Non-burger, who is about to watch pic related, here

I thought it was fair to both sides.

This actually does a good job of portraying both sides respectfully.

kino. one of the best films to actually capture the tragedy of war. It doesnt take the loss of innocence route that so many do

Ken Burns is the best documentary about the subject but he never explores the impact of niggers on society, making them all look like intelligent victims. He also never addresses the JQ of why so many Jews owned slaves, pushed for the war, then bought up the south for cheap afterward.

I once had a thread-long discussion on here because 1 or 2 guys argued that 'I, Claudius' (the novel) was not fiction...

He didn't do much about the aftermath of the war at all though. He would have needed a whole other series to cover the reconstruction.

Remember most of the extras are volunteer re-enactors. Stand out performances are Jeff Daniels and pic related, who steals the show.

Attached: Armistead.png (500x281, 205K)

kino

Berenger and Sheen were great too.

Absolute kino

>but he never explores the impact of niggers on society, making them all look like intelligent victims
He never really explores the views and believes of race (at the time) during the documentary, if I recall correctly, which I found odd.

To be fair, that spin doctor negress bitch commentator 'historian' did all that. What I do appreciate about it is despite her best efforts, the war really was NOT about slavery until 1863, because Frederick Douglass had to stump for it for two whole years, which she couldn't ignore.

>forgetting based Sam Elliot as Buford
I wish he'd been more constant throughout the film, but he wasn't in the book either so meh.

this was a unplanned scene and just happened out of the blue after he came out of makeup.

I'd throw Andersonville in as well. All epic.

it's basically a gigantic battle reenactment that they shot a movie around

the acting and dialog are pretty forgettable but it's a solid spectacle and refreshingly devoid of any modern politics

One of the best war films, and I say this as an Euro

Watch this OP.

Attached: michielderuyter.jpg (899x599, 90K)

>patriotic music plays as soldiers are massacred

Ah, a fellow patrician I see.

Attached: Gods and Generals.mp4_snapshot_03.26.27.784.jpg (1920x798, 178K)

>*inhales*
>BAYONEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETS
Little Round Top is the best part

Attached: Gettysburg.mp4_snapshot_02.29.39.549.jpg (1920x1080, 171K)

Now that the dust has settled. Who was in the wrong here?

Attached: d36gxth-eca16778-4b8a-45cf-ad95-af255f34fa82.gif (726x660, 207K)

Andersonville was hokey. The actual camp wasn't even called Andersonville. It was called Camp Sumter and the atrocities in that Camp were VERY overstated. Starvation was only a factor because Lincoln refused to do prisoner exchanges. The camp was never supposed to house more than 10,000 men at a time.

Yankees, duh.

unironically the North. Everybody should be allowed to leave the Union if one chooses to.

how do they compare to Cold Mountain?

youtube.com/watch?v=x5fbYJMEyes
This was the only good scene.

>General Pickett sir, you must look to your gf.
>*dramatic zoom*
>General Lee... I HAVE no gf.

Attached: Gettysburg.mp4_snapshot_04.15.47.729.jpg (1920x1080, 172K)

>Still calling us yankees as an insult
>it just means a baseball team to us

When will brits and rednecks get with the times?

did the perfidious yank really get trapped in their own bomb crater?

>“You may forgive us but we won’t be forgiven. There is rancor in our hearts…which you little dream of. We hate you, sir.”
- Brig. Gen. Henry Wise

Yes, at Petersburg. They sped it up, though: at Petersburg, it took the Union an hour to send troops through the tunnel, where they discovered there was no way up the crater (30 feet deep) and no one had thought to provide ladders. The Confederates turned the hole into a mass grave.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Crater

>secede
>get your ass btfo
"my bad"

Yankees. There was literally nothing illegal about seceding. The bombardment of Ft. Sumter happened because the North was refusing to leave a fort all the way down in North Carolina (nobody got hurt during the bombardment btw). If the North hadn't sperged out about this, there wouldn't have been a war. The South would have larped as a seperate country for a few years, then rejoined the union.

youtube.com/watch?v=H8Iw-j217yk

*South Carolina

They had black troops specially trained to assault the crater, but they got switched out at the last moment because General Burnside was pretty sure they were going to get slaughtered and he didn't want the newspapers to portray him as a guy that used freed slaves as cannon fodder, so they used last minute replacements from IX Corps

Legally CSA was in the right, morally USA was in the right

they were also being led by a cowardly alcoholic

>"Take the whites; kill the niggers."

>Black soldiers were also bayoneted by white Union soldiers, who feared reprisal from victorious Confederate troops
what did they mean by this?

Sam Raimi's script for Last Full Measure was just too kino to be brought to the screen.

There were large portions of the Union that didn't give a fuck about blacks. The Irish torched part of New York in 1863 when they perceived the war for the union was being turned into the war to end slavery. This is why whenever some SJW screams about how the Civil War was fought to end slavery, they are revising the narrative the same way Lincoln had to. Whole units deserted after the Emancipation Proclamation because they hadn't signed up to fight for ending slavery.

