FACE

PALM

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.org/details/originoflatewart00luntge
twitter.com/AnonBabble

If the south hadn't chimped out and seceded, or if the presidents before lincoln weren't complete cucks, we wouldn't have had one.

Reminder that 'slavery caused the Civil War' is a meme

lol whole world confused by area man's rhetorical question

>ask a hypothetical question
>liberals jump on it claiming hes a revisionist retard
also
>andrew jackson
>muh trail of tears and slave ownership
the prairie niggers got conquered. cry some more.

actually """states' rights""" is the meme, it was about the states' right to own slaves. All the bullshit about the federal government and tyranny was to mobilize the poor whites who didn't really care about slavery, but would fight against "Northern aggression"

ITT: OP thinks he knows history

Why is Hitler?

>CNN

UGH fuck are you stupid. research tariff of abominations. Northern jews fucking over the south.

What did he mean by this? I feel like Trump has been dropping little hints for Sup Forumslacks here and there.

Wrong. It was about the north raping the southern farmers into being poor through taxation.

If it was about the right to own slaves, why did General E Lee free the slaves he inherited? Why did the south let blacks fight amongst whites for the same salary, while the north was segregated and paid blacks half of what whites got? Why did Lincoln say he doesn't care about free g the slaves, he'll do what he has to do to keep the union together? Why was their a proposed amendment from the north that would let the confederacy keep slaves if they stopped fighting, but they rejected it?

But no, you're right. Please tell me more about how the South were evil racists fighting for slavery.

And the North was chomping at the bit to fight too? What issue was pressed there? Surely you understand there was little popular support for violent abolition among Northerners.

If you want to understand the true motivations behind the U.S. Civil War... follow the cotton.

Oh you poor idiot

The north didnt rely on slaves at all, so the issue is that they just decided to ban slavery without any input from the people who actually relied on them. Therefore the south felt it had to seceed in order to have their interests represented in their new government.

So yes, slavery caused the civil war, but its much more complicated than "oy vey the big mean stupid southerners could let go of their slaves"

No, the Civil War was over slavery. The issue is the framing.

People think the civil war was the glorious northerners fighting the horrible racist southerners.

In actuality, both sides didn't give a single shit about black people. The north was using its influence to try and corner the south into being the only slavery area of the country so they could effectively control them. The southern economy was completely reliant upon slave labor for it to actually function (by the way, the north gladly used cheap, SLAVE PICKED COTTON in their textile mills). The North had already forced several laws to hamper the south, for example: Slaves could no longer be bought from outside the country and had to be bred here, and new states were often forced to being slave-free states.

The South, correctly feeling like they were being oppressed by the north, separated. The North, refusing to let large chunks of land and large economies defect, went to war to get them back.

Abraham Lincoln himself said if he could win the war by freeing every slave or freeing no slaves, he'd pick whichever. He gave no shits about black people, and even said he didn't think they could be in the same society as whites. The northerners didn't give a shit about black people either.

Slavery was the reason, but the greater issue behind it was that the north and south both functioned as almost separate countries, as the north would always vote together and so would the south. It was like two large coalitions.

he's right.

the civil war was jewery

there's a reason we're not literally in the streets right now killing liberals.

>The north didnt rely on slaves at all
Another idiot

before this stupid thread gets even shittier:

only jews owned slaves

The south was completely fighting for slavery, but not in the context of them being horrible racists who are willing to die to keep the black man down. They did it because without slavery their economies are useless. Hell, the South today is still one of the poorest regions in America, and it all started after the civil war.

>why was there a civil war

to keep the country together

a divided america is vulnerable to outside threats, otherwise, geographically, we have some of the best resources and natural defenses in the world

it just happened to be over the south claiming states' rights and slavery and chimping out

If The Donald was truly based then this would be a very oblique reference to the "J" Question. As it is it it just amusing.

DO NOT ANSWER HERE. INSTEAD REDPILL HIM BY FLOODING HIS FEED.

GO, FLY (You) FOOLS!

Maybe because everyone in the south are double digit iq rural retards. Only the 1% had slaves and they would find other ways to keep their wealth. If anything the lack of slavery helped people have jobs.

