Redpill me on the civil war

Slavery was the engine to the economy in the south. The South argued that States retained the right to govern their industry as individual states, rather than be forced to follow a National policy presented by "the north" that would inherently destroy their way of life. Their way of life was agriculture on a massive scale. A scale that dictated the use of free labor. Mechanized farm equipment was a mere few years away, and Lincoln ripped from the south their sole means of obtaining a lively hood, for an ill thought out plan loose niggers on the country, and plunge the Nation into a blood fued that would claim more lives than the US involvement in WW1 and WWII combined.

Lincoln was particularly stupid because mechanized farm equipment was a few short years away from feasability, and instead chose to rip the south's means to life out from under them, with no viable alternative.

now look at what we have. Niggers are domestic terrorists who, in the span of a calender year, have destroyed parts of two cities (ferguson, Baltimore), indiscrimintely attack law officers and civilians, disrupt daily life and comerce in their cities in the name of felons and child molesters, and have rendered Chicago a warzone, with a murder rate to rival Fallujah Iraq, or an afghani city

there was more than slavery, but at the end of the day, slavery was still the central keystone to the conflict.

there was also resentment over the federal allocation of money for development, with the lions share going to the Northern states to develop industry with the South essentially being on their own.

also during the time, the South really did pass for their own culture and customs almost completely separate from the rest of the nation. travelling from New York to Nashville was almost like stepping into another nation with its own identity. And Southerners would take this identity to believe that they know how to run their own land better than some suits in Washington who don't give a shit about them.

but all those reasons dwarf in comparison to southerners wanting to keep the social hierarchy and status quo given to them under slavery. No one wanted to face competition in the work force by a people largely considered inferior. So they fought to maintain the social status of the South and the economic benefits given to them by a free work force of 3 million black men.

The reason why it all came to a head in 1860 is because Slavery was quickly becoming an unviable source of labor, with industrialization requiring that you have to educate your workers so that they can use machines and read instruction manuals, the US would not have gotten very far as an advanced economy with the largest portion of their labor force unable to read, write, or work sophisticated machines. The South wanted to maintain the cotton empire for as long as possible, while the rest of the world was quickly moving past it. So it's safe to say that even if the South won, their cotton-producing slave workforce would make Southern cotton worthless by 1890, as Industrialization would make Egyptian and Indian cotton produce in much larger quantities and perform better in the markets.

It wasn't exclusively about slavery but considering the declarations of secession for many of the states that seceded, it was at least a little bit about slavery.

But it was also about nullification - which was an interesting loophole.

Good thing Lincoln never actually banned slavery.

I read somewhere that people who know nothing about the Civil War say that it was definitely about slavery, people who know a little bit about the Civil War say that it definitely wasn't about slavery, and that people who know a lot about the Civil War say that it was probably about slavery.
>listening to /pol/ ever

Uh, cause all the cash crops were in the south. Tobacco, cotton and the like.

>complains about /pol/
>utilizes their "mount stupid" argument

Slavery was a factor. It was neither the sole driving cause nor completely irrelevant, and anybody who says otherwise is retarded.

It was a matter of principal. If you allow states to leave a national union, then the union fails to exist as a true union. Besides, this country saw the effects of the Articles of Confederation and so to treat the country like a Confederation where states could come and go as they pleased would be completely out of the question.

>spends time on /pol/
>man, can I debate!

>their "mount stupid" argument
SMBC is a webcomic, not /pol/ silly user.

>all the leftists here
Disgusting.

Funny how states rights fags never talk about how the southern states were violating the northern states' rights for decades before the civil war

The common rebuttal that it was *actually* about state's right is true.....the right to a economy built on free forced labor.

>what is the 13th amendment?

It was a matter of revenue

The South's economy supported the North

They needed the tax revenue

The South fought for slavery because slavery was what fueled their agriculture.

