I'm done /pol/. This shit getting spread around my kikebook is driving me insane.
The civil war was about state's rights. Every fucking history teacher I've had hammered this point into my head. Slavery was an important aspect of it, but Lincoln would have allowed slavery in a heartbeat if it meant keeping the union together.
Am I going crazy? Why is cultural Marxism trying to change history? I want off this ride.
>>71068745
>Lincoln would have allowed slavery in a heartbeat if it meant keeping the union together
hm
>>71068830
It's true... Why do you think otherwise?
Bumping with some memes. Discuss this pol it's cultural Marxism at its finest
You guys suck. Now I think I'm just some autistic guy who cares too much about this...
Slavery was fought over states rights. Am I crazy?
>>71070424
**** civil war was fought over states rights. Am I crazy?
Slavery was not the reason for the civil war... The southern states were not being fairly represented in the federal government. In fact, Lincoln did not even appear on the presidential ballots south of the Mississippi. Many of the states left the union as soon as he was elected, prior to any solid proposal to end slavery. Lincoln also sent a letter saying "If I could unite this nation without freeing a single slave I would do it" he was also in favor of sending them back to Africa. It is just liberal propaganda to think the war was about slavery, only later on in the war did they use the call to end slavery as a tool to achieve moral high-ground.
>>71070849
Thank you anon. That's what I'm trying to tell people, but normies won't listen.
History will be rewritten if PC culture keeps up... Our kids may view your post as "radical" in the future. History is written by the winners, and PC Culture is winning
More like southerners used "muh state rights" to justify slavery because their economy would tank without it. But i think it was a mixture of both.
The War of Northern Aggression was fought over the perverse Franco-Judeo-Masonic desire to keep the Southern Gentleman under the Yankee yoke by denying him his sacred God-given right to State sovereignty, eventually leading to his enslavement by the international central banking system.
Yes you are going crazy for believing in that bullshit for all your life... The civil war was only about slavery. It amazes me how little burgers know about their own history.
>>71070533
Civil war was fought because southern states wanted newly formed states to choose whether newly formed states would be free or slave states. Republicans wanted to limit expansion of slavery. So in a sense both arguments are right. The civil war was fought due to both states rights and slavery
it's definitely more complex than the south were a bunch of evil racists who wanted slavery for it's own sake. it was a matter of agricultural lifestyles clashing with industrialization and the South thought it was getting the raw end of the deal (it was), but slavery was definitely a part of that argument.
It was also an argument of how new states were going to deal with the slavery issue. Many new states in the west were coming in the union during this time, and there was a certain balance between slave and free states that was being disrupted. Also remember, slavery had been a contentious issue for many decades at this point. Most countries had already started freeing their slaves. In fact, one of the big points of friction between America and Mexico in the decades leading up to the civil war was about the right of US citizens immigrating to Texas being able to keep their slaves, as Mexico had abolished the practice.
TL;DR:
The civil war was about states rights, but they were also fighting for the right to have slaves. It's a complex issue.
>>71070849
The Southern states were divided against the Northern states over... slavery and their practice of it. [House divided cannot stand; sound familiar?]
Go ahead and bring up states' rights because it concerns... the right to own slaves.
The Civil War isn't SOLELY about slavery, but is its main catalyst no matter how many people want -- for some reason -- for it not to be.
>>71068745
wait... people unironically claim that your civil war was about abolishing slavery?
>>71071159
More like Southerners believed that the Federal Government in the North had no business dictating to the South what they could and could not do in their own states.
>>71068830
He said so himself.
> "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; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
The states seceded over slavery.
The individual secession declarations and proceedings transcripts attest to that.
The federal government invaded to keep the union together, and used Ft. Sumter as a pretext.
I assert that any state would have seceded for any reason, and the result would have been the same.
Kansas or something could have left to form its own Mormon republic, and the same thing would have happened
>Federal officers from Postal Workers to Military men asserted their duty and authority to stay in
>The state would assert its authority over them
>The Feds assert that any action against them would mean war
>The State asserts that any action against them would mean war
>The State restricts supplies and personnel from the Feds
>The Feds restrict supplies and personnel from the State
>War declared somewhere along the line
>>71068745
>states rights
>specifically the right to own other human beings as property
>it wasn't about slavery tho OMG!
>>71068745
State's rights to do what?
>>71071221
NO IT FUCKING WANS'T YOU FUCKING LIAR
>>71071221
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. … What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union."
-Abraham Lincoln, Aug. 25, 1862
>>71070849
Read the Declarations of Secession.
>>71068745
my history teacher made a point to say it was mostly about state's rights, donnow what the big deal is OP
>>71071159
>their economy
shut the fuck up uneducated faggot
The entire US economy revolved around the price of cotton. Cheap cotton allowed Northern manufacturers to stay competitive. You think Northerners struggled on the issue out of love for the South? Eat shit.
>>71071455
that's not important
ITT: historical revisionism
Look up the declarations of secession. The Southern states said, in no uncertain terms, that the primary reason they were seceding was because of slavery. This "state's rights" bullshit is something that Confederate apologists came up with later so that they could defend the Confederates without sounding like they were defending slavery.
>>71071221
Explain then if you know so well Mr history buff.
>>71071285
Yes for sure it is some middle ground. The protection of states rights was over slavery. I just get fed up when liberals play the "muh opression" card
>>71071510
I have read it, only in a narrow reading of it would you think slavery itself was the reason for the secession.
>>71071421
People unironically claim that WWII was about "rescuing the Jews from Hitler."
>>71068745
>Am I going crazy? Why is cultural Marxism trying to change history?
Yes you are because it's not cultural marxists white washing history you inbred retard. It's conservatives doing this.
>>71068745
>The civil war was about state's rights
>>71071619
It wasn't about slavery, it was the fact that the federal government did not have the right to end slavery. The reason was the state's right to slavery, not slavery itself.
>>71071528
My teacher did too. Libtards are trying to change history and say it's only about slavery. Claims of "whitewashing" history
>>71071439
>specifically the right to own other human beings as property
While I agree this is wrong, this right was constitutionally enshrined.
The argument was that if there was a change, it would have to be through constitutional amendment.
And even if there was no constitutional amendment, the states were independent units, and could leave the union any time they wanted, and could start their own if they so wish, and therefore not subject to any new amendment or law.
The Federal government didn't have as much of a problem with the slavery aspect as they did with the secession aspect.
>>71071455
To secede.
Secession itself was the right asserted, and the right fought.
Right to do with slaves as they saw fit was something that was already enshrined constitutionally and with judicial action, and was already in the works in the legislature. Look up the Corwin amendment.
The south didn't care whether the US would 'allow' them to keep states or not. They wanted to secede and that was final.
>>71071749
It's always been about state's rights. Libtards are trying to make it about slavery, "muh opression", and claiming it's whitewashed history
>good goy remember how bad you treated the black man!
>>71071749
How so?
>>71071792
Nope, try again.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
>For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.
>>71068995
>>71068745
>>71068830
>>71071426
But he also said
>I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
I feel like that part is important.
>>71071439
Fair point, I think it's the misconception that Lincoln freed slaves for ethical reasons, or the general myth that the war was on behalf of slaves, or any other misconceptions thereof.
>>71068745
The Civil War was never about slavery, it played a part, but it was about states' rights. The only ones who say that are the ignorant blacks who think they are owed and the white guilt liberals.
>>71071984
cuck
>>71072008
Look at what liberal are trying to say. They're trying to make it about slavery for "muh opression"
>>71071421
it wasn't about abolishing slavery, it was about keeping the union together whether some states wanted it or not.
Jackson, one of the greatest presidents in our history, set this president. The desires of a few states cannot outweigh the overall security of the union. It would have been a catalyst of balkanization for the US, effectively inviting European powers to swoop back in and take over states piece by piece. The southern states were holding on to a way of life that had been dying out over a generation. They were doomed to failure, and such was their destiny.
