On this day, 151 years ago Abraham Lincoln died.
What does /his/ think of this man?
He's honest.
>>985922
good president and a good man.
Pretty good.
Wish he'd had a better VP.
>>985933
He's an Abe
He's honestly gay
We literally wouldn't have a country without him. He's based as fuck.
He was going to export all the blacks back to Africa, but then some southerner retard had to fuck it up.
>>986016
He stopped talking about exporting the blacks after the Emancipation Proclamation
He's a cuck. The civil war wasn't about slaves, it was about state's rights, ln fact many captains and generals in the confederacy were against slavery. The Confederate army was much more diverse than the union. Not only this but the Confederacy had a much more liberal stance on many social issues that pertained to an individual's rights and welfare while the union was cheap labor and poor standards of living. Basically why fat cats are so fat is thanks to not so honest abe.
>>985984
No that was the president before him.
>>986031
> The civil war wasn't about slaves, it was about state's rights
It was about both
>In its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states.
>In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."
>>985922
10/10 President, we were lucky to have him when we did.
>>986031
>The civil war wasn't about slaves, it was about state's rights
Oh boy, here we go
Did the wrong things for the right reasons because he had no other choice. I like him, despite all that he did I personally find quite detestable.
>>986031
About the states rights to practice slavery!
>>986031
It was about the state's right to own slaves.
When you get down to the absolute most base cause, yes, it was state's rights, but the real honest to god readily identifiable cause of the Civil War was rich southerners wanting to own slaves to make more money. For them, it was about maintaining slavery, and thus, their affluence.
>>986031
this needs to be a new /his/ meme
>After sacking Carthage, Rome practiced states' rights and enslaved every Carthiginian that wasn't killed.
>>986154
>>986151
>>986147
While I won't disagree with you that some parties in some states vouched for slavery, I will ask you this. If in fact slavery was so so evil, than why don't we talk about the many indentured servants that still existed and someday even say out numbered the slave population.
Not just stopping there. When the slaves were set free, what happened to them? Who took care of them if anybody? Was there any social welfare system in place at this time that made it so former slaves could adjust to a life of civil freedom? Many slaves ended up becoming indentured servants with new bosses otherwise know as carpet baggers even more left to find worse jobs in the textile factory with terrible pay and standards of living.
As I mentioned before. Had the north or abe cared so much of the slaves, why did he not establish any plans to help them adjust to the so called freedom?
Some may argue of the harsh conditions that the slaves lived under there masters.
Many states had laws in place to prevent this treatment. In fact this treatment was looked down especially by the the ever standing presence of the Christian community that did in fact exist in the americas.
So I ask you? Truly. Is history as you believe it to be? Or simply how is it written by the victor.
The truth is, this. While any of us, even I disagree with the idea of slavery. The south already had an economy largely built on top of the slaves. Why then did nobody propose a slow but progressive way of restablishing the southern economy?
The answer is simple and the one I had previously gave. The war was not about setting slaves free. But about making slaves of us all.
Believe what you will. But try to examine both sides of the pasture before you decide to graze. Because you may end up short of grass to eat.
>>986161
We should fuse it with the Voltaire memes.
>>986222
I honestly feel bad for you, because you wasted your time writing multiple paragraphs of irrelevant garbage that you believe is deep, which is typical of /pol/acks. Nobody said anything about the morality of it, or the significance of it, etc. You just made the stupid claim that it was about state's rights, when it wasn't.
But nice trips.
>>986232
Cool bro, I'm a shit skin Mexican American with illegal parents (whom received citizenship after 21 years of living in the states) that doesn't belong on /pol/
But I guess I'll go there :^)
>>985922
WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION
* attacks fort sumter eternally *
>>986222
Is the alt-right just modern day sophistry?
>>986222
What the fuck does that have to do with anything you dumbass.
>>986299
History, you faggot.
>>986317
You're a nigger.
>>986222
>what is the Freedmans Bureau
>what is the Reconstruction
The only reason the reconstruction ended was because the North was tired of trying to drag the south into modernity
>>986331
Oh boy here we go go. These were established after the war. And probably drafted during it too. Perhaps I should re-phrase my question. Why was nothing proposed to southern states, before the war begun.
>>986368
The war began a month after he was elected, you numpty. Lincoln didn't even become an emancipator until the war was at its worst. He didn't want to step into the obviously thorny issue, but the delusional fucks in the South insisted that he was a nigger-loving Satan.
