Thread 17930957

*exists purely for the purposes of defending and expanding slavery*

>>17930957 (OP)
it was about STATES RIGHTS

I'd secede at the sight of lincoln too

exists purely for the purposes of enriching the Jewish Southern aristocracy

>>17930957 (OP)
Learning about the pre-war period is funny because it's basically decades of the South sperging out, blaming it on the North wanting to take their slaves, to which the North says "No we don't want to take your slaves, just calm down", only for them to sperg out again. They shot themselves in the foot at every possible turn when the Yanks were perfectly fine with letting slavery die a slow natural death

>>17930957 (OP)
Freeing the slaves without deporting or killing them was suicide.

>>17930974
they are literally inbred cousin fuckers

>>17930989
Jews? yes they are inbred and dysgenic purveyors of spiritual poison who want to destroy everything that God loves.

>>17930957 (OP)
so the og 13teen colonies

>>17930974
Why didn't dumbass Southern Aristocrats just figure out finance capitalism early and invest in northern industry if they wanted money for doing nothing?

>>17931211
Funny this is the faux "compromise" position that was created to be sold to people like you in the US was created by a southern planter who was bought off by northern banks.

>>17930957 (OP)
and?

>>17930957 (OP)
California and Utah are my favorite countries

>>17931006
>Brain dead wignat can't accept that a subset of whites are inbred
>Brain dead wignat worships a jewish god because he hates jews

>>17930957 (OP)
Eli Witney and his cotton picker nigger 9000 was just around the corner. Why couldn't they slowly ween them off the slavery before enforcing the anti slavery laws first?

>>17931211
Memphis was a major financial capital for the cotton industry.

Based

>>17930957 (OP)
>and expanding slavery*
The Confederacy and the southern states before weren't trying to expand slavery through some sort of moral compunction or crusade, because they thought it was so good and right and just. That's not what it was about at all.

The whole fight over if newly added states would allow or disallow slavery was all about political constituency. If all of the newly added states were no-slavery, they would be politically bound to the north and the power and wealth of the country would be completely concentrated there forevermore, just as guys like Jefferson thought would happen with Hamilton's economic centralization.
The only way for the south to protect itself from complete economic ruin and irrelevancy was to preserve slavery and ultimately, this is the failure of the Founding Fathers who should've foreseen this issue and the danger it posed to the country and stamped it out early.

The South wasn't wrong either. Once slavery was abolished, you started seeing the emergence of northern monopolies and crony-capitalism at its worst. The post civil war years were the biggest hotbed of political corruption in history and are largely responsible for the inextricable ties between money and politics which exist in the modern day.

>>17934961
The south made themselves believe that the ends justified the means but they were wrong. An evil like slavery can never be justified even if turning away from it means your political annihilation.

>>17934961
people don't understand that when the midwest was being settled it was the rich coastal elites that came in and took over the infant state governments to print infinite money. Meanwhile all the farmers were settlers from the south. This was the north's plan for every state, to create them, infiltrate them, and then bribe state governments to send money to new england. Once they did that and turned the midwest into colonies where they could export their surplus goods with massive tariff markups they started mass importing europoors into the factories pushing out all the original settlers. The north used europoors and absolute financial corruption to spread their power, the south had slaves. What's worse

>>17935183
oh also it should be mentioned the north was in violation of the constitution with this strategy, the south was not

>>17935183
>>17935198
Here's another layer to this conspiracy, the north realized it needed more money in order to do what they were wanting to accomplish. Basically turn the entire midwest into England with crisscrossing canals and rail. This lead to a resurgence of the south under polk who then took over the rest of the US while the north was weak

this scared them, a lot. but what scared them the most was all the gold found in california. This is why the north stole california and pretended it was about slavery, to use the gold to pay for their banking and industrial empire

>but how do you know this

Because the reason the Civil War happened (the straw that broke the camel's back) was a large shipment of gold from California sunk off the east coast of the US which caused the economy to collapse in 1857. once again the north was without the financial ability to finance their escapades, and the only people standing in their way was the south which detested financial corruption.

So they invaded them and crushed them into dust and beggared the entire nation to european creditors. Oh but don't think for second the industrialists and bankers bared that cost for a second, it was the farmers and working poor

>>17930958
And which particular ‘right’ was it about again?
According to the Cornerstone speech by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens and the secession instruments of multiple southern states, the ‘right’ to keep human chattel in chains is, in their owns words, the very purpose of southern secession and southern confederacy. But by all means, proceed to lecture me in bad faith about tariffs or some other spurious red herring.

>>17935244
You can't trust the Confederates themselves because they were all lying racists.

The war was about states rights.

>>17930969
this ninja gets it.
whites didn't own slaves.

>>17935244
Well didn't the north explicitly free all the niggers and the use the illiterate retards to rig elections in the south to elect northerners who then took control of the state finances and printed infinite money that it sent to the north?

