America, can you redpill us on your Civil War and slavery's role in it?
America, can you redpill us on your Civil War and slavery's role in it?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
m.youtube.com
twitter.com
Rich plantation owners didn't want to give up their slaves. The north was going to make them. In order to preserve the institution of slavery they left the union and attacked the north. The north beat the shit out of them and ended slavery. The south didn't get over it. To this day there are still morons who think the south was in the right to leave the union over slavery.
Slavery was inconsequential to the larger issue which was state autonomy or sovereignty. The Civil War marked the start of consolidating power at the Federal level to a degree never invisioned by the Founders. It accelerated after WWII.
Do not listen to as he is like little baby.
Listen to as this user is correct.
Before the Civil War each state printed it's own currency and had their own currency exchanges. After the civil war the federal green back dollar was the name of the game.
...
>We killed the shit outta our brothers and destroyed the republican attitude of this Nation with overwhelming force and monetary policy.
It’s not something to be proud of, but Lincoln was pretty fashy
yankee jews expanding the power of bank.
the confeds actually had pretty high centralization, due to the necessity caused by the war, but they did not fight for banks.
Tell me, according to your constitution and legal system, does a Federal State has a possibility to exit the USA without the armed conflict? Or is that right forfeited forever? What are the reasons if any to be able to leave the Union?
Slavery was so deeply intertwined with all of the socioeconomic conditions that led to the war that it was at once both the sole cause of the war and not the cause at all. It was a war of state's rights, but the state right in question that brought the conflict up was slavery, and southern rights to extend slavery into new states so that they wouldn't become a minority and ruled over by yanks.
The North was going through heavy industrialization. It was being paid for by heavy taxation on the Southern states exportation of tobacco and cotton--- both industries that could only be "industrial" at that time due to heavy human labor. This labor source was slavery.
The South's exports of tobacco and cotton and sugar funded the founding of the US. It funded the development of the country. But the US got too dependent on funding its growth not only on these cash heavy exports, but on passing taxes on these industries.
At the time of the Civil War, the US government had decided to tax those products such that every $1 they earned, they'd pat $2 in taxes. That obviously couldn't work, but the Northerners didn't care. They needed the money to industrialize, and they were clawing it out of the richest industries in the country because they had so few people that voted involved with them.
So the Southern states said fuck it, and left the Union. There is no terms in the US constituion that requires the members to stay in it, just that to be a member, you must JOIN it. The southern states felt they had the right to leave, as they were, according to the constitution, still their own soveirn powers.
1/2
Far too complex. It's a mixture of slavery plus the divisiveness of the English Ciivl War.
>slavery was inconsequential, it was about states rights to slavery!
lmao
The one right around the corner?
The North shit their pants. Without the South paying such extreme taxes, they wouldn't be able to easily finish industrializing--- as there was no one else that had money to steal from to fund it.
The North was also in a panic. Most of the food it ate came from the South. Now that the South was its own new nation, there would be taxes and tariffs and other taxes applied by the south to the food going north, meaning starving northern americans. These were documented concerns by President Lincoln, so don't believe the shills when they claim this is all BS.
So, President Lincoln decided that the only way for the US to survive was to go to war, and bring back the breadbasket that kept its majority of citizens from starving to death. Also, they'd be able to confiscate all the wealth of the southerners to pay for further industrialization.
Lincoln extended a couple of offers to have the South come back to the union before things got nasty, but he got blown off because he couldn't guarantee they'd cut back on all the taxes that would send every southern business into the poor house if they did business beyond their own state's border.
Lincoln destroyed the actual constitution of the US by waging his war on the south. He destroyed the balance between the states being actual sovereign nations forming a cooperative federation, balancing the power (mostly in favor of the states) to making the states mere territory on the map while the federated government is the supreme, uncontestable source of law and power in the US of A. Further changes to the US have been made to further grow the power of the central government and reduce the power of the local government.
There's a lot of butt hurt Americans on both sides of the issue. The civil war wasn't just about slavery, but slavery dependent industries were at the heart of what the South was trying to save by leaving the union. The reason was because it was the primary revenue stream due to its high export value.
Any state has the right to leave, per amendment 10. The Confederacy was an invaded nation.
Oh boy, here come that faggot Unionists from reddit
And the only time the states trying to exercise that right it failed. Interesting.
Slavery was only a contributing factor, Lincoln only wanted the Confederate states to rejoin the Union. Abolition was only a secondary action.
