Red pill me on the US Civil War

red pill me on the US Civil War

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/RPOnL-PZeCc
youtube.com/watch?v=_Q--iGgtRn8
youtu.be/uHDfC-z9YaE
youtu.be/tLlXC4WUUx0
pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/lincolns-soldiers/
historynet.com/americas-civil-war-louisiana-native-guards.htm;
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2208874;
avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/csapage.asp
google.com/amp/s/newsone.com/3012856/did-you-know-us-govt-paid-reparations-to-slave-owners
teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/
law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv#section3
topics.law.cornell.edu/co...)
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

The South did nothing wrong.

The Confederates were misled by romanticism and aristocrats.
We should've shipped the slaves off to Liberia as planned.
It's terrible that this even happened.

Retarded southerners brought niggers to America then shot the only guy who wanted to deport them all back to Africa.

Which one? Civil war 1(1861-1865) or Civil war 2(2018-2020)

white people in Boston owned boats that brought slaves to America, then they sold the slaves to hick southern farmers and decided to change the law but still called in the debts for the loans, it was a land grab run by the Massachusetts cuck farm

>then shot the only guy who wanted to deport them all back to Africa.

that was the Jesuits who did that

The confederacy had black soldiers in combat roles. Most of the union army either didn't care for or straight up hated blacks. Immigrants were being duped into being drafted (right off the boat) and they didn't give a crap about slavery so they rioted NYC to pieces.

The North had most of the steel mills, factories, and railroads. The South had most of the cotton plantations.

The South had a lot of states-rights political types, who were constantly battling each other. The North had a president who arrested and jailed anybody who became a threat to the war effort.

The South had better generals and troops, but the North had more of everything.

Look up Bode Lang on YouTube and the "civil war was about slavery" rebuttal he released. So much redpill. Lincoln was a tyrant.

youtu.be/RPOnL-PZeCc

Watching it now. I forgot who told me, but it wasn't actually about slavery. It was about the South becoming a econmic power house due to cotton

Yeah, the authorities put down the NYC rioters bad and hard. As the mob approached, they aimed a couple of cannon loaded with grapeshot down the street, and touched them off. Sort of like an eight-inch double-barreled shotgun. They should try this on the next batch of antifa rioters.

youtube.com/watch?v=_Q--iGgtRn8

It really was about States' Rights. Although slavery was one of the issues, it was not the main one. The main issue were the tariffs. The tariff policy of the US was picking winners and losers between the states by favoring the mid-Atlantic and harming the economy of the South. In fact secession had been talked about for decades because of the tariffs. We know the Federal government had no right due to the 10th amendment to prevent states from seceding. This is true because there was serious talk of secession in the 1810s and 20s when Founding Fathers were still alive. The rebuttal was never that they could not secede, but that they shouldn't for x reason. Founders knew states could secede. Lincoln didn't care and used extreme Federal overreach to force the South to remain..

Here's a voice recording of an actual civil war veteran. If you skip to the last 2 minutes or so, he tells you exactly why they fought. But the whole thing is worth a listen. It's surreal to hear a first hand account of something so long ago.
youtu.be/uHDfC-z9YaE

But Lincoln was right. Blacks and Whites can not live together. But he was shot before they could ship them all to Liberia. South really should have let them go. We could have avoided a lot of problems.

This is a decent rundown.

youtu.be/tLlXC4WUUx0

Lincoln was a log-cabin jew that destroyed the republic and set off a chain of events that led to cucked-America and kike ascension

It was about slavery but not the moral crusade that modern history portrays it. For instance, the emancipation proclamation was an ultimatum - surrender and keep your slaves, keep fighting and lose them.

>north says "no more nigger slaves"
>the south economy relies very heavily on nigger slaves
>South succeeds
>north declares war to take the south back
>South had better men and was overall better, but the north was better
organized and had all the resources + European resources and some help
>natives act as mercenaries for whoever Jews them then most
>South winning for the first half
>north makes a come back and BTFOs the south after gettysburg
Don't let the MSM narrative fool you, Lincoln was a cold mothetfucker when it cane to war, he was quick to jail and execute

Contrary to what confederate/southernrevisionist say,high tariffs had prompted the Nullification Controversy in 1831-33, when, after South Carolina demanded the right to nullify federal laws or secede in protest, President Andrew Jackson threatened force. No state joined the movement, and South Carolina backed down. Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them. Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816.

