Thread 17926164

Three hundred thousand Yankees
Is stiff in southern dust
We got three hundred thousand
Before they conquered us
They died of southern fever
And southern steel and shot
I wish they was three million
Instead of what we got.

Nice try traitor
>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

Comanches were right. Fuck white people.

Kamala lost

>>17926194
That's a shame

>>17926164 (OP)
23-25% of the Union Army was not made up of Northerners btw. Foreign horde.

>>17926204
The North is the most prosperous region in the US and the South is still a shithole

>>17926204
This is mostly do to waves of then-recent immigration into cities like New York during the Civil War
The South also had foreign conscripts but they were far less common (around 5%) and most of them were, ironically enough, made up of Mexicans

>>17926164 (OP)
>Died so his descendants could be replaced by immigration from Europe and for his great-whatever-granddaughter to date Tyrone

Is there any group more cucked than the eternal yankee?

>>17926164 (OP)
Northeast transplant from the West with roots in the North here, I hear you loud and clear. Our abolition of slavery in the late 1700s early 1800s was a serious mistake—as Detroit, Chicago and DC prove there is nowhere a black can handle freedom. Not only would that not have happened, but the Civil War wouldn’t have happened had we had the common sense to not drink the Abolitionist Koolaid.
After reading Jefferson Davis’ book, I understand you guys got a raw deal, and though my great great great grandpa was part of that, I’m sorry. The Old South was a great society and it’s a shame it no longer exists. All I ask is that you guys understand I have my own heritage and have to honor it, same as you have to do with yours. There are good things about New England anyways, and you’re welcome to visit anytime (unlike the Cape Verdeans kek)

>>17926204
>>17926222
>Northchads got superior white stock to fight on their behalf
>Southcucks got Mexcrement Creola

>>17926230
Fair enough

>>17926223
Southerns
>when your entire cause is to create a state for the sole benefit of wanna be aristocrats

>>17926164 (OP)
Secession and war, are two very different events. The southern states peacefully seceded from a voluntary union and formed a new union, the Confederate States of America. Lincoln, on the other hand, declared war against a foreign country, because he admittedly wanted taxes from its component States for his Wall Street cronies that got him elected. As always, simply follow the money trail, not what they say.

>>17926254
>Lincoln, on the other hand, declared war against a foreign country
The South started the Civil War

>>17926175
>Nice try traitor

>>17926175
The North did not go to war to free slaves, but to force obedience upon the South, to break them completely so they would never be a political problem again. The North did not try to work with the South to find a political solution of diplomacy, but instantly amassed an army and invaded the South and raped, murdered, and pillaged the South, leaving a wake of destruction that the South is still recovering from today.

>>17926230
The South & the Midwest (settled by Southerners), along with the Mid-Atlantic, were pretty natural allies until New Englanders chimped out about slavery. As beautiful as New England is, its been a region that's long plagued/troubled the U.S and basically behind everything from the Civil War to Ellis Island explosion to """civil rights"" to the cold war to the iraq war.

I don't bemoan you a right to your heritage, its just that Yankees have been a serious problem for the rest of America.

>>17926264
>The North did not go to war to free slaves
I'd say they did
The South made it very clear that they seceded over slavery
Slavery was abolished in the North by 1810
It was very clear that slavery was the primary point of contention, and the only solution for peace was abolitionism. The North were too lenient on those Dixoids

>>17926280
The North did not enter the war to abolish slavery. In their own words, this is what they said. It was a war to maintain the Union. It was only by 1863, with the realization that slavery was going to end no matter what, that they started tacking on anti-slavery stuff to the cause.

This isn't neo-Confederate apologia. This is just historical fact.

>>17926175
>Slavery
The fact that yall think anyone really cared about the welfare of slaves in 1861, is hilarious.
If Lincoln proclaimed that his plan was to free the 4 million slaves and send them into the northern states, it would have been the north seceding.

>>17926164 (OP)
The claim I often see, that the South was “devoted to slavery” is a fabrication derived from a superficial understanding of the historical context. That context was a logistical situation created by a Northern racism opposed to blacks migrating North or West. Combined with the irresponsible demands of radical abolitionists who were pressing for an action that would be a humanitarian and economic disaster.

>dude just radically alter your entire economic and social system while funding ours btw we're also importing our much morally superior form of labor desperate starving immigrants that we will pay 1¢

>>17926287
>The fact that yall think anyone really cared about the welfare of slaves in 1861, is hilarious.
>Abolitionism wasn't a significant political force in 1861
Least historically illiterate Dixietard

>>17926286
>In their own words, this is what they said. It was a war to maintain the Union.
I didn't realize the North was one person. Even if this was Lincolns Casus Belli, you're a fool if you don't think Abolitionism played a significant part

>>17926164 (OP)
In the War Between the States, the South attempted to make itself into a foreign land. The North didn't permit the South to do so and won the war. Ever since the North has made the South into a foreign land.

