Just as it was the free decision of a State to enter the Union, it's the free decision of a State to leave it. Simple as.

>and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
- The Declaration of Independence

>*blocks your path*

>>17836499 (OP)
Arguing over the war is stupid. Instead, we should argue over the cultural merits of each section of the antebellum U.S, and within that area, its very clear that the Southern states were immensely more valuable & cultured than the Northern states.

>>17836499 (OP)
Then the states shouldn't have agreed to this.

>>17836555
There was no law forbidding secession so this clause is irrelevant.

The Declaration of Independence = July 4, 1776
Constitution of the United States = Date effective, March 4, 1789
Huh
There's something about those two dates, I can't put my finger on it
Any ideas OP?

>>17836564
Where in the constitution does it outlaw secession? And no, the Supremacy Clause doesn't outlaw secession and would only be relevant to secession if such a law were made.

>>17836558
>>17836568
Article I Section 8

>The Congress shall have the power to...provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Explain to me how unilaterally declaring independence from the US then seizing US government property and attacking US soldiers if they refused to comply with your demands is not "insurrection"

>>17836555
Man it's actually brilliant how if you just follow what the damn thing says it's perfect. Fuck "interpreting" it. It's very clear. The government is a general guiding body to declare war, levy tariffs and create treaties.

>>17836596
That doesn't outlaw secession. It outlaws' insurrection. Secession is not mentioned in the Constitution, thus the 10th Amendment remains in effect for it.

>>17836606
This. Secession and insurrection are two different things, unless secession is SPECIFICALLY forbidden by law.

>>17836499 (OP)
Several issues with this though
1.) The North operated under the idea that the South was still part of the United States, and treated the Confederates as Insurgents
2.) The CSA was never an officially recognized entity by any mediator parties like the United States was
3.) If you could just unilaterally leave the Union, then there is little point in having a Federal Government in the first place, this was Lincolns primary reasoning.

>>17836617
the entire point of the federal government was it was recognized as legitimate by the states, that's why it was important not to violate the constitution which was essentially a treaty between northern smugglers and southern slavers.

>>17836617
>1
Irrelevant to whether constitutionally secession was acceptable and justified (it was).
>2
Largely irrelevant too, outside of from a war success perspective.
>3
That wasn't Lincolns primary reason nor is it true. The point of having a federal government is in the name; its a federal union for economic & military strength. Federal means federated meaning VOLUNTARILY entered. Voluntarily entering something ipso facto implies the right to leave. Do you believe in no fault divocrces?
Lincoln's reasoning for the war was that he was a nationalist who wanted a more centralized U.S. If he had been born Mexican he would've been a centralist.

>>17836625
Its like these people don't know what the word federal means or its history. The level of profound ignorance people display when talking about the Civil War is honestly astonishing. The federal government was created by states, like all federal governments, it was and is not itself a state. Its an agreement. Literally just a contract.

it’s true, the confederacy was legally correct to secede
though the issue of slavery is immoral the war was a war of northern and patently fresh off the boat Irish immigrant aggression against the founding families of the Republic, most of whom resided in the south

>>17836626
>Irrelevant to whether constitutionally secession was acceptable and justified (it was).
It's absolutely relevant when nobody recognizes your meme state and does not treat your cause as legitimate secession

>>17836631
I didn't even know what federal meant, wow, we're completely fucked to the gills

>>17836632
Really it was just a continuation of Democratic-Republican vs Federalist (a name consciously chosen by centralists to obscure their motives) bickering from the Founding Era. The Federalists were repeatedly on the losing end until they realized they could use slavery as a hedge issue to justify further centralization, and the arrival of large numbers of mostly ignorant German/Irish immigrants to Northern cities giving them useful footsoldiers who didn't know or understand the history of the country.

The South never formally declared independence like the United States did, so they basically had no legal precedent for secession.

>>17836633
Relevant militarily, yes.
Relevant constitutionally, no.

