The civil war was about slavery

Prove me wrong. Protip: You can't, they literally said it was, and no amount of rethorical kikery and sophism can change this fact
youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=uHDfC-z9YaE
civilwarcauses.org/corner.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Power
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Why do I need a youtube video? From the Mississippi Declaration of Secession:

>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

muh cotton

Fun Fact: Lincoln wanted to send the slaves to Liberia, Africa in order to preserve the Union and prevent a Civil War.

Everyone in the 1860s were hwhite and racist.

>the Civil War was over slavery
>the North invaded the South to end slavery, even though it didn't end slavery within its borders until after the war

wew, lads...

Money is the root of all evil

>implying slavery wasn't ran by jews

That nigger loving Republican Lincoln ruined this nation. Now that nigger jew loving Republican Trump is ruining America. How dare he try to make me pay someone legal a fair wage to clean my toilet. These fucking republicans don't understand that niggers and spics need welfare. Fucking Republicans always trying to free the black man. First from the chains of slavery and now from the chains of welfare.

It was about the money spent on slaves. I wouldn't say it was about slavery though because the confederates were against importation of slaves.

youtube.com/watch?v=uHDfC-z9YaE

I remain impartial, but listen to this.

of course it fucking was.
Slaves were routinely worked to death. The plantation was a death camp.

Confederates were the real cucks... Really makes you think...
exactly lad. This "muh cibil war was not about slavery" meme needs to die. Fucking nu-pol

>end slavery by making us all slaves to the Federal Government

>spend the modern equivalent of $60,000 on a slave
>work them to death

Yeah, its like someone saying World War one was caused by the assasination of Franz Ferdinand (not on the same scale of course.) True it was. But it would be retarded to just say thats the sole cause, there you go. and be done with it.
It might be the standard in US education system or whatever, but if your ever going to make an actual statemant about the CSA and want it to be respected you have to realise its not just black and white. Its more black but slightly lighter. And I think people argue so much that it isnt about slavery because thats not why they themselves like the Confederacy, they like it for other aspects like Culture, E. Lee. and so they downplay the slavery since thats not what they want it to be about. Racism, maybe but slavery no.

>The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him 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. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

>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. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. 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. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail.

The federal government was trying to seize property (slaves) without due process and in violation of the constitution in order to weaken the south's national influence in favor of the (((north))). Simple as that.

>That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

civilwarcauses.org/corner.htm

You're right, of course. But the internet exposed a lot of people to discredited crap like the Lost Cause myth. More and more people find this stuff every day, and a certain percentage are going to believe it.

>commie democrats chimp out over a Republican president trying to take away their pet niggers
where have I heard this before...

aka about slavery

Why didn't Lincoln free the slaves in union states with the emancipation proclamation if it was about slavery

Give me one good reason why we shouldn't have niggers in the fields and under the lash. They were happier as slaves than they are as crackheads in and out of prison.

It was more economical to work a slave to death most of the time. Of course, plantations near civilization and the prying eyes of northerners could not get away with this practice as easily.

who cares
>t. the future of America

It was about federal tyrany.
I wish Lee was in charge from the get go, would have captured washin22gron DC ans won. French, english, and Spanish would have taken back mexico.

Jesus, what a better world. Fuck yankees.

In what world would it be economical to ruin an expensive capital asset?

The north, by the way, only opposed slavery because they used cheaper Irish indentured servants to do their dirty work, often in similarly harsh conditions.

I think this has to be the dumbest thing I ever heard. The huge majority of slave masters took good care of their slaves. Such good care in fact most happily continued to work for their former masters after the war. The cruel, abusive, evil slave master was extremely rare because slaves weren't cheap. It's like saying there's sense in crashing your car on purpose and go buy another.

so you see, the absolute state of niggers in this day of ours, is the single most embarrassing thing to a yankee/liberal, because the fact that nobody has put them there but themselves undoes a 100+ year old belief at their very core that all men are created equal. in fact they hate this and themselves so much that they have come about to hating god and eschewing him entirely, that an act of creation might not even be considered in the question of what to do with the inferior race.

the civil war was not fought to end slavery, but it was in a sense fought "over" slavery. it was a war against that reality -- a temper tantrum, carried out with rifle and cannon.

... And eventually passed amendments abolishing slavery...

Whew... Whew indeed...

There were slave states in the union

Sure. The north was trying take millions of dollars of property from the south. Which, being a violation of the constitution and the rights of the southern states, started an avoidable war.

