What were the North’s motives in the Civil War?

Home Forums History What were the North’s motives in the Civil War?

Viewing 21 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #137745
      Anonymous
      Guest

      So what were the North’s motives in the Civil War?

    • #137746
      Anonymous
      Guest

      mostly looting, that’s probably where black people learned that behavior. Either that or it’s genetic

    • #137747
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Break the back of the slave power and prevent southern planters from creating a new serfdom.

    • #137748
      Anonymous
      Guest

      For the majority it was a way of completing the yeoman fantasy, southern aristocrats were some how antithetical to the vision of a patchwork of autonomous states.

    • #137749
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Preserving the Union. Your country can’t really function if large chunks of it can just secede willy-nilly. All the "muh slaverinoos" shit was just to deter foreign intervention.

      • #137750
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Your country can’t really function
        *you can’t enslave the south with tariffs if they leave

        • #137751
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Having the nerve to accuse others of enslaving you when you are the CSA

          • #137763
            Anonymous
            Guest

            your historically scrotebrained 21st century morals are showing again, anon

        • #137752
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Why the asterisk? You’re adding on, not making a correction. Nothing I stated contradicted what you wrote.

          • #137753
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Your country can function with the ability to leave the union as leaving the union was a fail-safe against tyranny, not something that would be done in a functioning union

        • #137754
          Anonymous
          Guest

          The North paid the majority if tariffs. The only tariff regime that deliberately targeted the South was the morrel tariff, and that was passed during the actual civil war.
          You don’t know what you’re talking about.

          […]

          Keeping the union together.

          Preserving the Union. Your country can’t really function if large chunks of it can just secede willy-nilly. All the "muh slaverinoos" shit was just to deter foreign intervention.

          No. The emancipation proclamation served the dual purpose of deligitimising the southern cause internationally and appeasing the radical Republicans and hardliners at home. The republican party was an antislavery party and had always been so.
          Before the war this was limited to countering the efforts of southern states to expand slavery but during the war the radicals and hardliners could not justify keeping the institution alive any longer, it was absurd. Even as the South was trying to kill them the northerners were kowtowing to their every whim

          • #137755
            Anonymous
            Guest

            You post this every thread. The South had a 90% tariff on raw steel and machinery. The North did not want the South advancing past an agrarian state by any means necessary.

            • #137756
              Anonymous
              Guest

              You keep pretending it’s not true. Tariffs were paid on imported goods, the majority of goods were imported by northerners to Northern ports, and it’s not even freaking close.
              >The north were keeping us from industrialising
              Fuck off, the South didn’t want to industrialise. They weren’t even processing their own freaking cotton

              • #137760
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Tariffs are paid by the people selling the products at US ports. There’s no way anybody is going to sell the South steel and machinery when they have to pay 90% of it back to the North. This was on purpose. Try to think for once

                • #137761
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  couldn’t the South have bought steel and machinery from domestic American producers?

                  Also is there any significant evidence that people in the South were actually interested in trying to industrialize? Economic elites in the South seemed pretty committed to agrarian cash crop production.

                  • #137765
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >couldn’t the South have bought steel and machinery from domestic American producers?
                    Yes that’s exactly what they did, at insanely marked up prices.
                    >Economic elites in the South seemed pretty committed to agrarian cash crop production.
                    Southern industry may have been smaller than the North, but it was still one of the largest in the world. Most of their milling machines were state of the art steam. South Carolina was producing 4000 tons of commercial grade iron a year before the War but was stalled by the massive amounts of competition from the North (and the tariffs). You can’t compete with the Northern factories if they’re indirectly tariffing your ability to transport your product (by preventing you from building railroads).

                • #137764
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  All tariffs went through Senate, which was dominated by the democrats since Jackson, and were paid in the north mostly by northerners.
                  You’re a child who knows neither how tariffs works or how they were applied in this period.

                  • #137767
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Can you show me a source that Southerners voted for tariffs on their own business?

                    • #137769
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      How the fuck would they even have done so given that their entire freaking business was an export economy
                      How do you vote on tariffs for an export

                      Are you legitimately scrotebrained, or are you pretending to be?

                      • #137770
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >how would southerners vote on tariffs for items they needed
                        I don’t know you tell me

                      • #137780
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Ah so you’re literally just trolling. Sad that I fell for it, really.

