In the Steven Universe timeline the Confederacy won the Civil War due to Crystal Gem intervention...

In the Steven Universe timeline the Confederacy won the Civil War due to Crystal Gem intervention. They were told that they were helping these rebels escape an oppressive dictatorship. When they found out about the slavery they ended up forcibly holding hostage the Southern leaders. After all of this, the two warring nations merged, and an agreement was made that the Gems will not interfere in human conflicts, while human governments will let the Gems handle magic shit.

This is real. From the upcoming lorebook. Screencap it

Other urls found in this thread:

soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-50-akp-50th-episode-ergenekon-extravaganza-101716
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I'm personally waiting for yandere Adolf.
He must've been more thirsty for Pearl then Pearl was for Rose.

That would be INCREDIBLY stupid, and that's because it would make the Crystal Gems look INCREDIBLY stupid. How do you not know about a system of mass human chattel slavery that's been going on for centuries?

fake and gay

The civil war was not fought over slavery.

>>muhh states rightsssss

This

prove it

>State's rights
>More like "Property Owner's rights to unpaid labor"
>Boo hoo, my economy can't adapt to the modern world, how dare I be forced to used paid labor.

Good thing this is an AU

>"the modern world"
what a retarded spook

>this fucking meme
Go back to Sup Forums

>Go to letters of secession
>ctrl+f "slave"
>1 of 83

>not fought over slavery
>Civil War was fought over the economical (and ergo cultural) differences between North and South
>The North relied on an urban paid-labor modernized production economy
>The South relied entirely on cash-crop labor and continued to use and enforce slavery, a major difference between them and the North
>Events leading up to the war between North and South centered around abolition and slavery. I.E. Bleeding Kansas, John Brown's Revolt
>Civil War was not fought over slavery
Christ on a Stick, history books are sure hard to read aren't they?

fine here is your "you"!!
it was fought over the economic implications of slavery.

>muh "not slavery!!!"
Jesus, I argued way too much with retards like you and I can't bother to say a million reasons why you're wrong, and I'm saying this as someone from Georgia of all places.

It was fought over slavery, that's final.

>>>muhh states rightsssss
every progressive state is currently relying on states rights. From "sanctuary cities" to non-enforcement of federal drug policy; this is not a thing to dismiss.

The war was fought to conquer the South and place its people under the thrall of the capitalist machine that was growing like a cancer in the North. The people, their slaves, their produce... all of it just more fuel for the machine

>implying the south wasn't a capitalistic shithole like the north

the south was essentially already a capitalist shit hole for decades and decades before that tho. The only real difference was it was so uninhabited in some places that some people rightfully were pissed that the land they barely survived on was being robbed by the north but the majority of the power in the south was still in the hands of wealthy plantation owners who were still capitalist assholes who also happened to own slaves.

>le states roights meme

South rebelled because of the growing power of the federal government was threatening power of the states. Admitting free states meant that the North would have more political power and would out vote the South on every issue, one being slavery of course, but that wasn't the only issue. Stuff like the Supreme Court making gay marriage legal in every state without any say so by the state is the kind of thing the South knew was coming.

>Stuff like the Supreme Court making gay marriage legal in every state without any say so by the state is the kind of thing the South knew was coming.

Something totally within its power to do and was the correct decision ever since we decided the concept of separate but equal was unconstitutional.

So is there a single source that MIGHT back up the OP's claim?

It sounds ridiculous so probably not.

Why'd it take 60 years after the civil rights movement then? Dems just wanted to secure the gay vote indefinitely, don't kid yourself.

No one ever mentions that Lincoln only freed slaves in the south where he held no actual political sway.

Because if he tried to free the slaves in Union controlled states people under him would have gotten pissed off, refused to fight and maybe even defect. It was easier to do it how he did to make the South look shitty and he was going to free them all when he won anyway, at that point he had to.

That's what I'm saying. People demonize the south for doing something all of America was doing well into the war.

>How do you not know about a system of mass human _____
That's the show.

> something all of America was doing
Slavery was already illegal in every nothern state except for the border states (kentucky, maryland, deleware, missouri)

Yes it was. You can states rights, but the specific right being fought over was the state's rights to own slaves.

And at the time the thing the Federal government was attempting to interfere with was slavery. How are you not getting this?