>>17836638
Jefferson's embargo made people in rural new york go fucking batshit and create the second great awakening. This is why religious loonies were in kansas killing people and setting up rival governments. The north used these people up until the civil war, and people like john brown ultimately did cause the civil war. Essentially the contemporary antifa, sponsored by northern industrialists. A primordial psyop

>>17836640
Um. Yes it did. Each state formally declared independence and withdrawal from the federal union they had voluntarily joined, and then entered a new federal union (the C.S.A).

Outside of Kentucky and Missouri, this was done in a more openly and legitimately democratic manner than colonial secession from the British Empire was. (colonial secession from the british empire was more similar to Kentucky/Missouri's secession and entrance into the C.S.A, e.g done by an unelected body)

>>17836641
>Relevant constitutionally, no.
Yes it's relevant constitutionally, because if you're only recognized as Insurrections, then you will be treated like Insurrections, and the North had the Constitutional authority to repel insurrectionists as per Article 1 Section 8.

If the South was smart, they would've had diplomats in Europe advocating for international recognition during the conflict, which would've thrown a huge wrench into the North when conducting military operations as they would've had to contend with other European powers as well. No European Great Power wanted to recognize Southern Independence because Slavery was outlawed in most of Europe already by that point. The South was fighting an uphill battle. Kentucky for example, wanted to remain neutral, but they were in fact, taken over by insurgents.

>>17836649
There was no Southern Declaration of Independence anon

Why are Southfags always so obtuse when arguing?

>>17836662
>[T]he State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act….
literally a declaration of independence

>>17836658
Recognized as insurrections by whom? The rest of the world didn't recognize anything about the Civil War, nor did they openly side with the U.S or C.S.A, much to the frustration of both sides. They essentially adopted a "wait and see" tactic, because they didn't want to get entangled in the conflict for good reasons. The Union was constantly seething at the lack of public support the UK/France/Spain gave them, all three of which mostly spent the war decrying the brutality of Lincoln and saying he was a race traitor or tax grubbing tyrant (even "liberal" journals in the UK turned against Lincoln despite initially supporting him).

The C.S.A officially withdrew from the Union, via democratic consensus in their state bodies, and even sent commissioners to Washington to discuss the partition of federal assets. Lincoln refused to meet them. The war was started by Lincoln and Lincoln alone.

>>17836667
technically russia sided with the north and that was to prevent the english from siding with the south

>>17836667
>>17836666
The South never declared Independence, they never signed a Paris Agreement, nobody recognized their independence, they were just seen as insurgents. This is historic fact. I do not care how much you want to split hairs over this issue. You lost.

>>17836665
You people are the obtuse ones. You refuse to admit the Constitution doesn't forbid secession, which it doesn't. You refuse to admit the C.S.A sent commissioners to Lincoln in 1861, which they did. You're now in this thread being retards and stating there wasn't a declaration of independence from the seceded states, when there was, it was just done by each individual state rather than a unified DoI like in 1776.

I wish you fags would just admit you don't care that Lincoln's war wasn't constitutional. I'd have way more respect for you if you did rather than trying to argue on constitutional grounds that it was justified.

>>17836672
You can't be an insurgent by doing something legal

>>17836665
It's just their inbred Chritard brains, don't let it bother you too much

>>17836673
>You refuse to admit the Constitution doesn't forbid secession
The Constitution forbids insurgency. The South were insurgents. It's not really that complicated my friend

>>17836672
>The South never declared Independence
So what is >>17836666?

>>17836672
>The South never declared independence
"The South" wasn't a state or governmental body. The states declared independence themselves, and later joined a voluntary federal body (as all federal bodies are) known as the C.S.A. How are you this retarded?

>>17836675
Ironically, in 1861-1865, it was the North that was full of evangelical radical morons.

>>17836681
The CSA never delcared independence, they were never a legitimate government. You can't have a Confederacy filled with anti-Federalists and expect it to work. At best you're arguing that South Carolina declared independence

>>17836687
The C.S.A was a federal union and was created by already seceded states. Once a state leaves the union, they can join or create whatever government they want.

>>17836687
if every constituent state declared independence why would the confederacy?

>>17836683
>The states declared independence themselves, and later joined a voluntary federal body (as all federal bodies are) known as the C.S.A. How are you this retarded?

