I am ONCE AGAIN asking /his/ to explain to me, a non american why the confederates were "bad" or any worse than the founding fathers of america?
> in 1776 slave owning, traitorous aristocrats secede from their home nation and decide to create their own nation
>this is seen as good, is celebrated, and is seen as a truimph for freedom and democracy
>in 1861 slave owning, traitorous aristocrats secede from their home nation and decide to create their own nation
>this is seen as the worst thing ever
Why is it like this? I still haven't received a coherent explanation as to why slave owning aristocrats fighting against their mother country is good in one scenario but bad in another
>inb4 the american revolutionaries fought for freedom
the american whigs fought against their government because they weren't allowed to genocide red indians and because catholics in quebec were given equal rights. They were whigs of the 18th century not the hippy dippy liberals that post 1960 america has tried to portray them as. the confederates were just continuing on with that radical whig tradition of self governance
>y-you're a southerner
i'm british

>b-but the founding fathers didn't fight for slavery
YES THEY DID YOU SPASTIC
Lord Dunmore's proclamation that enslaved blacks who fought for britain would be freed is what led a huge number of southerners to fight for the revolutionary cause
Ergo the american revolutionaries of 1776 fought for slavery

>b-but the southerners fought for slavery
And the americans in 1776 fought because they hated catholics and because they wanted to eliminate the indians past the appalachian mountains
Why is slavery worse than racial genocide?

>>17786020 (OP)
The U.S. Founding Fathers were at least ideologically opposed to slavery despite being hypocrites, while the Confederacy aimed to end the slavery debate by explicitly enshrining slavery in its constitution

the whole join or die movement in the revolutionary war
and the need to maintain the union / federal government
alot of states and open land in the west. ment the confederacy and the union would almost certainly get into a land war in the future.

Heres a question.
What empire in the history of ever just gave up some of its land?

>>17786046
No they weren't
>>17786065
The british empire did

>>17786094
india?

>>17786020 (OP)
They werent, they had no sacred oath to king or country that was broken when they seceded.
>>17786026
neither of those are "le bad" only trannies think theyre bad.

>>17786020 (OP)
They lost

>>17786020 (OP)
>In 1776 slave owning, traitorous aristocrats secede from their home nation and decide to create their own nation
Slavery was legal under the British empire back then. Abolition was not a concern or reason for anyone supporting independence.
In fact the opposite is true. The British stopped several northern colonies from abolishing slavery, and the first draft of the Declaration of Independence mentioned this as a justification of secession.
The American Revolution also saw a *rise* in abolitionism, with revolutionary ideals causing the practice to be banned in several northern regions as early as 1779.


Meanwhile the Confederacy was built on not only the enshrinement of slavery as more or less its sole motive, and instead of viewing slavery with suspicion or as a necessary evil like the Founding Fathers, they viewed blacks as subhuman creatures who deserved slavery

These two events are very little alike.

>>17786102
Ireland
The british empire let ireland secede pretty peacefully
The same people who cry about what the brits did in ireland celebrate the union crushing the confederates
>>17786106
>neither of those are "le bad" only trannies think theyre bad.
I personally see no problem with all three, i am just using them as an example
anti confederate tards will cry about confederates owning slaves yet will see no problem with americans seceding to kill native americans

>>17786118
Cope
my post >>17786022 proves you wrong, showing that british abolitionists and arming of slaves pushed americans to rebel against britain
ergo, the american revolutionaries fought for slavery

>>17786022
Lord Dunmore's proclamation didn't apply to the slaves of loyalist slave-owners.
Any recruitment caused in reaction to it wasn't from people fearing that Britain would abolish all slavery, but rather because the proclamation proved the revolutionary's point that the British crown were tyrannical and didn't consider colonials their equals.

Also, even if I granted that there were continental militiamen/soldiers who fought for slavery, (which I don't,) that would only amount to a small percentage of recruits after the war had already been raging for over a year.
The Confederacy left the union and began the Civil War because of slavery solely and initially, these are not akin

>>17786145
Seethe.
see my post >>17786146
You have no argument here, Nigel.

>>17786146
>>17786155
>s-slavery
Why do you consider slavery worse than racial genocide?
The american revolutionaries fought because the british allied with the indians against the WASP american stock and stopped americans from expanding west, ergo they fought for racial genocide of red indians
You can't argue against this
I agree with both slavery and american expansion and manifest destiny

>>17786160
Oh so before the American Revolution was solely fought for slavery because of the Dunmore proclamation, but now because of the proclamation line the entire revolution was fought to commit genocide? Give me a break.

