Well Veeky Forums, what was it?

Huh, who would have thought that protectionist policies, an utter unwillingness to adopt a different economic model of growth that instead relied entirely on subjugating human beings as property, enacting policies that turned away all immigrants that weren't WASPs, and an utter disdain for technological progress that the North openly embraced would come to hurt them. Crazy.
As much as you can try and defend the South and say "oh the North hated blacks too" at the very least the North saw the blacks as human. Second class, hated humans, but humans granted rights under the constitution. Of all the issues that the North was willing to compromise on, and God knows they bent over backwards with the Missouri Compromise and Kansas-Nebraska Compromise there was no appeasing the South on the slave issue.
The war was about slavery. You can spin it seven ways to Sunday but the war was about slavery.

>protectionist policies

The North was protectionist, not the South. The North was in favor of higher tariffs whereas the South desperately needed lower tariffs.

>an utter unwillingness to adopt a different economic model of growth that instead relied entirely on subjugating human beings as property

Not that different honestly. In fact, you could make the argument that since labor laws were practically nonexistent the actual wage earned by most industrial workers were in some way comparable to the squalid living conditions of some slaves. Were slaves treated worse? Sure, I'm happy to concede that. Is being property worse than being a wagecuck? Absolutely. But seriously, this 'divine moral conviction' shit somehow didn't stop Northern business owners from treating their workers like meat.

>an utter disdain for technological progress

How fucking bourgeois can you possibly try and sound? I'm not even a leftie, but holy shit.

>As much as you can try and defend the South and say "oh the North hated blacks too" at the very least the North saw the blacks as human. Second class, hated humans, but humans granted rights under the constitution.

...Except they explicitly weren't given rights under the Constitution. You can argue that it was a hyprocritical document between moral foundation and intent, but the Constitution pretty explicitly says black people weren't people.

1/2

>Of all the issues that the North was willing to compromise on, and God knows they bent over backwards with the Missouri Compromise and Kansas-Nebraska Compromise there was no appeasing the South on the slave issue.

Again, because it literally wasn't something the South *could* compromise on. The South was in debt and tariffs were being raised, putting an even harder strain on an agrarian-based economy. If anything, it only became a cultural battle (secondarily) only because the North was threatening the South with total financial ruin.

I mean really, do you think over a half a million Americans died for the rights of black people? Black people who again, you concede that were hated by Northerners? It's fucking absurd.

2/2

>because it literally wasn't something the South *could* compromise on

This is the only part of your apologetics with any substance.

The south owned more than three billion dollars worth of human beings at a time when a two dollar whore was the expensive kind.

We wouldn't have a nigger problem.

I mean, it is kind of the main point of my argument, so.

Also, I really can't wrap my head around how some people think that an entire country would chimp out over the rights of a people that we can agree no one particularly liked when similar instances of ending slavery and other such systems (such as in Russia with the abolition of serfdom, for example) had a far more peaceful transition. The moral conviction argument has no legs to me.

Fixed your pic.

>he actually brought up the Russian serfs

I don't know if you know this but those serfs turned on the people that freed them. There weren't many peaceful transitions from serfdom to freedom in Europe (the 1800s was full of wars in Europe that forced the old elites out of power, starting with Napoleon and ending with the Russian Revolution, or you could go with the freeing of the serfs if you wanted?)

Even South America was full of civil wars in the 1800s with Brazils even revolving around slavery as well. I'm inclined to believe that while slavery was the issue that propagated it was really just a manifestation of the new industrial aristocracy v. the old landed aristocracy. Just like what happened all across Europe and the other American nations.

Wasn't really about slavery. it was more about states rights and different needs when it came to the economy.

Why do you think Kansas and Nebraska went to war against each other. There was a moral conviction that black people were in fact people and had equal rights before the law. The South fought against this fact alone so much they were willing to dissolve the United States of America. The North did not want the South to secede and were willing to fight to preserve the Union, going so far as to allow slavery in the territories and states that it was already in under the hopes it would die out in a generations and were willing to compensate every single slave owner for their monetary loss. The South could never see black people as people and seceded, simple as that.

the southern states' need for slavery.

