Can someone explain a dumb Euro whether the Confederacy was all about slavery or about money or about freedom?

Can someone explain a dumb Euro whether the Confederacy was all about slavery or about money or about freedom?

If at all possible give solid sources and not just quotes of presidents and commanders who said something pro or anti slavery.

Other urls found in this thread:

bewild.com/zip-up-confederate-flag-hoodie.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_who_owned_slaves
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1790
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

who tf cares? when you judge history by the moral standards of people that fucking hate you, you are gonna have a bad time regardless. stop trying to rationalize blind hate and propaganda.

Facts matter.

It's important to preserve and not pervert history to prevent mistakes.

muh progression fuck off troll

was over state rights which were getting trampled by the federal goverment, the confederates exercised their constitutional right to secede and then *shockingly* they were crushed by the same federal government they accused of being totalitarian

hell yeah just bought that hoodie

where

It was about ending slavery for economic reasons, not because the Union was fighting to create justice for slaves.

bewild.com/zip-up-confederate-flag-hoodie.html

you need to chill

southerners had a hard time finding work because y*nks simply hired slaves to do it. however most farming was done in the south so the south could easily keep the economy to itself. all they had to do was secede and so they tried. y*nks got butthurt and started a war where thousands died over cheap nigger labor. the south did not want slavery because the slaves took their jobs. though they did say they would simply ship them back to africa. y*nks later spread lies to look like the good guys, saying robert was an evil slave owner who wanted to oppress niggers. theyre just trying to save face after killing over profiting off of plantations

It was about the government sticking its federal dick into the freer part of the nation. Anyone who tells you that it was anything else is objectively wrong.

So, it was all about money, but in that time money was mostly intertwined with slavery. Cotton exports were the majority of the US economy and cotton production relied on slavery to function.

a very, very small portion of the South owned slaves.

Slavery was still a very profitable income for the region.

The confederacy was formed after Abraham Lincoln was elected without his name being on a single ballot box in the south.

The South essentially realized they were being fucked by the Union's system and didn't have any way to make the need for change apparent besides cutting the noose.

Slavery was just one of the catalysts that made the south realize that their way of life, at the time, was starkly different than those of the northern states.

After the war, during reconstruction, the government and people tried to mend ties by honoring the dead confederate soldiers just like they would their own soldiers -- because, at the time, they were their own blood and kin just the same as a man from york might be to a man from lancaster.

The problem with the american civil war was that it wasn't black and white and, as it went on, it became so much grayer.

People in the present day who don't know a single speck of shit about it just like to impose their own skewed idea of reality and morality on the past.

it was all three. the north was taxing the hell outta the south, and wanted to end slavery so quickly it would have caused economic problems. also wanting to act like the USA was a country not a conglomerate of states. It wasn't about slavery like, "we wanna keep these niggers subjugated", more like "we depend on this shit so much you cant just take it away so fast"

It was about cotton. So it was about both. Many free blacks lived in the North, so obviously the idea of slavery disgusted a portion of the population. But it was ultimately about cotton. They obviously has no internet back then, but there are numerous quotes from that faggot Lincoln peddling white supremacy.

As it pertains to popculture:
No one is rocking that flag for "state's rights". It is obviously a racist symbol, and anyone wearing it is an idiot, racist or both. The WORLD WARS are the subject, as they pertain to the Jewish monopoly of our government, media and industry, but 90% of dumbass Americans think the Nazi flag is about the same shit that garbage hillbilly flag is.

>constitutional right to secede

lol nigga u dum

Do yourself a favor and watch at least the first episode of Ken Burns' Civil War documentary.

Our history books are full of shit so if this is legit what it was all about then this makes more sense than what we're told.

It was about tariffs. Northern Industrialist were trying to protect themselves against European manufacturing with tariffs.

The Europeans put tariffs on US agricultural exports, especially Southern Cotton.

As usual, the rich did their con jobs on the middle class and got them to start killing each other.

Lincoln promised NOT to free the slaves. Several Union states were slave states. When "Lincoln Freed the slaves" by unconstitutional executive order, he didn't free any slave in the Union, just in the Confederacy.

Lincoln made the narrative about slavery when he was running for a 2nd term; he was doing a distraction of the horriffic Battle of Gettysburg.

By threatening factory labor workers in the Union with slavery, he conned them into voting for him.

And the whole tariffs thing - Rothschild trying to split the country so we'd be easier to control... like what's going on today.

The Constitution doesn't give countries the right to secede, but ultimately, that doesn't matter, because secession isn't inherently wrong.

If you are opposed to secession on a moral or ethical basis, then you also have to be opposed to the very existence of the United States.

>whether the Confederacy was all about slavery or about money or about freedom?

2 years after the war started they invented slavery part... as one man called Seselj said, first I was in crime organization by myself, then few years later rest joined... haha

Thanks senpai.

