Chuck Dixon and Vox Day

But what's so alt about Her?

Is Chuck Dixon on drugs or something? What would make him think that it would be a good idea to team up with a 1488er?

The history of the civil war has been rewritten to such degrees that everyone has forgotten that the south was filled with s bunch of traitors. I mean in what other nation do you see statues of traitors?

China, South Africa. Don't think South Africa flies traitor flags though

Its always been pretty retarded.

Nightwing

What statue of traitors do they have? I very much doubt that China has statues of Chiang Kai-shek

Mao was a traitor, he started two civil wars

But that's where you're wrong, because Mao won so that means he rewrote the rules so that he wasn't the traitor. I'm also damn sure he didn't start any civil wars

>The history of the civil war has been rewritten ...everyone has forgotten that the south was filled with s bunch of traitors.
No one in the south was a "traitor" as you put it. Look, the best way to explain the USA before the civil war is it was basically the European Union. Member states who came together to form one larger Union of States (hence the name, the United STATES of America). In the run up to the civil war, two camps came to be. The Federalists (Northerners mostly) who believed that the USA should be viewed as a singular nation BEHOLDING to the federal government (much in the same way that the EU and certain member states now view their project as a United Europe in which member states are subservient and secondary in existence to the EU). The other faction (largely made up of the Southern States) held that no, Each State has primacy and the right to determine its path. They each viewed themselves basically as separate nations (Virginians, Tennesseans, Georgians, etc) whose nations worked together to be stronger (basically a lot like NATO).
So directly leading up to the civil war, the Federal Government declared "We have the right to dictate the laws and practices of YOUR COUNTRY even though we are a Collection of Member States and other States (nations) have the right to dictate how YOUR state (nation) shall be run according to OUR will."
At which point the southern states said "fuck off, this is a voluntary compact, you don't get to dictate shit like that. We're out." Then shit happened, the war started, and at the end of the day the Federalists won and said "We are now the ultimate power and you are all our bitches."
So literally no one was a traitor. The best modern analogy would be if the the UK finishes pulling Brexit, taking with it England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, and then the EU says "fuck you cunt, you're our bitch, we need you for to make money for us!" and invaded the UK and called them all "traitors."

Isn't Vox Day the guy who said that Kirby would've been on his side while literally not knowing who Jack Kirby was, and when people explained who Kirby was and how he definitely wouldn't condone anything Vox was doing, he flipped around and called Kirby a faggot?

They're like 5 or 6 issues in, it's just banned from being posted on Yea Forumsmblr.

after issues 3 the threads were still garbage and jannys and mods were tired with dealing with the autism

>Vox Day says Jews are evil and calls them fake Americans
>Vox Day lives in Italy and is trying to make money through a medium Jews started before he was born

A commendable effort, but the SJW you're responding to is just going to conveniently pretend to forget what they read the next time the subject comes up, and go back to going
>UHHH TRAITORS

>No one in the south was a "traitor" as you put it
The entire Confederate army had to be pardoned for treason, so you'll forgive me if I have my doubts about such a statement. Also, whether or not we were one nation was settled with the supremacy clause and the abandonment of the Articles of Confederation. The states of the US were not legally considered nation-states in the modern sense past that point.

Mr. Spaghetti isn’t as smart as he thinks he is.

Just like how no one died during a twenty year famine that didn't happen :^)

Then the tranny jannies should fuck off, not ban comics that hurt their feelings, especially for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the comic itself.

One march to the sea wasn't enough

Attached: ad5.png (640x714, 732K)

they have to right to ban fandom that gets too cancerous, like bronies. And these threads are very thinly veiled /pol/ threads

by that logic /mlp/ shouldn't exist and pony posting shouldn't be a against the rules.

Is this Del Arroz trying to shill this crap?

>it's already derailed into off topic crap
it's justified because people can't stop using the threads for thinly veiled /pol/ shit.

Just go to Yea Forums and talk about it there then. That's what the board is for.

The culture of American nationalism is fascinating.

Marvelcucks are the most cancerous fandom I've ever had the misfortune of witnessing, and I dont think they should be banned.
Stop being retarded faggots.

Nice post, if it wasn't for the fact that you're trying to rewrite history. Claiming that the civil war was about state rights and not slavery. At least same it was about the state right of slavery next time
OK which civil war did he start then? The one that started before the communist part was formed?

I mean the fact that this thread quickly devolved in to anons arguing about the Civil War should show you how these threads are gold-mine for off-topic political posting.

Vox Stercore said Jack Kirby was an untalented dwarf he could beat up and that he himself is more talented than Neil Gaiman.

