Then what was it about, chuddy? Well, let me explain.First of all, the Confederate States would have been willing to compromise on the slavery issue. Their primary concern was the loss of labor, which would have been avoided by long-term labor contracts, which were the norm at that time, popular in both Europe for the freed serfs and in the North for the freed slaves.Additionally, there were many large labor-export companies both domestically and internationally that would have provided the South with cheap labor. As you can guess, these labor companies were essentially slave traders, except under names applicable to the social atmosphere at the time.Secondly, there was a huge disagreement with tarrifs (1828 tariff) between the South and North. Northern capitalists were benefitting greatly from this tariff as they had an industry-based economy and large population, whilst the South was brutalized by this tarrif due to their agricultural economy.Thirdly, you're all a bunch of fucking retards. Do you think the bloodthirsty capialists who sent women and children to die en masse in mines and factories gave a single fuck about the lives of a bunch of african niggers. No, they wanted to use these politically charged slogans to take over the South and benefit their industry with cheap raw goods. In addition, they became the heroes of their time, their banners of abolition flying over the corpses of hundreds of thousands of the impoverished lower-class.Fourthly, the capitalists wanted to further divide the lower-class. With the influx of cheap black labor, the whites and blacks began to fight each other whilst the capitalists quadrupled their own profits. You are all fucking retarded, and slavery was at most fifth on the list of reasons why the civil war started.Read a single fucking book on tariffs and the difference between an industry-based economy and agricultural-based economy, you fucking retarded idiots brainwashed by capitalist propaganda.
>>17366701>Their primary concern was the loss of labor, which would have been avoided by long-term labor contracts,The North had no issues with labor because they were actually industrialized and were even self-sufficient as far as agriculture was concerned too if the Civil War itself was of any indication. It was about slavery anon. The south was controlled by slave owners who made all their money on free labor and were the Souths ruling class and industrialization was a conflict of interest for them because it would have to mean having an actual paid workforce cutting into their profits
>>17366701Of course it wasn't.The reason most southerners supported slavery ~at that time~ was due to fears that millions of unskilled uneducated blacks being set free at once would be Haiti 2.0. Nat Turner didn't help assuage their fears. A plurality of Confederate leadership believed in a gradual cessation of the institution of slavery. Jefferson Davis comes to mind, who built a school for his slaves to educate them in skilled trades.
>>17366711You didn't read a single fucking thing I wrote. Everything you just said could be applied to the nobles in Europe, and how did they reform? Long-term labor contracts and labor export companies. The South would have done the exact same fucking thing you retarded mouth breathing capitalist bootlicker.Addtionally, if it was just about slavery as you say, then were the lower class in the north not slaves? They worked for 12 hours or more per day, until their fucking fingernails fell off and their gums started to bleed for pennies on the dollar, with their wages being garnished and seized by factory owners frequently. Was that not slavery? Fucking idiot.
it's a pointless thing to argue. they have been brainwashed from a young age that the industrialists were great and that being a worker is real freedom, not realizing their lives are no better than serfs and slaves, only fed more with comfort and distractions. trying to convince these people would be like trying to convince the sky to turn green
>>17366715>then were the lower class in the north not slaves? They worked for 12 hours or more per day, until their fucking fingernails fell off and their gums started to bleed for pennies on the dollar, with their wages being garnished and seized by factory owners frequently. Was that not slavery? Fucking idiot.No it wasn't because they were still getting paid and thus were capable of contributing to the economy regardless of how much of their wages you claim were being garnished, it was still a fundamental difference from real slavery you strawmanning retard
>>17366733Semantics, the common tool of capitalists and their loyal dogs like you. I'm sure those freely liberated slaves and serfs felt they were so much freer in factories working 18 hours a day, having to pay to use the bathroom and sit down for even a single second, with their child and wife right beside them, making even less than they were.Put a fucking bullet in your mouth, capitalist golem.
>>17366737>Confederates are LARPing as socialists now
>>17366733lol i think OP's point is that it's hilarious that yanks took a moral stance. if anything, from what i've read from those times, slaves were treated much better than factory workers in the north, which kind of goes against your ethics argument. it makes it seem like you cared more about cheap labor and cheap goods from the south rather than about the lives of blacks
>>17366741I accept your concession, faggot. Make sure to work extra hard for Mr.Goldberg today, he needs a third yacht. His first two were made through his ancestors use of slave labor, which they abolished once they got wealthy to make sure no one else did.
