What really started the civil war Holla Forums?

Jews

Yep. Jews.

The south started the war, but the north provoked them by refusing to give them their constitutional right to secede from the union

The south was paying 75-80% of all taxes collected by the federal government.

The Banksters on Wall-Street were lobbying politicians and passed a series of laws that punished US Exports on cotton. This made supply high and demand low for the textile mills up north because the South was producing more cotton than was needed. They they prevented legislation that would have taxed exports on cotton shirts for example. The south saw this as a crime against them(it was) and as being forced to sell to the North and then the North didn't get taxed at all.

:^) Good thing we have trade agreements like NAFTA/CAFTA/TTISP/TTP to make sure the U.S. never exports anything again.

I've been reading about this stuff for nearly half a century.

I used to care. I don't care anymore.

Let's focus on regaining control of America, and THEN we can go back to fighting the War Between the States again.

Jews

The war begins with taking back control of history

Jews

Is that your final (((answer)))?

OK then.

If we want to get serious, the so-called Civil War was a war fought between two competing power structures; it was a war of oligarchs, you might say.

The great issue was the future of America. On one side was Mercantalism; a political/social philosophy that partnered the central government with banking, commercial, and industrial interests. The goal of the Mercantlists was the use of Federal revenue to build infrastructure to promote business and trade. This is the world we live in today.

On the other side was Agrarianism, which promoted individualism, and making one's living from the land. This is the philosophy idealized by men like Jeffersonian, Madison, and Washington.

On both sides were oligarchs, and Jews were overly represented among them on both sides.

In public school I was taught the USA was right.

Through my own studies I came to view the CSA as right.

I have since concluded both sides lost. The Union was forever destroyed just by being fought in the first place.

The Planters, the oligarchs of the South, lost. The oligarchs of the North won, and retained control of the government, and still have it.

And now we have new oligarchs. The Jews.

Jews were running the slave trade and Jewish households owned the majority of slaves… They had a vested interest in share cropping.

Cotton tax effected both North and South but the North made it cheaper using machines instead of niggers.

They were taxing exports because the Federal Government had debt to pay off.

So I don't know the rest or why it as Jews

Actually it was tariffs. Only thing Lincoln wasn't willing to compromise with the South on at the time. Pretty much the issue that got him elected.

You what?

They were only paying that because they refused to buy industrial goods from the North, buying them (tariffed) from Britain instead. The South can't complain about paying most taxes when it's entirely in their power not to do so.

Link that shit about exports. That would be an absolutely fucking retarded law, one which I've never heard about. You know tariffs aren't two-way, right? That's self-defeating. And how would such legislation pass when the South controlled Congress and had done so pretty much since the beginning?

Scratch Washington off this list. He was best buds with Hamilton, the primary enemy of the agrarianist system. He implemented a mercantalist policy.

Also, Jefferson had renounced the philosophy by his presidency because he saw the importance of fostering industry. It was why he implemented tariffs.

I don't know about Madison.

Wow.

Jews were heavily over-represented in the slave trade, but they didn't run it. New England Puritans were more heavily involved. The South was not involved in the North Atlantic Slave Trade, except as the final purchasers.

Share-cropping came into existence AFTER the war, AFTER slavery.

There were no "cotton taxes." There were import duties, the main source of federal revenue. They were put in place to protect the Industrialists after the New England Industrial Revolution. As they were structured, Southerners wound up paying almost all of tariffs.

They didn't tax exports (I'm hanging my head), they taxed imports. Tariffs control importation of goods to protect internal production.

I am from the South and we had multiple chapters of high school history textbooks going on and on about States' Rights when a quib in the final paragraph saying something to the tune of "oh and lol i guess slavery was involved but it really was states' rights"

we learned a lot about slavery but it was never presented as a "THIS IS WHY WE HAD TO SECEDE" motive like it is in the north. It was more like "the combination of having our rights denied by the fuckers in DC and being forced to abandon our institutions (i.e. slavery) that form our entire economy forced our hand and ultimately led to the war"

it was a very different approach to the war. also fuck Sherman, you white-slaughtering fuck

I'm pretty sure that by the 1860s the Federal Government was running a budget surplus every year. What debt were they having to pay off?

