Slavery Narrative SHATTERED

LINCOLN MADE IT CLEAR THAT HIS ATTACKS ON SLAVERY WERE WAR MEASURES
“My enemies say I am now carrying on this war for the sole purpose of abolition. It is and will be carried on so long as I am President for the sole purpose of restoring the Union. But no human power can subdue this rebellion without using the Emancipation lever as I have done.”
~ Abraham Lincoln, Interview with Alexander W. Randall and Joseph T. Mills (19 Aug 1864)
Get in here and laugh at COPING YANKS

Democrat Congressman Alexander Long asserted on the floor of the House in April 1864 that when Lincoln heard the Confederates had opened fire on Sumter, his words were "I knew they would do it!" ...and on its first mention to the President he exclaimed, "I knew they would do it [fire on Sumter]; which to my mind is conclusive that it was intended expressly for that purpose."

~ Congressional Globe, 38th Congress, 1st Session

This isn't a revelation, everyone with barely more than superficial knowledge of the American civil war knew this. The fact that you didn't already know this concerning.

Can you inform that 'fucckkkk southerners!' guy whose spammed this board for at least a week? Thanks.

The whole civil war was about slavery

The truth is, Lincoln would have fought a war against any state who tried to secede for any reason. It doesn't matter if it was a southern state or a northern state. It doesn't matter if you tried to secede to protect slavery, tariffs, subsidies, misuse of the military, or abuses of the banks, etc. Lincoln would have invaded any state, and would have been willing to imprison or kill the entire population of of that state, if that was what was necessary to end secession. Or as he put it "to preserve the union.”

The Civil War was about reunification of the country, not slavery.

Lincoln said that if he could reunite the country and abolish the practice of slavery he would do it, if he could reunite the country and maintain the practice of slavery he would do it, and that if he coumd reunite the country and abolish the practice of slavery in some areas while maintaining it in others he would do it. The goal was to bring the Confederacy back into the fold and establish federal rights over state's rights, slavery was just one of many aspects where the north and south were in disagreement.

"The Civil War was about slavery" and "Lincoln freed the slaves" are just things we tell elementary school children in order to simplify a massively complicated subject to the point that they can understand it.

Fuck niggers, by the way.

Literally fucking everyone knows this. The entire point of the emancipation proclamation was to make Radical Republicans like him more, and to make the European powers such as the UK not want to support the Confederacy.
Just think about it, he didn't even outlaw slavery nationwide with that proclamation. Just in the Confederacy.
This doesn't change the fact that the Civil War started because of slavery. The south seceded because they were afraid that Lincoln would take actions against slavery. Then, once they seceded, they decided to be retarded and attacked Fort Sumter instead of heading straight to the negotiation table.
The south were utter retards. Slavery was the one thing holding them back. While the north industrialized and built railroads, the south stayed on their practically medieval-level fields, taking care of slaves from their birth up until they died of old age. The factory owners up in the north didn't need to do that. Worker too old? Fire him and hire some young Irish immigrant. That simple. You don't even need to give him food or shelter.
Lincoln did what he had to do to make the south not be retarded. And you know what they did in return? They killed him, causing his successors to be much harsher on the south, dooming it to continue being the economic shitter of the nation for countless more decades.
If Lincoln had been allowed to live and continue Reconstruction in the way he wanted to, the south today would be in a much better state.

The Civil War was in fact primarily about state rights, not just slavery. Then the retarded nigger worshippers from r/historymemes unironically tried convincing people it really was only primarily about slavery and nothing else. Their existence and their consequences have been a disaster for history discussion.

The south was utter retards

Almost had me.If you think slavery would've remained if Southern Independence was achieved for more than a handful of years you're the one that's retarded.

Many former slaves protested the forced return to the plantation and were reluctant to plant what they defined as the “slave crop,” despite the meager financial incentives the government offered. As a result, these various experiments were not as successful as the federal government had hoped. (Berlin, Wartime Genesis of Free Labor: The Upper South, 16; Gerteis, From Contraband to Freedom: Federal Policy Toward Southern Blacks 1861-1865, 50)
If employment was not readily available, former slaves were placed in contraband camps.
(Notice how the former slaves were kept in the South. They could have been relocated for work in the North or Midwest, however, it was always the grand plan to keep blacks in the South.)

