Redpill me on the confederacy Americunts
>Did they have a right to secede from the union?
> Was Lincoln a tyrant?
> Was slavery the root cause?
No one over here in Potatoland knows anything about it except the fact that "muh diaspora" were routinely used as cannon fodder.
>>69807642
>>Did they have a right to secede from the union?
No.
>> Was Lincoln a tyrant?
No.
>> Was slavery the root cause?
It's complicated.
>>69807642
>Yes
>Historians cite him as the closest thing the US had to a monarch or dictatorial strongman, so yeah.
>No, it was the encroachment of federalism on individual rights
Yes slavery was the root cause. Slavery was extremely important to the South economically, especially the the slave owning upper class who were the political elite. The South depended on exporting cash crops, specifically cotton. They seceded because they didn't want an abolitionist as president, and felt that they didn't have a voice in their government anymore. Basically it was a case of two extremely different nations sharing a single state. Personally I don't believe they had the right to secede, but I can certainly see why they would want their own country.
>>69807642
>>Did they have a right to secede from the union?
There is no law for proper secession, so technically no
>> Was Lincoln a tyrant?
Not really. He violated some law during war time, but literally every president does.
>> Was slavery the root cause?
Yes. Any other answer makes you mentally ill.
>>69807898
>>No, it was the encroachment of federalism on individual rights
Yeah, the right to own other people.
>>69808152
So the hundreds of thousands of Southern men who enlisted were fighting for slavery? Also surely the secession was about slavery but when Lincoln prosecuted the war it was more for the purpose of preserving the Union, no?
>>69808152
It wasn't so much slavery as it was the right for states to do as they wanted without the federal government putting its nose into everything. The north put moral expediency over slavery 1st at the cost of setting a terrible precident.
>>69808247
2nd amendment is probably the highest legal support for it; really might makes right in the end as far as reality goes.
>>69808381
Yes, but over time it became more about slavery. For about the first 1/3 of it he was pretty adamant about not touching the slaves but he evolved over time.
>>69807642
>>Did they have a right to secede from the union?
Ambiguous.
>>Was Lincoln a tyrant?
No.
>>Was slavery the root cause?
States' rights to owning slaves were the root cause.
>>69808381
>So the hundreds of thousands of Southern men who enlisted were fighting for slavery?
Absolutely not. They felt their homelands were being invaded. They were correct.
They were defending their homes.
>>69807642
>Did they have a right to secede from the union?
Yes.
> Was Lincoln a tyrant?
Yes.
> Was slavery the root cause?
No. The northern dominated government encroached on the rights of southerners. Also a lot of economic aspects to it (the north industrialized and the south got cucked)
>>69808381
They could have preserved the union by not rail roading issues down the throats of half the states via the federal government.
The civil war was not about slavery it was over whether the states could rule themselves (the south) or whether the federal government would have absolute control (the north)
>>69808381
>So the hundreds of thousands of Southern men who enlisted were fighting for slavery?
Why the common man fights isn't the same thing as the reason for the war.
>Also surely the secession was about slavery but when Lincoln prosecuted the war it was more for the purpose of preserving the Union, no?
The war was caused by the secession. Like I said, it's complicated.
>>69808383
The South didn't give a shit about state's rights until it affected them. They were totally cool with forcing Northerners to hand over slaves despite them not wanting to.
>>69808585
There was no obligation for the federal government to do so. The south had no right to secede.
Corwin ammendment. 1828 or 1830ish tariffs that lead to south Carolina trying to nullify them. Louisiana being taken by the federal government and created Missouri with no vote of the people.
>>69808619
It was about slavery. They seceded before the Lincoln administration was even in power to do anything. This "rule themselves" as you call it was whether or not they would be allowed to have slaves, which Lincoln wasn't even going to do anything about originally.
>>69808270
But niggers aren't people.
>>69808381
Poor rednecks weren't fighting for slavery, but that doesn't mean that slavery wasn't the root cause. Other reasons were used for propaganda against the Union by the upper class, and that's what motivated the non-elite.
>>69808771
Ok, but we're not speaking in edgy /pol/ speak now, we're being serious.
>inb4 i am being serious
then you can leave
>>69807721
First post best post
>>Did they have a right to secede from the union?
sure but the Union also had the right to take them to war for it
>> Was Lincoln a tyrant?
no and in fact he tried everything in his power to avoid war
> Was slavery the root cause?
It was certainly among the root causes. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves, the Compromise of 1950, John Brown's Raid, Bleeding Kansas etc. all directly contributed to the war. Slavery became the cause of the war only due to Lincoln's politicking in order to give the Union something to fight for. People in the North were disillusioned by the ghastly death toll so by 1864 Lincoln decided to make it a "divine war" and stated it was man's mission from God to destroy slavery
>>69808794
Indeed. The upper classes told the poor that they were being violated as a people, so they could preserve their slaves.
