Civil War was about Slavery. Video inside

[Deleted member 196663]

Can we stop with the fiction that the Civil War was not about slavery.
It was and always will be about slavery.
The main point, is the south was an agriculture economy. They needed slavery in order to keep making money. The rich plantation owners did not want slavery to go away, because it would cut into the bottom line.
The statues belong in a museum, not on public property.

PLAYBOY: Wasn't the Civil War fought to decide whether this nation could, in the words of Lincoln, "endure permanently half slave and half free"?

MALCOLM X: Sir, many, many people are completely misinformed about Lincoln and the Negro. That war involved two thieves, the North and the South, fighting over the spoils. The further we get away from the actual incident, the more they are trying to make it sound as though the battle was over the black man. Lincoln said that if he could save the Union without freeing the slaves, he would. But after two years of killing and carnage he found out he would have to free the slaves. He wasn't interested in the slaves but in the Union.

http://www.malcolm-x.org/docs/int_playb.htm

 

[Old Cat]

Great thread!

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Agreed, but to act like it had anything to do with the motivation of "Cleetus, from the back arse of nowhere" fighting in the Confederacy is beyond insane. If you watch that Prager University video, it proposed that the war was solely fought for the 1% slave owners to have power over another man and the 99% schmucks, the poor and regular white folk, to go to war because they did not want African Americans receiving equal rights and wanted to keep the black man down.

I'm not talking about the South's motivation, I'm talking about how the Abolitionist movement in the North played a small part in their decision to go to war. Men like John Brown http://www.history.com/topics/john-brown who was a hero to the Abolitionist movement attempted to raise an army to assist a slave rebellion. He cited the will of god as his justification

I earnestly do not know how a human, the species that went to the moon and back, can not have the reasoning skills to discern that all wars are fought over money and nothing else. Sure, the avg person may care about human rights, but the people in power don't give a shit about anything but themselves - and this is how they got to power. Even Bernie, people turned him into a champion of truth & good, and as soon as his voters had their votes stolen, he rolled over, left them to dry and started shilling for the person that stole from his people and started spouting this deep state Russia nonsense.....funnily, the whole Russia thing started when his die hard supporter stood up from him and was murdered for doing so.

Your cynicism is extreme, more often then not leaders will act in their own self interests but I also believe that they can act morally as well. It's not all or nothing like you say.

 

[peytonlucy]

Unlucky for you all that he did not. live to ship them back. Now you get a an angry 15% of your population who HATES white America and blacks as untouchables and the master race in your media. Last I checked you white cucks pay tons of money to watch black men fuck your blonde white women and to watch black men athletically stomp all over your white athletes and to watch black men rap and act 'gangsta' and badass while your own people pretend and immitate it in the suburbs. White boys wanting to be masculine or 'act black'.

You americacucks are disgusting. When I go to the Mayberry anytime an athletic or 'explosive' black guy is brought up, a bunch of weird fucks bring up BBC, cucking, or IR porn, and gangbangs. Even in the heavies. A couple days ago some weirdo named something Cooldige was posting clips of girls that link to a pornsite centered around bbc. I only figured this out after the entire thread turned into a bbc worship fest.

Fucking weirdo white americans and western whites but hey good for me!

My advice: put down the crack pipe.

 

[Seaside]

My advice: put down the crack pipe.

What I said is 100% true

 

[PolishHeadlock]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crittenden_Compromise

The Crittenden Compromise was an unsuccessful proposal introduced by United States Senator John J. Crittenden (Constitutional Unionist of Kentucky) on December 18, 1860. It aimed to resolve the secession crisis of 1860–1861 by addressing the fears and grievances about slavery that led many slave-holding states to contemplate secession from the United States.


Both the House of Representatives and the Senaterejected Crittenden's proposal. It was part of a series of last-ditch efforts to provide the Southern states with sufficient reassurances to forestall their secession during the final session of Congress prior to the Lincoln administration taking office.