>KIRBY: I came up with the Black Panther because I realized I had no blacks in my strip. I’d never drawn a black. I needed a black. I suddenly discovered that I had a lot of black readers. My first friend was a black! And here I was ignoring them because I was associating with everybody else. It suddenly dawned on me — believe me, it was for human reasons — I suddenly discovered nobody was doing blacks. And here I am a leading cartoonist and I wasn’t doing a black. I was the first one to do an Asian. Then I began to realize that there was a whole range of human differences. Remember, in my day, drawing an Asian was drawing Fu Manchu — that’s the only Asian they knew.

ignoring the fact that there were nourmerous areas where there were regions that were still loyal to the federal government, The south made no effort to go through the proper channels to leave the union and attacked federal property while doing so. They committed treason as defined by the supreme court over 50 years ago. They were traitors, whether or not they were justified in leaving is another discussion for a different board.

Okay, so what you're saying is Hiro should dissolve /mlp/ and let them post here again?

Do they have permission to use stills from this film?

Attached: Screenshot_2.png (953x400, 606K)

And yet you're here.

Didn’t Vox Day renounce his American citizenship though?

>Based on the Best-Selling comic Book Series
Isn't it against the law to blatantly lie in advertising like that?

Yeah but the difference is that I can do this

i'd be for that, i ain't even him, it'd scare off a lot of the more knee jerky mother fuckers, with some good old friendship is magic.

>No one in the south was a "traitor" as you put it
They literally stripped the surviving confederate generals, soldiers, and politicians of their franchise as punishment for their rebellion, many were arrested, and it was only Grant and Lincoln's clemency that kept a great many of them from being hanged for treason.

If they keep "My Little Pony" contained to a single thread? Sure.
How many marvelcuck threads do we currently have shitting up the board?
You're complaining that single threads are "spam", like a disingenuous faggot, simply because you don't like the topic and want it censored.

It is probably number one on Amazon in the tiny “white supremacist comic books” category, therefore it is a bestseller.

For commercial purposes? Fuck no.

>implying this won't happen once the show is over later this year

Attached: horse anus.png (2378x1492, 593K)

>I don't know jack shit about China's 20th century history
>But i'm still going to argue against anyone that clearly does
The fucking state of you, user.

In China the statues of traitors are used as urinals and spittoons though.

Speaking of tiny white supremacists, how tall is Vox Day anyway? He always calls Ben Shapiro little, but he seems like he’s shorter probably.

All of you amerifats are traitors against The Crown.
Nobody cares about your petty infighting.

>He always
I don't know, why don't you tell us? I doubt anyone here follows him remotely as much as you do.

I thought you hated The Crown.

apparently you care enough to comment on it.

>If they keep "My Little Pony" contained to a single thread?
Wouldn't happen even if Yea Forums had Yea Forums levels of moderation.

>So literally no one was a traitor. The best modern analogy would be if the the UK finishes pulling Brexit, taking with it England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, and then the EU says "fuck you cunt, you're our bitch, we need you for to make money for us!" and invaded the UK and called them all "traitors."
Except that the South attacked the North.

>you
Which user do you think you're talking to?

If we still had royalty, we would have never been in the EU in the first place, and certainly not dealing with the clusterfuck of simply leaving.

your dumb as hell if you think the moment ponie fags aren't hunted faster than lolicons they wouldn't become an everyday occurrence on every board.

Damn that's some elaborate fanfiction about a traitor state that literally (actually and literally) had white supremacy as a tenant in their constitution.

He's just jealous of Gaiman because he's jewish

Well let's see the Civil war of 1946 started when the KMT decided to stab the CPC in the back when the CPC started getting to much power. The Civil war of (also known as the Warlord Era) 1927 started when a warlord who made himself emperor died and China split into regions.

>WHO KNOWS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE ALLOWED ALT-HERO TO BE POSTED ON Yea Forums???!?
Stop being a tranny.

words in my mouth and buzzwords on my plate don't make for a good example user.

we already know, this comic has been shilled in Yea Forums for a long ass time and every time it's just /pol/ shit

SO what is alt about her?

She believes the Lost Cause of the Confederacy and other alternative facts should be taught in schools.

And every Marvel comic is /pol/ bait, who cares.

anyone who gives a shit about the quality of there board.

>That EU analogy
>No mention of slavery
>"The North invaded the south"

Really pushing your agenda hard here.

The confederates refused to accept the democratically elected president, declared seccesion and attacked Fort Sumter when the commander did not recognize that secession. The US was bound to respond to this attack in some way.

So seccestionists were mad about democracy, started a war, lost, then cried like pussies for the next 150 years about how the US totally started it by being anit-democratic.