Goggle Morrill Tariff. Basically, the industrialists in the north were pissed off that the Southerners were more prosperous than they were and felt like the South had advantages over them. The South had an agricultural economy. They saw slaves (who- although not free to do whatever, were fed, clothed, had some kind of housing and medical care when they were sick) as instrumental in the South's prosperity. This is where it's "about slavery". Remember (or be aware) that back then, the South was all democrat and the republicans were mixed up with the abolitionists (a whole other story/ agenda). So their "ideologies" traded places later on.

Look into what became of "freed" blacks in the north, at the "mercy" of the northern industrialists. It wasn't pretty. There's a reason why, segregation or not, Southern blacks and Southern whites get along better amongst themselves than yankees.

archive.org is a good source, pre revisionist history. At least until the commies get rid of that, too.

Slavery, ultimately, led to the war. But the war wasn't fought for slavery.

Simplifying it as "muh state rights" is just as idiotic as "muh slavery". Especially when slavery was explicitly upheld as one of those rights.

Thanks for the redpills on the US civil war

When our country was founded the government immediately split into two camps: The Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists sought to establish a strong middle class, a meritocratic government, and a strong centralized state under the principles of what we would now call "Conservative Fusionism" (essentially the realization that strong government =/= curtailing of liberty). The Democratic-Republicans, meanwhile, sought to maintain the supremacy of a landed agrarian hereditary aristocracy. This hereditary aristocracy was strongest in the South which, due to its climate, was far more agrarian than the North. The Democratic-Republicans desired the creation of a neo-feudal state: A weak government that required the aid of powerful landed hereditary aristocrats lording over serfs (or, rather, slaves) in order to get anything done. The Federalists would ultimately win yet die, and the Democratic-Republicans would, over a number of years and a course of events utterly irrelevant, become the Democratic Party.

The North, unable to engage in agricultural outputs akin to those of the South, began to industrialize. This was in part fueled by a slow exodus of White workers from the South. In order to keep profits up, the Southern aristocratic class had to gain increasing amounts of land to use for crops: This required driving the existing inhabitants of said land away. As in Medieval Europe, the cities became a bastion for free men who were above the Slaves yet below the wealthy planters. Seeking to cut costs, the Planter class came up with "Quasi-Free Slaves". Essentially, you buy a shack, five niggers, and blacksmithing tools: The niggers go out to the blacksmithing shop each morning and work until sunset. Any profit they make is collected back to you. You give them a trifling amount (less than a free man requires) to keep them from going AWOL. As every plantation was self sufficient with food, these Quasi-Free slaves became very lucrative.

Well if it was about slavery, the democrats certainly didn't want it to end. They were far to heavily invested in it. Through-out all of the US presidents, only one republican president had ever owned a slave. Which he inherited and freed shortly after even though he was in dept.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_who_owned_slaves

It's also worth pointing out that the democrats held the majority of the cotton industry and continued to use slaves for the industry after the civil war. Andrew Johnson had Lincoln exempt Tennessee from the Emancipation Proclamation. To trade cotton freely. (Also included in top source)

(Compare cotton fields to territories held)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1790

It was only when the industry started to expand into republican states did the democrats feel the need to do something about.

Let me give you the best summary I can.

A very small percent of white males in the south owned slaves. This group of people held their wealth in slaves. In the north, the wealthy held their wealth in businesses and various other investments. The wealthy slave owners in the south stood to essentially be destitute (with the exception of their land and mansions) if slaves were free. I point all of this out to show that like pretty much every war in the US' history, there's a shadowy economic reason hiding in the back.

Now on to the common person. The common white man in the south was not that much better off than slaves. In many cases, they worked right along side the slaves. These people fought for patriotism and love of their land. They were never told by the wealthy who were set to lose their wealth "Go fight and save my shekels", they were told "Go and fight for Dixie". The majority of people who picked arms up against the union did so out of love of country not love of slavery. It's absurd how it's been re-branded by the left modern day.

Further, the north legitimately did not give a fuck about ending slavery or black people for that matter. One of the biggest riots in the US' history occurred in New York during the Civil War due to the union's draft. This serves to further highlight the tyranny of the union. The union's own people didn't want to fight the Civil War, the were okay with the confederacy leaving. Instead of doing the democratic thing and respecting the decision of their people, the union forced them to die for the cause.

In conclusion, the different people had different reasons, but your average soldier fought for land and country, not slavery.

>Slavery, ultimately, led to the war.

Secession led to war, not slavery, slavery was for the win

It's really simple, they ain't called Confederate for no reason, north wanted to give more power to the capital while south wanted to give (well not to give because they already had those rights, so basically to keep them) more power to the states

simple as that, everything else comes later

>Lincoln peddling white supremacy

Lincoln was a realists, he knew negroids can't function as equals in a White society because they're not equal. One hundred fifty years later and what do we have to show for freeing them? Destroyed cities, rampant crime, constant complaints of "oppression, and untold amounts of money spent on trying to educate them, law enforcement resources, prisons, and drained health and social services.