The Confederacy, and the American Civil War in general, was unique since it was about just one thing, it had a concrete cause. The American War of Independence wasn't like that. It's a complicated mix of political, social, and even psychological factors which gave many different revolutionaries many different motives for fighting.

And no one wanted to outright genocide all the native Americans. They just wanted to be able to settle in the sparsely populated regions of the Midwest and South.
Britain wasn't trying to give these natives their own state either, they put a mostly unenforced embargo on settlement because they were broke and didn't want to risk a war. They would have allowed settlement later.

>I agree with slavery
Okay, schizo. That does explain why you are so desperate to defend the Confederacy.

>>17786184
>Oh so before the American Revolution was solely fought for slavery because of the Dunmore proclamation, but now because of the proclamation line the entire revolution was fought to commit genocide? Give me a break.
Do you think the overmountain men or the poor whites in the carolinas and virginias fought because they cared about the enlightenment?
They rebelled against their government because they were being attacked by injuns and weren't allowed to fight back, because they were poor and wanted cheaper land out west and weren't allowed to because george iii said so.
>And no one wanted to outright genocide all the native Americans
Cope
Tell the black boys that. Tell the overmountain men that.
>They just wanted to be able to settle in the sparsely populated regions of the Midwest and South
They wanted to force them out of their lands and if they refused put them to the sword. that is the definition of genocide.
Ergo, they supported th genocide of native americans.
>That does explain why you are so desperate to defend the Confederacy.
Why are the Confederates "bad" for secedeing because they want to own slaves but the american rebels are "good" when secedeing because they want to own slaves, they want to genocide native americans and because they hated catholics?
I support both the rebels of 1776 and the rebels of 1861 by the way, i'm just pointing out your double standards

>>17786195
>Do you think the overmountain men or the poor whites in the carolinas and virginias fought because they cared about the enlightenment?
No it was mainly because they were always hearing about tyrannical shit the British government was doing, and how they weren't treating the colonials like equal citizens.
The British placed taxes without the colonies having a say in the matter, tried to take land and guns away from the colonials, treated captured POWs like traitors and executed them or left them to slowly die of disease in prisoner ships. They stole from the locals and allied themselves with the natives, the colonial's longstanding enemy.

That alone was the main reason for why almost everyone who fought in the revolutionary war on the American side, did so.
>They wanted to force [the natives] out of their lands and if they refused they put them to the sword
That's not how it happened.
Americans went and bought the empty land the natives considered their own and settled there. Understand this, there would only be a few thousand native inhabitants of swaths of land 100s of square miles in area. There wasn't a need to kill them.
>Why are the Confederates "bad" for secedeing because they want to own slaves but the american rebels are "good" when secedeing because they want to own slaves, they want to genocide native americans and because they hated catholics?
Because the American revolution *wasn't* about either slavery or westward expansion. I don't even know where the fuck you're getting the anti-Catholic thing from. Not only were the British just as anti-Catholic as the early Americans, the American government quickly established freedom of religion which included Catholics. Establishing a far more pro-Catholic government than England had.

And that's not how you spell 'seceding.'

>>17786020 (OP)
The rebels in 1776 incidentally owned slaves but were fighting against a tyrannical imperial government and for democracy. The rebels in 1861 were fighting specifically to save the institution of slavery. They were not being ruled over tyrannically, they had their fair representation in Congress like the other states, but that wasn't okay if there was a decent chance they would be deprived of their ability to enslave people. The famous Cornerstone Speech makes clear the difference between the two.

>The prevailing ideas entertained by [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.
>Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone 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. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago.

>>17786242
>I don't even know where the fuck you're getting the anti-Catholic thing from
ONE OF THE INTOLERABE ACTS WAS LITERALLY CATHOLIC QUEBECOIS BEING GIVEN EQUAL RIGHTS
THE AMERICANS FLEW FLAGS THAT SAID NO POPERY
From your absolute ignorance of the american revolution i won't bother to respond if you don't even know what the intolerable acts are

>>17786020 (OP)
When you lose a war, you usually get demonized by the winning side.

>>17786046
Slavery was just an archaic economic system destined to die out anyway similar to feudalism.

>>17786020 (OP)
>why the confederates were "bad"
They were importing as many niggers as possible.

>>17786383
Importation of enslaved Africans was banned in 1808. By the time of the civil war most enslaved people were generations deep in america.

>>17786020 (OP)
It boils down to one simple fact.... In the Revolutionary War the colonists were the victims of British tyranny. In the Civil War the victims were slaves and they were under the tyranny of the owners.

