Why did the Northerners and Southerners fight the war? What were their respective motivations?
 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
Why did the Northerners and Southerners fight the war? What were their respective motivations?
Why did the Northerners and Southerners fight the war? What were their respective motivations?
|
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
they argued if OP was a lazy arsehole trying to get IQfy to write his paper for him, or just a homosexual
The usual, fight this war or we make you homeless.
Southerners: preserve slavery
Northerners: preserve the Union
That's it. Anyone who tries to make it more complicated or more "nuanced" is just trying to mislead you in favor of their agenda.
Pretty much this. Each state had its own internal debate over it but it really boiled down to "preserve slavery" for the secessionists and at the end of the day the federal government of the United States saw the secession of the South as an existential threat to its continuation. Ultimately the will of individual northern states didn't matter that much since by default their position was to maintain loyalty to the federal government.
damn I didn't know that the united states banned slavery before the civil war
Lincoln’s election meant no new slave states. It meant the end of kicking the slavery can down the road and the end of making things half slave and half free because all that was doing was making the problem bigger
The northern states did, the southern ones would've eventually if the cotton gin weren't invented.
You should read up on Bleeding Kansas, John Brown, the Compromise of 1850, and Lincoln's campaign platform before he was elected.
All of these things stem from the Slavery debate.
Even after the war both sides pretty much got some version of what they wanted. While slavery was abolished the slaves continued to live on the plantations for a time, and they tried to legally keep them there for as long as possible. Then later on they made the anti black laws to continue to keep them on the plantations as a sentence for jail time for some sort of crime that was usually anything. This worked pretty well until white men started getting caught in this system so they made the Jim Crow laws.
This evolved into chain gangs and was finally fully abolished in 1941.
Honestly learning about neo slavery pretty much proved the Federal Government couldn’t care about any one person’s existence or individual liberties.
>southerners: preserve slavery for the southern elite.
>northerners: end slavery in the south on behalf of the industrial elite of the north
nah
>Southerners: preserve slavery
I understand that case being made as to why the states seceded and what the elite wanted, but I find it hard to believe that's what the average southern enlistee was really fighting for.
seems more likely to me, that the actual bulk of the southern army were just fighting as they saw it, to protect their homeland.
Slavery was the hot button political issue of the age. It was like abortion on steroids, everybody had an opinion. The south considered slavery an indelible part of their traditional culture and even if they personally didn’t own slaves, they mostly likely either worked for somebody who did, worked for a cottage industry that lived off the profits of slave labor, or had their investments tied up in industries that employed slave labor. There’s a near perfect correlation between heavy slave owning parts of the south and the vote for secession, and people who didn’t live in slave heavy parts of the south like West Virginia voted to stay.
>If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.
It's true that the average Johnny Reb didn't own slaves, but the planter class had done a thorough job in associating slavery with the Southern social order which gave even the poorest whites someone to be better than, and something to fear (and thus seek the protection of the planter class). Democrat campaigners, for example, would often love to fearmonger about miscegenation, claiming that those damn Yankees wanted Southern wives and daughters to be married to black men.
This is true. Southerners that fought just got duped into thinking the Union was wanting to radically change their way of life, not just end slavery and the trade. If you really think about it the Confederacy was a pretty good prototype for modern America down to importing low skill dark skinned people for cheaper labor, it's just run by industrial slavers rather than agricultural slavers. Mosley was right about globalization.
>flood your country with millions of unskilled workers who will work for pennies
>this has no affect on your average working southerner
>It's true that the average Johnny Reb didn't own slaves
The average Johnny Reb didn't own a house or anything either, because property was usually titled to a head of household. You know, rather than every man in a family having their own title to the same thing. About half, perhaps more, of Southerners had slaves within the family or household. This means slavery was part of most Southerner's household wealth, directly. The household was then, even more than today, the most important social unit in society. Not the individual. Many slaveless Southerners besides had jobs that depended on slaveholding business.
The idea that slaveholders were a distinct elite minority is just false. Slaveholding was very common among Southern households, just that most people didn't have many, many slaves like large planters. Most Southerners did in fact have a material interest in slavery -- besides any moral or social interest, which you are right to point out. It may be one thing to argue that the general population was simply duped into caring about the interests of large slaveholders, but you have to give them a little more credit than that. In a perverse sort of way.
Not necessarily slaveowners in general, but the planter class was certainly a minority elite bordering on an aristocracy.
>hard to believe that's what the average southern enlistee was really fighting for.
I cannot imagine something less important than what your rank and file grunts decide they are "fighting for", which I doubt had much to do with idealism anyway.
The average southern enlistee wouldn’t have a thought in his head unless a southern congressman told him what to think
Not even 1% of Southerners were slave owners.
How do you reconcile the Southerners who explicitly stated it was about defending their homeland?
Do you really blame the blacks in africa for resisting colonialism because it means abolishing slavery?
Like a quarter of all households owned slaves in the seceding states.
like not even 1% of Southern Americans owned slaves.
If more of them owned slaves would only vindicate their separation at all costs because they are defending a way of life which is endemic and critical to their society.
>but le bad
frick off moron, you mulched your kinsmen, you mulched the indigenous Americans (whom the CSA had more in common with), you invaded the planet which was based, but now youre getting humiliated by goat herders, 20% homosexual erectus, continent of tiny pp, continent of literal muttoids, and you have become the laughing stock of the civilized world.
You are synonymous with deranged hypocrisy and mythological evil.
You didnt even beat the Confederacy on the battlefield lmao.
It will be really funny when the Union israelites are the ones hauled before a tribunal of Julio Ramirez, Singh Patel, and Xiao Mao, and universally sentenced to death for being the equivalent of a super villain with ED.
What's a "household"
whatever it wants it to be, just remind him blacks will never notice him and his phantom dick syndrome is his body telling it to kys
It's when people live together as a unit in a house or estate. Like a family, except people weren't always necessarily related. If you were the head of household, you were usually the patriarch, maybe the widow or eldest son. All the titles and property would be in your name. Meanwhile, your children, siblings, mother, extended family, your hired servants or your slaves and anyone else who lived at your house on a permanent basis (like a family friend or a renter) would be members of the household.
