>Civil War
>it was about slavery. I swear!
>History board
>It's not /pol/ with dates, i swear!
>>932603
I dont go to /pol/
>>932601
Even if it wasn't 'about' slavery, slavery is what led to it. Take slavery out of the equation completely and tell me the Civil War would have still happened. The fact that slavery was legal in every single seceding state and the fact blacks were treated like labor animals even after slavery ended was just a fucking coincidence?
Seriously, what reason to people have to have to distance the Confeds and slavery?
>"I'm not racist, but the Confederacy should have won"
>>932601
>It was about states rights I swear
The Confederate Constitution is a word for word copy of the US constitution except for a bunch of shit about slavery including:
>No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Aka "States can't ban slavery"
>>932612
>Seriously, what reason to people have to have to distance the Confeds and slavery?
You know the answer to this is in-group thinking combined with changing mores.
>>932601
>dude it was about states rights LMAO!
states rights to what?
>err..umm..
>>932629
Southfags BTFO
>>932601
>Civil War
>It's not about slavery, I swear!
>All economic and state's rights issues between north and south were either explicitly related to slavery or due to factors that were made possible by slavery.
>Slavery explicitly protected in the Confederate constitution.
>>932629
>>932630
>responding to your own post with 'Southfags BTFO'
god you northerners are pathetic
>>932634
>god you northerners are pathetic
>lost the civil war
>>932634
How does this make southerners feel?
>>932626
>if i remove specificity from the answer, i get a different answer
What mores do you think changed and what was the in-group out-group separation, pray tell?
Let the South rise again. We're not losing anything of value. And if they start another war, I doubt the results of a second Civil War will be any different.
Maybe we'll get Reconstruction right this time.
>>932612
>Take slavery out of the equation completely and tell me the Civil War would have still happened.
People were violently passionate about tariffs back then, apparently.
>>932601
>>932671
Thanks for posting. I should make a script to alert me to and post this in all civil war threads.
>implying the war wasn't about one group of economic elites fighting against another group of economic elites over different economic worldviews
The average soldier and civilian on both sides was a victim 2bh.
>>932638
you've been trying it for 151 years yet the small folk still drink secret toasts to general lee and yearn for the return of the old south
>>932691
>Mfw that was a bold faced lie by magistrate fatass to control viserys [and Danaerys] (she was not important at this point desu)
>>932671
rekt
>>932688
That describes just about any war, but the "average soldiers and civilians" of the confederacy (i.e. poor white people) were still extremely pro-slavery.
It's very typical for the most passionate enemy of the bottom rung of society to be the second bottom rung, i.e. those whose meager status is most directly challenged.
Billy Bob, please, we don't have to make this thread every day. I'm sure your sister is feeling lonely, go back to making more inbred babies instead of shitposting.