The Crittenden proposals were also discussed at the Peace Conference of 1861, a meeting of more than 100 of the nation's leading politicians, held February 8-27, 1861, in Washington, D.C.. The conference, lead by former President John Tyler, was the final formal effort of the states to avert the start of war. There too, the Compromise proposals failed, as the provision guaranteeing slave-ownership throughout all Western territories and future acquisitions again proved unpalatable.

A February 1861 editorial in the Charleston Courier(Charleston, Missouri) summed up the mood prevalent in Southern-leaning border counties as the Crittenden proposals went down in defeat: "Men at Washington think there is no chance for peace, and indeed we can see but little, everything looks gloomy. The Crittenden resolutions have been voted down again and again. Is there any other proposition which will win, that the South can accept? If not—there comes war—and woe to the wives and daughters of our land; beauty will be but an incentive to crime, and plunder but pay for John Brown raids. Let our citizens be prepared for the worst, it may come."[6] This statement, made by the paper's editor, George Whitcomb, came in response to a fiery letter to the editor from Congressman John William Noell, the area's Representative in Congress, excoriating "disunion".

 

[Limbo Pete]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crittenden_Compromise

The Crittenden Compromise was an unsuccessful proposal introduced by United States Senator John J. Crittenden (Constitutional Unionist of Kentucky) on December 18, 1860. It aimed to resolve the secession crisis of 1860–1861 by addressing the fears and grievances about slavery that led many slave-holding states to contemplate secession from the United States.


Both the House of Representatives and the Senaterejected Crittenden's proposal. It was part of a series of last-ditch efforts to provide the Southern states with sufficient reassurances to forestall their secession during the final session of Congress prior to the Lincoln administration taking office.

The Crittenden proposals were also discussed at the Peace Conference of 1861, a meeting of more than 100 of the nation's leading politicians, held February 8-27, 1861, in Washington, D.C.. The conference, lead by former President John Tyler, was the final formal effort of the states to avert the start of war. There too, the Compromise proposals failed, as the provision guaranteeing slave-ownership throughout all Western territories and future acquisitions again proved unpalatable.

A February 1861 editorial in the Charleston Courier(Charleston, Missouri) summed up the mood prevalent in Southern-leaning border counties as the Crittenden proposals went down in defeat: "Men at Washington think there is no chance for peace, and indeed we can see but little, everything looks gloomy. The Crittenden resolutions have been voted down again and again. Is there any other proposition which will win, that the South can accept? If not—there comes war—and woe to the wives and daughters of our land; beauty will be but an incentive to crime, and plunder but pay for John Brown raids. Let our citizens be prepared for the worst, it may come."[6] This statement, made by the paper's editor, George Whitcomb, came in response to a fiery letter to the editor from Congressman John William Noell, the area's Representative in Congress, excoriating "disunion".

Soooooo important

 

[PolishHeadlock]

PLAYBOY: Wasn't the Civil War fought to decide whether this nation could, in the words of Lincoln, "endure permanently half slave and half free"?

MALCOLM X: Sir, many, many people are completely misinformed about Lincoln and the Negro. That war involved two thieves, the North and the South, fighting over the spoils. The further we get away from the actual incident, the more they are trying to make it sound as though the battle was over the black man. Lincoln said that if he could save the Union without freeing the slaves, he would. But after two years of killing and carnage he found out he would have to free the slaves. He wasn't interested in the slaves but in the Union.

http://www.malcolm-x.org/docs/int_playb.htm

Lincoln didn't think he could legally free the slaves. But once they were in open rebellion he thought he could which is why he only freed them in the rebelling state's with the Emancipation Proclamation

 

[Limbo Pete]

Lincoln didn't think he could legally free the slaves. But once they were in open rebellion he thought he could which is why he only freed them in the rebelling state's with the Emancipation Proclamation

The emancipation proclamation is one of the most grossly misunderstood things in our entire history imo.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Why would they need to preserve something that wasn't even threatened? Who threatened to end slavery before the war? That's the part that gets me. I'm not trying to argue about it, I'm trying to learn more about it. I don't want to just accept something because that's what I'm told.