>>71072084
Nice comeback :^)
>>71071221
RARE PROXY
>>71072245
*set this precedent
>>71071619
>Look up the declarations of secession. The Southern states said, in no uncertain terms, that the primary reason they were seceding was because of slavery
Yes! And this is where confederate sympathizers fail on this.
>This "state's rights" bullshit is something that Confederate apologists came up with later so that they could defend the Confederates
Now here's the deal- I agree slavery was "wrong", but legally
>Did the states have a right to own slaves?
>Did the states have a right to secede?
I think the answer to both those questions was yes, as fucked up as it may be.
>>71071699
Repost:
>>71071699
Repost:
>it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South
>the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States
>Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States:
http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=
>Arkansas
>Other orators pictured a South whose slavery realm would eventually take in the entire Caribbean. Governor Rector thought the single issue was slavery—“They believe slavery is sin, and we do not, and there lies the trouble”—and the records of the first session reflect this, with each of the listed “causes of complaint on the part of the people of the southern states” being concerned with the preservation of slavery.
>South Carolina
http://www.wadehamptoncamp.org/hist-scic.html
> "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery"
>Mississippi
http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/missconv/missconv.html
>the leaders and representatives of this dominant party in the non-slaveholding States have announcedthe dangerous and hostile dogma, that a conflict, irrepressible in character, exists between free and slave labor, and have declared that agitation on the subject of slavery shall continue until slavery itself shall be abolished,
>Florida
http://www.confederatepastpresent.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=125:florida-secession-convention-speeches-on-why-secession-is-necessary&catid=40:secession
>the institution of domestic slavery is recognized, and the right of property in slaves is expressly guaranteed.
>>71068745
Next they'll be trying to hide the fact that Lincoln planned on shipping all the slaves back to Africa if he wasn't killed.
Oh wait.
>>71072457
>I think the answer to both those questions was yes
the war conclusively decided that the answer was no to both
>>71068830
He allowed slavery to occur in slave-states that stayed in the union.
Saying the Civil War was about slavery is like saying World War 2 was about human rights.
>>71068745
IMO it's stupid to say "hurr durr only slavery". Yes ideologically it was rooted in state's rights arguments going back to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and the Nullification Crisis. But by the middle of the 19th century as the country kept expanding it was slavery that was the primary argument for states rights due to the aristocratic planters. Fucking de Tocqueville predicted the slavery issue would lead to civil war.
Slavery was on the way out once induatrialization hit anyway. If the South was smart they would've adapted, gradually introduce emancipation and keep blacks doing the same jobs except with (shit) pay and get rich as robber barons instead taking advantage of westward expansion.
>>71071926
The south knew what they were doing was rash and prideful. They had already been down this road within their lifetimes during the Crisis of Nullification under Jackson. It was a case of the elites not being willing to change their lifestyles in the face of progress.
Perhaps the Civil War was necessary... the South just needed a good thrashing to learn their lesson and do what was right for their country.
>>71069785
I need a show about Carl the Cuck and AIDS Skrillex.
>>71068745
>civil war was over slavery
Great, then we can all blame this nigger right here as being responsible, right?
>>71071031
>PC culture is winning
Much like ISIS is "winning" in Syria.
>>71071699>>71072494
>Georgia
http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/topics/government/related_article/constitutions/georgia-constitution-of-1861
>The General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves.
Or if you'd like:
>Ctrl+F "slave"
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/secession.html
>>71071347
This here.
Read the orders of secession.
Read the "cornerstone speech"
It was absolutely about slavery.
>>71068830
This isn't your history mamao.. st johns educated faggot
Yeah State's rights to own slaves....
>>71071957
Texas is the largest buyer of Textbooks in America and the books have to be approved by the state as well for them to buy it. So Textbook companies will bend over backwards to make sure they're on the list. As a result, the Texas Board of Education (Which decides policy on what is taught) holds immense power, since what they decide what is taught, and as a result, what is put in textbooks that are used around the country. Because of this, the right wing has been making it their business to stack their people on the Board of Education so they can dictate policy and what is taught in textbooks.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1001.blake.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2015/1120/Texas-textbook-vote-highlights-disputes-over-US-history-and-how-to-teach-it
Do you people seriously not look into things yourselves and just assume it's all about the evil liberals and Jews?
>>71072981
Shhh... They don't want to hear that part
>>71072800
>>71072810
>>71072846
>>71072880
>>71072981
>>71072457
>>71072391
>>71072145
>>71072084
>>71072008
>>71071177
SJWs ARE KILLING THEMSELVES HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
>>71071943
http://www.teachingushistory.org/pdfs/DeclarationofImmediateCauses_000.pdf
Eat shit revisionist.
>>71072765
>Muslim, Black Africans catch them
>Blacks and whites buy them
>Whites free them
>Whites are the only ones responsible
Progressives don't really care about facts or causality that is
>>71072678
>They had already been down this road within their lifetimes during the Crisis of Nullification under Jackson.
And yet Madison and Jefferson were the ones who put nullification in place, and abolitionists used nullification as did slaveholders.
>Perhaps the Civil War was necessary... the South just needed a good thrashing to learn their lesson and do what was right for their country.
You know what? As someone who respects "states rights" I agree.
>Legally? It could have went either way.
The constitution made no mention of what to do with new territories and how to integrate them into statehood.
The constitution made no mention of secession, and "a more perfect union" could have been construed as permanence.
The Confederate Union was intended to be in perpetuity.
As a matter of State's rights, the Southern states resisted the other states' applications of their own jurisdictional laws of slaves within their states during travel, resisted abolitionist uses of nullification, and lobbied for federal slave catching patrols, effectively conscripting northern men who had no dog in this fight to lurk the night for plantation owners' property.
>Practically? Everything turned out better
Agriculture in the non-slave states was actually more productive than it was in the slave states,
slavery was keeping the south behind in terms of industry,
Lincoln wanted to kick the blacks out to Africa, the Carribean or South America, and if the South worked within the system they could have shook Lincon's hand and made this happen,
A divided US drew the interests of European powers who like vultures were looking to pick sides for a fee and divide the spoils,
A united US was a superpower from Sea to Sea that shook the old European powers to their marrows.
Lincoln MAGA, though brutally.
>>71071394
Was World War II also fought over Jews, you fucking idiot?
>>71073016
I'll take the Texas version of U.S. history over the Jew version any day.
>>71070849
>The southern states were not being fairly represented in the federal government.
I know, right? They should have counted the slaves as a whole person, rather than just as 60%.
>>71073230
The secession was over slavery.
>Which we agree was wrong
The invasion was over secession.
>Which can be argued was wrong
Lincon himself said preserving the union was secondary to slavery. A state could have seceded for any reason- religion, slavery, abolition, join up with the Russian Empire- and the result would have been the same.
The secession and the invasion are two distinct but linked concepts.
>>71073435
Yes, it was, you fucking moron!
>>71068745
I thought the civil war started because a bunch of southerners got drunk off of schnapps, then surrounded ft sumter and wouldn't leave until Clinton signed that the south was independent because the south had a secret recording of Bill's sexual encounters with the ladies. And then the southerners continued to drink for 3 more years afterwards. Prove me wrong
>>71068745
Technically OP, it was neither about slavery or states' rights. It about money, power, and the control of resources. Just like every other war.
The pretext for the Southern states leaving the Union was their right to own slaves.
It wasn't just about slavery.
It wasn't simply about state's rights qua state's rights.
It was about the state's right to x, where x is the ability to own slaves.
This is why the South seceded. They believed the federal government was obstructing their right to slavery by not following through with the Supreme Court ruling regarding escaped slaves.
Can we stop being retarded now?
>>71068745
>People still think that slavery wasn't the primary cause of the civil war
>These same people will ignore the fact that the declaration of secession explicitly cites abolitionism as the primary reason for secession
>>71073665
It's like you're not even trying.
>>71072372
Who you calling proxy faggot. I'm the captain now.
>>71073810
This thread is because liberals are trying to change that definition to make it all about slavery... trying to rewrite history to fit their agenda...
>>71068745
the war would not have happened if Southerners would have kept their degenerate system within their own borders.
