Was the South justified?

We all know the victors write the history books. Was the South justified? Was it all about slavery or breaking away from tyrannical federalists like the Brits have just done?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=4A0nYp1syEU
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cotton

It was about states' rights and proper representation.

Yes, the south was justified in seceding.

The war was an affront to a properly mandated secession.

Texas should've went west, ignoring the other 12 states.

I hear ' Westward expansion' was actually one of the most important causes. Can an American explain this to me?

More land and resources.... how is this a difficult concept?

Fucking frenchfags.

But I don't get why that would cause a rift between northern states and southern states? Surely both were going west anyway.

ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED

There's one difference...

Unlike the Confederates we're going to win.

It was over whether or not those new lands would have slavery or not.

Nah, the south were just faggots who believed in an outmoded and exploitative form or agrarian economy. They were rightly defeated by the rising industrial values, equity, and wealth of the north. The worst thing is that so many southern states are still so butthurt and moaning.

South split away over slavery, not states rights. This will make Dixieboos furious, and I used to believe it agree with them, before I started looking at newspapers published in the Confederacy during the War, during which they're basically stating up front the war is about slavery.

That being said slavery would have been abolished sooner or later anyway, and abolition was so poorly conducted historically that around a quarter of slaves died of starvation.

Considering that close to a million people died in the war and it would have set the principle that states could leave the union peacefully due to irreconcilable political differences, I think that the South should have been allowed to leave.

Both wanted The West as lebensraum, possibly Gold to pay for the war.
Simply put, what would feed the Northern factories if Southern agriculture was available only via tariffs / subject to embargoes? The Nation Must Remain United At All Costs.

Sure it was about slavery, but tbf it was a state's right to allow slavery.

This is what pisses me off about Anglos You create the best systems but then end up killing each other over minor differences (US vs UK, North vs South, US vs Canada etc)

Tariffs on northern manufactured goods.
No tariffs on southern raw materials.

So the South had to compete with foreign producers, and were yet obligated to buy domestic Northern goods themselves.

I don't know if secession was justified as a solution, but the situation was... unjust.

What about before the war though? I mean I heard westward expansion was one cause of the war, not just another consideration. An earlier poster said it was about whether they'd allow slavery which is probably right

That is total bull shit Lincoln said he would be happy to end the war if that meant keeping the blacks as slaves. He did not give two shits about the blacks. Also, the north used the Irish as shit labor, they did not have a minimum wage back then. They also treated them far worse than slaves. There were many reasons for the war, one Lincoln did not receive a single electoral vote from the Southern states. Two, the USA had put tariffs on southern cotton so the south not could not export it and make a profit.

Basically as new states were added in the West, some were made slave states and others free states. Slave states tended to vote with the South and free states tended to vote with the north. The South was angry that most new states were being made free states, so the government allowed Kansas and Nebraska to vote on the matter before being admitted to the union. This led to a mini-civil war in Kansas between slavery supporters and opponents. This political fight made the South believe they were going to be politically dominated by the more numerous free states and made the north believe that the South only cared about expanding slavery across the whole country even in places where the climate made it an infeasible economic system.

You're right that Lincoln really didn't care about abolition. But there was a strong faction in the Republican Party (the Radical Republicans) that were strong abolitionists and this made Southern States nervous. They broke away because they feared that this faction would become dominant.

To make my point clearer, I'm not arguing the North fought to end slavery, they fought to preserve the Union. Only the radical abolitionists cared about ended slavery.

The South however, did split away because they felt that slavery, the cornerstone of their economic system, was under threat of abolition. Nobody denied that fact during the war, it's only after everybody came to agree that slavery was wrong that Lost Cause historians started claiming other reasons were paramount.

It's similar to today. The average dude couldn't compete against slave labor. Today average dudes can't compete against chinks and spics that don't pay taxes and draw welfare. Same scenario. Dudes from the north didn't have a chance while the South had the world's wealthiest aristocracy. The religious nuts like Thoreau added fuel to the fire, and bam, the north is invading the South.

You do understand that our textbooks call it "The War of Northern Aggression" for a reason, right? The only reason war happened was because Lincoln was a tyrant, the North wanted to control the entire political sphere, and the South was fucked because slavery in Europe was allowing cotton, tobacco, and other agrarian commodities to be mass-produced outside of hills and swampland, which they were importing en masse to the North because the North was literally the China of the Victorian Era.

>tell me about my history
I hate leafs so much.

>You do understand that our textbooks call it "The War of Northern Aggression" for a reason, right?
Your textbooks call it that? Where do you live, rural Arkansas?

Canada 10/10.

You're not all cucks.

You have earned one 'O Canada'.

youtube.com/watch?v=4A0nYp1syEU

Well, the reverse is really just

>Why shouldn't the South have been allowed to leave?

Is local representation and a shift of opinion not what caused the original American revolution?

"Tobacco" destroys the soil

Lincoln made the case that the South did have representation, and therefore were not justified in leaving. It's like losing an election then rioting and murdering people.