Isn't that exactly what they did in the Midwest minus the niggers?

>>17930957 (OP)
Yankee cope thread

>>17930958
>>17935244
States rights meant that the states had the right to govern themselves. When detractors say or hear “states rights,” they automatically contribute it to slavery, using it as a way to deflect from the actual intent. The South wished to leave the Union, who’s interests included big industry, centralized national banking, and unfair tariffs. The Southern states wanted to govern themselves and regulate their own trade practices in a way that would benefit them, instead of the being unfairly used to support Northern industry and infrastructure. In 1861 the term ‘state’s rights,’ referred the Jeffersonian, self-governed, low tax, free trade, type of government. The South wanted to reestablish the principles of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and most importantly the 10th Amendment, which states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

>>17935246
> Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.

>>17935261
I respect your libidinal inclination to say the nigger word, but nothing that you wrote could in any way be construed as coherent.

>>17930957 (OP)
As I understand the issue, the South's problem here was that if slavery is not expanded to further states in the west, the non-slave states will have a majority in Congress and the slave states will be at their mercy, which makes abolition only a matter of time. So if the expansion of slavery cannot be guaranteed, it is better to leave ASAP before the matchup gets even worse than it already is

>>17935278
Well say what you want about anti-southern posters but you can't say they're intelligent

>>17930969
Bold of Y*nkee scum to pretend like they weren't trying to establish a national bank since the early republic. Y'all were trying to sell the country to der ewige Jude back in Hamilton's times

>>17930957 (OP)
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. Eventually 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.

>>17935291
Abolitionists were northerners that suffered during Jefferson's embargo and it snapped their minds so thoroughly they created a religion that worshipped niggers to spite the south

>>17930957 (OP)
The Bill of Rights restricted Congress from making laws. According to the Bill of Rights, the Federal Government was subservient to the States. After Abraham conquered the South, the reconstruction amendments were passed at gunpoint. We're all slaves now.

>>17930957 (OP)
"The claim of the Southern states to withdraw from the union & form a separate government for themselves was deemed so inadmissible by the Federal government that no proposition whatever to negotiate would be listened to."
-Zebulon Vance Gov of NC 8/17/1863

>>17935312
>According to the Bill of Rights, the Federal Government was subservient to the States.
Not true at all. The Federal government obviously was above the state governments.

>>17935340
>lost a war with canada because states just refused to send troops into canada

>>17930957 (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.

>>17935376
>economy crashes
>lincoln takes over
>does a false flag at fort sumter
>since the economy collapsed there's a lot of hungry people
>tell them there's a bunch of rebels in the south
>this checks out because you are also suffering so rebellion makes sense
>you now feel morally justified to fight the south
>when really it's just to fill your bely
>invades the south

kind of odd how lincoln laid out the playbook for the US empire

>read what the states actually wrote about succeeding
>all of them mention slavery and how important it is
>i'm supposed to believe that they were all joking and it was really about something completely different all because some dixoid doesn't want to feel bad about muh ancestors

>>17935389
>duh slavery
you will never be above 100 IQ

>>17930957 (OP)
>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¢

>>17935389
It was definitely about slavery but less its morality than how it was inextricably linked to political power and economic influence for an entire region, and how giving it up would create a fundamental and maybe a permanent shift in the balance of power between those regions, giving one supremacy over the other.

>>17935275
people replace "states rights" with slavery because that's the only thing the seceding states cared about. all the states the give reasons for secession list slavery front and center, the confederate constitution forbids the states from restricting slavery in any way, and all the national level confederate politicians affirmed slavery as the foundation of their society

>>17935396
the inbred southerners had every opportunity in the 80 years leading up to the civil war to follow the path the north did, they chose to stay a medieval shtihole and then chimped out when they realized the modernizing north would dominate their medieval shithole

>>17935389
Dixiefags can't risk the dogwhistle's pitch becoming audible to the human ear

>>17935997
Blaming southerners in 1860 for what their ancestors did 100 years ago in establishing the colonial and then agricultural economy is just as dumb as black people blaming whitey for slavery in 2025

>>17935268
the most based thing i've ever read in my life
fuck politicians, fuck bankers, and fuck journos i'm glad lincoln fucked them all over

>>17930969
>Dixie had less regulations and had more freedom
>The North was on its way to become a big State shithole protecting the factory businessmen with its awful working conditions
>people would own less
By measure of their actions, there is no bigger jews than the North

>>17936011
northern states phased out slavery throughout the late 1700s-early 1800s. the southern hicks could've done the same but chose not to.
northern states were entirely agricultural at the dawn of the 1800s, they were well on their way to being industrialized in the 1860s. southern hicks chose not to industrialize

>>17936026
Look, man, I get it -- there are a lot of retarded Confederate partisans that LARP and Lost Cause on this board but that's no reason to be willfully retarded and take on the same role but for the Union instead. Two wrongs don't make a right and you're coming across like just as much of a biased retard. No offense. Well, maybe a little offense.