I believe wanting to keep states in the union by force regardless of if they were right or wrong is why he was seen as a tyrant. Which he kind of was honestly.

They were retarded for thinking they could keep the status quo with slavery. Slavery is inefficient. The wage system adopted by northern factories was much, much better for the owners.

Yeah. He just wanted his tariff money.
April 4, 1861
Lincoln: Am I to let them go on?
Col Baldwin (VA): Yes, sir, until they can be peaceably brought back
Lincoln: And open Charleston as ports of entry with their 10% tariff? What then would become of my tariff?
1861: Morrill Tariff Passes.
1861: Lincoln kills Americans to collect
1864: Lincoln uses the military to win in a landslide

total lies
slavery was only banned in new states
they didn't want slaves doing agro work to feed miners that would mean the south would be industrialized and the northerners would lose their european edge

The North still had slaves. Lincoln's War was between two slave holding nations. He never even freed the Northern slaves.

From what I remember, Lincoln wanted to ship the slaves back to Africa after the war, as he was more of a moderate Republican and knew they couldn't coexist with Whites. However, he got shot and more radical Republicans who worshipped blacks got into power and decided to keep them here and force Whites to coexist with them. And as we all know, that didn't go quite well.

From what I remember, Lincoln wanted to ship the slaves back to Africa after the war

I have never seen this claim backed up.

I don't know what you need explained to them or yourself

If you think slavery would've remained if Southern Independence was achieved for more than a handful of years

It likely wouldn't have but it's still the primary reason the southerners succeeded. They knew Lincoln would start adding free states and that before long there would be more free-state senators than slave-state senators and that abolition was looming.

slavery was only banned in new states

And what do you think happens when there's 40 senators from free states compared to 32 senators from slave states? How do you think voting on new bills concerning slavery go when you have a republican president?

That's literally what Liberia is.

that abolition was looming.

Well when you have nuts like John Brown running around saying God told him to kill white people who own slaves, by hacking them to pieces with a sword.I wonder why South Carolina fucked off, peacefully I might add.
Secession was legal.
What Lincoln's War was, basically if the EU invaded the UK post Brexit.

The emancipation proclamation banned slavery in all Confederate-controlled states. That is not a lie, you can literally look up the full text of it.
He kept slavery in the border states because there was no political incentive to ban them. I can be quite sure that he would have eventually outlawed it in them had he lived longer.
Look at Maryland for example. He could have outlawed slavery there, but that would have only inflamed tensions in that state more. It was already at risk of seceding several times, which is obviously a no-go considering Washington DC's placement.
That was his original belief, but over the Civil War he decided that it was not the best option.

Show me proof that Abraham Lincoln wanted to send em back. A letter to his wife, a speech he gave. Him conversing with his cabinet. Anything.

I really wants to free da slaves!

But I'll keep them in the North cause... uhhhhh

Lincoln was a wealthy railroad lawyer who was a political facilitator for the Whigs, the party of the educated and economic elites. He was a faithful adherent to Henry Clay’s American system of protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare, and a nationalization of the money supply. It was old-fashioned mercantilism.

Here is his eulogy on Henry Clay:
abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/clay.htm
When he talks about the American Colonization Society here (ctrl"f American Colonization Society) he says "May it indeed be realized!", which I think quite obviously shows his beliefs on the matter.
He was pragmatic on slavery. He outlawed it in the south to sway Radical Republicans and the UK. He did not outlaw it in the north in order to keep the loyalty of the border states, as I've already said.

he outlawed it in the south

Which was just a symbolic gesture as he had no control over the South at that point in time. It was purely "PLEASE GREAT BRITAIN. PLEASE FRANCE. PLEASE DON'T STEP IN AND STOP ME FROM KILLING MY ALLEGED COUNTRYMEN BECAUSE I WANT SOME OF THAT SWEET TAX MONEY!"
“We are to have civil war, if at all, because Abraham Lincoln loves a [the Republican] party better than he loves his country…. [He] clings to his party creed, and allows the nation to drift into the whirlpool of destruction.”
~ The Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

The South was the 4th largest economy in the world. Ole Abe couldn't let that go.

