Thread 17925997

Fun fact: Lincoln had a low-class Southern hillbilly accent, attended a Baptist church growing up, and was married to a Southern aristocrat planter from Lexington KY who had brothers & cousins in the Confederate military despite leading the Union in the Civil War.

>>17925997 (OP)
Fun fact. While Jefferson Davis was off being a war hero in the Mexican-America war, Lincoln stayed at home and made speeches about how we should have a national bank, which he implemented.

>>17925997 (OP)
Also I think we're distant as fuck cousins because his mother's great can't remember how many greats grandpa appears in my family tree cause one of his other kids got with someone who got with someone who you get it

>>17926001
Did Lincoln really have a 'Centralization' tattoo on his forehead? Bit on the nose innit

>>17925997 (OP)
>>17926001
>low class background
>centralizing tyrant
>basically did a military coup to fabricate west virginia into existence
>got shot

So Lincoln was the Anglo version of a Latin American dictator.

>>17926008
Yeah they photoshop it out in the historical pictures and paintings.

>>17926014
He needed at least three mistresses before he could truly caudillomaxx

>>17926014
A common rebuttal to
>Abraham Lincoln didn't declare war through congress; his actions were unconstitutional
is
>you only declare war on foreign countries; he was putting down an internal rebellion
but you'll notice this makes his formation of West Virginia out of Virginia unconstitutional, since states can't be formed from existing states. Either WV was formed from CSA's (a foreign country's) state and was constitutional, but the declaration of war was not, OR the declaration of war was constitutional (against internal rebellion) and his formation of WV was not.
Either way, Lincoln spent his presidency wiping his ass with the constitution. He essentially said
>to hell with the Union's founding principles, I have to salvage the Union's stranglehold on North America!
it was all about power, and Lincoln apologists would be better off just coming out and saying that rather than grandstanding about slavery

>>17925997 (OP)
The South Started the Civil War and states like Kentucky were coerced into joining the Confederacy against their will anyways and needed to be liberated.

>>17926026
That's cute a and all but the South started the war

It's time yet again to remind Dixieboys of history
>Lincoln started the Civil War
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_War_Begins.htm
>At 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861, Confederate troops fired on Fort Sumter in South Carolina’s Charleston Harbor. Less than 34 hours later, Union forces surrendered. Traditionally, this event has been used to mark the beginning of the Civil War.

>The South was about States' Right and not Slavery!
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
>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.

>The Civil War was over Tariffs!
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
>ctrl+f: "tariff"
>0 Results

>>17925997 (OP)
>fun fact
http://www.bing.com/search?q=lincoln+did+not+like+negroes

>>17926026
Northerners, then as now, live in a bubble. There were fewer blacks in the North than the South, and even those were more deeply segregated. The Northern picture of black people was not based on direct experience but on bullshit propaganda like Uncle Tom's Cabin. They thought blacks were angelic childlike beings regularly injured for no reason by cruel whites. Southerners, seeing blacks daily, knew that living around them was only possible, and black usefulness to society only possible, if blacks were closely overseen and constantly policed. Slavery was the least bad solution to whites existing alongside a violent and retarded African sub-species. Evetunally the Great Migration introduced Northerners to masses of their black brothers and sisters, and world-class cities like Detroit and Chigago and Washington DC became bullet-ridden shitholes. But once again Northerners fled into their suburban bubbles and continued in their fantasies of equality.

>>17926001
Wtf? Did he really do all that? Why isn't that taught in school?

>>17926092
If slavery was just a means to an end, rather than a societal end goal, why did various planters rebuff Lincoln's early offers/proposals of putting a constitutional protection on slavery where it already existed then working to gradually deport the slaves over time back to Africa?

>>17926092
>Slavery was the least bad solution to whites existing alongside a violent and retarded African sub-species.
That's weird, how'd they get in that situation again?