>but the Constitution pretty explicitly says black people weren't people.
You're going to have to give a citation for this one.

>but the Constitution pretty explicitly says black people weren't people.
It quite literally never does
>Slavery is seen in the Constitution in a few key places. The first is in the Enumeration Clause, where representatives are apportioned. Each state is given a number of representatives based on its population - in that population, slaves, called "other persons," are counted as three-fifths of a whole person. This compromise was hard-fought, with Northerners wishing that slaves, legally property, be uncounted, much as mules and horses are uncounted. Southerners, however, well aware of the high proportion of slaves to the total population in their states, wanted them counted as whole persons despite their legal status. The three-fifths number was a ratio used by the Congress in contemporary legislation and was agreed upon with little debate.

>In Article 1, Section 9, Congress is limited, expressly, from prohibiting the "Importation" of slaves, before 1808. The slave trade was a bone of contention for many, with some who supported slavery abhorring the slave trade. The 1808 date, a compromise of 20 years, allowed the slave trade to continue, but placed a date-certain on its survival. Congress eventually passed a law outlawing the slave trade that became effective on January 1, 1808.

>The Fugitive Slave Clause is the last mention. In it, a problem that slave states had with extradition of escaped slaves was resolved. The laws of one state, the clause says, cannot excuse a person from "Service or Labour" in another state. The clause expressly requires that the state in which an escapee is found deliver the slave to the state he escaped from "on Claim of the Party."

Guess what the next mention is slavery is.

The civil war never happened

The secessionists say they were motivated by slavery, and I believe them.

>independance

3/5ths compromise

Not him btw

Think you might want look up the definition of "explicit"

The south fought the war over slavery, the north fought to keep the union together.

>how different do you think it would have been if the south was allowed to phase out slavery instead?
This demonstrates a profound ignorance as to the dynamic of the relationship between the north and the south.

Lincoln campaigned for years on the idea of compensatory emancipation: the same way that all of the European states used to gradually phase out the institution. That's where the government just buys all the slaves at a fair market value and frees them.

The south flatly rejected compensatory emancipation. It wasn't even conceivable in the south, they outright refused to even consider it.

When Lincoln was elected on the moderate platform of "you can keep your slaves, you just can't create new slave states" they seceded, knowing full well that slavery would fall into decline when the number of free states began to outnumber the number of slave ones. The very idea was intolerable to them, so they rebelled.

You have to understand that slavery was not "dying" in the south, that was a revolutionary era meme that just didn't pan out. Their entire society, even in its spiritual fiber, was constructed around this belief in a natural hierarchy, that some men are superior and deserve complete authority over the lesser races. This way of thinking had completely hijacked southern culture and mutated it into something ugly and very, very expansionary.

There were, in fact, slave owning states which were allowed to gradually phase out slavery: the border states which stayed loyal to the Union: Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. And all of those states except Maryland are still complete shitholes, just like most of the places which Sherman burned to the ground.

>Not that different honestly. In fact, you could make the argument that since labor laws were practically nonexistent the actual wage earned by most industrial workers were in some way comparable to the squalid living conditions of some slaves. Were slaves treated worse? Sure, I'm happy to concede that. Is being property worse than being a wagecuck? Absolutely. But seriously, this 'divine moral conviction' shit somehow didn't stop Northern business owners from treating their workers like meat.
But the difference is that in the northern model, those wagecucks could actually do something about their shitty situation: they began organizing and fighting to improve their situation.

That's quite different from being an illiterate shackled in a barn and whipped constantly for even minor infractions or missed quotas. Slavery only works when they're kept continuously terrified.

>the civil was

Southerners literally wrote in their journals that it was about slavery. Motherfuckers that fought for the confederacy flat out said it was about slavery and held the "States rights" shit in contempt.

