Some of you guys are alright. Don't go to Georgia tomorrow.
Also, American Civil War thread! Post your best images and stories and questions about the American Civil War!
Fucking rebel scum need not enter.
>tfw related to the worst union general of the civil war
why should I even live
>>29810403
>We will never have another general as based as Sherman.
Why live?
>>29810403
Sherman is a qt
>>29810403
Georgia-fag here. As much shit as Sherman gets, I have to admit he was solidly badass. Top four generals in the USA/CSA during the war.
>>29810450
What kind of cute anime girl would Sherman be?
>>29810464
anime is for faggots
Real men love generals just the way they are
>>29810418
Pretty sure this was the worst union general of the civil war.
>>29810523
dunno man, I think super grandpa burnside was worse.
at least he made a pretty based rifle
We have some old bloody rebel flag of which I can not confirm the origin of on my dad's side of the family. Might just be mud or something, who knows or even cares. It's sitting folded in a chest at grandpa's
>>29810403
>>29810539
My grandfather gave me around 4 rounds found at a civil war battle site, fired of course. Two were muzzle loaders, one looked like a bullet and the other was weird, it was kinda like a muzzle loader ball with a fucking hole in the middle, so that when it it someone it would fucking rip and tear
>gold
They shoulda made this shit out of melted railroad ties.
Git sum, rebel scum!
>>29810403
Is it true that Amerifat Southerners are so fucking stupid that they don't know the Civil War is over, and that they lost?
>>29810403
Barely weapons. We have/his/ for this shit now.
>>29810539
Burn it, and be ashamed of the fact that you were spawned by traitors.
>>29810403
Yankees sure are insecure.
saged
>>29812386
How do you melt wood anon?
>>29812860
They're butthurt that we made them give up their slaves, which forced them to get off their lazy asses and do some work for a change. To quote Family Guy, concerning the south "Isn't that the place where all the black guys are really lazy, and the white guys are just as lazy, but they're mad at the black guys for being so lazy?"
>>29812860
Yes
>all these Yankees proud of their best general being a war criminal
It's something to say yall had to avoid us in battle and basically scorch the Earth, rape the women, and loot to finally get us down.
But fuck generals, let's talk about the actual men of the war. Favorite regiment?
>Louisiana Tigers
>officer corps were volunteer freebooters from south American and Italian rebellions
>consisted of Irish and German dock scum, considered of less worth than slaves
>Zhouve uniforms
>used cutlasses and cleavers as sidearms
>>29812924
That's utter BS historical revisionism. The South got BTFO west of the Mississippi and from then on it was a losing battle as Lee suffered defeat after defeat and his army was worn down.
>>29812933
I'll give you the West, but Lee wasn't suffering defeats en route to Appomattox, he was running out of ammo from Grant's human wave tactics.
>>29812914
>To quote family guy
Good god, no. Not many Southerners owned slaves and a good chunk of the US Army defected to the CSA. Otherwise the South has a lot of subsistence farmers, fishermen, miners, etc. None of which industries involved slaves.
dixie 4 lyfe
fucking federals
>>29812904
With copperhead tears.
[spoiler]yes i used the wrong word[/spoilersdon'tworkon/k/]
>>29810403
>>29810403
>when tyranny starts ta happen im gon grab muh gun n' gorilla warfare du gubmint!
>lol fucking rebel traitors rekt lol don't you know the government can never do any wrong? Lol fuck states rights, the federal government knows better lol
How people can hold these two differing opinions at the same time astonishes me
>>29812973
>a good chunk of the US Army defected to the CSA
Pure Bullshit
>South has a lot of subsistence farmers, fishermen, miners, etc. None of which industries involved slaves.
So the Southern Plutocrats convinced the average working-class citizen to fight, even though it went against his own best interests. Like what Trump is doing today. Huh, so the south has always been retarded. Good to know.
>>29812973
His men were starving and on the run, at that point ammo wasn't an issue. If you actually believe that Lee was winning up until his surrender there's ocean front property in Colorado I'm selling. Take your lost causer ass and go home.
I don't understand why Yankeefags are the ones who get the most assboomed at these threads.
I'm from the south. We lost. BUT, we did tell you so. We told you so on lots of things.
>>29813039
There is no cognitive dissonance here. Slavery is abjectly wrong and the Southerners seceded to preserve it. No one has the right to own somebody else.
>>29810470
Do you even know where you are?
>>29813041
>butthurt Berniefag detected
>>29813041
To be fair to the average CSA soldier, he was fighting because his home was going to be invaded. Not all soldiers in the CSA fought for slavery, but the South seceded to preserve it.
>>29813039
State's rights to do what, exactly?
>>29813057
>civil war was about slavery meme
Go back 2 7th grade social studies class
>>29813051
You ever seen the Hunger Games? It's like that, only with more childish insults and less making you guys send children to compete in blood sports to win extra food for your states.
>>29813083
>meme
Just about every single fucking Charter of Secession mentioned preservation of the institution of slavery as their motivation to secede. It would help to read them.
>>29813083
It wasn't just about slavery, true, but that was certainly one of the reasons it happened. That and the southies shot first.
>>29813057
Slavery was just one aspect. And it's not like slavery didn't exist in the north in some way, and it's not like it doesn't exist today in a new way.
The North wasn't exactly fair, benevolent, and "Socially Just". Sure everyone was "free", free to work in factories for less than livable wages, and free to join the military and be used as cannon fodder (I.e., the Irish.)
The South may have wanted to own blacks. Sure. That's horrible (Even though you know, the biggest slave owner was Black, himself.) But the North wanted to own everyone. And so far, they pretty much succeeded.
>CAN'T OWN ANYONE
>Except the government...they can own us. But at least it's equal, right?!?!?
>>29813098
>Everyone is equally a serf!
Yaaaaaaay...?
>>29813098
Slavery was the largest aspect. And don't think for a second I believe the North was some egalitarian wonder. Also
>free to work for less than livable wages
Go away Marx.
>North owned everyone
Not really. The South needed the North. The North didn't need the South. The lack of industrialization south of the Mason-Dixon line was due to slaveholders desire to keep the South agrarian and maintain their political and economic stranglehold.
>>29813083
The overwhelming support most Confederates had for maintaining black slavery was the primary cause of their strong opposition to using African Americans as armed soldiers. Maintaining the institution of slavery was the primary goal of the Confederacy's existence, and thus, using their slaves as soldiers was incongruous with that goal. According to historian Paul D. Escott:
[F]or a great many of the most powerful southerners the idea of arming and freeing the slaves was repugnant because the protection of slavery had been and still remained the central core of Confederate purpose... Slavery was the basis of the planter class's wealth, power, and position in society. The South's leading men had built their world upon slavery and the idea of voluntarily destroying that world, even in the ultimate crisis, was almost unthinkable to them. Such feelings moved Senator R. M. T. Hunter to deliver a long speech against the bill to arm the slaves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Army
Crack a book, dummy
>>29813109
Pretty much. Which surprisingly is what 9 out of 10 black Americans want. And what Berniecucks want more of.
>>29813122
>wikipedia
>a book.
>dummy
Go away.
>>29813083
M8 even if it was about "state's rights" the "right" in question was the right of states to allow slavery. So even with your bullshit redneck revisionism it was still a war in which the south fought because they wanted to own human beings.
>>29813092
It would help if you read them, as well. Slavery was, indeed, the "line in the sand" -- but what was the line marking?
>>29810447
In in actual combat, not burning defenseless stuff and cities, he was a pretty mediocre or even poor commander.
>>29813137
The wikipedia article was about the Confederate Army, you mongoloid, not the author the anon cited.
