Did the majority of the confederate soldiers think that they were fighting for the rights of owning slaves or did they think they were fighting for the rights to leave the union?
Did the majority of the confederate soldiers think that they were fighting for slaveowning?
>Did the majority of the confederate soldiers think
No
fpbp
Most of them were fighting because Northerners were killing Southerners, and that was reason enough to kill Northerners, regardless of how or why the conflict started. The average soldier in the civil war was not ideologically motivated on either side.
>The average soldier in the Civil War was not ideologically motivated on either side.
This can be applied to pretty much every war in human history.
Yes it can
They were voting for their own privileged position in society, where they never had to worry about falling into the bottom rungs of the economy. "State's rights" only became a more prominent talking point later, after the war began to turn against the south and they were trying to salvage their honor instead of sticking to a position which the rest of the world agreed was morally abhorrent
>the rest of the world agreed was morally abhorrent
damn, I didnt know all the White people were 'the rest of the world'.
While Slavery was legal still in South Asia, Oceanian, Africa, South America, Central Asia, West Asia.... lol
Slavery is a morally correct position and only seething slave caste morons think otherwise.
>slavery bad because we wuz on the bottom
HAHHAHHAHAHHAA
name a bigger cope than the dregs of society claiming that calling them dregs and bums is some moral wrongdoing.
>damn, I didnt know all the White people were 'the rest of the world'.
nobody in Europe recognized the cause or legitimacy of the South, and it wasn't for lack of trying on the south's part.
>>slavery bad because we wuz on the bottom
the average southerner liked slavery because it meant that there was always work to be found on a slave plantation, or riding with an anti-slave militia, and it kept them from falling into true destitution. They didn't legally own the slaves but that didn't stop them from benefiting from the institution
>nobody in Europe recognized the cause or legitimacy of the South, and it wasn't for lack of trying on the south's part.
I have no idea what this has to do with the prevailing morality of brown people not only allowing for slavery but actively participating in it.
also
>implying people didnt side with the rebels for moral reasons
lol
fricking Hitler didnt like the Confederacy or its successor the Klan and he was Hitler.
>the average southerner
not a unified group
>there was always work on the plantation
plantations were peanuts in southern society, they were more of a cultural aspect than anything critical to Southern society, I mean, Southerners were vastly better off when slavery was abolished because it meant all the blacks migrated away and they were more apt to industrialize.
>destitution
lol people were hunting to supplement their diets up into the 40s.
Homeless people in America now are not destitute, there is no such thing as destitution in White countries.
Not even slaves were dying of starvation en masse.
destitution would be like being put into a camp. Not having things doesnt make you poor, in fact people chose to live among nomadic Natives rather than among Whites in industrial society when they had the choice.
>benefitting from the institution
lol, blacks benefitted, Whites did not.
blacks get to live around Whites today, whereas Whites are not enriched in any way by blacks.
not to mention, plantations were money sinks in the grand scheme of economics, slavery ending was VERY good for the White proletariat.
also
nice israeli nonsense
>all Whites benefitted from slavery therefore youre all responsible
to which I'd say, slavery for blacks wasnt a choice, you would either be a slave in africa under crueler masters or in the South.
not to mention, africa today is shit, while not a single black in America today is poor or a slave by any global standard.
>I have no idea what this has to do with the prevailing morality of brown people not only allowing for slavery but actively participating in it.
That's not who the south was going to for legitimacy
>fricking Hitler didnt like the Confederacy or its successor the Klan and he was Hitler.
Generally speaking, far right reactionaries hate far right reactionaries from other cultures
>not a unified group
I never said it was. that's why I said "average" and like "like, practically all of them bro!"
>plantations were peanuts in southern society
They called it "King Cotton" because it utterly dominated the southern economy. A poor white could earn a comfortable living as an overseer, or keep his failing farm afloat with the fees he made returning runaway slaves as part of a militia
>lol people were hunting to supplement their diets up into the 40s.
