>Person has a PhD >"The Civil War was about slavery"

>>140409210
>Person has a PhD
>"6 million Jews died in the holocaust"

>>140409210
>person has a PhD in physics
>doesn't know history aka not even his fucking field
Get it now?

>>140409210
The civil war was about the slavery of the states to the federal government, and the result was that they are and will always be slaves.

>>140409210
Person has a PhD
> "Toxic Masculinity"

>>140409210
Geography professor
>we learned so much from the muslims
12 more weeks of this shit

>>140409210
Most historians these days are Marxist revisionists much less some asshole that studied a completely unrelated field. PhD does not mean a master of all fields.

>talking to lefty American
>pay reparations
>I'm a Finn
>so?
>We didn't enslave anybody
>Yes but you're still white
>Russians enslaved us and sold our women to Muslims
>Not true
>It's true, here's proof
>b-b-but this isn't true

Control your lefties Burgers, it almost ruined my trip to USA

>>140409387
>Person has PhD in aeronautical engineering in Russia
>works in a small unventilated concrete room mending holes in galvanized steel buckets using a brazing bar and a bare electrical wire
please make some new MiGs soon, the 29 was a work of art

>Person has a PhD
>Germany started WW1

>>140409744

I know your pain anon. 16 weeks of "the civil war was about slavery."

Dude even said that any mention of "the war was about state vs. federal rights" was made up by "muh altright boogeyman"

>>140409210
>person has a PhD

>merican phd in good goy

File: 1413904736319.jpg (136KB, 650x380px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 650x380px

>>140409210
>thinking people with (((PhDs))) know more about politics and history than anyone with an internet connection

>>140409210
>>Person has a PhD
>>*unzips dick*

>>140409938

But everyone knows that "state's rights" is revisionism

>Person posts on 4chan
> "people with PhDs don't know more about history and politics than anyone with an internet connection"
Get it now?

>>140410755
>we no longer want to be part of this voluntary union of states as we think it's no longer in our interests
>gets invaded

>>140409210
>Person has Ph.D
>tells Tranny to cut off dick

>>140409210
They must not have a doctorate in history.

unless they're making mark stoler's argument that the civil war is actually about slavery by being not about slavery.

Slavery was the cause of disunion broadly and southern secession politically, although abolition was not the grand moral cause animating the northern war effort. The north fought to suppress a rebellion. It was not slavery that was morally intolerable, but secession that was politically intolerable. Also, in it's constitution, culture, and personnel the CSA of 1861 and 1862 was the USA of 1860. There was really near-as-makes no difference between the two.

File: 1437531524586.jpg (94KB, 800x522px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 800x522px

These are the people Sowell criticizes in his Intellectuals and Society.

File: 1489379079540.jpg (46KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 600x600px

>>140409210
>person had a PhD
>posts on /pol/

>>140409744
>>140410130
>tfw told my advisor I won't take a diversity credit
>tfw they call me a neo confederate
>tfw decide i'm okay with this

File: FB_IMG_1504130534909.jpg (45KB, 480x676px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 480x676px

>>140409548

Fucking. Based. Japan.

Every time.

File: 1495233204082.png (187KB, 869x499px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 869x499px

>>140410947

Yankee federalist dicklickers are a special form of retarded normie.

>person has a PhD
>"WE WUZ SPACE KANGZ N SHIIET, HOL UP FO' SCIENCE"

File: 1484528479088.gif (2MB, 277x342px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 277x342px

>PhD in philosophy
>"there are no good arguments for eating meat"

>>140411540
i don't know how the nip does it so consistently.

>People have an MD
>Diet has no impact on autoimmune disorders

>>140409997
we want to gas them all and probably will within the next decade.

>>140409997
Can't, sorry. Only thing left to do is learn to fly helicopters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFwHQYDqf6c

>>140409210
Pol potts is starting to make sense now

>>140410947
>It's no longer in our interests
>....Because of anti slavery sentiments

Jesus fucking christ just READ the causes for secession.