>implying the rich industrial era factory owners in the north gave two shit about human rights abuse.
>implying that the federal government didn't commit treason against the states and American people on both sides by refusing a peaceful succession.
There's a read they refused to try Jefferson Davis in court. They knew they were wrong.
>>29813137
>historian Paul D. Escott:
>Paul D. Escott, After Secession: Jefferson Davis and the Failure of Confederate Nationalism (1992), p. 254.
Learn to read a Bibliography, Dummy. That's a list of books :D
>>29813155
>Federal government prevented peaceful solution
>Southerners initiated hostilities against Fort Sumter
>>29813144
What was it marking? The South was not being dominated economically by the North and don't you dare try to tell me that the plantation owners who benefited the most from the situation were somehow oppressed.
>>29813155
>>implying that the federal government didn't commit treason against the states and American people on both sides by refusing a peaceful succession.
That's some impressive illogical reasoning. Are you occupying a national park?
>>29813155
Didn't the south fire the first shot and thus declare war when they seized Fort Sumter? War of Northern Aggression indeed.
>>29813149
Right, which is why the defenders of Charleston skedaddled when Sherman approached the city. Such brave Southern boys couldn't possibly have anything to fear from Sherman
>>29813083
>Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.
t. Alexander Stephens, CSA Vice-president
Fuck off neo-confederate.
What an ugly gorilla. Look at that two car garage in the middle of her face.
Daily reminder that the underground Railroad and especially Tubman is just folklore turned propaganda spread by white abolitionists. Historians don't really take any of it seriously. It's like Washington and the Apple tree.
White liberals will never stop shitting on the South over slavery because their entire worldview is based on self righteousness and virtue signalling.
That's what tearing down the Civil War memorials and banning the rebel flag is all about. That's what the $20 bill thing is all about.
Reminder that Lincoln was brokered convention into office without a single Southern vote. Reminder that the South seceded peacefully and was perfectly within their rights to do so. Reminder that the North invaded the South, not the other way around.
Reminder that one day the South will Rise again.
>>29813185
You're right, it wasn't being dominated economically. And that is why they fought national banking so hard. And why the North pushed for it so hard. Nigga.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVsNCllEHD0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhCheCryopA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5ra9cXx1-o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H712Rb75sUs
>>29813155
No, everyone knew Davis was a traitor. They didn't try him for the sake of National Reconciliation. In retrospect, Jefferson Davis should have been hung, drawn and quartered.
>>29813185
It was marking the North becoming powerful enough to completely ignore the voting power of the South. Every confederate state voted for slavery and the North said "Nope. We win." -- the whole "Tyranny of the Majority" argument in practice.
Shit, son, you're like a fucking dog. Someone tries to point something out to you and all you can fucking do is slobber all over their fucking finger.
>>29813207
Go home, the adults are talking.
>>29813119
>the north didn't need the south
Oh yeah I forgot that the north is where all the nations farming and food comes from
>>29813119
>Not really. The South needed the North. The North didn't need the South.
Which is exactly why Lincoln allowed the South to peacefully secede from the Union.
>>29813149
The Atlanta Campaign was a fucking textbook on how to out flank and out march your opponent.
He then fought very well against Hood in and around Atlanta, before the march to the sea.
So farewell to you dear New York will I e'er see you once more
For it fills my hear with sorrow to leave your sovereign shore
But the country now it is calling us, and we must lend a hand
Until we plant the Stars and Stripes, way down in Dixieland!
>>29813192
Shit how'd you know? The states have the right to secede. Russia was abolishing slavery and the south would have done the same thing eventually. Freeing the slaves was a tactic not an act of kindness.
>>29813228
Except that didn't happen you historically illiterate knuckle dragger. Lincoln won without a single Southern vote, yes. But it was the Southerners who saw his moderate abolitionism, went full retard, cried "muh rights," and seceded even after Lincoln said he wouldn't touch slavery.
>>29813253
Actually, the North was still very agrarian. There's a reason it mostly Confederates starving as they fought. The South produced cash crops while the North grew produce.
>>29813253
The South fired on Fort Sumter first, and Lincoln sought to preserve the Union because he believed secession to be unlawful.
>>29813197
Where is Fort Sumpter, anon?
Hint: it's in the South.
>>29813270
Point out to me where the Constitution (the one you reject) enumerates the ability to leave the Union.
>>29813253
Then why did he raise the Army of the Potomac, arrest the Maryland legislature, occupy the southern part of the state, and call his generals in for a game plan?
This thread is either yankee faggots who jack off to war crimes, or southerners who need go get a grip. We lost, but be proud of the men who died for their state.
>>29813123
I'm not so sure I'd call it "surprising". Take away the independence of a people and soon enough they forget what it looks like.
>>29813276
On land owned by the Federal Government. They were there long before secession. Don't call it aggression because it wasn't.
>>29813276
And the south would still be it's own nation if they had not been impatient faggots and let the feds pack up their shit and leave. But instead they decided to go full "look at me, I'm the fort now." And the rest is history.
>>29813041
>everything that doesn't portray my mercenary swarm of Northern bullet sponges as glorious, noble heroes is bullshit
No, it's pretty factual. As much as I, as a Southerner would like to believe that we were just naturally incredible war machines to stand up against so many and do as well as they did, the CSA had a lot of US Army personnel specifically a lot of the Mexican War veterans.
I was trying to play Sherman being a war criminal as a joke and to attract conversation to Civil War regiments, but you have decided to get angry about nothing and even bring modern politics into this out of nowhere.
Yankees control your assblasted comrade.
>>29813304
>do as well as they did
kek
>>29813285
"It is the right of the people to alter or abolish it"
>>29813199
He literally had mental breakdowns early in the war. He was said in his own words he was contemplating suicide. Not southern, I just look to Grant, Lee and others as good Generals. Everyone just likes Sherman because he said edgy things burned alot of stuff.
>>29813119
Slavery was not the largest aspect by any means. Every Southern State's letter of secession had one thing in common. "We are treated differently because we own slaves." This extended to taxes, banking, and trade. I.e. MONEY was the largest aspect.
>Go away Marx
I was actually getting at the fact that the North was more Marxist than the south in that everyone was pidgeon holed into dead end (see what I did there? Working in factories killed you.) job, and they were equally racist towards blacks and even other whites (The Irish and Eastern Europeans.),and they used those people as expendable drones. That sound way more Marxist to me.
>Not really. The South needed the North. The North didn't need the South. The lack of industrialization south of the Mason-Dixon line was due to slaveholders desire to keep the South agrarian and maintain their political and economic stranglehold.
I mean the North owned everyone in their jurisdiction. And factory owners more or less owned their workers, and in many instances treated them just as badly, if not worse than slaves. Remember, a slave was like buying a very expensive piece of equipment, or a new car. Paying a dirty foreigner was like...paying a dirty foreigner who was thought of as worth the pitiful wage his employer paid him.
I'm not saying slaves had a better time. I'm just saying, the moral high ground people attribute to the North is fictitious.
>>29813315
Declaration of Independence, fool. Not the Constitution.
>>29813321
I am aware of his mental issues. But it is important to note that Sherman had a good record in the West and, after the war, several Confederate generals he had fought against served as pallbearers at his funeral.
>>29813321
>Everyone just likes Sherman because he said edgy things burned alot of stuff.
Also he treated his men like family. After the war, whenever any of the men under his command came to visit "Uncle Billy" he'd insist they stay for dinner.
>>29813365
"HAHAHA remember that time I told you and your friends to go rush the fortified enemy lines and you were the only one who came back? Good times. Goood times."
