Why didn't they attempt moderate progressive reforms in regards to slavery, and such, instead of autistically going to war and killing nearly a million people?
I mean seriously, what the fuck was the north thinking in trying to completely abolish slavery, and destroy the southern Economy.
and what the fuck was the South thinking in trying to keep an institution that was already causing severe violence, completely unchanged?
Other urls found in this thread:
>trying to completely abolish slavery
But that's what the radical republicans wanted.
And didn't they have a majority in Congress in 1860?
Lincoln said multiple times that he would allow them to keep slavery if it meant preserving the Union. They didn't give a fuck and seceded anyway.
The secessions started under Buchanan though.
The idea of abolition of slavery wasn't even on the table in any respectable circles until like 1863. The Republican platform of 1860 was based on slavery containment
This.
>southerners think states should be allowed to decide on slavery, but the federal government must enforce the fugitive slave act and bring free blacks back down south
>Lincoln keeps saying that there's no actual succession, makes no plans to actually fight the south until Fort Sumter and tries to restore the union peacefully
>Lincoln decides to resupply some innocent federal soldiers protecting federal land at fort Sumter, southerners think that the feds should just starve to death and sperg out and fire the first shot
>southerners invade Kentucky after it declares neutrality
>"muh war of northern aggression"
it's honestly pathetic when you think about it.
>what the fuck was the north thinking in trying to completely abolish slavery, and destroy the southern Economy.
Have you ever taken a course on U.S History ever? Are you even American? If so, you would know that what you just said was gibberish.
>I mean seriously, what the fuck was the north thinking in trying to completely abolish slavery, and destroy the southern Economy.
IT would have been wrecked since Other European powers had other colonies to get cotton from with cheapr prices and with establishment of slavery dirt cheap labour (also many forced labour and many, many cases borderline slavery in everything but name).
>what the fuck was the north thinking in trying to completely abolish slavery, and destroy the southern Economy.
That wasn't their intention until the war was forced on them; and only then seriously supported emancipation and abolition to prevent the Confederates from resuming the war (should a ceasefire be negotiated) in the future.
The Slave-owners (and those that supported them) were pampered to by all three branches of the federal government in the 30 years leading up to the war; shot one of their legs off in a hysterical secession in reaction to losing one presidential election to a Republican moderate; shot their other leg off when they began shelling Ft. Sumter; and still whine that Northerners came down and "destroyed their way of life".
Everything that happened to the Confederacy was self-imposed and well-deserved. Yet even after causing the war that killed more Americans than any other, former Confederates were let off the hook, and allowed to retake seats in Congress.
>what the fuck was the north thinking in trying to completely abolish slavery
They weren't trying to completely abolish slavery.
>Yet even after causing the war that killed more Americans than any other, former Confederates were let off the hook, and allowed to retake seats in Congress.
That's why you are supposed to scramble the potions of power so the people who did the previous things aren't still in.
Also doing the equivalent of reminding people what said entity did and not letting them forget or alter said memory.
I think it was an issue of trusting Lincoln, which they didn't. Not saying they shouldn't have, but they didn't.
this
Secession partially had to do with the lose of Southern control of the federal government. Lincoln won the presidency without winning a single slave state, which felt like writing on the wall as far as the Southern gentry were concerned. Southerners believed lose of federal control would inevitably lead to abolition (they were probably right) so to ensure their continued prosperity and culture framed around slavery as an institution, they gambled on seceding and starting a new slaver's republic.
They gambled and lost, and now won't stop crying about it.
>and only then seriously supported emancipation and abolition to prevent the Confederates from resuming the war
Let's not undersell abolition as a platform of radical Republicans, or the political power of Northern abolition groups. The moneyed elite of Boston were vocally abolitionist, and had been for some time on a cultural level. (John Adams went out of his way to formally outlaw slavery in Massachusetts when he drafted the Massachusetts constitution, and Abigail Adams tutored several black children in her time.)
>Zero mentions of the Missouri compromise
This thread is bad and you should feel bad.
Trying to slowly phase out slavery over time is exactly what the north tried to do actually. The civil war caused an abrupt change in plans.
>ctrl+f "nullification crisis"
>no results
Reminder that South Carolina tried to secede over taxes 20 years before the Civil War, and the federal government made a fool of them. No shit they wouldn't trust the federal government again
They feared Lincoln to the point of not putting him on the ballot at all, which is a mockery of democracy.
>I mean seriously, what the fuck was the north thinking in trying to completely abolish slavery, and destroy the southern Economy.
They weren't, it was being slowly phased out.
What made the south secede was shitty things being forced on them by a federal government controlled by the north, like forcing southerners to pay more for goods with import tariffs that made shit produced in the north cheaper than imported goods artificially. But the actual trigger was when Lincoln lost every single county in the south but still became president - southerners felt they had no representation, and there was no possibility that they could influence government decisions, so they seceded.