It was about slavery. The CSA Constitution actually had more limitations on rights of States than the original Constitution.

The open declarations of secession very plainly say the complaints of the States and the top most issue was slavery.

>independance

YEEEHAAW!!! Good job Cletus, you shore dun did show them yankees right real good!

*were
I really fucked that up again.

WHERE
God dammit, im tired and beyond saving.

>it wasn't really about slavery as much as it was the system requiring it to exist.
The question remains however, as to why of all the other places in the world, they were the ones refusing to industrialize, they were the ones refusing compensatory emancipation, they were the ones making passionate arguments about the frank reality of a natural hierarchy. They were far from the only agrarian society, they were just the ones who chose an unsustainable model built upon continuous expansion.

It was deeper than mere economic differences. If that were truly the case, the Southerners would have welcomed compensatory emancipation as their ticket out of a dying industry. But for them to do that would be for them to implicitly acknowledge the equality of human races, and that was something they simply flat out refused to even consider.

Oh Cletus, I sure do love these talks we have

I`m an anglo.
Its ironic I`m getting the spelling wrong.

>
>
>

Southern culture is hot trash and its honestly best forgotten moving forward.

t. Native Southerner

Its substantially better than not having a culture.
American culture is fronted by fucking hipster californians and blacks. Speaks for itself really.

>south wanted to protect it's economic engine!
SLAVERY
>south was trying to protect its state rights!
yeah, because they wanted their state rights about SLAVERY
>civil war was about 'independance' slash protecting the souther way of life [LOL]
SO THEY COULD BE INDEPENDENT SLAVE OWNERS

you have to be on some pretty top shelf denial to not realize this

Why would the rich southern aristocraty allow that?

Slavery played a part, but it was just the breaking point. Thinking that it was only about slavery is just showing a shallow knowledge. Similar, too a lot lesser degree, if someone said World War 1 was caused by Archduke Franz Ferdinands assination.

What has southern culture givin us besides ignorance, lynch mobs, and country music?

Good luck in civil war 2 buddy. Im sure all those numale leftist soldiers will do a great job ;)

>Its substantially better than not having a culture.
Come up to New England. There's culture around every corner. Every town has statues of common soldiers from some war (that we've all won, of course), monuments everywhere, cemeteries centuries old right there in your neighborhood, across the street from old textile mills which were converted into posh loft apartments for tech and/or medical professionals. You get chain restaurants, sure, but you also have an endless variety of independently owned delis to chose from, specializing in various aspects of New England culture; and I'm not just talking about the most amazing seafood you've ever eaten, but pizza that would make you swear off chain restaurants forever, and food straight from a small farm. That's right, get about 5 miles outside of a Yankee city and you still actually get small farms, each one specializing in something different. Where I live is not too far from cranberry farms, in a log cabin where I can hunt deer in my own back woods.

And all of that "rustbelt" business is a meme: sure there aren't as many jobs in manufacturing as there once was, but the factories are still there, only vastly more efficient now that they're automated and only need a couple hundred maintenance technicians (verses the thousands that those mills used to employ.)

I've lived in the south, you only get genuine southern culture in pockets, the rest of it are strip-malls and chain restaurants. every time I come visit relatives in the south I'm amazed at how much filth is just littered on the side of the highway, and then I recall just how little faith southerners place in their own public works

Literally the only town in the south that reminds me of the kind of culture you get in New England is Charleston, S.C. It's flat out one of the most gorgeous cities in the country, and I feel a sense of regret knowing what could have been with the south, had they not let themselves be taken for a ride by shameless moochers

And the better alternative?
Blacks: fuck bitches, money and hoes. Whilst mumbling over a beat autotuned to fuck?
Or the hipster culture, demonising America itself by hating whiteness, men, and social justice, white knighting, politically illiterate (whatever sounds nice and good must be right).
The south doesnt have a good culture by any standards but its the lesser evil or was

That's what they all said about us

>"Yankee Doodle went to town, riding on a pony, stuck a feather in his hat and called it macaroni"

Is what the British used to say about us: that we were a bunch of poorfags riding ponies instead of horses, who thought that were being fashionable by investing in ridiculous headwear.

