Why did Dixie lose the civil war? Was it because they had no highly advanced military telegraphy network like the yankees did?
Inferior logistics all around, basically. The feds had superior manufacturing, railroad networks, better organization, and almost the entire navy. Ultimately most of the business of fighting a war is getting your troops where they are needed, with full stomachs and decent shoes.
>>1328272
a lack of manpower and lower manufacturing ability
also the good guys don't always win
>>1328285
>Dixie
>good guys
Pick one, Jed. You're part of the Union now. Stop being so assblasted over the defeat of a shitty country that existed for a few years to prolong the life of plantation slavery.
>>1328309
>>1328309
Slavery had nothing to do with it
>>1328331
>slavery had nothing to do with it
>multiple declarations of secession cite slavery as the core motivator
>implying secession wasn't fueled by a Republican (read: anti-slavery) Party candidate won the Presidency
Confederate sympathizer pls go
>>1328272
The reason they lost is the same reason for any non-industrialized country falling to an industrialized one.
>>1328272
The Confederates knew they would lose a long-term protracted war against the more industrialized Union, who can spit out guns, clothing, ammunition, and transport it all much faster than the confederates could.
the Southern strategy was simply to make the North bleed so much that the Union will not see the recapture of the south as worth the lives lost. They were also counting on the sheer size of the Confederate States to work to their advantage, as conquering all 11 states was a tall order by 1860 standards.
More desperate attempts were also made in the South in getting the British or French involved on the side of the South, using cotton discounts and trade deals as leverage. While enticing for the British, they ultimately decided against full intervention despite offering limited aid to the Confederates in the form of ships for their Navy.
but in short, the Union just outlasted the Confederacy, who couldn't afford to replace loses the way the Union could. By the time the Confederacy surrendered, there were less than 200,000 Confederate soldiers left to serve where as the Union was standing at around 1.2 million.
>>1328331
Hold on.
So Southerners are guilty of 2 crimes? Slavery AND Tax Evasion?
Yeap, so much for states rights.
>>1328375
This is a good answer. Alot came down to attrition. Union was drawing on freed slaves and Irish potato famine immigrants to bolster ranks. The whole timing issue of the humanitarian edicts of the era, emancipation and refugee acceptance, worked to a dubious advantage for the union. I'd have been more impressed had they not put these people on the front lines, but such is the way of things.
Is it safe to say that both world wars would never have happened the way they did had the south won the civil war?
>>1328397
In the early years of both, allied factions were receiving very necessary trade from a unified United States. Had that been fragmented, I suppose it might be argued there could not have been potential for that material support.
I don't know how to quantify that. I think, yes, it would have had a profound impact.
>>1328418
should read "I suppose it could be argued there could not have been potential for that "level" of material support.
>>1328272
I'm guessing having 1/3 the population and roughly1/5 the wealth of the north had something to do with it.
>>1328397
Hard to say. The South winning the ACW sets up a rather unstable political situation in America, and it's very likely to have a round 2 in 15 years.
>>1328309
yanks getting shot on their way to invade, looting, burning, and pillaging southern homes is ALWAYS a good thing
>>1328331
>on a history board
>claiming that slavery had nothing to do with the US Civil War despite the fact that the Confederates openly admitted in documents that the reason that they seceded was because they believed that the Republican party would make a serious push at ending slavery which was the source of the South's economy and immense wealth of its political class.
>not committing suicide for being a moron
>>1328457
Another interesting "What If" is if the South split away in 1789 during the Constitutional Convention. Would there have been a Golden Circle?
>>1328469
the circular argument we keep seeing is really just summed up in these two statement.
the south seceded among many reasons, but chief among them was the preservation of the slaveholding system that kept their social hierarchy and economy afloat.
the north invaded to preserve the union however, and had no designs to abolish slavery at the wars beginning, and only issued the emancipation proclamation to moral justify the war once northern citizenry begin to take issue with the fact that their sons were being sent to die invading a country that wanted little more than to simply be independent.
TL;DR: Lincoln was a massive jew
>>1328469
I agree. However, what does need corrected is the common assertion, "The American Civil War was because of slavery", when it was one part of a greater economic formula. Slavery was an issue between states when there was a question of Texas being involved as a state. It was not, however, the "reason" for the conflict.
>>1328463
>secede because you don't like the idea of democracy going a way you don't like
>get your shit wrecked
>cry about how unjustified the war was and how they should have let you take half the country.
