The Northern States of the Union, in a bid to keep the Southern States in the Union, offered up the Corwin Amendment on a silver platter for ratification. The Corwin Amendment would have codified slavery in the US Constitution.
There is your answer to libshits who tell you that the Civil War was all about slavery. The South rejected the Corwin Amendment because the Northern States were ignoring the 10th Amendment and passing laws that infringed on the sovereignty of the Southern States. To the South, that meant that the North was ignoring the contract it made within the Constitution, making it essentially null. The Confederacy essentially wanted out, because it called the North on its shit. The North refused to let the South out, or pull Union Army units out of forts in the Confederacy, and wouldn't even recognize them as legitimate. Fort Sumter was taken by Confederates (with zero casualties on both sides) and thus began the war of Northern Aggression.
Slavery was already slowly exiting stage left as an institution and has become a convenient story for historical revisionists to use for the demonization of the South.
God bless Dixie.
The Corwin Amendment and The War of Northern Aggression
Other urls found in this thread:
teachingamericanhistory.org
civilwar.org
irp.wisc.edu
bls.gov
twitter.com
Never learned this in (((history))) class.
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
Except…
The Corwin Amendment REAFFIRMS the 10th and expands it to intra-state activities.
can someone tell me why ive never heard of this before? The Wikipedia page for the corwin amendment makes it pretty clear that
1) Lincoln supported it
2) it was a last effort to keep the union in tact
3) it would have legalized slavery in any state that wanted to
Im trying to find all the liberal pieces explaining why the corwin amendment disproves the "civil was wasnt about slavery" theory, but i cant even find one.
it cant be such an open and shut case, can it?
what are the counter arguments? If it were this simple im in shock of how i could have never heard about it until now.
Shit this is interesting. I'm learning about the Civil War right now and maybe I can drop a redpill for the whole class.
The math of the holocaust disproves it, open and shut, and yet people still don’t know about that. Why would you expect them to know the truth about this? Remember:
Being forced to accept I’d been lied to about something so logistically enormous and geopolitically important opened my eyes to the possibility that all kinds of modern ideological truisms are really myths.
It's probably because it's not such an open and shut case. Slavery began in Virginia in 1619. Against the proposals of slaveholders like George Mason IN VIRGINIA, the Constitutional Convention rejected proposals to immediately end the slave trade, and extended it until 1808…for the benefit of NEW ENGLAND, which was the center of the slave trade at the time. Most of the Southern Statesmen considered slavery to be inhumane, and were trying to phase it out. I keep mentioning Virginia, as it was the capitol of the Confederacy, (and because I'm from there). There were 23 attempts to abolish slavery in Virginia prior to 1861, one of which failed in the General Assembly by a single vote, in 1831.
Abraham Lincoln stressed that the Emancipation Proclamation was a War Measure, and it did not free a single slave in Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, or Kentucky. The Union Army Officer Corps was afraid that their soldiers would desert if they thought they were fighting a war on behalf of blacks.
i feel the same way. what i was really shocked about, and did a bad job explaining, is how could i have browsed Holla Forums for 2 years and never heard about this death blow to the "civil war was about slavery" argument.
none of what you just said changes the fact that Abraham Lincoln supported an amendment to legalize slavery a year before the civil war started.
I'm the OP, man. I know it doesn't change that fact.
>>teachingamericanhistory.org
I want to post the full text, but it's too long.
Shameless bump.
I know that text mostly references the problems with the practice of nullification in the North, but it could have as easily referenced the tariff of 1828, which was referred to as the "Tariff of Abominations" as it protected Northern industries but resulted in the Southern States having to pay much higher prices for goods which had previously been less expensive imports.
u gon be woke nigga
While I do agree that the South was more in line with what the Founding Fathers had in mind than Lincoln's imperialism, "muh Jewish slave owner-run nigger-powered cotton republic" wasn't really the greatest thing.. at least Lincoln wanted to ship the niggers back, literally get rid of them all and make America white, whereas in the South they were precious farm equipment still being imported and bred.
