So do all southern /his/torians shitpost confederate nostalgia and "muh war of northern aggression" or am I the only one who's massively embarrassed by the csa and it's aftereffects?
>>1042590
Second worst thread on /his/ besides that Viking wank one. Good job OP.
>>1042590
Southern 'historians' pretty much prove "history is written by the winners" to be bullshit.
>>1042590
carpetbaggers and/or yankee scum please go
We don't take kindly to that kind of talk around here.
It's ridden with nostalgia and mythology about le chivalrous gentry and muh class, easily the most fedora tipping country to be a fan of.
>>1042590
That's a gross generalisation of the South. While >>1043960 is true, there, as in all things, is nuance here. The white rural/working class probably didn't give two fucks about the right to own slaves (since they didn't), but, as most Americans, didn't care for somebody higher up telling them what to do.
Case in point, listen to this song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ot7amDyqbY
No mention of slaves or chivalry, 'tis but states' rights and liberty they ask. I really think hadn't there been a slave-owning landed gentry in the South, the war would've been remembered as much more of a noble cause for the South.
>>1042590
Mostly butthurt /pol/fags.
Pay them no mind.
>>1042590
Meh, I don't really care about it, I think it (like most civil wars I've actually looked into) are massively simplified for safe and public consumption.
Was it dumb? Yeah.
But dumb shit happens, and considering how quite a few civil wars turn out it was relatively benign. Though I feel like most of it is honestly non-American shitposters. The kind of people I've found in real life who actively push the confederate agenda are not exactly the kind to browse an anime imageboard, subsections nonwithstanding
Do remember that having a contrarian opinion is a hallmark of this site.
T. Texan.
you're embarassed that your ancestors were fucking badass warriors who fought for what they believed in and kicked major ass? you sound like a faggot to be quite honest
>>1042590
As a Yankee I've had sympathy with the South even if I personally don't hold some of the views that it represented in the war (Slavery and the Anti-Catholicism of a mostly Baptist government.)
They were constitutionally in the right to secede though, and they definitely did not deserve to be invaded and razed to the ground by Union forces.
I don't know, I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you don't have a little bit of pity or empathy in the matter you might be soulless, because the right side of the conflict didn't fight in this case.
>>1042779
That doesn't apply to civil war. Civil war history always goes this
>civil war starts
>side B loses
>side A treats the losers bad for a while
>historians of said country treat side B as a victim
This is the case all over the west.
>>1044460
Not that guy, but he's somewhat right. Many /pol/acks are short sighted retards who see the CSA as good just because it kept niggers in chains, but don't see the immidiate negative effects it had on white people.
>poor whites (vast majority of Confederate citizens) earning fuck all because black slavery driving down wages
>no incentive for technological improvement / industrialization that would create a white middle class
>greedy southern planters insisting on breeding and importing even larger number of niggers which would make shit only worse for whites
>splintering America and effectively making it weaker
If /pol/ wasn't so utterly stupid they'd realize the CSA was anti-white.
>>1044480
Not to mention that American African Culture is the main reason why The U.S is behind most devoloped and even many devoloping countries in education
Bringing in African Slaves was the biggest Mistake America ever Made and Lincoln should be seen as a white Hero for trying to end it
>>1044480
You do know that only a fraction of American users of /pol/ like the CSA?
>>1044494
I was obviously referring to those /pol/acks who do, hence why I said "many" instead of "all".
>>1044480
They're probably the same retards who masturbate to the free market while arguing about immigrants taking their jobs
>>1044477
I don't think anyone in the west outside of butthurt Southerners think the Confederacy was the victim
>>1044611
/pol/acks and edgelords and racist fags do
>>1044405
If there hadn't been a slave owing landed gentry, there wouldn't have been a war.
>>1044480
this
>>1044480
Pretty much this. The South was essentially a Neo-Feudal craphole in every sense of the word. Had the Confederacy succeeded, it would have become the North American Brazil at best, or the next Haiti at the absolute worst.
>>1042590
I'm massively embarrassed at the lack of foresight by southern leaders.
They should have looked far into the future and seen the possible repercussions of the black problem on their descendants.
I think if they would have given some thought they would have agreed with Lincoln and compromised. Start sending them back to Africa, replace them with European/Latin America labor.
>>1045191
das right brother
in duke's name, amen
>>1044716
If Union troops hadn't been occupying rightful Confederate clay there wouldn't have been a war
>>1045203
>>1045206
>b-but the South shot first
>sovereign nations should just let foreign armies camp out where ever they please
>>1045230
>sovereign nation
Unrecognized secession
>>1044443
>were fucking badass warriors
>kicked major ass
Unironically being this much of a Bubba
>>1045230
>sovereign nation
>unrecognized
no need o be embarrassed
just bring up Sherman
and Atlanta
and a box of matches
fucking slave owners got the shit blown out of them
>>1045255
>burns down the south
>then goes and massacres buffalo to deny food to the Indians
what a fucking madman
>>1043928
EPIC BRO
Ha ha Americans are so fat! And stupid!
>>1045255
I have seen like a hundred Civil War threads on this board, and not once have I ever seen somebody get remotely triggered by the thousands of Sherman pictures that get spammed every time by Yankees pretending we're the ones with an obsession.
Worst meme ever.
>>1045280
I take it you were never here the first day this board was created?
Top fucking kek
>>1044480
Oh my god, why do you post this bullshit in every thread. The idea that the international slave trade would have begun again is absolutely ridiculous and categorically false. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about and are just fishing for replies. You and anybody that replies to you should just off yourself immediately.
>>1045245
Since when does recognition matter for shit? If a country is fully autonomous in its affairs and is printing its own currency and making its own laws do you seriously need your government to tell you it "exists"? What kind idiot are you?
>>1045292
shout out to based Morocco
>>1045300
I wonder why they recognized us that early
>>1045283
Yep, and nearly every day since. Nobody gives a shit. It is honestly the weakest and most inane trolling in existence. At least you could step it up and get on the level of the "CSA was anti-white" guy if you're just here to b8 and shitpost.
