Redpill me on the Civil War /pol/
Schools in canuckistan depict it to solely revolve around "muh slaves" but surely that can't be everything?
>>56766546
south was being a bad bottom bitch and got uppity because we were stealing from their dumb asses
slavery would have ended sooner or later because of the industrial revolution so it was really just an excuse to show them who runs this country
>>56766546
>canuckistan
You misspelled cankekistan.
It was an assault on the 10th amendment. Based on that statement you know which side was which.
>>56766546
Libfags like to throw around "State's Rights" like it's a meme. However, that's exactly what you'll find as the root cause of southern secession.
Sure, it was about slavery. However, the concept of slavery = racism is inherently flawed. Africans were not enslaved by white landowners because they were African. They were enslaved by each other during tribal conflicts in Africa, and then sold to white slavers. The ethnicity of the slaves was irrelevant. They could have been Asian, or South American, or even White - for all the slave owners cared. They needed bodies working the fields to maintain a profit margin.
So, when the U.S Federal Government came in and started dictating to the Southern States what they could, and could not do in their own territory, it sparked a discussion about the autonomy of an individual state within the union. Those that ended up seceding posited that at the inception of the United States, the intention was for each state to have a high degree of autonomy in terms of governance and policy making, with the Federal government existing as a sort of 'glue' to tie each state together, similar to what we see today in the EU.
Slavery was simply the event that happened to be the catalyst for the war.
>>56767941
the 1860s was a big mistake. After the civil war, the 10th amendment died, and lead us to have those who would be our downfall from thereon.
>>56767941
>They were enslaved by each other during tribal conflicts in Africa, and then sold to white slavers.
Usually the slaves were from the Bantu (google it) tribe and enslaved by Arabs. In Islamic texts any non-believer is considered to be viable plunder in the house of war (Qur'an 33:50)
The "house of war" is essentially any non-Islamic controlled land.
Many of the slaves were bought from the Barbary Pirates of Tripoli and their conquest of the Bantu lands and ships.
This rest of this post is 100% correct.
South Carolina was the first state to secede, give their declaration of secesion a read if you're interested in a primary source on the causes of the civil war.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
most of it is just a legal argument for why they think breaking away and forming their own country can be justified but they do eventually get into the reasons why they're doing it
they list two of them
1. the federal government isn't properly enforcing the fugitive slave act (which mandated free states to return runaway slaves)
2. a republican was just elected president and the republican party is committed to the eventual end of slavery at some point in the distant future
so yeah, it was pretty much just muh slaves
>>56768839
>the federal government isn't properly enforcing laws
Sounds vaguely familiar somehow...
>>56766546
>"muh slaves" but surely that can't be everything?
pretty much it was.
not that it was a bad thing, the negro was better off enslaved and america was vastly better off with the negro enslaved.
>>56766546
There were many factors which caused the civil war, slavery was one of them.
I think a succinct explanation is that the Southern and Northern political elite had opposite and mutually exclusive political goals.
War of Northern Aggression when we wanted to split from a country that didn't even want us around except for our material (cotton). Tariffs out the asshole, and an invasion of legitimate lands that belonged to us as well as a naval blockade.
I believe the tyrant also disarmed some New Englanders that wanted to secede with us? He revoked the right to trial, amongst many other things. Lincoln was a tyrant, no joke.
It boils my blood to this day how yankees hate us and want us to be gone, yet talk shit constantly about how we lost or how we're losers and can't leave. It's very, very annoying to see yankees come down here as well. They shit up the cities with their liberal garbage and just their yankee mentality. The south is a great place once you wade through the niggers (which are mostly polite, honestly) and the diabetic fat shits that eat nothing but junk food and garbage all day.
I truly believe that if we were to secede we would be successful. I'm sure another country like Russia would be behind us, and I guarantee we'd win.
>>56767047
Sherman was a war criminal faggot that couldn't hack it in a real battle so had to fight General DefenselessWomenandChildren and Major Infrastructure. Pathetic.