File: sdf.jpg (379KB, 1160x963px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 1160x963px

The only thing you need to believe is that the war is over and the southern traitors lost.

>>140410130
READ THE CAUSES FOR SECESSION. READ THEM YOU STUPID NIGGER. TRACK YOUR FUCKING EYES ACROSS THE PAGE AND COMPREHEND THE WORDS.

The civil war was about slavery though

>>140412409
Better ass do that, really enjoyed the country otherwise. And the face of that said lefty was priceless, she didn't know there were white slaves

>>140412770
Wasn't slavery legal during the civil war?
Like recognized as a legal institution by Lincoln and the US even while fighting?
How can it be about slavery if they succeeded while slavery was still legal?

>person has a GED
>"This Civil War wasn't about slavery"

it was

File: 681B71EC-DF6F-42E8-A750-B0905B017E31-3236-0000038A9A1A5B34.jpg (34KB, 500x489px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x489px

>history professor begins class today with, "We're going to look at the reasons behind differences in development around the world."
>Holds up "Guns, Germs and Steel"

>person has a PhD
>BECAUSE MUH SEX JUNK
>IS SO OH OH OH
>MUCH MORE THAN EITHER OR OR OR

>>140409210
>person has a PhD in physics
>America was not founded as a white country.

>>140409210
but it clearly wasnt about slavery

>The Corwin Amendment

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/23/know-called-civil-war-not-slavery/

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

>>140411517
aren't you required?

>>140412560
>judging history by today's moral standards
The federal government tried to ignore the constitution while the southern states broke no laws.

>>140409744
mine was a government professor
it gets worse

>>140412962
>Like recognized as a legal institution by Lincoln and the US even while fighting?

The new states were only admitted to the union if they did not allow slavery past a certain boundary. Slavery was a legally recognized institution only in the south because that was the original agreement in the formation of the union. It was the precondition behind the state signing the constitution. Sentiment turned against slavery and the North was putting pressure on the southern states to end slavery.

The south didn't appreciate efforts to disrupt their economic model because they were too stupid to industrialize agriculture and enjoyed fucking up our country by importing millions of blacks. The north didn't play nice with the national slavery laws (of returning slaves to the southern states) and this is the main reason the South seceded. They claimed that the north was willfully breaking the law as outlined in the constitution.

Once the south seceded all bets were off. National sentiment was largely against slavery, but the laws had not yet been passed to eradicate it. Lincoln was an opportunist and waited quite a while before signing the emancipation proclomation

The ENTIRE REASON FOR SECESSION WAS OVER SLAVERY. The southern states had a "legal" right to keep their slaves as outlined in the constitution and the north fighting them was basically the north proclaiming hegemony over the southern states.

All the southern states had to do was abolish slavery and they could have avoided getting 400K whites killed in the process, and kept the numbers of black people lower. The south even started the whole ordeal after capturing fort Sumter

>>140412529
based simpsons

>>140413620
The constitution allowed slavery at the time and people recognized it needed to change. I suppose you're defending slavery. You're a stupid nigger and you should lynch yourself.

>>140414255
No I'm not. I'm defending state right's. There is about a 0% chance that the South would have slavery today if it was allowed to separate.
If you want to change a law do it how it's supposed to be done. Don't shoot anyone who opposes you.

>>140409744
We did learn a few things, though.
>don't fuck your first cousins
>don't fuck goats
>don't fuck children
The list goes on, really.

>>140414488
>there's a 0% chance the south would have slavery

Great fucking argument you retard. Whattabout this whatabout that woulda coulda shoulda. The south rightfully seceeded and then proceeded to start the civil war.

>>140414556
Don't convert to islam being the chief sentiment.

>>140414752
The south didn't start the civil war. You can't start a war my being invaded.