>>17935326
Lol this is the traitor who, when his own citizens voted against secession by direct popular referendum, threw out the result and seceded anyway. So much for "negotiation". The Slaver class always lies.

>>17935291
And, pray tell, who were the ones who wanted the black population to get larger and larger?

>>17930957 (OP)
>>17930958
>>17930969
>>17930974

Reminder that the Union invaded the CSA and if it happened today you'd have retards on reddit with CSA flags as their profile pictures like Ukraine posting combat footage from Chancellorsville about the evil invading orcs getting pushed back

>>17936853
Based Redditors

>>17936853
you can't invade your own country retard
and even if you could, its not an invasion when you respond to the other guy attacking your land first

>>17936116
but that's exactly what they did, and the irony is slavery ended because of what they did

>>17936973
We're the UNITED STATES of America, anon, not THE UNION. The states had a right to secede, love it or hate it.

Whether you believe it merited or not, it was still an invasion.

>>17930969
>da slave owners was jewish
It's so funny how chuds stumbled upon this verifiably false talking point from the fucking Nation of Islam and started parroting it with zero thought.

>>17936980
it's mostly leftists trying to well poison

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used in this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1]

>>17936980
>from the fucking Nation of Islam
not really that surprising considering the only difference between rightoids is which race they think is the master race

>>17937253
yeah, "leftists" are obsessed with da jooooooos, its definitely not rightoids that blame all their woes upon da jooooooos

>>17937273
The current zeitgeist has leftists on their back heels, I have noticed them across 4chan well poisoning. "The jews control the slave trade" narrative just got popular on twitter because of this. Feed low information retards on social media a bunch of lies while they're in power to discredit them and then go
>haha those chuds, so silly
Like you said it's a communist narrative anyway

>>17937253
>>17937277
lol cope

>>17937285
Social media is one of the main well poisoning tools of the US government, this is how they foment revolution in third world countries

You think it's a coincidence the zeitgeist is where it's at right now?

>>17937290
>everytime my side says something stupid it was actually the other side trying to make us look bad
wow that's pretty convenient, what are the chances?

>>17937293
Nation of islam is definitely not a conservative group, they're black communists

>>17937295
yes which is why its funny that one of their talking points has started to become popular with rightoids

>>17937297
Do you think "the lead made me rob the 7/11" is pushed by chuds too?

>>17937301
haha yeah all of those right-wing twitter accounts and /pol/ are actually nation of islam psyops, sure

>>17937305
>right wing twitter accounts
so shitskins from the third world trying to make money?

>>17937307
right, anytime a rightoid says something retarded it's just a psyop to make you look bad, convenient

>>17937309
Well 100% of people on twitter are uniformed retards, and since you're from there you probably are too

>>17937312
>since you're from there
oh shit here we go, i guess i'm part of the psyop now?

>>17937316
No I'm just assuming you're an uniformed retard

is there any part of knowledge that I might have the ability to bestow upon you?

>>17937277
Leftists are coming to grips with being the useful idiots they accused the right of being. While yes the Right was for decades useful idiots, the alt right was sort of the vanguard that overthrew the useful idiot type boomers.
The left is doubling down on being lumpenproles and their “youth wing” are just pushing more ineffective and idealistic ideas like socialism.
The Alt Right was a decade ago. Today the successor states of the intellectual space occupied by the alt right are now political realists, having gone beyond ideology.
The left may also do this, however they have the difficult task of overcoming their inherent boomerism. Young socialists are spiritual boomers with an idealistic mentality that prevents them from being operative. Maybe they will overcome this maybe they will die and leftism will join Bolshevism and Royalism. These movements weren’t discredited, they were simply abandoned due to impracticality.

I think a major reason for the surge of the Right is their shift to intolerance and ideological security, calling people cucks for example went a long way in de-boomerizing the movement, but also the Right is concerned with technology and modernity. The more they hammer technology does not equal progress the more refined and enlightened they become and this will be seen by the public both elite and common all who feel the weight of over-technologization.

The Right has evolved 10x times over via being compressed by censorship and forced into these champion style infighting debates which has lead to a purified core.
The left has been dispersed and fractured and has lost coherency. It has faded into the background.

For our leftist friends it’s never too late to take the redpill.

>>17930957 (OP)
*Exists purely to expand slavery to all states and territories*

>>17935275
Could states independently outlaw slavery at a later time if they so desired?

>>17937406
Yes, but if somebody brought slaves from another state into a state that outlawed slavery and their permanent residence was in another state those slaves were his and thus were protected and couldn't be harmed

>>17937406
Nope
>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.

>>17937414
this is addressing things like fugitive slave clause and dred scott

>>17937417
Can you not read?

>>17937423
>impairing the right of property in negro slaves
so.... dred scott decision?