Rich minority in the south wanted to keep massive amount of slaves to make money north mostly wanted to send them home, south didnt like that and attacked and convinced poor whites to fight for them, they got wrecked
It was about slavery,
Most southerners didn’t get hanged fr treason, got off incredibly easy for starting one of the worst wars in American history
slavery was legal excuse that is it. purely a war of economics, by the jews
>Corwin Ammendment
>passed by the 36th Congress March 2, 1861
>War declared April 12, 1861
>"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
It was never about slavery. The universal consensus in Europe was a trade war (Marx even said as much.) SJW/ANTIFA/Neoliberal Progressivism is part of a secular Pietistic lineage that kicked off with Reconstruction. If New England successfully seceded with the Hartford Convention (or Dixie left unmolested) there would be zero nigger crime rates in the North and the degree of ethnographic dilution of the WASP character of New England would not have been as immense as what was started to pad Union army numbers (Ireland et. al.) 1% owned almost all the slaves, used in large commerical plantation concerns (Chosens typically overrepresented per capita, just as with the Anglo shipping that brought them in post-Empire outlawing of slavery -- which was done almost exclusively to offset trade deficit with American cotton/raw material exports, hike up the prices on niggers). Not more than 10% had several, usually not more than a few farm hands. Slaves could legally own guns (foraging their own meat, typically) at the discretion of their owners, depending on the jurisdiction.
This is true. Lincoln used slavery as a platform to get the New Englanders on board with the Republican party and panicked once the south seceded because he saw all the European powers coming in and divvying up the USA and CSA once they were separated. The Emancipation Proclamation was actually a very shrewd political move, not for the social aspects of it, but that it kept the Europeans out of the war. Siding with a pro slavery nation in a war over slavery was bad juju in mid 1800's European politics.
>being this historically illiterate
wish there was no slavery in america back then
then there wouldnt be so many niggers there
Legally speaking, the South had the right to leave the union. That's why its a war of Northern Aggression.
It wasn't treason to leave the union. And it wasn't wrong to defend their home from invading northern soldiers. It was just STUPID to go to war when they didn't have the industry base to maintain their own state. The South couldn't even produce a single iron RAIL to maintain their railways. All the North had to do was pull up a couple of rails, and they destroyed that line permanently.
Furthermore, the South didn't even take basic precautions. For instance, they left all their funds in Northern banks, thinking that even if they went to war, they'd be able to continue to use Northern banks and finance services. Fucking idiots.
Slavery was the central issue, regardless of what anybody says. It wasn't the only issue, but the war almost certainly wouldn't have happened without slavery. You can't be redpilled on the Civil War without a ton of education on the topic, but I'll attempt a basic gestalt.
1/?
>The Emancipation Proclamation was actually a very shrewd political move, not for the social aspects of it, but that it kept the Europeans out of the war.
His coalition was tenuous. Northerners were offended at the idea of dying for Niggers vs the Union. Abolitionists were increasingly out of control (and proved it with Reconstruction/carpet bagging.) The Proclamation ONLY APPLIED TO NORTHERN STATES + THE FEW SOUTHERN ONES OCCUPIED BY UNION FORCES
>The ratification of the 13th Amendment itself is questionable given the status of the Southern states at the time of its passage.
the dollar is what made america
if you had 50 currencies you would be a laughing stock
also how was state autonomy challenged before the civil war?
so he thought the union more important than slavery
this proves nothing
The problem is that if there was no slavery, there's been no sugar plantations, no tobacco plantations, and no cotton plantations--- in the US. Some other colonial power would have set up shop to get those products, and they would have used slavery to do it, because slavery was already being used in the Caribbean to raise sugar can.
That is the problem. When Europeans discovered that you could raise sugar cane in the new world, it was all doomed to slavery from that point on. Sugar was, at that time, worth five times (and more at some point) its weight in GOLD. European royals would pay huge amounts of money just for a small amount.
Once you have dived into slave industry for sugar cane, then more money making opportunities in tobacco and cotton are just right there, waiting for someone to go after that low fruit. Remember, good cotton was worth up to three times its own weight in gold, and the best cotton was worth up to six times its weight in gold. And once sugar was being made on such a large scale its price had dropped to just twice its weight in gold.
Whites are bad.
Democrats ended slavery
Republicans are despicable
The Greenback wasn't a bad thing though, that actually was a positive side effect that helped made us strong (even though it lessened the autonomy of the states). The creation of the Federal Reserve under Wilson (privately owned) was the true evil.
Not really. The constitution says that in theory, but no one would allow it. If one leaves, more also would leave. So an excuse is needed to declare war and reunify. This by the way, is the purpose of creating an EU army.