>>140414114
No slavery was a part of it not the entire reason.

>>140412919
It has gradually become clear to me that the purpose of American education is to keep average and dumb people as ignorant as possible so they are pliant and easily controlled, while destroying any smart people who don't 100% but the party line. Those few smart people who do go on to control the dumb people.

>>140409210
>"The Civil War was about slavery"
I don't understand this meme.

Each southern state specifically mentions slavery as their primary reason for declaring war though. Below are quotes right from the first paragraph in each of their declarations:

Georgia's reason for war:
>For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
(first paragraph)

Mississippi
>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.

South Carolina:
>The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right.

Texas:
>The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

etc.

They saw anti-slavery laws as economic oppression from the federal government. State rights (if mentioned at all) came in a distant second place for reason for war for most southern states.

File: 1503771945559.jpg (88KB, 400x377px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 400x377px

>>140413277

>>140409548
True. We'll always end up sucking the government's dick.

File: 1472764859408.jpg (92KB, 768x783px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 768x783px

>>140409548
script status: flipped

Slaves were the most valuable property in the country in 1860. Slavery wasn't only a source of labor but of capital as well. Keep in mind there wasn't really any money in the mid 19th century. Wealth was recorded on 19th century spreadsheets. The wealth of the plantation class was held in the physical body of slaves as well as the land that was owned. The value of those slaves was leveraged in commercial dealings. The invention of the cotton gin would not have eliminated slavery. Another crop would have come along (coffee, tobacco, sugar, etc...) that would have required significant manual labor to cultivate and reap.

>>140414114
>The ENTIRE REASON FOR SECESSION WAS OVER SLAVERY.
I agree.
But there is a higher motive in which you are clearly aware of and yet are ignorant of at the same time.
It didn't matter what the issue was, The South would not be allowed to succeed. Whether it was slavery or whether it was over federal tax disputes.
The North were an agressor, and like you said, could largely not give a fuck about the welfare of slaves.
To say that The Union Army sacrificed 100s of thousands of their men to free the black man is a fanciful liberal revisionist way of looking at history.

>>140414947
>They saw anti-slavery laws as economic oppression from the federal government. >State rights (if mentioned at all) came in a distant second place for reason for war for most southern states.

Are you even reading what you write

>>140413225
>tfw, armed with years of cutthroat "debates" on /pol/, resoundingly eviscerate GG&S before variously horrified and bored classmates

Remember everyone, /pol/ is always right.

>>140409210
Not all PhDs are in african-american studies

>>140413604
Allegedly.

I'm angling for independent study, desu. If I have to do diversity, I'm thinking I'll read Jared Taylor.

>>140415195
I'm glad we agree. People in the north largely used slavery as their ideological basis for waging warfare. When it comes down to it, secession was over slavery. The war that followed was the war to maintain the union.

So it can be concluded that slavery was the cause of the civil war. Was the north being tyranical? Probably. People whining that slavery wasn't the reason for war are busch league, though and have no fucking clue what shit they are spouting.

>>140415298
South carolina was the one that really went into state rights. Every other declaration was "muh negroes, who will tend the crops without muh negros"?

>>140414114
>The south even started the whole ordeal after capturing fort Sumter
>Not Lincoln sending munitions/supplies to a fort in Confederate territory despite being told it'd be taken as an act of aggression
>Not Lincoln sending a call to the Northern states to build an army against the confederacy after North Carolina defended itself from prior act of aggression
[spoiler]shiggy[/spoiler]

>>140414890
k

>>140414114
>>140415195
Maybe a better way to put it would be this:
Remember when we went into Iraq because Saddam had Nukes and was gonna sell em to terrorists and then we didn't find them and then the war wasn't about that anymore.
Well that's essentially what the left did with this war, except over a much longer period of time.
One can actually read books about the war from the 19th century, and then early 20th, and then late 20th and see how the narrative has evolved over time to where we are now.