>duh why didn't Lincoln help the slaves three days after election?
>the Freedmen's Bureau doesn't count because it was established after the war, never mind that helping to integrate freedmen in the middle of the war to free them is fucking stupid
>>986387
Wowow, did not ask why before Abe was
elected friendo, I asked why nothing was proposed before the war.
Abe was in office a month and a half before the war began.
>>986394
>I asked why nothing was proposed before the war.
Because the slaves weren't free. Why would you make a Freedmen's Bureau when half the country believes that it's illegal for those slaves to be free in the first place? Was he supposed to establish a federal institution for the trickle of slaves escaping the South? Because that would have probably pissed the secessionists off even more.
Once again, Lincoln didn't plan to free slaves as President. Contrary to popular belief, he was no great lover of black people. He wasn't interested in sticking his cock into the beehive of abolition. He just wanted the country to stay whole.
Classic example of a democratic leader, who wins fairly but only represents a certain geographic region thus leading to problems with separatism.
I.E, none of the southern states voted for Lincoln, only the Northerners did. Northerners are the majority and thus Lincoln wins, but Southerners naturally feel that self governance is a better option from them.
Same thing happened in Scotland in modern times. British parliament became a center-rightish while pretty much all of Scotland voted for the left. This naturally led for Scottish desire of self governance.
>>986416
Listen man, I'm going to sleep but I'll read your reply.
But in response to your obviously totally not hypothetical question, it was because as I had originally stated, the war. was not. about. slavery.
He was going to send all the niggers back to Liberia because he felt that blacks where the real cause of the civil war that had torn the country apart and blacks and whites could never live in peace.
Then he got shot in the back of the head
>>986048
>>986147
>>986154
>>986161
>>986290
>>986222
>>986232
>>986298
>>986299
>>986331
Two questions,
Why was the president of the Union EXPLICIT about the war being fought, specifically "to preserve the union"?
And two
If states attempted to seceed today, why would there be an attempt to prevent them?
In reality slavery was framed as the primary issue to attempt to justify the war, and prevent Britain or France from interfering.
Tbh the US needed to be broken up.
t. Balt.
>>987628
Insufficient evidence
Post proofs, Yankee
>this is what assblasted neoconfederates actually believe
>>985922
sic semper tyrannis
>>987654
>Everyone who opposes me is a neo-confederate
>>987654
dispute each line by line confedaboo
>>986161
>>986224
>NOT
>ABOUT
>SLAVES
>>985922
First WRASSLIN President
>>987674
Keep ignoring declarations and wars often have more than one cause. Preservation of the union and states rights to preserve slavery are they.
>>987625
>about the war being fought, specifically "to preserve the union"?
Because the South tried to secede. On their own. With the knowledge that such an act would be illegal. Then one of the first things they did as a "nation" was attack a U.S. military base. Why would Lincoln give violent rebels exactly what they want? Why let them act with impunity?
>slavery was framed as the primary issue
By the rebels themselves.
>the U.S. neededto be broken up
Fucking why you little faggot? Because the South was butthurt? I hope Russia finally finally annexes you so I never have to deal with you niggers again.
>>987729
To be fair, on his last point he is partially correct: the South needed to be destroyed for the Union to maintained. With the Dred-Scott decision and tension over whether western expansion would be free soil or not, so long as the South remained as it was shit wasn't going to work.
>>987657
>I'm not a neoconfederate I just believe in southern pride and states rights and that the South did nothing wrong and Lee was grrat and fucking niggers are a bunch of niggers and better off under slavery lmao xDDDD
>jeez how close minded are you liberal scum? Next you'll accuse me of not believing in the Holohoax, just like you accuse all your enemies of being Nazis. Fucking kikes....
I love when /pol/ does this
>>987746
>so long as the South remained as it was shit wasn't going to work.
I agree but I'm almost certain slavery could be handled without a literal civil war. If the hue hues could manage without spitting in half we could've done it as well. Admittedly I don't know how. But given that the U.S. survived for almost a 100 years half slave and half free it could have survived another 10 or 20 years when slavery would have become unprofitable anyway. The war could have been avoided. And it should have been.
>it's about states rights
>the states' rights to attack forts
/pol/acks are retarded
>>986424
No country called "Scotland" has existed for about 700 years
>>987778
Yes, until those Southern rednecks literally attacked and occupied a Federal Army fort. Had Lincoln not responded in kind he would have looked weak and toothless. The Civil War was 100% the South's doing
>>987788
>700
Are you retarded?
