What's your favorite rebellion/illegitimate/against-the-grain/etc. faction in history?
For me, it's either the South or the French Revolution peasants.
>>462399
The South. One, I'm from the South and two I admire how they were able to "hang in there" with the North despite being disadvantaged in virtually all areas but leadership.
The Boshin War and the Satsuma Rebellion.
Black Russians.
Disregard white Russians, disregard reds.
The CSA and Texas
And Skyrim's Stormcloaks
>>463298
The empire and stormcloaks conflict is nearly completely irrelevant.
>>463308
Skyrim is for the Nords
>>463314
You're gonna get cucked by the Elves without them.
Basically your only hope is to sail to Akavir and hope for a better life.
>>463346
With the Empire, you're cuçked by the elves already.
Hammerfell pulled it off.
>>462399
>>462457
Why do people idolize the CSA? Ignoring anything to do with slavery, what is there to admire?
>President was a total dumbshit
>Tried being a confederation even though it worked terribly when America originally tried it
>Most of the military was based in the south but they still lost
>Shunned industrialization in favor of an economic model that had been useful for a long time but was going to be outdated very soon
>Caused the bloodiest war in American history in which Americans killed other Americans over an issue that they had no stakes or personal investment in
>Failed to make a convincing case for their principles because they lost the war to a militarily-inferior country
>>463352
Because muh states rights
>>463352
Some just hate black people and some like the underdog story.
>>463359
Its kinda silly. Fixing the CSA after it was made would make it just be a smaller USA, so there wouldn't be a point to fixing the CSA, just making it so it never split off in the first place.
>>463352
I'm one of the guys you quoted.
Ancestors on my fathers side fought for the CSA. They weren't slave owners; a majority that fought weren't. It really was because muh rights. Really, if you want to devolve it to slavery alone, so be it, I don't mind.
The Civil War started over the national governments roll in telling states what they could and could not do. It was slavery then but replace it with gun control now or civil rights in the 1960s. The uncompromising issue can change but the premise remains the same.
>>462486
this and kekalonia
>>462399
Right SR Tambov.
>>463570
>the national government has supremacy over state governments
What dipshit can't figure this out
>>463608
>national government has supremacy over state governments
No shit, state sovereignty requires a central component. It doesn't mean that latter renders the former unimportant or secondary.
I mean, fuck, the Federalist Papers leave very little to the imagination of the role of states rights under a central government.
>>462399
The Freikorps smashing the Communists in 1919 was fucking rad as hell.
>>463570
>states rights
the only right in question was slavery.
The confederate constitution wasn't any more free or any looser than the US constitution.
>>463352
>Caused the bloodiest war in American history in which Americans killed other Americans over an issue that they had no stakes or personal investment in
Lincoln's decision to refuse to let the south secede caused the war. Well over 90% of southerners supported the secession (by comparison only about 1/3rd of Americans were in favour of the revolution against Britain). They had no intention of attacking the North. There was no reason for Lincoln of seek to keep hold of the south militarily other than out of sheer imperialist greed.
The south has suffered a long history of persecution at the hands of the north. The more recent attempts the reduce everything about southern identity down to 'they owned slaves', i.e. the attempts to ban the 'confederate flag' (confederates never actually used it), are just the latest in a long line of oppressive actions.
>>463795
No. It wasn't. Fuck you guys are idiots.
>I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so - Lincoln
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff
It's wasnt as white and black as let's go to war over these slavery issues.
>>463795
I think you should read more about John C. Calhoun and this wild idea he was floating about called "nullification". That resonated with a lot of the secessionists.
>>463906
>Well over 90% of southerners supported the secession (by comparison only about 1/3rd of Americans were in favour of the revolution against Britain).
Citation
>They had no intention of attacking the North.
Fort Sumter
>>463405
It's always both, but yes, this. Note that they're idiots as well.
>>463352
muh redneck pride
>>463570
>They weren't slave owners; a majority that fought weren't.
>[Ergo:] It really was because muh rights [i.e.: not "muh rights to own slaves"].
That doesn't follow.
>>463759
>being a Nazi LARPer
>>463909
CS constitution
Article I Section 9(4)
>No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
It wasn't just about slavery, but states' rights and conflict between agricultural economies vs industrialization were both closely tied to slavery.
>>463906
>Lincoln's decision to refuse to let the south secede caused the war.
