Was Slavery the Main Reason for the Civil War ?

>>138459578
Tariffs
Slaves

Overall economic and social freedom

>>138459578
It was an international war because there was no such thing as "U.S. Citizenship." South Carolina decided to regain its full soverignty when they did their version of brexit from the American Union.

No. It was about States' Rights, self-governing and economic exploitation by the north. South couldn't trade cotton with foreign governments, they had to sell it cheap to factories in the north. Lincoln formally abolished slavery in Confederacy two years into the war, as a form of economic pressure.

i just have a very hard time believing that the civil war was just VAGUELY about slavery!

Never in the history of the mankind a person killed his brother for the rights of someone else. Especially , when both sides regarded the negros as inferior. There must be more to the story!

>>138459578
There were many reasons for the civil war. Slavery being one of them.
In the lead up to the war there had been decades of tension between the North and South due to an ever widening gap of culture, economics, and state's rights issues.
The North imposed tariffs on the South which had a crippling affect on their agricultural industry. Additionally, as is not surprising to any of us, the businesses that were allowed to avoid these tariffs were largely owned by the "elite" within the upper echelons of society. The victim of all of this was the common southerner.

Basically, slavery was just another one of those state's rights issues that the North attempted to control to the detriment of the South's agricultural industry. Most in the South had no issues with ending slavery; however, they recognized that they were not yet equipped for non-manual, non-slave labor.

War finally broke out in an attempt to fight off the North and reclaim the ability to determine their own futures.

The civil war was fought because both sides believed different things to be true.

>>138459578
No, Civil War started 1 year before Lincoln freed the slaves.

Fun fact : He freed the slaves only for Southern states first, and then for the northern states.

>>138459725
>Tariffs
>>138460042
> South couldn't trade cotton with foreign governments, they had to sell it cheap to factories in the north.

care to expand on this ?

>>138460286
disregard
>>138460102
covered this

great, clear answer btw. thank you.

>>138459578
No
>There was a 40 percent tax on southern states
The union army was the first to strike and >literally burn towns to the ground and murdered their populace
>Slavery only became an issue a year after the war had started
>4 union states voted against freeing the slaves
>Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacist

Slavery was a post war justification by the union just like "mug freedom" was a post war justification for the Iraqi war.

The union did not give a fuck about slaves.

to preserve the union

history 101

The "civil war" was really a battle Thimas Jefferson on the one hand and Alexander Hamilton on the other.

The Jeffersonians lost.

>>138459578
There were Jews that profited from the southern slavery system. There were Jews that wanted more control over the US banking system (they killed Lincoln for making greenbacks amongst other reasons). It was also used to consolidate power into the federal government.

File: cm.jpg (219KB, 811x665px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 811x665px

>>138459578
Yes, especially in the economic sense. I mean, there were tons of reasons why the war happened really, the north and south had some serious issues for decades before the war began, in fact a civil war nearly happened back during Jackson's presidency but he was enough of an alpha to slap everyone the fuck down and delay it for a while. But, yes slavery was the single largest primary driving the country to the boiling point. Read up on Bleeding Kansas to see just how much animosity each side had for one another over the issue.

>>138460087
Its about was about slavery, but not in a moral sense but economically.

Slavery was the bedrock of the economy in the South, take it away in one fell swoop and the Southern economy would collapse.
The North exploited this for political and economic gain with Tariffs.

It would be like someone coming in and overnight wanting to remove oil from our economy overnight, it would destroy everything.

The civil war was as much about slavery as WW1 was about the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand

The Lincolnites thought that all they had to do was send their army marching south and it would be over just like that.

>>138460268
funner fact: One of Lincoln's general TWICE gave emancipations from the battlefield hoping it would harm the South and Lincoln rescinded them not wanting to anger Union slave states.

>>138459578
Think of it like this:
If a bunch of states seceded today because they rejected the idea that the federal government could coerce citizens to buy products and services from private corporations, and they lost the resulting war
The establishment winners would say that the secession and war was because those states didn't want to give free health care to their citizens

That's basically the equivalent of the first civil war. The South was already working on removing slavery, they weren't united in support of it, but they WERE united in the notion that the federal government had no right to wield such massive power in state's economies to just ban slavery like that. The South KNEW that once that precedent was set, the Federal government would just get more and more involved in state's economies. And that is exactly what happened, of course.

Before the federal government got so involved in the state's economies, the Union was really more like a federation of sovereign states. Now we might as well be one country, one state, with the actual states just doing the day to day administration while the federal government wields most of the power.

File: lean-leadership-lessons-from-general-sherman.jpg (83KB, 600x781px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 600x781px

>>138460851
Literally both sides thought that the war would be over after the first large battle. Sherman actually immediately recognized that the war was going be long, bloody, and costly unless the North was willing to go full black flag on the South and they called him insane for it.

>>138460851
They're still butthurt over it which is why they're attacking brass and stone today.

Spiritually, the South was never defeated until the current year.

>>138460102

I like to say the Civil War was about slavery in the same way the Revolutionary War was about taxes. Sure, both were the catalyst to the war starting, but there were many events leading up to the war that made a conflict inevitable. Also, Lincoln is on record stating that he would allow the south to keep the slaves, had that meant keeping the Union together.

>>138461012
great analogy.

looking up a few keywords you guys gave me i stumbled on this:

http://www.emarotta.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/

sums it up pretty well i think ?

>"duur lets just ignore the fact that many of the states explicitly state they're breaking off for the preservation of slavery"
You have to be an idiot or a revisionist to think it wasn't about slavery. The South sperged out because they thought Lincoln would eventually take their salves, even though he said he wouldn't. They seceded knowing it would start a war. Lincoln fought to preserve the Union, the South fought to preserve slavery, or as retards like to call it "muh state's rights"

File: his-her-diary-same-say-motocycle.png (311KB, 548x826px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 548x826px

>>138459578
The South generated large amounts of wealth through the sale of materials overseas but had a relatively lower population.
The North had a higher population but was poorer economically and wanted/needed capitalization to expand industrialization.
The North used its dominance of the House of Representatives to force through a major tariff in the 1840's that was very obviously designed to heavily tax the South to subsidize the North's economic expansion.
South Carolina said 'fuck off, you can't rob us!' and there was almost a civil war a generation before Lincoln! The situation was calmed down a great deal, but it continued.
At that time Senators were appointed by state legislatures (as the Constitution originally said) so as states were added whether or not their legislatures would support the North's goal of increasing tariffs or the South's goal of free trade were absolutely critical.
Abolition was a popular movement among citizens to end slavery that was popular among some religious groups but was never widely embraced by the political class because it would be so economically disruptive. But it became a shorthand for which faction you supported because the South's agrarian raw materials economy still relied upon it.
Poor Northerners supported abolition for a number of reasons, including their hope that tariffs would lead to more jobs in the North.
Poor Southerners opposed abolition because they knew it would both crash the local economy and increase the number of laborers competing for jobs.
"Was slavery the main reason?' is the wrong question -slavery was so closely wrapped up with economics, politics, and even religion that it was arguably the main reason *and* not the real reason at all.

>>138460286
The Congress at that time heavily favored the industrialized northern states, to the point of demanding that South must sell raw materials only to the northern factories, rather than to other countries. The Congress also taxed the northern produced materials, making final products unaffordable for the South. Most southerners did not even own slaves or plantations, they were just small farmers.

Case in point, they were fighting to maintain their rights, lifestyle and independence, without the United States government dictate. As this one here said >>138459908, imagine EU declaring war on UK for Brexit.