>>1328418
This is arguing a split USA could have won a "Spanish American war" and had possession of Guam, Phillipines, or even for that matter, had the back to usurp and claim Hawaii in the first place, to even be so involved in the Pacific for WW2.
>>1328490
>the south is beholden to the north, and can have no measure of self-determination
>>let you take half the country
>>take
as if it was the north's property
>>1328365
>"I AM A BIG RETARD WHO TWISTS HISTORY TO CONFORM TO MY VIEWS!!"
>except you're wrong you idiot
>"CRY SOME MORE HAHAHAH!!"
>>1328480
>the north invaded to preserve the union however, and had no designs to abolish slavery at the wars beginning, and only issued the emancipation proclamation to moral justify the war
Not quite. Lincoln always wanted to abolish slavery - that's why his election triggered secession. He just didn't want to abolish it at the expense of the union. Hence all of his assurances that he had no immediate plans to do so. Abolition would do nothing if the slave states left.
Can a dixiefag explain to me why they need to disconnect the Civil War from slavery when they hate blacks anyway?
>>1328548
A few answers.
Firstly, I'm not a CS supporter, but I am a sympathizer. I do not hate blacks and their are many like me.
Secondly, beforehand slaves that did not work on the factorylike cotton plantations were more akin to helpers around the homestead. Their "masters" worked in the fields with them, they assisted with cleaning and cooking in the house, and in most cases it wasn't so much the sort of whips and chains that typical notions of slavery bring to mind as much as it was that they purchased help.
The fall of the social hierarchy with emancipation also created a lot of the modern racial tension in that it created the situation we see today.
There is also at play the nature that white southerners will be in larger contact with southern blacks, and this creates a more "realistic" attitude towards things in that southern whites are going to see plainly the problems with the black communities that northerners can disregard from their far-away moral high horse. Living with each other, there is still overwhelmingly politeness towards each other which lent to the old adage paraphrased that a northerner, for all their talk, won't associate with a black person, and a southerner, for all their supposed racism still works with them on a daily basis.
>>1328497
>democracy is great unless it doesn't go your way
>>1328579
Wow, it's amazing how deluded some people can be
>>1328579
>slaves that did not work on the factorylike cotton plantations
Oh, so slaves that weren't most slaves?
The south was a shitshow. The Civil War was fought on behalf of rich plantation owners, poor whites counter-revolted against the CSA just because they were aristocratic dipshits running around trying to protect their income source at the expense of everyone else.
>>1329043
I'll preemptively that I just checked my first statement and it wasn't very accurate. No one needs to tell me I'm retarded.
>>1328579
If it wasnt about slavery and slave masters and whites were in such harmony before the war. Why did the politicians of the south punish blacks so greatly? Sounds a bit unfair when the war wasnt about blacks and it was the Union who destroyed the south.
>>1328272
The union had the Father of Industrial warfare on their side
I wish the North had just told the South to fuck off
We don't need or want you
Kinda stacked against them from the start, in a way.
Defensive War-->actually doing well
The history books won't tell you that the South was kicking ass at the beginning. This is due to the defensive nature of the CSA's army. Any military strategist will tell you that a defensive force, even 1/2 the size of the attacking force, has a distinct advantage.
>>1328380
>owning property is a crime
I want marxists to leave
>>1329313
>get arrested for possession of heroin
>hurr durr fucking Marxists it's muh property
>>1329331
Except slavery was legal at the time.
Do you support ex post facto arrests? If you do, then you shit on the constitution more than any southerner did..
>>1329353
I was insulting you based on the idea that owning something CAN'T be a crime, which is what your post implied.
>>1328272
They were just worse in every way pretty much. Only thing they had was home field but that can take you only so far.
>>1328365
Tears of joy over winning?
Dixie refused technology in favor of slave labor while the Yankees embraced it. The main leverage the south had was cotton that Europe could fill with linen. No industry guarantees the south loses. Also the war was not only about slavery. To most on here I know that's common knowledge but it bears repeating.
>>1329117
>and slave masters and whites were in such harmony before the war
Don't put words in my mouth. It's just silly to believe that the folks they worked and lived with on a daily basis would hate the shit out of each other.