Also, you have to realize that 99% of the economy was driven by slaves and freemen working the fields. Was it immoral? Sure, I guess, sort of. The slaves were taken care of properly (mostly) and once it was over, most tried to get back to work in the fields. Hell, some slaves were even paid (hence the term "slave wages")! Double Hell, most slaveowners did not own a large plantation and would work beside their slaves doing the same job because they had to.
Slavery was going to abolished soon though, once industrial technology had caught up. I have no doubt in my mind it was on its way out.
>>56766546
>Schools in canuckistan depict it to solely revolve around "muh slaves" but surely that can't be everything?
What piece of shit part of the country are you from?
I learned that it was all about state rights in high school. My teacher actually has an American and Canadian citizenship. His family owned 2 slaves back then.
Also the however many great grandson of Stonewall was in my class. He had some letters from the war that he would share with the class
>>56769738
>Also the however many great grandson of Stonewall was in my class. He had some letters from the war that he would share with the class
Too bad that shit isn't published somewhere.
>>56769575
>most slaveowners did not own a large plantation and would work beside their slaves doing the same job because they had to
while that's true the majority of slave owners had few slaves the vast majority of slaves were on large plantations
>>56768839
South Carolina nearly seceded well before then over the tariff issue, though. The economic issues involved are IMO more significant than the proximate cause here
Also bear in mind that what the South truly feared was a slave rebellion a la Haiti in which whites would be exterminated, which is exactly what John Brown tried to trigger and what they believed the abolitionists wanted. This is why the common Southern white man who didn't own slaves was still willing to give up his life for secession
They also believed that the slaves would be unable to take care of themselves if freed and many would die, which did happen to a large degree after the war
If you really look at the issue from both sides, the South had the legal and moral justification to secede, and it's the North that was in error for not respecting their right to leave the union
A bunch of dum crackers thought that having guns meant they could disobey the law and follow their own rules. People like my great great great grandfather proved them wrong with a boot up their ass. Its kinda like today and how retards think soldiers won't kill their own if the south tries to start shit AGAIN. I stand ready to kill rebel scum, their women, and their children
>>56766546
>Schools in canuckistan depict it to solely revolve around "muh slaves" but surely that can't be everything?
same here in merica.
>in college class forget which one
>teacher starts talking about civil war
>tells us it was only about slavery and not to listen to anything else
So open minded to other ideas. Thanks college.
>>56767941
>>56769370
>its ok when euros do it to the injuns
>its not ok when northerners do it to southerners
stay mad
>>56768612
Ultimately still all the fault of white ancestors initial million dollar idea of importing negroes. If it wasn't for initial stupidity pol might not exist.
>>56766546
it's about central control-- an issue still pertinent today.
Is there any reason why we need a national Health Insurance law when states could enact their own laws like Massachussets?
the kikes need central control to ensure all the doors and windows are barred and you can't escape.
it's about control
One big issue was that the federal government wanted to dictate law to the states, and the states wanted to set their own laws.
feds won.
>>56766546
>Schools in canuckistan depict it to solely revolve around "muh slaves" but surely that can't be everything?
North had slaves longer than the south did, and Lincoln made a preliminary ultimatum prior to the Emancipation Proclamation that stated if states came back then they could keep slaves.
The Confederacy never came back. Funny for a country that was supposedly all about slavery
>>56770218
>take any college history class
>professors opening statement is always "everything you think you know about history is wrong"
>>56766546
Theres a 9 part 11 hour documentary on it on jewtube, look up Ken Burns Civil War.
Part 9 is the major feels part though.
>>56766546
Shelby Foote was pretty based. Here is a compilation of some of the stuff he said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4jHKTKYrXE&list=PLFHg4E2nM8LwnulGFIr6rhqEHZz3xZozi
You should watch the whole series if you can find it without paying.
The north was conducting an economic war on the south in the same vein England had perpetrated it on the Colonies, since before the Republic was formed.