Only passed because people called out the union for the obvious hypocrisy in ending slavery in the south but not in union states.

If only...

of course confedecucks wanted a bunch of black people in their land because they were too lazy to work their own fields

The Irish were much worse off because they were leased, not owned. In the last few months of service it was normal for them to be worked half to death.

Poetry, better words of wisdom have not been written since.

I don't believe that, people tend to take care of their own property. And they weren't cheap.

I don't understand the argument. If the war was a moral war to end slavery, then why was slavery still legal in the north until after the war?

>The cruel, abusive, evil slave master was extremely rare because slaves weren't cheap.
among white slave owners, you mean. black owners of slaves were quite cruel. after all they had enslaved them in the first place, sold them to jews, and had them shipped in chains on a boat to manhattan where they'd be auctioned off to wealthy elites.

It was a logistical impossibility to process cotton without slave labor at the time. Do you think Washington, Jefferson, and the other founding fathers owned slaves because they were lazy?

It was over slavery.
Which lead to it being about economic situation
Which lead to state rights
Which lead to war
It should be a reminder that the federal government is going to win against those who don't get in line.

yes

haha you're fucking retarded. they were clothed, fed, and housed much better than most of the poorest whites

This.

Remember that over 6 million negros died at the hands of the confederates. Never forget!

So you admit that you're an anti-American nigger lover?

The Iraq War was about giving freedom to Iraqis. Prove me wrong, George Bush LITERALLY said it was.

De jure vs De Facto. In most of the north, Slavery was barely practiced, and so there wasn't as much pressure to abolish the institution as there was in the South.

>the federal government is going to win against those who don't get in line

At the time, there wasn't a federal government as we know it today. The modern federal government was created by FDR. The federal government back then was more akin to a confederacy, sort of like the EU today.

>I don't believe that, people tend to take care of their own property. And they weren't cheap.
that's the narrative the southerners want everyone to believe... But you know it's bullcrap. slaves were worked hard, hard enough to kill them after a while (who wants to take care of an old slave?). if they didn't work, they were beaten to death.

Slavery was widely practiced in Missouri and West Virginia.

Checked. Work makes free, suh!

Delaware

I'm against anti-white confedecucks who wanted to keep blacks in the country, racemixed to the point where there's hardly any black out there without some white blood in him, encouraged them to breed so they'd have more slaves, assassinated a president who wanted to deport them because they were asshurt, had a jewish attorney general/secretary of state/secretary of war, the FIRST opnely jewish man to have these offices in US history btw, that started a war that killed 620000 americans because they didn't want to till their own fields, became the most blacked states in the union and to this very fucking day keep shilling about MUH FUCKING BASED BLACKS WAVING CONFEDERATE FLAGS AMIRITE GUISE?

>muh Uncle Tom's Cabin

The book was written by a northerner who had never witnessed a plantation.

It makes no sense to abuse your capital assets. Older slaves can still perform light tasks or supervise younger slaves. There's no scenario where it pays to drive your tractor into a tree, just as it doesn't pay to work someone to death.

You laugh but look at the increase of anti confederate stuff coming out of Hollywood now. Schlomo's changing his message. Feel shame you filthy goyim and stop voting for Trump remember the 100 gorillion.

The great irony of the civil war is that the south would have likely abolished slavery all on its own in the decades to follow had there been no war, just like the carribean and South American nations did which relied far more on slave labor. But thanks to all the 19th century sjws going around throwing tantrums over slaves we had the bloodiest war in American history

>Lincoln was going to deport them guys, I promise, he just wanted to give them Citizenship and Equal Protection first

You're a dunce. The Liberia movement had already fizzled out by the time Lincoln was killed.

Lincoln supported the Jews in the union and was supported by Karl Marx himself with European marxist volunteers. You're probably the same moron from the Dixie general who got told Lincoln wasn't sending blacks anywhere because blacks refused to go and he said he wasn't willing to force them to go to Liberia and the colonies in Panama and the Caribbean.

>I think this has to be the dumbest thing I ever heard. The huge majority of slave masters took good care of their slaves. Such good care in fact most happily continued to work for their former masters after the war. The cruel, abusive, evil slave master was extremely rare because slaves weren't cheap. It's like saying there's sense in crashing your car on purpose and go buy another.

Southerners knew the jig was up, and started treating their slaves a little better as the 1800's progressed. Mechanization was also reducing the workload of slaves.
Slave owners knew how to kill slaves with labor. They knew how long a slave would last doing what job, and assigned work accordingly.

