Thread 512205756

I am ONCE AGAIN asking /pol/ 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

>>512205756 (OP)
"Traitorous" is just the governments' way of saying rebellious. Northerners valued the "union" over the Constitution. Southerners valued the Constitution over the "union."

>>512205756 (OP)
Everywhere they went the population was 40% black. Everywhere the north went it was 100% white.

>>512205756 (OP)
They were democrats. Libertarians of today, though the democrats of their era. Anti-federalist. Anti-union. They wanted to balkanize the country because they loved having niggers. Same thing would happen today if anyone actually deported all the illegals.

>>512206410
The importation of negros of the african race was explicitly banned by the Confederate Constitution. Anyways, while hindsight is 20/20 in their defense who could have ever predicted that their own brothers would be so batshit insane as to fight a war to turn them loose on everyone?

Also in hindsight, the Northern states have led the charge importing more illegal immigrants than the south ever imported slaves before they agreed not to do it anymore 60 years BEFORE the Civil War

>>512206548
I can always tell a midwit when they use the term "balkanize" in reference to the US. The legitimate government of the US is a federation of states not a nation kek. It was essentially "balkanized" before that term even existed. That is it's natural legitimate condition actually.

And yeah the north sure was based- thats why they gave them suffrage, turned them loose, appointed them to government positions, legalized miscegination and passed the national banking acts immediately after the war kek.

>>512205756 (OP)
Thanks to that slave merchants and owners america is now a nggr cult country and spread it to the rest of the west

I feel like both CSA/USA would be better off today if they split

>>512206911
If the southern states and northern states split they could have always had a chance of rejoining some federation with each other in time.

Instead northerners sperged and nuked the federation and turned states into defacto national districts- effectively destroying the federation for good.

A "union" requires constituent parts joining together voluntarily. Collapsing the states into national counties by force didn't save the union it destroyed it forever.

>>512205756 (OP)
The North had strong British and jewish influence in both wars. The only difference was the British were killing northerners so that made us galvanize that moment.
Then in the civil war they won, simple as victor writing the narrative

>>512205756 (OP)
Only tentatively related, but I still find it funny when northern liberals come to the local lakes and rivers here in Kentucky to vacation in the spring / summer and pretend to be outraged when most the local girls wear confederate flag styled 2 piece bikinis and most tge cars, trucks have confederate flag stickers and window decals. Wtf did they think they'd see in the rural south?

SOUTHRONS, HEAR YOUR COUNTRY CALL YOU, UP, LEST WORSE THAN DEATH BEFALL YOU!
TO ARMS! TO ARMS! TO ARMS, IN DIXIE!
LO! ALL THE BEACON FIRES ARE LIGHTED, LET ALL HEARTS BE NOW UNITED!
TO ARMS! TO ARMS! TO ARMS, IN DIXIE!

ADVANCE THE FLAG OF DIXIE! HURRAH! HURRAH!
IN DIXIE'S LAND WE TAKE OUR STAND,
AND LIVE OR DIE FOR DIXIE!
TO ARMS! TO ARMS! AND CONQUER PEACE FOR DIXIE!
TO ARMS! TO ARMS! AND CONQUER PEACE FOR DIXIE!

HEAR THE NORTHERN THUNDERS MUTTER! NORTHERN FLAGS IN SOUTH WINDS FLUTTER!
SEND THEM BACK YOUR FIERCE DEFIANCE! STAMP UPON THE CURSED ALLIANCE!

ADVANCE THE FLAG OF DIXIE! HURRAH! HURRAH!
IN DIXIE'S LAND WE TAKE OUR STAND,
AND LIVE OR DIE FOR DIXIE!
TO ARMS! TO ARMS! AND CONQUER PEACE FOR DIXIE!
TO ARMS! TO ARMS! AND CONQUER PEACE FOR DIXIE!

FEAR NO DANGER! SHUN NO LABOR! LIFT UP RIFLE, PIKE, AND SABRE!
SHOULDER PRESSING CLOSE TO SHOULDER, LET THE ODDS MAKE EACH HEART BOLDER!

ADVANCE THE FLAG OF DIXIE! HURRAH! HURRAH!
IN DIXIE'S LAND WE TAKE OUR STAND,
AND LIVE OR DIE FOR DIXIE!
TO ARMS! TO ARMS! AND CONQUER PEACE FOR DIXIE!
TO ARMS! TO ARMS! AND CONQUER PEACE FOR DIXIE!