“The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states”
- Charles Dickens, 1862

>>17926325
>Englishmen telling Americans about their country
Disregarded + downvoted + hidden + reported

>>17926303
This was the stated casus belli of the Union Government, that they were entering into the war to disband rebels in states (which they maintained were still in the Union legally) and enforce the laws. There was no mention of ending slavery, at all, in 1861 when the war started. Or 1862.

I'm sorry that you fell for propaganda, though.

>>17926325
A Christmas Carol Charles Dickens? Damn. Based af.

>>17926286
From the 1830s on, abolitionists argued for secession of the North from the Union. The American Anti-Slavery Society passed the following resolution: "That the Abolitionists of this country should make it one of the primary objects of this agitation to dissolve the American Union." This was also the view of the Douglass Monthly, printed by Frederick Douglass. Abolitionist Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, wrote on February 23, 1861, after the Confederacy was formed:
"We have repeatedly said ... that the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, that governments derive their powers from the consent of the American Republicanism governed is sound and just; and that... if the cotton States, or the gulf States only, choose to form an independent nation, they have a clear moral right to do so. Whenever it shall be clear that the great body of Southern people have become conclusively alienated from the Union; and anxious to escape from it, we will do our best to forward their views.”
(Quoted in Albert Taylor Bledsoe, Was Davis a Traitor, or Was Secession a Constitutional Right Previous to the War of 1861? (North Charleston: Fletcher & Fletcher, 1995; originally published in 1866), 149)

>>17926164 (OP)
“The failure of the South does not prove that it was wrong, nor does the triumph of the North prove that it was right; that only proves the North was stronger than the South. Success is no test of truth; if it is, we can justify some of the most hideous tyrannies of the past.”
~ S. A. Steel, The South Was Right
Pretty easy to be 'stronger' when you yank immigrants fresh off the boats and toss them into a wall of gunfire alongside your pet blacks..

>>17926334
> that they were entering into the war to disband rebels in states (which they maintained were still in the Union legally) and enforce the laws.
Correct, the North did not formerly declare war on the South

The South however declared war on the North via the Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
So you're right, but for all the wrong reasons. In any case, the Emancipation Proclamation was signed in 1863, very shortly after the war ended. It's clear to anyone with a brain that Abolitionism played a significant role in the war.

>>17926345
The amendment to abolish slavery wasn't adopted until 1864. The emancipation proclamation, which only targeted seceded states and not loyal slaveowners or states that were considered to be liberated (Kentucky, Tennessee), in 1863. That means there was two whole years of fighting where abolishing slavery was not on anybody's mind, or at least, anybody importants mind.

>>17926311
Ironic innit

>>17926345
>Correct, the North did not formerly declare war on the South
Correct. Abraham Lincoln illegally raised an army with no declaration of war from Congress.

>>17926348
>The emancipation proclamation, which only targeted seceded states...or states that were considered to be liberated (Kentucky, Tennessee)
Probably because Abolitionists took a gradual approach regarding abolition, and we can even see this in previous abolitionist acts, such as The New York Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery which was passed in 1799 with the goal to end slavery throughout the early 19th century. The reason seceded states got the worst of it was probably because they felt it was of more importance to remove slavery as an institution and strip the men who declared war in the first place of their wealth and influence in southern politics. Slave owners in Kentucky and Tennessee were not as involved in their states politics and had less influence.

>>17926175
How would 4 million freedmen support themselves and their families? Where would they live? Where would they work? The North refused to accept any responsibility for free blacks, so that responsibility fell squarely and solely on the South. This would create social and economic chaos in the South.

These are the questions our opposition rarely considers before blasting the South as racist, white supremacists, hellbent on “preserving and extending” slavery.

Preserving slavery under those conditions was a better alternative than setting them free without a comprehensive course of humane principles in place to facilitate their freedom.

>>17926360
Lol what? Abolitionism and emancipationism were two different things. Gradualism was emancipationism, abolitionism was immediate and occasionally violent in its advocacy. Kentucky and Tennessee were spared the Proclamation because there were lots of slave owners who were loyal Southern Unionists in those states. If the war was just about slavery, they wouldn't have been spared like that.

Also a reminder that secession =/= treason

Northern states threatened secession at least 5 times during America’s first 60 years:

The first time came in George Washington’s presidency when Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton warned that the Northern states would secede unless the Federal Government agreed to assume an obligation to pay off their Revolutionary War debts.

In 1803, New Englanders threatened secession over the Louisiana Purchase. They worried that the new territories would ultimately become new states thereby reducing New England’s influence.

In 1807, New England again threatened secession after America announced a trade embargo, hoping to avoid the War of 1812, by use of economic sanctions. New Englanders objected because their region was then America’s maritime center. After the embargo failed, Congress declared war on Great Britain during President James Madison’s first administration but most New Englanders cooperated little in our nation’s defense.

