>>6621659The Civil War was a justified rebellion against Yankee tyranny to preserve the rights of our beloved Dixie which had been trampled in Congress such as with the Tariff of Abominations and a President which we did not elect.Revisionists love to pin in on slavery but that is simply false.
>>6621659Yes. Read the secession documents and, more importantly, the Confederate constitution: it changes almost nothing when it comes to "states' rights", and some of these changes take away said rights, but it has several changes protecting slavery
>>6621659It was about economics and political situations formed around slavery. We had this debate a thousand times.
>>6621659Literally the only decent PragerU vid
>>6621659Yes you fucking mongWhat the fuck else would it be about? The right to party?
>>662165919th century Americans literally looked down on Africans, you are a retard if you believe they will butcher each others for Africans, Lincoln even wanted to deport them
Mississippi:>In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the worldPic related is the confederate vp
>>6621716And southerners loved their Africans so much they killed him for it
>>6621729Not an AmericanBut he was killed by that guy, boot, if I'm correct about the name because he killed many southerners, also they created the KKK to get rid of Africans
>>6621659No, but we must give money to the Israelis.
No. See why here, where people actually care about facts, not feelings>>>/pol/213172082
>>6621827>/pol/>factsYou can only choose one.
>>6621659It was over abortion rights stemming from Alabama
Anyone who says it wasnt is either incredibly disingenuous or absolutely retarded. Just fucking read the documents Southerners themselves write to justify their actions
>>6621659Only sorta.Like 35%, maybe.
>>6621729>>6621746Booth was a Northerner from Maryland.He assassinated Lincoln for his cracking down on the civilian populace of Maryland and other actions such as the suspension of habeas corpus.
Sort of. But it wasn't about the morality of slavery. It was about the economics of slavery.
To paraphrase the historian Shelby Foote, most soldiers couldn’t care less about the slaves. Northern soldiers were fighting to preserve the union, the dream that their grandfathers fought for in the revolutionary war. For the average confederate soldier, he was fighting because Union troops came down to the South, which saw most of the bloody fighting take place on its soil.
>>6621753The answer to everything is give money to Israel and fight her wars for her. It is the meaning of life.
>>6621894For the congressmen and governors who started the war, slavery was certainly a driving cause. However it is important not to mix up what drove the average man to fight and what drove the elites to fight.
>>6621894>Northern soldiers were fighting to preserve the union, the dream that their grandfathers fought for in the revolutionary war.So Union soldiers were fucking retards?Their grandfathers fought against a distant, tyrannical government attempting to subjugate them to it's will.The Union was a distant, tyrannical government that subjugated the South to it's will.
>>6621894>For the average confederate soldier, he was fighting because Union troops came down to the South, which saw most of the bloody fighting take place on its soil.Missouri might have remained in the Union if Jim Lane and Nathaniel Lyon hadn't Nazi Death Squad'd a fuckton of Missouri civilians and burned down multiple cities.
>>6621905That’s the irony of it all. They came down here to fight us and impose their ideals, doing exactly what their forefathers fought against. >you either die a revolutionary or live long enough to see your self destroy it
>>6621923Missouri was hell on earth. They were getting carpetbaggers before the war even started.
/pol/ jannies just nuked a thread about history to make space for more BBC threads. It seems a thread about the American civil war is not related to politics
>>6621924Whoa dude, how do you keep your fingers steady enough to type all that despite being almost 200 years old
>>6621659Prageru is retarded
>>6621888what’s the economic argument for ending slavery?
>>6622051It's an excuse by dixiefags
>>6621894> For the average confederate soldier, he was fighting because Union troops came down to the South, which saw most of the bloody fighting take place on its soil.Was he not aware that the war started because the Confederates attacked Fort Sumpter?
>>6622655>this is your brain on yankee propagandayankees were illegally occupying a southern fort
>>6621659No it was about a state's right to have slavery. And by that I mean it was about the right of 1.6% of the population to own slaves. Northern men and politicians wanted to preserve the union. Southern politicans were serving the 1%, while southern men were useful idiots that fought because maybe one day they could afford to buy a slave.
>>6622848Proof?Land under fort sumter was bought by the federal government to build fortifications during the preparation of the war of 1812. It was built by union money and resources post the war of 1812. It was owned by the union government for much longer than the state of SC did.
>>6622920Everything in the South belonged to the South after it became independence
>>6621674>I don’t like the president so it’s okay for me to chimp out and shoot my neighbors
>>6621716For the North it was about preserving the union. But the slavery issue was not only moral; new states becoming slave states meant that they were essentially closed off from white workers and entrepreneurs, because you can't compete with free labor. Things like the 3/5 Compromise also gave the South a disproportionate amount of power in Congress.