HOW THE SOUTH'S GREAT HEART REJOICES AT YOUR CANNON'S RINGING VOICES!
FOR FAITH BETRAYED AND PLEDGES BROKEN, WRONGS INFLICTED, INSULTS SPOKEN,

ADVANCE THE FLAG OF DIXIE! HURRAH! HURRAH!
IN DIXIE'S LAND WE TAKE OUR STAND,
AND LIVE OR DIE FOR DIXIE!
TO ARMS! TO ARMS! AND CONQUER PEACE FOR DIXIE!
TO ARMS! TO ARMS! AND CONQUER PEACE FOR DIXIE!

STRONG AS LIONS, SWIFT AS EAGLES, BACK TO THEIR KENNELS HUNT THESE BEAGLES!
CUT THE UNEQUAL BONDS ASUNDER! LET THEM HENCE EACH OTHER PLUNDER!

ADVANCE THE FLAG OF DIXIE! HURRAH! HURRAH!
IN DIXIE'S LAND WE TAKE OUR STAND,
AND LIVE OR DIE FOR DIXIE!
TO ARMS! TO ARMS! AND CONQUER PEACE FOR DIXIE!
TO ARMS! TO ARMS! AND CONQUER PEACE FOR DIXIE!

Catholics have always been a bane to the West, part of the problem is they supported slavery for the longest time because they aren't allowed to read the bible and the Pope's hide information. That is main reason that freedom of speech is so important is that we have faith that people can discern the differences and see the truth in the bible.

SWEAR UPON YOUR COUNTRY'S ALTAR NEVER TO SUBMIT OR FALTER
TILL THE SPOILERS ARE DEFEATED, TILL THE LORD'S WORK IS COMPLETED!

ADVANCE THE FLAG OF DIXIE! HURRAH! HURRAH!
IN DIXIE'S LAND WE TAKE OUR STAND,
AND LIVE OR DIE FOR DIXIE!
TO ARMS! TO ARMS! AND CONQUER PEACE FOR DIXIE!
TO ARMS! TO ARMS! AND CONQUER PEACE FOR DIXIE!

HALT NOT TILL OUR FEDERATION SECURES AMONG EARTH'S POWERS ITS STATION!
THEN AT PEACE AND CROWNED WITH GLORY, HEAR YOUR CHILDREN TELL THE STORY!

ADVANCE THE FLAG OF DIXIE! HURRAH! HURRAH!
IN DIXIE'S LAND WE TAKE OUR STAND,
AND LIVE OR DIE FOR DIXIE!
TO ARMS! TO ARMS! AND CONQUER PEACE FOR DIXIE!
TO ARMS! TO ARMS! AND CONQUER PEACE FOR DIXIE!

IF THE LOVED ONES WEEP IN SADNESS, VICTORY SOON SHALL BRING THEM GLADNESS
EXULTANT PRIDE SOON VANISH SORROW; SMILES CHASE TEARS AWAY TO-MORROW!

ADVANCE THE FLAG OF DIXIE! HURRAH! HURRAH!
IN DIXIE'S LAND WE TAKE OUR STAND,
AND LIVE OR DIE FOR DIXIE!
TO ARMS! TO ARMS! AND CONQUER PEACE FOR DIXIE!
TO ARMS! TO ARMS! AND CONQUER PEACE FOR DIXIE!

>>512205756 (OP)
Slavery brought niggers. They just didn't want to pay Whites a fair wage now they have dumb fucking niggers.

>>512208275
Catholics and Jews brought the niggers. The Amish have never owned slaves.

The confederates werent bad and I will support them once again, as my ancestors did during the next civil war

>>512206611
That's all fine and dandy, but I think most northerners just didn't want their descendents to look like indians in 1000 years. Who knew we'd start importing literal indians.

>>512208275
You people all seem to forget that the southern states agreed to ban importation from Africa over 50 years prior to the Civil War and even put that explicitly in their constitution.

>>512208438
That argument is a non-starter (some may say "cope") as a fact of historical record- the southern states had no intention of importing African slaves. They agreed to it being banned in 1807.

For starters, they were inbred hillbillies. But you're British so that might not be a deal breaker.

>>512208717
You guys bred the shit out of them. There were 500k ever imported and we have like 30m now.