Yeah, no shit. And the South wanted to succeed because they wanted to preserve slavery. Why the fuck do you think Bleeding Kansas happened? Because slavers and abolitionists fought each other so their side could form the majority population of new Western states, tip the congressional majority in their favor, and preserve/outlaw slavery. There may be OTHER reasons but none of them led to succession, which isn't surprising since Southerners built their economy on slave labor.
>>463352
>militarily-inferior country
the north had a much bigger and more advanced army. by 1863, the union army was the largest in the world. You said it yourself, the north was an industrial powerhouse, which also had 10 times as much railways as the south, which was mostly agrarian.
The ONLY advantage the south had was better commanders.
>>463973
>Fort Sumter
Fort Sumter is in the south you idiot
>>463992
Preaching to the choir. This other guy is acting like I'm saying slavery had nothing to do with it.
>>463973
>Fort Sumter
Unaware of the months long correspondence between Buchannan and Pickens to evacuate the fort without bloodshed on either side? Unaware that the South Carolina governor was trying to resolve the issue?
Do you hate n*ggers? Then the CSA and the Rhodesia absolutely does not represent what you support whatsoever!
>>464037
There were certainly pro-slavery forces that were willing to fight (bleeding Kansas). Regardless, seceding from the union completely violated the constitution and would set the precedent that any state with a little bitch could secede.
>>464053
Where exactly in the constitution does it say that a state cannot secede?
I'm waiting.
>>463906
How are southerners this stupid
No wonder your states are unilaterally shitholes
>>464061
>what are implied powers
>mfw the descendants of dead faggots mowed down by superior Union firepower are still butt devastated a century and half later
>>463906
the real revisionist history of the civil war is that the south hated and wanted to take over America.
When it was really them just not wanting to be part of the US anymore and fighting them off to leave them alone.
>>464053
The point wasn't to justify their secession. The point was that they tried for months to avoid actual conflict. You
know, cause I was replying to a guy that said the Northerners weren't the aggressors.
Oh fuck it. I'm done with this board.
>>464075
>we're gonna violate the constitution and attack first
>why are you mad?
>>464065
>one means all
And we're the stereotyping assholes?
>>464078
>south attacks first
>yeah the northerners were the aggressors
How can you be this stupid
You can't get around this
>>464037
>
Unaware of the months long correspondence between Buchannan and Pickens to evacuate the fort without bloodshed on either side? Unaware that the South Carolina governor was trying to resolve the issue?
Unaware that the south still attacked it?
>>464019
Federal land and property.
>>464080
Booty blasted southerner confirmed
>>464074
>he doesn't know the Union suffered nearly 200,000 more casualties
>>464072
>muh implied powers
Cite and actual quotation, from the Constitution, that explicitly and clearly prohibits the secession of member states of the US.
>>464078
>>464079
>>464082
Attacking Fort Sumter was dumb, but Lincoln's administration forced the issue. The deep South would never have looked legitimate with the Union controlling parts of their sovereign territories.
Lincoln and his cabinet knew well enough what the Southern response would be, they were just as belligerent as the North.
I also love how all the Northerners itt are literally proving OP's point.
>>464079
>>we're gonna violate the constitution and attack first
once again, this wasnt added until after the war
The south wanted to leave and be its own country, but the north freaked out and invaded them and forced them to stay in.
>>463608
You actually think it's that simple?
>>464082
>>464083
"Hey dude, we're gonna have to attack this if you remain. Let's just be diplomatic and you pack up and everyone goes home."
Buchanan: I don't know man.
"No I'm being serious, lets just let cooler heads prevail. We could have taken it by now but I'm appealing to you first."
Buchanan: I don't know man.
It's like saying I'm guilty for killing your violent dog after its made postures for attack (resupplying the fort) after I've asked you nicely to get it out of my yard.
>>464101
>South attacked first after months of attempts to get the north to peacefully leave their territory before forcing them to
fixed that for you. I also like how you still cant point out where it said states couldnt seceded if they wanted to. Never mind that at the time, no one was saying that it was illegal and before hostilities started, Lincoln was begging the south to come back so bad that he said he wouldnt take away any of their slaves
>>464101
>Southerner
I live out West, actually, I think that both the North and the South were fucking retarded in the antebellum period.
The South was given no choice in attacking first.
If the North had been in the position the South had been in (E.g., If the North had seceded), would you be okay with the Southern lead US occupying Long Island or something?
>>464093
Read Georgia's dickhead. Slavery abound but plenty of other reasons.