When the British finally blackaded New England during the last seven months of the thirty-month war, the region held a convention in Hartford to discuss secession or other steps to protect their interests from Federal powers.

As late as 1844, leaders in the Northeastern states threatened to secede over the proposed annexation of Texas.

Boy them yanks love to threaten it but never had the balls to do it.

>>17926351
>oppressive government
Its always funny asking Southersn what actions Lincoln did before he was even president that were oppresive, and none of them were ever able to give a an example

>>17926381
Consent of the governed doesn't require oppression. Just wanting to secede is reason enough to secede.

>>17926388
>we just want to leave
so then why did you rig several states and force a few others at gun point to join you if you care so much about the conscent of the governed

>>17926175
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.

>>17926175
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.

>>17926164 (OP)
"Why is it" asked a Yankee of a Rebel, "that you Rebels are always fighting for Liberty, while we Federals only fight for honor?"

"I suppose," said the Rebel "that each are fighting for what they most lack..."

~ Wytheville Dispatch, Volume 3, Number 10, 20 January 1864

>>17926164 (OP)
In a speech made at the unveiling of the Confederate monument at Arlington in 1914, Bennett H. Young said the following about what was shamefully wrought by Lincoln’s force of war against that most basic of American rights known as self-determination:

“The sword said the South was wrong, but the sword is not necessarily guided by conscience and reason. The power of numbers and the longest guns cannot destroy principle and obliterate truth. Right lives forever. It survives battles, failures, conflicts and death. There is no human power, however mighty, that can in the end annihilate truth.”

>>17926164 (OP)
its not over yet

>>17926373
>Preserving slavery under those conditions was a better alternative than setting them free without a comprehensive course of humane principles in place to facilitate their freedom.
No it wasn't.

>>17926164 (OP)
Facts:

* There is nothing forbidding secession in the Constitution.

* There is no provision in the Constitution that gives the executive the authority to prevent secession.

* Texas vs. White cited zero constitutional evidence that supported that ruling.

* Lincoln violated the Constitution time and again.

>>17926164 (OP)
"Nations do not, correctly speaking, blockade their own ports. That term applied only to operations against foreign nations. When a blockade is declared, it is a quasi admission of the independent existence of the people blockaded."
-Thad Stevens (R-PA) 12/30/1861

4/27/1861 Abraham Lincoln ordered a blockade of VA and NC. There is just one problem: both states were yet to secede. Ignoring the legality of secession, there is no question that a blockade is an act of war against a foreign country. Ooops.

>>17926697
In the case of both VA and NC, secession was a foregone conclusion by that point. The population of those states were cheering and celebrating the attack on Fort Sumter.

>>17926164 (OP)
"The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals."

~ No Treason, the Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner,
Published by the author, Boston, 1867, Introduction

>>17926164 (OP)
Based
>>17926175
bluepilled

>>17926388
So why did you not free all the slaves immediately, if you cared so much about the consent of the governed?
Why did the north have to step in and ensure you let the governed have consent?

>>17927414
That was the principle the south fought by, actually.
Given the war was specifically about their desire to keep slaves, which are governed people who do not want their government.

>>17928451
>lincoln got mad at this guy for not winning fast enough

>>17926608
You left the union, you spat upon the constitution. you lost your american rights when you stopped being american.

>>17928465
McClellan agreed with the South, he was a traitor

>>17928489
>McClellan sucked! he was too aggressive and got too many men killed!
>McClellan sucked! He was too careful and refused to commit!
>Now that Grant, he was a real winner! He uh did the same thing

>>17926164 (OP)
They are the least reprehensible of the Anglo Saxon derivatives but it must be pointed out. They had a lot of jews, they were capitalists, they were very liberal, they had blacks around -credit where it’s due, they were slaves not full citizens-, they were agrarian which is not always bad but in the age of industry and scale you don’t really want to be an agrarian society. Modern Superpowers and 1800s and 1900s major powers needed a robust industrial base.

All of this said. I do like them and I can not abide anyone attacking them for being White, slavers, or aristocratic.

>>17926276
Yankees are a type of Anglo Saxon derivatives. They naturally hate hierarchy because it reminds them of everyone who has ruled them. The British isles have seen the most foreign masters of any region in Europe and that is saying a lot when Finland, Rusland, Iberia, Balkanland are all counted.

A lot of America’s problems would be solved if Germans Italians French or Swedes were running the country.

>>17926204
Stop pretending to care about black people, confederacel.

>>17926373
>How would 4 million freedmen support themselves and their families?
Well conveniently the south had millions of men just die in the war so seems like they would have had the space, resources, and necessity of all those freemen to help stabilize their population and economy. And if the south decided to chimp out again at their new neighbors, then the Yankees would have no choice than to finish them all off and leave the entire South to the freed slaves.

>>17926287
You literally wrote that you were seceding because of the slaves.