Were the Confederates the bad guys?
>>310302
Yes. Had they won the south would have been a corrupt banana republic, beholden to England, until the soil grew exhausted and the Slaves rose up as they did in Haiti
No. Lincoln was a tyrant. States should be allowed to secede. Also, anyone who says "lol the CSA would be a third world shithole today" are off base and ignorant. Theres no way to tell what it would be like today. It could very well have been just as good if not better than the USA by today.
>>310302
It depends
>bad guys
Fuck off, no such thing
The only good guys were Radical Republicans 2bh
>>310321
It would be shit. It would be shit. It's basic economic policy was shit. It was a shit place filled with shit "aristocrats" who started whining when Sherman showed them how war felt
>>310321
I strongly doubt either side would be worth even half the sum of the whole tho
>>310302
Yes. But so is the USA today.
>>310339
Most of the Industry was in the north. The South has never and will never produce anything of value because it is a shithole.
>>310307
this desu
the south's overall central government was weak af and their primary source of wealth was being outsourced by India. Cotton prices dropped dramatically in the 1870's and the South was devastated by it. Their would be no way a new country could suffer an economic meltdown in a few years.
The only relevant thing about the south today is Texas and Texas dun goofed by getting involved with the US in the first place knowing it would be hard to introduce a slave state. The rest of the south would be shitty eastern european style states.
tl;dr the south would balkanize itself, making no difference
>>310338
oh, ok baseless statements guy.
>>310353
Produces a shitload of conscripts
>>310302
I bet the Union was just as big of fucking pricks as the Confederacy
States have a constitutional right to secede from the rest of the country
Both sides also kept on a war that accomplished only continual needles violence where fucking brothers were shooting each other
>>310356
>all these armchair economists
just because the souths economy during that time was primarily agricultural, doesn't mean it wouldve never changed. Also, the weak central government isn't necessarily bad. It was kind of the whole point of trying to form their own country. they didnt want a large central state like the US.
>>310376
>Lincoln also kept on a war that accomplished only continual needles violence where fucking brothers were shooting each other
fixed that for you
>>310302
>shit unsustainable economic system
>shit decentralized weak unsustainable government
They would have been either invaded and taken over by foreigners, or collapsed and become a puppet state to a European power.
I hate niggers as much as the next guy, but slavery isn't the answer.
of course, the guys with the red flags are always the bad guys
>>310390
Really?
>>310307
>beholden to England
Just like how the US was to France after the revolution against the british, huh?
>bad guys
When will this meme end?
>>310369
The losers who lost us Fallujah and Mosul. Quality over Crap mate
>>310369
Yeah basically poor young people searching for a way out of their shitty conditions and finding that in what's really just mercenary work.
>>310412
>implying they didnt win
>implying faggots at home told them to pull out and hand it over to ISIS
>>310385
i think it was pretty much understood slavery needed to go, its just that they wanted it more gradually
>>310436
>mercenary work.
words have meaning. They arent mercenaries you dildo
>>310385
>Mfw this idiot actually, seriously, thinks that a foreign power can sail half-way around the world to invade a territory the size of European Russia in a hostile environment, IN THE MID TO LATE 1800's before mass troop transit was possible on any sort of feasible scale
You do realize the French couldn't keep a puppet on the throne of fucking MEXICO, a country that 10 years prior lost to army 1/3rd it's armies size and had their fucking capital sacked.
There is literally no way a European power could have invaded any part of the US, let alone a country full of violent, angry Southerners who are notable mostly for their willingness to fight overwhelming odds.
Also, and this is something half the people in this thread need to realize, The South was actively industrializing before the Civil War broke out, just not as fast as the North was. Taken just by itself, the South had the second largest number of miles of railroad and was like number 3 or 4 in factories in the Western world. Their economy would have had to undergo some growing pains at first, but anyone who thinks it would have totally collapsed is retarded.
>>310412
>Fallujah
>94 US deaths
>1500 insurgent deaths
>coalition victory
whats up with liberals/europoor pretending the Us lost these battles?
>>310471
>thinks that a foreign power can sail half-way around the world to invade a territory the size of European Russia in a hostile environment, IN THE MID TO LATE 1800's before mass troop transit was possible on any sort of feasible scale
The Thirteen Colonies didn't appear out of thin air.
Also, the fucking Opium Wars you dolt.
>>310471
>There is literally no way a European power could have invaded any part of the US, let alone a country full of violent, angry Southerners who are notable mostly for their willingness to fight overwhelming odds.
Battle of New Orleans case and point
>>310480
>opium wars
>implying it wasn't fought by indian soldiers
>>310377
How are you going to change it? The South didn't have an abundance of important industrial resources like coal and iron, especially since West Virginia split.
The only thing that might save their economy would be the discovery of oil in Texas, but as that other anon said,Texas was likely to split anyway.
>>310478
>Deaths
Count wounded too you fucking retard.
The fact that America had to fight in Fallujah two years after they "took" Iraq meant that the war had failed
>>310302
>The "le the confederates were bad' meme
>The "le good guy bad guy" meme
No Reddit, they weren't. Downvoted.
>>310492
>moving the goal post
youre fucking dumb
>>310385
> only defeated after fighting the US in a long, hard war
> europeans could defeat them though across the ocean
>>310480
>Thirteen Colonies
The states of the new world were established over hundreds of years of migrations and generations of existing settlers. The Europeans didn't just drop off a couple million people and then leave.
Effectively, the largest army logistically possible for a European power to field in the US would have been maybe 20k-30k strong, the South would field over 500k in the Civil War alone.
Also this >>310486
>Opium Wars
The British using steam ships and howitzers on Chinese fuckers with matchlocks and stone cannon is not comparable to invading a state that has repeating arms, percussion cap rifles, thousands of miles of railroads, ironclad warships, and advanced cannons and howitzers.
>>310497
>Manning an army with cripples
Pot calling the kettle black
>>310397
Why these Hairstyles?
>>310302
>Rebelling against lawful rulers who were not tyrannical
>Rebelling to preserve the tradition of enslaving your own species that wasn't even economically sound to begin with.
Fucking stupid brain dead cunts for sure. Evil? I'd say like most things the aristocrat guys on top were pretty evil, while the dude actually fighting the war was as much as a victim as his counterpart in the north.
>>310529
They were fighting to maintain slavery.
Yes that includes the lowly grunt average Joes.
Any Dixieboos on here?
Care to tell me what is "southern Antebellum" culture and how it's different from the north?
>>310535
>The Average Southern grunt fought for slavery
The Average grunt in the Civil War on either side fought either for money or because they wanted to fight for those around them. It would have been almost impossible to find a Northern soldier fighting to "free the slaves" (several Union regiments literally deserted after the emancipation proclamation), and it would be almost equally impossible to find a Southern grunt fighting "for slavery."
Now, the higher ups and the rich had their own reasons, both out of practicality or idealism, but the average guy on the field didn't give two shits.
Rich mans war, poor mans fight.
