Give me some red-pilled books about the American Revolution

thanks senpai

Even as a Brit, I can recommend Ben Franklin's autobiography. There's little about the war there (it ends before the real stuff happens), but he describes the time and country very well.

watch John Adams. Its pure kino

youtube.com/watch?v=GxSLIgNKYZY

>libertarian society
>slavery
pick one

the founders themselves were against slavery but knew it wasn't possible for them to remove all at once. no society starts out perfectly in line with the ideals they are aiming for.

while we're on the subject, there were better, less destructive ways to end the slavery issue than going to war.

>were against

well they recognized the contradiction anyway

>kino

you need to go back

>while we're on the subject, there were better, less destructive ways to end the slavery issue than going to war.

to say thats what the civil war was, the north trying to end slavery and the south saying "fuck no" is wrong.

Also, reading a few things from soldiers back in the revolution, even back then, southerners were calling northerners yankee scum and what not.

Also, the southern theater of the war was fucking brutal. most people laughed at the patriot because "lol stuff like that never happened!" but there was some brutal fucking shit going down in that war. Its not nearly as "clean" as most people think.

A few businessmen put the slavery thing in the declarations of secession but most southerners weren't fighting for that and most northerners weren't either. The south's issue with Northern tyranny was far, far broader than slavery.

the north had irish slaves, the northerners made a ton of money off the slave trade. Lincoln didn't care about freeing the slaves; that's not why he went to war. he wanted control over the south. the emancipation proclamation was a political tactic.

so it's not the version we heard in school.

>Lincoln didn't care about freeing the slaves

yes he did. He was a long time abolitionist which is why the south hated him. No matter what way you cut it, slavery is the core of the cause of the civil war

Lincoln is known to have said that if he could unite the union without freeing slaves, he would do it.

Lincoln's abolitionist stripes are very overstated by Lincoln worshippers. Some fags down south hated him for the slavery thing but that's not why most hated him.

Thomas Hutchinson's Strictures on the Declaration of Independence

>Lincoln is known to have said that if he could unite the union without freeing slaves, he would do it.

yes because he valued the continued existence of the united states above his desire to free the slaves. That doesnt mean he still wasnt a segregationist. Why do you think the south hated him so much that they seceded from the union before he even took office?

put all moral views of slavery aside, and look at it from the point of view that it was a very important institution for the south, and theres a growing sense of trying to get rid of this institution in the country. Then a president is elected who is famous for being against it, then they decided to just leave the country and form their own.

a modern day equivalent would be like if the whole country told the south "ok, you cant do ANYTHING with oil now. That now illegal."

it's not why he went to war. he went to war to with the seceding states because he wanted control over them.

anti-northern sentiment was a much broader issue than slavery. slavery was just one of many things the south thought the North was exerting too much control over. a lot of them didn't even really care that much about the slavery issue.

rich, influential businessmen resented him because of their interests in slavery greatly but that's not the majority of the population.

>it's not why he went to war. he went to war to with the seceding states because he wanted control over them.

I know, I already said that.

The cause of this split in the first place is slavery. Theres no way to cut around this fact.

>there's no way to cut around that fact

except there is, or at the very least, the reason most of the southerners who supported it did so were not too motivated by slavery. the influential businessman behind behind the scenes were interested in that sure, and that may have been a big reason the split was successful, but it's not what motivated the majority of the southerners who supported secession. they were motivated by a far broader anti-north sentiment.

>Yeah they said they were seceding because of slavery but they didn't REALLY mean it.
That's not how primary sources work.

>businessfags had interest in keeping slavery alive and had it put it in their declarations of secession along with the other reasons
>that means the majority of citizens were chiefly motivated by slavery and not the far broader issue of Northern tyranny

AYYYY!!!

Do you have any sources to back up this claim?

Almost a Miracle

its undisputed that most white southern families did not own slaves. a lot of them may not have been against slavery but it's obvious their reasons, rational or not, were about combating what they saw as Northern tyranny, not keeping slaves they didn't own. rich, influential businessmen wanted slaves and they fought for that, but it's clear there was something else driving the ordinary citizen.