It's basically what you'd think of as a "family" in the modern nuclear sense, except it wasn't necessarily a nuclear family or family at all. I mean in the real world tons of people have more complicated living situations than the mom & dad & 2 kids deal, it was more the case back then.
That's the textbook definition of a "household" I want the definition of "household" that claims 25% of households had slaves.
>nooo not the actual definition
A textbook definition is what the Census used. That's where this kind of statistical information comes from. Where else. There's different numbers when we're talking about families vs. households, and huge disparities form state to state besides. But the important point is, it wasn't a small minority but a very significant portion of society. We're talking about proportions similar to people who rent in the US today or have school-age children.
The 1% bullshit likely refers to one estimate that 1% of white Southerner families that owned 200 or more slaves. Like most Lost Cause memes, this beauty comes from people reading misrepresented or false bullshit in facebook posts and never bothering to crack a book or even do a few seconds of internet research.
>the definition I use is the textbook definition
then you won't have any trouble showing the source claiming to be using the textbook definition, and not say, some arbitrary definition of household which would make slavery sound more widespread than it was
> The average number of people per household was 5.55 in 1850, 5.04 in 1880, 4.76 in 1900 and 4.54 in 1910. It declined to 4.34 in 1920, 4.11 in 1930, 3.67 in 1940, 3.37 in 1950 and 3.33 in 1960.
https://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/15/us/average-size-of-household-in-us-declines-to-lowest-ever-recorded.html
https://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/15/us/average-size-of-household-in-us-declines-to-lowest-ever-recorded.html
So taking the 1880 average of 5.04 people per household and multiplying, you would have roughly 1.6 million people in slave households in the south or around 28%, I guess I was wrong after all, the real number would probably actually be close to 30%
okay so what definition of household is your source using
Whatever definition the census bureau was using because that’s where the data came from
so can you find that definition or do you just take everything you agree with at face value even if it sounds like bullshit
Coming from the guy who just mindlessly parrots lost causer talking points
all I'm asking you to do is show your source and what metrics it's using and you cant even do that without having a mental breakdown. So the question is why do you keep replying to me if you refuse to show any kind of source or metrics? Are you desperate for attention?
I told you, it’s from the fricking census.
> The census act required each enumerator "to visit personally each dwelling house in his sub-division, and each family therein, and each individual living out of a family in any place of abode, and by inquiry made of the head of such family, or of the member there of deemed most credible and worthy of trust, or of such individual living out of a family, to obtain each and every item of information and all the particulars." In case no one was available at a family's usual place of abode, the enumerator was directed by the law "to obtain the required information, as nearly as may be practicable, from the family or families, or person or persons, living nearest to such place of abode."
https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1880.html
>I said it's the census so you're supposed to believe me
>still hasn't posted source or metrics, just keeps saying "its dah census"
I wouldn't take you at your word if you were the last person on the planet. You are a moronic subhuman
Now who’s resorting to insults?
I accept your concession to my superior intellect once again
>resorts to meme posting
Angry at what?
Stop replying he's baiting. Black person even had reddit filenames for a couple of those
>he thinks the pleb that sits on here all day and baits (You)s by creating Civil War and racebait threads and subsists on replies doesn't know that I'm baiting
It's literally impossible for him not to reply, jsut to show you how mentally ill he is he even replies to bait from 10 years ago
https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/8.10.20.pdf
> In the 1860 Census, which is on the eve of the Civil War, there were 393,975 slave owners in the United States out of a total population of 31,183,582, or 1.26 percent of the population
> In the 1860 Census, which is on the eve of the Civil War, there were 393,975 slave owners in the United States out of a total population of 31,183,582, or 1.26 percent of the population
> “But we have to remember that only free people owned slaves, and that the total population of the slave states included enslaved people themselves, so we have to adjust our numbers to reflect only free people. Therefore, the 393,975 slave owners were out of a free population of 8,289,782, or 4.75 percent of the free population of the slave states being slave owners,” Mackey wrote.
>The confederacy’s 11 states had 316,632 slave owners out of a free population of 5,582,222. This equals 5.67 percent of the free population of the confederacy were slave owners.
“That, however, does not tell us the extent of slave ownership. To better understand the extent of slavery’s impact, we need to realize a slave owner was the one person in a family who legally owned slaves. That person was usually the patriarch. There would be a spouse and sons and daughters who directly benefited from the family’s slave ownership and who stood to inherit enslaved people,” wrote Mackey.
>social equality.duke
>sources abolitionists
get it from a Confederate source or its not real
also
>5% were slave holders
nice self btfo.
now kneel for a dead thug while I piss on your sister
>it was less than 1%
>it’s actually 5%
Once again tard, around 25% of all southerners would have access to slaves in their household
>5% of you do something we dont like, therefore we are going to genocide you
you could have least not looked like bumbling morons while doing so
>around 25% of all southerners would have access to slaves in their household
Do you think ethnic groups should be allowed to deny other ethnic groups access to them?
ok, so you support the ethnostate?
Take your meds
And before you Ad hominem about sjw historians, Here’s that actual 1860 census
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1864/dec/1860a.html
I’ll explain it in a way you can understand. You live in your parents as a massive failure and disappointment, but your name isn’t on the home’s title. You live in your parent’s household. Like a teenager who drives a parent’s car but doesn’t own it, slaves were almost universally owned by the head of the household
>can't define his own terms
>projects his neet lifestyle on others
and yet you pretend to be an intellectual here every day
pretty pathetic
>makes baseless claim
>shifts goalposts yet again
The eternal Dixie strikes again
>reduced to namecalling
you're so smart, good for you
Lol, why don’t you show me how less than 1% of southerners owned slaves?
Why can't you define your own terms and spew hatred when asked?
>loses argument
>can’t cite a single source
>cries about being called a Dixie, but called me moron a few posts up
Are all Dixieboos such tremendous pussies?
>screams and shits itself
>claims to have won the argument
?t=25
You come across like you genuinely hate Southerners, why?