No, the issue was over how the future of the Republic was being clearly mishandled. Immigration was being largely done in the North, meaning that there was a swelling each census of voters and House Representatives in the Northern states that would render the South's opinions obsolete. The only way a civil war didn't break out in the first place was because of the Three-Fifths Compromise, which bolstered the de facto population of the South's representation by allowing three of every five slaves be counted as voters, despite not having the right to vote themselves.

The North, later on, tried to aboloish slavery, and the South refused not because it hates blacks, but because they needed slaves for both their production and for republic representation. Without slaves, and without farm equipment to be introduced at the turn of the century, the North would possess not only the country's economy, but the country's votes. Southern representatives repeatedly tried to delay the abolition of slavery until they could either have a matching representational population, or tools superior to the cotton gin, so they could at least have some equality. The North repeatedly shot them down, using pathos to argue logos.

With tensions high, the North then started arming Fort Sumter, which was in Southern territory and highly illegal. The South, of course, stormed the fort, wanting to know what the North was doing. The North used this "attack" as an excuse to go to war with the South, starting the War of Northern Aggression.

These tactics have been seen time and time again, whether it's the Gulf of Tonkin Incident or the 9/11 Attacks, or the Democratic Party's attempt at ending the Electoral College because their candidate won by percentage, and not by electoral votes which allow smaller states a say in who governs the country. The fact that 4channel, a website of intellectuals, is ignorant of history repeating itself is disheartening.

Anyone who cares about the quality if this board wouldn't want MORE moderation. The moderation we have already has killed off most things of value we used to have already. For fucks sake, we cant even have LOL threads anymore.

Oh boo hoo /pol/ gets baited, /pol/ is trash and it ruined the website.

Fuck You!

The issue with LOL threads is that sooner or later someone posts Stonetoss, and then the politics starts.

>4channers ruined Yea Forums
this really makes me think big thoughts

Tim Drake.

>starting the War of Northern Aggression

Attached: Oda.Nobunaga.(Drifters).full.2242770.png (1280x720, 674K)

nah moderation needs to shift focus from bullying any lewd speak in new cartoon, and continue punching /pol/tards in the face for being the invasive /news/ reject from stormfront that it is.

No, the issue is that we cant have LOL threads anymore.
If some tranny starts flipping out over a comic, just ignore them, or laugh at them. Its not hard.

Chuck has his ego massaged when VD calls “el legend” in everything he says about him, so he decides to be willfully ignorant I’m guessing.

Waging a war against the USA doesn't make you a traitorous enemy, got it.

>the North then started arming Fort Sumter, which was in Southern territory and highly illegal.
You do know the federal government purchased that from South Carolina back in the 1830's, right?
you are just baiting and not being serious right?

You're being disingenuous, you'd post Stonetoss in a thread that explicitly asks for "non political comics" in the OP, it's just garbage.

But they objectively didn't.
The waged war against the Union.
And stop pretending to be patriotic, if this were literally any other conversation you would be complaining about how the US is a white supremacist terrorist prison state.

We can have, but like I said the issue is that people just can't stop getting political when Stonetoss is posted

No, the war was against the US, that's why they call it a civil war you dunbass because both sides were US. The confederates werent a separate nation, they were traitors fighting their own country from within.

Nah, I'd probably post something from Wormwood, and you would make a hundred off-topic posts whining that i forced you to be unable to contain your dilations.

History is written by the army that abuses human-wave tactics with absolutely no regard for human life and is willing to send sixteen year-olds to their deaths just to secure a solid government pension, be it Russia or the Northern Union.

South Carolina seceded from the Union prior to For Sumter being armed, and it was armed without superior orders from the Union. You can read this in correspondence between US Army Officer Robert Anderson to Reverend R. B. Duane.

We literally can't without them being instantly deleted.

your new as shit if you think that's limited to just stonetoss. like i get it's summer, but damn.

That's basically the same comic anyway, what point are you trying to make? Were you just looking for a way to force "dilate" in your post the same way you force every other meme you mindlessly parrot?

Honestly, for variety, I'd like some Redpanels. Yeah it's dated, but fuck it, it's got a certain class that Stonetoss and Wormword are sorely lacking in.

>We
I'm sorry if you're having trouble shilling your comic, Stonetoss, but it's truly not good at any level, technical, objective or subjective.

>South Carolina seceded from the Union prior to For Sumter being armed
Then they became territory subject to governance by Congress. Or did you mean they seceded from the country which they could only do via amendment to the supremacy clause, which as I recall has never been amended. Maybe there was a mass emigration?

If the Constitution is the supreme law of your land, you're standing on US soil. You can leave, but the soil stays.

The point is you're a disingenuous tranny that tries to call everything they don't like "political", and demand it be censored just because YOU cant control yourself, which means you don't belong anywhere on this website.