>commerce wars 1783-85
>tariff 1789
>stamp act 1804
>tariff 1824
>tariff 1832
A decade prior to the civil war, South Carolina had threatened secession over purely economic reasons. The problem with the "solely about slavery" argument is it negates Federal meddling in southern economies and the entire "self rule/self determination" aspect of the founding. It also ignores the very real fact that 3.5 states seceded only after hostilities began, and 4.5 slave states stayed in the Union for the duration.
>>56770310
>it's the whites' fault
Slavery had died out before the Middle Ages in Western Europe, it was a practice imported from the Muslim world by Jews, who owned the earliest slave ships
>>56766546
>>56770602
Another of his videos talking about that flag, and addresses the slavery issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9J8P6WfS7w&list=PLFHg4E2nM8LwnulGFIr6rhqEHZz3xZozi
>>56770824
>Slavery had died out before the Middle Ages in Western Europe
No it hadn't. Columbus brought slaves with him. The Portuguese had began slaving along the African coast a half century before Columbus set sail, because the Ottomans had shut down their access to the Eastern European slave trade. Slavery was alive and well in Western Europe at the time of European expansion into the new world.
>>56766546
If you read the individual Declarations of Secession of each state, you would see slavery as the primary and most consistent cause. If you read the surviving transcriptions of the deliberations within each state's legislatures over whether or not to secede, you would see slavery as the primary and most consistent cause. And if you check the CSA constitution, you see slavery enshrined
> No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
>But anon, slavery would not have survived in the south!
That may be true, as they did limit slaves imported from other nations and from non CSA states, but this was most likely a price control, as the above clause and all of Article IV was about keeping slavery.
>But anon, it was about tariffs!
That was definitely a factor, but not the main one, or first one. Slavery caused the biggest debates in the senate. Secession was discussed even before the tariffs were passed.
>But anon, only a small percentage of people owned slaves!
This is true, but the fact of the matter that the elected officials of the south voted overwhelmingly to 1. keep slavery 2. impress slavecathers 3. secede citing slavery as a cause.
>But anon, it was about states rights!
Most of the CSA soldiers- who had little to do with slavery (and were probably being undercut by slaves) would cite state's rights as the cause they are fighting for, but lets look at the facts.
>1. State sovereignty/ funding
In congress, southern states voted to force non-slave states to respect the property rights of slave owners, if slaves were there. In a federated system, states theoretically have some autonomy and leeway to determine what constitutes bona fide property.You can't pay the toll, don't do business here.
Also, slave states used their leverage to vote in slave catcher acts, basically impressing people from across the nation- northern and southern alike- to join slave catching crews
>>56766546
their was a really good documentary series that i watched a while back, i should find it for you.
the series basically highlighted the major points of the war and "Muh slaves" were only a small portion of the war
Although i'm not an american i find the Civil war they had to be quite interesting, it's my favorite time period
>>56771292>>56766546
>2. the right to secede
Well it was argued by the southern states that the union of states under the constitution, from which the federal government was born, was voluntary.
The preamble- to form a more perfect union- did not imply perpetuity. Therefore by restricting the rights to secede, you restricted the rights of those states, and of any future generation that may want self-determination.
Conveniently, the CSA constitution didn't leave this to question, and specifically called it a permanent union.
>3. Right to nullify
Also, when the southern states used nullification in congress, all was fine. When some northern states attempted to use nullification against the fugitive slave laws, southern states bitched and moaned.
>>56766546
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Gfq4Zyfy-E
WATCH THIS OP
i found the vid, the series is very /comfy/
>>56771174
Eh, Iberians involved in slavery before/immediately after the Reconquista doesn't do much to contradict what I said
Classical Western European slavery had died out and it was a practice reintroduced by those who had contact with Muslims
>>56771292
There's a few other things besides slavery, but it's hard to believe any of them mattered enough that the South would have ever seceeded over them by themselves. Issues like Term Limits for the Presidency and whether all spending bills had to originate in the house (which wasn't finally settled until 1893). I hate to have to bring them up, because somebody will try to turn them into proof slavery wasn't why the South seceeded.
