Thread 17776887

The lie is that Confederates fought over slavery.

Without that one lie — the narrative of the leftist falls apart.

This is why they desperately cling to it.

They are unable to refute the truth

…so they lie.

We all know Dylan Roof's name, but how many of you know of Emanuel K. Samson

>>17776887 (OP)
Why did they secede anon?
What did they want the freedom to carry out?
Oh that's right, it was over slavery, because the Southern Economy was an agrarian slave-based economy that only benefited slave owners, so when there was tarrifs on cotton to the UK the South lost their shit because their entire economy hinged on a single fucking cash crop while the North and every other Great Power had already learned that slavery is not conducive to economic growth as none of the slaves are able to contribute to the economy they are forced to participate in, which gave industrialists an advantage over agrarian slave owners economically. It was always about slavery.

>>17776887 (OP)
Reminded me of the latest renaming of military bases, Trump and company are weaseling around naming them after the gallant and brave men they were named after to some literal who soldiers.
The bases were named after some Confederates who didn't even own slaves. Nobody was fighting for slavery. Remember, this is a new argument by ignorant lowlifes. They aren't arguing the war was caused by slavery. They are stating absolute nonsense as fact.

>>17776887 (OP)
Ah its the other way around, the neo confederates who want to establish a totalitarian slave state have to deal with the fact that pretty much everyone else finds slavery repulsive, so they try and put words in the mouths of secessionists, and claim the war was about things people do like such as rights and freedoms.

>>17776887 (OP)
>These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor. 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... A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
but hey that's just the confederates talking not like they would know why they seceded.

>>17776888
>Emanuel K. Samson
trips of truth.
For anyone curious, he's a black dude that shot up a church in Tennessee as revenge.

During the Nullification crisis in 1830 the defining feature of the south's economy was not slavery any more than the suitability of their clime for cotton and tobacco. Here they threatened to secede since their agrarian economy would be disproportionately affected by tariffs on foreign manufactured goods.

However as new states were anticipated west of the cotton belt, slavery was made the defining feature to ensure these "slave states" help maintain the balance of power with the north. They even considered an invasion of Mexico to secure more "slave states". This all came to ahead when Minnesota and Oregon were admitted as free states with no contraries.

Secession was about slavery, however the war of course was about Fort Sumter.

>>17777043
>would be disproportionately affected by tariffs on foreign manufactured goods.
Because they were too backward to ever produce their own the fucking retards. Too busy breeding niggers

>>17777043
>the war of course was about Fort Sumter.
That's bullshit, an unionist copout to avoid admitting that the south had the legal right to secede and they conquered it to keep it together.

>>17777051
> the south had the legal right to secede
Show me where in the constitution it permits a state to secede.

>>17776887 (OP)
please quote in full the southern secession documents, in which they explain very plainly why they are seceding
I'll wait

>>17776887 (OP)
>The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.
>t. Alexander Stevens, March 1861
Sounds a lot like they did it over slavery to me. Are you really arguing that the Vice President of the Confederacy had no idea what the rebellion was about?

>>17777056
10th amendment

>>17777353
Not in citation

>>17776887 (OP)
Southern leaders recognized Lincoln's election would mean the end of southern political freedom and economic independence, and the beginning of Southern subordination to Northern Industrial interests, the hardcore of which had adopted Lincoln as its “front man.”

In December 1860, Lincoln wrote Salmon P. Chase, "I'll make a cemetery of the South." Determined that he and his party's agenda would succeed, he broke off all negotiations with the southern states, killed the Crittenden Compromise, which divided slave and no-slave regions, and created a scenario that would build his party and possibly destroy the country in the process. Lincoln and the radical Radical Republicans did not share the Founders’ view of States Rights as a bulwark to keep the central government in check.

>>17776887 (OP)
Southern secession was ultimately about independence with or without slavery. Often I hear that the primary sources I quote in defense of Southern secession are “cherry picked” or “out of context.” Those making these charges will then point to the four Declarations of Causes or The Cornerstone Speech as proof of my lack of context. Let’s take a look at the “context.”

The pre-secession context of all these documents was the irresponsible demands of Northern abolitionists for immediate, uncompensated emancipation, backed by terrorist activity. The terrorist threats alone were reasons for the South to close ranks and secede. The defense of slavery against demands for “immediate emancipation,” which would have surely led to an economic and social disaster, not to mention a humanitarian crises for the freed slaves, should not be confused with a desire to preserve slavery!

Slavery was an institution long prior forced upon the South, and in 1861 it was an inherited institution for which Lincoln himself admitted the South did not desire, and that even he had no idea how to end:

“I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it… When it is said the institution exists, and it is very difficult to get rid of it in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself.”

Add to all this Northern politicians who looked the other way, some even giving tacit, some explicit, approval to this otherwise small radical group of abolitionists mostly hated in the North.

>>17778103

Northern politicians played the “expansion of slavery” card to play upon the racist fears of Northerners who did not want to live with blacks.

Their purpose was to build a sectional political coalition in a Northern population, which vastly outnumbered the South. In doing so they could use majorities in both houses of Congress to exploit the South economically. Their platform to keep slavery out of the territories they admitted had nothing at all to do with a concern for the slaves.

>>17776887 (OP)
“What was the cause of the War for Southern Independence?”

People confuse the causes of secession with the causes of the war. They are two very distinct and separate actions. The reasons for secession were complicated and nuanced. The reason for war was simple…Lincoln refused to accept peaceful secession and he invaded the South to force compliance.

>>17776887 (OP)
Soldiers on either side interpreted the meaning of the War for Southern Independence in opposite ways; while Confederates believed they fought for their own independence from a tyrannical government, northerners believed they fought to preserve the Union that emerged after 1776. Ideology generally helped to unify armies, but some causes divided troops, such as the issue of emancipation among Union soldiers. Northern soldiers, for the most part, did not believe that they fought for abolition. Many reacted with disgust to the Emancipation Proclamation. Instead, they fought against perceived anarchy and treason.

>>17776887 (OP)
The South seceded because of Northern infidelity to the Constitution. It went to war because it was invaded to deny it the very principles of freedom codified in the Declaration of Independence.

>>17778135
>nothern infidelity to the constitution
such as

>>17777342
The entire d*xoid argument is dumb. If it was really about Southern independence or whatever, they'd have revolted earlier during the Nullification Crisis or over tariffs. It was never about any of those petty issues. It was about slavery.

The fact that Lincoln was the first president to win without a single southern state, and South Carolina seceded before Lincoln even took the oath of office, just showed they chimped out over the mere possibility of losing their slaves. They're like toddlers who liked the rules of the game (the Constitution) when it suited them, until they start losing so they throw a tantrum over it.