>>1045291
It matters to the laws and thus the citizens of the united states of America as we are beholden to the decisions made by the supreme court of the united states of America.
>>1045291
>Since when does recognition matter for shit?
Since forever, otherwise John McDick and his libertarian buddies would be making microstates all over the place.
>If a country is fully autonomous in its affairs and is printing its own currency and making its own laws do you seriously need your government to tell you it "exists"?
Yes, which 0 governments did with the CSA. The U.S.A only became legitimate as a country when France recognized it.
>>1045304
>I've been here since day 1
>nobody gives a shit
you know, except people here that went complete apeshit when the sticky used Sherman's picture
that's the definition of triggered if I've ever seen it.
>>1045303
US paid the customary bribe to avoid their piracy.
>>1045303
>Sultan Mohammed III (r.1757- 1790) became the ruler of an unstable Morocco, his first goal was to turn Morocco into a regional power and began reforming the Government and the nation (introducing Nobility such as the Pashas & Caids).
>At the same time, American ships were being attacked by Barbary Pirates (modern Algerians & Tunisians), as the US was fighting the Revolutionary War it couldn't deploy a fleet to patrol the waters. So they asked Morocco for help.
(as well as Kevin Fitzpatrick's answer, American Merchants often landed in Morocco).
>Seeing this as the perfect opportunity to flaunt Morocco's newfound stability and power, Sultan Mohammed III agreed and became the first ruler to recognize the USA as an independent nation.
t. some fag on quora
>>1045303
Because American merchant vessels enjoyed good trade relations and the Sultan wanted to keep those relations high after the Revolution broke out.
>>1045316
>Since forever, otherwise John McDick and his libertarian buddies would be making microstates all over the place.
Yeah that's totally like the entire southern half of the US seceding and forming a coherent self-governing state with millions of people in it.
>The U.S.A only became legitimate as a country when France recognized it
it became a legitimate country when it was governing itself independent of foreign influence. Again, are you really so much of a useless person that you can't accept something that blatantly exists unless an official body tells you that it's okay?
>>1045313
That's like saying being against gay marriage is illegal because the Supreme Court established its legality, are you fucking retarded?
>>1045304
you seem upset
>>1045346
>>1045318
Sherman was a war criminal and a poor representation of the board. He didn't deserve to be in the sticky.
>>1045343
Going unrecognized is different than being illegal and you know that you living meme.
>>1045335
I love when /pol/ leaks and they try to pretend they understand history or governance.
It's cute.
>>1045324
Pretty sure that is was mostly Algerians and Tunisians doing most of the piracy.
>>1045353
>Sherman was a war criminal
Stop applying modern ethics and law to history
>and a poor representation of the board
Tacitus or THE VENERABLE B E D E should've been the sticky image.
>>1045353
I agree Herodotus is a better representation, but you are lying to yourself when you say people are not triggered by him.
>>1045335
>southern half of the US seceding and forming a coherent self-governing state with millions of people in it.
>Coherent
>Half the states threaten to succeed mid-war becaus Davis wanted to draft slaves to fight.
Wew
>. Again, are you really so much of a useless person that you can't accept something that blatantly exists unless an official body tells you that it's okay?
Existing is not the same as being diplomatically recognized. If that were the case, the Caucuses would be literally unrecognizable from what the official borders show.
>>1045357
cool.
>>1045355
Secession was made illegal retroactively and was not illegal at the time of the CSA's secession. You are applying modern American laws and ethics to a nineteenth century political scenario, which is pretty much the same thing as condemning Sherman as a war criminal because of modern standards of war crimes.
>>1045367
>and was not illegal at the time of the CSA's secession.
No shit, that's why the U.S. government didn't attack immediately following its succession. The CSA quickly lost the moral high ground when it chose to attack Fort Sumter
>>1045273
t. ugly american
>>1045361
Sherman's tactics would be fine if they were used against a foreign enemy, but to burn, pillage and rape what are your own countrymen's cities and towns? That is unacceptable behavior for a general in a civil war.
>>1044460
>T -
Fuck off, edgy newfag.
>>1045361
>Stop applying modern ethics and law to history
I'll admit that the laws at the time didn't technically make him a war criminal, but the ethics, even at the time, forbade people to do the stuff he did. This is why Sherman was special; he did a lot of dickish things that all the other generals refused to do because of ethics.
>What distinguished Sherman from most other armies was the intentionality of his destruction. His actual orders were not far from the ordinary, but in his correspondence made his intentions clear. Although other armies wrought similar kinds of destruction, Sherman was different. He launched a campaign for the sole purpose of making war on civilians and turning them against the war. Where other generals tried to constrained the depredations of their men, Sherman encouraged them.
>>1045388
>Where other generals tried to constrained the depredations of their men, Sherman encouraged them.
Based as fuck
>>1045191
[dueling banjos intensifies]
>>1045365
And why is diplomatic recognition relevant to historical discussion, exactly? You're right, the world's borders don't fit what actual borders show, very rarely have they at any point since the 20th century. So what? Are we going to just pretend Kosovo or Transnistria isn't independent (when it is) or that Crimea is 100% under Russian control (which it is) because of diplomatic games?
>>1045374
The US government didn't attack immediately because it didn't even have a decent army. The entire US army before the civil war numbered about 15000 men, which is tiny. It simply took months for both sides to build actual armies to fight.
>>1045191
>brings up the subject of religion for no reason
You shitheads really are cancer.
>>1045380
We were not countrymen.
>>1045400
>Are we going to just pretend Kosovo or Transnistria isn't independent (when it is) or that Crimea is 100% under Russian control (which it is) because of diplomatic games?
Yes, welcome to reality
>>1045418
talk shit get hit
>>1045427
That was never disputed. Glad they're back despite the carnage.
What would america be without Missouri or Mississippi?