Exactly. I am not arguing against that. He outlawed slavery in Confederate-controlled states as a symbolic gesture to please Radicals and the UK.

Oh.
You seem to be nice and respectful. I'm just used to dealing with historically illiterate fuckers about this whole thing. Usually on twatter.

And it's place would have only dropped further and further as other nations industrialized. Completely throwing out any moral implications, one of the worst parts of chattel slavery is it's inefficiency and resistance to progress. By the Civil War, the north was an economic powerhouse with things like railroads. The south had farms. And if the southern slaveholders had gotten their way, they would have continued being unindustrialized forever. Look at the Russian Empire for example. They lagged behind everyone else for ages because they kept their old medieval system with peasants and serfs for ages, when they could have tried modernizing much, much faster, and with probably much better results.
Yeah, I'm not one of those people who think Lincoln was an amazing perfect guy or anything. His suspension of Habeas Corpus and imprisoning of anyone who spoke out against him in places like Maryland was especially terrible.

Are you just finding out now that Lincoln hated niggers? lol. He was literally going to send them back to Africa, but he was assassinated by a (((failed actor))) before he had the chance.

Lurk more, you fucking idiot.

You seem to have this idea that if the South won they wouldn't begin industrializing either.

Then, once they seceded, they decided to be retarded and attacked Fort Sumter instead of heading straight to the negotiation table.

This just simply isn’t true. Ft. Sumter was fried upon because of a breakdown in negotiations. Lincoln was always for the war and his cabinet picks when elected reflect this. After his election it became unavoidable.

Lincoln did what he had to do to make the south not be retarded. And you know what they did in return? They killed him,

This is what tends to happen when you act like a tyrant. Suspending the writ of habius corpus, raising an army during peace times, the draft, implementing an income tax and all of the other questionable decisions he made reflect this.

causing his successors to be much harsher on the south

There was no Guarantee reconstruction would have been better under Lincoln. This is the same delusion of “he would have shipped the slaves back to Africa.” The looming fight between him and the radicals was inevitable and the radicals would have used their congressional powers to punish the south regardless of who was in office like they did Johnson. The really hilarious thing about reconstruction is it ended in absolute failure because the “reforms” were so universally rejected it caused a 10 year insurgency which the south won and caused the radicals to implode as a political entity.

He was literally going to send them back to Africa

No, he was not. After meeting with black political leaders in 1862 he recanted his repatriation ideas. Why? He needed the bodies to fight the war and blacks would not be for the war effort if they were just going to get deported. His final problem address was about how well integration was going in Louisiana. You will never find an order or policy paper with Lincoln’s signature on it outlining repatriation. Why? It simply doesn’t exist.

South got the last laugh though.

While it's true that he did believe that for a time, by 1865 he no longer held that view, and instead favored keeping them in the US.
I do believe they would have begun industrializing, but it would have taken a much longer time, and probably wouldn't have worked out as well as it did in the north. Like with the Russian Empire. They held onto their medieval system for much longer than everyone else, which made their industrialization much slower than everyone else.
Negotiations fell apart because the south wanted slavery to continue being spread to new territories. That never would have worked out with people in the north. Had the south just agreed to keeping slavery where it already was, things could have gone much smoother.
He was not killed for his tyranny. He was killed because some members of the south were angry that they lost.
Of course it's impossible to say whether reconstruction would have been better with him, but it's fair to say he would have been more skilled with the matter. Reconstruction largely failed because the reforms by his successors, mainly Johnson, were too drastic on the south, which made them revolt. His favor for leniency would have made them not hate it as much. I think it's also fair to say that Lincoln could have done better with courting Radicals, considering his expert political skills.
Lol

Don't forget the imaginary war time powers he came up with.

Sic semper tyrannis

Yankees love the negro as long as its confined to the South. Same with the spics.

That's for true. Remember when Texas bussed up all the illegals to the "sanctuary cities" in the north? Fun times.

Its how I learned Martha's Vineyard was in Mass. For some reason I thought it was in Florida.

It does have a really Florida-y name now that you mention it. Can't explain why.

I remember a video when a bunch of people in New York City went to hotels where illegals were being kept, they shined flash lights in through the windows and screamed at em.

