Jow Forums redpill me on the American civil war
>something inside me doubts that it was never about salves but mode of government
>i feel the dixies wanted something like Nat soc and the Dems wanted Democracy
Jow Forums redpill me on the American civil war
Alexander Hughes
Other urls found in this thread:
docdroid.net
youtu.be
twitter.com
Joshua Lopez
Shameless bump
Landon Mitchell
Well, you'll never know as google is censoring that info.
p.s. you can't self bump.
Colton Sanders
Lincoln was the original Neocon funded by Jews. Carpetbaggers were Jews who raped and pillaged Southern women and farmers. Once again, the war was over tax slaves paying too much while Jewish industries in the North were making bank.
Oliver Reyes
>it was never about slaves
That was one issue among many.
>dixies wanted something like nat soc
not at all, they were against federalization of power
Henry Garcia
Checked
>tell me more
Owen Davis
>Lincoln was the original Neocon funded by Jews.
No, the South was funded by the international elite in order to weaken the United States as an upcoming power.
Ethan Hughes
Why are folks so obsessed with us and our history? I know virtually nothing about India and its history and don't even care to know.
Evan Foster
Are you ready to break the dialectic fraulein?
What if told you that the civil war was destined to happen?
Connor Torres
Jewish industrial debt slavery versus Roman Agricultural bondage slavery.
Samuel Cook
docdroid.net
snippet related
>I know virtually nothing about India and its history and don't even care to know.
That's not really something to brag about m8
Elijah Moore
Cause History repeats
Jace Anderson
>i feel the dixies wanted something like Nat soc
Fuck no.
Dylan Sullivan
>to weaken the United States
The North was a proxy for European Jewish power. The South was the one expanding US territory. Even when the South was fighting and dying in Mexican wars, the Northern industries was profiting off of it.
Luke Russell
Thanks user
Michael Martinez
For some reason, people always want to debate about THE reason for certain historical events and trends. One of the first things you learn in higher education history is multiple perspectives and interpretations of history. It is almost NEVER about a single cause. Not 'the Civil War was about political domination', 'the Civil War was about economics', 'the Civil War was about culture and identity'. Just as pretty much every event in history, it's a confluence of various causes and contributing factors. For some reason, even famous historians still get sucked into the mistake of finding 'the' reason behind something. They should know better.
>t. academic
Brody Roberts
Aaron Brown
It's so lonely at the top of mount Olympus
William Williams
It was about states rights.
1. Southern States were growing an abundant amount of crops.
2. Northern States were transitioning into manufacturing.
3. Northern States started importing crops from southern states because they were shifting from farming jobs to manufacturing jobs.
4. Southern States started selling their crops that would leave their states at a premium.
>If you were in the state you had one price, if you were outside of the state you had a higher price.
5. Northern states started complaining, saying it was unfair to have two different prices based on location.
6. Northern State reps in congress wanted to make it illegal for southern states to sell their crop at a higher price across state lines.
7. Southern states argued (and rightfully so) when the constitution doesnt explicitly say the state gets the right to decide. Since the constitution did not bar selling something at a higher price across state lines the Southern states said they had the RIGHT to do so.
8. Northern states said you dont have the right and federal government can dictate it.
9. Southern states said fine we will leave the union.
10. Lincoln sent troops to attack the southern states.
Jayden Reed
>that pic
How about you look through the picture you just posted. Do you not see the numerous Rothschild connections to the South?? The civil war was pushed by international forces to weaken the US.
>The North was a proxy for European Jewish power.
Oversimplification. The US was a potential RIVAL for European Jewish power. Just because some exploitative businesses existed does not mean "hurr North = jews".
>The South was the one expanding US territory.
Ok? Probably because they bordered territory that could be taken? I don't see an invasion of British Canada going too well.
>South fighting and dying, Northern industries profiting
You could just as easily make the argument that the Northern Industrial power made it possible for the South to expand.
Stop romaticizing the South just because slavery is objectively superior to modern day nigger worship. The North was not AT ALL fond of niggers, and Lincoln advocated numerous times for them to go back to Liberia.
Carter Clark
States rights were the south’s main argument. They felt like the fed was getting to powerful and that states should decided their own laws ( we are a slave state- so we get to keep our slaves). This was truer to the founding fathers idea of a united group of independent states.
Daniel Smith
I agree with your argument being accurate, but I think hindsight is 20/20, and I don't really care about what the founding fathers "wanted", I care about what is objectively best for us (whites). Slavery, in retrospect, was a huge mistake that we pay for to this day. Federalization, to me, is not inherently bad or good, it just depends on the government in question.
Jack Stewart
Lincoln started being a nigger by threatening Southern States with tax laws etc. Since the North had more population (potato niggers arriving at Ellis Island) they felt they could use the House of Reps to ovepower the South. The South asked that slaves be counted in the population totals, but the North said No. They settled on 3/5 vote per nigger. Then Lincoln started really abusing the office, arresting journalists who called out his power grab etc..
>if Trump were do this today no one, not even on the right, would put up with it. The whole slavery thing was a wash to cover up massive power grab that would centralize power in DC.
But the populace did. Then the South said fuck it and seceded. Now here things get interdasting.The War starts. Newspapers and people in the North dont want war. Lincoln arrests more journalists and protesters and uses the army to quash riots in NYC (this violates the Constitution as the Armed Forces cannot be used on US soil as a police force). Then the Head Justice of SCOTUS says that what Lincoln is doing is wrong. Lincoln orders the army to arrest a SCOTUS judge!. He flees to avoid arrest.
Fast forward
The war goes on, Lee gets almost to the Canadian border while Sherman is all in the South. Difference between the 2 is that the South fought a gentlemans war while Sherman burned and raped and pillaged everything he passed. Sherman would kill slaves that refused to leave their plantation homes. He would burn fields for the fun of it. Look up Sherman Neckties. Gave his troops free pass to rape and pillage etc.
If Lee had done this up North the war would have been over quick as NYC and DC would starved when the fields were burnt.
Long story short. The North fought an unjust war (to centralize power violating the Constitution) for the just reason (muh slavery).
The South fought a just war (secession from tyranny) for a kinda shady reason (muh slavery).
There was no right side, but the South holds the moral high ground.