Slavery would not have survived, but the South was willing to try to grow cotton in Nebraska, use slaves to ranch cattle in West Texas and Arizona where they would have had to been equipped with horses and guns, and declare war on Cuba, Mexico, and all of South America to try and make slavery survive. In other words, the South was ignoring reality a lot.
>>56766546>>56771292>>56771738
>Muh the South threw the first punch
Convenient facts were left out about the "south's attack on Ft. Sumter"
Ft Sumter was a Union fort in SC. The Southern state were initially neutral about attacking Union positions within their territory. They knew if they fired the first shots, there would be war. They made this clear not to shoot at Union positions. Ft Sumter and others like it were left untouched, as the CSA begged the Union to evacuate its positions. When Lincoln resupplied Ft Sumter, going into CSA territory to do so, this was seen as an act of war and triggered a response from the CSA, triggering a declaration of war from the Union.
If someone is more redpilled on Ft Sumter feel free to fill in the details.
>Treason/insurrection
Even though the north looked for an excuse to enter war, all along they said they were justified in doing so to stop treason and insurrection and to
>Preserve the union.
Lincoln and his cohorts said throughout that the primary goal of their intervention was a preservation of a permanent union- not slavery, not protectionism. If it was about slavery, the Union could have bought them all out, and the Emancipation Proclamation would have ended all of slavery,not just southern slavery, and the Corbyn Amendment would have never been discussed.
>>56766546 (OP)>>56771292 (You)>>56771738 (You)>>56772564
So if most of the people fighting on the south's side didn't have slaves, didn't have an interest in slaves, and probably were not going to own slaves any time soon (a small percentage of citizens could pay more, it was a tight and closing market, couldn't buy from outside sources by the constitution) what did they fight for?
>State's rights and state sovereignty
Self determination was the second most important thing to these people. If you read accounts of confederate soldiers/veterans, they say so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPiDqUB9k1I
Even Robert E. Lee who was against slavery, and one of the top grads from west point, and had a great amount of allegiance for the Union, had a greater amount of allegiance for his state, as did a good portion of the military at the time.
The most important factor was this: it was to repel an unjust invasion, in the rebel's eyes. Regular people didn't want Federal troops trampling on their soil, plundering their resources, shooting at their people, putting them under the subjugation that reconstruction became.
Once the Civil War was over, and reconstruction laid out, there was no more threat of being invaded. People started joining the body politic again and voting for federal elections. Ex confederate veterans joined their brothers in the union, and ex-CSA officers were tapped for the Spanish American War.
>Misc theories
There's also the LaRouche theory that the British were using the CSA to break up the union, removing the US as a threat to their global dominance. TPTB were just using the soldiers as puppets and playing on their state allegiance to send them through the meat grinder.
>>56766546
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/06/war-over-slavery_rhetoric_is_i.html
i wish i was in dixie...
>>56766546
Important point everyone skips:
The South wanted to industrialuze at its own pace and without upsetting its globally important wealth. It was on its way to geting rid of slavery the way automobiles eventually made the horse and buggy laughable one customer at a time.
The Northern bankers saw the opportunity to jump in and force instant change, incidentally wiping out Southern wealth, and hiding it all under moral outrage. That is what really happened. This arrangement is most relevant fir modern economics because the same model of parasitism and conquest through ostensible concern and reform is used to dominate the developing world.
>>56766546
If the Declaration of Independence justifies the secession from the British Empire of 3 million Colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of 5 million Southerners from the Federal Union.....Horace Greeley
If the union was formed by the accession of States then the Union may be dissolved by the secession of States....Daniel Webster, on the floor of the U.S. Senate 2/15/1833.
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right, which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit.....Abraham Lincoln in his speech in Congress in 1846.
Abe Lincoln when asked "Why not let the South go in peace?"
Lincoln replied: "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?"
http://www.plpow.com/WhyTheWarWasStarted.htm
>"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.