Cool

The United States Declaration of Independence was signed by representatives of all 13 Colonies.

>>17836678
The Constitution doesn't forbid secession. The South seceded; therefore they weren't insurgents. If the South had, for instance, tried to force Northern states to accept the C.S.A constitution as their own constitution, that would have been insurgency.

That's not what happened. Seethe more if you must.

>>17836687
What would they be declaring independence from if all the states already declared independence from the Union?

>The South didn't declare independence because they were made up of wholly independent states
>But they also had a President and a Constitution
>But they were still anti-federalists that could leave whenever they felt like

The CSA was a Schizo government is my current takeaway to be honest

>>17836695
Cool.

The C.S Constitution was adopted by the C.S states democratically via debate in their state bodies.

>>17836704
Seriously how are you this retarded? Its impressive at this point. No such body or state as "the South" existed in 1861. The states seceded on their own and later created a new government. Its not that hard to understand, you'd have to be deliberately obtuse or genuinely retarded to not understand this.

>>17836705
So if a Southern State wanted to unilaterally leave the CSA, you're saying they wouldn't object? You're out of your mind if you think this.

>>17836708
You're proving him right, literally clown shit, no wonder you guys lost

>>17836709
Nigger stop with hypotheticals and focus on the argument here. You claim "the South" didn't declare independence. It did, state by state.

>>17836709
why would they do that?

>>17836713
>It did, state by state.
Show me a Declaration of Independence from a Southern State

>>17836704
>>The South didn't declare independence because they were made up of wholly independent states
How is that schizo to you? What would be schizo is declaring independence from something they were never dependent upon in the first place.

>>17836712
How so? The U.S.A never declared war on the C.S.A or waged war on the C.S.A. They waged war on individual states, all of which seceded; that was Lincoln's whole line too. Waging war on insurrectionists in the states. You people aren't very bright. His point, on top of being wrong, is also just irrelevant too.

>>17836717
Okay here you go retard.
>The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation.

Here's more https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

>>17836718
You didn't read the rest of his post

>>17836724
The rest of his post is equally as schizotarded though.

>Downie runs away after being proven wrong
Yankee intellectualism on full display.

>>17836728
I think it provides context you're intentionally ignoring here, the south couldn't be united under a constitution and also be wholly independent of eachother, it seems like Southfags think the constitution just amounts to some trade and military agreement

>>17836735
It doesn't, because the point is retarded and makes no sense and shows that he, and you, have no understanding of what a federation is.

>>17836723
So all parties of the CSA did sign a Declaration of Independence, and the unifying cause as per said Declaration was Slavery.
I will concede that there was indeed a formal declaration of independence against the North, but I will not concede to the fact that the Southern Institution of slavery was a massive roadblock in gaining recognition as its own entity.

>>17836704
In fact, each colony declared independence independently of the other, such to the point that in 1783, the Treaty of Paris specifically recognized the independence of each colony rather than any body known as "The United States," which was a federal body that didn't exist until 1787 with the adoption of the Constitution by each independent state.

How are yankoids this ignorant of their own history?

>>17836735
They also want to argue that their secession was democratic, which it wasn't, it was largely recognized at the time to be unilateral, and some states like Kentucky were basically pressured into joining by insurgents

>>17836740
Ivy league history is just propaganda now

>>17836738
Okay. I never said anything about slavery though. Thank you for conceding that you were retarded and objectively wrong, though. Now read >>17836740 to learn more about history you clearly know nothing about.

>>17836744
>Okay. I never said anything about slavery though.
I never implied you did, I was arguing that slavery was one of the reasons why nobody wanted to recognize southern independence, not just the north

>>17836741
Are yanks incapable of reading? I specifically mentioned how Kentucky and Missouri's accession to the C.S.A weren't democratic, and were more similar to how the colonies left the British Empire (via unelected delegates to a civilian non-governmental body aka the Continental Congress) in my comment.

>>17836596
Insurrections would be the Confederate states marching in Washington to kill Abe Lincoln and put their leader as president. Wanting to leave isn’t insurrection.

