Redpill me on the American civil war.
Was it really all because of slavery?
Seems like BS
No, it was over state rights.
>>70242318
yea its BS. we fought for our own right. the federal government was representing the north and not the south. stepping on us economically and politically. putting tarriffs on southern goods but not norths. shit like that.
tl;dr states rights. wanting to rule themselves.
>>70242539
State's right to have slavery.
>>70242661
The South had a stranglehold on early American politics. They were trying to force slavery on the country, not the other way around.
Yes, it was about slavery.
The south had an agricultural economy that relied heavily on slave labor. The north was more industrial and felt that slavery was unacceptable. The two sides tried a couple different compromises, mostly related to whether or not new states would be admitted as slave states or free states, but ultimately the conflict had been boiling underneath the surface since the founding of the republic. It happened, the north won, and we ended slavery. Problem solved.
It's just too bad that the south felt that they had to secede and fight to the last man to retain their "right" to own other human beings.
>>70242318
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtcG0yZ85mY
>>70242849
Still states rights, the worry was if the Federal government could overall states directly then the Union had gone full tyrant mode
>>70242910
U're faggot
>>70242948
Still slavery. The worry was that they would lose their slaves and have to live among them.
Tfw the last Confederate surrender was in my city in the UK
Tfw my city financed, sent supplies gratis and built ships for the Confeds
Tfw The confederates main financial centre for Europe was in my city
Tfw an American flag still flies outside that building to this very day
Tfw buildings in that same street are named after people etc of the Confederates
tl;dr cotton
Pic related
>>70243175
Alabama House, with Bulloch and Charleston House etc to the left
>>70242539
>>70242661
If it was primarily about states rights and tariffs, then why wasn't there a civil war during the Nullification crisis? Why did the southern states specifically cite the de facto nullification of fugitive slave slaws as cause for secession in their actual secession declarations?
>>70242849
you think slavery is the only states rights issue?
the north was using the southern states to extort taxes from us for the federal government. abusing the south for their own gain. just like how britian started to use the colonies and they rebelled.
>The South had a stranglehold on early American politics. They were trying to force slavery on the country, not the other way around
bullshit. we never had a stranglehold on american politics. we just went from fair representation to no representation.
we developed a seperate culture and way of living. we wanted to rule ourselves. it shouldnt be a hard concept to understand. men dont go to war to "keep muh slaves" only 1 in 70 southerners even owned one.
>>70243030
Fuck you, churka.
>>70243145
No the worry was it would decimate their economy, the only actual racists were the elites who could afford to live in exclusively white communities
>secede from Britain? No problem here sir, go right ahead.
>secede from the US? DAT'S TREASON, UR GONNA FUCKIN DIE NOW U REDNECK!
Yankee logic.
>>70242877
>Yes, it was about slavery
no it wasnt. refer to >>70243292
>>70243278
refer to >>70243292
>>70243145
refer to >>70243292
>>70243292
Preserving the union is the only reason the north spilled all their blood. It was a goddamn mess, but the union was preserved. May it never break.
It wasn't about slavery.
Most of the Northern states were against the Emancipation Proclamation. Earlier in the war, Lincoln tried to create a program where he would pay northern slave owners to free their slaves, nobody wanted it.
Lincoln freed the slaves for political reasons, one of which was to discourage foreign help to the South. The South was winning at that time and freeing the slaves was a strong strategic move from Lincoln.
When a captured southern soldier was asked why he was fighting the war, he said "Because you're down here."
>>70243471
We defended our claim to an eternal union through force. On the other hand, you lost your war.
Sorry, not sorry.
>>70242318
It was a lot of things
>>70243278
The declarations of secession, written by four individual states, were written by committee and listed all grievances against the federal government, not just slavery.
>>70243471
exactly fucking hypocrites.
>>70243538
>>70243542
>>70243652
you're posting a lot of bullshit in this thread but you're still a United States citizen.
I can pay for a coke in the Atlanta airport with a green picture of George Washington.
Feels super man
>>70242318
>Was it really all because of slavery?
yes, but indirectly. its not like the Union was on some moral outrage that the south was racist, they were almost as racist, they just recognized that slavery was inhumane and would eventually be a very destructive system. after lincoln was elected and the south threw a tantrum and left, the north felt that the only way the country would be able to be protected against foreign interests was to preserve the union, so they refused to vacate fort sumter and goaded the south into starting the war so they could reacquire them.
fun fact: lincoln was actually pretty racist himself and wanted to start mass deportation of the slaves once they were free.
>>70243542
if only your gay as fuck constitution mentioned Might Makes Right and Manifest Destiny as core principles rather than "lmao we r all created equal 1 race in god plebs :^)" I might be able to respect you carpetbagging barbarians
>>70242318
IMO, it would be best to say that slavery was the issue at hand, but it was about keeping the union together and states rights. It became about slavery later on, but keep in mind that the Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until the war had been going on for over 1 1/2 years.
>>70243541
Emancipation proclamation was a logistics move. About 50,000 southern slaves were being held as war property. By freeing them, the army was freed from the cost of keeping them.
>>70243292
Look at the early Presidents and Supreme Courts. You didn't have a stranglehold?
Threatened to walk out of the Constitutional convention multiple times over slavery issues. Threatened nullification and secession multiple times over slavery, even after they ratified said Constitution. Fugitive slave laws and court rulings to force the North states to do things against their will.
The slave power was real. Tried extensively to expand a slave empire. As soon as it swung from their favor to the North, they walked away again.
>>70243752
Mass deportation would have been much better. He instantly freed millions of uneducated poor black people in a hostile environment (the North was racist as fuck too). If they'd all gone to Haiti or somewhere like that America would not have nearly the problems that it does today.
>>70243812
Our constitution says nothing about everyone being equal, either. Equal under the law, maybe. But the "all men created equal" line is from the declaration of independence.
>>70243856
It was many things.
>>70243335
Why did you used that word?
OP the truth is if you want proof that the Civil War wasn't about slavery look for how much Northern resistance there was to the freeing of the slaves.
>>70243902
oh right, woops. my mistake.
...you yankee motherfucker
>>70242318
Slavery was a political football issue of the time propped up and inflated to the point that they used it as a pretense to the civil war.
It'd be like today if a state broke off because they didn't want tax dollars funding abortions in their state, and we decided to go to war against that state to force it to fund abortions with its people's tax dollars.
>>70243935
We can agree it wasn't a humanitarian move.
>>70243942
For a humorous purpose.
>>70242318
This thread should probably be on /his/ but I will bite. There are three schools of thought on the Civil War. Orthodox histories argue that the war was caused entirely by slavery. Revisionists argue that the war was caused by a multitude of factors, not limited to slavery. Post-Revisionists combine the two ideas, so slavery was the most important cause, but not the only one.
>>70243741
>you're posting a lot of bullshit in this thread but you're still a United States citizen.
fuck off eternal yankee im posting our point of view.
REEEEE dont talk about my home state.