>>17937426
The Dred Scott decision effectively legalized slavery in the territories.

>>17937430
Dred scott was about a slave brought into a free state, he claimed he was now free because of this. The supreme court said no

>>17937437
A free territory, not state, and the courts decision was that territories did not have the right to forbid slavery.

>>17937458
point being the only people depriving the confederacy of slaves was the north which despite explicitly being required by the constitution to assist the south in keeping the nogs in the south, funded their escape at times. Pretty sure this is just a reiteration of the right of ownership of slaves federally

>>17937463
Having the right to get your runaway slave back after he escaped to a free state is not the same as having the right to import slaves into a "free" state.

>>17937467
well it would be a free state in the confederacy where slavery is enshrined federally. So there would probably be technicalities regulating somebody keeping slaves in a free state, but ultimately you couldn't take the slaves away from their owner

>>17930957 (OP)
>A quarter of the yankee army was foreign born
Speaks volumes

>>17937546
If you say shit like this then you also can't celebrate based things like Kelly's Irish Brigade making them Lincolnites tremble, boy.

Which is gay and not based.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6gz3OVvUAo

>>17937546

Who was the most exotic foreign-born Confederate?

>inb4 Chang and Eng Bunker

Their sons who served were all born in South Carolina

>>17937546
>slaves had it no worse than mass imported dysgenic illiterate starving diseased crippled europoors which had no rights because they weren't citizens and were dumped as soon as they weren't useful
maybe he's right?

>>17936116
Except for cuckfederates. They key to making a society destroy itself is to reassure the low class retards that a nigger will suffer along the way.

>>17937277
Leftists made it possible to criticize Israel without Jews pulling muh antisemitism card

You retards have sabotaged all discourse on the subject because you keep screeching about Holocaust 2.0 and glazing Hitler. You're welcome.

>>17937828
>Leftists made it possible to criticize Israel
Actually what they're doing is making it impossible to criticize israel by associating it with terrorism

they don't call them useful idiots for nothing

>>17930957 (OP)
You'd better hope that's not true, considering the implications are such that the North would have invaded and waged a war that killed over 600,000 Americans solely for the sake of setting the slaves free, only to then spend the following years resisting every attempt to allow blacks to live freely in the North. Not a good look.

>>17937954
can't invade your own country cletus
and remind me who shot first?

>>17935244
>>17935278
Stephens voted against secession and only got the vice presidency as a gesture of bipartisan unity. He is not a very good source for what the thinking of the secessionists was.

>>17937983
The only thing I'll remind you of is that you're missing the point. I'm not here to meet you on the level of
>waah you started it, you shot at the air first

>>17938025
>muh war of nothern aggression
>which started after rebels shot at federal troops on federal land
so I'm free to punch you in the face and if you respond you're the aggressor, is that your belief cletus?

>>17930957 (OP)
you forgot the gigachad jpeg

>>17938057
I think every explanation for why the south seceded should start with how Lincoln was a borderline illiterate who was called "Honest Abe" because he always found a way to (illegally) pay back the people that gave him political patronage

>>17935183
Based and truth pilled. Few know this.

>>17930957 (OP)
Lee was right

>>17938092
Abraham Lincoln actively lobbied to not audit the Illinois state bank even after it was revealed the state had essentially printed 500,000 dollars that all got embezzled. The entire state was beggared by Whigs and Lincoln still fought to keep the bank. This was the same story across the midwest and east coast in the 1830's. This was the first implementation of Clay's "American System" and Hamilton's bank supremacy system.

Reminder that Hamilton had no formal economic training and his main sponsor was Robert Morris, the slippery land speculator that helped finance the revolution. Federalists were all people hoping to rape the infant US with financial corruption

>>17938103
oh they also printed 10 million dollars in Illinois 1830-40's

nothing was ever built

>>17938103
During reconstruction the carpetbaggers took over the southern governments and then started giving away millions of acres of land and printing money. Carpetbagger Railroads were given nigh autonomy and were suspected of corruption. When they were investigated they were found to have been embezzling the money they said they were using to purchase things for the railroad

>The Crédit Mobilier scandal, revealed in 1872, involved a scheme by the Union Pacific Railroad and the Crédit Mobilier of America construction company to defraud the U.S. government during the construction of the first transcontinental railroad. The scandal involved inflated contracts and bribery to secure government support and profits for those involved

>>17938123
>In every major construction contract drawn up between the Union Pacific and Crédit Mobilier, the contract's terms, conditions, and price were offered and accepted through the actions of the same corporate officers and directors, operating on both sides of the contract. The underlying fraud of a common and unified ownership of two companies that shared principal officers and directors was not revealed for years.