The main motivation for the South wasn't "keeping those god damn niggers where they belong" it was to protect their assets and their business

/thread

The war was fought over secession. The south wanted to secede in order to preserve slavery. So, in a sense, the war was over slavery.

did you just decide to leave an argument out of your post or do you just want (you)'s that badly

Actually, they probably should have.

>slavery becoming increasingly obsolete due to technological progress
>this would result in masses of shit poor underpaid white laborers
>CSA constitution stated you cannot abolish slavery, but you CAN secede from the confederacy
>high chance the confederate states would leave the CSA and rejoin the Union one by one

>federal government banning slavery
I guess you stupid fucks missed the part where the Union didn't ban slavery until the very end of the war. Or that several states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware) were slave-states that stayed in the Union.

The south was NEVER under threat of losing its slave-owning rights, the issue was entirely due to the status of new states being formed out in the west, something that WAS settled under the Missouri compromise. That is until a couple of butthurt Democrats added a popular sovereignty clause to the Kansas-Nebraska act that would have allowed the matter to be brought up to a popular vote, at the same time bringing in a bunch of shills on both sides to try and bolster the vote in their favor (funnily enough they lost anyways)

Meant so say before the Civil War started, it didn't get passed until several years into the war. Therefore your "abolishing slavery is casus belli" argument is bullshit.

The North was putting a chokehold on the South's economy, thus fucking the people over. The North had a moral superiority in the department of race relations, but they were still racist as hell. Both sides of the Civil War argument are wrong in their own ways.

"People who know nothing about the Civil War say it was about slavery. People who know a little say it was about States rights. But people who know a lot say it was about slavery again."

How many more times are we going to have this same exact thread with the same exact OP image? How many times have we already had this thread?

Baltimore here, the riots didn't really do that much. A few windows got smashed and a construction site got burned down but other than that we've pretty much moved on. Nothing has even happened since the cops got acquitted a week or two ago.

Right now we're all occupied with kids getting robbed playing Pokémon.

...

Yeah, no shit. That doesn't justify slavery though.

>Redpill
I'm going to 'redpill' you on 'redpill'.

'Redpill' refers to a movie in which a dull-eyed, credulous white man takes a capsule from a black man that he literally only just met --but knows is a criminal wanted by the government-- and then consumes it. The immediate result of this is that the white man begins to convulse and lose vital functions of his body.

2/10 joke.

It just means to express to someone an alternative point of view they might not have considered before for whatever reason.

Abe Lincoln was pretty much The original SJW

nothins that simple boi

cause they needed to make money off of them ;)

So it's 1860, and the government is largely controlled by the northern (mostly "radical") republicans, and the southern democrats were much smaller and usually ignored. The states in the south always sought more autonomy, and did not always support what the majority of the states followed as laws, as seen with the nullification crisis of 1832 with S. Carolina. After all these years of being the last to be considered and seeing state's rights diminish over time (most exemplified with the institution of economic requirements, such as the duty of a state to provide substantial economic support to the federal gov't) a collection of states in the deep south formed a confederation only in name. The confederacy existed a while before they actually seceded. They provided an ultimatum: if Lincoln gets elected, we're out of here.

The north had always disregarded slavery and saw it as immoral and obsolete. The South had a connection to slavery as a means to agricultural production and a moral responsibility (they believed they were civilizing the blacks and enlightening them). The south knew that their rights were slipping, and their cornerstone policy of state and individual rights, slavery, was quickly next to be under fire. So they left, recruited more southern states to the war, and held to the articles of confederation, the ultimate in states' rights where a federal government hardly existed.

Nobody is justifying slavery. We're just trying to show you braindead proles that the civil war along with all wars aren't some good guy vs bad guy moral war

Lincoln wasn't even in office when South Carolina seceded you colossal retard.