>>987792
The death of king Alexander III in 1286, and the death of his granddaughter and heir Margaret, Maid of Norway in 1290, left 14 rivals for succession. To prevent civil war the Scottish magnates asked Edward I of England to arbitrate, for which he extracted legal recognition that the realm of Scotland was held as a feudal dependency to the throne of England before choosing John Balliol, the man with the strongest claim, who became king in 1292.[67]
>>987797
t. Longshanks
What, Robert Bruce never existed in your warped retarded brain?
>>987778
Idk, generally speaking slavery was profitable and would remain so - there's that cliometric study that showed slavery had its profitable year just before the civil war. I think the US was fairly unique though, and certainly the South in its reliance on slavery. Plus Brasil got rid of the slaves in like, 1892 wasn't it? That's nearly thirty more years.
I think some form of violence was inevitable, and I think bleeding Kansas shows that. The question for me is really if Reconstruction could ever have worked (t. Eric Foner)
While I don't think he's the greatest president, I don't get why he gets all the blame for the Civil War by Neo-Confederates. They were already going to secede BEFORE Lincoln went into office. Buchanan was the one in office when the South got ass-devastated that Lincoln was going to be elected, but didn't do jackshit. War of Northern Aggression my ass.
Lincoln had his share of controversies like suspension of habeus corpus, but he was able to preserve the Union. If the US had split, the South would be a shithole that would make Rhodesia and South Africa look like paradises. European imperialists would take advantage of the South's economic disadvantages. Southern adventurers would be waging war in Latin America to bring in more slave territory.
Note that the slaves states sure as hell didn't mind when they used federal power to their advantage so their states' rights bullshit flew out of the window. Especially the Fugitive Slave Act; something which infringed on free states' rights and procedure in favor of slave states' "property values".
>>987797
The proof of you being a cretin is in your very quote:
>John Balliol, the man with the strongest claim, who became king in 1292
Never mind all those monarchs from then to the beginning of the 18th century. Jesus, what a fucking mong
>>987789
Yeah I agree. When I say the war should have been avoided and could have I mean the poltical situation leading up to that attack should have been handled differently. By the time that attack happened it was too late and the Southern rebels needed to be put in place, no doubt about that from me.
>>987805
iirc the south came really close to annexing a couple of Caribbean islands as it was
Also yeah, the Dred Scott decision was a massive "activist supreme court taking away states' rights" thing
>>987803
>>987807
>WE WUZ KANGS OF ENGLAND AND WILLIAM WALLACES AN SHEEIT
Scotland has been a province of English since they became feudal subjects of England, how hard is this to understand for a normal person?
>>987803
Fuck the Bruces. John Comyn had as much a claim, but that faggot Robert stabbed him in a church.
>>987805
>but anon, Rhodesia and South Africa WERE paradises! /pol/ told me so, fucking niggers deserve to be second class citizens heu
More on point was I love how the States Rights arguments bit them in the ass. The governors of each state actively interfered with the waging of a centralized war effort, obstructed the draft,and withheld tax and revenue from Richmond because BUT MUH STATE
Then the Confederate Congress had representatives from states under union control who voted for draconian internal policies knowing it wouldn't affect their "constituents"
Pretty tip top kek how the south wanted to have their cake and eat it too, and it fucked them in the ass as they deserved
Another irony of course being the fact the South was literally a rich man's war but poor man's fight. The infantry were all small landowning tenant farmers, usually without slaves, who couldn't avoid the draft but were retarded enough to support an economic system making their way of life untenable as slaveocrats bought up their land and manned it with slaves, leaving them destitute. Fucking lmao, never has there been a bigger nation of cucks than the CSA
>>987827
Not even a Scot, but you're a fucking retard. The Picts and the Scots were never a full dependency of England whether it was the Anglo-Saxons, Canute the Great, the Normans, or the Plantagenets. Longshanks only had temporary control thanks to his puppet king Toom Tabard. You might have an argument of some form of vassalage under Henry II or Richard I, but even then, Scotland still managed its own affairs. Richard I was happy to free Scotland of obligations in exchange for money since he was about to embark on his Crusade.
>>987847
It's b9-1, don't give him more )You)s
>>987841
Edward de Bruce fucked up Ireland so bad that even the Irish wanted him gone. The problem with Celts is that their greatest enemy is themselves.