>>1329043
And this applies to you and the above, but I didn't say that plantations weren't horrible, and I didn't say how many were on plantations and how many weren't. But most whites wouldn't be hateful to their help, but a plantation could have a handful of dickhead whites and hundreds of resentful blacks.
>>1329117
Because many working class whites hatred that emancipated slaves were taking their jobs by storm, AND they still had a iron-like hierarchy that they were displeased was uprooted.
>>1329026
Nice argument faggot
>>1329508
After a k:d ratio like that I'd hope you cry after finally having it over
>>1328272
Because Southerners are all bark and no bite.
Sherman gave them what they deserved.
>>1328365
His argument was valid and all you had was tears meme.
Pic related. You dumb fuck.
>>1329313
The concept of duty is not Marxist.
>>1328285
The only good dixie is pic related
>>1329631
The casualties of the war were 100% American.
All the blood shed in the war is on the hands of the traitors. They destroyed their economy, their political influence and their honor.
>>1329560
>not only about
Yes. Sure.
I'll buy that over
>not about
It's a shame a handful of our founding fathers knew that shit was bad and wanted to fix it, but were too greedy and wanted to stay competitive as private businessmen.
>>1329692
And to think all they had to do was admit owning humans was bad, not secede, and use their wealth to reinvest in industry. They could have even negotiated reparations for lost """assets"""
Anything was better than secession. Imagine the Cold War with America split into two or more nations. Nasty stuff.
Good thing Roosevelt used Jingoism and Rough Riders and Imperialism to heal the wounds.
>>1329703
Yeah. Even if you sympathize with them, secession was absolutely moronic.
>>1329353
>ex post fact arrests worse than owning people
The dixie grows more senile every year.
You're right. Slavery was legal. Pic related.
If that's not enough, ask yourself, if you were a slave, and master left his rifle close enough for you to grab one night, what would you do?
>>1329692
All y'all had to do was not invade the south. Lincoln openly made the war about preserving the union, and to do that they killed southerners.
>>1329191
Hell, we'd be better off without most of em. Apart from Texas, they're an economic liability.
>>1329703
I'm the most vocal confederate sympathizer ITT but the whole war was just a tragedy.
I don't necessarily think that the north winning was "good" but it's still for the best
>>1329848
All y'all had to do was recognize that owning humans is bad, give them their freedom, invest your agricultural wealth in industry, and negotiate reparations for your lost """assets"""
The United States wasn't going to survive on the world stage being a bunch of slave owners.
>>1329486
lawful ownership is not a crime
>>1328272
It was mostly due to the difference in manpower- not only for the obvious reasons, but because the South drafted almost all the shipwrights and carpenters into the army, allowing the North to maintain naval superiority. They blockaded the South from Chesapeake Bay to the Rio Grande and sent gunboats up the Mississippi river, both of which had a massive effect.
>>1329940
and the northern abolitionist plan that largely consisted of just fucking up the south economically and socially was going to be such a great contrast?
>>1328579
>>1329625
You have no actual argument that isn't rooted in revisionist history, you fucking idiot.
>Firstly, I'm not a CS supporter, but I am a sympathizer.
We can stop right there, nothing you say will be true at all
>Secondly, beforehand slaves that did not work on the factorylike cotton plantations were more akin to helpers around the homestead.
This is a lie. An estimated 60% of slaves worked on plantations picking cotton. And the ones that didn't were not helpers dipshit, they were still slaves
> Their "masters" worked in the fields with them, they assisted with cleaning and cooking in the house, and in most cases it wasn't so much the sort of whips and chains that typical notions of slavery bring to mind as much as it was that they purchased help.
Dishonest statement, the point of the slave was to do unwanted work, the master may have gone out and did some tidying up, but the slaves did the bulk of the work.
>There is also at play the nature that white southerners will be in larger contact with southern blacks, and this creates a more "realistic" attitude towards things in that southern whites are going to see plainly the problems with the black communities that northerners can disregard from their far-away moral high horse.
Another dishonest statement. You say this as if the problems most blacks are facing today, the same ones their ancestors faced when they were freed slavery, is due to their race. It isn't, it can be traced right back to the end of slavery. Let me ask you a question, when exactly did black people become equal to whites? Like when did they have equal access to the same level of education and actual protection under the law that white people did? Was it right after slavery ended? Sometime around the civil rights movement?
