Guys, help

Don't bother backpedalling you underage faggot. Fuck off to /pol/.

Jefferson Davis was just the lapdog.

If you want to blame somebody, blame the people who dreamed of turning the Gulf of Mexico into a Pan-Caribbean Slaver's empire

youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4&t=3s

It wasn't about slavery directly, but it had very much to do with the south's slave reliant economy

while the north industrialized, the south stayed very agrarian in nature and wa able to retain profits from this less-developed economy through slavery
also, certain trade partners were able to undercut the southern economy after tariffs were removed iirc which pissed them off a tad
the abolition of slavery would have broad implications across the south, forcing the region to undergo a giant shock, followed by a suffering economic transition
this broad economic devastation was what threatened the free lower class whites into fighting for the south
mind you, the whole reason for this situation to happen in the first place is the extremely wealthy plantation owner's hold over the south, and the refusal to change their economy, and they sincerely couldn't have given a shit about lower class whites other than using them as literal cannon fodder

those people must be quite arrogant and stupid to be perfectly honest

how ever did you fall in with them?

>It wasn't about slavery directly

Yes it was. That wasn't the only reason, but yes it was. The South chimped out because they were concerned with free states outnumbering slaves states.

>Arkansas
>no to everything

Why did they fucking secede then?

Because they can.

>giving even the smallest fraction of a portion of your mental faculties to considering the opinions of normalfags on history

If the confederacy won then they got to be Kansas

>everyone keeps going on about how the Confederacy was all about "SLAVES SLAVES SLAVES"
Like how the Southern Democrats clogged up Congress and crippled the Federal Government with all their bitching about "SLAVES SLAVES SLAVES?"

Fargoth is right, OP. You should never, ever talk any advanced topics with stupid normalfags. They will never understand and they will never care.

Best to talk with people who actually know what you're saying rather than waste your time on these absolute numbskulls.

>NC
>No reason
"Fuck it guys, let's secede just to say we did it. Y'all good with that?"
And yet we still contributed a larger percentage of men than any other state.

Admit your wrong and move on with life

Lee was a traitor to the state that would have swung by the neck if Grant didn't decide to him alive out of respect

Stop trying to treat Lee like he is some national super hero that cared for puppies and kids

He was a traitor, the south fought for slavery, they lost let's move on.

I heard he was a racist who liked to lynch black people just for fun, and that he was a fan of Hitler.

Truly /ourstates/

Be glad lee didn't hang
Shit would have gone bad in the south if he did

How did Lee get memed to near-mythical status? Even people who hate the Confederacy will often romanticize him as this great moral gentleman and as ultimately good and respectable despite his flaws or something

It was mainly the lost cause movement that took place after the civil war.

He was an alright general yeah and treated his colleagues with respect however, over the years, a cult of personality around Lee grew up, hand in hand with the development of the "Lost Cause" mythos, and he became the symbol of the tragic genteel Southerner.

Some poor southerner who was "just fighting to defend the south" for the good of the people, something people can idealize and worship over. "HE DINDU NUFFIN but fight for us" shit like that.

It has also gave people a somewhat inflated opinion of his abilities as a general. While he was no slouch don't get me wrong, and won several important victories against larger and better-supplied armies, he was also out-commanded on several occasions. And it's frankly a joke that people compare him to Napoleon or Hannibal or Scipio.

Or to summarize the south just began to idolize him as the perfect tragic figure because they couldn't and still haven't accepted the fact they got their shit pushed in over a war about slavery.

Up to 50% of all households in the Confederate States owned slaves. They were very much "about slavery".

We only seceded to defend our louder, dumber imouto (aka South Carolina)

Proud yankee, here,

The thing about Lee is that he earns his accolades in battle. Before Gettysburg, Lee was essentially unbeatable. Even Antietam was pretty much inconclusive and at best a minor victory for the union. He often went up against armies that vastly outnumbered his and walked away victorious. While Grant was spanking confederates up and down the Mississippi, Lee was making a mockery out of the Grand Army of the Potomac. No matter what, he

The funny thing about Lee was that he was opposed to both slavery AND secession, and even his descendents have come out in favor of removing confederate statues from state property. He fought for Virginia, the people he knew and cared about.

What often goes unmentioned in these kind of debates is the respect that either side developed for each other. Confederates went into the war thinking that good ole' country hosses were going to stomp city-slicking northern dandies. Yankees went into the war thinking that the US Army was going to steamroll all over the country blumpkins playing soldier. The first Battle of Manassas humbled the Yankees, The Battle of Shiloh humbled the Confederates.

Years after the war, veterans of the battle of Gettysburg recreated the famous charges of that battle, only instead of shooting at each other, they ran out into the fields and embraced each other in brotherly camaraderie.