"In times of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

The North, meanwhile, industrialized at a rapid pace. A combination of factors lead to the Northern and Southern leadership quarreling, but slavery was certainly one of them. Both sides feared the other's way of life: Industrialization created a strong middle class which was anathema to the Democrats' entire ideology, and neo-feudalism resulted in self sufficient plantation-states that had no use for industrialization (and industrialists) which was anathema to the North's way of life. Ultimately, they came to blows.

The South seceded and attacked the North, but this is a situation similar to Japan and Pearl Harbor: The North did NOT want the South to secede. If they did, it meant the end of American hegemony as the South would be propped up as a puppet state by whatever foreign nation (Namely, Britain or Spain) sought to curtail American power in the New World. American geopolitics and economics was based on being the sole big man in the New World and having essentially infinite room to expand; a world-island that had time to analyze, digest, and approach any issue in a calm and efficient manner. The sheer distances involved meant that for any issue the initial conflict would be well past finished by the time a response could be mounted, which gave the American government the enviable trait of being able to take its time with any and every issue.

the secession was about economics and taxes that benefitted the industrial north and harmed the agricultural south. slavery came along for the ride.

And the south couldnt sell their goods overseas without the north fucking with them.

It was both.
For some one topic was more important than the other.
But one thing is for sure true, both north and south didn't want freed slaves living among them.
Look into Liberia.

This. Nobody fucking WANTS slavery it is a shit economic model.

Ultimately, feelings of anger at the Democrat ideology (slavery only being one issue amongst many) lead to the founding of the Republican Party, based on free labor (existence of a middle class), free land (anti-plantations), and free men (anti-slavery). The birth of the Republican Party came with the death of the Whigs whose whole gimmick was the supremacy of the legislature over the executive; they had no solid answer to slavery, and the Democrats steamrolled them because of it. The Republicans managed to get Lincoln elected, and for the aforementioned geopolitical and economic necessity of NEVER letting the US directly border a nation that was a competitor in any way, shape, or form, Lincoln undertook a brutal war and engaged in many measures that (justifiably) get him labeled a tyrant. While the Democrats like to picture Lincoln as a cackling maniac pissing on the Bill of Rights, the truth is more that he was absolutely hamstrung by the complete and utter necessity that was, again, the fact that the US could NEVER, EVER border a country that could compete with it. Our entire geopolitical and economic strategy at the time was, again, ENTIRELY dependent on being the only big dick in the New World.

It was a divide and conquer tactic used by the British oligarchy/monarchy group as an extension of the war of 1812, pushed through their control of the freemason networks which split to form the KKK which operated under the same compartmentalized structure so the underlings didn't realize who they truly served. Tzar Alexander the 2nd was part of the insider group and saw what was coming and disagreed so sent ships to New York and SanFran with order to attack anyone who attacked the US, which foiled the British plans for invasion after the sucession, and they had a proxy army ready on the other side of the Mexican border ready for this. He also sold Alaska to the US because he didn't want the Brits to have it. This is why TPTB assassinated him and eventually his entire family later during the Bolshevik revolution which they financed. Lincoln recognized this as the true behinds the scenes issue, because at the same time he worked to free the US from the international bankers via the greenback, and for that and having the balls to temporarily undermine the constitution in order to save the union they assassinated him. (Booth's group was a tool of the British elite). With some amazing military last minute saves by the Union, the Brits lost their chance for the last full military division of the United States due to them never forgiving it for the Revolution and recognizing it as the primary threat to the Empire, and so switched to more subtle, underhanded subversion and infiltration tactics via the Rothschild financed Rodesian group (Rhodes scholars like Bill Clinton, etc), and by switching to the more subtle form of empire under the commonwealth. The main stranglehold they maintained was by manipulating the US into wars (bankers fund both sides, such as the Nazis and the Bolsheviks) and their hooks were firmly in place once they got the Aldrich Bill aka the Federal Reserve Act passed in 1913, along with infiltration of state department and education.

The confederacy seceded largely due to the fact that they saw Abraham Lincoln as an end to traditional America. They saw him in particular as a man who didn't represent them. And they were correct in this assessment. Virtually the entirety of the South was given a leader by the heavily populated North, a leader which they despised and detested.

As a matter of fact the only reason the war was made about slavery is because Lincoln decided that would be a good way to collapse Southern society, simply tell all their slaves that if they run away that they'll be given citizenship. By doing this he also turned America from a white nation into an ethnically androgynous one.

So to conclude, Lincoln was essentially a leader picked by the North, without hardly any representation from the South. It was that moment when pure democracy, the tyranny of the majority over the minority, was made real, and the idea of republic died with old America.

>both north and south didn't want freed slaves living among them

Then what went wrong? Even after Lincoln's death the country had a good 50 years before Jews started showing up and "mentoring" the negroes.

states rights = slavery

Ok bro. Ok. You guys are absolutely delusional on this whole subject. Keep preaching that slavery was just simply "states rights".

the civil war didn't end slavery. the cotton gin did. the north knew this.