It's not about caloric intake, it's about the prestige of having people "beneath" you
>lol, blacks benefitted, Whites did not.
See above. Blacks did not benefit, they had their labor systematically expropriated from them
>israeli
Way to out yourself as a moron
>>all Whites benefitted from slavery
Nobody said that, dipshit. Enough did to make a political impact
>N O P E
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americana,_S%C3%A3o_Paulo
>holy cope,
You're the one who sounds like he's coping
>youre a troony.
has nothing to do with the American civil war
>the brown world today still has slavery, and back then it was even worse.
That's why Confederates fled to Brazil
>The Civil War was a revenge fantasy for Anglo Saxon New Engerlunders families against Norman Cavaliers of the South.
Right, and it totally started when all those poor confederate cannonballs had their NAPs violated by the walls of Fort Sumter
>We laugh at you.
I think America just lives rent free in your head
nobody calls it king cotton you stupid Black person
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cotton
>one guy called it king cotton
WOW
>cotton is relevant because people who were wrong thought it was relevant
Right but in reality as we know now, it simply wasn’t relevant, meaning not only are you a hypocrite, you are also factually inept.
>the south didn’t go to India for legitimacy this means slavery is evil
??
The English were on the path to officially recognizing the South until Antietam. They actually did support them but withdrew their support when the war went “south” lol.
It simply wasn’t a moral issue or about slavery, even for Europeans, it was cynical pragmatists.
>actually these capitalist pigs and robber barons were moral paragons with slavery and black people involved
Holy revisionist cope.
>far right
>Hitler
lol
Dumbass.
And Hitler did like far right reactionaries lol, in fact he allied with them in Spain and Eastern Europe.
He didn’t like the confederacy or the klan because he like most Whites did not encounter blacks let alone American mulatto blacks and did not realize the necessary measures needed to live among a race of literal slave caste types who just became equals.
>average
Which means nothing in regards to political opinions because for example, the average between Hitler and Stalin wouldn’t get along with either Hitler or Stalin lol.
>King cotton
And? It was still put to shame by grains and industrial production.
Also
>plantations only produced cotton
Dumb fricking Westie.
>poor Whites worked as overseers
And how many poor Whites worked as overseers? Half a million?
No? Ok so poor Whites did not benefit in any meaningful way as not even a tenth of them worked as overseers.
Also most overseers were mixed race, black, or family of the owner.
Poor Whites lived like the natives in isolated towns and communities and occasionally (depending on what you mean by poor) in urban centers which were slowly developing.
They did not work plantations and there weren’t enough plantations for even poor whites to work there.
>failing farm
You realize half these people didn’t have expenses right?
>The English were on the path to officially recognizing the South until Antietam.
Not really. A faction of them toyed with the idea because of the economic carrot that the south was dangling, but that went away with the rise of the Egyptian cotton fields. No where else in Europe even toyed with the idea, they just asked "state's right to do what?
>Holy revisionist cope.
capitalism defeated neofeudal LARPers
>he allied with them in Spain and Eastern Europe.
He used Spain as a testing ground for military equipment and dropped the ball big time in Eastern Europe. Nobody said far righters are consistent in their prejudices, especially when political power is at stake
> Which means nothing in regards to political opinions
So you think it was just a coincidence that all the southerners living in slave heavy areas voted heavily for Breckinridge and secession?
>And? It was still put to shame by grains and industrial production.
That's just a reflection of how poorly thought out the southern economy was
>Dumb fricking Westie.
Nah, they also produced Tobacco, but it was almost entirely cash crops. The north actually had more farms producing more foodstuffs
>And how many poor Whites worked as overseers?
It's not just overseers, it's middlemen, managers, tradesmen, traders and a host of other related fields that grew up around the money that slave plantations brought to their communities,
>You realize half these people didn’t have expenses right?
They still had to compete at the market, and were having to do so against larger, better organized farms which were outcompeting them by investing in superior industrialized equipment
>you are so thoroughly gripped by over-socialization.
