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
>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.
By holing troops in Charlston, reinforcing them, and strategically inciting conflict to win political capital back home, the war was successfully started.
>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.
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.