There are no Southerners here, we are just Northerners with high IQs defending a based society.
The Civil War concluded 150 years ago
black people are more or less worshipped in America
why the hate? who hurt you?
Take your meds
Southerners were drafted, i.e they were forced to fight too. The Confederacy had massive desertion problems, and areas where Slave owner power was diminished (e.g. West Virginia) just straight up seceded from the Confederates to rejoin the Union
the north had far more desertions
so you're telling me all the black confederates fought to preserve slavery? OOPS! you just got BTFO
There were only something like two black regiments raised by the Confederacy, only raised up at the very end because the Confederates had gotten desperate, and they wound up seeing no action because by the time they were stationed the war was already over
There were no black confederate soldiers. Slave owners brought camp slaves with them, but there were never any organized units of black slaves until the very end of the war in the south and they never saw action.
Black Confederates is just lost cause copium.
this
but those questions raise deeper issus ;
do states have the right to leave the union ?
do states must obey the federal law ?
The constitution says that all states are bound by it, so no.
>an NGO that employs historians
I’ll accept your defeat
source?
https://www.battlefields.org/about/staff
I know reading is hard for a brainlet like you. The best part is you’ve completely shifted the argument to avoid having to backup your brainlet posts.
>still waiting on you to prove there were black Confederates
>still waiting for your response to John C. Calhoun saying the nullification crisis was over slavery
>Garry Adelman: Chief Historian
>author, co-author or editor of more than thirty books
>they're picture books that he photoshops together
wowow
>still moving the goalposts
>still can’t backup his claims
>still argues in bad faith
https://www.c-span.org/person/?107047/GarryAdelman
Here he is lecturing on C-Span
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2838173-the-myth-of-little-round-top
This isn’t a picture book.
Now, why don’t you present your historical research on Ft. Sumter as a tax collection point?
In that lecture he says "they can not abide by invading armies coming through their territory". He even said Lincoln illegally kept the border states in the Union. That being said he does completely skip the battle of first manassas, the first battle of the civil war.
There’s 3 lectures dipshit, when are you going to stop dodging the question you can’t answer.
>lose argument
>cry about there technically being more than one lecture
Yes you baboon, I'm referring to the lecture about the civil war and its causes? He said that some states seceded solely because they couldn't allow northern invading armies to traipse across their territory
He’s paraphrasing them, now show me where Ft. Sumter was a tax collection point?
>still dodging
You have to be a troll.
>paraphrasing
>states left the union just because they were going to be invaded
hmm
So Ft. Sumter wasn’t a tax collection point, got it.
I never once said that in this entire thread, you just can't stand losing
>4 states published reasons for secession
>in all 4 slavery is noted as the primary reason for secession
>Florida also wrote a declaration of causes, but it was never published
>it also lists slavery as the primary cause
>only 4 states seceded after Sumter
What point are you trying to make again? That that majority of states were fighting because they were invaded?
>still can’t prove there were black Confederates
>still can’t prove the nullification wasn’t driven by slavery
>still can’t prove that Ft. Sumter was a tax collection point
>schizoanon (samegay spammer in anti-south civil war threads) can't find a single example of historians claiming ft sumter was the first battle of the Civil War so that he can claim the north didn't invade the south
>finds a poorly worded historical website that says something vaguely similar
>the main historian of the foundation says Lincoln was a criminal and states seceded to protect themselves
take your copium
I accept your conciliation to my superior intellect
>he doesn’t realize there’s a text transcript below the video
>”criminal” 0 results
>”illegal” 1 result, talking about the effect of the 13th and 14th amendment
sad
It is sad how easily you get BTFO and constantly move the goalposts
This is really the end of the discussion. Another aspect was the settling of new territory to the west and if slave owning southerners settled in Nebraska let’s say, would they be allowed to keep their slaves or not if that territory banned slavery once it became a state. No matter which way you slice it, it was about slavery.
South: "The rich guys wants to keep their overpriced pet tractors, I'm dying for him"
North: "Stop rioting and go home"
Anglo-Danish-Norman teutonic bvlls of the south hated the urbanite forest hating gaelic and kraut hordes of the north and the perfidious yankee puritans who controlled them
North: destroy America through mass euronig immigration
South: destroy America by turning it into a massive Black breeding farm
Northerners were Anglos who wanted to be Celts, Southerners were Celts who wanted to be Anglos. Simple as, really.
Southerners are Anglo Saxon and not celtic in any way you larper
No one has been Anglo-Saxon since the Iron Age.
Southerners are 80% Celtic Mammoth hunters.
no, there were black Confederates who did fight for the Confederacy.
You really shouldnt make this a "lost cause vs just cause" thing because youll end up looking stupid.
>dah souf was racist
yes, and we in the Norf are racist, and racism is based, and you are maladapted to say otherwise.
Louisianna did have an organized unit which had people we would consider black and black slaves brought to the front had fought alongside their masters, Levi Miller comes to mind.
>b-b-but dey need official papers n sheeit
They killed men, in the name of the Confederacy.
That is fighting for the Confederacy in the clearest sense, unless you want to absolve half of all bushwhackers who were also not uniformed enlisted men with any documentation of formal support for the CSA.
Southerners are 70% Anglo-Norman Teutonic BVLLS destined to rape and slaughter the swarthy hillfort loving subhuman fenian gaelic hordes
>We would have won the war if not for those Damn Germans - Robert E. Lee referring to the Prussian and Swedish regiments present at Antietam - Cold Harbor.
>larper doesn't know the difference between anglo teutonic norman BVLLS and slavic-celtic german mongrels
LMAO
Lincoln had to use his gaelic fenian horde to destroy the anglo white southerners of border reiver stock who had been fighting celts for thousands of years-
>he identifies with every male group that fricked his grandmother
>yet he doesnt identify with his immediate kinsmen because his relation to them is through his prostitute grandmother
maybe you should have fought harder Nigel, then your Y DNA pool wouldnt look like a periodic table.
All I can say is the Celtic man may be killed but he will never be cucked.