>>6622943No. That is not how things work. Cuba after the revolution couldn't claim GB. No country ever did that not without repercussions anyways. The south wanted a war because they were over confident and believed England and France would join them.
>>6621905The federal government is basically within walking distance of the South. Southerners had more than their fair allotment of representation, not less.
>>6622943You only become independent when the war ends
>>6622848Fort Sumter was on land the state of South Carolina had sold to the federal government decades previously. That sale doesn't become null and void just because the state secedes, that land still belongs to the United States government.
>>6623055When are you giving land back to the crown then, Yankee?
>>6621659It was about love.
>>6621905Southerners literally had more representation in the federal government than Northerners. What do you think the 3/5ths compromise was.
>>6621674The south refused to even allow Lincoln on the ballot. So kinda hard for southerners to vote for him.
>>6621674Imagine actually believing this
>>6623836the United Kingdom ceded their territorial claims in the Treaty of Paris of 1783
Looks like dixiefags are NEVER going to STFU about this. They won't be happy until they finally secede, even though there'd be no point in it anymore. JFC what a bunch of crybabies.
>>6625285Cry some more, sore loser.
>>6625288Why do you come here and say the same thing day in and day out? How miserable is your life? Now wait, I don't care. Don't tell me.
>>6625302Uh, I don't?
>>6625320Of course, everyone who replies to you is all the same person who follows you around all day trying to steal your brain. When's your next dose of thorazine scheduled?
>>6625337LOL All Confederate LARPers are mentally ill.
>>6621659NoIt was about based Yankee BVLLS pushing their mighty industry into the throats of di(cks)xie pussyboys
it was a rebellion against centralization of power to one big inefficient and corruptible government.sadly, the USA was "too big to fail"
>>6621716>no page number
>>6621659Yes.>>6621674>Yankee tyranny>In their own secession documents they were literally bitching about states having too many rights>They also ran the country up until secession>>6621688This is like arguing the Titanic sunk because I had a hole in the side, not because it hit an iceberg>>6621894Shelby Foote was more of writer than a historian. He was also a huge Dixieboo.>>6626383The Confederate government was objectively more draconian than the US govt.
>>6621894Foote was the epitome of a Lost Cause revisionist. I'm glad he's dead
>>6621895im a native marylander.maryland wanted to keep its slaves but could not because the capital was located in MD before it was made into a district.
>>6627171>objectively more draconian than the US govt.On top of way more corrupt and inefficient.
would the united states be better if the confederate states and the northern states had a clean split and were two different countries?
>>6627629Yes, we wouldn't have Dixie rural and suburban retards keeping us down with muh freedumbs ideology
>>6621659They should have let the south secede so there would be less southern retards and niggers in the US
>>6621659YesWhite supremacists want black ppl to "get over" slavery and being second class citizens until less than 100 yrs ago yet theykeep bitching about a fucking civil war that happened 150 years ago and dont affect them negatively whatsoever, you know, unlike slavery to blacks.
>>6621659Kind of. Slavery was an issue that the US sidestepped and never truly addressed, leading to stuff like the Missouri Compromise or the 3/5ths comprise. It had to do with the South’s waning political power and the advent of industrialization vs slave labor and a growing cultural rift between the two. Slavery morality was definitely a contributing factor but it wasn’t the only reason. More the political ramifications than anything.
>>6627629The North would be akin to Scandinavia. The South would be a poorer Mexico.
>>6628211White supremacists think that just because they don't care that other people are enslaved, then everyone must also think like them.
>>6629336But the root cause of everything you listed is still slavery, so you can just say slavery.
>>6621659The South seceded over fear of losing slavery, though there was also a cultural and political divide between North and South. Lincoln and others decided they didn't want to let any part of the US secede, and so a war resulted. Constitutionally and legally, the southern states almost certainly had the right to secede, but this would have weakened the USA as a whole and Lincoln didn't want that.
>>6629350holy fr*ck basedgod i wish the south had won now
>>6622982>yfw antifa are modern day confederates
Wasn't because North and South where basically 2 economical blocs biding to one up the other, also the north wanting to contain the south so it didn't gain to much leverage in the western states?
Lost cause dixieboos are literally the American version of Arabs meme-ing about their medieval states to avoid having to confront the fact their modern world iterations are mere shadows of their former selves in relevance and wealth compared to their contemporaries.