>>17938127
The result of these machinations was that the U.S. Congress paid $94,650,287 to the Union Pacific and $50,720,959 to Crédit Mobilier.[9] The arrangement between the Union Pacific and Crédit Mobilier thus generated $43,929,328 in profits for Crédit Mobilier.[7] (Equivalent to over $1.1 billion in 2025.[10]) Crédit Mobilier directors reported this as a cash profit of only $23,366,319.81, which amounted to a serious financial misrepresentation, since the same directors were the recipients of the undisclosed $20,563,010 that represented the Union Pacific's share of the profits.[7][11]

>>17938129
In 1867, Crédit Mobilier replaced Thomas Durant with Oakes Ames.[12] Ames, a member of Congress, distributed cash bribes and discounted shares of Crédit Mobilier stock to fellow congressmen and other politicians in exchange for votes and actions favorable to the Union Pacific.[13]

REMINDER: Alexander Stephens was a anti-secessionist Whig, and most large planters in the South were anti-secessionist Whigs too. The secessionists were Democrats and more pliable on the slavery issue than most assume. Jefferson Davis and most secessionists outside a few Whigs-turned-Secesh wanted the Lower North to join the Confederacy too.

>>17938131
During the investigation, the government found that the company had given shares to more than 30 politicians from both parties, including James A. Garfield, Colfax, Patterson, and Wilson.

As much as I love humiliating Yankees and their pathetic defense of the abolition army, I can't waste my time arguing online anymore since I know you're all just Indians.

>>17930969
The whole "actually all the slaveholders are le jews" thing is gayest, most slave-moralist cucked position ever to manifest on this board. Literally just "democrats are the REAL racists" but for antisemites. Every society on the planet has owned slaves, taking the bait that slavery is some supreme evil and therefore it's impossible that anyone other than jews did it is retarded. Just more White guilt wrapped up in /pol/ lingo. Your ancestors owned slaves, instead of coping about it just own it and be happy that White people were intelligent enough to mechanize the slave trade into an actually profitable industry. Stop caring about what blacks think. The people who want to kill you for your ancestors owning slaves do not see any meaningful difference White people and jews, and no amount of posting will change that, you are wasting your breath trying to recruit them to your redpill crusade.

>>17938146
Why would native Americans be defending the Union?

>>17936112
Anon, the world is not a comic book.

>>17935256
/pol/ is that way.

>>17933410
They didn't pass any anti slavery laws you retard. The south got every concession they wanted. Then they sperged out and started a war.

>>17930958
this. had lincoln been based, he'd say: "slavery is evil and thus we will destroy the south" - it would have been morally right and ok. BUT he went full "muh integrity" and said it's NOT about slavery because he was a KEK. southern states had the right to leave the union, it was legal. jefferson davis didn't go to court after the war because the elites were afraid the whole charade was actually legal. why did lincoln's narrative revolve around the seccession? because americans are morally rotten people who actually did not and do not give a fuck about slavery and yankess woudn't enlist to die in war just to save some negroes.

>>17935183
Meds now

>>17934961
Slavery was weak and growing weaker at the nations founding. Then the Cotton Gin changed everything. It made slavery fantastically profitable. The founders didn't forsee technology that was the issue.

>>17935222
Your alt history is pretty boring.

>>17938000
How about the conferate constitution, or declarations of secession. Because those all clearly outline it's slavery you dullard.

>>17938063
Proof.
I know you don't have it, but I'll give you the chance.

>>17930957 (OP)
Duel on Yew Ridge
It began as a dawn foray by Union Calvary to attack the Confederate cavalry in Culpeper Country, Virginia. But by sunset of June 9, 1863, the Battle of Brandy Station would become the largest cavalry battle fought on the North American Continent- before and since- and signal the beginning of the Confederate summer campaign that would end in the watershed Battle of Gettysburg.

By noon things were getting hot for the Confederates. A Rebel brigadier was skillfully orchestrating a rear-guard action, holding off the anxious Union troopers about Yew Ridge while the rest of the brigade and some horse artillery retreated to northern Fleetwood Hill. In the whirling maelstrom a young Yankee captain names Wesley Merritt boldly galloped up to the big officer, and with the point of his saber, demanded his surrender. 'His reply was more forcible than courteous,' Merritt recalled. The Confederate took a cut at Merritt, sobering his hat off- and nearly taking his head with it. Merritt and his small band retreated. The southerner he tried unsuccessfully to capture was W.H.F. 'Rooney' Lee, son of Robert E. Lee, later to be wounded in the battle.

The event was symbolic of the larger Confederate defense of the terrain around Brandy Station: 'Rooney' Lee holding the Confederate left- trading blood for time- While 'Jeb' Stuart reorganizes his cavalry on Fleetwood Hill. It was symbolic as well of cavalry fighting of the era, which may have looked like massive waves of mean and horses, but nearly always devolved into hand to hand, person fights, for both men and officers.

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. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.
Mississippi
>In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. 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. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

Texas
>Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
Virginia
The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.

>>17938093
it was already aggressive abroad, at the behest of the slaveowner democrats
why do you think we conquered half of mexico in 1848?