In hindsight, flashlights were invented eventually. Thanks to flashlights, we can pick cotton at night time. Now there is no excuse to bring niggers back after we get rid of all them.

>>512208836
Oh and in your mind, giving suffrage, appointing to govt positions, legalizing miscegination etc etc. would somehow "head-off" their begetting?

And it's interesting you seem to agree your previous point was disingenuous? After that, how are we supposed to take anything you say in good faith? It's almost as if you are just going down the list seeing what will stick to the wall. Standard operating procedure for bootlickers though.

The thing with the civil war is
1. Neither southerners or northerners were inherently bad guys in the conflict
2. Niggers, from a humanitarian point, don't actually matter to either side. At best they're propaganda fodder for the union late in the war, and the still allowed slavery in Kentucky and Delaware until we'll after the war ended.
3. Both sides leadership were concerned with economics above all else.
4. The true seeds for the civil are laid with the constitution with the conflict between federalists and anti federalists, and the question of the American Republic being a true federation or confederstion wasn't truly answered when the bill of rights was ratified . The constitution is a mess about with the elastic clause, supremacy clause, and 10th amendment.
5A. Form a leadership perspective, southerners thought the stronger state power would be better for them economically, while northern leaders thought a stronger central Governwmtns would be better economically. That's their basis for conflict
5B. From a common man perspective it was a war to preserve the union or protect their home from "outside" (federal) control, both are legitimate causes.
5C. For both groups this continues the federalists and anti federalist debate.

Ultimately, the federalists (union) won and it was vae victus for that anti federalists (Confederacy)

>>512206077
Of course they believed in the “Union.” The south was funding 90% of the government’s payroll.

It's not bad.

>>512209182
We can parse all the economic and social differences or as you say "seeds" of the Civil War, but as a technical matter all of those disputes could have been resolved without war even if things were testy. Most wars are diplomatic breakdowns and this one was no different.

The southern states made every effort to open diplomatic channels and send delegations to the north so they could explicitly find a resolution to federal installments in southern territories (or the natural objects thereof). Lincoln refused to even meet with them. As always- most wars are diplomatic breakdowns more than anything. Slavery had been an issue for a long time and even though it got testy and even violent- no war occured. Even after secession there need not be a war if diplomacy had occured. Alas there can be no one sided diplomacy can there?

In hindsight, after secession Lincoln would have done better to take a full court press with the south involving trade sanctions etc. Not recognize them but withdraw federal troops from their territory. The states had issues but were at their core brothers. In time, I bekieve they would have worked out a compromise- they had been very close to one in the years preceding the war anyways. I think he was proud. He didn't want to be the guy who caused the union to break up.

>>512208510
The civil war wasn't so much about slavery but about federal control over monetary policy they needed to implement central banking and impose tariffs. They repackaged taxes as a tool of liberation instead of oppression. Oldest trick in the book.

>>512206762
> ackshulley
cry more loser.

>>512205756 (OP)
>>in 1861 slave owning, traitorous aristocrats secede from their home nation and decide to create their own nation

The issue here is that they believed they were fighting for the sovereignty of their home nations. ti would be sort of like if the EU had attacked you over Brexit and then retconned the reason for the war as your dislike of immigration. The bottom line is that they viewed their states as just that--states, who voluntarily joined a union of states that they now wished to voluntarily leave. Yankees wouldn't allow it because the south was their primary tax base.

>>512209338
Lincoln was certainly a nationalizer. His first speech recorded in history (as a state senator) was an effort to stop the Illinois state bank (presumably out of preference for something more centralized). It is also true that Lincoln largely farmed-out most non-war domestic issues EXCEPT National Banking. It might not be unfair to say he was obsessed with national banking moreso than any other issue. So your accusations are not unfounded. But I think there were other things going on I think he really really did not want to go down as the president sitting wheh the federation split.

>>512209338
precisely. the IRS and income tax were created to finance the civil war. war is just a terror mechanism to scare people into paying tax.

>>512205783
> Lord Dunmore's proclamation that enslaved blacks who fought for britain would be freed
The Continental Army offered the same deal.