You sound thoroughly gripped by under-socialization with these long winded posts
>show me a poll
The only poll that matters is the ballot box. "Taking a poll" didn't even exist until the 20th century
>All the rest of your dribble
mouth diarrhea. Go read a book
>belittling the English involvement because it btfo you
Cope. The English were on the path to recognition until the south failed in their first invasion. Had they been successful it stands to reason England would have stood with them, politically.
Meaning your moralism comes to nil.
Which is funny because the English were the first to abolish racial slavery.
>nowhere else in Europe
nice backpedal, you said all of Europe, got btfo, now you backpedal.
>capitalism
lol, technology and overwhelming numbers defeated the indigenous peoples of the South.
Crapitalism is a garbage system where the wealthy use the lumpenprole economic burden of the Black underclass to abuse the proletariat in the middle and justify extracting resources and power from the workers.
>he used Spain as a testing ground
And? He was allied with them kek.
You were wrong.
>dropped the ball in Eastern Europe
How? Half of the Slavic “far right” were fighting in the SS or shipping israelites to Germany or fighting against communists.
>far righters are inconsistent
Where are these monarchists or tribal despots?
>is it just coincidence these southerners voted for what they thought would prevent imperialism
??
>slave heavy areas
OHOH HO HO NO NO NO NO
do you even know how many slaves were in the South at the time? Whites outnumbered them by a colossal margin, they outproduced them all over the country, they were a cultural facet if that.
blacks are simply an inconsequential group in America history and that goes for the civil war too.
>an economy using black labor was a poor economy
yes lol glad you agree
>related fields
Nope. The slave sector was abysmal when it came to employment and economic development.
Plantations were small self sufficient estates, there were hardly any overseers and Black wranglers were even smaller in number.
There was no extensive development coming from slavery. It was a net negative for everyone but the blacks who got to live in America instead of Africa
>There was no extensive development coming from slavery. It was a net negative for everyone but the blacks who got to live in America instead of Africa
you're forgetting about the Planter who gets to LARP as an aristocrat, even if he'd have a better return in investment doing almost anything else
>Whites outnumbered them by a colossal margin,
Confederacy had 5.5 million freemen and 3.5 million enslaved. Hardly a colossal margin.
>having 50% more people isnt a colossal margin
I dont even know what to say.
>still had to compete at the market
No they didn’t because they lived in self sufficient ways. Without extensive industrial development you get the growth of small scale agrarian communes which are largely isolated from the broader economy of secondary and tertiary economics. They were primary economic enjoyers.
>outcompeting them
Outcompeting what? They weren’t a market force, they weren’t contributing to the secondary economies. There are still places like this TODAY in the rural North. Where primary economics is used for self sufficiency and their output overall is a minority form of secondary economics.
>undersocialization
What? No, I am saying, you are too enraptured by views which you wouldn’t hold if you had an unbiased teaching of history.
Most Americans are secular yet they hold to universal objective morals which are incompatible with secular ideas. They have no way of justifying it beyond social norms so they instantly turn anyone who commits sacrilege to their nonsense into a racist butthole (heretic).
The obsession with black is also tragic. America used to be based. Now it’s cringe.
>I can deduce underlying personal opinions from votes
No you can’t. You can’t even do that with a conversation. Most people have elaborate and complex views that can not be reduced to the ordinary or immediate such as “you’re just racist or something xd”
>go read a book
You have a highschooler’s grasp of American history.
>it’s about the prestige of having someone beneath you
you are so thoroughly gripped by over-socialization.
Show me a poll stating even half of poor Whites thought this way.
Show me some actual data that Whites were bleeding and dying in droves so they could say “well at least I’m not a”. That is such a based and Chad view that I don’t believe Whites held it.
>it’s not about caloric intake
Well actually it is because it btfos the idea they were fighting against being seen as destitute.
They were “destitute” by our standards, well into the more contemporary era.
>see above
??
