Red-pill me on the Civil War. I know it was fought over states' rights and not slavery...

Red-pill me on the Civil War. I know it was fought over states' rights and not slavery, however the right that the Confederates were defending was the right to own slaves.

How do I win "Heritage not Hate" debates if this is true?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/c-W5fGCAzOk?t=1321
youtube.com/watch?v=-SStdawtYFA
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Maybe cover your ears and shout MUH HERITAGE over and over till they shut up. That will show them.

The true redpill is that the south were cucks

>mexican intellectuals
>a fucking leaf

Is nobody worth my time going to reply?

The south will rise again, as a screaming mob of spics and niggers that is.

the war was started over tariffs. The North changed the debate to get cowardly abolitionists to join their fight and give them a righteous cause. Lincoln was no fool.

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.
>Abraham Lincoln

>The South wanted to leave because their way of life was being threatened by people who didn't understand it.
>Lincoln's original plan was to ship them all back to Africa.
>Emancipation Proclomation only freed the southern slaves

Go on...
Yes but that southern way of life was slavery

Tell people to go ask the mixed-race descendents of ex-Confederates who went to Brazil. They seem to have no problem celebrating their slaveholder heritage.

>How do I win "Heritage not Hate" debates if this is true?
Niggers are subhumans that belong to zoos
If someone wants to debate this he's a libshit and is not worth your time

Careful, OP, Civil War and Confederacy threads never fare well on Sup Forums

Edgelords here love to circlejerk over "muh wrong side won WW2, DAE le Nazis were the good guys"

but suggest that the Civil War was anything but "Yankees goooood, Rebels baaad" and people lose their minds.

Stefan says it best

youtu.be/c-W5fGCAzOk?t=1321

>it was fought over states' rights and not slavery,
Hahaha.

It was fought over states' "rights" to own slaves.

This is the lamest of attempts at a semantic trick that has ever been made.

The South knew slavery was coming to an end.

The question was the power of the federal government.

That's what I said dumbfuck
Wasted quads

Then why ask the question? You already have the answer. It is indefensible. There is no argument to be made from the side of the confederates except "but we want to own people!"

>hur muh publik skool tolded me so

imagine if you will that the economy of a block of states depended intiarly upon coal mining

coal mining becomes a controversial topic and becomes pretty much a dividing issue in politics

and then suddenly a president is elected that's heavily anti-coal mining without a single vote from the coal mining states, effectively making it clear that the anti-coal mining states now have become so numerous that they can completely dominate the coal mining states, plus paying in mind that there was absolutely no legislation on secession wouldn't you get the hell out of there?

and that's where the state's rights comes from, yes it was initially the state's rights to own slaves but who said it would stay there? the north could effectively push any legislation through and the south would have to just take it

>without a single vote from the coal mining states
They had a vote, they voted for the other dude. And lost. Electoral college.

friendly reminder that it was about slavory

well yes but nobody in the south voted for lincoln and yet he got elected anyway, so it was clear that the south either had to get out of the union or become irrelevant

and since seccesion wasn't made illegal one could reasonably assume that it was in their good right to leave a union which was no longer in their best interests

wow look at all these state "rights" they were concerned about

Ok, here is the short version.

Money.

The south was pissed that, at the time, they thought that the vast amount of revenue coming in to the US was from cotton. Which, tbqh was partially true. Roughly in the 1850's the emancipation movement started to gain traction in the north, which the south used as an excuse to secede.

Lincoln could have given a rats ass about the slaves (look up the quote where he said he'd keep slavery if it saved the union) and really only cared about keeping the tax dollars from the south.\

Only the common folk believed the lies about slavery or States rights. It was all about the money.

...

>West Virginia
% white
>

Basically the free men of the south owned niggers. The northern capitalists wanted the only way to own people be through wage slavery, so they repeatedly transgressed against the Southrons' rights until the latter decided to leave the union. Then the Lincoln administration obliged the Confederates to fire upon them by sitting on a fort overlooking the shipping of the port of Charleston, then used this as a sort of Pearl Harbor or 9/11 to invade the place. Basically nationalism and democracy lost, capitalism and multiculturalism won.

Since that day the people of this country have been scared stiff of the federal government, and we sit frozen in panicked terror as the leviathan moves ever closer to swallowing us whole.

this had something to do with it but that dosen't change the fact that the confederacy was just a tantrum thrown over slavory

NOT. MY. PRESIDENT.

does anybody here know if the forts were considered property of the US army or of the state they where in?

if the former then the union had the legal right to staff and supply them and if the later then the union legally had to evacuate them

I never had a real clear answer to this in previous civil war discussions

exactly, the south did exactly what cuckifornia threatened to do when trump won only the southern states had the balls to do it

I find rather bothering how you inverted the usage of the quotation mark.