Tariffs were just part of the issue. The South wasn't so much opposed to paying the tariffs as it was to the matter of how the money was spent.

The Southern planters had enough power to stop the Mercanlists, so they had to be removed. Slavery was their Achilles Heel.

I was under the impression that the South was so heavily agrarianist that they didn't want any industrial development, which was primarily what the money collected from tariffs was for.

Could you elucidate a bit on what Southerners wanted the money to be spent on and what it actually was spent on?

Not an expert on this but I remember reading how some countries in Europe were tempted to invade america when they were weakened by conflict, but Russia actually threatened war if they did. I can only imagine how history would be different if this were the case

What I tell people is that it was about the most basic American principle, Government by Consent of the Governed.

That's the core of our philosophy. If you break the American Revolution down, the final argument is just, "Because we don't want to anymore."

The SC secession was one of the most democratic procedures I've read about. Representatives were elected from every district to go to a convention. They were elected based on Union vs. Secession.

In only one district was there a significant difference of opinion, and we still call it The Dark Corner.

The South just didn't want to be part of the USA anymore, and that's all the reason they needed, and all we need to explain.

Slavery. Secession. State's Rights. Tariffs.

Also, did you know that the Confederate Secretary of State was a Jew?

judah benjamin sold out the south?

No, the south was created by kikes and funded by kikes.

To expand, the Russians were chosen to have a genocide committed on them by the kikes because the Russian Empire sided with the Union in the Civil War. Kikes held a grudge.

Tariffs were in place to protect the fledgling mills and industry in New England. The way they worked was you could buy an American made product, or pay an extra fee, the tariff, for the imported product.

I have no idea how the products compared in quality. I don't know if the tariff only applied to those items that were being manufactured in the US.

Whatever, the rich planters of the South continued to buy China and silk, imported from Japan, furniture made in England, and a lot of other extravagant items, because they could afford them. They paid the tariffs.

They opposed spending the funds on "internal improvements."The Interstate Highway system is an example of one of these internal improvements you'll be familiar with.

Back in the day, though, it was railroads and canals and harbors. None of the moneys spent on these items were built in the South.

From my reading it appears that the planters stood against the use of tax money, which they saw as a matter of public trust back then (weird, I know) for the aggrandizement of business interests as mismanaging funds.

And they gave lots of examples; overdue projects, long past their scheduled completion date and far behind schedule, rampant graft and corruption, and shoddy work. It was states that had done these things before.

But the South wasn't a hive-mind either. There were exceptions to everything. Jefferson Davis once backed a railroad bill, but because he was led to believe the path would run through several Southern states. It didn't run through a one in the end.

Tariffs, same thing. John C. Calhoun supported some tariffs, and fought others.

When don't they?

They don't call it "Northern Aggression" for no reason. If the South was to rise again, like they always tell themselves, they would have massive amounts of support from a lot more states than just when it was North vs South.

I'd say over 2/3rd's of states want to burn Washington D.C. to the fucking ground.

It's funny but Southern Jews turn out to be, well, Jews.

South Carolina had the largest Jewish population in the US for a long time. There are still some old, rich, Jewish families in SC.

Benjamin Bernanke was from an old Camden, SC, Jewish family.

Also from the same area came Bernard Baruch, Wilson's "Secretary at Large," during WWI, and adviser to both Roosevelt and Truman in WWII.

I haven't even started to delve into how much the Jews run SC.

I met the Kennedy brothers in Mobile, AL, several years ago. They are two of the funniest people I've ever met. Together they're a comedy act. I truly enjoyed the experience.

I'll need a source on that. I know the South didn't need as many railroads because they had navigable rivers and such, but I also know that they were one of the most developed places in the world when it came to railroads, and I doubt all of that came without a cent of Federal funding.

I also find it hard to believe that, with all the South's rivers, not one canal was build for them by the Federal government.