                        The whiskey rebellion was nothing like the civil war, what a pathetic false equivalence

                        There were many crises concerning whether you could leave the union or whether following it’s laws were optional. We had the nullification crisis, the Hartford convention etc. The answer was clear, no. You stay.

                      • #137781
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        The nullification crisis was ended through compromise, which showed the secession was a big enough deal to force political realignment

                      • #137783
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        It ended with Jackson getting his way and the force bill being symbolically nullified. Nullification was nixed the matter was closed. The union is not freaking optional

                      • #137784
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        You have a radically different and exclusionary view of history then, because the nullification crisis ended when the North was forced to lower tariff rates

                      • #137786
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        The compromise tariffs were country wide, while the nullifiers had argued that federal law was optional. The compromise tariff were a compromise, but they were a compromise on the level of tariff, not on whether you could pick and choose federal law.
                        Do you not tire of being wrong?

                      • #137787
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >yeah well here’s some bullshit you didn’t say You lost

                      • #137788
                        Anonymous
                        Guest
                      • #137789
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Can you just sum up your point? it’s very schizophrenic
                        >tariffs on southern industry didn’t exist because the north imported more stuff
                        >actually democrats voted for the tariffs on themselves! source my poopyhole
                        >the whisky rebellion was just like the civil war so that means secession is illegal!
                        >yeah well none of that may be true but the nullification crisis was proof that secession was illegal because the north never compromised!
                        >okay the north compromised but not that much!
                        >jackson hated planters so that makes the civil war justified!

                        So basically you’re scrotebrained? Or is there something I’m missing

                      • #137790
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        No it seems you are the scrotebrained one, and you cannot read on top of this.
                        But let me address your schizophrenia
                        >Democrats didnt vite for the for the tariffs
                        They had to. They controlled the Senate pretty much uninterrupted since before the party was even called that.
                        This might help you
                        https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
                        >Tariffs on southern industry were mean
                        There were no such tariffs. The south was an export woke af economy woke af on cash crops. They did not even process their own crops. Any tariff on steel would primarily affect the north.
                        >They whiskey rebellio-
                        Wasn’t me. But it did establish that you could not opt out of laws for being unfair to you.
                        >Nullification crisis prices me right!
                        scrotebrain. The nullification crisis was about whether a state could choose to not follow federal law. The exact tariff was a pretense, the state didn’t want to pay any tariffs. Paying a slightly lower tariff still means that it was accepted that you could not choose which laws to follow
                        >Andrew Jackson hated planters!
                        HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                      • #137794
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        So you’re claiming that you’re not schizophrenic yet you believe that Southerners actively voted for tariffs that hurt them

                      • #137798
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        No tariff that disfavored the South would have ever passed the freaking Senate you freaking mong.
                        The tariffs did not disproportionately hurt them at all. The only tariff regime that did so with any kind of deliberate plan were the Morril tariffs (Passed after the South walked out and started the civil war).

                      • #137801
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >No tariff that disfavored the South would have ever passed the freaking Senate
                        Holy shit we’re entering alternate realities

                      • #137804
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        No, you were already there when you started pretending that the civil war was about tariffs.
                        The Jacksonians controlled both house and Senate in 1828 when the tariff of abomination passed
                        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_United_States_Congress
                        The democrats had both houses and the presidency when the walker tariffs passed
                        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/29th_United_States_Congress
                        They had the senate when the 1857 tariffs were passed
                        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/34th_United_States_Congress and had basically wrote tariff regulation since 1830

                        To quote Wikipedia
                        >The Democrats in Congress, dominated by Southern Democrats, wrote and passed the tariff laws in the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s

                      • #137807
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >new party created
                        >the creator was a southerner so that means there weren’t any northerners in the party
                        Dog tier IQ

                      • #137809
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        The democrats were created to represent southern planters and opposition to a strong federal government. That was the whole project. What are you talking about you freaking psychopath.

                      • #137812
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >The democrats were created to represent southern planters
                        you can’t be serious

                      • #137813
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Yes I can because that is objective freaking fact you cunt.

                      • #137820
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Jackson was a free agent, he was favored by the federalists and the Republicans, but also hated by both. Irish Catholics were patrons of the Democrat party in the same way that they joined the Republican party in 1854. In no way was the Democrat party a Southern party.