>>1045443
Don't know, you're the tyrannical dumbasses that died in droves to bring us back to complain about us for the next century and a half, why don't you tell me?
>>1045450
>complain about us for the next century and a half
because the south never ever bitches at the north.
>>1045452
The difference is the south is justified in bitching since it genuinely tried to leave but was forced back in.
>>1045452
only when you move here.
>>1045450
>this warped view of modern civil war discussion
>>1042590
I'm a southerner and no I don't think it as a war of northern aggression. My state didn't join until after Fort Sumpter incident and it was a huge debate, we proceeded to get stomped and our Capital was taken relatively easy and they knew this would happen, and yet they still fought because they believed in something and that's not embarrassing. I respect them for standing up. Don't take this as a muh heritage, I disagree with a lot of confederate policy and the slave economy.
>>1045325
A bit off topic but how come Morocco never tried to have a Colonial Power?
They were right next to the Atlantic Ocean and were the Closest thing to a Nation State in the Middle East at the time
>>1045401
And then when it did, it BTFO the south so fucking hard it's still far behind the rest of the country economically.
Get fucked south cuck
>>1045461
what state?
>>1045469
maine
>>1045459
>warped
Not at all. Literally every Civil War discussion boils down to "you're shit and I wish you weren't part of this country and I hate you but hardy har har did we kick your asses when you tried to leave get on our level [picture of Sherman]".
>>1045464
>And then when it did, it BTFO the south so fucking hard
4 years and a negative casualties ratio against a country with 4 times less population and like 20 times less industry isn't anything to brag about.
>it's still far behind the rest of the country economically.
That's because niggers aren't forced to be productive anymore, so they drag everyone else down with them.
>>1045462
Judging by that post alone, it seemed like keeping atop their domestic situation was a full time job.
>>1045469
Arkansas
>>1045473
Really? They generally seem to start with some slave economy apologetics and end with the notification that the conflict will reignite one day.
>>1045474
>still this btfo
Get fucked hillbilly
>>1045474
I would expect the people on the offence to take more casualties than the people defending
>>1045496
On a tactical level, sure, but not on a strategic one in the 19th century.
>>1045492
Really? Because they don't.
>>1045479
My state brother.
ITT delicious redneck tears
I love these threads because they remind me, hey, at least I'm not a southerner.
>>1045509
Must be that darned liberal bias infecting my 4chan. Mind you, I'm including past /pol/ discussions in my generalization.
/his/ begins more moderately unless it's a blatant /pol/tier shitpost. Then we jump straight into the north/south internet friction.
>>1045511
Home of Bill Clinton and wallmart, gotta love it.
>>1045512
>tfw live in the south but from the north
Southern tears lube me up
Dixie did nothing wrong
>>1045640
That's right brother. I wish people would understand it's about pride and culture, not hate.
Thread theme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p42uCWF7_Q
Because deep down Southerners know that their intense pride is really just a reflection of their self-loathing. Think about it, Southern culture has never been in tune with the ideals that America was founded on. Despite claiming to be the most patriotic, Southern culture is completely incompatible with ideals of the Enlightenment and thus incompatible with America.
>Freedom of speech or religion? Fuck that, we Southerners didn't come here for freedom, we came here to establish a faux-aristocracy complete with our personal slaves!
>Equality? No nigger - or even poor whitey boy - will ever be equal to a Southern gentleman such as myself.
>You want us to keep up with the rest of the civilized world and advance in education, science, and industry? Sounds like something a New Yorker would do, nah fuck that.
>>1045782
Close, but your examples are mostly off. And Southern culture is actually closer to modern American culture than I think a lot of Americans would like to think.
White Southerners fought for the aristocracy for same reason modern Americans fight for their corporate aristocracy: they believe themselves to be temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
>>1045806
>White Southerners fought for the aristocracy for same reason modern Americans fight for their corporate aristocracy: they believe themselves to be temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
Southerners are also over-represented in the military too so...
>>1045782
>Think about it, Southern culture has never been in tune with the ideals that America was founded on.
>>Equality? No nigger - or even poor whitey boy - will ever be equal to a Southern gentleman such as myself.
That's exactly what America was founded on. Niggers were (mostly) slaves, and only rich people could vote.
>>1045782
The ideals of the enlightenment were just made up by a bunch of rich people who wanted to rule even though they had no noble lineage many, of whom many owned or were otherwise involved with slavery. “All men are created equal” was just a way of sticking it to blue bloods. Not to mention the northern states all suddenly started hating blacks as soon black people started leaving the south, with the highest klan presence per capita was Indiana.
>>1045821
So what? So are westerners. Blacks are too. And it doesn't undo the millions of other Americans who fight for their masters.
>>1045838
>So are Westerners
No?
>Blacks are too
Not to the same extent
>And it doesn't undo the millions of other Americans who fight for their masters.
Fight as in drive a Jeep around a desert like 90% of G.I's do or actually fight?
>>1045284
learn to read, please
>>1045850
>No?
Yes.
>Not to the same extent
Still overrepresented.
>Fight as in drive a Jeep around a desert like 90% of G.I's do or actually fight?
Oh my, is the Yank quibbling over how he serves his aristocratic masters? So if most of your Southerners drive around does it matter if *they're* overrepresented? lol
>>1045874
>Oh my, is the Yank quibbling over how he serves his aristocratic masters?
I'm not sure what your point is, do you want me to disprove that NATO and likewise every democracy in the West is beholden to interests beyond the control of its legislature? Because there would be no point in arguing that as people are naturally beholden to their economic superiors.
>>1045874
>Aristocratic masters
What does the EU central bank have to do with this conversation?
>>1042590
op_his_life_his_thread.jpeg
>>1045940
>Those aren't ideals, idiot.
The point is that the American founding fathers clearly didn't believe in equality, and they believed in slavery.
