Thread 17983424

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
I agree with both the revolutions of 1776 and 1861

>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
And the americans also fought to expand past the appalachians, ensuring the racial genocide of the red man.
Why is slavery worse than manifest destiny genocide? I agree with both, by the way

>>17983424 (OP)
they're both bad op

the founding fathers thought slavery was immoral, read the original draft of the declaration of independence

they kept the institution of slavery in a "limbo," while confederates explicitly safeguarded a "right to slavery" in their constitution

>>17983426
>And the americans also fought to expand past the appalachians, ensuring the racial genocide of the red man.
If we're just talking about expanding, then the Republican party did not only free the slaves, it also expanded slavery to all current and future states and territories.

>>17983424 (OP)
NW european are very negrophilic for whatever reason, here's your answer

>>17983424 (OP)
> i'm british
> I agree with both the revolutions of 1776
Traitor

>>17983424 (OP)
they're actually mostly mad about the secession lol, it's such a shitty argument too. why wouldn't a state have a right to secede?
>yeah we'll have a country but it'll be a union of states but every stare will have their rights so as to avoid tyranny
>okay we're exercising those rights and leaving the union
>NOOO NOT LIKE THAT I'M SENDING MY ARMIES TO BURN YOU ALIVE AND TYRANNIZE YOUR POPULACE

>>17983424 (OP)
1776 created the Great Satan, 1861 would have created a second Brazil.
Both were objectively bad.

>>17983424 (OP)
Nobody good would support slavery
The Confederacy had to fall
This post was made by a white guy

>>17983424 (OP)
past is prologue

The parallels between 1776 and 1861 are so profound that public education on the topic has worked very hard to obscure them. Both were mostly about a distant government raising extortionate taxes on a self-governing state, but the browns here really hate when you point that out. Like all leftists, they want to make the conversation about slavery and nothing else, even though the war was kicked off by the GOP doubling the tariff rate and electing Lincoln who immediately promised to use military force to collect it.

>>17983893
>street gangs
>are organized and disciplined
Wherever that guy lived the CIA must've dumped a lot of coke in the water.

>>17983424 (OP)
No white person is consistent with applying ethical principles therefore no white nation or state is moral or good. You can apply the exact same criticism to the british empire and so on and so forth.

>>17983424 (OP)
>On July 4, 1776, immediately after the Declaration of Independence was officially passed, the Continental Congress asked John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin to design a seal that would clearly represent a symbol for the new United States. They chose the symbol of Moses leading the Israelites to freedom. The Founding Fathers of the United States inscribed the words of Moses on the Liberty Bell: "Proclaim Liberty thro' all the Land to all the Inhabitants thereof." (Leviticus 25)

>>17983893
>Mexican reconquista
The largest minority group in the southwest is Chinese. These retarded stormboomers are stuck in the past.

>>17983532
Despite the fact that most of the british public, including politicans like John Wilkes, Pitt the Elder and Charles fox supported the civil war of 1776?
>>17984498
Liberty historically only applied to free men
It never applied to slaves

>>17983424 (OP)
>I agree with both the revolutions of 1776 and 1861
That's crazy because I disagree with both. Ancestors fought for union both times though.

>>17983424 (OP)
I like the rebel flag as a symbol of defiance. The Appalachian whites are as old stock to this country as any of the founding fathers from Virginia are and we are under genocide which threatens to erase our culture.

I couldn’t care less about the civil war but I like the rebel flag for what it stands for- defiance against the libshits in Washington.

>>17984621
>I couldn’t care less about the civil war but I like the rebel flag for what it stands for- defiance against the libshits in Washington.
Yeah when you put it like that it's hard to disagree.

Every single Confederate soldier should've been ground into mincemeat and fed to dogs, and every single Confederate general and politician should've been publicly tortured in the cities of the North. Maybe then America would actually be a first world country today.

>>17983424 (OP)
The difference is that the Founders, however flawed, started a project that *eventually* expanded freedom. The Confederacy was founded *explicitly* to end that project and permanently entrench slavery. One was a revolution that created a framework to improve. The other was a counter-revolution designed to prevent any improvement. It is the difference between a hypocritical beginning and a perfected evil.

>>17983424 (OP)
eufag here
Victors write history, that's it

>>17985722
>the Founders, however flawed, started a project that *eventually* expanded freedom
A pro-slaver would say emancipation ruined his freedom to own slaves, but most confederates didn't even believe in slavery and no one waving that flag has cared about it since. As for the founders, lower case f, being morally superior, that's rich considering their idea of an average voter was far more elitist.