>>987842
Yep. It's amazing how the poor white Southerners were brainwashed into thinking that slave-owning was something worth fighting for while the rich waxed off the fat of their sweat and blood.
You know which Confederate states was the only one that had plenty to eat? Texas. They traded with Mexico, but didn't share with their fellow Southerners. I feel awful for Sam Houston because he knew secession would be disastrous for Texas. They should've listened to him.
If the South had won, they'd all fracture and go their own way. I'd even argue some of them would eventually wise up and want to return to the Union because they'd be bankrupt.
>>987857
>the south is successful in its secession
>20 more secessions habben
>Mexico takes a chunk
>France takes a chunk
>englel takes a chunk
>spain takes a chunk
>blacks rebel en masse
>b-but abe why don't you help us???
>>987729
>secession was illegal before it was declared illegal
>laws are the only things that govern such ideas
>>987747
This is the biggest straw man I have ever seen.
I am from the fucking Baltics, I have never seen a nigger in my life, and have had two courses over US history.
I'm not a neo-confederate, and you painting everyone who disagrees with you into a box doesn't help your argumentation.
The holocaust happened, Nazis fucked up Europe harder than a Serb without a sandwich or a butthurt Frenchie did and liberal and Republican no longer have any meaning, especially in the United states.
>>987842
Why are you bringing up Rhodesia?
>>987850
>lets ignore clearly started and sourced facts in favour of word games
>>987870
>lel let's attack this fort
>REE WHAY ARE YOU ATTACKING US BACK REEEEE DICTATOR
>>987882
What are you talking about?
I said nothing about the fort.
However, Lincoln certainly didn't hold back trying to pressure the south into war.
>>987857
>Edward de Bruce fucked up Ireland
Who? And do you have any literature on the subject, it's fascinating. Even more fascinating is how Scotland's kings had a 25-30 average reigns starting with Robert Bruce. That must have been the most stable dynastic line in Europe at the time.
>>987804
>>987804
The longer war could be avoided the weaker slave states and powerful slave owners would become. Eventually slaves would be freed via poltical power instead of via military. That really why the Confederacy formed seceded in the first place. They realized they weren't in charge in anymore. If they could somehow accept this or at least try a half measure instead of jumping ship and taking half of the ship with them then the civil war would be strangled in the cradle. How do you do that? I don't know, but it seems possible, maybe the Feds cracking down when the first round of states decided to leave. Still violent but nothing compared to the result we got.
>The question for me is really if Reconstruction could ever have worked
Not in the form we got. Reconstruction was forced on the South via military power. A democratic country could never apply such brute force for so long because eventually voters get fed up. But perhaps if the South agreed to give up slavery then they might be willing to go the extra mile and give ex-slaves decent treatment. But the Civil War destroyed any open and honest dialogue between the South and North for a long time. Any proposal would be the Yankee scum dictating and would be resisted at all costs.
>>987887
Fuck off you retard, he was in office less than one when the attack began.
>>987870
>>987887
>I'm not a neoconfederate, I just parrot the Lost Cause school
>also lmao I'm ignoring why people mock how those associated with /pol//Alt right have common circlejerk issues they bring up
Seriously /pol/ and people who subscribe to their syncretic worldview love engaging in apologism for the csa and other countries like Rhodesia
It's not a stretch to assume someone defending one will defend the other. After all pet causes March in groups
>>987892
>That must have been the most stable dynastic line in Europe at the time.
Are you kidding me? Scotland has a horrific history of its kings dying prematurely.
Between 843 and 1603, only FOUR kings lived successfully.
>>987896
>I'm not a neoconfederate
>fucking Yankee scum
>yeah the Civil war could be avoided with peace and talking lmao
>it's not cuz the South chimped out or nuffin
Loving
Every
Laugh
>>987898
This isn't even a proper sentence.
The south surrounded the fort, then lincoln sent men to reinforce/supply it instead of surrendering it, and then the south started a full siege.
>>987899
You have some unnatural obsession with a mythical straw man. You are the most spooked spooker that spooks ever spooked.
>>987911
The amount of samefagging in this thread is too damn high.
>>987910
Seriously? I distinctly remember Scottish kings having long 25-30 year reigns.
