*sniff*

Both, we are all Americans.

>Watch Gods and Generals: Extended Edition
>Go to wikipedia afterward
>mfw the Confederacy was real

Attached: Gods and Generals.mp4_snapshot_01.24.44.188.jpg (855x753, 105K)

Reminder that only rich people owned slaves. So to put the blame on all white people is asinine.

Attached: 1540936204179.png (581x637, 502K)

>one side bravely fights to the death over the liberty to OWN another race like property
HEROES ON BOTH SIDES AMIRITE???

fuck the south and fuck cousin fucking hillbillies

Niggers can't even be considered 3/5 human.
*sips tea*

FUCK THE SOUTH AND FUCK INBREDS TRAITORS

Attached: wQR5UGIk_Tt4U329h3uot1-CvpHdvdB4x4C5-sFIy7w.png (640x714, 733K)

north had the better plan for the blacks, they would just ship them away back to africa but booth killed lincoln before it happened sad!

>Reminder that the Yankees unironically pride themselves on recruiting the foreign hordes to their cause
north and south recruited the ir*sh, you retard

>read wikipedia
>there actually was a person named Lee who thought Picket's charge was a smart move
Mind blown!

>Based pregnant Anne Frank posters

A Southern plantation owner walks out on his porch but cannot see his son.
He yells - "Son, where are you!?"
A resounding chorus of white and mulatto voices from across the plantation greets him - "Right here, pa!"

Its amazing to me how many people i know outright deny and refuse to look up that lincoln was pro slavery.

I deny that because it's not true. He accepted it as a political necessity at times because he had to.

But it's ultimately not important because slavery wasn't why people were fighting, even if it was the legal and economic motivation for the war. Stop letting people make every single civil war conversation be about how the heroic union went on a crusade to help the poor shackled masses in the south, because they honestly couldn't give a fuck.

is that where poor white people got the voting against their own interests meme from?

Lincoln was not "pro slavery" you brainlet. He didn't like the practice, as most people didn't. He just wasn't a staunch abolitionist and adopted the stance naturally as a Republican and in an effort to put pressure on the South. It also gave a justification for having free black men to fight

>FUCK THE SOUTH AND FUCK INBREDS TRAITORS

Attached: 1558989635469.jpg (1920x1080, 350K)

>new guy started in my department at work
>looks pretty thuggish and wears a do rag plus hes covered in tattoos
>hes turns out to be intelligent and is a movie/pop culture nerd
>catches me off guard because usually they are very dumb and thuggy
>he tries to leave early the other day
>manager tells him we are too busy so hes gonna have to stay
>black dude loses his mind and instantly turns into a ghetto thug
>he ends up punching the wall and starts threatning our manager
>security has to escort him out of the building
>he keeps yelling hes gonna shoot up the managers house

Not even an hour prior to that event he was telling me how blessed he felt because his wife was pregnant with their 2nd child and neither of them could get jobs.

Attached: HkRkLOC.jpg (1650x1650, 223K)

I read an interesting book on Sherman and found it interesting he didn't like the concept of mocking a fallen opponent and most liekly would hate the name "burnin sherman"
he also hated the song "marching though Georgia"

Attached: 5a50b63d6846097ad6687ca6c6465950.jpg (2553x1920, 727K)

the war wasn't over just slavery and only brainlets disagree. You can just read the Confederate constitution at any time. Get fucked

Attached: 1553880005899.jpg (600x600, 39K)

That's because Sherman was a depressive fucking lunatic who probably would have offed himself along with Grant if a convenient war hadn't started to distract them both from failing at business and family.

Good guys to be sure but they really didn't understand the loan industry if you know what I mean.

Attached: 1491576107961.gif (645x773, 16K)

>patriotic music plays while southerners charge pointlessly over a fence and get massacred

>wasn't over slavery
Whatever you say, darkie.

on the day of union victory lincoln ordered the union band to play dixie and remarked that he liked the song

he was a politician and a cunty lawyer before that, he just knew which way the wind was blowing.

>tfw traded 6 million Jewish qts for 45 million nigger monkeys

Attached: 1549085417402.jpg (291x273, 94K)

it was about economics (king cotton vs norhtern industry)
it was about the geological and idiolocial differences between the North and South (the morality of keeping people in bondage)
it was about states rights (the right of a state to say slavery should be allowed)

it is about slavery but also much more but again many of those other things are based in slavery

Attached: 1537431275507.jpg (2048x1536, 542K)

>Gettysburg
>In Pennsylvania

>Pro-confederacy (so ontensibly meaning pro-slavery)
>Anti-Nazi

These two ideals can coexist?

It was ultimately over slavery.

So was the Revolution. We'd still have slaves today if they hadn't perfected the steam engine. Now we just let them sneak over the border on their own and pay them 1.25 an hour to pick fucking strawberries before they get picked up by la migra at the safeway and get sent back. At least slaves had a social contract of sorts with their masters. Hondurans aren't even considered subhuman, they're like a component to a lawnmower.

Sherman is a very interesting historical figure
he was deeply insecure and suffered a near mental breakdown after his troops broke and ran at bull run
he lost two sons during the war and was always on the chopping block from the war cabinet

>why yes the USA my country is a federalist country

Attached: 1549741315812.jpg (552x502, 44K)

fun fact Lee's boot size was around a size 5

Attached: 09851300053a.jpg (211x210, 8K)

You don't know anything about America or the civil war. I bet your family got here on the 1920s

Alright. We'll send all your political pets North and leave you be.
Good luck.

I thought it was supposed to be a masterpiece and Gods and Generals the bad one. They're both amateurish, Gettysburg is just better because it's more focused.

What an odd image, rare nowadays on the internet

>brits always the bad guys in films
>brits actively emancipated slaves during the war of 1812
>instead of returning freed slaves as the yanks wanted as per terms of ceasefire, brits paid for their freedom out of their own pocket

what did hollywood mean by this?

That sucks for everyone involved man. Damn

It's honestly a little hype how fucking weird things are. I wonder if in another 1000 years they'll have a neat separation for our historical eras, like we do for republican and imperial Rome. On the other hand, we've only been hegemon for like 70 years, and we might not make it to a full 100, so in the long run we might end up one of those funny sidenotes like the Achaemenids or the Phoenicians. They'll still probably have to deal with our plastic heaps, though.

Attached: 1539366652571.jpg (404x407, 26K)

this time try not sperging out and shelling a federal fort

Attached: 1535856897904.png (1221x764, 30K)

>invade a sovereign nation
>act surprised when they go on the offensive
yankees deserve death

I honestly can't wait for the balkanization.

Is this the greatest introduction to a film ever?

youtube.com/watch?v=8XtNTJhyEYo

When did 4channel become a site for boomer neocons?

Oh, the minorities will do it for us.
Like I said: good luck.

The Confederacy was a democracy and would not have had a high opinion of fascism. They were also Anglophiles and would not have agreed with the Nazis idea of German racial superiority.

based nate forrest

the treaty of paris doesn't specify what you can secede for. you could even secede because Fuck You and that would be legal.

Do Unionist ever address this? Pretty sure the thirteen colonies came together voluntarily. So why wouldn't they have the right to secede?