They weren't defending anything about fucking slaves you got damn caveman.

Lincoln got elected despite virtually 0 support at all from the entire south. This was the proverbial final straw, in a long series of shitty events that were all basically a middle finger to the south every time.

So after Mr. Emancipation was elected, they decided 'fuck this, we're starting our own country, with blackjack, and hookers!' and the north basically told them to 'suck it up buttercup :^)'

It's kinda like how lefties currently feel Hillary should have won the election, but they're retarded and forgot that dems literally rig elections with illegals, multiple voting, dead people voting, and ballot stuffing.

> mining for coal
> owning a human
> these are the same thing

Back to the Congo, pls

The good guys lost, just like in WW2.

They were military property, just as they are now

I don't see other groups obsessing over slavery, many others were enslaved/slave-holders, but that is left out of history books. Instead, you learn about white guilt and the Lollercaust in the US. Up here, we just learn about colonial conquest. None of it focuses on hierarchies at all. They lost and were conquered peoples. The standard of living under their white masters is more than they could ever have had. An entire war wasn't fought over niggers, the history books are just Afro-centric. It had a lot to do with tyranny of the fed versus liberties the states deserved.
Also this /thread

>Abraham Lincoln wins
>South: this dude gonna totally liberate slaves!
>Abe: I am not gonna liberate slaves,even if I did I would deport them back to afrika
>South: Lets leave no one to be pro slavery by leaving the union guys that will show them

>Anti-slaves guys: HAHAHAHAHAHah those faggot left and now no one can go against our views!!!! Lets free the blacks

>south loses and has to come back,and blames everyone except themselves even though they created the self-fulfilling prophecy .

>Abe dies and can not deport slaves

don't forget purging registered voters

bernie should have won the primary

>hur dur, I'm so fucking autistic that I can't understand a metaphor

I made the coal mining thing especially to erradicate the muh human rights attached to the situation to understand that even if the south wanted to free the slaves then it wouldn't be economicly viable

also the congo wasn't owned by belgium at the hands-off period, the congo was essentially the private property of the king of belgium, after he died and the belgian government took over we weren't any worse then any other colonial nation

interesting, so the south actually should have left sumter be and negotiate with the union for buying it

ACW is one of the few situations in which Marxist analysis does wonders(most of the times it's bullshit and leads to nowhere).

You have Union and Confederacy. North and South. North is industrial South is rural, north is bourgeois, South is quasi-aristocratic. The slavery debate wasn't so much about being interested in the fate of Basketball Americans as about securing manpower for one of those classes. Bourgeois wanted niggers to move to the cities and be uneducated workers while quasi-Aristocrats from the south wanted them to stay in the fields and work there, and the best way to keep them was to have them enslaved.

There was also question of tariffs(I don't remember which one wanted which, whatever, really) but it boils down to the same thing - the economic interests of the higher classes of both yankee and dixie land were different and the war was fought over them.

Liberation of niggers, state rights etc. were only an excuse.

When looking at this and very few other examples where Marxism works I wonder if Marx didn't tailor-suited his theory to fit those events, but ACW is little too late for him to do so(while for example French Revolution could be obviously used as a basis for his theory).

The average Southern soldier was certainly not fighting to keep blacks enslaved. They were fighting because their land was invaded, 95+% of all battles in the Civil War took place below the Mason-Dixon line and the war was a direct threat to the Southern economic structure, which is no small issue.

The issue was money, not slaves. Slavery was the backbone of the Southern economy and had been for decades. I agree that slavery is inherently immoral and disgusting, but the fact of the matter is that it was very easy for Northerners to look down their noses at Southerners for supporting slavery since very little Northern economic activity was based on slavery, but in order to rid the South of slavery the entire economic structure of the region would have to be destroyed- leading to a devastating period of economic depression that would likely last generations. So essentially the Southern soldiers weren't fighting to "keep blacks enslaved because they are sub-human" like modern interpretations commonly imply, but instead they were fighting to keep their families from starving. Even families who owned no slaves faced complete economic devastation if the practice were to be abolished, and following the war the South did go through a decades-long economic depression

don't forget political power, the south was in danger of being marginalised forever economicly and politically

Makes sense.

That could've left the door open to a peaceful re-unionization. But in all likelihood, the Union probably woulda just invaded anyway.