>blacks did not benefit
They lived in comfy plantation villages, not in Tsetse ridden slave pens of Ashanti warlords.
>uhhh labor, they worked and shit and they couldn’t become capitalists and that’s bad because it just is! Stop bringing up the fact their descendants are better off than their non-slave kin
C o p e
>you referenced israelites in academia yeah you’re dumb
You really believe israelites have no influence in American academics? Our look into history is largely (for those of us college educated, might not include you lol) is through a israelite shaped window.
>enough did
How? They have to live around blacks, their industrialization was stunted, and it brought a bunch of mentally ill anglo humiliation fetishists down on the indigenous southern folk.
>less than 1% of them bought slaves in Brazil
>the biggest pull was the support from Brazilians, cheap land, and citizenship
??
So they weren’t fleeing to find slaves? They were fleeing because it benefitted them so much that not even half of them sought out slaves?
>that has nothing to do with the civil war
(You) are definitely talking about the civil war.
>they fled to Brazil to have slaves but they didn’t buy slaves
Looks like I’m right again.
>the confederates fired first
So did the Comanche, Apache, Sioux, and Algonquin, they had a right to racial defense too.
>rent free
no more aids for Afghans 🙂
>nobody in Europe recognized the cause or legitimacy of the South, and it wasn't for lack of trying on the south's part.
Although you are correct in that monarchist Brazil did still have slavery, which is why so many southerners fled there after the war, because "state's rights" wasn't as important to them as living under a soveirgn that would allow them to keep their slaves
>many fled there
N O P E
a handful went to Mexico to spite the US, and dispersed in the South, they did not go South to find slaver societies lmao.
>states rights wasnt as important as keeping slaves
holy cope, tyrone, no one fricking wants you here, not as a slave or a freeman.
>im White
youre a troony.
the brown world today still has slavery, and back then it was even worse.
>b-b-but st-states rights
frick off.
The Civil War was a revenge fantasy for Anglo Saxon New Engerlunders families against Norman Cavaliers of the South. It is a low scale ethnic conflict and there is nothing moral or good about it.
siding with the South is the only reasonable position because indigenous Southerners have a right to resist imperialism.
fyi, (You) are only opposed to slavery because you are a moronic Baizuo who's worldview is informed by Anglo Saxonism which sees all oppression as an echo of Norman supremacy over the Saxons.
You're not moral
You're not enlightened
You are a turbo goober who was tricked into thinking the way you do by mentally ill Angloids railing against a long dead race of conquerors.
We laugh at you.
>damn, I didnt know all the White people were 'the rest of the world'.
As far as Western governments in the 16th-20th centuries were concerned, they WERE. Nobody gave a frick what some changs and pajeets thought about European/American affairs.
War is war. An enemy is not an ally, they're an enemy. How hard is that to accept?
Fighting for ideology has never been a motivator until recent times. In the past you fought for personal reasons, for money, or because you had nothing better to do and were bored.
A lot of confederates were fighting because the north invaded the south
I’m a historylet when it comes to burgerland but didn’t the war start when the south attacked a fort or some shit.
Lincoln ordered federal troops stationed at a South Carolinian fort to take what they could to fort Sumter which was never occupied by federal troops and controlled the entire trade inlet to the ocean. They were also given orders to scuttle their fort and munitions that couldn't be brought with them, and when they arrived at fort sumter, to fire on anybody that wasn't there to relieve them.
>fighting for the rights of owning slaves
Slavery was a huge cultural and political force for many non slave owner. It provided jobs, cultural values and racial supremacy. Part of the propaganda to get southerners to fight was to inspire fear that black slaves would revolt and kill their white masters and families.
>fighting for the rights to leave the union?
some did, some didn't. In many cases southerners joined to defend their land. They wanted to make sure their local kin or friends were safe as well as their property. Many times slaves were lump into this motivation.
No, far as I can tell the average southerner didn't give a damn about slaves and neither did the northerners. They heard and or saw the North marching down to wage war on their state and decided to take up arms against aggressors. The ones with more knowledge about the politics at the time would argue that it was about states rights.