>>71073594
There might have been several factors but the largest one is slavery. To say it's just about takes a dishonest word play.
As for state's rights...
>South Carolina was further upset that New York no longer allowed “slavery transit.” In the past, if Charleston gentry wanted to spend August in the Hamptons, they could bring their cook along. No longer — and South Carolina’s delegates were outraged. In addition, they objected that New England states let black men vote and tolerated abolitionist societies. According to South Carolina, states should not have the right to let their citizens assemble and speak freely when what they said threatened slavery.
>Other seceding states echoed South Carolina. “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world,” proclaimed Mississippi in its own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861. “Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. ... A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”
>The South’s opposition to states’ rights is not surprising. Until the Civil War, Southern presidents and lawmakers had dominated the federal government. The people in power in Washington always oppose states’ rights. Doing so preserves their own.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html
The battle over slavery was as big a part of the Civil War as states's rights and unfair taxation.
South still should have won.
Fuck you yankee cucks.
t. Texan
>>71073422
>Jews buy them
FTFY
>>71073929
I know, but the answer to that isn't "it was about states' rights!" That will be interpreted as it being about states' rights as a principle, instead of a particular application of states' rights.
The South wanted their slavery unobstructed. The North obstructed their right to this by not following the Supreme Court decision regarding the fugitive slave law. The North simply did not enforce the federal fugitive slave law. It would be like, I don't know, New Jersey deciding not to enforce the law regarding stolen goods from Delaware, and decided to allow any goods stolen from Delaware to remain in New Jersey in the ownership of whoever stole it.
The South seceded over this -- not because they wished to not adhere to the laws of the Union, but because they saw that the North was no longer adhering to the laws of the Union.
I think Texas is right in centering the issue on state's rights, as long as they make sure to explain that it was the state's right to own a slave.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850#Effects
>>71074238
This
>>71073810
Except if you look at the Confederate constitution they enshrine slavery in it and forbid states from outlawing it
So much for states' rights
#rekt
civil war was about slavery. period.
>>71068745
I am currently taking American Military History at uni. My professor is leftist Marxist who admits he's usually hopped up on painkillers from his surgery. Ironically though, he's a pretty cool and interesting professor and most of the stuff we read is pretty redpilled. I was reading the sections that about Grant and Lee and I was surprised at how brutal it portrayed the Union generals and how sympathetic it was to the Confederates. I had never heard of some of the atrocities the Union soldiers committed.
>>71071347
>evil racists who wanted slavery for it's own sake.
THEY WOULD SELL THE WHOLE FUCKING CONTINENT TO EUROPEAN IMPERIALISTS JUST TO KEEP THEIR NIGGERS
THE SOUTH IS TREACHEROUS FILTH
>>71074238
This.
>>71074238
Sounds like The South is against the rights of Northern Sates to decide what they want to do themselves in the face of a Federal Mandate from the courts. Oh I'm loving the irony here.
Also nice job making a comparison between escape salves and stolen property. I thought you were dead Roger Taney, .
>>71069785
Kek
>>71068745
Confederacy should've begun the final solution. America used to be over 90% white.
the civil war actually was actually attrition of the central bank of england wanting to push the 2nd central bank of the US, they supported the south - lincoln, whom agreed with jacksons aptitude replied with a swear and a warning to bankder scum, and mocked them by releasing a new currency known as the greenback. The kikes lost this war due to the fact the south was fairly unorganized, But the central bankers would end up winning the battle again and rewrote this out of history.
It wasn't about slavery at all. It was about economy - profits - tariffs and individuality.
>>71071926
>While I agree this is wrong, this right was constitutionally enshrined.
No it wasn't. At best you can say that the Constitution tolerated slavery. No where does the Constitution say slavery is justifiable. It just failed to prohibit the practice. Although, it did make the first step towards ending slavery by setting a date to end international trade of slaves.
The Confederate Constitution was virtually identical to the US Constitution, except it added language which did enshrine slavery.
>>71068745
Anyone else pissed off at the whole Eurasia/East Asia war bullshit.
It used to be hip and smart to say that the civil war wasn't just about slaves. A good example is the episode of the Simpsons when Apu applies for his citizenship.
But then just recently there was a switch in media to make it explicitly clear that it was only about slavery. I think they really pushed that adgenda when the whole Confederate Battle Flag controversy happened.
>>71074167
>There might have been several factors but the largest one is slavery.
In terms of secession? Yes. Fully. The declarations said as much.
In terms of union invasion? Slavery was secondary. Lincoln said as much.
>>71073422
You mean the jews.
>>71074476
>>71074533
>>71073825
You do know that four slave states did not secede: Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware. In fact, they were assured by Lincoln that slavery would not be banned, and the Emancipation Proclamation didn't even free slaves there.
>>71068745
>Texas is about to start teaching kids that the Civil War wasn't about slavery
Isn't that a good thing?Also, I've always wondered what /pol/ thought of Texas.
>>71075082
Yep, that was a pragmatic move by Lincoln, especially with Maryland to secure the capitol. Doesn't make a lick of difference that the other states seceded primarily because their right to own slaves was being threatened.
>>71075167
> wondered what /pol/ thought of Texas
It's America's America
>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. . . .
>It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst. . . .
>Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.
- Mississippi Secession Declaration
>>71068745
You're right, it was about States rights, unfortunately their secession letter mentions the word slavery about 20 times and barely touches on States rights. They wanted States rights to own slaves, your teachers told you different because they were probably all white and told the same exact thing.
>>71075235
I never said secession wasn't about slavery. I meant that the war wasn't. The war was about keeping the Southern states in line, and asserting federal power. The end of the Civil War marked the US' transition from 'united states' to a national country. Almost nobody considered themselves an American before this. You were a Pennsylvanian, a Texan, etc. This war changed that.
>>71075235
But doesn't what you just said completely support Texas' position that it was about state rights and not a good vs evil war on slavery?
>>71075014
Sounds like you're quibbling over details to diminish the role of slavery.
If the South didn't commit treason and secede, the civil war wouldn't have occurred and you just admitted as to why chief reason why secession occurred. You can't see the forest for the trees.
>>71071629
It wasnt equal, they specifically were butt hurt about slavery
>>71075167
The fact that a fact is newsworthy on Kikebook is distressing.
>>71068745
>Slavery was an important aspect of it,
only because northern industrialists thought it was unprofitable, slavery was on it's last legs anyway, they just cooked up a big show to get people to accept slavery 2.0
>>71074815
>At best you can say that the Constitution tolerated slavery
Yes, and in a negative rights + 10th amendment framework, certain states allowed slaves, others barred them.
Those in slave states asserted said right.
The federal government tolerated this right until this happened.
>>71074238
Note I do not think slavery is or was good, but under the legal structure of the time, what the Federal government did was void.
>>71075490
Most kikebook users are dumb, I'm not shocked but it is disturbing.
It was about states' rights.
Slavery was the most important one of these rights.
Slavery was the biggest factor in what caused the Civil War. Obviously other factors existed (unfair tariffs, poor representation of southerners in government, etc.). People also have to remember the North and South were so much different socially and economically. Slavery pretty much held these structures together and defined the South who didn't want to lose them.
>>71068745
Lincoln said it himself, since he was a Republican, he wanted blacks to have some more rights, but not to abolish slavery like the other die-hard Republicans.
>>71075490
worst part is video is from like 2015. It just resurged for no fucking particular reason.
https://www. kikebook com/NowThisNews/videos/861328487290610/?pnref=story
>>71068745
State's rights to do what?
If they were not infringing on their right to own slaves (which I think you know whether they were or not) what right was being infringed?
>>71073889
We are coming for you, pirate scum.