>>69807642
>>Did they have a right to secede from the union?
legally yes
>> Was Lincoln a tyrant?
he was definitely a "dictator" in any case, but obviously made into the image of a tyrant for southern and southern sympathizer propaganda purposes
>> Was slavery the root cause?
without a doubt yes. Anyone who says otherwise has no idea what they are talking about
>>69808906
>legally yes
Citation please.
>>69808702
We still do it today, get convicted or a warrent put out today for a crime in one state, and other states have to hand you over. Doesn't matter if its not a crime where you are.
If NYC does make urinating in public legal doesnt mean people with warrants out for it can hide out in NYC.
The north was doing what sanctuary cities are doing now.
Instead of passing unconstitutional laws, they needed to wait until they got enough southern support to emancipate the slaves via an amendment, instead they passed BS laws, then started civil war, then passed the amendment.
>>69807642
>Did they have a right to secede from the union?
Absolutely and incontestably. (Some states explicitly wrote this into the acts with which they joined the Union, the arguments against it were only that it was clearly implied and unecessary, only a few years earlier the northeast had threatened secession and no one doubted the legality of it then.)
> Was Lincoln a tyrant?
He violated his oath and started the bloodiest war in our history. What do you think?
> Was slavery the root cause?
No. Both parties agreed on this. Slavery was one of a bundle of economic issues that had caused distance and divisions, so it's part of the story, but calling it 'the reason' is so absurdly over the top we can safely characterize it as simply 'lying.'
Fun fact genetic testing indicates american blacks are fairly uniformly ~20% Irish by ancestry.
>>69808270
Also not the point...it was the very definition of federal over-reach.
>Not saying I agree with those traitors but facts is facts
>>69807642
>Did the colonists have a right to declare independence from the British Crown
> Was King George a tyrant?
> Was an abusive central authoritarian government the root cause?
>>69809040
In what way? Lincoln came into office saying outright that he wasn't going to do anything about slavery, so how was the Fed enroaching on states?
Ironically both sides didn't like niggers, really. Your countrymen rioted in New York against the draft, since they didn't want to die for the blacks. There were Irishmen slaughtering each other on both sides, actually. It was a popular subject for sad songs of the time period
>>69808737
and the colonists had no right to revolt by your definition of rights. If you go to jail for a crime you didnt commit you have no right to escape. You hide behind rights like a boy cries to his teacher for not liking playground rules.
>>69808737
What a contradiction...what the fuck are you on about?
What is all this bullshit talk about having a "right" to secede? It's very simple you fucking peasant bootlickers. When the government becomes tyrannical the people get to say fuck you we're out.
>>69808754
Yeah about abolishing slavery....yeeeaahh sorry about that.
>>69808754
Do you think the Southern states would have entered into the Union if they knew they had no option to get out?
Of course not. Reminds me a bit of the EUSSR
>>69809170
>the colonists had no right to revolt by your definition of rights
Not that guy, but you're correct. The colonists had no right, but the difference is they won.
>>69808906
>dictator
WEEDman?
>>69809225
Please cite the law that allows for succession.
>>69809120
Because he DID try to do something about slavery...which makes it over-reach.
>Did they have a right to secede from the union
The complicated answer is does ANY polity have the RIGHT to secede absent any legal basis for doing so. The answer to this question is no. There is not RIGHT to secession. It may be the right thing to do for your people, but it is not some inherent right like freedom of religion. In the case of the southern states, they had no legal right for secession, so the answer is no.
>Was Lincoln a tyrant
Only to the Southern States who saw him as an invading conqueror. It should be noted that the major abuses of the Reconstruction period occurred after Lincoln was assassinated though.
>Was slavery the root cause
Absolutely. Any casual look at the politics in the lead up to the Civil War confirms this adamantly. For the previous 30 years, the US was massively preoccupied with keeping a balance of power between Slave and Free States so that neither side would have a majority in the US Senate. This led to outright fighting when efforts by Slaveholders to force Kansas to enter the Union as a Slave state, and civil war was only averted by the Missouri Compromise. The Republican Party (of which Lincoln was a member) was formed following this on a platform of opposing further expansion of slavery. Lincoln's victory in 1860 insured that no new States would be admitted as Slave States and the power in the Senate would irreversibly shift to the Free States. South Carolina seceded in direct response to Lincolns election. They did not even wait for his inauguration day, and after the war began the Confederate Vice President gave the "Cornerstone Speech" that outright stated the very cornerstone of the Confederate secessionist cause was based upon the right of the states to keep slaves.
>>69807642
Lincoln was like the daddy of "Imperial Presidencies", makes Nixon look like Thomas Jefferson
>>69809173
The south had no right to secede. They are the ones at fault for threatening the Union, not the north.
>>69809321
But how was he in a way that allowed for the original succession?
He eventually did do something yes, but why did the South secede in the first place if he wasn't touching the slavery issue?