I once read a fairly involved article about the legality of the South seceding. I think it came down to a distinction about whether they were willing to negotiate the secession first.

This

They had the exact same constitution as the union minus the tree hugging antics of bostonians of the time

By the way, the only documentary to watch on the civil war is narrated by ken burns

Because once they agreed to join together, there was no valid reason for them to have a mechanism for a state to exit without the consent of the entire Union. Otherwise that's one fucking stupid mechanism for nation-building.

To be fair the Union couldn't wait for conscripting an army either.

>hurr the south will rise again
its been a century and a half, either do it already or shut the hell up
the fucking Irish were more proactive in their wars of succession than you

Attached: 1557834745948.png (297x247, 148K)

Does owning slaves make them less brave in battle?

Abraham Lincoln was one of our finest presidents because he said no. and fought to the end. Imagine if McClellan had been elected in '64 and sought white peace.

Civil war was what set the precedent that member states could not secede. The most enduring legacy of the war is the Federal government taking priority over the States. America was ironically founded as to be closer to a confederacy, but that changed at the end of the war.

That's because Reconstruction wasn't nearly as harsh as some of the Republican proponents desired. Some people wanted to permanently treat the Southern states like an occupied colony.

>be repulicuck
>hate niggers
>at the same time want them to stop killing each other
>be dem
>always hated nigs
>pretend to be their friend while leading them to their own destruction

republicans are the biggest cuck party ever. they always bend over to everything and when they finally have someone with balls like trump in charge, they still keep trying to find a way to bend over to the dems.

Attached: 1558672253144.png (916x540, 724K)

We're not rising. We're simply sending you your lost voters.

They weren't a single state user. Something tells me that mechanism is retarded too, the most powerful states can just turn down any issue the lesser states may have.

The South unilaterally seceded and seized Federal property through force. The legal way to do it would have been to call a convention of the States and put it to a vote so every State could have a say, since the secession affects everyone and the Federal property that would need to be transferred is jointly owned by all the States via the central government.

Friendly reminder that nearly all the abolitionists advocated relocating the negroes to somewhere outside of the U.S. in order to garner popular support for the war in the North.

Attached: 1512261645516.jpg (1014x1883, 597K)

The American civil war was about slavery

Sources and citations included

Prove me wrong

Attached: 47725FF7-1AEA-4E47-8EB0-CA590DF52DA8.png (1864x4327, 1.11M)

>our plastic heaps

Not true, thanks to the Senate. Equal representation among the states. They could have sought and obtained consent of a majority of the House, Senate, and then the president, but they didn't. Instead they chose "reee, secession!" without much thought.

It was, and nobody can prove you wrong. All the southern politicians of the era were clamoring about slavery, not "state's rights." The latter became a popular notion through the Lost Cause myth.

This

Virtually every bad thing to have happened since 1860 could’ve been prevented by a Confederate victory.

Attached: 03ED9E41-3A93-462A-BA59-3B6B19FC3B21.jpg (2147x2997, 1.04M)

Terrifying. These beasts belong in a zoo

Just like how America was founding in the first place!

Tyranny in defense of nigger-loving should not be celebrated.

Burn every Amerikan flag, kill every last Amerikan soldier.

Attached: 5C076CA9-B442-44F6-BFF7-44C7312F410D.gif (316x180, 3.97M)

This hurts a lot more than it should.

60% of violent crime. At least they *only* cause 27% of all crime, which is double their percentage of the population. Truly they were good boys who didn’t do nothing.

To be fair, without slavery there would be very, very few niggers in America, so I'm not sure how much you can blame the North.

Iktf

Attached: 0D6257EA-B7D4-4A11-AF8D-67C9410A30AC.gif (498x280, 360K)

That's funny, the Union treated the whole thing as a rebellion for day one. Before anyone could negotiate anything they were already raising an army.

Hey confederate cucks, you are welcome that our based union ancestors kick your traitors ancestors hill billy asses. It's thanks to my great great grand daddie that you are now part of the greatest nation on earth, so you are welcome for that and welcome to the union despite having literal loser genes. If you disagree with the last statement please get the fuck out of my country and go role play with the other loser nazis in south america or something. k thanks,

- a real american

Attached: hulk-hogan-usa-flag.jpg (590x350, 44K)

Formerly part of the union

Based.

Should losers be given participation trophies? I believe this sends a wrong message to kids

Attached: 56b63503c5571.image.jpg (1200x725, 145K)

>These two ideals can coexist?

If anything it would the opposite. Nazi Germany and the Confederate States wouldn’t be able to co-exist.

One was in spite of its flaws, a Christian nation and a democracy. The other was a one-party dictatorship led by a raving madman that decried both democracy and Christianity as weak and polluted by “Jewish” influence.

Attached: 6DDFB5E4-5C6C-46CD-92B8-916670B85431.jpg (900x884, 54K)

He wasnt. He spoke anti slavery as far back as the 1850s, and ran on a pure antislavery platform during election, which is what caused the southren states to seed, inb4 some out of context quote.

>South wins
>Without conservatism bloc, USA goes socialist
>Britain/France ally CSA
>USA naturally allies Germany
>WW1 goes down, USA helps Germany win
>Bitter Confederacy turns fascist during interwar era
>Isolates blacks from major population centers
>WW2 begins, Confederacy begins exterminating the blacks en masse
A Confederate victory would have had horrific and terrible consequences.

>complain about slave owners
>do quite literally nothing about niggers ever since
explain yankee

user, the Virginian Confederate militia marched on Harper's Ferry military arsenal the very day after Virginia voted to secede.

>Virginia was first to secede

>implying this story is at all true

>Soon [after secession], South Carolina began preparing for a presumed U.S. military response while working to convince other southern states to secede as well and join in a confederacy of southern states.

>Six days after secession, on the day after Christmas, Major Robert Anderson, commander of the U.S. troops in Charleston, withdrew his men to the island fortress of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. South Carolina militia swarmed over the abandoned mainland batteries and trained their guns on the island. Sumter was the key position for preventing a naval attack upon Charleston, so secessionists were determined not to allow U.S. forces to remain there indefinitely. More importantly, South Carolina's claim of independence would look empty if U.S. forces controlled its largest harbor. On January 9, 1861, the U.S. ship Star of the West approached to resupply the fort. Cadets from The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina fired upon the Star of the West, striking the ship three times and causing it to retreat back to New York.
Fucking dumb nigger user, the South reacted first militarily.

>killing all blacks
>horrific and terrible
rethink your statements

>Withdrawing to a fort on foreign soil instead of retreating to union territory until things get sorted out
Get me an example confederates doing the same faggot.

Ah yes "we don't treat southerners as the enemy we just keep the military around in case someone gets hurt".

Modern education is really failing.

user forces can't just withdraw that fast in those times. They would have had to send a courier to obtain enough vessels that could sail to Ft. Sumter and gather up the soldiers. The commander basically took a look at the situation was like, well, before anything happens let's move from current fort (completely indefensible) to Ft. Sumter, which at least stands a chance if we're attacked. Sure enough they were attacked. And the Confederacy immediately started firing on the first ship that approached the fort.

If I was alive back then I would have supported the confederacy

If I were alive back then I'd have supported my state.