>>71075411
Nobody's saying it was a good versus evil war about slavery, and yes it was about states' rights, but specifically about the state's right to own slaves. If we want to have a conversation about the merits of the Confederates of the Union, we first need to have an honest conversation about slavery as an institution in the South. Slavery was an integral part of the South's economy, and we can't ignore that vital fact. In the South, slavery was seen as more of an economic issue, while in the industrial North, slavery was seen as more of a moral issue, especially with the Second Great Awakening. Because the North won the war, the war gets framed as a moral war, but really that was only so from the point of view of the northerners. Today the issue is less about who was right and wrong, so much as it is about southern states grasping at a sense of distinct identity in a political environment that is increasingly gripped by the northern democrats.
>>71075405
Well now you're just mincing words. I think my above paragraph should do some justice in explaining my thoughts on the matter, I think contemporary southerners probably viewed the conflict as one of economic vital interest, while the north held it as more of a moral conflict. I certainly won't deny that the war strengthened the federal state.
>>71068745
Fuck 'em.
Poland love south!
>>71075082
Maryland and Missouri ended slavery on their own before the war was over.
>>71073810
Be careful about believing the "justification for war", is also the "cause of a war". We may claim that we are spreading Democracy to the Middle-East, and that Saddam Hussein was a "bad guy", who was supposedly funding terrorists and building nukes. But none of those things is actually the cause of us invading Iraq. That was merely the justification.
Politics doesn't exist in a vacuum. What happened with the South, is that the South produced literally 85% of the entire world's cotton, most of which it was exporting to France and England, to feed the industrial growth of their empires.
The Northern states were attempting to industrialize their economy as well, but to do so, they needed to protect American industry. But, not long after the ordeal with the "Tariff of abominations" which caused the nullification crisis; The United States adopted a much more "free-trade" policy. This badly hurt Northern industry. So the North, for more than a decade, pleaded for higher tariffs, but to no avail, claiming that there was a sinister "slave-power", where rich southern planters were using their money and influence, to control Washington D.C., at the expense of the industrial North.
In the end, the Northern industrialists began seeking out new allies, and created a new political party, which would exploit racial tensions and slavery, to further the agenda of Northern industrialists. The goal of the Northern Industrialists was not to abolish slavery, but merely to pass a protectionist tariff. The tariff which they finally passed, was the "Morrill tariff". Which roughly tripled the previous tariff rates, and was the most immediate cause of the Civil War.
In short, this new Republican Party, was like all political parties, it was functionally a "Corporatist party", and was merely using anti-slavery(or really, the opposite to the "extension" of slavery), similar to how the Democrats currently use "Black Lives Matters", to gain political power.
>>71075588
>Yes, and in a negative rights + 10th amendment framework, certain states allowed slaves, others barred them.
>Those in slave states asserted said right.
>The federal government tolerated this right until this happened.
State's don't have rights, they have powers. Slavery conflicts with every part of the Bill of Rights, including, arguably, the tenth amendment, plus other founding documents like the Declaration of Independence. Unless you want to claim negros aren't people...
>>71076794
Lincoln himself believed they were barely even. 3/5ths to be precise.
It's the whole reason he wanted to ship 'em back.
>>71076359
>cont..
The Southern states were largely controlled by a handful of wealthy plantation owners(called planters). These men needed to protect their own economic interests. This Morrill tariff, and the Northern agitation against slavery by Northern industrialists, was putting the entire economy of the south at risk.
The South, believing that England and France was completely dependent upon southern cotton to support their economies, believed that if the south declared its independence from the north, that the British and French empires would come to its aid. This was on the basis of what they called "King Cotton". It would have been the modern equivalent of Middle-Eastern oil, and the south was in effect, Saudi Arabia.
England and France had given the south some support, and built many "blockade runner" ships, so that trade could continue between the Confederacy and Europe. But, because of economic ties to the North, it could not provide direct military assistance to the South, nor could it risk direct hostilities with the North.
It wanted to intervene as a sort of "mediator". But, Britain and France couldn't appear to be taking the side of slavery. Which is why the South attempted to invade the North. If the South was successful of even a partial Northern invasion, then Britain and France could come in as mediator, to appear as if they were actually stopping the South from advancing on the North.
The South failed, and the North outlasted them. The Northern industrialists, with the south out of the way, pushed for something called the "National Banking Act", which was a precursor to the Federal Reserve. They pushed through the "Pacific Railway Act". Where the Federal government would clear the lands of the west of Indians, and subsidize the building of a new "transcontinental railroad".
The North did ultimately abolish slavery, because they needed to destroy the "slave-power", so that they could continue to maintain control of Washington D.C.
>>71070849
>Lincoln did not even appear on the presidential ballots south of the Mississippi
>south of the Mississippi
of course not, because the Mississippi flows north-to-south
>>71076939
The 3/5ths thing was put in place in order to bar Southern voters from forcing their slaves to vote for what they wanted
>>71075882
Come burgerboi I need a decent ransom, time to hijack Americans aircraft carriers and get a decent payday, I be wanting to upgrade my Internet connection.
>>71068745
People have been arguing about the cause of the civil war for over a hundred years now.
Sorry, can't blame this on cultural marxism.
>>71068745
Tbh this is just a clickbait article as so many people already believe this.
>>71071619
It's pretty kek worthy. There is an avalanche of primary source material showing that the war was ALL about slavery.
It's the equivalent of "muh faked moon landing."
>>71077134
Slaves couldn't vote. Only whites could vote. Southerners wanted to count slaves towards the population total so that they could have a larger representation in Congress, while not allowing any of the slaves to vote.
The northerners didn't want to count slaves at all, and it was one of the reasons that the New England states almost seceded in 1814.
>>71077070
>cont..
In the case of the South, the politicians there equally used the slave-question to agitate for political power.
The fear of most in the South, was that, if four-million slaves were immediately freed. Not only would it collapse the southern economy, but these newly freed, and angry blacks. Would be running the streets, raping and robbing. There would be nothing but poverty, and no one would be safe.
As John C. Calhoun wrote... "The Southern section regards the relation(slavery) as one which can not be destroyed without subjecting the two races to the greatest calamity, and the section to poverty, desolation, and wretchedness; and accordingly they feel bound by every consideration of interest and safety to defend it."
The South would further use "states' rights" as a justification for not only the maintenance of slavery, but as a justification for secession. And while the Constitution was certainly on their side. Secession was not based on mere principle alone. As I said before, it was based on money, power. Just as all wars.
The North wouldn't have allowed any state to secede for any reason. And the only way any state would ever want to secede, is if they saw it in their economic interests to do so.
This applies to 1861, and it applies to 2016.
>>71068745
The civil war was about globalists. The north pretty much says hey you, we wan't your property for the new united states of america. Here is our shitty offer, if you don't take it we'll return with the calvary, put you and your children down like dogs and take it for free.
Blacks somehow believe it's just about them, because, hey if your black the universe revolves around you.
>>71077134
It was also a pretty astute reflection of the general consensus on Mississippi Windchimes.
Plenty of Northern intellectuals pitied the poor negro's plight, but seldom few believed in anything resembling equality. Abe honestly thought trying to integrate them into American society would be laughable impossible.
We should have listened...
>>71068745
Gee, you think maybe your teachers had an agenda? Or are you one of those authoritarian cucks who thinks they were right because they had power over you.
>>71076359
>>71077070
The ironic thing is that the south pushed through tariffs decades earlier that had wrecked the northern economy. The north had been big into shipping and trading. It switched to manufacturing because the tariffs pushed through by the south had decimated them. That was one of the reasons that the New England states wanted to secede 50 years before the Civil War.
>>71071394
They didn't want the federal government to be an all powerful entity and undermine their attempt at laws, imagine if you will why the Confederacy was the confederacy, if it was merely about slaves would it not just be another federal republic?
>>71068745
>Texas will teach that Slavery was not the main focal point of the Civil War
Good, it took long enough.
Yeah, fuck Facebook only children and housewives use it now. It doesn't bother anymore I just shitpost on Glenn Beck's facebook page.
>>71078172
*laughably
>The civil war was about state's rights.
Yes, the right to legalize slavery.
Multiple states listed slavery as one of if not the most important reason for secession in their various declarations of secession. What Lincoln would have done matters jack shit in regards to what the South thought he would have done.