>>138459578
No. Economics was.
No one was ideologically committed to the principle of slavery, of blacks or anyone else.
Rich slave owners wanted to stay rich. The rest knew that the southern economy would collapse if slavery was outlawed over night.
They put their *own* well-being over any concern for other human beings or moral principle of equality. They were selfish. In other words, they were human.
That they were defending the enslavement of blacks is entirely incidental. If their well-being had depended on some other 'commodity' (e.g. oil, water), they'd have defended it just as passionately.
That's not apologia, by the way. I think slavery is one of the few true evils. That people could defend even that just goes to show how far we'll go to protect our position, if there is no social cost to us.
All humans have shown this potential, regardless of ethnicity. Culture is the only constraint. *We* haven't evolved. Our culture has. Take away the culture that defines a society's taboos, or constrains behaviour, and you'll arrive back here in short order.

>>138461382
what do you have to say to this tho ?

>Slavery was the bedrock of the economy in the South, take it away in one fell swoop and the Southern economy would collapse.
The North exploited this for political and economic gain with Tariffs.

isnt there a difference in wanting to preserve slavery for a time to prevent the sudden collapse of your society, and in wanting to preserve it purely because of racial supremacy ideas ?

Slavery was considered, but there was mounting pressure on Southern states from a northern majority to increase tariffs.

There was also the theory of Nullification, started by Senator John C. Calhoun, that if states do not consider federal laws to be constitutional, the states could ignore those laws, or nullify them in a sense.

Think about how much power this reserved to the states that the federal government couldn't delegate over. This is truly why the war was fought.

>>138461382
nah, it was about the north punishing the south for wanting to leave. You have to be an idiot or a revisionist to think it wasn't about this. Slavery was on it's way out naturally soon, but the north decided instead of waiting 5 years to do this

>>138461474
>"Was slavery the main reason?' is the wrong question -slavery was so closely wrapped up with economics, politics, and even religion that it was arguably the main reason *and* not the real reason at all.

nicely put

>>138461517
>imagine EU declaring war on UK for Brexit.

had this in mind the whole time reading answers desu

File: 1502392048604.jpg (81KB, 802x960px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 802x960px

>>138461639
>
Just to follow up, here's the wiki on Nullification theory. Never upheld in federal courts, wonder why?

>>138461012
>>138461196
Right. And consider what happens in the future if the Obamacare precedent is allowed to stand.

They will sooner than you think require every citizen to purchase an electric self-driving car or pay a huge tax for the 'privilege' of driving an old normal car.
They will justify this on the grounds that an electric car is much better for the environment and that self-driving cars have less accidents.
But really they are doing it to make their crony Elon Musk rich and control your travel behavior; self-driving cars won't be able to travel to certain areas, especially based on your record.

It will be hell, and they'll just do more and more stuff like this to defund every industry that contributes to republican politicians, such as oil/fossil fuels, until eventually there is only one party rule because that party keeps forcing you to buy stuff from their cronies.

>>138459578
Yes. Read each states reason for succession. They made it quite clear it was slavery.

>>138461856
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)

I'm retarded

Some people are too intellectually challenged to figure out that the post-war Yankee anti-slavery propaganda that they've swallowed whole is bogus and they're butthurt that sane rational people won't endorse their delusions.

I really hate Democrats, now.

>>138459578

http://www.thetribunepapers.com/2014/01/05/true-causes-of-the-uncivil-war-understanding-the-morrill-tariff/

>>138461535
>That they were defending the enslavement of blacks is entirely incidental. If their well-being had depended on some other 'commodity' (e.g. oil, water), they'd have defended it just as passionately.
>That's not apologia, by the way. I think slavery is one of the few true evils. That people could defend even that just goes to show how far we'll go to protect our position, if there is no social cost to us.
>All humans have shown this potential, regardless of ethnicity. Culture is the only constraint. *We* haven't evolved. Our culture has. Take away the culture that defines a society's taboos, or constrains behaviour, and you'll arrive back here in short order.

you guys are the kind of people i still come here for

>>138461606
So you're saying the South sperged out because Lincoln voiced some abolitionist sentiment, but clearly said he wouldn't follow through, and decided to leave the Union to preserve slavery?
>isnt there a difference in wanting to preserve slavery for a time to prevent the sudden collapse of your society, and in wanting to preserve it purely because of racial supremacy ideas ?
No, they also state that they want to preserve the natural order of blacks being beneath them kek that's why they chimped out for 100 years after the government said they have to treat them equally
>>138461689
>Slavery was on it's way out naturally soon, but the north decided instead of waiting 5 years to do this
This is like revisionist heaven

>>138461639
Jefferson understood nullification, too.

Northern states nullified the Fugitive Slaves Act on their territories.

Do you think that nullification and secession are exclusive Yankee monopolies?

Why did this war have such a massive body count? There were more deaths at Shiloh than the entire American Revolution, and that wasn't even near the bloodiest engagement. I always thought it was the advent of rifled muskets becoming standardized but I've also read that the average soldier was not much more accurate with one than a smoothbore.

>>138461517
>The Congress at that time heavily favored the industrialized northern states

They favoured it for a very specific reason though and that was federalisation. The North was already centralising power and there was such a stark dichotomy in the south that is would always be confederation. Fuck Texas is STILL the Lone Star state.

It was some hillbillies and fat cats fighting over issues they could have solved politically.

>>138462310

History is written by the Victor

>>138460042
>economic exploitation by the north
northern businessmen were sick of carrying dead weight of southern slavery, too much lost revenue compared with modern wage slavery

so that had to go, also the southern political establishment had to go, southern congressmen were well versed in rhetoric and able to craft compelling arguments, northerners were stodgy and did not communicate well, this had to be changed so the south had to go

If the federal government can remove slaves then they can do whatever else they want too, which they were. The southern states had no power. None of them even voted for Lincoln. That's why many in the south thought they were fighting the second American revolution. Nobody gave a fuck about slaves. It was about precedent and principle

File: duel blog 5.jpg (62KB, 565x370px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 565x370px

>>138462804
>well versed in rhetoric
>compelling arguments

Yes so eloquent and well spoken, such gentlemen.

>>138462804
It didn't help that the Confederacy declared itself a free trade zone; an intolerable red flag to the Southern hating Yankees.

>>138461382
Right, just like if states seceded today and specifically said it was because of obamacare people would still believe it was because they didn't want to give citizens "free healthcare", not because of how fucking stupid it is for the government to force you to buy shit from private companies run by one party's cronies.

>>138460042
It was basically as if the north and south were two different countries competing with each other, except the north had all the executive powers which was understandable seen as unfair to the south.

>>138462560
And their fake propaganda history will destroy them because their are too many twits who swallow it whole and then run amok destroying brass and stone that offends their sensibilities.

It won't stop with statues.

>>138461382
>because they thought Lincoln would eventually take their salves, even though he said he wouldn't.
dumbass.
Once the federal government exercises a power, that's it, it is a precedent and the fed gets to do that and worse forever. It is just how our legal system works. Lincoln basically played dumb with the "Lol slippery slope fallacy dummies" card, but slippery slope is real in our legal system.

Everyone serious knew that it wouldn't stop with slavery, the fed would just exercise more and more control over the states internal economies. And that is exactly what happened. Tons and tons of regulations and bullshit.

When the union was set up it was supposed to be more like what the European Union is today, with each state having a lot of sovereignty. Lincoln ended all that and now we're just like one big state, and the state governments just administer the bullshit the federal government passes down.
Again, it didn't matter what "Lincoln promised" he would or wouldn't do. Once precedent is established, it opens up a huge legal can of worms that cannot be stuffed back in.

>>138459578
It was mainly about states rights. Granted it was the right to own slaves, but it's still states rights.

File: IMG_0385.jpg (130KB, 1024x733px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1024x733px

Same fight as usual

South wanted to be independent

North said NOPE

Slavery was just 1 issue under the unbrella of making decions for themselves

>>138463770
States rights meant that it was up to each state to decide if slavery was legal or should be abolished on their territory. Congress had no say in the matter.