>>69807642
>>Did they have a right to secede from the union?
Yes
>> Was Lincoln a tyrant?
yes
>> Was slavery the root cause?
Yes, but not because of human rights. It was because the north was afraid of the south out-competing them economically (slaves weren't as effective as child labor working on machinery in the north, and the north didn't have as much of an export economy to compete with the south) and the south basically becoming the new seat of america. It was the north who made 3/5ths compromise to keep the south from getting more representation in government.
>>69809170
>You hide behind rights like a boy cries to his teacher for not liking playground rules.
Our country was founded on rights you dense fuck.
>>69807642
>>Did they have a right to secede from the union?
yep, it's in the constitution
>> Was Lincoln a tyrant?
yep
>> Was slavery the root cause?
nope, most white people hated slavery
>>69809413
Read a book. They wanted to secede because of the threat towards muh slavery. If Lincoln left it alone nothing would have became of it. I think Lincoln did the right thing but that doesn't change the fact he was the aggressor in the war.
>>69807642
Fuck the South
Bunch of losers
>>69809521
>yep, it's in the constitution
Where?
>>69809225
In the beginning the central government under the Articles of Confederation basically didn't exist. It wasn't till the Constitution that the idea of a powerful federal government emerged, and the southern states were okay with it at first. Hell, the Confederate constitution was almost identical to the US constitution
>>69809492
The 3/5ths compromise shouldn't have happened. A possession cannot be a person, and therefore a slave should not count at all towards population.
>>69809236
Yes, but my point is, the south, despite losing, was correct in its actions. Now, since they lost, all the propaganda rights go to the victor anyhow.
I'm a damn descendent of Cubans I have no blood in the argument, anyone with a working brain and understanding of the founding fathers knows the north and its politicians could have avoided this if they didn't do what they had; and the south was correct in it's response.
>>69809412
Lincoln was the model of a benevolent dictator
>>69809561
>If Lincoln left it alone nothing would have became of it.
Originally he DID leave it alone, so why did they leave the union at all? It wasn't until almost 2 years into the war he started actually threatening slavery.
The south left because they THOUGHT he would do something, but they left months before he even came into office, so how was Lincoln doing anything?
>>69809561
I'm not talking about who is the aggressor, I'm talking about who is in the right.
>>69807642
>Did they have a right to secede from the union?
They had just as much a right as I do from seceding from the country and declaring my house as sovereign territory.
>Was Lincoln a tyrant?
He suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the war, but its fucking war - you do whatever it takes to win.
>Was slavery the root cause?
Yes. Uneducated southern apologists waving the loser confederate flag in front of their homes will argue that the war was about states rights - yes, they fought for the right to keep slaves.
>>69807721
freely we joined freely we could leave. law doesn't mean shit if you decide to be sovereign
no southerner would ever talk shit about lincoln. his legacy survived though sherman's march and reconstruction and abe still came out smelling like a rose
slavery was not the cause. like most wars in humanity, it was rich and influential people that wanted to propagate slavery so they whipped the people up to hate the north.
I can only imagine what america could've been without that stupid war; the single greatest waste of life america has ever experienced.
>>69809437
I never said they had a right to secede....they had a right to defend their lands from the north...
>I'm standing on it - it's my land
South lost and I don't care lol
>>69809504
Not rights as you use the term.
The south was right just as slaves who broke the law to escape were right. Think about it. Both were right for similar reasons.
>>69809569
literally hahah
>>69809622
They were not correct in their actions. Before the civil war the Lincoln Administration took absolutely no steps to abolish slavery, because he wasn't even if office before they left
It's like if I shot you because I maybe thought in the future you would haves hot me.
>>69809578
Read a book
>>69809699
>freely we joined freely we could leave. law doesn't mean shit if you decide to be sovereign
The south had no right to claim sovereignty.
>>69808383
You're an idiot if you actually believe this. The Southern states wanted slavery and had been trying to expand it westward during the Manifest Destiny period, northward with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and possibly overseas and abroad (Confederate leaders sought to colonize Latin America), all to benefit the elites at the people's expense. In the North, meanwhile, opposition to slavery wasn't really all out of sympathy for slaves but also for the idea of "free soil." They didn't want slavery to expand as the use of it kept free workers out of jobs (similar to the employment of illegal and Latino/Asian immigrants.). Even Lincoln at first did not want to abolish slavery where it already existed and the Emancipation Proclamation exempted the loyal Southern states.
>>69808381
Pretty much. To the Southerners' credit, they were loyal to their states and thought the North was being too intrusive, but ultimately intrusive on their "rights" to own slaves - slave insurrections and the St. Domingo massacres were fresh in their heads, as were John Brown's actions in Bleeding Kansas and Harper's Ferry; they thought black people were inferior; and they wanted power over them and aspired to own slaves. In some states such as Mississippi, the rate of slave ownership by household was around 50%.