Now, there may be something to having states build internal improvements, but my main point of disagreement with the South was their insistence on having industry elsewhere — on buying foreign goods instead of industry within the US, or even within the South.

To be perfectly honest, my main perspective on the South is a bunch of rich pseudo-aristocrats furthering policies that not only fucked up the US, but also fucked over most poorer Southern people. By all accounts the Southern poor lived much worse than slaves — that is to say, slaves lived quite good lives, and I think you've fucked something up when your foreign workers (already kind of shit) are living better than your own people. I don't agree with secession, as it weakened both parties and would've left us — especially the South, for anyone not a plantation owner — in a far worse position, weakened and emaciated for the sake of a few guys' purses.

How about that at the core of the whole issue, these are two regions of a nation that have completely different customs, traditions and cultures.

Forcing the north and south to live together as a nation until the civil war was the first multiculturalism experiment

I wish I could. The book when I was in high school was very eye opening. Despite breaking down the JQ and WW2 lies by then I was still thinking, "but surely the South and slavery wasn't a lie". Silly me. Good book though and lucky you.

look it up kike

We didn't fight for glory, not for sport.

We fought to defend our homes, to protect our women and children from being raped and killed.

We exercised our right of self-determination as a nation to sever all bonds with the North because we could not see eye to eye. The North started the Civil War and we were forced to fight it. I wish the Civil War did not happen but the North would not have it, they wanted war and so it was war they got.

"It is not for ideas that we live, not for theories, not for fantastic party programs! No! We live and fight for the German people, for the preservation of its existence!" -Adolf Hitler

Whoever brought all the blacks over did.

What about the Colonisation Society?

Meme

God dammit

Now I want to go watch God's And Generals again

The South fired first though. Technically they started the war.

Whether or not the North provoked it is a different question.

You may find whatever you wish hard to believe. Just because I enjoy sitting here shitposting about the War Between the States doesn't mean I have any intention of running down source links for you.

I cannot remember reading of a single great canal or railroad being built by the US government in the South prior to the war. There were few internal improvement bills that were passed because of Southern obstruction.

It's my belief that this Southern obstruction was the reason there was so much friction over expansion to slavery into the new territories.

The South was a different world. You don't learn about it in the history books. You have to go outside the classroom and search to find out how the South truly existed.

I'm not proud of all of it. There were things about it that had to suck. They took individuality to extremes. They were very violent.

Yet the idea of the poor, yeoman farmer, one stop above a serf, is an historical myth. I learned researching genealogy, and reading censuses.

My ancestors in 1860 were the exact kind of "poor" Southern white you write of.

They lived on 300 acres of land, and paid almost no taxes. They didn't really participate in an economy. They grew most of what they needed, and used surplus crops and livestock to buy what they couldn't make.

This was true middle class; they weren't dependent on anyone else. Middle class does not equal middle income; it is really about depending on someone else, or being depended upon, for your livelihood.

Planters were a small minority in the South, 348,000 out of 7MM people, but they held ALL the power.

They were the ones who could afford a university education. They also had a sense of noblesse oblige - a sense of duty - to the common people.

I'm not going to pretend some of them didn't abuse that position. I think the war was an abuse of that position.

But the common people, though not poor and stupid, did realize they weren't educated, and trusted the educated planters to lead them.

It was a region run like sort of like an old Highland Clan. That's the best comparison I can make.

Stupidity. The South had won the Dred Scot decision and didn't need to do anything but sit still. But when the presidency went to Lincoln they got into a hissy fit and seceded. But even then it was fine - they scooped up all the federal outposts in the conferderacy and the north was basically letting them go. But one outpost they weren't able to seize was at Ft Sumpter in South Carolina. They should have ignored it or waited it out. instead South Carolina fired on it. That gave the North the excuse for military action. South was never able to win the war and the fact that South Carolina did that is beyond finding out - really stupid in hindsight.

There were in the Sons of Confederate Veterans. I'm sure they still are. I met them at the National Convention in Mobile back in the early 90's.

Nigger do you even into fort sumter?