>>29813313
>4 million vs 20 million
>poorer amount of supplies on less supply lines
>way smaller navy
>won frequent field battles, many when outnumbered
>struck an offense into PA's heart
>put more Union bodies down than lost
Why are Yankees so mad about a war they won?
>>29813332
Where ever did I ascribe to the North the moral high-ground? All you're doing is regurgitating memes about how terrible Northern industry was and going "muh hireling" in an attempt to say "slavery wasn't so bad, just look at Northern factory workers!" Workers who were free to work and choose their employers. Unlike slaves who were treated as subhumans not much above pack animals.
>>29813270
>The states have the right to secede.
LOL, no they don't. You hillbillies read the constitution like you read the bible - you don't:
In dramatic contrast to Article VII–whose unanimity rule that no state can bind another confirms the sovereignty of each state prior to 1787 –Article V does not permit a single state convention to modify the federal Constitution for itself. Moreover, it makes clear that a state may be bound by a federal constitutional amendment even if that state votes against the amendment in a properly convened state convention. And this rule is flatly inconsistent with the idea that states remain sovereign after joining the Constitution, even if they were sovereign before joining it. Thus, ratification of the Constitution itself marked the moment when previously sovereign states gave up their sovereignty and legal independence
~Amar, Akhil Reed. "David C. Baur Lecture: Abraham Lincoln And The American Union"
Let me translate that to Southern for you:
Y'ALL C'AINT SECEDE! T'AINT CONSTITUTIONAL! NOW WHERE'S MY SISTER, TIME TO FUCK!
>>29813345
>several confederate generals had fought against served as pallbearers at his funeral
Why do people forget this? Sherman did what he believed was justified to end the war, do I like it, no. But did it end it ended a pointless conflict that shouldn't have started in the first place. South Carolina dropped the ball on that one.
Jackson suggested a black flag campaign after First Manassas was shut down, and thank God he was.
>>29813365
Many of the trooped admired their commanding officers. Jackson's men marched barefoot with meager rations and raised hell in the valley.
Union prisoners cheered Jackson as he rode by on Little Sorrel on his way to Richmond.
>>29813272
>The South seceded because Lincoln was elected
>The South seceded because of slavery
Which was it, again? Oh... shit... it's like you didn't even fucking study HOW Lincoln got elected through backroom political dealings -- dealings that were definitely a compromise between North and South, but dealings, nonetheless.
>L-Lincoln w-was just stopping an unlawful secession!!!!
Only because he could say he was doing so without an act of Congress declaring war.
Shit, dog, have you ever even read the Gettysburg Address -- Lincoln's thoughts on the cause for secession and why he was sending so many boys to die on his quest to prevent it?
Show me, in that address, where he condemns the South and its motivations. Go on, shitfucker.
>>29813345
>>29813365
I get it I really do, but I just dont understand the fixation he gets be some.the great fixation on him that some people have today.
Typically, those people with this kind of fixation dont focus on how good he was to his men but rather "hurr dur he done burned rebel cities"....
>>29813384
>Frequent field battles
Only in the East, and even then they lost more than they won. Out West the CSA was rekt completely by 1863.
>Struck an offense into PA
And Lee's army never recovered from that crushing defeat. What is Pickett's Charge (Lee's fault, btw)
>>29813392
>no state can bind another
>unless it's the northern states saying the southern states can't leave or have slavery
>>29813304
>CSA had a lot of US Army personnel
>no citation
>pure bullshit
>>29813389
>workers who were free to work and choose their employers.
To suffer miserable factory conditions and risk horrible mutilation for shit pay. Or have you completely forgot about the New York riots.
>>29813437
http://www.historynet.com/mexican-war-the-proving-ground-for-future-american-civil-war-generals.htm
>>29813437
You dont need any. Look up every CSA commander and go look at their pre war military career. They didnt work for mexico or canada....
>>29813406
All I see is an assblasted lost causer repeating memes. The South seceded because, as they all said in the charters of secession, they wanted to reserve slavery. They saw the election of Lincoln as a threat to that.
It's pretty well documented that Lincoln thought secession was unlawful. It's also well documented that he said his ultimate goal was preservation of the Union not abolition of slavery. But whatever. Go back to fucking your sister, bubba.
I don't understand why people are so butthurt and wail about why he was the greatest cruelty inflicted on the South. By 20th century standards he was incredibly mild
>>29813442
The New York riots were about draft policy, not working conditions.
Also
>Shitty working conditions for shit pay
As opposed to working every day for 14 hours subsistence farming as most humans had done before industrialization and starving if your yield sucks?
>>29813456
And where, in this article, does it state that:
"a good chunk of the US Army defected to the CSA"
Jesus, son, you need to punch your mother in the face for fucking her brother and making you retarded :D
>>29813465
The charters say that they are treated differently because of supporting slavery, you fucking cuck. If you want to fucking cite the fucking charters, maybe you should READ ONE, fucking idiot.
>>29813442
New York riots were about the draft. While I do agree that 19th century industrialism was generally hellish, and that there was actually a lot less freedom than wealthy industrialists liked to claim, it was relatively new at the time. People didn't see it as immoral, not even the workers. Slavery had been around for all of human history and was pretty obviously obsolete and unethical. Industrial capitalism on the other hand was shiny and new and people (aside from a few noteworthy bearded Germans) hadn't really begun to consider whether or not it was ethical.
>>29813389
Well you went on about Marxism and I'm sure you believe Slavery was bad, and you assume that is why the war was fought.
Or are you just being a cunt for the sake of being a cunt?
Slavery was an aspect of the war, but the main aspect was the fact that the south had much of it's autonomy left, and was fighting government attempts to take it away through centralized banking, erosion of state's rights, and unfair taxation upon their goods (which mostly the North bought and forbade the South from trading freely..)
Slavery was bad, no shit. But if you say "Well I'm under no illusion that the North was any better" you have to look at what remains. Which was the real cause for the war. And that was governmental attempts to crush any opposition, politically, despite constitutional rights all states had, and the fact that the south mostly just wanted Slavery to be a state issue, among literally every other issue stated above. Such as, trade, taxation, and banking systems.
>>29813418
>Only in the East
Where were the Capitals and most of the industry?
>Lee fucking up Gburg
Agreed, but only because those goddamn cocky Texans couldn't take Little Round Top. Lots of Union boys died on their way to Appomattox and there was some serious fumbling going on there to call that a string of losses. Even towards the end, Louisiana had victories as a final breath. It sounds like you're implying it was an easy beatdown of the CSA. That somehow took five years to do...
>>29813437
On my phone, not going to dig up shit you can google. But if you're willing to deny the CSA had a big part of US Army Officer Corps and Mexican War vets, then I'll assume you attribute large Union losses as superior Southern genetic stock?
>>29813525
From the Texas Ordinance of Secession:
"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time"
>>29813511
The part where it lists the general's name, his history in the Mexican War, and then his history in the Civil war.
Fucking stupid piece of dogshit. What's wrong with you? Too fuckin' focused on incest to READ ONE PAGE? Then wonder why people call you a "shit-for-brains" or a "retard" or an "idiot" when you attempt to sum up something you didn't even fucking read. Stupid fucking faggot.
>>29813486
>about draft policy, not working conditions
Because the irish were treated a second class citizens. Your argument, and most contemporary thought on the war, places the north on a pedestal for moral thought. It always boils down to the cousin fucking southerners wanting to keep their slaves because they are evil barbarians.
Northern factory workers would work for 14 hours a day to return home to a staggering level of poverty and filth. No side can claim the high ground.
>>29813545
WOW, you got through a whole fucking sentence! Now let's read the whole paragraph!
>Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquillity and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
Gee, slavery's the ONLY thing they wanted!
That, and the lawful ability to follow their own fucking constitution. Who gives a fuck about that? Huh? They said the word "SLAVERY" so that's ALL you can fucking read, stupid fucking autist.
>>29813541
You talked about how horribly oppressed the Northern hireling was by his capitalist bosses. It sounded very reminiscent of Marx, hence why I "went on about it."
>>29813581
>Lawful ability to follow their own constitution
>Every other fucking state did the same
>"SEE AUTIST YOU'RE WRONG IT WASN't ABOUT SLAVERY !!!11"
What no one in this thread seems to realize is that had the South not seceded they probably would've been able to keep slavery.
>>29813539
All true, but the argument that the North can claim the moral high ground is tedious at best.
If the cause of tension is looked at, much of it can be attributed to the westward expansion of slavery. The free soilers did not want blacks out west, they hoped to keep them in the south far away from the noble experiment they hoped to continue. They were just as racist as the south in many aspects.
The fact that immigrants were treated as second class citizens also disproves some of their claim to the moral high ground. Irishmen lynching people in the streets and demanding fair treatment only to be shelled shows that the north had its own problems to deal with.
Remember it was only a few decades later that people looked at industry and saw it as an absolute horror show that needed to be transformed.
>>29813392
Rights come from nature not documents.
>current year
>bible
I'll pass on a cucked middle eastern slave religion. I'd rather read the Havamal and appreciate my own indigenous culture.
>OP implies some kind of mass shooting in Georgia tomorrow
>/k/ completely ignores and argues about the Civil War instead
/k/: A Magical Place
>>29813670
Yup. James Oakes makes the point that only three groups of people in the USA really understood the implications of the 1860 election:
The Republican abolitionist wing, who secretly hoped for a civil war that would allow them to gain public backing for "direct" emancipation at the point of a bayonet, bypassing the legal safeguards that protecting the institution.
The Southern "moderates", who saw what the Republican plan was and realized that by seceding, the South was playing into the hands of the abolitionists, who would use the war to destroy slavery.
The slaves, who knew their owners would secede over the issue and felt that this would give them their long-awaited opportunity for freedom.
>>29813772
Neo-Paganism is the fedora and neckbeard of religion
Can we just accept that both the North and South were cunts in the Civil War and move on?
>>29813921
No, because the South were bigger cunts. The USA's greatest mistake was abandoning the nationalism of loyalty that had placed white and black Americans on equal footing and letting the South wiggle its way back into the American nation with the nationalism of race.
To all the anons arguing about slavery, here is Confederate VP Alexander Stephen's "Cornerstone" Speech:
"Our new government is founded upon the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."
From Thomas E. Schott's "Alexander Stephens of Georgia: A Biography (1996)" Page 334
>>29813921
It's taught as a battle between good vs evil, but really it was a clusterfuck between bad vs worse.
>>29812890
>Our founding fathers were also traitors..
>wait...
>>29813934
>not realizing that before the war you identified with your state
>not realizing that reconstruction was an absolute clusterfuck of bureaucracy and carpetbaggers
>not realizing that by the end of reconstruction nobody gave two shits besides the radicals, people just wanted to move on
You're better than that anon.
>>29813882
I thought that was atheism and Wicca. Lulz.
Okay back to the topic... What's up tomorrow?
>>29813143
>We have equal numbers of slave states and non-slave states
>let's make some new non-slave states so we can outvote the slave states and make them do whatever we want
>the slave states will obviously just fall in line because we stacked the books unfairly against them and thought federal legislation attacking them wouldn't cause any sort of friction
>>29813167
Feds occupying a fort in southern territory and refusing to return to the north. What did you expect would happen?
>>29813819
What always gets me is that THE Sam Houston was one of those "moderates." He warned that the South was headed for a war it couldn't win if they left the Union
>>29814039
>not realizing that this was an obstacle to American weltmacht.
>not realizing that reconstruction gave black communities a political voice for the first and only time in American history to that point
>not realizing that the South was desperate to undo the political and socio-economic progress of Freedmen
You're better than that, Anon.
>>29814380
More like the same rich slave owners just switched to rich sharecropper renters, which could arguably be considered worse than slavery, since it allowed to freedmen to basically live how the northern factory workers did. Under awful working conditions, for shitty pay, under shitty loopholes that ensured a sharecropper would be stuck on that land like a peasant.
So, really, you got what you wanted. The Northern way of life.
>>not realizing that the South was desperate to undo the political and socio-economic progress of Freedmen
While true, this also happened up North, see Ohio. And really, the Feds said that Jim Crow laws didn't violate the 14th amendment for a long time.
There is no black or white, there is only gray. They told you in grade school a specific saying, "The victors write history."
>>29814380
>willfully dividing two regions of the nation over a minority group for the sake of "progress"
Slavery is an awful thing, but it should have never come to war. Reconstruction embittered both the north and south against each other. Why do you think we still debate about the war? The entire southern economy was trashed, and the concept of the yeoman farmer died with it. Both black and whites were forced into sharecropping, which only benefited the former plantation owners and carpetbaggers.
What good came from the war? Emancipation sure, but at what cost? Its easy to sit here now and debate the topic but we fail to realize that the Civil War shook the very foundation of this nation to its core.
Jim Crow existed outside of the South for a long time. The last powerful influence of the KKK was based out of Indiana.
>>29813465
What the fuck is wrong with slavery anyway? You God damn virtue signalling faggots need to grow the fuck up and learn some history.
>Rhodesia was right
>South Africa was right
>Confederates were right
Somehow every other single country on the face if the fucking planet managed to abolish slavery without a war. The Civil War wasn't fought over slavery. That's just propaganda that the winners wrote into the history books.
Prove me wrong. Name another country that had a war to end slavery.
>>29813199
...Sherman never burned Charleston. He was in SC, but he never went anywhere near Charleston. Alexander Schimmelfennig was the Union general that the Mayor surrendered to.
>>29813774
Seriously, why is no one talking about what OP actually said?
>>29815033
because it's this new thing called a "joke"
OP isn't going to resurrect Sherman to shoot up the entire state of Georgia.
>>29812860
Well, I can personally say on my behalf. That I know the war is over.
I think the reason us Southerners stick to the civil war so often is because we fought for what we believed in. I know our primary reason for fighting was wrong, at least that's what I think. But for a time we put our money where our mouths were and fought. Any man or woman can respect a person who sticks to there beliefs and stand behind them. Just look at us and how we defend our second amendment right.
I also believe that for a moment, the people of the confederacy saw a chance to be there own great country devoid of Northern idealism. I know that sound a text book explanation of the civil war. But Think about this, The instance you cross the Mason-Dixon line. There is a obvious difference in political and social views ( is that the same thing? Anyway).
The more south you go the wider the difference in political practice, to the point it's night and day. Just look at who we make fun of New York, Chicago, and California. I know California is on the West Coast but it's still northern Ideals. Now imagine this. What if we were our own Country? When ever a far left leaning Politician is voted into the white house. We can sit back and say, "well, That's not OUR problem". That's what we really can strive for. Not to constantly look over our collective shoulders and fear for our freedoms.
>TL;DR: In political way, we are almost two different country's and we like that fact we have a flag to represent that. Despite it's miss use by hate filled groups.
>Civil War thread
>LOL YOU STUPID INBRED HICKS LOL WE COULD HAVE DESTROYED YOU IN A MONTH FUCKING REDNECKS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
Why are Yankees so salty about the inferiority of their military's leadership.