>>70244147
Certainly.
No way a rich and powerful government would sacrifice 500k white Americans in a war for humanitarian reasons.
>>70242318
Good old Abe wanted everyone to be free except Women,Niggers and Indians :D
Any amerifag try and prove me wrong plx :D
>>70243752
>>70243901
Why didn't he do it?
The southerners have always been bratty children who would rather flip the game board over if they can't get their way, and that remains the case today. Today you see it in their stranglehold over the House of Representatives, their refusal to accept anything they don't like, and their constant attempts to legislate morality.
>>70243885
>The slave power was real. Tried extensively to expand a slave empire.
le public skewl told me so.
sorry yank for all the propaganda pushed into your head. like i mentioned before only 1 in 70 southerners even owned a slave. theres literally no reason for them to go die for "muh slaves" yet every eligible southerner took up arms. that should tell you something.
>>70242318
It's a misapprehension of the situation to try and pin it down to a single cause. It's a lot like WWI, where Germany was a powerhouse sitting on the continent late to the colonial game, begging to stretch its legs and take its rightful place. There is a lot of rapid change in the 19th century and it often boiled over into massive regional wars.
Preceding the American Civil War, you have a sense of dissatisfaction and contention building in the decades leading up to it. The country's sentiments were splitting in half as the north industrialized and was flooded with immigrants, and the south held on to an increasingly obsolete agricultural economy with a traditional aristocratic elite that loosely ruled over a rural population. They disagreed on everything important, tariffs, slavery, taxation, and economics.
Now take these two diametrically opposed worldviews and try and set national policy with them. The slave vs free state political controversy and the compromise legislation were the main political arenas where the two sides fought, but ultimately we were looking at two distinctly different countries at that point. As a result, southern states finally bit the bullet and started leaving, knowing full well the North would try and make them stay in the union.
So we come to the most important aspect, what were the ordinary citizens and rank and file soldiers actually thinking? For southerners, it was "I'm attacking you because you're invading or threatening my state" (historical context, people before the civil war typically thought of themselves as citizens of a state more than a citizen of America). For northern soldiers, it was basically "They tell me we're preserving the union. I don't know what that means, but I'm 17 and therefore extremely suggestible and vulnerable to propaganda."
>>70244387
>Why didn't he do it?
He got shot and died.
>>70244213
I think it could go either on /his/ or here. There is a major political component to it, even if that was 150 years ago. The causes are still oft debated as well.
>>70242318
While slavery was a part of it that was because slavery was tied up in the two underlying issues
1) Use of the legislature to redistribute wealth
2) The ability of states to ignore or override federal laws.
This can be tied back to the Nullification Crises of 1828-1832. The Northern sattes (which had a larger population and, therefore, more seats in the House) voted in tariff that benefitted the North by taxing money from the South while also effectively *forcing* the South to by shoddy Northern goods instead of quality foreign ones.
South Carolina declared the tariffs, especially a recent one that was effectively a 'give the North the South;s money' void. It almost led to a war, but was staved off.
But the problem remained - with a larger population the North was able to use the House to pass laws that stripped money from the South and gave it to the North. This *increased* when Abolitionists wanted to use federal powers to ban slavery, effectively destroying the South's *entire* economy, via federal powers.
The fight over things like Bloody Kansas was about control of *the Senate* as much as slavery because of the North also controlled the Senate they effectively ruled the country regardless of what was good for the South.
Northern businesses encouraged this because it would reduce their prices for raw materials and give them a ton of cheap labor.
The South was trying, desperately, to diversify and end their reliance on slaves bu the War came 20 years too soon for them to succeed.
>>70244546
kek is that really it? Assblasted southerner blows him away and relegates the entire country to hundreds of years of nog shenanigans?
Reminds me of Gavrilo Princip. Why are assassins so dumb?
>>70242318
Yes
But there were many other reasons too, and although the aristocratic class that lead the drive for secession were primarily concerned with slavery, almost none of the men doing the actual fighting owned slaves, and were primarily motivated by pure patriotism.
Either way, the CSAs secession should have been recognized as valid and legal and should not have been contested. The union being indivisible is a post-war construct, before the war secession was considered a valuable check on the federal government on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. The Founding Fathers (among whom George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were Virginians before all else) would have been appalled at the suggestion that states would not be peacefully allowed to secede from the union if that was what they desired.
>>70244627
>There is a major political component to it, even if that was 150 years ago
You can say that again.
The issue of slavery speaks to a division in American society that was around in the early days and still remains today. It's almost a defining feature of what it means to be American.
>>70244500
I understand why the average Southron fought, to defend their home. That's honorable.
Their political leadership, the plantation owning gentry, are the one's who dragged them into secession and war. They started it to preserve their way of life. Of slave-owning.
>>70244387
He did. Twice. Once in Central America and once in the Bahamas. Both times failed due to poor funding and planning. He also proposed a constitutional amendment in his second inaugural speech, but that went nowhere.
>>70242849
>State's right to have slavery.
Slavery was legal in the Union retard
Also it wasn't about states rights
It was about sovereignty
>>70245042
But states rights is an issue of sovereignty
>>70244750
canucks gtfo. you guys always take the union side.
>>70244812
>They started it to preserve their way of life. Of slave-owning.
oh fuck off. slave owning isnt the "way of life" down here faggot.
>Their political leadership
the norths political leadership dragged them into a war they didnt want. and when it became unpopular they used slavery as a cause for them to rally around.
the only reason the north didnt have as much slavery is because it was more industrialized. pretending the north were fucking white knights that loved equality is delusional. everyone was racist up north. they thought blacks were inferior regardless of whether they thought they shouldnt be slaves. Lincoln included.
Guys check out this quick video Trump: Our Only Hope?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zafmqQ3G0I
>>70244788
And I fear that we are just about as divided as we were in the late 1850s. Compare Trump supporters to the SJWs, BLM and progressives in general. The level of separation between the two groups is astounding, and for any groups not in the mainstream, would have been unthinkable even 10 or 15 years ago.
>>70242318
The same question is for Russian Civil war - was it all because of granting rights to peasants and workers?
The War of Northern Aggression began when Sons of the South and real Patriots attacked a government instillation to preserve their States Feels.
>>70245143
Not really
States rights is about rights under the 10th amendment
If you no longer want to be part of the Union States rights are irrelevant
>>70245335
I misinterpreted what you wrote, never mind.
>>70245165
>oh fuck off. slave owning isnt the "way of life" down here faggot.
Not since the Civil War. Plantation owners were the upper class and most strove to reach that level.
The North weren't white knights. They fought to preserve the Union. The Union was broken up by secession. The plantation owners with political power seceded because they thought Slavery was threatened. Slavery caused the war.
>>70242318
Causes.
Slavery WAS an issue. But don't let the yankees pretend they weren't racist as the rest. They just didn't want any blacks in their states at all, free or slave. And they didn't want any in the west either.
When southern families tried to homestead the west and were told their negro was not welcome was when that became a problem.