That's like saying the nigger broke into my house and was standing in my living room in front of my family, so I shot him. Therefore I'm a murderer.

Two things.
1: Jews.
2: States rights. The south wanted to leave and north is like "B-but you can't do that" Because the north knew they economy would fall apart without them.
So after a while of being forced to join back and the north invading their land, The south went "Fuck you" and started shooting at them.

It was Lincoln's excuse to start the war, he was just fortunate enough we did fire the first shot so that they could say we started it all.

jews

Look at it like this. Your next-door neighbor sets up a blind by your driveway, and points a gun at your house; what do you do?

Exactly

People can't just say..
That's irresponsible to say that. What was the northern army doing there at Sumter in the first place?

The first shots being fired was just the latter event caused by years of buildup

???

So much BS history in this thread.

What, who taught you that? Everyone agrees that the North invaded the South because they didn't accept the possibility of secession

They were willing to do just that, until Northern states passed laws against enforcing the decision, against the findings of the Supreme Court.

And then John Brown.

In the South, among slave-owners and non-slave-owners, John Brown was the devil. They lived in constant fear of servile insurrection.

The revolution in Haiti was as much in everyone's mind as 9/11 is here today.

sure is summer in here

REPORTED RETARDED SUMMERFAG/SHILL THREAD

WE'RE BEING RAIDED – REPORT REPORT REPORT

Why make a claim if you can't be bothered to prove it? I might as well say that the Feds funded all Southern enterprises and it'd be just as valid.

I can't remember a single great canal or railroad in the North but I know they were built.

The fact of the matter is that in basically all respects — life expectancy, work hours, suicide rate, etc. — Southern whites lived worse.

That's kinda my point. Why any self-respecting Southerner would fight for that I still don't understand.

[citation needed]

And my argument is that this trust was misplaced.

Did you read the second bit of my post?

If you fire on somebody else's troops do you really expect no retaliation?

It's not like they were suddenly stationed there.

I'm pretty sure the South was the most jewified at the time. It was wealthy kike slave owners who sent the goyim to die to defend their right to own slaves. They were also backed by Rothschild-controlled Britain who wanted them for their cotton

I went back and read that. OK, you busted me on porcelain, therefore nothing else I said was true.

Move on.

Well, duh. But they shouldn't have been there in the first place

What's with all these sagefags recently they started crawling out of the woodwork i the last few days?

Not the North which drafted men against their will to fight in a foreign land

You dickmouth

South Carolina seceded in December

Norther forces were sent in to sumter that same month to enforce blockade

Why make a claim if you can't be bothered to prove it? I might as well say that the Feds funded all Southern enterprises and it'd be just as valid.

Cause I ain't got the time nor the fuck to give.
Say it. See if I care.

Um, how about some proofs?

Oh! I see.

[citation needed]

Seriously, dude. Stahp demanding sources. I'm not going to bother.

This is written about in many contemporary sources, by the planters themselves, of course. They talk about it in relation to someone else, never themselves. There's evidence of it in the public institutions they created, like orphanages, theaters, libraries, and universities.

Not before I replied.

Wow. You really know nothing about Fort Sumter, and you're arguing with me.

Jesus fucking Christ. Read book.

Bugger off you wanker, the Jews were the ones shipping the slaves

...

You don't just leave a fort without a garrison. That defeats the purpose of a fort.

The Feds might have sent more troops in, but the fort wasn't just suddenly occupied.

occidentaldissent.com/2012/10/17/review-time-on-the-cross/

From a pro-Southerner, no less.

I hope you don't expect anyone to believe what you say then. There's no point in continuing a discussion with you if you're only here to say empty things.

SC seceded six months before Fort Sumter was fired on.

Anderson was stationed in Forts Pinkney and Moultrie. Fort Sumter was under construction.

Anderson slipped out to Sumter in the middle of the night and pointed his guns on the city of Charleston,. This was the first act of aggression.

Not with anyone who posted this, for sure:

You guys got anymore info on kikes in the South during the Civil War? I didn't know they had such a big involvement.