"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year.
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/06/war-over-slavery_rhetoric_is_i.html
one more
>>56766546
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q--iGgtRn8
>
>For decades before the war, the South, through harsh tariffs, had been supplying about 85% of the country’s revenue, nearly all of which was being spent in the North to boost its economy, build manufacturing, infrastructure, railroads, canals, etc. With the passage of the 47% Morrill Tariff the final nail was in the coffin. The South did not secede to protect slavery, although certainly they wished to protect it; they seceded over a dispute about unfair taxation, an oppressive Federal government, and the right to separate from that oppression and be governed “by consent”, exactly the same issues over which the Founding Fathers fought the Revolutionary War.
https://snapoutofitamerica.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/the-terrible-truth-about-abraham-lincoln-and-the-confederate-war/
>>56770274
not at all the same thing.
DUDE WEED LMAO
I am sorry to offend Southerners, but yes it was about slavery.
One of my good buddies from Huntsville Alabama had it good though. Family fought on both sides of the war so he could switch sides whenever convenient in conversation. He also told me the difference between Yanks and damn Yanks, he was a cool dude.
>>56768765
Heh. I was arguing with a liberal on kekbook who pointed out that "up to 30% of the initial generation of African slaves were Muslim, many spoke Arabic". The source was solid (I can't find it at the moment).
The premise was flawed- she argued that Whites "stripped away" their language culture and religion, without even wondering how SubSaharan Africans became Arabic speaking Muslims in the first place. It's like she thought they woke up one morning and decided to read the Quran and convert. Complete ignorance on the part of liberals on the Arab slave trade (though they didn't leave much "evidence" behind. They castrated the males, put females in harems, and killed heretics.)
>>56767941
Well I've heard some historians state that there was a greater amount of already enslaved people from Africa than anywhere else, and it was considered more morally congruent to keep blacks as slaves than Europeans, and it was easier to spot a Black fugitive than a White one. All those reasons make sense for how enslavement of blacks was normalized, but you're right- it wasn't necessary for them to be African.
There was a funny account- if anyone knows of it- that demonstrated the value of a slave to a slaveowner. A slave is a lifetime investment and an asset subject to depreciation. When there was some work being done at the farm (I think it was swamp dredging or heavy lifting, or some other hard labor), the plantation owner hired a contractor and his workers to do it, and he was given some latitude to use the plantation slaves.
Most of the Irish immigrant wage workers were paid pittance and were a penny a dozen, and ended up doing all the dangerous and shitty work, while the slaves were kept doing the relatively safer and less taxing farm and house work, as that was more economical.
The Union operated multiple extermination camps in their territory, including Elmira and Camp Douglas. These were legitimate extermination camps, unlike Andersonville, which was a POW camp that had a lack of supplies due to the Union intentionally destroying supply lines. Of course, Andersonville is a national historic site and the Yankee extermination camps have all but been wiped out of history.
Lincoln was a tyrant and JWB did nothing wrong.
>>56774278
Yank is one who visits then goes back North, a Damn Yank is one that stays, right?
>>56774278
Eh, my family is from Connecticut and Nebraska and about a dozen of the men in my family at the time died fighting for the North, and today I'm convinced the South should have been allowed to secede and my ancestors shouldn't have been sent to die for Lincoln's tyranny
Feels bad man
>>56774278
south here, slavery was intrinsically a part of it, no doubt. the only things that piss me off today are that people now thing that suddenly the dead on one side of the war are universally evil people and want to erase them from record out of spite
>>56774506
Ha ha, yup!
I remember when I was doing a service trip as a teen ages ago and I had to wheel this 104-year-old nun from her bed to this pavilion outside, and she told me "You know you Yanks ain't all bad."
