expand market and to counter northern factory construction. I suppose though that my last statement was phrased poorly, I was mostly trying to say the war wasn't really fought for moral reasons or to free slaves but that slaves just happend to be part of the economic framwork caught in the middle and was never really the true motivation of what was a capitalist war between old industry and new industry.
Interesting link regarding the statements of the seceeding states, pretty reactionary but interesting non the least https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states#slavery_expansion

>>138005386
slavery is the clench pin but not the root cause.

the north had dominating political power. because it held this power and the mid west "allied" with it, the south felt that they were going to forceably make changes to the constitution. because of this the north felt moral superiority and the south wanted to manifest their own destiny. southern elite who knew how the public felt used this for the years leading up to the war. before the election ended the south seceded because it saw the election of 1860 as a farce. despite the mid west attempting "neutrality" the popular opinion was that Lincoln was an abolitionist and would suddenly up-heave the southern status quo. (this is partially accurate)

their accusations were:
>states had self determinate right to govern outside the constitution and make legal or illegal what ever it wanted.
>Lincoln was going to force southern states to free their slaves against their will (see above).
>federal government was getting too powerful and forceful

then fort Sumter happened

>s. Carolina declared federal "rent" void and attempted to cease the fort.
>the commanding officer retreated into the island force and took to fortifications (did not fire)
>a ship was spotted, a message from Washington said it carried food and medical supplies.
>the ship carried troops and ammunition
>coastal guns fired at the ship, it retreated.
>local general of the recently formed confederate states (still considered by s. Carolina to be its army) open fired after he believed the ship was the casus belli he was looking for and opened fire.
>Lincoln spun this to make it look like the southerners attacked first and were not peaceful.
>norther records now permanently state the south started the war and southern records state the north started the war.
>most armies are akin to national guard today. and don't venture far outside their states range. most southern armies are a state army with detachments from other states....

>>138008654
It should be noted, as it is very important, that the reason the Emancipation Proclamation was STRATEGIC was that by shifting the narrative of the war from "preserve the Union" to "end slavery" Lincoln ensured that no other countries, such as Britain, could enter the war on the Confederacy's behalf. The British had criticized Lincoln for his tactics and called him on the contradictions in his statements.

He stated that the Confederacy did not really exist and yet he blockaded all the Southern States and starved them for supplies... which meant he was really blockading his own people. This was good press for the Confederacy.

After Gettysburg the Confederacy had no chance for an offensive war (which itself was a desperate measure intended to score a POLITICAL victory in the NORTH), but the truth is the British could have still intervened then and turned the tide and forced an armistice.

Freeing the slaves though made this political suicide for Britain however and ensured the Confederacy was isolated and LIKELY doomed.

File: radical-republicans-of-reconstruction.jpg (106KB, 1200x628px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1200x628px

>>138005386

>>138005386
https://youtu.be/qLBjPjexNaU?t=4

>>138005386
tl;dr?

States Rights = Owning Slaves

/thread

P.S. The south brought the niggers here in the first place. They're responsible for the racial mess.

>>138011597
Lincoln later suspended free speech and started tossing people in jail for opposing him. A few states he kept in the Union only because he got federal troops there before they could form state militias

In 1860, Lincoln campaigned on a republican platform that disallowed slavery spreading into the west. Language about slavery formed 10/17 of the planks in the platform.

A month after Lincoln was elected, South Carolina seceded. In the ordinance of secession, they said the primary reason was "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery".

So...

>>138006240
So half of america was ready to kill for getting rid of slavery?
wtf I love you murricans now!
Just purge the remeaining nazis and we are good to go!

>>138014140

...unless the jews literally changed timelines for us, and the 1860 republican platform and the south carolina ordinance of secession are forgeries, the war was over slavery.

>>138006240
It was about slavery.
It was also about eminent domain, the precursor to posse comitatus, water rights, waterways and other transportation, federal taxes, use of taxes collected in one state to fund the infrastructure development of another state for the benefit of giving an advantage in competition to that states' industries over the first.

ft sumpter was a false flag
wake up sheepl

>>138013308
truth.

this also caused several slave rebellions and Lincoln would incorporate them into his armies so he could swell his numbers and reduce casualties and cost of paying troops.

Lincoln however segregated his army, as northern armies were almost as racist as southern armies. while treatment was marginally better, the white troops became riotous if they had to spend too much time near a black regiment.

southern armies just killed nigger union solders on site, and only allowed loyal menservants into the actual military as aids. most blacks were expected to aid the war industry.

>>138005386
If you want to know what it was really about, look at the differences between the USA Constitution and the CSA Constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution#Changes_from_U.S._Constitution

>>138014224
... getting rid of slavery by force.