Yankee here, but if that scene doesn't make your eyes tear-up, you just can never be an American.
Great flick.

based paddy

non burger who watched it, it really is a dispensable watch

you mean indispensable?

Pure kino. Actually saw it in the theater, fulm was long they had a literal "Intermission" so my dad could go outside and have a smoke. In college, I wrote an essay on Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain - he was one of those irl bad ass motherfuckers that you never hear about because liberals want to remove books from schools and burn libraries.

Attached: 1cbdd23fd5e83a05ebd7c9f80cea63b7.jpg (717x475, 49K)

Ironic because he was a professor of history and law before the war. This was before professors were all Jews, and revisionism wasn't the order of the day.

do tell

4 hours of my life I coulda spent jacking off to woodman kino
why is Hollywood bad with historical movies?

>What am I in for? Dixie propaganda? Yank propaganda? Kino?
One of the most accurate dramatizations and honest portrayals of the main players during the Gettysburg battle(s). Pickett's charge featured thousands of real reeinactors who showed up with their own gear and no film has ever come close to that level of kino. I'm a Civil Warfag, this and the Ken Burns documentary are the greatest pieces of media to get a real look at the Civil War and its horrors.

Ignore /pol/ though, it's not a pro-South movie.

It's almost like actual historians aren't brainlet /pol/niggers or something, user?

It was written by a total amateur and it shows but it's pretty much a filmed historical recreation so you might be into it.

>the war really was NOT about slavery until 1863
When will this meme end? It was the driving force behind Secession and mentioned close to what, a hundred times in the Confederate Constitution? Davis wrote a whole fucking book about why the right to own slaves was a Southern right.

Christ, you people are dumb.

>written
I mean directed. Talking about acting and the way it was shot. The script is based on a historical book obviously.

Bro, can't support you here. Andersonville is a perfectly decent Civil War film. What's next, you're gonna shit on Glory cause it also has historical inaccuracies? Civil War films are rare and we'll probably never see another one in our lifetime thanks to liberals, so treat the ones we do have with a little respect.

Attached: giphy (3).gif (470x254, 886K)

Really hit me hard that he died a few months later, in another charge and refused to have medics stretch him away until his men were far an ahead of him, so they didn't see him fall.

>jews were obstinate slave owners
>jews conspired against the south to erradicate slave labour competition

Attached: Two-Buttons.jpg (600x908, 71K)

Glory sucked and was propoganda.

it's one of the stupider /pol/ memes 2bh

>the central reason a conflict starts
>which is in and of itself, America's original sin
>isn't allowed to be called the reason for the war
The revisionism is pretty it's about muh State's rights for anyone worth a damn.

All the niggers died... that's hella based. You need to get your priorities straight.

To add, most soldiers just wanted a completed union again. They didn't give a shit about freeing niggers, they just did what was expected to keep their nation together. If it wasn't for (((foreign support))) and Sherman being the biggest fucking nigger ever, Union would have lost. They were the biggest pile of incompetent fucks that should have won the war in a year with their tactical, territorial, monetary, and labor superiority.

>Jews can't jew jews
It's like you ignore their entire history. The biggest nemesis against the jew is not the white man. It is the fellow jew himself.

For the political elites on both sides, it was 100% about slavery. For the rank and file and citizens on both sides, it was about states rights and the union.

>he was one of those irl bad ass motherfuckers that you never hear about because liberals want to remove books from schools and burn libraries.

I did a similar thing for the same reason(s) but with Ernst Jünger (German here).

I got 87/100.

Attached: Ernst Jünger.jpg (1024x1001, 131K)

I would really like to check their statistics about Jewish slave owners in the US because /pol/ lied so many times I just don't trust a word they say but it's impossible because there's no statistics, no objective sources that don't come from one of their shitty websites that don't care about history.

The right to own slaves was tied directly into the right of states to decide if they wanted to keep the institution of slavery, among every other institution that they perceived was their way of life. Literally no one in the Union from 1860-1863 except Frederick Douglass was stumping for an end to slavery, and Lincoln himself dawdled on it until he couldn't afford to anymore, when it was evident Britain and France were going to recognize the CSA because the Union kept losing battles. Modern 'historians' can squeal about it all they want, the record is clear that before the Proclamation, no one wearing blue gave a rat's ass about ending slavery, they were fighting for the preservation of the Union.

so does history come to an end when the jew eventually destroys himself?

Sounds familiar. Was he The Red Barron?

>muh
I remember when that wasn't the redflag that you're dealing with some slimey liberal.

>For the rank and file and citizens on both sides, it was about states rights and the union.
right, because the South duped your regular Cletus into thinking it was anything BUT slavery.

>Jews did it to fuck over the Irish, because freed slaves worked for cheaper

>The biggest nemesis against the jew is not the white man. It is the fellow jew himself.
Then why, in your universe, have the Jews already won and control everything?

Out of curiosity, other countries had slavery, but didn't need to go to war as an excuse to end it. How did Europe get rid of slavery?

And the union duped the dumb northerners into fighting for blacks by saying it was for the union.

>muh
>cletus
>da joos
>/pol/ is blah blah
Who invited the faggot?