>>69808270
>Niggers.
>People.
Pick one.
basically the south went to war in order to preserve their right to enslave their fellow man then they got btfo and a subset of southerners have been eternally rectally sore ever since
the old quote from Dr Johnson comes to mind
>How is it that we heae such yelps for liberty from the drivers of negros?
>>69809210
this. there is no such thing as a "right" for anything. there is only permissions and rebellions. but im assuming you ppl are assuming permissions which makes zero sense cause why wud they ever permit it
>>69809561
Removing territory from a Sovereign Government is an overtly hostile act. Nations have their own rights and privileges, among which is the inviolability of their land.
When the Southern States seceded from the Union absent the legal justification to so, and the consent of the Federal Government, the State Legislatures and Governors of those territories essentially stole 1/3rd of the total territory of the United States.
This is why South Carolina had no right to demand the United States Army withdraw from Fort Sumter. Fort Sumter was Federal Property within the borders of the US. The moment South Carolina used military force to evict the Federal Military from its own base, they precluded any hope of a peaceful resolution.
>>69809786
Why read a book if it's in the constitution? I have read the constitution and it show it nowhere.
Not only that you have the burden of proof right now, I asked for proof, you provide proof.
>>69807642
They shouldve let the south secede
cheeky northern cunts
>>69809561
>"read a book"
>has bought into fake history written in books
It was about states rights bruh
>>69809731
No, the south was not right. Colonial era slavery is based upon the rejection of an inherent human dignity. This rejection is at the heart of degeneracy in all its forms. The south was morally obligated to end slavery even if the north had done nothing to stop it.
>>69807642
Think about it OP. Just think. This is a sensitive topic where I'm from. I have nothing more to say than that the war was not solely for the right to own slaves.
Maryland was a slave state for the north in the war btw.
Reminder that Lincoln was a war criminal and his assassination was completely justified
>>69809945
The States Right to keep slaves.
Yes
No
Yes
Their leaders were very open about it.
>>69809811
Southerners were forced to expand it to keep it but it was on its way out.
Reminder that the South shot at the North first, making them the aggressor
>>69807721
fpbp this
p
b
p
t
h
i
s
>>69810006
Only because Lincoln arrested the entire State Legislature and put Maryland under military occupation.
>>69809644
Benevolent dictators are the best form of leaders, not exactly knocking it, but it's kinda funny how in hindsight he's now held as the ultimate Republican figure when original Republicans were all about federalism in it's purest form
>>69809897
whoops, meant to reply to the tard you were replying to haha
>>69810006
I understand this may be a sensitive topic that's why I asked. My country's media is very much under the yoke of pro-EU liberal intellectuals so it's hard to derive any sense of independent thinking. As a frequent visitor to South Carolina which is steeped in Civil War history I wanted to get the opinions of actual Americans.
Here in Maryland, all the people who know anything about Lincoln pretty much regard him as a war criminal because he fucked up our state so bad that people forgot it was Southern. He literally decided that he was king of the state for 5 years. Maryland would have seceded, but instead it got turned into a giant prison camp. It's no surprise that the guy who ended Lincoln's reign of terror was a Marylander.
>>69809797
Why not?
Remember that Lincoln was based as fuck. He considered niggers to be inferior (because they are). Jewish history books lie to us.
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
by:
Abraham Lincoln
(1809-1865) 16th US President
Source:
Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
(The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)
>>69809797
Fuck your rights to sovereignty....if you can defend it, it is yours end of story palaSTEIN
>>69809797
as been stated in the thread no one has a "right" to sovereignty. you buy it with blood and lines in the dirt. if you want me to say it was unconstitutional, and therefore, illegal then yes it was.
that aside, some people forget that the largest, most successful slave revolution happened a few years before in haiti. even more successful than Spartacus. You ever met a french/white hatian? no, because the slaves murdered every fucking one of them. the south sure as shit didn't want what happened to our carribean neighbors to happen to them. muh slavery, muh oppression. more like extending the timer on a bomb.
>>69809052
>Did the colonists have a right to declare independence from the British Crown
No
> Was King George a tyrant?
No, his power comes from blood and tradition. The absolute oppost of a tyrant
> Was an abusive central authoritarian government the root cause?
No
>>69810118
There's nothing inherently wrong with federalism. The US federal government is simply a higher level of government that works slightly differently compared to state government. If it didn't exist, we would simply have 50 sovereign states instead, and the people who complain about the federal government now would instead complain about the government of whatever state they live in. Frankly the level of power that state governments have is absurd for the size of many states. We already have a large overarching government to keep us together, if we desire to also have significant levels of politics occur at smaller levels, they should be focused on more local levels than state level. This becomes particularly apparent when you look at states like California or Texas, overwhelmingly democrat and republican, respectively, but both contain areas where most people are loyal to the other party. Despite these places existing they are in many ways beholden to the will of the rest of the people in their state, which is illogical. The focus on states comes from the time in which they were separate colonies, but not only has that time long passed, those original 13 colonies were far smaller than many states we have today.