And the southern best general, who was leagues above anyone in the north died in an accident early on

“In the past decade,” the Yale historian David Blight has recently written, “the neo-Confederate fringe of Civil War enthusiasm . . . has contended that thousands of African Americans, slave and free, willingly joined the Confederate war effort as soldiers and fought for their ‘homeland’ . . . . Slaves’ fidelity to their masters’ cause – – a falsehood constructed to support claims that the war was not about slavery – – has long formed one of the staple arguments in Lost Cause ideology.”

In this paper we discuss a graphic example of Blight’s contention by examining a Civil War-era posed studio photograph of black Union soldiers with a white officer. We maintain that this photograph has been deliberately falsified in recent years by an unknown person/s sympathetic to the Confederacy. This falsified or fabricated photo, purporting to be of the 1st Louisiana Native Guards (Confederate), has been taken to promote Neo-Confederate views, to accuse Union propagandists of duplicity, and to show that black soldiers were involved in the armed defense of the Confederacy.

The actual 1st Louisiana Native Guards, consisting of Afro-Creoles, was formed of about 1,500 men in April 1861 and was formally accepted as part of the Louisiana militia in May 1862. The Native Guards unit never saw combat while in Confederate service, and was largely kept at arm’s length by city and state officials; in fact, it often lacked proper uniforms and equipment.

“The Confederate authorities,” James Hollandsworth has written, “never intended to use black troops for any mission of real importance. If the Native Guards were good for anything, it was for public display; free blacks fighting for Southern rights made good copy for the newspapers.” The unit apparently was never committed to the Confederate cause, and appears to have disobeyed orders to evacuate New Orleans with other Confederate forces; instead it surrendered to Union troops in April 1862.

The guard, which was a militia of the state of Louisiana, consisted of creole (mixed race) soldiers. On Nov. 23, 1861 – after the start of the Civil War – they made their debut, with a show of 33 black officers and 731 black enlisted men along the banks of the Mississippi River next to their white counterparts in the Louisiana militia.

Civil War historian James Hollandsworth wrote a book about these troops titled The Louisiana Native Guards: The Black Experience during the Civil War. He noted:

More than 80 percent of the free black population in New Orleans in 1860 had European blood in their veins… In contrast… fewer than 10 percent of slaves in Louisiana gave evidence of white ancestry. Because skin color and free status were highly correlated, many free blacks identified more closely with Southern whites than with African blacks.
Free blacks joined the Louisiana militia for varied and complex reasons… Some free blacks thought they would lose their property… (these) were men of property and intelligence, representatives of a free black community in New Orleans that was both prosperous and well-educated. There were even slave owners among its ranks. Furthermore, the ‘hommes de couleur libre,’ as they were called in New Orleans, enjoyed privileges not afforded blacks elsewhere in the South, allowing them by 1860 to accumulate more than $2 million worth of property. It was not surprising, therefore, that free blacks were eager to defend their holdings.

pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/lincolns-soldiers/


The story of the Louisiana Native Guard is summed up well at this site dedicated to their memory:

The war and its aftermath provided the men of Louisiana’s Native Guards with the opportunity to earn the right to be treated as equals in a free society. However, at every turn their attempt to achieve equality was rebuffed. The Confederate authorities used them to counter northern propaganda, but never intended to let them fight. The Union Army let them fight, but made them dig ditches when their capacity for fighting became evident. During reconstruction, whites accepted them for their labor, but repudiated their quest for equal rights. Pawns of three governments, the men of the Native Guards worked hard and did their duty, but as one of their officers wrote to his mother from Port Hudson in April 1864, “Nobody really desires our success, and it’s uphill work.”
Sources:

Bielakowski, Alexander M. Ethnic and Racial Minorities in the U.S. Military: An Encyclopedia.

Hollandsworth, James G. The Louisiana Native Guards: The Black Military Experience during the Civil War. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State UP, 1995. Print.

Sources:

"America's Civil War: Louisiana Native Guards » History Net." History Net – From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher. historynet.com/americas-civil-war-louisiana-native-guards.htm;

Donald E. Everett, "Ben Butler and the Louisiana Native Guards, 1861-1862," The Journal of Southern History 24.2 (1958): 202-17. JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2208874;

James G. Hollandsworth, The Louisiana Native Guards: the Black Military Experience during the Civil War (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1995).

