JUST
Why did the burgers kill each other again?
Don't say slavery.
>>1216004
The North was afraid that cheap slave labor would destroy their jobs, and that the South, with their ability to import humans and then assume two thirds of their votes in the House of Representatives and in the Electoral collage, would outmaneuver them and render American democracy meaningless.
The South was worried that as more states were added to the union, the political balance of the country would tip towards the abolitionists, and they'd eventually have their entire social system destroyed.
>>1216004
I think one of the reasons was that the Federal Government was using taxes to expand Northern industry at the expense of Southern agriculture. Weren't the taxes much greater than the ones that sparked the American Revolution as well?
Best general coming through
When will USA have another Civil War again? Also can Texas secede if they want to?
I hate that secession can't be seriously discussed as a political topic anymore without some faglord opening up his Sherman folder. It used to be recognized as a valuable check on the fed that would be a very handy bargaining chip today.
>>1216104
never. we're in an age where states vote for independence, not fight for it.
>>1216095
Except that's not Longstreet.
>>1216004
I dunno, why did the bongs kill each other?
>>1216113
well what else are they supposed to do if that right is deprived from them? The US values and respects self-determination everywhere from Subsaharan Africa to the Balkans but not in its own borders.
>>1216020
This is basically the best answer, thrown in with the north taking advantage of the south economically and the south being butthurt about it.
"Slavery" is the wrong answer in that it's too simplified.
>>1216115
Longstreet should of been given the entire Army of Tennessee when he was there. Why Bragg or Hood, I'll never know.
>>1216139
He should have been in charge, not Lee. He was the only one who relized the massive difference in the technology of the time and the proper tactics for it. He was the south's only hope at getting any favorable peace.
>>1216158
He definitely seemed to be a more grounded man when compared to Lee and Jackson. When he was sent to assist Bragg in the Western theater for a while, it was obvious that he was much better suited to command that entire department given that the Army of Tennessee should have never been used for direct assaults.
>>1216004
no,
--- it was literally slavery. ---
Anything else is revisionism.
Full stop.
The compromise of 1820, the compromise of 1850, etc.
When New states were attempted to the union the southern states were afraid of losing power to keep slavery legal, because many in the north hated slavery.
when California was admitted, they had to take new Mexico from Texas and promise more territory would be organized as slave states soon; as well as pass the fugitive slave act. It didn't really work to keep the balance between slave state and non-slave-state and more and more laws were passed that were harsh to slavery.
.
.And before you start the "states right argument" The only right they cared about was the right to own slaves, so shut up. And NO ONE made the states right argument till 1870, AFTER the war, pure revisionism.
TL:DR :it was slavery
>>1216020
>the north was afraid that cheap slave labor would destroy their jobs
Yes the primarily agrarian economy of the south was a huge threat to the industry of the north
Oh wait
>>1216242
>.And before you start the "states right argument" The only right they cared about was the right to own slaves, so shut up.
not an argument
>NO ONE made the states right argument till 1870
blatantly untrue and completely contradicts the previous sentence
>>1216252
the republicans made a massive propaganda campaign during the 1850's saying the south wanted to bring slavery to the north and put northern whites out of a job. Sherman talks about it a lot in his private letters.
>>1215995
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Crater
Who was more to blame for this fuck up? Meade or Burnside?
>>1216276
>1850's saying the south wanted to bring slavery to the north
that is because they did
The Missouri Compromise was a United States federal statute devised by Henry Clay. It regulated slavery in the country's western territories by prohibiting the practice in the former Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36°30′ north, except within the boundaries of the proposed state of Missouri. The compromise was agreed to by both the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the United States Congress and passed as a law in 1820, under the presidency of James Monroe.
The Missouri Compromise was effectively repealed by the Kansas–Nebraska Act, submitted to Congress by Stephen A. Douglas in January 1854. The Act opened Kansas Territory and Nebraska Territory to slavery and future admission of slave states by allowing white male settlers in those territories to determine through popular sovereignty whether they would allow slavery within each territory. Thus, the Kansas–Nebraska Act effectively undermined the prohibition on slavery in territory north of 36°30′ latitude which had been established by the Missouri Compromise. This change was viewed by Free Soilers and many abolitionist Northerners as an aggressive, expansionist maneuver by the slave-owning South, and led to the creation of the Republican Party.
.
>>1216271
I think you might be stuck in dogma my friend, what I said is true and is a valid augment
.
.
The Civil War was caused by slavery, deal with it. Every tension was caused by slavery, every difference was about slavery.
>>1216293
I think Meade and Grant for muddying things up at the start, but Burnside shouldn't have sent more men in after the first assault was an obvious failure.
>>1216313
"It was about state's rights to do things I don't like so therefore it is not about state's rights" really, really is not an argument, sorry.
>>1216293
Meade.
>Okay we're almost ready to go
>wait don't use those troops that were specifically trained for this operation
>everybody just piles into the crater because they don't know what the fuck they're doing
>rebels kill them all when they're finished laughing their asses off
>>1216334
Grant didn't help the issue by siding with him. He was looking at it through a political lens, which is weird because I thought that was last thing Grant ever did?
>>1216349
Political lens? What on earth was political about it?
>>1215995
Just realised that my uncle looks extremely similar to Burnside. Now I just have to convince him to grow the facial hair!
>>1216434
The operation was uncertain so they were afraid sending in a black unit would be interpreted as them purposely using blacks as cannon fodder.
It was silly.
>>1216242
>And NO ONE made the states right argument till 1870, AFTER the war, pure revisionism.
They dare not call us invaders.
'Tis but states' rights and liberty we ask.
And Missouri we'll ever defend her no matter how hard may be the task.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfK_aSGZFwo
>>1216095
GIVE THEM THE BAYONET
>>1216475
KILL THEM, KILL THEM ALL
The best side won.
Could he have saved the West for the Confederacy if he had survived Shiloh?
>>1216313
>confusing west with north
also, the Missouri Compromise was already broken by California coming into the union a free state.
>>1216709
xD
upboated
>>1216242
>Posts anime whilst defending Yankee revisionism
Kill yourself
Was he a genius?
>>1216004
>Don't say slavery
So you want a wrong answer?
>>1216709
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ8xhSPo41g
lol at these dudes saying there literally is no there reason but slavery.
>>1216020
Best answer
>>1215995
Probably should have let the South stay independent.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