The North simply followed in the footsteps of Britain and France. When Britain and France got powerful and wealthy off of slaves, they banned it world-wide under the banner of civilization to make sure that no one else could get powerful off of it.The same thing happened with the North.
>>17366701>they were willing to compromise over slaveryexcept they weren't, they were even offered to forever keep it but they said no because them it was all or nothing on the slavery issue
>>17366741>yes goy, the only alternative to having your blood sucked by international capitalists is this scary ideology called socialism!Lol, you kikes are hilarious if anything. Capitalists replacing the aristocracy set humanity back 3,000 years, I'll die on that hill.
>>17366742There doesn't even have to be a moral stance because it doesn't even necessarily have to be about morals. Industrialists of the North realized a slave driven economy was a dead-end because not having a paid workforce is bad for growth so they lobbied to have slavery outlawed. The south supported slavery because it was controlled by a handful of wealthy slave owners who wanted their personal wealth protected at everyone elses expense. They seceded, Lincoln said that if states could do that then there is literally no point in having a union in the first place, cue civil war and the rest is history. OP is just a retard
>>17366753Except they were. Under international opinion, they would have reformed just like the nobles did when they abolished serfdom. These things take time, time which the South didn't have due to northern capitalists draining all of their wealth with tariffs. You really are hilarious to me. Yeah, I'm sure these capitalist factory owners who built their wealth off of hundreds of dead women and children really care about a bunch of niggers. You sure convinced me.
>>17366758Lol yeah I'm sure capitalists at that time really cared about the fate of America. Most of them still had dual citizenship with Europe you fucking retard, they considered America to be nothing more than a blood sucking ground to exploit. I'm sure these capitalists who would make you work until your fingers fell off and then would take your wages because you used the bathroom really cared about the long-term future of America.Capitalist dog.
>>17366701>In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.What did the state of Mississippi mean by this? Didn't they get the memo that it wasn't about slavery?
>>17366769I'm sure the nobles of Europe said the same thing about serfs. What happened? Reform. Reform takes time and it takes political capital. Capital the south did not have due to their lack of population.
>>17366767>Lol yeah I'm sure capitalists at that time really cared about the fate of America.Yes, it would absolutely be in your best interest as a wealthy industrialist to ensure the land you occupy remains stable for business. Europe had their own breed of political autism happening and they were less industrialized because their source of growth came from colonialism and the spice trade.
>>17366769>makes you work until your fingers fall off, takes your monthly wages because you used the bathroom once, employs your wife and child in coal mines for pennies on the dollar>calls you a free working class manWhat did capitalists mean by this?
>>17366769I like how he went into full denail mode over this, while not presenting anything of actual substance
>>17366774Their land was stable you fucking retard. If they didn't impose tariffs on the South and refuse to compromise on elections on any level the civil war wouldn't have happened.I am truly perplexed. Knowing what we know of capitalists now, how can you be so utterly retarded as to apply ethics and morality to them? They did not want to free niggers, they wanted the cheap raw materials of the south to feed into their factories built on the skeletons of countless women and children. Burn in hell, capitalist dog.
>>17366701>First of all, the Confederate States would have been willing to compromise on the slavery issueYou say the Civil War wasn't about slavery, and then say they could have compromised on the slavery issue to avert the war? This obviously goes against yourself and doesn't prove your point in the slightest, you should have said the war would have happened regardless of any compromise on the issue of slavery. The Republican party's platform was only to limit the expansion of slavery out of the territories, they had no intent to abolish slavery in the South. Your hypotheticals are irrelevant, can you even provide evidence of anyone in the South supporting such labor contracts?>tarrifs (1828 tariff)The tariff argument is retarded because it was shown to be something the South was NOT willing to secede over. The rest of the South did not support SC during the nullification crisis and shunned secession. The Morrill tariff was also lower than the tariff of abominations 30 years earlier.>duh bloodthirsty evil rich capitalists >but muh southern plantation owner slave aristocracy I don' mention dem cuz dey dindu nuffin I swear dey wuz good boyz dey had no responsibility for da warAnyone who knows shit about the Civil War will tell you the Union fought primarily to keep the Union together and not for abolishing slavery, and that it was the South whose cause for secession was primarily over slavery. You, of course, clearly don't know shit about the civil war.Embarrassing thread really, now ACK yourself commie.