Dixon probably has some deep issues with gayness considering how often he unintentionally wrote very on the nose gay subtext to his characters who were meant to be straight.

his dialogue repetitively reads like nu/v/ speak so that's a possible explanation, i hate that i actually visit that shell of a board enough to recognize it.
perfect example

This thread is cancer and is now a doubles thread.

Attached: Chemo 354.jpg (229x251, 19K)

Attached: Chemo 353.jpg (229x251, 19K)

Rolling

Attached: Chemo 352.jpg (229x251, 19K)

Attached: Chemo 351.jpg (229x251, 19K)

Do you like the trailer?

>Confederate Flag
>American Flag
Pick one. Confederate =/= American

Major Andersson felt Fort Moultrie was going to be attacked by the local militia and spiked it's guns and transferred the remaining arms and his command to fort Sumter. While he did so without explicit orders his actions were in line with his commanding officer Lieutenant Colonel John L. Gardner. What is your point?

While I agree anyone attempting a "sovereign citizen" argument is a sad excuse for a human being, that isn't what happened with South Carolina. The Constitution had to be ratified by South Carolina for it to be accepted into the United States, which at the time was a group of bodies and not the overwhelming federal force it is today. In their own declaration of secession, they wrote:

>We, the People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the Ordinance adopted by us in Convention, on the twenty-third day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and eighty eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all Acts and parts of Acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying amendment of the said Constitution, are here by repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of “The United States of America,” is hereby dissolved.

By convention, ratified by the state legislature, and put forth by the people of South Carolina, they willingly repealed the Constitution, and removed themselves from the Union. While we can argue about nuances, the fact remains that in a completely legal fashion, South Carolina and all land within its territory was no longer part of the United States Union.

The Union arming Fort Sumter thereby becomes illegal, and an aggressive action which needed to be resolved. South Carolina repeatedly requested of President Buchanan that Fort Sumter be evacuated as, in the words of Governor Pickens, "I regard that possession is not consistent with the dignity or safety of the State of South Carolina."

The fort remained occupied and continued to be supplied and armed, which is an anti-diplomacy.

No.
They didn't make the redhead black.
It's 2019, come on people!

I'd like to run you over with a trailer.

Attached: Chemo 350.jpg (229x251, 19K)

Attached: Chemo 349.jpg (229x251, 19K)

You're really bad at this.

Attached: Chemo 348.jpg (229x251, 19K)

Attached: Chemo 347.jpg (229x251, 19K)

The point is that the North's actions leading up to and starting the civil war were extremely aloof, or willfully ignorant. Of course Andersson should have expected a militia to come to Fort Sumter, as it was now in seceded South Carolina territory, who left the Union after a series of easily-understood events where the North continued to politically harass the South. Furthermore, a single individual felt haughty enough to have such a poor grasp of territorial conflicts and have a military position that high shows extreme incompetence, and the entire war could have been avoided if "diplomacy" had been in the Northern vocabulary.

I'm not one of the fringe-researchers who believes that the War was a plot to cause near-genocide of white lives in the US, but the death toll that resulted was absolutely asinine in hindsight. The North could have easily given the South everything they wanted politically, and they never did out of a feeling of either entitlement or unwarranted self-importance.

Attached: Chemo 346.jpg (229x251, 19K)

>The Union arming Fort Sumter thereby becomes illegal
South Carolina relinquished all rights to fort Sumter in the 1830's. If they wished for a diplomatic solution they would of held negotiations to buy it back instead of attacking it after placing an impromptu embargo on it

Attached: Chemo 345.jpg (229x251, 19K)

Attached: Chemo 344.jpg (229x251, 19K)

Attached: Chemo 343.jpg (229x251, 19K)

Attached: Chemo 342.jpg (229x251, 19K)

That's where I disagree, and where South Carolina disagreed, and where diplomacy would have been needed. I can understand that, because it's on paper that ownership of Fort Sumter had been passed to the Union, it could be perceived as an act of "Indian giving" to just take it back without paying. On the other hand, I hope you can understand that to the average citizen, after breaking ties with a much-more powerful nation that happens to be your next-door neighbor, and they start militarizing, and they refuse or ignore your requests to give your people peace of mind... Well, where there's smoke, there's fire.

De jure, you're correct. De facto, South Carolina was correct. Since South Carolina didn't need to follow Union laws following secession, they wouldn't take "de jure" into consideration, especially when peace talks were non-existent.

Attached: Chemo 341.jpg (229x251, 19K)

Attached: Chemo 340.jpg (229x251, 19K)

Explain to me how a state repeals a federal law which has supremacy over state law?

The Supremacy Clause is clear cut. The Constitution is the supreme law over all US soil until the clause is repealed, either through amendment or through the Property Clause.