Paddy projection
Celtoids have been raped so hard by wild, germanic BVLLs that they cluster right next to germanics
Celtoids are a cucked slave race, good for manufacturing armor and hiding in their brochs but for nothing else. these are the same subhumans that gave rise to the globohomosexual roman empire
It is the role of the huge barbarian germanic BVLL, from the sack of rome to the southern uprising against the northern gaelic hordes to be the ultimate warrior and hunter, a pure blooded barbarian
otherway around.
Germanic speakers have admixture from Celtic BVLLs.
Celts are pure.
There are no Germanics, only a Germanic language and the mutts of EEF mulattos and their proto-Celtic masters.
COPE
Celts were raped on end by Germanic BVLLS
The civilised, broch hiding farmers who had been cucked by rome could not resist the might of the huge, broad shouldered pagan warriors with giant brow ridges and atavistic caveman features who came over the sea
>Germanic Y DNA vanishingly small in Celtic nations
germanimal moment
Celts preserved ANE and WHG phenotypes.
Germanics preserved EEF phenotype. thus their babyfaces and historical designation as depigmented meds.
Purest Germanics look like disabled asiatics
must be their 60% Slav-Sami admixture.
>posts a germanic BVLL
AHAHAAHAH
Celtoids are small, swarthy subhumans
Germanics are huge brow ridge broad shouldered BVLLS with giant ribcages
They raped the celtic cuckolds to such an extent that the broch dwelling scum don't even exist anymore as a people
imagine being a civilised swarthoid celtic monk hiding in your tower trying to preserve roman texts and seeing these germanic BVLLS coming over the horizon dressed in nothing but animal skins and wielding clubs and spears
Is that man genetically closer to an Iron Age Celt or an Iron Age Germanic?
An iron age germanic
Yes, that disabled potato scores the highest in Iron Age Germanic.
>Celts are small
Celts are Gigantic and more robust than Germanics.
>dont even exist
Celts have 80% continuity with their ancestors
Germanics do not even have 50% continuity.
>posts tyson fury
Literal Germanic rapebaby
Pikeys are the result of germanic BVLLS rampaging across ireland
Scots and Irish people are literally closer to norwegians than they are to their "celtic" welsh brethren
deranged.
Southerners wanted to turn America into a mulatto studfarm.
That's what Lincoln told northerners. So really the North fought to ban Black folk from the North, the South fought to defend themselves
No Lincoln said if you like your slaves you can keep your slaves but you can’t take them out west.
As soon as the south realized that it meant the end of their political privilege as free states would begin to outnumber slave states, ape out ensued.
nah, Lincoln told everybody that the south was going to make everybody live with blacks
Yes he knew that they wouldn’t stop until all 50 states looked like they did, 35-70% Black slave
Well not really, he made it up
They actively wanted to flood the west with slaves so that every new state would be a slave state and then use that as a legislative cudgel to coerce the free states into accepting slavery just like they were already trying to do with the FugitiveSlave Act
okay, lincoln lied and said the south was going to flood non slave states with blacks to scare people
to defend dixie... From the northerner agression...
to put down the Great Redneck Chimpout
Oh poor Dixie... So close to the North so far from God...
>South: Delusionally believed that they would curbstomp the North and then gain the ability to expand slavery across America and so attacked Fort Sumpter.
>North: Declared war after Fort Sumpter was attacked without formal declaration.
The South dreamt of something beautiful as the last heirs of the Anglo-Saxon political tradition.
>Anglo-Saxon political tradition.
Like the Somerset vs Stewart case which emancipated slaves in England already in the 1760s?
Civil War
>North
to stop the spread of communism
>South
push the iraqis back out of kuwait
North: Fake larp culture that clearly didn't work once piracy dried up. Pretended to be industrious and hardworking, but with little actual output. Zero morals, with criminals locking up people who interfered with their crimes.
South: Normal European culture fighting against the insanity.
>Normal European culture
Kek other way around, the South is more like another Latin American country. The CSA shared more in common with Cuba and Brazil than it did with England or Germany.
This. Only New England and the Midwest is European. Everything else is African, Asiatic or israeli.
>Southerners wanted to keep their slaves and found their own country because they wanted to maintain their economic independence and didn't want to be ruled by the North
>Northerners wanted to free the slaves and invade the South because they wanted to rule rule it with an iron fist for daring to betray them and besmirch their reputation
I honestly admire both sides , the fact Americans still get genuinely upset over the war 150 years later is also hilarious to me.
the north:
>we need protective tariffs so our domestic manufacturing base doesn't get fricked by cheap imports from Europe
the south:
>we need no hostile tariffs against Europe so we can sell them our cotton at a good price
then a war over it happened and slaves got freed so they could help defeat the south.
And who grew all the cotton?
the slaves
There’s plenty of firsthand accounts where common soldiers tell why they’re fighting. Company Aytch by Sam Watkins gives some good insights into the motivations of a southern private.
Don't know. Why risk your life for blacks?
>North - FREE THE Black folk
>South - FREE Black folk
Something like that.
It was a transfer of power from southern plantations to northern factory owners. Slavery was just the cover story.
UK Norf FC = US Souf FC
North = Qin South = Chu
Southerners started and fought the war to protect their influence and power, which was entirely based in slavery. Contrary to Southern claims that they were being oppressed, Southerners had dominated the federal government pretty much since its inception; well over half of presidents before Lincoln had been Southerners (not even counting two of the most pro-South presidents, Pierce and Buchanan, who were from New Hampshire and Pennsylvania respectively), the 3/5 Compromise made them overrepresented in the House of Representatives compared to their actual free population, and the Supreme Court in the antebellum period had a 6-3 Southern majority.
The North fought in response to the Confederacy's aggression and illegal secession and its motivation was to restore the Union.
>South
They fought for the United States Constitution and right of Legal Nullification
>North
They fought to conquer the Southern people and enslave them in the first neo-con war
t. New Englander all my life
You had a moronic teacher then
You're just a plain old moron.
Read the memoirs of Union soldiers and read about the actual crisis leading to the Civil War.