Slave states. The north had more states, and could vote whatever they wanted.
So the voted all new states would be slave free
Which meant they would further the control the federal government would have with each new state.

Yes, they were well within their rights to leave the union if they so chose. Lincoln was wrong to fight them and much of today's modern federal overreach can be traced back to structural changes and constitutional violation Lincoln did to win the war.

yes the south wanted to leave over states right. slavery being one of them, but the north didn't really give two shits about slavery. it was about keeping the nation united. just like if alaska wanted to leave, of course the us president would have to say no otherwise he'd be weak, and it would ultimately make the US weaker regardless. the north didn't sacrifice millions of whites for blacks. it was all about resources and nation stability.

This was specifically about the Senate. Each new free state beyond parity with the slave states added two votes to the free state bloc in the Senate, leading to no control for the slave states in the Senate, as you can see today with the Democrats in the Senate who can't do much to stop Trump's cabinet picks. The South chose war rather than be permanently cucked in the Senate, but they got permanently cucked by Reconstruction instead. We actually have a pretty fragile legislative system.

>hippie gets elected and suddenly you lose tens of thousands of dollars in farm machinery

Fuck the north for freeing the slaves and fuck the south for bringing them here

I think the states had a right to leave, but if any faggot shit hole tried to secede today, we should fucking bomb them into submission and repopulate with white patriots.

And the American colonies had self autonomy and the ability to represent themselves through their governor.

If they really had grown so apart in opinion, it would eventually be a southern minority who would not be fairly represented anyway due to the north's population growth.

But to be fair, I also believe that liberal buttmad states have the right to leave the union now. I sure as fuck don't want them in it.

Those choose quick death over slow death.

They wanted to take our farm equipment so we fought back.

No way. Let's fucking kill and murder the lefty. They want to make leaving the Union a war justification, then they can fucking have some death.

You mean fuck the jew york kikes for bringing them here.

>Fuck the north for freeing the slaves and fuck the south for bringing them here

Kek, sums it up tbqh

Why? If you kill them they win.

But seriously think about it
>United States of America becomes conservative, strong armed, strong military, strong borders free market
>People's Democratic Republic of America becomes liberal, weakly armed, open borders and socialized
>All the liberals in the red states flood into the blue states that will welcome them with open arms
>Red states should probably institute a LOVE IT OR LEAVE POLICY with free bus rides
>The blue states will quickly go to shit
>They can't return to their homes in the red states

Seems like a pretty good result, desu senpai.

Did the South somehow win because they were killed? No, they have never recovered because they don't exist, just like Germany doesn't exist because all the Germans were killed in WW2.

Anyways, future historians will argue if the coming civil war was fought because of race or not.

I wouldn't care in California left tomorrow. Realistically we live in an age of self determination. If some liberal state voted to leave in a referendum we would threaten them but ultimately do little if they had a popular mediate to leave.

Thats why the constant flow of Mexicans into the southwest in overwhelming numbers is a long term threat to the republic.

people say states rights which is technically true. States rights to slavery

You really think Trump would just let them leave? Really? He's not up for some war? 10 million Neets aren't ready for a life purpose?

Are you telling me that leaf-minister is wrong?

Yes that was right guaranteed to the by the founders under which they joined the union.

Whenever they got a new state they would have a vote on whether it was a free or slave state.
Fighting sometimes broke out locally

I hate that Cuban nigger

This
I'm a southerner too

A civil war at this time would shatter what little is left on the American experiment. Not that I think it has far to go anyway. Trump might act under the right circumstances but at that point this country becomes Yugoslavia.

>Yankees freed the slaves
>Stuck with the nigger problem forever
>Stuck with extremely powerful federal government forever


The North was the proto-SJW. The original jewish shabbos goy

The threat posed by immigrants is make believe

What exactly about that troll post do you agree with?

The American Civil War was caused by the amount of taxes that was put upon southern land owners by the North. To simplify the story, the during that time, the country's major money maker was agriculture. Textiles was the largest money maker by far of anything else made in the country back in those times. The North didn't make shit besides metal goods, but their revenue was so small in comparison to the textile industry. Most of the wealthy businessmen and legislators lived in the northern states. The North imposed insanely high taxes onto the southern states because the North didn't want to live like bums. This pissed all of the major southern land owners off because the North was just mooching on the work of the southern lands owners and their slaves. Some shit happens and then there is the beginning of the American Civil War. The South basically beat the shit out of the North in the beginning even though they were extreamly outnumbered. I could be wrong about this but I think the compasion was 6:1. General Grant did some fucked up shit and made a fuckton of Southern land owners and high ranking officers in the Confederate Army pissed (Basically dismissed most of the war time rules and butchered towns of women and children and left them to be found by the returning confederate soliders). Since the North had control of the Navy at that time, they needed to get the upper hand on the South. So, they blockaded every Southern State's port and continued to do so until the war was over. With their ports blockaded, the South had no way to export their cotten to make money or import supplies that they needed from other parts of the world. With their only supply line cut, it was a waiting game until the South had to admit defeat. After the war was over, the North took away ownership of land and gave it to uneducated niggers in the hopes that the niggers would become masters of agriculture and pay the taxes. They didn't because they're uneducated niggers. The end.