>lincoln is totally okay with the south keeping their slaves
>OMG WHAT IF HE MAKES US GIVE UP OUR SLAVES?
>start a war
>lose
>end up having to free your slaves

Was the south smoking crack or something? Complete overreaction.

Unironically this

Sherman actually recognized this and quit burning when he reached NC.

Very good analysis. I heard Robert Lee III on the radio talking about his complicated family history and opinion. Was pretty good stuff. Also because reconstruction was poorly handled, a lot of unread Dixie's have a fairly visceral reaction towards the North too this day.

>Before Gettysburg, Lee was essentially unbeatable.
July 1, 1862
Battle of Malvern Hill

For the preceding six days, George McClellan's Army of the Potomac had been retreating to the James River, pursued by Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia.

McClellan himself was not present on the battlefield, having preceded his army to Harrison's Landing, and Porter was the most senior of the corps commanders. The slopes were cleared of timber, providing great visibility, and the open fields could be swept by deadly fire from the 250 guns placed by Col. Henry J. Hunt, McClellan's chief of artillery. Three gunboats on the James River added even more firepower. Beyond this space, the terrain was swampy and thickly wooded.

Rather than flanking the position, Lee attacked it directly, hoping that his artillery would clear the way for a successful infantry assault (just as he would plan the following year in Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg).

The advancing columns of Confederate infantry were blasted to pieces by the massed artillery. Even more terrifying were the huge 50-pound shells lobbed from the three gunboats.

Across the entire line of battle, the Confederate troops reached within 200 yards of the Union Center and were repulsed by nightfall with heavy losses. As the sun was going down, Isaac Trimble of Ewell's division began to move his troops forward. Jackson stopped him and asked "What are you going to do?" Trimble replied "I'm going to charge those batteries, sir!" "I guess you'd better not try it." Jackson said. "General [D.H.] Hill has just tried with his entire division and been repulsed. I guess you'd better not try it."

friendly reminder to all normalfags that:
>the soldiers that fought for the CSA didnt own slaves, yet they were extremely enthusiatic and had high morale throughout the war.
>the south was molded into a chattel slave based economy by northern tariffs and restrictions, which turned it in to a pseudo-colony with no rights or economic representation, and incentivized raw material production (done through slavery).
>slavery was already a dying system, and would have likely ended within a decade or two regardless of the war.
>neither the south or the north will ever be able to have true self-determination under the tyranny of the majority.
>there is literally no democratic justification for preventing succession

>you live in a time where people actually unironically think Robert "Bobby" E. Lee is some kind of super villain or bad guy solely for being the chief Confederate Army commander
I hate this world.

>PragerJew

Lincoln was chill with states that had slavery to keep it.

He wasn't chill with new states having it.

The South figured that this would eventually make them a huge minority in the House and Senate, so even if Lincoln was cool with slaves, the South feared that if eventually someone wanted to outlaw it, there's nothing they could do to stop it

So they left

>Union couldn't even prove Jeff Davis committed treason

Lol yelling Traitor doesn't make it true.

Lee owed most of his success to Tom Jackson

they didn't care about the north or free states, they cared about the Republican party which was basically an antisouthern party.

Sad but hardly surprising to see liberals substitutimg ideology for facts. Reading the memoirs or Sherman, Grant, Davis and others who fought in the war make it clear that they were fighting for more than "muh slaves". I would highly recomend Co Aych the memoir of Sam watkins a soldier for the confederacy who clearly explains why he was fighting without any mention of slaves. Im sure liberals are certain they know better than the people who lived through it and will prefer to get their info from (((respected historians))) rather than actual primary sources but for those on the bpard whos minds are actually open its not hard to undermine the current narrative. Even in the union side they werent fighting to free thr slaves as the Crittenden resolution makes clear

Why was it fought?

The real number was 1.6% so maybe you wanna rethink that

Confederate soldiers =/= The Confederacy

Nobody should have to tell you this, user.

Before 1863 the north was fighting to preserve the union, Lincoln repeatedly made clear in speechs and private correspondance that he considered the acts 9f secession to be illegitimate and that the south had never really left the union. The southerners had no sense of natuonal identity and did not consider themselves americans so much as south carolnians, or tenneseans. Regionalsm was a potent force 8n american social life, beyond that the fact that Lincoln had been elected without any electoral votes from the south led many to feel that he was a leader who represented only the north and that the american experiment in representitive government had been a failure. Since the federal government did not reflect their interests they felt a duty to support a government that did

>literally defects from the union to fight for the succeeding confederate states
>not a traitor
>t. dixieboo
user please your going to have to actually try

You're wrong.

USA was founded by traitors m8

Go read them some of Lee's post war words, he was a civil rights advocate after the war.