>>70245542
>Plantation owners were the upper class and most strove to reach that level.
They were also below ten percent of the population.
>>70245269
>States Feels
>>70242318
It was Americans vs Americans, defending same the constitution from the other side. A major thing was over slavery, but small things like elections and shit like that caused the divide. Closest thing to compare Civil War to today is Pro-Gun vs Anti-Gun arguments.
>>70245542
>Not since the Civil War.
it wasnt then either. you're pulling this out of your ass how many times do i need to remind you that most southerners didnt own slaves. 1 in 70. the average person had a seperate way of life and it had nothing to do with slavery.
>more yankee civil war memes
>>70245542
>Slavery caused the war.
but the war wasn't over slavery
We never went to war to end slavery
>>70244750
Yep.
At first they wanted to kidnap him but soon realized he would beat the living shit out them because Abraham Lincoln had retard strength and invented the goddamn Chokeslam.
>>70243175
>>70243249
Sadly you have to be from Liverpool so sorry mate you're still shit outta luck
>>70242318
>>70245622
Also it was not a Civil War.
Simply using that name is poisoning the well to prevent any honest discussion, whether intentional or not.
>>70245762
>Abraham Lincoln had retard strength
>>70245843
Woops lost the pic
>>70245721
You keep saying that, I've never denied that. The politicians in the South owned slaves, lots of them. Who were the ones behind secession? Did the common man vote for it?
What meme have I used?
>>70242318
>South didn't want war.
>North initiates war (to take away states rights because of slavery)
>South loses because the North is a bunch of pricks and assholes who love to starve and rape like dindus and apaches
>Present day traitor in chief in office as a consequence of the north's dumb-ass actions
yea sure is nice in the U S of Communism.
>>70245542
Then why did 4.5 slave states remain in the Union?
>>70245956
they elected people that voted for secession
>>70242318
>Be american south of mason-dixon line
>Be upset that a candidate who favors centralized government wins the election
>Decide to secede & elect a president for the CSA
>Said president immediately centralizes the economy even more than the North for the war effort
Fucking Confederaboos are retarded
>>70246040
Well the .5 instead of a full 5 is because of rampant voter fraud in a rigged referendum, but otherwise solid point.
call it whatever you want to call it, but all the compromises and deals and plans during the century that led up to the war were ALL about slavery in the new states.
If all those other issues were more important, why was there never a huge congressional debate about kansas or wherever with respect to that issue?
this is just like how you morons hate jews absolutely but want to believe that the nazis treated the jews ok, and jews only died like everyone else did, due to disease and lack of food and shelter because of the war.
the depressing part is that /pol/ argues this shit all day long every day. you guys should start charging psych grad assistants to be parts of their dissertation studies. at least make some money off of you dysfunctional psyches.
Is there still a big divide between the South and North today? The common man in a raondom southern and northern state still feel resentment towards each other? This interests me. Is the confederate spirit still alive in the South?
>>70246018
>>South didn't want war
Who shot first you CSA cuck?
>>70242318
>was slavery the root cause?
prior to lincoln, the republican party didn't even have ballots in the south. they were sharply divided, and basically had zero say in deciding the nominee of the party. the north had made it so that the south was no longer fairly represented in congress. they were forced into secession.
also the north was highly industrialized while the south was a plantation and agricultural based economy, so the industrialized north would regulate products coming from the south.
The north didn't abolish slaves out of moral superiority because they were already industrialized and getting food from the south. They didn't need slaves, but were just as cruel (if not more) to their factory workers and chinese working on their railroads.
just as how we buy our shit from china despite communism and child labor, the north was very similar. slavery was an issue much later in the war as a tool for union propaganda.
White people wanted credit for freeing the slaves, but they didn't want to own up to possessing them. easiest solution is
>north = heroic and moral
>south = damaged and immoral and racist
i have lived all over the north and the south and this is what i can say.
>yankee schools teach yankee kids the south is bad and racist. once my social studies teacher (middle school) asked on a quiz, "what makes the north smarter than the south?"
>in the south, people are friendlier and there is a huge population of blacks that are still in touch with their roots and even fly the confederate flag, because they recognize it as a southern thing and not a racist thing.
tldr, "muh free the slaves" bullshit is absolute propaganda and remains to this day. of course there were the minority plantation owners who whipped and treated slaves like animals but just as the rich in the north they were making profit. lincoln was an outspoken racist and assured everyone that niggers wuz still niggers and shouldn't be allowed to congregate with the rest of us.
>>70246267
The problem is both WWII and the Civil War did nothing for the American people
>>70246267
>If all those other issues were more important, why was there never a huge congressional debate about kansas or wherever with respect to that issue?
>Debates
>During a civil war
I don't think you know how that works, anon.
>>70246368
not unless you are discussing the civil war, which is when people will bring up "muh heritage" and complain about shit like Sherman's march to the sea
>>70246404
Because there were US troops in there country
>>70242318
Yes and no. Slavery was an important issue, but CSA was not retarded enough to frame it as their central issue for the war.
Essentially the largest issue was the building tension of regional representation in a constantly expanding nation versus federal authority. For instance, there is a valid claim to be made that the revolution in the colonies was due to the massive distance and lack of common interest with the crown and thus it was a drive for regional representation. The south at this point had diverged massively from the North's economic model, and federal interference could completely curtail its growth if the south ever lost congressional dominance.
Slaverly was a large asset to the southern economy; to have northerners who had most likely never even met a slave who work in early industries determine what was best for the southern economy tended to fuel this divisiveness. In counter, northerners being told they had to return and participate in routing out escaped slaves despite having no interest in the entire affair didn't exactly foster collectiveness.
>>70246368
The two divide is how southerners can't get over a war that ended 160 years ago and how fucking poor they taking more money from the government than they give back.
>>70246444
see? you can't even read three sentences without going off the tracks.
I clearly referred to the century leading up to the war.
I'm out. this is one of those containment threads, just like "the holocaust never happened", for basement dwellers who have a path through the pizza boxes and mcdonalds rubbish to their bed and computer.
bye!
>>70246442
WW2 gave the US economy the biggest boost in the history of industrialisation though
>>70246497
>libcucks throw a hissy fit every time some drone kills a few sand niggers
>jizz their pants about the thought of US soldiers burning down American cities
Can anybody recommend good books on the Civil War?
>>70246705
We were doing fine in the 20s
It wasnt even that bad in the 30s
>>70246689
>I clearly referred to the century leading up to the war.
You can leave but you're dumb anyways lol. What you just said was basically
>How come Germany didn't debate the Jews in the decades leading up to World War 2?
Shit happens, especially War. There's never enough time to debate war. Nigger.
>>70246706
It was Atlanta and it should have never been rebuilt.
>>70242539
Yeah, the right to own slaves
>>70246368
yeah, there is a divide. its not that big though.
>The common man in a raondom southern and northern state still feel resentment towards each other?
in rural areas of the south id say yes. city areas no.