>North won't let Southern rednecks own slaves anymore because it is incompatible with modern philosophy
>South throws a fit and starts its own country and attacks the North in retaliation
>Gets rocked because of superior Northern infrastructure and leadership
>Still whines about it to this day
Literally the original snowflakes. Most of the Southern apologists would just be part of the retarded hill folk anyway
He openly admits to be willing to allow slavery if the Union was saved. If the war was "about slavery" then the South would've simply sued for peace.
Going back to the first revolution (1776), the southern colonies were more loyal to the crown. That began to change over the course of the war, but it was still more divided than the north. The change was spurned on by a variety of factors, but leftists will always cite the British using slaves to fight the revolutionaries as the major one. This is not really the case, but it did help. This new wave of separatist sentiment led to a lot of infighting between factions and families, which deeply entrenched people within their sides and made it all very personal, further drawing people onto the separatist side who may have been neutral or stayed loyal. When the revolution was won, those loyal to the crown were basically exiled en masse and only the separatists were left.
They attacked first
THE END OF STATES RIGHTS AND THE START OF BIG GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!! EVEN JESUS SAYS ITS OK TO HAVE SLAVES
Also niggers hows muh freedom working out?????
>north
>superior leadership
m8 we had shit leadership for most of the entire war because of political fuckery with Halleck and McClellan. You are definitely correct about the infrastructure though.
North didn't give a damn if the South kept owning slaves. It just wanted all of the SOUTH'S money to pay for itself and enrichen its own politicians pockets as a "shipping and handling" charge at the time.
Also, the north wanted to maintain access to the cheap food of the South, so it wouldn't starve to death. Bad for the politicians if their voters are starving to death.
Lincoln had to finance the war without banks because the British kikes loved slavery for the cheap textiles.
republicans wanted to destroy the large plantation owners beacuse they belived have big landowners is to reminiscent of european aristocracy ,
The south had slave based economy. Slave owners got extra votes for the slaves they had, and so rich slave owners could put those slaves to work making them more money to buy more slaves, expanding their buisness and making even more money to buy more slaves etc. They got to basically buy more votes and the votes they bought were used to buy them even more votes.
This meant that the southern elite basically had complete control over the south's political situation, and as a result had significant pull, individually, in congress, since they personally controlled all southern politicians.
The northern elite did not have room for a lot of slaves and so felt weak and threatened by the southern elites.
So we had a civil war, the public bought some bullshit humanitarian excuse (common trend in wars).
After the south lost they just started importing illegals and instead of buying slaves they spent that money on convincing the illegals to vote for them. The northern elites do not like this. Same old story, it continues to this day.
slavery ended and mechanisation took over. thats how a nation became a player. technology
Mainstream teaches that the South attacked first. This isn't actually correct. The North actually attacked first, but it is what the public is taught.
There was a Northern attack before the south attacked. But it has been lost to public knowledge because that makes it sound less just for the North. Just like the mainstream is taught Lincoln had to fight to free the slaves, when Lincoln wanted all the slaves sent to Africa and just wanted to keep all the States in the Union.
>lmao
he is right the southern states argued that the federal govermen doesn't ' have the right to tell them if slavery is legal or not in their states , they believed the legality of slavery should be a state matter not a federal one
Look up the corwin amendment, it wasnt about slavery.
It's true that most northerners were pretty lukewarm about changing slavery laws but it was clear that it was on the way out. It was the social movement of the day and something that would be impossible to be ignored. The war just brought it to the forefront.
Even if there were some other reasons for the war slavery was most definitely the central issue it revolved around.
this
>slavery ended
in europe and the states. Arabia soon to be middle east? not so much.
>getting the shit beat out of you
Nigger, they didn't win a battle until Gettysburg. STATE RIGHTS
3/?
While writing the founding documents, they had many drafts and debates and had adopted something called the Articles of Confederation for a short time.The AoC did not allow for secession, but also didn't provide the federal government much power. These were not proving very effective, so they sat down to write a new document. This would become known as the Constitution. The new agreement did not mention secession one way or the other and was only ratified by some states because it included protections for slavery. It increased the power of the federal government, but the states were still largely considered sovereign. The new federal government was mostly seen as a necessary concession that had to be made so the states couldn't be picked off piece by piece by European power/influence. There was a fair bit of federalist sentiment at that time, but nothing like now.