>>138014224
Is this really all the left can do? Condense very complex socioeconomic and ethical scenarios into some one-dimensional moral struggle?

Do you still read comic books or something?

>>138014224
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus
>Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War and Reconstruction for some places or types of cases.[38][39] During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt suspended habeas corpus. Following the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush attempted to place Guantanamo Bay detainees outside of the jurisdiction of habeas corpus
When Americans need gold and blood, then they just suspend laws.

>>138007708
This is a good answer
Slavery was a hotbutton issue but you don't convince half a million Americans to kill each other over the practice. Especially when less than 10% of your population even owns one.

The south had gone on feeling like the north was imposing unilateral will upon it, and eventually confidence in the United government collapsed. South did not feel like the north had any right to enforce its, perceived in just laws so they decided to make their own country with their own laws

>>138014806
WTF I love slave owners now.

>>138014799
South was basically on defensive, waiting for diplomacy, waiting for British to give them help, but Lincoln hammered away with better government structure than south who was basically decentralized by states. Texas even today wants to be kind of independent and interestingly California acts like Confederates as of lately too.

>>138014799
So?
If one half of the population just won't give up on their free farm equipment something has to be done.
If it wasn't about slavery, what was it about?
Why don't you simply answer OPs question then?

>>138013308
>which itself was a desperate measure intended to score a POLITICAL victory in the NORTH
The Confederates didn't march north to attack in Pennsylvania, they were countered there. Their intent was to use the mountains for cover to move enough forces north and then through the Cumberland Gap and then march south to DC.

>>138015161
For a nation that had its entire economy destroyed, leaving the people cold and hungry, you're surprisingly carefree about doing that to someone for being a meanie instead of the right thing and investing in industrializing, diversifying, and stabilizing the economy.

>>138015073
I wouldn't say better, but focused, yes. I think your assessment, as vague as it, is steeped in the truth

>>138014036

>The south brought the slaves here in the first place

No, that would be the British.

The slave trade triangle, broski.

Go from Europe to Africa to get slave.
Drop the slaves off in the Caribbean to make that white gold (sugar) and send a small portion to the new colonies for the less profitable but still profitable cotton and tobacco
Take the sugar, cotton, and tobacco back Europe to utilize the European trade route to make a shit load of cash off these crops
Head back to Africa for more slaves.

The thing that pisses me off about slave trade is how basically nobody ever talks about how sugar plantations in the Caribbean were absolutely the dominating force here.

The Brits were really smart about having the concept of slaves being freed right when the entered Britain though. This allowed them to rake in massive profits off the back of slaves and trade in them knowing full well the liklihood of an African slave making the journey to Britain was basically zero so they didn't have to honor shit while still acting morally superior.

Truly, the British empire were the proto-Jews when it came to global manipulation.

>>138015161
Federalists who were first political party wanted big centralized nationalized government, public stocks. Then came Republicans and Democrats who wanted small man to rise, but actually what happened they became employed for big guys. So they were all fighting for big guys at end and still are. Difference is that true Federation should not have private stocks and foreigner ownership, but it does now. Confederates like Democrats and Republicans promoted small farmer to rise, but small farmer didn't rise, big corporation risen.

>>138015161
states right to self determination.

and I did.

File: sir-evelyn-robert-adrian-de-rothschild.jpg (66KB, 830x594px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 830x594px

>>138015202
>>138015259
100%. All of modern history education (past 300 years) could easily be half devoted to the networks of (((Rothschilds and Illuminati -> Freemasonry))) influencers that began spreading like wildfire, i.e. the people who dominate most of the world's resources and political networks. Unfortunately, we live in what equates to a (((matrix))). Few people even possess the inquisitiveness to learn about uncensored history.

>>138014094
Lincoln was an evil cunt when you study his methods.
Not even to mention, the war was essentially a fight over who was going to give up last, whoever was willing to get more young American men killed. Even when the south surrendered they weren't in some strategic bind, they just realized Lincoln was actually willing to kill every last white man in the country rather than lose a war.
The Southern generals were just sick of all the death, including on the other sides of battles.

>>138015073
as far as Texas wanting independence, they do that anytime there is significant political strife. it is like a middle finger to the Federal government.

California wants independence because its beliefs are the most polarized compared to its neighbors and the US in general. the US has tried to fix this several time by dividing the state so it was less an internal super power. it tried the same for Texas, but only managed to give it a "haircut."

>>138015542
Well, it wasn't only states' rights, it was also the fact you can't just pull the slave labor out of a massive regional agrarian-slave economy in a couple years without destroying it and sentencing everyone to poverty and famine.