Sound familiar to you? We showed the Brits. We showed your grandpappies, who all thought that them big ole country hosses were just going to roll over them sissie yankees. We showed the Japanese, who thought we were all shifty, honorless gangsters, we showed the Nazis, who thought we were pawns of the Jews.

Step out of line, and we'll show you again why Yankees sing the song "Yankee Doodle" with laughing irony

XD
Yeah sure mate, if America tried anything mass rioting, Antifa, Blacks and Liberals would have a fucking picnic calling Americas government fascist. The Democrats would have a fucking fit politically and try use it as leverage to get them more power. God they had trouble banning people from countries from entering, yanks worst enemy is other yanks.
Americas power in just ceremonious, they have nukes to keep the Russians in check, they have the economy to make countries want to befriend them. But their spread thin, if they ever tried to actually use any of their power be it economically, diplomatically or millitarily they would fail or at least face resistance on all fronts. America can only retain its status if it stays internally united, Trumps isolationism increased that, which it isnt, its divided.
America has gun, but its all for show as soon it would try and shoot the world would see it isnt loaded.

Well to be honest, dropping atom bombs instead of actually invading. Is pretty honourless.
>We showed the Nazis
W E W L A D
I forgot the Soviet Union was America all of a sudden.

the independence to do what one wants with one's slaves?

>Well to be honest, dropping atom bombs instead of actually invading. Is pretty honourless.
It probably saved far, far more lives, and avoided Japan being partitioned into a Communist north and a free south.

>I forgot the Soviet Union was America all of a sudden.
If you think that the Soviet Union won World War 2 single-handedly, you need to put the Communist Manifesto down and read something a little more impartial.

I never made the assertion that America won by itself, I said that we proved all of the Nazi caricatures about us wrong.

Besides, the consensus of professional historians is that it was an allied effort: that it was a unified whole which was stronger than the sum of its parts. I wouldn't stop a Russian from celebrating the part that their country played in achieving victory, so why should anyone stop me from celebrating mine? I'd celebrate with the Canadians, who also played a vital role in the allied effort, as well as the British, French, and whoever else deserves to have their efforts recognized. So where's the problem? My grandfather used to get a sheen in his eyes when he talked about chasing around and banging geishas in post-war Japan, if it hadn't been for the bomb he probably would have died on the beaches of Japan, and that Geisha probably would have had her livelihood bombed into a communist-occupied ruin.

i see someone else has taken the abepill.

>The Civil [war] was a war of independence
The Confederacy was trying to become an independent country.
If they just wanted to keep slavery, and do what they want with them, it would be a rebellion. Though they did use the term to describe themselves because its catchier, and is reminiscent of the American War of Independence, and they were in a sense rebelling but in order to establish their OWN government rather than trying to change the current one.

Oh I`m not saying the atom bombs werent essential and neccasary, I`m just saying by Japanese standards I imagine it would be seen as dishonourable.
And Yeah sorry, I interpretted your "we" as a "we Americans" rather than we as in Allies. I said Soviets because imo, if there had to be one Ally who did the most for the war I would argue the Soviets, just saying they had a larger single impact. I completely agree though it was an Allied effort, your right.

>Yeah sorry, I interpretted your "we" as a "we Americans" rather than we as in Allies. I
No worries. I get why eurofriends call us burgers and Ameriblubbers. We all have our national embarrassments, I'd just as soon call out a "burger" for downplaying other country's roles in ww2 as I will when one starts talking about the confederates being dindus

you forgot the other alternative: the rambling neckbeard who browses /pol/ who unironically uses buzzwords, constantly screeches about national decay and interprets national and cultural affairs through tweets and tendentious articles fed to him by his fellow stormfags.
really makes you think who's "politically illiterate" and who hates their country...

and thats circular reasoning. what youre saying is "the civil war was a war of independence because the south wanted independence". That does nothing to answer WHY they wanted an independent government. One does not spontanesouly decide to secede and establish independence on the drop of a hat. There was a reason and that reason had its root cause in the slave issue.