The slave trade in America ended on January 1, 1808. The industrial revolution was already underway, and slavery as an institution was in the process of getting phased out, to be replaced by agricultural machines.
The South was largely against industrialization and the tariffs used to fuel it though. They were perfectly happy buying all of it from Britain so they could remain purely agricultural. It was the same conflict of differences that happened in every major agricultural country in the Mediterranean. The only difference there is that in places like Spain, Portugal, Italy, and the like agricultural interests triumphed over industrial interests and allowed their countries to become backwaters. The South wanted the same thing.
yes, but the southern states were already talking secession because of issues that, to them, violated the 10th amendment, so they had no reason to trust that the north would honor this amendment.
The South was against big, dirty manufacturing centers damaging its traditionally genteel social fabric, not against using new agricultural technology. The cotton gin, for instance, was adopted quickly after its 1790 introduction, and so was the reaper, particularly in the Shenandoah Valley, from the 1830's to the 1850's. Ironically, the cotton gin was a processing technology, and actually had the effect of increasing the demand for slaves to pick King Cotton, but the reaper is the opposite, as a harvester technology, it reduced the need for agricultural labor. The point is that the South was indeed adopting technology, even though it didn't want big dirty factories and cities like in the North, and it was pissed about the Tariff of Abominations of 1828.
The point was that they wanted to remain agricultural and not become an industrial power because they were still in love with Jefferson's "agrarian republicanism" and opposed tariffs on that basis. They even went so far as to prohibit anything but "free trade" in their constitution. IMO the Civil War was much more about competing ideologies (industrialism vs. agrarianism) than slavery. One of the biggest ironies, of course, is that the war pretty much showed the supremacy of industrialism over agrarianism. Had the South won their secession they would have ended up as relevant and powerful as Spain, Portugal, Italy, or any of their American colonies.
Secessionism vs Nullification, States' Rights vs Federal Control, Industrial economy vs Agrarian economy, I wouldn't limit yourself to claiming it was any one ideological battle.
There are a couple things that the Civil War showed, I don't know if "industrial supremacy" was one of them. The effectiveness of a naval blockade on the import reliant South (which didn't start the war with a navy) is one of them.
Well, that's why I said "much more."
I'd argue it was. The North's greater industrialization was one of its foremost advantages over the South and one of the factors that allowed it to win despite being militarily worse most of the time. Same way that Prussia kicked France's ass in the 1860s (though I'm not sure about the French being militarily better there…).
The North had Union assets, like the damn navy. The North also target civilians and population centers in Sherman's march to the sea. The South, yes, had generally better performance, and despite huge disadvantages, the turning point didn't come until Gettysburg, where hubris got the better of Lee.
Prussia actually got militarily embarrassed in the late 18th century, and totally revamped their army after their fateful Napoleonic engagements.
But let's get back to the purpose of the thread, which is turning the motivations for the Civil War on their head, because your standard American has been lied to about history their whole life, and doesn't know that the South was offered the ability to maintain slavery on a silver platter.
Shameless bump. Redpilling material.
It was never about slavery. It was about abolitionism. The abolitionist movement had as much to do with anti-slavery as antifa has to do with blm. Americas abolitionists werent any different than the ones causing commie faggot coups all over eastern europe in the 1840's.
Lincoln wasn't even an abolitionist, he favored repatriation of blacks back to Africa. It wasn't until the eve of emancipation proclamation that he changed his mind, which didn't happen until well into the war. The idea that the civil war was about slavery is laughable at best.
TFW when Lincoln and the North were like an abusive husband who wouldn't let his wife leave, then when she did and tried to divorce his ass, stalked her and beat the shit out of her, took her home and raped her.
We fought to preserve white supremacy. The South didn't want a Haitian revolution and the abolitionists were calling for one and there was the John Brown led slave rebellion where they massacred whites.
What motivated the South to secede and prepare for open war wasn't states rights or the preservation of slavery. Those were important but they weren't what people were willing to die for. There were plenty of violations of states rights prior to the war between the states that didn't result in open war. Southerners didn't want to be massacred by blacks. And at the time the black portion of the population was much larger than it is now. In about half of the South blacks outnumbered whites.
