Who was right?

Redpill me Sup Forums.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/ZJNzVzd6fI4[Open]
youtu.be/4xIOj1x1xWs
archives.gov/exhibits/featured-documents/emancipation-proclamation/transcript.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_P._Benjamin
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Slavery and racism have no place in the west

Slavery is wrong my nigger.

>Who was right?
That dude on the right.

slavery is a moral good

I'm inclined to take that view as well. Slavery was wrong, but how harsh was it? I know that films like 12 years a slave (which enraged me and filled me with hate for slave owners) might be biased.

The south wanted slaves, the north didn't want blacks at all. The fight was really over economics to which slavery was a large part.

So who kept the blacks in America? After Lincoln was assassinated.

Objectively speaking, one has to ask ones self: if the true cause of the US civil war was the abolution of slavery, and we lost half of the country in this war, then why do we still have slaves?
>Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States
>Inb4 bb-but they are just prosoners
Who the absolute fuck do you think got sold into slavery in the first place?

That didn’t apply to blacks and you know it

Slavery was still wrong. There were other motives for the elite, but I think the average Union soldier had good intentions in his heart. You can see old civil war songs which were about freeing slaves and such.

Here's a hint, the civil war was not fought on grounds of keeping the slaves in the fields working. Lincoln wanted the blacks shipped to africa and was going to after the union won but he got killed. Throughout Americas history only the good men get killed so in the end, fuck kikes, fuck spics and fuck niggers ; in that order.

Practicality.
Lincoln originally planned to send them to Caribbean colonies or to Nigeria. But as the war dragged on, they had to offer slaves the ability to fight for their freedom to boost the Yanks fighting force. Lincoln was also impressed with how they fought. So his views of the slaves changed a bit during the course of the war.

Wow, he sounds like a genuinely nice, but also rational guy.

No, you're right; expanding it to more people and then enslaving them for smoking a plant or loitering is a much better alternative
Ummmm you have a pretty "Roots" understanding of the war. Southern sharpshooters would rutinely pick off Union soldiers by yelling "Nigger lovers" and shooting the pissed off Northerners

>You must be 18 to post here

During the civil war niggers were >10% of the population.

Neither. Slavery is wrong, but all the former slaves should have been returned to Africa afterwards.

How did we go from slavery to “muh weed”?

WAAAAAYYYY less than that, in fact even today TOTAL black population is only 14% (with black males being about 8) only 1.3% of all US citizens owned slaves, to include freed black slaves (first slave owner in US was a freed black man)

No brainlet, we went from using the equivilant of African POW's to using US citizens (of all colors) for breaking arbitrary laws

Well, even today I'd be pissed off if you called me nigger lover, doesn't mean I hate black people and would not want to free slaves. It was a different time.

Fuck off you retard mongloid shills.
lincoln was a pos that "freed" the slaves as a war tactic to cause chaos in the south so that he could win the war. The man played dirty and knew it, he even wrote in a letter that if he could win the war without freeing the slaves he would have done so. Every war is an economic war.

nigger shut up slaves were lucky to be in usa

That's because you're an actual nigger

Can see via your reading comprehension you're a spic

America is for a melting pot of Europeans and Britain is for Britains. You all will fucking hang.

THE WAR WASN'T ABOUT RACISM OR SLAVERY YOU NIGGER KIKE FUCKES

NIGGER LOVER

T. Retards who know nothing about the war

But this was a change of mentality during the war. It wasn't the cause. Even Abolitionists were against the war in the beginning. They wanted the south to go their own way and take the taint of slavery with them. They also felt that slavery would end on it's own in the south as they couldn't defend such a large border with the north to prevent slaves from escaping. It would be too costly. So the narrative that it was all started over slavery is absurd. That's just the excuse used as slavery became morally abhorrent anyway and the other tactics and logic used by the north were less noble. The war was essentially over economics. The north needed the south's raw materials and didn't want to compete with the south's free trade policies. The south would sell to Europe at the same price they would sell goods to the north. The north didn't think that was fair yet couldn't compete with the south's agriculture. The south leaving the union meant that not only would the north not get any break on product, they couldn't tax the south either. The reason to end slavery in the south was not because the north were not racist or felt blacks were equal, it was to end the south's economic advantage.