Lincoln had to do that to make it a moral war when morale was down. There were draft riots and popular support was against the war. Nobody wanted to go due or send their kin to die to keep states that didn't want to be any union any longer from leaving. He had to use war time propaganda and used the Emancipation Proclamation as a means to change the narrative. After that, he was able to tap into the abolitionist sentiment and make it a moral crusade. The north actual wanted to have a Constitutional amendment to enshrine slavery in the Constitution if the south had not seceded. But, since slavery was not the main issue, that was not enough to stop them.

A bunch of dumb rednecks obsessed with protecting Shlomo's right to own niggers

While the South was morally wrong, they were constitutionally and legally in the right.

>>South had better men and was overall better
They were technologically inferior and had inferior infrastructure, especially when it came to railways and telegraph lines; there was nothing "overall better" about them. The only advantage they had was the fact that they were fighting a defensive war.
I'm also curious as to how you've come to the "better men" conclusion. Your obvious bias as a butthurt inbred Cuckfederate faggot traitor leads me to believe that you pulled it out of your BBC-n'-AIDS-riddled asshole.

1860. That year, the South produced almost 75 percent of all U.S. exports. Slaves were worth more than all the manufacturing companies and railroads in the nation. No elite class in history has ever given up such an immense interest voluntarily. Moreover, Confederates eyed territorial expansion into Mexico and Cuba. Short of war, who would have stopped them, or forced them to abandon slavery?

It's also laughable to claim that slavery would have ended of its own accord by the mid-20th century is false.In 1860, slavery was growing more entrenched in the South. Several Southern states began to actively invest in commercially breeding slaves due to bans on the North Atlantic slave trade.Unpaid labor makes for big profits, and the Southern elite was growing ever richer every year. Freeing slaves was becoming more and more impossible for their owners, as was the position of free blacks in the United States, North as well as South. For the foreseeable future, slavery looked secure as a souther institution and was growing until the Civil War.... Besides, sharecropping allowed it to basically continue well into the 1950's in the form of debt slavery.

Lincoln and the Republicans ran on a platform of a protectionist tariff. His election was the last straw for the south. The Morrill Tariff was a tabled bill at the time the south seceded and it was passed shortly thereafter. Muh slavery is still a low tier 2nd grade revision.

> > the triggers the johnny rebel

The other redpill is the north burned and destroyed the south as a gruesome victory lap of death.

From what I learned in school, the Union's main advantage was manufacturing. The south had them beat almost everywhere else. Southern generals were considered best in class. Their troops were well trained and disciplined. Their lawmakers were knowledgeable and skillful.

Slavery is more expensive to the business owner than is wage cucking. It would cost Walmart a hell of a lot more to own their workers than to pay them minimum wage. Despite the fact that slavery is immoral, niggers today are faring terribly in general and the mechanisms to prop some of them up are leading to the racial tensions and resentments. Abraham Lincoln was right when he wrote that whites and blacks cannot live together.

Southern states began seceding from December 1860 onwards, a number of southern senators had resigned that would have voted against the Morill tariff bill. If they had not resigned, they would have easily voted it down in the Senate and successfully block the tariff’s congressional passage.

They had majority in congress, could have passed some law to legalize their secession too if the north hadn't started a war with them.

>North is modernizing and industrializing
>South is a bunch of redneck cucks that rely on nigger slave labor
>The divisiveness increases
>Civil war
>North BTFOs rednecks
>North tries to reconstruct the south but the rednecks resisted
>Reconstruction ended and the south would remain behind the north for years to come

The Constitution says that each state in the Union shall retain every power which is not by the Constitution given to the federal government. The Constitution does not give the power of secession to the federal government, nor does it expressly prohibit the states from exercising this power. Therefore, the power of secession is reserved to the states, or to the people, per the Tenth Amendment.

there are still people in the south who will fly into a rage if you bring this guy up.

South were Christians (manual labor) vs North were Jews (money merchants)

Jews won, like they did when they killed Christ.

NYC Media and (((Hollywood))) and beta intellectuals then colluded to rewrite history as a "racial" war, and not a holy war.

The result is the war we are in today. Sup Forums (The South; the Fourth Reich) vs Reddit (Yankees; Neo-Liberals). Meanwhile, white women knocked up on pills and feminism, have taken on kike causes, and choose minorities over their own men.

Trump is the real Lincoln, and Steve Bannon knows it. Tfw NYC will burn in your lifetime, as a Rebel flag and Kek flag is raised to Shia's screams.