>>1045940
John Locke helped write the Constitution of Carolina which obviously involved slavery and had invested heavily in slave companies. He also suggested that beggars be maimed and gave ideas for the types of forced labour they should be subjected to
https://pols2900.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/poorlaw.pdf
>>1046020
>The point is that the American founding fathers clearly didn't believe in equality.
Enlightenment equality wasn't the same thing as equality we know of now, it was more about legal equality, which the whole debate over slaves was ignited over because neither side could fully agree what to do with them as they presented an obvious contradiction in their thought. There was no real consensus among the founders on any issue really.
>>1046070
>There was no real consensus among the founders on any issue really.
They allowed slavery all over the US and some of them owned slaves. You can twist it any way you want, but the USA, like the CSA, was founded with a belief in African slavery.
>>1046075
>They allowed slavery all over the US
That's factually incorrect.
>>1044405
No they were all fighting for slavery. Working class whites have always hated blacks. Largely because they feared job competition with them in a part of country that has always been incredibly poor and lacking of social mobility.
>>1046461
This. Nobody hates the bottom rung of society more than the second bottom rung.
>>1045284
They wanted to annex Cuba and Hispaniola at the very least. Jefferson Davis himself was a big proponent of it, he was even caught by Spanish colonial police in Cuba once trying to map Spanish fortifications.
>>1045782
>Mfw majority of the good founding fathers, leaders (Political and Militarily) of the US were all from the South.
>>1045782
The south wasn't seen as backwards until say, 1830s. For a long time it was actually seen as a decadent, degenerate region full of people with loose morals by the prudish New Englanders.
>>1046461
>feared job competition
>by fighting for free black labor
You're fucking retarded.
>>1045203
The Clay literally belonged to Massachusetts.
>>1044480
>slavery driving down wages
and how the fuck would freeing slaves drive up wages? They would still compete with white labor whether they were free or not. I see armchair historians make this claim all the time while simultaneously saying slavery was economically inefficient, doesn't make any fucking sense.
>>1042590
Lolbertarians defending the confederacy are hilarious. Seriously, this is the hill you want to die on? Pick a better exemplar of secession, plz. US is superior in every way. Just pretend the Civil War didn't happen. It makes you look terrible and racist. And if you are racist, then just embrace the /pol/tardation and stop pretending to be a lolbertarian. Most of your brethren have done that anyway.
>>1047518
>and how the fuck would freeing slaves drive up wages? They would still compete with white labor whether they were free or no
OK, I'm going to drop a mindblowing concept on you, but people used slaves because it was cheaper than paying someone to work a job.
When they compete as slaves, they offer a much cheaper alternative, which means you, as a free white laborer, have to work for less to compete.
>>1047518
>and how the fuck would freeing slaves drive up wages?
Exactly the way it happened in real life you fucking moron.
>>1047538
> Pick a better exemplar of secession, plz.
Seriously, even in the U.S. how come nobody rallies around the Whiskey Rebellion?
How come lolbertarians don't masturbate to free derry?
>>1047551
so you're saying that slavery was economically superior to free labor?
>>1047565
No because "economically superior" doesn't mean anything.
>>1047518
I apologize for screencapping a plebbit thread but here you go
>>1047518
The same way as illegal immigrant labor is driving down wages.
>>1044405
Working class whites saw free blacks as a threat to their economic livelihood. That's why Lincoln had to avoid making the end of slavery a war goal initially, because the border states, with the exception of Kansas (who had slavery forced on them by the Franklin Pierce and his dipshit pals), would have flipped their shit.
>>1047556
>/his/torians actually believe this stuff
>>1047603
Well some of them hoped that the blacks would be deported to Africa after abolition, which is a thing that Lincoln advocated, at least initially.
>>1047559
Because Ireland is socialist. Also, I doubt most lolbertarians know jack shit about world history or history of any kind. There's a reason why places like the US which were unregulated put regulations in place.
>>1047598
except illegal immigrants infuse new labor into the market while slavery had been around in the US since the 17th century. The slave population as a percentage of overall southern population stayed the same from the revolution to the civil war and in fact dramatically decreased in the eastern states like Virginia and North Carolina as they moved slaves westward.
>>1047585
The report that this redditor kept referencing never really backed up his assertion that slavery stopped diversification or hurt poor whites. He was also flat out wrong by saying the southern economy wasn't growing, the report says the exact opposite. You can read it here.
http://00prcoelho.iweb.bsu.edu/econ309/Conrad%20and%20Meyer%20on%20the%20Economics%20of%20Slavery.pdf
They even state near the end that slavery could not be blamed for the lack of development or diversification.
>>1047589
>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.
>>1047589
>our land
>our food production
>>1047631
>There's a reason why places like the US which were unregulated put regulations in place.
Yeah, because the big companies that formed didn't want to lose their winnings and decided to collude with the state to put up regulation committees full of their own guys to punish competitors. It was another form of monopoly.
>>1043928
Edgy
>>1047814
Federalist No. 11, 65--73
>It belongs to us to vindicate the honor of the human race, and to teach that assuming brother moderation. Union will enable us to do it. Disunion will add another victim to his triumphs. Let Americans disdain to be the instruments of European greatness! Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble union, concur in erecting one great American system, superior to the controul of all trans-atlantic force or influence, and able to dictate the terms of the connection between the old and the new world!
Yeah, no. Secession is unconstitutional.
>>1046461
>because they feared job competition
No.
Free labor in the South was heavily inclined towards the paternalist / guild system during the antebellum period because working for an hourly wage was considered dishonorable. Their entire socioeconomic system was founded on different conditions and principles from the North's, and the culture reflected that. Job competition was probably the least of their fears regarding abolition; the biggest one was the threat of race war.
Quit projecting your modern views on race relations onto a time and place that's entirely different from your own.
>>1047852
Good thing the Federalist papers were just a bunch of autistic propaganda essays and not the legally binding Constitution.
Also fuck off Hamilton, go suck King George's cock like you always wanted to.
