How do the fascist Northerners justify their oppression of the south?
>>886300
What do you consider racist oppression
>>886322
>try to leave the union in peace
>The North attacks you and devastates your country
>>886326
If they let them go the us would have fallen apart both the south and the north
Also it was the southern aristocracy that wanted to break away
>>886336
The south was fine importing shit they couldnt make instead of paying for jp morgans overpriced steel
>>886336
>the us would have fallen apart both the south and the north
How? Their economies worked like virtually separate countries at the time of secession, and both regions being under the same trade laws actually hindered them overall. Arguably the North and South would have been individually richer following a Confederate victory.
>>886364
It's a succession domino effect if the south breaks off because of a disagreement then other states can break off
If the North had used unjustified force in preventing the South leaving the Union, then after they'd lost the war they would have stated the reasons why they were oppresed and presented their evidence, instead they bitch and whine 24/7 about the evil northern devil. Like a crack-addicted african american believing whitey holds him down.
>>886371
They would have no reason to. Northern and Southern cultures and economies conflicted with each other, so one of those two entire regions decided to secede. Northern culture was all the same, so they wouldn't want to leave the Union.
The worst thing that would happen would be the two states competing for Midwest territories.
>>886383
So going to war anyway because the Europeans would defiantly used the division to play both states against each other
>>886300
Non-American here, I thought the Southerners were the fascist leaning ones. Am I wrong?
>>886300
The weak are meat and the strong do eat.
>>886746
fascism doesnt mean anything anymore
words themselves dont mean anything anymore, it's 2016, where have you been?
>>886765
The fact that words are misused does not condone their misuse.
>starting this false flag of a thread
congrats on alerting every redneck and yankee fedorafag on 4chan asshole.
>>886765
What the fuck does that have anything to do with my question or the thread you raging autist?
>>886336
The north would've lost much more than the south from secession. They would have lost the mouth of the mississippi which would hinder all midwestern growth. Also the American economic model of tariffs and investment was very beneficial to the north at the expense of the south.
>>886326
>try to leave the union in peace
>By shelling their fort
You're retarded.
They lost and their "Southern pride" can suck a dick
The global south produces a lot less food and therefore will always be subject to the will of the global north.
also, the south currently receives by a decent amount more in federal funding. thats certainly one way of "justification".
>>887016
>not recognizing 19th century false-flags
Who is what?
You mean throughout history or just during the 17th century?
Civilizations that experience industrial revolution ALWAYS have the industrial areas exerting power over the agricultural areas.
>>887026
>not being proud of killing heaps of yankees
>>887052
This post is a false flag.
>>886300
>implying you can disunite the Union
DON'T FORGET: YOU'RE HERE FOREVER
>>886300
even the confederacy's greatest hero was in favor of the union and anti-slavery.
WE WUZ SLAVES
>>886326
>what is Ft. Sumter
>>886758
This.
Everybody gotta die sometime, Johnny Reb. We just killed more than you.
>texas will never secede
>>887106
>He thinks wars are decided by body count and not objective
Top Kek
Literally the south got off lucky, I woulve loved to see Radicals like Thadeus Stevens get their way and turn the entire shithole war losing region into a smoldering pile of ash. Your retarded system of slavery also is the reason why we have so many SJW and BLM without you we couldve been am mostly homogenous nation of whites with some Mexicans and would be even better off than we are now. Fuck the south for stunting the growth of this country.
>>892747
To add to this post, the South is pretty much the only reason why the Basketball American vote now decides elections in America.
>all the reb tears in this thread
still not enough to put out Atlanta
>>886300
They were all guilty of treason.
>>886326
>In peace
>IN PEACE
>Firing on a federal fort is "peace"
>>886350
Not for long when Britain had just starting opening cotton plantations in Egypt and India.
>>887106
>editing "strategic and decisive union victory" to "strategic union victory" for antietam
>>887106
The same number of people died on both sides
They won
South lost
thanks for bringing this up, it's one of my favorite discussions
rednecks with all their chest thumping can't even win a war against gay limp wristed LIBERALS lmfao
State rights should trump Federal rights.
So that the South squandered the reason for war to determine federal or state supremacy for the rest of American existence over fucking slavery is incredibly disappointing.
Fuck you, you inbred savages. You ruined America to have slaves. Idiots.
It's a good thing the South lost because the planter aristocracy was retarded, but the Reconstruction went too far, there was no reason to inflict so many humiliations upon small landowning farmers that didn't have much to do with slavery and where actually oppressed by the plantation owners. The only thing that explain such behavior is bigotry and hatred on the part of yankees against Southern whites.