>>29815446
>The instance you cross the Mason-Dixon line. There is a obvious difference
No doubt about that, Cleatus! :D
>>29815850
Daily reminder that American leadership during every failed war has been composed of a incompetent Yankees.
They may have control of finance but Northerners are shit soldiers and shit Generals.
Front line combat MOSs are filled with Southerners, way out of proportion to our population. Prove me wrong.
>>29813041
Yfw Lee was a northerner.
>>29810523
He was good at training troops.
>>29813119
You could learn alot by reading a book.
>>29815975
>Didn't learn about Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain in his backwoods one room schoolhouse.
>>29812914
Less than a percent of southerners owned slaves. Many were small-farmers who didn't want a large bureaucratic state to interfere with their business.
Slaves contributed very little to the life of the average white southerner. Their labor was used for cash crops that made a small minority very rich, which funded opulent lifestyles.
A war is still being waged against the South, and you're a victim of that war's propaganda. You wouldn't have your knee-jerk hatred of Dixie if you hadn't been exposed to stereotypes all your life.
>>29810574
There were a lot of different rifles in simultaneous use during the Civil war. Huge leaps in gun design were being made. Three or more different rounds being used in the same battle wouldn't be an outlier. A lot of bullets and balls were also cast in the field, and every soldier was loading his own. At least until cartridge guns came in at the end of the war. If you could make a mold you could trick out your bullets how you liked.
A friend of mine did illegal metal detecting in battlefields for artifacts. He once found a bullet that had been carved into a chess knight. Many balls and bullets also have nibble marks from soldiers nipping off the casting imperfections with their teeth, or just out of anxiety. Some are bitten nearly in half. You can guess why.
>>29813392
The ability of member states to leave a union is what keeps the union honest, and preserves the liberties of citizens.
If you can never leave, you're a subject, not a citizen. That's not semantics. There's a very large difference.
This is mitigated somewhat by southern suffrage, but it's still being forced to play a rigged game.
>>29813272
>But it was the Southerners who saw his moderate abolitionism, went full retard, cried "muh rights," and seceded even after Lincoln said he wouldn't touch slavery.
The executive's position didn't matter as much as you think. The real issue was slavery in the territories. Everyone knew that when the territories were made states, they would tip the electoral balance. If they were free states, national abolition would be the result. If they were slave states, the north could never vote out slavery. Secession was the South's move to preserve slavery in their own independent nation, regardless of what happened in the territories.
At least this was the case for the political class. The agrarian class joined in to reduce the influence of a hostile central government on their lives.
>>29813285
If you don't see how forcing member states to remain in a Union that they do not support, do not want, does not represent their interests and may at times work against them goes against the essential spirit of the American Revolution than you're a total loss. Putting a stop to that kind of thing was precisely why the colonies chose to cast off the Crown. Fucking think about things motherfucker.
Sherman was such a badass.
>>29814380
>>not realizing that reconstruction gave black communities a political voice for the first and only time in American history to that point
And a lot of good that's done them. All they did was vote themselves welfare, and the right of their best and brightest to abandon other blacks for white neighborhoods.
The black community is a total shitshow and no one on the tee vee can convincingly explain it. The reason is that once they desegregated the smart ones didn't have the burden of leading their communities anymore. They could go join the whites in the communities that had already been made prosperous by the efforts of whites.
Everywhere blacks are a majority and in control of government is a goddamned wasteland. Any black smart enough to fix things simply moves along with the white flight. At some point you can't blame it on whites, anymore.
>>29816526
That didn't happen until Johnson's Great Society, and even then black communities were on the up and up until the 70s and 80s when crack became a big thing.
Also go back to /pol/ the adults are talking
>>29810523
Leave Mac Daddy alone
>>29813772
>not calling odin, woden
>>29816582
>That didn't happen until Johnson's Great Society
>even then black communities were on the up and up until the 70s and 80s
You just made my point. There was segregation up until Johnson, and there was still a lot of defacto segregation up until the 70s. That's when the fed started cracking down on all remnants of the segregation infrastructure, and when forced integration began.
Exactly when you agree that things started going to shit. You can blame crack all you like, but the CIA didn't actually make crack. Crack is made in the kitchen with cocaine and baking soda. It's a drug blacks chose, when they no longer had the community leadership of their best people.
Welfare is the biggest destroyer of the black family, not crack. It enables women to have as many babies as they like, without having a responsible male around to pay for them. This is having a terribly dysgenic effect on blacks, whose lowest-IQ members are doing all the breeding.
All of the political changes that created this situation were overwhelmingly supported and voted for by blacks. Today the Democratic party, the party of the welfare state and integration, cannot win elections without minority votes.
These people have voted themselves into a shit situation that doesn't work for them. And you have only helped support that argument.
You can only retort with "adults are talking" so many times until you're the one who sounds like a child.
>>29816692
>not writing his name in the Old Fuþark
>>29816220
Preach. America =\= DC
>>29816811
Dude what are you talking about? Forced integration? If anything it was the opposite with policies intended to keep urban blacks in the cities and impoverished. Not disagreeing with you about the effect of welfare, but it is well documented that crack cocaine had a very negative effect on black communities.
>>29816526
Africa is a shithole because it's full of Africans.
If you deny this you're a racist because you are denying the agency of African people.
>>29816872
Africa is a shithole because of bad property rights caused by a very rapid end to colonialism that left a massive power vacuum.
>>29813243
Southerner here. Georgia.
An extremely large portion of agriculture in the antebellum and war-time southern US was nothing aside from cotton and tobacco.
Not the most nourishing crops.
Jesus the thread turned into /pol/ fast. Anyways did anyone have family members fight? My great, great, great grandfather fought with Georgia infantry. The old bastard was wounded at Antietam and The Wilderness, lived through that, spent a year in a New York prison camp, until he finally made his way back home.
>>29816038
eh maine is the south of the north anyhow
(seriously nowhere that would elect paul lepage could be anything but southern :P )
>>29816886
So you're saying that Africans are so stupid, disordered and incompetent they can't even maintain a land registry. Must be whitey's fault, sure.
Property rights come out of common law, something that is literally millennia old in non-African areas. You don't even need nation states to have land ownership. Europeans colonized, taught them how this shit works (it's not hard) and left them all the records and infrastructure.
No. You can't blame whitey for this one. Land ownership and property rights is the kind of shit that develops alongside agriculture. Literally prehistoric technology, before the written word even.
There is no excuse. None.
Africa is a shithole because it's full of Africans. They have responsibility. Who else possibly could?
>>29816865
>Dude what are you talking about? Forced integration?
I mean, it's not like there were massive riots in major cities over... oh shit what was it about...
>>29813059
In the land of furries and autists?
>>29817001
Except I didn't say any of that. When I said Africa's problem is property rights I mean that there are so many different groups with different systems of property that there is a massive lack of consistency. Colonialism didn't help because borders were drawn with little to no consideration for these issues. It's why Kenya, for example, has a massive number of different language and ethnic groups.
The issue with Africa as it is today is that there are so many groups vying for control that property rights are confused and governments are more concerned with maintaining themselves instead of rule of law.
I wouldn't, however, expect a run of the mill /pol/tard to understand basic economics, history, or current affairs. It's all "lol those dumb niggers lol."
>>29817001
A wise man once said that the hardest thing about establishing rule of law is the first 500 years.
Africa hasn't had the time to create the institutions and traditions that make truly secure property rights, and more generally free enterprise, possible.
Also, commies fucked up everything, and no common language/ethnic ties.
>>29816865
>If anything it was the opposite with policies intended to keep urban blacks in the cities and impoverished.
Like I said, and like you said: Until the 70s. Then the blacks with careers could move out of those ghettos and into the white suburbs.