>confederate spirit still alive in the South?
it is in some places. its been dying out thanks to the eternal yanks brainwashing.
>>70246630
That is an accounting gimmick
The Feds and their shekels can fuck off
>>70242318
The South argued that it was about the rights of states and the encroachment of federal power upon those rights. However, the main sticking point the federal government had with those rights concerned slavery, and very little else.
>>70242318
slavery wasn't even an issue politically until the Union was threatened by the British Empire joining the confederates as allies, because the cotton trade was more valuable than letting the north get it's refined goods industry off the ground to compete internationally.
Remember the British Empire was the great freer of slaves at the time, they couldn't enter a war fighting against people claiming to try and abolish slavery.
The south didn't secede because it feared the abolition of slavery, it did so because Lincoln was a known corporatist crony. He showed his true colours in the war when he wrote up the emancipation proclamation, only abolishing slavery in the south, so that his Northern cronies could feast of the corpse of the southern businesses that went bankrupt with such a loss of assets with no compensation, and this was shown to be true by the end of the war.
When the Empire abolished slavery, it compensated the slave owners, because it actively encouraged the construction of an economy around an immoral institution and so was obligated to compensate people who misplaced assets under the governments guidance. Even if Lincoln started the war with the cause of abolishing slavery, it is still immoral to steal businessmen's assets which they invested in under the law set out by the state; and even then! It would have been cheaper to compensate the slavers then go to war, so it's obvious how insincere the idea that the war was over slavery actually is.
Lincoln's goal was always to stomp out competition to his cronies and "preserve the union" no matter the cost of lives or liberty he even called up an army of 30,000 the day south carolina seceded. The 14th amendment also sneakily removes the citizen's rights as an individual sovereign, and instead reclassifies them as a subject of the state through it's legal language.
>>70246705
Mainly because were the only major industrial power that hadn't had its manufacturing infrastructure blasted to shit and FDR was no longer meddling with the economy by the time it ended.
>>70246706
>that strawman
idgaf i some jihadi gets iced in jahalalalalalabad by a drone
The south reaped what they sowed when they decide to rebel. If they didn't want northerners to run a foraging campaign in their precious dixieland they should've sucked up and realized that slavery was holding them back
>>70246809
>It wasnt even that bad in the 30s
Here's the ONLY important bit of information regarding the Civil War.
UN-FUCKING-CONDITIONAL SURRENDER.
The Confederates got BTFO and now they're reaping the whirlwind of the slavetrade by being overrun with savages. The descendants of the elites who owned the slaves still have all their goddamn money, and live apart from the peasants. Meanwhile, the lower working class white man that got fucked over back then is still getting bent over a barrel, only now he's cucked by niggers in his own neighborhood.
Fuck the South, they LOST. Fuck their stupid loser flag, the only reason it should be waived around is to remind them that they're all a bunch of PUSSIES that can't fight for SHIT.
>>70242849
>state's right to have slavery
sort of, there was also a desire for states rights in general and not just slavery
>the south was trying to force slavery on the country
bulllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllshittttttttttttttt
you are one dumb nigger
>>70244509
This pretty much nailed it. It boiled down to how life would continue for the country as a whole. Keep in mind that the country was expanding westward as well.
The North basically told the South this is how it's going to be, an industrialized nation as a whole on a huge chunk of a continent. The South (the wealthy) said hell no because they had no recourse if the country became a "free" industrialized nation. So, like today, they enlisted the poor southerners to fight a war for them, and the South lost.
>>70244387
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia
>>70244509
don't forget that most of the union soldiers were drafted
>>70247142
>>that strawman
Remember when liberal freaked out because Cruz said he was going to carpet bomb Iraq
>>70247145
Most of those were just immigrants who should have just been deported
>>70242318
Rich southerners who bought off their states governments got so assmad that their cheap labor source taken away that they waged war and sacrificed countless American lives, which ended up being for naught
>>70247241
Yep, that's Liberia
>>70242849
>The South had a stranglehold on early American politics. They were trying to force slavery on the country, not the other way around.
"Slave Power" is just as much a conspiracy theory as abolitionists making subverting southern culture. The Civil War needs to die as a focal point of American history. Both sides lost in the end, and we lose sight of that because
>muh slavery
>>70242318
Think about it. Do you really think regular northern joes who fought for the Union army gave a flying fuck about blacks?
It is great leftist lie. Despite what leftists think you couldn't organise an army of white people today to fight for black rights, so what chance would they have had 150 years ago?
>>70247196
kek, the South had like a fourth of your population and managed to give you a run for your money. Not only that but we make up the vast majority of the military today, stay buttmad.
>>70246444
Nice trips
>>70243278
>then why wasn't there a civil war during the Nullification crisis?
There almost was.
>Why did the southern states specifically cite the de facto nullification of fugitive slave slaws as cause for secession in their actual secession declarations?
Because politicians are inconsistent in their ideologies as long as what they are doing betters their chances of getting re-elected and accumulating power.
>>70245165
>the norths political leadership dragged them into a war they didnt want.
That would be the south when they attacked a federal fort in South Carolina.
>>70247786
The North chose to keep a fort in the South
My school is freaking out over alleged anti-semitic comments made by one of the undergraduates running for the school senate.
“‘Jews controlling the media, economy, government and other societal institutions’ [is] a fixture of anti-Semitism that we [inaudible] theoretically shouldn’t challenge. I think that that’s kind of irresponsibly foraying into another politically contentious conversation. Questioning these potential power dynamics, I think, is not anti-Semitism. I think it’s a very valid discussion.”
– ASSU Senator Gabriel Knight ’17
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/04/07/on-gabriel-knight-and-what-anti-semitism-really-means/
Care to redpill them on Jewish control of the media and finance? Leave a post in the comments section.
>>70247672
>we
>that flag
if you are so proud of "muh precious dixie" than why aren't you living there right now?
>>70247786
that was in southern territory and was repeatedly asked to be vacated. the south technically fired the first shots, but come on man, the north goaded them into it. lincoln was dead set on reclaimimg the south because having a split USA meant that it would be easier for foreign interests to come in and pick the country apart.
>>70247900
U wut m8? Fort Sumter was there some fifty years before the south seceded. Or are you one of those idiots who believes the federal government should just give up its federal lands because the south said it should?
>>70247196
You know how you can tell a Yankee from a southerner?
Inhospitable and crass; you guys have no class.
living in 2016 I know wish it was solely on slavery. Nig Nogs go back to cotton fields 2017
>>70242318
THE NORTH KEPT SLAVES AND TO THIS DAY HAVE MORE RACE RIOTS THAN THE SOUTH
>>70248028
>that was in southern territory and was repeatedly asked to be vacated.
What reason would the federal government have to acquiesce to such a request?
>the north goaded them into it.
Did I miss a memo or article with Lincoln daring the south to attack the fort?