>>6631486>Constitutionally and legally, the southern states almost certainly had the right to secede>implyingLets look at Article 6 of the constitution, shall we?>All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.This text of the constitution establishes that the government under the constitution is not a new government, but a continuation of the original government formed under the articles of confederation. Also known as the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, perpetual being the key word here. It is also important to note that the preamble specifically states that under the constitution the union is more perfect i.e, stronger.Next, let’s look at the second part of Article 6:>This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.This dictates that all states within the union, which is perpetual, must hold the US Constitution as the Supreme law of the land.Article 6 alone makes it impossible for any state to leave the Union, which no doubt was the point in the first place.So now that we’ve established states cant leave the Union, what can the union legally do about seceding states? Let’s look at article one:>Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.So the Federal government does have the right to suppress insurrection. Care to tell me how secession was/ is legal? Care to tell me how the co
>>6621674Read your articles of secession, slaving monkey.
>>6621659>modern American flag>confederate battle flag of VirginiaTriggered.
>>6632253Don't forget copious helpings of "the South dindunuffin" and other creative revisionism.
>>6621659it's interesting hearing some claim the north was a tyranny or something, while not acknowledging the southern hatred of the north for not respecting the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred scott decision, both courtesy of the federal government. they also got pissed over douglas' freeport doctrine which basically said it was ultimately up to the people in a region if slavery was legal or not, not up to the federal government
>>6632267Personally, this doesn't quite convince me of the illegality of secession. But then again I'm just not versed in Constitutional law; maybe you are. I'd also entertain the argument that a state which is really being abused and disenfranchised could be justified in breaking the law by breaking away. It's happened before.The key thing here is that wasn't what was happening by any stretch. South Carolina laid out that they were legally released from their "contract" with the federal government because the feds had broken the contract themselves, thereby nullifying it. But what they considered a breach of contract was, literally, the election of Lincoln. That wasn't a "federal act", nor had he even entered office yet, and so obviously he had not enacted any policy which could possibly constitute a breach. It was all a fat load of rank dishonesty.I don't know if war was inevitable or necessary in the strictest terms, but I do know that the South deserved to fucking lose. They may not have been the most evil regime in modern history but few can surpass their inveterate bullshittery. It goes beyond dishonesty and cruelty with them...if there's a dictionary word for a raging, arrogant asshole who delights in sipping down his own runny excrement, please let me know, because in arguing with lost causers I've run out of polite ways to express my distaste for Secessionists.
>>6632580>the feds had broken the contract themselveshave you even read the the document?
>>6632625Which one?http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.aspOr annotated if you preferhttp://www.civildiscourse-historyblog.com/blog/2018/7/1/secession-documents-south-carolinaBut yeah, what I said wasn't really accurate, I was accidentally mushing together arguments from multiple documents. In the above document it wasn't specifically Lincoln's election that they said abrogated the contract, but Northern States who didn't do enough to comply with the Fugitive Slave Act. I guess the Feds were supposed to, I dunno, invade the Northern states and force them to start hunting escaped slaves or something. However, in other papers various states claimed that the election of Lincoln was the last straw and grounds to secede.
>>6632741You still haven’t proved that Confederate secession was legal.
>>6632267When the Constitution was ratified, each individual state had to approve it. If the States of Virginia, Rhode Island, etc. were not sovereign States, there should have been no need for the individual States to approve the Constitution and be admitted to the Union. A single decision at the federal level should have been sufficient. Yet it was not, and each State had to vote to ratify the Constitution individually. Rhode Island remained independent for a year and refused to approve the Constitution, before finally agreeing to it.
>>6635765>a legislative government legislating means states are sovereignWhat kind of retarded logic is this?
>>6635765the same happens with every single ammendment signedare they all sovereign while ammendments are being ratified?
>>6635765The question is, when a state endorsed it, was the state, as a distinct sovereign entity, endorsing it? Or were the people of the country, divided into the several states, endorsing it?And there are good reasons for thinking that the second one is the correct interpretation, including the fact that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The idea that the Constitution generally has priority over was the standard constitutional doctrine even before the Civil War (for everyone except hte nullifiers). The authority of the constitution supercedes that of the states, so how can it be subservient to them? The Constitution itself derives its authority comes from the people - the "we the people" of the opening lines - and not the states. >>6632580>I'd also entertain the argument that a state which is really being abused and disenfranchised could be justified in breaking the law by breaking away. It's happened before.This is a fair point. But there's an important distinction between a legal right to secession under the constitution, and rebellion. A constitutional, legal right to secession is what the Southern apologists sometimes claim: the idea that, regardless of why the Southerners were fighting, they had a right to leave. Unfortunately, this doesn't exist.As you point out, a state that really is being abused and disenfranchised can always rebel. But it doesn't have a legal right to do so. It has to make its case for why rebellion is morally justified, and demonstrate that it really is being abused. The South's moral justification for rebellion was the preservation of slavery, and this is a problem for Southern revisionists because it is (rightly) morally unacceptable to decent people nowadays.
>>6621659YesTo cripple the South's economy to abolish slavery, that is