>occidentaldissent.com/2012/10/17/review-time-on-the-cross/

Why don't you also send me some shit written by Jews about Hitler while you're at it.

Seriously. Fuck.

Please, you never came here with the intention to have honest or forthright discussion. So much for the Southern manners I keep hearing about.

...

Buchanan was president and there was no blockade at that time. The south had seized most of the military instalations, but ft sumpter had supplies and was holding out. Lincoln became pres and the north was shipping supplies to Sumpter that hadn't arrived yet. South Carolina worried that supplies would arrive started firing early. They should have just waited it out.

A pro-Southerner posting a book review regarding a book refuting the evils of slavery in the South is now equivalent to Jews writing about Hitler?

What does it take to be pro-Southern then? Do you have to claim there never was any slavery and that blacks had daily fellations from whites?

Seriously you retard. Just go read ANY fucking book on the subject.

Here, you absolute retard, is the Kikepedia on the damned thing.

"The fort was not yet complete at the time and fewer than half of the cannons that should have been available were in place, due to military downsizing by President James Buchanan."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter

You lazy fucktard.

This is a very emotional subject, its hard to be polite

Your post proves what I said. Do you even bother reading things or do certain words just jump out at you and prompt you to post them?

The fort was already stationed. Then a US commander stationed more troops. Exactly as I have been saying.

It shouldn't be emotional. I don't know why pro-Southerners always get so worked up about it.

Ft sumter battle began on April 12

Blockade "officially" went into effect on April 19

Moves were already being made well beforehand across many other forts and ports in the south by the north

OK, I'll admit I shit on your post and didn't read the article thoroughly.

After reading it thoroughly, I didn't read anything to support you point. I went back and read it to be sure.

The article compares the life of slaves to free Northern industrial workers, not Southerners.

I've never, in fact, read any statistics of Northern vs. Southern life expectancy, work hours, or suicide rates from that period.

And I've done a LOT of reading on that era.

Because we still want to be an independant nation, well some of us.

HOLY SHIT FAM THAT'S THE REAL REASON THE CIVIL WAR STARTED YALL

I know you're just asking a smartass rhetorical question, but all it takes to be pro-Southern is, whatever; you just are or you're not.

I don't come at the study of history as a backward experiment, searching for proof of preconceived conclusions.

I read sources from every angle I could find. The truth is what I'm looking for. It's never all good, and it's never all bad.

I think the South was in the right, and the North in the wrong, generally.

If the war had truly been about freeing the slaves, and it was not, then the North would have been right, but it wasn't.

It was a war of conquest. The North won.

But if the 13 Colonies had lost the American Revolution, would there not still be Americans who revered Washington?

I think so.

The fact that the South fired early is a lesson to be learned. If we ever have another civil war, the side that fires the first shot either needs to blitzkrieg over the enemy in total war immediately and win, or else they are going to look bad and lose. The south fired first and could never defeat the north in a long war - yet hoped for eventual victory by tiring out the north's will to win. It was a bad strategy poorly thought out by a bunch of hot heads. We need to remember this lesson.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salomon_James_de_Rothschild

Confederacy was Jews

Would the North really have been in the right if they'd been trying to free slaves?
All the other countries ended slavery peacefully.
Also slavery kinda keeps them outta trouble when they can pick cotton and sing songs.
Keeps them from killing each other and everyone else

Kikepedia

"After realizing that Anderson's command would run out of food by April 15, 1861, President Lincoln ordered a fleet of ships, under the command of Gustavus V. Fox, to attempt entry into Charleston Harbor and supply Fort Sumter. The ships assigned were the steam sloop-of-war USS Pawnee, steam sloop-of-war USS Powhatan, transporting motorized launches and about 300 sailors (secretly removed from the Charleston fleet to join in the forced reinforcement of Fort Pickens, Pensacola, FL), armed screw steamer USS Pocahontas, Revenue Cutter USRC Harriet Lane, steamer Baltic transporting about 200 troops, composed of companies C and D of the 2nd U.S. Artillery, and three hired tug boats with added protection against small arms fire to be used to tow troop and supply barges directly to Fort Sumter.[12][13] By April 6, 1861 the first ships began to set sail for their rendezvous off the Charleston Bar. The first to arrive was Harriet Lane, the evening of April 11, 1861."