>>310546
The North were focused on free labor, immigrant rights, the progressing nature of technology and industrialization, banking, etc. Basically they were fast paced, economically competitive, very puritan religious, etc.
The Southerners were generally more genteel and old-world. They tended to be more romantic in holding to ideas like honor, duty, martial prowess, and yes, slavery. This comes with the disclaimer that Southerners were often still very underhanded and scheming in private, but in public they are all Southern charm and bold personality.
I highly recommend watching Gone With the Wind to get a sense of what the antebellum South was like culturally. It's not a very historically accurate movie, but it does give a good idea of how Southerners acted and saw their world.
>>310579
Just want to add,
Read Huckleberry Finn. Single best depiction of life in the antebellum South you will ever find, written by a man who actually lived there. It has the added benefit of covering basically all different walks of Southern life.
>>310579
>Rich mans war, poor mans fight.
this exactly. southern men and boys fought for their homes, southern aristocracy fought to keep slaves. by extension that means southerners fought for slavery, but if the north was invading my home, id have fought too desu.
>>310412
>Fallujah
Let me educate you nigger. Military operations in urban terrain (MOUT) also know as you're freshly baked house-to-house fighting is pretty dangerous. Not only are you taking multiple fortified positions, there are a bunch of places to hide explosives and snipers. Pretty scary shit (scary is a hip word now right?). Just so you have an idea, it is military doctrine to expect 60% casualties when conducting MOUT. That means you go to town with 10,000 joes and 6,000 go home to see their families in a casket or at a hospital. 13,000 went into Fallujah and only 700 casualties. 20% is fucking amazing. That is on top of the Marines acting completely retarded.
>>310492
>maintaining military and political presence in a diverse and hostile country halfway around the world is like Risk.
Desu senpai shithead
>>310302
>thinking there is 'good' and 'bad' guys in history
>>310579
> Southern troops in charge of fighting for money
Pls, they were janitor tier
>>310390
this
even worse if they've got A FUCKING LEAF on their flag
>>310321
>people still believe that the south was righteous.
Lawl
No industry, mainly cotton; and that was off the backs of black people. Let me guess: you have a "confederate" flag (it really wasn't the flag of the csa, nor any state flag; it was the naval battle flag of one of the states) on your pick up truck and yell "the south will rise again" or "I hate niggers" while you fuck your sister after you beat her for mentioning your poor dental hygiene, beer gut, or lack of education after 4th grade? It's ok, I don't blame you. If your dad never mated with his cousin then you wouldn't have double digit inbred I.Q. Just remember to wash your "if this shirt offends you, then you don't know history" shirt before you go visit your auntie-mama.
>>310471
War of 1812, m8? The bits burned Washington DC
>>310361
>>310376
Where in the constitution does it say that states have the right to secede?
>>310302
Bad guys, no.
Shit flinging tards who fucked over anyone who wasnt white and southern and then played the victim when people got shit of their shit, yes.
No. A divided America would be weak, preventing it from becoming a world power. If the South won, we wouldn't have had a Woodrow Wilson ruining the Treaty of Versailles, and WW2 would never have happened. The British Empire would still rule the world, China wouldn't be communist, the Soviet Union would never have expanded so far west, and Rhodesia would still exist.
>>311460
>that feel when you were never taught a damn thing until university
I could have learned French, Evolutionary theory, creative writing, and European history at school instead of on my own/at university. Hell I could be in STEM right now, preparing for high-skill profession and ignoring the problems inherent to Humanity
>>311460
Feels good to be white, Jewish and well educated in the north. Keep fucking your sister and whining about niggers and mexicans, redneck goyim scum
>>310385
>decentralized
>weak
>shit
Uhh, no. If you give an American a powerful position in a representative government, he'll use it to make money and fuck over as many people as possible. In other words, America has to be antifederalist to be free.
>>310377
>the point of the civil war was to prevent a large central government
This verifiably false though. Although Lincoln wasn't a fan of blacks he was definitely against slavery. The war was fought for slavery and to keep the status of whites elevated. This is demonstrable from the innumerable writings of carious generals, senators, govenors, and was even reflected in the populace. This thought process couldn't be shaken for decades after the fact also.
>>310302
Of course. Only edgelords would disagree.
AD MORTEM PRODITORES
>>311377
>The bits burned Washington DC
they also lost that battle though, and the war.
>>310302
Life isn't as simple as 'good guys' and 'bad guys'... it's all about perspective.
The confederates ceceeded from the Union for many reasons, but mainly in disagreement of abolition. Yes, slavery was terrible and no human should ever be owned by another, but you have to view this situation from the perspective of all parties, rather than just the victors.
The economy of the south was almost exclusively based on cotton farming, for which the plantation owners employed the use of slaves to turn a large profit for minimal labour costs (I say labour costs, but rather sustenance for the labourers). That is why the South rebelled against the North over slavery... not because they were all evil and wanted to enslave the entirety of Africa, but because it was driving their economy. The industrial north had little need for unskilled labourers, which is why an anti-slavery mentality rose.
>>311460
Gee, Nice modern day graph to represent people from 1860.
>>311610
Are you being serious? You realize out of the million confederates how few had enough money to actually own slaves? So you are implying that 260,000 people died so they could stay elevated above blacks in society, although blacks were considered less than human.
>>312254
Exactly. They wanted to keep the blacks as the lowest class so people wouldn't see the redneck hicks as less than human
spooks don't belong on /his/
>the union wanted to free the slaves
>slaves still not free in the union holding slave states until after the civil war
>slaves only freed in the southern states because of emancipation proclamation even though the south was a different country where lincoln the tyrant had no authority
>general lee freed his slaves at the start of the war
>general jackson had blacks working for him
>free blacks fought for the south
>general grant kept slaves during the civil war
IT WAS ALL ABOUT SLAVERY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, as the Crittenden Compromise demonstrates, they seceded because of slavery, So I'd say, yeah.
>>313089
The South said it was.
>>313089
>Union wanted to free the slaves
Most people in the North were just as if not more racist than Southerners. The ones who wanted to free the slaves outright (a numerical MINORITY) wanted to do so because they wanted the North's economic system to dominate the country. Even then most Northerners only opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories rather than outright emancipation. Actual abolitionists who wanted to free the slaves on moral grounds were a tiny minority (probably less than 20% of the North).
>slaves only freed in the southern states because of emancipation proclamation even though the south was a different country where lincoln the tyrant had no authority
The North (or literally anyone else) did not recognize the Confederacy as an independent nation. They believed that since Secession was illegal (their words, not mine), any government official who voted for secession was illegitimate because secession was treason, even if those officials were literally carrying out the will of their constituents.
>general lee freed his slaves at the start of the war
Lee didn't really have much of a choice. Literally everything he owned was confiscated by the Union only a few days into the war.
>general jackson had blacks working for him
He also taught his Slaves to read, against the law, because he believed they should be allowed and able to read the bible. Interesting guy but not typical of the South.