Slavery never really became a part of it until 1863 when Lincoln looked for a swift victory by trying to cause a slave revolt in the South. Purely by coincidence I'm sure, that's when anti-draft riots started taking place since nobody wanted to fight for Black folks; they just wanted to oppress the Southern people.
Read pic related.
Choose not to believe me if you don't like; I spent all but 1 year of my life in Massachusetts, and that 1 year was spent in Maine.
Lysander Spooner, an abolitionist and friend of John Brown from my home state, was also against this war of Northern aggression.
Read his works here,
www.freedomforallseasons.org/TaxFreedomEmail/LysanderSpoonerNoTreason.pdf
Who attacked Fort Sumter my fellow "New Englander"?
who started the war by invading the other my fellow shitskin
Fort Sumter was taxing the citizens of South Carolina despite them having constitutionally seceded.
Literally taxation without representation.
>it wasn't constitutional
New England was voting to secede during the War of 1812 and the founders didn't bat an eye.
>constitutionally seceded
The South drove out an Imperialist garrison which was maintaining an armed force in sovereign land.
Are you really going to be autistic and do the who shot first?
ok blacks shot first with the nat turner rebellion which killed abolition in Virginia.
>secession always bad
>WE WANT LEGAL SECESSION
why do lefties become conservacuck knockoffs when you roll the clock to 1860?
Like just be anti Imperialist you dumb monkey.
>slavery never became a part of the war until 1863
>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.
Posted the wrong newspaper article; read this one instead.
Source in the filename.
https://www.wbur.org/radioboston/2012/06/15/new-england-succession
Was constitutional for use to do it. Frick off, moron.
>Nitpicking
Desperation.
Yeah i remember when New England seceded from the Union, that's why it's its own separate country apart from the United States
Your Cletus is showing
Learn to read you illiterate homosexual.
They were voting to secede and the founders couldn't have given less of a shit, because it was constitutional.
You might want to at least be capable of reading before attempting to debate history.
And they ultimately realized that it was a moronic idea to secede and decided not to try it.
True, but it’s more like they were told to put up or shut up at Texas v White when they were forced to either persist in the “separate country” meme and pay war debts or admit that the CSA was the fictitious dream of criminal hijackers of the state and get out of paying them. Money talks and bullshit walks
>Slavery wasn't part of it until Lincoln made it so in 1863
>"This is 100% about slavery. We are doing this because of slavery. This is our official stance" - South Carolina, 1861
>stop n-nitpicking
Good lord.
>North invades south to end slavery
>You: the war was over slavery and not self defense
have a nice day
Should have deported them instead of keeping low cost low skill immigrants globohomosexual gay
>Should have complied with an invading army that wanted to destroy you
Massive cuck
If there were black Confederates fighting the whole time, then why did the Confederacy authorize black troops on March 13, 1865? The fact that you have to rely on Union accounts and can’t find any confederate records of black troops fighting should tell you something.
>he doesn’t know that the nullification crisis was over slavery
>"I consider the tariff as the occasion rather than as the cause of the unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised that the peculiar domestic institution of the southern states and the consequent direction which her soil and climate have given to her industry has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriation in opposite relation to the majority of the nation."
Literally from the guy who orchestrated the entire nullification crisis, John C. Calhoun.
Wherever you’re from, you had absolutely trash teachers or you’re an idiot.
>you had absolutely trash teachers or your an idiot
It's just a dixietard LARPing as a New Englander doing what dixietards do best: arguing in bad faith
I've seen this trick before
>Entire northern half of the country has a completely different demographic of people & culture from your own
>somehow their collective zeitgeist will always come out ahead in elections and political issues because of how the system works
>can't change the system so try to keep it fair
>said entire opposing half of the nation then outright tries to destroy your entire economic basis and livelihood through dumb as shit tariffs and economic restrictions
>then they want to completely upheave your workforce and society because they're riding some moral high horse where the consequences will NEVER truly effect them
>say "frick this" and try to bounce
>they reeeeeee like autists and try to kill you when you want them to frick off.
>unfortunately lose and get gutted
>have to deal with their moronic homosexual descendants for 160 years still seething that you didn't want to be involved with their bullshit then, and still don't want to be involved in their bullshit today.
>somehow their collective zeitgeist will always come out ahead in elections and political issues because of how the system works
Of the first 15 presidents, 9 were Southerners (and two of them, Pierce and Buchanan were extremely pro-Southern despite being Northerners). Seven out of those presidents were from Virginia alone. The South was also over-represented in the House due to the 3/5 Compromise, and in the antebellum period the Supreme Court was majority Southern.
>can't change the system so try to keep it fair
Like bringing in thugs from Missouri to try and illegally vote in a slave constitution when the actual people of Kansas didn't want it?
How about the Fugitive Slave Act, which was the biggest increase in federal power in American history up to that point, which allowed Southern states to repeatedly violate the sovereign rights of Northern states?
Yeah don’t those liberals know tariffs never work (unless trump does them of course) that’s why all the seceding states wrote about them at lengths and didn’t mention slavery at all. Pic related
>Mississippi is the entire Confederacy
Nitpicking. Depserate.
Doesn't matter, goalpost shifter; it proves the constitutionality of secession.
Do you really think the federal government would've allowed New England to secede? Where in the Constitution is there a mechanism for the Union to dissolve itself?
>Do you really think the federal government would've allowed New England to secede?
Founders could've given less of a shit, so yes.
>Where in the Constitution is there a mechanism for the Union to dissolve itself?
There isn't one, which means it isn't unconstitutional, and is thus constitutional. See Legal Nullification.
>Legal Nullificaiton
You mean like when South Carolina tried to claim it didn't have to pay taxes and Andrew Jackson threatened to march the army into it?
Jackson wasn't a founder and was a militant Freemason.
those are all just words
>You mean like when South Carolina tried to claim it didn't have to pay taxes and Andrew Jackson threatened to march the army into it?
These are just words too, moron.
He was also based beyond belief
>claim that secession wasn't about slavery
>get shown multiple pieces of evidence showing that secession was about slavery
>n-nitpicking!