>>987914
Yeah these 4: Kenneth MacAlpin (843-858), Alexander I (1107-24), David I (1124-53), and James VI (1567-1625)
>>987912
>they didn't do nuffin despite surrounding iy with stolen US Army equipment and threatening the garrison with dead and destruction if they failed to comply
>>987857
Well again, to be fair, not ALL Southerners fought to protect slavery as an institution as such, but rather, their "way of life" (of which slavery was an essential part) that they viewed as under attack from yeah, Northern Aggression. E. Merlton Coulter has a good selection of primary sources around this, although he's mostly a big ol' white supremacist himself, and Chandra Manning does a much better job of it.
>>987870
Hi I have a degree in US History and that image is a pretty simple collection of primary sources regarding the Southern states' own stated justification for secession
>>987896
But didn't Reconstruction show us that the Southern states were vehemently against - and willing to continue to fight against - black political and economic enfranchisement? I don't think it's an issue of "not being in charge" so much as realising they would eventually be strangled out of existence if they were not allowed to expand westward.
>forced on the South via military power
This is a meme though. If it HAD been enforced via military power, it might have worked. You had Johnson vetoing basically everything, then the black codes and the Klan running about fucken everywhere.
>>987922
Where did I say the south wasn't at any fault?
They seized the fort.
Lincoln however, surely threw out all attempts at peace talks.
>>987935
>I have a degree in US history
No you don't.
The point of this board is anonymity, you don't have jack shit until you post your degree, full name, timestamp, and date.
>>987937
This is false equivalence. South invaded the fort, ie, an act of aggression, and you're arguing he should have just shrugged it off?
>>987911
>I'm not a neoconfederate
Point me to where I said that. Show me the post where I said that you little nigger.
Mississippian reporting, Lincoln burned down my home town. However...
Lincoln was based and an extremely intelligent dude. Fucked up on the Veep choice though.
>there are Southerners proud of their CSA heritage
>still vote for the Party of Lincoln
Pick 1 you dumb faggots.
>>987937
Oh, I thought POTUS doesn't negotiate with illegal terrorists?
>>987933
>arguing against the person and not the argument
>it's not even all samefag
Heu
>>987935
Johnson truly was one of the worst presidents ever
All he did was try to put bandaid solutions and go back to 1861 when it was physically impossible. War Democrats: Copperheads on a hawk platform
>>987946
So you are?
>>987958
>wow, why would someone respond to an act of war with escalation of force?>>987959
He's asspained he got called out. There's Dixieboos clinging to Lost Cause ideas in every thread
It's not surprising as he's a Bait though. Alt right ideas which include Lost Cause are generally popular in many former Commie xountries, especially those most hostile to socialist ideas to begin with
>>987957
>illegal terrorists
A bit redundant
But when you have an entire confederacy of states going against you, it's best to talk it down.
Also, even now the president "negotiates with illegal terrorists."
>muh argument
Your argument consists of green texting out suppositions and projections of a boogyman, none of which are true.
>>987958
>He should have evacuated the soilders and then began peace accords.
>I value diplomacy highly.
and france poland should have surrendered peacefully, belgium should have allowed the german army to occupy the french border, and the people of rome shouldn't sent barca a message saying the peninsula is his now.
peeeeeeace
>>987958
>they sieged it
>but thats ok and not an act of aggression
>so when he reinfirces it they attack
>so its his fault he didnt open buttcheeks
Fucking mong
>>987980
B8 or retard call it faggot
>>987978
Not what I said, I am presenting that Lincoln handled the civil war was a big blunder in diplomacy.
However it was mostly Buchanans fault any of this happened.
>>987990
He took a stance to a bunch of secessionist assholes who attacked his troops. Dont backpedal fag
>>987997
I'm just going to sniff and say you're manifested by an ideology of irrationality.
And hatred.
Lots of irrational hatred.
>>987990
>Not what I said, I am presenting that Lincoln handled the civil war was a big blunder in diplomacy.
>diplomacy with an unrecognized nation
why?
>>987996
Your perspective is completely ahistorical. You're excusing the South completely while demanding much more of Lincoln than is reasonable.
>>988004
I hate idiots. So yeah I hate you
>>988006
Sorry if I misuse a word, perhaps domestic policy would fit better.
Probably not because he wasn't in office long enough.
He did however cause the rest of the state's that were on edge, go overboard.
HE A USELESS GOY HE DINDU NUFFIN
WE WAS SELF-EMANCIPATED N SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEET
>>988024
Then why the insistence that it was Lincoln's poor diplomacy - not the South's act of the siege in the first place - which was the problem here?