>>17937546
the confederacy was literally run by jewish elites

>>17930957 (OP)
In my view, the civil war was about more than slavery. It was about the clash of two whole ways of life (one of which did heavily rely on slavery) after decades of mounting enmity between them. The North could not stand the South and the South could not stand the North. Something had to give. And it gave. Slavery essentialism is to me a discursive tactic to shut down any discussion about the matter because large bits of the U.Sian identity and government rest on the Civil War as a starting point.

>>17936976
Factually untrue. The path to legal secession is either a constitutional convention or a constitutional amendment. ‘Durr we lost an election time to do rebellion’ is, on the other hand, not.
>>17931211
Because being lazy and not working for your money was only part of the reason they loved slavery. You could do anything you wanted to your slaves. Fuck ‘em? Yep. Sell your own children from the woman your ownership of makes your rape of (functionally) lawful into a life of prostitution? Yup. Beat them to death? Sure. Sell their children in front of them? Of course. Set up a creepy inbred rape dynasty where you end up forcing yourself on your own children, and your sons do the same to their half sisters in a generations long cycle of incestuous abomination? STATES RIGHTS! So. No. It was very much about keeping power and status as much as it was about retaining wealth.

>>17938448
>join voluntarily
>cannot secede voluntarily
OH SAY CAN YOU SEE

>>17938521
>become part of a country, have to follow the legal path to leave that country
Yes. I know. It’s hard for histrionics to accept that laws don’t follow their emotions. That’s just how it is though.

>>17938533
How many laws did the north break before the south said fuck it again?

>>17938641
Huh? What laws? Or is this more a matter of ‘if I whattabout hard enough it’ll make the south illegally trying to leave the union legal.’ It’s immaterial. The only question is on the legality of secession. It is legal but only with a constitutional amendment or a constitutional convention. That’s it. That’s all there is.

>>17938533
Lincoln's premise in instigating against the South was that there was categorically no legal means of secession that could be pursued, and that the Union had to just grow and grow in perpetuity with no recourse against it ever. Don't accuse anyone of being histrionic if you're going to make such a disingenuous and pedantic argument.

>>17938275
The first time Lincoln was ever called "Honest" was when he was gifted 50% ownership of a general store in New Salem, Illinois in ~1834-5, and apparently it was because he was "Honest". It should be noted that he was so "Honest" that he had his hired goons destroy a rival general store in the same town, and then had "a friend" buy the entire store and give it to him, discounted of course. Then he opened an illegal bar in the general store. It should be noted that this business never turned a profit and he ended up having all his possessions repossessed by the state. Possessions that were mass purchased by "a friend" who then gave them back to him free of charge. Then the town made him he postmaster general after ousting the old one, and what does he do? He signs his name on every letter sent by his "friends" so that they get free postage. Then what does he do? He starts surveying land for people and notarizing their documents despite being legally illiterate. For a fee of course. When he started campaigning in the major cities his goons would beat the shit out of hecklers in the crowd

>>17938272
History is boring

>>17938235
it's kind of ironic that /pol/tards parrot a literal nation of islam conspiracy theory

>>17938918
It's convenient to blame all you problems on other people like blacks do

>>17938829
There was no instigation. The south broke the law. Either way, Lincoln was right. Under the framework as things stood, there was no legal way to leave the union. Unless. Unless. Now, hear me out. Unless there was a constitutional convention, or a constitutional amendment. That’s how you change things in the United States on a fundamental level. Especially things like, for example, the membership status of a state. It’s not hard to understand. Is this one of those things where dixieboos need to pretend like they weren’t breaking the law by rebelling? You know, like how they like to pretend they weren’t rebelling over slavery?

>>17938992
>The south broke the law.
haha, ahahahaha

>>17938998
Yah. At least they paid for it. Personally? I think it was a rather bad idea, but then again, I’ve never owned a bunch of people, so maybe all the rape and incest makes one view things differently?

>>17939003
Every unconstitutional movement, the dozens that there were, were done by the north.

You really fucked up as a civilization when literal slavers are the people that are talking about reform

>>17938533
>us declaring independence on uk is le good
>south declaring independence on union is le bad
>inb4 muh representation
so if the us had SINGLE man in british parliament, entire us stateforming would be le bad too?

>>17938992
The Constitution doesn't explicitly address secession one way or the other. Nevertheless, the South's interpretation of it, very much in line with that of Thomas Jefferson and most presidents prior to Lincoln, somehow needs an amendment to be valid while Lincoln's convenient interpretation requires none according to you. This is entirely wishful thinking on your part, as is your prattling about muh war for slavery, which Lincoln was in no hurry to abolish despite retarded narratives to the contrary.