                      • #137822
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        The Irish minority joined the Democratic party through their political machinery being connected to Van Burens faction. Jackson’s faction was agrarian and favoured the South.
                        Van Buren and Jackson built the party around support for the planters in the South, and opposition to the federal government in north and south and maintaining their an spoils system separate from that the Republicans would build in later years.
                        You are comically wrong to assume the democrats did not represent southern interests. You are wrong about basic freaking facts and have been since the beginning

                      • #137823
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        So it was a centrist party, not a southern only party?

                      • #137825
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        That was a pathetic reach, even for you.

                      • #137826
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Lets not forget just 5 minutes ago you were claiming the democrat party was southern only and now you’re claiming there were factions

                      • #137827
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Keep reaching bud.

                      • #137828
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Do you immediately forget what you say after you say it? Is that some sort of medical condition?

                      • #137830
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Anon you’ve yet to reach a real point. I’m giving you one more chance to make one, or in just gonna leave you dangling.

                      • #137831
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I never had a point, I’m just pointing out how you’re wrong. You said that the southerners voted for tariffs that hurt them and claim the democrat party was southern only. You’re wrong. My point can be, if you want a point so bad, that you’re a stupid poopyhole.

                      • #137833
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Well anon. I have proved every single thing you have said wrong, I have done so easily and in fact I have done so using simple easily understood facts.
                        You have done nothing but show your ass over and over again. You don’t know the history of the Democratic party, you don’t know anything about the history of tariffs in the US, you somehow failed to find out how a bill is made into a law, you don’t know how the senate worked and you seemingly have an allergy to reading.

                        You are so dumb that is in fact a wonder you haven’t choked on your own foot as you tried to fit it in your mouth.

                      • #137834
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        You haven’t proved anything, you just make a bullshit claim, I refute it, and then you make another. You might actually have some sort of medical condition

                      • #137835
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Ah such strong reputations as…
                        Uhhh
                        Wait
                        There freaking aren’t any.
                        Literally have a nice day

                      • #137836
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Do you take medication?

                      • #137838
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Only the viagra I need to fuck your mom.
                        Listen bud. I’m done with you now. I gave you one more shit and failed that too. Please read a book, any book will do. I’m sure someone will help you with the difficult words if you ask nicely.

                      • #137839
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I just want to know if you’re unstable or dumb. Because if you’re dumb I will give you pity replies in the hopes that you stop being dumb. But if you’re chemically unstable I’m just wasting my time

                      • #137818
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        The south had no problem with a strong federal government as long as it was a strong federal government they controlled. Lincoln’s victory in the Presidency meant that slavery would be contained in the south and the west would sympathize with the free states.

                      • #137824
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        The South absolutely had a problem with a strong federal government. What they didn’t mind was government overreach in their favor. They were a minority, and one that only held so much political power because of an insane electoral and political system built specifically to accommodate them, a fact they were aware of.

      • #137757
        Anonymous
        Guest

        This. Every other answer is schizo

      • #137774
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Any reason given other than this is cope. The North by and large did not give a shit about black people and cared more about the slavery issue in that slave states tended to be an impenetrable voting bloc. The Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t until 3 years into the war. Unlike the South who wrote into the Confederate Constitution that it was about slavery, the North made it very clear that their reason was "no you can’t just leave".

        Your country can function with the ability to leave the union as leaving the union was a fail-safe against tyranny, not something that would be done in a functioning union

        >Your country can function with the ability to leave the union
        No it freaking can’t unless you want a Balkans-tier shitshow where the nation fractures every time a part of it doesn’t like the way things are going.

        • #137775
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >No it freaking can’t unless you want a Balkans-tier shitshow where the nation fractures every time a part of it doesn’t like the way things are going.
          Which is exactly why it was set up that way, because splitting is better than war
          …OH WAIT

          • #137776
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Which is exactly why it was set up that way
            Yeah for all of 5 minutes before Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion and the federal government said "no fuck you, you can’t make your own unique currency, you can’t chimp out at the slightest inconvenience, deal with it"

            • #137777
              Anonymous
              Guest

              The whiskey rebellion was nothing like the civil war, what a pathetic false equivalence

              • #137778
                Anonymous
                Guest

                It established that the federal government has supreme authority in domestic affairs, that was the precedent it set.