>>988029
It was the souths blunder to throw a temper tantrum and seige, it was the Norths blunder to stoop to the level of a child.
Do we blame the entirety of all wars on whoever lost?
>>987959
Epic
>>987935
The South was extremely powerful for a very long time. They were "in charge" or a least an equal or better to the Northern states in terms of power. They saw secession as their last change to keep their powerful and influence. So they got out while they could.
>This is a meme
Well sort of emancipation was certainly enforced via military power. The South was literally broken up into military districts. Why would they ever agree to anything after that? If you can't avoid the war black enfranchisement was miscarriage wating to happen.
>>985922
he changed a loose collection of states into a nation.
Whether that is good or bad is up to each man.
Without him, America would have looked completely different.
>>988024
For someone who complains about strawmen and constantly is demanding POST PROOFS when an entire post of nothing but that was made earlier, you really are asspained.
You keep saying lol all you're doing is personal attacks but you post no proof of your own. You demand the president of the United states to submit to obvious acts of aggression and negotiate with people who had alreayd made their intention to refuse compromise clear at their secession conventions. You accuse peiple of samefag and strawmanning, then belittle the Union cause. Whilst claiming to not excuse the south, yoi routinely absolve them of every aggressive act including attacking a fort, seceding illegally without even having ratification plebiscites, convening illegal governments,misappropriating state militias and refusing the legal orders of the Commander In chief in a time of war. Meanwhile you downplay the role of slavery, ignore Dredd Scott and the Supreme Court, ignore neoconfederate rabble rousing, and espouse the Lost Cause view that the South was defending itself from northern aggression
Then you have th brass balls to call others idiots
Shut the fuck up and leave /his/. Crawl back to /pol/ or /int/ (aka /pole/ LiteTM) where you belong
>>985922
Could he be defined as a president who bent the law for good instead of bad? A "get things done" sort of guy but who didn't go completely off the rails doing so.
>>988055
depends. how do you feel about your sister and sweet tea?
>>988039
No, it's a meme not only did you have violence before the acts of '67 (and some of the districts lasted barely a year), these military districts were not enforced. There was barely 20k troops to cover the entirety of the South, and jurisdiction was left up to the States to enforce things like violence at the ballot box, which obviously they did not do. So basically the Klan and mob violence ruled.
>>988054
>>>988024
>For someone who complains about strawmen and constantly is demanding POST PROOFS
Where have I asked for "proofs"
>when an entire post of nothing but that was made earlier, you really are asspained.
I'm not typing out paragraphs and greentexts showing how ass pained I am, especially going so far as to say
>"I hate you"
Like an insolent child.
>You keep saying lol all you're doing is personal attacks but you post no proof of your own.
Because I am discussing something that requires no proof. The attack on fort sumpter.
>You demand the president of the United states to submit to obvious acts of aggression and negotiate with people who had alreayd made their intention to refuse compromise clear at their secession conventions.
See
>>988036
>You accuse peiple of samefag and strawmanning, then belittle the Union cause.
The union cause was not some glory holy war, it was a war. You're glorifying the US most brutal conflict.
>Whilst claiming to not excuse the south, yoi routinely absolve them of every aggressive act
I have not.
>including attacking a fort
See
>>988036
>seceding illegally
No such thing.
>without even having ratification plebiscites, convening illegal governments,misappropriating state militias and refusing the legal orders of the Commander In chief in a time of war. Meanwhile you downplay the role of slavery, ignore Dredd Scott and the Supreme Court,
I have done non of this
>ignore neoconfederate rabble rousing
So everyone who disagrees with you is a neo-confederate. ... right.
>and espouse the Lost Cause view that the South was defending itself from northern aggression
I have yet to ever say the south was defending itself from northern aggression, however it was on the defensive.
>Then you have th brass balls to call others idiots
>Shut the fuck up and leave /his/. Crawl back to /pol/ or /int/ (aka /pole/ LiteTM) where you belong
Your butthurt is glorious.
>>988054
Especially since you think everyone who disagrees with you is this big bad straw man you're so spooked of.
You sound like you belong in /pol/, savages like you who can't have a conversation belong there.