>Yes goy, the confederates were yourguys, Judah P. Benjamin was fucking based, southern jews were ourguys

(you)

The whole practice was inefficient, which is why the South was so poor to begin with. Mechanization and the increased use of cheaper indentured servants would have phased out the negros within a decade or so.

Why do you keep posting elaborate fanfiction user? Was it real in your mind?

More than anything, the Lost Cause serves as a great example of why you've got to watch out for historical revisionism.

People are always going to reinterpret history to suit their agenda. Southern "culture", especially worship of the confederacy, is built on lies designed to save face.

>Protip: You can't
1. If the Civil War was about slavery, then why did the Emancipation Proclamation apply only to the states that seceded and not to the slave-owning states that didn't?
2. If the Civil War was about slavery, then why did the South call their new government a confederacy, meaning a weak central government that could not overstep its power by dictating to the states like the federal government did?
3. If the Civil War was about slavery, why did the confederate states seek only to leave the union, not to attack and control the northern states as the northern states sought to attack and control the south?
4. If the Civil War was about slavery, then how did the minority of southerners who owned slaves talk the vast majority that didn't into fighting in that war?

These points are irrefutable. The only possible conclusion is that the Civil War was NOT about slavery.

The south was all for states' rights when it came to owning slaves.

But when the northern states all exercised their right to ignore the Fugitive Slave act, they got majorly pissed off.

The South are hypocrites

>we have a right to breed niggers for profit
The final red pill is that the confederacy was a jewish revolution.

No jews are our guys and the of course the kike bankers of jew york funded the Unions war efforts and were the first to come down south post war to steal everything. Yankees died to enrich kike carpetbaggers and free niggers. Pathetic.

politically yes, but those who actually fought in the confederate army fought for independence.

>ok, slave owners didn't treat slaves that bad during the 19th century because they knew slavery was going to end, but you should have seen how they were treated in the 18th century

Are you retarded? There's no scenario where abusing a $60,000 capital investment makes sense.

>built on lies

The truth is that politics, and life in general, can never be explained by simple causality. It is simultaneously true that states rights and slavery caused the civil war.

and it's pretty retarded to build your entire "culture" and "identity" around retards who waged the dumbest war ever, were literally owned by jews, and LOST, got their young men murdered, their daughters violated, their land occupied and lost their sovereignty for decades

Confedecucks have got to be the dumbest clowns in the world

Of course it was going to end. Machines was making slavery obsolete and the south's biggest figures like Robert E. Lee was anti-slavery.

Do you often abuse your oven because you can or do you take good care of it because ovens are expensive and you don't want to waste money constantly buying new ones? It doesn't make sense to fucking abuse slaves so they couldn't work and they'd die and you'd be forced to shell out a lot of money to buy more. Especially by the Civil War period importing slaves was illegal so you had to get ones born in the country. You also are ignoring that the huge majority of slaves had no personal issues with their masters and stayed with them after the war and often praised their masters for taking good care of them. Try reading a book instead of watching Hollywood propaganda about the period.

If the secession wasn't about slavery, then why did the Confederate Constitution have explicit clauses protecting slavery?

Even if they wanted to, a state in the Confederation would legally never be able to abolish slavery.

You are still wrong.

The war was about Secession. Secession was about slavery, but the war was not. In fact, before the emancipation proclamation, Lincoln threatened to free the slaves unless the South rejoined the Union. Why would he do that if his war aim was the free the slaves? Was he surrendering?

>Southerners knew the jig was up, and started treating their slaves a little better as the 1800's progressed.
What a total load of kike bullshit! In all of those years of slavery, we have a picture of one and only one slave who was beaten to the point of scarring on his back. The owner fired the overseer who did it to him, and nursed him back to health over a period of a month. Then the nigger ran away anyway and he was probably only beaten for being a complete prick in the first place. Slaves were always well treated, like horses, because they were very expensive, like horses. No, I take that back. Horses were far cheaper.

>Really makes you think...
How come you faggots always write that phrase when you clearly HAVEN'T thought at all?

>implying its better to base your identity around retards who started a war that killed 600k in order to free negros

>It was more economical to work a $60,000 slave to death most of the time.
Apparently you can't even do third-grade arithmetic.

Confederates revolted because they thought Lincoln would stop them from breeding niggers and subsequently increasing their representation in Congress. The slave states could buy more representation in congress by acquiring more property (slaves), while the free states could not. Thus, the southerners who didn't own slaves were put in a quandary as they would have less representation in Congress if slavery went away.