>>1047964
>he doesn't realize that the Federalist papers are the definitive source used in interpreting the meaning of the constitution
>literally cited in supreme court cases more than any other document in determining the original intent
Stay mad cuckfederate. Also, daily reminder that the Texas v. White decision is the law of the land.
>>1045151
this.
>>1045186
That's capitalism for you. Slavery was good for them, so they didn't give a fuck about rest of Southerners, at that moment or in the future.
Majority of South didn't really care much about slavery, but elite did. And elite led hundreds of thousands to death over a bygone and disgusting institution, simply because it was economically profitable for them at that time.
>>1048000
>In Federalist Paper 45
>“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
well it seems the supreme court decides to interpret certain Federalist Papers over others
>>1048043
>entire mode of production based on slavery
>domestic market entirely import based
>"capitalism"
No, it was a slave owning agrarian society. Perhaps the very top aristocrats made shekels in commerce but they were very far from being capitalists as they were essentially openly contemptuous of the idea of industrializing or diversifying the Southern economy in any way.
I'm from the South and on occasion I'll shitpost about the South rising again, but I barely know anything about the Civil War beyond a few high school classes.
>>1048072
>but they were very far from being capitalists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_capitalism
>>1048062
It's almost as though a direct statement that the Union is permanent has more weight than a vague statement about undefined powers.
>>1045380
The most merciful act of war is to end it quickly.
>>1047654
>illegal immigrants infuse new labor into the market
hahahahahahahahahaha
>>1042590
I don't shitpost about it and I'm not embarrassed by it. It just happened, is all. I took no part in it and the main effect it's had on me was making my school district shitty due to ripples from the Reconstruction period.
t. North Carolinian
>>1045680
Thank you for understanding
>>1046075
Lets take a look at the big 7:
Washington- Owned slaves
Jefferson- Owned and fucked slaves
Madison- Owned slaves
Hamilton- Abolitionist
Franklin- Owned slaves, but was an Abolitionist and had his slaves freed
John Jay- Abolitionist
John Adams- Abolitionist
>>1048928
And the odd man out is Hamilton, who was a gigantic faggot.
>>1049024
t. Thomas Jefferson
Unless you were referring to the probable sexual relationship between Hamilton and John Laurens. But you're probably just some retard who doesn't understand the importance of Hamilton's work as Sec Treasury.
>>1048043
Not to mention, they thought that the global superpower at the time, England would step in and help them.
>>1044405
>states' rights and liberty to own slaves
>economy based on slave labor
FIFY
you can deny it all you want boy but it it'll never make it go away
>>1042590
Tennessee/Alabama fag here.
I'm bitter about the Civil War because I think the South was fucked as soon as we brought over huge amounts of niggers. Eventually they caused us problems and now we're living with the consequences.
The South would have better dealt with it's nigger problem on its own rather than being forced to emancipate all at once by the North. Gradual emancipation would have happened eventually and would have been more humane and efficient than what the North did. The economic consequences wouldn't have been so extreme either. Oh well.
>>1046171
Factually true. Slavery wasn't abolished in any state until after the signing of the Constitution.
Southern born and raised, and I hate yankees personally.
>>1045380
>January 29th, 1861
>We're not part of the same country as the overbearing North and the United States, we're our own country and countrymen of the Confederate States of America!
>December 1864
>Wow how dare Sherman burn, pillage and rape his own countrymen's cities and towns?
Wowee, what a turnaround in public sentiment. First you're part of a separate country and now you're suddenly fellow countrymen again?
>>1045230
>Becoming an independent nation automatically lets us claim all the land that we gave away
Fort Sumter was given to the Federal Government as Federal Land by the mutual consent of the South Carolina Legislature in 1836
> "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
> "Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
> "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
>"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
>"In Senate, December 21st, 1836
If you don't want soldiers on that island right next to your shores, don't sign it over to another nation to begin with.
>>1049483
This. Part of the problem is how insufferable a region the Northeast is. Literally arrogant shiteating liberals with annoying fucking accents who think Wall Street is the best thing since agriculture. Fuck Yankees.
>>1048102
This is true about most traitorcucks
>>1049535
It's easy to seem arrogant when I have to dumb down everything I say so you can understand me while you fuck your sister, Jimbo.
>>1049569
Joke's on you, nigger lover. I don't even have a sister.
>>1049535
Trust me, the repulsion is mutual. Arrogant rednecks clinging on to some romantic, vision of their past as if it was the best thing since agriculture.
>>1042590
Whether or not the Confederate secession was justified, the war was not a war of Southern Aggression, not Northern. As >>1049534 noted, the South Carolina State Legislature ceded the area around Fort Sumter to the Federal Government in 1836.
As such, when the state of South Carolina seceded (legally or not), the territory of Fort Sumter was not a part of the state of South Carolina and never seceded. As such, it was never the property of the Confederate States of America.
There are two lines of argument that I've heard in these threads: firstly, that the proximity of Fort Sumter to Southern soil constitutes ad military threat and justifies war, or that Fort Sumter belongs to the Confederate States of America by dint of its geographic proximity.
The first is easier to debunk with an example: in 1898, the United States acquired the Philippines from Spain in the Treaty of Paris. At the time, the empire of Japan was limited to the Japanese Isles and Taiwan. By 1941, the Japan had grown all the way to include almost all of the Chinese Seaboard. Is Japan justified in invading the Philippines because the United States has military bases that are in range of the newly-formed East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere? The obvious answer is no: US presence in the Philippines predates the existence of the Co-Prosperity sphere. If anything, it's Japan that's getting dangerously close to the American Philippines. In the same way, the Confederate States isn't justified in invading Fort Sumter just because it has come into existence next to the fort, because the fort predates the nation. It's like if I built a house next to your house and then demanded that you move your doghouse because it threatens my house.