South Carolina saying the Constitution doesn't apply doesn't matter. Constitutional law supersedes South Carolina law.

Attached: Chemo 339.jpg (229x251, 19K)

Attached: Chemo 338.jpg (229x251, 20K)

>South Carolina didn't need to follow Union laws
that doesn't mean they can renigg on treaties or hold "foreign" troops hostage in an attempt to starve them out.

Attached: Chemo 337.jpg (229x251, 19K)

Ordinances of Secession. You can read about how this was a completely legal action that had to have conventions and ratifications to go into effect here:
constitution.org/csa/ordinances_secession.htm

I will repeat, again, that South Carolina repeatedly asked for Fort Sumter's evacuation due to it being perceived as an active threat. Ignoring someone completely and continuing to take a hostile action, no matter how legal it may be, will result in consequences as we have seen throughout history between city-states and nations prior to the War.

>continuing to take a hostile action,
>Destroying your property and changing location is hostile action
>barring someone from transferring their goods from one location to another is perfectly fine though

What part of the Constitution says an Ordinance of Secession supersedes the Constitution? I'll wait.

I will repeat, again, that South Carolina repeatedly asked for Fort Sumter's evacuation. If the fort had been evacuated, the Union would have been able to "transfer their goods" without molestation. The issues was they were "transferring their goods" into now-sovereign territory that believed the Union to be openly-antagonistic towards it.

I don't see why that would matter, but since it would be appropriate to adequately answer your question, it isn't. Some try to interpet that the 10th Amendment would allow secession, but I'm certain you'll take the Jackson/Madison viewpoint, and that would open a whole 'nother discussion neither of us want.

Regardless, the Union seemed to consider these ordinances valid, since the Union used military intervention and mass arrests of lawmakers to block secession in Maryland from being put on the table. It's similar to how the recent event in the news had the governor of Oregon send police to arrest Republican senators who "fled" to prevent a climate change bill from entering the circuit.

>Regardless, the Union seemed to consider these ordinances valid
Considering them a threat and considering them valid are altogether different things. In fact, this has been decided in law, Texas v. White.

Yes, and if that discussion had been held in 1860 or 1861 instead of 1869, perhaps the entire War could have been avoided. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case, and now you, me, and the other guy are trying to justify our positions in hindsight. I still maintain diplomacy was needed, and the North outright refused to be diplomatic leading up to and then starting the War.

Fuck American history

DO IT AGAIN, UNCLE BILLIY

LT Col Gardenr ried to do so prior to SC succeeding and was impeded by the militia. Major Anderson was then given command as a good faith effort.

I mean the beauty of a court case is court cases can only be decided with law in place at the time of events. Nothing ex post facto can be used. Ipso facto the South were traitors that never legally seceded from jack.

This is technically correct
T. second year law student

The only Gardners that I know from American history was a Confederate general on the Mississippi River, and a brigadier general from the War of 1812. Furthermore, Anderson abandoned Fort Moultrie and relocated to Sumter on his own initiative, as his orders never specfically told him to move.

I wholeheartedly disagree for the reasons previously mentioned.

I literally just told you he was the commanding officer prior to Anderson taking command.
>his orders never specfically told him to move.
. . . you are to hold possession of the forts in this harbor, and if attacked you are to defend yourself to the last extremity. The smallness of your force will not permit you, perhaps, to occupy more than one of the three forts, but an attack on or attempt to take possession of any one of them will be regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command into either of them which you may deem most proper to increase its power of resistance. You are also authorized to take similar steps whenever you have tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act."
Major Anderson was acting in full concordance with the wishes of his superiors.

If Anderson had three options, one of which was causing civil unrest by South Carolina, who repeatedly requested its evacuation, why did he continue to arm it? If it was because the North perceived that there was going to be open hostility, why did the North refuse proper discourse? I repeat, again and again, that the North needed diplomacy, and again again this fact is ignored by you and others on here. I don't understand this, but if I could hazard a guess, you and the other interpret laws differently than I and my peers do.

If I'm understanding your arguments correctly, you all believe that laws are the end-all, be-all of a discussion. However, we were raised and still believe that if a legal action is unjust or unreasonable, then it won't be carried out. The joke we have down here is that you'll only go to jail for making moonshine if you don't give the sheriff his share, for example.

>why did the North refuse proper discourse?
Because fuck the South? States are not entitled to federal diplomatic recognition. Declaring you have stolen land is not the same as successfully stealing it and the sole purpose of that base being there in the first place was to prevent the theft of land from the US government.

>However, we were raised and still believe that if a legal action is unjust or unreasonable, then it won't be carried out.
...slavery?