>they ran out into the fields and embraced each other in brotherly camaraderie.
n-no homo

most people are a bit brainwashed when it comes to history, they refuse to consider both sides and always tend to pick a "good" guy and a "bad" guy

people will focus on the slave part to virtue signal

He was born a Virginian and served Virginia his entire life. Like I said, there's a reason that charges of treason didn't hold up in court.

The civil war was fought over slavery, you can not make a logical case that it would have happened with out slavery ever being introduced in america.

what about the traitorous rebel part

>Citizens of a country do not make up a country

You couldn't make a logical case that the US would have existed without the introduction of slavery.

Thanks, pal. Weren't there a lot of famous speeches given by Confederate leaders that stated they went to war due to slavery, or at least in great part because of slavery?

fear and paranoia are the essence of the southern mindset

1.6% is the number of individual slaveholders. Think about this for a second: in an ordinary family, does every member of the household own an equal amount of the family's property? Typically all the slaves were held in the name of the master of the house. His sons and grandpappy and cousins who live on the plantation, manage the negroes and depend on slavery for their livelihood do not own the slaves.

If you look at census data and see which HOUSEHOLDS own slaves, the number is anywhere from 30 to 50% depending on the state. SC was nearly half before the war broke out.

So, yes, far more than 1.6% were from slaveholding families. Just because pappy held the title doesn't mean 98% of Southrons weren't part of the slave economy.

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.

Mississippi:
>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.

South Carolina:
>We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

Article I, Section 9 (4)
>No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Really roasts my walnuts.

Op said it was about more than just slavery. Your shitpost doesn't disprove him.

You're that autist in the workforce that constantly tries to correct people. No one likes you.

>people are talking about confederate statues
>point out Lee himself was against confederate statues since it would hinder the reunification of the country.

It was also to a very large extent about protectionism and tariffs. The north wanted to protect industry, the south wanted to protect trade. It's counterintuitive since the roles have reverse somewhat recently.

>everyone in a country has the same political opinion

Goddamn I hate my fellow Texans.

He was against building them immediately after the war because it would trigger the federal occupiers, not because he was against the concept.

>federal occupiers
dumb revisionist dixieboo. Read up on Lee's actual feeling about reconstruction and repairing ties between north and south before you post.

Nigger, that's not a shitpost. He's posting primary sources, which is something you'll never fucking see a lost-cause loser doing

God damn this makes me proud to be a floridean

>proud to be a floridean
Every native Floridean I ever knew was a flaming hillbilly

>saying the federals occupied the post war south is now "revisionist"

kek

Lee's exact quote on the subject of monuments was

>As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated; my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; & of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour. All I think that can now be done, is to aid our noble & generous women in their efforts to protect the graves & mark the last resting places of those who have fallen, & wait for better times.

This was only a year after the war ended and the south was completely devastated. It's pretty inconclusive on whether he would be against monuments built later down the road.

>that's not a shitpost.

well yours is

Fuck you, it's a totally valid point worth mentioning that OP hasn't given a single shred of evidence to validate his claim, like all lost-cause losers who only have unsourced lies, ridicule, and socio-political hyperbole to support their arguments, versus the Yankee sympathizer who went back to the source to find out what the actual confederates had to say for themselves.

>Fuck you, it's a totally valid point worth mentioning that OP hasn't given a single shred of evidence to validate his claim
except you didn't say that, in fact you didn't really make a point at all. You just spouted off some ad hominems. It was and is a shitpost.

Like I said above, OP didn't disagree with slavery being a major cause of secession. Since you're spazzing out about primary sources, here's something about the valid economic reasons for secession that you can chew on. Now fuck off.

They only seceded after ft Sumpter when Lincoln called on every state to raise troops to put down rebellion. They felt secession was right, and that the USA was in the wrong for not just allowing the csa to leave.

However there was a very divided opinion in the state, with many Arkansas residents defecting, and an active pro-union resistance in the north of the state. Although there weren't separate union and Confederate governments like in Kentucky and Missouri. Towards the end of the war they even tried to secede from the csa to broker a more favorable separate peace with the USA.

All in all they were a rather reluctant state but there were Arkansas units in the army of northern Virginia. It's kind of returned to the spotlight here now with all the Confederate monuments in little rock. There sure are a lot of them considering how little enthusiasm there was for the csa during the war, they were almost universally built in the 1920s by wewuzzers rather than veterans.

>socio-political hyperbole

kys

Seems more mentioned states rights than slavery.
Are Arkansians autistic?

Only good comment ITT.

>comparing the modern US to the much looser Union of the 1800s
Kill yourself, retard.
The Civil War was closer to France leaving the EU and setting off a war as the EU tries to keep them in, the state was more important to the average American than the nation. That only really changed after the Civil War.