(Con't.d)
>>1049667
The second argument is essentially that of irredentism - that the fact that Fort Sumter ONCE belonged to South Carolina means that it has a right to those islands once south carolina is its own nation. Of course, it becomes clear that this holds no water: when Qing China became the Republic of China, it did not automatically gain the right to take Hong Kong from Great Britain or Taiwan from Japan. It was still bound to honor the same treaties of its predecessor state, and this is generally the norm in foreign relations.
Moreover, the cessation of land to the government of the United States of America by South Carolina could be termed a "treaty" between two states - the whole basis of the Southern Argument for seccession was that South Carolina was always one state in a union among others, and that it was accorded this right at the time of the United States' creation through the ratification of the United States Constitution (which, mind you, it explicitly uses as justification in its declaration of succession:
>The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union
). If you are to reject the link between the State of South Carolina (within the USA) and the State of South Carolina (within the CSA) as predecessor and successor state, you would be undermining and nullifying the United States Constitution that is used to justify South Carolina's right to lawfully secede in the first place. As such, implicit within the usage of the constitution as justification is the acceptance of the agreements, laws and treaties between federal and state government lawfully passed through the South Carolina State Legislature.
(Cont'd)
>>1049670
As such, even if South Carolina had some kind of irredentalist right to Fort Sumter, as a sovereign nation it should be expected to abide by the treaties written between sovereign nations and honor its decision to transfer ownership of Fort Sumter to the Federal Government of the United States in Perpetuity.
In abrogating its sovereign treaty and invading Fort Sumter, the State of South Carolina (And, by association, the Confederate States of America) is the clear aggressor waging an unjustified invasion of United States Government Land lawfully purchased from the State of South Carolina by the mutual assent by both parties.
In that respect, whether or not secession is justified, the war is clearly not one of Northern Aggression, but of Southern Aggression, whether (if you are a supporter of the Union) by a rebel force against the rightful government, or by one sovereign nation against another.
>>1043928
:DDDDD
>>1049667
>Comparing the Philippines to a port overlooking SC's most important harbor.
Regardless, the problem with Sumter was that the federal authorities occupied it a week after SC seceded.
>>1045374
Secession was always illegal. Even Buchanan thought so. He didn't attack immediately because he also thought he had no constitutional power to stop them.
>>1045411
Yes we were. The south never seceded, because that's technically not something you can legally do. They were just territories in rebellion.
>>1051337
It was federal property, not property of the state of South Carolina.
>>1049462
But it was abolished in several states before the constitution took effect in 1789, and before it was ratified in 1788.
If the south had half as much industry behind their war machine they wouldve easily beat the US. Far superior generals, far more inspired and passionate troops. The north won through attrition. You can read in some of the memoirs of the last battles what kind of shape the southern forces were in, yet they still fought.
>>1051575
The state of SC was no longer part of the federal government, hence all federal property on SC land was returned to the state.
>>1051699
But Sumter wasn't a part of "SC land". It was federal and outside of state administration.
>Lose a war
>Become butthurt to this day
Same thing with Naziboos, what's to understand?
>>1051699
No, SC was US clay in rebellion, not an independent entity. You can't leave the Union unilaterally.
>>1052140
The entirety of the south was still Federal clay and that claim was defended.
>>1051699
See >>1049534
Fort Sumter has not been a part of South Carolina since 1836. It's not SC land, and so it could not possibly be returned.
>>1051337
>Regardless, the problem with Sumter was that the federal authorities occupied it a week after SC seceded.
Yes, how dare a nation fortify land that was given to it by mutual consent within its borders. Assuming it landed in Russia or China, B-24s could hit the Japanese homeland from the Philippines as well.
>>1051767
Nazis are worse. In Germany they're almost completely gone, but somehow the country that beat them had its shitty dregs become naziboos. I guess it's like Japan sucking America's big white dick.
>>1051337
>the problem with Sumter was that the federal authorities occupied it a week after SC seceded
Yes, abandoning Fort Moultrie, which was very close by, in favor of Sumter, which was still under construction but which nonetheless was going to be staffed upon completion. It's not as though Federal troop sailed down from DC to just seize an abandoned fort in order to provoke the south. They were already like a 10 minute boat ride away, in a different, even more provocatively positioned fort.
>>1045443
Missouri fought for the Union. It's renegade governor and about ten thousand men known as the Missouri State Guard did retreat across the border and fight for the Confederacy in the Western Theater, though.
>>1044630
/pol/acks are all pretty much a bunch of autistic edgelords
>>1044630
>>1053842
How much time a day do you spend jerking off over your boogie men?
>>1052748
If you spend enough time to get to know the old folks in Bavaria, they all fucking love Hitler.
t. Swiss
>>1042590
well I'm a southerner and a direct descendant of a Confederate veteran, and I think the CSA was horseshit and that its apologists are at best wholly uninformed about the causes of the civil war and at worst racists trying to paint a literal slave society in the best, most romantic light possible.
>>1042590
>foreigners thinking their 2 paragraph textbook segment from highschool gives them intimate insight on the ACW
I don't pretend to give a damn, NOR pretend to be knowledgeable about your civil wars, cease such arrogance and admit you don't know as much as you claim
Well since the whole thing was written by the victors to be a 'free the slaves' ordeal, and everyone today eating that shit like it was nectar I would rather point out that the liberal cucks and sjw's in the nation are trying to re-write history by censoring the CSA flag, not to mention the out of thread contexts like trying to censor Lovecraft because he had a few racist lines in a book, or not censoring every rap song that has the racist slur "nigger" in it
I'm rambling, but I'll post anyway.
>>1042590
history is written by the victors anon
don't be so naive to think that every major battle was won against "unreasonable aggressive meanies"
>>1054399
You can read the thoughts of the Confederates if you want: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/
They waged war to continue the practice of "African slavery", by their own words. Lincoln, in truth, would have probably never ended slavery, but for such aggression, but they sure thought he would. He was no saint, but the rich plantation owners of the South fought a quixotic battle to keep their slaves.