I didn't notice.

It says that the "white" (not "Northern white") suicide rate was three times higher.

I'll admit that unfortunately I do not have many statistics on common Southerners, but I doubt they lived better than their Northern counterparts. I'd be willing to put money on them living worse.

Anyway, since I can't be bothered anymore to reply to a post-happy self-admitted shitposter. It's honestly just not worth the effort if you're not going to read anything until after the inaccuracy of your half-formed proto-thoughts is pointed out.

I'm not sure why you'd want that in the modern day. What benefit is there? You'd do just as well by burning Washington to the ground with its inhabitants like the rest of the country wants to do.

Not unless they were deporting them all. I fully support the elimination of blacks from the Americas, and think Southern plantation owners were wrong for allowing them around.

No, not judged fairly. But by today's standards, yes.

Personally, I'm glad the south lost. I have ancestors that fought for the Confederacy, but the CSA ultimately had the African population staying in mind. In short, the Liberian project should have been carried out to completion so that the African Americans could live in peace in their own nation.

Thinking that the Confederacy was right is a single step above thinking the Confederacy as le ebil racist.

They were wrong and rightfully lost. Rothschild funded insurrections need to be put down, its just unfortunate they got so many young men to die for them.

Based Andrew Jackson knew what was up.

Okay, actual last reply.

Why the fuck would you support abolition? The North would have absolutely been in the wrong if freeing the slaves had been its goal. Fighting to keep blacks in the US is absolutely fucking retarded.

As it is, I believe the North was right because I support a strong, united, and, most importantly, white US stretching as far as it can. It was a war of conquest, but I could no more complain about that than I could complain about Rome's conquests throughout Europe, or a hypothetical victorious conquest of Hitler's in Russia.

I think atomized and smaller powerblocs are stupid, especially for the sake of retarded principles like agrarianism, let alone the neo-feudalism or the keeping of nonwhite populations of the Confederacy.

Andrew Jackson's view of secessionism is the one I embrace, and it should be noted that he was a Southerner.

That's a great idea, but that not a civil war. Anyhow, you haven't got a lick a sense. It hard for southerners to realize their forefathers were idiots. They infested our nation with niggers and then blew the civil war thing so we could all live under a federal police state. Too bad Sherman didn't have any nukes.

The whole NQ totally fucked this entire country to begin with

Let's imagine the fairy tale story that the war was fought solely to free niggers.

Once they actually obtained freedom, did they do anything with it?
NOPE

They fucking stayed right where they were for another 100 years still picking cotton voluntarily. They barely existed in the north until the fucking jews caused WW1 and shipped them up to the cities to work in the factories to deal with the labor shortage while productive men were in the battlefields of europe

And then the niggers did exactly in the north what they did in the south. They fucking stayed there.

...

Anti-Jackson is code for anti-White.

Lincoln knew that if the Confederacy seceded America would be weaker on a global scale. He was right in bring the South back into the Union and the Confederacy was never going to work because of how little the states wanted to work together with one another.

Slavery is what I don't like. I wish they'd never been brought here. Even so, I never said I supported abolition. You're reading what's not there.

Your feelings about an American empire don't bother me, if it was like you wrote.

There's so much I could tell you about Andrew Jackson, but I just don't want to go there. Overall, I like him being popular here. He took down the banks. He should be admired for that.

Most whites, North and South, didn't give a fuck about black people. They were competition to the free white laborers.

I came here to post that it was the Jews that started the Civil War. Classic divide and conquer strategy. Secession and breaking up the states of the union is one of the worst ideas in the world. The jews wanted us to become a fractured and broken nation instead of one nation.