There didn't need to be a civil war. A deal was worked out to buy and release the slaves just like in Europe. And whatever issues there were between the North and the South would have been solved peacefully if that issue was taken care of. When Lincoln went to the banks to get a loan they put the interest so high that it was impossible to do that way. The bankers were influenced by August Belmont who worked for the Rothschilds and also was the Democratic National Chairperson. Although in public he played nice as a NYC patriot, he did his Rothschild duty to make sure that war happened and was expensive, for the bank.
Either Trump is ignorant when he asks why did it happen, or he wants people to look into it and he's playing 5 million dimensional chess and just pointed at the Jew.

This is correct... the money, as always. Also read Tecumsehs autobio, he talks about the activities of those who may not be mentioned in connection to the war.

>face palm

Pfft.

If anyone but Lincoln had been President, there VERY likely would have been no Civil War.

The North would have simply acceded to the South's demands, OR allowed the South to secede without a war.

Trump's question is a legitimate question, that even great admirers of Lincoln (such as James McPherson) not to mention Lincoln's detractors ask: Could the differences between the North and the South have been worked out without a war?

(((Interests))) Seriously you south faggots are the worse. The people at the top were the only ones that really benifited from the slavery, they jewed you into a war so their pockets could stay lined from cheap labor.

You know whats worse for jobs in agriculture then mexicans working for under minimum wage? Niggers doing it for free.

>Letting the south Secede

No. That is not an option I will ever accept. I support the union going to war to get the south to come back in.

However, it should have never have gotten to the point that the south wanted to succeed. The issue was not the civil war, but the incredible animosity between states that lead to it. You had a majority of the country actively working to undermine a large minority. That is the fucked up part.

To destroy state sovereignty and fundamentally change the nature of the government of the United States. Lincoln didn't free anybody. He enslaved us all.

You sound like you've read George Lunt's take on the Southern Revolt. Have you?

Far and away the most trustworthy and level-headed author on the Civil War I've read.

archive.org/details/originoflatewart00luntge

>There didn't need to be a civil war. A deal was worked out to buy and release the slaves just like in Europe. And whatever issues there were between the North and the South would have been solved peacefully if that issue was taken care of. When Lincoln went to the banks to get a loan they put the interest so high that it was impossible to do that way. The bankers were influenced by August Belmont who worked for the Rothschilds and also was the Democratic National Chairperson. Although in public he played nice as a NYC patriot, he did his Rothschild duty to make sure that war happened and was expensive, for the bank.

Title of a book that sets out this theory, please, which I've never heard before.

>the south
>white plantation owners
>chimped out

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I haven't, but it sounds like an interesting read. I'll have to check it out, user. Thanks!

>Tfw being a history major/history teacher is finally sort of relevant.

>The North would have simply acceded to the South's demands, OR allowed the South to secede without a war
Delusional. The South simply did not have the power to dictate federal policy and the fed could not let them secede.

The civil war should've never been fought period. Especially not over slavery. No modern country ever went to war because of slavery. It ended peacably.

>OR allowed the South to seced

That was never an option.

But another thing that wasn't an option was the South allowing themselves to be continuously economically buttfucked by policies implemented by the north.

There was literally nothing wrong with slavery.

Lincoln hated neggers he would have ship them back to Africa , instead he attacked the South for globalist

face palm why?

The slave trade was dead. There's no reason the south kept doing what they do. I know slaves cost as much as ferraris pretty much - but it didn't mean they couldn't have a system where they used them - just couldn't own them. (they came up with one)

Trump knows that Lincoln was killing Americans because he failed as a negotiator.

The auto-genocide under Lincoln is not that different than the auto-genocide under Pol Pot.

Confirmed, the left thinks peaceful solutions are not just practically challenging, but morally unacceptable.

Lincoln was elected on a platform of a **gradual** (like 30-50 years) abolition of slavery.

He likely wouldn't have been elected if the firebrand Southern Democrats hadn't split the Democratic Party.

But once Lincoln was elected, he proceeded to put in place his *gradualist* policy (James Oakes explains this very well in Freedom National), and the South chimped out and seceded.

If the South had been smart, they could have skipped secession, and worked with Lincoln as best they could, because the Southerners were, in general, *far* better politicians than the Republicans/Whigs (as the Democrats demonstrated after the Civil War -- when they essentially won the peace after losing the war).