>>17926001
Southern states peacefully left the Union and Lincoln chimped out and raised a federal army and declared war, illegally.
First causalities were Maryland protesters.
Border State Governors on Lincoln’s call for Military Coercion
"In reply to this communication, I have only to say that the militia of VA will not be furnished..Your object is to subjugate the Southern States.. in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution, or the Act of 1795—will not be complied with."
~ Gov. Letcher, VA. April 1861
"I regard the levy of troops made by the Admin, for the purpose of subjugating the States of the South, as in violation of the Constitution, & a usurpation of power. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country..."
~ Gov. Ellis, NC. April 1861
"In answer to your requisition for troops from Arkansas, to subjugate the Southern States, I have to say that none will be furnished. The demand is only adding insult to injury."
~ Gov. Rector, Arkansas. April 1861
"Your dispatch is received. In answer, I say emphatically, Kentucky will furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern States."
~ Gov. Magoffin, KY. April 1861
"Requisition is illegal, unconstitutional, revolutionary, inhuman, diabolical, and can not be complied with."
~ Gov. Jackson, MO. April 1861
"Tennessee will not furnish a single man for coercion, but fifty thousand, if necessary, for the defense of our rights, or those of our Southern brothers."
~ Gov. Harris, TN. April 1861

>>17926127
Mainly the British Royal London Company. The U.S banned slave trading in 1808, and prior to that, the largest slave trading ports in the U.S were in the Northeast, specifically Boston and New York.

The South inherited slavery. It didn't start it.

>>17926033
Foreign troops were on South Carolina property. Lincoln promised time and time again he would remove them and never did. Nobody died there, the first causalities were Maryland protesters shot by Lincoln's dogs

>>17926027
Kentucky declared neutrality and the Union did such horrid things in the state that its firmly in the Southern bloc post war. That's why you see it in the South when you look the geographic region of 'the south'. Stop lying.

>>17926142
The South is, in truth, a sociocultural unit more than a political one; that's why there are even areas outside the political south (e.g Southeast Ohio) that have Southern accents, food, traditions etc.

Its geopolitical too, due to the war, but if the war never happened there'd still be an identifiably "Southern" cultural region and identifiably "Northern" cultural region. But yeah Kentucky's obviously the South. Missouri is the one that's more mixed/undecided.

>>17926142
>That's why you see it in the South when you look the geographic region of 'the south'.
Verbal Fallacy. You're intentionally abusing the two different colloquial definitions of "The South" as either being a geographic region or shorthand for the Confederacy. Mind your Uncle Sam now you seditious rat

>>17926038
>War was so unpopular in the North there were draft riots
>Lincoln had to fill his ranks with blacks and Europoors snatched off the boats, namely the Irish

Oh the North won and in doing so they made us all slaves.

>>17926027
>>17926033
>>17926038
The South sent delegations to Washington, D.C., and offered to pay for the Federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected any negotiations

Lincoln clearly rigged the Republican primaries in Chicago, his campaign stole all the ballots so that Seward couldn't get nominated then in the third round of voting his campaign promised multiple people the same seats in his administration for their votes. It's a wonder he didn't get assassinated by a disgruntled candidate appointee like James Garfield. Seward considered him a backwards country oaf and was going to retire until Lincoln basically acted out like an angry child in response to his power getting checked instead of coming to compromise.

Seward was in the faction of rich aristocrats that heavily opposed the expansion of the US which lessened their power and influence, so when he organized the purchase of Alaska, which was a disguise for paying the Russians for protecting the US, everybody made fun of him for being a hypocrite

After seeing this confederate dixie shit the last few days, heres what I gathered
>Lincoln did not save the union, because the idea of the United States being a whole country wasn't a thing in the 1850s
>the South deciding to secede with proper notice was no biggie at all
>the Civil War was about making the most powerful country in the world, when the founding fathers wanted the US to be a decentralized confederacy
>and because it was no biggie, there was no state of emergency so Lincoln acted way out of line

sounds extremely retarded and cope. But I'll try to read more about this one of these next few days when bored.

>>17926157
>Lincoln rejected any negotiations
Why would he negotiate with traitors? As far as Washington D.C. was concerned, the South never left the Union, they were operating under the idea that they were temporarily taken over by violent retards.

>>17926161
I mean this is basically true. The South did secede to protect slavery, but the Union didn't enter the war to end slavery, it entered to centralize the nation. The war fundamentally transformed the U.S from a decentralized confederacy (the word "confederacy" was literally used to refer to the U.S before the war, both south and north) into a centralized government. Later acts that expanded the government dramatically were all based on acts/things that happened during Reconstruction or the war.

