If whites hate blacks so much

An examination of its constitution shows the Confederacy led an all-out attack on states' rights by rescinding the right of a state to outlaw slavery.

The United States was trying to preserve the union, and preserve states' rights to outlaw immoral and obscene practices.

Confederate States Constitution, 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.

Confederate Statues Constitution, Article IV Section 3(3)
>The Confederate States may acquire new territory, and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy.
>In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.

The defense of depraved practices like slavery and disenfranchisement has now snowballed into liberalism and degeneracy. Saving the south from itself was a mistake.

Attached: glory_of_the_south.jpg (561x471, 140K)

Stubbornness? Both the north and the south had slaves yet the north experienced modernization first as the south was reluctant to accept the cost of modernization? South wanted to keep slaves and modernize at their own pace which caused them to attack sparking the war.

Just to trick them into believing they had freedom even though we just let them into a bigger cage.

The morality BS is a lie. A white lie but still a lie. There was no money to be made with slavery anymore with the coming of the industrial revolution. Its the same reason why the dems push to accept trans people, illegal immigration as its just another way to make money.

See Is a good answer. The south seceded because they refused to accept the results of the election of Abraham Lincoln because even though his platform was just to limit slavery out of the west expansion of states, they knew it would lead to the eventual abolition of slavery. Yes, the Democratic party, which existed in the North and South, supported slavery, but to say that the war had nothing to do with slavery is asinine. The south seceded to preserve their 'peculiar institution' (which was only peculiar in the milieu of the United States whose founding documents ensured the rights of all people, slavery was a global practice for essentially all of humanity).

Abraham Lincoln sought to end slavery in the United States, not just the North, and he knew that the political steps in order to do that would need to be preserving the union first.

>If your morality is fake, then my immorality is justified

Attached: contort.jpg (940x532, 72K)

The world isnt run on morals it never has. its run on money. If it ever becomes profitable to enslave people again it will be done.

That's very Duginist of you

Reminder McClellan was shafted by Lincolnists who weren't there at the time but got cranky he ran in 64

to keep you shackled and making our money you dumb cunts. It was the altruistic yankees that laid down tjeir loves to free your subhuman asses in an attempt to turn dixie into haiti.

they wanted to defeat the south for control of the greater nation, purely power

no, civil war was about power struggle not unifying the nation

Because we thought you might be humans. Time has proven us wrong.

no it's not, cuck

>Stubbornness?
holy shit what a cuck. The South was nobly fighting for their right to maintain sovereignty.

If Blacks hate slavery, Jim crow laws, segregation, the KKK and the Confederate Flag so much, why do they give the Democrats 95% support?

the southern states fought to defend the confederacy. had nothing to do with black lives matter

>Why did they lay down hundreds of thousands of their lives for us
Nigga, please. Nobody, North or South, gave two shits about slavery. The Civil War was about shit the standard nigger of 2018 couldn't follow without a catchy rhyme and a dope beat.
There were like 17 Christians who cared about the souls of enslaved blacks. The Civil War was no different than any other war. It was about economics and social control.
Modern American blacks should be not be thankful for the Emancipation Proclamation but instead for the admixture they've had with whites for 400 years. Y'all niggers would look like honkeys to hard ass African blacks.

Both sides had slaves and the north hated niggers worse than the south.

If the southerns wanted to keep slavery as a tradition they deserved to lose. Really easy to sell people freedom as a means of fighting you.
Yes a power struggle and failed economics of the south lost.

>unironically defending degeneracy
Good goy.

Attached: test.png (270x326, 860)

Blacks of 1865 were something that Blacks of 2018 will never be. A lot of Whites were slaves as well though. But the Civil War was never about slavery any way.

democrats of 1865 were respectable people that had nothing to do with democrats of today you basic bitch.

because they love showing off "How good they are" and how virtuous they are. Most genuinely dont care they just want faceberg likes.

>But the Civil War was never about slavery any way.
Maybe not to the north, but it was quite important to the south, as proven earlier ITT.

I doubt you know what that word means. The south fought to preserve their inferior society and failed.

Both sides had slaves.

They were stabbed in the back by the cuck northerners for wanting to preserve white aristocratic society. It's embarrassing how much cucks still suck lincoln's dick for destroying their country.

It was heading in a different direction.
Yes, obviously slavery was a huge difference between the two. There were also demographics changes (north was getting fuckloads of immigrants which changed the social fabric), religious differences (with more ethnic groups comes Catholics and minority religions. South was then as now very Protestant), South was more agrarian and rural (obvs linked to slavery and plantations, but even northern states with slaves like Delaware or Maryland were urbanising), north was turning into cities and factories.
Put simply the South was much the same place it had been 30 years earlier. The north was much different, and accelerating in its differences.
now if you're going to point to a single biggest factor, yes of course slavery's the issue. But that's like saying the cause of the Third Reich coming into being was a backlash to the Treaty of Versailles, or Trump's entire Presidency was caused by working class Democrats shifting to GOP over illegal immigration. It's not inherently wrong; it's just very simplified.

this. /thread.
youtube.com/watch?v=MvzwmoZaNHQ

slavery was on its way out dumb dumb
it was proven by the north that slavery cost more than free labor.