I tend to not think it was the main cause, but ive recieved a lot of rebuttals concerning the fact that almost every southern state made keeping slavery a big point in their documents concerning their declaration of secession.


wondering what /pol/s take is.

>>138462161
>This is like revisionist heaven
I can tell you haven't done a bit of research beyond what the fed government curriculum told you in school and maybe a bit of wikipedia.
Licoln was going to exercise powers that would set precedent for the federal government to be hugely invasive in the economic affairs of states.
Imagine today if states seceded because they rejected the idea that the federal government had the authority to coerce citizens to buy products from private companies, knowing it wouldn't stop at health care, that the fed would soon after force people to buy self-driving electric cars or pay a massive tax/fine.

But the school books and shit would teach you that they only seceded because they were mean and didn't want to give their citizens "free health care". That's the equivalent of the first civil war.

P.S. Did you know that Karl Marx was in correspondence with Lincoln? Lincoln was the beginning of this country's descent into Marxism, literally.

>>138460727
Econonomics was just a secondary effect of the bigger issue, which was the North practically having control of the south. Nobody on either side gave a damn about slaves.
And even if you wanna say it was about slaves, then you still can't pretend like the north was doing it for moral reasons. Nobody except Jews were blue pilled on race back then and the north would absolutely not have faught a war just to free a bunch of niggers who they know good and well can't into civilization (Many Africans were actually happier as slaves. The literate ones would write letters talking about how they miss their master taking care of them and providing food and shelter and safe land to live on). The north thought they were fighting to hold the union together. Again, nobody cared about the niggers - they were seen as subhuman; Lincoln even said so himself

>>138464057
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

>>138462161
I mean, do you even know there were slave states in the union during the civil war?

>>138459578
Negroes were what we used before machinery

>>138462313
The civil war was a lot like WWI n that regard. 18th century tactics hadn't caught up to the sheer killing power of modern machine warfare. In many cases (Fredricksburg, Gettysburg) generals were just sending ranks of troops marching headlong into fortified enemy positions just to get mowed down. Petersburg was a pre WWI example of trench warfare. The European observers were horrified because they knew what a modern war would look like.

>>138463770
Right, like you should have the individual right to buy health care or not. Because now that the precedent is set that the fed can force you to buy health care, the next thing will be that they force you to buy an electric self-driving car from Elon Musk or one of the Dem's other crony capitalists. And if you don't buy a fancy new car from Musk you'll have to pay a huge tax because you're destroying the environment and have a higher risk of accident. And maybe after that you have to buy a gps chip installed in your body or pay a tax, because gps chip will save the government money and reduce crime. And it just won't end.

But if you seceded over Obamacare they would say you just didn't want to give people "free healthcare". It would be total bullshit propaganda.

>>138464235
Right, it doesn't change that the stated reason for the civil war by the states that succeeded themselves, was slavery.

You can cry "muh states rights" until you are blue, we have the documents that clearly states it was due to slavery and mainly to Lincoln's promise of no new slave states or territories. Not removing slavery, but because they knew the writing was on the wall long term.

>>138460087
No brother would kill another brother for any slave. Lincoln himself said it wasn't about slaves and that he'd let the South keep them if that would hold the Union together.

Brothers kill brothers because of either pride, selfishness or because the government forced you. Just look at WWII. Germans killing Germans.

If you had asked the Union army what they were fighting for; they would have said to preserve their worthless Union: Vietnam style.

>>138464165
That's written within the wider context of the federal government not interfering in states economies.

You can cherry pick whatever quotes you want, but when it came down to it, the south's economy was dependent on slavery, they WERE working to end it in a way that wouldn't crash their economies, and they weren't about to let the federal government gain new powers to interfere in states economies.

Again, if you seceded today over Obamacare because you think the fed shouldn't be able to force you to buy crap from private companies, the establishment would say you just didn't want poor people to have "free healthcare". You'd be a monster. You wanted people to die so you can be rich. Etc etc.

But if Obamacare stands, next you'll be forced to buy electric self-driving cars from Democrat cronies like Elon Musk. Buy a new Tesla or pay a fat tax for destroying the environment.

>>138463787
>Implying Taylor Swift writes her lyrics

Mass produced shit.

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science."

You tell me

>>138459578
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

yes it was slavery anyone who says otherwise is a southern apologist; its not even questionable really

>>138465011
Cherry pick quotes? Have you read the actual Declarations of Succession? If not I suggest you do.

Why are libtards such nigger-worshipping fucks?

What is their obsession with grovelling before obsolete farm equipment and then getting butthurt when sane, sensible people won't join in, in their self-abasement?

>>138464726
How are you unable to process this? Yes, it was states rights in general. The particular example of states rights was slavery. Once the federal government sets the precedent of exercising power over a particular incident, it also gains the power over that whole category IN GENERAL.

If you seceded over Obamacare IN PARTICULAR, because you didn't want the government to force you to buy from private companies IN GENERAL, because next they will force you to buy electric self-driving cars from their crony Elon Musk or tax you for destroying the environment and being more a risk of accident - then the establishment will still make you out to be a monster and say you just didn't want poors to have free health care.

By ending slavery in particular, the federal government set the precedent that it can do basically whatever they fuck they want to states economies in general.

The United States was originally supposed to be a union of fairly sovereign states. Since the civil war when the federal government gained massive control over the economies of every state, it is a joke to say that any state is in any way sovereign. Since the civil war, state governments just administer whatever bullshit the federal government passes down. The federal government was not supposed to have that much power, that isn't what those states signed up for.

"Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth" - VP of the CSA


I love the revisionists history that ignore the people that actually lead the south. It was always about slavery.

>>138459578
Slavery was a main reason. That problem was baked into the nations founding. There were other reasons especially on a personal level but slavery is inexorably linked.

>>138465453
>muh states rights

They cared so much about states rights that the instituted conscription in 1862?

>>138465244
Read
>>138465453
and don't be stupid

>>138465244
What's wrong with slavery, you twit, other that a tiny bunch of self-righteous sanctimonious Yankees decided that they'd hate it?

>>138465672
wow this is a massive non sequiter. try again. use your brain.

>>138465753
>states rights
>forces free men to join national army

Youre an idiot

>>138465117
>>138465481
Just cite the Cornerstone speech and the South Carolina article of secession and you'll btfo delusional revisionists. I'd trust the source material rather than the bullshit cocked up by southern ""historians"" in the '90s.

>>138463088
No one fights for those things. They're intangible. 'Freedom' isn't even an old concept. The earliest mentions in the historical record are found in the writings of classical Rome, as a propaganda device.
Caesar notes in Bellio Gallicio that 'no one wants to be enslaved'.
Tacitus develops the concept further, in his account of the speech of Calgacus of the Caledonii (great speech, probably never happened).
The device serves dual purposes. It portrays the enemy as a "noble savage", a "worthy foe". But savage, nonetheless. Unreasonable. Uncivilised.

Gauls were portrayed as noble but unsophisticated barbarians. In fact, Gaul was a sophisticated society, with a highly evolved trade network. Caesar himself notes they kept meticulous records written in Greek. It's likely that Caesar, steeped in debt and under increasing pressure from the Roman patrician class, aimed to secure control over the amber and tin routes. The Venetii and their allies sought to maintain control.
But the plebs weren't to know that. Instead, Rome was civilising a bunch of backward savages, more concerned with irrational notions of 'freedom' than in civilised pursuits. Give them wine and fine threads, and they'll soon come to their senses.
The 'freedom' meme really came to life in the "Declaration of Arbroath", which greatly influenced the "Declaration of Independence".
But it's still a meme. It's sold as an absolute, a divine principle, when it can only ever be relative. Ask yourself, how much freedom of thought and action do you really have? How much would you really want? And what would you be willing to sacrifice for it? How much 'wine' or 'fine threads'?