You can't keep the timeline straight in your head because you can't think rationally about the subject.
Whites had equal access to cocaine in the 80s. They could have cooked it up into rock and destroyed their lives with it just as blacks were. But by and large they didn't. Why is that?
>>29816872
>If you deny this you're a racist because you are denying the agency of African people.
Actually you're a racist because you're not blaming it on white colonialism. They was kangs, dude.
>>29816886
>a very rapid end to colonialism that left a massive power vacuum
So what you're saying is whites should have held onto Africa longer?
>>29817011
Lest we forget:
http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/integration-to-1963.html
>>29817104
The thing is that they did, but not in the last 60 years or so when they regained control from colonial powers.
>civil war thread
>becomes about race
No surprises here.
>>29817127
With regards to property rights and institutions, Africa was, in some ways, better off under Euro colonialism. So if you want to interpret it that way, fine.
>>29813079
The poor southern whites fought a war so they could point at black people and be all "i ain't a smart or rich man but at least I ain't a nigger!"
>>29817160
That too, certainly.
Worst flag of the war.
>>29817070
"Problems with property rights" is a very roundabout way of saying "the slaughter of white farmers in South Africa and Zimbabwe is encouraged by black governments."
There wasn't a western concept of property rights when whites showed up, and as they leave the concept leaves with them. Whites have been in Africa for over a hundred years. In South Africa blacks were handed a working western civilization on a silver platter. If they couldn't suss out property rights with the existing system of property rights that they already had, and they couldn't work it out after watching whites for a century, when WERE they expected to learn it?
This is very relevant:
https://archive.org/details/LawAndDisorderInJohannesburg-LouisTheroux
>>29817133
Well, the decolonization process was hasty, because why would an institution intended to generate profit for the host nation bother to prepare the colonies for independence?
There's no margin in that.
So you end up with completely inept governments that lack the education, the resources, or the institutional experience to maintain order. And then predictable results.
I completely agree that colonialism was a good idea. Well intentioned idealists thought that you could leave the countries alone and they'd turn into a fully functional republic, without putting any thought into the development process that creates a republic.
If a state is incapable of functioning, it should be subsumed by a stronger power. That's the way it's worked since the dawn of man, and putting a stop to that process has led to untold human suffering.
>>29817160
>>29817173
How did that work? They'd turn black if they didn't fight?
Your irrational ethnic hatred is showing.
>>29817104
Literally everyone else on planet earth has had time to develop property rights and the rule if law.
I'm sorry, when was the starting line for human civilization again? Did Africans sleep in or something?
It takes 500 years do develop the basics of social organization, OK let's roll with that. Stating when? 12000 BC? 1970? 2016? When will Africans have responsibility for themselves? When will you stop making excuses?
>>29816940
Quit derailing this thread NAACP shill. .25 WIC-bucks have been deposited in your account.
>>29817193
Except they had conceptions of property rights, just not western ones. The problem is that, again, they had these institutions before European colonialism and when they were gradually subsumed by colonial powers those institutions were destroyed or lost. When the colonial powers left, the people left behind hadn't had time to absorb the institutions the Europeans brought with them and learn how to use them themselves.
>>29817220
I don't agree that colonialism was a good thing, but you are right as to why Africa had so many problems after decolonialization.
>>29817252
The institutions and property rights that existed in Africa were destroyed when they were subsumed by European colonialism. They didn't sleep in. They had the progress that had been made destroyed. You're also making the mistake of thinking that Africa is homogeneous and monolithic. It is anything but.
>>29817318
The Europeans and Asians had architecture, industry, and written languages. All of the features of what we call civilization. Sub-Saharan Africa had none of that.
What were the institutions and property rights that existed in Africa before colonialism?
>>29815975
>Who is Norman Schwarzkopf?
>>29817392
The one theater commander who had a clear mandate to leave once a very specific objective was achieved?
Leadership also includes political leadership. Which is really the most important. They decide when wars start, and how long they get drug out.
>>29817385
In Sub-Saharan Africa it was mostly tribal. Tribal societies have their own institutions and systems of property that tended toward communal living and familial property rights. Also, a brief google search would help you answer your own questions, but I'm nice so...
http://www.ushistory.org/civ/7a.asp
Ghana was just one of many.
>>29817428
Nice goalpost shift
>>29816692
Odin, Othin, Wotan, Woden. Same guy.
>not writing in elder futhark.
How can I type runes on this shitty fucking iPhone? I'd really like to know.
>inb4 shitty apple products
It was a gift.
>>29817291
>NAACP shill
>Proudly stating the fact my family fought for the Confederacy
ok then
>>29817385
>places that have sedentary agriculture have customs and institutions suited to civilizations
>places that don't, don't, and don't progress to modernity as quickly because none of the prerequisites are there
I don't think this is a racial phenomenon so much as an economic one.
I mean, Africa north of the Sahara is fucked, but it's fucked Arab style and not Africa style, because they have an Arab style history.
>>29814602
Daily reminder that not a single other country in the entire world found it necessary to wage a war to emancipate the slaves.
Daily reminder that winners write the history books.
Daily reminder that in 100 years the current middle East clusterfuck will be taught to schoolchildren as a war of good vs evil with clear moral lessons that support the authority of whatever nation state happens to be in charge at the time.
>>29817453
>Ghana was just one of many.
Where were their libraries? Their cathedrals? Their factories?
Where was their steel metallurgy? Where was their evidence-based medicine? Their alchemy? Their natural sciences?
Where was their mathematics? Their philosophy? Their letters, scrolls, or books?
Saying that Africans were stunted by white colonialism is ludicrous. Africa has been populated longer than any other continent. They had almost a million year's headstart.
And when it comes to the Kingdom of Ghana, your own link shows that it wasn't destroyed by white colonialists, but by other Africans.
You're not even paying attention to your own supporting evidence. You're grasping at straws to make excuses for others.
>>29817593
>mfw no other nation in the west needed to fight a war to emancipate the slaves
>mfw fucking Mexico got around to it before the US did and that was a major factor in Texas seceding
>mfw people fleeing to fucking Canada to escape oppression in America
Truly, the existence of the South is god's failure.
>>29817610
>country is occupied
>the economic and political development of that country is geared towards removing money from that country
>country isn't occupied
>it can imitate countries that adopted successful strategies, and develop itself
I don't buy the argument myself, but that's what that guy is saying.
He's not saying Africa was more advanced than Europe before colonization, but that colonization prevented Africa from adopting European methods effectively.
>>29817518
Well, some African tribes DID have agriculture, but nowhere to the level of anywhere else.
That said, why didn't Africans develop modern agriculture? They had much more time. They had a much nicer continent with better weather and year-round growing seasons.
When the English and the Dutch showed up in South Africa they had no problem setting up modern farms and using the wealth of that agricultural surplus to build a modern civilization. So it's not like it couldn't have existed in Africa for natural reasons.
The only difference is the people. And there are very obvious and distinct differences between them.
> mean, Africa north of the Sahara is fucked, but it's fucked Arab style and not Africa style, because they have an Arab style history.
Yeah, this is a civil war thread, and we're talking about American blacks, and they're descended from sub Saharan. So when we compare American black culture to African civilization we're talking about sub-saharan Africa by default. Unless someone wants to drag the Arabs into it.
>>29810447
Well we did have Patton and Storming Norman. Still Sherman was unique.
>>29810523
He was just too slow. But far from the worst. I knew southerner who admitted Mac was good at siege.
Just too busy trying to play chess with Lee instead of cage fighting him like he should have.