This guy.
youtube.com/watch?v=dU6j3qC3Yn8

Literally nobody ever invites you /pol/niggers, so call the kettle black retard.

The survival of the entire nation, depended on a Union victory though? We would have been assraped by Europe if we divided up into two warring factions like North and South Korea. The Union winning was the only thing that preserved American dominance in that century.

Stephen Lang makes every film he's in kino.

Attached: Gettysburg.mp4_snapshot_02.48.28.475.jpg (1920x1080, 107K)

>30 posters
>88 posts
Imagine a world where anyone that listened to chapo and/or cumtown, and posted on resetera was fucking dragged out and shot.

Too much to discuss. Go get a library card, there's about half a dozen books on Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain's greatness.

based retard

Yes we get it, everyone with a dissenting opinion is your liberal boogeyman. It gets tiresome.

no, that's Manfred von Richthofen.

Jünger was a "simple" WWI volunteer who turned out to be a war-hero, born leader, GigaChad and absolutely gifted writer.
He was one of the few mere soldiers who was awarded a Pour le Mérite, the highest military honor possible.

No, I'm sure Foote is a redpilled kekistani like you are....

>simple
Wasn't he an aristocrat?

Catholicism condemned it as sinful, and the Quakers said slavery was an entrenched impediment to enlightenment, but by and large it was economic changes that prompted ending slavery in Europe.

>unique poster count doesn't go up
>one minute apart
Cringe. Dilate.

>muh chapo, muh cumtown muh resetera
those are a LOT of buzzwords, user. Maybe you need a break?

Turtledove has an alternate history series where the South successfully becomes its own country, teams up with the British to humiliate the US in the 1880s. Afterward the US gets a gigantic chip on their soldier and goes apeshit on Canada, Hawaii, the Carribean, and the CSA over the next 70 years.

no, his family was fairly wealthy, though.

I'm not American. Just tell me why liberals apparently hate him despite being one of the "goodies"

the south for not winning

Attached: nupol bingo.png (662x840, 93K)

Europe was in no position to assrape anybody at that time. Britain and France had hacked each other into mediocrity and had bigger problems closer than North America.

You seethin lil man?

Europe recovered. Can you imagine a peaceful Europe and a divided America where the Western Expansion doesn't even happen after the Civil War?

No, it's called mockery. Get a better script already.

I see. Nevertheless, he wasn't some canon fodder
average joe soldier since he became an officer soon after joining the army.

The US became the biggest economy in the world by 1900 and the south played little in that as their own economy became not so relevant to the nation at large. The north 100% would have been fine.

Can you believe this guy is Donal Logue? He's changed quite a bit.

Attached: Gettysburg.mp4_snapshot_02.28.59.138.jpg (1920x1080, 152K)

>Seething
CSA still would have lost even if Sherman didn't exist; he significantly shortened the war. After CSA's screw-up at Gettysburg Union began to get the upperhand with manpower. The was fighting with one hand tied behind the back.

Attached: oof.png (421x116, 5K)

Oh, that's what you want to know. Well, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, prior to his charge in the Union army, walked in to his son making love to one of the many slaves they owned (hypocritical, I know). He scolded his son and then took his rifle, screamed "Bayonet!!!" and impaled the slave girl a dozen times until he was covered in blood. He had his son bury the body as a lesson that even slaves should be treated as free folk, especially in death. Chamberlain signed up for the war to "fight slavery", which he mistakenly thought was "fight slaves", but he got caught up in the political systems enjoying fame and accolades over murdering blacks and the rest is history. Liberals would rather America not know the truth about this American hero.

He died in the war, user...why are you blatantly lying for?

That's just what liberals want you to believe.

Right, so the war was about slavery? Thanks.

Chamberlain survived the war.

Shh...

>Literally no one in the Union from 1860-1863 except Frederick Douglass was stumping for an end to slavery
I guess you missed the dozens of abolitionists in Congress and groups in DC that called for the immediate end of slavery for decades before the war started?

Dont do this OP Gods and Generals is absolute garbage. Even the author and cast hated it

>Chamberlain signed up for the war to "fight slavery", which he mistakenly thought was "fight slaves"
you're making this up on the spot aren't you

Dixie, no fucking contest.
>wah wah muh state's rights
>oh yeah disregard the two decades when we had control of the Federal Senate and shat all over state's rights
>WAH WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION
>oh despite the fact we seceeded on dumb grounds and commited the first hostile acts of the war
Southern oligarchs were literal Europhiles LARPing as 18th century European aristocrats, and Slavery was so convoluted by this time that even Slave owners had fuck-all rights to "their" property. The CSA as an organization was somehow more croney and bureacratically disfunctional than the Federals, the CSA didn't deserve the absolutely stellar Generals, Officers, and Soldiers it got.
Dixieboos are retard hypocrites who never read any history, and how badly they play the victim card nowadays is just pathetic. Not that the North is stellar either, there was plenty of documented bullshit they did, but the American Civil War is 100% Dixieboos fault.