>be yankee
>genocide your brothers because they want to leave the union
>>886336
>it was the southern aristocracy
I guess the farmers who fought must have really loved the aristocracy then.
Does the propaganda of the Yankee oppressor know no bounds?
>>893179
> The only thing that explain such behavior is bigotry and hatred on the part of yankees against Southern whites.
Isn't there historical evidence that Lincoln wanted to use a "soft touch" and restore the South no strings attached but then he died and Johnson was like "No, fuck the South."
>>893181
>brothers
As an American above who has lived both above and below the Mason-Dixie line, I can assure you that Southerners are no Yankee's "brother." You can legitimately tell when you start entering red state territory because the lack of proper education has left the average citizen woefully unprepared for the real world. Southerners even pride themselves on their anti-intellectualism.
I hate nerds as much as the next American, but Southerners think being well-read, well-traveled and experienced is somehow a bad thing.
I guess we can put a lot of the blame on Protestantism, since the north is more heavily Catholic, and we all know how those two regard the sciences (lets just say the Protestants still believe in Creationism), but that seems like such a convenient answer.
It's a shame they didn't allow the South to break off. The Union would be so much more successful today if it didn't have to carry those welfare Red states, nearly all of whom are a net drain on the country's economy.
>>893191
There is nothing wrong with anti-intellectualism, though.
What people don't understand is that anti-intellectuals do not hate intelligence, they hate the political work of intellectuals, who have in the last 100 years supported the most retarded ideologies, such as Maoism and worse.
Think of it like XIXth century anticlericalism. Being an anticlerical didn't mean you hate religion, it meant you hate priests telling people what to do.
>>893181
Southerners are the new Kulaks. Independent landowning farmers who are hated by progressives and Jews because they perceive them as hindering the advent of their communist utopia.
If they weren't armed, they would have been sent to the gulags already.
>>893194
Okay, then let me use a different word
Southerners are anti-intelligence. It tends to frighten them because it doesn't mesh well with their third-grade level understanding of how the world works which they learned from their pastors.
>>893194
>Maoism
What? Marxism-Leninism, sure, but Marxism is almost as anti-intellectual (in the real sense, using guns and labor camps) as the Khmer Rouge.
>>893202
Both Mao Zedong and Pol Pot were intellectuals.
>>893202
>>893206
Also check out the history of how China went communist. How American intellectuals such as Edgar Snow, Owen Lattimore and Brooks Atkinson lied about the entire Chinese Civil War so that the U.S. could cease supporting the nationalists and let the communists could win.
It was after reading about this story that I became proudly anti-intellectual.
>>893202
Marxism isn't anti-intellectual, you're thinking of Stalinism.
Lot of people seem to confuse the two here on 4chan... I wonder why
>>887016
>Implying stationing soldiers in your rightful territory isn't an act of war.
>Yes and there were Union men who wept with joyful tears,
>When they saw the honored flag they had not seen for years;
>Hardly could they be restrained from breaking forth in cheers,
>While we were marching through Georgia.
>>893209
Neither is Stalinism anti-intellectual. Stalinism is actually the epitome of intellectual's influence in politics.
People confuse such things because they think that just because Stalin (or Mao) killed a lot of intellectuals, that means they were anti-intellectual. But Stalin and other communist leaders killed intellectuals based on doctrines created by intellectuals themselves.
The thing here is that when you give all political and cultural power to the intelligentsia as a caste, they will fight amongst themselves. Think about laissez-faire economics, for example. It's defended by many business owners, even though actual laissez-faire economics policies led to the creation of monopolies. It's the same with intellectuals and communism. They support policies that led to a single group of intellectuals amassing absolute power and killing everyone else, because just like the businessman who is pro-free market thinks that he is the one that will create the monopoly, every communist intellectual thinks it will be he who will decide who gets sent to the gulag.
>>893208
Do you have no understanding of the entire history of humanity? You are using this board and shitposting in English because of such "intellectuals." All of civilization from the plow to maths to space ships is the works of intellectuals.
Are you so simple minded that you can not understand that some men are good and some men are bad? That a police officer can be good or he can be bad? A politician, a teacher, a scientist, a farmer, they can all either be decent men or greedy, short-sighted men? But you write off an entire demographic ("intellectuals") as if they have only caused woe and strife when in most cases the world would have been better off had less educated men like Stalin or Mao (the son of a farmer) listened to intellectuals.
>>893220
So you are agreeing with me that you are wrong to bad mouth intellectuals because some are good and some are bad.