>>988072
Worst part is how Lost Cause "muh Yankee iron fist" ideas persisted into the modern day when in reality the tradition of lynching was born and went largely unpunished in this era
Had the Union Army executed 2 Klan members or sympathizers for every man lynched, then the South would.have known the suffering it deserved and sowed and unjustly whines about
>>988099
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots
>>988099
People really, really do not understand the level of violence that was going on during Reconstruction partly because there's no reference point for it, but partly also because it can't be reconciled with the popular imagery of the Civil War as a war to free all the slaves forever magically
But I'm one of those annoying people that say if the Civil War ever ended, then Reconstruction definitely hasn't
>>986031
>muh State's rights
No it was actually about Slaves. The Confederate Constitution was almost no different than the Union other than adding shit about slavery.
Confederates themselves openly said the war was about slavery.
>>988072
The fact that the Feds were incompetent isn't really the point. The well was poisoned. The Feds weren't willing or able to enforce Reconstruction but the point is they tried anyway, which helped further destroy whatever trust was left. And Southerners weren't going to voluntarily accept it. So it was a dead on arrival. You can't annex someone then ask nicely, it doesn't work that way.
There comes a time when words will no longer suffice to share the ideas that compel men to action in defense of their god, land, and property. It is for this reason that I, as a proud defender of the Confederacy do declare with the support of like minded people that we secede from the History & Humanities board. We will forge our own nation free from the tyranny of those who would suppress the rights and freedoms of confederate posters and steal away our rightfully owned opinions. Our new board, History, Humanities, Christianity & Poster Rights will be a land most true to the ideals of 4chan. In god's name, so do we declare.
4/15/16
Deo vindice
>>987788
Country does not imply self-governance. Scotland is a country within a country.
>>988115
But that is my point (and the one I have been making throughout the thread): the South needed to have Reconstruction forced upon them, and it was not, which quickly led to the proliferation of political violence. And again, the violence started before the Reconstruction acts
>>988087
Except you are defending all these issues
The SC militia besieged Fort Sumter in direct violation of the decrees of POTUS
Virginia refused to provide troops to put down the illegal insurrection
>no such thing as illegal secession
I guess Balts would believe this :^)
>but the south dindu nuffin at Sumter which justifies their later acts
Fort Sumter was an expression of their refusal to negotiate. They wanted war and openly invited jt by besieging the Fort and vowing in their newspapers to kill everyone inside. You're defending the lack of plebiscites by arguing the SC militia outside Fort Sumter were legally convened, thus arguing the secession was legal
Leave
>>986031
hahahahahahahaha
>>986031
it reminds me of muricans who say
>the revolutionary war wasnt about taxes, it was about freedom! :DDD
the freedom to drive negros in peace
>>986031
*Tips Cowboy hat*
>>985922
HE WAS A POKEMON MASTER
Dumb genwunner, though.
>>988137
The British were the slavers.
He's a lesson in contingency.
Because he gave so little forethought to what would happen in the event of his death, Andrew Johnson rose to power and buttfucked the entirety of the reconstruction effort by pandering to the pro-slavery anti-black southerners the union had just fought and beaten.
He should have held a far more aggressive and hostile stance against the defectors, and chosen a republican northern VP as opposed to Andrew Johnson in a shit attempt to pander to the south.
People who know nothing about the civil war think it's about slavery
people who know a little about the civil war think it's about state's rights
people who know a lot about the civil war know it's all about slavery.
>>988146
It was about disrespect. The fact that the monarch was a foreigner and mentally ill didn't help matters. Originally the colonial assembly wanted to redefine their relationship directly with the crown, instead of through the intermediary of parliament. The British failed to recognize the existing status quo. Their efforts at reform were simply to impose a system which did not exist in practice, putting them at odds with, among other things, the law of inertia.
>>986161
i prefer the north atlantic states rights trade
>>986431
>the war. was not. about. slavery.
The Confederates would disagree.
>>985922
He was a tyrant and he did a lot of illegal things, he didn't really care about or even like African Americans either he just didn't like slavery as an institution.
He was not as altruistic as he is modernly portrayed, then again neither are most historical figures traditionally portrayed as altruistic.
>>990007
>then again neither are most historical figures traditionally portrayed as altruistic.
Ghandi was racist as fuck and would sleep naked with little girls as a way to test his various vows of celibacy.
>>987625
>Why was the president of the Union EXPLICIT about the war being fought, specifically "to preserve the union"?