>...and a southerner, for all their supposed racism still works with them on a daily basis
Yeah, forget the KKK and the hundred years of state sanctioned lynchings and Jim Crow. The South was super polite
>>1329191
Nah, we should've occupied them longer and not given them their freedom so soon. They went straight to lynching blacks and keeping them as second class citizens, setting us back about 100 years in race relations
>there are people who support betrayal to the US government
>>1329644
>kill 300,000 yankees
>lose less than a third of that
>all bark and no bite
If we're all bark and no bite, why don't you come down and try it again?
>>1330385
>They went straight to lynching blacks and keeping them as second class citizens, setting us back about 100 years in race relations
1. Lynching wasn't only a Southern phenomenon
2. Lynching existed before the Civil War
3. You had a higher chance of being struck and killed by lightning than by lynched as a black man.
Just because your U.S. history teacher in high school played up lynching doesn't mean it was an every day occurrence in reality.
>>1329940
>fuck up your economy because of muh feelings
funny considering northern industrialization was bankrolled off southern slavery.
>>1329754
>half of nation built on genociding natives takes a moral high ground towards other half of nation
Also Jefferson never said that quote and was a proponent of the south and slavery apologist, you're the senile one
>>1329703
>use their wealth to reinvest in industry.
this is a yankee meme, industry couldn't happen in the south due to climate. Jefferson's grandson who supported the confederate cause had a very good speech saying that if the south wanted to industrialize, then they would have to secede in order to protect their fledgling manufacturing from northern competition in the same way the North needed tariffs to protect their manufacturing from Europe.
>>1329053
that's where you're wrong kiddo
>>1330380
>This is a lie. An estimated 60% of slaves worked on plantations picking cotton.
i already told you that i wasnt discussing any numerical amount. nothing in my post said it was not 60%, i specifically said that once who were NOT working on plantations.
>And the ones that didn't were not helpers dipshit, they were still slaves
a slave is a helper, but if you think anyone wants to spend all day literally whipping the shit out of their single or small handful of houseslaves, you're an idiot
history is littered with all manner of slavery, and little of it was constant chains and whips
>Dishonest statement, the point of the slave was to do unwanted work, the master may have gone out and did some tidying up, but the slaves did the bulk of the work.
source? if someone is running their own homestead, they're going to have lots of work to do and not much money lying around to just buy (very expensive) slaves. they're going to work because there's work to be done.
>Another dishonest statement. You say this as if the problems most blacks are facing today, the same ones their ancestors faced when they were freed slavery, is due to their race. It isn't, it can be traced right back to the end of slavery. Let me ask you a question, when exactly did black people become equal to whites? Like when did they have equal access to the same level of education and actual protection under the law that white people did? Was it right after slavery ended? Sometime around the civil rights movement?
>Yeah, forget the KKK and the hundred years of state sanctioned lynchings and Jim Crow. The South was super polite
you aren't elaborating your point precisely enough for me to feel like i can properly "address" anything, so I'm just going to give it my best shot.
when i said "a more "realistic" attitude towards things in that southern whites are going to see plainly the problems with the black communities" you took this to mean im some /pol/tard that thinks blacks are by nature or genetics
cont
>>1331299
just shitty. i meant that its things like how northerners can hear things like "black folks are incarcerated at a rate four times higher than whites" and think its institutionalized racism and not that blacks are commiting crime at a much higher rate than whites. I also know that this is do to a variety of factors, like sistematic povery, drug use, broken family units, gang problems, and much much more. northerners would sooner say that blacks can do no wrong rather than actually look at the scene and recognize there is a problem in need of fixing. many would call that simple notion racist because it dares to say that black communities are full of criminals.
>>1328285
>"studies" history
>good guys & bad guys
KYS
>>1331319
>defending your home is an absolutely neutral thing, there can be no right or wrong in this scenario
>>1328344
Not to mention that most confederate state constitutions had "right to slaves shall not be infringed" as amendments.
Whatever the north's position, the south was all in for slavery, for good.
>>1331329
Academic history is an absolutely neutral thing
but I forget where I was.
>>1331332
The states didn't make new constitutions when they joined the CSA.
>>1331313
>just shitty. i meant that its things like how northerners can hear things like "black folks are incarcerated at a rate four times higher than whites" and think its institutionalized racism and not that blacks are commiting crime at a much higher rate than whites.