>>70245335
>If you no longer want to be part of the Union States rights are irrelevant
No, you dumb cuck. The Civil war decided this by force. Several states ratified the constitution with the understanding they could leave later under the 10th amendment. For fucks sake the north almost seceded from the union with this understanding at the Hartford convention.
>>70248062
I would have rather just give up the South and Fort Sumter than fight some stupid pointless war
I have family that fought for the Union and died for nothing
What did yours do?
>>70248062
It was never Federal land. It was State owned property on loan to the feds, loan revoked at secession.
>>70248010
Because I work here half the year, you autist. Also if I ever did move to another country it would be because yankee immigration has made half of Virginia irredeemable shit.
>>70248243
>I would have rather just give up the South and Fort Sumter than fight some stupid pointless war
Thank you for admitting you are one of those idiots.
>It was never Federal land.
[citation needed]
>>70248072
You know how you can tell a Yankee from a sister-fucking hillbilly from the south?
We don't suck at war. Now prep the bull and prepare your anus for Sherman's March through your small intestine!
>>70248244
Whoops! Forgot the link. See the second part of >>70248352
>>70248010
>you have to live somewhere to admire it
>>70248180
>understanding they could leave later under the 10th amendment.
That is kind of irrelevant since there are no constitutional restrictions on foreign wars
I do agree that Texas v White was a shit decision
>>70248243
your family died for the unification of the USA, which allowed it to remain independent of foreign intervention, allowing it to become the global superpower it is today - they didn't die for nothing
>>70248153
yes whatever man, the north totally didnt want to reclaim the south. not at all. they had no interest in regaining half of their clay and resources that they suddenly lost because the southern cotton lobby threw a tantrum.
>>70248062
>its federal lands
source in the constitution?
>>70248352
>Thank you for admitting you are one of those idiots.
Well did your family actually fight in the war are are you just some shit tier immigrant?
>>70246787
>
Shelby Foote's Civil War trilogy. It's amazing.
>>70242318
Slavery was one of the catalysts, but not the entire issue.
Keep in mind that back then there was a polarizing difference between North and South politics, lifestyles, and economies. So when the election came around and every Southern state voted Democrat, and still lost, the consensus was "Our vote doesn't matter, we will not get what we want". And they broke off. The entire Civil War was fought to retain the Union. In fact, Lincoln even said "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it;" in his letter to Horace Greeley.
The freeing of the slaves was done as a demoralizing blow to the South, later in the war. Not as the goal of the war.
Another major issue was, the States all willingly came into the Union, so could they not willingly leave? The Southern states, obviously, said "Yes, States can leave the Union whenever they wish". The North, obviously, disagreed.
>>70248447
Fifth Amendment Takings clause establishes the power of the federal government to take and possess land.
>>70247672
Are you including their imported African workforce as part of that population?
And run for our money? About that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB-bN-RkJLM
>>70248364
>barely defeat a country half your size with almost none of your industrial capacity
>y-you suck at war cletus
>>70248415
>which allowed it to remain independent of foreign intervention
Not really
They didnt do anything about the flood of immigrants until the 20s and now the Democrats run the country
>>70247196
I'm no american, but looking at the north casualties, the south did sure fought pretty good for being outnumbered.
>>70248277
>implying yankee immigration made the south shit
>>70248437
You presume that the south's secession was valid and legal and that the north had no power or authority to put down a rebellion. By your logic anyone can just claim territory that is part of a nation and declare it is separate an independent. Why don't you test that logic by declaring your house independent so that you no longer have to pay taxes to your city, state, and the federal government?
>>70248415
His family died for an ingrate negro who's descendants want his family to pay even more for something they didn't do.
>>70248072
In reference to yankees, right? Everybody in new england is inhospitable and crass. Some fat white bitch tried to stab my mother yesterday with a pair of scissors. I got her in a strange hold and she bit me. Every other woman ive met here is at best standoffish and a psychopath at worst. Visiting the south is a serious culture shock. I adore them.
>>70248515
>>70247462
Haha sorry I didn't answer the question, I was just posting something relevant. Free slaves and wealthy black people created liberia like 10 years before the civil war. There were efforts to send black people back to africa, but most failed I believe. Liberia was the only successful exit from America for black people
>>70245721
Do you think the common man decides why he goes to war? You criticize people for relying on the teaching of public school, but I'm convinced you have never even opened a textbook.
Rich and influential people decide who go to war. Americans fought in WW2 for their country, but the reasons behind the war varied. The civil war is no different. Southerners fought for the South and for freedom, but the war was started over slavery.
>>70248807
but it did
all you ever do is bitch and bitch and yet you continue fucking moving here.
>>70242318
Yes and No.
The debate over slavery was the flashpoint, but the war was mostly a reaction to decades of growing tension and cultural and economic division between the North and South.
>>70248364
its unfair to dismiss the south as sucking at war - for the first part of the war they handed it to the north thanks to superior leadership but eventually the north was able to outproduce & overwhelm the southern agrarian econ.
>>70248955
Economic migrants are 90% trash
>>70248513
Thanks, I'll check it out
>>70248597
Barely defeated? Dude. It was a blood orgy from which the south has yet to rise again from.
And the whole "muh lower population, muh lower industrial capacity!" thing is just stupid. I mean--Britain used to be a colonial power right? Before you guys cucked yourself to oblivion, you used to do shit like that all the time to nations of spear chucking savages.
>>70243402
a southerner I can tell you that racism is a proud american tradition and if you aren't a racist here you are most likely gay.
>>70248602
immigrants =/= foreign intervention
>>70248819
im not presuming that at all, I think that if blame had to be pinned on a single player, the south was in the wrong. but the idea that the north was fighting a purely defensive war that they had no interest in starting and only fought because the south fired on them at fort sumter is retarded as fuck. its like saying that FDR wasn't praying for Germany to declare war on us after Pearl Harbor.
Read the st--OH WAIT, WE DONT FUCKING HAVE A STICKY
>>70248980
This.
>>70248864
if slavery reparations are what you are referring to, I don't think any reasonable person actually supports those
Considering 95% of southern whites didn't even own slaves, I would consider it unreasonable for several million white men to enlist in an army to fight to protect something they themselves don't even possess.
"The weak will die like shit eating dogs and we will march on a road of bones! Sieg Heil!"
t. General Sherman
>>70249198
>the idea that the north was fighting a purely defensive war
Where did I claim that the North was fighting a defensive war? Perhaps you should read what is posted more closely before you post a response?
>>70249156
They control the country
Dont see how one is better than the other
>>70249257
bernie wants reparations
>>70249278
not too unreasonable when you consider that the main political power in the south would have been wielded by the powerful slave-owning aristocrats who didnt want to have to pay the costs to industrialize
>>70242539
The CSA constitution gave the federal branch more power than the USA constitution. Nice try faggot.
>>70249367
bernie's an unelectable cuck who will do anything minorities say
>>70243542
No hard feelings, we killed more of you anyway
>>70249367
>any reasonable person
>Bernie
>>70248521
upon the permission of the host state
>>70249477
>The CSA constitution gave the federal branch more power than the USA constitution. Nice try faggot
Proofs?