Basically dixiecucks didn’t want to give up their precious niggers because it meant they would have to work and industrialize like the north. So they chinped out instead of letting Lincoln send the niggers back.
dem barbary pirates abducting women as far north as Ireland and Scotland. entire villages families wiped out. Sadam style.
t. Butthurt dixiecucks
he only said this to appeal to the masses who for the most part did not care about ending slavery
the reality is he wanted the 13th amendment at all costs even extending the war
first united states fleet cannons hammered north african and arab slavers into history
It was literally about taxes. everything else is moral posturing for propaganda but like always it was about money and power.
They didn't want to have to pay the US government $2 for every $1 they earned. That's why they left the Union.
Congress told said they wouldn't spend a dime on niggers, they can just make their own way or preferably die. Well, look how much Congress spends on niggers now. All to keep them voting Democrat. The same bastards that owned the plantations and owned the banks that owned the loans on those plantations.
slavery was a pretty huge part of the south's economy
It doesnt matter
I am not going to die to keep over some stupid fort in another country
4/? Fast forward into the next decades and the British attempt to curtail American expansion and influence in the new world with the War of 1812. America pulls through, but the event confirms the fears of many about European power. Our performance makes some quite apprehensive that we need to expand and consolidate our power if we are to remain independent. This plays itself out in a lot of ways. Nearly everybody is for expanding the nation's power, but not everybody is interested in consolidating it. You have Jackson and his fight against international monetary interests, Jerrerson's Louisiana purchase, the addition of many states into the Union(some including the ceding of territory controlled by one state or another to create the new member), the westward movement out to the Mississippi River, fighting Indians the whole way, the creating of infrastructure like canals and roads, etc.
Slavery had nothing to do with it. The south was getting prosperous, northerners got assmad and told them to stop having things, south told 'em to fuck off, northerners broke the constitution (State's Rights) to go be anti-fun police. It was a battle of economics. North won, got rich, south turned into a povertous backwater for the rest of time.
Probably kikes behind it, now that I think of it. So anyway thanks to that bullshit and how they mishandled it (if you're gonna retire the farm equipment, at least have the forethought to deport it back to where you got it) now we're drowning in the nigger problem forever. Fucking jews.
(I'm from the northeast, so not even a butthurt confederate.) And as always, everything they (((taught))) us in school was a lie.
Saw the same shit with brexit. (((States))) are nothing more than abusive husbands. Ancap and libertarianism are the only feasible responses to the absolute and widespread tyranny of all governmental institutions. Point to me one single government in the history of everything that wasn't tyrannical. You can't. Politicians deserve the rope. Taxation is theft. Hippity hoppity.
spotted the libcuck
>The North was also in a panic. Most of the food it ate came from the South. Now that the South was its own new nation, there would be taxes and tariffs and other taxes applied by the south to the food going north, meaning starving northern americans. These were documented concerns by President Lincoln, so don't believe the shills when they claim this is all BS.
>So, President Lincoln decided that the only way for the US to survive was to go to war, and bring back the breadbasket that kept its majority of citizens from starving to death. Also, they'd be able to confiscate all the wealth of the southerners to pay for further industrialization.
That's not true. In 1860 the northern states produced half of the nation's corn and 80% of its wheat. Union food exports to Europe increased every year of the war while there were bread riots in Richmond and Atlanta.
The Shenandoah Valley was the only breadbasket the confederacy had. It's output was dwarfed by the Union midwest.
Slavery was a huge part of the US economy. That's why the anti-slavery founders put in so much info about slavery into the constitution--- it was a compromise between their anti-slavery position and getting the rich states to join the union. Without the rich states to fund various activities, there could be no Union. That didn't change even once the North finally had more people living in it than the South.
Remember, the US economy didn't stop being a farm economy that depended primarily on the exporting of cotton, tobacco, and sugar until after the end of WW1! It was only at that point that the US transitioned from an agrarian based country to an industrial based country.
Spotted the civic nationalist cuck.
According to ever single states declaration of secession
'to preserve our economic system based on slavery'
Or "to keep the negro in his natural place as the sub servant race"
States rights and secession was the name of the game. Lincoln was literally a level 100 jewlord and was like how do we validate this in the eyes of the people? Aha! Free niggers and claim them southerners just a bunch of slave farming rassists. Excellent now this will be taught in schools for the next quadrillion years.
*the states right to hold a person from birth to death in forced labor and sexually abuse the person
While true of the heart of the Confederacy, you're ignoring the secession of Virginia (the capital of the thing) as well as Tennessee and Arkansas - who all only seceded after Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops to put down the rebellion. It also ignores that Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Washington D.C. were all slave states.