Southerner here. Blacks are punished, police, and incarcerated disproportionately. They are way more likely to be caught for petty crimes like drug possession. They are way more likely to be pulled over. Their neighborhoods are policed by overwhelmingly non-black police. A lot of crime statistics about blacks on the internet are exaggerated and circulated to create negative perception.
One of our presidential candidates, the one who wants to make america great again, whatever that means, posted false statistics on twitter that I've seen circulated on /pol/ before.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/trump-retweets-bogus-crime-graphic/
This nation has a problem insisting blacks commit more crimes when they don't.
It's also easy to generate false statistics when we have biased law enforcers and far more property owning whites who can commit crimes secretly in the privacy of their own homes.
>>1331745
>blacks don't commit more crime than other groups.
How about you skip on down to your nearest black inner city neighborhood and spend the night there?
>>1328375
This is a good concise explanation for why the South lost.
Arguably their biggest loss was diplomatic: not getting recognition from the European powers. That's why you see a marked shift in recorded Confederate thought from the beginning of the war, where they openly boasted of preserving the institution of slavery, to the end of the war, where they hid their intentions behind more vague, general terms like "state's rights" and "property rights" instead.
>>1329313
>Anyone who challenges me to think is a Marxist and needs to stop right this instant
>>1328579
>I do not hate blacks and their are many like me.
>their are
I guess the stereotype of the dumb redneck who can't spell is true
>>1331745
You wouldn't happen to have an sources or proofs backing your statements other than that article disproving that Facebook-tier photo your link addressed, would you fellow Dixielander?
Because the FBI says otherwise, and I can't imagine how you'd be able to prove that blacks commit rape and assault on a magnitude several times larger than whites solely by way of the unreportedness as you describe.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43#disablemobile
>>1331952
Sorry my dude, my phone screws with me
>they're
:^)
>>1331745
blacks commit far more murders proportionally than whites, how can you even argue against that? That the police are making up dead bodies?
>>1330850
I got a better chance of being struck by lightning then being killed by ISIS. That doesn't mean I want ISIS in the U.S. Senate.
>>1328272
less railroads, factories, and population
>>1328272
Because they were treasonous scum.
>>1331952
>>1328394
in addition to the fact that the union had a much higher population to begin with
>>1328272
They had been counting on naval assistance from France and Britain but Lincoln threatened to annex Canada, among other things, in retaliation while France was too busy invading Mexico to lend them much help. Also they thought Maryland might join them and give them an easy victory by surrounding DC, but Lincoln had the whole state occupied to prevent this from happening.
>>1332107
>what is false equivalence
Lad...
>>1328272
>way smaller population compared to the north
>way less industrial production than the north
>practically no navy and therefore no commerce with other nations possible
There's almost no way they could have possibly won militarily. Maybe if the war became so politically unpopular there could have been a peace treaty, but the north kept winning so that never happened.
>>1328331
>everyone at the time said it was about slavery
>claim 150 years later it had nothing about slavery
It was actually most directly about the expansion of slavery into the western territories.
>>1334604
That was always the idea, the south thought that could just fight hard enough that they would realize trying to stop their secession was not worth the cost. Dixie only went northwards once they realized killing hundreds of thousands of Yankees was still not enough and that they needed to bring the horrors of war northwards so that politically the support would collapse. And it almost worked, rioting erupted in a number of major northern states.
>>1329122
based sherman
>oh sherman pls don't use scorched earth tactics on our beautiful southern countryside
BURN IT DOWN
>>1328272
They went on the offensive when they should have dug in.
>>1335230
Sherman's march to the sea was a meme made up by butthurt georgians. Georgia wasn't destroyed any worse than Virginia. Sherman was a meme general and only gets celebrated because Yankees had a pretty shit officer core other than Grant/Sheridan.
![19-civil-war-richmond-1865-granger[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/6PdbnZj.jpg "19-civil-war-richmond-1865-granger[1].jpg")
>>1335479
corps*
they were on the wrong side of history
>>1328331
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
dixie was weak, it has less population than the north, and a third or so of its meager population was slaves, it has industry sure, but the north was a titan of industry, the north also had even more farmland than the south (this is often left out)
the outcome was an inevitability
>>1328272
The Confederacy lacked the Industrial Power to fight against the North in a fashion that wasn't exclusively based on tactical evasion.
>>1329122
This
>>1335230
And this.
Industrial Warfare was the way of the future and scorched earth policy worked well for Russia in its defense. On the otherhand, the Confederacy did not utilize scorched earth policy because that would mean destroying property.