>>463973
>Citation
That was actually the founding fathers' own estimate - 'a third for, a third against, a third undecided'. Can't remember where I read it though, you'll have to look it up. I think modern historians count it more as 50/50, because the 'undecideds' were split in who they leant towards.
KING Louis XVI of France did absolutely nothing wrong and the French Revolution was an uprising of sub-humans and one of the most disgusting events in all of western history.
If you like the French Revolution then you hate order.
>>464112
A more accurate comparison would be an insignificant island off of Maryland, not the economic hub of a region. And if I had violated the constitution and attacked first, then yeah it's understandable
>>464121
>So if I declare independence from the union im entirely legally my own country?
Are you a state? stop being retareded.
By your own logic, the government should beat the shit out of you and FORCE you to remain a US citizen if you were thinking about moving to another country for whatever reason you had.
>>464121
Fort Sumter was not a plot of land. You had a US Army Major moving troops and artillery to it, without proper authorization and under complete secrecy.
South Carolina gets wind of this and says hey, Buchannan, you really need to leave before this guy does something brash.
>>464130
>And if I had violated the constitution and attacked first
which part of the constitution?
>>464131
>stop being retarded, you can't do that
Well you haven't shown me a part of the constitution that says I cant :^)
>>464130
>insignificant island
Sumter controls the entire Charleston harbor basically. The North was openly planning on collecting tariffs and taxes on all cargo going into Charleston (one of the Confederacies largest ports) as if South Carolina was still part of the Union.
>>464136
Literally it's existence as a document
What part of >united is confusing
>>464141
That would involve more knowledge than what he learned in school or saw on TV. You know most of these posters don't know shit about history, right? They can't be bothered to research shit of common knowledge.
>>463352
>President was a total dumbshit
No CSA idolizer ever talks about Jefferson Davis as if he was some kind of hero, it's always Lee
>Tried being a confederation even though it worked terribly when America originally tried it
The CSA was pretty different than the articles of confederation government desu, and one of the main reasons the confederation government failed was that states were squabbling about territory out west and reffering to their charters that they got under britain
>Most of the military was based in the south but they still lost
Most of the military leadership, yes, but not most of the military, that's just flat out wrong
>Shunned industrialization in favor of an economic model that had been useful for a long time but was going to be outdated very soon
I wouldn't say "shunned" that's too strong a word and implies some kind of conscious decision not to industrialize instead of a vested interest in not industrializing
>Caused the bloodiest war in American history in which Americans killed other Americans over an issue that they had no stakes or personal investment in
They most definitely had a stake and personal investment in, are you retarded? Most of the generals and soldiers risked their lives and land to secede.
>Failed to make a convincing case for their principles because they lost the war to a militarily-inferior country
Flat out wrong.
I'm guilty though, I'm blue-blood southern on both sides, had 12 male ancestors die in the civil war.
>>464143
So in other words, you cant point out the part where it says a state cant leave. Cool, so the argument that it was illegal is bullshit until you can.
Ad if it was, then I want you to try and explain how literally no one at the time was arguing that case and the north was just begging the south to come back
>>464065
not a southerner. not even an American.
>>463995
I never talked about why the south wanted to secede. That definitely centred around slavery - although it wasn't so much that the north would outright ban slavery as put so many restrictions on it as to make it unprofitable and wreck the south's economy. The big issue in the decades leading up to the civil war was whether slavery would be legal in the new states admitted to the union. The southerners argued bitterly over this because even though it didn't affect the legality of slavery in their states directly, if a slave state found itself neighbours with a free state then the demand for slaves would obviously be lower and hence there would be a huge effect on the price of slaves. The South's aristocracy had a huge amount of their wealth invested in slaves. If the price dropped, they'd all be ruined. Hence they felt they had to go a separate course from the north.
The point is that slavery had jack shit to do with why the North wanted the south to stay. They just wanted to hold onto the land.
>>464094
Power is implied by the business end of a gun, whoever has the bigger one is in charge.
>>464149
Basically everything the government does rn isn't specified in the document
>the north was begging the south to come back
>b-b-but they totally hated us and we're warmongers
>>464154
exactly why slavery was legal in the south and the south was justified in their defense of their way life. federalist faggots fuck off back leddit were you belong
>>464158
Are you seriously trying to argue that the north didnt want the south to stay? The civil war? Are you actually this fucking stupid?
>>464121
a person cant be a country you idiot.