It was literally about cotton.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cotton

>The theory held that control over cotton exports would make a proposed independent Confederacy economically prosperous, would ruin the textile industry of New England, and—most importantly—would force Great Britain and perhaps France to support the Confederacy militarily because their industrial economies depended on Southern cotton.

>The slogan, widely believed throughout the South, helped in mobilizing support for secession: by February 1861, the seven states whose economies were based on cotton plantations had all seceded and formed the Confederacy (C.S.A.). Meanwhile, the other eight slave states, with little or no cotton production, remained in the Union.

>7 slave states that grew cotton formed Confederacy
>8 slave states that did not grow cotton remained in the Union
>slave states, confederacy
>slave states, union
>cotton

States' rights to do what, exactly?

If we can beat back the brown mongrels we might have a chance. We also need to default and reset the financial system, while rebooting the political system. We are in some real trouble, but I don't think many people realize how bad it is, and the violence that has to come to fix it. All the issues are going red at once in the near future.

>Can an American explain this to me?
>Slave states. The north had more states, and could vote whatever they wanted.


slavery was on it's way out anyway, it was less profitable than the system that replaced it which we still use

people forget that the companies that owned title on the slaves, that had insurance contracts over transport and repayment were with firms in Boston, the entire slave trade and indeed the entire trade of the globe at that time was run out of offices in Boston,

many poorer people who had taken loans out on slaves ended up losing their property to carpetbagging northern businessmen from the northeast

so the war was about that, about a land grab as well as a cash grab and setting up a politically divisive element in the culture that had already been used for hundreds of years to control labor

The greedy bastard slaveowners are what gave us 45 million niggers today. I don't know, you tell me. Was it a good idea?

the south was "probably" ideologically justified.
But the motives and geopolitics of the war were very murky, and made it impossible for the north to entertain or ignore.

The secession movement was partially coopted by the english that wanted a foothold in the americas again. This made seccession impossible for the north. having the brittish on the doorstep, and on both sides would make america inviable. This is also why lincoln made the war about slavery, so the brittish could not make the political sell to aid the south to their people.

On It's face I would say yes, but they got in bed with the wrong people.

No its not. There's a reason assimilation and lack there of has always been a concern in US immigration policy.

fake and gay

Right on. Time to murder all the "shitskin-Americans".

Americans lost to the Yankees

You posh cucks had no problem buying what we made now did you?

>still defending the original globalists
Please. I assume you also think open borders are good for the economy? The only reason we """need""" a continuously-growing population is that our economy is a bullshit ponzi scheme of debt. And we need an ever-growing consumer base (funded by welfare) to fuel it.

WAKE UP
THE FREE MARKET IS WHAT GOT US INTO THIS SHIT

Lincoln elected and border states sums it up.

I pray upon my English ancestors that Great Britain breaks free.

Slavery was a factor and was essentially the gun control of its time. There was big debate whether or not the federal government was allowed to control what states became slaves.

Then to boot, the north was taxing the living hell out of the south to pay its debts.

The "slavery" meme is just politics. It was about maintaining the Union. Lincoln said if he could keep the States from seceeding without freeing a single slave, he'd do so.

The real reason for the secession was simple: previously, states were added to the Union in pairs to maintain a political balance, superficially around the issue of slavery. (One "free" state for every "slave" state) The real issue was political domination.

Lincoln campaigned on allowing "free" states to enter the Union while blocking "slave" states. Emancipation was never discussed as a serious objective; slave states would allowed to keep their slaves. Naturally, they'd completely lose political relevance at the national level as more senators and representitives could be added to the "free state" coalition in the legislature, and more electoral college votes that would allow them to permanently control the presidency.

So, they preemtively seceeded. There was no "civil war" either. In a civil war, two sides fight for control of a single territory but the old South wanted to leave. It was labeled a civil war so Lincoln could pretend to be the victim in a needless war that he provoked.

In the end, Lincoln's war was so terrible that he nearly lost his reelection bid. Mind you, a lot of the South didn't participate in that election for obvious reasons, and he had to unconstitutionally add Nevada as a state during the war to ensure he could win. After he was assassinated his political hegemony completely broke down (such is the nature of tyranical regimes) and the North didn't care what happened so long as the war stopped.

> After he was assassinated his political hegemony completely broke down (such is the nature of tyranical regimes)
It's so easy to see the possibility of this happening again with Trump. The tyranny, the war, the assassination. Fuuuuck.

The big (((banks))) in Europe also played a factor. They were funding the South, and Lincoln didn't want those banks in his country. So he introduced Greenbacks to help pay for the war.

In the end the jewry won. Lincoln is a hero for fighting them off.

federalist party was dead. it rose because the south thought it could nulify all the shit the nat gov passed