>The Civil War was about Slavery
Literally the "9th grade public school" interpretation of the conflict.

The fact Lincoln was elected without a single vote counted from the South was also another thing to fight for. Taxation without representation is what rallied the colonies to fight the British and it happened again.

I'm gonna need a citation.

>“I would save the Union. … If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. … What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union.”

Lincoln cared about saving the country by any means necessary, and abolishing slavery in the South helped cripple the Confederate economy, by inciting slaves to rebel and run away.

Quality thread.

Steven Universe threads always are

On the electoral results of the 1860 election? There's a wikipedia page for that. Lincoln didn't even appear on the ballot in any would-be Confederate state.

On the one hand this is fucked up

On the other it sounds like they hung all the confederate leaders which is rad as hell

The right being fought over was the right to secede from the Union.

I do get it. But my point was slavery was where the line was drawn before any more state rights were stripped. So yes, the war was fought over slavery, but it was the bigger picture in the long run.

>They only found out about slavery after the war
B R A V O S U G A R

>rad as hell
Tumblrfaggot. The only thing on earth I hate more than northerners.

Yeah, that's blatantly false. On election day Lincoln captured slightly less than 40 percent of the vote, but he won a majority in the electoral college, with 180 electoral votes. All the votes were counted.

Kinda tough to vote in the election of a country that you started a war to not be a part of. Voting in the US election in 1864 would only be possible if you gave up on the whole "We're a confederation of sovereign powers independent from you now" thing they had going on.

Sup Forums - Please don't make us talk about comics and cartoons

You guys have to be the sorest losers on the entire planet. Let me guess, you only call it The War of Northern Aggression, and you get extremely bothered when anybody says, "Civil War."

And still managed to get a majority of both the popular vote and electoral vote. I fail to see your point.

>Tumblrfaggot. The only thing on earth I hate more than northerners.
Aren't those basically one and the same thing?

No, it was the 1860 election I was referring to. The one that caused the war in the first place.

Well, the Union did invade an independent state, so yes, you could call that a war of aggression.

> Union did invade an independent state,
> War starts with South Carolina firing on Fort Sumter

I don't even give a fuck about slavery or the war or anything; I'm pretty sure I have ancestors who fought for the union. I can't stand the concept of northerners today acting like self-righteous fucks because of something that ended 150 years ago. If their climate wasn't too shitty for crops they would've had slaves too. They fucking did have slaves to an extent, but that goes against their bullshit little black and white hero narrative.

And then I also go to a Southern uni that's borderline invaded by New Yorkers thinking they're better than everyone from here. That's extremely petty, but I'm a petty person.

>South Carolina literally shot first.
OK

The point was that Southern states felt incredibly anxious at the fact that Northern states had just elected a candidate from an Abolitionist party without needing to win a single electoral vote from the entire south. It was exceedingly concerning to Southern states that Northern states could hoist whatever candidate they chose over the South and there was nothing they could do about it. See, the South was concerned about a balance of power so that would have effective veto power against any perceived attacks on their state sovereignty. Lincoln's election signaled that the balance of power was disrupted and was the flashpoint for secession.

> A Fort with foreign garrison illegally located on your soil
> Is given time to be evacuated yet refuses to
> Is being sent supplies and reinforcements
How is that not a reason to attack it?

The North DID have slaves. Past tense. Slavery was voted out of those states, though.

The North also did have tons of agriculture. Their agrarian output was on par with The South. The difference was the kind of crops. Cotton fucking sucks to pick by hand as opposed to shit like wheat which you can just swipe with a scythe and gather up into big bundles.

Also lol? You're the ones who can't get over what happened 150 years ago.

You know, the Confederacy didn't actually stop fighting the war after the "End of the Civil War" the North declared the war over and forced the leaders of the South to sign a treaty under force, but most of the South didn't actually give up that fight.

We like to think of wars, especially wars America fought, as having very cut and dry starts and ends. When it starts, we fight, we win or lose, and then it ends and that's it. We think of ourselves as the victors for better or worse usually and ignore the fact that obviously the people in power aren't just going to bend over backwards and let their empire fall once their leader has been removed. There was literally nothing stopping the South (who had won most battles of the Civil War) from just picking a new leader and starting over. And they did. For decades, even. The South actually kept fighting an winning quite a bit. History rarely reflects this, because we like to think that the heroes won the war and that was that, but the truth is far more bleak.

