New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
Sign up
I often get in arguments with fags who always talk shit about confederate soldiers calling them traitors and pushing for all confederate monuments to be torn down. They justify this with the tired old argument of "but the confederates fought to keep muh precious niggers enslaved, therefore they deserve to be mocked and reviled because slavery bad." I had heard before that the civil war was over state's rights to determine their own destiny instead of being beholden to the federal government in D.C. and that slavery was the least of the cause. What are good counter arguments to these nigger loving confederacy haters ? Any educational links would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
-6
Crockett on scored.co
7 months ago -6 points (+0 / -0 / -6Score on mirror ) 1 child
The Civil War was 100% fought over secession.

The issue of secession arose 100% because of slavery.

That's really it. It shouldn't be that hard to grasp, but accepting it requires the ability to understand two things at once, which is often beyond the ability of leftists when they smell an opportunity to virtue signal.
zippy2 on scored.co
7 months ago 4 points (+0 / -0 / +4Score on mirror ) 1 child
Slavery was last straw in deciding, it wasn't wholly because of.
Crockett on scored.co
7 months ago 2 points (+0 / -0 / +2Score on mirror ) 2 children
OK, fair. My contention is that it wouldn't have happened if not for the issue of slavery. I think slavery was a necessary wedge, without which, the South would never have resorted to secession, despite other grievances. Agree or disagree? I'm willing to learn here.
CatoTheElder on scored.co
7 months ago 3 points (+0 / -0 / +3Score on mirror )
The south was beginning to industrialized. Birmingham was the "Pittsburg of the South". The ore was starting to flow from the Smokey Mountains, and the coal was flowing from the Cumberland Plateau. The north could not tolerate their resource slave, the south, gaining economic independence. Furthermore, the north was afraid of losing it's cheap labor supply to the western states.
>Northeastern states, fearing a labor drain, were opposed to the quick and cheap sale of public lands in the West, and southern states — in order to check the power of the North — aligned themselves with the western states that favored such sales to entice settlers.

Homer Caret Hockett, The Political and Social Growth of the American People, 1492 to 1865 (Macmillan, 3rd Edition, 1940), 571.

The war was fought to keep the south from industrializing. It was fought to keep the cotton flowing to northern textile mills. It was fought to keep the south dependent on northern steel. It had nothing to do with slavery.

This is especially obvious when you see that every 70 or so years the US government (the north) comes back through and destroys everything again. 70 years after the Civil war, the the US government created the TVA and use it and the Corps of Engineers to flood all of the fertile bottom land and force everyone to try and grow their crops on the rocky hill tops. "Corn don't grow on ol' Rocky Top."

70 years after the new deal you had mass immigration starting with Regan and it never stopped since. Chicken processors popped up all over the south and instead of hiring locals, they imported illegals by the bus load. Now Spanish is the spoken language in southern elementary schools. Soon that will be middle schools and high schools. Hispanics are already the largest population under 15, and the march of time will make them the largest populations at every other age group too.

So yeah, the north won, and every white man lost.
zippy2 on scored.co
7 months ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
well, there's also the issue of allowing the south to seceed which was an option.

By holing troops in Charlston, reinforcing them, and strategically inciting conflict to win political capital back home, the war was successfully started.
Crockett on scored.co
7 months ago 2 points (+0 / -0 / +2Score on mirror ) 1 child
That's what I mean about the war being fought over secession. Lincoln made it absolutely crystal clear that his only concern was to secure the Union.

>My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

The North and South could have just split. But the North chose to wage war because the division was more intolerable to them than war. They fought not to free slaves, but to quell rebels.
zippy2 on scored.co
7 months ago 3 points (+0 / -0 / +3Score on mirror ) 1 child
No doubt slavery was last straw on a series of insults, and probably no secession (and no war) if the slavery wedge not been driven. And Lincoln started the war only to keep the Union and was agnostic on the issue of slavery (until it became advantageous militarily.) Lincoln even tried to offer slavery back to the Govorners (who were now effectively kings) if they were to cancel plans. In a letter to the Gov or Florida, it was outlined. However the letter was not answered in time because in a book by Lincoln's cabinet member, there details Lincolns strategy to antagonize at Charlston, with the union newspapers under his control (they would write propaganda how the South "fired the first shot.") That was exactly what Lincoln needed to convince congress to raise troops. He wanted a Union so he executed on his plan for war by starting a planned scirmish in Charleston

Having studied both much and little, I have personal theories that are not often championed:

and that is A) certain writers in major newspapers, then, was like todays FOX and MSNBC. B) The reformed whig democrats were like today's international Marxists, and C) the abolutionists were somewhat like today's woke social juatice warriors.

So you had newspapers inflaming the public, unwittingly or with intent to start conflict. (We vs them)

Politicians that hated the south and state run currency, who either looked the other way at harm, or sought to directly punish the south through legislation. (Aside from the south not being adequately represented in the first place.)

And the political winds (soros-like vestments?) were being heavily influenced by the monies flowing into revolutionary idea of ending slavery overnight. Doing it overnight sounds good on paper yet the effect would be harsh and immediate. To give an example of impact, would be like turning off social security overnight. Not that extreme. But you get the idea. In the movie Ghostbusters, "dickless" wants to shut the power off to the containment unit. Peck: "**Forget it**, Venkman. You had your chance to cooperate, but you thought it'd be more fun to insult me." So they threw the breaker and accidentally unleashed the ghosts and all hell. Except in actual history, everyone knew without a doubt that secession came next. The abolutionists were the tool to get that done (and history looks kindly on them for having worked with politicians to do it wrecklessly with a BANG).
The idea to flip it off like a light switch at a time when tempers flared, however, is what costs us 750,000 lives.* The well-funded abolutionists were, like blm, unwitting pawns in a larger ploy.

...

> *750k estimate see hacker_cw_dead.pdf

...

For criticisms of Lincoln, read Thomas DeLorenzo, which is a whole different beast, but to Lincoln's credit he did try to restore the union non-violently by offering to undo slavery (a major point history books fail to mention time and time again), and only started the war when other avenues were explored. The major Port in Charleston, however, was too big of a trade artery to give up economically and militarily; so Lincoln decision was made to fight then, before bargaining was thoroughly investigated. And to be honest. The stench of power is so stinky that I don't think any govorner would have given their crown back under negotiations. It wasn't only about slavery. They were euphoric free countries again. So Lincoln knew if the South took the port then they would have had the upper hand. The chips fell where they did but this all goes back to who funded the abolutionists to lobby for an achilees heel attack to get this desired outcome. Even if you are against social security, no sane person would try to kill it overnight. Everyone knew it would have needed to be done tactfully, perhaps with tax breaks, a burning candle, or other concessions that history is full of.
Toast message