But of course dixietards have no notion of good faith, otherwise they wouldn't be dixietards
>get shown multiple pieces of evidence showing that secession was about slavery
Horseshit; all you've shown is two nitpicks.
I've provided far more evidence for it having NOT been about slavery than you have for it having been about slavery.
>if it proves me wrong its a nitpick
Correct, because you're wrong
>the vice president of the Confederacy and the declarations of secession from almost every single Confederate state saying that its about slavery are "a nitpick"
Lost Cause scholarship, everyone
>Nitpicking. Depserate.
Each state wrote its own litany of grievances in their articles of secession and the defense of slavery was the only thing that every single state agreed upon. It was their “peculiar institution”.
You're forgetting that the south was invaded
After they had chimped out and effectively declared war by firing on federal forts.
>yeah well
Okay so the south was invaded, that's why they fought the war, are you moronic?
The South were the ones who started the war by firing on Fort Sumter, in addition to all of the federal forts illegally seized across the South.
>the Union should've just let the South steal their forts and fire on men who hadn't fired a shot on them
>yeah well
The south was invaded, that's why the war was fought
The South invaded federal territory first.
'Federal territory' was on Southern land and refused to negotiate a resolution with the South.
A lot of words in broken English that don't address my question.
>what does this even mean
Fort Sumter was taxing imports to South Carolina after it had seceded.
>which was illegal
Founders beg to differ from 1815; if you hate the founding fathers just say so.
>when had the South tried to negotiate,
In the weeks leading up to the bombardment.
>"Federal territory" was on Southern land
That had been sold to the federal government by Southern states. Just because you throw a temper tantrum doesn't mean you get to steal land that doesn't belong to you.
>Just because you throw a temper tantrum doesn't mean you get to steal land that doesn't belong to you.
The hypocrisy is palpable.
100% irrelevant to the discussion. Learn the basics of debate.
>Ft. Sumter was not a tax collection point
Source: dude trust me
Only ones arguing in bad faith here are you lot of neo-con imperialist homosexuals.
Bay State, born and raised. Cope all you like.
>Source: dude trust me
>provides no source that Sumter was used as a tax collection point
>First of all, Fort Sumter had nothing to do with "tax collection." The fort had been constructed for coastal defense following the War of 1812, a conflict that saw the city of Washington, D.C., burned and Baltimore shelled by a British fleet. The government commissioned a series of forts to protect major ports, and the construction of Fort Sumter began in 1829, unconnected from any talk of tariffs.
>And the conflict over Fort Sumter which culminated in April 1861 actually began the previous December, months before the Morrill Tariff became law.
>The commander of the federal garrison in Charleston, feeling threatened by the secessionist fever overtaking the city, moved his troops to Fort Sumter on the day after Christmas 1860. Up to that point the fort was essentially deserted. It was certainly not a "tax collection fort."
>provides no source that Sumter was used as a tax collection point
Provide me a source that Fort Sumter was even bombarded in the first place.
This is how you sound; it's basic fricking knowledge.
>Didn't read the page
Sad. Still doesn't.
>given that they didn't actually secede
Completely irrelevant to the legality you actual moron.
>Not my job to find your evidence for you.
Not my job to educate you on the basic history of the war. Maybe don't get so committed as to argue it if you don't know the bare minimum.
>Proof the British were taxing the Continentals???
>I'm not going to find your evidence for you!!!
This is so one-sided it feels like I'm picking on school children. It's making me uncomfortable, honestly.
>Provide me a source that Fort Sumter was even bombarded in the first place.
This is how you sound; it's basic fricking knowledge.
No it’s basic knowledge that the fort wasn’t even complete and unoccupied until Federal forces occupied in December of 1860
>No it’s basic knowledge that the fort wasn’t even complete and unoccupied until Federal forces occupied in December of 1860
... and started taxing South Carolinian imports.
>I wasn't aware that people deciding to commit a crime made a crime legal
Wonder why the founders didn't call it a crime and encouraged it? Almost like you're moronic.
This is just getting sad. Feel free to feel like you've "won" by tiring me of your logical fallacies and illogical claims.
Bay Stater, born and raised, the South was objectively in the right, the North objectively in the wrong. Seethe, cope, dilate, lmao.
>the founders
you mean a couple of Federalists? And the Hartford Convention was a large contributor to the downfall of the Federalist Party. The Founders aren't gods, they were human just like any of us.
It's basic knowledge that Fort Sumter wasn't used for tax collection :^)
>its basic fricking knowledge
Its basic knowledge that I fricked your mom last night and that you diddle kids, I don't have to prove it
>didn't read the page
I did. Still doesn't make what the actual Constitution says go away
>completely irrelevant to the legality
I wasn't aware that people deciding to commit a crime made a crime legal
>Not my job to educate you on the basic history of the war
I have educated myself on the history of the war, and nowhere have I read that Fort Sumter was used for tax collection. Burden of proof is on you to prove your claims.
> that don't address my question.
Because your question obfuscates the larger issue of the fact that the south voted overwhelmingly for the guy who promised to make every new state a slave state by opening up the west and then using that extra legislative muscle to force free states to accept the presence of slavery
No, the south was invaded first, this is basic b***h civil war history
Who seized Fort Sumter?
Who invaded who
The South invaded the federal government when they illegally seized federal forts
who invaded who with an army and started the first civil war battle
The South when they invaded Fort Sumter and fired upon it with their army
the south invaded the north with an army and started the first battle of the civil war?
Yes, the siege of Fort Sumter.
Can you show me any historian that says the first battle of the civil war was fort Sumter
Its basic knowledge
go ahead and post a single source that says fort sumpter was the first battle of the civil war
Basic history of the war. Read a single book on the matter.
post a single source
Not my job to educate you on the basic history of the war. Maybe don't get so committed as to argue it if you don't know the bare minimum.
single source
Me
post a single source
The source is me. It's basic knowledge.
No why don’t you go ahead and show us that Ft Sumter was a tax collection point
Fort Sumter was Southern land.