Learn how to google shit for yourself, you lazy fuck.

>means.
Thanks for this...

If we had a civil war right now, the guys in leadership positions for "the right" would be fags like Richard Spencer and Mike Cernovich.

I shit you not.

Yes there is. Slavery was a horrible decision.

If you're 1488 mode you should be particularly against it, because the only reason we have such a large black population is because of it.

August Belmont, original name (((August Schönberg)))

Sup Forums is always right.

>1 post by this ID

lol no

You missed the biggest and most obvious point.

Democrats in both the North and South were pro-slavery.

It's not the North v the South; it's the Democrats of the North and the Democrats of the South v the Republicans of the North.

...

Look, it's hypothetical - it's all counterfactual speculation - but from what I know of my study of American history and the behavior of Presidents, I think it *very* likely that *any* President other than Lincoln wouldn't have had the backbone to go to war -- and even if, maybe, they had gone to war, they would have accepted some dubious peace terms (as the Copperheads and Northern Democrats pressed for) when the war turned torturously long, rather than holding out for unconditional surrender.

>south is full of double digit iq retards
>south is full of blacks
really activates my almonds

>1 post by this ID

>oy vey the big mean stupid southerners couldn't let go of their slaves
Not actually what I said. It was the Southern economic elites that benefited from the use of slaves, and so they tried to leave the Union in order to protect their gravy train. They used lofty rhetoric about tyranny and northern aggression to trick the poor into fighting for the economic interests of the rich. Lincoln did what he felt he needed to do to preserve the nation, which is a reasonable response for the executive branch of the federal government

The Confederacy was a conscript state, you knew that right?

This is how conscripts work:

>Thugs come to your house
>"There is a war, you either fight for us or we burn your house down"
>That's the end of that.

Both sides were like this, in the North there were firing squads at the ready for people who were drafted, but never showed.

This concept that it was about slavery, states rights, Lincoln, trade agreements; that's all horseshit. It was about the ideals of politicians who lived and died over 150 years ago. People bring it up like it's the worst evil ever in America when it doesn't even touch on actual disruptive things that happened in recent memory.

Basically propagandists have boiled the history out of the Civil War to make it a political statement, and you should feel ashamed and foolish for buying into it.

Well, it sounds like a bs rabbit hole of a conspiracy theory, anyway.

Probably why you're reluctant to name a specific book title, eh mate?

sage thread guys

...

Civil War was agrarian and financial in nature, not because of 'the Rights of the people'.

Which civil war is he talking about? Im seeing you faggots argue about the US civil war, but he could have been refrencing the Syrian civil war.

>please tell me more about how the South were evil racists fighting for slavery
You should learn to read kid. I didn't mention racism once in my post. It was totally about the economic elites in the South who didn't want to lose the wealth they were gaining from free labor. And I never said anything about the north being the "good guys" and fighting against racism. Lincoln just wanted to keep the country together, which is the proper role of the Federal government.

I just gave the most broad explanation. If you wanted to go deeper, then yes: The REASON the north was bullying the south was because The North was interested in expanding it's own financial endeavors as well as their own power.

As I said, the Northern States and Southern States were primarily interested in themselves, and the north saw a chance to get the leg up on the south.

Reminder that Sup Forums actually voted for this retard.

hes right though

I think I agree with Trump on this one. What was it? 600,000 white men had to die? Dead white men...long, long ago. Meh? While this white dude, for one, need no repatriations or EBT, because I'm not a little bitch about long, long ago shit. I think it's a shame that they are never mentioned much after all of that. But history is wrote by the victors.

LE BULUMBF BTFO HOW WILL HE EVER RECOVER?!?!!1?>!
RIGHT FELLOW Sup Forumssters? WE HATE BLIUBKLF DONT WE? FUCK THE FASCISTS! WE SHOULD JOIN AN ORIGANIZATION THAT IS ANTIFASCIST!

sage

No problem anons, hope you find it worthwhile.