>>17836747
Sure, that doesn't mean the C.S.A were insurrectionists though (they weren't) or constitutionally in the wrong for seceding (they weren't).

You won't find any arguments from me on slaverys morality. It was wrong. Multiple things can be true at once.

>Be Southerners
>Gain monopoly on slavery after the North largely outlaws it
>South is now controlled by a small handful of wealthy landowners
>Southern economy is complete shit compared to the North because Slavery is not conducive to economic growth in the same way Industrialism is
>Slave owners are afraid that if Slavery becomes unconstitutional then their livelihood is fucked
>They declare independence from the North
>North retaliates
>South loses
>165 years later
>Retards on the internet are still trying to rehabilitate the South as a lost cause for independence when it was literally slave owning elite that caused it in the first place
Southfags are genuinely worse than NeoNazis

>>17836499 (OP)
>native american genocide
>heh might makes right
>cleetuses lose war
>OH NO NO NO I'M WHITE IT DOESN'T COUNT

>>17836756
You mean the native american genocide commited by northerners too? Stop being a fag.

>>17836754
>Be Northerners
>Get buttfucked at the constitutional convention and personally insulted that the capital moved to Maryland-Virginia area
>Have completely shit economy that's reliant on the South to feed itself because the northeast is a shithole incapable of having good farmland
>Freak out because you realize without the west being in the northern political camp, the South and West will surround the Northeast and make it politically & agriculturally vulnerable
>Start psyops lying about the South and saying they want to expand slavery into northern states or do a bunch of other evil things
>Rile up a bunch of fanatic evangelical New England morons and have them go do random terrorist attacks in the South paid for by Boston elites
>Surprisedpikachuface when the South secedes

>>17836764
it was so funny reading about how the wig wearing faggots had mental breakdowns swatting mosquitos in DC

Oh I'm a good ol rebel, now that's just what I am.
And for this yankee nation, I just don't give a damn.
I'm glad I fought again'her, I only wished we'd won.
I ain't ask any pardon, for anything I've done.

>>17836672
Each Southern State acted as an independent country (exactly how the founding fathers intended). There were no “Southern States”. It was a confederation, a group of independent nations/groups United.

>>17836771
Just use the term federation or federal, which is what it was. We only started using "confederation" cause new england fags co-opted the word federal and basically started lying about it.

>>17836709
There never was a CSA lol

>>17836769
New Englanders in particular were so insanely arrogant & parochial. The fact that Virginia had the level of honor & decorum they did to literally plunge themselves into a long-shot war that might have ended with all of them being hung as traitors just out of manly sympathy with Boston merchants should have earned the South eons of praise and loyalty from the Northeast, and instead, the Northeast went insane and spent the entire antebellum years plotting the South's downfall.

Whether it was constitutional or not, no nation that unilaterally declares independence can expect the country their declaring independence from to just accept it willingly, and a state incapable of winning the resulting war for its independence is doomed.

Regardless, after the fact the supreme court said the constitution doesn't allow secession, when Texas tried to get out of paying their debts by saying after the war the secessionist government was illegitimate so the contracts they entered into were illegal.

>>17836738
>Yeah I worship black people
Lmao

>>17836790
The South expected there to be a war, they hoped for peace though. In fact, somewhat contrary to the typical narrative on the antebellum South, the largest slave-owners were often the most opposed to secession at first due to them recognizing that a war would break out and slavery, even if the C.S.A won the war, likely wouldn't be able to survive the onslaught of war as an institution.

In Kentucky specifically, the large slave-owners in the Bluegrass region around Lexington-Frankfort-Louisville, where most plantations were, remained largely loyal to the feds because they knew secession would end slavery while the more middle class yeoman farmers who maybe owned one or two slaves or didn't own any at all were rebs hyper-loyal to the C.S.A and formed the Bowling Green government in KY that joined the C.S.A.

>>17836764
>>Have completely shit economy that's reliant on the South to feed itself
Nope. The North was more than capable of doing this actually. The Southern economy was bad because Slavery is a terrible economic model, it involved labor that is not able to be involved in the economy they contribute to, which hinders growth. This is why everyone had outlawed Slavery by the 1860s except for the South, since the Southern governments were completely controlled by a small slave owning elite and it was not in their best interest to see their livelihoods outlawed, hence secession. The Confederacy is the bottom of the barrel when it comes to retarded hills to die on.