>>17926161
After seeing this confederate dixie shit the last few days, heres what I gathered
>The South was trying to make a white-ethniostate (but they also still wanted to keep nonwhite slaves in their territory)
>Lincoln was a tyrannical emperor (which is only based when we do it)
>The South just wanted to exercise their right to self-determination (by unilaterally undermining the territories that their fathers had founded as part of the US)

southroners = retarded bucktooth hillbillies with weird bbc fetishes (source: Django Unchained, a factual reconstruction) and they oppressed black men to feel better about being weird cucks

lincoln kicked their weird malding bbc cuck asses

very simple and factual

>>17926008
SCUUUUM GANG

>>17926176
Lincoln was a southern though. That was the whole point of the OP.

if Lincoln wasn't killed he would have sent black back to Africa

>>17926176
based Tariq Nasheed

>>17926187
I think it's fairly unlikely anyone was going to send 20% of the population back to Africa, this would've been a massive undertaking. The closest we got was Liberia and almost nobody wanted to resettle there because that would've been the equivalent of sending some second-generation British-Canadian to the Balkans

>>17926001
>They put this dude on Mount Rushmore

>>17926196
20%? The black population today is 12%, roughly. And that's without any massive repatriation or sterilization programs. If the North had been willing to help pay for it (they weren't) then it would have been very easy to repatriate at least 12% of them, if not more, and natural increase of the white population which occured post war could mean that by 2025 blacks might be as low as 4% of the total U.S population (more like 12% in the deep south, 8% in the upper south).

>>17926231
You're ignoring proportionality
yes, 20% of the population back the means less today, but 100% of the population back then also means less today. In other words there also would've been far less people in general to carry out and enforce these deportations, making it all the more logistically challenging.

>>17926247
That's also the 1770 numbers though. Ironically enough, the black population actually decreased post-revolution, and was lower in 1860 than it was in 1775.

>>17926001
Even Northern Congressmen admitted what the North was up to:

“To nationalize as much as possible, even currency, so as to make men love country first before their states, all private interest, local interests, all banking interests, the interests of individuals everything should be subordinate now to the interests of the government”

~ Senator John Sherman of Ohio.

>>17926256
By 1860 they were still roughly 16% of the overall population

>>17926258
I wonder if anybody has written a paper about the Union causes relation to fascism. There are lots of parallels; palingenetic nationalism, centralization, authoritarianism. The only difference is Yankoids are dispositionally gay so they turned their fascist moment into a crusade for legalizing gay butt sex with negros.

>>17925997 (OP)
Southerners have been told that they and their ancestors are responsible for this most vile of institutions, and that the noble North was fighting the war to end slavery and promote equality. It has been shown that the North did not free its slave property for any other reason than to rid itself of a people who had become unprofitable to keep and with whom it desired to have little or no social contact. In both the North and the South, there were different views on the issue of slavery and how to end it. The only difference is that the North had the opportunity to end slavery without disrupting its economy or social fabric. This was a luxury the Yankee never allowed the South.

>>17925997 (OP)
Lincoln’s War was not over slavery.
In reality, the North chose to fight in order to avoid the anticipated economic consequences of disunion. A truncated Union separated from its Southern states would likely face two significant economic problems.
First, it could not hope to maintain a favorable balance of payments. The South accounted for about 70% of America’s exports on the eve of the Civil War. Thus, without the South’s export economy, America could become a perpetual debtor nation forever at the mercy of its stronger trading partners that would deplete her gold supply in order to settle the persistent trade imbalances.
Second, since the Confederate constitution outlawed protective tariffs, her lower tariffs would confront the remaining states of the Union with two consequences. One would be a shrinkage in tariff revenues. Articles imported into the Confederacy would divert the applicable import duties from the North to the South. Since tariffs represented ninety percent of all Federal taxes such a drop was significant. Even more importantly, a low Confederate tariff would induce Southerners to buy manufactured goods from Europe as opposed to the Northern states where prices were inflated by protective tariffs. Consequently, the market for Northern manufactured goods in the South might nearly vanish.

>>17926283
More along the lines of communism since Marx liked ole Abe

>>17925997 (OP)
"I am with the South in life or in death, in victory or defeat. I never owned a negro and care nothing for them, but these people have been my friends and have stood up to me on all occasions. In addition to this, I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the Constitution and the fundamental principles of government. They no longer acknowledge that all government derives its validity from the consent of the governed. They are about to invade our peaceful homes, destroy our property, and murder our men and dishonor our women. We propose no invasion of the North, no attack on them, and only ask to be left alone."

-Major General Patrick Cleburne, C.S.A.

>>17926027
>>17926033
Who Started the War?

