Redpills on the American Civil War

Was the American Civil War truly about slavery like we were all taught, Sup Forums? Or was it something else?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Loyalist
m.youtube.com/watch?v=uHDfC-z9YaE
historycentral.com/CivilWar/AMERICA/Economics.html
youtube.com/watch?v=FqrZeC2ee0k
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

>civil war

i think you mean the war of northern aggression

It was a about some states wanting to leave the union, after the north won the war they claimed it was about slavery in order to appear on the right moral side.

It was about slavery and there is nothing wrong with slavery.

States rights and the overreach of big brother

Every white Union soldier was a cuckold that fought and died so that they're granddaughters could fuck niggers.

No sympathy. The South was right.

>Was the American Civil War truly about slavery
No, we learn this in Swedish schools even.

Start smoking cigarettes finnboi.

>Was the American Civil War truly about slavery like we were all taught, Sup Forums?


I second that!

It was about slavery if you look the Declarations of Secession from the confederate states they all prominently mention slavery as being one of the leading causes of separation.

Slavery was, indeed, a factor.

The south should never have started bringing black slaves over in the first place, that was their big mistake.

It was about whether or not a state, once a part of the Union, has the right to leave. This is made a complex situation because each state must affirm their loyalty by saying they will never leave, but the ones who said this are dead and the ones alive think they got a shit deal.

They don't have the right to leave, it is the single condition that they enter upon. You ride or die by the US, or you ride and die by the US. We don't care.

There is no exit clause like the EU has. We require steadfast faith, not economic assurance.

What?!

I would expect leftist virtue signalling Sweden to claim it was all about feeling the precious black people.

So basically the confederates were a bunch of autistic ancaps.

But who was really behind this?


The American enterprise started as project to lead mankind to felicity and greatness.

Dividing America seems a little bit like Anti-American Agents were at work to divide and conquer again. Jefferson-Tier treason.

Says the one who attacked first.

The war of northern agression was about the north denying the southern states self-determination.
(((who))) do you think was behind it?

In a way maybe. I dont think they ever intended to have their chattel released. They tried to warn us post war but "muh equality" overruled their experiences around the black race.

I like to think the war was about slavery in its last final moments, only it was the South fighting to preserve it not for their own personal gain, but to ensure the country wouldn't just fall apart because of them.

SPBP
The north couldn't let the south live in peace. They had to be like commies are today, all "NO U DO WHAT I SAY OR ELSE, NO NO NO REEEE"

Soooooo... [can of worms opening]

If the war wasn't about slavery, what was it about?

Edumacate a dumb leaf.

It was kind of about slavery. The Democrats in the south got triggered when Lincoln was elected, mainly cause of his anti-slavery stance, and then seceded.

Emancipation proclamation didnt come in until a few years into the war. And for the first year or so, slaves who escaped to the north were detained a "contraband" and still considered property. Some were put back to slave work by the Union.

Only about 10% of the South actually owned slaves. People like Robert E Lee were anti-slavery too, he even used to run a school where slaves were illegally taught to read and write

Nah the groundwork for the civil war was set for a long time before this. Everyone saw it coming. If you want the Principal causes Slavery was a large one, So was State power vs Federal, and a growing disconnect from the increasingly industrial north and the farming culture of the south.

The American enterprise we think of today isn't the American enterprise of 1860. America had only been around for 80 years, and was seen more as a workprint than as a finished product by a lot of people.

Personally I agree with Sherman that the people in the South who thought they could win were deluded on a fundamental level, but I grew up a quarter mile from Fredericksburg Battlefield so I really hate the modern unthinking acceptance that North = good, South = bad.

Lol good fucking luck with that. US will tear itself at the seams.

Even in the most bluepilled terms, calling the North totally pure and just is stupid. At best it was a preventable tragedy, at worst it was a tragedy due to the outcome. But no matter how you cut it you should never look back on the Civil War with a feeling of happiness.

No it was about economic control over North America.

>As if whites would fight a war to free nigger, instead of destroying the economies of the South by getting rid of slavery.

The only reason the war came about is because the south tried to secede from the North. Abe didn't take kindly to that notion, particularly because it would have split the USA; something that was more or less strictly forbidden in those times.

The war was never about slavery. It was all happenstance that it became part of the war; because the south were slavers, and it just played right into Abe's hands to make allies with the oppressed.

Fundamentally slavery was about labor. People who owned slaves used them as a means to produce something, a product, via their labor.

Naturally, there will be conflict when that means or producing comes under attack. The South were fighting for states rights and their right to determine for themselves without an overreaching government dictating to them.

It was about industry and how to expand it. Those citing gov't overreach are correct too. North didn't have a great of an environment to agriculturally grow. Industrialization in the North was the competitive response to the South's booming agriculture.