>In school I was always taught that it was fought because of slaves, but on /pol/ they say it wasn't.
It was fought over longstanding beliefs about the power of the federal government over the rights of states. Granted that the overwhelming reason as to why it exploded was due to fear that the federal government was going to outlaw slavery and thus destroy the largely agricultural southern economy that relied on it but the broader reasons for the civil war go back to the earliest days of the country with issues like the Kentucky-Virginia Resolutions, Nullification Crisis and even the very adoption of the Constitution all born out of the same thought that the federal government was always overreaching and that the states could, should and had the right to rebel against it.

lincoln said that he would allow the confederates to keep their slaves if they just surrendered and kept paying taxes staying in the union. during this time slavery was being naturally abolished in other parts of the world by various methods like buying them all out or passing legislation that freed them. The states had come together voluntarily to join the union, it was understood that they would be able to leave if they decided as well.

Slavery was the #1 reason
It was state rights and trying to stop the growth of the federal government. Slavery wasn't brought in until the north wanted support (I'm not sure on what kind of support if any was given) from European nations in the matter.

>The southern states were better off without the north
The Confederacy was going bankrupt halfway through the war and Egyptian cotton had begun displacing southern cotton in Europe. The Union, having the better diplomats/more prestige, was able to successfully block any European assistance to the CSA as well and this likely would've continued after the war with an independent CSA taking it up the ass economically. The Confederacy wouldn't have lasted 20 years if they managed to win.

Lincoln went in with no real desire to free the slaves and part of the reason Garibaldi was not made part of the Union army (despite Garibaldi wanting to be part of it) was because Lincoln would not make assurances that the main focus of the Civil War was the end of slavery (Garibaldi also wanted to be in charge of the entire Union army, something the US wasn't keen on giving him).

Emancipation was nothing but a tool to further undermine the Confederacy. Lincoln was a shrewd, pragmatic Unionist over anything else.

this goes back to user's question though Why not just let them fail and laugh at them from a distance until they all come crawling back one by one.

Who nose?

Because for people like Lincoln and a lot of others that just wasn't an option. Again, Lincoln was very much a Unionist and believed in the sacredness of it. They could not conceive or tolerate the idea that the Union was something that could be destroyed and people could just leave whenever they wanted. If they could, then America didn't actually exist as it threw the entire concept of the state into question.

Samefaggint but just kind of reiterating that while yes, lots of northerners wanted to abolish slavery (Garfield, for instance, saw the war as a divine mission to destroy that instituion) the biggest aim was preserving the Union. If the Confederate states left and then came crawling back, all it did was send a message stating that states were free to nullify what laws they didn't like or leave whenever they wanted if they could make it on their own. It was a very existential thing.

So your entire argument is that the south would be better of with the north because the north would purposely ruin their economy otherwise. They really are the South's best friend!

My own interpretation of the war is that two separate nations developed out of post revolution America. As America expanded the South understandably wanted to expand their society and their dream for america and that society was reliant on the slave system. The North did not want to let the South expand because they knew it meant the South would have more power both ecomically and politically. South the South fought the war because they thought they were fighting for their version of the American dream. The North thought they were fighting to preserve a United country and later for the abolishment of slavery. So slavery underpinned the society that the South was fighting for but it wasn't just slavery. And the North was infinitely more concerned with preserving a United country

>nd later for the abolishment of slavery.
They didn't approve of slavery (liberal, progressive SJWism at the time), but they didn't care that much about it either way to make the Civil War the bloodiest of all American wars. They wouldn't have sent, or rather so many men wouldn't have volunteered to sign up for freeing the slaves. No, the abolishment of slavery by Lincoln was simply a means to an end. It was virtue signaling to Europe, in hopes of deterring European intervention on behalf of the South, who was practically winning at that point, and for whom British aid for example would have most certainly assured total victory.

>Egyptian cotton had begun displacing southern cotton in Europe

That only happened because of the lack of southern cotton. It quickly regained market share after the war.

So would you take people on pol over historians?

Come on son it doesn't take a genius.

>winners write the history books
>history books are always right
You're stupid.