It had nothing to do with slavery. General Grant owned slaves and the Emancipation Proclamation only banned slavery IN THE SOUTH. General Lee already let go of his slaves twenty years before the start of the war. This was about state's rights and keeping the South in line.

>quick rundown
The blue pill: fought over slaves
The red pill: division of the Union caused by (((them)))
The bog pill: the South will rise again

the south believed in islam so the north had to free black christians

South led the economy and had all the money, people wanted slaves so they signed up for their side all throughout the territories. England tips the scales HEAVILY in the South's favor too. Ironclads n sheeit

That was certainly the theory. The States that came out of the civil war were not the same ones that went in.

>never knew the time
>had no concept of states
>uses words like "nigger" casually as Sup Forums does, and not even in an offensive manner
It's hard to imagine it

Slavery became more expensive than the free market when the Atlantic slave trade ended. They couldn't just ship in and more slaves to sell or trade.

They could breed slaves but that took time and could drive up the price. The banning of the transAtlantic slave trade lead to better conditions for slaves.

Before that you could enslave them and have them grown and hunt food themselves

Keep at it please. you guys have my undivided attention.

>t. very interested

The state right to have legal slavery. Why act embarrassed or ignore it?

Pic related. All you need to know.

Leaf here; the guy was a monster.

"On Dec. 24, 1860, delegates at South Carolina’s secession convention adopted a “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” It noted “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” and protested that Northern states had failed to “fulfill their constitutional obligations” by interfering with the return of fugitive slaves to bondage. Slavery, not states’ rights, birthed the Civil War."

A Good monster though.

Tried to stop the nigging.
Failed.

Forgive us future generations.

-The South.

I actually read the Declarations of succession of several Southern/Confederate states as well as the their constitution which is not ambiguous on the place of slavery in the Confederacy. They all list the North's attempt at banning slavery, their belief as the white race as the superior race or the necessity of whites remaining dominant over Negros and their focus on maintain the institution of race based slavery as a or the primary factors of succession.These documents are available on the web at Yale university's Avalon project page.

Here: avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/csapage.asp

* From the Confederate Constitution:
* Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
* Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 3: "The Confederate States may acquire new territory . . . 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 the territorial government.
*
* From the Georgia Constitution of 1861:"The General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves." (This is the entire text of Article 2, Sec. VII, Paragraph 3.)

* From the Alabama Constitution of 1861: "No slave in this State shall be emancipated by any act done to take effect in this State, or any other country." (This is the entire text of Article IV, Section 1 (on slavery).)
* Fugitive Slave act of 1850 over rode northern state freedom laws (anti slavery laws)

It is clear the Southern Political elite had no issue banning states from freeing slaves in either the Union or in the Confederacy.

Well yeah but the yankee States WERE breaking federal law ABOUT slavery. Slavery was straight up guaranteed to the States when forming the union, North decided that was a bad idea later. Secession was already effectively legal cause the Constitution was invalidated.

From the speech that birthed the Confederacy, the "Corner Stone Speech"that contrasted the United States Constitution with that of the Confedracy:

"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... They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails."

...

And it was just as much the right thing to do then as it is now. But take your revisionist out-of-context quotes and fuck yourself yankee scum.

Their belief was that the north was poor as FUCK. They were like fishermen and sailors but they were transporting billions of dollars worth of cotton and tobacco and shit. The president had to literally send the federal marshalls to bring back slaves from the North because they weren't cooperating.

Stop saying the south

the south is now anywhere outside a fucking city

he channeled his rage of the states leaving and breaking up the union into literal fire.

>spot the yankee

back in the oven you go.

General Beauregard should have been allowed to march all the way to DC and kick the Northern cucks out of power.

The South actually started off beating the North very badly in the Civil War. In fact, the South could have conquered the North but they were too timid to push all the way into Union territory.

The US could have been balkanized, and it would have been much better that way.

It feels like there was more going on, psychologically, than just property rights and such. Owning another human being seems fundamentally different to me than owning farm equipment. Perhaps that difference wasn't as great in the North as it was in the South. In other words, maybe the idea of abolition to an antebellum Southerner was abhorrent because it was an idea that involved taking away power (to rule over people, at least locally), and not just property.


"According to the National Archives and Records Administration, The District of Columbia Emancipation Act paved the way to compensate slave owners for their “loyalty to the Union” and for the loss of income incurred by freeing slaves.