Maybe for the mentally challenged

Whelp I'm done with Chuck Dixon.

Tom Clancy was genuinely a borderline facist, and still managed to write charming stories.

How do these fuckers suck so much at writing conservative stories?

I'm not going to continue this cyclical argument, especially when you're appearing using pathos.

However, as for the slavery issue, that was hardly unjust or unreasonable and has been conflated to make the South appear demonic. As harsh as it may sound, do you take a tire iron to your lawnmower, or refuse to fill the gas tank to your (hypothetical) tractor and force it to run, or mistreat your property in general? A slave at the time cost a regular plantation nearly a year's profit. No matter how much Uncle Tom's Cabin or Roots incites you, beating or mistreating slaves was the exception, not the rule, and I can argue this on a purely economical standpoint instead of using a "not muh" argument.

Furthermore, the South needed black slaves, specifically blacks. Native Americans and indentured Irish and other whites died in droves during plantation work because of malaria, but thanks to Africans have sickle cell anemia and giving them resistance / immunity to malaria, they could work without dying in droves. It had to be black slaves working in the South.

Consider the state the US would be in today if only forty more years had passed before the forced abolition of slavery, when mass-produced farm equipment could have been introduced and made plantation slavery redundant.

I actually liked the storytime, and the Trump Titans one. The hero with super speed seemed cool.

Attached: 1545472663757.jpg (320x463, 30K)

>However, as for the slavery issue, that was hardly unjust or unreasonable
Either a dedicated troll or the Kool-Aid Man. There's no other explanation. No normal human being could hold that much Kool-Aid.

Attached: 9976-koolaidman.jpg (310x331, 16K)

Well i've learned some things today. Thanks arguing /his/ anons.

>However, as for the slavery issue, that was hardly unjust or unreasonable and has been conflated to make the South appear demonic.
No it hasn't, you were really that bad.

I'm pretty sure the guy you're talking to didnt own slaves.

I believe he was referring to the South as an entity and is addressing the person as a constituent of that sociopolitical group which is an assumption on his part, but a fairly grounded one given the Lost Cause propaganda.

My perspective is that it gave Africans food, clothing, shelter, a merciful religion, and a reason to live, given that the alternative was being sacrificed to some animism spirit after a warlord eager for more European weaponry from the intercontinental trading triangle raided their small village and found it more profitable to sell the victims of war instead of outright murdering them.

Please don't try to say that slave ships were filthy as if they were the only ones; every ship traveling back and forth across the Atlantic was a rat-infested, disease-ridden mess that affect everyone going back and forth.

I don't think we were bad at all. I know that we were the "good guys", since only monsters like the North would have done what they did with carpetbagging and loansharking in Reconstruction. I also find it funny that the North wanted to "liberate" slaves, yet gave them no work nor a place to live and, without an education, prevented them from getting hired in most Northern businesses, and 60 years later when blacks were out-performing whites in blue-collar jobs we got the Red Summer of 1919.

I find it fascinating how the North will quickly jump on the pedestal to yell things it doesn't understand nor believe in.

Ah fuck you're right how could I be mistaken in believing I was talking to a time traveler who arrived here from a hundred years ago, oh man you really fixed that error of mine why are conservacucks so fucking autistic

If that was the case then there would not been a black man, woman or child left alive neer the end of the war. They'd kill them all before freeing them.

>why did he continue to arm it?
he didn't he transferred his command from on location to another in a concordance to prior agreements and the wishes of his superiors while destroying arms that would be to troublesome to move.
>why did the North refuse proper discourse?
Buchanan did nothing in the hope that it wouldn't escalate hostilities and only sent the Star as a relief effort with food, it was fired upon by South Carolina despite being an unarmed merchant vessel. Lincoln met with is cabinet repeatedly on how he should approach the matter and told Virginian representatives he'd surrender the fort completely if it would guarantee their loyalty to the union. Prior to the official firing upon the installation unauthorized negations headed by Sec of State Howard were carried out over the forts sale to SC, they failed. Lincoln then sent a letter that a resupply would be carried out by an unarmed party since the troops needed food. The CSA government was relayed the message and decided to attack. At every moment either Governor Pickens or the CSA government took hostile actions and claiming that they wished for diplomatic solutions when they did nothing but dictate terms with no compromise is beyond disingenuous and shows a fundamental ignorance of the surrounding event.
>However, we were raised and still believe that if a legal action is unjust or unreasonable, then it won't be carried out.
I won't argue against that but if your negotiations to rectify the situation consist of nothing but demands with no semblance of compromise to befit both parties you can fuck right off

>You were bad
>No we weren't because we could have been worse!!!!
Yeah you could have kept lynching them for the next half a century oops that's exactly what you did.