This will make people angry, but here's a decent Prager video about it. Good for a discussion point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4
>>56774606
I think in some ways the feelings people have about the Civil War have less to do about what happened back then than what's happening now. The past is (I think) more than ever tied into contemporary politics. I think this is why the issue is so sore with people, especially Southerners now. I had a really lovely classmate, a young woman from Georgia, who was very uncomfortable in our grad classes talking about the issue. I could empathize; however i suspect that if bad government policy didn't leave huge swaths of the south, white and black, in abject poverty, people wouldn't be so divided and defensive over their multiple heritages.
>>56771957 Like >>56769962 said,
SC almost seceded because of tariffs, and there were some abolitionists that proposed nullification and secession as well.
Also consider that secession happened over slavery (as per the Declarations of Secession), even though a small percentage owned slaves. That gives evidence to a tiny political and economic interest that took over the state and federal offices was behind secession.
And tariffs was hurting, and would be in the long term injurious, to the southern economy than abolition.
>Expansion and perpetuity of slavery
I agree, they were behind industry compared to the rest of the world, and they simultaneously wanted slaves plantations to become better income generating units- requiring many cheap slaves, and to keep the prices of slaves high, and to retain some high employment, and increase their GNP, and industrialize- which are contradictory aims.
That said, we should have let them. By the turn of the century they would have been forced to abandon their slaves and probably ended up allying or rejoining the union anyway.
>>56773926
We have different concepts of wealth- or capital more accurately. For you, "wealth" is the sums of a few plantation owners landowners. For modern economists, wealth can be attained by capital- such as industrialized farming equipment that can make production 100X more efficient- and investments in industry, such that they make a greater return than what was paid into.
Assume two men.
Man A has $1,000,000 in the bank account, and a plantation of slaves, with an output of 10 widgets/week, with net earnings of $10/widget.
Man B has $500,000 in the bank account, and a machine with an output of 20 widgets/week, with net earnings of $10/widget.
Now three things happen:
1. Man B's machine will increase in market value in relation to its production capacity, increasing his net worth even though his bank account is smaller.
2. Man B can produce more, for less, and can even cut the price of his widgets and still make more money than Man A after a break-even point
3. The consumers and producers would use their excess income and time, before tied down with the more expensive slave-based system, toward savings, consumption, and investment.
More wealth is automatically created under industrialization, though it may have been a violent economic shift (like East Germany rejoining West). That said, i think the south had the right of self determination when it came to economic policy.
Don't remind me that we lost anon, I'm sad enough already.
Have a song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ot7amDyqbY
>>56775184
You ever read Harry Turtledove's alternate history timeline for the 'South wins' scenario?
The US and CS have another war in the 1880s and find themselves on opposite sides in World War 1, then World War 2 is started by the Confederacy taking revenge on the North and they shoah all the blacks for attempting a communist revolution
Also the Mormons go full suicide jihad on the US government. Pretty entertaining stuff.
>>56775364
Right, the key is, as we see with so many crises that the media abruptly decides crossed the threshold of importance, there was no war to end slavery except among terrorists until one day it was the only way. This was economic conquest disguised by moral outrage, not heartfelt opposition to exploitation by the elected representaives of factory owners like is taught in schools.
>>56775501
Read it on a /k/ recommendation. It gave me more hearty keks than it should have.
>>56775562
Agreed
>>56766546
Saying the Civil War was fought over slavery is akin to saying WW2 was fought because Hitler didn't like Jews.
>>56775949
I used to teach high school history and that actually is why kids think the US got involved in WW2
They get so upset when I tell them the US turned back ships full of Jewish refugees and didn't get involved in the war for over two years when Japan dragged us into it
Also lots of kids think we fought Russia in WW2
do you really think a bunch of poor people fought for the rich mans rights to own slaves?
>>56769738
A grandson of Stonewall living in Canada?? No fugging way dawg.
There are two types of Confederate sympathizers.
1.Muh State rights/ Heritage not hate.
Read the various corner stone speeches.
>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.
>Dred Scott Decision.
>3/5ths Compromise.
>Fugitive Slave act.
The second and less common is the unapologetic racist.
> In-ports niggers to America.
> Gives up chance to send them back to Africa/Liberia.