I was even a full on Dixieboo in my high school and college years (Ken Burns' doc and Gettysburg made me full Dixieboo back then, and Robert E Lee was one of the best strategy games of the Win95/98/2k era; still get a chub thinking about steamrolling the Yankees off Culp's Hill July 1st), and think that the USA would be better off if the Atlantic seaboard from D.C. going north would sink. But Dixieboos are still faggots.

Yeah that was such a shitshow of an operation. Last minute changes by the command staff about which units would go in, (so not trained or drilled for their jobs), absolutely no useful coordination, just put into the grinder. Absolutely brutal. I'm surprised Burnside was still around after the shitshow that was Fredricksburg, but there was no coming back from that grinder during the Petersburg siege.

He literally didn't?

that is true. I should've said:
>He was one of the few who started out as mere soldiers and were awarded a Pour le Mérite

I remember in his book he constantly gets new ranks because the other candidates just kept getting killed and suddenly this 19/20 year old guy is leading entire units into battle.

He survived the war, but died from the wound he got in the war decades later. Just like how that Chinkiang musketman killed James Fitzjames in The Terror.

Attached: The_Terror_-_The_Complete_First_Season,_Disc_3_t03.mkv_snapshot_10.30.438.jpg (1920x1080, 194K)

That no one listened to and never put before Congress? I guess everyone missed them, since they weren't taking it seriously enough to even platform it for their own elections.

Just watched it. What did I think of it? Dixie propaganda? Yank propaganda? Kino?

Plebeian detected

Attached: Gods and Generals.mp4_snapshot_02.25.33.jpg (1920x798, 125K)

Eli Whitney singlehandedly kept slavery alive in the US. The cotton gin changed everything.

You're just being ahistorical now. There was a growing populous movement in the Republican Party of abolitionists who got stronger as the war pressed on. One of the most famous murders was done by an abolitionist who tried to free a group of slaves. They immortalized him as an abolitionist symbol. By the time Lincoln took slaves as war contraband, DC would have lit up in flames if he put them back into slavery.

I'll never understand why /pol/tards want to downplay the part slavery played in the war for.

industry needs resources so that's wrong

Uh, no. I wrote a 12 page essay on Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. Dude is literally my hero and I know everything about him. My word is bond.

Attached: Honest Abe Don't Lie Nigger.gif (1500x1050, 86K)

John Brown wasn't a politician, he was a literal zealot crazy that got turned into a useful martyr after his death by populists, who also weren't politicians. The abolition lobby in Congress were still only that: a lobby. The foundation of the Union's campaign against the South was not predicated on ending slavery, and you never hear it addressed as such until after 1863. That is history. The reaction of those in the Union after the Proclamation belies any attempt to spin the narrative that it was ALWAYS about ending slavery.

>*Anglo appears on screen*

Attached: Gettysburg.mp4_snapshot_01.54.14.711.jpg (1920x1080, 231K)

By "always", it's usually meant to refer to the fact that States were seceding because of slavery, slavery was a major economic factor in the war and that yes, that makes the war about either the preservation or end of said practice.

You people do this thing where you try to rewrite the history of black Americans as something that either wasn't significant, didn't bother people too much or wasn't a major fucking evil. It's like how thealthypothesis tries to defend chattel slavery because some slaves were brainwashed into liking their masters.

youtube.com/watch?v=mBsrCimWodM
>tfw you'll never go across the border and hack slavers to death(letting the non-slavers go) after they tried to terrorise your state into accepting slavery
John Brown did literally nothing wrong and he should have statues across the country instead of all the General Lee jim crow monuments.

why did he care so much about the american negro?

maybe because owning people was/is wrong?

Why does Cassius look so haggard?

>Whole units deserted after the Emancipation Proclamation because they hadn't signed up to fight for ending slavery.
None of them signed up for anything, they got fucking drafted. It doesn't matter what they thought, only what the people declaring war thought.

The English interest in how those five years played out is really worth studying, as they honestly didn't give a shit who won so long as the South's cotton kept flowing. They were going to cut a deal with either government that would ensure that.

>you people
The history of black Americans doesn't even begin until the Proclamation. You'd literally be studying the history of your horses and care more about that prior to then. Blacks don't like being reminded that it wasn't them that freed them, but the fact is Lincoln cared more about what Europe thought than what abolitionists in the US thought, and that is what prompted the Proclamation. Frederick Douglass's honeyed words failed over two years of warfare to push Lincoln to emancipate, and even when he finally did, he half-assed it.

>The history of black Americans doesn't even begin until the Proclamation.
I guess the years of the Underground Railroad doesn't mean anything, huh?

The Union army was volunteer until 1863. Look up the Enrollment Act.

>but the fact is Lincoln cared more about what Europe thought than what abolitionists in the US thought
You haven't read any of his personal letters, have you Dinesh?

>Underground Railroad

Propaganda.

ew

kek what? Go back to sleep, retard. It's past your bedtime. Nobody falls for your /pol/shitter memes.

...did you have a stroke mid-sentence or something?

>but the fact is Lincoln cared more about what Europe thought than what abolitionists in the US thought, and that is what prompted the Proclamation.

That sounds like massive bullshit. Can anyone second this?