Nigger lover

They seemed to be very comfy there with resupplying ammunition and all.

You work at Virginia Beach?

Stop reading Harry Turtledove, TL-191 is literally one of the biggest pieces of shit I've ever read.

Also

>Fascism
>conservativism

Fascism and National Socialism are literally both offshoots of leftist thought.

youtube.com/watch?v=06vJY9nLMXU

Attached: shut the fuck up yankee.jpg (579x430, 44K)

why didn't you send all the niggers to liberia tho? could you be the real nigger lover here?

hmmmmm did I hear someone say they wanted to read Robert E. Lee's telegrams?

Attached: maxresdefault (1).jpg (1280x720, 55K)

Attached: Based and Dixie Pilled.png (1716x1080, 2.97M)

Potatoniggers are cool in my book.
youtube.com/watch?v=G6gz3OVvUAo

So? All that means is Cletus and his cousin fucker neighbors fought to protect their rich overlords' right to own black people. Instead of being fully racist, still racist btw, they were cucked out of their lives, youths, and limbs by racist capitalists

Reminder that the South fired first. Those faggots started the war and then cried like the whooped babies that they were when Sherman burned and salted their pathetic swamplands.

>Fascism and National Socialism are literally both offshoots of leftist thought.
stop memeing

>General Order No. 11 was an order issued by Major-General Ulysses S. Grant on December 17, 1862 during the American Civil War. It ordered the expulsion of all Jews in his military district, comprising areas of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky. The order was issued as part of a Union campaign against a black market in Southern cotton, which Grant thought was being run "mostly by Jews and other unprincipled traders."
>Jewish community leaders protested, and there was an outcry by members of Congress and the press; President Abraham Lincoln revoked the General Order on January 4, 1863. Grant infamously claimed during his 1868 Presidential campaign that he had issued the order without prejudice against Jews as a way to address a problem that "certain Jews had caused".[2]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Order_No._11_(1862)
Who's really the cuck union faggot?

They are though. Don't they teach you monkeys anything in school anymore?

How 'bout you stop being a Socialist?

youtube.com/watch?v=dlXqFgqOviw

Attached: TIK.png (610x641, 791K)

>The massacre, which took place throughout Haiti, occurred from early January 1804 until 22 April 1804, and resulted in the death of 3,000 to 5,000 men, women, and children.[2] Squads of soldiers moved from house to house, torturing and killing entire families.[3] Even whites who had been friendly and sympathetic to the black population were imprisoned and later killed.[4] A second wave of massacres targeted white women and children.

>Dessalines did not try to hide the massacre from the world. In an official proclamation of 8 April 1804, he stated, "We have given these true cannibals war for war, crime for crime, outrage for outrage. Yes, I have saved my country, I have avenged America."[13] He referred to the massacre as an act of national authority. Dessalines regarded the elimination of the white Haitians an act of political necessity, as they were regarded as a threat to the peace between the black and the free people of color. It was also regarded as a necessary act of vengeance.[21] Dessalines' secretary Boisrond-Tonnerre stated, "For our declaration of independence, we should have the skin of a white man for parchment, his skull for an inkwell, his blood for ink, and a bayonet for a pen!"

based haiti

>cried like the whooped babies
>by slaughtering 2-3 Union soldiers for every one of yours

Attached: union scum btfo.jpg (489x479, 62K)

Having your troops fortify land in your nation is generally considered an act of war. In any case, the South was well within its rights to secede. It was a union of states, not a suicide pact.

fuck I didn't know Grant was this based and redpilled

He's right though, right-wing extreme would be Monarchism, something Nazis and Italian Fascists universally hated. Nazis went on such lengths they killed Junkers because they were very linked to conservatism and the Kaiser, and Italians hated the Savoy family.

>Haitians? In my borders?

Attached: haitian repellant.jpg (790x597, 498K)

He was yeah, as many other Union generals. Lincoln was the Jew puppet from day one.

Nazis hated Junkers because they were the old guard who had power and influence. Just because the Nazis were reactionary doesn't mean they were liberals. They more closely aligned with right-wing beliefs.

>They more closely aligned with right-wing beliefs
How far does your head have to be up your ass to actually believe this?

Who said anything about liberals though?

Grant was the first general of the war to successfully use the rivers to massive advantage. Seizing Ft. Donelson and Ft. Henry basically won the War of the West for the Union because it gave them the best highway of the era--the river system in which they could transport massive amounts of men very quickly.

I'm so happy women and niggers have taken over popular culture and will not stop REEEing at the sight of the stars and bars and anything regarding the CSA

Sorry zoomer, this was back when we could honestly romanticize what was a legitimately valiant struggle between brothers for self determination

Attached: 1440962680857.jpg (236x282, 17K)

See: >leftist thought

>The majority of scholars identify Nazism in both theory and practice as a form of far-right politics.[20] Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements.

They fought for Anne Frank you Yankee fucks.

>leftist thought is universally liberal in nature
>wikipedia

Oh. Of course.
>Scholars

The national socialists were straight out of the progressive playbook of that era, from the Christian socialists, to the Roosevelts, to the commies, to every other nutter progressive ideology that swept europe. Leftist to the core.

Even the most basic understanding of history makes this obvious to anyone.

Nazis directly clashed with communists through Germany. It was literally a fight between right wing and left wing with moderates stuck in the middle. But you don't actually care about facts.

Why yes indeed we should take down statues of loser. Pic related.

Attached: centennial-land-run-monument.jpg (413x450, 37K)

OH NONONONONO

sitting bull more like sitting cuck

Leftists fight among themselves constantly. It's one of their defining features.

>I'm so happy women and niggers have taken over popular culture and will not stop REEEing at the sight of the stars and bars and anything regarding the CSA

That's why I post Confederate pregnant Anne Frank memes user...

Attached: Annie the Rebel.png (1400x1400, 910K)

One brigade of Einzatsgruppen would have wiped out both the Confederate and Union armies.

How is it treason again? I'm not a burger but I thought secession was a right of individual states in the constitution? That's the reason why they call Lincoln a tyrant.

They didn't join for rich people. They joined to protect their families and friends in their home states. War back then meant your town would be burned down and your women raped so every man had a duty to defend their people. War is different now mostly fought overseas and with proxy nations so of course you wouldn't understand.

>bunch of barely-trained alcoholics and drug addicts who thought killing women babies made them hot shit
>standing a chance against the elite battle-hardened men of the Army of Northern Virginia

Attached: Army of the Confederate States.jpg (1200x836, 122K)

Whoops meant for

Senpai shipping them back was a logistic impossibility

The 5th Texas infantry led by John Bell Hood could have unironically taken Berlin by June 1941.

Reminder that secession was perfectly constitutional.

Based

Attached: deseparate valor john bell hood seven days battles.jpg (1400x894, 463K)

It literally was and still is. Personally, I think it shouldn't be because otherwise populism could cause states to leave at the drop of a hat (like the civil war, obviously) and I think that's gay. But calling them traitors is retarded beyond words and shows a complete misunderstanding of American culture 200 years ago.

BLOOD AND SOIL

More like it was a fight between authoritarian statists. Nazis don't resemble the modern "right wing" at all, I don't remember the part where they advocated for limited government, low taxation, deregulation, right to bear arms etc.