That's what i meant. They used slavery a later justification for it but it was by no means the major reason. My bad

I'm not implying your analysis is wrong but I always read that the war was a lost cause for the South from the outset because the North had a stronger industry enabling them to produce more equipment for the war. I'm no expert though and I'd love some suggestions for readings suggesting the South had the North on the ropes.

The South said it was about slavery from the getgo. The North didn't bring it up, the South did.

States rights and the southern economy.

That is, their rights to have slaves to support their slave based economy.

This post encapsulates the entire argument.

The Civil War was fought over Secession.

Slavery was a motivating political factor in the crises leading up to war (Bleeding Kansas, Harpers Ferry Raid, Lincoln's election, 1860 Secession Crisis) but one should keep three things in mind:

1. This was not the first time US States had threatened secession. New England had done it so in the 1790s over the Assumption Bill and later in 1815 in opposition to the War of 1812. South Carolina did so in 1832 over tariffs. Each time, the Federal Government had threatened to use troops to prevent. Civil War could have broken out over in any one of those crises, but each time, secession was prevented with some sort of compromise.

2. Which side the rank and file soldier took in the Civil War was generally not decided by your stance on slavery, but your state's loyal/your own views on secession. Hence you had men like George Pickett, and Robert E. Lee, who privately disliked slavery or even like Bushrod Johnson and Stonewall Jackson had actively attempted to undermine it side with the Confederacy. On the opposite, you had the ardently proslavery Sam Houston and Andrew Johnson remain staunch Unionists.

3. While slavery may have been a motivating factors for the secession of the first seven states, the final five states to join the Confederacy (Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee) only did so after Lincoln ordered them to raise troops to wage war on their fellow Southerners following Fort Sumter. Indeed, the outrage at the Lincoln administration's decision to go to war to preserve the Union was so strong, that even the "Free States" like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York wound up contributing large numbers of men to the Confederate cause (including the Commander of all Confederate Armies, General Samuel Cooper).

>the North had a stronger industry enabling them to produce more equipment for the war.
True but they lacked, for a long time, skilled military leadership. As a consequence, their superior resources, which should have helped bring a swift end to the war, ended up being reduced to use a "crutch," maybe the only thing keeping them in the fight at all at times. McClellan was basically a cuck; meanwhile Robert E. Lee emerged as the greatest military leader in American history. And also based Stonewall Jackson.

Nice painting desu, but where's the Iron Brigade's Gaiters?

It would cut the country in half, and cost the US government it's largest centers of trade, ports, as well as the primary source of it's revenue.

That and it would've forever ruined the "more perfect Union" image. The Union was never going to let the South go without a fight.

The American Revolution: Part 2.

Except they don't call it that because, this time, America lost. Or rather, the people did; the country won.

1. It doesn't matter if secession had been threatened 100 times before, as it was the first time any state had actually gone through with it. The Southern States had no incentive to compromise on anything.

2. Why does that matter? As long as the government of the South was pro-slavery (protip: they were) the individual executors private views are not germane to the topic.

3. So what do you think you are proving? There were generals from the South who fought for the North. And yes there were riots in New York and Pennsylvania- no one wants to go to war. Why should certain states be exempt from keeping the union together?

...

Oh no! People are trying to control chattel slavery! How awful!

Article 4, section 3(3) of the Confederate Constitution: The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates [sic]; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

A new state could not be admitted to the Confederacy without first admitting slavery. Whatever happened to States' Rights, you apologist assholes?

Prospective states have the right not to join.

...but you do acknowledge that states' rights was subordinate to slavery in the case that a state wanted to join, yes?

It also meant states already in could not decide to abolish slavery

You make it sound like they would ineligible to join without already having established slavery on their own. Sounds more like the Confederacy was promising not to infringe on states that did wish to implement it.