>>512209293
Lincoln didn’t want the Union to collapse as the south funded 90% of the government (there were no income taxes then). He even said “if abolishing slavery or codifying slavery would keep the union together, I’d do it.” The civil war was about states rights. The south didn’t like being told what they could and couldn’t do by a parasitic federal govt. after the secession, the states even held a vote that would have passed slavery as an amendment, but the south already said fuck you, so their absence prevented the vote from passing. The US was always supposed to be a union of states, not a federal super-govt. the EU is just an example of American civil war 2.0. Get your muskets ready, eurobros. It’s coming in the next few years.

>>512209412
Kek come on, if you are going to resort to this low brow sort of thing at least have some art about it. Dont just phone it in like this is reddit or something... do me that mercy at least kek.

Anyways, I'm four generations from my people who actually fought in the war. So I'm basically just watching your Yankee house of cards crash and burn every day of my life kek and while it sucks to be stuck inside it, there is also a bit of satisfaction involved.

>>512205756 (OP)
because they wanted to split the union and turn into a brazil?

>>512206077
where in the consitution does it say you can leave the union?
In the declaration of independence it enshrines life liberty and pursuit of happiness to people. freedom is natural right for all people. slavery, especially chattle slavery, is unjust and stupid

>>512209755
Don't get it twisted. They were visionaries, they could see the future cesspit of the "union" and didnt want any part of it. But just like today, those yankees hate us, but seethe at the thought of us leaving, want to ruin our lives and expect us to take it

>>512209929
"You can never leave" - sounds an awful lot like the EU and former soviet union

>>512207487
im from the north and i wouldn't care

>>512210058
your flag literally shows it's possible to be a retard and leave the EU

>>512205756 (OP)
The civil war was a cripple fight.

>>512209182
> still allowed slavery in Kentucky and Delaware until we'll after the war ended.
Mississippi, Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland, and fucking New Jersey were all Union slave states throughout the war. Nebraska, Utah, those parts of Oklahoma which didn’t leave, and Washington DC were all Union slave territories. West Virginia entered the Union during the war as a slave state. Tennessee and parts of Louisiana were repatriated as slave states during the war and weren’t subject to the Emancipation Proclamation.

>>512210199
new jersey wasnt a slave state retard

>>512210137
>thinks he knows what country im from based on the flag
>"if you ever leave any oppressive regime you're retarded !" union, eu, soviet union

What race are you by the way? what is your ancestry you fucking mutt

>>512209755
>brazil
THE CONFEDERACY IN 1860 WAS WHITER THAN AMERICA IS TODAY
CONFEDERATES CLUSTER WITH ANGLO FOUNDING FATHERS YOU SPASTIC

>>512209197
delete this shit

>>512210310
you live in the uk and are saying you left america due to a repressive regime?
lol.
did your parents drop you as a child?

>>512205756 (OP)
southerners are literal retards
TSD
S
D

>>512210228
Yes it was you dumb nigger. All through the war, right up until the 13th Amendment.

>>512210378
Do completely lack reading compression? Do you want me to change my flag to yours?

Answer the question mutt, you have no business addressing me if you're below me. What is your ancestry

>>512209929
At ratification, one of the most discussed topics was whether the common government could use force against a noncooperating state. This was actually one of the most discussed topics as you will find if you open your copy of Farrand's Minutes. (I doubt yiu have one or have ever even heard of them kek). If the common government cannot use force against the states it is a defacto assent to the concept of leaving the union as a matter of basic logic.

After much discussion, the delegates decided that the common government would have no power to use force against a state or group of state governments- only against individuals defying the government (covering things like Shay's etc). There were even excerpts of written arguments entered into the minutes on this and it was one of the few topics where this was done. At the subsequent state ratification conventions this was again discussed in detail- for example at NY convention, Hamilton described the idea of enforcing the agreement with force as follows
>To coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised... Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself—a government that can exist only by the sword?” (June 24, 1788 NY Ratification Convention).

This is relevant for two reasons 1. Hamilton was a very important delegate at the 1787 convention and he was probabky the biggest central government man in the room 2. The state ratifying conventions are where they states accepted the constitution and representations this unambiguous were needed for them to agree to it in the first place.

So to answer your question. Secession wasnt covered. It would have been seen as unfortunate and they wouldnt have wanted to encourage it- but the southern states were 100% correct in assuming that IF they left, the federal government would not wage war on them.