>Almost all the confederate states declare that secession is to prevent the abolition of slavery.
>some mention race specifically

>"HHURR IT WASN'T ABOUT SLAVERY YOU STUPID NIGGERS" -t. modern right wing retards

>>140415585
This is exactly right. It's what I said >>140411341. The war for the North was about putting down a rebellion, not morality.

>>140412962
Yes, but it wasn't the north that started the war, the south seceded specifically because they were afraid Lincoln was the next John Brown. The south cared very much about the slaves, the north didn't until it was politically expedient; even if they did have strong abolitionist movements.

Anyone that tells you an opinion besides the one I did is ideologically motivated to provide a certain viewpoint, and nothing more.

>>140409210
>Person has a PhD in physics
>Acts like an expert on geopolitical issues

>>140415759
>t. a person with PHD

>>140414845
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/civil-war-facts

"The war began when the Confederates bombarded Union soldiers at Fort Sumter, South Carolina on April 12, 1861. The war ended in Spring, 1865. Robert E. Lee surrendered the last major Confederate army to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse on April 9, 1865. The last battle was fought at Palmito Ranch, Texas, on May 13, 1865. "

>>140409210
>person has Mst. in engineering
>person calls himself "scientist"

>>140409997
I don't know why anyone falls for the white privilage meme, European white men had massive genocides inflicted upon them in WW1 and WW2 and now we get called privileged for millions having died.

>>140415928
False flag. Fake news.

File: 1504465686242.gif (811KB, 713x611px) Image search: [Google]

811KB, 713x611px

>>140409210
>"the civil war wasn't about slavery, it was about the liberty of individual states"
>nobody really gave a fuck until they tried to ban slavery

Sure thing, bud

>>140415667
>Seceeding from the union
>Expecting things to turn out peacefully

I'm not defending Lincoln. I've already said that the north wasn't playing by the rules. They felt that maintaining the union was the preferable option. Secession was over slavery. The north sought to maintain the union by force.

>>140409210
>PhD is something valuable today with high standards
There are huge amounts of females with a PhD, it's insane how naive and intellectually immature they are, in my opinion one out of ten only should really have it. Even minoritiys get PhDs enough said.

>>140411540
>>140415129
>"United States"
>states aren't united

So why not just have the states be independent nations then? You want to have the cake and eat it too, if you're a Texan and want the federal government to come help as your largest city is turned into a swamp then you're also going to have to give something in return

File: 1487935686095.png (91KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 500x500px

>>140416261

>Even though only the richest 1% of land owners could ever afford a slave, all those millions of Confederate soldiers went off and fought and starved in horrible conditions for slavery

>>140416363
I'm not arguing that it was over slavery, most of the big causes for secession can be boiled down to that, I was just contesting that the South started it when the North threw the first punch

>>140415755
Secession was over slavery. Full stop. The war that followed was not necessarily over that, but the conditions that arose to promote war arose because of the issue of slavery.

This is literally not debatable.
.

>>140416179
wow great argument there bud.

File: i_do_declare.gif (833KB, 500x200px) Image search: [Google]

833KB, 500x200px

Actual Confederate Civil War veteran explains why he fought in the Civil War:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHDfC-z9YaE

File: why (2).jpg (22KB, 288x499px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 288x499px

>>140409997
>trip to USA

>>140416683
Well, now were here together brother. And we're the most influential nation the world has ever seen. Cheers to America!

>>140409210
>"The Civil War was about slavery"
Would the Civil War have happened if Lincoln was not elected on an abolitionist platform? No. Therefore, although slavery was not the only cause, it was the prime and foremost cause, to such an overwhelming extent that is fair to say that the Civil War was indeed due to slavery.

>>140416649
Unlike every other war in history which has been fought based on the interests of the average pleb?

>>140417014
>"I WAS THERE TO GUT YANKS! EVERY FUCKING LAST ONE OF THEM I'D DO IT AGAIN LONG LIVE THE CONFEDERACY!"
Not what I was expecting.