>only nation in recorded history to go to war to free their own slaves
>only nation in recorded history to threaten other nations with force if those nations did not also give up their slaves
>muhfugga crackas be raysist

It's another check on federal power. It's in everyone's best interest not to make them want to secede.

That said. California should have been kicked out of the union decades ago.

You know who did though? The one's organizing the war, the ones who they listened to.

both sides drafted as many Irish as they could. Read a book.

All right seems like this isn't getting through to you inbreds.

youtube.com/watch?v=gvjOG5gboFU

>only nation in recorded history that needed to go to war to free their own slaves.

Wasn't Slavery just part of the reason the war kicked off and the main one was "state power vs central power", and basically used abolition as casus belli to give the north moralfag standing?

t. not american

Attached: 1508626340897.png (657x539, 110K)

I do understand that but multiethnic societies just can't survive. We only lasted the first hundred years because we had to band together against natives and Europeans. One nation or none.

>Literally commit treason by leaving the union because the idea of picking your own cotton is too much to fathom
>Lose the war started as a result of said treason
>158 years later the south is still mad

Texans did unironically have a ridiculous fighting ability
They basically single handedly won the Filipino war too

unqualified-reservations.org/2009/03/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified/

still fought for it

mfw i spent 2 full weeks on the set when i was 12.

Attached: dwight.png (510x465, 548K)

It's technically not wrong to say it was about slavery. Most of it had to do with state's rights, and therefore mostly slavery in a roundabout way since that was the hot button issue at the time.

I think it is clear as day that the Union were in the wrong by back then standards. The federal government didn't have the power to lord over the South as it had tried, they only gained that power after the war itself which most retards fail to realize. Politically, the South had every right to secede by the laws back then.

That being said, it was a lose-lose situation no matter what. The west as a whole was anti-slavery back then, Britain was even taking the moral grandstand position over nations that still used slavery. They used tariffs and sometimes would refuse business altogether on nation practicing slavery. Had the South won, I think you'd have to be retarded to think slavery would still be around today and would've been around any longer than the late 1890s. Slavery was already an expensive as fuck practice, hence why the few people who did own slaves didn't own that many. Tariffs/trade complications would've made it unsustainable.

I don't think most people realize how blurred the Civil War actually was. Both morally and strategically. Both sides were not without sin and both sides would've and did fuck shit up after winning the war.

No other nation gave up their slaves due to internal forces

Nah, that's just one of the many layers of cope the South hides under to avoid dealing with reality.

South Carolina, the first state to declare secession, did so in a document where they explicitly stated they were leaving the union over "hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery". Other states that seceded wrote similar documents.

tl;dr is that the economy of the South (and more importantly the fortunes of a small class of rich landowners) was entirely dependent on the slave economy. Anti-slavery sentiment in the North was growing. There was also the fight over the expansion of slavery into new territories. The plantation owners saw the writing on the wall and dipped out. The sole reason for leaving the Union was to protect the slave economy.

The South lost, and in the process slaughtered an entire generation. Unable to cope, they (to this day) tell themselves things like "the war was about states rights", or "the Union army were foreign invaders".

>The South lost, and in the process slaughtered an entire generation
Blaming one side for a war is the most braindead thing you can do. That is like elementary school point of view levels of retardation. There are two sides to every story, dumbing it down to "we good, they bad" should go without say as dense.

The war just like every war was not over any one thing. You're probably the same type of guy that thinks Hitler was birthed by Satan and invaded so many lands and caused so much destruction because lol he was just a bad guy. And I'm not advocating for Hitler, I'm just saying there is no such thing as pure evil on this scale. Wars are fought for a reason.

To be fair, most yankees are obnoxious and have horrible ideas about how the government should work.

Yeah, but don't forget some of the guys fighting against them were good too.

>internal forces
That's a funny way of saying "violent slave rebellions"

The reactionary Prussians were purged by Hitler just like everyone else. They're even in the Nazi theme song, celebrating their anti-revolutionary defeat.

>No other nation gave up their slaves due to internal forces
The United Kingdom

it all goes back to the religious sects that founded the north and the south. the scots irish never trusted the puritans and many of those utopian-ish ideas coming from the north

>Being this butthurt and defensive
I'm not "blaming one side for a war". I'm talking solely about casualties in the South. Post-war the South had to come to terms with the fact that they sent a generation of their men to die for nothing. The emotional and psychological toll on the South was massive.

The trauma of dealing with the aftermath of the war in the South is deeply related to Southern revisionism. The whole idea of the "Lost Cause", trying to frame the war as some legal battle over "states rights", etc. It's all a coping mechanism to try force a greater meaning on the violence to feel like it was worth something.

>It's all a coping mechanism to try force a greater meaning on the violence
I don't think the South are the ones needing to cope what with the disproportionate number of yankees they killed. Grant was called the butcher for a reason.

>Our goal in this chapter is not to change your decision in this matter. While I have trouble seeing how any informed, reasonable person today could be anything but a Loyalist in the matter of the American Rebellion, I feel that any vote in the election of 1860 is reasonably justifiable. Picking sides in this war, in particular, is a matter of moral wisdom and intuitive judgment. These qualities cannot be transmitted over the Internet.

>I will state quite confidently, however, that unless you are such a weirdo that like me you have chosen to research the matter for yourself, your opinion on the War of Secession—whether Unionist or Confederate—is not a well-informed one. If you doubt this, I have links for you. Not only is most neo-Unionist history garbage, most neo-Confederate history is garbage as well.

>It is easy to understand why Unionist history would be unreliable. Having won the war, this side has no motive for humility. Moreover, 21st-century progressivism has the best of grounds for associating itself with its ancient ancestor, abolitionism.

unqualified-reservations.org/2009/03/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified/

yeah except for their unelected Federal government

>the government was intervening in citizens property rights!

what kind of property?

Attached: mask2.jpg (1500x1335, 96K)

If Lincoln cared so much about slavery, then why didn't he just go with compensated emancipation? Why did he do that in DC, but not the rest of the South?

and many of them were bitter at having to fight while plantation owners stayed out of the war

Arlington

>I don't think the South are the ones needing to cope
>I don't think the South, which has spent 160 years engaging in historical negationism over the war, are the ones needing to cope

>tfw the trilogy will never be completed

who gives a fuck the north is completely bluepilled and cucked today. have fun electing more omar and cortez candidates to government retards

Those good 'ol boys got Jewed real hard

>implying leaving the union is a bad thing

doesn't seem like a bad idea when you look at the usa today

You're literally in a thread discussing that very topic and claiming only the other side is guilty. Your great great great great great grandpappy most likely got sent to his doom against a general who was actually worth a damn and cared about his men enough to not just send them walking headlong into a wall of rifles.

Attached: 1555935995059.jpg (888x894, 68K)

>spends 160 years worshipping an unconstitutional federalist dictator who started the only civil war in the country's history
>perpetuates muh fight for freedom mythology
>not coping hard

Still lost the war, homo

There were two basic problems with abolitionism.