>>512209979
Most of it was principle. The constitution was a treaty between the British colonies, in the treaty it codified slavery. Every time a new free state was added a slave state was added. This was the balance. The north never once attempted to peacefully prevent slavery in the West, instead they stole all the territory, territory which was won by southerners like Polk. Instead of slavery being left to die in a hole the south had heavily industrialized and figured it could make it on its own. The north needed the south's tax base and output to accomplish their goals of world domination so they invaded. Simple as

>>512210541
let's say a small state like delaware left the union according to the wishes of the people and started harboring british interests.
what would have happened?
or let's say california or illinois left the union today. what do you think should happen?

>>512210541
also 30% of the people in the south couldn't vote since they were enslaved

>>512210776
you think if California wanted to secede half the states wouldn't be okay with that?

>>512210977
they wouldn't be.

>>512210776
At ratification- the states only agreed to the constitution with the EXPRESS understanding that the common government would have no authority to wage war on a noncooperating state. This is a fact of historical record- make of it what you will.

>>512210827
The states duly ratified the constitution according to the procedures set forth and agreed-upon for doing so.

Which is more than I can say for the reconstruction amendments which were passed at literal gunpoint and military occupation kek.

>>512210541
It’s Farrand’s Record.

And it’s interesting as hell for history nerds to read about debates that lasted weeks going over minutiae only for someone to say “let’s just do what that guy said” and then it passed unanimously.

Since you’ve read a little deeper, did you ever find anything about how the Electoral College was ginned up?

>>512211047
They wouldnt be because most people and states are now used to living under a illegitimate defacto national government for many decades.

This was not the case in the 1860s.

>>512209717
Corwin amendment Ai such a great moment of things that are never discussed, because it doesn't fit the narrative. It would have taken 4 more free states to pass.

>>512210827
>also 30% of the people in the south couldn't
Half the country couldn't vote because they didn't have a penis. Just tossing these out there like a gotcha is stupid.

>>512211509
ok but women shouldn't vote

>>512211532
Agreed

>>512209098
Slavery is wrong. It turns you into your slaves genetically.

No I wasn't being disingenuous. I really struggle to understand why you'd want to turn this place into India.

>>512211113
In common parlance it is often described as "Farrand's Minutes of the Constitutional Convention of 1787."

The Electoral College makes perfect natural sense when you think about it though. They created a federation of states with a common government which had enumerated authorities (mostly) over things of an interstate concern. Tge idea was that the states were the immediate "sovereign" as far as the people were concerned. The people select their state government and the states select the president. The people did not see the common government as their direct "sovereign" and there was no assumption that they would elect them by popular vote. The people would elect a state government to select delegates/electors to choose a president. And that rule still stands btw- if a state decided to nix the popular vote and let state legislatures choose or bind electors they could do so. Because it is the STATE'S decision.

>>512211592
ok so when i say people i mean adult men

>>512211509
And 20% of those with a penis couldn’t vote because they didn’t meet tax thresholds.

>>512208172
Yahoos like this inbred specimen are the reason the South has lagged behind other regions for so long. Did you get your information on Catholics from one of your 4 page religious tracts, Einstein? Why don't you review your fake Scofirld bible and go spam some God's Chosen People threads with pro- kike insanity and don't leave out the retard shit about the rapture. No wonder we elect asscliwns like Lindsay Graham down here.

>>512206822
The nigger cult was actually started at the same time as Mormonism

Keep in mind contextually the north is also getting flooded with Irish so all the papers in the north are split between screeching about a southern conspiracy to take over the US and screeching about a catholic conspiracy to take over the US

Nobody likes to point out the same people screeching about irish are the same people representing the people letting the irish in in the first place. These political machines which profited directly off of every catholic head they could wave into their ports.

I suspect the real people behind mass immigration into the US are the same people that waged the civil war and were using the immigration to gain representation by dumping them in the midwest off of trains

>>512205756 (OP)
>Why is it like this?
The difference between "good guys" and "bad guys" was winning or losing the war.

>>512211617
The states already decided no further importation would occur. The only question is what would happen to the existing population.

Also, whatever the solution to the problem should have been- we have to be mindful of repercussions of the process used for sorting out the issue- the surest way to become a slave is empowering a monsterous centralized government and collapsing your states into federal districts.

>>512211843
National districts*

>>512211687
Are you referring to poll taxes?