>>29817518
Name a natural resource in Europe, Asia, literally anywhere that does not exist more abundantly in Africa.
Africa is the literal fucking Garden of Eden. Farmland, climate, easily accessible metals and fuels, biological diversity, human population, trade networks to other cultures, you name it's got everything.
Whatever the reason is that Africa is a backwards shithole, I don't know. But lack of opportunity ain't it.
>>29817646
>He's not saying Africa was more advanced than Europe before colonization, but that colonization prevented Africa from adopting European methods effectively.
I'm trying to imagine the methods by which sub-saharan Africa would have adopted European technology and culture without colonialism. I guess he thinks we should have just sent missionaries and technical assistance pro-bono for however long it took.
Also, the idea that Europe stole the wealth of Africa is ludicrous. They had the natural resources of that continent to exploit for hundreds of thousands of years while Europeans stayed on their side of the sea. All of that wealth was ignored in the dirt. Europeans were the ones who gave it value. Africans had no use for it.
>>29817745
well i don't like arabs, can't we kill them to?
>>29812973
>a good chunk of the US Army defected to the CSA
Actually just the opposite is true. Many Confederate prisoners ended up defecting to the Union. Some Union units that guarded western depots were made up of former confederate prisoners.
>>29817900
Sub-Saharan Africa was isolated by oceans and desert. They had little to no trade with other peoples, in Africa or elsewhere, and since they were mostly tribal there was a lack of the competition between nation states that characterized more advanced places. It's why the Native Americans were the way they were up until the 1800s. A lack of trade and no pressing need to advance.
>>29817940
>former confederate prisoners
They were called Galvanized Yankees, IIRC. Presumably not to their face.
Yankees fuck off
>>29810418
>>worst union general.
Sherman was pretty much the guy who was flank security for Grant, and screened any confederate retreat given chance. Now considered a face on new dollar coin.
You best be joking nigger.
>>29818043
You still lost, you ass blasted traitor
>>29818043
That sure is a neat picture, Cletus. A damn shame you still lost.
>brokered convention into office without a single southern vote.
i was with you until the things you said after, you fucking moron
>>29813079
The South invaded the North on at least two occasions.
>>29813207
>White liberals will never stop shitting on the South over slavery
That's because YOU are their bastard son. They're afraid to admit that YOU are their product. They believe if they distance themselves from you, that they will now have their hands clean in the great rebellion to destroy America. And plus the White Liberals desire to blame everything on the Republicans.
You see the Republicans were the one who defeated the Confederacy and the liberal Democrats. Which is why now the liberal democrats are using the LGBT bullshit to attack the Republicans this time. You assholes got thrown out of the window.
>>29815446
>When ever a far left leaning Politician is voted into the white house. We can sit back and say, "well, That's not OUR problem".
No you couldn't. Because if you could originally have "had it your way", you'd be a left leaning agricultural dump. You deny to this day that the left leaning democrat soul was in fact your original foundation of the Confederacy.
>>29818113
This guy gets it.
The South seceded because wealthy slaveholders wanted to maintain their cash cow and keep their power and wealth lest the South industrialize. Accept it and stop getting assblasted over it.
>>29818043
Cherry picking battles means nothing. The Union won more battles than the Confederacy.
And if you checked what you were posting, you actually ended up accidentally posting 2 Union victories in there too.
>>29818092
Antietam doesn't count. The people of Maryland welcomed the CSA as liberators
>>29818183
That's actually not true at all. Lee expected that, but what he found were largely apathetic people who were hesitant at best to support him, downright hostile at worst.
>>29818183
That's a lie bro. Even when Confederate soldiers sang songs for the Marylanders, the people of Maryland replied to them by shutting their windows and doors.
One reason why Lee's force during Antietam was so much smaller than earlier in 1862 was because many Confederate troops deserted. A lot of them thought they would just be defending southern land and not invading another state.
>>29813261
>The Atlanta Campaign was a fucking textbook on how to out flank and out march your opponent.
It's easy to outflank an opponent whom you outnumber 4 to 1 with unlimited reinforcements. When Sherman attempted Frontal assaults he got BTFO by dudes who hadn't eaten in a week and had no shoes.
>>29818113
I've heard "liberals are the real racists" countless times, but I think this is the first time I've heard "racists are the real liberals".
>>29818208
Depends on the town.
>>29818291
Both are collectivists. They have that in common.
>>29818291
It's all obscured by history and white washing unfortunately. The Democrats were everything they accuse the Republicans for. That's why I will have nothing to do with that filthy piece of shit political party.
Seriously though, fuck the democratic party.
>>29818338
>southern culture
>collectivist ever
Maybe in fucking bizzaro world.
>>29818345
Johnson was right, though. He -will- have those niggers voting Democrat for a hundred years.
>>29818240
>4 to 1 with unlimited reinforcements
The north was not like that, and the south was not some rebellion.
>>29818351
I meant racists and liberals, you dolt.
>>29817988
>shit that doesn't make sense historically
>>29817988
The Confederacy, despite bitching about the Federal government, did nothing but whore themselves out to the Federal Government for Fugitive slave laws.
>>29816865
>>29816872
Only parts of Africa are shit, and the ones that are, were the ones that were (mostly) not under British Control. A huge part of having a successfully independent nation is having educated indigenous people doing shit properly.
In order to facilitate a successful transition to independence, you need a substantial amount of the population educated and already in control of domestic affairs.
This is exactly what British colonies had going for them; an education system for all their subjects with a vast majority of natives making up the government in-country, with their imperial overlords concerned with international issues and getting their money's worth out of the Commonwealth and Colonies.
Think of the most successful countries in Africa right now:
South Africa: British Commonwealth with a pretty checkered past, but no more so than much of the developed world at one point
Rhodesia: Was well on track to rivaling South Africa as the economic powerhouse of post-colonial Africa, until 'muh racism' got in the way, with the crown being retarded and demanding social justice move faster than was realistic. (Protip: Rhodesia was already on track to have its race problems fixed faster than the US)
Kenya: Aside from the MauMau uprisings in the late 50s, Kenyata's government was hugely successful and Kenya today is one of the Big 3 of Africa (The other being South Africa and Nigeria)
Nigeria: Arguably the fastest growing economy in Africa, despite not being as advanced as South Africa. I would attribute this to South Africa, like 'Straya, being independent for far longer.
Egypt: Under Nasser, it became a rallying cry across the region for Pan-Arabism.
Now, let's look at how the Non-British Colonies in Africa turned out.
Portugal: Angola and Mozambique saw some of the bloodiest fighting for independence, and went full-pinko after that. Angola has only recently gone from a shithole to an up-and coming country.
Belgian Congo: JFMSU
>>29818863
>Think of the most successful countries in Africa right now:
>South Africa
If that's at the top of your list for non-Arab Africa, you should be very depressed for the prospects of anyone south of the Sahara.
>>29818426
Well, since you're such a freethinking libertarian sort, let me give you this to think about: individual liberty and free markets are European ideologies. That shit appeals to pretty much no other racial group. And when whites are no longer in charge of their own countries, that stuff is over. Forever.
And in America, whites are the only ethnic group seriously fighting for gun rights. Blacks vote democrat at around 90% and mestizos at about 75%. When we're a minority we're going to have fewer gun rights than the Europoors. When our numbers drop lower than 20% house to house confiscations will have widespread support, regardless of how many gun owners get shot to death in the process. Hell, it will be popular BECAUSE white gun owners are getting shot in the process.
In b4 your token black friend.
>>29818173
It doesn't matter if they lost, I never claimed that they didn't, I was merely asserting that the Confederates were a much more effective fighting force, despite holding no real advantage except home field advantage. The Union leaders were not generals but priests of the blood god, with an absolutely callous disregard for life and tactics in general.