>>17836779
It's not necessarily that the north hated the south, it's that the machine that they were given by the british (industrialization) was fueled by tariffs. And the only downside of tariffs is it makes everything more expensive, but it makes things not aasa expensive in industrialized areas as food prices stay the same

And therein lies the ultimate dilemma of industrialization and tariffs, you can cause all the inflation you want but the farmers still make the same amount of money

>>17836843
I suppose just another historical case of "Agriculture pays for industrialization".

>>17836852
which is why the government sponsored shit like the "green revolution" to pump up third world production of food to feed the world while they play with their AI and rocket ships

>>17836858

>>17836864
These are all cash crops which are picked with illegal labor. California is basically a modern confederacy only they don't produce anything useful

want some pomegranates?

>>17836858
Trvknvke

>>17836867
>slavery bad when it's not me doing it
The Southern United States consistently rankes at the bottom with regards to life expectancy and human development by the way

>>17836874
The main problem with slaves is that you don't want them to become citizens, so california sucks 5 ways to sunday

>>17836876
It's weird how California has all these brownskins yet they their HDI is higher than the US overall average, why can they handle them but the South can't?

>>17836880
Doesn't it have the highest wealth inequality in the US?

>>17836886
And highest poverty rate?

>>17836499 (OP)
incoming

>>17836886
Nope, that would be New York, California isn't even in the top 5 ( Louisiana and Mississippi are 5th and 6th respectively)

>>17836895
So brown people imported for slavery = poverty forever, neat

>>17836890
Also nope, California isn't even in the top 20. In fact, Southern States largely dominate

>>17836902
The South has been used as a resource extraction colony since its defeat in the war. Its no wonder its the poorest region of the U.S today. Its only been since the 80s that yankoids have moved on to other pastures and let the South start to develop.

>>17836880
Kek, California wouldn't exist if it weren't for Southerners. It was literally founded by a Kentuckian on orders by a Tennessean president (Carson & Polk).

The entire American Southwest was a Southern project.

>>17836902
So what happens when silicon valley gets exported somewhere else? California becomes as irrelevant as Arkansas?

>>17836935
John Fremont may have been a southerner, but he was also a Republican
William Ide was from Massachusetts

>>17836948
Fremont was a scoundrel and got kicked out of the union army for embezzlement

California is tainted land

>>17836948
Carson was the one that started the California Rebellion, and he was a Southerner (Kentucky). Polk was a Southerner (Tennessee). Fremont a Southerner (Georgia with heritage in Virginia too). There were very few non-Southerners involved in California's creation or any of the seizure of the Southwest. In fact taking the Southwest led to the North throwing a hissy fit and trying to refuse to let it join the USA.

>>17836960
Then the north declared California a free state before it was even a territory

>>17836964
Typical yankoids. The North's Free Soilism would be more respectable if it was actually anti-slavery instead of what it really was; sectional economic warfare.

Northerners flat out lied about the prevalance of plantations outside of coastal areas and the Deep South, too; most studies of antebellum Southern agriculture show that most Southern agriculture was small family farms just like the Midwest.

>>17836987
The normal farmer was living in a cabin with some hogs, chickens and a vegetable garden. Then vast fields of corn which was minmaxed to feed to chickens, hogs, cows and people

>>17836998
And it wasn't no sweet corn neither

>>17836998
>>17837012
Yep. Hogs and corn. Corn was associated with the South long before it was with the Midwest, it largely entered the Midwest via Southern migrants known as "butternuts" mainly from KY-TN that settled in Illinois, Ohio and Indiana. They were infamous for hog drives to market towns, corn growing & whiskey brewing and were often at cultural/political odds with migrants from the Northeast who tended to have keep sheep rather than hogs and grow wheat rather than corn.

>>17836499 (OP)
and its the free decision of the president and congress to send in the troops to stop it

>it's the free decision of a State to leave it.
Source?