The North tried to sell their factory, machinery, production ideas w/ the south, but they didn't need it. They had niggers working cheap as fuck and didn't need factory/machinery production to compete from a business perspective because no other country was industrializing at a faster pace anyway. No justification.

But the North couldn't lose out to the south because that would mean the south would continue to be more profitable, hence giving them more power. So they convinced niggers and bleeding heart whites that "slavery" (a common practice that started well before America) was inhumane. They started convincing them they were being treated unjustly and that they were entitled to human rights, equality, land, income, etc. the north told them if they had it their way, slaves would be free, given land, rights would be recognized and they'd be paid for work.

Basically, they convinced slaves to fight back so they could have the opportunity to just be poor, low-waged, niggers working as slaves in factories, instead. The niggers bought it and realize even today, that they're still fucking slaves to the man because they can't seem to graduate high school w/ a 3rd grade reading level and count change for a fucking $20 w/o a calculator.

1. South was the economic bread basket of the entire US
2. They wanted to succeed
3. Lincoln didnt like that
4. Lincoln pushed the Union Blockade
5. Starved Hundreds of thousands of Southerners

And so the civil war began.

All wars are written by the victors, and used as a cultural weapon by Jews against whites.

So Fort Sumter never happened then?

This. You dipshits need to into history more.

That's fair for the South. What did the North have to win from it?

The South built an empire using a specific labor method (slaves). Then the North started openly threatening the South by telling them their nice little empire would be ending. The South told the North it was their right to acquire wealth as they saw fit. North said no, not this time. South wanted to leave and start their own America, with blackjack and hookers and slaves. North told them they took an Oath of Fealty and by even suggesting you will break it have already broke it.

War were declared.

>they all

But they didn't?

Not about slavery you say? Confederates wanted to protect states rights you say?

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 prohibited the Confederate government from restricting slavery in any way:

>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 2 also prohibited states from interfering with slavery:

>The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

So again, what did the North have to gain from this?

I refuse to believe it was because of
> muh niggers being slaves

White men did not go to die for niggers. What did they go to war for in the north?

I dont mean our modern view on the American enterprise. I mean its true original and revolutionary spirit. The enterprise to lead humanity into a better future... but on the way somewhere this enterprise got corrupted. The outcome is a divided people on every layer and a divided country.


"The citizens of America, placed in the most enviable condition, as the sole lords and proprietors of a vast tract of continent, comprehending all the various soils and climates of the world, and abounding with all the necessaries and conveniences of life, are now, by the late satisfactory pacification, acknowledged to be possessed of absolute freedom and independency. They are, from this period, to be considered as the actors on a most conspicuous theatre, which seems to be peculiarly designated by Providence for the display of human greatness and felicity. Here they are not only surrounded with every thing, which can contribute to the completion of private and domestic enjoyment; but Heaven has crowned all its other blessings, by giving a fairer opportunity for political happiness, than any other nation has ever been favored with."
Also this:
>But no matter how you cut it you should never look back on the Civil War with a feeling of happiness.


To much blood shed from brothers.

>South = morrowind
A bunch of rednecks wanting to own slaves and use religious beliefs as a means to govern other people's behaviors

>North = empire
Stable, civil. Necromancy is allowed as a practice because science > religion

vivec was wrong

>White men did not go to die for niggers.

Apparently they did, I like how it does not count for anything.

The South wasn't blockaded until the war started faggot. It also didn't even produce a third of the country's wheat or corn, it produced cash crops for export. It was never a breadbasket.

Important to note, "working" "paid" slaves w/ income could also be taxed.

In the end, neither side actually gave one single fuck about niggers... Much like today.

You're naive to think that they went to war for niggers without underlying reasons.

What did the North get out of trying to preserve the Union?

Jefferson Davis had a George Washington portrait in his office. The intelligentsia of the South believed they were heirs to the Revolution, and that the North had grown tyrannical like Britain had.

If you really want ammunition against people who don't know shit about the Civil War, read up on the role of slavery in the American revolution. Most of the southern states only participated because of Britain's emancipation streak.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Loyalist

I know they did not but that is the narrative.

What are you implying about Fort Sumter? Usually people use the attack on Fort Sumter as some sort of evidence that the south initiated the war. That is not accurate. One of the biggest reason behind this understanding is because most people today automatically assume that the way things are now are the way they were in 1860. The federal army did not have the authority to tell anyone in South Carolina what to do and they learned that the heard way.

>So again, what did the North have to gain from this?
A shitton of land, natural resources, and citizens if they took back the South, which they did

The North was getting economically obliterated by the means of production that slaves offered. Again, since it was affecting the North but being a symptom of the South, the North really didn't have a stake except to protect what it had to protect: The Oath of Fealty.