If you really want to put it into perspective, The North had every right to hang the Confederate leadership and did NOT. CSA President Jefferson Davis was indicted but never tried and lived his life out in Canada until his death in 1889.

The South? Crying,bitching,making excuses and threatening to secede again to this day and Lincoln was shot by some fuck-wit actor not long after the war ended.

>>17786434
>the Civil War the victims were slaves and they were under the tyranny of the owners.

If that were the case, why did so many enslaved people stay near or with their former masters after the war?

>>17786434
>War the colonists were the victims of British tyranny.

The leaders of the revolution were wealthy. How were they under tyranny and able to amass wealth at the same time?

bump

>The US is a smuggling colony which enjoys relative peace only because of its remoteness
>american colonists enjoyed 26 times lower taxes than people living in britian
>britian fights a war and runs out of money
>decides it's going to invoke its mercantilist rights and direct all colonial trade through england
>also stuff like the stamp act
>this would be ruinous to the american economy and people like thomas jefferson wont get their cheap imported french wine
>military presence in the colonies is perceived as a tax and causes a scuffle

>>17787904
>Thomas Jefferson creates nullification after federalists arrest his representative in Virginia for wrongthink
>as time goes on and people witness the effects of tariffs on agrarian economies they propose that tariffs are an unfair tax on a portion of the country
>eventually south carolina invokes nullification over the tariff of abominations
>western expansion takes off and the north steals california because it has gold
>john c fremont is tasked with the murders in the gold fields, oddly enough he was also tasked with indian deportations in georgia gold fields 10 years before
>in order to make an excuse for the north stealing california and filling it with irish Stephen Douglas a northern democrat, comes up with the idea of popular sovereignty
>he wanted to sell out the democrat party to the same northern rail interests that lincoln eventually sold the republican party to
>what actually ends up happening is northern religious cultists send assassins to kill pro slavery settlers
>the government admits two more free states, lincoln is elected premising no new states will be slave states
>they also start pushing massive tariffs on the south in congress
>history proves that Republicans didn't lift tariffs on agriculture in the US until 50 years later, almost culminating tin the election of a socialist president

>>17786195
>Tell the black boys that. Tell the overmountain men that.
>>They just wanted to be able to settle in the sparsely populated regions of the Midwest and South
>They wanted to force them out of their lands and if they refused put them to the sword. that is the definition of genocide.
>Ergo, they supported th genocide of native americans.
All conquest is a form of genocide.
genocide isnt wrong, its just how people are.

>>17787945
And if you believe posters that post here, the Wizard of Oz is about the US government extracting wealth from its people and that is why the path to the city is paved in gold and the city is green like the color of money

>>17786020 (OP)
because one of the sides harboured an eventually victorious faction vying for emancipation /thread

>>17786022
It's literally not but OK.
>>17786020 (OP)
The founding fathers didn't fight with enslavement as their 1 and only goal. Besides that little point they are the same. Might makes Right.

Also stop making this fucking thread.

>>17786020 (OP)
Trying to paint historical entities as "good" or "bad" is stupid, they are products of their time and making moral judgements about them is retarded. A historical figure/regime might be objectively evil but it is not for historians to condemn this figure, that's an invention of modern pseudo-academic critical theory and its why people cheer as the material evidence of history is destroyed. If the confederacy was bad that's a personal opinion you have and not really relevant to the study of history. Same goes if you think they were good, or at least on similar footing to the founding fathers.

>>17786020 (OP)
We're not. People believe it because of subversive propaganda by people who recognize we were (((their))) most dangerous enemies. History proves it; most successful White Identitarian movement in modern history.

If it wasn't for "Muh Pension Act!" Lost Cause History wouldn't exist and we might've achieved TND by now.

The Confederates, Nativists and their Anti-Federalist forebearers were right about literally everything and the modern history of the USA has actually proved that.

>"The consolidation of the states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it."
~Robert E. Lee

>>17786139
>british empire let ireland secede pretty peacefully
Are you referring to the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, which was fought and won by the Irish in the War of Independence, established the Irish Free State as a Dominion of the empire able to manage its own affairs? Or the Ireland Act 1949 where Westminster signed off on Ireland formally leaving the empire after being self-governing and virtually independent for over 20 years by that point?
If it's the latter then, I feel you left out some important context.
And those same people celebrated the end of a government that supported the enslavement of people. An idea to which they could relate.