>I won't argue against that but if your negotiations to rectify the situation consist of nothing but demands with no semblance of compromise to befit both parties you can fuck right off
I agree with you on this point. Like how the South begged for slavery to not be abolished because they needed representative votes. Like how the South begged for better trade between the North and South, instead of the North importing cheap cotton and tobacco from overseas. Like how the South tried to get business monguls to bring their businesses below the Mason-Dixon so the South could enjoy their profits as well. Like how the South asked to be properly heard and represented, and yet Lincoln won the presidency without their say in the issue.

After over a decade of this nonsense, with the North continuing to do shady, underhanded, clandestine actions, being duplicitous, malicious, and brazenly ridiculous, how can you condemn them for reacting to open aggression?

Yes, liberals kept hanging blacks.

You are clearly operating off some /pol/tard definition of "liberal" not shared by anyone else. Thanks for exposing yourself for the echo chambered dumbass that you are.

>Like how the South begged for slavery to not be abolished because they needed representative votes.
Wanted and needed are different words.
>Like how the South begged for better trade between the North and South, instead of the North importing cheap cotton and tobacco from overseas.
That'd be socialism.
>Like how the South tried to get business moguls to bring their businesses below the Mason-Dixon so the South could enjoy their profits as well.
That'd be carpetbagging.
>Like how the South asked to be properly heard and represented, and yet Lincoln won the presidency without their say in the issue.
They were properly heard AND represented AND their representatives lost to Lincoln's 60% of the vote.

If the South doesn't get represented, then it's not part of the Republic, and has the right to secede from an agreement they don't get any say in, especially when the legend of the Revolution was still fresh in people's minds where colonists declared independence because they didn't have any representation in British Parliament.

Furthermore, it's not "socialism" to encourage trade between the states. It's hyper-capitalism, and malicious, to intentionally cause harm to the South's economy, whom the North was supuposed to be allied with, by finding alternative sources of goods. It's similar to how the US shipped its manufacturing overseas for cheaper labor and completely destroyed the Rust Belt for generations. However, if you believe profit is the bottom line, I don't think I can convince you on this point.

What carpetbaggers did was entirely different from bringing business down South; you know that, and trying to press my buttons isn't a valid argument. Forcing people to sell their property because they have nothing left after the North destroyed their infrastructure and crops isn't "providing businesses".

Furthermore, the issue I mean with Lincoln was slavery, who won because of his platform opposing slavery expansion into US territories, which handicapped the growth of Southern representation thanks to the Three-Fifths Compromise. Him getting elected was the signal that the South would end up becoming, for lack of a better term, slaves to the Union's desires.

he thinks 1800s democrats and dixiecrats are the same thing as 21st century democrats. its a common racist dog whistle when talking about slavery.

>If the South doesn't get represented, then it's not part of the Republic, and has the right to secede from an agreement they don't get any say in
According to what law?

This is where our differences come up again, where I believe an unjust law or ruling shouldn't be followed, whereas you view it as the end-all / be-all. I'm not sure which imperialistic dump you live in where strigent laws are necessary for day-to-day operations, but where I live people are able to get things resolved without having to call the police every five minutes.

you're talking to multiple people, buck.

>where I believe an unjust law or ruling shouldn't be followed,
Like the fugitive slave act, which trampled over the free states rights to be free and was used as cover to abduct free people of colour from northern and western states? Or just slavery as a whole?

>where I live people are able to get things resolved without having to call the police every five minutes.

So not in America.

You'd think if slavery had been so benign such a law wouldn't have been necessary.

I know. I've said "you all" in this post , but since it was a while ago you could have missed it. Regardless, yes, you're correct, however like just pointed out slavery was necessary for the South to function in the Republic. So, while I can understand why slaves would run away given that slavery can be considered "unjust" by some, and I can understand why not everyone turned over a slave they found, I can also understand why the South was so desperate to get its slaves back. I'm hoping you can, too.

A good part of Georgia, actually! I have to say "good part" because I-75 exists.

>"he keeps in touch!"
When that's the best you can say about someone, all your saying is "we're equally available for this project and that's cool for me".

>Yes, liberals kept hanging blacks.
Now blacks hang liberals.
How the times have changed!

>I'm going to ignore your points completely because I can't refute them
okay guess, have a safe fourth I guess

Retards will pretend this is appealing character design and that it will be anything more than alt-right virtue signaling to SOCK IT 2 DA SJWS.

Why the hell does she have too long ribbons hanging off her chest? Why is her "mask" two straps? She has all the belts of a Nomura character but the designer doesn't have Nomura's knowledge of high fashion and street fashion.