>>70249367
How exactly would these people who want reparations implement such an idea? just instate a "white tax?" I've always wondered this.
>>70249634
[citation needed]
>>70249433
Funny considering there was barely ANY political power in the south, as the north was too busy phasing them out.
>>70249747
right under the bit about federal land dipshit, did you get bored reading the full thing and just decide to go along with it.
>>70250105
unrelated but
>that flag
>that ID
>Tax
REEEEEEEEEE
>>70249747
Article 1, Section 8:
>and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;-
Bong knows our Constitution.
>>70243541
Lincoln said that if he could have ended the war without freeing any slaves, he would have.
>>70243538
Yeah, keeping us oppressed. Great fucking job. "If we can't get some of that dosh, than no one can!"
REMEMBER ATLANTA, AROUND YANKS, NEVER RELAX.
>>70247454
It was more like we weren't industrialized, so if we were going to end slavery we would have to move toward industrialization prior to abolishing. Rather than put up with the tarriffs, we opted to leave the union, then yanks tried to tell us we cant, clearly we were hostages. Still impoverished today, because yanks destroyed us. I have no idea to this day why people still think that you can be red pilled and still support the north.
Wow a lot of underage people here. Perhaps try a history class? It was fought over slavery.
>>70248877
Yep yep. Yankees are unbearable and rude all the time. Been north, south, east and west. Best people are deep south or rural mid-west. Worst people are North-east.
Here ya go fuckers
>>70250721
hehe
>>70244458
The southerners are the only reason you guys aren't as cucked as us europeans.
>>70250105
>right under the bit about federal land dipshit
Right under what "bit about federal land?" I don't recall anything in the Takings Clause that included "a bit about federal land." Can you cite it specifically?
>>70251199
Ah. Thank you for an actual citation.
Then the question becomes did South Carolina not consent to the purchase when Fort Sumter was established? I find it difficult to believe that SC did not as it was established during the War of 1812 and the fort was built without any record of a complaint (filed in court).
>>70252964
see>>70251199
I'm flattered you would skim right passed his response to answer me though.
What did you think? That the central government could take whatever land it fancied? have you even the slightest incline to the reasons you rebelled against the mad king?
>>70253556
>That the central government could take whatever land it fancied?
I admit my error in thinking the takings clause alone was sufficient (with due process). Now the question is did South Carolina consent to the purchase. Given that the acquisition was during the War of 1812 and the fort was built it seems the evidence indicates that South Carolina did consent. Where's the evidence that it was a lease that SC could unilaterally revoke?
It wasn't a civil war. It was a war between the states for Massachusetts to impose its will on every state.
>>70247241
That was Monroe, stupid
>>70253894
Well to be technical here, there is no evidence that SC could secede in the first place, perhaps it would have been more apt to compensate the US for it's military investments in the south, such as Sumter.
But the point is, this was never handled diplomatically, instead of bringing it to the table the US didn't recognise the CS from the get go, and so by not resolving the territorial dispute diplomatically but by outright refusing to recognise the CSA's sovereignty, the occupation of Sumter was technically an invasion of the south as it was southern territory held by Federal forces.
This is where the contention over who fired the first shot lies, because if we say that SC did consent upon the original commissioning of the fort, which we can likely assume it did, we would then be saying that all previous federal instillations were owned by the North and were not CSA territory.
>>70242318
Slavery was just a rallying call.It was really about states rights...Turns out, in the long run, the wrong side won...The whole freeing the slaves thing by lincoln was merely a tactical ploy in a time of war..He didn't give a shit about the slaves.In fact he disliked blacks
>>70242910
jesus, that woman is so annoying
>waaaah, waaaaah, have a HEART
is this generally how women in politics act?
>>70254858
>it would have been more apt to compensate the US for it's military investments in the south, such as Sumter.
If the federal government would consent to such a transfer. That is an unlikely scenario.
>instead of bringing it to the table the US didn't recognise the CS from the get go
Thus we return to the original question. For what reason would the US recognize CS as a separate from the US or recognize CSA as sovereign?
>>70254470
>It was a war between the states for Massachusetts to impose its will on every state
Masshole here.
This makes me feel smug. I love it.
Sadly, it's not true. Even today the south has a stranglehold on the House of Representatives, and regularly drags the rest of the country down despite our best efforts to lead the country forward.
>>70255069
>and regularly drags the rest of the country down despite our best efforts to lead the country forward.
There you go. You just can't fathom how people have a different way of life than you and it's not your place to impose it simply because it's the way "forward"
>>70242318
i'll just leave this here
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
>>70255063
Well if they actually respected the individual state's and Citizen's sovereignty and not treated them as territory to be reconquered, then they should respect the democratic decision of the southern states to leave the union, otherwise it is not a union, it is an empire simply stamping out the will of the people, just like how the British empire tried to snuff out the original revolutionaries of the 13 colonies.
>>70246404
Lincoln ordered a naval blockade which has been a legitimate justification for war since the dawn of civilization.
Fort Sumter was one of the main forts Invoved in this blockade.
>>70242318
Tariffs were the driving factor and had been for decades.
http://www.ancreport.com/documentary/tariffs-the-road-to-civil-war/
>>70255845
>Well if they actually respected the individual state's and Citizen's sovereignty
You keep saying the US should but never explaining _why_ the US would agree to it. Simply because you think they should? That is not a rational basis to argue from.
>it is not a union, it is an empire simply stamping out the will of the people
Even the more Articles of Confederation provided no grounds for a state to remove itself from union unilaterally. When South Carolina, and other seceding states that were part of the thirteen colonies ratified the Constitution that union was only "more perfected." Yet you seem to have a moral belief that the states who agreed to be part of the union, even a "more perfect" part of the union are being opressed by being required to abide by their earlier decision?
Let me ask you question. If you and I make a business contract and after a few years you get tired of the binding obligations of that contract I "should" allow you get out of it when that contract whenever you fee like it?
>>70255845
difference is that we won, bruh. You lost, and your colonies went on to surpass you.
>>70242318
this Southern brigadier general was literally named "states rights", so it should be pretty clear there were other motivations.
>>70256326
>Tariffs were the driving factor and had been for decades.
>The Democrats won in 1845, electing James K. Polk as president. Polk succeeded in passing the Walker tariff of 1846 by uniting the rural and agricultural factions of the entire country for lower tariffs. They sought a level of a "tariff for revenue only" that would pay the cost of government but not show favoritism to one section or economic sector at the expense of another. The Walker Tariff actually increased trade with Britain and others and brought in more revenue to the federal treasury than the higher tariff. The average tariff on the Walker Tariff was about 25%. While protectionists in Pennsylvania and neighboring states were angered, the South achieved its goal of setting low tariff rates before the Civil War.