>>17939009
the key difference is the colonies won and the confederates lost
secession is always illegal unless you win. why don't lost causers ever understand this. history isn't based on muh morals muh honor muh nobility. its about power, and if you have the power to leave it was legal and if you don't have the power to leave its treason

>>17939008
Now this just seems like whinging and cope. Again, the pathway to legal secession was clear.
>>17939009
Huh? Weren’t they just demanding equal representation in parliament? Wasn’t that the major driver of the revolution, that we had no say in parliament? No taxation without representation? Of course the south had full representation. They just lost an election.
>>17939010
Who cares about what Lincoln wanted to do with slavery? The point is that they had a legal path out of the union. They did not take it. What more do you want?

>>17939027
>Weren’t they just demanding equal representation in parliament?
how old are you lol. it was just a pretense to get independence. surprisingly enough, bongs took the bait more than americans expected.

>>17939042
I’m fairly certain it wasn’t pretense. At least for a large number of the colonial rebels. The whole idea that they had no power in how they were governed was galling. Especially with how they were being taxed.

>>17939027
What was the legal pathway to Lincoln rigging the Republican primaries against Seward?

>americans secede because brits are freeing slaves, not letting them expand past the appalachians and are giving equal rights to catholics
>OMG BASED BASED BASED
>southerners do the same thing 100 years later
>DO IT AGAIN UNCLE BILLY
Why are yankees like this?

>Dunmore's Proclamation is a historical document signed on November 7, 1775, by John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore, royal governor of the British colony of Virginia. The proclamation declared martial law in the colony, and promised freedom for "all indented servants, negroes, or others", who joined the British Army (see also Black Loyalists). Most relevant historians agree that the proclamation was chiefly designed for practical rather than moral reasons.[1][2]
>Formally proclaimed on November 15, its publication prompted between 800 and 2,000 slaves (from both Patriot and Loyalist owners) to run away and enlist with Dunmore. It also raised a furor among Virginia's slave-owning elites (including those who had been sympathetic to Britain), to whom the possibility of a slave rebellion was a major fear.[3] The proclamation ultimately failed in meeting Dunmore's objectives; he was forced out of the colony in 1776, taking about 300 former slaves with him.
THE CONFEDERATES WERE NO DIFFERENT THAN THE FOUNDING FATHERS
WHY IS ONE GOOD WHILE THE OTHER IS BAD?

>>17939010
If secession is not explicitly addressed then by default it is illegal as you cannot secede without declaring the entire constitution null and void within the seceded territory.

>>17939117
I thought the confederates were morally and racially superior to the yankee demons as well as vastly more competent on the battlefield, so why is it shameful for it to take so long for the union to win?

>>17939027
>The point is that they had a legal path out of the union.
Not according to Lincoln. He made war on the basis that the South was trying to leave, not in how they were going about it.

>>17939098
Were you under the mistaken impression that non-union states should be bound to the constitution of the union? It's like you don't know what secession is.

>>17930957 (OP)

Mr. LINCOLN did not authorise me to offer you any terms. But I think both he and the Northern people, for the sake of peace, would assent to some such conditions."

"They are very generous," replied Mr. DAVIS, for the first time during the interview showing some angry feeling.
"But amnesty, Sir, applies to criminals. We have committed no crime. Confiscation is of no account, unless you can enforce it. And emancipation! You have already emancipated nearly two millions of our slaves, and if you will take care of them, you may emancipate the rest. I had a few when the war began. I was of some use to them; they never were of any to me. Against their will you 'emancipated' them, and you may 'emancipate' every negro in the Confederacy, but we will be free! We will govern ourselves. We will do it if we have to see every Southern plantation sacked, and every Southern city in flames."

~ Our Visit To Richmond, Colonel James F. Jaquess and James R. Gilmore to Richmond
Interview and Conversation With Jefferson Davis

>several Northern states were fully ready to vote for a constitutional amendment that would enshrine states rights to allow slavery
>instead of supporting this the south chimps out and seccedes
they were literally willing to give them the exact right they wanted but it still wasn't good enough for the dixoid

>>17940050
You misunderstand me. The states of the union are bound to the constitution, and if the constitution does not explicitly give them a way to unilaterally unbind themselves of the constitution then they cannot unbind themselves of the constitution, i.e. they cannot secede.

>>17940634
So it wasn't about slavery

>>17940634
As we know, once an amendment is in the constitution it cannot be overturned. Only it can, and definitely would have been in 30~ years when free states have a super majority in government (which they would because the amendment was a compromise in exchange for no further expansion).

>>17940766
>>17938129
>U.S. Congress paid $94,650,287 to the Union Pacific and $50,720,959 to Crédit Mobilier.[9] Crédit Mobilier thus generated $43,929,328 in profits.[7] Crédit Mobilier directors reported this as a cash profit of only $23,366,319.81, which amounted to a serious financial misrepresentation, since the same directors were the recipients of the undisclosed $20,563,010 that represented the Union Pacific's share of the profits

This is what the south seceded over

>>17940774
Total value of slaves was 3-4 billion, the North would never pay this to set them free, but they would embezzle money

>>17939117
>Burns your ONE shitty manufacturing and transportation hub
>Still assmad centuries later

>>17940650
nta, but do you personally feel such system is just in principle? sounds ussr-tier

>>17940993
Very few countries have offered a legal pathway to unilateral secession, it is not USSR-tier, it is the norm.