>>17983424 (OP)
>and because catholics in quebec were given equal rights.
holy shit you are a gay retard, though to be fair you did mention you were a gay retard who wears women's clothing in the first line.
The US didn't give a shit about quebec. Maryland was literally founded as a catholic colony and Pennsylvania was founded based on religious freedom and had a large catholic population

>>17985855
>The US didn't give a shit about quebec
COPE
They absolutely did you retard
.Although unrelated to the aforementioned Acts,[8] the Quebec Act, passed in the same parliamentary session, was considered by the colonists to be one of the Intolerable Acts. The Act expanded the territory of the Province of Quebec into the Great Lakes region and much of what is now the Midwestern United States, which appeared to void the land claims of the Ohio Company on the region. The guarantee of free practice of Catholicism, the majority religion in Canada, was seen by colonists as an "establishment" of the faith in the colonies which were overwhelmingly Protestant
Maryland's catholics were purged in the 1640s and lower class protestant farmers from virginia rebelled and deposed the catholic clergy of maryland in the 1680s. Catholics became a minority in maryland after that and protestants were in power and the state was as protestant as virginia
Catholics were banned from power in plenty of states including the carolinas
Stop coping catholitard

The same reasoning the federalists/democrats always use. It's only okay if they do it.

>>17983424 (OP)
They weren't and Lincoln was demonstrably a tyrant and war criminal. This is indisputable fact.

>>17986113
nothing to do with quebec being catholic and everything to do with the bongs trying to give American clay to subhuman leafs, you retarded tranny

>>17983424 (OP)
>i'm british
what's it like being a tranny?
the big differences are that you had shit like the intolerable acts, stripping home rule and the seizure of powder and arms from northern states. Mass only has a 1.3% slave rate in 1775 and banned slavery in 1883 so slavery was less of a concern than westward expansion, taxation and stripping home rule vs the civil war which was entirely about slavery.
the other big difference is the patriots won and the southerners lost and post civil war history/propaganda is based on the the northern states downplaying the south as part of the revolution (may flower, boston tea party, patriots day) while segregation enthusiasts up played the lost cause in the early 1900s and then you have straight communists today further highlighting the connection between the confederacy and slavery, while the more "moderate" of the communists do hate washington and the rest of the founding fathers they are smart enough to not paint the entire revolution with slavery, because they know it would make them look like communist retards, and are instead up playing guys like hamilton, adams, laurens while downplaying men like jefferson.
The most controversial figure involved is of course Washington because he obviously owned slaves and was from Virginia, but the smarter segment of the communists like the guy who wrote the hamilton play, is smart enough ti place him with hamilton, laurens and laffayette because talking shit about washington makes you look like a gay retard. Where as the true believers are anti washington as well.

>>17984621
Yeah we get it you're a retard

>>17983424 (OP)
>I'm British and don't understand america
You won't understand even if we tell you because you're culturally built to simply for aristocrats

They were bad because the north was becoming the finance center and slaves were a financial asset that didn’t fit into that zeitgeist

>>17986144
>flag literally says NO POPERY
>ACKHUALLY IT WAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CATHOLICS
Cope more faggot

>>17986370
you are a retarded tranny who doesn't understand the US. the revolution was about our hatred for bongs, leafs and yuros, you tranny

>>17986388
Cope tradcath LARPer

>>17986389
no, you cope, bongaloid. no one likes yuro trannies

>>17983556
>go to a dinner party
>bring meat, find out most guests are vegetarian
>ah I see I’m not in proper company, I shall take my leave
>NO YOU CANT LEAVE
>proceed to screech and thrash about and burn the place down while being ordered around by incompetent vagrant drunks
Why were Yankees so barbaric?

>>17985265
Still have all my wealth and lands and pedigree, seethe poormutt
>t. First Virgina Family & Southern Gentry

>>17984580
that book was written 1996
before the great chink invasion

The radical Whig tradition comparison has some validity in political theory, but it ignores the difference in the moral end-goal. Whigs opposed tyranny; Confederates opposed emancipation.

>>17986945
Whigs opposing tyranny and the ownership of slaves is not some contradiction
Whigs in the 1600s and 1700s were slaveowners. Retard

>>17983424 (OP)
You being retarded does not make other people arguments less valid. Stop making this retarded thread.

>>17986945
Whigs are cocksuckers and have much more in common with a modern libtard political boss from some catholic immigrant

>>17987000
>Whigs are cocksuckers
The guys who fought the american revolution are... le cocksuckers
complete schizo meltdown