>>138462161
>revisionist heaven
Ironic that you imply this, as you are the one ignoring history. The rebellion in Haiti set the precedent for abolishment of slavery throughout the Atlantic world, including the US.
It is widely accepted that the people of the time recognized that slavery was a fading institution, and the only reason it still remained at the time was because the southern economy relied so heavily on it and needed to transition away from slavery before full abolishment.

And then the war happened.

It was about state rights. The south believed that the government had too much power so they left the Union.

>>138464235
Yes, that still doesn't change why the South seceded. The Northern states understood thta Lincoln wasn't going to abolish slavery.
>>138464057
You have not idea what you're talking about

>>138463088
>>138463088
You fucking retard the South controlled the Senate and the Supreme Court. Slavery was in no sort of danger.

That said the war absolutely was about slavery.

>>138465846
>being purposely obtuse to "win" an internet argument
wew

Money like most wars. The union could of gave two shits about slaves.

>>138466267
>It is widely accepted that the people of the time recognized that slavery was a fading institution
>Decide to fight a war to preserve it instead of following the example of the Union slave states
They fought to not only preserve slavery, but to keep blacks beneath them. The way they behaved directly after the Union soldiers pulled out shows this to be true.

>>138466382
Then why was slavery outlawed in the western territories if the south controlled the congress?

>>138459578
It was fought for the same reason the revolutionary war was.

>>138466608
Fake and gay.

>>138461012

nice.

>>138459578
Taxes and states rights. Slavery was a small part of it, iirc General Lee was disgusted with slavery.

>>138461535
this

PS. slavery had, inherently, nothing to do with the race of the enslaved

>>138466423
says the guy denying the war was about slavery despite the overwhelming primary sourced evidence to the contrary.

Face it kiddo great great great granpa died because he wanted a pet nigga

>>138465284
Hmm, are Yankee liberals the top concern trolls?

They conceal their hatred of blacks by concern trolling them.

>>138466608
>continuing to think war is so simple
Why even bother commenting if you aren't going to at least try to understand the conflict in question? They wanted to preserve slavery to protect the economy after seeing what the north wanted to do to them. The protections for slavery is a reaction to the north, and a way to unify the south in the face of conflict. If you bothered to read any writing from the time, you would see that many southerners recognized the decline of slavery, and were accepting of it, so long as the economy remained stable. Of course, you will deny this because it doesn't fit with what your shitty teachers taught you in grade school.
Your brand of anti-intellectualism is what is killing this nation.

>>138466996
>continues to be obtuse in discussion of WAR
>he is such a simpleton that he thinks war must be a simple event
you don't belong in this discussion, kid

>>138467044
So you are saying that the Vice President of the CSA is wrong ?

>>138463112
>Yes so eloquent and well spoken, such gentlemen.
if they were the well spoken ones imagine what cavemen the northern businessmen were

also remember these are the class of men we eliminated during the war, they didn't need to kill all the illiterate hick southerners

they were never a threat

>>138467258
So you are saying that the legislation made had no reactive purpose what so ever? You seem to believe that the north and south got along splendidly prior to this conflict.
The fact of the matter is that this conflict was brewing ever since the revolution. Denying this just shows how ignorant you are of American history.

>>138467044
>>138467153

>G..guys i..its n..not s..simple
My ancestors weren't murderous human rights violating faggots fighting for a lost cause

>>138467500
>war is simple
(you) are ignorant.

>Was Slavery the Main Reason for the Civil War ?
No, treason was.

Slavery was the main reason for the treason though.

>>138467027
Malcolm X hated the northern liberals more than anyone, he appreciated the honestly of southern racists compared to the smile in your face and stab you in the back ways of the northern liberal who called you friend but did everything in his power to destroy you

>>138467044
>They wanted to preserve slavery
Thank you
>The protections for slavery is a reaction to the north
Even though the North had slave states in Union, ok
> you would see that many southerners recognized the decline of slavery, and were accepting of it
>Decide to violently oppress blacks for 100 years and set the country back in race relations by 100 years
The South should've been occupied for at least 1 generation and greater protection should've been given to the blacks

>>138467547
>violence isn't simple
An ant can wage war.

>>138464757
68% of modern 'English' people are descended from Mesolithic migrants to the British Isles (Sykes). That's 10000 years ago...
The English are not Germans. Never have been.
>muh Anglo-Saxon invasion
There was no invasion. Archaeological evidence suggests 20k settlers at most. Phylogenetic analysis can find no trace (even though it can map the Danelaw quite easily). Linguistic analysis shows that modern English is a Germanic vocabulary superimposed on a Brythonic grammar (like you speaking modern German but not rearranging verbs).
In short, the 'invasion' was a cultural revolution. It was fostered by the Latin church, and promoted by Augustine of Canterbury, Bede, and others. It was led by Britons. It was opposed by Britons (the Welsh, i.e. "the strangers".
If an archaeologist digs up Britain in 1000 years and finds a site from today, he'll find American culture. He might suspect an invasion, even though no evidence of conflict can be found. That's where we stood until 40 years ago. I've just outlined the actual academic consensus for the last 4 decades.

If the left win in the US, and you have a socialist revolution, it won't mean you were genetically replaced by Soviets....

>>138465703
>whats wrong with slavery
Why dont you become one right now and tell me.

>>138465481
Was this guy quoting Lincoln?

>>138467631
No, they can't. War has a purpose that transcends the individual. Men don't wage war, nations do.
>>138467618
>having to win an internet argument so hard you willingly misrepresent a simple argument
Notice how this thread was quite informative before people like you started commenting and baiting?
You are the cancer that is killing /pol/.

>>138467763
>implying slavery doesn't exist anymore
What is wage slavery? Who farms the crops in California? Slave class in everything but the name.

>>138467793
How? You said they wanted to preserve slavery, which they did, but you just try to hide behind "muh state's rights" or "muh economics"
The behavior of the South towards blacks after the war shows exactly how they felt about them. It's not that hard to understand, Jimmy

>>138468022
are (you) going to attempt discussion, or just continue baiting?

>>138460630
Yep, the Civil War was fucked up, but eventually only benefited Jewish power. It was a disaster for everyone else.

>>138467958
Exactly, all non-whites should leave the US so they can't be oppressed by evil whitey anymore.

>>138466350
>The south believed that the government had too much power so they left the Union
Except they didn't have the right to do that. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Erecting a new nation on that land is a denial of that sovereignty. If you are going the the balls to declare war on the Constitution, you better not claim that you're doing it because the rights it doesn't give you aren't being respected.

>>138468172
Secession isn't illegal tho.

>>138460625
>The "civil war" was really a battle Thimas Jefferson on the one hand and Alexander Hamilton on the other.
>The Jeffersonians lost.
I never heard it put that way.

>>138467793
>War has a purpose that transcends the individual.
You genuinely aren't familiar with insects, are you?

Literally a defining trait of ants is they function practically with a hivemind.

>Men don't wage war, nations do.
And so do hives.

>can't have a comfy civil war thread without LARPer flags coming to bait anons with simpleton arguments that revolve around muh racism or muh unwritten supreme law
nu-/pol/ pls

>>138468262
>Secession isn't illegal tho.
Right. But it can only be done by a territory being granted independence by Congress or by a Constitutional amendment to release part of the states in the Union.

Anything else violates the supremacy clause.

>>138460632
Is there a quote from. Lincoln basically saying he will make the south our tax slaves???

>>138466610
Slavery was not outlawed in the western territories.