>The history of black Americans doesn't even begin until the Proclamation
What are you fucking talking about? You have scores of stories of runaways arming slaves, heading north to become freemen, or organizing the elaborate underground railroad across the Mississipi. For shit's sake, Tubman would hijack confederate ships all through the southern heartland and ended up leading a battalion of black troops to rescue slaves. What the everliving shit are you on about that their history "starts" at Proclamation? More freed blacks per capita (compared to population size) fought in the Civil War by the time Gettysburg happened.

>cringe

No one cared about that until after the War. You don't see statues of Harriet Tubman until post-War. No, in the grand scheme of things, smuggling slaves over the Mason-Dixon line was not a factor. That America's industrializing economy was looking for footholds on the world stage, a world which viewed slavery as an anachronistic practice, was the motivator behind Lincoln's issuing of the Proclamation, after it was shown the CSA wasn't invincible on the battlefield and after European powers were offering to get involved
Read his dispatches from 1860-1862, then the ones from 1863 onward, and you'll see the narrative shift. Also, we don't have all of Lincoln's correspondence, batshit Mary burned a bunch of them after his assassination.

It's bullshit. Lincoln laments slavery as early as 64' and only doesn't make it a focus because he's afraid of losing momentum in Congress if he pushed for emancipation too early. He had to deal with Meade being a retarded faggot and losing battles and Southern sympathizers at home trying to undermine his Administration.

Yeah but come on he didn't mention slavery until the third paragraph

>early as '64
>war began in '60
Thank you for proving my point succinctly, and bear in mind that the Proclamation preceded Gettysburg. You're thinking of the Address.

>No one cared about that until after the War. You don't see statues of Harriet Tubman until post-War.
All of the Civil War statues are post-War you dumb shitter.

>>Southern oligarchs were literal Europhiles LARPing as 18th century European aristocrats
>implying you wouldn't

Attached: the southern gentleman.jpg (350x233, 18K)

>Thank you for proving my point succinctly
it's just some /pol/ doublethink, I could have gone earlier than 64, he shares the same sentiment all throughout the war:
>I personally hate slavery but I need to preserve the country first
this changes to:
>my hand has been forced by God to acknowledge that slavery is the great evil center to this war
In less than a year of his private correspondence. You're trying to write your own history. I'm not sure why, to even retroactively take the plight of slavery away from blacks I guess? It's weird.

It feels like you don't know what the point of your discussion is anymore. I was mocking you for thinking that black history only begins AFTER the Proclamation, which is obvious bullshit, since they played a major role in the events that shaped the Civil War.

because it wasnt. slavery then was simply a political catalyst just like gay rights is today. the people for or against in congress back then didnt really care one way or the other about the blacks but more about how they could lock down more political power by making new states in their pocket by making them "free" or "slave" states. the whig party at the time was heavily against expansion because they foresaw how things would play out but they were a dying party then.

considering that given a few years wealthy plantation owners would simply switch over to cotton gins and better tech as opposed to feeding and housing hundreds of niggers they had to constantly keep in check you cant possibly think it was a matter of anyone caring about blacks. the people who wanted to emancipate right away wanted it simply to spite their political oppositions and send the entire South in ruin. if anyone really cared about blacks back then it wouldn't have taken another 100 years for us to be given civil rights and then another half century past that for us to really be treated equal.

>people in Congress didn't care about slavery
absolute fucking kek, the first State to secede threw a literal autism fit over the induction of free states into the Union.

>gay rights isn't about giving marriage rights to gays, it's about political power and ulterior motives
Do you honestly believe this?

>the Civil War wasn't about slavery
>slavery was just the political catalyist that divided Congress with the addition of new slave/free States into the Union
>also, I'm going to use the word niggers too, just so you know where I'm from

Attached: 052.png (265x258, 174K)

yes. you dont think that everyone who votes for or against gay rights does it because they either want them to have the right or not have it do you? most people vote based on their party line simply out of spite to the other side. I personally dont care if a fag gets married but every chance I have ever had to give him the right I didn't simply because they support the other side.

this is how bipartisan politics works you retard

Slavery was a white plight, blacks were just along for the ride until the Proclamation, which even Frederick fucking Douglass says Lincoln was wishy-washy about for three years of conflict. That doesn't change the fact that Lincoln never campaigned on an anti-slavery platform, never pushed for abolition before the War, and didn't push for abolition until the war was halfway over with, nor did he justify slavery as a reason for the war until long after it had begun, and it came as such a surprise when it did that he was excoriated in the press and the New York Draft Riots kicked off to the tune of 120 dead blacks and Manhattan becoming devoid of them before the Army managed to quell the violence.

>I personally dont care if a fag gets married but every chance I have ever had to give him the right I didn't simply because they support the other side.
You sound like a horrendous person, unironically a massive faggot yourself if you act like this.

fucking KINO

>slavery wasn't a plight on the literal slaves in bondage who were literal pieces of property to be owned

No it's a really poorly made movie.

so you're telling me your average union soldier was out there fighting because he thought that the black man should be free? that the white people in congress back 1860 something were pushing emancipation so ole blackie could being jiggin his merry way out of the south and into his neighborhood?

yes abolitionist existed but they were few and far between.