>>140409997
You should have castrated that man on the spot.

Here to blow you faggots out the water

>A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

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

>>140416828
>This is literally not debatable.
Not debating those points. I agree.
I think that's the view anyone who knows what they're talking about and isn't shilling should take.
However, the latter part:
>The war that followed was not necessarily over that
Is no longer given weight in modern society and you can actually be called horrible things for suggesting it.
The "we died for the black man" meme has become reality for the majority of Americans.

>>140416111
This and also those with a degree in biology, chemistry or physics claiming to be scientists. I always asked them about their peer reviewed articles, because I believe in standards, there needs to be more than just a university curriculum, which only enables one to become a scientist, but also actual scientific work at the frontier.

>>140415850
>The south cared very much about the slaves, the north didn't until it was politically expedient
The Atlantic slave trade was outlawed in 1807, half a century before the American civil war. Virtually all civilized countries had adopted an abolitionist philosophy by the turn of the 18th century. The south's thirst for new slaves meant violating these laws and importing slaves illegally (or kidnapping northern free men and falsifying documents claiming they were escaped slaves).

The phrase gets thrown around way too much, but the south really was on the wrong side of history. The north gets blamed for being oppressive but realistically the south would have run out of trading partners and eventually come into conflict with Europe as slavery was stamped out worldwide.

>>140417429
Already posted earlier in thread.

>>140417014
This is exactly what those stupid assholes trying to take down statues are missing. They think that the symbolic nature of monuments of the war in relation to slavery is somehow opressive and that the fighters from the south were all evil bad men who liked whipping niggers and raping their women.

Victim mentality on maximum overdrive. As well as an unwillingness to look at history and historical context.

>>140417429
Is that why Lincoln didn't let Fremont declare martial law, arm "ex"slaves and execute bushwhackers? Or was it because he still had slave states under him and was trying to win a war of unification not of anti-slavery.
>Frémont should never have dragged the Negro into the war
Lincoln to Mrs Fremont.

>>140416644
>why not just have some of the states secede?
i don't know anon, why do you think?

>>140411973
the asian iq meme must be real just going by the few japanese/ korean posts ive seen.

>>140417511
Yeah its lamentable. Seeing those protests and then the eventual tearing down of statues sickened me. It makes me incredibly sad to see that happening. The people doing those things have zero empathy or historical knowledge and only look at the world through their moral filter. They feed and, in fact, subsist entirely on the feeling of righteous indignation. I hope the hurricane brings everyone together for the good of humanity.

>>140414255
>i suppose you're defending slavery
>you must be a stupid nigger
really? niggers love slavery now?

>>140415928
What were union soldiers doing in a confederate state? Is that not an invasion even if it's just an occupation?

>>140409938
>le communist conspiracy

File: Totally not about slavery.jpg (564KB, 1267x432px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 1267x432px

>>140409210
I believe you dropped this, sir.

>>140418660
>le ignoring the fact that Castro and Cheare celebrated despite atrocities.

>>140418784
The country can be founded on any ideals but that doesn't change the war was about keeping unified and slaves were an afterthought.

>>140410459
Oh because Stormfront, Amren, David Horowitz, and IHR know more than people who have spent years reading and analyzing old documents.

File: gf9mdXbWe7_uDRJ4WrUdHSHwzk3doi4QQrJB390Ost4.jpg (135KB, 576x768px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 576x768px

>>140419020
>Vice President of the Confedaracy: We are seceded because slavery
>Stupid modern hillbillies: It wasn't about slavery! The confederates didn't know what they were talking about!
Lol hillbillies.

>>140409744
How to aim an rpg

>>140417191
It was the straw that broke the camels back. I just can't imagine all those southerners dying because even though a vast majority didn't own them. It was only 4% that owned them.

>>140417763
Good.