You might as well have said the Revolution wasn't about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it was about colony rights.
>>71068745
Little-no knowledge: The Civil War was about slavery.
Moderate knowledge: It was about state's rights.
Thorough knowledge: It really was about slavery.
>>71068745
This is the fault of white men. No. Really.
For the last 100 years white men have shirked their duties to lead our culture, and we were replaced by Jews, women, and minorities. This is especially true in education. Furthermore, not a single white man has stood up and built a far-right private school even though there are billions of dollars to be made educating the youth.
Stop blaming the fucking Jews for this...It is your lack of foresight and sloth that allowed this to get this bad. You fuckers act like education turned to shit yesterday....This has been going on for 60 fucking years.
>>71078329
Two sides of the same coin.
The problem is that they're selective about the history they teach and that political correctness has blinded people so they're unwilling to reason.
>>71068745
the civil war was about state's rights and keeping a country together for geopolitical, economic, and defense reasons
>>71074171
You are the reason we have so many dindus. I hope you all enjoy Jamal fucking your wife, since your ancestors brought him here as a form of....what's that ? Cheap labor!
What other race are you currently importing for cheap labor, queer?
You lazy southern fucks can blame us yankees all you want, but that unsustainable economy was your fault. Waaah waah waah faggot.
t. Wisconsin
>>71071031
Anonbro! What if our history has already been rewritten and they WUZ KANGS? I'm so confused now.
>>71068745
if they cannot refute facts they will change them
>>71078657
>Yes, the right to legalize slavery
It was already legal? The issue was the North was making more and more new states as free states and the South was given nothing to balance its own cause.
Slavery was actually going out of style, it just had to be a gradual process. Lee freed his slaves, Stonewall was teaching his how to read prior to freeing them, Hill was for slaves being freed based on donation, Richard Taylor was initially against secession while owning slaves, etc. They all knew it was on its way out, they just wanted to do it on their own terms instead of having a bunch of globalists hamfist their way into more cash.
>>71079051
>it just had to be a gradual process
Apparently not.
>>71079051
How does that fit into the context of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850? It was only ten years earlier.
![hqdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/iW9rpyW.jpg "hqdefault[1].jpg")
Fucking Apu from The Simpsons knows more about the Civil War than most liberals do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q--iGgtRn8
>>71069743
Those jobs at the bottom shouldn't even exist in the first place, same with all the below minimum wage jobs that all the Hispanic roaches take up.
>>71078329
I'm not here to defend the South. I can just see what was actually happening. It was just a bunch of rich cocksuckers on both sides, trying to run the country for their advantage(go read Lysander Spooner)..
In the end, I'm not even that mad that the South lost. Regardless of what libertarians want to believe, the south had to lose regardless.
Had the South not lost, the North would have been much weaker, the Confederacy and the Union would have fought over all of those "Western states". The South would have become completely dependent on France and England, it wouldn't have developed a modern industrial economy until much later, and would be poor, like most of Latin-America.
Without American industrial and economic strength, the European imperial powers would have maintained world hegemony, because the United States never would have rose to challenge European dominance.
In fact, had the South actually won. The most likely outcome, would be Germany winning WWI. Since the United States wouldn't have been in a position to provide near-endless assistance to the British and French Empires. And then, who knows what would have happened?
>>71074167
>According to South Carolina, states should not have the right to let their citizens assemble and speak freely when what they said threatened slavery.
so your saying Democrats have always been against free speech?
Why do people make such a big deal about revising history that most likely isn't true anyways?
>>71068745
In my wattle and daub school I learned it was related with taxes/protectionism from the industrialized states in the north. I even remember my teacher saying: "Wars and revolutions start so people can get what they can't buy, no other reason".
>>71072245
>whether some states wanted it or not
>That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Get fucked.
>>71079589
>Regardless of what libertarians want to believe, the south had to lose regardless.
If you're referring to the paleo-libertarians who are so fond of historical revisionism, they're influence is nearly dead after they threw their support behind Trump.
>In fact, had the South actually won. The most likely outcome, would be...
England invading the North from Canada while France invaded from the South from Mexico. They were waiting for the US to be sufficiently weakened. That plan blew up when the Mexicans kicked the French's ass (which is why they celebrate Cinco De Mayo.)
>>71073665
Kek. S'MORES SCHNAPPS!
>>71073828
I don't think you got the reference.
>>71068745
>People who know very little about the Civil War will say it was fought over slavery
>People who know a lot about the Civil War will say it was about state right's and other non slavery factors
>People who are historians and experts on the Civil War will say it was about slavery.
>>71074795
This is a point that no one has brought up yet. The influence of the British on the southern aristocracy was an important part of Civil War history. Idk much about it, talk to anon if you want to know more.
>>71079633
You mean Southern Democrats of the 19th century who switched over to the Republican party in the 20th century?
More intellectual dishonesty for you
>>71068745
>WE
>WUZ
>KANGS
>>71079051
>Slavery was actually going out of style
wat
Why on earth would it be going out of style? It was incredibly economical. You really think that people were just beginning to decide it was wrong? Hell no. It doesn't matter where you are in the world, people will always take advantage of lucrative opportunities if it's allowed by the law. This is an eternal truth that you're saying ceased to be in a population that WENT TO WAR OVER THE RIGHT TO OWN SLAVES.
Regardless of whether or not it was "about" state's rights, that's what happened.
>>71080310
>England invading the North from Canada while France invaded from the South from Mexico.
Rofl, I do love alternate histories.
Anyway, I'm just telling the southerners; if you like America being a superpower, and being the bully of the world. Then the south had to lose.
If you want America to have become a weak bitch(if it even continued to exist at all), then continue to whine about Lincoln.
But in either case, don't pretend that the Civil War was about slavery. It was about money, power, and the control of resources. Just like every fucking other war.
>>71080933
But I don't like America being a bully to the world (aka, my tax money being spent to fight proxy wars, prop up failed states, and protect those unwilling to protect themselves.)
>>71068745
It was about a lot of things. These people are literally frightened by another view point. It's a valid academic view point and completely valid.
I wonder if they'll teach that the 10th Amendment gave the states the right to secede.
>>71071221
Nice proxy. When are you going back to your North Korean one? Better yet I like you more with the Netherlands flag better.
>>71080858
>Why on earth would it be going out of style? It was incredibly economical.
This is a poor understanding of economics. Slavery isn't nearly as economical as it might appear.
Slavery only works in a purely agricultural economy. And only for high-value commodities which require significant labor. And only in a place where the slaves can be easily kept, without fear of them running away. And only in safe living and working environments, where there is little worry that your slaves will be injured or killed.
For industrialists, it was much much much cheaper, and less risky to hire immigrants to work in their factories, than to try to keep slaves.
You have to feed, house, and clothe a slave. Slaves cost as much as $50,000 to buy. And if they die, you lose that investment. If he runs away, you lose that investment(and it was very easy for them to run away in cities, in the countryside, not so much).
This was one of the problems they had in the south. The Army had wanted to build a fort in the swamps of Louisiana. And they had originally contracted local slave-owners to bring their slaves in to do the work of draining the swamps.
The problem was, the slaves kept dying of disease. This made it impossible to find slave-owners willing to risk their slaves to do the work. So instead, the Army started effectively forcing the local indian populations to do the work. If they died, no one cared.
This same thing is what happened in the case of the Panama Canal, and even the transcontinental railroad. The French brought in thousands of East India immigrants to work on the Panama canal, because no one else would do it, because of the high mortality rate. If the immigrants died, no one cared, it cost nothing.
>>71068745
>Texas is about to
Graduated from Texas public school in 2009
Can confirm that Texas has been teaching that the Civil War wasn't about slavery for at least a decade
>>71080933
>Rofl, I do love alternate histories.
It's not that far fetched. In late 1861, Britain had sent 11,000 men to Canada with orders to capture New York City because of the Trent Affair. At the same time, France was invading Mexico. If the French had won in Mexico, and they thought that the US was sufficiently weakened, they could very well have tried to divide up the US between them.
>>71068745
I spotted the shill!