>free blacks fought for the south
There is only one confirmed instance of this happening. Interestingly enough, the slave in question actually went on the be fairly successful in private life after the war and offered to help his former master when the master fell on hard times. There are several other cases where this happened but it was pretty rare. In most parts of the South, it was literally illegal for a black to carry any kind of arm. Southerners were TERRIFIED of blacks arming because of what happened to haiti.
To be continued.
>>313209
>general grant kept slaves during the civil war
No, but he did allow contrabands to help the Union war effort by digging latrines, helping the wounded, and other non-combat roles. He also allowed contrabands to serve as assistants and servants to the general officers and staff members.
The Civil War was most certainly about slavery, anyone who says otherwise is retarded. The misconception is that slavery was the issue for moral or ethical reasons. In reality, slavery was an issue for political and economic reasons.
>>313209
>The ones who wanted to free the slaves outright (a numerical MINORITY) wanted to do so because they wanted the North's economic system to dominate the country
Source, please.
>>313234
Battlecry of Freedom, Shelby Foote's novels, basically any book that analyzes the lead in to the Civil War.
There is a Shelby Foote quote that goes something like,
"People who nothing about the Civil War know it was about slavery.
People who know a little about the war know it wasn't really about slavery.
People who know a lot about the war know it was most definatly over slavery."
Lincoln himself said it best,
"I have never had, and have no cause, to interfere with slavery in the States in which it already exists. I oppose only it's expansion into those territories in which it does not exist."
As for specific statistics, I was going off the aggregate data in Battlecry of Freedom. I can crack open my copy and find his specific sources if you wish. IIRC, he states that this is an area of some contention because verifiable statistics do not exist, but it is generally accepted among scholars that died-in-the-wool, slavery is a moral evil style abolitionists were an exception in the North rather than a rule.
>>313277
>Battlecry of Freedom
good, accurate book desu
had to read it my junior year
>>313324
I like it as a general overview of the war. McPherson keeps his prose simple and relatable while giving literally thousands of sources (including extra shit he doesn't cover in his volume) for people who want to learn more. His coverage of the antebellum period is excellent and one of the best treatments of the topic that won't leave the reader in a comma. He also remains highly neutral and presents both the shitty parts of each side and their merits in equal measure.
>>310302
>bad guys
Come back when you graduate from the third grade
>>311373
Wen u try to btfo sum1 but ur prose n grammar r shit
>>310347
>NOW that's what I call Edge 2015
>>313209
Patrick Cleburne argued that the Confederacy should arm and train their slaves, but obviously nobody wanted to see that happen.
>>313277
This doesn't source what I asked.
>>313604
So did Lee and Davis by the end of the war. Guys like Longstreet even famously claimed that they should have freed the slaves and THEN fired on Sumter. It never would have happened though. These kinds of people were in the extreme minority in the South.
It's also worth noting that slavery was actually a benefit to the South in that they could mobilize a much higher percentage of their population to fight. It's estimated that around 75-80% of Southern fighting age white men were able to serve while a little more than a quarter of fighting age white Northerners were able (or wanted) to fight. On the flip side, the Union was able to mobilize 150k freedmen to fight for them as well, so there is that.
I don't think arming the slaves would have made any difference that fighting smarter couldn't achieve. Manpower was not the issue, the tactics of the sides fighting were. By taking the strategic offensive for the first half of the war, the South wasted manpower and funding for very little gain. If they had fought defensively from the wars outset they could very easily have caused enough casualties to get the Union to give up. If the South had been able to get over their "muh Southern Manhood, muh elan," they might actually still be a country.
>>313644
Uh, I literally did though. I mean, I cannot answer you more fully. The sources I cited are where I got my information from. Maybe elaborate what you are confused on?
>>310302
Truly? There are no bad guys. Whether or not you perceive them as the bad guys is dependant on your own views
>>313604
Nat Turner's rebellion.
That's why it's a stupid idea.
The first 2 states to secede specifically state in their document on secesssion the reasons they did it. The main 2 STATED reasons were
1. The North was not enforcing the runaway slave laws.
2. A pro-abolitionist was elected president.
So you can't say it wasn't about slavery when the ones who seceded first officially listed it as such.
As for whether or not they were the bad guys, yes. The only state that I know of that has full written rights to leave the union whenever they want is Texas. Not to mention, leaving the union because you don't like who got elected defeats the entire purpose of democracy.
>>313735
>Uh, I literally did though. I mean, I cannot answer you more fully. The sources I cited are where I got my information from. Maybe elaborate what you are confused on?
>wanted to do so because they wanted the North's economic system to dominate the country
>>313957
I agree with you on the slavery bit but
>Secession is illegal
Texas is not able to leave the Union at any time. They have a clause in their constitution that provides for dividing the state into six separate states.
When the colonies rebelled against Britain, was that not secession? The colonies had no legal right to split with the crown, yet we see the revolution as a good thing. It's also worth noting that at the time of the Civil War, there was nothing in the Constitution about secession either way. It was neither legal or illegal. The Southern states entered into the Constitutional agreement with the express opinion that it was just that, an agreement, not a binding contract. The Southern states would never have joined the Union if they thought they could not leave it at any time. Ergo, secession may or may not be legal, but I believe the South had every right to secede.
What I don't agree with, however, is firing on federal property without provocation. The South fired the first shots of the war, not the North. I know there were a lot of background shenanigans going on Lincoln's cabinet basically fucking baited the South into attacking Sumter, but it was still stupid. If they had waited literally 4 more hours the Federal Government might have literally handed Sumter to the South without a fight.
Ironically, this means that I would be the opposite of the majority of Northerners. I think that secession is okay, but slavery (as a moral wrong), and attacking federal property, are not okay.
>>314248
My sources do apply to that though. Read up on the Free Soil movement, the immigration policies used by the North, etc. The North wanted to turn the Western territories into industrial, free labor oriented states and the South wanted to expand their slave owning culture. This is like, a well documented conflict and the real driving issue of the war.
"Mexico will poison us"
- Walt Whitman
>>311460
>important southern states are fine
>interior is shit
>the whole south
>>310471
So much this. It reminds me of the people who want to the entente and say that AH was a shithole and that modern squabbling states are better when it had the fastest growing economy in Europe.
>>314291
I've always been against secession on the grounds of the greater good. Tearing apart a country isn't good no matter how I see it, it weakens the concept of a strong central government.
As for the revolution, I find the difference because the colonies had no say in what Parliament could or could not do. The souhtern sates in the end were still members of congress, and left because an election didn't go the way they wanted. Why be in a democracy if when things go south you actually be the guy that goes "if X becomes elected I'm moving to Canada" and then actually do it?
>>314341
I invite you, for a minute or so, to step into the mind of a Southerner during the 1850's.
The South and North were radically different places. One of the first things foreigners noticed about the States was that they were like two, totally different countries. Northerners were fast paced, usually more harsh in language, industrious, constantly changing and moving. Southerners tended to be slower and more traditional. The North emphasized urban population centers and well-developed mass agrarian production while the South was more rural and subsistence oriented. Visitors to the States would often comment on how going from Maryland to Virginia was like stepping into another planet.