You buttholes whine about the legality of secession even though the founders backed it in 1815, but think it's completely okay for a foreign nation to maintain a fort actively taxing your imports in your country.
>Southern land
not after they sold it to the federal government
The South invaded federal land with an army and stole it. You can't refute this.
>You buttholes whine about the legality of secession even though the founders backed it in 1815, but think it's completely okay for a foreign nation to maintain a fort actively taxing your imports in your country.
I just did in the post you quoted.
>foreign nation
Secession was illegal and illegitimate, and was eventually brought back under the federal government.
>actively taxing your imports in the country
prove this happened
>y-y-you stole this thing we were using to abuse you
stay mad over it, I fly a CSA flag in the North.
YOU DO NOT OWN LAND HELD BY INDIGENOUS AMERICANS
The North were the ones who started the war by using Fort Sumter to tax the South in spite of secession and refusing to negotiate with the South on the matter.
>the Union should've just let the South steal their forts and fire on men who hadn't fired a shot on them
The South tried for WEEKS to negotiate with Lincoln but he wouldn't even entertain the idea.
>using Fort Sumter to tax the South
what does this even mean
>in spite of secession
which was illegal and rightfully not recognized by the federal government
>refusing to negotiate with the South on the matter
when had the South tried to negotiate, between seizing other federal forts across America?
Slavery was literally just an emotional propaganda point used by both sides to further their goals.
Why would the Confederacy allow admission of States that abolished slavery into the Confederacy if they wanted to make a slaver's haven? That's a quintessential part of the Confederate Constitution.
>If there were black Confederates fighting the whole time, then why did the Confederacy authorize black troops on March 13, 1865?
They were individuals rather than all black companies.
>One guy said a thing
>That makes it fact
Only idiot here is you and others falling for this shit.
Slavery was the foundation of all of Southern society.
>Why would the Confederacy allow admission of States that abolished slavery into the Confederacy
Which free states joined the Confederacy?
>Which free states joined the Confederacy?
Doesn't matter, goalpost shifter; they were allowed and encouraged to under the Confederate Constitution.
Why would the Confederacy allow that if it were a nation founded for the sole purpose of prolonging slavery?
>they were allowed and encouraged to under the Confederate Constitution
you mean the constitution that explicitly protected slavery? a free state could not join the Confederacy by definition, because in doing so it would have to become a slave state.
>a free state could not join the Confederacy by definition,
The constitution begs to differ since it says that a free state can join and remain free you fricking mouthbreather.
Give me 15 minutes and I'll get you the exact verse.
>(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of Black slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
Found it you dirty wienersuckers!
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Confederate_Constitution_of_1861/zQ4wzvvk5dIC?q=The+Confederate+Constitution+of+1861:+An+Inquiry+into+American+Constitutionalism+georgia+slave+only+states&gbpv=1#f=false
>has to quote an entire book
or you could just read the passage from the Confederate constitution itself, like I did in
>>has to quote an entire book
You don't even know how Google books works lmfao!
You really are, genuinely and truly, illiterate.
I quoted a page, kiddo. Maybe come back to IQfy after you turn 18.
When I click the link it only brings up the book, so you seem to be pretty bad at this.
And you need to bring up a book explaining the primary source when the primary source itself proves you wrong.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Confederate_Constitution_of_1861/zQ4wzvvk5dIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA71&printsec=frontcover
This work for you little baby?
>primary source itself proves you wrong.
Doesn't.
>Secession was illegal and illegitimate,
Founders disagree, 1815.
You can avoid this point by actively saying, "I hate the founding fathers and do not believe in the ideals and constitutionality they believed in when they were alive." So long as you do not, you are wrong.
>prove this happened
Basic history of the war. Read a single book on the matter.
>doesn't
>". In all such territory the institution of Black slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States."
>Founders disagree, 1815
given that they didn't actually secede it sounds like they did disagree
>basic history of the war. Read a single book on the matter
Not my job to find your evidence for you. It suggests to me that you're making shit up, which is common for dixietards
>Founders disagree, 1815.
>To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting. Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia in the Words following, viz. "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
The founding fathers considered the union perpetual in 1777
And yet they changed their mind in 1815. Hmm. It's almost like your nitpicks mean frick all.
>This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Cope and seethe, psued
>remain free
>must recognize the rights of slave owners no matter what
It’s like you can’t even read.
> Why would the Confederacy allow admission of States that abolished slavery into the Confederacy if they wanted to make a slaver's haven? That's a quintessential part of the Confederate Constitution.
Lincoln was prepared to compromise with a constitutional amendment protecting slavery in places it already existed but put his foot down about no new slave states being made out west, and they militarized and opened up hostilities because they saw the writing on the wall and knew that it meant the end of their political parity with the rest of the nation, and rather than accept the results of the election they attempted to hijack the state and set up their own plutocratic state.
>They were individuals rather than all black companies
And yet there are no accounts of this presented as fact when the Confederate government debated the use of black soldiers. I wonder why?
Ft. Sumter was not a tax collection point that’s just libertarian/ lost cause revisionism.
The funny thing about the black soldier debate in the Confederacy was that the people advocating for it realized that they needed to offer the prospective soldiers freedom in exchange for service, but critics pointed out that the idea of freedom being a reward goes against the Southern belief that slavery was beneficial to blacks.
Wanting something doesn't necessarily mean that it will be beneficial to you. Suddenly being freed against the will of their masters did absolutely nothing to improve the quality of life for blacks.
>multiple people
>1 larping dixieboo
You still haven't answered this post anon
Different person by the way
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Civil_War_Begins.htm
cntrl + f "battle" 0 results
post a single source that says fort sumter was the first battle of the civil war
it's basic knowledge
post a single source
If it's basic knowledge I don't need a source, you said so yourself
post a single source
Not my fault you don't know basic knowledge
post a single source
The source is that it's basic knowledge
post a single source
I already did
post a single source
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/fort-sumter
Now let’s see the source for Ft. Sumter being a tax collection point
>this NGO says fort sumter was the first official battle of the civil war
that's not a historian
wessex vs essex
Did the South every really have a chance to win?
