States Rights

Basically this. They decided to go all in with a meme economy and then forced a war when their economy was made irrelevant

The best part about southern butthurt is that slavery was a shitty system that is inferior to wage labor and that the entirety of that """Nation""" was reliant upon nigs and cotton

lmao, their entire country would fall apart without blacks holding it together

No one cares about your shitty little war.

"I hate the South so much that I will get over 365,000 northerners killed preventing them from leaving our union"
t. every Yank

"I'm so reliant on cotton and niggers I will betray my own nation to hold on to it"
t. every Dicksie

>states rights to deprive the rights of people

>The war was over slavery
>Tariffs had nothing to do with it
High school history teacher pls

northerners are the actual niggerlovers though

>nation founded by slave owning traitors
>butthurt when slave owners betray you

>I don't understand macroeconomics

"I'm so in love with the idea of taxation without representation that I will betray my own nation to actualize it"
t. every Burger

Why isn't the queen your head of state?

>150 years later and rednecks STILL get triggered every day
Based Sherman

>another civil war thread
>another yugoslav thread
>another thread where christian denomination fight
>another pol vs leftypol thread
I'd rather hang myself than participate in them ever again.

Who's that?

The declarations of secession barely mention tariffs at all.

Wow, it's weird that recorded history only has a finite amount of things to talk about, isn't it?

God bless Sherman, his exploits inspired one of my favored airs from the civil war!

vocaroo.com/i/s1vlJS9lRcrT

Slavery only became unpopular because it stopped being the best financial option.
>Mfw somebody tries to tell me slavery was a minor factor in the Civil War
Just admit that slavery was compatible with the the plantation system.

>Slavery only became unpopular because it stopped being the best financial option.

Is that true? What system is more economically efficient than having your workers work for nothing? I mean, it's obviously barbaric, but in terms of purely "getting shit done" it's hard to imagine a better system.

There's hundreds of interesting yet underrepresented topics.

Why don't you make a thread about one of them user?

Just to play along with the notion.
Slaves age, slaves get hurt, slaves get sick, slaves might revolt, slaves require lodging, slaves require food. When you can pay a laborer a meager wage and can get rid of him should he get too old, hurt, sick, etc, then you have minimized your liability by simply giving him a wage rather accepting full responsibility for his welfare, since his welfare determines the value of your investment like with other livestock. You don't need to give two shits about paid labor when there are no labor laws. At that period it was common for people to live in the wilderness with shoddy makeshift shacks.

The pyramids weren't built by slaves, and the problems with slavery outweigh the benefits. You've gotta consider the increased economic strain of keeping slaves in line coupled with the reduced quality of work.

america wasnt part of britain you muppet. they were a colony.

Slaves, it turns out, do not want to be slaves. So their work will be as slow and low quality as they can get away with, they will try to escape all the time, and you will have to pay so many overseers to prevent these things that you might as well pay the overseers to do the job themselves.

Slavery was never the best option, it was simply the only option. There were far better machinery options available from Britain, but there was a heavy tariff on those goods and American made goods at the time were of a lesser quality.

So the price of slaves were inflated, to each one being a valuable piece of machinery as supply was very limited. Slaves were bred in Virginia and shipped to New Orleans market where they were then bought by newly expanding plantations in the deep south. Because their system was dependent on the slaves, and there was no way to phase them out financially because the government was too inept to place piecemeal legislation to curtail it (such as children not being able to be enslaved) it blew up into a critical issue at the time of civil war with the southerncrats were worried about being bankrupted by a government that was hostile to their property rights.

>Slaves were bred in Virginia and shipped to New Orleans market

American slavery (this applies to the entire new world) was a bit of an anomaly historically. For most of history, there was no assumption that you would be a slave just because your parents were slaves.

Yep. That was part of the American issue. It caused the proliferation of slavery, since it was self-sustaining especially considering the lower mortality rates on cotton fields compared to sugarcane plantations.

The older slaves once they could no longer pick the cotton would have most likely been trained in some skill on the plantation instead of dying within seven years of being brought to the plantation (average survival rate of a new african slave in Haiti was seven years before they were made a cripple)

He's not wrong, Cletus. Maybe if you graduated the 9th grade you would realize that.