I really think that trying to go "STATE'S RIGHTS" or "SLAVERY" really does oversimplify it. It was the culmination of deep ideological differences that had existed in the country since the moment independence was achieved regarding what the United States meant, the power of the federal government, etc.
It's just that those issues wound up being channeled through in the form of slavery because the lifestyles of the southern aristocrats depended on it. If Eli Whitney never invented the cotton gin and slavery was slowly phased out naturally, then something else would've inevitably set off the Civil War. But hypotheticals don't really count.
>>985956
For you
>>986016
Booth wasn't southern, dipshit.
>>987842
10/10 post
>>986031
Slavery was always a huge issue, even going back to the founding fathers.
People like John Jay, who would later go on to help abolish Slavery in New York, were against it, while the South was for it, as their economy basically hinged on it.
I think the issue only got postponed as long as it did, because becoming a nation, and then sustaining it, came first.
>>986031
>A man who lived and died 151 years ago gets called /pol/'s eppin' meme pejorative.
I'm in hell.
>>988190
alt-right know a little about the civil war, but most people who think it was states rights honestly do not know shit. Seriously go to rural dixieland and ask for any random white person with the con flag to give you a summary of the civil war and its appalling. Your post was basically right though
>>986031
If you can't understand that the driving state right was the right to own slaves then I don't know why you bother having an opinion on the civil war.
The Confederacy did nothing different than the founding fathers. Yankees know the truth and it kills them inside, so they have to shout you down with MUH SLAVERY. Thomas Jefferson was right, the yankees sought to destroy the south from day 1, We should've never help them with their boston chimp out.
>>992161
>there are people who unironically think this way
>>992173
responding in greentext isn't proving anything bub. The South made America, and the North's only response was to try their hardest to destroy the south.
>>992202
>the USA was an experiment in human liberty by disenfranchised colonies
Yes, which is why half the founding fathers owned slaves, because they cared so much about human liberty. Almost 100 years before Lincoln declared the emancipation proclamation freeing slaves held by rebels during the Civil War, the British made a proclamation freeing the slaves held by the patriots during the Revolution. An estimated 1/3 of all slaves in the colonies were freed by this. One of Washington's first acts after the war was to re-enslave these freed blacks. The break away USA was a slave republic, and if the patriots really cared about human liberty, they would've fought with the royalists. After all, the British were in the process of ending slavery in their colonies anyways.
>CSA was formed almost entirely to preserve the institution of slavery.
If the confederates only cared about preserving slavery, why didn't they just accept the Corwin Amendment? It passed Congress and championed by both Lincoln and Buchanan. Obviously the south felt that the Union was not in their best interest regardless of slavery. Andrew Jackson knew what was up after the South Carolina Nullification crisis back in May 1, 1833 when he wrote, "the tariff was only a pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question."
Both were about sovereignty and the perceived injustices inflicted upon them by their Governments.
>>992249
It didn't address the free soil concern (which was a major issue; the South weren't as worried about the North coming and taking their slaves so much as their inability to expand, and therefore dying on the vine) and it was too little, too late
>>992249
>Yes, which is why half the founding fathers owned slaves, because they cared so much about human liberty.
There was of course a major ideological split on the issue even back then. Ultimately the northern colonies decided it was more important to have southern support than to immediately press the issue.
>If the confederates only cared about preserving slavery, why didn't they just accept the Corwin Amendment?
Because they (rightly, to be honest) didn't trust it. Lincoln claimed that preserving the union was more important than ending slavery, but he was best known as an abolitionist, so his election triggered the southern states seceding anyway. This was not in any way a secret at the time, btw. They were EXPLICITLY seceding to preserve slavery.
>>985922
He was a liberal cuck and the South would be better if he died earlier. Fuck him.
>>992289
The south only cared about the expansion of slavery for the purpose of Senate seats. Mass immigration to the north already gave the north power in the House.
>so much as their inability to expand, and therefore dying on the vine
how would the inability of slavery to expand cause it to die? The south pretty much knew plantation economy was unable to expand into the southwest, Thomas Jefferson's case for the expansion of slavery was not because of economics, but because it would dilute the massive black population in the deep south over more land. Furthermore, why would giving up all this land by seceding be a logical conclusion if they desired the expansion of slavery so bad?
>>992304
If the Corwin Amendment became a part of the constitution then it wouldn't matter what Lincoln did. Also, Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist, he just wanted to contain slavery in the south.
>>985922
First /wooo/ president