Negotiations fell apart because the south wanted slavery to continue being spread to new territories.

No, they broke down because the Union didn’t offer anything in return and simply said “come back or war.” The south chose the latter.

Had the south just agreed to keeping slavery where it already was, things could have gone much smoother.

Wasn’t even an offer on the table after secession. All of this shit is on record.

He was not killed for his tyranny

You clearly never read the investigation reports after the assassination. Booth and his group of conspirators explicitly killed Lincoln because he was a tyrant and cited all the same things I just did in killing him. Booth himself was a Marylander and saw the imprisonment of the State Legislature and journalists at Point Lookout as tyranny. It objectively was.

it's fair to say he would have been more skilled with the matter.

Sure. However, this does not mean his supposed policy of leniency (I doubt this would have been the case due to his numerous other flip-flops) would have prevailed over the radicals who were hell bent on shoving though their agenda. >Reconstruction largely failed because the reforms by his successors, mainly Johnson, were too drastic on the south, which made them revolt.
Utter horse shit. The Radicals sidelined Johnson and effectively made reconstruction their pet project. This is why the reconstruction amendments were pushed in the first place. Reconstruction failed because the political goals of the radicals (put blacks into power in the south and have them stay there) were entirely unrealistic and not achievable even at gunpoint. It doesn’t matter who would be in charge. The white southern populace would have hated it regardless and fought their insurgency. You saying “hated less” is a tacit admission of this. The hard truth about Reconstruction was the Union bit off more than it could chew.

That shit was hilarious. All those rich libfags with their "Refugees Welcome" signs suddenly get confronted with refugees and in less than a day they had the National Guard out there rounding them all back up lol.

The best part was they claimed they had "no place for them to stay" even though it was the off season for tourism, meaning they literally had thousands of empty beds in hotels and air b&bs they cpuld have used.

Just another example in a sea of examples of leftists only giving a shit about virtue signaling for issues instead of actually wanting to solve said issues.

Booth himself was a Marylander

Didn't Union soldiers kill protesters in Maryland?

Abraham Lincoln had a 4th grade one-room schoolhouse education. It’s all retcon.

You mean he wasn't a vampire hunter either?

No, they broke down because the Union didn’t offer anything in return and simply said “come back or war.” The south chose the latter.

Exactly. The south could have chosen to come back and keep slavery as they had it. Lincoln, while disliking slavery, had no plans to outlaw it outright until the Emancipation Proclamation. Slavery definitely would have gone away eventually, but I think it's safe to say they would have kept it longer had they rejoined the Union instead of going to war.

>He was not killed for his tyranny

I do concede on this point, honestly. I'm a Marylander myself (not a liberal one like most of the state though). I've been to Fort McHenry and have directly seen the cells were they unlawfully imprisoned people who spoke out against Lincoln. That does not change the fact that I think his assassination should not have happened, and ultimately ended up making the south worse. For one, it emboldened Radicals to further punish the south.

The hard truth about Reconstruction was the Union bit off more than it could chew.

That is true. And I do believe that Lincoln would have been more lenient, which would have made the whole ordeal much easier to swallow for the south. Had he had time to get a better successor, one who could better wrangle the Radicals as he did, there is a high possibility (not guarantee) that reconstruction could have gone better. But instead, he had a weak immediate successor, Johnson, who couldn't control Congress at all.
Yes. Look up the Pratt Street Massacre. They even pointed cannons directly at Baltimore to prevent secession.

Yes. Look up the Pratt Street Massacre.

Wonder if people at the time compared it to the Boston Massacre.

That is a very good question. They do seem very similar, but my immediate research hasn't really found anything comparing them yet.

tax money and bankrupting the south so the carpetbagger jews could get everything for nothing.

I've heard it also kind of tanked Chiraq's economy

blacks would not be for the war effort if they were just going to get deported

Black slaves not wanting to go back to Africa is hilarious to me. They were literally just enslaved and hated Whites yet couldn't stand the idea of being shipped off to live far away from them. They just wanted to live off their nice societies.

they were industrializing like crazy BEFORE the war. like Richmond's gasworks, the most advanced in the world at the time. taken out and used up north. there was serious saboteur shit from the north happening in the south by northern interests, like the attempted bombing of the sloss iron works in Montgomery Alabama, and the Tredegar iron works. lincoln was the scummiest jew of a railroad lawyer ever. he was considered corrupt even for a railroad lawyer.
wait till you find out just how cushy southern slaves that werent fieldhands (aka the untrainable retards) like the skilled laborers had it. 3 day workweek and the rest is your own to make money or whatever.