The fact the north utilized it on the offense goes to show that there was a level of situational irony with this civil war in terms of tactical action.
>>1328331
HEEERE WE GO AGAIN
>>1330935
>this is a yankee meme, industry couldn't happen in the south due to climate
What the fuck are you talking about. Shorter winters, hotter days, etc. probably meant it was easier to industrialize.
Explain.
>>1330923
>Jefferson never said that quote
https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/if-law-unjustquotation
Read it and weep.
>>1336976
>Comments: This quotation has not been found in Thomas Jefferson's papers. It has been suggested that it is a paraphrase of Jefferson's statement in the Declaration of Independence, "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...," although such a paraphrase would seem to be taking some radical liberties with the original version. The quotation bears a much closer resemblance to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s comment in his famous letter from Birmingham Jail: "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
Incompetence. Malnutrition. Cowardice. Take your pick.
South rising again when?
>>1337102
The fire rises...
![mg_1284-stoked[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/A30Yc5I.jpg "mg_1284-stoked[1].jpg")
>>1336972
early industrialization required workers being able to put in 10-12 hour days year-round in a factory around equipment powered by steam engines.
This mode of work was totally incompatible with the hot, humid climate of the vast majority of the South, which is why only Virginia had any extensive industrialization to speak of thanks to its milder weather. High humidity also fucked up the machines pretty quickly, causing them to rust and break more easily. The rest of the South didn't begin to industrialize in earnest until the widespread adoption of air conditioning which could keep working conditions dry and cool.
>>1331329
>WE WUZ DEFENDING OURSELVES AND SHEIT
>>1328272
>Why did Dixie lose the civil war?
Because the union was superior in every single way, with the exception of competent military leadership.
There is a really fun story of a young aspie looking man who made an ironclad with gun-point stolen iron from towns and villages. Cannot remember his name or the ironclad's.
>>1328954
they voted on whether or not to secede. Is that not democratic?
>>1337845
They actually didn't though. They held no referendums. The States just did it because they were drunk fire breathers who got upset they themselves lost the election by splitting the vote.
>>1335606
>the north also had even more farmland than the south (this is often left out)
And absolutely none of it could support cash crops needed for the industries the North had. That's why it's left out.
>dixieboos absolutely blown the fuck out ITT
>>1331952
How racist.
>>1330850
very true
why, even my own far northern city lynched a negro as far back as 1920s
no regrets, I never did see one in my state
>>1330850
1. Lynchings were state sanctioned in the South. The murderers never faced the law. Even in the 60's the FBI had to do their own investigations
2.Lynchings did exist before the civil war. They were often done on escaped slaves to make examples of them or on free blacks just because. Lynchings sky rocketed after the slaves were free though because the southerners hated the idea of blacks being equal to them
3. How is this relevant?
>>1331357
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution
Dude probably mispoke and confused them with their individual articles of secession.
>>1337922
>industries
Do you mean to say that this is the only element important to a nations logistics?
>>1338343
1. This is false.
2. I already stated they existed before the Civil War, among both yankees and in Dixie.
3. Because lynchings were extremely uncommon despite what you're trying to push. There were less than 5000 lynchings in the 90 years and over 1000 of them were white. Fuck off.
>>1338343
>Lynchings were state sanctioned in the South.
On the contrary, governors of Southern states often despised lynch mobs because they made the justice system look weak and ineffectual. And people posed for photos at lynchings in the North too because they knew they wouldn't be prosecuted.
>>1328280
pretty much this plus more soldiers/bullet sponges necessary for attritional warfare
>>1328272
>Why did Dixie lose the civil war? Was it because they had no highly advanced military telegraphy network like the yankees did?
Because at the start they only a single rolling steel mill. That caused the CSS Virginia to be delayed for 5 weeks because everyone need what was coming out of it. The CS Secretary of the Navy Stephen R. Mallory was a very foreword thinker who had to do a lot of lobbying to get his hand on the iron for his first ironclad. He only got his way after the south started losing freight.
Anyways with how much work the CSS Virginia did on its first day image if it had a extra month before facing the USS Monitor. At the very lest it would cause a short term withdraw of the navy blockade.
>>1337517
literally what else would you call preventing a foreign army from sacking your home?
>>1341315
What happens when you attack said foreign country
>>1341318
the war was the north meaning to keep the union. Lincoln made this very clear.