>>464154
Way to move the goalposts friend. You (our some other poster), made the claim that it was specifically illegal for the South to secede; no mention was made by either myself, or any other poster, over whether the South had the means of ACTUALLY seceding.
I will agree with you, the South tried to make secession an actuality with war, and they failed. Doesn't mean that what they were attempting was illegal.
I find it kind of sad that the Northern argument for the war boils down to either:
>Muh Slaves
(Pro-tip: The Northern soldiers were just as racist as Southerners. The majority of Northerners could care less about the slaves, and even abolitionists thought that slavery was wrong economically, not morally.)
>Muh military might
Those are not really very noble reasons to fight a war. A government based on the enslavement of many for the benefit of the few is equally shitty, but at least the South can make an argument that what they did was for their land and way of life. Northerners were essentially fighting because they wanted to force other people to conform to their ideals.
>>464189
>(Pro-tip: The Northern soldiers were just as racist as Southerners. The majority of Northerners could care less about the slaves, and even abolitionists thought that slavery was wrong economically, not morally.)
not to mention this didnt become the great moral reason until a year into the war. You also had shit like the New York draft riots.
>>463352
>President was a total dumbshit
No disagreement there
>Tried being a confederation even though it worked terribly when America originally tried it
The wanted to move away from the centralization of power that Lincoln later instituted
>Most of the military was based in the south but they still lost
Most? The North in sheer numbers outnumber the rebs 2 to 1 at least.
>Shunned industrialization in favor of an economic model that had been useful for a long time but was going to be outdated very soon.
So? Yeah slavery was on its way out, but the farming methods that kept slavery alive prior to the war kept on after the civil war for almost anotther 20 or 30 years.
>Caused the bloodiest war in American history in which Americans killed other Americans over an issue that they had no stakes or personal investment in
Lincoln could have simply removed troops from ft Sumter instead of attempting to resupply them, he is just as guilty of not backing down.
Conflict would've happened eventually anyways.
>Failed to make a convincing case for their principles because they lost the war to a militarily-inferior country
Their principles were doomed from the start, the point is people idolize the underdog, especially an underdog that put up a hell of fight from superior numbers, and this is why the CSA is idolized today.
>>463359
Thats a stupid statement. Its not like tractors were mass produced in 1850, and slaves did make the southern economy.
>hold up victor, let me look 200 years into the future to see if this is a good idea
Star of the West, January 9th, 1861
El Cid 1T4
>>464213
>Their principles were doomed from the start, the point is people idolize the underdog, especially an underdog that put up a hell of fight from superior numbers, and this is why the CSA is idolized today.
people seem to forget that how quickly and bloodless people thought the war was going to be. Most people in the north thought it would last a month, and that the north would just march in, slap the south around in their first battle, and then it would be over.
>>463352
>confederates had a larger army
No, union easilly could produce more soldiers.
>>464153
>even though it didn't affect the legality of slavery in their states directly
Slavers were concerned with the West exactly because the admission of free states would have resulted in the outlawing of slavery in the union. That was literally the entire reason for populating the West at that time. Succession was enacted exactly because they knew this would happen.
Not allowing succession was a mistake on Lincoln's part. Or, at least, beating the CSA was a mistake. The world should have never had a strong North America, and the CSA breakaway would have eventually weakened both the North and South to a point where they couldn't have taken on the mantle of Empire the way the USA have. Best case scenario would have been the CSA winning and taking over the Union, but crumbling because they never had a real modern state-building plan and they no doubt would have lost its best chance at rebuilding through grudge purging Union politicians and businessmen. Eventually the CSA would come undone entirely by slave revolutions, probably aided by the British/French/Spanish, that wipe out the White aristocrats and their cronies.
>>464233
>USA
>empire
It isn't
>american hegemony, which is real
>bad
Pick one.
You're living in an unprecedented era of free trade and relative global peace, because there's a hyper-power that can an will stick its dick in anything it thinks will affect global commerce.
>>464247
>It isn't
>Pick one.
Funny joke
>>464233
If the CSA had successfully Seceded and by some odds somehow avoided conflict with the north for the next 60 years it would've crumbled as Oligarchal system that would've made up the Gov't would most certainly have screwed them over.
Worst case scenario they would've begged the union by 1920 to readmit them, their economic system would simply be unsustainable with the technological innovations in the late 19th century.
Regardless the Union STILL would have ended up become imperialistic in the 1890's and still would've been a power to reckon with in the 1900's regardless of the World Wars.