"Racist"White people fought viciously against each other over some niggers. I doubt it.
>and to outbreed us
Yeah Lincoln was such a kike. That’s why he told the kike bankers to fuck off right?
I wish slavery in America never happened so that there wouldn't be any niggers here.
Still slavery according to all the easily research able documents the Confederacy left
Declarations of secession
Ordnance of succession
Just a bunch of rich cucks got a bunch of jobless retards to fight for them
So they could keep their free labor force and rape all the children they wanted
You had slaves then slavery was abolished and the decendants of those slaves live better than anyone else on this planet.
In the midle east and central asia you have a passport taken from you until you work for 5-10 years. indentured servitude. China and central Africa you work until you die. Get raped in DRC
Why do you hate yourselves in the states. its retarded.
muh Lincoln muh grow up
We've been having this debate every day that Sup Forums has existed.I'm so very tired of explaining it. Can one of you fucks just show up here and shoot me? Then I could escape this hell and you all would have some new thing to debate the cause of.
That's not really true. The Brits were extremely anti slavery and were able to get better cotton from Egypt and India, albeit for a higher price.
Private arms dealers sold ships and guns to the south simply for money. The promise of lower tariffs if the South won was tempting for the Brits more so than cheaper cotton.
I think it's retarded to deny that slavery was a large part of the issues that caused the Civil War, but I think it's even more retarded to think that slavery alone was reason why.
Are you talking about Mr. Brown and the attack on the federal armory?
5/? Here comes the kicker though, up to this point, the expansion had largely been north. This was about to change. first, with the inclusion of a massive new state, Texas. President Polk did the most towards this with the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in the wake of the Mexican War(late 1840's). The US acquired basically the entire southwestern quadrant of its contiguous territory and suddenly the scales were tipped. The country was roughly sqaure now, equal in territory north and south. The west was also already proving itself very lucrative after the gold rush of 1848-49, it was ripe with game to be hunted and trapped, etc. This took the ongoing competition between the regions to a new height by raising the stakes considerably. The ambition of the people(the elites anyways) was no longer to be merely independent. Now, they wanted to be a player on the world stage and western settlement was going to be how they accomplished that.
Come on man, stay strong.
>it totally wasn't about slavery guis
A White non-Hispanic national mean of 79.6? Don't show graphs from the 80's kid. Minus Arabs and Pajeets the US is currently at 56%. All but the most north is red on a map like that now.
>a conversation so rehearsed Sup Forums just uses itself as a reference at this point
I'm convinced that Euros and Aussies are always the ones that start American Civil War threads because they enjoy watching us sperg out at each other. Let's talk about something else instead.
Anyone here familiar with Grant's "General's Orders, number 11?"
>1) The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the Department [of the Tennessee] within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.
>2) Post commanders will see to it that all of this class of people be furnished passes and required to leave, and any one returning after such notification will be arrested and held in confinement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners, unless furnished with permit from headquarters.
>3) No passes will be given these people to visit headquarters for the purpose of making personal application of trade permits
Jews were rushing to his Department of Tennessee to engage in cotton smuggling and speculation. Buying it from broke Southerners for far below market value and selling it to the Union at wildly inflated prices. Grant put them all on northward trains for it.
Not our fault dumbasses can't get over the fact that the south seceded to keep rich kikes in power using the blood of the average man and not over some noble nebulous goal like ~states rights~
Or how about the (((Erlanger))) loan scheme?
>n 1863 the Confederacy entered into an arrangement with the French banking house of Emile Erlanger & Company. Erlanger agreed to market $15,000,000 worth of Confederate bonds backed by cotton. He could receive the bonds at 77 (i.e., $77 per $100 face value) and sell them in foreign financial markets at 90. In addition, he received a 5 percent commission for selling the bonds.
>The bonds were attractive to speculators because they could be exchanged for cotton after the war at a price well below the current market value. The bonds fluctuated wildly during the course of the war, however, as Confederate military fortunes waxed and waned. The bonds became worthless when the South finally collapsed, but by that time Erlanger had reaped enormous profits. He held no bonds by the time their value disintegrated
Truly our greatest ally!
goddamned city slickers.... Sherman will pay
tfw canadian
tfw will never know what it's like to be a southerner ;_;
Same shit different era.
Southern economy was heavy in agriculture, mining etc
Slave labor used to meet demands while being cost effective. People didn't really like it though.
Not for good reasons, they saw it as equal parts animal abuse and they didn't want all them niggers roaming around.
