Am I correct in saying that the confederates supported the right thing, a confederacy, for the wrong reason, racism?

Am I correct in saying that the confederates supported the right thing, a confederacy, for the wrong reason, racism?

Attached: confederate.jpg (2550x1645, 462.35K)

So hard to tell. If the US would have split, would either piece become the world power it is today?

I think it's a question of ethics, just because the U.S. is powerful doesn't mean it's ethical.

Is a confederacy a more ethical form of political organization than a federation?

Are you trying to tell me that abolishing slavery was a good idea?

The South fought for the right thing. States Rights. It's just that those rights were the right to own slaves. It wouldn't shock me if we see this again pretty soon.

We're going back to slavery?

I wish. Shit got done by the freeloaders vs them just bitching about being freeloaders.

Yes.

Attached: 1530716819096.jpg (480x504, 78.96K)

Confederacy = treason. They should’ve all been executed. The Midwest/south never recovered. They’re forever the poor, sparse, flyover states. Blue states are wealthy, and sadly give far too much to commie reds in welfare and farm subsidies.

Show us the REAL traitor's flag!

Attached: anfThMy.jpg (960x900, 111.96K)

Bring back slavery but this time make the Jews slaves.

Did You Know: There is no substantial evidence suggesting the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt? Well now is there chance to earn that claim. kek

Slavery is inefficient.

Trump just told you states have no individual rights boy.

kys liberal faggot, can't get offended by everything

Farmers will rise up.

White trash on meth might make good slaves. For what I don’t know yet. Better than perpetual freeloading for generations.

If you think the Confederates fought to uphold slavery to support the 1% of the population that owned them, then you must be a brain dead publicly educated retard. What sparked the 2ar was the heavy imposition of taxes by the union on 5he confederacy because of the new railroads installed. They actually boasted years of peace being separated but working together. It was until the Confederancy was out earning the Union that negotiations fell apart, and no ot wan't some dumb cotton trade bs. How many shirts do you need a week 10,000? It was the tobacco trade.

>Confederacy = treason.
States seceded from Union.
Rights not reserved to the Union or prohibited to the states by the US Constitution may be exercised by the states.
The Constitution didn't bar states from seceding nor reserve that authority for the Union. It still doesn't.
Secession and Confederacy was perfectly in accordance with the US Constitution.

Racism isn't a reason. It's barely related to a system of beliefs, and wasn't even a widely used term until the communist Leon Trotsky coined it. It now has a colloquial meaning, but even that's so diluted in other meanings that virtually everyone is racist and cannot prove otherwise by any means (exactly what the authoritarian communists wanted when they invented the term.)

Slavery is closer the reason that the confederates supported a civil war, but it was less about the ethics of slavery and more about the sovereignty of states to determine for themselves how they want to handle moral issues, up to and including slavery.

Personally, I think the confederates had the wrong of it in that the 'slaves' were human beings endowed with the same inalienable rights as everyone else. A state, no matter if it's federated or confederated, does not have the legal right to declare persons to be property. Individual states still have plenty of freedom to determine their own laws and policies even to this day, so I don't think it was a bad thing that the United States became federated.

Now, should we be doing our best to resist further consolidation of this power over states? Hell yeah. Just because there is a need for a central authority to shut down states which violate individual rights doesn't mean that central authority should unilaterally implement policies which strip away our individual rights. The rights of the individual are absolutely paramount to the function of a free society. That's the only way we have freedom in America: through the sacred nature of our codified rights. Keep stripping back on our right to own weapons, speak freely, etc and the federal government no longer has my consent to govern over me.

It's not about race. It's about humans. Robots are the new slaves.

You do realize that the US started as a confederacy, don't you?

You realize that fight was fought 155+ years ago and the state rights side lost.

Nah I think they supported the right thing (Racism), the wrong way (Secession)

>confederacy
US was a confederacy from 1776 - 1789. Didn't work well. That's why founders wrote the current constitution.

>didn't bar states from seceding
More importantly, it didn't allow it either. The Union of states is permanent in the Constitution. Changing the Union means changing or amending the constitutive law.

Have you met niggers?

they fought for slavery, full stop. states rights was just the fig leaf they were hiding behind. cotton and tobacco trade was built on a foundation of slavery. they didn't want their entire way of life to implode so they fought. any other rebranding of the civil war as a philosophical struggle between states rights and federalism is a little disingenuous.

You’re wrong it was slavery

>cotton and tobacco trade was built on a foundation of slavery
>Pretending Facejew wealth wasn't built on the backs of H1B1 immigration visas
We need to build a wall, but it should border California, not Mexico.

Amendment X
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

>it didn't allow it
It doesn't need to. It doesn't prohibit, therefore each state may decide for itself.

Cool fantasy Yas Forumsro. Read a book on constitutional law next time.

>Read a book on constitutional law
Try reading the actual constitution.

Buckle up for the economic explanation.

The Union (the North) was less rich in agricultural resources than the South, so they were forced to industrialise in order to compete economically.
An industrial economy requires a market system based on supply and demand in order to function, due to the nature of industrial capital and how it is used. Labour in an industrial market society must be mobile and available to satisfy demand wherever it arises, so it must represented by a class of proletarian workers, i.e. labourers who compete in the labour market, work for salaries and are personally free to move around.
An industrial economy also requires a unified domestic market with total freedom of movement for labour (workers) within its boundaries, as well as relatively uniform economic legislation regarding land and capital.
This essentially means that states have to follow similar rules and allow free movement across their borders, which represents a certain loss of their individual rights.
But as compensation, they can become a powerful economic and military unit as a result.

The Southern states, on the other hand, were agricultural economies that were based on autarkic principles rather than market principles. Autarky essentially means self-sufficiency and subsistence production instead of market specialisation. Autarkic agricultural economies don't need a labour market or free movement of labour, so they can get away with using slaves to do the work. Since every autarkic economy is relatively closed and functions within its own particular world, it's interested in keeping its own rules and control over borders ("state rights").

(1/2)

Conflict emerges because industrial market societies eventually need to expand and find new markets, whereas autarkic societies are interested in maintaining sovereignty, because joining a market system would put them at a disadvantage.
Upon joining a market system, new territories are placed at the "periphery" of the system and are economically at the mercy of the "core, where all the capital and infrastructure is.

The issue of slavery and the issue of state rights (confederation/union) were really part of one and the same issue: the question of what kind of socio-economic system the American states would pursue.
For an industrial market society, slavery is evil because slavery prevents free movement of labour: slaves can't function within a labour market. State rights are also evil because differences in state economic legislation also prevent free movement of capital and labour.
For an agricultural autarkic society, slavery is good because it's cheap and convenient, and state rights are good because they protect them from encroachment by external forces and interests.

The North pursued the model of industrial market society, which gave them an advantage over the South because it allowed them to centralise resources and distribute them efficiently. The North was interested in integrating the South into its market system because market systems are based on expansion.
The Southern States were originally quite strong independently due to their natural resources, but as soon as they were defeated by the North they became shitholes and never recovered, due to the fact that they were assimilated as peripheries.
The function of the periphery is to provide the more developed and industrialised core (in this case, the North) with resources, and to consume their products, which makes the periphery economically dependent and disadvantaged.

(2/2)