Slavery was actually returned to Southern slave holders and then abolished and then returned more than a few times during the continuation of the Civil War that occurred after the "conclusion" of it. Eventually, the fighting stopped but by then a lot of Southern leaders had slipped into the Government and were granting the South powers anyway. The old "The South will rise again!" thing is based on the idea that some southerners have that the Civil War never truly concluded, and they're aren't technically wrong. There just isn't a huge reason to keep fighting anymore. Mostly because they sort of won. The fighting that continued after the "conclusion" of the Civil War showed the strength of the South and high government positions being taken by Southern leaders sort of prove it. The return of slavery (ignoring that it was removed and returned multiple times) is a pretty good example of the South just straight up out enduring the North. That shit is crazy.

>you will never force Garnet to work the fields

Why even own land?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not entirely sure how a quick end to the Civil War would effect the actual History of the US after it's conclusion. Or whether or not it's believable that anyone on either side would have allowed such a quick end to the War. It's...it's kind of unbelievable, honestly. Even setting aside the whole idea that the Civil War was about slavery to begin with. It's unbelievable that any of this AU would be true considering how sloppy the Civil War was from the start.

What the fuck are you babbling about? Effective resistance of the South as an organized fighting force was broken when Lee's army surrendered. The South never put another army in the field and for the next decade they were occupied by Federal troops.

>Owning land
>Instead of owning the landowners

So ... you're saying it was about slavery then? Because they were worried about the non-slave states being able to get anti-slave legislation through congress they decided to rebel?

OK. If you still think it's about anything other than slavery I'll give you a quick analogy. Imagine for a moment that New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine are super keen on making it a crime to misgender someone (or insert any other overreaching Tumblr far Left pink commie shit you feel like). Like, you call a Kaitlyn Jenner a "he" and you actually serve jail time. The rest of the country is like, "Mmm, naa. Fuck that" and because those states together don't have enough electoral votes to put in a sympathetic president or enough votes in congress to get any legislation through they decide to just go off and become their own country and it starts a war.

Tell me this ... if someone from Maine (in this hypothetical scenario) later told you that the war had nothing to do with trans rights you'd tell them they're full of shit right?

I think the South is pretty cool, even though I've never been, and I live in Alaska, so I really don't have a dog in the fight, but every time some good 'ol boy starts talking about the "War of Northern Aggression" I lose my mind. One of my good friends dated a girl from Georgia, and she did a pretty good impression of the pro-South side of this thread right now. I'm just tired of it.

>I think the South is pretty cool, even though I've never been
I've been living in NC for 15 years now.

South fucking sucks dude.

>the South was concerned about a balance of power so that would have effective veto power against any perceived attacks on their state sovereignty
If you interpreted that as "it was about slavery then" then we've come in an impasse that won't be breached.

A more appropriate parallel is Britain and WW1. Saying Britain fought WW1 for guaranteeing Belgian Neutrality might be technically true, since the violation of Belgian Neutrality by Germany is why Britain declared war, but it ignores everything that lead up to that point and gives you a shallow understanding of why Britain and Germany were arrayed against each other in the first place.

Compared to where else?

The South is full of pro-Confederate rednecks if you don't live near major cities, they're pretty much racist to anyone who doesn't pass as white and will attack anyone if they look slightly foreign and tell them to go back to their own country, even if they born in America and lived in it for their whole life.

Literally the only thing that they wanted veto power for was legislation regarding slavery.

Wisconsin is a fantastic state and so is Oregon

The South is the least segregated place in the entire US. Northern whites left in droves when blacks started living near them. It's incredibly ironic when Northerners accuse the South of being racist when the North shunts all their blacks away in the inner-cities and forgets about them.

I wouldn't see it as a war about trans people, but rather a war about being legally forced to think a certain way that happened to be about trans people at the time.

I lived in arizona before then. AZ is also full of rednecks and crazy shitlickers like Joe Arpaio, but goddamn the south is crazy with how much of cuntish, rude people they can be. Admittedly the 'nicest' people I knew in the south were in Richwood WV where I loved for 2-3 years or so before moving out. The rest of the time i've been living in Asheville and now Hendersonville NC. Asheville is pretty liberal for the south, but still fill of rednecks and morons. Just a lot of fags and hipsters infesting the breweries and expensive restaurants downtown.