No, why don't you fucking learn to read what is being said to you instead of just copy-pasting Dinesh talking points preemptively you stupid retard?

>You sound like a horrendous person, unironically a massive faggot yourself if you act like this.

well this is the reality of people voting. i know you think its all about feelings and fighting for great causes but it isnt. there are far more people out there who vote the same as i do whether they know it or not and im sure you do it as well.

>I can only see one side of the picture, so it must be the only side
Blacks had no say; slavery was totally a white problem. Moreover, consider: the cotton gin had turned cotton from an 8-bale/day industry to a 1000-bale/day, powered by slave hands working from sunup to sundown or longer. Take those slaves away, and it all becomes a white problem.

hows about stop trying to twist people's words and acting retarded.

Redpill me on McClellan. Was he a good boy?

Sorta like your life

>the majority of people are partisan hacks who just try to "spite" the other side
No, I don't believe that, I don't think that represents most voters at all. Sorry. Got a sauce for that autistic position? I assume you aren't for gay marriage then?

most people aren't

Best Civil War film to date. Little Round Top is utter kino. Don't watch Gods & Generals. It's just shitty dixie propaganda.

Thanks for the info, Ahmed. Giving gays the legal right to a marriage contract is the legal and correct thing to do. Americans aren't second class because of their sexuality, user. The State has no right to deny someone the same right to marriage. It's really that simple for me. Don't tread on me in its simplest form.

>slavery was totally a white problem
lol yeah, it wasn't an issue for the millions of men, women and children in literal servitude, torture and chattel slavery! HAHA based /pol/nigger!

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Faggots aren't people.

oh, you're just memeing now. Okay.

There is mixed reception of him. Grant himself didn't know what to make of him so really who knows.

>I assume you aren't for gay marriage then?

its not that I am for or against it but more that it is completely irrelevant to me. the left uses gay marriage as a means to guilt people into giving them there votes and simultaneously gain the backing of that small minority. for gays this is actually a shame because it puts them directly into the crossfire.

the majority of the people who vote right arent spergy religious people who think its a matter of a communion of god but simply because they dont want to pay taxes that will never support them but other people and in this scenario gays are seen as the other side and against what they believe and get BTFOd.

I explain it to you:

The secession was about slavery. Jefferson Davis said this openly. Alexander H. Stephens said this openly. This is not controversial.

The war was for the South about being independent and keeping the status quo with regard to slavery.
For the North it was about reintegrating the South back into the union and solving the slavery question/conflict in some way, so the South is dealt with.

The average Union soldier fought because he saw it as his patriotic duty and he saw the secession and later the civil war as an anti-USA rebellion and insult. The reason for the rebellion was for the most Union soldiers of no or little interest, those cunts can't just leave.

The average Confederate soldier fought because he saw it as his patriotic duty and he saw the secession and later the civil war as a necessary act because of the insults and humiliation by the North, calling the Southerners morally inferior, backwards, even barbarian because they were slave states and were working against Southern interests for decades at this point.

No, the war wasn't about abolition, but the war was still about slavery and its consequences. Those are not mutually exclusive.

>right to marriage
Not a right. Try again.

>The State has no right to deny someone the same right to marriage.

funny because we have voted on it many times. whether you think the state doesnt have the right or not doesnt change the fact that it certainly does.

>the state has no business interfering with private affairs of citizens
>notwithstanding the foregoing citizens are desperate to procure the state's recognition of interpersonal relationships
marriage should be a religious thing only.

>the left uses gay marriage as a means to guilt people into giving them there votes and simultaneously gain the backing of that small minority. for gays this is actually a shame because it puts them directly into the crossfire.
Fuck off, Alex Jones.

kys tranny

The Supreme Court of the entire country has ruled that no State can prevent two consenting adults from entering in a legal marriage contract, anywhere. Cope.

how's about we agree on this then, it was about slavery but it wasnt about the blacks?

Gettysburg has similar problems as Gods and Generals. Occassionally weak acting either due to lines or just overall staginess (good actors though) and really dry unpolished photography. It doesn't surprise me that the director wasn't a full professional.

>marriage should be a religious thing only.
well it isn't, it's a legally binding contract. You can't prevent legal citizens from engaging in a legally binding contract and yes, they have the RIGHT to do that.

You try again, retards.

>it was about slavery but it wasnt about the blacks?

Fair enough. Both didn't like the negro and thought the idea of negro voters or citizens absurd.

>it's a legally binding contract
meh not really anymore.

I actually agree. The State has no right to deny or grant the same right to marriage.
A State that allows a man and a man to marry has abdicated its tianming. It is no longer worthy of obedience, any more than a State that mandates the definition of pi is worthy of obedience.

The people of Lot shall have fire from G-d rained upon it.

you sound like a reddit queer

>tranny tranny tranny
how does it not get old for you?

These are quality posts, although arguably better dropped on a different board.