They were concerned about the same things we're concerned about now. I have a deep connection to my ancestors and I know this to be true. I have the writings of my nth great grandfather and he was a Confederate soldier. We're really not any different from the Confederates.
Due to the Klan and Southerners reasserting themselves to political power they were able to gain control of the situation and no black revolution resulted. That system of white supremacy they set up held together until the 50s and 60s but it all fell apart due to outside forces. And here we are.
If someone asks you why the South fought tell them it was to defend their homes and to maintain white supremacy. Contrary to common assumption white supremacy isn't a term that was invented by our enemies. It goes much further back to the South.
Do it. Bring it up in front of the whole class.
When redpilling, it's smarter to frame it as "preventing White genocide" as opposed to "reinstating/maintaining/protecting White supremacy", FYI. Regardless, the progressive faggot Yankees had been trying to crush Dixie in many ways for many years prior to the war.
I'm for the truth and I'll not water it down so it's more acceptable.
But that is the truth. The main reason for wanting control of the land rather than handing it over to niggers is because you want to survive and not get genocided like in haiti.
It wasn't a war to simply exist. As I said Southerners fought for white supremacy not simple existence. It was so the white man could retain total political power. It's evident the North opposed this because only one year after the war ended they gave blacks citizenship and the vote with the first racial civil rights act in the history of America.
You're gonna catch you a bump because this needs to ride high.
every person ive used the term 'white genocide' with scoffs and laughs that the notion could ever exist
...
Bump,, this shit is a fucking tactical nuke redpill
What you do when they laugh it off, is say that the US went from 90% -60% in almost a single generation, and if nothing is done itll be 30% by the time his kids are his age.
Not that I'm saying the 90%-60% point isn't important, but saying it happened in a single generation can be misconstrued as within the span of 15-20 years. "From the boomers until now" might be more effective, especially talking to anyone who is a millennial, because they'll think "those are my parents!"
Slide recovery, bumping for the weekday Holla Forumsacks. It'd be nice if this could get a sticky for a few days, so redpill ammunition could be fully saturated on the community.
Sounds like youre bad at explaining it.
...
And bump. (((History))) vs Reality
Here's a question….
How the fuck did the greatest number of these niggers get brought in during the period wherein slavery was outlawed?
Another question…
How the fuck did that work?
How did the slave population rise by about 1.2 million people between 1800 and 1850, when the slave trade was cut off in 1807?
...
He didn't though, making him worse than useless. This faggot loosed millions of niggers on the United States for fuck sake
They had a lot of kids. They were actually a very healthy population. Places slaves were treated in the characteristically evil way don't tend to have huge populations still around descended from those slaves…
We need more memes.
Lincoln said as much himself in a somewhat famous quote. This amendment just makes it that much more real. There are at least two different histories it seems. One full of fantasy, and the other laden with inconvenient truths. They only apparently overlap on uncontroversial bits. He likely didn't really chop down a cherry tree either. "U-571" and the enigma machine were not captured by Americans either. But you end up arguing with fools who either fully believe the fantasy versions of history or can deal with the disconnect between the fantasy and the apparent truth. In a sense you're asking them to step off the safe, comfortable reservation. Posting little discernment, they fear having to question everything, and having their whole reality unravel.
History must be full of truths which were conveniently to the writers glossed over and back-paged, overshadowed by a "constructive" narrative.
t. my opinion and conjecture
If this proposed amendment is what it seems, the "states rights" angle seems completely vindicated.
If you add in the proportion of the population that owned slaves (
Eerily similar to the proportion of kikes. Hmmmm…
Actually it looks like over 40% of US jews owned african slaves, and given that half the jews are female and the owners would be male, that means 80% of kikes had nigger slaves. Also, the cotton industry was almost entirely owned by kikes. Also, as we already know, the majority of slave ships were also owned by kikes.