The standard textbook answer to this question is that the South obviously started the war because it “fired the first shot” by attacking Fort Sumter. Most textbooks don’t mention several facts that put the attack in proper perspective. For example, after the Fort Sumter incident, the Confederacy continued to express its desire for peaceful relations with the North. Not a single federal soldier was killed in the attack. The Confederates allowed the federal troops at the fort to return to the North in peace after they surrendered. South Carolina and then the Confederacy offered to pay compensation for the fort. Lincoln later admitted he deliberately provoked the attack so he could use it as justification for an invasion. The Confederates only attacked the fort after they learned that Lincoln had sent an armed naval convoy to resupply the federal garrison at the fort. The sending of the convoy violated the repeated promises of Lincoln’s secretary of state, William Seward, that the fort would be evacuated. Seward continued to promise the Confederacy that the fort would be evacuated even after he knew that Lincoln had decided to send the convoy. Major John Anderson, the Union officer who commanded the federal garrison at the fort, opposed the sending of the convoy, because he felt it would violate the assurances that the fort would be evacuated, because he knew it would be viewed as a hostile act, and because he did not want war. Several weeks before the Fort Sumter incident, Lincoln virtually declared war on the South in his inaugural address, even though he knew the Confederacy wanted peaceful relations.

-c-

>>17926027
>>17926033
In his inaugural speech, given weeks before the attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln threatened to invade the seceded states if they didn’t continue to pay federal “duties and imposts” (the tariff) and/or if they didn’t allow the federal government to occupy and maintain all federal installations within their borders.

If Lincoln had desired peace, he knew all he had to do was evacuate Fort Sumter, as his own secretary of state had been promising would be done for weeks. When the Confederate authorities were told the fort was going to be evacuated, Confederate forces stopped building up the defenses around the harbor and celebrated. Across the harbor, Major Anderson was grateful the fort would be evacuated and that therefore North and South would separate peacefully (Cisco, Taking A Stand, pp. 105-106).

But, sadly, Lincoln didn’t pursue peace with the Confederacy. For a while it seemed as though he was prepared to evacuate Fort Sumter, in spite of his earlier statements to the contrary. Initially all but two of his cabinet members urged evacuation, as did his general-in-chief, General Winfield Scott. However, Radical Republicans and influential Northern business interests applied intense pressure on Lincoln and on his cabinet not to evacuate the fort. Radicals in the Senate threatened impeachment if the fort were evacuated (Catton and Catton, Two Roads to Sumter, p. 277).

Once the low Confederate tariff was announced, powerful Northern business interests came out strongly opposed to peace with the Confederacy. As the pressure for aggression mounted, Lincoln decided to provoke an attack on the fort in order to use the attack as a pretext for invasion and to whip up a majority of the Northern public into a war frenzy against the South.

>>17925997 (OP)
Had secession been allowed, the result of the loss of cotton generated tariff revenue, along with the creation of a low tariff competitor on its Southern border would have meant economic disaster for the North. The South on the other hand would have generated increased trade with its low tariffs, and kept the revenue generated from cotton at home which would have aided the border States to increase manufacturing capabilities which had already begun by 1860. Southern literary great William Gilmore Simms stated in 1860 that slavery would end in the upper South by 1875 because it was turning to manufacturing.

Western civilization’s antislavery sentiment was shared by Southerners, and would certainly have enhanced antislavery sentiment in the deep South. The problem was there were too many slaves to easily convert to a wage based economy. What would become of the excess that could not be profitably employed, not to mention the elderly, very young, and invalid dependent upon the cradle to grave welfare of the master. This great humanitarian problem, more than any desire to “preserve slavery,” was what had long stood in the way of Southern emancipation. Perhaps as the CSA economy prospered, more of the less populated States formed in the territories would have petitioned to join the Confederacy. These being less populated might have provided lands in which to disperse the excess slaves where they could have land to survive. Then emancipation could have occurred.

-c-

>>17925997 (OP)
There was nothing Lincoln could do to prevent secession of the deep South. It was his choice to go to war that caused the secession of the upper South. But given he held to a basic philosophical universe of political belief and discourse incommensurable with that held by the South, secession of the upper South was only a matter of time anyway. Because of the cultural and environmental differences between the two sections, they should never have tried to unite in the first place. There were irreconcilable differences from the beginning.