>>17790510
>begorrah wewuz slaves just like the African victims
Oh get a grip paddy

>>17790510
>Are you referring to the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, which was fought and won by the Irish in the War of Independence, established the Irish Free State as a Dominion of the empire able to manage its own affairs? Or the Ireland Act 1949 where Westminster signed off on Ireland formally leaving the empire after being self-governing and virtually independent for over 20 years by that point?
it's funny that you think the irish war of independence was some kind of herculean effort against the british empire despite the fact that britain never even considered it a war, never sent the army in (the black and tans were just considered part of the police force) and all things considered it was pretty peaceful
The british could have chosen to send the army in and go full scorched earth but instead they treated it like a domestic trouble and let the irish secede peacefully rather than keep all of ireland
>And those same people celebrated the end of a government that supported the enslavement of people. An idea to which they could relate.
Ironic, seeing as plenty of irish people owned slaves and the nation of ireland benefitted from slavery
try asking people in monserrat why they celebrate st patricks day lmao

>>17786020 (OP)
You're pakistani

>>17786455
Because they had very few economic prospects other than working for or renting the land owned by their former owners. They had no labor skills besides what they learned as slaves.

>>17790692
>some kind of herculean effort against the british empire
I didn't say or even imply that. You're putting words in my mouth.
>despite the fact that britain never even considered it a war, never sent the army in
Despite the army pretty much begging for martial law to be declared and to be let off the lead.
>the black and tans were just considered part of the police force
Despite most having trained and served in the British Army in the First World War. A side effect of which, none had received any training in public order and enforcement so their primary instinct was to shoot first and ask questions never.
>and all things considered it was pretty peaceful
Low intensity conflicts (like most guerilla wars are) does not mean people don't suffer. Most infamously: the reprisal attacks carried out against civilians by the so-called "police" you mentioned above.
>let the irish secede peacefully rather than keep all of ireland
And now you've just contradicted yourself. They fought against the British establishment but they somehow obtained independence peacefully? Which is it?
>plenty of irish people owned slaves
Never said any didn't. 20,000 Irish fought for the Confederate States in the US Civil War. Some were likely slave owners. However, 160,000 fought for the Union in the cause of abolition and this is even after the Draft Riots. Regardless this is whataboutism for a tiny minority of Irish people.
>nation of ireland benefitted from slavery
How? Ireland as a nation has never had anything but contempt for the instiution of slavery to the point it's written in the national anthem.

>>17791691
>le irish rebellion
The british never acknowledged it as a rebellion. Never sent the army in. Never used tanks, planes, ships, etc. Treated it entirely as a civil disturbance.
If they could have the british empire could have gone full boer war and sent the entire might of the army and navy into ireland to hold onto it but most people didn't really care and were tired of fighting after ww1.
The Black and Tans's brutality is highly exaggerated.
>Never said any didn't. 20,000 Irish fought for the Confederate States in the US Civil War. Some were likely slave owners. However, 160,000 fought for the Union in the cause of abolition and this is even after the Draft Riots. Regardless this is whataboutism for a tiny minority of Irish people.
Imagine thinking the confederate states were the only places in the world to practise slavery. Nice job ignoring the carribean you absolute melt. See Liam Hogans work
>How? Ireland as a nation has never had anything but contempt for the instiution of slavery to the point it's written in the national anthem.
The normans literally abolished slavery when they invaded ireland lmao

>>17792693
>The british never acknowledged it as a rebellion. Never sent the army in. Never used tanks, planes, ships, etc. Treated it entirely as a civil disturbance.
>If they could have the british empire could have gone full boer war and sent the entire might of the army and navy into ireland to hold onto it but most people didn't really care and were tired of fighting after ww1.
NTA but that's incredibly retarded if we lost Alaska and Hawaii because it had some rebellion and we were too bored or lazy to send any soldier to stop it that would be incredibly embarassing and I'd rather humor the hawaiilaskans as plucky heroes that beat the world superpower for their independence than admit to being fat lazy retards.

Winning a war and losing a quarter of your mainland is incredibly cringe, fuck you changed the name of your country from the kingdom of britain and Ireland to britain and NORTHERN Ireland, what a fucking humiliation ritual why even change the name???

>>17786020 (OP)
I’m from the south with ancestors that fought in both wars, basically, the south lost and the spoils go to the victor. The civil war was weird, the south was forgiven. Reconstitution sucks ass, my home town was burned 150 years ago and now I don’t know my family tree on my fathers side and shit still hasn’t recovered

>>17786139
>The british empire let ireland secede pretty peacefully
Is that why half the island isn't part of Ireland?
>The same people who cry about what the brits did in ireland celebrate the union crushing the union crushing the Confederates
Holy strawman Batman

>>17786455
Because Dixoids made it illegal to walk around or hike the distance retard