Lincoln openly supported making slavery illegal in all of the territories but thought he couldn't legally ban it in Southern states and thought preserving the Union was more important.

Remember that the South was threatening secession if Lincoln won. So he tried assure them he wouldn't attack something he didn't think he could legally attack to prevent war.

But the South knew that the Free territories could eventually become states and that would mean more free states than slave states and were afraid that would give the Free states more power in the Federal government.

 

[trident]

The North had those same needs and fears. Look it up.

The North depended on slave labor to support its economy too. That's why the taxed the shit out of the South. If you pay attention, Lincoln never intended to outlaw slavery where it existed. New York City was close to seceding with the South in 1860.

State laws in the North outlawed blacks from settling there. The New York Riots of 1863 were from angry Irish immigrants who feared competition for work from newly freed slaves. Northern states threatened to pull their soldiers from the fight after the EP, because they weren't going to fight to free slaves.

Lincoln only enacted the EP in the Confederate states to cause chaos and get some soldiers out of the deal.

Don't fool yourself into thinking the North was virtuous by any means.

This is the what right here and precisiely what bothers me about this debate - northern descendants acting like they "freed the slaves"

The entire country vaulted into world power position bc of slavery - slavery gave the US the turbo boost to compete economically on the world stage - to act like racism and slavery were children of the South is revisionism at its finest.

There's a lot more to the story, but it should be sufficient to say that in the 21st century, the majority of Americans still don't understand what the hell happened in the Civil War.

I expect Disney to make a cartoon movie on it soon with Huck Finn and Jim - just to wreck American brains more.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

This is the what right here and precisiely what bothers me about this debate - northern descendants acting like they "freed the slaves"

The entire country vaulted into world power position bc of slavery - slavery gave the US the turbo boost to compete economically on the world stage - to act like racism and slavery were children of the South is revisionism at its finest.

There's a lot more to the story, but it should be sufficient to say that in the 21st century, the majority of Americans still don't understand what the hell happened in the Civil War.

I expect Disney to make a cartoon movie on it soon with Huck Finn and Jim - just to wreck American brains more.

Nobody asserts that the south invented Slavery. But they fought tooth and nail not only to preserve but to make sure it would expand to new territories.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Lincoln only enacted the EP in the Confederate states to cause chaos and get some soldiers out of the deal.

Don't fool yourself into thinking the North was virtuous by any means.

If that were the case why was the 13th amendment part of his platform and the key legislation he pushed for once reelected?

 

[PolishHeadlock]

To claim that the Abolishment movement in the North had no effect and that the North didn't care about black people you have to ignore everything hat happened immediately after the war.

While Lincoln was alive the 13th Amendment was passed in Congress which freed all slaves in all American lands.

In response to this Southern states passed Black Codes which sought to make being black illegal which would bypass the 13th amendment since conviction of crime allows for forced labor.

They also passed laws in certain states that said blacks had to be employed by white by a certain dates or face vagrancy charges.

The South did everything it could think of to circumvent the 13th Amendment.

Did North sit back and do nothing? Nope instead they passed the Civil Rights Bill of 1866 and when Andrew Johnson Vetoed it the overrode the fuck out of it guaranteeing all black Americans equal protection under the law.

then in 1868 they passed the 14th amendment defining citizenship to make sure there was no question about black citizenship and finally in 1870 the 15th Amendment banning racial voting restrictions.

So people can go on pretending that the North and South were on equal moral footing because Lincoln wrote some racist letters and because poor Irish immigrants had a riot in NYC because they didn't want to participate in the deadliest war in American History.

But the facts remain. When given the compromise to allow slavery in Free territories Lincoln would not compromise.

When given the opportunity to legally free blacks he jumped on it.