Why would you just assume that Southerners didn't read newspapers? Or that De Tocqueville specifically noted how even the lowliest Americans were using the postal service to send each other letters articulating their political opinions? Why would they vote in droves for the guy who promised to make every new state a slave state instead of the constitutionalist who said slavery isn't the big deal that people are making it out to be?
'They're down here' was as good a reason as the average southern soldier needed.
A combination of both. Confederates were complex, flawed humans just like you or I. They didn't all believe the same thing, nor did they only hold one belief.
No stop, humans can’t have complex behaviors and sympathize motives, these are evil racists all lock step Hitler saluting their way to enslave black people.
Shut the frick up moron
>these are evil racists all lock step Hitler saluting their way to enslave black people.
This is true.
They thought they were fighting for white supremacy.
Not using that as a buzzword the way woke types do, I mean it quite literally, they called Republicans "Black Republicans" and identified their governance with Black rule. Racism was how slavocrats justified the slave system to non-slave owners. Read the Cornerstone Speech.
Nah. The southerners were fighting because the North invaded the South. They are a naturally truculent people and so they fought against the imperialists just because they were imperialists. Racism was a meme then. It’s only retroactively applied because today everyone is obsessed with racism. You can’t even be racist on this site.
It’s fine to say you agree with Ghengis Khan murdering millions, but saying the n-word, now that we cannot have.
You’re a dumb stupid white Black person
After the North attacked fort sumter the South initiated a cotton embargo to try and drain England dry of cotton to get them to lean on the north to get them to cease hostilities. Within 6 months they had blockaded every Southern port and were in total war
Indigenous southerners have a right to fight against imperialism.
they were fighting because they were told to do so, as soldiers ever have.
They fought (and lost) because they had a sincere belief that arming blacks would lead to immediate white genocide, which ironically was also what the Founding Fathers believed.
If they had armed and "freed" the slaves at the start of the war they could've kept home rule and the former-slaves now-sharecroppers wouldn't have been any worse off than in actual history
nogs are incompetent as frick, at best they could have been meatshields
>he thinks he doesn't need meatshields in a meat grinder
the point is eventually they did promise to free black soldiers (March 23 1865) but by then they had basically lost
They believed that a black person's natural state was in slavery, that a black person was less than human and incapable of becoming civilized, and that abolition would mean black people would take over the country and run it into the ground. They mainly believed they were fighting the war to defend their home states, but they equally believed that granting black people citizenship was an intolerable act, and that under no circumstances could a black person be considered equal to a white person.
>They believed that a black person's natural state was in slavery, that a black person was less than human and incapable of becoming civilized, and that abolition would mean black people would take over the country and run it into the ground.
not racist but were they wrong given the state of the African community and the African family in America?
What blacks have control over it seems to be in shambles.
>its someone else's fault
but at the end of the day, in a way, that is still the responsibility of blacks.
For example, when Whites were enslaved and ruled by Ottomans, they successfully achieved partial and even full independence, and furthermore they even developed their societies while in political captivity.
but blacks seem to only go from bad to worse,their current condition is largely the result of White technology rather than black development.
Both
Depends
I recently read a book on the Army of Tennessee and I remember reading a part of it that mentioned how troops from the deep south (Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, etc.) were more likely to be fighting for slavery and property rights and protection of the "divine institution." Whereas troops from the upper south (Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina) were more likely to say they were fighting for more esoteric reasons of Southern Nationalism. A lot also fought just to protect their homeland from foreign invasion.
Most were just fighting against a foreign invader.
>this thread again
The Civil War was a class struggle, the workers of the South were fighting the bourgeois tyranny of the North, it was basically the first historical example of the proletariat rising up against their oppressors, and although the ruling class would put down the revolution, they're really only delaying their fate of succumbing to the wrath of the proletariat. May the Southern workers rise again, case closed.