>>71742043
it was slavery
Niggers and Jews
It was slavery.
Slavery and international jewry.
>>71742250
Then why was slavery still legal in the union
Also do you believe the feds would allow a non slave state to leave?
>>71742384
Because much of the north was still divided about slavery, and wouldn't have supported the war if it was about abolition from the start. That's why the Emancipation Proclamation is worded the way it is.
>>71742043
states' rights
>>71742557
So then it wasnt about slavery
>>71742043
Federal government exercising its power to oppress and subjugate its people.
>>71742384
yes, there were a small hand full of slaves in the union but the vast vast majority of all slavery was in the south
The South wanted to keep slavery and feared Lincoln's election meant the end of slavery so they rebelled
at the end of the war the Union forced the rebel states to adopt the 13th amendment to END SLAVERY
Maybe they would not have allowed a free state to leave but no free states tried to leave
>>71742043
It wasn't directly related to slavery but because the confederation was a an aristocracy that wanted to govern itself. Even Europe supported the South.
Idk what for. It's not like this union likes the South. I never understood that. Pussy ass Yankees won't let us separate yet they hate us.
That's how fucking stupid they are.
>>71742683
this
Why are we so quick to distance ourselves from slavery? Yes we did it, we got a lot of cotton out of the niggers, and then we stopped doing it. The antiquated farm equipment need to learn how to make a present and future for themselves; otherwise their whining just limits them to antiquated farm equipment.
There's nothing wrong with whites taking advantage for a time an inferior race
>>71742642
Slavery was the only issue the North and South couldn't agree on in the secession debate. Whether the entire population of the North gave a shit if the South could keep it is irrelevant. War is made by statesmen, not the majority of the public.
>>71742642
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4
get fucked confederboo
Slavery, but not for the sake of slavery, but because slavery was essential for the South's economy.
Basically, in small economies, with low volumes of production, and typically, sparse, small populations- such as the South- slavery is very profitable for the owner of the slaves.
As the economy progresses and becomes bigger, denser, like in the North, it becomes more economically viable to give the slaves wages and let them buy their own homes and food, rather than have to supply it to them.
I believe the North was only against slavery because their population has grown to the point that their economy made it redundant, allowing room for empathy and a feeling that slavery should be abolished.
The South, on the other hand, was behind in term of that population growth / development, so it was, in it's own economic interest, for slavery and would fight to the last sinew to retain it.
I understand it's a very simplified model that misses a lot of variables. For example, the climate of the South favouring large plantations, which was even more intense in the Central and South American continents, made slavery ever more profitable / essential for the economy.
Reminder that the USA has never had a civil war.
>>71743191
Thanks, Slimey Limey.
>>71743191
In fact in the north slaves were never freed and given wages instead.
When slavery became illegal they sold all the slaves out of state.
The did NOT free slaves, and free blacks were NOT permitted to reside in free states.
This is perhaps the biggest irony of the war, both sides were extremely racist and the north was even noticeably MORE racist against blacks than the south.
Lincoln didn't want any free american blacks. He wanted to round them up and ship them all to Liberia. And he would have done it if he could have found the money...
Appalachian here. Had family fight on both sides but a predominant amount fought the South. One was even a dragoon. Neat shit.
Anyways there were a number of reasons but slavery was the main one. And for the Southerners that weren't slave owners, Shelby Foote put it best: "I'm fighting because you're here."
>>71743334
>not calling it the Recent Unpleasantness
Tariff of Abominations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ikfj8RCyPI
>>71742833
>Even Europe supported the South.
[citation needed]
IIRC, the south was hoping England would intercede on their behalf betting on "king cotton" but nothing ever came of it because England shifted textiles to India.
>>71743599
That man is a national treasure.
>>71742043
At the most basic level, it was an industrial urban society vs an agrarian society.
The North feuded with the South because they wanted economic and political domination of the United States and since slavery was what was keeping the Southern agrarian economy afloat, it made an easiest target.
Few people actually advocated the complete abolition of slavery, fewer still advocated it for moral reasons. The overwhelming majority of abolitionists opposed slavery for economic (i.e. it undercut the advancement of the white working class) or political (anger towards "Slave Power") reasons.
>>71742631
>this
>>71743810
I was wondering when you'd show up, Forrest. Good to see you.
>>71743729
Let this myth die already. That was in 1928. Some thirty years before SC seceded. It was reduced and effectively repealed with the Walker Tariff. In fact, the southern coalition had a majority control over the Legislature and consistently reduced it until it was at its lowest point. It wasn't until southern elected officials stopped attending sessions that the tariff was raised again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history#Walker_Tariff
It was about many things, slavery was a major part
>>71743780
Selby Foote was the only saving grace of the kike-loving Ken Burns' documentary.