To people both North and South, the South was already a separate Nation, just not a separate State.
When the North was able to elect a president without a single Southern vote, they (rightly) determined that they were no longer going to have very much say in their rulers or laws. They saw Lincoln's election as the stepping stone to being ruled by a people they saw as a foreign invader. Everything from the Southern way of life to what they saw as their property were at serious risk, and they chose to fight against that risk, right or wrong.
I can't honestly say I would support the South. Slavery (particularly chattel slavery) is the worst possible moral evil imaginable. Firing on another State's property without provocation is wrong. But I understand why Southerner's would fight to preserve their land, property, lifestyle, etc. In their eyes, they were waging a war for survival and I can respect that.
Think of your least favorite political figure. Someone who not only stands against everything you (rightly or wrongly) believe in. A person who might possibly try and eradicate your people and your home. This person then gets elected by less than half the country, and not even your half. Would you honestly just sit by and allow them to do whatever without a fight?
Yes.
>>314328
The same with Russia, where commie fanboys argue it was a stone age shithole and communists magically turned it into an industrial paradise, completely forgetting the rate of industrialization was higher under tzar than under Lelnin.
>>314411
>Think of your least favorite political figure. Someone who not only stands against everything you (rightly or wrongly) believe in. A person who might possibly try and eradicate your people and your home. This person then gets elected by less than half the country, and not even your half. Would you honestly just sit by and allow them to do whatever without a fight?
No, but I don't believe in democracy as a system to begin with, so them being elected or not is irrelevant to me.
>>311580
>Jewish
>white
>>314411
>Think of your least favorite political figure. Someone who not only stands against everything you (rightly or wrongly) believe in. A person who might possibly try and eradicate your people and your home. This person then gets elected by less than half the country, and not even your half. Would you honestly just sit by and allow them to do whatever without a fight?
The South went full-retard by jumping the gun. They sure as hell didn't mind when the federal government worked in their favor and brought extraterritoriality on Northern states like Dred Scott.
They automatically assumed Lincoln would bring down slavery and their "way of life" before he was sworn into office. Secession was happening during the final months of Buchanan's.
>>310302
>breaking history into good and bad
Personally I am triggered
>>310546
"Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South" is a good start.
Insomuch as it differed from the north, it was broadly speaking:
More violent
Lazier
More courteous
Less Innovative
More family-oriented
More polite
>>311480
At the time it didn't say that they did not have the right to do so.
>>310492
Then you should count the wounded on the insurgent side as well, not to mention the 1500 or so captured
>>310302
There are no bad guys in history only winners and losers. The Confederacy lost to Sherman, a bad guy.
>>315103
>Sherman
>bad guy
>>310321
>Implying any CSA states would ever be allowed to leave the even stricter and more controlling federal government they had.
Just because the North wasn't the good guys doesn't mean the south wasn't absolutely 100% in the wrong and a bunch of little crybaby bitch hypocrites. who got constant compromises and still demanded even more special treatment.
>>314328
>it had the fastest growing economy in Europe
Ethiopia, the Congo, and Cote d'Ivoire have the fastest growing economies now. That doesn't make them good, it just shows how undeveloped countries grow really quickly when trying to catch up.
>>310302
>Muh slaves
Slavery was an atrocity and should never have been on this continent.
>Muh states rights to secede
After the Articles of Confederation were tossed out and the Constitution was adopted it was intended to be a perpetual union as one country.
>Lincoln was a tyrant
He did suspend Habeas Corpus, put New York under martial law (arguably this was necessary), and censored news.
>War of Northern Aggression
First shots were fired by the South, and the states had announced their intention to secede before Lincoln took office.
Slavery would've gone out of style within two decades had the South not seceded and it would've been banned with a lot less bloodshed.
>>310498
>4 years is long and hard
>U.S. was a military power back then
>>311460
>IL is that high
Bullshit. The whites here are just as dumb as the niggers. Unless they're counting the arabs as white this graph is wrong.
>>314411
>Think of your least favorite political figure. Someone who not only stands against everything you (rightly or wrongly) believe in. A person who might possibly try and eradicate your people and your home. This person then gets elected by less than half the country, and not even your half. Would you honestly just sit by and allow them to do whatever without a fight?
But he didn't even do it yet. A statement like this is basically convicting Lincoln of thoughtcrime.
>>315671
>US was a military power back then
The US army was the largest numerically in the entire world by the end of the Civil War. They were also one of the most advanced, possessing more repeating carbines and more cannon than any other nation on earth at the time. Furthermore, the Union Navy had more ironclads than any other Navy by the end of the war.
The South's maximum fighting strength was usually around half as strong as the Union, so it was still a ridiculous amount of men and firepower.
Now, to give some non-military related perspective. The United States in 1860 had more cities with a population of 150k then any other Nation on earth. The North alone had more factories than almost all of Europe combined. The South also had it's fair share of factories (despite what detractors will tell you). The United States in 1860 had more miles of railroad than all of Europe combined as well.
The only reason no one really thinks of the US as having a powerful military until WWII is because we massively downsized both our army and navy after both the Civil War and our other conflicts. Underestimating the sheer amount of war material and men the US could produce is a mistake basically everyone prior to WWII made.
>>315706
Clarification: I get the impression that Southerners felt that Lincoln was the first step on a path they didn't want walk, not the end game. They realistically knew Lincoln was only going to oppose slavery in the territories (which is really only congresses responsibility anyways), but they felt that because a presidential election system in which their political enemies could override their vote without opposition was not something they could abide.
Was it right? Probably not. Is that how Southerners felt, right or wrongly? Almost certainly.
I don't get why some people seem to think that slavery would have been abandoned peacefully at any point would the war not have happened. The problem of slavery became such a bad political topic that it was practically taboo to bring it up in the senate. The US would have been dragged down economically by southern unwillingness to adapt to changing global morality.
>>315525
Not all countries have growth like that though. It just shows that they were going places.
>>310335
this
Life is not black and white.
I don't know but i know the north would be a lot better off without them today.
>>316796
who is light grey and who is dark grey?
>>310456
No, they left because they were sunni troops who did not want to die for a shia government
>>310307
or not.
They would have just been another Brazil. Which had slavery until the late 1880s. Brazil also had a lot more slaves than the CSA.
>>310302
if you think slavery is bad then yes, while only about 2% of southern whites owned slaves the government of the Confederacy was constituted for the express purpose of defending slavery, and the men who fought and died for that government and what it represented were fighting for race based slavery.
