Was the Confederacy really a bunch of mean racist slavers who were mean and evil and only interested in Slavery?

Yankees originally just wanted to keep Southern autism in check and limit their retarded economic practices to their own shitty states and not let it spread to new territories. Emancipation only came when the hicks chimped out and the defining factor of contention (slavery) needed to be removed for the security of the union.

It was the rich people who owned a majority of the slaves. It was complicated, but slavery was definitely a main factor in the civil war.

In the end the traitors reaped what they had sewn and now the north and the south love each other and the US is more unified than ever.

Around 2% of people owned slaves in the South. A much bigger & far more influential policy supported by Lincoln than ending slavery(which he never even stated he wanted to do; he simply opposed the introduction of slavery into newly acquired territories) was his support for the Morill tariff, which was widely supported in the north - specifically by New Jersey & Pennsylvania- & despised in the south. It gradually tripled the tax burden on the south over the course of 2 years by increasing the 18% tariff to 47%, & adding excise taxes. 80% of the tax burden was paud by the south, & as much as 80% of the revenue was being spent in the North.

People seem to forget that Lincoln said the South could keep their slaves if they returned to the union & paid the taxes, promising to crush them & end slavery NOT because he originally wanted to, but as an incentive to coerce them back into the union without killing them off.

For a more in depth explanation, I'd recommend you, & any braindead degenerate that believes the secession was over slavery, read the books, The Real Lincoln & When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession.

^Don't fucking respond to me with the same bullshit, ahistorical narrative, because I won't respond.

The South had its chance.

>Around 2% of people owned slaves in the South.

Right, the ones making all the decisions. Like seceding to protect slavery, like they explicitly said they were doing.

As a person or as president?

Both desu

>Around 2% of people owned slaves in the South.

First of all, you're outright lying.

civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

Secondly, the relatively low rate of ownership was because the slaves were all legally owned by the household patriarch, not the rest of his family. The rest of his family benefited from it even if they technically didn't own slaves themselves. In the core states of the South, slaves were owned by a quarter to a third of all families (Alabama, Virginia, Texas, Florida) nearly 50% in states like South Carolina and Mississippi. Overall slaves were owned by about one third of southern families. These were the people that held basically all of the power. To this must be added the people who weren't part of slave-owning families but still had jobs directly tied to slavery.

Third, the state governments themselves plus the CSA VP flat-out said slavery was the main reason. Someone's probably going to post that huge image with all the quotes.

Fourth, get fucked, Cletus.

Yes, their entire wealth was built off it

Every slave owner should've been publicly executed after the war was over

Not what happened. Read the whole damn comment.

As a person he was pretty okay, as a president I think you need to look at how he handled the Indian removal act when the supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, the trail of tears, the banks, and the spoils system.

Who said anything about the intentions of the CSA? I didn't say protecting slavery wasn't a goal of the founders of the confederacy. As I explicitly pointed out, the secession was not caused by slavery, because Lincoln didn't even threaten slavery. He said the south could keep their slaves if they returned & paid his absurd taxes. If they refused to, however, he claimed he'd take their slaves as well. He knew the south couldn't hold out for long. He had 5x the men & 5x the resources. This is when the confederacy was formed(literally half a year after the first state seceded) - which was formed explicitly to protect slavery(never denied it; never will).

Lastly, I'm from Ohio & your historical illiteracy isn't grounds to infer my name & state of origin. Fuck off, retard.

idaf about that shit, it may have been unethical but it was better for us in the end.

>as the Confederacy really a bunch of mean racist slavers who were mean and evil and only interested in Slavery?

was everyone a Slaver? No. But historically speaking people from the South are a bunch of nasty, unlikable SOBs.

Historically speaking, everyone was an unlikeable SOB.

Not the original Andrew Jackson guy but I just like Andrew Jackson as a person and somewhat as a president. As a person he was pretty cool, he participated in over 100 duels and took a lot of bullets. He even beat a would be assassin with a cane. He also is the only US president to get rid of Congress' debt.

Yeah but southerners take the cake for bitterness and loathing.

>After the American Civil War, during the labor shortage as the South converted to free labor, planters in southern states recruited Italians to come to the United States to work mainly in agriculture and as laborers. Many soon found themselves the victims of prejudice, economic exploitation, and sometimes violence. The plight of the Italian immigrant agricultural workers in Mississippi was so serious that the Italian embassy became involved in investigating their mistreatment. Later waves of Italian immigrants inherited these same virulent forms of discrimination and stereotyping which, by then, had become ingrained in the American consciousness. One of the largest mass lynchings in American history was of eleven Italians in New Orleans, Louisiana, in 1891. The city had been the destination for numerous Italian immigrants. Nineteen Italians who were thought to have assassinated police chief David Hennessy were arrested and held in the Parish Prison. Nine were tried, resulting in six acquittals and three mistrials. The next day, a mob stormed the prison and killed eleven men, none of whom had been convicted, and some of whom had not been tried. Afterward, the police arrested hundreds of Italian immigrants, on the false pretext that they were all criminals. Teddy Roosevelt, not yet president, famously said the lynching was indeed "a rather good thing". John M. Parker, who helped organize the lynch mob, and in 1911 went on to become governor of Louisiana, said of Italians that they were "just a little worse than the Negro, being if anything filthier in their habits, lawless, and treacherous" In 1899, in Tallulah, Louisiana, three Italian-American shopkeepers were lynched because they had given equal status in their shops to blacks. A vigilante mob hanged five Italian Americans: the three shopkeepers and two bystanders.

And HE KILLED THE BANK.

[spoiler]too bad it turned out to be a zombie[/spoiler]

Rich people getting poor farmers riled up so the rich can keep using slaves.

I say that as a southerner too. It was all bourgie bullshit.

No. The south was for slavery of just black people who weren't freedmen, the north was for slavery of the entire population minus the rich who controlled the government through forced participation in a unified legislation.

Read the comments I posted in this thread. You could not possibly be more historically illiterate.

tbhwyf that's a pretty impressive victory.

He was right on the mark, actually. Anybody who fought and died for the confederacy, without actually owning slaves themselves, got duped big time. Imagine throwing your life away just so some fat retard can keep black people on his farm.

t. southern apologist

What a bunch of retards both sides were.

So wikipedia is basically just urban dictionary now?

>Have to rely on the labor of niggers to do everything for you, otherwise your region is completely irrelevant
baka desu senpai the south sucks