>>71743943
I'm always here anon ;)
>>71742043
Lincoln didn't give a flying fuck about the slaves, he offered the south to be able to keep them to avoid bloodshed, he saw his opportunity to make the war about slavery after a large victory to keep European powers out of the conflict. Although the south was also worried that slavery wouldn't be allowed to expand out west with any new states and territories.
>>71742043
Also this
>>71743529
Money wasn't the problem. He was assassinated before he could take any action to send them to Liberia
>>71744460
OP here. That is actually a great point. I never thought about it that way.
>>71742043
It was about taxation. Again
After selling all natives land for money, poor north wanted more source of revenue to create "dem programs" so they needed to tax rich south. South didn't want to pay. So north decide to ban slavery only to piss south cause that was the reason of their wealth.
Did assassin's creed III teach me well?
>>71742043
States rights. Taxes. Jews. Slavery was the excuse.
>>71744460
>they were racist back then, therefore they didn't care about slavery
I agree that imposing modern moral instincts on a 150 year old conflict is inaccurate, but the man did care about slavery. I agree it wouldn't have come to war if industry wasn't involved in the argument, but slavery IS an industry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery
>>71743757
A good chunk of the CSA navy was ships on loan made by Euros. A third of the South's rifles were Enfields.
The Union was scared shitless that the UK would intercede until Sharpsburg. And that's why Lincoln freed the slaves.
Hell the only country that even remotely leaned to the Union was Russia. And that's because they didn't want their own serfs following suit of the CSA.
>>71745068
They cared about slavery because they believed the white man was getting screwed by it, not because the black man was getting screwed.
>>71745301
I'm looking for a citation but find none.
>>71742631
>State's Feels
>>71745301
That is a beautiful painting.
Mort Kunstler and Don Troiani are truly the masters of Civil War art.
>>71743129
>listening to a guy from Jew Point Academy
>>71745301
If by scared you mean "you stick your nose into this and I'll stomp soon to be Canada into the fucking ground with a horde of Irishman".
>>71742384
Because of the industrial economy of border states, namely Kentucky and Missouri. The Union could not afford to lose these centers of production so close to the front
Britain not sending soldiers to help the Confederacy was easily the biggest mistake ever made tbqh
>>71745363
The two most famous ships in the Confederate fleet apart from the CSS Virginia were both built in Liverpool
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Shenandoah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Alabama
>>71743780
Currently reading his civil war trilogy, can recommend
>>71745730
>The two most famous ships in the Confederate fleet apart from the CSS Virginia were both built in Liverpool
Were they originally built under purchase by the US Navy or were they "loaned" to the CSA?
In other words, how do you see this as supporting the assertion when there are different reasons these ships could have ended up in CSA service.
1/2
>But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
...
>>71745857
CSA bought them in England and used them as commerce raiders. England paid the US reparations for the damage after the war.
>>71745363
Dude, even Jewkipedia doesn't hide that info.
>>71745902
2/2
>Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone 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.
Alexander Stephens, Confederate Vice President, March 21st 1861
>>71746044
>CSA bought them in England and used them as commerce raiders
So let's get this argument straight. Because England honored a purchasing contract they were supportive of the CSA? Does that mean Walmart supports my attempts to kill my ex-wife when they sold me a rifle?
>>71746075
Is that an attempt to shift the burden of proof?
Southern states were getting buttfucked by the northern states who continually implemented laws and tariffs specifically designed to keep the southern states dependent on them without the possibility of becoming economic rivals. South Carolina gets sick of this and finds its balls, other states join them. South fights well, but the north essentially chokes them out of supplies. The precedent is then set that it doesn't matter if your government no longer represents you, you're here forever.
>>71745539
Lmao The Union took five years to suppress an army of farmboys a fraction of their size and supply. One of the biggest problems for the CSA was running out of ammo from laying so many blue corpses down.
You think they could handle the CSA AND the world's superpower of the time?
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
>Confederate Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 4
>>71745857
You could've clicked on either of those links and it would have told you >>71746044.
Macy's Department Store founder Isidor Strauss actually got his start working on a Confederate blockade runner and secretly procuring weapons in Europe to be smuggled back into the CSA. He joined the Army during the first year and was promoted to Lieutenant for battlefield heroism, but was cashiered out after it turned out he lied about his age.
http://www.examiner.com/article/the-jewish-confederate-who-went-down-on-the-titanic
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.