A few nuggets of info on the author and work: Born in Massachusetts the day before 1804. Published this book in 1866, and after he finalized the publishing process had to carry a wheelbarrow around for the rest of his life to support his watermelon-sized testicles. Lunt traces the origin of the issue to Abolitionist proto-SJW extremism, the Abolitionist HQ of course being in Boston.

only indirectly. it was costing the slave owners more to feed, house, clothe, and provide welfare for their slaves because the cost of living had gone up. it was simply more economical to "free" them.

reminder that you haven't been banned or bludgeoned because the people that vote for him value free speech

>and even said he didn't think they could be in the same society as whites.

Well, he wasn't wrong

it's a good question to ask, what is upsetting people

are they pretending?

Because Lincoln was the original warmongering, statist, corporate puppet who wanted more control over the American people.

Literal shit tier president.

Sure, shutting down every media outlet that doesn't suck his fat orange cock on the daily as 'fake news' definitely shows how much you value the first amendment.

god i hate this jew country after 1850

the civil war was very much about democracy and the agency of states. lincoln is the closest thing to a dictator the united states has ever had. attaching civil rights to the war is propaganda to make us look good after unconstitutionally subjugating our own people.

If only muh Andy Jackson was there.
- The Donald

not him but how have any media outlets been "shut down"? they're allowed to report their fake news. that's free speech.

>there are people on this board who unironically believe the south didn't get off easy

Shameful

The question was "Why war?"
Not
"What caused the civil war?"

He's implying that War is not the only answer.

But apparently normies are to fucking retarded to understand his point, however vague it is.

Failure to comply to the federal corp leads to coercive violence.

The Nullification Crisis, the conflict between the federal government and the state of South Carolina, who were outraged at the high tariffs imposed by the federal government that aided (northern) industry but harmed slave states.

Leftists can't quite grasp this whole freedom of speech thing. If the media can say what they want about Trump, because of freedom of speech....he can tell them they are full of shit, because of his own freedom of speech. And don't even get me started on that Berkeley shit and political correctness, which are all deliberate attempts by leftists to BAN free speech. The day of the rope can't get here soon enough.

Thems the breaks kid, your nation makes laws you damn well follow them. Don't like it? Then vote them out.
You pansy anti-Nationalists disgust me

>They used lofty rhetoric about tyranny and northern aggression to trick the poor into fighting for the economic interests of the rich.
HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF

wrong. slavery was naturally dying off and the confederate leaders were slavery aboloshinist. fuck off with your kang tier revisionism. maybe read a book that was written in that time instead of a government approved text.

>muh free speech
>The day of the rope can't get here soon enough.
So much for free speech from the right :^)

Thank you for correcting the record Betsy DeVos

CNN needs to be gassed

This should be the fucking headline.

FDR was actually the closest to a dictator

An imaginary world of freeing black people and women, only to wind up freeing yourself.

I would love CNN to answer this question actually.

Seems that govt and private interests wanted to control the niggers instead of letting people control their own personal niggers. Niggers come in handy.

Found the nigger, keep on believing that the North were the good guys and they wanted slavery gone.

the North were being Jews

>ask rhetorical question
>media spins it

Good stuff as always

>The north was using its influence to try and corner the south into being the only slavery area of the country so they could effectively control them.

The north literally made slavery illegal in the south and kept it legal in the north. Do you actually know what Lincoln even did as president or are you too lazy to research it yourself?

Weren't (you) folks the first batch of slaves, Rednecks, sent to the colonies by the King of England?
Then didn't shiploads of lice infested tater boys get off one ship in New York to be outfitted and shipped off to fight the Confederacy during the War between the States?

Seems you drunken hooligans were good for one thing, dying in captivity.

>"Free"
Paying the housing, bedding, feeding, and wellbeing costs of a minor village is free.

Eventually y'all will arrive at the reckoning of a lifetime - Slavery in the South was a better and more secure life than laboring in Northern factories. Lose an arm on the plantation? You get to operate the gin. Lose an arm in a Northern factory? You lose your employment or income.
Do not forget the Civil War happened during an age of no Trade Unions. In comparison, Slavery was serene.

Would have been cheaper to buy all the slaves and send them back to Africa. And better for everyone but the slaves.

He's right. Lincoln could have worked something but he refused and the south said fuck that this isn't a dictatorship. Once again the lugenpresse lies for a clickbait title.