With Lincoln’s election promising an exponential increase in all the issues that troubled the South (political and financial centralization, protective tariffs, crony capitalism, etc…), coupled with the South’s loss of balance in the Senate as a firewall against Northern economic exploitation emerging from the House, the South had no choice but to leave the Union. Lincoln would have needed to totally transform himself regarding his political and economic philosophy to avoid secession. His ambition was to use Southern generated revenue to further serve his corporate lawyer instilled economic ambitions. And those ambitions were primarily sectional, his being the first purely sectional President.
-e-

>>17926150
CSA called the first draft in American history.

Or, if you prefer, in CSA history, which was completely encompassed by the fucking draft.

>>17926427
And brave young men were eager to go defend their homes from the Northern hordes coming down on them. Meanwhile the war was so unpopular in the North they had draft riots and Lincoln's gov would jail reporters for showing accurate reporting/pictures of the carnage.

>>17926427
False
Abraham Lincoln is responsible for the first military draft and the first income tax in the nation’s history. Lincoln’s son Robert received the nation’s first student deferment from a military draft as he remained enrolled at Harvard while the rich people who put Lincoln in office like Andrew Carnegie were rewarded by allowing them to buy their way out of the draft. Carnegie paid another man $850 to take his place after being drafted. The poor were guaranteed social ostracism if they didn’t volunteer and were shot if they deserted or ignored the draft. If Lincoln’s income tax wasn’t paid, property was seized, auctioned and a stiff penalty added.

>>17926134
>The U.S banned slave trading in 1808
I recall the argument wasn't: "We don't want negros here." but: "We can breed our own, don't spoil our market with cheap imports." It's also wrong to say that the South inherited slavery, slave sales and credit were how the Louisiana purchase was integrated into the US economy.

Lincoln's war was fought between two slave holding nations btw

>>17926001
>While Jefferson Davis was off being a war hero in the Mexican-America war,
that war was bulslhit though, polk provoked it in the exact same way lincoln did, by placing troops on disputed territory which he knew would lead to violence

>>17926633
Maybe Mexican troops shouldn't cross the border and shoot US soldiers then.

>>17926636
It truly is a shame that we don't have Baja California, Mexicans don't deserve it.

>>17926001
Lincoln violated the constitution by forming West Virginia. If the South was a separate country, then he had no right to declare war on it (constitution says only congress can declare war). If it was the same country and he was simply putting down a rebellion, then he formed a state (WV) from an existing state (VA), also in violation of the constitution.

He was a tyrant that gave no heed to the rule of law. He only cared about preserving [his control over every member, past and present, of] the union.

Confederacy has been proven to be the better system, most especially by the current state of the USA. A bloated federal government bureaucracy is precisely what confederacy avoids. It is the superior form of government.

>>17926001
Yikes.

>>17927672
Black discord Twittogram dweller detected.

>>17926001
I'll remember that the next time Republicans say they're the party of Lincoln

>>17926258
Holy fucking based.

>>17926161
The founders did not all agree as to the future of the U.S. there were differences of opinion at that time as well. What was reached by the founding of the United States was just that. The United States coming together in union by mutual agreement. Federalism. Someone explain Federalism because people been trolling the whole real concept or something. Was it pro centralization or not?
One things for sure though. The North having no need for year round cash crop labor in an inhospitable humid African like climate surely played no role in the conflict.

>>17926001
>made speeches about how we should have a national bank, which he implemented.
Absolutely fucking based.

>>17928702
>We could be living in a Nation with no central bank that only stores gold collectively and uses notes as an exchange system.
>Then this trade system would insure inflation and unpopular wastefull programs never happen (reducing bloat at the source).
>People live happy awesome lives not thinking and worrying about politics all the time because things are going so well there's no need
>the rest of the world fights and squabbles but the United States, which now forms a contiguous string of states stretching from Alaska to the entire Baja peninsula due to the friendly competitive westward rush to be the next new state, lives in peace and harmony.
>It boasts the strongest economy in the world (a real one), architecture and leisure activities are the envy of the world.
>the world's dear friends, America! Chant the envious outlander. A bit jealous but to enamored with her to think of ever lashing out in anger.
Yeah that would suck. We could have tried something different and show the world if it would work but instead you know... same old.

>>17926033
Tranny-coded verbiage

>>17926146
My family is from Southeast Ohio strangely, came here from England after the English Civil War, another conflict

>>17926176
Obsessed