Northern economy based on commerce and manufacturing (also used slaves but to a lesser extent)
Also didn't like slavery but for reasons of animal abuse and they felt like hypocrites.
Corrupt politicians and businessmen saw threats to power and opportunities to expand power. Idea was simple, ban slavery bankrupt south take power.(bankers were northerners and you had all the old elitism you still see today)
South grew wise and said no you don't have the authority (which they didn't). North said lol we don't care. South said fine we are leaving the Union because this isn't what we agreed to (sort of like Brexit). North was like whaaa you can't do that!
South was like watch us, tried to take their toys with them (Sumpter), north lost its shit.
War broke out. North used slavery to vilify south and make their position seem untenable.
Emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in southern states (people were still slaves in the he north) on the condition that they fight for the Union. The idea being they would split and distract Confederate forces while giving battered Union troops a boost and a rest (since they were tired of murdering their own and started to feel like the baddies).
A few businessmen and corrupt politicians who were really buddies with their northern counterparts in bilderberg style partnership were outspoken for and against slavery to sow tensions
The results was the death of the Republic and the birth of the federal oligarchy.
A letter from Grant to the assistant secretary of war
>Sir,
>I have long since believed that in spite of all the vigilance that can be infused into Post Commanders, that the Specie regulations of the Treasury Dept. have been violated, and that mostly by Jews and other unprincipled traders. So well satisfied of this have I been at this that I instructed the Commdg Officer at Columbus [Kentucky] to refuse all permits to Jews to come south, and frequently have had them expelled from the Dept. [of the Tennessee]. But they come in with their Carpet sacks in spite of all that can be done to prevent it. The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel any where. They will land at any wood yard or landing on the river and make their way through the country. If not permitted to buy Cotton themselves they will act as agents for someone else who will be at a Military post, with a Treasury permit to receive Cotton and pay for it in Treasury notes which the Jew will buy up at an agreed rate, paying gold.
>There is but one way that I know of to reach this case. That is for Government to buy all the Cotton at a fixed rate and send it to Cairo, St Louis, or some other point to be sold. Then all traders, they are a curse to the Army, might be expelled
They’re going to be wrong about a portion of this. Slavery was only an excuse. Most slaves were related to their owners by the time of the war. Many saw putting their children out in a world that hated them as cruelty.
Abolition isn’t the right term. Abolitionists were murdered on both sides for wanting to give the negros equity.
>Glorious 1st/2nd Maryland.
The southern colonies had slaves. It goes back that far.
The ware was over economics. Economics revolved around slavery. The south could make products cheaper than the north but sold those products and goods to europe at the same price they sold to the north. The north didn't appreciate that because their final products cost as much as europe's. They tried to tax the south to compensate. The south said "fuck you". The north couldn't compete by using slaves because they didn't want slaves taking the jobs of whites and didn't want blacks mixing with white women. Kinda odd that they are portrayed as the white savior of black people today. But the winner writes the history. The reality is that it just wasn't practical to ship the slaves back and they couldn't allow slavery in the south for fear the economic power would result in war again.
it was about state's rights you northern unionist cucks
6/?
So now the question becomes how to settle the west. There are essentially two classes of elites in the US at this time, planters and industrialists.
Planters are mostly from southern states, but some are from northern states like Delaware and Rhode Island. Industrialists are almost all northernerns, only a few southern cities have real industrial capacity. The two sides vie for influence in congress and local politics in the new territories, creating cutthroat nationwide tension and division. The industrialists aren't doing very well though, most people respect the constitutional right of others to hold slaves, even if they don't agree with slavery. These industrialists eventually go all in on the destruction of slavery by creating the Republican Party and running candidates on a platform of expansion of America's infrastructure(for those juicy govt contracts) and the non-expansion of slavery into any new territories or states. They start out as relatively weak, but by the time the 1860 election rolls around, things are shifting. The population of northern cities is beginning to expand from immigration and the north has the lion's share of political power in the federal government. This isn't too much an issue for the south before the late 1850's, because the democratic party is still powerful in the north and the other party with influence is moderate and willing to compromise. The Democrats can't get behind a candidate in 1860 because of a split within their own party, and so they essentially have one candidate in the north and one in the south. The north votes in an electoral block for Lincoln and the Republicans, while the south votes for Breckinridge(Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in most of these). A lot of border states go for the new moderate party. This leads to Lincoln being elected with far less than 50% of the popular vote. Southern states saw this as proof that the north and south could no longer co-exist as one nation.