>Confederate Constitution, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 3
Slavery wasn't the main reason. It was the main excuse though.
>>71746404
If the confederacy could have defended their ports they could have kept the supplies coming in long enough to win.
>>71743334
>euphemizing treason
Southerncucks should be lined up against a wall and shot
>>71746404
>took five years to suppress an army
>what is a defensive war
>>71746794
>You could've clicked on either of those links and it would have told you >>71746044.
I did which is why I posed the question.
>Macy's Department Store founder Isidor Strauss actually got his start working on a Confederate blockade runner and secretly procuring weapons in Europe to be smuggled back into the CSA.
See the first part of >>71746283 as the question applies to your post as well.
>>71746283
I'm on my phone, it's a pain in the ass to spoon feed you. If you're still here shitposting in a couple hours when I'm off work, I'll oblige you with links describing foreign armament into the CSA. Which is a painfully easy search..
And your walmart analogy sucks. Foreign military sales is not solely a penny profit thing. It's a way to pick a side. The French actually almost got caught selling a ship directly to the CSA, but in order to save face in front of a pissed Union ambassador, they gave the ship to Denmark... Who sold it to the CSA.
Foreign military sales always favor allies of the seller. Look at the Lend-Lease act and the political stink it made. The US still solely sells equipment to its own interests. Same as Russia's arms trade.
>>71747033
By the time it was a defensive war, it was already lost. Lee failed the blitzkrieg.
>>71743780
Good night sweet prince
>>71743599
>Shelby Foote put it best: "I'm fighting because you're here."
What does this mean? Who is the "you" in "you're here?"
>>71747033
>implying it was solely a defensive war
>>71745506
>I guess fuck his Ph D in history and being the head of this history department
come up with a better criticism faggot.
>I don't like it because I say so
Is the argument of children
>>71747144
>And your walmart analogy sucks.
By not addressing a refutation and merely calling it "sucks" you are going to persuade everyone who reads it? Nope.
You presented a retarded argument. That's like saying the US supported Japan in the Sino-Japanese war because it sold fuel and materials to Japan during the period even though politically and socially the invasion was condemned in the US. You fabricate a purposed based upon a simple transaction.
>>71742043
TL;DR version
The South felt they weren't represented enough in government and also felt they were getting boned politically. After Lincoln got elected (they wanted another guy I forget who he was, look the shit up) they went ape shit and said they would make their own rules.
>pic unrelated
>>71747252
>implying 98% of it wasn't
>straws
>>71746283
Did wal-mart sell you the rifle knowing what you were going to do with it?
>>71746404
Confederboos are the best. The Civil War was both sides playing defense. The South do to having less people and having the dumbass idea they were going to make it a war of attrition despite having less people and The Union having the good idea of strangling the south with a Blockade and the bad Idea of putting somebody like McClellan in charge who never pushed on anything ever. The Union choked the south out and Let Sherman rum amok and then it was over.
And yes the Union could handle both. The Union Army Dwarfed The South and It's Navy would have been match for any EF the British Could muster. The Canada that didn't even exist yet would have been fucked since the British forces already their were minuscule and what Militias they could raise would be ineffective such as seen when tiny portion of those mention Irishman invaded Canada after the War and embarrassed them. And yes the British Empire was huge, it was also spread out all over the world. They new they wearn't going to engage a strong Naval Power on the other side the planet on their home turf, over cotton when they had more important things like it's great game with Russia at the time and being able to get Cotton someplace else, they weren't retarded.
>>71747323
>implying that earning a PhD in academia means you have been taught truth.
How cucked are you?
>>71747171
>Lee failed the blitzkrieg
No he and the rest of the retards in high command failed to listen to Beauregard 99% of the time.
Had he been given more freedom to control the military as a whole instead of stuck with small groups and told to fuck off to wherever they sent him instead of using his genius to their advantage they probably would have won
>>71746918
>>euphemizing treason
>>71747965
>I can't argue, better call him a cuck
Pic is you
>>71747939
>Did wal-mart sell you the rifle knowing what you were going to do with it?
Sure. But that implies that Walmart cares for more than merely making a buck. Do you really want to go down this argument and try and prove that the manufacturer of the ships purchased by the CSA were agents of the English or French government rather than merchants trying to make a buck?
>>71743780
He died years ago. I live around the corner from his old estate. I got a cool painting at his estate sale.
>>71742043
it was literally all an economics game and the north being buttmad they were earning less of dat sweet cotton money.
quite literally jews being jews, some of the biggest proponents of abolitionism were jews you know.
we've literally been getting fucked by them since the 1800's.