>>17940999
thanks for admitting the union was a ussr-tier shithole. makes the secession of south... a just cause.

>>17936116
They do when they are forced to. Southerners killed soldiers or men who didn't want to fight in the war.

>>17940650
It doesn't work that way. It's called natural rights and the Constitution is superseded by them. People don't become slaves to all whims of the federal government just because a single document doesn't explicitly relieve them of a presumed burden.

>>17930957 (OP)
...

imagine fighting for the south to keep slaves and then getting shot by a nigger in the north army
llllmmmmaaaaaooooo

>>17930957 (OP)
You can argue that slavery was a major factor concerning secession. However, the war was fought because Lincoln decided to invade the South in order to stop secession.

War and secession were two separate things.

Secession was accomplished peacefully. It only became violent when Lincoln refused to accept it.

>>17930961
just like how your hairline is seceding?

>>17941691
>was done peacefully
>so long as you ignore the cases of Southern states strong arming several other state into joining them

>>17930957 (OP)
No, the South expected their constitutional rights be protected.
The people of the North bought and used products made by slaves, the New England shipping industry got rich trafficking slaves, the United States government taxed and profited from slavery, the entire world utilized Southern slavery.
Isn’t everyone who gained from slavery just as guilty as the South for it?
Let’s be honest, if anyone really cared about slavery, they wouldn’t have used slave produced products, right?

>>17941709
brainlet

>>17941706
all the way off my head and onto my shoulders and buttcrack aye

>>17930957 (OP)
Thats like founding a country for the sake of manufacturing tesla trucks.
Its not real. Youre probably just obsessed with tesla trucks and cant see anything else going on there.

>>17930957 (OP)
Those who think the South seceded and fought to preserve and extend slavery simply refuse to take advantage of hindsight. That slavery agitation was indeed the “occasion” of war is certainly upheld by volumes of quotes. No Southerner ever denied that. And in a population of 5 million Southern whites you would find some who sincerely believed, because of white superiority, that the African was better off here as a slave than in Africa as free. But the only difference between Northern white superiority and Southern white superiority was that the segregated North wanted them gone and did not want to live with blacks in this country, slave or free. Ethnic cleansing through deportation was the North’s motive.

>>17930957 (OP)
Northern abolition was accomplished by selling their slaves South during the 25 year grace period. Here is just one primary quote of which I could provide many regarding selling South:

“The principal operation of abolition in the North was to transfer Northern slaves to Southern markets."

(Ingram's "History of Slavery," London, 1895, p. 184.)

>>17934961
>The Confederacy and the southern states before weren't trying to expand slavery through some sort of moral compunction or crusade, because they thought it was so good and right and just. That's not what it was about at all.

Sure it was. Slavery made the southern planter aristocracy filthy rich, therefore slavery was good and right and just. The moralism is tied to their self-interest.

Its strange to think that abolition had anything to with the emergence of gilded age politics and urbanization. That was a consequence of industrialization and it was completely inevitable; every advanced country was rapidly industrializing during that time period. The huge profitability of the Souths slave-based plantation farming would not have lasted to much longer anyway; you see how quickly international markets were able set up alternative sources of cotton when trade with the South was uninterrupted. The economic and cultural conditions of the antebellum South were something of a fluke, a bubble based around a single cash crop. The South had no hope maintaining political or economic parity with the north long-term.

>The South wasn't wrong either. Once slavery was abolished, you started seeing the emergence of northern monopolies and crony-capitalism at its worst. The post civil war years were the biggest hotbed of political corruption in history and are largely responsible for the inextricable ties between money and politics which exist in the modern day.

The South was a fucking feudal aristocracy where the vast majority of its population were slaves or improvised tenant farmers little better than peasants. It was a one-party "state" where wealth was horded by a small elite and the democratic machine dominated politics. The Southern elite were no better than the robber barons of the gilded age; they didn't give a shit about democracy or clean politics, they just wanted to keep what was theirs and were willing to tear the country apart to do so.

>>17930957 (OP)
Was it worth it, yanks

>>17933394
Hating deicides is not bad, rabbi

>>17942390
It had nothing to do with morals, back then people could observe their surroundings and tell that blacks were subhumans. There was something "off" about their intelligence and behaviour akin to a beast. Black slavery was the most natural state of slavery humanity has ever known, where verifiable subhumans served people in their limited capacity. The moment you release yourself from these misconceptions of morality in the face of something so blatantly true you will realize the war wasn't even about blacks at all, blacks were farm equipment.