>Did they have a right to secede from the union?
technically no as states but as individuals they do.
> Was Lincoln a tyrant?
not really
> Was slavery the root cause?
Not really, the south was being fucked over by the north. The north is where factories and shit were so the north passed various laws, export taxes etc that would force the south to only give their products to the north. This thus led to the north controlling the price. This is what had the south pissed and the whole slavery thing which would hurt the south's economy even more is what pushed it over the edge.
>>69807642
>>Did they have a right to secede from the union?
Irrelevant but yes and no. A group of peoples right to exist or rebel from a nation state depends if they win or lose.
>> Was Lincoln a tyrant?
Was he maintaining order or was he forcing the south against its will? I think it would be interesting to see what this country would be like had the south won and two nations were competing for land in the west.
>> Was slavery the root cause?
Sure was.
>>69810621
This. Every time I hear a Texan say they should secede because the evil Feds and Liberals, I point out that East Texas and their own Capital City are pretty liberal places in their own right. Even if the Feds allow Texas to leave, what would Texas do if Austin and the the Counties around it decided they wanted to stay?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and arbitrary political boundaries never survive the impact with the realities of what sovereignty, citizenship, and loyalty/treason actually entail.
>>69810293
The war was always about slavery, and I say this as someone from Louisiana who had 3 ancestors that fought for the south.
Since the revolution against the bongs, slavery was a hot topic with those for and against it, but they put the issue on the back burner. Then each president would kind of just kick the can of it down the line so they didnt have to really deal with it. Then finally Lincoln, who was an anti-slavery candidate, runs for president.
The south hates him so much that a lot of places dont even put his name on the ballot, but he wins anyway. And before he even takes office, south carolina, the first to secede, leaves the union with the stated reason as "we wont let you touch our slaves"
Then other states follow suit and eventually Lincoln doesnt even care about slavery as much as preserving the union and begs those states to come back. They dont and tell all union troops to leave the south because its their own new country now. The union troops dont leave fort sumter in south carolina, so the southern army starts bombing it and the war starts.
Lincoln says the war is to preserve the union and that the south are traitors, but by 1862, he changes it to a moral crusade to end slavery and see it as the perfect opportunity to legally do so.
tl;dr-slavery was with out a doubt the root cause of the war
just go watch the civil war by ken burns
>>69807642
>Did they have a right to secede from the union?
Any disenfranchised population should have the right to secede. However, any government has the right to oppose.
> Was Lincoln a tyrant?
Tyrant - "a cruel and oppressive ruler."
Southerners view him as a Tyrant for forcing his rule and dismantling their way of life and identity. Many still hate him in the South. Northerners view him as a Savior and preserver of the Union. Many view him as the best President in the North.
> Was slavery the root cause?
Not the root cause, but closely tied to the issue of States' Rights. State's Rights vs Federalism was the actual key issue. Slavery was used later in the war as point for Union propaganda.
>>69810387
Government is a connection of interdependent relationships. You can't just declare sovereignty because you feel like it.
>>69810519
>>69810536
Might does not make right. Fuck your moral relativism.
>>69810536
>that aside, some people forget that the largest, most successful slave revolution happened a few years before in haiti. even more successful than Spartacus. You ever met a french/white hatian? no, because the slaves murdered every fucking one of them.
>Slaves murdered everyone over there
>Should we let them go to defuse tensions?
>No lets have them keep being slaves so they continue to get angrier and angrier
southerner redpiller here to name the jew
I love Dixie, I love the people, but we were fucking jews. protestants are wannabe jews. Lincoln had some good ideas, got killed by a jew. jew Judah phillip Benjamin, called 'the brains of the confederacy' by many historians, escaped back the UK after he lost the war.
sorry confederate brothers, the truth must be known. we only became anti jewish after they betrayed us with civil rights and other things.
>>69810465
if he hadn't been shot, all the blacks would've ended up in liberia fighting for general butt naked. what a day.
>>69810293
The reason why it is such a sensitive topic is because the reasons for the civil war are under constant threat of historical revisionism.
Ultimately, slavery was one of the main issues behind the war, but it is too complicated to say that slavery was the only issue. Mainly it was a fight between two distinct cultures, both with strong economies, within the same nation. The north fought in the interest of keeping the union intact. The south fought to prevent what it saw as encroachment of the federal government.
Really a bunch of bad blood comes from the post war period. Many in the south (including myself) think that the federal (northern) government royally fucked the south over in the rebuilding after the war, mainly because the south's economy was based on slavery. After the war, the economy was shot and the South, to this day, has never recovered.