>>1054399
>History is written by the victors meme
Yeah because the Mongols were such great guys after they won?
And the Boer Concentration Camps didn't happen?
And the United States, the victors, didn't apologize to the Japanese-Americans unjustly interned and the Native Americans unjustly expelled?
Because there are no Japanese textbooks and museums proclaiming that they did no wrong?
Don't be so cynical to think that every victory is the suppression of the righteous.
>>1054412
> but the rich plantation owners of the South fought a quixotic battle to keep their slaves.
Don't, anon, next he'll point out that the average southern farmer didn't own slaves and didn't empathize with the values of the leaders they willingly followed at all.
Not that it'll stop them from generalizing all the supporters of the Union (including regiments from every single one of the southern states except South Carolina) as people eager to strangle the south due to their economic power.
>>1054412
The North didn't give a shit about slavery it fought to keep the South in subjugation and destroy its prosperity.
>>1054638
So what? The South gave enough shits about slavery to start a war over it, so the war was clearly about slavery on at least one side of the equation.
>it fought to keep the South in subjugation and destroy its prosperity.
That must be why over 100,000 southerners served in the Union Army and thousands more fought as guerillas, right? To allow the North to subjugate and destroy the prosperity of their own homes?
The Union (and the Southern loyalists within the Union) fought to preserve the union, and because South Carolina thought it was okay to go backsies on land it gave to the United States Government over two decades before it left the Union.
>>1042590
I'm south Carolinian and have no opinion about it whatsoever except amusement.
>>1044405
>No mention of slaves or chivalry, 'tis but states' rights and liberty they ask.
>states' rights
Is that right? That's kind of funny, because in their declarations of secession, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas shit on state's rights, because they cite the Northern States' right and decision to nullify ignore the Fugitive Slave Law as a reason they seceded in the first place.
Quoting from Texas' declaration:
>The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof;
So it's okay for Southern states to exert their states rights when it involves protecting slavery, but it's not okay for Northern states to exert their states rights when it comes to resisting slavery?
This inconsistency in the Southern stand for States' Rights makes it really obvious that states' rights mattered to the South only when it was in their favor.
>>1054667
If the constitution that all the states agreed upon requires fugitive slaves to be returned then it's not a state's right you idiot to ignore it.
>>1054898
Well if the states don't have the right to nullify Federal law, then the South didn't have the right to secede, which was the ultimate nullification. You can't have it both ways.
>>1055165
Different anon here, why is it so wrong to say the US should have split up into smaller regional countries as they expanded
>>1042590
If the cotton market hadnt been manipulated & loans for material obtained things might have been different
>>1055175
Because one would have been a slave-holding state? Lincoln wanted to preserve the union, but today we can just say that slavery is wrong in any form, and should be quashed.
>>1042590
Daily reminder that self-determination is a human right
>1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
>2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
>3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
>4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
>>1055217
No you nimrod, regardless of slavery.
Why should we not safeguard against sectionalism by dividing the regions as the please?
>>1055307
>the UN is the only moral authority of the world
>muh natural rights is absolutely and totally correct
>we haz a right to be refugees an sheeit
>>1055313
Because look at Europe and Asia and the bloodbath it has had. Also sectionalism is a piece of shit like you.
>>1055339
Sectionalism IS a piece of shit.
But it's also one of the biggest reasons the civil war happened, I think the US should balkanize into about 4 states.
>>1055358
> US should be turned into 4 states
Anon get out that is the shitfest fucking idea in the world. I bet you think Canada should be made into 5 states too?
>>1055362
I have no idea about Canada.
I'm not even American.
Why are you getting do angry?
Are you a Turboautist?
>>1042590
You're not the only one.
The narrative of the "Lost Cause" is asinine.
>>1055217
>>1055313
Because having multiple large powerful American states would have increased the risk of civil war.
America's great power, and later super power status also let us shape the world economic system in our and our allies interest. Selfish, yes, but communism would have been worse.
Also, the South couldn't rely on slavery for ever.
It would have either:
1. Become backwards as fuck because "I can't do capital intensive slavery cause I already invested all my money in slaves and where will I put them."
2. Modernized and had to do somthing with the slaves:
A. Genocide
B. Slaves are released to be poor
A. is bad
B. Means the massive number of whites who are poor, because the CSA was basically feudalism, will eventually over throw the leaders anyhow.
It was doomed from the start. You can be a feudal society in the modern era, but your society will suck.
Nothing of value was lost.
t. North Carolinian
>>1055488
>Arkansas
>Literally inbred sister fuckers
>>1055551
stop bullying ar-kansas they cant help it
>>1055551
Nah man we are cousin fuckers. You want Alabama and Texas for sisters
>>1055589
>Texas for sisters
REEEEEEEEEE FUCK OFF.
GIB INDEPENDENCE
PUTIN SUPPORTS INDEPENDENCE
DONGALD TRUMP 2016
RELEASE THESE YANKEE CHAINS
REEEEE
>>1054898
Which is equally funny, because the South (or rather, South Carolina, one of the states complaining about nullification) tried to nullify tariffs enshrined in that same constitution three decades ago.
>>1055165
>Well if the states don't have the right to nullify Federal law, then the South didn't have the right to secede
How do you make that leap? There's a difference between joining a group and ignoring it's rules and leaving the group. Also, nullification was still a viable theory of the constitution prior to the war. Fuck, judicial power over the legislature wasn't even decided yet. SC was threatened with invasion when they attempted to nullify tariffs, meanwhile the federal government somewhat ignored northern states nullifying the fugitive slave laws. That's why the seceding states constantly brought up the fugitive slave problem, because if states weren't being held to the constitution equally than they wanted to leave.
>>1055986
>There's a difference between joining a group and ignoring it's rules and leaving the group.
Both of which aren't legal under the constitution.
>Also, nullification was still a viable theory of the constitution prior to the war.