So the only possible defense of the confederates is to say that slavery wasn't that bad which will make any black american today attempt to kill you and any liberal shun you. Within a historical forum it can be argued that slavery in the american south was better for the slaves than slavery in Brazil or the Carribean. As fewer slaves died on the job, they enjoyed greater legal protections and a higher percent were were freed either through manumission or by purchasing their freedom. Furthermore the standard of corporal punishment handed out to slaves in the south was roughly on par with corporal punishment handed out by other civilian and military courts around the world at the time. For example lashing was a common practice as far as punishment went of offenses in the merchant marine and the Naval forces of the United States and Britian. As far as breaking up families goes transportation(punishment by exile to a penal colony) was common place within the British and French empire. So while in the case of slaves this traumatic experiance was laid on those who had done nothing to desreve such harsh treatment the inhumanity of ripping families apart was commonplace at the time. none of this goes toward exonerating the Confederacy it merely places their actions and views within appropriate historical context. It isn't right to judge people in the past by the standards of today. Also bear in ming that the second great awakening had just ended bringing religious revivals to the south and reinforcing the biblical stance on slavery as stated in colossians 3:22 and ephesians 6:5-9 namely "slaves obey your earthly masters"
>>310338
this is a pretty uninformed opinion, i get that this is a charged topic but this level of discussion is what i would expect on /pol/
>>317631
>It isn't right to judge people in the past by the standards of today
stop this meme
moral=/=socially acceptable
buying stuff from sweatshops (as they exist today) is just as bad today as it will be 100 years from now
>>311373
lol I'm screencapping this. What fantastic butthurt ranting. Enjoy your noculture, nogunz, and shitty nasally accents yankeefriend.
They owned slaves. I know people are constantly told the war was about states right but if you ever read the corner stone speech it out right tells you the Confederacy was created to keep slaves.
The corner stone speech was written by those in charge of the Confederacy by the way.
>>317666
That doesn't mean that's what the bulk of secessionists had as their number one priority. The average soldier was fighting for his homeland. Everybody knows that Dixie's government was terrible. Jeff Davis a shit.
>>317647
>moral=/=socially acceptable
the Supreme Court of the United States would like to disagree with you, i've had this discussion many times and while i could call on philosophical arguments this is a history board so i'll stick to legal and historical sources. this most pertinent of those come from a SCOTUS decision in Miller vs California. this case deals specifically with obscenity but its important because it affirms the essentially democratic nature of morality. The Chief Justice wrote in his opinions that juries should judge "patent offensiveness by the standard that prevails in the forum community, and need not employ a "national standard." " this is a clear acknowlegement that even within a single nation within a single time the standars for what is moral vary widely, how much greater the variation across not decades but centuries, and not across state lines but divisions of culture that alter the outlook of individuals on a fundamental level?
>>317696
sectional identity was a major factor in rallying the troops of the south but the decision making apparatus which governed them had only chosen to establish itself as an indepentant nation for the purpose of safeguarding the institution of slavery
>>310353
Spoken like a truly ignorant idiot. Virginia and Maryland are among the most wealthy, educated, and affluent states in the Union, period.
>>314470
>implying white people are white
Yes.
The best thing a confederate soldier could do was either defect, get captured or die.
>>318511
A Jew is not white nor a Caucasian.
>>310307
Dude, Haiti had like 12 slaves for every white person and most of the slaves were FOTB African warriors, white people outnumbered slaves in the south and next to none of the slaves had any combat experience. Unless there was outside influence it seems highly unlikely that their could have been a successful slave revolt in the south.
>>310353
Virginia here, fuck off. Without Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, or George Washington you would have a bunch of limey bobbies breaking down your door to collect your TV license fee right about now. The south is the only place in America with any semblance of culture, since all you fucks ever do is parade around flaunting how Irish or Italian you are whilst never building or creating anything of your own.
>>317719
late response but whatever
firstly this is a history and humanities board, which includes philosophy
second, the miller test is hilariously flawed as it depends on the "average person" when no such thing exists. What is the average person's opinion on abortion, gay marriage, or gun control? There is no "normal" answer even though both sides of each argument would like you to believe they are normal.
>>310302
>history has bad guys
this is bait
>>320279
Pretty sure the Spanish Civil War is universally agreed in hindsight to be a situation where the "bad guys" won.
Not that the Communists or Republicans were "good", but the Nationalists sure as shit weren't.
>>317696
I don't think Jefferson Davis was incompetent. He was just given an impossible task.
>>319200
>whilst never building or creating anything of your own.
Not him, but not true. My state gave the world Edison and all the inventions that came from his Menlo Park factory.
>>320472
Edison is not something to be proud of.
>>311555
If only... if only.
>>310353
Virginia was extremely industrialized at the time of the Civil War compared to the rest of the South, and had a relatively large and extremely expansive network of railroads and trains. West Virginia being broken off (even if illegally) only worked better for Virginia's future after the Civil War.
>The South has never and will never produce anything of value
8 presidents including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Woodrow Wilson. The Pentagon is headquarted here, all major intelligence and covert agencies are centered in Virginia, and both Hampton Roads and Norfolk naval dockyards are the most important and largest naval bases for the United States Navy.
You literally know jackshit about what you are talking about. And like another anon mentioned, we also happen to be among the most prosperous and educated of the states in the Union to this day.
Do you know what Virginia's modern day exports and economy revolve around now? Federal employees, Information Technology (NoVA/DC area is known as the Silicon Valley of the Eastern Seaboard of the US) as well as software, defense contracts, and telecommunications.
Stop talking out of your ass.
>>320783
Virginia is such a fantastic state. Not only is it beautiful, well-educated, well-developed, and perhaps has the richest history in all of the US, but you get the best of both Southern and Yankee culture.
>rich white assholes running everything, controlling a huge class of poor white idiots that black people are horrible. Poor white people treat black slaves like complete shit to escape the fact that they otherwise powerless.
I'm very thankful the North won. The only economic situation of the South was tragic and needed to end.
>>320804
Is English your second language?
>>310302
>Is the world a cartoon universal of good vs evil?
>>310302
Yes. Fuck those hillbillies and their culture to this day.
>>310409
The North of America had a diverse economy making money in a variety of ways and despite some silliness about how everyone should be a small farmer jumped on Industrialization quickly and effectively. The South did not. It's economy was based around cash crops during the Revolutionary war and the cotton gin only served it to make it more-so.
>>315700
>my personal experience is a good sample of the entire fucking state of Illinois
>>310302
There's a good interview of a confederate officer recalling the whole thing in his whole age. The Confederate states were fighting for states's right above everything else, though this was not explicit. He says that "Even though we didn't say it I know now that is what we were truly fighting for. For states's rights!"
>>321747
What rights? The confederates were more restrictive of many state rights than the north
The north allowed states to allow slavery or disallow it. The south made it illegal to disallow it.
>>310321
Shut it reb before we burn georga again.
>>310376
No they don't the right of succession was struck down by the civil war it is no longer an implicit right.
>>310377
No their government was even more status and singular the confederate constitution rested most of the power up top they just wanted to keep slaves .
>>317696
Jeff Davis was a capable, honorable and public-minded patriot who bore a difficult task as best he could tbswys (To be sincere with you, 先輩)
>>321747
The confederates didnt give two shits about other states rights.
>>310321
>CSA apologists believe this
The CSA was run like shit, had weak/terrible leadership and its economy was in the shitter halfway through the war (something Sherman straight up said would happen).