>>1328272
All this butthurt from Dixie...It's glorious.
You've just declared independence from yankee tyranny when this guy invades the northern part of your newly established confederation and starts massacring the civilian population residing there. What do you do?
not as much resources
or as much manpower
nor as much government organization
it was impressive that the confeds lasted as long as they did.
>>1329714
It was also illegal, as there were no (and still probably aren't) provisions for it.
![144311-004-F3A9EBE5[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/bBDJJNX.jpg "144311-004-F3A9EBE5[1].jpg")
>>1342336
"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."
tell me where in the constitution secession is prohibited
>>1337242
Good job anon. You satisfied my incredulity, and you justified the Agrarian south. Thanks!
t. Slavery is still bad but I see your point Guy
>>1342193
Oh fuck off.
>>1328579
I fucking hate closet racists. Stop pretending you didn't wish all niggers were enslaved. Same thing with holocaust deniers. What's wrong with it? Wasn't it great that it happened? Do or do not, there is no try.
>>1328272
>Why did Dixie lose the civil war?
your Mother's fat ass
>>1337833
>Because the union was superior in every single way, with the exception of competent military leadership.
More specifically, army leadership. There was a weird cultural rift where army officers were mostly southern but navy officers were overwhelmingly northern.
>seeing someone flying both an American and a Confederate flag
>>1344531
You can be an American patriot while still celebrate your Army of northern Virginia heritage.
>>1344531
why?
>>1328331
>>1344531
I had no idea the South wasn't part of the US anymore, I really should pay more attention to the news.
>>1344711
>I'm proud my ancestors were traitors!
>>1347118
You shouldn't talk about the founding fathers like that.
>>1346788
Can you rephrase that so it makes sense.
>>1328272
They had less everything.
>>1347512
Why?
>>1328280
>>1328285
These two things essentially
The South had superior generals but none of the infrastructure advantages the North had. Which is why it was even more egregious when the North burned down large sections of the South despite an already well-accepted advantage.
I'm not blaming the North for the South's poverty and white-trash issues, but they destroyed so much wealth and foundation in the South it's no wonder it took well over a century for the region to fully rebound.
>>1328272
Because US Grant was a better general than Robert E Lee
>>1328954
Easy to say when the politics around slavery didn't directly affect the millions of people living in the North, except that they could get cheap cotton for their mills.
Hell, cotton might have even been cheaper 10 years after the Civil War.
>>1329043
Poor CSA whites were retarded, without slavery in the early to mid 19th century the South would have been poor as shit. It was in the poor white's interest to defend the CSA, as it would mean future industrial expansion and more jobs.
tfw you realize the Union is responsible for Vietnam, Iraq, 9/11 and basically all the terrible things ever
>>1347721
The Confederacy's sole purpose was to detatch itself from the US. There is nothing American about the Confederacy or its flag.
>>1348120
They were American states and called themselves the Confederate States of AMERICA. How are they not American?
>>1328331
can somebody tell me the major industries in the south and what type of labor said industries ran on at the time of the civil war? i seem to have a hard time remembering it right now
>>1328526
He never said he wanted to abolish it at all. He wanted to prevent expansion into newly admitted states. He was fine with it in the already developed South.
>>1328285
>it's another south dindu nuffin post
>>1347721
Both fought against America and killed American men. So whats the difference between them?
>>1347779
>i-it'll trickle down!
>>1349587
slavery kept blacks from competing with poor whites for jobs.
>>1349521
Are you retarded? They weren't citizens of the union (America) they were confederates.
But answer the question, how is flying any flag related to their treasonous cause different from flying the flag of ISIS
>>1349613
>flying the flag of ISIS
how is the CSA in any way comparable to ISIS other than the fact they dislike the US federal government?
>>1349631
How are they not comparable? Both fought the US for shitty causes, the CSA for slavery and ISIS/Al-qaeda for Islamic domination. Both have killed American soldiers. So how are they not similar?
>>1349599
it also kept thousands of jobs off the market
![Horace_Maynard_-_Brady-Handy[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/iE8ucGU.jpg "Horace_Maynard_-_Brady-Handy[1].jpg")
"the President's extraordinary proclamation [call to arms against South Carolina] has unleashed a tornado of excitement that seems likely to sweep us all away. Men who had heretofore been cool, firm and Union loving had become perfectly wild and are aroused to a frenzy of passion. For what purpose, they ask, could such an army be wanted but to invade, overrun and subjugate the Southern states...Never was published a more unfortunate state-paper. It has done more, and I think I speak considerately, to promote disunion, than any and all other causes."