>>69807642
Yes, states could join and leave if a constitutional convention is held by the elected representatives of a state, and there was
Yes, a tyrant for ordering military action be taken against civilians and militia of the southern states, which were still his citizens since he said leaving was unconstitutional
Nah, but it was a narrative for both sides to fight. If there was a one single root cause it would have to be competition putting the northern states at risk
>>69809766
You're admitting its not about slavery..
1) The republican party at the time did not even have ballots in the south, parties were sharply divided across north/south. Basically the south had zero say in deciding the nominee of the party.
2) That same party, was for abolishing slavery, which was still a states rights issue.
So it was a perfect storm of states rights, and the fact that political parties were so fucked up, that those same states essentially had no control over the election.
Bell would have been a better president, also Lincoln won in a brokered convention...
>>69811059
it was never our war but it was sure as shit our conflict. being a southerner is the cruelest joke knowing you were the bad guys and having your state decimated and you have to proud of it because your ancestors died for the kikery of plantation owners.
>>69807642
>Did they have a right to secede from the union?
Yes
>Was Lincoln a tyrant?
No
>Was slavery the root cause?
No
http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html
>>69811363
I'm not admitting that in anyway. It was entirely about slavery. The thing is it was the south's fault, because they freaked out they were going to lose their slaves even though Lincoln wasn't doing anything about them.
The south thought they were going to lose their slaves, that's why the right to own slaves is located in several of the southern state's constitutions. Lincoln had no plans to touch them but the southern yokels freaked out
>>69811476
Also this documentary, for the real hardcore fuckers among you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6c_dinY3fM
>>69808574
Not to mention that the North was price fixing cotton.
>>69811570
Fuck, wrong video, here's the documentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrJGlXEs8nI
>>69809811
Emancipation proclamation wasn't a law he couldn't force it on states he was not at war with ya dummie.
North didn't care about slaves lives they just wanted to handicap the south further, the slaves were the one thing they had to compete with industrialization in the north. The moral argument was just there conveniently.
The fact he did the emancipation proclamation was just to spite the south further; which only shows exactly why the south succeeded when he won in the first place.
>>69810293
>>69810893
also, this video does a good job explaing the origins of the war
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWww0YIf-JE
>>69810977
>Might does not make right
i said it was illegal, I believe in the law of a state imposed upon me needs to be followed. If you don't like the law you change it. in some cases that change comes a premium; human life. It has nothing to do with what's right or proper or good for humanity
>No lets have them keep being slaves so they continue to get angrier and angrier
I would like to tape $100 bills on you and drop you in south chicago and instruct you to negotiate with the people on the street not get "angrier and angrier" with you.
>>69807642
The states had the right to secede but once they did the union had the right to go to war with them. Once sovereignity was established the CSA had the responsibility of keeping it.
Both sides were acting legally. Sovereignity is shared between states and the fed. Over the past 50 years thr fed has severely escaped its mandate and has encroached deeply into state sovereignity
Slavery would have ended after confederate victory because of technology as well as pressure from UK and France, two major trade partners for the south... Land distribution and agricultural/engineering based economy would remain.
Someone in this thread PLEASE cite me the law that makes secession legal
>>69809981
I agree slavery is wrong, but the political system that gave rise to lincoln was also wrong, and the war was provoked by lincolns refusal to withdraw from south carolina. Had he withdrawn, and instead arranged a compromise with the south, arranged to have the political parties go across all the states, something, the whole war would have never begun and the union could have been joined together peacefully.
Remember also, the north didn't really abolish slaves our of moral superiority, they didn't need them, they had industrialization and they got food from the south.
Just as now we buy our shoes from china despite poor child labor and communism. Oh how moral superior we are.
>>69810086
Maryland has been a cuck state for quite some time now.
>>69807642
>>Did they have a right to secede from the union?
Yes.
>> Was Lincoln a tyrant?
Yes. He suspended Habeas Corpus during the war, held a shit ton of confederate sympathizers in concentration camps, and treated confederate POWs like pure shit.
>> Was slavery the root cause?
Yes and no. The Southern Aristocracy was quite focused on this for the primary reason that it was their source of income. The Southern foot soldiers hated Lincoln for many reasons. Some hated him because he was a Yankee and they don't like Yankees. Some hated him because they feared a loss of their political rights. And the small minority of the non-Antebellum Aristocracy that held slaves didn't want their primary source of income taken away.
In a sense it was provoked by the threat of slavery being taken away, however one must remember that the Chattel system of slavery wasn't very widespread past the Antebellum Aristocracy and that most Southerners worked in the fields with their slaves. Some treated their slaves quite nicely because they couldn't afford to use the Chattel system. Some treated them nicely because they weren't fucking psychopaths and astonishingly they had some sort of conscious.
Human rights in my opinion don't exist. Every political power derives from military power and as such there is no concrete set of moral principles that are given freely to you or anyone. The idea that you have to fight for your freedom is the correct mindset, only the strong decide things in this world. As such, we can apply this principle to the idea of "does the South have the right to secede?" The answer derives from strength, for the majority of the war the South kicked the North's ass with fewer troops, better generals and more fervor than seen in some religious wars. For the majority of the war, pretty much everything before Stonewall Jackson was shot, the South held the right to secede.