The North fought because some upstart hicks were playing the game better than them, but doing it unscrupulously. Alot of the North fought because they were told to, but there was a big sector that fought because they were genuinely disgusted at the South for trying to leave.

Everyone here is underestimating how important an Oath is, and how stringently someone who does believe in its worth will fight to defend it.

Definitely not about slavery. The average person did not care based on polls.

Two things:

1.) North was concerned over balance of power in the transition of territories to states and whether they would be slave or free

2.) North was in an economic depression as England was out-competing them in textiles while the South was making England prosper through their raw materials.

Gerogia.
"With reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic."
Mississippi
"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."
South Carolina
"For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution."

You weren't paying attention if you learned this in school. Slavery was a contributing factor but not the only factor.

when i was in school i was taught that the slaves had it better than they thought

my teacher also made sure everyone knew that he didn't think the war was about slavery

>Alot of the North fought because they were told to

No. Slaves were undercutting the wages of white working class men. This was a central reason for the existence of the abolitionist movement.

And Finally Texas

" that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?"

"Jews"=white. Look at both their skins. White.

opposite, it was about a nigger lover trying to appeal to take over the entire world since succeeding is a state and likein the bill of rights a god given right. to what the fuck we made

> The North was getting economically obliterated by the means of production that slaves offered.
Is this true? Even Adam Smith argued that slavery was not economical. The north had a developing industry in factories, etc. too. They should have been able to exceed the South economically.

>Everyone here is underestimating how important an Oath is, and how stringently someone who does believe in its worth will fight to defend it.
I'd believe this more than anything else in this thread.

I don't think greed was a motivating factor.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=uHDfC-z9YaE
Interview with a civil war vet In the 40s.
Must of been a hell of a thing to be live in cowboy days, fight in the civil war and live to see ww2

And UK's declaration of war on Nazi Germany mentions Poland.

Does that mean WWII was about Poland hurdur?

Soldiers on both sides were young and inexperienced; most were in their teens or early
twenties. In the North, they were farmers and factory workers and newly arrived Irish
immigrants; some were African Americans—both escaped slaves and, after 1862, free
blacks who were recruited for the United States Colored Troops. In the South, they
were farmers, mechanics, and students. Most were volunteers who joined for the cash
bounty or the monthly salary ($13 for privates in the Union army; $11 in the
Confederate army). Many were draftees unable to pay a substitute to go in their
stead. Many died in their f irst months from illness or wounds. Those who survived
learned to be soldiers in the daily drills and discomforts of camp life, the exhaustion
of miles-long marches, and the dry-mouth terror of battle.

Scientific polls weren't used in the US until FDR's election.

Go on...

So you decide to go an bombard a fort and launched a direct attack against Federal troops? That is an act of war till you idiots did that you may have gotten away with it.

>quarter mile from Fredericksburg

Fredericksburg - isnt that the famous lodge where Washington was part of?


Still not figured out whether masonry is just jewish kabbalah or a group of decent people with good intentions in mind

it started with slaves being brought over and their wasnt 1 southern "state" quote unquote in it when the bill OF RIGHTS was wrote.

what the fuck. >you.jpg

don't know, but it was a mistake either way

States rights to practice slavery

Read the thread you fucking cuck

like all other wars.. they story they give you is bullshit..

The war was about the south wanting to leave
the north didn't really care about freeing slaves it was just a by product of the war.
free slaves = south crushed financially and even lost a significant amount of manpower.

they teach this in school. I learned this back in middleschool...

And they did exceed the South economically. The South was a backwards agrarian society composed of a small segment of wealthy slave owning whites, poor whites adversely affected by slavery, and slaves. The entire economy of the South was cotton and tobacco.

This was well done

Saying the civil war was about slavery is just a way of simplifying history. It's the same concept that is used in u.s highschool where they teach that ww1 started because archduke was assassinated or ww2 because Hitler invaded Poland when in reality there were many other pieces moving on the chessboard that ultimately led to a fight

how could the south be so stupid by enslaving black people

LOOK AT OUR COUNTRY NOW
YOU BROUGHT THEM ALL HERE

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

no we didnt build a utopia.

we wrote a Consitutition and it says, states have right to succeed..

they did over a destruction of a bill of right

I dont know how to put it in a way a "GERMAN" who has had his country opeend up to a bunch of syrians /sarcasm make him understand

>an act of war

Not sure if troll or just stupid.

>muh fort sumter

Why don't you read rather than just declare things like a retard.