>>17836987
>most studies of antebellum Southern agriculture show that most Southern agriculture was small family farms just like the Midwest.
If this is true then why did poor southern farmers fight to defend an institution they had no stake in?

>>17837109
A lot of them didn't. A lot of soldiers deserted to the north, in fact it's estimated over 100,000 Confederate soldiers deserted, a higher overall percentage when compared to the North, as the South also couldn't raise as large of an army in the first place.

>>17837031
It's geographic. The north couldn't grow cotton, the south couldn't grow wheat. The Midwest is just that damn good of farmland and actually destroyed new england's wool trade. Which is probably why the new englanders had sheep

>>17837109
Why do you view emancipation as being in their interests? The South would suddenly be home to millions of freed slaves, and the North would, as they historically always did, refuse to help settle or house them, and use them as a political cudgel to drive Northern interests in the voting booth at the expense of Southern interests (e.g the Southern Pacific Railroad and things of that nature).

Southerners knew that Northeners had black exclusion laws & weren't willing to help repatriate freed slaves to Africa. The North was hypocritcal and basically expected the South to bear the whole burden of emancipation despite the fact the North had a hand in starting American slavery.

>>17837108
>Open United States Constitution
>Ctrl + f "states cannot secede"
>No items found
There's your source

>>17837174
The people that invented Abolitionism were highschool educated hillbilly Presbyterian ministers that everyone called retarded. The kid of the leader of the Presbyterians in Ohio really liked them though and that's how we got Uncle Tom's cabin

>>17837190
Oh also they were feminists and worshipped blacks forgot that part, they wanted to import blacks to live with them.

>>17837190
>>17837190
The duality of the Scots-Irish hillbilly; either an ultra-lib or ultra-chud. Rarely in between.

>>17837199
The guys at the tippy top were larpers though. Just the puppets and their puppet masters

>>17837204
Oddly the abolitionists were also super anti Catholic and wanted to throw them back into the sea so I guess you win some and you lose some

>>17837213
>>17837213
I wish the Know Nothings had committed to abolitionism so the war was led by them rather than Republicans, at least then we might have got something out of it (prevention of the ellis island euromutt swarm and the "America is a idea" myth)

>>17837216
Know nothing's were just another wing of the northern Whigs. It was futile. Ride or die

>>17837221
I'm fascinated by Southern Cotton Whigs. You had a lot of them in Louisiana, Kentucky & Virginia.

>>17837227
I see whig and my brain turns off

>>17836499 (OP)
Away down South in the land of traitors
Rattlesnakes and alligators
Right away (right away), come away (come away)
Right away (right away), come away
Where cotton's king and men are chattels
Union boys will win the battles
Right away (right away), come away (come away)
Right away (right away), come away
We'll all go down to Dixie, away, away
Each Dixie boy must understand that he must mind his Uncle Sam
Away (away), away (away)
We'll all go down to Dixie
Away (away), away (away)
We'll all go down to Dixie
I wish I was in Baltimore
I'd make secession traitors roar
Right away (right away), come away (come away)
Right away (right away), come away
We'll put the traitors all to route
I'll bet my boots we'll whip 'em out
Right away (right away), come away (come away)
Right away (right away), come away
We'll all go down to Dixie, away, away
Each Dixie boy must understand that he must mind his Uncle Sam
Away (away), away (away)
We'll all go down to Dixie!
Away (away), away (away)
We'll all go down to Dixie
Oh, may our Stars and Stripes still wave
Forever o'er the fee and brave
Right away (right away), come away (come away)
Right away (right away), come away
And let our motto ever be
Forever Union and for liberty
Right away (right away), come away (come away)
Ride away (ride away), come away
We'll all go down to Dixie, away, away
Each Dixie boy must understand that he must mind his Uncle Sam
Away (away), away (away)
We'll all go down to Dixie
Away (away), away (away)
We'll all go down to Dixie

>>17837244
take my upvote kind sir

>>17836499 (OP)
All politivcs aside. I think that if nearly anyone was transported to the Antebellum U.S they wouldn't be able to tolerate the Abolitionists enough to join them.
Everything about them sounds too insufferable and politically alien. Even if you are super liberal you'd probably loathe them because they never shat the fuck up about Jesus.