>>69812404
>wants to talk about the north's concentration camps
Top lel
Based mainly on geographic considerations, the mid-19th century USA was clearly divided into two distinct societies - above the Mason-Dixon Line, industry and progressive politics were the norm. Below it, a plantation economy serving a conservative and more religious proletariat.
Slavery was just a sidebar. It has become amplified and assigned as a prime cause over the years as negroes have become more ingrained in society. White people wanted credit for freeing the slaves, but they didn't want to take responsibility for making them slaves in the first place.
Perfect solution, if you're a Yankee - we freed them, the South enslaved them.
This has become the lore over the years, but the Civil War was about conflicting economic theory much more than slavery. And the Confederacy, such as it might still exist in the minds of a few Southerners, was much more of a Luddite cause than a racial one, though definitely Luddite in the best possible sense of the word - an attempt to preserve a way of life that portrayed an undeniable beauty and elegance.
Tennessee, outie.
The whole "morality" thing was only a convenient coincidence. It was the economic and political issues that slavery created that caused the war.
>>69809288
>declarationofindependence.jpg
people should be represented in government, and they should have a clear avenue to having their policies enacted and a regress of grievances against their government. The Union strong armed the south into doing whatever it wanted, to the point that southern states were no long fairly represented in congress. They were essentially forced into succession.
Fun Fact. The north's crimes against chinese and irish laborers building railroads and handling recently invented notroglycerine suffered much more that black slaves.
>>69811190
The emancipation proclamation was the big problem, he should have included within it the fact that they'd go to africa but that'd fuck with his moral superiority bullshit.
>>69811059
If you understand anything you'd know there were profiteers on both sides.
>>69812689
The decleration is not law in any way, shape or form.
Please cite a valid law.
>>69810006
>Maryland was a slave state for the north in the war btw.
>>69810086
>>69812360
Maryland was officially neutral at first, which is why Lincoln didnt make any anti-slavery statements and made it all about saving the union, because he didnt want the boarder states to go over to the south, and also because D.C. is basically in Maryland
In fact, most of Maryland was democrat and anti-war at the time. So when the war first started and union troops marched through it, there was a big anti-union protest that led to a riot with some of the protesters being shot. So the south made this love song to Maryland asking them to join their cause, and its the state song of Maryland to this day
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZzUD0jx0iY
>>69811561
Easy to claim lincoln wouldn't do nuffins but in reality we'll never know.
>>69807721
Seceded from a political entity to create a political entity that prevents secession from a newly created entity. Next you'll say Shay was in the wrong.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and tried citizens in military court. Illegally put Maryland under martial law.
I can agree to this statement, due to the amount economic base being built on slavery which would rewrite economic history and that of both regions attempting to defend what they believe in.
>>69809811
Southern states wanted to expand slavery because majority of the wars were won with more Southern blood than northern. So they felt they were entitled to that. They also wanted to prevent the anti-slavery states from getting out of hand as if they didn't attempt Congress would become out of balance. Emancipation Proclamation was a fuck you to the South, and without it Lincoln's party would've self destructed as many were pushing for emancipation and few weren't.
>>69812506
>focuses on something that was purely mentioned as a way to discredit my argument
>>69807642
The confederacy had as much right to secede from the USA as the USA had to secede from Great Britain
That's right, none at all.
>>69812840
In addition, Lincoln later in the wars used some sort of war-power to say that any state not back in the union would not be allowed to keep their slaves, but excluded Maryland, and two other states to actually keep their slaves, which kept them until the amendment passed.
>>69812879
I didn't say he wouldn't't, I said he didn't. He didn't even get the chance.
>>69812907
Your entire argument has been discredited this whole thread if you read it you moron
>>69812689
Yeah but who cares about the Irish? We've been consistently BTFO throughout history
Reminder that the Civil War is actually a misnomer and it should be called by its more accurate name: the War of Northern Aggression.
>>69813231
The South shot first
>>69813103
How was it discredited? I admitted that the rich wanted to keep slaves, but said that the poor had multiple reasons. How did anyone discredit me?
>>69813146
and the irish give us shit for swooning over them and wanting to be like them. read some "irish problem" threads from the anglos and half the damn posters are americans telling the english to suck it. diaspora has it benefits, friendo.
>>69812881
>Seceded from a political entity to create a political entity that prevents secession from a newly created entity.
Entirely different reasons.
>>69813328
After lincoln didn't remove troops from south carolina and notified the south he was sending reinforcements that would march through south carolina to the fort.
Its like if Pearl Harbor were located in Japan and the Japanese said gtfo and we said no, then they attacked and we played victim.