People need to become familiar to the concept of "slave power".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Power

Anyone who continues to defend slavery is nothing more than a kike arguing that if he breeds more niggers he has right to more representation in congress.

>There were slave states in the union
And the Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to them. You know, because the North cared so much about ending slavery and stuff.

It was about slavery in as much as slavery was related to the economics.
It was not about the morality of slavery or the treatment of blacks.
The north was against slavery because they didn't want blacks.
They also didn't want the south to have slaves due to the economic advantage.
The south splitting away meant the North would need to compete in a market where they couldn't influence the price of the raw goods from the south.
The majority of the south did not own slaves and didn't fight for slave owners. They fought because their land was invaded.

>a president unilaterally taking millions in private property

sic semper tyrannis

>It is simultaneously true that states rights and slavery caused the civil war.
You're right that history is generally a lot more complicated than can be described in a blanket statement.

Slavery wasn't the only cause, but it was by far one of the biggest. And many of the other causes often led back to slavery, indirectly or directly.

The "states' rights" kind of rings hollow when you remember that the South was pissed off at northern states for refusing to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, for instance. The Fugitive Slave Act was one of the things that definitely stoked the fire towards secession.

>of course confedecucks wanted a bunch of black people in their land because they were too lazy to work their own fields
Like most kike-fags, you are ignorant of the fact that nearly all southern whites did pick their own cotton. You're too busy sicking the dick of the Jew to crack open a fucking history book.

Its clear OP doesn't know anything about the civil war and is just looking to start a shit flinging thread. He tried to get Europeans to shit on the CSA earlier but abandoned the thread when they all said the south was all right. see and look how he changed his flag right after this thread appeared.

>implying Lincoln could have passed a Constitutional Amendment without the southern states

Freemen in the south still benefited from the slave power system. More slaves = more representation in Congress.

THIS, this 1000x. Wake the fuck up pol!
And confedecucks were so cucked they put a jew directly in charge of their affairs. And were the first americans to do so!
lmao, is this the best you can do?
1. because he wasn't a retard and wanted blacks to revolt against confedecucks so both retards and niggers would die
2. Completely unrelated to the discussion at all. Confedecucks need to up their game, if this is what an "argument" looks like to (((them))). And btw "Article I Section 9(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed". No states' rights to ban slavery, right? Gotta keep breeding blacks right?
3. They were dumb, but not this retarded to try to attack a stronger, richer area and try to control it.
4. Even more retarded. You faggots still fight wars all over the world for your rich masters that don't benefit you at all, but confedecucks, who were rather dumb, were somehow immune to this?

To keep those border states in the union while they needed them during the war. Once the war ended then they freed those slaves.

If the war was about slavery does than mean non slave states can leave the union?

That may have been true on the Caribbean sugar plantations, but not in the South

I believe that nigger slaveowners were the worst for mistreating their slaves.

Ever hear of the Corvin Amendment? It would have prevented the Federal Government from interfering with slavery. Secession made it redundant.

It's not as simple as that, yes - first the North wanted to limit the South's abilities around slavery - I forget what they were. The South felt that was interference. Then the pushing and shoving began and boom, war. But it was, at bottom, and at middle, about slavery. I at least am convinced.

t. guy who was at the Richmond Civil War Museum (in the South's White House building) this very afternoon.

Fun fact: toward the end of the war, the South offered to free all the slaves as long as they'd fight.

More yankee disillusions to justify dying free coons.

It was a federal law, dumbass. Passed with Northern votes

If the war was simply about slavery, then why would a slave state join the North?

>Anyone who continues to defend slavery is nothing more than a kike arguing that if he breeds more niggers he has right to more representation in congress.
This. No better than democucks today importing muslims and spics to get more power.

Now THIS really makes you think huh?

I have to back this up. Some underling of Lincoln's declared the slaves free in some border state, Lincoln counter-manded it and fired the guy. This was because he wanted to keep the border states in the war, as parent said.

>If the secession wasn't about slavery, then why did the Confederate Constitution have explicit clauses protecting slavery?
Like all kike-fags, you haven't actually read the fucking thing. Here it is, you stupid bitch:

Article I Section 9(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

That applies to the CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT, not the states. It's saying the CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT does not have the power to do what the US Federal Government was suddenly pretending it had the power to do.

You really ought to go read the fucking Constitution of the Confederacy. You might learn something. As it stands, your point is clearly refuted.