>>71068745
Aberham Lencon was a tyrant that waged a war on an innocent people. And he was a faggot commie.
>>71071426
Did you know he was called Honest Abe because they were making fun of how full of shit he was?
He was a Clinton style flip flopper. He wanted the Civil War.
>>71081866
>And only in a place where the slaves can be easily kept, without fear of them running away.
That's why the south had slave patrols. The government forced white people to go on slave patrols. Refusal meant an increasing series of fines and, eventually, imprisonment. That's what kept slavery economical for slave owners. It was resented by non-slave owners. Not all that different from the Fugitive Slave Act, which required northerners to help find escaped slaves under penalties of very heavy fines and imprisonment.
>>71068745
Tbqh senpai the South emphasized States Rights more after they lost the war than beforehand.
>>71068745
Texas also thinks Moses was a founding father of the US. Textbook changes don't surprise me in the least anymore. I find it pathetic that in a world with such quick and easy access to information we've allowed our schooling standards to fall so low. Even worse is nobody is being held accountable on either side of the political fence.
>>71078980
...and you're the ones that let them run loose.
>>71081866
>cont..
Another good example, is the "Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire
In this factory, women were being "locked in" while they were working, to prevent them from stealing fabrics, or otherwise not doing their job. But when a fire broke out, it ended up 146 people(mostly women), who couldn't escape the blaze, and were burning alive.
Now, if these women had been slaves, the factory owner would have lost millions of dollars. But since he had only hired them, and without laws in place to protect them, if they die, they cost nothing.
It would have been impossible to use slave-labor to run factories in any northern city. And the conditions for many factory workers in Northern cities, were even worse than the conditions of the slaves themselves.
Go read the book "How the other half lives", which might give some insight into what it was like being an immigrant laborer in New York City. Some more reference, go watch the movie "Gangs of New York", it gives you an introduction to the terrible conditions of laborers in big northern cities.
What do you think Karl Marx was bitching about?
>>71068745
I'm Romanian. We learned in high school history that the war was first and foremost about the industrial north trying to wrestle power away from the agrarian south, wrapped in the debate about state rights, and sold to the rest of the world as a fight against slavery.
>>71082515
In 1860 the average factory worker put in between 62 hours (according to the Weeks Report) and 66 hours (according to the Aldrich Report. The average slave, on the other hand, worked roughly 100 hours per week.
And there were other reasons why slaves had it much, much worse off than factory workers. Marx was a jackass.
>>71068745
>white americans owe blacks for slavery
>the civil war was to stop slavery
pick one
>>71068745
it was about the state's right to ALLOW SLAVERY
the issue of slavery is even mentioned in the confederacy's declaration of independence
>>71083035
Don't listen to the bullshit. This same shit goes for the "serfs" of Europe as well.
It is certainly true that slaves and serfs worked very hard during planting and harvesting. But the rest of the year, not so much.
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/08/29/why-a-medieval-peasant-got-more-vacation-time-than-you/
During harvest season, slaves would be worked from "sun-up to sundown", as much as 15 or 16 hours a day. But during the rest of the year, there just wasn't much to do. And they were off every Sunday, and usually had a short Saturday. If anything, their workweek was typical of the time.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3041
Furthermore, there is a reason that same fucking picture is posted every time someone talks about slavery. Because that was the exception, not the norm.
Whippings were INCREDIBLY RARE during slavery. In fact, slave-owners almost never whipped their slaves, because it created resentment, and actually hired people to come in to do it for them. And in almost every case, the whipping was the result of them running away, often multiple times.
For some reference, whipping was incredibly common during that era. The military would regularly whip soldiers who weren't following orders, usually by tying them to a log in the middle of the fort, and often leaving them there for days.
And whippings were also common in the prisons of that day, for punishing inmates who weren't following the rules, causing problems, or trying to escape.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellation
I'm not trying to defend slavery, but for the most part, there wasn't much of a difference between a serf and a slave. And many slaves were even paid wages. In fact, one of the richest planters in the south, was a black man, who had purchased his own freedom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ellison
>>71084400
>And in almost every case, the whipping was the result of them running away
Let me add, when I say they were running away. You need to imagine that, in this case, these people running away, was literally a bag full of money, worth $50,000.
It would be the equivalent of someone stealing your car keys, and driving off with your brand-new BMW.
In any case, lets understand that, the slave-owners were people. If you read "Uncle-Tom's cabin", you'll hear the story of Uncle Tom, who was treated very well. Who was then sold off to an abusive owner. The reason this book was important, was because most white people, when they came into contact with slavery. It happened in cities, where for the most part, the slaves were treated kind of like how wealthy people treat say, their illegal immigrant Mexican nanny.
The nanny lived in their home, and was usually dressed pretty well, and was largely treated like one of the family.
Many people have the false impression that a slave effectively had "no rights". In reality, there were many many laws designed to protect slaves. In fact, if an owner was provably abusing his slave, the slave could actually take him to court, and force the sale to another owner. And in many cases, they would even be set free.
The slave-institution, was at its core, merely a form of "patriarchy". The slave-owners imagined themselves as the fathers of the slaves. Much as they were the fathers of their own children. And at that time, the father could discipline his children, his wife, his slaves, his servants, etc. As long as it was "within reason".
The slave-owners necessarily wanted their slaves to be healthy, and even to be happy. Why would a slave-owner want to abuse his slaves? Why would a parent want to abuse his children? That isn't to say it never happened, but it was actually pretty rare. But those are the only stories most of us read.
>>71084400
>It is certainly true that slaves and serfs worked very hard during planting and harvesting. But the rest of the year, not so much.
>But during the rest of the year, there just wasn't much to do. And they were off every Sunday, and usually had a short Saturday. If anything, their workweek was typical of the time.
The stats I've read said that was more common of the late 1700's, than 1860's. Agricultural workers in the late 1700's would work 70 - 80 hours per week, but have winters mostly off. Slaves were worked even harder than that, if the 100 hour estimate is right. Hours worked in manufacturing declined steadily as the decades passed, but not for slaves.
>Whippings were INCREDIBLY RARE during slavery. In fact, slave-owners almost never whipped their slaves
>whipping was incredibly common during that era.
OK. So everyone was getting whipped all the time unless they were slaves. Right.
>>71085597
>Let me add, when I say they were running away. You need to imagine that, in this case, these people running away, was literally a bag full of money, worth $50,000.
>It would be the equivalent of someone stealing your car keys, and driving off with your brand-new BMW.
You can't own people.
>Why would a slave-owner want to abuse his slaves?
It was typically the slave patrols that did it, not the owners. They did it because they resented being forced into slave patrols. But it was the owners who pushed through the laws that created the slave patrols, because they needed the free security service to prevent escapes. Without the slave patrols, there wasn't anything stopping every single slave from just walking off.
But it wasn't
It was about states rights vs federal control
The emancipation proclamation was specifically done just to dissuade European nations allying with the south
stormcucks and anyone that doesn't think slavery was the cause of the civil war need to watch Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point explain this shit
pretty butch BTFO every argument ITT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4
>>71085597
>cont...
And one of the silliest things you hear about slavery, is that slave-owners would often kill their slaves. But why in the world would a slave-owner want to kill his slave? That would be like dumping all your money in a trash can, and lighting it on fire.
Not only that, but it was illegal.
>>71085681
I don't even know what you're talking about. The rise of industry was in the mid-to-late 1800's. Slavery was pretty much dead by then.
In any case, the link I gave, showed the average in the United States in 1850, of as high as 3,650 hours a year. Which is roughly ~70 hours a week.
You are correct that in preindustrial times, the work-week was about 70-80 during planting and harvesting, but the rest of the year they didn't do much. In the case of the slaves, it was similar, except that in the case of Tobacco, the slaves constantly had to clear new land, because the Tobacco sapped the soils. So even when there was no planting/harvesting, there was still work to be done.