>>69813501
>requiring the federal government to remove troops from its own land
Lel
How is sending troops through your own territory an act of aggression?
>>69813478
No it isn't the cultures grew differently just as the Revolutionary War, Americans didn't see themselves as British just as Northerners didn't see themselves as Southerners. The free states grew so large that they could over power any Southern proposition in Congress, just as the British did with parliament.
>>69813655
>how is quartering soldiers an act of agression by the king of england?
You only prove me right, by not accepting the succession, he became the aggressor.
>>69812840
Maryland would have seceded but Lincoln occupied the state and locked up pro south politicians.
>>69807721
They actually had every right to secede at the time.
>>69813788
>putting soldiers in a fort is quartering
I am not proving you right, the south had no right at all to secede and become a political entity on its own. It was perfectly within the government's powers to maintain its forts
>did they have a right?
Yes, but rights aren't real anyways. Disregarding that, it's in the rules that any state can secede for any reason at any time.
>Lincoln a tyrant?
Well if the definition of tyrant includes people that exercises rule over people that do not want to have that person rule over them then yes. The south did not and does not want to be a part of the USA.
>was slavery the root cause?
Well even if the south wasn't practicing slavery there still would have been a fucking civil war so muh slavery fags can fuck off back to whatever kike liberal university they go to and watch their girlfriend fuck D'Queerious.
No one can refute this.
>>69813875
Just as the British did before Jay's treaty right :^)
>>69813977
>it's in the rules
Citation please
>>69814012
I'm still correct. Go to your Klan rally or something
>>69813146
the irish are well respected in terms of the civil war though. They were basically used in a zerg rush in the Battle of Fredericksburg, but it got to a point where even the confederate were cheering them on
>Never were men so brave. They ennobled their race by their gallantry on that desperate occasion. Though totally routed, they reaped harvests of glory. Their brilliant though hopeless assaults on our lines excited the hearty applause of our officers and men
-Robert E Lee
>Your soldier's heart almost stood still as he watched those sons of Erin fearlessly rush to their death. The brilliant assault on Marye's Heights of their Irish Brigade was beyond description. Why, my darling, we forgot they were fighting us, and cheer after cheer at their fearlessness went up all along our lines.
-George Pickett
>>69814092
and so he reveals himself with one last gasp of ad hominem.
>>69813381
Some Irish people are incredibly cringey. In fact our entire nationalist movement has been hijacked by the ultra-cringe, terrorist-sympathising mob.
>tfw when glorious Anglo-Irish Protestant ascendancy
>>69814188
In what way? Your reply added nothing to the conversation and just proved ME right, because the south had no right to form its own country.
You stopped arguing properly, so I did too.
>>69807642
yes
yes
no
despite that im glad the southerners got their asses kicked, bunch of lazy, greedy, unindustrious, nigger loving hedonists killed the only person that had the only chance to send the niggers back to africa (lincoln)
>tfw nigs could have been at most 1% of the usa had booth not offed lincoln
completely unforgivable and in southern trash waving dixie around should be hung from the highest tree
>>69807642
No, yes, no
>>69814258
Jay's treaty is an example of what Lincoln should have done. You instead informed him to attend a KKK rally.
>>69814046
>muh broad constructionist
kys stupid faggot if you were even white your ancestors would have been loyalists this flag bows to no earthly king.
>>69807642
Slavery was not the root cause. Many black men fought willingly for the Confederacy.
The more I read about this, the more I start to think the real reason for the war was industrialization.
The south was predominately agricultural, and had free labor in the form of slavery, the north meanwhile, was industrialized. The norths industry was also on of their key advantages what with increased ability to produce weapons, ships, trains, and other equipment.
The south's stagnated economy was due to all the wealth being concentrated in the farm owning class, and thus they were far behind in terms of economic advantage.
I think the north wanted to force industrialization in the south so as to improve the nations economy and enter into a new industrial era. This is also supported by the fact that the north burned everything to the ground after the war, spurring a paradigm shift in the economy of the south. With farms destroyed and the slave labor now gone, the choice was either continue farming but now pay people, which would be less lucrative, or industrialize.
I think slavery was just a moral justification desu.
>>69814121
Ah Fredericksbirg. If there's one thing we know how to do its to die bravely
>>69808152
Dude, slavery was not the main issue. Most southern state farmers had no slaves but followed their state's (country's) decision to secede from the union (not a country, but a republic; think EU but better). These families were destroyed and resources raped because "muh southern serfs". The south wanted to sell shit to Europe without high tariffs. The north wanted to low ball the south. Thats the reason guys. Plain and simple. States are just that - STATES! Countries! Read the declaration of independence and constitution fellow burgers. That would redpill anyone.
>>69814481
You are mostly correct, except I personally think the north sought to dismantle the southern economy for competitive reasons, not to spread industrialization.
>>69809120
Actually, he said he wasn't going to abolish slavery, merely not interfere in states where it was already established.