The Missouri Compromise was in effect until overruled by Kansas-Nebska which provisioned that the free men of the territories could decide whether slavery was to be allowed or outlawed. The
south was originally supportive of this until it was realized the territories were more likely to vote to disallow slavery so they became butthurt. The southern controlled Supreme Court as part of the Dredd Scott decision actually declared popular sovereignty and the decision on the question of slavery by the inhabitants of the territories unconstitutional. The court stated that it was unconstitutional for the territores to outlaw slavery.

It wasn't slavery as it was the fact that both culturally and economically the north and south were different, and both tried to impose their ideals on the other. The north was forced to industrialize as they don't have the farm-lands like the south does, and in an industrial society, objective slavery (forceful labor with no pay) is very much uneconomical,while the south was far too large land-wise and spread out at the time to create the big cities of the north, so it was very agricultural, and in an agricultural setting slavery is very economical as their is much less factors to controlling slaves. The north was mad that the south could sustain itself on its land and sell it's product to European countries while they toiled in factories that made products that other countries where already making, and the south was mad that the northern part of America was seen as the 'better' side of America as European countries began to pressure countries that had slavery. Because of this, the North attempted to use the federal government to bring the south to heel while the south use the states-rights granted by the laws of the land in order to bring the north to heel

It came to a head when the South got that law allowing escaped slaves (and some free Blacks) to be sent back into slavery, which threatened the Northern way of life, and the election of Lincoln, which many thought would threaten the southern way of life. Slavery wasn't the 'main issue' of the Civil War, it was most obvious difference between the cultures of the north and south. The war was between two distinct cultures fighting to see which one is the most "America"

>>138466878
But General Grant wasn't.

"Good help is hard to find".

>>138468331
That is not war. War has a higher purpose than just instinctual fighting.

>>138468442
>travel with slave to western territory
>authorities can legally take that slave from you, with no reimbursement
The supreme court was correct. Allowing any territory to seize the property of citizens of other territories is not constitutional.

The north and the south have always had competing agendas. Infact the north was the first to consider secession from the union. The Confederates were also not the only states wanting to secede at the time. Lincoln locked up the Maryland legislative body for wanting to secede and have nothing to do with either side.
States volunteered on their own accord, with the promise of equal representation and treatment to join the union. The North did not uphold the faith of the union, and pushed undue heavy burden on the South. The South, seeing after the election that they would no longer be able to have a voice in the federal system, decided to leave a broken union, and were by war forced to submit. This act of Northern Aggression was Alexander Hamilton's wet dream - a central government so powerful it may as well be a kingdom unto itself. This was contrary to the spirit of the union and the will of the states and most if not all the issues we have today can be traced back to Hamilton.

>>138461382
>You have to be an idiot or a revisionist to think it wasn't about slavery. The South sperged out because they thought Lincoln would eventually take their salves, even though he said he wouldn't. They seceded knowing it would start a war. Lincoln fought to preserve the Union, the South fought to preserve slavery, or as retards like to call it "muh state's rights
Nobody is saying that slavery wasnt the main reason. We are saying it wasnt the only reason. There were deep differences in philosophy and there is a chance that the war woulda.happened even if slaves did not exist.

an agrarian society with feudal classes (slaves, works, plantation owners) and a industrial proletariat/bourgeoisie (factory workers vs owners) system to the north
north got a president and south was like this shits gay

>>138468321
Hamilton wanted an all-powerful centralised state.

Jefferson wanted devolved local government.

The Rethuglican party was created to make a Hamiltonian style government and Lincoln made it happen.

>>138459578
The Union growing too much in federal power is the reason for the Civil War. If they hadn't pushed NC to secede with their overreach in power then there wouldn't have been a civil war. Nobody really wanted war, and if 10 more years passed then the industrial revolution would have made it obsolete in terms of slavery.
But it turned out that the Confederacy was more in line with 1776 America than the Union, making the Union the traitor to the people and not the Confederacy.

>>138464157
>Jews were blue pilled on race back then
get out of here schlomo
this is the place where we know that the yids all the slave trading

>>138468721
The territories should be allowed to make their own local laws, and if they disallow slavery so be it. Shouldn't southerners be supportive of that considering ""states rights""?

>>138468447
Lee was part of the privileged slave holding aristocracy.

Grant was a self made man who detested slavery.

>>138459578
Fun fact. The North wanted to keep slavery but the south just wanted us niggers to go back to Africa. Since the south lost history was rewritten to make them look like racists. I know this is fact because the real history was passed down through my family for generations.

>>138459578
In the 1960 niggers still had no rights,so you want me to believe that dudes would fight and die fr their freedom in the 1800's?Thats just a story told to glorify the winning side after the war

>>138469317
You have it in reverse. Lee detested slavery and Grant was a slave owner

>>138459578
probably not about slavery considering both unions had states where slavery was legal present at the time of the war

>>138469323
1/10

>>138468429
Read his first inaugural address.

He's all butthurt about his "imposts"(excise duties),

>>138460286
They're kinda wrong. The US government imposed import tarrifs on foreign manufactured goods to protect emerging US industrial development.
The north benefitted from this, the south not so much.

File: 1490190399561.png (321KB, 678x840px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 678x840px

>>138459578
>>138459725
>Tariffs
>Slaves

States Rights. At the core of the "States Rights" argument was slavery. The south was prior loyalist colonies, and implementing policies they saw as being fit for running an agricultural economy. This ran into issue in the long term as slaves are expensive long term.

I'm not going to put out the fallacious argument that it was on its way out the door, because it wasn't. What was happening was the picture painted misrepresented the facts.
1. Most whites didn't own slaves.
2. Indentured servitude was alive and well, and mostly involved whites working for whites out of indebted obligation.
3. Nobody gave a shit back then, nor do they now, about poor whites.
4. Young men on both sides were convinced to fight for rich, idealistic, and highly political white men.
5. The right for states to secede was implied. The goal of the constitution was to allow a federal body to scrounge up support for defense of the nation. What many have forgotten is that it immediately became a Federalists wet dream of consolidated powers that were not granted explicitly.

Look up implied powers, and how Hamilton was a major supporter or diminishing States Rights.

>>138464057
>P.S. Did you know that Karl Marx was in correspondence with Lincoln? Lincoln was the beginning of this country's descent into Marxism, literally.
Teddy Roosevelt helped with that too.

>>138469445
Basically, the war was mainly to establish the dominance of the northern industrial-capitalist culture/economy. The "slavery" angle was to have a moral justification

>>138465117
>>138465940
and ignore all the states that didnt mention slavery at all in their articles of secession?

>>138469448
"As soon as slavery fired upon the flag it was felt, we all felt, even those who did not object to slaves, that slavery must be destroyed. We felt that it was a stain to the Union that men should be bought and sold like cattle."

"The [South] was burdened with an institution abhorrent to all civilized people not brought up under it, and one which degraded labor, kept it in ignorance and enervated the governing class... Soon the slaves would have outnumbered the masters, and, not being in sympathy with them, would have risen in their might and exterminated them. The war was expensive to the South, as well as to the North, both in blood and treasure, but it was worth all it cost". -U.S. Grant

Lee literally owned hundreds of slaves. Don't start this shit.

>>138459578
The abolition of slavery was never a stated cause of the war, nor was it a war goal of the North, nor was it anything the South declared as a reason for secession.

The much more proximate cause of the war were the tariffs the North imposed on imports to the South, which they tripled just before the war to an amount around 40%. The money from those tariffs went to fund Northern infrastructure improvements, such as railroads. The South was literally being bled by the North.

Furthermore, the North was just as racist, if not moreso, than the South. Every New England state had anti-black laws, and Abraham Lincoln himself stated that blacks were inferior. His home state of Illinois had a public policy of supporting the Monroe Plan, in other words, if blacks came into Illinois the government repatriated them to Liberia. On a somewhat unrelated note, Lincoln himself had a political opponent literally deported in order to get him out of the way.