>The Democrats in Congress, dominated by Southern Democrats, wrote and passed the tariff laws in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s, and kept reducing rates, so that the 1857 rates were down to about 15%, a move that boosted trade so overwhelmingly that revenues actually increased from just over $20 million in 1840 to more than $80 million by 1856.
>The Morrill Tariff significantly raising tariff rates became possible only after the Southern Senators walked out of Congress when their states joined the Confederacy, leaving a Republican majority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history
Stop perpetuating that myth.
>>70256326
even better, the secretary of state promised the South that sumter would not be resupplied and would be relinquished to south carolina, and then tried and failed to secretly resupply it afterwards.
yankees have been rats cowards and scoundrels since prerevolutionary days
>>70247462
>>70254580
Both of you are fucking retarded.
>>70256786
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_Abominations
>>70249142
I wasn't racist before I came to the states, but it helps a lot. There's so much nitpicking, race-specific bullshit to wade through that ignoring even one race makes things way easier, and mocking one or more is a constant source of hilarity
I tell blacks, whites, and asians to fuck off on reflex, and it works wonders.
>>70243471
But the revolutionary war
>>70246420
>the north had made it so that the south was no longer fairly represented in congress.
thats why slaves counted towards a states representation in congress right? they couldnt vote but the still had congressmen apportioned to them
>>70256898
Let me get this straight. There was one tariff more than thirty years before any state seceded counts as a "driving factor" but the following three decades in which the tariff was consistently lowered does not? The fact that the southern Democrats had a majority in Congress does not count either? The fact that trade actually increased during those "decades of driving factors" actually quadrupled doesn't count either?
Ever heard of the cherry-picking fallacy?
>>70242318
>free people
>still treat them like shit
Yankees would have never been antislavery if they could have grown cotton up there.
>>70248243
My family fought and died for the South and I would do the same.
YANKEE SCUM GET OUT, REEEEEEEEEEE
Ending slavery was a very small purpose of the war, a way to play on feels to rally support. Lincoln was honestly pretty indifferent
>>70247264
Civil War wasn't my area of specialization so I checked it out real quick because I thought the same before I posted. Turns out both sides had conscription programs but they sucked so it was mostly volunteers. It doesn't surprise me though, yellow journalism and propaganda was at its peak at the time. They had the ability to write and disseminate whatever the fuck they wanted, but no ability to take pictures or film that would scare people away with the reality.
>>70256405
We have Houston centuries later that has a higher GDP in itself than majority of northern states combined, get shit on
>>70257184
the part where they elected an anti-southern president that not a single southern state voted for had more to do with it
>>70256329
we have already said there is no directly codified legal basis for secession, my argument is that it was just as moral to secede from the union as it was from the empire, there was no legal authority that the union could secede from the empire, yet it did.
I am not arguing that there was some clause which allowed a state to leave the union, but likewise the whole nature of the constitution was one of limited federal power of the states, so by the right to secede from the empire, the CSA took it's right to secede from what it viewed to be an illegitimate governing body, seeing as the Federal government did not recognise the decision of the people, it would be fair to say that it was illegitimate in regards to the constitutions take on sufferage of the states. If the Union was to respect the nature of the constitution and uphold the rights of states and individuals as free Citizens, then it would recognise a democratic decision to secede from the states concerned, it did not and instead disenfranchised every southern Citizen.
You shouldn't be able to write a contract that binds my children and their children's children for example, likewise, a state should have the write to leave a union of other states should it come to the democratic decision that it would be beneficial to do so. The comparison between a state and a business is not really fair, there are to many variables defining the nature of a business and state.
>>70256405
I'm defending your right to be free you spastic.
Do you want the real answer, from actual history?
Or the modern Leftist's revisionist make believe?
>>70258055
It's simple, south got tired of northern bullshit, north gets pissed that south seceded and couldn't rape them financially with tariffs, carpetbaggers couldn't fuck the southern economic system that was self sustainable, wants their territory back so they can reestablish the aforementioned, used slave freedom as a rally to symbolize all freedom, war
>>70257983
>the part where they elected an anti-southern president that not a single southern state voted for had more to do with it
Thank you for agreeing with me that the assertion, "Tariffs were the driving factor and had been for decades" is a myth.
>>70258033
>You shouldn't be able to write a contract that binds my children and their children's children for example, likewise, a state should have the write to leave a union of other states should it come to the democratic decision that it would be beneficial to do so. The comparison between a state and a business is not really fair, there are to many variables defining the nature of a business and state.
FYI - You can make a trust that binds your children and your children's children's children's children. Are you saying we should do away with such trusts when someone involved the agreement feels like it?
>The comparison between a state and a business is not really fair, there are to many variables defining the nature of a business and state.
The binding obligations of a compact, be it between companies or other private entities, private entities and states, or states and by federal government are necessary. Otherwise we have no objective standards and measures with which to justify and address grievances between them. We'd end up arguing over subjective moral and rhetorical bases rather than any objective and rational bases. When it comes to the governance of a country that is just not a functional way to go about things.
>>70258425
To add, to think that the north face a damn about slavery is fucking laughable, it's how they made their money by proxy
>>70242318
The same war was fought all over the western world.
Old ways vs the new industrialization.
Why did the South secede?
Because Lincoln was an abolitionist. He claimed he wouldn't try to abolish slavery in the South, but the southerners didn't give a shit.
So yes, it was 100% about slavery. Anyone who says otherwise is bullshitting you or themself or both.
>>70258516
If that trust means my children need to give goods or services without there own consent then yes that is immoral. if it is done with their, of age, consent then of course it is not fair to break an agreement, but it is immoral to bind those who are not yet born to responsibilities they have no control over. I'm not saying every new generation of a state should ratify the previous generations agreement with the federal government, I am simply outlining the difference between a business and a state. If that next generation , or even the same people who originally agreed to the contract, should disagree with the agreement with the federal government then they should campaign for change,
So in a democratic society when a demographic of the electorate are completely disenfranchised and extorted, is it right or wrong for them to seek extra-judicial means of gaining suffrage? The colonists of the 13 colonies were legally bound to serve the crown but rebelled to gain sovereignty from a foreign, despotic monarch.
All agreements have an out anyway, but they require compensation in order to gain an exit from, blood-oaths don't hold legal authority anymore. If Governmental law was static then we would still have the laws of the 1700's, of course people should be able to change the governmental agreement, otherwise why would representatives have any power over changing legislation?
>>70256850
Yes, but it all started under Monroe's administration, decades before Lincoln became president.
>>70260661
>If that trust means my children need to give goods or services without there own consent then yes that is immoral
I did not ask if it was immoral. I asked if we should do away with the trust because someone involved with the agreement feels like it. Are you refusing to address the question as it was presented?
I pointed out why arguing solely on a moral basis is not acceptable not only on a governmental basis but also on for private entities. It seems rather than addressing this refutation it seems you are merely going to repeat yourself. So I'll have to adjust my arguments appropriately.