I get you, I'm just shitposting. On an unrelated note, there was a Belgian exchange student at my high school my senior year. I made out with her a few times. I want my qt Belgian gf back; tell her to come back

Clash of cultures, ultimate showdown between Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

The wrong side won

even in the early days of the US, the abolition movement was fairly active. Because of this, there was a deal among politicians that they could only add slave states to the union when they had a non-slave state to add to the union at the same time (and vice versa), to keep a "stalemate" between the two factions (slavery was ruled to be decided by the senate, not the house of representatives to maintain this stalemate).
if this is sounding like a bad idea already, good. it was, at even the basic core principals, a bad idea.
this created two things: a tangible, geographical, and ideological political divide between the north and the south, and pure unadulterated violence between carpetbaggers (people moving to new territory specifically to vote one way or another). [check out "bloody kansas" for more information]
now, this may have "worked" for a while, except for two things: the industrial revolution and the war of 1812.

the industrial revolution in america caused booms of population in the north. people moved from all over to seek jobs in american factories, swelling the numbers or registered voters far beyond what was going on in the south (where the majority of the land and economy was based on "cash crops," instead of industry)
however, these northern industries sucked (compared to the british, which were far more advanced and capable at the time).
enter the war of 1812. britain embargoes the US for a few years while some unimportant (to this topic) fighting goes on. then it ends.
during the war, britain's factories didn't stop making goods, but their biggest buyer couldn't buy them ("hurr durr y u no buy during embargo, 'murka?")
they were forced to move their products at a loss (and to great gain for the southerners).
the northern factory owners started crying and throwing fits. "mr congressman! those dirty stupid southerners want to buy spades and shovels for $4 from england instead of paying me $8 for the same one! make it stop!"

yeah, I get why the south did it even if it wasn't in their right, leaving a potential enemy stronghold sitting at the mouth of one of your biggest harbors is just asking for trouble

I'm sorry, despite all evidence and speculation to the contrary we belgians don't know every other belgian (hell, half the country can't even speak properly with each other)

so, congress says "hey, let's pass a rediculous tariff and support our local shitty factories. fuck the south. they have money"
the south doesn't like this. they would much rather that the north put out good products than have to pay more.
too bad. rediculous tariff passes in the house of represenetives (because of high population in north vs. south, city folks take a shit on farming communities).
so now, the southern farmers have to pay $8 for a northern spade or $12 for a british one. at this point, they feel like they're being taxed unfairly, so they say "look. states should be able to decide this shit, not the federal government." the federal government says "fuck you, give me money."
the south threatens to seceed. elections happen. one candidate is sympathetic to the south, the other's a cunt.
the cunt wins.
south says "fuck this, we're out."
at this point, the north is screwed and they know it. they can't survive without the south. that's where all the money is coming from (the only buyers of their shitty spades, since britain is still selling theirs for $4 a pop to get rid of their excess). they know that if the south leaves the union, they can't force them to buy their goods, and then the economy is going to flip.
civil war begins.
the cunt suspends the writ of habeus corpus without congressional approval. anyone who speaks out against that is arrested and held without trial. congress says "no, no, this is ok because we want it."
blah blah blah, details. the cunt emancipates slaves ONLY in the south (tennesee and good 'ol kentucky are still rocking the automated farm equipment until after the war), then burns down their shit. pins a medal on Grant for winning an inconsequential battle with several times more losses (just throw more conscripted men away. eventually they'll run out of ammo!).
the cunt gets shot in the head. now he's a hero who wanted to end slavery and anyone who says otherwise is evil.

libtards are trying to rewrite history

where were you when you learned that "sic semper tyrannis" wasn't just said because it sounded cool Sup Forums?

This.
History is a sketch book anymore tho.

There are a lot of legit inbreds that live up in the mountains and do nothing but brew moonshine and hunt here.

Ohhh yes, I forgot about the language divide. She was from Brussels, and spoke French.

Anyway, I remember her telling me about the defence of Brussels in one of the world wars, and I remember thinking it was pretty bad ass that a country where half the population doesn't speak the same language as the other could defend it's capital for as long as it did.

I'm probably oversimplifying, but it was years ago

Threadly reminder of the opening of the Mississippi Declaraction of Secession:

"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."

>not about slavery

>Red-pill me on the Civil War.

It was about money. Lincoln was a cold-blooded tyrant. If Trump behaved like him he'd be called Hitler. America won.


>How do I win "Heritage not Hate" debates if this is true?

u don't because it doesn't matter
abandon all neo-confederate talk because the confederacy doesn't matter.

Perfect. I'm editing this to make it more formal, normie friendly and grammatically correct.

See this and what he says about the north and slaves:
youtube.com/watch?v=-SStdawtYFA