The North had developing industry, all in machines and idiots to march to their deaths to turn the nobs. Those people had rights (eventually) and standard (for the time) working conditions. That all cuts into your bottom line. Expensive machines that need repair and replacement as tech rapidly advances, people you have to pay a decent (again, for the time) wage and fight lawsuit over lawsuit about how much liability you as the owner have.

Or you can have slaves and treat them as you want, work them to death. The North was getting obliterated economically.

It didn't help that the South was using its profits to bolster itself and its new economic partners, who incidentally weren't really keen on the North's bullshit.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Loyalist


Ah ok. So the crown used the Negros as soldiers in the revolution to fight them and appeal to have the better morality then the American brethren?

> concept of abolition
I think that was the British desu

Checked! Kek is with us...

>vivec was wrong

i hate fags like you

Lincoln offered the south the right to own slaves forever if they did not secede.
The south refused his offer because slavery was a minor issue.

The amancapation proclamation was very specific and only affected slaves in states "under confederate control".
4 confederate slave states were under northern control.
2 slave states were part of the union.
These 6 states still had slavery after the war.

West Virginia split off from Virginia DURING the civil war and joined the union, AS A SLAVE STATE.

Explain that last one especially...

It was about slavery. The root of it can be found in things like the Missouri Compromise.

Yeah it was about states rights, the right to own slaves and have the practice spread across the country.

I was under the impression that there is no right to secede but an unwritten necessity to do so if it ever comes to the point. It's why the 2nd amendment is there.

It was about imposing the (((central bank))) on the US. Andrew Jackson had abolished the 2nd Bank of the United States only in the 1840s. (((They))) sought to destroy our country in retaliation.

It was about an overbearing federal government dictating things to the States it had no business doing (if you take the South's part in the conflict). Weak vs. Strong federal government was debated since before the Constitution was written.

t. Deluded Southerner.

The rest of the states just had ordinances of secession which did not state reasons. The 4 we have that list grievances are from Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, and South Carolina. they are great reads and i will say that slavery is not the sole issue but it was an important one.

Poland was the immediate cause of WW2 though. Not sure what your point is.

the Southerners wanted free trade with Europe, to sell cotton, the north wanted tariffs to protect New England's textile mills. this was one of the factors that is covered up.

>South unfortunately had no shot
>Greatly Outnumbered
>Virtually no industry beyond agriculture
>Yankee naval blockade
>Euros stayed neutral

>no we didnt build a utopia.


I think Washingtons intentions were the opposite. A true revolution from the midst of the people - not Top-Down from rich and influential elites. I really do believe the American enterprise was originally exactly this: An utopia.


Here a quote from Washington:

"The citizens of America, placed in the most enviable condition, as the sole lords and proprietors of a vast tract of continent, comprehending all the various soils and climates of the world, and abounding with all the necessaries and conveniences of life, are now, by the late satisfactory pacification, acknowledged to be possessed of absolute freedom and independency. They are, from this period, to be considered as the actors on a most conspicuous theatre, which seems to be peculiarly designated by Providence for the display of human greatness and felicity. Here they are not only surrounded with every thing, which can contribute to the completion of private and domestic enjoyment; but Heaven has crowned all its other blessings, by giving a fairer opportunity for political happiness, than any other nation has ever been favored with."


Also it is not me opening any borders :^)

Thanks

Read this. Education will set you free.
historycentral.com/CivilWar/AMERICA/Economics.html

thats all bullshit about north south. they controlled both of it and where buying it out. the war was to buy it out the north got boght out cause they had too many insurance companies and other stupid shit. and industry isnt a term we should even fucking use.

there called godamn factories morons. its like u got to announcce yuour fucking newly made up era';s to who fuckign cares. assembl lines where called an upgrade, but, it doesnt fucking even matter.

where just in a state that was oh god I KNOW A video that will COMPLETELY explain my position and it goes past but yea ok i thought this but later too aswellf uck.

youtube.com/watch?v=FqrZeC2ee0k

teh timeline

the timeline proves this is a cancer, which is what im talking about. thats my point.

Mostly because slaves were property and to remove them was theft.

The thing they never mention...

Any given southern state had the freedom to end slavery. No southern states were going to MAKE their neighboring state a slave-legal place.

Of course, the south-tards didn't actually realize that niggers were people, and it took slaughter to make them wrap their head around that.

Retarded ape-people they might be, but the constitution still applies to them. Unfortunately.

The north lied cheated and stole from the south while looking down on them and generally being intolerable lying Yankee rats for the entire post revolutionary war period, and then when a radical antisouthern president got elected without a single southern vote, the south said fuck it and hastily tried to break away.

They weren't stupid. They knew the endgame was the abolition of slavery. Lincoln did it in the South first to undermine then.

Either way, the issue wasn't slavery itself at the start. It was more about the spread of slavery.