States Rights are sacrosanct

the Fugitive Slave Law was a great idea

He phrased it kind of weird, but basically, right after the war, freed slaves had all the rights of normal citizens and were starting their own farms, people were coming down from the North to educate these freed slaves, and things were looking good. Fast-forward five to ten years and blacks are being lynched, burned at the stake, beaten and jailed. The northern "carpetbaggers" who came down to South were being run out and Jim Crow laws were instituted to keep black people from voting. What changed? Terror. The rise of groups like the KKK as well as other, smaller, organized groups created a campaign of bloodshed and scare tactics to enforce white control over the South. And for the most part, it totally worked.

I think I just really like the Southern accent

>Muh State Rights
>infringe on the rights of Northern state to accept runaway slaves

Look, it's obvious you haven't done any reading on the subject, you reacted with incredulity when you heard Abraham Lincoln didn't receive any Southern votes, presumably because it was the first time you've heard that. If you don't even know the basics of the contested election that was the flashpoint of the entire conflict, why do you think you know anything about the deeper causes? Do you even know what the Wilmot Proviso was?

>but every time some good 'ol boy starts talking about the "War of Northern Aggression" I lose my mind
When a country invades another country its often classified as aggression.

Admittedly that wasn't a terrific example. The exact issue wasn't terribly important to the point I was trying to make. I was scrambling to think of something far Left that "muh states rights" bro would find objectionable before this thread inevitably 404s.

Yup terrorism is apparently ok when it supports white interests. Fuck the South, Reconstruction should have broken the spirit of white dixies and killed those who resisted.

The immediate response to anyone who makes such an argument is "exact what right did the rebel states lose?"
Since, you know, other than printing their own currency there really only one big one.

Fair enough. But that wasn't really a concerted effort across the entire south, but local organizations, and lynchings as well as racial antipathy were not contained to the South either. Northerners protested violently at blacks moving into their states & cities.

>South attacking a federal fort
>Northern invasion

The American Civil War is a neutral term. Calling it , "The War of Northern Aggression," paints the South as a punch of halo-wearing martyrs screwed over by the big-bad Union.

I'm not Good job not responding to , though.

I'm sure you know all about NC and the South in general from staying in a handful of cities. If everyone seems to be rude, maybe you just have an unlikeable face/personality.

You're right. Secession was about slavery. The Civil War was waged because the South attacked the North after the North didn't immediately act like the made-up legal action the south had just done held any merit.

>B-but I meant muh state's rights!
Barely even factored into it.

True. One of the two times the United States Airforce equipment was used against United States citizens was when a bunch of angry WW1 veteran pilots stole some planes from a military base and used them to bomb a black neighborhood.

>this fucking thread

and I assume youre as well, and the way you nonchalantly portray the results of the election 'he won the electoral college, so what', without recognizing the implications of what that result meant for the south leads me to believe you were probably in the same boat as that other poster.

t. southerner

go spit out your chewing tobacco and bitch about some states rights, it'll make you feel better.

No, the example worked. Slavery was the state right being fought over at the time. Could have been the state right to jar your own peaches and would have been the same.

>> A Fort with foreign garrison illegally located on your soil
>> Is given time to be evacuated yet refuses to
>> Is being sent supplies and reinforcements
>How is that not a reason to attack it?

It's real lefty stuff, so most of the people who are yelling at you probably won't listen, but Chapo did a really good interview with a civil war historian about exactly this.

soundcloud.com/chapo-trap-house/episode-50-akp-50th-episode-ergenekon-extravaganza-101716

(It's a 50th ep celebration so it's a bit frontloaded, the actual civil war stuff starts at 9:30)

>hurr the Union needed to bend over and take a bunch of bitching states claiming they were independent

Nope

>conquer the South and place its people under the thrall of the capitalist machine
>thrall means slave or slavery
>South was using these thralls for profit in a capitalist system
It's actually baffling. Literally everything is the opposite of what you said.

>Nope
Why?

Well they already burned towns and raped the women so I think the imaginary little social justice heroes you're projecting did a pretty good job.