On April 16, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill ending slavery in the District of Columbia. Passage of this law came 8 1/2 months before President Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation. The act brought to a conclusion decades of agitation aimed at ending what antislavery advocates called “the national shame” of slavery in the nation’s capital. It provided for immediate emancipation, compensation to former owners who were loyal to the Union of up to $300 for each freed slave, voluntary colonization of former slaves to locations outside the United States, and payments of up to $100 for each person choosing emigration."

google.com/amp/s/newsone.com/3012856/did-you-know-us-govt-paid-reparations-to-slave-owners

They were timid because Lincoln had the entire Maryland assembly arrested so they couldn't secede. Imagine if maryland was Confederate, DC right fuckin there.

The fact that there are self respecting right wing men on here that support the Northern cuckolds over the South is fucking disgusting. Let me put this into modern perspective the best I can, Lincoln was literally Obama 1.0 and Jefferson Davis was Trump. The north has been and always will be full of nigger loving cucks

teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

It's not out of context? Every document of succession said they are leaving because much slavery?

You act as if you're white and emebrassed about it?

lincoln was a traitor and deserved to die for SOLIDIFYING THE NWO'S HOLD OVER AMERICA

Damn good video. Watching now.
>See civil war or confederate thread.
>Participate like always.
Man I love these thread types...
Too bad infinitychan is too obsessed with da jews.

>he lives in coontown south

"literally Obama 1.0"

the slavery issue was not the biggest problem the south had, it was states rights and they feared a tyrannical gov much like king niggers and the marxists like to do

Quads fucking confirm bro.

>Georgia boy

build a wall around Atlanta pls

If I posted this quote in any other thread I'd be praised, but post these here and someone calls you yank scum?

"The new (Confederate) Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution (Civil War) ...The prevailing ideas entertained by him (Thomas Jefferson) 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. ...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."

Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America. March 21, 1861

Genuinely confused by this post, friendo. I'm a big city former liberal brought to my new views by facts. We were wrong, despite me having an ancestor that fought for the North. I also used to think races were equal. Nope. My kike education a lie.

Why not just the black belt as a whole?

Dont worry- you can't come in.

2 to 1 kill ratio

There is a mountain of evidence against that conclusion the American Civil War was about state rights. The most powerful argument that I've seen is this:

Look at the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. That was the key piece of legislation that Southern states demanded as a condition of California coming into the Union as a free state. They had no problem whatsoever with disregarding the state's rights of northern states. According to the fugitive slave act, the federal government was to compel law enforcement in northern states to become de facto enforcers of southern slave codes!

They were also not shy about using the federal government using its power to support slave interests whether it meant censoring congressional speeches, censoring the U.S. postal service, or agreeing with a supreme court decision that used southern interpretations of who was or was not an American citizen in the Dred Scott decision. Southerners applauded that decision that said northern state laws were irrelevant and civil rights did not apply to a citizen of a northern state if he or she was or ever had been a slave. They were fine with the federal government undoing the Missouri Compromise with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. They demanded the federal government accept the Lecompton constitution for Kansas even though it was clear that slave supporters in Kansas were in the minority there. No, they demanded that the federal government enforce it

Southerners, with some northern allies, had a functional majority in the Senate until 1860. All but 2 of the 15 presidents prior to 1860 were either slaveholders or supporters of the slave system (the two exceptions being John Adams and John Quincy Adams).

It was part of a series of global proxy wars between the British and Russian Empires.

The Russians supported the Union, Britsh (and French) supported the Confederacy.

...

*Jefferson was unwilling slaveowner tho. Couldnt free them in Virginia- wasn't a thing- though he tried multiple times to propose legislation in the Virginia House of Burgess that would have enabled it. Asterisk.

Yeah but the north weren't following the fugitive slave act. Anthony Burns trial n' shit. Clearly the LAWS were about slavery but the North was getting favoritism in actually following the laws. There were compromises and they didn't follow through on their end.

We got really pissed at each other, and then killed each other, a lot.

It can be saved
Why the fuck would I want to?

Because the north promised to Constitutionally enshrine slavery for them and it wasn't enough to keep them in the union. If you are responsible for 75% of the federal revenue and you feel that DC's tariff policies have been causing recessions/depressions for decades, you'll say enough is enough. That's what they left. Lincoln's election was the last insult in a string of insults that forced them to say the union was not for them. They didn't need to pass a law to secede. They already recognized the right to secession that they were granted by the 10th amendment. It was Lincoln who used Federal overreach to prosecute an un-Constitutional war of aggression.