>>512211637
The EC wasn’t even considered during the debates. The question of how to elect the Executive revolved around popular vote vs Congressional appointment. It went into the committee on detail settled as congressional appointment. The committee on detail didn’t keep records and when they came back the EC was written into the body of the Constitution. The big debate after that was ‘why the fuck aren’t we doing it the way we said?’ And then they voted to keep it.

>>512211843
What started the war was the allocation of representation in congress. Southerners wanted to expand the slave system into the west. You guys insisted on making 40% of the content black.

>>512205756 (OP)

I don't think they were bad and I'm not even from the South...

Just a good old boys
Never meanin' no harm
Beats all you never saw
Been in trouble with the law since the day they was born
Straightening the curves, yeah
Flattenin' the hills
Someday the mountain might get 'em, but the law never will

>>512211979
Some were. But also property or estate taxes depending on the states.

>>512211979
The original voting class of the USA was the following
>1. Male (toss out the women)
>2. White (toss out the non-whites)
>3. Property owners (toss out more)
How much property, was determined by state
>4. Over state age limit (toss out young)
Also determined by your state

>>512211993
The Electoral College WAS discussed at ratification and the option of a direct election was discussed. It was not a MAJOR debate though probably because it did not demand much debate because having state government's select a president of the federal government is the perfectly natural approach to a federation OF STATES.

The primary concern was between the big and small states and the population based number of electors resolved that issue.

>>512211764
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_King_(politician)
>On November 12, 1865, King killed himself by tying a bag of bullets around his neck and leaping from a ferryboat in New York Harbor while serving as Collector of the Port of New York. He was appointed to that highly influential patronage position by his close friend and political ally, President Andrew Johnson, in an effort to unify support for Johnson's presidency and reduce corruption but despaired of success.

>>512212041
Those arguments had occured for decades and even though some violence occured no war started. What started the was as an immediate factual matter was the breakdown of diplomacy after secession.

>>512212281
At ratification, yes. Hamilton did a good job of retconning the reasons in the Federalist papers. I’m just wondering if you came across anything about how it came to be. I just haven’t seen where the idea came from.

>>512212360
That's what all the angst was about and rightfully so. Ofc the democrats weren't even serious about winning the election that put Lincoln in the wh. They ran two different candidates and split their own vote.

>>512205756 (OP)
They were making us look bad in front of the Brits. We knew you guys were just waiting for the Union to fail so you could sweep in and make us drink tea again.

Reminder that Seward was a man of compromise and should have won. Lincoln and his Chicago cronies rigged the Republican primaries in his favor and then appointed Seward secretary of state to quell the northeast. Lincoln pushed to US to Civil War. Seward told Lincoln to not invade Sumter and his ships were caught by southern scouts with soldiers on board

>>512205756 (OP)
They were nigger lovers.

>>512205756 (OP)
The American Revolution was supported by a century of progressive thought about democracy and rule of law. 1776 had a lot of diverse opinions. 1861 had less diversity and could not represent an ideological revolution like 1776 did. It was an imitation, not a successor.

>>512205756 (OP)
Disregard any anon exclaiming that the south was Jewish. The north had far more Jewish support than the south.

>>512212131
>>512212272
I ask, because James Allsup (if anyone remembers this guy) did a video about 10 years ago, where he made an argument that only landowners, over 25, with children, should be allowed to vote…as it showed they had skin in the game, as well as the future of the game. I started watching it, thinking he was a retard, but I left agreeing with him. (It would also defang the city-dwelling renters who currently influence our elections) imo, voting should be a privilege for a segment of society, not mob rule. Voting is fake and gay, btw

>>512205756 (OP)
They fucked family members and animals. That's why all their shit got burned down.
They called it Sherman's red neck round up but they failed to stop the south from fucking animals and cousins to this day

>>512213011
And yet the democrats split their own vote and ran a different candidate in the north than they did the south. It's almost like they staged it.

>>512205756 (OP)
The “winners” of that conflict can’t admit that they were wrong all along.

That’s is the reason that they hate and attack Southern heritage.

>>512209929
>where in the consitution does it say you can leave the union?
>It’s been disheartening to see several public events, most notably Trump rallies, where virtually no one was wearing a chicken suit. There have even been anti-chicken suit and anti-soap water enema protests springing up around the country. While I respect all American's right to peacefully protest, this sort of anti-social behavior is irresponsible and unamerican. The constitution does not mention chicken suits or soap water enemas. Therefore, the constitution does not give anyone the right to disobey the lawful chicken suit and soap water enema mandates.