>>17836499 (OP)
>it's the free decision of a State to leave it
The people of those States had very literal input in their States secession votes. The initial "referendums" in each State were held by the State legislatures and only put to a public vote after the fact. In several States (Louisiana, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and Tennessee) those votes were absolutely mired in backroom politics, voter intimidation and fraud, and suspect record keeping. In Virginia secession was so contentious that an entire block of counties counter-seceded and formed West Virginia.

On top of all that, 3/4ths of the people in most Southern states couldn't legally call themselves human fucking beings, let alone vote or have any say in the position of their state governments. You can't claim to be representing "the will of the people" in a state legislature when most of those people are in chains. The hypocrisy of claiming to be fighting for freedoms and rights, when most of your people are enslaved, is mind boggling.

Even if the South HAD had the legal right to secede and the will of the people to do so, they still seized and attacked US government property. The South fired the first shot. They fucked around, and they found the fuck out.

>>17837290
They were Utopians, it's why the ruling establishment is utopian socialist. They don't know what the fuck it going on. They're telling somalian students that the US has no racial or cultural identity. They're completely batshit insane

All political legitimacy and independence is derived from the ability to enforce it, or other words
>Are you hinting, Mr. Butler, that the Yankees can lick us?
>Butler: No, I'm not hinting. I'm saying very plainly that the Yankees are better equipped than we are. They've got cannon factories, shipyards, coal mines, and a fleet to bottle up our harbors and starve us to death. All we've got is cotton and slaves and... arrogance.
Don't start a war you can't win, buttboy.
>B-but mah constitushon
Wars can't be fought in a courtroom.

>>17836552
>A caste of a few inbreds larping as "aristocrats" who were so backwards they had ceased to produce any of the nations cultural output whether that be arts or sciences.
>A caste of the mass of "free" whites so poor they regularly died of malnutrition and were by and large illiterate
>The caste of chattel slaves who by law were forbidden from being productive members of society and only used to grow cash crops through brute force.
>Cultured

>>17836704
It makes perfect sense when you understand that its sole purpose was to strengthen the slaver class. All the hypocrisy and contradictions didn't matter, because they were mere post-hoc justification, an idealogical smokescreen, for Slavery. All their actions are perfectly consistent when looked at through the lens of "Is this action pro-slavery?"

>>17837468
Growing up it’d feel strange seeing other kids in history class ask if Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, or whatever country their parents were from had a major role in the Revolutionary and Civil War.

>>17837607
Hey it's a valid doubt to have.

>>17836499 (OP)
My 4th great grandfather died in a yankee prison camp in harts island NY after being captured during Sherman’s march through South Carolina, he maybe was even defending the family farm, I just know he was captured in his home county. I can’t trace my father’s side any father than him, because he was illiterate and Sherman burned down all the court houses in the area. His brother, my 4th great uncle, signed up with him and died a week later from disease. That’s war for ya.

The only cool thing I know about my 4th great grandfather was that he was captured at morris island AFTER the south withdrew, only one of like 7 guys and he was later returned to his unit after prison round number one. I imagine he killed many of those famous black soldiers at fort Wagner that Morgan freeman played in Glory

>>17836499 (OP)
They're free to leave if they win the war of secession that follows it. Also Americans are fucking retard for not stopping out the behavior after their civil war. Thank God I am not American.

>>17836675
>>17836665
YWNBAW, zoomer

>>17836499 (OP)
The South would have done the same if the shoe is on the other foot

>>17837852
Cool

>>17836499 (OP)
Friendly reminder, people hate the South because they're antiwhite antichrist golems of the jews (talmudic pharisees). When they spew their hate for Southerners, they don't mean that towards nonWhite Southerners; because they're just antiwhite antichrist golems of jews.

>>17838370
but they're the most pro white people in the US?

>>17838407
"They" referring to the people who hate the South. Bad grammar on my part, don't care to proof-read my posts on this board since the antiwhite antichrist mods will probably ban me soon for offending the atheist golems or their talmudic pharisee masters.