If it was a viable theory and South Carolina evidently believed in it enough to try to use it in on federal tariffs in the constitution in 1830, why was it not viable and not equally valid for the Northern States to use it regarding slavery? It's obvious that South Carolina's legal principles are only consistent in regards to its own interests.
>meanwhile the federal government somewhat ignored northern states nullifying the fugitive slave laws.
Except they didn't, the Supreme court consistently ruled in favor of the South regarding the fugitive slave laws. WHat happened was that nobody in the north tried to enforce it. That same president who threatened invading South Carolina also ignored the Supreme Court's decision to nullify Georgia's expulsion of the cherokee by failing to enforce it with no side effects.
>because if states weren't being held to the constitution equally than they wanted to leave.
The issue is that the south didn't want the constitution to be held equally, only when it applied to their interests. They cheered when Jackson practically nullified Worcester v. Georgia, and then cried when the north practically nullified the fugitive slave act.
>>1056013
>Both of which aren't legal under the constitution.
The constitution doesn't say anything about secession. Jefferson even endorsed during his first inaugural address
>WHat happened was that nobody in the north tried to enforce it.
that's no different than SC not enforcing the tariffs at their ports
>Jackson disobeyed the Supreme Court
That never fucking happened. Stop repeating that meme. The executive branch wasn't even involved in that case.
>>1056052
>The constitution doesn't say anything about secession.
The constitution bound the 13 states together into a nation by the mutual assent of all 13 states; for it to be dissolved required constitutional affirmation among all 13 states. the South's unilateral departure prior to constitutional conventions in the North is inherently a violation of the constitution.
>Jefferson even endorsed during his first inaugural address
So why did the South denounce New England's attempts to secede in 1815 as unconstitutional, but suddenly find it constitutional to do in 1861? Again, we have the south flip-flopping on what is constitutionally acceptable based on whether it fits their own interests.
>that's no different than SC not enforcing the tariffs at their ports
And Jackson did not threaten war over that. It threatened war over South Carolina threatening to secede, something he and Lincoln both saw a blatantly unconstitutional.
>>1056052
>Jefferson even endorsed during his first inaugural address
And Washington rejected it in his farewell address.
>The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth.
>Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.
>To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced.
>>1056097
>The constitution bound the 13 states together into a nation by the mutual assent of all 13 states; for it to be dissolved required constitutional affirmation among all 13 states.
Where does it say that?
>So why did the South denounce New England's attempts to secede in 1815 as unconstitutional, but suddenly find it constitutional to do in 1861?
Did they? Jefferson pretty much told them to either do it for fuck off, but to stop fence sitting. There's a difference between being against something and finding it illegal.
>Again, we have the south flip-flopping on what is constitutionally acceptable based on whether it fits their own interests.
Lol you could turn around and say the same thing about New England. Even JQA had to back peddle on his earlier defense of secession.
>And Jackson did not threaten war over that. It threatened war over South Carolina threatening to secede
Go read the Force Bill and fuck off.
>>1056121
>And Washington rejected it in his farewell address.
As I said above, there's a difference between being against something and finding it illegal. Washington was also 100% against sectarian parties, which the Republicans were. Doesn't mean he thought they should be illegal.
>>1051690
>they won through attrition and superior numbers/industrial resources therefore it doesn't count
>>1056284
>go read the force bill
Not him, but you need to go read Jackson's address to SC and the actual secession bill they passed annulling all federal laws within their territory, and then hang yourself for being so arrogant and so completely wrong at the same time.
>>1045357
I love when people are too lazy/stupid to offer actual arguments and just leave passive-aggressive little wastes of posts like this bullshit.
It's cute.
>>1056684
>being this triggered
>>1045782
Why are you guys always so mean to the southerners? You'd almost think you were the ones who the lost the war or something.
>>1047538
>bring up libertarians from literally nowhere
Jesus christ anon watch it with that hateboner you might put somebody's eye out with it.
>And if you are racist, then just embrace the /pol/tardation and stop pretending to be a lolbertarian. Most of your brethren have done that anyway.
I sure wish I could just believe that everybody who disagreed with me was a mega-racist super hitler who's opinion I could just summarily dismiss for that reason.
>>1047830
Nah man big corporations hate regulations that's why they've been doing so poorly lately in our heavily regulated economy. The candidate who's campaign just happened to be bankrolled by massive corporations told me so!
>>1049604
At least southerners are their own thing and not just a shitty knock-off of Canadians though.
>>1056697
Yes I was triggered by the incredibly poor quality of your post, you've got me. It reminded me of the time my creepy uncle made a really lazy and shit post on a website and made me agree with him that it was witty, I'm literally shaking.
>>1056657
>secession bill
lol, they passed a nullification bill not a secession bill. what are you going on about
>>1057775
The bill literally states that they annul every federal law in their territory, and prohibits and federal personnel from coming into SC or collecting tax revenue. It was secession in everything but name.
>>1057932
>they annul every federal law in their territory
It only annulled the tariffs of 1828, it was nullification not secession. It was a pretty standard opinion at the time. stop pushing your 21st century understanding of the constitution on the early 19th century. stop posting bullshit information.
>>1058080
Have you actually read the document in question? Or are we not talking about the Nullification Crisis resulting from South Carolinian opposition to the Tariff of Abominations?
>>1056753
>>And if you are racist, then just embrace the /pol/tardation and stop pretending to be a lolbertarian. Most of your brethren have done that anyway.
>I sure wish I could just believe that everybody who disagreed with me was a mega-racist super hitler who's opinion I could just summarily dismiss for that reason.
You gotta love /pol/tards and naziboos when they get so tender.
It's interesting that the further we get from the Civil War in time, the more rancorous the debates over it become. The veterans themselves were able to attend reunions where former Confederate and Union soldiers met and shook hands. Now their descendants can't discuss the topic at all without wishing genocide on each other over long forgotten crimes they don't actually care about.
>>1059078
Let me guess, you're a yankee.
>>1058363
You sjws are so paranoid