>>310377
The Articles of Confederation and the CSA both prove how stupid and ineffective a weak central government are. Why do people still even attempt to argue this? This doesn't mean you need some socialist all-powerful government but the opposite is equally as retarded and clearly doesn't work either.
>>315078
And the Civil War answered that. Texas v. White explicitly stated that "no, states do not have a right to secede".
The north were the aggressors, therefore south=good guys
>>311373
>getting this buttblasted
Seriously, this is some shit you'd see from a whiny teenage "ally" in the comments section of a CNN Facebook post when all the flag shit was happening
>>317642
>hey lets base our entire economy around one crop, what can possibly go wrong?
Regardless of what happened the cotton boll weevil would've arrived in the US 20 year later and would've fucked the South up harder than Sherman ever could.
>>324136
>muh War of Northern Agression
South fired the first shots and the North answered.
There is no good and bad guys in war. Atleast most of the time...
The world isn't black and white. They just had different opinions.
>>319200
>implying Southern Virginia does anything other than hold back NOVA. Fucking Protestants have just stopped us from doing what we are truly capable of.
Get fucked, Dixie boy.
t. Northern Virginia Irish-American Catholic
>>318368
Maybe in the 18th century.
>>320568
Edison was not an evil man. He was just a dick and extremely protective of his business rights, but hey so was Tesla. The difference is Tesla lost that lawsuit because he didn't have the kind of money Edison had.
>>320783
>>320799
>>320808
Not him, but when most people think of the south, they don't think of Virginia. They think of the Deep South. And even then not specifically the states themselves, but the rural parts of those states. After all, when you say Deep South and bring up Georgia, you aren't thinking of Atlanta.
>>326034
Hold you back from what? Building more shopping malls? If you take pride in being a suburb for wealthy non-Virginians then all the power to you brother.
>goal horn
NIGGAS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuba0LSkwQ
AM I RIGHT OR AM I RIGHT?
>>326310
9/10, well remembered young padawan.
this could be the anthem as well
>>326310
upvote
>>326310
top bantz, how do you turn this on or wololo could be player names.
>>326201
I am detecting some major goalposts movements, friendo.
>>314311
the dilapidated "interior" was the Cotton Kingdom in the mid-19th century. you know, the entire basis for Southern power. the "important" states were peripheral.
>>326116
You literally retarded.
You also know that out of the top 20 richest counties in the Union, Virginia has half a dozen of its own counties or independent cities ranking on there to this very day: Fairfax, Loudoun, Falls Church, etc...
>>327359
*You are
I mean 18th century? We have the 4th highest rank and have been in the top 10 most educated state rankings for like the past 40-50 years. What are you even on dude?
And Maryland is still on the 1st place marker for over 5 years in a row.
>>310535
No the average Southern grunt was not fighting for slavery or states' rights
They were fighting because they were being conscripted. The South only had 1-2 million white men of fighting age
So I always hear how Lincoln didn't receive a single vote in the Southern states, is that because his name simply wasn't there? If so, did the Southern states just prevent his name from being on the ballot? Like even if people wanted to vote for him ,they just couldn't
>>311373
>being this much of a buttblasted fedora teen
>>327392
Marylanders and Virginians are brethren and no one can tell me different. Below the Mason Dixon line is southern. Pennsylvania and New Jersey can fuck off with "mid Atlantic."
>>328546
The torch was at your temple door and Virginia called in vain desu
Virginia carried the team and Maryland did some kek stuff you should be embarrassed about. We would've won without the diffidence of the border states.
>>310302
If van Rompuy took to arms to keep countries like Britain and Greece in the EU, what would you think?
>>328609
>trying to keep Greece in the EU
Is this what we look like for not wanting Alabama to secede?
>>328333
The Republicans literally did not even submit their ticket in the deep South. They wouldn't have gotten any votes anyways.
It should also be noted that in rural counties (a majority of the US at the time), people often voted orally so there was tons of peer pressure to vote for the "right" candidate. Even in cities with voting by ballot, it was common to be harassed by people for not voting a certain way.
>>328617
>giving up the geopolitical value of Greece for a total debt equivalent to a German fart
>>328590
What the fuck are you babbling about?
>>328698
Some marylander was claiming kinship to VA while disclaiming any relation no New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and saying that Maryland was Southern because it was below the mason-dixon line.
But when the chips were down and the South was fighting for its independence, Maryland dithered and didn't do its part at all.
The governor at the time, Thomas Hicks, pursued a hedging and limpwristed policy.
"Hicks then called the legislature in the northwest part of the state, where unionism was strongest. Though the legislature did not vote to secede, it approved a resolution calling for "the peaceful and immediate recognition of the independence of the Confederate States," which Maryland "hereby gives her cordial consent thereunto, as a member of the Union." The legislature also denounced "the present military occupation of Maryland" as a "flagrant violation of the Constitution."
Maryland tried to avoid picking sides as long as it could, and then in the fall secessionist legislators were arrested without trial or stated reason to hold it in the union.
Maryland chose a pretty cowardly path, and the South was deprived one of its most populous states because of it. But a century and a half later some Marylander claims that MD is a Southern state. It isn't. It made it's choice in 1861.
Confederate Soldier Story Time
>be my Great Great Great Grandfather John Newton Foster
>Sign up for the military because why the fuck not
>Signed up with bff even though he got a wife at home
>Patriotic as fuck
>Assigned to 19th Texan Volunteer Infantry Company F
>Walk miles and miles not even fighting
>Spend my first 6 months just walking
>Regiment is nicknamed "Greyhounds" because we walk so damn much
>Lose a solid third of my company just from complications from walking.
>Finally have some skirmishes against the yanks, wildly successful
>Feelin' Pretty Good
>Participate in Red River Campaign
>We're gonna win! Fuck yeah Texas
>Feeling cocky participating in the battle of Jenkin's ferry
>Lose my best friend right beside me
>Shot in the leg, had to have it amputated because the bone is shattered
>Only 1/3 of us are left that started the battle
>Left for dead
>Cut down a oak tree branch and fashion it into a peg leg
>Bring my BFF's body back to his wife
>Walk on a peg leg from Arkansas to Bowie County Texas pulling a wagon holding my best friends body
>return BFF to his wife
>Wife grieves
>Bang wife have 4 kids
And that's how my grandpa's grandpa was born.
Attached is a pic of great great great grandpa.
>>311480
This is actually an interesting precedent, but the argument of the seceding states at the time was that the Declaration of Independence served as legal precedent for a state's ability to secede. Their thinking was that this argument would essentially force the North to either contradict the founding of the Union itself, thus proving Northern hypocrisy and the righteousness of the Southern cause, or it would allow them to leave non-violently.
You can go read each state's declaration of secession if you want. They did, as you might imagine, make a point of explaining themselves. For example, here is the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
>>329194
Jefferson Davis said:
"Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are Sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a Sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever."