One: it could not be seen as anything but an attack on the South, the weaker party, by the North, the stronger party. Once the lines of sectional politics were clear, as Jefferson saw clearly in 1820, the question of whether a new state would allow slavery was the question of which bloc would get its two new Senators.

Two: the North had no legal basis whatsoever for this attack. The idea that the Federal government had the power to end slavery and free the slaves was roughly as foreign to antebellum constitutional law as the proposition that Barack Obama could order Rush Limbaugh hanged at dawn, “just because he’s an asshole,” is to ours.

It is difficult to find a legal or substantive argument in the Republican political rhetoric of the era that is (a) valid, (b) nontrivial, and (c) sincere. Skipping ahead to the legality of secession, for example, the modern historian David Potter (writing so late as 1977) lists the five most common explanations of it (or, more precisely, of the illegality of coercing a state to remain in the Union), and then remarks, without irony as far as I can tell:

>Against the defenders of this doctrine, the defenders of nationalism did not come off as well as they might have, partly because they accepted the assumption that the nature of the Union should be determined by legal means, somewhat as if it were a case in the law of contracts.

>horrible ideas about how the government should work.
No slavery in the constitution though, unlike the dixie boys. All the south's "state's rights" rhetoric is and was bullshit, they wanted the right to keep people as property.
>democracy
>chattel slavery
pick one

>north is currently infested with non-whites and degeneracy
yep, they sure won alright

The greatest tragedy is thinking about how fuck-awesome the US could have been if they never imported African slaves.

This situation set the pattern of the resulting cold war. Southern politicians, writers and ministers found the moral defense of slavery in the context of democracy and Christianity a difficult problem, but not at all impossible for the sinuous. But they found the legal defense of slavery no problem at all, because the law was on their side from day one.

Northern politicians, writers and ministers had exactly the opposite problem. While the American mores of 1850 were not quite the same as ours, moral condemnation of slavery came almost as naturally then as it does now. However, said moral condemnation created the urge to actually do something about the problem. For which the North had no legal standing at all.

During the 1840s and 1850s, the antislavery movement spread far beyond the handful of Massachusetts intellectuals who were the original abolitionists. And its features became extremely unattractive. Because it had no legal means to proceed, it resorted to illegal ones. Because the truth was that the North was attacking the South and trying to abolish slavery, its politicians had to assert that the South was attacking the North and trying to propagate slavery. Conspiracy theories abounded—such as Lincoln’s completely false charge that the Dred Scott decision was a conspiracy between Douglas, Buchanan, Taney and Pierce to bring about national slavery, as wild a lie as anything in American political history.

I feel like you read a one sentence bullet point about this on a pro-confederate website and never bothered to actually look into it.

Compensated emancipation in DC happened in 1862, after the war was underway. Lincoln was able to do this because DC was under federal jurisdiction. In 61 he proposed legislation for compensated emancipation in Delaware, but it was voted down.

Also, Southerners are just stubborn dickheads. I love the South, but fuck are they ornery about being told anything about the South.

if slavery wasn't allowed by the constitution why did the people who created it own slaves and have no problem with states having slave owners.

>he's living in the UNITED STATES of America
>the south never rose again

Pop a Xanax with your big gulp and relax.

>general who was actually worth a damn and cared about his men enough to not just send them walking headlong into a wall of rifles
>Pickett's Charge intensifies

Not an amerifat but the north conquering the south is a pivotal moment in the decline of the west. if the south won we'd be living in much better world today. and niggers would know their place

As the ideology of antislavery spread West, it passed from those who hated slavery because they loved Negroes as fellow men, to those who hated slavery because they didn’t want Negroes around. (Lincoln, with typical dexterity, managed to convince his audiences that he was in both categories.) Thus the free-state Kansas constitution prohibited Negroes free or slave, as did that of Oregon. By 1860, little that is human or humane can be found in the antislavery movement. Its engine runs on pure chimp rage. As Pierce’s speech shows, it took no hindsight to detect the growing smell of blood.

Responsible Northern statesmen, typically Democrats or “old line” Whigs, saw where things were going, and with their old Southern Unionist friends did their best to shut the antislavery agitation off. This was generally taken by antislavery men, and by your less scrupulous historians, as complicity with the infamous Slave Power.

So, for example, the authors of the Dred Scott decision had no thought of instituting slavery in Vermont. Their goal was to drive a legal nail into the coffin of the antislavery movement, allowing a country in which the map of slavery had been finally and completely outlined (after Kansas, there were no remaining territorial quarrels) to return to politics as usual. But every attempt of this type was no more than political fuel to the antislavery machine.

>No slavery in the constitution though
Jesus Christ why are you even in this conversation.

>but the north conquering the south is a pivotal moment in the decline of the west. if the south won we'd be living in much better world today

WW1 was the start of the decline , civil war meant shit in the western world, everybody already condemned slavery even before the civil war

This

Attached: j1qh13d7vpz01.jpg (491x688, 92K)

this

There are more blacks and Mexicans in the south than in the north you dumb hick

Attached: Sherman Quote.jpg (470x813, 65K)

The civil war directly lead to the rise of the progressive movement in the US which eventually led to Wilson and US entry into world war 1 and pretty much everything wrong with the 20th century.

Slavery is diametrically opposed to capitalism though.

>Compensated emancipation in DC happened in 1862, after the war was underway
So he made sure to end it in hometown to avoid seeing war in his backyard? What a hero.

>In 61 he proposed legislation for compensated emancipation in Delaware, but it was voted down.
Delaware had already freed all of their slaves by 1860 anyways. And so because Lincoln's proposals failed, he was justified in starting a war? I suppose you would feel the same way if Trump sent troops to take back California, which has effectively seceded from the Union?

Slavery is only mentioned in the US constitution (before 13th/14th) dealing with how they'll be counted for assigning delegates. No explicit statement that slavery is allowed, no explicit statement that it would be allowed in the future. The confederate constitution explicitly stated that slavery was and would forever be an institution in the confederate states. If you can't see the difference between those two I don't know what to tell you.
Think about it this way - the reason the south seceded is that they saw that all the new stated being admitted in the west were free states and knew that eventually the free states would outnumber them in congress and abolish slavery; if the constitution protected slavery so completely, why did they see this as a risk worth going to war over?

>tfw like and respect both sides of the American Civil War and find it a really interesting conflict to analyze
The war WAS fought over slavery but that doesn't mean the Confederates couldn't still be sincere and respectable in their attempts to start a new nation.

did he love niggers?

Both sides were fiercely nationalistic in their struggle. The North wanted to keep their nation together and the Southern soldiers fought to protect their identity and way of life. Most the soldiers didn’t own slaves but even if they did support slavery, slavery is the norm of human history and they also had some legitimate concerns. As a non-American I think it’s best to view the ACW as a tragedy- brother killing brother in a conflict that became unavoidable.

>who made war on us
>made war on us
>war on us
The delusion of the north. I'd like for any single one of you who keep posting this to point out where in the constitution of the 1850s-1860s the federal government had the written authority to lord the South. They won the war and legalized what they had done to start it in the first place after the fact.

The irony here is, the civil war was the beginning of the federal government's power surge and it hasn't lost any ground since. The people who complain about things like the Patriot Act, paying taxes during government shutdowns, etc. are the same people ITT posting Sherman memes and circle-jerking over things they do not understand.

where did it say it wasn't allowed? apparently the people who wrote the constitution didn't see a problem with slavery as many of them owned slaves.