>>29821000
>white people ideals
China invented free market trade and the philosophy of liberty centuries before you white bois could even make bronze
>>29822936
In most Civil War threads confederate sympathizers exercise no real grasp on history but instead most of you pull things out of the air.
The Confederates were hardly a much more effective fighting force. The more effective fighting force is the one capable of taking the battle to the enemy. Remember all those countless battles on Union home territory? Yeah me neither, because the Union armies was busy taking most of the heart ache to the south.
If you're more busy deciding which flag to fly, instead of industrializing, the chances are you will have a harder time in war.
As for blood gods, Robert E Lee was the biggest blood god of them all. And he was the most successful southern general. He was Americas bloodiest general, even more so than Grant. While Grant's bloody tactics started in 1864, Lee's bloody tactics started in 1862!
Lee was the first to use the Zerg rush against the Union on the Peninsula against Mac, not Grant. And as for tactics, Grant was a blitzkrieger. He used tactics more accustomed to WWII. Tell you what, give Grant and Lee WWII era armor and see who wins the battle in the end.
>>29822947
And where are they now.
>>29817984
You do realize that Africa is fucking huge, right? There were plenty of people to trade with and plenty of resources to trade.
>>29818291
It's true though. Eugenics was a progressive cause. Even today they treat minorities like pets.
>>29825149
>muh planned parenthood
Creator of Planned Parenthood was a Eugenicist.
>>29821000
> individual liberty and free markets are European ideologies. That shit appeals to pretty much no other racial group.
As a hardcore libertarian I'm actually kind of embarrassed how long it took me to accept this. It's true though.
>>29825156
That was pretty much the main goal of PP right? Stopping the blacks and the poor whites from breeding
>>29825389
Yup. And statistically, it's still doing a great job. They abort more black babies than any other racial group. And the higher rate stays the same, even for different economical situations.
Poor blacks? Abort. Middle Class? Abort. Rich (even though very, very few rich people go to PP anyway.) Abort.
And this either reflects that they encourage blacks to abort...or it implies blacks are more likely to abort due to some unknown reason that only amounts to "They're black" right now.
OH! And Hillary Clinton idolizes Margret Sanger (PP creator.)
>>29825425
Which organization do you think has killed more Africans, Planned Parenthood or the East India Company?
Jury deliberation can be short
For a smart ass Yankee in a rebel court.
>>29823102
Lee was a traitor at the end of the day. Akin to the treachery that Friedrich Paulus committed in WWII.
>>29825389
>>29825425
And give satanic elites a venue for child sacrifice.
>>29825605
But there are no rebel courts, only Federal ones. And even in them the US was merciful enough to pardon most of the smart ass dixie-chicks who mouthed off about session.
>>29825565
The coastal African tribes that sold the inland African tribes to the white men with the big canoes.
>>29823102
>Grant was a blitzkrieger
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cold_Harbor
>Lee's bloody tactics started in 1862
Maybe that is the case; however, Lee was not the overall confederate commander in the Peninsula, and his tactics were not limited to a zerg rush like Grant's.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chancellorsville
I live on Chancellorsville Battlefield and volunteer there. There is a reason that Lee and Jackson are still studied for their brilliance.
>>29827293
>Battle of Cold Harbor
So your entire point was to cherry pick ONE battle...the worst battle mind you, in order to suddenly turn an entire military career of 4 years on it's head?
That's something that's worthy of the posts on /pol/.
Meanwhile in your personal world, there's no such thing as the Vicksburg campaign. Which was a series of battles similar in it's execution to that of the 1st Gulf War.
>however, Lee was not the overall confederate commander in the Peninsula
Lee took over command from Johnston. The 7 days offensive was his doing.
Seriously, this is /k/, don't do that again.
>>29828021
The 7 days battle was his doing, a battle the confederates won I may add, but not the whole campaign as the other gentleman suggested. As for Vicksburg, in the end it doesn't matter. I say that because 1. I'm an extremely proud virginian, but 2. The war was decided there or near enough to it. Manassas, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, all the way to Appomattox, Virginia was the civil war, yes other parts of the south saw major and decisive engagements and campaignshit, they pale in their importance to any fought in the East, specifically Virginia.
>>29829309
>a battle the confederates won I may add
Yeah and the Union won the Overland Campaign, but I don't understand where you are going with this.
>in the end it doesn't matter. I say that because 1. I'm an extremely proud virginian
That's irrelevant. I'm Turkish-American and I think Americans of our lineage have the best manly features for a US male, but that's irrelevant to anything else.
>2. The war was decided there or near enough to it
Yeah...ok..so then you agree with such things as Vicksburg being important and Grant's strategy for it?
>Virginia was the civil war
No it was not. It was just a housing for it's capital. The Texans can say they were the civil war because of the food supply they gave to the Confederacy. The Mississippians can say they were the Civil War because they supplied to ammunition for the Confederacy. The South Carolinians can say they were the Civil War because they supplied to harbor ports for the Confederacy as well as led it into it's initial rebellion. The Missourians and Arizonans can say they were the Civil War because their state was a key to the west for either side. Georgia could say they were the Civil War because they were the industry of the Confederacy.
The fact is, Grant knew the importance to the Confederacy was the Confederate Army itself. It doesn't matter if it lost with Lee, Bragg would still be out there and visa-versa. I'm not denying that Lee was a focal point of it's leadership, but it's far from Virginia being the one power source. Remember a capital can simply move.
>>29812914
How are you enjoying your urban slums full of groid welfare dependees and the liberal politicians who are using them as a voter base to destroy your constitutional rights? Having fun with that? How about that Lincoln, huh? Awesome guy.
Troll harder.
>>29829874
None of that would have been possible had it not been for Booth shooting Lincoln in the back before he could send most of the slaves back to Africa.
We should all ask you that question as most of the nigs and mudsharks are in the South along with the origins of the liberal democratic party.
slavery was a colossal mistakes on a cosmic level.
We in the south must suffer the black fools even to this very day.....No profit from agriculture is worth putting up with the cancer that is the negro race.....every where blacks are in charge there is corruption. Am I wrong? Cite an example please for the lover of Jesus. Every where there are a majority of blacks there are problems. Let me know a country in sub saharan africa any one of y'all would be desirous to move to....
The south was right that the states should decide what laws govern them, but man they chose a shit sandwich for all of us.
>>29814002
But they had the competence to win their war.
>>29814073
>the slave states will obviously just fall in line because we stacked the books unfairly against them and thought federal legislation attacking them wouldn't cause any sort of friction
Because the Fugitive Slave law isn't an attack on the Northern states in any way or form. And the North had a much larger population too dumbass.
>>29814681
>Somehow every other single country on the face if the fucking planet managed to abolish slavery without a war.
That's just because other countries aren't as stupid as the US.
>>29814681
>Prove me wrong. Name another country that had a war to end slavery.
Haiti.
>>29814073
Shit nigga, what is bleeding Kansas? Were them thugs and murderers jus' good ol' boys lookin' out for states rights?
>>29833096
BOOM
>All these revisionist historians playing the MUH DIXIE DINDU NUTTIN card
Go ahead, give Colonel Seidule a call, let him know he's wrong and doesn't know shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4
>>29817921
Ethiopia. It sits upon the Red Sea and was part of that trading network. They successfully fought off European colonization until the Soviet union came calling. The rest of Africa is fucked because the animals are almost entirely non-domesticable and the Tsetse Fly belt is a thing.
>>29812386
You mean spikes and rails. Right? Because that would be bad ass.