>An examination of its constitution shows the Confederacy led an all-out attack on states' rights by rescinding the right of a state to outlaw slavery.
'tis a quaint argument, but membership in the CSA was voluntary. If an individual state wanted to leave the confederacy and abolish slavery the others would tolerate it as long as said state left them the fuck alone

Because secession and dominance.

Attached: 2417-004-00985F87.jpg (326x450, 34K)

Again preserving a society for the sake of it is stupid. There was money to be made freeing the slaves and selling them products.

Attached: 1520050672354.jpg (609x343, 45K)

All Wars Are Bankers' Wars
youtube.com/watch?v=5hfEBupAeo4&feature=player_embedded#!

No im defending logic. I said previously the democrats are pushing trans surgery and open borders, gay acceptance for profits.

Money runs the world. Nothing else does. Oh and to explain why the republicans are against this democrats globalism? They have a monopoly on power/money in their circles which they don't want to give up.

>Nobody, North or South, gave two shits about slavery.
The south cared about it so much they made it unconstitutional to outlaw slavery in the Confederacy.

But only one side was willing to split over the issue. In fact a major issue was the refusal of northern states to return escaped slaves to the south. Part of why it was an issue of constitutional importance to the south.

Yes, both the north and south practiced slavery, hated niggers, and practiced segregation even well into the 1900's. But one side cared a lot more than the other. Pic related. They were even willing to send their children to die in battle to protect that way of life.

Again, straight from the source:

Attached: cornerstone.jpg (700x400, 126K)

no one is saying it had nothing to do with it. It was an existential part of the southern economy and so was likely enshrined in their constitution ,as said here , to avoid division from a lack of confidence in the government. But we know the South didn't seced over slavery because the Corwin amendment would have aswayed any worries states may have over the future of their primary industries. The slow boil of 50 years of increasing tarriffs, saddling a third of the US population with over 70% of the tax burden was where emnity between the states and the federal government originated. The Clay style protectionist policies of the previous generation had lead to the nullification crisis in 1832, bringing up questions regarding the constitutionality of having un-uniform taxes and levies targeting certain industries for the expense and benefits of others.
This is what was effecting the south more than radicals like John Brown. That is why no one in the south voted Lincoln, because he was a big rail crony from his legal days and was openly "an old-line Henry Clay Whig".
Which would you be more worried about in that cituation as a southron, whether the main export of your state is going to get a 40% tarriff making it nearly completely uneconomical to sell on the world market in competition with other sources, or are you more upset that the small percentage of aristocracy are going to loose their slave?
And even if we do say that the war was over slavery, let's say there was some imaginary declaration that Lincoln was going to forcibly and without reperations, seize slavers human property. Again, we are talking millions of period currency in capital completely lost, to defend slavery in the south as an institution was an existential necessity.
We are talking the destruction of hundreds of thousands of lives, white and black with no infrastructure to help deal with a collapse, only martial occupation pacified the nation during reconstruction.

Attached: 11846769_340526466118071_3398915441170444392_n.jpg (772x609, 57K)

You were a pawn back for the Republican Party back then as much as you are a pawn for the Democrats today
Lincoln used the excuse of niggers to scare away the britcucks so they would t be labeled islamiphobic or something like that
People hate you because you’re a useless and without any ability to create your own stature

Attached: A4812765-96DA-413A-8AAF-95A832C9715A.jpg (640x432, 93K)

>you
Brainlet

Attached: white_nationalist.jpg (891x1600, 184K)

Fighting for your sovereignty is not stupid unless you are a pussy cuck, such as yourself. The civil war was fought entirely so the north could subjugate the south economically. only literal retards and kindergarten students think it was for any other reason.

Good points. The Trump presidency is more than just jobs for the south as that was just the catalyst that set it off.
Fighting for a failed ideology is stupid, its why countries like Iran have brain drain. I also said multiple times the war was about economics. Oh and keep your ad hominem attacks to yourself next time as no reason to bring hurtful comments into a discussion.

Yes and bankers can lose by backing the wrong pony. Its a game to them.

Does anyone here think Trump and his bankers will win?

Attached: 1540116869925.jpg (807x653, 686K)

It wasn't about the blacks, it was about curbing state rights.

States rights rights are upheld while states economics are not. The south had no reason to start that war apart from wanting to cede.

Nice ad hominem, if only that self inflated high could actually take the sting of reality out of life
Have fun being childless faggot or a deadbeat nigger for a father really don’t care which

>t. widower of 4 beautiful white children

Attached: 8370E939-3469-4470-A97C-B86EA24962FC.jpg (299x300, 29K)

Becuase they wanted you to stay in Slavery mein nigger

Because our country are founded on some pretty important principles and those include that all men should be free. We also enslaved the Irish. The reward we got was niggers destroying our country.

The war was not for blacks or slavery Bubba, it was to preserve the union. The kike slave owners were too big of a competition for the fair playing northerners, and the south would have won economically and eventually militarily if they had been given the chance te secede.

Lincoln never wanted blacks to be equals, nobody did. But fleeing blacks from the south fought against the jewish army, winning some sympathy. Until the jewish democrats took power again.