If you were trying to imply thats me then you`ve fallen flat completely.
>Who hates their country
I`m not from the US.
Ooops. Try again sweetie.

it need not apply to americans only. you're word choice has all the elements of stormfaggotry and if not that utter lack of understanding. if you're not american then please don't try to pontificate on cultural affairs here because you clearly haven't read anything about it.

>we

Confederate statues currently in the process of being torn down are concrete examples of southerners wewuzing and making the public pay for it.

Non-American here. I don't mean to switch the topic but there's this question that's been on my mind ever since people were complaining about removing Confederate statues. Especially of generals. My question is: why?

I get a common man's confederate statue, like on to commemorate the soldiers because not all of them fought for the same reasons. But what's the benefit of having a representative of an enemy government on domestic soil memorialized? What exactly are you paying homage to other than a failed opposition that divided American politics forever? As for the "it's about history" argument, no one is going to forget about the war if it isn't memorialized.

>what's wrong with the winners writing history
the winners arent always right

I'm not saying that slavery was right (importing blacks destroyed us) but it sets a bad precedent for other issues

on the other hand, removing the statues is a good reminder of sacking, and the uncivilized savagery that would be unleashed upon our soil should anyone else be victorious over us

we're a bit too comfy, it's easy to see everyone else as people and humans and how much you love them and their Instagrams, but if their countries call on them, they will do some terrible things

>As for the "it's about history" argument, no one is going to forget about the war if it isn't memorialized.
No one ever makes an "it's about history" argument. People make an "it's about culture" argument.

To me that's like the equivalent of raising a Benedict Arnold statue at West Point.

Abraham Lincoln was a pietist obsessed with freeing the slaves to save their souls (being in slavery interferes with your mind and ability to have a religious conversion experience). This is in addition to his other desires to stamp out alcohol and generally use the state to try to "save" people. This is because he believed that, in order to be saved yourself, you had to save as many other people as humanly possible.

Slavery is obviously indefensible and, had the war been simply about ending slavery, it would have been entirely justified. It was, however, not about slavery. A war entirely about slavery would have ended with the North withdrawing and allowing the Southern states to self govern once they had agreed to free the slaves.

One of the reasons slavery was such an important institution in the South was because national tariffs designed to benefit Northern cartelists had a massive regressive effect on the Southern economy. Slavery isn't normally economically viable in the long term, but the burdensome tariff wall had the effect of stunting the South's ability to develop beyond it.

tl;dr the North continually fucked the South. Slavery is indefensible, but the real Northern motivations were continuing their domination over the Southern states & religious fanaticism.

>MUH STATES RIGHTS

Faggots. Listen up. Nobody at the time was debating whether or not it was a state's right to practice slavery. The state right being discussed was the right to SECEDE. And why did the South WANT to secede? Because the North was out-3D chessing the South on the legality of the EXPANSION of slavery. The Civil War, through any degree of regression, was caused by SLAVERY.

I swear to god nobody on this board has read a book on the Civil War.

quality post

>Muggy sack of shit

N-no bully! The Appalachian Mountains are beautiful user. Also good post.

State's rights to maintain slavery

Guess how I know you're not from the south

>soudern educayshien

>Maryland
>Kentucky
>loyal to the Union
The only reason that Maryland stayed in the Union was because Lincoln sent in the troops and arrested people he didn't like. Kentucky was neutral.

>Abraham Lincoln was a pietist obsessed with freeing the slaves to save their souls
I know I can stop reading your post right there. Try reading about Lincoln a bit before posting.

>The civil war wouldn't have happened if the south wasn't more racist than the north
Literally half this thread

You have to remember that the Civil War wasn't that long ago and it was the bloodiest war in American history. Many families in the south honor their ancestors that way.