The approach is one of camouflaged predation. Perhaps it can be summarized as: “kick the dog until he bites, then shoot him.” Press your target, using blows that hurt but do not draw blood, until he finally snaps and bites back. Then it’s time for the Glock. The resulting execution appears to the casual observer, who misses the kicks or can be persuaded not to see them, as a simple case of justified self-defense—putting down a biting dog.

balkanization in an atomized society will be interesting to pull off

north is the entire country now. The federal government won and replaced southern slavery of blacks with nationwide slavery of goys. I'm sure those Northerners who killed their fellow white, Christian men would be very proud if they could see the current results. Sherman definently wouldn't vomit at the sight of a nigger in the Oval Office

>any film where pre-1700 people are protagonists is now bad
That’s where that standard takes you. Yeah slavery is shitty but it was a different time. In 200 years maybe most of us will be seen as evil villains because we don’t support #refugeeswelcome or some shit.

>which eventually led to Wilson and US entry into world war 1

i thought he enteredthe war because of the wall street financial bankers, you know, the ones who putted him in office in the first place

It would've never grown as powerful in the first place though wouldn't it?

>The irony here is, the civil war was the beginning of the federal government's power surge and it hasn't lost any ground since. The people who complain about things like the Patriot Act, paying taxes during government shutdowns, etc. are the same people ITT posting Sherman memes and circle-jerking over things they do not understand.

this. they will shit on southerners and then complain to be the true "patriots" because they don't support slavery yet most of the founding fathers were slave owners and their vision of america was closer to what the southern states wanted.

they did tho
murican civil war was jsut the north as typical ameriburger warfare of outproducing an enemy with a much weaker economic base who fought much more intellengently and valiantly

Reading comprehension dude, I said that the US constitution did not explicitly state whether or not slavery is allowed.

>being unironically racist

Attached: 1512067102892(1).jpg (1066x600, 68K)

>balkanization in an atomized society will be interesting to pull off

Not when there are foreign enclaves who segregate themselves to avoid atomization.

For example, if the Confederacy had not fired on Sumter after Seward’s provocation, it would have effectively demonstrated its cowardice and pusillanimity to a population, North and South, well-trained to recognize both. It would have become laughable, and soon disappeared—as many in the North were predicting. The decision was fatal, of course, but there was no choice.

And so democracy claims another victim. Did you ever wonder how it took over the world? Here’s your answer. Camouflaged predation tends to be popular with the voters, who read it as laudable self-defense, the extermination of vermin, or both. And of course it deceives the enemy as well. Had the South seceded in 1850, even had Virginia voted to secede (as she almost did) in 1861 before Lincoln’s inauguration, we would probably have a Southern Confederacy to this day.

For fans of the Confederacy, we must describe the general mistake that brought it down. The Confederates made many errors, of course, as any government of any longevity must; but perhaps the general pattern of their error was that the Confederate nation was conservative, rather than reactionary. Perhaps, in the 19th century, this was unavoidable; but it was still fatal.

based North

It would have been fairly similar to it is now. We would have just shipped over some other group of people like during our industrial age.

once you secede you're the foreign hoard

but that's the whole point. the southern states were merely continuing the norm of slavery that was set forth by the people who created the constitution.

The way the founders saw slavery was very complicated. At the time of independence slavery was becoming unprofitable outside of sugar producing regions, so most people assumed it was winding down. The plan was to prepare for ending slavery then, but gradually. However, a few decades later new machinery made cotton farming boom in productivity, which made slave plantations incredibly profitable. This meant slavery began to rapidly increase to its highest levels. This is why the US was so unprepared to manage the issue- people were divided before but it was assumed it could be peaceably ended in due time.

I guess this depends on how you define racism.

A conservative is one who, rather than simply rejecting the revolutionary tradition of democracy, finds some effective way to contaminate it with reality, thus producing a weak but somewhat effective simulation of archism out of basically anarchist materials. Conservatism always appears, because it is easy. And it always fails, because it is weak and fraudulent. It is a case of tiling over the linoleum.

The Confederates failed because they failed to realize that they were Cavaliers. Lord only knows what they would have done if they had, but it would have been quite a bit more drastic. This was not quite a realization available to the 19th-century Southern intellectual—not even to the most extreme, such as the fascinating George Fitzhugh, star of what Louis Hartz called the “Reactionary Enlightenment” and author of the amazing and mischievous proslavery tract Cannibals All. Even Fitzhugh was not quite ready to restore the Stuarts, and he was probably more talked about in the North than read in the South. It was just the wrong century for that sort of a thing.

The Confederacy, in particular, failed first and foremost because it seceded way too late. It should have done the deed in 1850 at the latest, and probably earlier. It was not necessary to wait for Abraham Lincoln, John Brown and the Secret Six for the South to know that the North was after its blood. It should have been clear by the 1830s that the marriage with Puritan revolutionary democracy was not a winner.

Of course it would have. Intellectual capital is far more valuable than sheer, dumb brawn contribution. Slaves were doing the work that poor hickseed whites could have been doing for living wages and leading to a more equitable distribution of living standards and more prosperity across the board.

Meanwhile the US would have 50% less murders today and tons more government resources to wield. We wouldn't be endlessly dug into petty race issues and shitshow cities.

of course it was complicated. you can't deny they owned slaves though and this would set the course for owning slaves.

so we would end up with a disheveled mass of unaffiliates against pockets of organized others? would waiting for another global economic upheaval push those uninterested but now affected into the camps of say the left or right, and then against the foreign others?. you are right tho

Right, but that means it was just a norm. Congress could, and inevitably once more free states joined, abolish it. I think a country where slavery is a norm that can be altered is morally superior to one where slavery was guaranteed in perpetuity.

>General Order No. 11 was an order issued by Major-General Ulysses S. Grant on December 17, 1862 during the American Civil War. It ordered the expulsion of all Jews in his military district, comprising areas of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky. The order was issued as part of a Union campaign against a black market in Southern cotton, which Grant thought was being run "mostly by Jews and other unprincipled traders."[1] In the war zone, the United States licensed traders through the Army, which created a market for unlicensed ones. Union military commanders in the South were responsible for administering the trade licenses and trying to control the black market in Southern cotton, as well as for conducting the war. Grant issued the order in an effort to reduce corruption.

>Jewish community leaders protested, and there was an outcry by members of Congress and the press; President Abraham Lincoln revoked the General Order on January 4, 1863.

>Sir, I have long since believed that in spite of all the vigilance that can be infused into Post Commanders, that the Specie regulations of the Treasury Dept. have been violated, and that mostly by Jews and other unprincipled traders. So well satisfied of this have I been at this that I instructed the Commdg Officer at Columbus [Kentucky] to refuse all permits to Jews to come south, and frequently have had them expelled from the Dept. But they come in with their Carpet sacks in spite of all that can be done to prevent it. The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel any where. They will land at any wood yard or landing on the river and make their way through the country. If not permitted to buy Cotton themselves they will act as agents for someone else who will be at a Military post, with a Treasury permit to receive Cotton and pay for it in Treasury notes which the Jew will buy up at an agreed rate, paying gold.