Once Reelected he rammed through legislation to end slavery in all of America (something he could not do before the war).

After his death the South did everything they could to return the Peculiar Institution but the Republicans made passed 2 additional Amendments to protect the former slaves.

The amount of mental gymnastics one has to do to conclude that the North was anywhere near equal footing with the south is crazy.

And the actions of the South from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until well after the Civil War ended prove that the South fought the Civil War for one reason and one reason only and that is slavery.

 

[SammyPops]

It wasn't just about slavery, it was about the 10th amendment...you know "Muh states rights" that the left thinks is racist when it suits them. Look if you guys want to tear down monuments of Democrats, go ahead but stop rewriting history.

Yeah, states rights to own slaves.

What other 'rights' were teh south rustled over?

 

[lilelvis]

I'm not rehashing this here, but I'll leave this...

Without slavery, there would have been no Civil War

But not one soldier picked up a rifle in 1861 to free any slave.

I hoped you'd make an appearance.

 

[trident]

Nobody asserts that the south invented Slavery. But they fought tooth and nail not only to preserve but to make sure it would expand to new territories.

Because abolishing slavery would mean a radical change in how the local economy would be structured

The South was invested in the institution as much as the North was until it became clear a different model would be necessary for the future, a decision favored by the North.

Too many people look at this through rose colored 21st century eyes.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Because abolishing slavery would mean a radical change in how the local economy would be structured

The South was invested in the institution as much as the North was until it became clear a different model would be necessary for the future, a decision favored by the North.

Too many people look at this through rose colored 21st century eyes.

Slavery in the south itself was not under direct attack, they went to war over the expansion of slavery.

And many of the Founding Fathers wrote about the evils of slavery. Abolition in the North started during the Revolution with the final Northern state (New Jersey) passing abolition legislation in 1804.

The North abolished slavery in their own territories and then fought to abolish it in future territories.

The South on the other hand did everything it could preserve and expand it. They wanted to acquire Cuba as a slave rich colony, passed the Refugee Slave Act and South Carolina defied treaties and Federal Law by making British Black Sailors check into Jail when British ships docked at their ports.

 

[Captain Davis]

Yeah, states rights to own slaves.

What other 'rights' were teh south rustled over?

Rights to buy and sell products outside of the country cheaper without heavy tariffs forcing them to buy from Northern industries.

 

[Captain Davis]

Slavery in the south itself was not under direct attack, they went to war over the expansion of slavery.

And many of the Founding Fathers wrote about the evils of slavery. Abolition in the North started during the Revolution with the final Northern state (New Jersey) passing abolition legislation in 1804.

The North abolished slavery in their own territories and then fought to abolish it in future territories.

The South on the other hand did everything it could preserve and expand it. They wanted to acquire Cuba as a slave rich colony, passed the Refugee Slave Act and South Carolina defied treaties and Federal Law by making British Black Sailors check into Jail when British ships docked at their ports.

You do realize, outside of pockets of true abolitionists, the only reason the North abolished slavery in the first place was because during the Revolutionary War, the British freed any current slave that would pledge allegiance to the British and fight with them. After the war, the country wasn't in good enough financial shape for most people to afford slaves. Then once industry started taking off, they realized that hiring cheap labor with no regulations on safety or hours worked, was far more efficient than slavery. Look into how Irish and Chinese immigrants were treated and their working conditions from that time period.

Do you really think the North was for abolition out of the goodness of their hearts?

The truth is, the people of the North wanted nothing to do with black people. They didnt want blacks around them at all. They didnt need their free labor and they certainly didn't want their company or competition for jobs. Look into the Northern state's laws concerning blacks settling in their states in that era. Also, look into the reaction of the North once Lincoln pushed the war effort into a war to free the slaves.

Also, Lincoln the great Emancipator, certainly did not want the races to mix. He fully intended to find somewhere in the Caribbean, South America or Africa to send them.