I came here to hear your side of the story You seem awfully perturbed about this. It feels terribly great to know my British ancestors were enlightened enough to have seen the problems with slavery long before Civil War and banned it.

Also, do you honesty believe that only black people support, well, not slavery? Might want to leave Alabama Cletus.

Sigh, nigel you do realize another YUGE issue was the south breaking the embargo with you and selling you cotton and other goods? Also, you funded the south in a similar manner to the French funding the Continentals in our revolution 80 years prior to this; pretty sure you sent advisors too

Quite a good point, much better than the other braindead racists were making. The South should not have attacked the Northern forts though, right?

You see white countries falling before your eyes over civic nationalism yet you support it. Go fuck yourself

That's just the eternal anglo

Democrats always are at fault..
War by January

youtu.be/ZJNzVzd6fI4[Open]

How can there be a white country with slavery? In fact, I'd say slavery and ethnonationalism are mutually exclusive.

How do you think you ended up with niggers? You had slaves too

We got blacks from immigration, not slavery.

jews brought niggers

The guys who wanted to free the niggers and make America a nice diverse place, those are the good guys. No country with less than 50% niggers and muslims can truly call itself a free nation.

The TLDR version of the US Civil War

South: Hur Durr, lets import thousands of niggers because Mr (((Goldenberg))) said it's a good idea
North: HUUUUUUURRRRR DUUUUUUUURRRRR, lets give citizenship to all of the niggers because Mr (((Sheckleberg))) said it's a good idea
And here we are

Slaves took jobs from white laborers. They were like illegal immigrants of their time who did "the jobs nobody wants", except they were forced to do those jobs. And now, over a century late, it's speculated that actually hiring workers would have been cheaper. Slavery was a bad idea.

However, my loyalty lies with the south. I wouldn't be happy about foreigners occupying my land either.
youtu.be/4xIOj1x1xWs

Slavery was jews you dumbass. Sad you're also a dixie.

>implying wetbacks aren't slaves now

I'm from Texas nigga, plenty of illegals who are used as forced labor. Another reason why we need the wall.

...

fuckt hat cartoon is utter faggotry

Ironic when you think so many southerners now (at least NEET's on POL) use MUH JEWS as an excuse for not serving in the military, but dream of being confederate soldiers

The north occupied the south's fort and Lincoln wouldn't recognize their right to secede or agree to move the troops out. So the Confederates ordered the attack to take it back. The south had already declared their independence. So keeping the northern troops there was a provocation. If it was enough to start spilling blood is just one of those things debated for eternity.

>However, my loyalty lies with the south. I wouldn't be happy about foreigners occupying my land either.

Good lad.

>Slavery was jews you dumbass.

Just about everyone was in on slavery, stop pinning the blame on one group. It's just as dumb you do it as when Niggers and Yankees do it.

We live in the timeline where Anne Frank died so obviously the Confederacy.

I'm not fighting for Lactatia.

>Just about everyone was in on slavery, stop pinning the blame on one group. It's just as dumb you do it as when Niggers and Yankees do it.
This is like saying all US soldiers were in on Raytheon and Haliburton making money off of the Iraq war

>This is like saying all US soldiers were in on Raytheon and Haliburton making money off of the Iraq war

No, but US Generals were.

South should have freed the slaves when tensions got bad. It would have taken the fire out of the north

Based Brits.

The 14th amendment was a huge mistake.

Lincoln was a tyrant who tarnished the constitution.

Booth did nothing wrong.