Whose butthurt? Only southern retards keep bringin up the civil war, and call it the "war of northern aggression" because they can't get over the fact they started a war and proceeded to get BTFO.

Devil's Advocate:

>Abraham Lincoln could have just let succession happen and then there would have been no civil war.

Was keeping the union together really worth 600,000 deaths?

>For most of history, there was no assumption that you would be a slave just because your parents were slaves.

Are you retarded?

Then why is every thread including this one made by a Yankee?

All current academic literature says the slave system was working very well economically.

>all attempts to compromise with the south in 1861 were about slavery
>tariffs not mentioned in all but one deceleration of secession, slavery is mentioned as the main cause for secession in all of them.
>tariffs in 1861 at lowest they'd ever been
>CSA constitution bans emancipation, makes slavery legal everywhere in its borders. Keeps tariff system from US constitution.

For most of history, there was no assumption that the children of slaves would also be slaves. Most slaves, historically speaking, were prisoners of war brought in from a conquered city. They would be slaves for life, but their children were treated as being new citizens.

Seeing as how it ended slavery, yeah I would say it was worth it.

...

Rome, Russia, India, the various Caliphates, and even Africans all had chattel slavery. This was by no means unique to slavery in the Americas.

Slavery would have ended anyway. There is no way it could have persisted into the 20th century.

>what is a pretext

Do you think the Iraq War was about weapons of mass destruction too? Funny this is being posted in a Sherman thread considering he said the war didn't have to do with slavery at all.

>entire southern economy based around slavery
>hurrrr durr it would have been abolition 40 years later

Have any sources to back up your bullshit?

>Funny this is being posted in a Sherman thread considering he said the war didn't have to do with slavery at all.

From the point of view of most Northerners, the Civil War was mostly about keeping the Union together. Sure, there were plenty of abolitionists who joined the Union Army specifically to fight slavery, but they were a minority.

However, from the Southern point of view, the war was about keeping slavery, period. There isn't really ambiguity about this. The declarations of secession from the various confederate states all cite preservation of slavery as their primary motive. The Mississippi declare even goes so far as to declare that slavery is of great benefit to mankind and that its abolition would be a tragedy.

Then why didn't the South just accept the Corwin amendment? the north never even threatened slavery. It's pretty obvious that the South was on the losing end of the union regardless of slavery. No export economy does well when they can't control their own fiscal policy. The north was better off keeping the South while the South was better off without the north.

>the north never even threatened slavery

If you said that in Georgia in 1863, they probably would have hung you from a tree

Slavery was on the rise at the time right before the war, the highest it had ever been in America

Alexander Stephens said that constantly and became vice president of the confederacy.

Historic lag time from slow ability of information to travel. It was an issue in the revolutionary war too, the war of 1812.. It seems like a reoccuring theme actually in american government where the information is there but doesnt reach the right sources to advert the need for action. The Corwin admendment would have lessened the southern plantation owners feel that they would be deprived of their property, and would have opened the door to compromise on the flow of slaves.

>I'm so in love with the idea of taxation without representation

Literally the opposite of that though.

Typo on my part

It had to be done to save the union
Rebels had it coming

Oh have you heard the glorious news, is the cry from every mouth,
Charleston is taken, and the rebels put to rout;
And Beauregard the chivalrous, he ran to save his bacon—
When he saw Gen. Sherman's "Yanks," and "Charleston is taken!"

With a whack row de dow!
A hunkey boy is Gen. Sherman!
Whack row de dow
INVINCIBLE IS HE!

Wasn't the Corwin Amendment and others like it denied because they were written with the exclusion of expanded slave rights in western territories?

>expand slavery or else we will give up all claim to those territories!

If the south wanted to expand slavery so bad, why would they secede?

>When you are so lazy that you would rather start a war where a half a million of those worthless back country bumpkins die a day so you can keep having other people do the work for you.

The high born Southern Planter was the equivalent of the Jew.

>you will never be a sweet tea sippin', black slave impregnating, mandingo fight enthused, southern gentleman
why live?

yeah but twice as many yankees died so it was worth it

t. wealthy southerner from blueblood family

>the north never even threatened slavery.
Yet. To Southern Planters, the movement of the nation was clearly against them. Already the House was lost to them in terms of population. With Lincoln at the helm, a man who ran on the principle that slavery should only remain in the South, all new territories would thus be added in as free, destroying the political power the Slave owning powers held in the Senate. It's not a hard stretch of the imagination to think that when a Northerner says "We don't want to threaten your slaves," and you see your political status as rapidly descending into the minority position, its hard not call bullshit against that.