No, never. Top generals new this from the very beginning. That's why they confused the frick out of the union for the first year or two because they weren't fighting head on because the southern generals knew that it was a losing fight and they jsut needed to get as many people as possible to survive.
The game plan all along was to draw out the fighting to create an armistice which would force Lincoln to recognizer them as a separate entity so he'd have to leave them alone. That's when he sent Sherman to start killing civilians and torching the farmland
yes, most in the confederacy not only believed the war was winnable, but also that it would be an easy win.
Yes, but not necessarily through military means. There was never going to be a situation where the Confederacy turned around and occupied vast swathes of the North; even taking Washington DC was almost certainly never going to happen.
The danger to the Union was political. If Britain had decided to recognize the Confederacy's independence (with France following Britain's lead), then Europe would have likely been able to bully the Union into a negotiated peace which would be tantamount to Confederate victory. Additionally, many Democrats were pushing for an armistice and negotiations with the Confederacy which, toward the end of the war, would include the protection of slavery. It's debatable whether or not it would have been possible to negotiate the Confederacy back into the Union, but the Confederate government was certainly willing to allow Copperheads to delude themselves and encouraged this sentiment to undermine Lincoln.
If the Democrats had won in 1864, despite McClellan being a war Democrat, it's likely that the Civil War would end in an extended armistice which would basically give the Confederacy autonomy de facto. And given how the Union's military fortunes waxed and waned throughout the war and as war weariness built up at home, it certainly was not a certain thing. Lincoln was very fortunate that Sherman captured the city of Atlanta only a month before the election.
They probably got drafted and didn't really care either way. They just wanted to get it over with and go home.
Their respective governments had decided to have a war.
Not a burger, but from what I understand it was really about states' rights (to have slaves)
i can understand that southern elites want to start a war to retain their economic position, but why did regular southern joes march off to die for it?
Because look what giving blacks rights got us. The rate of interracial violence against whites is 10x higher than the other way around, and they make the country worse off by nearly every single metric. Either keep them as slaves or send them back, freeing them was worst case scenario
The North wasn’t importing them en masse to inflate their own votes moron.
Ever notice how only historically illiterate people support the north?
I'm pretty sure that the slave trade didn't start because Southerners wanted to inflate their votes
Yeah they just freed them and turned them loose on white America
Too bad Lincoln couldn’t follow through and deport them.
It was a factor on why it continued.
Quiet Black person lover, the adults are talking
>black worshipper calling others black worshippers with the "hard N" because he knows he won't get reported for it because he's the one that reports everybody for racism
I’m not the one wanting them in the country S*utherner. If I were on my computer I’d dump all the shit I have regarding israeli involvement in the trade mods be damned.
Average Southerners fought tooth and nail to stop schools from integrating black students, you're surprise they resisted emancipating black slaves?
>but why did regular southern joes march off to die for it?
Literally racism. Average whites in the South usually held the idea that if Blacks were freed they would turn around and genocide Whites.
>get invaded
>duh why did people fight against invaders I don't get it
is the collective IQ of this board dropping or what
but didnt the south attack the north
no
It was an entirely different culture and people, and boys want to fight. The average joe wanted to retain his grip on simple things. I'm paraphrasing, but to quote some yank polemics "A southern man won't buy a home if he knows he'll have to work."
>Haitian Rebellion happens
>Whites see this
>"Oh frick dem Black folk want to kill me and my kin!"
>Whites now fight tooth and nail to ensure blacks remain subjugated because they wholeheartedly believe that a black rebellion would mean mass killing of whites
were they wrong?
Well, evidently yes given that blacks have not in fact genocided any whites in the US, Cuba, Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, etc.
They did ruin the south with their incessant voter fraud after the civil war though
They did in Haiti and it was based
Rhodesia?
It's common for dixieboos to claim that Southern slavery wasn't that bad, but Saint-Domingue truly did make the plantations of the Deep South look like a picnic. Since the slave trade had been officially banned in America, slaveowners (when not benefitting from illegal slave runners) basically had to breed their own slaves, which meant that they had to at least keep their slaves alive. In Haiti there was always a steady stream of more slaves so the ones already on the island were simply worked to death, and put to absolutely hideous punishments. it's no exaggeration that the colonials on Haiti got what was coming to them.
Not only did slavers survive in the south, they thrived. Blacks on paper have never performed as good as they did under slavery/jim crow
>It's common for dixieboos to claim that Southern slavery wasn't that bad
thanks for proving me right
I didn't say slavery wasn't that bad, I said blacks have never performed as well as they did than when they were being "subjugated"
>I didn't say that slavery wasn't that bad, I just said that it wasn't that bad compared to modern times
ok dixieboo
okay black worshipper
>his ancestors built an entire society around the black man
>calls other people black worshippers
must be sad being a dixieboo
>duh achthually u de black worshipper
>spends entire thread autistically screeching about white people
Yeah you described yourself very well. Most “Yankees” are white compared to Southerners, the West is whiter too so you are wrong by every measurement.
>made up racial gibberish
how many times did your obese mother punch you in the head for crying
Truly a devestatingly clever argument.
as apposed to what
you saying the N word and calling everybody that doesn't agree with your autistic white hate a black worshipper? You're one step away from BBC spam
>slavery bad
as opposed to what? Slavery good?
Yes Slavery good.
>but it hard
stop this moronic neomodern hard=negative.
hard = forging strength.
Eurasians BVLLed through Africa because the Ice Age is far more unforgiving than some always 95 degree grassland.
Slavery was the Eurasian attempt to hyper evolve the Africans into a functional race, and it was gone too quickly.
I wish we genocided subhuman inbred wannabe anglo southerners after the war.
Union: Self defense from unprovoked attack on their property, maintaining the integrity of the state, and post Antietam, the abolition of slavery.
Confederacy: To maintain their economic system predicated on slave labour, to create a new slaver state with potential for territorial expansion, maintain their racial hierarchy of whites over blacks, and towards the end of the war defense of their homelands.