Settlers by J. Sakai

>but it's obvious their reasons, rational or not, were about combating what they saw as Northern tyranny, not keeping slaves
Well if it's so obvious then I'm sure there are plenty of primary sources to back up your claim. Do you have any? Because I have the declarations of secession that cite slavery and white supremacy as the reasons for secession.

the declaration of secession are partly influenced by rich businessmen. the institution of slavery wasn't even in immediate threat, but those greedy faggots were securing their interests for generations to come and got that added.

it's just a fact that most southerners didn't own slaves. i'll let you do a 5 second google search on that yourself. seeing as they didn't, and seeing as that anti-northern sentiment had been going on in the South since at least the revolutionary war, it's pretty clear that they weren't fighting to keep slaves they didn't have. it's not like the average citizen had any input in the declaration of secession, but a lot had anti-northern sentiment and would be willing to fight.

A Struggle for Power: The American Revolution was quite good, but pretty dense.

1776 is a great book.

>I have the declarations of secession

Look I'm on your side but if you just say that without context then he can just keep saying how rich businessmen had the most input behind them and how they're not representative and how the south dindu nuffin. If you don't have a deep enough knowledge to provide context for it then maybe you shouldn't be arguing about it. He clearly shouldn't be either, don't get me wrong.

you didn't have to own slaves to be against abolition, if you're a southern white the end of slavery would mean an end to your superior position in society over slaves, whether you actually benefited from that privilege or not. I'd be interested to know how large a percentage of the population were employed to support slavery as overseers, traders, handlers, trackers of escaped slaves, etc.

Take a look at this for example, all confederate currency had slavery prominently displayed, clearly it was considered a central part of their culture.

Do you have any sources beyond the money that most ordinary citizens felt they would lose their position as "superior" and that that was important enough to them to go to war over? I could speculate as much as you and say that they printed the slaves on the money as a fuck you to northern abolitionists, doesn't mean most ordinary citizens really cared to have slaves so they could feel superior over something, they cared about it to the extent it agitated some abolitionists up North (and no doubt rich people with interest of slavery were heavily suggesting how much those two things go together). But it doesn't mean it was the main motivation for going to war with the North for most ordinary citizens.

Why businessmen wanted to print it on money? to sear in the minds of the citizens that slavery=anti-north and southern pride, to secure their interests for generations to come, and the rich too wanted to raise a middle finger to the north.

but it doesn't mean that slavery was the initial main motivation for going to war with the northerners for most ordinary, which is the debate

sorry, you gotta do better than that.

Glad to see my thread about the revolutionary war has turned into a debate about the confederates

you've made the claim that slavery was not important to the average southerner, its up to you to support that argument, if you can.

I can give you a few primary sources of my own however that show the importance of slavery to southerners

South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun's "Slavery as a Positive Good" speech, delivered before the U.S. Senate in February 1837.
users.wfu.edu/zulick/340/calhoun2.html

Excepts from Edmund Ruffin's proslavery essay, The Political Economy of Slavery; or, The Institution Considered in Regard to Its Influence on Public Wealth and the General Welfare, first published in 1853.
pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/lincolns-political-economy/

"Cotton is King," Senator James Henry Hammond's speech before the U.S. Senate on 4 March 1858.
teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cotton-is-king/
he talks quite extensively about how great slavery is and how whites are inherently racially superior

constitutional ammendments proposed by Senator John Crittenden as a last ditch effort to avoid civil war and reverse secession, these were approved by southern leaders but rejected by Lincoln
avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/critten.asp
it would have prevented the constitution from ever being amended to abolish slavery

oh but these were just the words of the elites right, so who cares? Well these were elected representatives who in theory must have represented the interests and opinions of the people who elected them, not just as you so elegantly put it "bussinessfags".

That's what happens when you throw out terms like "red-pill." There's this thing called "poisoning the well of discourse," user.

>unironically asks for "red-pilled" books about a historical event
>is surprised when obnoxious redpillers show up and are obnoxious