Long story short; the Union happen to have a fort setup inside of Confederate territory, the confederates had asked them to remove their fort and retreat behind borders and the Union refused, thus setting off the war

The main parts revisionists and modern education teach is Abraham Lincoln was a gud boy who dindu nuffin and the Confederates were le evul wasists

Lets get some key things straight;

The United States had initially split because each side had interpreted the constitution differently, as well as socio-ecenomic differences, it wasn't entirely about slavery, only 1 percent of the population actually owned slaves, and some slave owners were themselves blacks

Abraham Lincoln was a very hated man by both the South as well as the North, New York City was considering becoming an independent territory to serve both the north and south during the war, many people, especially those from far up north in places like New York and Maine, felt the war was unjustified and Abraham Lincoln was sending out people to be killed over ruthless imperialism.

Going back to the point above, Abraham Lincoln was an imperialist, a dictator, he didn't give a fuck about slaves or feeling or whatever, he wanted things his way and his way was a large nation that he could command all himself. He simply did not want the south to be independent so he can compromise with them. He's a dirty kike

Going back to the above still, Abraham Lincoln didn't give a fuck about slavery, the entire point of the emancipation proclamation was so that he could enlist black soldiers into his army from the south instead of sending them back. It was all in the name of increasing the population of his army.

650,000 dead whites later. Thank you, Lincoln, truly you are my greatest ally.

My first post

My second post

.>>6223275

So yes, I agree.

But then somebody posted this:

Trouble is, the two sides will never be able to agree to a consensus that allows parity. Such a parity was once reached, but now Southern identity is one of the main targets in the culture wars.

I don't think you understand; America didn't have global ambitions yet, it was still "That one country across the Atlantic sitting besides Spanish and French territory, it wasn't until the late 19th century American Exceptionalism became a thing, and farther still not until after World War II America became the "Most powerful country in history" when we managed to produce 60 percent of the entire planets GDP

Lincoln was a ruthless imperialist, but he was certainly no exceptionalist by any means

Well, he's right in that the threat of foreign invasion was at least used as an argument against secession.

Both sides were played. Lincoln planned on deporting the Negroes back to Africa, however he was killed by a Jew and everything went to hell. The Confederacy also had a plan to do so after the war, after they realised that they were played by the Jews.

In any case the Confederacy was probably the right side because of unfair treatment.

Might is right. The confederacy lost, end of story.

That's like saying Jews are right, Germany lost end of story.

Germany lost because they pissed off the greatest and strongest nation on the planet. Maybe they'll learn next time and be our allies.

And yes, if a stronger, superior force overwhelms you and you can't stop them, get fucked, you are inferior.

How about you yanks stop being the goodest golem for the kikes?

You eurocucks are the manlets of the world. When will you learn?

Stopped reading at 'Eurocucks' step up your game moron. Are they paying you to be retarded or something?

the southeners realizing that the articles of confederation no longer apply and the federal government destroyed their states sovereignty

...

The majority of the posters on this thread confirm every bad opinion I've ever held of America's public schools.

Nice proxy.

Go back to your dick enlightenment board faggot

...

This. Jews brought in niggers, white people fought over nigger matters. Despite what the southerners say I sincerely doubt there would have been a whole fucking civil war over non-nigger slavery matters.

back to reddit

Personally, I'm glad the south lost. I have ancestors that fought for the Confederacy, but the CSA ultimately had the African population staying in mind. In short, the Liberian project should have been carried out to completion so that the African Americans could live in peace in their own nation.

That is fucking retarded. You're glad because Lincoln allegedly wanted to shit that his side ultimately didn't do. You're judging the Union's side's righteousness on your presumptions of their intentions. That's what a liberal does. Intentions don't matter when you're evaluating historical actions which didn't fucking pan out that way. We had overwhelming amounts of white American blood spilled so that the 13th amendment could be passed and niggers could run wild throughout the country, especially the reconstruction era South. It's a shitty war with a shitty result, and you're being a cuck by elevating the morality of your ancestor's oppressors.

A lot of you guys are making it sound like the entire Civil War was the result of Jew groups bickering. Makes me wonder how often schisms and infighting occur.