The Montgomery Confederacy was overtly racialist and pro-slavery, but the Richmond Confederacy (after Virginia signed up) was... different. Who knows what that Confederacy might have evolved into.

the whole civil war/slavery thing becomes an argument because although you and I see eye to eye there are people out there who are pushing the idea that it was about rescuing blacks from mean ole whitey and it was a saturday cartoon complete with heros vs villains. then they go about tearing down confederate memorials and statues because "why would you commemorate someone so evil??".

how are white slave owners who literally own human beings, not literally bad guys and "mean ole" whitey? Please explain.

>eh, nu-uh me no think so
compelling shit, user.

If the shoe fits...

secession was legal at the time, Lincolns reasons for the war, at the beginning anyway, was only to keep the union intact, therefore the feds were violating state rights. This is why so many people volunteered to fight for the CSA, to preserve state rights. It was an illegal war, the north was in the wrong. Slavery, as bad as it was, was legal, and a state issue, not a federal issue

>thinking there are any trannies in the same threads he is in
They aren't even 1 percent of the population and you end up thinking they are behind every post and thread. Get some help.

>fags deserve rights
groundbreaking

I couldn't get trough it, once the scene came where one of the main characters explains that he judges niggers on a personal basis completely ignoring statistics I knew I was watching a beautifully shot movie that had a very perst

you're the one having an autism fit saying they don't. You are the one who brought them up...

most of the modern world was abandoning slavery, hell a lot of the states were canning it, it was only a matter of time before all the states became free states. Slavery was not a factor for starting the war, lincoln just made it a factor because everyone was starting to realize it was an illegal war

its either a tranny or someone that play pretend with them. Either way, the same weak leftist faggot is the result.

That had a very persistent propaganda message. "Niggers are just like white folk, just treat them the same and they will be just like white folk bla bla blaa"

because the vast majority of people in the south werent slave owners and didnt fight for the confederacy so some dandy can sip his lemonade and whip niggers all day.

you could go even further and point out that the majority of slave owners then were born into a family that had owned slaves for generations and had an entire livlihood that relied on that labor until some other method fixed that. that was the main issue though with emancipation was that there was never a realistic plan to fix that or compensate the people who owned slaves.

>Slavery was not a factor for starting the war, lincoln just made it a factor because everyone was starting to realize it was an illegal war
How many times are you going to make this same /pol/shit argument?

Or maybe you're just obsessed?

>think of the plantation owners, user! Their entire livelihood relied on slave labor!
Oh, abloo abloo. I'm sorry. Here's my world's smallest violin for your stormnigger argument.

>you should be compensated for owning human beings as property
How is it that we can put an unmanned rover on Mars but I have to make an argument for why you shouldn't defend owning literal human beings?

>literal human beings
that's debatable

>because the vast majority of people in the south werent slave owners
We were literally ONLY talking about slaveowners, user. Learn to read.

Where it really gets weird is that the Tidewater states (Carolinas, Virginia, Delaware) were already economically drfiting away from using slaves themselves. They weren't cotton states, and the main slave-crop there was tobacco which was evolving into a luxury product - i.e., something that a small farmer could make a profit on.
But the Tidewater had another angle: to sell the slaves themselves. That's right: they farmed NEGROES, and sold the kids downriver to Alabama and Georgia, where slave farming was still viable.

What non-slave owning people have gotten statues, and which one of those are in danger of being torn down, exactly? People aren't exactly tearing down memorials unless they're "memorials" with a great big Lee statue that was put up during the jim crow era.

it was full on The South will Rise Again

kys nigger

Them's fightin' words 'round these parts.
That subject is better off in /his/ (although there is a McClellanboo autist who vehemently shits on threads), but in general he was an excellent administrator, organizer, and a charismatic manager, but he lacked balls to actually get things done and was way too cautious at the worst possible times, allowing his enemies to gather strength or change positions.
This. Anyone who thinks the state should restrict legal rights and connections between two sapient mature individuals is a bootlicking fuckstick. I generally dispise fags, and absolute hate the ones going to court because a baker wouldn't want to bake a fag cake for them, but any two legally-mature individuals have rights to engage in the contracts that is usually considered marriage. Marriage isn't a religious aspect, it's always been economic since the fucking dawn of human society and civilization.
Except marriage is an economic and political institution that existed long before organized religion as you know it.

It was a hard debate that was fought for literally centuries. It's not THAT easy of a question you make it out be:

What happens with the freed slaves? What happens to the economy? What happens to the slavers? What happens when other countries start using slave labor again?

I read a bit of pro-slavery polemics of the time and it's very interesting. One had an interesting argumentation:

>the negro is by nature lazy, clumsy and mentally deficient (which was the absolute main-stream view of the population and scientists at the time, I remind you)
>therefore he can never compete on the free market in any way and will starve to death, just commit crime or become beggars or burden on the state
>benevolent slavery was therefore the only way to keep them fed, occupied and as a positive, productive member of society (they believed slavery was at a whole benevolent, but granted that there were violent+immoral excesses)

I'd prefer a movie about Uncle Billy killing rednecks

Attached: 94EB1E2E-E40A-4474-A82D-AC2063212269.jpg (1400x1400, 243K)

Sherman WAS a redneck dude. But yeah he was great, I wouldn't mind a biopic about his career, especially his younger years surveying in Georgia (why his campaign was so effective there; he knew the land better than most of the CSA generals he was up against).