Exactly

No. There were not even guarantees for slavery even on the table and given the South seceded the push to punish the south for even just doing that without a war was guaranteed. Lincoln could have brought things to the table but didn’t.

I'm a Marylander

I’m from St. Mary’s County.

implying the radicals needed another excuse to push the south

I don’t agree with you. The radicals were vindictive cunts and would have been vindictive regardless of what president was in office.

there is a high possibility (not guarantee) that reconstruction could have gone better.

It isn’t even a remote possibility. Lincoln or whoever he picked would have butted heads and the radicals believed they had the mandate from heaven to transform the south into some gay and retarded black run region of the country. The whites would have revolted regardless. Even Grant for all his efforts couldn’t stem the tide of resentment in both the north and South for reconstruction. The whole uncovering of the federal government being corrupt as fuck (which the south rightfully pointed out before the war) didn’t help. It was doomed to fail from the very beginning regardless of what the Union wanted.

And thus the original Klan was born

Anyone remember the name of that Union General, ugly bastard, who basically told his troops to rape southern girls who shit talked them?

I don't get this southern cope. Obviously he wanted to end slavery. He was the head of the party that was literally formed to end slavery because they thought the Whig party was too wishy washy about it. If he was lying about anything it was that he DIDN'T want to end slavery so as to not scare off the border slave states that stayed loyal. If he didn't want to end slavery he wouldn't have bothered to push for the 13th Amendment while the war was still going on and would have just have accepted an early negotiated peace with the South where slavery was kept legal.

“I appeal” says President Lincoln, “to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our national Union.”

The Confederate States refused thus "to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of a national Union." They not only refused to aid, but they took up arms to defeat the consummation of such a monstrous usurpation of popular rights and popular sovereignty. It was evident that, if no efforts for a rescue were made, the time would soon come when the rights of all the States might be denied, and the hope of mankind in constitutional freedom be for ever lost. This was the usurpation. This lay at the foundation of the war. Every subsequent act of the Government was another step in the same direction, all tending palpably to supremacy for the Government of the United States, the subjugation of the States, and the submission of the people.

~ Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Vol. 2.

Lincoln, nor the majority of the people in the North cared about the wellbeing of slaves, which motivated them to oppose the westward expansion of slavery. Their opposition toward westward expansion was simply to keep blacks out of the new territories. Those territories were reserved for white settlers and Northern business interests. Probably most importantly, whoever controlled this new territory, added more representation in Congress.
“The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them.”
~Abraham Lincoln, “Speech at Peoria, Illinois,” October 16, 1854

No.

Really, They shouldn't have seceded at all. Lincoln had no plans to abolish slavery at that point, but the south made a failed gamble to secede in order to protect their interests. If they had stayed in the Union, Lincoln or the Radicals would not have taken as many actions against them.

I’m from St. Mary’s County.

Baltimore County.

The radicals were vindictive cunts and would have been vindictive regardless of what president was in office.

While that's true, the assassination of a beloved president (in the north) only fueled resentment against the south by the citizenry as well, which pushed them to further support Radicals in the government.

It isn’t even a remote possibility.

I disagree. Lincoln already had some good favor with the Radicals, and I believe that had he lived he would have been able to negotiate with them directly for a softer reconstruction as he favored. That was one of Lincoln's best skills in my opinion, being able to get people with differing viewpoints to support him. As I said previously, one of the main reasons that the north became so hateful of the south after the war was because of his assassination, and without that, a lot of them could have been swayed by his own rhetoric of leniency.

It was doomed to fail from the very beginning regardless of what the Union wanted.

I'm just curious, what do you think the Union should have done with the south after the war for the best outcome? I've already said I'm in favor of what Lincoln wanted.
Benjamin Butler. Real terrible guy.

southern cope

implying the entire mythos of the north is a glorious crusade against slavery

If anything the slavery arguments are the post-fact justification for destroying the fabric of the country.

the

(((brains of the confederacy)))

was a literal kike slave owner

Yeah there's that ugly mug

He looks like a wax sculpture that someone left out in the sun too long

He really does kek. I always told people it looks like his melting.