> But the actual trigger was when Lincoln lost every single county in the south but still became president
That's generally what happens when the southern states don't even put Lincoln on their ballot.
Imagine the Civil War with Old Hickory in the White House. He'd have burnt everything south of the Mason-Dixon.
Do you not know how old elections worked? The candidates would hand out pre-written ballots that they would pass out to voters, who would then turn in. The reason why Lincoln got next to zero votes in the south was because he didn't even bother sending people to pass out ballots down south. The Republican party was a northern party, they literally did not care about the southern vote.
They also had, between the confederate states, put forth 2 democrats and a whig to run against him. South Carolina deliberately sabotaged the election so the republicans would win.
On top of that, Lincoln won fair and square. Even if the rest of the votes from the 3 opposing politicans were tallied together as 1 man, Lincoln srtill would have won. No one doubted the authenticity of Lincoln's election. The South always always had representation, it was the first time in the countrie's history that a man not beholden to the Cotton Kings became president, and they flipped the fuck out.
The States request the ballots for federal elections. State election commitees work with the feds to facilitate the election you dumb fuck. They didn't request a single Lincoln ballot. Dont pretend you know about history and then pull shit out of your ass like that.
>Even if the rest of the votes from the 3 opposing politicans were tallied together as 1 man, Lincoln srtill would have won.
Which was the crux of the problem. If all the south came together as one and shouted "we want this" on a federal level, the north would still just say 'no lol'
>democracy is broken when it doesnt go my way
Rebels should be hanged
...
obviously if a group is united on an issue and can't get what they want because some other group - which they see as an other, not part of themselves - says no, it makes sense that they'd want to change the situation.
Washington settled that right away in the whiskey rebellion- you settle grievances by voting. Armed rebellion is not a legal right.
>Armed rebellion is not a legal right.
The south just seceded, the north turned in to a war.
The South attacked first
So what would the Confederates have done if one of their own states had tried to succeed from the confederacy? A state which allows its subcomponents to just leave at will simply won't survive for very long.
They attacked because the northern army refused to vacate a fort in a southern harbor. They politely asked them to frig off many times, but they were ordered to stay for the sole purpose of provoking an attack.
You mean federal property, manned by federal soldiers. These southerners fired on a civilain vessel seeking to relieve the federal fort.
Theyre traitors
Seccesion is not a legal right
>A state which allows its subcomponents to just leave at will simply won't survive for very long.
>a state
It was never supposed to be a single state. The sad truth is that the USA was meant to be more like the EU. Before the civil war, people always referred to it as "these united states", rather than "the united states". It wasn't a nation until some people decided they want off the ride, and the federal government showed its true face, that it was a nation and the states were its provinces.
Also, if by "politely" you mean by gunpoint while the South Carolinans bayed for blood, then youre right.
This is what happens when American History textbooks are all written in Texas
>never supposed to be a single state
The purpose of the constitution was just that, the articles of confederation were a dismal failure. Where are you reading this shit?
>The sad truth is that the USA was meant to be more like the EU.
That was under the Articles of Confederation, which were discarded specifically because they were found to be inadequate.
The EU is a literal trade federation. It has very little in comparison to the USA, and certainly wasnt on the minds of the founding fathers
Really was a southern chimpout over slavery. I bet no southerner has even read the declarations their state sent. Its legit about slavery they wanted their fucking slaves
Nothing says they cant secede
Wow it's almost like just a few decades ago, the federal government blockades South Carolina and forced them to pay high tariffs using the military, and maybe South Carolina didn't think too high of them
Maybe instead of killing everybody, you could, maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, vote? You could try to vote about it?
The Constitution says nothing about secession. Probably because the spirit of the law was such to keep a Union of States, like it was intended. This is what the courts decided. And as far as "blockaded" goes, no one was "blockaded", they were forced to pay taxes. Like everyone else.
So, it really just boils down to a bunch of traitors who wanted their own slave-ethnostate and were willing to lie and kill for it, rather than using the Constitutional system in place that was designed to flexible, insofar as a democratic process allows. This wasn't "tyranny", this was about the ability to maim, mutulated and beat people into doing hard work, so you feel good about yourself and stay wealthy.
Neoconfederates should be shot.
DO IT AGAIN MARCHIN' SHERMAN
The OFFICIAL position prior to the war made it clear they weren't going to make the south give up their slaves. They just didn't want slavery to spread to more states.
>The Constitution says nothing about secession. Probably because the spirit of the law was such to keep a Union of States, like it was intended
The Constitution also says that anything not specified in the Constitution is up to the states to decide, not the federal Government.
Sending ships to Charleston and Soldiers with them to force the South to pay exorbitantly high tariffs or else not letting them get goods coming through that harbor is a blockade
The south would never left if he was president