You are saying that a state should always be allowed to separate from a union for a moral reason? Let's say the federal government offers to provide millions in highway funds if the state of South Carolina complies with the federal law of drink age at 21 years. South Carolina agrees but the following year there is an initiative on the ballot to change the drinking age to 18. It passes. The federal government refuses to give any more highway funds and even sues to recover the money already distributed because South Carolina refused to abide by the agreement. The compact between South Carolina and the US makes it clear that the highway funds were given on the agreement to set the drinking age at 21 and keep it there. The federal government sues South Carolina to recover the money from South Carolina's breech. Are you saying that if South Carolina should be allowed to violate its compact with the US and keep the millions?
>>70242318
It was more about defending the way things were in the south. Abolishing slavery had devastating effects to the life they were accustomed to and they realized it would. The irony is they made things much worse for themselves than they could've been
>>70242318
>states rights
>slavery
>slavery and states rights
>economical and resource differences in the north and the south
>tariffs
>The south having a shit economy while the yanks and Dc fucked with the south as much as they can
I live in Texas and academia white guilts students because muh slavery
>>70242539
It wasn't. Even the north admitted it wasn't. It was about expansion of slavery to the western territories or beyond.
>>70242318
The South left because without slavery they would become destitute.
But that was not the cause of the war. The war started because the North refused to let the South leave and decided force was the answer.
Had they left the South alone there would have been no war.
>>70261981
If I say it is immoral then I am saying it should be changed, the US was built to a moral ideal of liberty, and so should be liable to the people's concerns on the interpretation. If someone is part of an agreement without their consent then yes, that is immoral and should not be recognised by any legal authority.
I'm not saying a state should have the right to separate from the union for my personal perception of morality, I'm saying in order to respect the suffrage of the Citizens of the state involved, the Federal government should recognise the democratic decision of the state. I am not saying that in that scenario south Carolina can disobey the federal government without consequence, if the people of south Carolina feel so strongly about it that they wish to secede from a union then they should have that right, but they should still be liable to compensate the previous investments made ,obviously.
Unless a state is voluntarily part of the union, it is not a union, it is a territory conquered by the federal government.
>>70263592
You did not answer the question. Am I to understand that you are refusing to participate in a two way conversation? You are only posting for the purpose of seeking self-validation for your position?
>>70263887
I said that no, they should not be allowed to get away with an investment of capital from the federal government. I added more to return some context to our proceedings but you seem to not be able to extrapolate information from my post. you try to stress your own meaning but when I do the same it is apparently too complicated
>>70264356
>I said that no, they should not be allowed to get away with an investment of capital from the federal government.
But the scenarios specifically stated that there was a democratic decision from the state, the initiative that you state the federal government should recognize. So it seems you say "yes" South Carolina should not have pay back the millions because the federal government should recognize the democratic decision of the state, but "no" because the state should not be able to get away with breaking its agreement without punishment, specifically the return of the money given.
Morally speaking, which is primary? Which has more importance and should govern a decision over this greivance between the federal government and South Carolina? Or as I put it originally:
>Are you saying that if South Carolina should be allowed to violate its compact with the US and keep the millions?
>>70242539
First post best post
>>70242877
implying "industrial" isn't another word for slavery, the only difference is that you don't have chain on you
>>70242318
>Tariff of Abomination
>2 slaves states stayed in Union
>5 states seceded after declaration of War
>New York riots and New York almost secedes and becomes independent city
>Lincoln has to impose draft
>Union wages total war on civilian populace
Fuck the North and Fuck the Union. The Yankees wanted to free slaves to save their souls, not due to something like natural rights.
>>70264616
of course I'm not saying that, democracy just by it's nature doesn't make it moral, but in the original context of secession, if the state was not willing to compensate federal investment that would otherwise be unavailable for federal use, like infrastructure, then that is , for lack of a more apropriate word for the scenario, theft and should therefore be acted upon with the use of force, not necessarily reconquest but a seizing of assets would be a realistic way to gain compensation.
>>70243541
The south was not winning when Lincoln drafted the emancipation proclamation. Forts Henry and Donalson had fallen, New Orleans had been captured, the entire Mississippi River was under Union control, the army got their shit pushed in at Shiloh, and won pyrrhic victories in Perryville and the peninsula that cost them their best soldiers.
>>70265390
> if the state was not willing to compensate federal investment that would otherwise be unavailable for federal use, like infrastructure, then that is , for lack of a more apropriate word for the scenario, theft
Morally speaking, theft is justifiable in certain circumstances, such as Robin Hood taking back from unjust taxation or to prevent starvation it is morally just to steal what is absolutely necessary to stay alive from a food merchant.
>democracy just by it's nature doesn't make it moral
So your argument based upon what you claim is and is not moral is impracticable; nonfunctional in regards to addressing a grievance between a state and the federal government in regards to secession? Theft is not morally permissible by your standard but secession (or rebellion) is?
>a seizing of assets would be a realistic way to gain compensation.
It is morally appropriate to enforce an agreement between the federal government and South Carolina in some circumstances?
>>70242318
Basically, northern states made little money in comparison to southern states due to the large amount of farm land and the necessity of large scale agriculture. Northern states taxed the absolute fuck out of the southern states without offering the southern states more representation in the federal government. Southern states were pissed. Basically said "Fuck off, we're not giving you shit" to the northern states. Saying this was acceptable back then because the federal government had little power back then(More local government orientated). North decided to be cucks and limit the amount of money southern farmers made by issuing naval blockades, salting farmland, and killing farming families. Basically, North was "the establishment" and South was the common folk. Slavery did play a part in this only due to the large demand of agriculture(Slaves were basically free labor and a necessity for those times).
TL;DR
No, it was about taxation and the North being a freeloader. Slavery played a part, but it's blown out of proportion say that the Civil War was fully for Civil Rights. Those didn't really come until a lot later.
>>70243885
>Look at the early Presidents and Supreme Courts. You didn't have a stranglehold?
It's almost like we're not talking about that time period
>>70266094
I wasn't arguing the supremacy of democracy I was arguing that the federal government which by it's own codified constitution holds the institution of individual sovereignty, and by extension suffrage, to the highest importance that refusing to recognise a state's willingness to secede from the union is annulling of the federal governments legal authority and legitimacy to enforce it's will upon a sovereign state.
As stated before the Federal government does not own the state, it owns specified lands at the behest of the states representative's approval; and so by the definition of a union requiring voluntary participation, the right of secession from such union is naturally ensured, otherwise, it is not, by definition, a union.
>Theft is not morally permissible by your standard but secession (or rebellion) is?
As you stated before, theft can be perceived as moral from a robin hood perspective, the circumstance of the state in question was not specified so it's not really relevant to the hypothetical but the morality of an act is not determined by the laws that bind the subject but by one's, or a group's, own subjective philosophy, it is these disagreements in right and wrong which make the democratic process necessary.
>>70242318
No, it was not just over slavery. That was just the final straw. The South's economy depended on slavery, and the South had enough of the North's oppressive nature that forced them to do what they wanted without having a fair say.