No reason. Stay wherever you are.

>Tfw you're related directly to john Quincy Adams
>Tfw none of your family owned slaves dating back to the 1700s

That's why I never fell for that reparations bullshit. Don't charge me for something you accuse my whole RACE of partaking in.

Only with cleansing fire.

The South would agree to compromise, but months or years later would change their mind? Especially when the issue over the parallel came up?

The South constantly changed them. Also the Northern states simply didn't follow the laws southern states passed. They were not bound too?

The USA was founded in 1776 and the US Constitution was ratified in 1787. The 13 original colonies agreed to the terms of the Union. The subsequent states agreed that the US Constitution was supreme when those states joined the Union. The states secession from the USA was not approved. It was an act of treason as those citizens took up arms against the US, as in an armed insurrection.

Simply put, the USA is a "blood in, blood out" mentality. There is no leaving once having joined the union. This is why Puerto Rico hasn't become a state, as well as Guam.

You seem to have forgotten the fact that secession has to be approved... which it will never be granted.

And they constantly changed them cause they kept majority of power, yeah. The compromises were keeping either side from starting the war.

Nah, even if that were true the states that joined the confederacy were forced to rewrite their constitutions and thus weren't really EVER in the union after their secession.

Blow me. "Approved?" Are you baiting our you just haven't been paying attention AND you've never read the bill of rights or constitution.

>Simply put, the USA is a "blood in, blood out" mentality.

So fucking stupid it needed it's own post.

The North may have 'won' the war but by letting blacks vote the gave the country to Democrats
Really makes you think

It's simple. James Buchanan, the 1850's version of Hillary Clinton, won the presidency in 1856 instead of John C. Fremont, the 1850's version of Donald Trump. Buchanan was also a probable queer. He dindu nuffin while the South got started after the Great Ape Lincoln was elected and let them get a head start.

OK brief American History Lesson, Special Topic: Civil War:

After the Revolution, the early experiment with confederal republicanism was turning into a shit show. ex. Shays's Rebellion

American superstars, Washington, Franklin, Madison, etc., congregated in Philadelphia to what amounted to as the 2nd Constitutional Convention, circa. 1787, to improve upon the weak Articles of Confederation.

Out came the Constitution, but many of the Founders believed it was either too much or too little.

One of the major controversies was the issue of slavery. A constitution governing a supposedly free country sanctioning the institution of slavery struck many founders as hypocritical. They vehemently fought against the ratification of the Constitution so long as slavery was permitted to exist.

However, slavery was still a critical keystone to the wealth and power of many Southern leaders. At the convention, Southern delegates refused to accept a Constitution that outlawed slavery. Here lies the controversy. Without the raitifcation of the stronger Constitution, the united States (lower case "u" in united) would dissolve and the union lost within years of the revolution.

Ultimately, the Founders COMPROMISED and the anti-slavery Fathers conceded to the South two important clauses within the Constitution.
>Fugitive Slave Clause
>3/5 Clause
The former suspended habeas corpus in retrieving slaves and the latter granted that each slave counted as 3/5s of a person. This made it politically advantageous for states to have large populations of slaves to support slavery sympathetic politicians and presidents. The greater population also increased the representation of slave-heavy Southern states within the House of Representatives, giving enormous political capital to a tiny minority of voting whites in the South. Northern Fathers refused to accept each slave as a whole person because that would practically guarantee that the US would be dominated politically by plantations

law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiv#section3

There is a constitutional mechanisim for admitting new states (Article IV: topics.law.cornell.edu/co...) but none for secession. Presumably it would take the same form that it did in the 19th century: a state legislature, declaring its reasons, would claim to be seceded and set up mechanisims for doing all of the various things the Federal government is responsible for. Then the Federal government would have to decide either to go to war to undo the secession, pursue some kind of negotiation to bring back the wayward state peacably, or accept the secession.

Correct answer.

The 10th Amendment reserved all powers not explicitly enumerated to the Federal government to the states. That includes the power to enforce states to remain in the union. The 10A actually meant something back then and Lincoln's overreach was the beginning of the complete usurpation of states' powers by the Federal government.

There is no restriction on the Feds invading foreign countries though