You seem to fail to grasp that the south largely was a drain on the union after the civil war up until the 40's becuase of Reconstruction, the US in spite of that still had enough resources to fight and help win two world wars which set itself as the other superpower in the late 20th century.
>>463982
Not knowing the original nazis.
>>464270
Do you own any land? because thats all a country is you stupid fuck. Its not just people
Also, them leaving was based off of the idea that each state is basically its own country in a way, and then them joining up into a confederacy.
your analogy is fucking stupid so just drop it
>>464216
Decentralization makes for a weak state and a weak nation, which mean weaker military and less organization.
>>464306
It's no different. I own my house and I could ask my brother to secede with me and by your logic there is no way the government could stop me
>>464269
That's why I favor the CSA winning the civil war version. However, I think a self-crumbling CSA in a no-war scenario could have been defeated by slave revolutions. The question then would be: does the USA aid the slaves in their revolts and then invade and kill the slave revolutionaries, or do they just wait for the slaves to do all the work and then invade and kill the slave revolutionaries? Britain, France, and Spain could intervene, making things complicated.
>>464320
how can a person secede you idiot? you are comparing individuals to countries.
You couldnt show where in the constitution is said secession was illegal, so now you are being retarded on purpose.
>>463570
>states rights
Which is why they pushed for the Fugitive Slave Act, right?
>>464329
>a person
Two people. We could establish a government, crown ourselves princes, etc.
>>463410
The whole point of the CSA was because they lost dominance of USA politics and economics. If they couldn't control the USA. They form their own country.
>>464094
see you assume a purely legislative stance on law and america comes from a common law tradition i.e. english lay in english common law most rules regulations and even some laws are implied by other aws or documentation but upheld by the will of the judiciary this is what allows juries to ignore laws and pass guilty and not guilty verdicts, and allows judges discretion in sentencing , as well as gave the supreme court the impetus to rule as it did in Maybury vs madison to become the third check and balance in our government a power not explicitly given by the constitution but implicitly given. it is this same implication that the states could not succeed upon becoming full states because then why would they agree to be governed as the constitution guides. It is now an even greater implication after the failed attempt the southerners made setting very violently the precedent that the union shall not be broken for any reason. the whole of the reason for the attack on fort sumner was the election of lincoln and the idea that he could support emancipation.
>>464269
Mostly this to be quite honest family. The civil war was the last deathrattle of a dying way of life, and a dying way of thinking and living. It's sad, but it's pretty much true. The world was modernizing and the huge palatial estates with lots of slaves of the past were not in the picture so to speak.
>>464322
>However, I think a self-crumbling CSA in a no-war scenario could have been defeated by slave revolutions
No way, the south had many fortified areas and towns (like the Citadel in Charleston) to protect themselves in the event of a slave uprising.
It's important to note that the south in 1860 wasn't like aparthied south africa, there was a much more equal black/white ratio. I'm more of a fan of the eventual phasing out as the idea of slave-based commercial agriculture leading to pretty much all blacks being freed and slavery abolished more as a formality than anything.
>>464330
"Fugitive slave" is another way of saying "states rights"
>>464336
people arent countries you stupid faggot, for the last time.
also, you need land which you dont have. This stupid hypothetical as a way to steer the conversation away from your inability to show where in the constitution secession is illegal is dumb.
Im done with you
>>464351
>I own a house
But reading comprehension is for uppity northerners, right?
>>464355
>owning a house is the same as owning land
>>464362
>own house and own the land it's on
But I thought you were done with this conversation :^)
>>464364
reminder that you still havent proved your point and your passive aggression is a clear indication that I won the argument.
have fun being mad for the rest of the night though
also, you clearly dont own land or a house.
>>464370
Reminder that you said you were quitting but didn't and you still haven't proven your point at all and you were the one who rage quit, indicating you're the butthurt one.
>>464345
>I'm more of a fan of the eventual phasing out as the idea of slave-based commercial agriculture leading to pretty much all blacks being freed and slavery abolished more as a formality than anything.
KEK If that had happened they would have all emigrated north, or the south would've tried its best to send them all back to Africa.
Hell there might've been a civil war over the fact that we were letting some many freed slaves into the north.
>>464384
>implying that didn't actually happen
How do you think black people got to detroit, why do you think Liberia's flag looks like the USA flag?
>>464309
It also means state rights, which are dead today.