So yeah, the abolition of slavery was a consequence of the war, not a cause.

>>138470091
>Lee literally owned hundreds of slaves
is that relevant?
but not >>138469852

>>138460625
>>138468321
This is true. Hence:
>>138469852
and:
>>138460042

Yes it was about slavery. In that the Northern states hated that the Southern states held relatively more power in congress on average due to counting slaves as 3/5 of a person but without voting power.

The articles of succession and declarations of causes from the confederate states almost all mention slavery as their primary motivator.

Amy suggestion otherwise is revisionist history and propaganda, which of course is thenorm on emotion-based /pol/.

For example, here's there first paragraph from Mississippi's articles "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

But don't take my word for it, go read them yourself, as you should always be doing when you want to learn about anything, instead of asking /pol/ to spoon feed you simplistic propaganda, because that's all you'll get here.

>>138470091
Ulysses Grant was a slaveowner.

>>138459578
No the war of northern Aggression was not over slavery.

File: jim carey.jpg (7KB, 216x243px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 216x243px

>>138470606
>>138461874
>>138465244
>succession

>>138466382
Even if, the Confederacy had abolished slavery; the Lincolnites would still have made war on them.

>>138468172
>Except they didn't have the right to do that. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Erecting a new nation on that land is a denial of that sovereignty. If you are going the the balls to declare war on the Constitution, you better not claim that you're doing it because the rights it doesn't give you aren't being respected.
If the North is abusing its power and going against the a constitution then they would actually be the traitors. In America your allegiance is actually supposed to be directed at the Constitution and not the government.

>>138459578
I don't know, why don't you read the articles of secession from each state that tried to leave the Union?

>>138459578

No. In fact, the civil war actually started due to extremely unfair tax on the south.

>>138460504
wow I knew education in niggerdom was bad, but this is just clueless

>>138470797
The delusion is impalpable.

>>138470899
That's interesting. There was nothing more that Lincoln loved than abusing the constitution.

>>138470753
*Declaration of Causes of Secession

But hey my phone fucked me over so I guess you can completely ignore what the states themselves wrote, good job.

>>138467500

I'm willing to bet they were if you look back far enough.

>>138461474
The ability of the US to manufacture it's own goods was a goal from before, and part of the reason for the american revolution. Tariffs were put in place as soon as the country was founded. The south preferred 'free trade' because you cannot undercut slave labor - sorta like we can't compete with India or China today. The US government, that actually had 'the people's interest at heart back then, protected nascent domestic industry by taxing imported foreign goods (tariff) - sorta like India and China do against us today. This means that if you wanted British machinery, you paid more for it than inferior local equivalent.
Nothing stopped the south from industrializing, they just felt they had it made as a producer of raw materials.

>>138470250
Harvard professor John Taylor Gatto (Civil war red pill) says the Civil war was not about slavery, and was completely unnecessary as the slaves would have been freed by socio-economic forces within a decade.

He also says that today - "any serious civil war historian knows this"

>>138471168
I agreed with you, if you look at my post above yours.

>>138471249
>John Taylor Gatto
You're confusing people. John Taylor Gatto was a public school teacher from New York. He never taught at Harvard.

>>138459578
it was about money not freeing the slaves https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgU6YQWz86g

>>138471168
Meme posts get meme responses.

>>138471249
That's great that he felt a feel and you feel that his feel matches with your feel, but the articles by the States themselves are very clear.

>b b b b b b but muh rhetoric

Too bad: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

>>138471775
>the states own words are a meme

So desperate.

You lose again.

Too bad: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

>>138471775
So the Confederate states were just memeing with that declaration? fuckin moron

File: WhitePrivilegeCotton.png (1MB, 880x621px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 880x621px

>>138459578
>Was Slavery the Main Reason for the Civil War ?
Definitely not!
What you need to understand is that the vast majority of whites in the south did not own any slaves at all. Most white farmers there picked their own cotton.
So how are we to explain the notion that all of those non-slave owning whites were talked by a few plantation owners into going to war so the few plantation owners could keep their slaves?
Clearly this does not work.

>>138469853
(((German))) revolutionaries(pronto-Bolsheviks)from the 1848-49 revolution in Europe who fled to America; helped Lincoln get elected as president.

>>138471962
>>138471931
You always get one quote from the missipiis declaration as proof of something or other. Why not the much longer South Carolina declaration of causes? They were the first to leave the union after all. Is it because it lists other grievances and goes into greater detail than the others?

How can slavery be the reason for the war? When the war started, slavery was legal.

>>138471082
Well, take the famous Emancipation Proclamation. There was a proviso attached that if any seceded state returned to the Union before a certain date; the Proclamation would not apply there.

Lincoln was careful not to abolish slavery where he had the authority to do so.

One mistake the Unionists made was to believe their own propaganda; a mistake that hasn't been corrected.

Palpable makes more sense,

>>138459578
Money. The only reason for any war.

>>138469317
>Lee was part of the privileged slave holding aristocracy.
>Grant was a self made man who detested slavery.
Are you sure about that?

File: jew merch face.jpg (19KB, 203x391px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 203x391px

>>138459578

Sheeeeeeit....

It was 100% Money and Economics...

Nobody gives a Rats-Ass about Niggers...

Sure, there were Psy-Ops blathering about the morality of slavery and shit...

Bottom line it was in the Bible, and most of the folks at that time were Bible believers.

You got Psy-Op'd, the "History" of this is a sham.

MONEY - MONEY - MONEY...That was the ONLY reason for the war.

I Support FREE SPEECH for Jews - Niggers - Mongreloids !

>>138378072
.

>>138470091
>Lee literally owned hundreds of slaves. Don't start this shit
Lee inherited his slaves and releases them in 1862. Grant kept his slaves until 1865. He also released them reluctantly. Grant was a drunken asshole.

File: John_Steuart_Curry_Tragic_Prelud_1937_1942.jpg (507KB, 1754x950px) Image search: [Google]

507KB, 1754x950px

>>138460632
They should just say the war started in Kansas
Makes a stronger case for it being about slavery.

Was a real civil war in Kansas - city vs city, neighbors killing and looting each other.
Was about Kansas joining the Union and not secession.
Nothing to do with tariffs or taxation.

File: 546742cefb9d39385f43f85cd1ee287fc02c5b480c09c99f6fdc82cdc4300213.jpg (64KB, 594x305px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 594x305px

>>138460851
pic related

>>138461517
>fighting to maintain their rights, lifestyle and independence

A lot of people don't realize how different the states were back then, when people came over to America, they colonized with like-minded people or people of the same religion. You had the Quakers in one area, Germans in one area, the south was mostly Brittish, etc, etc. It was a big deal that the northerners controlled the government and were suppressing the south through tariffs / taxation. The purpose of the USA was to give the states the right to decide issues other than those laid out by the national bill of rights & constitution.

File: d6d7e0d6a22bf04db72ad711f7b71beef4b9e19cdc89d777a6473fdee4ef8c8b.png (90KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 850x400px

>>138461382

File: jew crazy.jpg (23KB, 321x279px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 321x279px

◄ Genesis 9:25 ►

New International Version
he said, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers."

New Living Translation
Then he cursed Canaan, the son of Ham: "May Canaan be cursed! May he be the lowest of servants to his relatives."

English Standard Version
he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.”

New American Standard Bible
So he said, "Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers."

King James Bible
And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
he said: Canaan will be cursed. He will be the lowest of slaves to his brothers.

International Standard Version
he said, "Canaan is cursed! He will be the lowest of slaves to his relatives."

>>138473394
I've always had a hard time accepting that 95% of the population would go to war, just to keep the 5%'s slaves.

>>138478016
We've stomped across the middle east for pretty much the same reasons. Economic benefit of the rich is generally the cause for most wars.