>>138015904
Isn't there another movement to turn Northern California into Jefferson?

>>138015904
Alexander Hamilton, the father of central government in USA said that USA once it establish Federal government it should be independent from rich people's influences and other nations, but it didn't quite work out this way. Texas also isn't independent in their sense of them wanting to be for small man, they get ruled by big corporations, big farmers and recently suck the Mexican train too.

>>138015507
... sort of...

the fight between federalist and anti-federalist has always been there but has changed parties several times whigs>dixiecrates>republicans
and federalist several times demo-rep>republicans>democrates.

they flip flop because there is complex value systems that people adhere to.

yes there is a lot of federalism and big corporations but there is also a vast amount of small corporations and DE-centralization.

>>138016157
the influential are influential.

I hate the fuck out of Hamilton.

what is your point??

>>138016203
Federalists and Confederates have blurred into same, removing all aspects that small man fight for and clinging on to Zion, British gold and big business. So what was civil war for? None of them wanted melting pot of corruption.

>>138016083
yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state)

>>138015480
>This allowed them to rake in massive profits off the back of slaves and trade in them knowing full well the liklihood of an African slave making the journey to Britain was basically zero so they didn't have to honor shit while still acting morally superior.

This is what gets me when you hear a European or a Brit saying how they ended slavery far before the United States did. Easy to abolish something that doesn't occur on your own soil.

>>138016295
Every country's goal should be to secure existence of its people. Sure, free the slaves, but does that means at expense of white man? You could deport them. Not everybody owned slaves, why should everybody be responsible?

>>138016391
Yeah, it makes me want California to secede.

>>138016374
not really they have just taken up different names as different people become enlightened to their beliefs or influenced by them.

they basically dropped the labels but keep the beliefs.

I don't know about the rest, but please keep theorizing.

>>138005386
>100% over slavery
lol what? gaijins are really belieaving this shit? war is to happen behind economic reasons. who starts fighting for nothing?

>>138015452
That's not what I asked, fuck you and your childish whataboutism.
Answer the question or stfu anon.

>>138015507
thanks slovenian anon.

>>138015542
Nothing to do with slavery then? Interesting, thanks.

File: confed.jpg (12KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 225x225px

>>138016771
fellow confederates let us War!!!!!!!!!

we are Gue'vesa, for teh greater WEABOO!!!!!!

>>138016632
So already when they formed Federal Constitution they already screwed people:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)
>Another impetus for the convention was Shays' Rebellion. A political conflict between Boston merchants and rural farmers over issues such as property seizures for tax debts had broken out into an open rebellion. This rebellion was led by a former Revolutionary War captain, Daniel Shays, himself a small farmer with tax debts, who had never received payment for his service in the Continental Army.

So here we have it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
>Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers delegated to the legislature. Financially, Congress has the power to tax, borrow, pay debt

Does congress pay debt or do they just issue bonds(increase inflation, make people work longer) while magically debt just increases? They create more debt, because they got private interests mixed inside public interests. Alexander Hamilton told you to not mix private with public, but you didn't listen.

>>138017326
Hamilton believed in the pessimistic view to tax collection.

charity is more productive than government intervention

you are correct there was a tax issue in early America, there also wasn't a stable government.

you are right on current congressional policies and we are fighting that in current social issues. it is very hard to take a meal from a bear.

>>138005386
Slavery really was the main underlying issue. Slavery wasn't under immediate threat of abolition when the secession movement started, though. The thing that set it off was when Democrats abruptly lost power in the Federal government due to internal divisions within their party (mostly over slavery) and couldn't see any way to fix the situation in the near future. They panicked and did something extreme and stupid, ultimately resulting in their worst fears being realized much sooner than would otherwise have been possible. . .so, basically the same thing they're doing right now.

>>138006240
>>138006582
>>138005386
The Civil War wasn't SPECIFICALLY or ABSOLUTELY over slavery. It was GENERALLY over Federal power. The Southern states denied that the Federal government had such extensive power over individual State's economies, and knew that once the fed established such a precedent it would only get worse and the Fed would exercise more and more control over the economies as we have seen, especially in dealing with interstate commerce.