"The withdrawal of a State from a league has no revolutionary or insurrectionary characteristic. The government of the State remains unchanged as to all internal affairs. It is only its external or confederate relations that are altered. To term this action of a Sovereign a 'rebellion' is a gross abuse of language."
"If the Confederacy falls, there should be written on its tombstone: Died of a Theory."
>>329302
"[Our situation] illustrates the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish them whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established."
"If slavery be a sin, it is not yours. It does not rest on your action for its origin, on your consent for its existence. It is a common law right to property in the service of man; its origin was Divine decree."
"My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."
I intend these quotes to help demonstrate a bit of the attitudes of the Southern government. The war had many causes, and it should be clear to anyone that the economic institution of slavery and the idea of the sovereignty of individual states were both important factors. The war was not "just" about anything. Simplifying the war to just one cause is like simplifying history to just the deeds of a few great men.
>>329114
Maryland didn't join the CSA because Lincoln had federal troops garrisoning it before that could happen. Do you know there was a MASSIVE number of Maryland citizens who joined the Army of Northern Virginia?
Its a Southern state, its culturally Southern, and geographically Southern and part of the same affiliation in terms of the Governor and Education Boards as the rest of the South. Your argument holds no water or weight, if Virginia had remained with the Union, that still wouldn't change the fact it is Southern state.
Get over it.
>>311460
Latinos are often classified as "white", the south has a pretty high percentage of poor mexican immigrants which brings the average down.
>>326335
How is it goalpost moving when I wasn't the original person to say it, I was just commenting?
Yes, because I think seceding from the government is treason
>inb4 that's what's the colonies
Yeah guess what, that shit was 100% treason too. The difference is when the colonies did it, they WON when Britain tried to stop them.
Vae Victus.
>>329336
>vae victis
I actually respect and acknowledge your argument due to its ability to remain consistent over time.
Though I personally think secession in this case was legal and should be made so again, yet the American Revolution was most certainly treason due to the nature of the monarchist government, even though I support that treason. The idea of some of the founding fathers that the US should be a league of individually sovereign states changes the treason dynamic. That wasn't codified law, but neither was the opposite, and the ambiguity opened up the union for that question to rear its head in the first place. Sadly, war gave us the answer, and secession was indeed ruled traitorous via vae victis.
>>329161
Neat.
>>329373
>due to the nature of the monarchist government
Please, the king had no real power. The problem was the colonies were dealing with the most corrupt parliament in British history.
>>329407
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the British government had no provision for willful membership the same way the early US purportedly did. There was no sovereignty except for the sovereign. Shrugging off British power was directly opposing sovereign rule, i.e. treasonous.
However, for the Southern states, they believed that the United States had been founded as a league of individually sovereign states. Ultimate sovereignty, in their eyes, rested with the states and not the federal government, so secession was an act of simply withdrawing their membership in a group which they believed they were voluntary members. Since they were not rebelling against a sovereign who ruled over them, but instead exercising their own sovereignty, they had committed no treason.
Whether any side of either of the two wars was right or wrong, whether their justifications were valid or not, etc, does not really enter in to my thinking on why the one is treason and the other is not.
>>329449
>However, for the Southern states, they believed that the United States had been founded as a league of individually sovereign states. Ultimate sovereignty, in their eyes, rested with the states and not the federal government, so secession was an act of simply withdrawing their membership in a group which they believed they were voluntary members. Since they were not rebelling against a sovereign who ruled over them, but instead exercising their own sovereignty, they had committed no treason.
They should have realized that when we threw out the articles of confederation and replaced it with the constitution, it was more or less designed to be permenant.
>>329465
Actually, the Articles of Confederation formed a "perpetual union" and were originally called the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The Constitution formed "a more perfect union." The argument of the southern states had nothing to do with the Articles of Confederation, really, even though they decided to call themselves a confederation. They were more based on individual writings of various founding fathers, and what you could essentially describe as the prevailing attitude at the time among their constituents. Their interpretation is not necessarily correct as much as it has to be acknowledged as difficult to properly refute at the time because it just wasn't written either way. Both sides had philosophical arguments one way or the other, but that's why I mentioned here (>>329194) that they generally referenced the Declaration of Independence as a legal precedent. The link I gave in that post gives South Carolina's argument for why their secession was legal.
>>329490
>argument for why their secession was legal.
It's not that it was legal, it just wasn't ILlegal.
You know, like cannibalism. Really, look it up, there is no law against eating another person as long as they were already dead.
>>329519
Actually, that isn't my whole argument. The bulk of my argument is contained in the primary source I linked you to. I just can't explain it to you better than the government of South Carolina did themselves.
They outline how each of the states was independent and sovereign beginning with the declaration of independence, in to being individually named independent and sovereign states by treaty with the British, through the Articles of Confederation, in to the Constitution... They then address how an agreement between two voluntary parties becomes forfeit when one forgoes their obligations to the other, and lists ways in which the constitution has been subverted by other state governments and the federal government to the detriment of South Carolina. Then they detail why the election of Abraham Lincoln and his stated policy goals worried them enough to force their hand to secession.
I really can't detail a legal argument to why they were an independent and sovereign state with every right to secede more thoroughly than they already did for themselves. And I gave you the primary source.
Even if the constitution explicitly denied states the right to secede at the time, they could have made the argument that numerous violations of the constitution to their detriment rendered the agreement null and void. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be argument about it. Just that it is not a completely tenuous legal position to hold.
>>329161
Thank you for your service, Texas-senpai
>>329327
Do you know there was a MASSIVE number of Maryland citizens who joined the Army of Northern Virginia?
>>It has been estimated that, of the state's 1860 population of 687,000, up to 25,000 Marylanders traveled south to fight for the Confederacy while about 60,000 Maryland men served in all branches of the Union military.
It provided less than Missouri or Kentucky, while fielding substantially more for the Yankees.
If Virginia had stayed in the union, that might indeed make it no longer a "Southern" state. Much of Southern culture at this point is defined by the Confederate and post-confederate experience.
But it's an idle discussion, because the South is being colonized, and those areas suffer particularly from it. Maryland and Northern Virginia both are more yankee than anything else.
>>329862
>Much of Southern culture at this poiint is defined by Confederate and post-confederate experience.
You are talking out of your ass. Joining the CSA or not does not invalidate geographic and cultural ties of Southern states, whether or whether not they stayed or succeeded from the Union.
Maryland is a Southern state. Period.
Nothing will change that.
>>310302
I'll bite.
>Bad
Depends on your term of "Bad".
Was their reaction the optimal one? No.
Do I understand it? Partially.
Do I think they should have done it?
Not when they did. There should have been more politicking done beforehand.
t, Texas.
>>321747
They fought for states rights when it suited them.
When Prigg v Pennsylvania happened the southerners sure as shit weren't so enamoured with states rights then.
>>321382
No, it's my first language. I just fucked up my post.
>>310347
Still mad that we bombed your village, Sabar?
>>310907
>mfw when our television, music, supermarkets, fast food joints, and electronics are on every single street in Europe, China, and Japan.
Lmao, you're culture's dead. America owns you now, boy.