General Stephen Dill Lee described what motivated the Southerner to fight at a speech at the annual reunion of the UCV, in Louisville, 1905:

“The Confederate soldier went to war because he loved his people, because his country was invaded, because his heart was throbbing for his hearthstone. Here was the land which gave him birth; here was his childhood's home; here were the graves of his dead; here was the church spire where he had learned it was not all of life to live nor all of death to die. No hostile foot should ever tread this consecrated ground except over his dead body…He could face the line of fire, but not the shame of standing back."

Lincoln had no plans to abolish slavery at that point

He also ran on a platform of not raising an army to quell a rebellion but that turned out to be a big fat lie. You’re putting way to much faith into Lincoln as a politician.

only fueled resentment

The resentment was already there. My point is it is moot.

being able to get people with differing viewpoints to support him

If this were actually the case the war never would have started. We can play the historical guessing game until the cows come home but it won’t get around the fact there was tension between the executive and congress. If Lincoln wasn’t killed there would have been some other issue that would have pushed the Radicals to do what they did.

what do you think the Union should have done with the south after the war for the best outcome?

A compromise of 1877 kind of agreement where both sides agreed to honor their dead and go home. No grand arguments of rights. No arguments of justice. No insane experiments to have literal retards involved in government. The southern states come back into the Union with guarantees and in exchange the South doesn’t pursue any kind of insurgency because it gets to dictate their own decisions. I don’t believe this would have been realistic given the war could have been avoided if cooler heads on both sides prevailed but it’s an idea.

Shortly after McClellan’s retreat from Richmond, President Lincoln mused that he would issue an edict of emancipation, “if I were not afraid that half the officers would fling down their arms and three more states would rise.”
(Diary of Gideon Welles: Secretary of the Navy under Lincoln and Johnson (3 vols; New York; W. W. Norton, 1960), I, 70-71)

He also ran on a platform of not raising an army to quell a rebellion

That's fair, but even then he never did abolish slavery in the Union, so there's a good chance that he wouldn't have done it in the south either had there been no secession. At most he would attempt to slowly abolish slavery through smaller reforms over time, which would be continued by his successors.

If Lincoln wasn’t killed there would have been some other issue that would have pushed the Radicals to do what they did.

True, but I still believe that Lincoln was the best man to make Radicals soften their positions somewhat. And it's especially unlikely that they would have moved to impeach him or take any public action against him, considering how beloved he was by most of the north. At best he's able to use his influence to stall them and get the ball properly rolling on a softer reconstruction.

No grand arguments of rights. No arguments of justice.

That seems like a decent outcome, but there is the matter of the black population of the south. I feel like there still should be protections for them following the war, and a compromise like the one you're suggesting could very well leave them open to something like what they experienced in real life, albeit a bit softer due to the lack of them being put in power.
Anyway, I have to go now, but thanks for this discussion. It's pretty difficult to find reasonable and civil people on this board nowadays. Cya

Why were Union monuments built at the same times and put in similar locations?

Nigger the South were nigger lovers who wanted to spread all their beloved niggers all across the USA. The South (ie Democrats) won the war.

REMINDER that the Confederacy was Jew backed and owned (most of the slaveowners were in heavy debt to Jewish financial concerns which also trafficked the slaves)

REMINDER that Lincoln got the USA out of Rothschild-enforced financial slavery with the greenback

REMINDER that Lincoln wanted to ship the niggers back

REMINDER that Lincoln signed the Homestead Act into law which was meant to populate the West with White farmholders

At most he would attempt to slowly abolish slavery through smaller reforms over time

Personally I think the institution would have been dead by the turn of the century but the war forced the issue.

but there is the matter of the black population of the south

Fair.

and a compromise like the one you're suggesting could very well leave them open to something like what they experienced in real life, albeit a bit softer due to the lack of them being put in power.

Imagine if a group of illiterate people who are clearly not fit to govern themselves, let alone others, were shoved into power. The only reason the reaction after reconstruction was so severe was the social experiment that failed. If anything this could have fostered an actual repatriation movement.