>>512205756 (OP)
Why isn’t Stalin guilty of crimes against humanity?

Hint: he wasn’t on the losing side of The Great Patriotic War.

>>512205756 (OP)
Because they lost. Only the victors write history, remember?

Just think about it. An elite southerner was somebody who housed, fed, and clothed a lot of niggers on his property. Not only that, but they also had house niggers living literally in their houses preparing their food, dressing them, bathing them, taking care of their children, etc.

>>512213662
It’s called the Tenth Amendment.

>>512213610
This. And just like national socialism, the south will rise again. Civil war will start in the UK sometime in the next few years, then it will spread across western civilization, including the US and Canada. Cosmopolitan cities will collapse and become hollowed out nigger shitholes, like Detroit did in the 1970s. But unlike Detroit, they will eat themselves whole, as they have no federal govt anymore to support them with gibs. Goodbye LA, London, NY, Paris, Chicago, Berlin, DC and malmo. Rural areas will consolidate as White enclaves and a Balkanized, yet trivialized world will replace the commie-capitalist, two-sided shekel we have today. TKD, natsoc and the south are about to enter a violent renaissance. See you on the other side, anons.

>>512214426
*tribalized

>>512205756 (OP)
>why X was bad
They lost.

>>512205756 (OP)
because slavery = bad

>>512210058
Keir Starmer is plotting a British re-entry into that infernal Union.

There is no escaping the EUSSR.

>>512212539
>>512213568
Being fair the two party system was collapsing in the 1850s. The Whigs collapsed into the know nothings, Constitutional Union, and Republicans. Buchanan ran against what was essentially two whig candidates in 1856 Fillmore (know nothing) and Frémont (Republican). In 1860 you can still see the broken up Whigs with Bell of the constitutional union carrying Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Im kindnof surprised the Democratic party didn't break up at the time like the Whigs did.

>>512214824
Yes it was chaos in the electoral system at the time, yet Lincoln didn't choose to run two different candidates in the only party that had a shot of beating him.

>>512210541
Did it cross no ones mind that Hamilton was lying son of a bitch?

>>512214962
The faggot Lincoln suppressed judges and newspapers in local elections to maintain his power.

>>512214824
Frémont was relieved of his command as a Union general because he thought the war was about freeing niggers.

>>512213390
The poll (head) taxes in the antebellum years were designed to make sure voters had a stake in the system. It was usually minimal, $0.50~$2. After the Civil War it became extremely restrictive and, cumulative poll taxes, retroactive etc. Here’s something interesting for you, James Madison, architect of our Constitution, couldn’t vote in the system he created. He was a NEET and didn’t own land.

>>512213568
Democrats were splitting because the northern democrats were capitulating to the same industrial interests as Lincoln. The entire point of contention was the development of a transcontinental railroad, which was a southern idea. The south wanted to build a railroad through the Gadsden purchase into california which is why the north stole california

there were talks to let the south have southern california which probably would have prevented the civil war

>>512215354
He was probably fine with that (as I was with James allsup’s plan, which for the same reason, would have disqualified me). The US is supposed to be a republic. You wan the best of your people voting for your leaders. When I was a childless young man, I can honestly say I would have voted in my own best interest and that would have been counterproductive for the interests of America.

Memeflags the absolute fucking worst that's why
The confederacy is fine, whatever

>>512205756 (OP)
They weren't, its just narrative. Same reason the Japs aren't despised for WW2 like the Germans. Both did brutal shit, both bent the knee, only the Nazis get reamed constantly for their philosophies. Stories control the world, that's why they're so important to anyone seeking power.

>>512215759
Probably. Jeannette Rankin served in Congress before the 19th. It’s kind of weird how voting has become the only civic duty which matters.

>>512214258
I agree, anon. The Southern states had every right to leave the so called union. (((Lincoln's))) aggression against the South was morally and legally reprehensible. Ultimately, (((Lincoln))) destroyed America.

>>512215179
What does that have to do with the democrats trying and succeeding at losing the election?

THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN BROTHER, HH

>>512216632
>In 1853, the War Department under then Secretary of War Jefferson Davis was authorized by the Congress to conduct surveys of five different potential transcontinental routes from the Mississippi ranging from north to south. It submitted a massive twelve volume report to Congress with the results in early 1855. However, no route or bill could be agreed upon and passed authorizing the Government's financial support and land grants until the secession of the southern states in 1861 removed their opposition

>>512205756 (OP)
The Confederate States of America was just in their cause. They did nothing wrong. The world would be a 10x better place if the North had not been evil and Lincoln desiring empire of a republic.