Who was in the wrong here?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Order_No._11_(1862)

>After President Abraham Lincoln's announcement in September 1862 that he would issue an Emancipation Proclamation in ninety days, the cabinet debated intervention as a humanitarian move to stop a likely race war. At the same time however there was a cabinet crisis in France over the overthrow of the Greek king and the growing Eastern Question with regard to Russia. The British Government had to determine whether the situation in North America or the containment of Russia was more urgent. The decision was to give priority to threats closer to home and to decline France's suggestion of a joint intervention in America; the threatened race war over slavery never happened.[115] Palmerston rejected all further efforts of the Confederacy to gain British recognition

>we're the good guys
>we just wanted to enslave people and live in a feudalist caste system

Its mind boggling how the wealthy plantation owners brainwashed dumb fuck hicks into dying for them to stay rich

ive always felt a conservative today was yesterdays progressive, they won their cause, and now have to defend it in the face of the new progressiveness. i like your take on the tiles on linoleum, good metaphor

Why? It's working so well with you.

grant went back on that and apologized later on though right?, i wonder if he was drinking again at the time and getting bitter and needed to lash out at something, the jews are often an easy whipping boy unfortunately

he apologized for it when running for president, yes

>the jews are often an easy whipping boy unfortunately
you don't say....

Give it a rest, rabbi.

>We wouldn't be endlessly dug into petty race issues and shitshow cities.
Are you implying the progressives of the 20th and 21st centuries wouldn't have still imported millions of non-white foreigners. We would still have the same border problems, with progressives fighting to keep borders open. None of that would be different.

that´s molbug´s take, not me, i´m just greentexting his article on the civil war, it´s a good read

unqualified-reservations.org/2009/03/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified/

>Rich people
>Fighting in the war they started
Pick one.

the states would of eventually outlawed slavery on their own. i can't imagine the people who wrote the constitution supporting the expansion of power the executive branch was granted as a result nor the war that resulted from the disagreement.

Were you one of these lads?

youtube.com/watch?v=f5c2wMSc-g4

Attached: 1064797008-A-battle-scene-from-gettysburg-014.jpg (2560x1536, 1.18M)

Define racism, fuckface.

>Pick one.

Slaveholders were disproportionately represented in the Confederate Army by nearly 100%.

Attached: why not both.jpg (419x261, 31K)

You must be new here.

I was referring to a situation where congress would abolish slavery eventually once the delegate were there from new free states. Lincoln doing it unilaterally was probably executive overreach, technically, but you could make a war powers argument and say that he was emancipating the slaves of a foreign power (which didn't really mean anything), and then congress did it with the 13th amendment.

>”No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation”
Get fucked, traitors.

Literacy really isn't what it used to be.

The British Crown unironically has more legitimacy to the claim of grievance against Treason than the Union.

Attached: redcoat on confederate flag.jpg (890x960, 141K)

based retard

>people
cringe

No you post them because you're an autistic /his/ shitter

seething southoids will always be dominated by the yankee man

I find it funny how he offered states that left the Confederacy the option to keep slaves, but people still say it was only about slavery.

Attached: soylent.gif (800x600, 144K)

How so? Even if it's true it doesn't matter because they lost, just like the southern slavers.

I do it because it makes niggers, Nazis, and Northerners SEETHE with rage.

Attached: Anne Frank joins the Confederate Army.png (654x1337, 782K)

In your dreams, Paco. Times have changed. BTW

AAAAAAAAAAAMEEEEEEEEEEEERIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICAAAAAAAAAAAA

Hey, hey, I know you guys LOVE to think about America all day and make jabs at all hours, but have you ever considered that most of Europe is ruled by unelected businessmen out of a "country" that used to mutilate African tribals and feed the parts to their relatives when rubber production slowed?

Imagine founding an entire country on succession and the belief in the ultimate right of self-determination for groups of people....and then starting the largest war the country had ever seen to fight against exactly that.

>the ultimate right of self-determination
>just not for black people
ok /pol/

But those glory days of Belgium are long past

>>just not for black people
Not for your kind either

sounds like Dutch propaganda

>people

There always has to be that one faggot
>germans unt zuperior!

What will these Union bootlickers do in 30 years when they get forced out of their home because President Consuela Rodriguez proclaims that all whiteys have to give up their houses to proud oppressed PoC as reparations?

I have no idea what you're even talking about.
What da fuck does anne frank have to do with the civil war?

>Sent from my sweatshop made computer using it's mined rare-earth minerals mined by black slaves in Africa.

Outsourcing slave labor and wage slavery in sweatshops does not make you any less of a willing participant in those systems.

Look in a mirror.

Also
>Implying in 1776 that self-determination included black people.

Top-kek.

I suggest you stay in ignorance, friend. Don't get involved with /his/ autismos.

>live in a state founded by secessionist slave owners
>get butthurt when another group of slave owners try to secede

Bit hypocritical desu.

>implying that we should only consider the constitution as if we were people in 1776
ohnonononono
>implying that eliminating chattel slavery didn't make any difference because there are still people suffering elsewhere
whataboutism

But they're ruining my anne frank fetish!

We exterminate them along with the mud races they've spent 150 years coddling.

Attached: Gas the Unionists.png (1083x1079, 423K)

No, I am just letting you know that you benefit from and perpetuate slavery today as as much or more than some southern share cropper did in 1861.

But eating shrimp and having an iPhone is more important.

>implying that we should only consider the constitution as if we were people in 1776

Wasn't implied at all actually.

What was implied is that it is hypocritical to tell people they can't unilaterally succeed from your nation when your nation was founded by unilateral succession not even 100 years prior.

>What da fuck does anne frank have to do with the civil war?

Everything.

Attached: IMG_8610.jpg (2736x3648, 1.89M)

you still can't seem to differentiate secede and succeed, so i'm having a hard time taking you seriously. Of course its hypocritical, but governments don't care - we seceded because it was right, you're seceding because it's wrong is an immortal justification. every country was another country at some point.

The first country wasn't

So we agree that the CSA had as legitimate a claim to secede in 1861 as the USA had in 1776.

Glad we could agree.

it's only legitimate if you win, that's history

The South is immortal, thanks for replying.

youtube.com/watch?v=ijAwhSwAoWM

Irish vs Irish

No,not really.

That is just a handy way to avoid having to rationalize conflicting and hypocritical positions on issues.

It’s amazing that Robert E Lee never could have possibly imagined that 160 years later fat worthless virgins who will never have sex would be memeing about him on handheld/desktop electronic devices that allow users to communicate with random strangers in the world.