>>138469040
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxsIR_5dt38

>>138478776
I'd suspect various politicians of renting out the U.S. Military in exchange for campaign contributions.

No, Mrs. Clinton I'm not looking at you!

>>138475692
>Kansas neighbors looting each other
The Civil War was about money.

>>138468321
What is referred to as the civil war was not a civil war, it was a war of independence. No one called the American Revolution a civil war. They call it the civil war cause apparently the union didn't recognize the Confederacy even though under international law regarding blockades as an act of war they inadvertently did. Congress didn't declare war, and the union blockade was done unilaterally by Lincoln, a power the President doesn't have just like his suspension of Habeas Corpus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_blockade#Recognition_of_the_Confederacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Merryman

>>138476440
Imagine being a family one or a few generations into this country, fleeing another country for various reasons. Of course they took up arms against an invading army!

>>138461382
The call to arms in Dixie did not happen until *AFTER* Lincoln raised an army of invasion.

The Confederate Army was an Army of Defense !!

>>138461874
le ebein reddit response
Those documents are rhetorical propagandas to keep the wealthy slaveholders on board as a source of financing. The Confederate Constitution bans the slave trade from everywhere EXCEPT the US.
>>138459578
OP, it was about the Constitution. It's worded in such a broad way that conflicting interpretations have arisen, one of which was the fugitive slave clause and whether or not it meant slavery was federally sanctioned. The Confederate Constitution is a reworded version of the US one without the ambiguity, including but no limited to slavery as well as actual differences. The Confederacy wanted an all around better form of government, more states' rights, better protection of property rights via full faith and credit, and a fair taxing and spending system. They banned most federally funded internal improvements as the North was rigging the federal funds to their benefit and the South believed such things were unconstitutional, and precedented by James Madison's veto of the Bonus Bill of 1817. They also banned taxes designed to benefit certain industries, such as the Northern textile industry, they only levied a 15% general purpose tariff on most imports. They started the idea of term limits, excess profit taxes, legislation being limited to one topic as to prevent agendas from being discretely pushed, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Clause
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Bill_of_1817
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution

>>138461517
And because Southerners resisted their capitulation, mutual hatred brewed for over 40 years prior to the war.

Yankees punished the South economically for decades. Of course there was resentment!

>>138469853
Teddy Roosevelt's mother was a secessionist.

>>138474881
Liberal Playbook 101: Twist everything backwards.

>>138483358
that's why we in the south refer to it as "the war of northern aggression".

>>138484206
This will be argued for hundreds of years.

>>138483985
You should see what Teddy had to say about race suicide.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/teddy-roosevelt-discusses-americas-race-problem

File: IMG_3831.jpg (2MB, 2683x2392px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2683x2392px

I drove five hours round trip yesterday to visit the grave of Lizzie Rutherford. At the end of the war, it was her idea to erect monuments to the Confederate Dead. These monuments are being removed today. She is also credited with being the "suggestor" of Memorial Day. The Yankees liked the idea so much, they co-opted the holiday that we now enjoy to-day.

has anyone watched the ken burns civil war series on pbs? is it accurate/fair or is it just "muh slavery" northern crap? I see it is available on Netflix now, I might check it out.

>>138484782
It's the disrespect that's outrageous. If they want to remove these memorials they have to bring everyone to common opinion that they should be removed. They should not be allowed to act unilaterally on their own beliefs; it's uncivilised.

Check out revisedhistory.com for more analysis on the Cultural Marxist assault on the American Republic.

File: 1502974058961.png (515KB, 1189x2165px) Image search: [Google]

515KB, 1189x2165px

>>138487228
>Cultural Marxist

the statue removing is just beta liberals virtue signaling how open minded and loving they are and how ashamed they are of their own history an culture... what they don't seem to understand is that they are just "useful idiots" being used as pawns to anger the average everyday American... this makes groups on the other side rise up (also as useful idiots) to fight it out in the streets, which in turn angers even more americans and before you know if we are in a full blown civil war over statues from our last civil war.

funny how these statues have been a total non issue for 100 years and not even an issue while we had our first black president... until Roof, then they had an excuse to be outraged over some statues & flags.

Soros and the Marxists have been trying to find something that americans would be willing to fight about.... something to expose our deep, unhealed divide in this country...

File: 703557df7e36b91d508e4c79a5cc0f6b89e747827796f938a5afbc75c2e1250f.png (966KB, 986x554px) Image search: [Google]

966KB, 986x554px

>>138484782

the southern generals were freemason jews, like albert pike, jew 33rd degree freemason born in boston.

The war was fought over the economic system based upon slavery. Northern whites wouldn't have fought for niggers if money wasn't involved. Essentially, northern whites had to pay wages, southern whites didn't.

Please, don't look into the international interests that had a hand in fomenting the Civil War. Don't bother looking at England and France's meddling, you're just wasting your time.

>>138489307
Russian intervention proved decisive.

>>138459578
Based Apu

>>138488969
Nigger slaves were a year round expense. Northern workers were only paid when they had jobs.

>>138492891
>Nigger slaves were a year round expense. Northern workers were only paid when they had jobs.
Net profit south > Net profit north

>>138459578

It would be more accurate to say the cause of the civil war was the paranoia in the north of "slave power" by which they imagined white slave owners, benefiting from the labor of their slaves, would garner sufficient economic and political power to usurp the rights of white men. This combined with a fear that slavery "taught despotism" to slave owners engendered in the north a false belief that slavery should inevitably destroy all liberty if it were not first destroyed. This caused the north to assume the worse about the intentions and character of white slave owners in the south, and to fundamentally misunderstand southern culture. Moral condemnations issued by the north, level at the character of southern whites, offended southern honor and convinced the south that they would retain none of their rights and dignity if they were to remain in the union.

>>138460268
Actually, Lincoln never freed northern slaves. Northern slave states gradually reformed their own laws.

>>138495372
And for some reason they did anything to free slaves elsewhere; such as Brazil.

>>138494198
source

>>138488969
See >>138494198

Part of the paranoia over "slave power" was a false belief in the economic advantages of slavery. The reality was slavery was very inefficient. Slaves require vastly more upkeep than wage laborers. It was northern ignorance and fear which caused the civil war, not any real threat the south or slavery presented.

It was federal laws vs states rights
Civil war II will be slightly the same plus some added fake racism and communists

>>138497023
Have you seen the video with Col. Ty Seidule? I think it's crap, but have you seen it?

>>138496949
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Power
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=moa;idno=AFN8980
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2191911?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

>>138497581
No, I have not. Link?

>>138459578
Imagine everytime you wanted to do something you had like 20 big brothers who put it all to a vote first, and because they didn't like the pet you were keeping, every vote they voted against your interests because LOL. Eventually you'd wanna leave that family pretty quick

Let's be clear. The north was not fighting to end slavery. It promised states that stayed in the union that they could keep their slaves.

There was a lot of tensions between the north and the south. The threat that they might end slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back. It was a main issue for the south, but the civil war may have been inevitable without that issue.

Furthermore, most people fighting for the south weren't fighting to keep slavery. They were fighting for their states.

TLDR - It was and it wasn't about slavery. It depends on your perspective. It was much bigger than slavery, though.

>>138459578
>hey south can you stop with the slavery? You have way more power/money than we do
>sounds like a personal problem
>*butthurt intensifies*
>call daddy Lincolnm to take care of the big bad south in exchange for free buttsex
>Lincolnm agrees like the gigantic faggot he is
>war begins

I may have exaggerated a bit but that's the gist of it

>>138497654
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4
He makes a point about northern farmers paying wages, southern farmers not.