>>140417898
There's no argument, kid. I just posted a primary source. If you want to argue with it, feel free. Dunno how far you'll get.

>>140419226
Who are you calling an inbred, inbred? Once again I'll go slower so you can understand, the Confederates can secede on whatever shit they want. But the Union invaded them to stop the breaking up of the country not to stop slavery.

>>140419395
Lincoln didnt run on abolition platform. Or he wouldnt have been elected.

>>140419226
funny thing about your pic. they tear down any statues that are tied to the confederacy, even ones that commemorate dead soldiers. those same dead soldiers who were defending their homes from an invasion and never owned slaves.

>>140410947
>when a President who doesn't want to abolish slavery gets elected so you carry out a terrorist attack on a federal arsenal to make sure slavery isn't abolished then you fight a war and lose hundreds of thousands of people and destroy the economy but lose anyway causing slavery to be abolished

>>140419524
So your argument is that the civil war wasn't about slavery because the union was trying to hold the country together after the confederates seceded because slavery. Holy shit that's some tortured logic.

>>140419636
So you're the guy they're talking about.

>>140419493
The war was fought entirely over secession. Secession might have been about slavery but that's not what Lincoln or high command gave two shits about.

has PhD and is company manager put in charge of foreign business section

"Are the Australian and American dollar different or the same?"

(might be Korean of Burakumin)

>>140419727
>there is no difference, in principle – but only in degree – between political and chattel slavery
The union were supporting a slavery of their own.

Hey I was in that class today. Dude is also a trial lawyer.

Doesn't seem that objectionable to admit though.

>>140410369
This. A bachelors is all you need in a good field to earn six figures.

>>140419729
>Strangles person
OMG why are you blaming me for dying? You're just not getting enough oxygen. This has nothing to do with me!

>>140419985
Oh wow what an amazing point. So you're a socialist, since you're against wage slavery, correct? Oh you mean you're just another dumb fucking hillbilly who wants to be a muslim in everything but name but not called a piece of shit? Yeah, exactly.

>>140411341
>Also, in it's constitution, culture, and personnel the CSA of 1861 and 1862 was the USA of 1860. There was really near-as-makes no difference between the two.
Actually there were several differences between the two constitutions, including government practices and fiscal restraints on the federal government and states could impeach federal officials in their states, make agreements with each other over waterways, tax ships using their state's waterways. The jist of the Confederate government was anti-corruption changes and otherwise clarification via re-wording of the US constitution. The Confederate constitution best constitution, some of things like term-limits, excess profits taxes, tariff reciprocation, etc. have made their say in the US since. I think we should scrap the garbage one that rifted the country apart and replace it with the CSA version, I don't give a fuck how hard niggers chimpout if they're made slaves again.

>>140420109
>salary = expertise

Fuck I hope you're never my doctor.

>>140420170
I said political not wage slavery you projecting faggot.

>>140409210
Sort of? I mean, the reason the states split was fears of slavery's dissolution and northern influence. The reason the war BEGAN was because the Union refused to disperse their military installations. The grand theme of 'we're coming to free your slaves grew in the wake of the Emancipation Proclamation, proving their fears true in that regard.

>>140419727
so you're the idiot who can't see a difference between a statue honoring a civil war general, and the common soldiers who had nothing to do with slavery?

>>140420313
Oh sorry. I forgot we were making shit up. I was giving you too much credit.

>I'm not allowed to own slaves?!? THAT'S SLAAAVERY!!
Lol only a white male could be this fucking retarded.

>>140420403
Nope. Soldiers fight wars.

>>140420447
and their motivations were also "but muh slaves" despite never owning any? and is it impossible for you to comprehend that some of them just didn't want their farms burned to the ground and have their families killed when the north rolled through?