I thought I did argue them well, but I haven't slept because this was a good discussion, so perhaps I'm not getting my point across well enough. From South Carolina's perspective, without any other knowledge, everything the North did, including sending in relief supplies (I think that's a good term for it?) looked like stocking and arming for an attack as retaliation for secession. Hindsight doesn't matter for the incident that is currently happening.

You have a safe Independence Day, too, especially if you went out-of-state for the good fireworks.

Remember when Vox Day said Jack Kirby was sending his leftist goons after him?

>thinking democrat party affiliation always meant "liberal" in the south
>applying logic that would only begin to make sense if there were 150 year old democrats walking around who forgot that the KKK has sided with Republicans for almost a century
Always funny.

It's really just a trashier version of Wonder Woman's costume with a confederate flag mask.

Republicans are both the party of Lincoln and ending Slavery and also the party of remembering that the confederates were a bunch of good boys that were fighting for their right to be good old boys.

Don't make me look bad by pretending like the Republicans and Democrats didn't change their platforms completely following the War... They are hardly the same thing now that they were back then, and trying to use the same labels is silly.

Even Obama credited Republicans for freeing the slaves. It's no deep dark secret.

>4channel, a website of intellectuals

I was going to laugh at you for calling it "The War of Northern Aggression" but then you topped yourself and now I don't even know where to start

Were you impressed when Trump said "Not a lot of people know Lincoln was a Republican"? The parties changed platforms, everyone knows that.

>they already burned through the money from the crowdfunding scam
Jesus that was fast
I wonder if the same retards will give them free money again

you know they will

>“Great president. Most people don’t even know he was a Republican,” Trump said while addressing attendees at the National Republican Congressional Committee Dinner. “Does anyone know? Lot of people don’t know that.”
Our president is actually retarded.

This is word for word the revisionist history laid out by the daughters of the confederacy
You're a literal tool

Please be aware that victims of Reconstruction continued to tell their children, their grandchildren, and so on down the line even to today. While one group is vocal about it, anyone who lost everything because of the North still maintains what really happened, at least from our perspective, and I wish you would be more receptive to it instead of dismissing it outright because, once again, a lack of diplomacy on the North's part led to the War in the first place, and you shouldn't make their mistake yourself.

>If the South doesn't get represented
They were, in the electoral college, where they promptly had all their votes go toward losers just like every blue state in 2016. Losing an election isn't grounds for secession. It's my understanding that states lose elections quite often.

>Furthermore, it's not "socialism" to encourage trade between the states
At the cost of cheaper trade elsewhere? Yes it is. Cause "encourage" means picking winners and losers with financial incentives.

>What carpetbaggers did was entirely different from bringing business down South
Nah.

>Him getting elected was the signal that the South would end up becoming, for lack of a better term, slaves to the Union's desires.
That sounds like a personal problem.

I'm unsure of what to say here, mainly because you are being hostile, and I'm not sure whether you want to discuss things at all or if you're trying to "put me in my place". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, because I'm hopeful you'll understand my perspective.

The issue again goes back to the electoral college. You may have missed my previous posts, but the South needed slaves to continue getting represented fairly. Since Lincoln won, and he was going to prevent slavery from expanding, that meant that not only was their representation in the electoral college (and, similarly, House of Representatives) not good enough, it meant it would never be good enough. This was the motivation to leave the Union, because the South felt its opinions would never be heard in the future.

As for the economics issue, it simply isn't socialism. It's certainly not the capitalism that's made the US fat and happy, but it's also not the action of helping redistribute wealth. The South wasn't asking for handouts, it was asking for either their products to be bought, or for investments to diversify their agricultural portfolio. The North provided neither, even though they were supposed to be united. People were apparently okay with that, but the South as a whole certainly wasn't, because without economic power how could they donate to the candidate of their choice? Once again, this is a representation issue.

As for the last two... Well, those aren't points. I'm presuming you've just woken up and are a little grumpy, and that's okay.

>This was the motivation to leave the Union, because the South felt its opinions would never be heard in the future.
Sadly, they were wrong.

calm down

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Bush winning was because Florida rigged the election, and Trump won because he turned the Rust Belt red. Is there another instance you mean? In general the South is losing the culture war because country has become wigger rap with a banjo, no one has any respect for the South whatsoever (methheads, cousinfuckers, rednecks), and statues and flags are being removed by government offices.

>daughters of the confederacy
>"victims" of reconstruction
Thanks, I needed a good laugh

Hey you faggots reading this shit thread, look up the daughters of the confederacy and their propaganda.

Yes, that's kind of the point I was making. The modern republican party say they're both the party of freeing slaves and the party of honoring the confederates. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Freeing the slaves was a mistake tbph.
Imagine if we didn't have black people living here.

> 3d shit