So the ones who instigated the entire Civil War was, of fucking course, the damn kikes. They didn't want to lose their industry/slave shekels, so they split the Nation in two and sent both sides to war against each other. And they still use that fucking split today, too. God damn, the more I learn the more I want them to just fucking DIE
You're giving the Jews too much credit. They definitely contributed to the destabilization that brought self righteous abolitionists and usurious industrial practitioners into conflict with a (decreasingly) slave dependent agrarian society with a strong independent streak, and capitalized on the war and reconstruction, but I have my doubts about there being a conspiracy, unless it was in the works for 50 years or so, which seems unlikely.
Yeah, but wasn't Lincoln's Greenback, which he financed the war with, labor backed? It might not of had started out as anything that important, just another profit war. But as we've seen before, things can change very fast, and we all know that (((they))) wouldn't let anyone be free from their banks
Deo Vindice
Huh, didn't expect anyone here to be familiar with the motto. Washington is on the CSA seal, too, if anyone was wondering. Goddamn, I'm starting whistle Dixie.
Only because Andrew had him killed, AHEM, I MEAN HE WAS KILLED BY A SOUTHERN TERRORIST
Take a fucking look around you, and then try to say that again. This is what kikes do.
Bump.
>If you add in the proportion of the population that owned slaves (
Bullshit. You really don't think the burning of civilian infrastructure could've been the reason? Or the bullshit regulations and punitive actions put it place, weren't the cause?
The narrative of modern historians is that the civil was was about slavery in the territories, not Dixie herself.
The logic was simple: the territories had abolitionist cultures. When they became states, abolitionists would have numerical advantage in the legislature. No matter what bills or amendments were passed, slavery faced a threat in the near future.
I haven't seen a convincing counter to this narrative. Not that I care. The South was right to secede.
The South also faced economic threat from the industrialized North, who were hurting their native economy by dumping cheap goods. Secession would allow them to implement economic protectionism. Another reason that made secession inevitable.
Stop spreading this fucking myth that Lincoln was going to send these nigger back to Africa if he wasn't shot dead. The fact of the matter is if Lincoln really did have a plan to do this, and it wasn't just some off comment as it historically was, his VP Johnson, out of all the fucking people in the world, would've done it in a heartbeat. Johnson hated niggers, so much so he fought hard against the 13th and 14th amendments.
STOP SPREADING THIS MYTH
Then that magically changed between 1990 and now, because holy fuck, no one said that even 20 years ago.
Blow your brains out.
You first nigger lover.
I occasionally attend Civil War history-buff meetings where authors and historians are invited to speak. This is the current mainstream consensus. I don't know how long the narrative has been around.
civilwar.org
Dropped this on two of my fellow (USMC) Sergeants today. The black one from Mississippi's response was priceless. "What the fuck! I took Mississippi studies in high school and they didn't mention this shit! These faggots are trying to start a race war! No, they've ALREADY started the race war!"
I shall continue my good redpill deeds until my EAS next month.
What MOS?
1345. Don't you try to ID me. I still need my DD214.
Not surprising. High agency blacks like whites and want good relations with us.
This colleague of yours needs to be in charge of a black police force in a re-segregated America, where his upper-caste has nominal support of white institutions. If he was born under such a system he'd never want it to change.
Don't worry bud, I didn't make it through bootcamp. I blame these pieces of shits, the brass, and my dumbass for pushing too hard.
Criminally unchecked trips
I'm not sure how successful segregation would be. Socially and culturally, maybe, but probably not economically. It's hard to say, because LBJ's Great Society got the ball rolling on the whole welfare problem, so there's very little in the way of precedent on productive and developed black communities in America. All we really have is a bunch of hypotheses. I think the post WWII, pre Great Society period should probably be re-examined, there might be some answers, or at least some suggestive socio-economic data there.
Doing research, of note are studies of changes in family status of the black population over time and current economic distributions by family composition.
Examples:
irp.wisc.edu
bls.gov
I'm continuing to read, but it looks like my premise was likely accurate.
Have a bump. Meme creation needs to occur. FFS wish I wasn't on mobile right now.