Jews?

whenever someone is referring to the defeated party of a war as "losers", it's always a leftist.
this despite their favorite pastime - rooting for the underdogs and complaining about bullies. "loser" is the closest thing to the n-word you could call a white leftist..
they hate racism and bullies but they always jump at the chance to borrow their lingo.
it's also interesting that you can always tell a person by his writing style.
a person trying his hardest to sound epic and biblical in his speech despite his loose grasp on
grammar and syntax is guaranteed a hard-right "autist" who probably listens to historical metal.
meanwhile an impotent leftist tries his hardest to make everything mundane and catty as possible,
because he's nutless and impotent.
the worst things an alt-right conservative can think to call you - "cuck, basedboy"
the worst things a progressive centrist can think of - "insecure, closed minded"
you know what a loser is? someone living in a white country complaining that there aren't enough
racist white people dying for his convenience, who still yet refuses to leave.
the ideology of a "loser" advocates for reperations, welfare, and government nannies to intervene
for his convenience - he's not happy until the rest of society is shouldering his burdens.
insecurity is tearing down statues of american rebels because deep down you know they aren't going
to be remembered as "losers" until the whole population is replaced and their memory is delegated to
museums.
this kind of guy will sell out his manhood, country, race, even his own alleged principles, before, god forbid,
somebody calls him "insecure" or "close minded" for protecting any one of them.

>ywn show Robert E. Lee Confederate pregnant Anne Frank fantasies and leave him wondering who this little Jewish girl is and why his descendants are so obsessed with her

Attached: Goofy Anne.png (975x956, 1.81M)

>(you)

>whenever someone is referring to the defeated party of the American civil war as "losers", it's always rational people on the right side of history
FTFY

*sniff*
He fought his rapist so bravely but utterly failed
*wipes tear*

Attached: 1552630841936.png (664x729, 390K)

Spotted the yank who's never actually left their gated community in Connecticut and therefore never seen a black person.

Attached: Screenshot_20190315-011738_Snapchat.jpg (1080x2220, 568K)

>on the right side of history
god forbid someone in the future think poorly of you

Slavery would have disappeared after 20 years if the Union didn't invade. Slavery is not economically viable and was slowly fading away in the South. The Southern states seceded with slavery as a hot-button issue, but the war was fought because of the Northern aggression.

I bet it sounded like a sick comeback on your head

That's going to be rough for you in the long term sweaty.

Attached: revolution.png (960x960, 1.26M)

>FTFY

Holy fuck I hope this is supposed to be ironic.

I want to believe that's actually what the victim looked like

Attached: sleepy kitty.jpg (1024x733, 81K)

>The people imnthe blue outnumber the red by millions
>Guns could be easily obtained

Not that there would ever be another civil war in this country.

>I literally don't understand how electoral districts work or how they concentrate democratic voters while dilluting Republican voters into huge swaths of nowhere
Cute delusions faggot.

>Union
>right side of history

History will judge the Union as the most evil, vile, and murderous Empire of all time and the Confederacy as the last true Americans who had the courage to stand up to it.

Attached: try and stop us challenge accepted.jpg (610x743, 327K)

>Not that there would ever be another civil war in this country.

That's the exactly the line of thinking that leads to civil wars you retard. The idea that it's impossible and extremists can push and prod each other harder without fear of consequence.

Attached: prelude to tragedy.jpg (1600x1005, 610K)

>"I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it."

The Confederacy was on the right side of history and the last 150 years prove it.

Attached: robert e lee you could've stopped this.png (559x700, 615K)

They could literally stop feeding you tomorrow and I don't think your colored pets are going to be interested in selling you any of their guns.

notice he pointed out for us that it's only in reference to the civil war that he uses the word "loser". it's unnatural for him to use it otherwise because it's one of those meany bully terms that he thinks people stronger than him- i mean BAD GUYS- tend to use.
he could never carry a musket, let alone throw a punch at a nazi, in real life, but the idea makes his pants shrink. so he plays at it like he's got a horse in the race.
if there was a convenient way for him to call people niggers in real life and keep his lefty cred he'd use it.

Kill ever last Nigger and Nigger-loving Northerner.

Attached: burn baby burn.jpg (662x800, 107K)

Oh God! They're coming right at us.

Attached: soy.jpg (994x745, 162K)

there's not going to be a civil war.

Probably true.

Wars have two sides.

I live in a blue area and have a lot of guns and ammo.

Sadly for you I will be on the Red team.

imagine thinking hundreds of thousands of white people died horribly fighting their countrymen, for a chance to look pretty and smart on television like alexandria ocasio-cortez.
>THE CIVIL WAR WAS ABOUT SOCIAL JUSTICE YOU GUYS
>UNIONERS WENT TO WAR FOR THE SAME REASON I HAVE A TWITTER ACCOUNT

>The people imnthe blue outnumber the red by millions

You live in an era where millions of lives can be obliterated at the push of a button, negating any demographic advantage so long as you have enough gas, biological agents, or radioactive material.

>Guns could be easily obtained

Not from the people who are using them to shoot you. You'll literally have to pry it from their cold dead hands.

That's not even getting into knowing how to use a gun, which is arguably even more important than actually having one.

>Not that there would ever be another civil war in this country.

Says increasingly nervous man for the 200th time this year.

Attached: Robert e lee pwns nuking the north.jpg (960x540, 119K)

have sex first

>there's not going to be a civil war.

Every last person who has said the status quo can be maintained in perpetuity has been wrong. Every. Single. Fucking. Time.

It's this line of thinking that leads to the system destroying itself. Because idiots like you don't listen to the fucking warning signs.

Attached: Spotsylvania Courthouse.jpg (1024x680, 311K)

Seriously, fuck off back to
you turbo autist

millions of passive-agressive pan-gender fairy queens are not going to suddenly pick up guns and fight big fat, scary, focused rednecks who've been taught loved their ancestral country since birth.
but yes, there will never be another civil war.

The Union went to war in the name of imperialist greed. Like every war it's ever waged since 1800.

Attached: victim of yankee aggression.jpg (620x349, 34K)

EPIC!!!
>taught loved
taught to love*

even at the individual level, you don't run around jumping into fights purely based of lofty moral principles. when a country goes to war, you better believe there's something strategic to gain aside from good feelings.
that doesn't mean "all wars are over imperialist greed" - it means grownup affairs have nuance to them.

That doesn't even look like Anne Frank.

Already married to a woman of color, or do we say colored woman now?

Who can keep track.

It's based on some the later known photographs taken of her around age 13.

Attached: You're gonna be a father anon.jpg (1789x1316, 456K)

at least cut your nails
that's how you carry disease
and if you're as fat as the other proud dixieboo you could at LEAST start running regularly...
what use is any kind of romanticism and principle if your just going to let your god given body waste away.
well i guess i just answered my own question - it's easier to paint your hair blue and get tattoos, or dress up like someone epic, rather than to actually BE epic and work on yourself.

>married to a woman of color
>joining evil racist Republicans in the race/civil war

How is that supposed to work out?

Attached: donald trump shooting republican.png (770x511, 292K)

It looks nothing like her, faggot.

I already run a mile and a half 3-4 times a week.

It's extra hard though because even mild asthma is a bitch.

Man, that brings back memories of a time when calling somebody racist actually meant something and people gave a shit.

It's lost meaning now. So it will just be, my wife, and her family on the roof of their place in Philly fighting off attacks like it's Fort Apache.

damn son

Attached: doin thangs.jpg (605x731, 117K)

What color?

Attached: dog.jpg (1000x661, 150K)

If you can figure out a way to make the dead tissue in my longs regenerate, I'll be more than happy to try out running three miles, but right now I can only do two at most before I literally drop from lack of breath.