So while I agree, the average workweek during harvesting was probably ~80-90 hours(a six-day workweek, usually with a short Saturday, 15 hours a day). But the rest of the year was probably more like 50-60 hours a week. I mean, if you consider "sun-up to sundown", the problem is, the days are just much much shorter in the winter than in the summer.
>>71085681
>Hours worked in manufacturing declined steadily as the decades passed, but not for slaves.
slaves would also actually receive compensation for working "overtime" in factories and manufacturing operations
>Slaves working in forestry, mining, and industry were often paid a piece-rate, with a bonus for exceeding the quota. Frederick Law Olmstead toured the eastern seaboard on the eve of the Civil War and reported that slaves in tobacco factories, forestry, and mining earned "over-wages."
Even slaves working in agriculture were sometimes paid a bonus, especially during the harvest when more work was required. By custom and law, slaves were not required to work on Sunday. If slaves worked for their owner or for someone else, they would be paid.
http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2012/03/many-slaves-were-paid-overtime.html
"A house divided by itself can not stand"
what divided the house?
slavery!
fucking idiots
>>71068745
The Civil War was NOT about slavery.
It was about the state's rights... to keep slaves.
Totally fucking different, educate yourselves.
>>71078675
>Little-no knowledge: The Civil War was about slavery.
>Moderate knowledge: It was about state's rights.
Thorough knowledge: It (and every war for that matter) was vastly more complex than one sentence (or book even) can convey.
Fixed that for you.
>>71086540
>morally repugnant practice
nice unbiased piece
It was the state right to own slave's. Because half of the South's population were slaves and they're economy was built on it. It was all about slaves. I don't know how or why anyone here would deny that considering most people who post here would support slavery.
>>71086897
>le troof is in the middle
It was slavery.
>>71086860
>Not understanding Basic economics this hard.
>>71086944
>Because half of the South's population were slaves and they're economy was built on it
so was the norths
And the south saw far less representation in government despite this fact, one of the other reasons for secession
>>71086944
>I don't know how or why anyone here would deny that considering most people who post here would support slavery.
"The holocaust didn't happen but if it did I'm fine with it" - /pol/
>>71068745
you posted this on /his/ and got your ass handed to you.
you guys just want to hear what you want to hear.
>>71087001
If it's so easy, I'm sure you wouldn't mind providing a satisfactory explanation
>>71079496
>janitors shouldn't exist
have fun with your vomit and piss covered floors. i bet you are a indian aren't you?
>>71087001
>Not understanding Basic economics this hard.
And the center of the economic issue was... wait for it... slavery.
*sips tea*
But it wasn't about slavery because reasons.
THREAD THEME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BPpEis7BAA
THREAD THEME
>>71068745
a civil war is two sides fighting for control over the same country, not one part of a country wishing to go its own way, and the other party murdering people in order to keep them part of the system
it wasn't a civil war, prove me wrong
>>71085681
>OK. So everyone was getting whipped all the time unless they were slaves. Right.
I didn't mean common among regular people. What I meant was, it was a common form of discipline. It was employed not only in the case of slavery, but in the prisons and in the military as well.
>>71086224
>You can't own people.
I'm not trying to defend owning people. I fall politically pretty close to anarchy(voluntaryism).. I was just trying to clarify misconceptions about slavery. It wasn't quite the evil institution that most people imagine, and it was actually pretty similar to serfdom, if you are being objective about it.
In fact, if you understand the reality of this world, you'll realize that, "we are all serfs".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxRSkM8C8z4
Anyway, I'm just tired of all the bullshit that gets peddled about the past. Our ancestors were just humans.
Lets understand, every civilization is built on slavery, even today. The idea that you are "free" is downright delusional.
Men have never come together voluntarily, they have only ever come together by force. Most people in this country hate each other. If you took the government boot off their necks, this country would disappear from the map.
>>71068745
It happens everywhere.
Universities are one of the main propagators of marxist propaganda.
Even in Brazil it's rotten at its core.
The problem about saying the Civil War was only about slavery is that it was much more complicated than that. The political and economic climate at the time made both sides feel like completely different countries. On top of that, the side that had more states (slave or free states) would have almost complete power over the nation because that would have majority in the house and senate making them into unstoppable forces in lawmaking.
Lincoln never wanted to force the newly created states to be free states by federal law, and if he succeeded then the free states would rule.
The election of Lincoln made the South almost completely meaningless to the nation.
Saying the Civil War is about slavery wouldn't be wrong since slavery was the symbolic representation of this massive disunion between North and South. The problem with saying it is only about slavery though both simplifies a tragedy and makes it all the more possible to happen as well as demonize the South while lionizing the North. It would be like saying WWI was fought over Serbian independence. You're not wrong, but I know you're fucking stupid.
![quote-it-is-ordained-in-the-eternal-constitution-of-things-that-men-of-intemperate-minds-cannot-be-free-edmund-burke-380565[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/zfhjz2k.jpg "quote-it-is-ordained-in-the-eternal-constitution-of-things-that-men-of-intemperate-minds-cannot-be-free-edmund-burke-380565[1].jpg")
>>71087440
>cont...
Let me add. If men are evil, they cannot be free. Men can only be free, if they are good.
If you continue to perpetuate the myth that our ancestors were evil, and the only thing which saved us from our own evil ways, was our government. Then you are unintentionally perpetuating the myth that the government must enslave us, for our own good.
>>71071394
Slavery was what broke the camels back. If you research the history of pre Civil War policy, especially trade, it almost always fucked over the south, because the north had more representation.
>>71087858
>it's more complicated than that
Except it isn't, because EVERY FUCKING ISSUE you people bring up is directly related to slavery.
>b-but muh state's rights... to hold slaves
>b-but the economic issues... of relying on slave labor
>b-but muh north-south power struggle... over who gets to have slaves
>b-but will you be required to return my farm equipment when it runs away... which is slaves by the way
>b-but how much should a slave's vote count?
>See, it wasn't about slavery. It's WAY more complicated than that
Just admit it was about slavery. Nobody is saying that slavery was good.
>The problem with saying it is only about slavery though both simplifies a tragedy and makes it all the more possible to happen as well as demonize the South while lionizing the North
That's literally saying, don't say it was about slavery because MUH FEELS. I thought you guys were better than SJW?
>>71086540
Complete horseshit.
If the North was anti-slavery and just loved them the shit out of some black people, explain to me why about 1,000,000 slaves existed in the North after the war. Considering things like, you know, Abe only emancipated the slaves in Confederate states.
When Lincoln was told he should go all out and emancipate *all* slaves he said, "I would do it if I were not afraid that half the officers would fling down their arms and three more states would rise."
Not to mention all the other times he basically said, "Niggers are inhuman scum, fuck those darkies."
Also, explain to me why the first blacks in service of the war were *FREE* blacks fighting for the South?
>Hurr, it was about slavery, not states rights!
So, it wasn't about the *states rights* to own slaves?
>NOPE! IT WAS ABOUT HATING BLACK PEOPLE!
People always warned me that /pol/ was bullshit. Guess I should have listened.
>what was the WAR about
Let's look at this deeper. The south seceded, correct? Did they secede over a lack of representation, over states rights, over slavery? It doesn't matter, because the South didn't start the war, the North did. The south was trying to secede, not destroy, take over, or invade the North.
So the question isn't why did the south secede, it's why the North went to war. The answer to that is objectively, without question or room for interpretation, about keeping the union together/states rights.
>>71088572
>explain to me why about 1,000,000 slaves existed in the North after the war.
half the officers would fling down their arms and three more states would rise
>Also, explain to me why the first blacks in service of the war were *FREE* blacks fighting for the South?
They were the equivalent of women soldiers in the modern army
>>71087034
>so was the norths
No it wasn't. There were very few slaves in the north by the time the Civil War began. Slavery began to be abolished in the north as far back as 1652.
>>71068745
>about to start
lmao
>>71088045
>If you continue to perpetuate the myth that our ancestors were evil, and the only thing which saved us from our own evil ways, was our government. Then you are unintentionally perpetuating the myth that the government must enslave us, for our own good.
I'm not sure how you're making that leap from what you were replying to.