Anyway, I have to go now, but thanks for this discussion. It's pretty difficult to find reasonable and civil people on this board nowadays. Cya

Take it easy my fellow crab fag.

“should [Republicans] get the control of the general gov’t, I do not say we would or should meddle with it [slavery] where it exists; but we could inaugurate a policy which would treat it as a wrong, & prevent its extension.”
-Lincoln 3/5/1860

The South literally hated niggers and wanted to keep them on the plantation and as far away from White society as much as possible. The Republicans of the North wanted to forces niggers into White societies after the war, which they did.

Why did you give a memeflag the time of day? He's not even honest enough to show us his flag, you expect any real conversation with him?

"The South in my opinion has been aggrieved by the acts of the North as you say. I feel the aggression, & am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen I take great pride in my country, her prosperity & institutions & would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, & I am willing to sacrifice every thing but honour for its preservation. I hope therefore that all Constitutional means will be exhausted, before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now? Still a union that can only be maintained by swords & bayonets, & in which strife & civil war are to take the place of brotherly love & kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country, & for the welfare & progress of mankind.Anon Babble

If the Union is dissolved & the government disrupted, I shall return to my native State & share the miseries of my people & save in her defence will draw my sword on none. Give much love to Charlotte to my dear little son & believe me always your devoted father"
-Robert E. Lee 1/29/1861

r/historymemes

Do they ever mention how slaves were acquired when the losers of tribal wars were marched to beaches by the winners and sold off to jewish slave salesmen? Or do they legit tell people white people invaded africa and just started grabbing random blacks.

Nope the South wanted to secede to protect slavery, the north and south had been in conflict over slavery since independence, like the 3/5ths compromise, do you know why Oklahoma has a panhandle? it's because new state entered into the union were to be free states north of that line, so Texas gave up the pan handle to remain a slave state

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise

Reddittard has entered the chat

About slavery

Tired old lie. If it was about slavery, why not stay? Its not like it was being banned at the time states started peacefully seceding.
Perhaps its because nutjobs like John Brown that had people a little spooked.
Justifiably so because it wasn't long before ole Honest Abe, the tyrant himself, needed to flex his powers and enforce his tariffs. Began illegally raising an army and claimed he had magical war time powers that never existed to bring the South to heel.

LINCOLN MADE IT CLEAR THAT HIS ATTACKS ON SLAVERY WERE WAR MEASURES

And?

Slavery was evil, the cause of the first civil war was southern states pulling out of the union to preserve it and white supremacists then and now are monsters.

I can't tell if this is bait or genuine

they stopped importing slaves 50 years earlier
merely just a caste system

Right, i was literally taught that in school and years later (around 2009) I started to hear jews and retards talking about how the entire was started to end racism and I was confounded by how illogical that claim was. Most households didn't even own slaves. It would be like fighting a WAR over the right to employ Guatemalan landscapers. It just doesn't effect most people.

grrr let me be cartoonishly racist or let me die! I'm only fighting a WAR because LOL fuck niggers

The North was pro-slavery in the sense they wanted whites in the South to be their slaves so they could play Metropolitan city banker jew and push paper all day while the south handled all the agriculture and textiles for them.

Slavery was evil

white supremacists then and now are monsters

evil

monsters

Grow up, bitch.

Slavery was evil

Bait.

"I am the boy that can fight for my Country but not for the Negros...and when I hafta Stan up and fight by Sied of a Big Buck Negro, I will Shute the Negro first and then the Rebles"
-John Daniel Shark 125th Illinois Infantry 2/17/1863

North cucks love niggers

North cucks set them free

We didn't mean to bro we are based too haha

states rights to do what?

Govern themselves

worse, a railroad lawyer.

See these posts.

Say it with me.
Secession was legal.

hated niggers

wouldn't stop importing them

demanded to bring their niggers all over the Union

Show nose schlomo

And what was the primary grievance given for secession?
"WAAAAAAAH!1111 DEY DONE GONNA TAKE MAH 4 BAJILLIONZ WORTHA NIGGERS!!!!11"

the jesuits did away with that guy

memeflags

Opinions discarded
Cowardly lot. Self hating Americans or worse?