                • #137779
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  I wasn’t aware that the whiskey rebellion was operating on behalf of a state. It’s a wonder why they didn’t call it a civil war

      • #137785
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Woke af answer

      • #137814
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Thread should have ended here. Every other reply is schizo polchud dixie cope and leftist scrote lovers parroting propaganda.

        • #137816
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Are those leftists in the room right now?

      • #137840
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Thank you for giving an actual answer

    • #137758
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Predominantly preserving the union, although a politically significant minority saw the war in the context of a fight against slavery

    • #137759
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Stopping the south from going full scrotebrain and becoming a third world teir puppet state for the British

      • #137768
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >third world teir puppet state for the British
        >implying that didn’t happen anyway
        what were we doing in ww1 again?

        • #137811
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Britain is a third world US vassal, not the other way around

    • #137762
      Anonymous
      Guest

      seeing this enraged and confused them

    • #137766
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Southerners are weak.

    • #137771
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The South was let off too easy for their treasonous transgressions. Now we suffer the existence of morons like OP.
      Confederates should have been enslaved and forced to reap what they sowed. 7 years for soldiers, life for the officers.

      • #137772
        Anonymous
        Guest

        deal, southerners enslaved, scrotes turned into glue. Like any other obsolete farm animal.

      • #137773
        Anonymous
        Guest

        thanks for the input shitskin

        • #137815
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >muh skin
          You will never have a real ethnostate.

    • #137782
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Speaking of the nullification crisis
      "The tariff was only a pretext, and disunion and Southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question."
      -Andrew Jackson, 1833

    • #137791
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >12042236 is just scrotebrained
      Well mystery solved

      • #137793
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Has to literally have how a law is passed to him as if he were 6
        >Dares to call others scrotebrained.
        Sad.

    • #137792
      Anonymous
      Guest

      They came to steal our black Queens and made all manner of filth and slanderous accusations against us

    • #137795
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Restore the union by any means necessary. The abolitionists also wanted to end slavery as an institution, but this was not the actual purpose of the war at its outset.

      • #137796
        Anonymous
        Guest

        reminder that there were months that went by where the north could have established communications with south Carolina (the only state to secede so early) before they attacked

        • #137797
          Anonymous
          Guest

          To this day, 70% of Americans would rather die than talk with someone from South Carolina.

          • #137800
            Anonymous
            Guest

            I’m glad the Constitution only matters as far as your emotional stability

            • #137802
              Anonymous
              Guest

              The South Carolinians were no longer bound by the constitution as they made so plainly clear. They were rebels, and should have been treated as such, instead of the total fawning indulgence they were shown.

              • #137803
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Oh, so the US can invade sovereign peaceful territories

                • #137805
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Wasn’t sovereign. It was a rebellion.

                  • #137808
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    was it part of the US or not?

        • #137799
          Anonymous
          Guest

          The south attacked the north.

    • #137806
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The Confederates forcibly seized a fort belonging to the Union government. Fort Sumter had been willingly ceded to the feds by the government of South Carolina several decades earlier (to avoid having to pay for the fort’s upkeep), so the secession of South Carolina did not give the Confederates a lawful claim to the fort.

      If the Union just sat back and did nothing while the Confederates attacked and seized federal property, they would have lost all credibility, both with their own people and with foreign powers in Europe that were surely looking greedily at the Americas again in light of the breakup of the USA. The siege of Fort Sumter had to be met with force, and once the armies of the North and South met openly in the field, there was no going back.

    • #137810
      Anonymous
      Guest

      is LULZ the place where all the /poo/ rejects end up after getting btfo?

    • #137817
      Anonymous
      Guest

      plundering and looting indigenous Southern peoples in a vain attempt to take vengeance against the specter of William the Conqueror.

    • #137819
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The violation of southern neutrality and sovereignty. Frequent trespassing and border harassment by Fort Sumter on southern cannonballs forced the south to go to war to defend their secession and independence.

    • #137821
      Anonymous
      Guest

      unification again. people cannot leave the union. see the union dixie song: https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1633307397527.webm

    • #137829
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Collect more taxes

    • #137832
      Anonymous
      Guest

      to crush rebellion and scoop up all the chocolate honeys

    • #137837
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Primarily to preserve the union. By the end of it I do think other things had become mixed in, as they were legitimately pissed at the traitors and realized that ending slavery was necessary to prevent another civil war. But it was always mostly about preserving the union.

Viewing 21 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.