>>512217039
RIP Hogan

>>512217215
>Signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln on July 1, 1862, the 1862 Act authorized extensive land grants[2] in the Western United States and the issuance of 30-year government bonds (at 6 percent) to the Union Pacific Railroad and Central Pacific Railroad (later the Southern Pacific Railroad) companies in order to construct a continuous transcontinental railroad
>The method of apportioning these additional land grants was specified in the Act as being in the form of "five alternate sections per mile on each side of said railroad, on the line thereof, and within the limits of ten miles on each side" which thus provided the companies with a total of 6,400 acres (2,600 ha) for each mile of their railroad, resulting in checkerboarding.

>>512218384
>From 1850 to 1871, the railroads received more than 175 million acres (71 million ha) of public land – an area more than one tenth of the whole United States and larger in area than Texas.[11]
>The railroads sold portions of their land to arriving settlers at a handsome profit. Lands closest to the tracks drew the highest prices, because farmers and ranchers wanted to locate near railway stations.

>>512205756 (OP)
Why are you repeatedly posting this shit? Do you have no originality at all? Fucking kys you fucking repetitive piece of shit subhuman.
Did you sepnd all day thinking of a thread to make and just though "I know a good one, I'll just post the same one as I always have for the 50th time".
It fucking pisses me off that this place is anonymous as I would stab you to death for being so worthless.

Jews run the southern farms.

>>512219569
Because i still haven't received a coherent answer as to one why is good and the other is le bad
You can try stabbing me, i'm 17 stone 6'2 of pure muscle

>>512205756 (OP)
>I am ONCE AGAIN asking /pol/ to explain to me, a non american why the confederates were "bad" or any worse than the founding fathers of america?
They weren't, they were in fact staying true to the original vision of the founders. South's position on the constitution was even validated by the supreme court of the time which is why Jefferson Davis couldn't be executed for treason.

>>512209929
other way around, where in the constitution did it say you cannot leave the union?
because if it did not explicitly say, the tenth amendment kicks in
there is an unspoken 'yeah but whats done is done and might is right" acceptance among high IQ historians about this very niggling fact

>>512220873
Heh, the only way to secede, now, is to kill every Yankee jackass who says you can’t.

>>512218384
>checkerboarding
you can build a special ladder to put at the corner of a checkerboarded property and cross legally
this is called corner-crossing and it pisses any checkerboard owner the fuck off, a lot

>>512219569
You ok, bro? You seem angry.

>ONCE AGAIN
>a non american
>why
thank you my friend. i am also negative sentiment all these group

We're leaving. Whether you like it or not

bye

>>512205756 (OP)
>I am ONCE AGAIN asking /pol/ to explain to me, a non american why the confederates were "bad" or any worse than the founding fathers of america?
The confederacy was made as a response the to the self fulfilling prophecy that Lincoln would end slavery. Something he probably never would've done because he hated black people and it would've been really hard to sell congress. Unless you create a scenario where slaves join the U.S. Army against their slave owners and it's easier to end slavery then bankrupt the government in legal cases.

The confederacy failed to be self sufficient and bankrupted themselves needing the reconstruction era by the end. Those dipshits expected Europe and Engerland to finance their traitorous wars while also undermining the efforts of the constitution to have the states unified as a union. They're a bunch of cry baby racists that can't cope that they lost a war they had no business starting.
T. Southerner

>>512205756 (OP)
For years they weren't even seen as 'bad guys', all the way up to the 90s even they were just seen as a standard combatant and were depicted as being neutral, slavery was barely brought up. Their flag and symbols were even seen as perfectly fine to use. Then around the 2000s the entire confederacy slowly became a grand evil in the likes of the German Reich. I know the reason behind this is because America started to worship niggers, and therefore any state formed to oppose automatically becomes the great satan, but it's still weird that out of all regimes this is the one that they hate secondmost.

>>512225003
>Calls Confederates 'Cry baby racists'
>Uses picture of Sherman

You do know Sherman's opinions on Indians right? Hell if he met you he probably would've called you a nigger, assuming you are one.