That's why "State's Rights" began to come up a lot during the time. It was a basis used to develop legal arguments to create new minority rights for the Southern Planter class, as they feared with the rate of Free State expansion, it was only a matter of time before abolition would be forced through Congress.

>wealthy southerner
we weren't thorough enough

>we

It was on a long steady decline until the 1790's when the Cotton gin was invented and made it profitable again.

...

>responce

the south has historically burned down their own version of states rights to the ground. States rights are important and the entirety of america would have been better off with the focus on the state level rather than federalism. It doesn't change however, that for this experiment to work, you need A: the freedom to move between the states, so that you don't get stuck in a state if it does some wack shit (like enslave you) and B: A governmental system that is hard on buisnesses, because they are the ones who will prefer federalism.

The south has historically been against these two necissary policies for the life blood of any decentralized nation. They have always wanted their cake and to eat it to.

There are still dixie sentiments that buy into this states right shit in the south hook line and sinker into the republican party, despite the fact that the republican party not only is for buisness deregulation and supporting corporations, but also more importantly because decentralization is such a monumentous task that the entirety of the political movement should be in favor of it if you would intend to treat it as more substantial than the freedom from oppression thats supposed to occur during communism. The republican party is quite clear. Religious persecution of non christians, homosexuality, abortion, big buisness, scientific sensure and regressionism and lining their own pockets, has always always been their actual behavior. You can juggle the sins of the democrats and republicans interchangably. but neither is anything but federalist, and you'd have to be the biggest delusional fuckwhits on the planet to convince yourself otherwise.

i fucking love honey comb

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavo_Díaz_Ordaz

Not him but other nations were starting to abolish slavery and it was becoming less and less financially viable. Industrialization was taking over.

>southern apologists use whatever sophistry they can to try to defend slavery
>years later people fall for it hook line and sinker

The power of memes.

excellent

>declare yourself an independent nation because "muh way of life" despite immorality.
>proceed to attack fort sumtner
>win at first then get rekt..
>get so butthurt you make up a narrative where you were the innocent victims in all this.
>a bloo bloo bloo

fuck the south, reconstruction was too soft,
should've dissolved the southern states, exiled southern leadership to "settle the frontier" in Alaska...

Go prep your wife's bull Carl

>muh immorality

Who's immorality?

>DIXIES OUT REEEEE
>we should've genocided you

Yankee autism never ceases to amaze me

>state's rights as a theoretical concept

boy are you retarded. "State's rights" inherently requires a governing document to determine which powers are delegated to the federal government and which are reserved for the states. Neither of your claims in your first paragraph were state's rights according to the US constitution in 1860. Claim A is beyond retarded considering it's directly contradicted by the fugitive slave clause in Article IV.

So why don't you pull your head out of your ass, read some history, and come back with something meaningful to say.

burn

Why is American History so interesting?

>The south secedes and form their own country
>Attack Ft. Sumter unprovoked and start the war
>Call it "The War of Northern Aggression"
>mfw

>from Nashville
>visit north
>Chicago is nothing but nigger shantytowns with whites hiding in the suburbs
>Detroit is nothing but nigger shantytowns with whites hiding in the suburbs
>Cleveland is nothing but nigger shantytowns with whites hiding in the suburbs
>Philly is nothing but nigger shantytowns with whites hiding in the suburbs
>Yankees think they "won"

>visit the south
>niggers are everywhere
>live in the north
>not a nigger in sight
>neighborhood is 99% white with 1 asian family living nearby

The south is a multicultural hell hole filled with niggers, spic and "whites" who act like niggers. The north is the white man's true home.

State rights is a spook.
So is constitution

technicaly, having to feed house and control your workforce is a significant cost, but in rural conditions where you control the land it can be managed

that might be part of why the north had a problem with slavery

that means youre segregated

Niggers don't deserve to live next to white people.

>don't import large numbers of Africans
>get to live in a place without Africans