>Hai look guys, I found a speech which supports my claim
For every one you can find about economic trivialities which probably could have been settled peacefully, I can find dozens discussing the "Peculiar institution" of slavery which people were prepared to fight and die over

civilwarcauses.org/quotes.htm

>m-muh ad hominens
fuck off, all you're trying to do is build false equivalences and then playing victim when you got called on your bullshit

>kys
ohhh, you'd like it if I did that, wouldn't you, Cletus?

Stop pretending like this isn't a game of right-wingers pointlessly romanticising a historic regime because it fits their political biases rather than any authentic interest in factual history

>economic trivialities

economic power and political domination aren't trivialities you dolt. If all they cared about was just keeping slaves then they'd just accept the corwin amendment and stay.

>economic power and political domination aren't trivialities
yes they are. People don't go to war over a tariff, all of the economic problems could have been easily solved with legislation easing the south into the industrial era. The north actually produced MORE food crops than the south, the south was fixated almost exclusively on cash crops like cotton and tobacco.

>If all they cared about was just keeping slaves then they'd just accept the corwin amendment and stay.
But that's not what they just cared about. They didn't want to just keep their slaves, they wanted to make new slave states. They wanted to spread slavery to Mexico and the Caribbean, and fashion a slaver's empire for themselves.

Literally everywhere else in the world ended slavery with simple compensatory emancipation. That's where the government buys all of the slaves at a fair market value and frees them, leaving their former owners with a generous chunk of capital to invest in their new lives as capitalists. For the vast majority of them it was a major blessing because it was their ticket out of a dying industry. And yet, it is ONLY in the south where compensatory emancipation was not only rejected, but starkly rejected. It wasn't even conceivable for them to consider it because slavery wasn't dying in the south, it was growing exponentially, right along with the rest of of the population, and they saw no reason for it to be any different.

I can't even begin to imagine how retarded someone has to be to even try to argue this point.

I'm an Unionist and a right winger. Stop trying to appropriate the Union as your own, leftist coon.

>some people say they like slavery
>therefore the war is about slaves

>slavery was growing exponentially
>show the amount of slaves going down

The "cornerstone" of the Confederacy was slavery. That was what the war was about.

So I guess it was just a coincidence that slave owning states pushed for secession when it became clear the slave trade wouldn't be allowed to spread to the new territories?

And then they fought a war for a reason wholly unrelated to that cause?

It had been clear for a few years before then

I never said that you couldn't be a unionist and a right winger. In fact I would argue that the parties are still more or less the same that they are today: Republicans are the party of northern industrialism, Democrats are a worker's welfare party, and that the civil war was specifically the victory of modern capitalism over reactionaries trying to preserve a feudal state built around expropriated labor fueling a welfare state for whites. But you'll be very hard-pressed to find a left-winger who is an out-and-out supporter of the confederacy.

I said that certain right-wingers are trying to paint the conflict as northern big government liberals vs southern small government conservatives, when the reality was far more complex than their simplistic bromides

see
for a visualization of the way slavery was expanding in the United States

Nigger, those quotes were directly lifted from the declaration of secession, the document each state wrote specifically outlining why they were seceding. He also directly quotes from the Confederate constitution where they make slavery about as difficult to repeal as the bill of rights.

Yeah buddy, I'm sure Robert E Lee and the Civil War comes up all the time at work. All those normies just can't stop talking about him. You live in bizzaro America where normies actually care about history, right?

'slaves' (if we're even going to call them that) were hardly oppressed. The only reason the civil war happened was because the north was trying to take over the south economically, and the south acted defensively from that. Learn the truth

Secession and the civil war were two distinct events.
Secession was primarily about slavery.
The civil war was about states rights and the belief of Lincoln that states could not secede from the union and had nothing to do with slavery.

there were many reason for secession

one as that Lincoln was seen as a tyrant because he literally did not appear on the ballot in most southern states, the reason for this was because the founding principle of the republican party was the abolition of slavery

another was the economic difference between north and south, the north was an urbanized industrial manufacturing economy based on wage labor, the south was a rural farming economy based on slave labor

there is of course the states rights reason for secession, specifically that southern states viewed teh federal government as having clear intentions of interfering with their states rights to determine property laws, specially property laws regarding slavery

there were cultural reason aswell, the northern yankee society was a highly multicultural society that in many ways prided itself on being free of the restrictive class systems of Europe, this was seen as incompatible with the very much codified and class based southern dixie culture based, at its core, on a certain peculiar institution known as slavery

another large factor causing the war was freedom, and differing interpretations of it. northerners viewed slavery as an affront to freedom, southerners viewed the north as infringing on their freedom to own slaves.

there were also legal tensions and incompatibilities between the states. secifically regarding the legal status of an escaped slave in a free state, southerners viewed escaped slaves as being their property regardless of where they were, northern states viewed them as free merely by being present in a free state and abhorred having to legally enforce slavery by sending them back to their southern owner

clearly the civil war was about more than slavery