It was slavery -- or, well, slavery was the biggest factor.
Yeah, yeah -- "state's rights." Which rights? House divided sound familiar?
>>71747338
I did explain why your analogy sucked. With the rest of the paragraph. Wal Mart exists to solely make a profit. That is not the same function of a state. States sell arms to their allies/interests. This is an established process of foreign military sales.
Which Sino-Japanese war? The first one was American interest because the US had more investment in Japan than China, which the Euros contested heavily. The second one America stopped selling Japan shit the moment they started cutting into USA's interests in China. And some say to provoke an attack. Which makes sense because you don't sell war supplies to your ENEMY.
>>71747542
Dude what? For the first half of the war the South was on the offensive. I'll concede it was about 60% defensive overall, but to say it was overwhelmingly defensive for the South is incorrect. The South didn't have the manpower to do so.
>>71742043
Not slavery. It was ridiculous taxes and tariffs. The south got pissed and started rebelling. Lincoln used abolition to try and frame it as a holy war. But of course history is written by the victor and unfortunately the south did not succeed.
People who claim its was about slavery just want to ignore that the American government could have ever been on the wrong side of a conflict.
>>71748090
>yfw Davis did all of those things as well.
>>71748141
I wish I was that old. I wouldn't have to spend so much of my life with people like you.
>>71748481
>I did explain why your analogy sucked.
No. You explained why you refused to address the analogy.
>Which Sino-Japanese war? The first one was American interest because the US had more investment in Japan than China, which the Euros contested heavily
The second one which involved the US selling fuel and war materials to Japan even though the war was condemned by the US in general?
>The second one America stopped selling Japan shit the moment they started cutting into USA's interests in China.
What does this have to do with the point about conflating sales with national support of one side or another during a war? Are you agreeing with me that sales from a nation to one side of a warring party has no implication of support from the selling nation?
The immediate issue was slavery, but there was the question of the power of state and federal power that had to be answered for.
>>71742335
This. Do any you honestly think the Jews had no role in the American civil war?
>>71748643
The Confederacy did indeed make similar mis-steps - while attempting to resist invasion.
Lincoln did it up-front, in order to facilitate the invasion.
>>71748188
The problem is you trying to propel your shit analogy. The US could throw it's weight around. it could demand England pay for reparations. The US made France give up on holding on to Mexico since it was more Profitable to trade with them than to hold Mexican territory since the war was turning against them already.
>>71748759
When Japan became a bigger political detrimemt to the US in China, the US cut support of Japan. What, were they making too much money from fuel? Or did foreign war sales dictate policy? I really can't lay it down any clearer, brother.
If you want to believe that Euros sold military shit, ie things that kill people, to the CSA during wartime, in the face of political and economic ramifications strictly for jew golds, that's your perogative.
>>71748678
>Still cannot form a cohesive argument so now I will try a character assasination
So, now you are degrading yourself to the average Bernie Sanders support tier level of arguments?
>>71748902
Fort Sumter was an Inside job.
>>71748902
>implying you Cuckfederates had any right to govern yourselves
>implying Lincoln wasn't entitled to do everything in his power to bring you to heel
*WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION
To preserve the Union
>>71749258
>The problem is you trying to propel your shit analogy
If you don't want to argue your side of this discussion just say so.
>The US could throw it's weight around.
The US had enough weight to make demands on England? Weren't they still the power in the Atlantic during the period of the Civil War?
>>71749369
>When Japan became a bigger political detrimemt to the US in China, the US cut support of Japan.
Are you arguing that the US supported the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and subsequently China and only removed that support after it proved more costly than the US initially thought?
>What, were they making too much money from fuel?
No. There was plenty of money to be made like always during a warring period. Is your question "why did the US stop selling war materials to Japan?" Even after the attack on the USS Panay they were still supporting the Japanese war effort by this retarded argument's logic. It wasn't until Japan started invading French Indochina that the US finally had the political capital to establish an embargo, ie. private companies were free to sell to the Japanese even though the US wanted to stop sales long before that point.
>>71749400
What makes me a Bernie supporter? You are the one defending the international jew with your anti-CSA rhetoric sourcing some west point faggot. I'm not a a Bernie supporter, I'm pro national socialism. The Union mounted a war against my interests.
>>71749732
I said you are lowering your self to Bernie Sanders supporter tier arguments dipshit. Fucking learn to read.
>>71744606
did the jews kill Lincoln?
serious question
>>71749991
No. Lincoln was executed for war crimes committed during the War of Northern Aggression by Union forces.