>>71083035
factoroy workers worked, slaves moped around in a field being black
>>71089059
>It doesn't matter, because the South didn't start the war, the North did.
Who shot first?
>>71073490
The only reason slaves were counted for even a percentage is because the south fought for it. If you think the north would have accepted a black man as a normal us citizen you're kidding yourself.
>>71078980
The south bought them, you northerners and brits brought them.
>>71089314
I was less addressing you specifically, and just making a broad statement.
There is a reason that the main advocates of liberty, tend to defend the south, and spend a lot of time trying put into context the institution of slavery. Which itself is merely a form of patriarchy, and not significantly different from other forms before it, or after it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k12teOokSqM
>>71068745
>black people think this country tore itself apart just for them
cute
blacks need to stop using racism as an enabler their god complex.
>>71089608
Are you telling me that if South Carolina hadn't fired on Fort Sumter, that Lincoln would have let the south secede?
Grow the fuck up. Lincoln forced their hand.
http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/residents-visitors/notable-visitors/notable-visitors-gustavus-v-fox-1821-1883/
>>71088572
>explain to me why about 1,000,000 slaves existed in the North after the war.
Gonna need a source for that.
Vermont banned slavery in 1777.
Ohio banned slavery in 1802.
New Hampshire census reported no slaves as far back as 1810.
Indiana abolished slavery in 1816.
Illinois abolished slavery in 1818.
New York freed all slaves in 1827.
Rhode Island had no slaves by 1842.
Connecticut freed all slaves in 1848.
There were 18 slaves left in Pennsylvania in 1865.
There were fewer than 100 left in New Jersey in 1865.
Where were these million northern slaves who existed after the war?
>>71090040
You can do counterfactuals all day long.
The fact is, the south fired first.
>>71090083
There were four slave-states which stayed in the union during the entire war. Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri.
http://thomaslegion.net/totalslaveslaverypopulationinunitedstates17901860bystate.html
>>71068830
HOL UP
>>71068830
Yeah, nothing to do with slavery, OP. Fucking retard. Don't be so reactionary to SJWs that you turn into an idiot yourself.
>Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.
>Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America
>>71082001
>>71090264
Maryland (1864) and Missouri (January 1865) abolished slavery before the war ended.
You think there were 1,000,000 slaves between Kentucky and Delaware when there were only 4,000,000 slaves in the whole country when the war started?
>>71068745
Yeah, realizing the truth was shocking.
https://snapoutofitamerica.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/the-terrible-truth-about-abraham-lincoln-and-the-confederate-war/
>>71090490
God bless Sherman
>>71090223
You're reading history poorly. Do you have any fucking clue why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor? Do you have any idea why Germany declared war on the United States during WWII?
The notion that America was just sitting there all friendly-like, minding our own business, when we were suddenly attacked and merely defended ourselves, is downright stupidity. And anyone who would believe such nonsense is a moron.
The reality is, Lincoln was going to start a war regardless, he merely needed to find an excuse. And intentionally maneuvered this country into war. The same kind of maneuvering has happened in pretty much every war.
Why do you think Lincoln effectively ended freedom of speech and freedom of the press? Why do you think Lincoln imprisoned thousands of journalists in the north, and suspended habeus corpus?
Grow up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhD8PoKN8BI
>>71090662
Typical southerner. Always trying to rationalize the initiation of violence. The mentality of all those niggers is rubbing off on you.
>>71089608
>Lincoln went to war because a northerner got shot
Truely solid argument senpai
>>71090541
>Maryland (1864) and Missouri (January 1865) abolished slavery before the war ended.
First, I sent you a link, you can find out how many slaves there were for yourself(it isn't a million, but I'm not the same person who made that claim).
Second, Maryland was not a legitimate government. Lincoln arrested half the Maryland legislature, because he knew Maryland was going to vote to secede from the union. The government of Maryland was effectively appointed by Lincoln himself, the same goes for Missouri.
http://teaching.msa.maryland.gov/000001/000000/000017/html/t17.html
For that matter, after the war ended, Lincoln, and the Secretary of War, the scumbag Edwin M. Stanton. Imposed a military dictatorship on the southern states, and put in place effectively "fake governments" there as well. Which took orders for the Republican party alone.
It is a fucking joke.
>>71091000
Wrong way around. The South went to war. They fired first.
>>71090779
I'm not even a southerner. I'm just not a moron.
As I said before, there is a reason the advocates of liberty almost almost universally defended the confederacy. Even Lysander Spooner, the hater of all government altogether, took the side of the South.
Stop being a boot-licking bitch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRx-trdMGtY
Lincoln had Copperheads standing against his tyranny even in the North. If the Civil War had gone poorly for the Union, Lincoln would've been hung as a traitor.
Lucky for him the yankees had Industry enough to outfit an army of conscripted irish slaves to go die for the wealthy warmongers, and then they unleashed that psychopath Sherman who enacted an inhumane agenda of raping southern women, torching the fields and razing the towns. He thought the war had to be brutal enough it would put the fear of the Federal Government into the South, for all time. Instead it just serves as proof that a corrupt government will butcher its own citizens if the Powers That Be are ever close to losing their authority.
>>71091141
You don't just get to split a country and expect to not have repercussions. At the end of the day might makes right.
>>71089097
Slavery was okay if it supported the union. Well, there goes the "morally repugnant practice" theory.
>They were the equivalent of women soldiers in the modern army
Not an explanation. Fuck it, I'll work with it anyway.
"The guns in the rebel batteries were manned almost wholly by negroes, a single white man, or perhaps two, directing operations. There is no mistake on this point. The writer was near enough to the batteries for him to observe from time to time the color of the rebel gunners. Many others -- all who took any notice -- concur in this."
“We were defeated, routed and driven from the field. ... It was not alone the white man’s victory, for it was won by slaves. Yes, the Confederates had three regiments of blacks in the field, and they maneuvered like veterans, and beat the Union men back. This is not guessing, but it is a fact.” (I should point out this was written by a black Union soldier who believed that there couldn't possibly be any free black men siding with the Confederacy, thusly regarding them as "slaves".)
Yup, they were total non-coms huh?
>>71090083
>Source?
The [Emancipation Proclamation] proclaimed the freedom of slaves in ten states, specifically those "in rebellion against the United States." (THE FUCKING PROCLAMATION ITSELF)
Total number of slaves in the U.S. in 1860 = 3,950,528 (American Civil War Census Data)
"it applied to more than 3 million of the 4 million slaves at the time" (Wikipedia)
So I admit, I was wrong here. I apologize for my inaccuracy. The turns out the actual figure was around 675,000.
>Where?
Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri, Tennessee, & the New Orleans Territory
>>71069503
>>71091141
Advocates of liberty defend the South only on the basis of the right to secede. They do not - at least the intellectually honest ones - defend the south for firing the first shots of the war. The exception is paleo-libertarians, who engage in a lot of blatantly false historical revisionism.
>>71091441
>At the end of the day might makes right.
I can accept that. I completely understand how the world works. I'm just tired of people pretending that the North were the good guys. Even Frederick Douglass thought Lincoln was an asshole.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/oration-in-memory-of-abraham-lincoln/
"Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.
He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he was an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. His arguments in furtherance of this policy had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave states. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government."
The war was not about slavery, or about Fort Sumter, or any other such nonsense. The war was just like every other war. It was about money, power, and the control of resources.
Why can't we all just be honest about it?
>>71091746
>pic-related..
>>71075082
The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves that Lincoln had the power to free, that is, any slaves the Union Army encountered in the Confederacy. He had zero power to free slaves in the Union states as it was a legislative issue.
My brother went to an elementary school in the South for his work and saw a bulletin board with all the planets in our solar system on it. Except he noticed half the planets were in the wrong order.
ITT: southern schools are terrible.
>>71091474
>Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri, Tennessee, & the New Orleans Territory
Again, Maryland (1864) and Missouri (January 1865) ended slavery before the war ended.
![iu[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/U2PYSvP.jpg "iu[1].jpg")