>>464309
He was arguing over the industrialization part, but In theory with decentralization they could've held a gov't together for at least a decade.
You forget there were times early on in the War things were going badly and if Lincoln had not won the election and the population was fed up with war that they would've sued for peace.
Which I think largely was the South's goal, they weren't looking to occupy the North inasmuch tell them to leave them the fuck alone.
No one in the south or the north had the foresight to see that the south's policies would've screwed them over, eventually.
>>464350
>we can go to free states and take people away because we want them waaaah
>state's rights
Seems legit
>>464391
It wouldv'e been MUCH much worse than the black flight that occurred in the late 19th century.
They would've been forced out, not just coaxed north.
>>464345
>It's sad
Nah, overturning the Southern aristocracy was long overdue and a social good.
>>463906
>Secedes from Union opening up a rival to the South and taking tons of land both Northern and Souther troops fought dearly for.
>duurrr hurr lincoln's fault for not bending over and letting ol' Jeff davy fuck him raw.
>>464153
It has been debunked that slavery was still profitable. Paid labor had already become cheaper.
>>464423
It's sad for me, that's really what I meant.
>Grandpa takes me for a drive as a kid
>We go upstate a while, eventually stop at a dollar general on the side of some random road
>Grandpa and I walk to the edge of the parking lot, it overlooks a huge marsh with trees
>Tells me about how his grandfather took him up to this very spot and told him about his father and his plantation
>and how he came home in a coffin after first manassas
>turns out almost every single male family member died
>whole branches of the family wiped out
>plantation house burned, land confiscated
>tells me about how his grandfather would cry
I guess you can be sad that statism won or something.
>>464451
And nothing of value was lost.
>>464362
Are you fucking kidding me right now? Jesus Christ I don't give half a shit about muh state rights but basically as long as land fucking law has existed houses and such things so attached to the ground has been treated as land. Christ you're one legally uneducated cunt. If he was referring to a flat in the form of some kind of strata title or renting you might have some kind of point but as it stands you just look fucking dumb. Just read some Blackstone for how they viewed it way back
>>463570
>They weren't slave owners; a majority that fought weren't.
Yeah, they were just dumb shitkickers fooled into fighting for the rights of rich people to keep making absurd amounts of money at the expense of both poor whites and black slaves. The whole Civil War was about a wealthy elite trying to hold onto their wealth and brainwashing the masses into thinking it was about states rights.
>>464145
>I wouldn't say "shunned" that's too strong a word and implies some kind of conscious decision not to industrialize instead of a vested interest in not industrializing
Which I think shouldn't be underestimated in how horribly horribly flawed that fact made the Confederacy. It was all about a bunch of rich dudes trying to hold onto their wealth a little longer than they otherwise would have and they were willing to sacrifice millions of lives to do it.
>>464451
No. My family were poor ass farmers. And your family's whole system of slavery and plantations kept them so. You fucking aristocrats got us into a stupid fucking war to keep your slavery intact. You kept the South locked in the 18th century while everyone else was modernizing, and fed the people false propaganda that the union was gonna come for them. Don't get me wrong, I have no love lost for the union. Anyone who uses scorched earth tactics during a revolution can go fuck themselves, but it's you people and your greed that got us there in the first place. My family fought for states rights, and so that the union wouldn't burn their homes down. Thanks to your family, I can't reveal that without being called a racist hick, and my grandpa gets his car vandalized whenever he tries to put the flag my Great-great-great-grandpa bled and my great great great uncle died under. Sorry your family lost so much blood, but they brought it upon themselves. Your family fooled a nation into killing itself in a desperate grasp for power. My G-G-G-Grandfather walked all the way from a prison camp in Illinois to Georgia to find a burnt down farm and a dead brother. And for what? It wasn't states rights, like he'd been told. It wasn't a crusade of freedom, for which he saluted the stars and bars with pride. It was your stupid money and your fucking slaves. Fuck you, I hope your plantation burned to the fucking ground.
>>464790
This.
Racism in the South was also a tool the Aristocrats used to keep both whites and blacks down. Dehumanizing blacks made them more usable as slaves and telling poor whites that they were better than slaves placated them so they cared less about the unfair wealth distribution in the South.
>>463570
>They weren't slave owners; a majority that fought weren't.
Your ancestors were literal idiots. The biggest issue of slavery wasn't MUH DINDU RIGHTS, but the fact it depressed wages of normal laborers, kind of like the cheap labor from the 3rd world does now. The average white person was poorer than fuck precisely thanks to slavery.