>>138007708

This is a good answer. Imagine if some states seceded today over Obamacare because they refused to accept that the federal government could force individuals to buy products and services from private companies. Then suppose the remaining states crushed the secession and even added an amendment that made "free health care" a right and rich/middleclass people had to subsidize costs for everyone else to buy it at a discount. And then fed schools in the future told all the kiddies that the states seceded because they didn't want to give all their citizens health care. That would be a similar scenario

The South knew slavery was a problem, but it wanted to end slavery on its own terms in its own time, not all at once, which would be a huge shock to the economy. The number of slaves and their conditions and treatment was vastly exaggerated by propagandists (like the holocaust) to make the cause of the northern states seem more Righteous. The South basically said to the north "If you really care so much about the people then you won't do war and cause more harm then you claim to prevent by ending slavery" but the North did war anyway and caused tremendous amounts of death, because in fact it really was just about giving more power to the federal government, which they would have gone about and done anyway even if the South hadn't seceded; just look at how Lincoln conscripted people etc.

Also, Lincoln was in correspondence with Karl Marx, I shit you not. Read some of Marx's letters to Lincoln sometime.

>>138017611
South and North both issued bonds and raised taxes and soldiers should be repaid with interests. But today bonds are issued to other governments, banks and corporations, while they hold ownership over USA, they don't even want repayment, they want ownership.

>>138018414
all they own is securities that they will be paid back, no specific contract for assets.

>>138018779
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOU
>An IOU (abbreviated from the phrase "I owe you")[1][2] is usually an informal document acknowledging debt.

It literally says i own you.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/iou.asp
>An IOU is an informal document that acknowledges a debt owed, and this debt does not necessarily involve a monetary value as it can also involve physical products.
>can also involve physical products.

>>138005386
This is more about the public opinion of the flag and the war, but this is a good piece on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9J8P6WfS7w

>>138005386
States rights. Sheeit. Even a dipshit convict like me knows that.

>>138019146
...I don't have time to explain securities lurk more

>>138019495
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOU
>IOUs may be redeemable for a specific product or service rather than a quantity of currency
It doesn't needs further explanation. You own China, they ask product and service.

>>138019599
LURK MORE

>>138019656
Ok then at least explain to me how you going to repay the debt. I don't need the whole financial explanation.

>>138019741
we're obviously just going to tell them to fuck off and possibly going to war over it.

lrn2'murca, Slovene.

>>138019741
Fiat currency and immaterial value production.

>>138005386
It was not about slavery. Slavery was the bullshit reason given, but not really what the war was about.

Read The Impending Crisis of the South and How to Meet It
>http://ostarapublications.com/impending-crisis-south-meet/
and The Southerner: The Real Story of Abraham Lincoln
>http://ostarapublications.com/the-southerner-the-real-story-of-abraham-lincoln/

I recommend those books for a reason. The Impending Crisis was written by a Southerner pre-Civil War showing with stats that slavery was horrible for the South and surprise, surprise, only benefited the 1%. The South was not pro-slavery. The 1% was.

What the South was against was Northern States trying to legislate Southern States. Slavery was already being discussed at State levels in the Southern states for removal. This was already in play. Then the North comes in and says, "you horrible racists you are not fit to govern yourselves." The South says, "fuck you, we're leaving. Nothing said this Union was permanent." The North respond, "lol, we're freeing you, we're freeing you!"

It all ends with a bunch of blood and the 1% make shit tons of profit and land off the war.

The Lincoln book is good because it shows, fully documented, the fact that the plan of the North was to ship the slaves back to Africa. The war was not to free the slaves. The North didn't care about the slaves. The slaves were just the casus belli to justify slaughtering Americans.

>>138005386
>Republican Party dominates the northern states politically shortly after its inception
>Democrats traditionally were strong in the south
>Abraham Lincoln gains influence over the western states
>Wins the election for the Republicans without even being on the ballots of many southern states
>After this, the south views the country as being controlled by Republicans and themselves as without a voice
>Secede from the United States as a result of a lack of representation
The most important political issue which caused the US Civil War was the expansion of slavery, but the actual cause was states' rights and representation.

The Emancipation Proclamation was issued one year and ten months after the Civil War started. If the war was about slavery, then this would have occurred within the first year of the war and not such a long time after the war started. Abraham Lincoln was against the expansion of slavery and not the abolishing of it before the Civil War.

>>138019991
>>138020135
In simple terms: you going to sell out to Chinese, you going to increase inflation, you going to work longer, but will that be enough to pay for debt? Why should it be? They can always steal more.

>>138011597
I'll say. In 1860 Lincoln only had 39.8% of the popular vote but magically gets 59.4% of the electoral college.

File: quote-if-you-tell-a-lie-big-enough-and-keep-repeating-it-people-will-eventually-come-to-believe-it-joseph-goebbels-383851.jpg (54KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 850x400px

>>138005386

>>138019419
It is slavery. States rights is a load of shit concocted in the past 30 years by southern revisionists.