>>71742043
It pretty much was slavery, albeit indirectly. It was over states' rights, but the issue that was the tipping point was when the feds abolished slavery and the south didn't want to follow suit. South secedes, north goads them into war because Lincoln is smart enough to realize that the two of them will get picked apart by foreign interests unless they are one union.
>>71749716
We're not talking about private sales. We're talking about state sales. Your effort is cute and all, but you're not really providing any evidence that foreign military sales are solely for profit.
>>71742043
Sectionalism
The South had little representation in Congress, and the North stole a lot of their money. Aside from this slavery, which was the largest issue among all the disputes. It wasn't only slavery, but it was the major dispute.
>>71749823
So just saying "get fucked confederboo" and posting someone else's work as your argument makes you a superior debater? You have not even formulated your own argument. You are the child here.
>>71750291
>We're not talking about private sales. We're talking about state sales.
Are we? Are you claiming that it was not a private manufacturer but the government of England that sold those boats to the CSA?
>>71749991
If he was killed by Jews, it was to shut him up so he wouldn't expose their involvement in the war. Other than that, I lean toward >>71750114
's argument.
>>71750114
>>71750500
then isn't the south's thirst for revenge part of the reason why America's fucked?
think about it: if Lincoln managed to send all the niggers back, you'd have way less problems
>>71749716
No I am saying you analogy is shit. I get what you are saying but it doesn't make it any less shit. you are putting you and wal-mart on the same table as world powers.
Yes England had very powerful navy but it wasn't it the same place. American naval power is thought of a recent occurrence but that isn't true. trade was big business between America and Europe and it had navy big enough to defend it's interest. it pretty much single handily ended white slavery and extortion in the Mediterranean when Britain couldn't be bothered too until after the US navy crushed the Barbary Pirates.
>>71750375
no, I borrowed an informed and credible source whose made an extremely solid case. I don't need to reinvent the wheel.
>>71750744
I highly doubt Lincoln would have been allowed to deport all the Blacks. I'm not pro slavery and I think that does not sound like a bad solution. Even then, I doubt it would have solved things. Jews would have found a different way to establish non-whites here. The ex-slave black heritage doesn't even add up for half our non-white race mix.
>>71750114
This
>>71751059
Long live the CSA
>>71751043
Lincoln did a lot things he apparently wasn't able to do. The slaves probably would have been sent to Liberia and that would have changed a bunch of things there.
it basically was slavery.
southern inbred cucks will denies this through
>>71753111
Slavery is what prompted the South to secede.
It was unchecked northern aggression that caused the war. The South wanted to peacefully create its own more perfect. However the North, like an abusive jilted lover, refused to allow a peaceful exit from the relationship.
>>71742043
it was about independence.
It was mostly an accident that the war even started, and Ol' Lyin Lincoln had to run his lawyer mouth all over the place just to keep the Radical Republicans from asking for a cease fire.
Anyway, the North was divided about whether or not it would be willing to fight a war at all, whereas the South's newspapers had instituted near universal approval of the Southern cause for a variety of reasons, including (perhaps exaggerated) stories of Yankee aggression and Lincoln's tyranny/hatred for the Southern way of life.
H.L. Mencken wrote a breddy gud article about the South, I'll try to dig it up
![confederate-money[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/xo6rrpR.jpg "confederate-money[1].jpg")
>>71742043
Slavery was stated as a motivation in the secession documents, so saying it was just "states rights" is deceptive. Also see pic related.
The principle motivation of the North to fight was mainly keeping the union intact, however; Lincoln did oppose slavery but stated that maintaining the Union was his top priority, slavery or no.
>http://writing2.richmond.edu/jessid/eng423/restricted/mencken.pdf
>>71742043
It was about slavery, granted the world would have been a lot better if the South won
>>71742833
Fuck you, inbred. We owned your bitch ass ancestors back then, and look at the state of the South today. Fat niggers, and Fat white trash like you, that is all it's known for. Go read a book and educate your young, you white trash piece of shit.
>>71747252
Motherfucker SC fired because the Union wouldnt gtfo their backyard. Union soldiers occupying a fort in SC is aggression. If japanese soldiers occupied alcatraz we would fire on them. The north were the aggressors the whole time, regardless of how you feel about it or who you think deserved to win.
You dont even know what a state is, meaning you dont know how and why our "united states" became more like united districts under a central govt. Our states are not actually states anymore because people like you are so blind that you think the south were the aggressors.
>>71748902
Brings this to mind