In essence, your ancestors fought for the right to remain poor.
>>463352
I like your flag there.
>>462399
when we massacred the french
only for them to massacre us a year later
>>464790
Holy shit that was good
B T F O
>>464790
My family fought for both sides.
>>464790
10/10 my nig... uhhh... my farmer
>Confederate
>States
>"of"
>America
>>464145
>No CSA idolizer ever talks about Jefferson Davis as if he was some kind of hero, it's always Lee
So then why are there so many places in the US named after Jefferson Davis?
>>463352
Because plantation owners were descended from the Cavaliers, and if anyone knows how to look good while losing a civil war it's them.
>>464119
>KING Louis XVI of France did absolutely nothing
That's the problem.
>>462399
>loose another war
kek
>>464704
It was more than that. race based slavery has a perverse side effect: it imposes a caste system. No matter how poor you were, at least you weren't "a nigger."
Southern non-slave owning whites would have literally rather died than dismantle that illusion of superiority.
>>464845
I highly, highly doubt they were poor; they were relatives of Roswell King and Barrington King. Barrington King owned pic related; it wasn't a plantation. The family relocated from Connecticut (funny enough) and they built mansions about half a mile away from a mill they ran.
The King's were friends of James Stephens Bulloch (who was Theodore Roosevelt's grandfather).
I come from old money, not new money.
Sherman is still the best general.
>>464704
Most plantation owners were land rich, not money rich. They had tremendous problems tranferring from one to the other and bad harvests/plague among the slaves/weird weather could and would easily bankrupt slave owners.
>>466344
Not that anon, but if they weren't plantation owners what did they make their money from?
>>466624
Roswell King was a successful plantation manager. He owned his own plantation on the side and was a banker but his money came from running one of the largest plantations in the South .
He packed up, moved to current day Roswell, GA, and opened textile mills along the Chattahoochee River. He died before the Civil War.
The mills were built by slaves but a majority, if not all, were gone years before the Civil War. Poor, white girls worked in the mill. They were running it when the Union army came through on the way to Atlanta and were raped and beaten. Some killed themselves.
In other words, the family bidness in the years just prior to the Civil War was not slave driven; an argument can be made it wasn't slave dependent either. It was a legitimate enterprise that employed minorities (women) in the area and helped established Roswell.
>>463570
This revisionist garbage needs to go away. The Southern and Northern states had a history, up to that time, of finding middle grounds quite effectively. The only thing the South refused to budge on was granting slaves freedom.
There is significant historical evidence that demonstrates this, along with tons of court documents and records. When Southern states couldn't hold up against the argument anymore that the U.S. could not abide slavery any longer because human rights, they started the arguments about how blacks were subhuman so it was okay to enslave them.
Sure, I'll give it to you that it wasn't just because of being dumb racists--the Southern economy was based on slavery. Regardless, all that demonstrates is that the South started the great American tradition of abusing workers' human rights for a profit (not like the North was much better during industrialization, but that wouldn't come for a few more decades).
The "States Rights" argument is strictly tangential, convenient, and topical. It was propaganda at the time and historical revisionism now. It doesn't matter how legitimate of an argument it is (because State vs. Federal government rights is a real goddamned thing that needs to be respected) the fact is that the driving factor for the U.S. Civil War was slavery.
So are we all agreed that the American Civil War was just about a bunch of rich assholes trying to stay rich?
>>466656
And here is a picture of some of the hundreds of mill workers. 400 women were deported to other parts of the country when Sherman came through - it was a huge controversy in both the North and South.
So when the dickhead above suggests that they were manipulated by the wealthy (the family was already very wealthy) or whatever nonsensical argument, then allow me to argue that they probably didn't want the North fucking with their way of life either directly (like, say, destroying their mill that didn't employ slaves) or indirectly.
>>466683
Go read McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, both volumes. You don't know enough to know you don't know enough.
All I know is, the only people more idiotic about their "heritage" than U.S. Southerners are Texans and religions terrorists, not necessarily in that order.
>>466704
Excellent addition to the debate. Bravo.
>>464189
>Han Solo second from right
>>466690
Nice way of describing 99% of wars.
>>462399
>French revolution peasants
>literally savages led astray by republican propaganda
The only individuals coming out of the revolution worth admiring are Napoleon and the Chouan/vendean rebels.