The Confederate states had a solid legal argument and by all rights protected in the constitution they should have been allowed to form their own federal government with the explicit guarantee that if any nation were to threaten one of them the other would at least help defend. What happened was some tall guy from a state on the edge of civilization got elected with a small number of the popular vote with the clear goal of forcing people to pay their slaves a wage and let them run free, even though they had nowhere to go with no savings or education. He got elected because he touched on people's feelings about the gruesome deaths and borderline torture they had seen coming out of the South, like how people today get more sad when they see an animal hurt than a human. The South said this might not work, Lincoln said make it work, the South said no, so Lincoln decided to invade and force them to do so. For reference, I'm a New Yorker who was taught that the evil South tried to ruin the world with slavery and America had to do everything in its power to be the good guys. Realistically slavery was getting kinda fucked up in the South because of how cheap of a commodity the Africans were and how rich they were at the time, but not kill a quarter of your population fucked up.

Bitch

So the South was right legally, and the North believed they were right morally, but what was more important was railroads and gatling guns. As we all should know its not about who is right, its about who is left.

>Booth did nothing wrong.
He killed lincoln before lincoln could send the slaves back to africa

>What happened was some tall guy from a state on the edge of civilization got elected with a small number of the popular vote with the clear goal of forcing people to pay their slaves a wage and let them run free, even though they had nowhere to go with no savings or education.

Got a source for all that bullshit? Read the man's own words. He didn't give a fuck about slaves in the south, he was opposed to slavery expanding in to the western territories and the repeal of the Missouri compromise.

Even more important than gatling guns is politics. The South wasn't defeated per say, the army was pretty much destroyed and Lincoln had his cock down Virginia's throat but the Confederate congress, which was made up of former US congress members, went back to work the next day with their Northern counterparts. Thus begins the great American deadlock of North vs. South, liberal vs. conservative, which each keep picking up new things to care about, defend, and attempt to implement even though they have no real alignment with their party, they were just trying to gain votes.

The men in grey

>He killed lincoln before lincoln could send the slaves back to africa

Lincoln stopped entertaining that idea by the end of 1862. Why do you think he started recruiting Negro soldiers?

>the gruesome deaths and borderline torture they had seen coming out of the South
Propaganda is timeless.

the war was about slavery
but nobody was in the right/wrong, they all fought for their individual interests

Both?
The South opted to secede, as was their right to do. The North felt that secession of part of the union would lead to the dissolution of the entire union. Which would have inevitably lead to the same kinds of pointless wars that had consumed Europe for centuries.
The Southern were correct that they had the right of self-determination. The Union states were correct in their belief that a unified country was best for the prosperity of all. The following century proved that to be the case.

Straight from Wikipedia:
>During the Civil War, Lincoln used the war powers of the presidency to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, in January 1863. (He had warned in September 1862 he would do so if the Confederate states did not return.)
The Confederacy only started conscription in April 1962 when they considered it a true war, before that the rebellion was only small militias kicking federal soldiers off of their land who they saw as invaders. The real battles started after the emancipation proclamation.

This

Reminder that we'd have pregnant Anne Frank if the wearers of the Grey had prevailed.

The soldier fighting for his country and brothers, regardless of the color of their uniform.

Okay, what does any of that have to do with your claim that Lincoln got elected with the goal of forcing southerners to pay their slaves?

The Emancipation proclamation was politically motivated, not a moral issue. The reasons were twofold: One, to kneecap the south economically and two to keep the European powers from recognizing the legitimacy of the confederacy by changing the war from a war of independence to a war over the future of slavery.

Were it an issue of ethics, why would he have exempted slaveholders in the north as well as certain areas of the south which were not "in rebellion?" Read the text archives.gov/exhibits/featured-documents/emancipation-proclamation/transcript.html

>HUUUUUUURRRRR DUUUUUUUURRRRR, lets give citizenship to all of the niggers because Mr (((Sheckleberg))) said it's a good idea
This was after the war and after Booth assassinated Lincoln, ensuring the defeated South would have to negotiate with the Radical Republicans in Congress to regain representation. That's how we got the disastrous 13th-15th Amendments, and was ultimately the source of the entire West becoming cucked by social leftism, multikulti, diversity, anti-bigotry and anti-racist movements, etc.