>>331372
Yeah, everybody thinks Maryland when they think of dear old Dixie with its fried chicken, cotton fields, and magnolias
>>333045
You have never lived in Western Maryland I see.
>>333166
Eastern Maryland was the Southern-sympathizing part of the state during the war. Entering Western Maryland, the Army of Northern Virginia was surprised by how bleak the land was and what a cold reception they received.
It's similar to how West Virginia and East Tennessee are full of Confederate apologists today, but were grubby mountain traitors at the time.
>>333184
Irregardless, Maryland is culturally and geographically below the Mason-Dixie line and is a Southern state. Cypress trees grow there, its natural accents for English speakers are more closely tied to Piedmont speakers then Northern nasal equivalents and so on.
Denying MD's Southern heritage and culture is plain inane.
>>333299
Marylander here. We have this strange blend of North and South, but for the most part we claim ourselves as north.
>>329161
>Lose a solid third of my company just from complications from walking.
Shit like this is why Americans never do it anymore.
>>333504
Just like DC!
>>334441
We do, faggot. The assholes south of the mason dixon line are such wannabe hillbillies they pretend to part of some horseshit second confederacy.
>>334499
This is some really blatant low-brow baiting.
>>334547
Hey, it worked on you.
>>334552
>I was only pretending to be retarded!
>Then stop pretending
>G-gotcha
Sure you did.
>>333504
You're south whether you're a kek yankee wannabe or not. Too bad. I don't know how anybody can hear your accents and think "north".
>>310598
I still find it funny Samuel changed his name to sound more southern, also didn't he fight for the confederacy and promptly desert once shots started firing?
>>313089
Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, but doing it without popular support would have been bad, at the time he still lacked the support but made it about slavery anyways to keep France and England out of the war, France and England wanted to see the US put in its place because it was getting a big ego, they were both however also antislavery at the time, so once the emancipation proclamation was put out and the war became a war to free the slaves it forced the British and French to not interfere for political reasons, Lincoln was a crafty person, but if it was all about freeing the slaves wouldn't he have freed all the northern slaves at the start of the war? The fact is he didn't do that.
At it's core it was the south being butt hurt about their candidate losing the election because the North had higher population numbers it weighted the elections, many felt that they no longer had a government that looked out for their best interests, as well as they felt the government was overstepping its' bounds and infringing on the rights of state governments in regards to issues including slavery.
>>314291
>Texas is not able to leave the Union at any time.
Texas also has the right to be divided into four states, so a texas threatening succession could expect to be cut down to side
>>335944
This is actually valid too. It might be purely antecedence in my case but most of my coworkers in Arlington from Maryland tend to have more natural and accented Southern drawls then most of the Virginians I work with who are from Northern Virginia; Arlington, Fairfax, Falls Church, Vienna, Reston, etc...
Marylanders at least from my experience have that in their speech even.
Many confederate's didn't support slavery and mqny northerners did. Most southerners didnt owns slaves and fought for their land and right to secede rather than to own land, so no, I wouldn't say that they were the bad guys, there were no bad guys in that war.
>>310356
The us had an economic meltdown two years after it was formed
Shit can work out sometimes.
>>336097
>muh right to secede to continue an economic system that fucks me over
Proof that conservative poor white trash have always been fucking retarded when picking their political ideologies
>>324039
The csa had a millitary loss, not a breakdown of society due to system
I would argue that is hardly compareable as a result.
A strong central government in the same position could still have a crushing military defeat.
>>329328
Uh, no. Hispanics have their own category on educational surveys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5mmFPyDK_8
T R U T H I S M A R C H I NG O N
>>336104
One of the CSAs biggest failings was states outright refusing to send troops to the Confederate armies instead keeping them for local use, this caused shortages of man power for the war front later in the war, meanwhile Lincoln got troops from all the Union states and kept getting them. Also the troops belonged to the Union first and for most, where a confederate army would belong to it's state before it's country.
Also the highest ranking confederate of the war dieing in the opening days from friendly fire didn't help, neither did killing their generals with friendly fire late war. The Confederates had some friendly fire issues with officers.
>>313209
>There is only one confirmed instance of this happening. Interestingly enough, the slave in question actually went on the be fairly successful in private life after the war and offered to help his former master when the master fell on hard times. There are several other cases where this happened but it was pretty rare.
Sauce?
>>329161
>>return BFF to his wife
>>Wife grieves
>>Bang wife have 4 kids
His BFF's wife?
This sounds like a porno plot
>>336340
To be fair his body would be cold even if it wasn't in the ground yet.
>>318368
How much of that is DC hanger-ons?
I had relatives on both sides of the war, one in Tennessee and one in Pennsylvania. Gonna go with my dad to the grave in Tennessee soon.
>>310338
The fucking retarded American LARPing truly reached new heights when some plebs with a big farm started thinking they were 'aristocrats'. As a Yuro I find that shit to be funny beyond imaginable.
>>336510
Very little.
>>310302
The South was desperately clinging to an outdated economic model, and they were swiftly falling into antiquity, refusing to let go of their ways despite the horrors of slavery and efficiency of the industrial model being adopted by the north and Europe.
That being said, the south was willing to secede peacefully, and should have been allowed to by the Union. Even if the south was doomed and was ultimately better off for the civil war, the the U.S. shouldn't have gone to war with who it considered to be it's own citizens to keep them from seceding.
>>315103
He wasn't a bad guy, he was a bad dude. A bad enough dude to torch the South.
>>317520
The ayys and the lmaos.
>>326189
Tesla never shocked an elephant to death to discredit a rival.
>>333045
When I think of Maryland I think of District of Columbia, meaning I know literally nothing about that state.
>>315078
Not according to the Supreme Court, you fucking moron.
>>324136
>passively allowing the South to leave for six months only for them to blow up your fort in return makes you the aggressors
Sure thing m8.
>>336104
>>336126
>If the Confederate government had a tombstone, it would read "Died of a Theory."
Jefferson Davis
>>336330
I read it in an issue of Civil War quarterly, can't remember the name of the article.
Couldn't find the guy in Wikipedia either. Wish I could be of more help.
>>338647
The Supreme court also ruled in the 1800's that blacks had no right a white had to respect and that Lincoln's actions were guilty of treason.
Just because the Supreme Court says a thing doesn't make it legally binding. Judicial Review is a power the court essentially gave itself, so it only matters when the government agrees with the court's view.
>>338654
>Allowing the South to leave for six months
The South saw the Federal government as occupying their territory. What made it worse was that the Federal government continued to try and levy tariffs on ships going into Charleston even after SC seceded. The North basically gave the South no option in terms of firing on Fort Sumter. They still shouldn't have done it (The Fed were going to abandon the Fort if the South hadn't taken the bait), but what happened, happened.
>>310480
Moving the goalpost are we?
>>310321
Did you know in the CSA constitution it was illegal to secede?
>>338654
Please don't but the actions of the Carolinians on the rest of the South.
>>310907
>le america doesn't have a culture may may
