>Lee launches an attack that gets a lot of his men killed for little gain
>"Ablooobloobloo it wasn't his fault he was ill and he didn't have Stonewall with him"
>Grant does the same
>"OMG What a BUTCHER"
Why is this allowed
>>592813
Why do you have a picture of Sherman? Also I imagine due to the fact that Lee had been leading the southern forces for a while and had some respect for winning some battles while grant was the newest replacement for the union forces and everyone was wanting to talk shit about him
>>592813
The union won the war, so the confederacy needs something to complain about.
>>592813
Does anyone say this anymore?
>>592813
Southern Hicks are eternally butthurt and are desperate to find some sort of moral high ground to justify their secession.
In short they are grasping at straws
>>593236
Sherman's also a guy who Southerners get booty blasted about
>>593634
I'm going to South Carolina soon. I almost want to rent a car so I can drive around listening to Marching Through Georgia.
>>593236
You mean all those successful battles Grant fought in the West don't count? Vicksburg is one that comes to mind, as well as others.
>>594909
Oh sorry I meant the south and critics of Lincoln were talking shit about how he was constantly swapping commanders, but all the banter pretty much stopped once Grant started kicking ass and Sherman began his march to the sea
>>593427
>justify their secession.
Does Secession need to be "justified", especially in the eyes of the people you're leaving?
Texas seceded from Mexico because it didn't want to be in Mexico. Mexicans from that era were never going to say it was justified.
America seceded from Britain because it didn't want to be ruled by Britain. Brits from that era were never going to say it was justified.
Ireland seceded/declared Independence about 7 times from Britain because they really, really, really didn't want to be ruled from Britain. Brits (in general, many a few are okay with it now) will never say any of the uprising were justified as such.
I could on and on, throw a few Balkan examples in there. My point is this: Is there ever a time where the people who got broken off from are like "yeah, that's fine".
Hypothetically, let's say slavery didn't exist in the South, but those 11 states or so banded together and said "We're breaking off". Come up with whatever new reason you like, political, economic, cultural reasons or a combo of all them ,whatever.
Would there be *any* reason you could come up with for the South leaving the Union that would be "Justified"?
I'm putting Slavery aside and asking more of wider thing about what gives people "the right" to secede. Or do they even really need a right? Is the desire to secede justification enough?
>>595624
>let's put aside the biggest, possibly the only reason the south ever seceded
Do you understand why you are a retard? DO YOU?
>>596007
I'm a retard for using a hypothetical? I guess most of the Greek philosophers are retards then as well.
>>593427 said the South wasn't justified in wanting to secede//didn't have a good enough reason for seceding. So I'm asking "what is the justification" for seceding from the United States/what is a "good reason" for seceding.
Because I suspect that a lot of people will say there's no grounds for seceding from the USA under any reason, so why even use the criticism "the CSA wasn't justified".
I'm merely attacking the line of argument.
>>593634
>>593682
I don't want to disappoint you but most Southerners don't really care. Unless you're deliberately, in-their-face rude for the sake of getting a rising out of them most people are just people that view the Civil War as something in the past that reenactors dress up for.
The people you think are the majority are the same sort of people you'll find in any region or country that find a reason to get booty blasted just so they can be booty blasted.
>>593634
>sherman is a guy southerners get booty blasted about
yeah sure
80 years ago maybe