>>17366779>Their land was stable you fucking retard.They also weren't the ones who started the war though were they? The south seceded first
>>17366780>the only alternative to being sucked dry by capitalist is communism!Good goy, Mr. Goldberg is proud of you. I'm sure he'll toss you a few peanuts for your shilling you good little golem, maybe even promote you to his feet massager on his fifth yacht.
>>17366789They had every right to secede. Tell me where in the constitution it said the union was infallible. I'll wait.
>OP makes retarded thread>Gets called out>Goes on random tirade about 'muh Joos'many such cases
>>17366796>no arguments>only derailmentsGood goy. Be proud of your free status, golem. You're free to work your entire life and then enjoy a lower-middle class lifestyle while your bosses fuck whores in Thailand and drown in 50 lbs of coke. Enjoy your freedom, slave.
>>17366701Reddit ruined the Union. I’m actually ashamed to have ancestors who fought for the North now when I used to think it was cool af.
>>17366799Why do you want to be a slave anon? Since you're so keen on defending the Confederacy I mean.
>>17366790>no argumentNot entirely sure if trolling or just low IQ underage retard.
>>17366805Serfs and slaves had more free time than workers under capitalism.
>>17366811what does it mean to be "under capitalism?"are you attempting to say that serfs were in control of the "means of production" and weren't beholden to their lord?sounds like capitalism tho, right?
>>17366715>were the lower class in the north not slaves? If conditions in factories were equivalent or worse, was there any sizable proportion of whites who offered to have themselves, their families, and their descendants sold into slavery, in order to obtain better conditions?Were there 'fugitive factory worker acts' to retrieve factory workers who escaped? Were there laws regulating movement and literacy among factory workers, lest they rise up?
>>17366747>calling anyone a puppet of the jews>while defending the confederacy
>>17366711>It was about slavery anon.The North owned slaved after the civil war ended anon. It absolutely was not about slaves.It was about tariffs to protect northern industries and gut the south so that they couldn't export goods to Britain. By the time the north began suggesting to ban slavery, multiple sectors of the southern economy collapsed. And then Lincoln suggested killing anybody who disagreed in his inauguration speech.
>The North owned slaved after the civil war ended anonThis is the /his/ - History board
>>17367045He's right in the sense that a number of the border states did still have slavery for a short time after the civil war before the 13th amendment abolished it right after. I wanted to say he was technically right despite being wrong in sentiment but the border states don't really count as the North.
>Abolishment of serfdom>International pressureThe only European state with serfsom was the Russian Empire, and the Tsar abolished it the landowners didn't chimp out. All European abolishment of serfdom was imposed from above, no through external pressure.
>>17367045The Emancipation Proclamation was issued on January 1, 1863.The civil war ended on December 6, 1865The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified on December 6, 1865. Marlyland (a Union State) still owned slaves after the war.Democrats keep trying to astroturf this idea that the civil war was purely a moral issue, even though the north frankly didn't give a shit.
>>17367061Maryland had slaves up until the 1890s. Nobody cares.
>>17367202No it didn’t
>>17366701First let me say I agree it really was not about slavery nor africans. "african slavery" became a cult with zealots willing to kill for attention. That kept a rational compromise from happening as the US managed its way through the necessity of productivity gains in agriculture and manufacturing. The 2nd industrial revolution was happening. A paid worker, indentured serf or owned outright slave was and could be replaced by a machine. Slaves cost money and maintenance and could run off but were assets same as a tractor. Had the US been serious, southern slave holders could have been compensated, the slaves let loose and a very costly war avoided.
>>17366751Seems to me it was driven by British banksters that wanted to undermine their own textile manufacturers
>>17367486They already did that with textiles from India
>>17366701Slavery is written into the Confederate constitution you retard. It was about slavery and every other issue stemmed from wanting to keep slavery.
>>17366796Neo-Confederates do be retarded.