>In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government
>shall be recognized and protected
How do you go from that, to this:
>you can't come here unless you have slaves/slavery

Also, the fuck's with that typo?
>and protected be Congress

Is this even real? If so, wow. Good job Confederates. You even managed to lose the war on writing.

From Mississippi's Declaration of Secession: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.

Time for Texas: She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy.

Georgia: The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

From Article 1, Section 9(4) of the Confederate Constitution: No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed. Why couldn't a state exercise its right to stop slavery if it was only about states' rights?

That is exactly the intent, i.e. a state had to permit slavery if they wanted to join. Surely, if secession wasn't about slavery, then why would that matter? The South made that a qualification for joining. It isn't about infringing on anything.

Federalism vs state rights as well as industrialization vs agricultural economic base
Slavery was the last straw as it would effectively deem the south unable to combat the north in terms production as slavery was how the plantations ran as successfully as they did.
There was also the matter of whether slaves should count as a representative in the electoral college/senate or not. The entire thing was mostly the North's want to federalize further and industrialize to the modern era and the South's want for individualism and a true confederation.
I wouldn't really say it was fought for slavery or against it, it was more a war on how the states thought the future of the US or CS should be.
Despite what is most often thought, the South was actually extremely powerful and a needed part of the success of the US. Had the south seceded, hostilities between the nations would only mount not to mention the revenue lost and the precedent set would only increase future issue.

>a state had to permit slavery if they wanted to join.
I don't think that was the intent of... what exactly are we talking about? The wording of that excerpt? Again it sounds rather like they required states not to remove or prevent slavery. And that makes perfect fucking sense considering it was the Confederacy. If you don't like it, go be a state in the North; why would you even want to be a state in the Confederacy if you opposed slavery?

The North was already significantly more wealthy than the South. It had more taxpayers by far and Northern industries would benefit from tariffs imposed on an independent South.

...that is precisely what I wanted to ask. Let's say that New Mexico wants to not have slaves, but supports some vague definition of States' Rights that Southerners can barely comprehend, let alone explain: that state would not be admitted to the Confederacy. Slavery was the key issue in regards to secession. Saying anything else is facile.

It was only a key issue because it was the way that plantations were able to compete with Northern industrialization. I'd say it's more of a symptom than the real reason.

>that state would not be admitted to the Confederacy.
No, no, no. Read it again. Carefully this time.

Unless you have some other information, this paragraph clearly explains the Confederacy's stance on slavery. It doesn't prohibit non-slave states from joining; it does prohibit anti-slave states from joining, and from existing within it.

In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government

Any state that wanted to join the Confederacy was going to be a slave state. Where is the ambiguity?

Probably, in practice. That still doesn't mean they necessarily had to be slave states. It just means they had to be willing to accept slavery.

...shall be recognized...

Was English your first language?

>shall means must
>recognized means instituted
Yes, it is my native language. What is yours?

They left so they could have a majority and pass the Bulls they wanted, including keeping slavery alive
North really is the one responsible for the war
Lincoln said it was to preserve the union but later says its for slaves to get more power

>shall means must
That's actually how it works in legal.

Hence the difference between "shall issue" and "may issue" permits.

If slavery isn't legal in your state, you can't join the CSA.

Very simple legal terminology.

Because the South attacked a federal fort that the government had bought from South Carolina decades earlier and wasn't a part of any of the Confederate states, but was near them.

I'm willing to humor you on that but that still leaves the recognized bit. One can recognize something without enacting it.

The cotton gin and steam engine put an end to slavery, not the lying sacks of shit in the North.
Civil war defined is, two factions fighting for control of the central government. The South simply wanted to leave, b/c they were out producing their northern counter parts two to one. ie yankees are a bunch of thieves.

They were asking for it.

Also no one died.

This vindicates the southerner

>What was it really fought over?

Just buy into the slave narrative, (((they))) will not accept any other reason no matter what.

It is just a waste of time to even bother at this point, just agree that whites are evil and southern whites are the actual devil.