What did he mean by this?
>>1349641
I refuse to believe that anyone can be so tone deaf that they fail to see understand the differences between the flag of an American secessionist movement from over 150 years ago which enjoyed popular regional support and the flag of a modern apocalyptic cult that proudly commits genocide and terrorism against civilians and tortures people to death on camera for entertainment. If you still fail to understand the difference then you need a serious reality check.
>>1349241
preventing its spread Westward meant it was only a matter of time before the South would be so heavily outnumbered in Congress that it would be powerless to stop northern congressmen and senators from ramming emancipation, and other things like sky-high tariffs, through both houses. This would have happened anyway because the climate of the West wasn't suitable for the Southern system. Even if the South didn't have slavery at all it still would have been in the position of an underpopulated region with an untenable position of political parity with the more heavily populated North. They had to leave or be totally subordinated to Northern economic interests as the North rapidly ascended in numbers and power. It's unfortunate for them that they tarnished their image in the eyes of posterity by choosing to chimp out and leave over slavery, but they were doomed to either leave or be reduced no matter how things played out. A sparsely inhabited, underdeveloped region could not and would not have been allowed to stand in the way of moneyed interests and their plans for developing the American continent
>>1347736
>Which is why it was even more egregious when the North burned down large sections of the South despite an already well-accepted advantage.
>start war
>get mad when other side destroys your infrastructure to hasten the end of the war
I can't come up with anything snarky enough for the post-greentext one-liner so I'm just going to call you a dumb faggot.
>>1349694
>American secessionist movement from over 150 years ago which enjoyed popular regional support
So because they had the support of a bunch of whites who didn't want blacks to be equal to them, that makes it alright? Islamic extremist also have support, I'd say more than the CSA did at that time, so whats your point?
> modern apocalyptic cult that proudly commits genocide and terrorism against civilians and tortures people to death on camera for entertainment
And the CSA tortured runaway slaves when they were caught, massacred black union troops and usually executed them if they were captured, and fought a war because they thought Lincoln would make them equal to blacks. And after the slaves were free, they lynched, beaten and kept as second class citizens for 100 years.
So how are the confederates any different than Islamic extremist? At least with the muslims you can convert no matter your race, seem to be more accepting than the confederates.
>>1342193
>enslave and rape millions
>based sherm burns down a town
>muh greatest atrocity
The south, everybody
>>1350120
>Islamic extremist also have support, I'd say more than the CSA did at that time
ISIS is most certainly not supported by the majority of Syrians. You must be totally ignorant of the middle east and Islam to even entertain this notion.
>And the CSA tortured runaway slaves when they were caught,
Shop owners in the north beat the shit out of their runaway apprentices and shot strikers. Laborers always get shit on when they threaten their boss's bottom line.
>after the slaves were free, they lynched, beaten and kept as second class citizens for 100 years.
Lynchings occurred as far north as Duluth. The biggest race riot in US history happened in New York during the Civil War. Minstrel shows were started in the north and were a distinctly northern art form. The majority of race riots in the US during the 20th century have occurred outside the South. You are deluded if you think racism against black people is distinctly Southern.
You need to judge people and governments by the standards of their era. You might as well not wave the US flag either if you are disgusted by the deeds committed under it. It was the flag of slave owners before and during the Civil War in the border states. Federal troops were engaging in literal genocide in California while the Confederate congress offered Indian tribes representation in their government. General Sherman helped formulate the strategy of killing all the buffalo to cause mass starvation among the Sioux. People in the 19th century did all kinds of fucked up shit, but the Confederates were hardly more cruel than others in the Americas.
Meanwhile in the present, no modern state but ISIS is openly committing violent genocide against religious minorities and enslaving thousands of women and girls. No modern state but ISIS is executing people with nitric acid for fun. JFC I can't believe I'm bothering to respond to you. You're either a troll or a retard.
![Flaming_June_North_detail_2000[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/7hPKoPy.jpg "Flaming_June_North_detail_2000[2].jpg")
>>1344531
>mfw someone flies the St Andrew's Cross and a Union Jack
>>1350353
Great post, but stop feeding him.