>>138498163
The north and south should've never been one country. We had too many cultural differences from the beginning. The South should've been a constitutional monarchy or something

File: 500px-SC-SovFlag.png (22KB, 500x298px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x298px

>>138498731
A confederation was fine. Associated for mutual aid but free and sovereign to do as they pleased. It was the original plan for the union and we should of kept the original article of confederation instead of going (((federal)))

Saying the war was purely about slavery means:

>ignoring the upward trend industrialization in the North vs. lack thereof in the South
>ignoring the Southern interpretation of homestead laws as basically breeding dissent in the ranks of those who supported plantation farming
>ignoring the urbanization in the North
>ignoring the massive Irish and German immigration to the North
>ignoring that all immigration largely situated around the North
>ignoring the fact that most immigrants viewed slavery with disdain
>ignoring the fact that the Northern political affiliations underwent significant tonal changes whereas the Southern political depictions largely remained stagnant for half a century if not more
>ignoring that these political differences already tainted any Southern impression of the North's ideological basis at least 2 decades before the war
>ignoring that politics in general was undergoing a widespread boom in voter participation effectively making it form of entertainment
>the split of the Protestant church into Baptists, Protestants, Presbyterians, and Methodists all of which taking various stances on the matter
>ignoring the American land grabs in the early 1800s and the dispute on institutional slavery's expansion
>ignoring the Southern planter class' perceived loss of political sway
>ignoring the Southern planter class' influence upon the lower classes due to technological advantage
>ignoring the Southern planter class' influence up the lower classes by allowing them conditional social status elevation via overseer positions
>conflating secession with the civil war
>ignoring the Northern invasion's primary motive being unification

By the time the war erupted, the North and the South were practically different countries occupying the same border in a sense. The trouble had been brewing for years. Slavery was more of a focal point emblematic of the Southern fear of progressivism and modernization than say the be-all-end-all cause of the Civil War.

>>138499306
>By the time the war erupted, the North and the South were practically different countries
Kind of like the US now. White/capitalists vs. POC/commies.

>>138466423
States' rights are not the individual's rights, brainlet.

>>138498319
Southern farmers didn't have to pay wages, but they had to provide, food, housing, and security. They were also liable for damages caused by their slaves. Note that I don't deny the centrality of slavery to the issue, rather I recognize that it was a false northern perception of slavery and the moral condemnations it produced which drove the conflict. Note also that such false perceptions and moral condemnations are displayed in the video you linked.

When discussing the "benefits of slavery" for southern whites, the speaker lists social status and economic benefits. He does not recognize the protection of whites from black violence as a benefit and motivating factor of the institution. He also describes slavery as "morally repugnant" in the first few moments of the video. This is an indefensible position. If slavery is "morally repugnant" than you must hold the black on white violence it prevented as morally acceptable. Today in America tens of thousands of white women are raped and sexually assaulted by black men every year, slavery would have prevented most of that. slavery, like segregation and mass incarceration today, is actually a tragic necessity. One made necessary by the black propensity for violence and crime.

Secession was the cause of the pure and simple.

>>138501690
Actually, one could say the first battles of the civil war were encompassed by the Bleeding Kansas Crisis which predated secession.

>>138501500
Holy shit. I've never seen the slave power description before, but this is the same demonization that we are seeing today. White people have privilege, and all POC and feminists can unite against "whiteocracy".

The existence of white privilege was dismissed by whitey at the time, and rejected as false by many historians of the 2040s and 2050s, who stressed the internal divisions in the white's before 2020. The idea that the white privelege existed has partly come back at the hands of neocomunist historians since 2050, and there is no doubt that it was a powerful factor in the POC anti-white belief system. It was standard rhetoric for all factions of the Democratic party.

4th turning when?

>>138501690
with slavery being the reason for secession.

File: SecessionFlag.jpg (186KB, 498x421px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 498x421px

>>138503136
Secession is the right of any free people. One does not need to justify the use of a right with any reason.

>>138503136
The Republican Party wanted to buttfuck the South; Southerners decided that they'd rather kill Yankees instead.

>>138502982
>4th turning when?

It's already begun.

It was a debate about whether to rent or own. The Southern slave owners wanted to own their slaves, the Northern slaveowners wanted to rent theirs. The Northern view won out.

Also, the Lincoln assassination wasn't political, it was a lovers quarrel.

>>138503694
>It's already begun.
Well yes. I should have said 4th turning crisis when. May you survive it brother.

That picture is inaccurate. Union soldiers had poor uniforms and Confederate soldiers had better ones because all of the cloth production was in the South.

>>138459578
Lincoln didn't want to free the slaves even at his inauguration. Almost all Southern states seceded BEFORE that point.

It was about many things. Paying 75% of all federal taxes then being outvoted by the other 25% was the main issue.

>>138505314
Those freed slaves should have cleared out; back to Africa or Central America. The Democratic nigger bomb is more deadly than the neutron bomb.

>>138459578
Yes. Thats why I support it

>>138460087
To the south it was about slavery, to the north it was about preserving the union

>>138506893
Nope, to the North is was about breaking "Slave Power". To the South is was about preserving their society. Slavery was the issue, but the paranoid north imagined slavery as a threat to democracy, while the south understood it was essential to maintaining civilization in the face of black crime and violence.

>>138459578
Let me put it this way, slavery is to the civil war what WMD's were to Operation Iraqi Freedom. It wasn't the cause, it was the excuse.

>>138459578
The only answer: https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=uCrf5DxTVO0
Now, which way to the welfare office?

>>138508598
Although they insist that we take their false propaganda seriously because that validates their political authority.

>>138508598
I'm stealing this.

>>138510781
This is the essential nature of the cult of personality that surrounds Lincoln.

It is a validation of political order that grew out of the Republican "victory". Erecting those statues was meant as a gesture of reconciliation, of re-uniting, but the Democrats have thrown that in bin by their iconoclastic fetishism.

>>138512331
This is what I call the Lincolnite settlement; it's founding principle is might makes right which functions under a cover of spurious legality.

As it was founded, so that's the way it's beneficiaries must be forced to yield their gains.

>>138513972
and it's foundation stone is the dead body of Abraham Lincoln.

I'd suppose that the beltway morons don't care about the symbolic meaning of this iconoclasm all that matters to them is to derive some political advantage from it.

>>138515169
Lincoln is buried under 10 feet of concrete & steal. LoL

>>138506893
Spotted the yankee

>>138504835
Confederate uniforms were home made.

File: 101.jpg (61KB, 949x454px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 949x454px

>>138459578
The reason for the American Civil War was to change the form of government.
Before the war it was a state centered system with the Federal government subservient to the states.
After the war it became a federal government centered system with the states subservient to DC.

Now You Know...

A rebuttal to this video.

..............................................................[79,503]

>>138519055
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPOnL-PZeCc

Judah P. Benjamin British stooge?

>>138459578
go read the corwin amendment

it was removed in 1864, 3 years into the Civil war. if the war were actually about slavery, it wouldn't have happened.

>>138519253
Judge Napoltano weighs in:

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

...................................................................[21,995]

The left wants to usurp the moral high ground; that's is the root of their uncivlised iconoclasm.

>>138459578
A long standing beef over tariffs boiled over, slavery was made into a war aim in the second year of the war

>>138523728
The left is psychotic and their fetish about Confederate memorials is an outward manifestation of this psychosis.

I'd suspect that the real reason behind the promotion of abolitionism was to trigger the South. One reason Southerners lost confidence in the Federal Government to protect their interests was John Brown's raid at Harper's Ferry.

>>138518227
We have a winner.

>>138521382
Another winner!

>>138469911
That was another big part.

>>138464157
>they were seen as subhuman; Lincoln even said so himself
proof?

>>138528846
What did Lincoln say when he was asked what would become of the freed slaves after the war?

He said "root hog or die," or in other words Fuck'em.