>>140420224
Don't worry. Wasn't my field

>>140415585
>Probably
They were, slavery was protected under the US Constitution as affirmed by several SCOTUS cases like Dred Scott, Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, etc. The Confederate Constitution just reworded those clauses to remove the ambiguity. The proceedings of the 1787 convention prove slavery was protected. They lost the constitutional war, but won the shooting war with their unconstitutionally done appropriations for industrialization.
>While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch “of the accursed soil.” Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution and that is, notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

>>140409210
Well, slavery is why the South split away. So in that sense, yes, it was about slavery.

>>140409210
> University Lecturer here

Most folks in the ivory towers are so high on their own narcissism. They are like Michio Kaku and assume they know everything about everything (and can pretend to be an authority on it) because they got a piece of paper of questionable quality (seriously, the bar is fucking low once you're in college proper. Bell curve grading, baby).

>>140420617
>some hillbillies protecting muh farms from the gubment
>valiant or even worth of a statue

meh

>>140420617
>and is it impossible for you to comprehend that some of them just didn't want their farms burned to the ground and have their families killed when the north rolled through?
Cry to the Belgian Congo, you little white bitch. The only thing Sherman did wrong was not making the South howl more desperately. Hopefully this time around we totally exterminate you fucking parasites.

File: Clinton-Gore.png (64KB, 381x251px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 381x251px

It was about slavery.

The only main difference between the CSA's constitution and the USA's was that the CSA's specifically made slavery legal.

>Ph.D. in sociology
>"democrats are liberal"

>>140420447
>>I'm not allowed to own slaves?!? THAT'S SLAAAVERY!!
>turning in one form of slavery for another
Not exactly worth the half a million who died. Then today are called liberators or slavers when they were all fighting for slavery in the end.

>>140420997
See: >>140420728
It was already legal in the US, the SCOTUS affirmed so over and over again.

>>140421213
>Not exactly worth the half a million who died
I'd say it was worth a LOT more dead southern rednecks than that. We fucking got ripped off.

>>140420829
haha, you're literally retarded. some southerners wanted to honor their ancestors who died defending their homes. but i guess admitting that would ruin the narrative you're trying to push.

>>140409548
the Jap did his homework...

>>140421311
Grant didn't have enough meat shields to throw at Lee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Spotsylvania_Court_House

>>140421579
>Its literally slavery to not let white males own slaves!
Yep, that sure is one smart neckbeard weaboo.

>>140415759
Except Maryland was a slave state, in fact the third largest. Why didn't they join the Confederate states?

>>140422078
Do you not see we live in slavery today? The Confederacy was shit but even radical anarchist abolitionists like Spooner thought the war was a shitshow. Slavery in the south was on the way out anyhow. Brittan would not have let them practice it into the 20th century.

File: 1501889335083.jpg (25KB, 641x530px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 641x530px

>>140421274

MUH STAYTES WRIGHTS!

CSA Constitution:
"Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

1. No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility.

2. No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports, or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the Confederate States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of Congress.

3. No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, except on seagoing vessels, for the improvement of its rivers and harbors navigated by the said vessels; but such duties shall not conflict with any treaties of the Confederate States with foreign nations; and any surplus revenue thus derived shall, after making such improvement, be paid into the common treasury. Nor shall any State keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. But when any river divides or flows through two or more States they may enter into compacts with each other to improve the navigation thereof."

>>140414129
always

>>140409548
>50 different monetary systems and currencies in modern day America
Sounds like Injuns. America flipped its shit because free gibs were taken away so nothing would surprise me

>>140420837
Go back to /leftypol/ you insufferable faggot.

>>140409210
I was taught in AP US History that it had to do with the Kansas Nebraska act, which allowed everyone to decide whether or not slavery would be prohibited within the borders of the Kansas Nebraska territory.

>>140411540

Damn that's cool

>>140422433
All I see is that the South needs weeded again.

>>140422884
This hot new retarded meme is already old and smelly. /rightypol/ is just a clone of this place. You'd love it. You get banned for being left wing there.