Also,
>As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

Again, emancipation was a strategic move to try to win the war. It was a hail mary pass made at a time when the union was getting its shit kicked in.

Where in the Koran does it say that?

What world are you on?

The war was really over free trade and tariffs. The Republican Party was not going to permit a free trade zone to south of them and Lincoln no intention on not collecting 40% tariffs in southern ports.

The real reson for these amendments was to make freed slaves citizens, so that the Lincolnites had the jurisdiction to throw their black asses in jail.

>There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day.
Slavery was unfortunate, but guided evolution under white America could have gradualyl improved the negros. Lincoln set them loose before they were ready and permanently damaged the foundation of the country

Why should Southerners enlist in the military forces to defend a Washington regime that endorses the disrespecting of southern heroes?

Actually, it was his wife who shot him. Booth was framed.

Or to put it another way; secession is a privilege exclusive to Yankees.

Only because something had to be done and they preferred that option to sending every nigger back to Africa, because they were nigger-lovers.

The Confederacy was not forcing the Union to have slaves

>
No No No. The Virginia Constitution specifically cited how they had appealed to King George to allow them to exclude the slave trade by law. He vetoed the proposition, forcing negros on them through that pernicious traffic.

That said, the institution of slavery is not evil, but natural and good. The traffic of humans, manstealing, is wicked. But then you must ask yourself if the words "Negro Slavery" are redundant.

the north was nothing but democrat cucks. lincoln loved niggers as much as any other leftist.

>not knowing we'd have pregnant Anne Frank if the Confederates had won

The south was right. War was obviously not about slavery

Citation Needed.

Ask the Nation of Islam. They know it was (((them))).

The North. Lincoln wanted to send the slaves back to Africa. Southerners wanted to fuck them

>Actually believing this

The CSA was a group of elites who tricked the masses to die in the name of profits they would never see.

>BUT THE CONFEDERATES WERE REDPILLED
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_P._Benjamin

I wouldn't say either had very good moral standing to start the war, the south's reasoning sounds good at first but if you read the documents all they basically talk about is how Lincoln would take their slaves(Not completely unfounded but he hadn't even enacted anything to do so at the time the first states rebelled) and how it was their right to own slaves (something really only "radical" immediatist abolishtionists wanted to take away). The idea of nullification wasn't even only a southern thing because plenty of northern states basically nullified the fugitive slave acts and resisted their enforcement. All around the idea of one state going against and nullifying the decisions of the whole is terrible for holding a country together regardless of the sounding of its motivations.

The North wasn't very good either. It's kind of a gray area to whether Lincoln did things "tyrannical" or not but his motivation of holding the country together probably saved us from splitting into small countries and being recolonized by Europe. They disliked slavery mostly just because their economy didn't directly rely on it so they had no reason to put up with the force required to tame a man. Southerners do have a point when they call it the war of northern aggression, the North invaded the south to forced it's reentry. However today I believe We're better off United and not divided between two parts reliant on foreign entities because they specialise in certain industries.

>It's kind of a gray area to whether Lincoln did things "tyrannical" or not........splitting into small countries and being recolonized by Europe.
Pretty decent post until this...then I kek'd.

The side that prevented us from getting fucked over by European imperialists which would’ve followed had we Balkanized

Of course the main issue was slavery, but it was strictly an economic issue. Slaves were property, like a tractor today. It wasn't about keeping the black man down, as the general assumption across the 19th century western world was that the black man wasn't capable of handling his own affairs. Abolitionists were extremists when the war started even in the north. By the end of the war, the radical republicans wanted to destroy the "slave power" once and for all, so reconstruction and black empowerment were forced on the south, after Lincoln, who probably would have been more moderate, was assassinated. That lasted for about 10 years or so before white southern democrats retook control. The resulting 2nd class system existed into the 1960s.

As Chiraq, Baltimore, and other mainly NE cities demonstrate up to the present, the 19th century understanding wasn't completely wrong, just too encompassing.

My God I can smell the shills. So let me straighten things out.

The succession was about slavery, but the war was not.