Thank you for proving yet again that even reasonably "educated" people can delude themselves in to thinking whatever they want. I mean you basically contradict yourself in a matter of sentences. Please think before you base your principles on your base emotions. I have high hopes for you, anon, you're so close to breaking through.
>>893223
As I said, I don't hate intelligence, I don't hate mathematicians or engineers, not even teachers, though they give me reasons.
My point here is that intellectuals as a caste have organized in the last centuries in an effort to gain absolute power over society, and that the societies where they came closer (such as the Soviet Union and Maoist China) were such terrible experiments that it should have discredited the whole intellectual's role in civil society.
>>893235
I find it ridiculous that you can lump a group together like so. Smart, capable men are going to be by definition ambitious. That makes them dangerous, true, but I'd rather have a society of smart, capable, ambitious men than one of slack-jawed yokels. That's how you wind up with failed states like Kansas.
I'll hand it to you that there have been plenty of evil intellectuals, but acting like they as a group have gathered and collected in order to seize power anywhere outside of tiny third world shit holes is unsupported by history.
You keep listing the Soviet Union and China as an example of this when in both cases, whether or not there were intellectuals in positions of power at the beginning, both were taken over by decidedly uneducated men (Stalin, son of a cobbler whos academic achievement is SEMINARY school and Mao, son of a farmer) who's policies destroyed the nations.
Strongmen and warlords don't really fit the model of "intellectual", so I fail to see why you would cite those as cases of intellectual castes seizing power and ruining a state.
Or are you one of the /pol/ Nazis who thinks "socialism = communism = evil" and has familiarity with the Bolshevik power struggles? And before you call me a lefty cuck, yes, communism sucks.
>>893257
meant has NO familiarity with Bolshevik power struggles. I mean even middle schoolers read Animal Farm these days, correct? The intellectuals are often the first to be killed by the mobs and the thugs. Surely you aren't a Stalin fan, right? You can't be that crazy...
>>893257
Neither Stalin nor Mao were uneducated, no matter their origins. Stalin was a known authority on Marxism even before the revolution, specially on the "Nationalism Question", and Mao was a teacher, librarian and later important Marxist theorist.
>>893268
Animal Farm was Trotskyist propaganda. In real life, Leon Trotsky was actually worse than Stalin. Stalin didn't even wanted to collectivize agriculture at first, he was allied with Bukharin and the "Right Opposition" against the left-wing faction of Trotsky and other "intellectuals" who not only wanted to collectivize agriculture but brutally militarize labour, basically imposing slavery on the Russian people.
It was only later that Stalin said "fuck it", arrested Bukharin and proceeded with dekulakization, under thunderous applause not only from Russian and Jewish intellectuals, but Western ones too. To this day, I've never read a single criticism of dekulakization from any left-wing intellectual. We have people like George Orwell or Arthur Koestler who criticize the Moscow Trials, where communists killed other communists, but no one cares about the kulaks.
>>893277
Mao was a loser who tried nearly everything. He was the definition of a "pseudo intellectual" like you'd see on reddit. He read books and attended some formal schooling (in China though so calling it schooling is a bit generous) and thought that made him learned compared to his illiterate compatriots.
Stalin was not an authority on Marxism in any circles.
>>893288
>Stalinboo
jfc this board is retarded sometimes but this guy actually said "In real life, Leon Trotsky was actually worse than Stalin"
>>893298
Are you one of those guys who actually think Trotsky was some charming humanist and pacifist, and not a bloodthirsty monster?
>>893212
Yeah no
That was federal property
It was never part of Carolina
>>893303
Trotsky like most communists was an idiot
but Stalin is tied only with Mao as history's most incompetent leader.
calling Trotsky worse just makes you look like a Stalin fanboy and no one can take you seriously after that
>>893312
I say that Trotsky was worse not because I like Stalin, I hate all commies, I say Trotsky was worse because he defended policies that would be more brutal that what Stalin actually did, such as the militarization of labour and an even more violent collectivization of agriculture.
>>893322
hey maybe that collectivization would have saved the USSR from Stalin's TREMENDOUS FAILURE
dude fuckin caused a famine bro
thats as "worse" as you get
>>893333
The famine was caused by collectivization.
>>893337
haha thanks I admit I don't know much about the holodomor cause I never cared about dead communists
so you're saying Stalin is not worse because he did what Trotsky wanted to do (but didn't )....
you are missing some steps in logic here, sounds like Stalin fucked up in just the way you are criticizing Trotsky
>>893337
But couldn't the argument be made that there were going to be famines anyway?