> Fights a war due to jew level of greed of keeping said nigs, which results in the death of over 500,000 white Americans.
>>56777398
Also
>>56766546
Post-war, the only issue resolved was that of slavery, and everything else (like some constitutional amendments proposed by the CSA) was never implemented. Basically, think of all the reasons the South would leave the US if we didn't have the threat of war and a ban on secession, and then add the prospect the Republicans will never win another election, ever, and our representation will be unable to influence federal decisions.
>>56766546
>USA was still pretty small
>owned a bunch of territories that were slowly being made into states
>new states we're being split between slave and free - 1 free state added so 1 slave state added
>Federal Govt wants to make a law limiting slavery in territories/new states
>southern states don't like this idea
>Heyy Blinkin hits the scene
>south decides fuck this i'm out
>north says nope
>south attacks a northern fort on the north/south border
>war
>more war
>3 years after the start of the war Lincoln frees the poor innocent black men from the shackles of slavery (by poor innocent black men i mean blacks in 10 southern states that tried to secede but not slaves in Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky who had slaves but didn't secede)
>Lincoln's hope for the slaves joining the fight and helping the north didn't work too well because of things like slave owners were able to convince/force them to fight for the south and the fact that northerners were racist and didn't want to fight side by side with niggers
>Lincoln gave a speech
>more war
>Sherman went ham on the south (seriously, some places in the south are still mad as fuck about it)
>Robert E Lee (one of Murica's greatest generals) to U.S. Grant who was nice enough to let Lee keep his horse and sword
>war over
The civil war was not about slavery you fucking retards
The civil war started over insane Tariffs that the northern states were forcing onto the southern states to bolster their industries. Fort Sumter where the first shots of the war happened was a Harbor fort where the tariffs were colected
three of the fucking slave states fought FOR the northern side you ignorant fucksticks. Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacist who wanted to end slavery because the slave trade was importing blacks to the Americas and he wanted them to be forcibly deported back to africa so that there wouldnt be any race mixing.
The reason behind the emancipation proclamation was to foment slave uprisings in the south so that the slaves would be killed instead of Union soldiers. and after the proclamation the largest race riot in US history happened in New York City where blacks were rounded up en mass and lynched
To this day Chicago and NYC regularly compete for the top spot of racism capital of America small hick towns in Mississippi dont even come close to the cultural and institutional racism that goes on in the north.
>>56778937
>Tfw pass Sherman's house all the time
>>56781959
The fuck? What in hell were all my spergout chapter length comments for?
>The civil war was not about slavery you fucking retards
Secession was about slavery first and foremost
Source:
1. Declarations of Secession of each state
Was there an economic component? Yes.
Civil war was about preserving the union (from Lincoln's POV) or defending self determination (Rebel POV)
>Sources:
1. Lincoln's speeches,congressional declaration of war
2. Writings of Davis, Lee, confederate veterans
Was there an economic component? Yes. But the north already produced more crops and more manufacturing than all the seceding states combined. If anything they didn't lose much of a market for US-made goods if they were expanding westward anyway.
>three of the fucking slave states fought FOR the northern side you ignorant fucksticks
But they never decided to secede.
>Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacist
True, but so were a lot of people
> who wanted to end slavery because it was importing blacks
That probably was a contributing factor, especially since he stated blacks and whites could not live peaceably and equitably, but from his first speeches to his latest he railed against the morality of the institution itself.
>he wanted them to be forcibly deported back to africa so that there wouldnt be any race mixing.
Which he could have done after the war- until Fredrick Douglass and others convinced him it would be a bad idea. Idea 2 was to send them all out west, but that got scrapped during the Johnson admin.
>The reason behind the emancipation proclamation was to foment slave uprisings in the south
true
> so that the slaves would be killed instead of Union soldiers
The slaves would have bore some of the brunt, sure, but I think this was secondary. It was mainly to cripple the CSA economy, and Lincoln and Grant had no problem sending wave after wave of men through the grinder, public opinion be damned.