>I read some pro-slavery propaganda and they think blacks are lazy and mentally deficient
woah, really captivated me user. I'm pro owning people now!

>ken burns
Boooooooooooooooooring

>they believed slavery was at a whole benevolent
>"hmmm, very interesting argumentation!"
you're a faggot.

you don't grant people the world-view they had at the time. People like you are the worst to talk history with.

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

- First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln

what?

see

people have been opposed to slavery for thousands of years, fuck off with "at the time" bullshit ahistory.

Then read Guns of the South by Turtledove

>people have been opposed to slavery for thousands of years
there isn't a single Greek or Roman philosopher or writer that proposed the abolition of slavery. Fuck off, you uneducated twat.

>these guys are all lazy and clumsy, that's why we employ them to do all our work for us
Nobody actually fell for that retarded argument, right? It was all just lies to support your side and everyone understood them to be lies, right? You didn't even have to meet a classically educated black man to see the gap in logic.

>there isn't a single Greek or Roman philosopher or writer that proposed the abolition of slavery.
You want to bet money on that, goalpost shifting fuck?

well thats what the whip was for

It's sometimes hilariously overdramatic and soap opera tier Dixie propaganda.
I absolutely fucking hate the mindset the old civil war buffs have. Only confederate soldiers truly believed in their cause, only confederate soldiers cared about each other, and the only union commander who is allowed any positive portrayal is Lawrence Chamberlain.
It's so annoying. I'm not even saying their wrong to separate the soldiers and why they fought from what their government actually wanted, but the union is always treated as an almost villain in the eyes of civil war buffs

I shifted goal posts? You started talking about "thousands of years ago".

Yes. I would bet money on it. Citation please. And don't come with that one guy (forgot his name) who imagined a machine that will replace slaves.

Alcidamas, at the same time as Aristotle, took the opposite view, saying: "nature has made nobody a slave".

Took about 30 seconds to find. Isn't the internet great? Fucking plebs

>read
Booooooooooooring

>Says he doesn't shift goal posts
>Literally two sentences later shifts goal posts

>out of context quote

Next try.

A vast amounts of civilizations in the past owned slaves. Whites, Yellows, Blacks, and any other skin color all owned slaves at some point. A Circassian could give his daughter a better life by selling her to an Ottoman Sultan. That happened often. Does that make them evil or is it just people doing what they can to survive? Is it any different than Amazon or Apple and their wagies they work for a pittance?
Black and White morality really fucks this country up hard.

>quote directly denounces slavery as harmful to human nature
>"d-doesn't count"
Inbred fuck.

Do you want the whole fucking novel? You can search the rest if you want, that was the part that disproves your point.

Are you literally 12? Or just a female?

>is this bad, good?? who can tell, not me ;^)

Attached: 1560305760977.jpg (595x345, 24K)

>tfw it's impossible to have a normal discussion about the civil war and its aftermath because people think it's still happening now

Why can't we treat it solely in its own historical context just for once?

Attached: Carl_Röchling_-_The_Battle_of_Fredericksburg,_December_13,_1862.jpg (3448x1847, 2.06M)

saying being a slave isn't good for you and being for abolition of the institutions are VERY different things. No Roman or Greek wanted to become a slave through warfare, doesn't mean the thought the institution shouldn't exist.

That's an intimidation tactic, and it means you too deep down fear that you won't find a preChristian Greek or Roman (or Syrian) philosopher arguing against slavery.
Sure, lots of philosophers thought slavery was bad FOR GREEKS AND ROMANS, but they argued strong that other races deserved it.
When the Christians started sparking up (I had to leave college even to find one), yes, they do start arguing that, hey, since we're all Christians here, this slavery thing is uncool. But even the Christians didn't argue very hard until, what, Conrad in Germany during the Middle Ages.

>what about a guy selling his daughter to a rich guy for a better life?
>it isn't the same as chattel slavery where you purposively erase family lineages, history and education over generations, but who's to really say what's evil you guys??

Guess what? All forms of slavery aren't and weren't as bad. And chattel slavery was fucked up even by slavery standards. Lumping them all together is only done by brainlets or apologists.

>Owning someone is bad, regradless of the situation.
You're fucking retarded m8.

>doesn't mean the thought the institution shouldn't exist
That's literally what Alcidamas is saying. Its unnatural. But because he doesnt use your specific terminology, you claim your right. Fucking grasping at straws.

>saying being a slave isn't good for you and being for abolition of the institutions are VERY different things
Good lord, why not exit the thread? This is just embarrassing.

>>Owning someone is bad, regradless of the situation.
Thank you for conceding lmao

Wait what? No I’m pretty sure chamberlain survived

You guys are the ones grasping at straws. I said ABOLITION not "sees being a slave as positive". It's like saying "losing war is bad" = I am a pacifist.

Both ;) ;)

>there are good reasons and situations for owning other human beings as slaves
actually kill yourself.

>I said ABOLITION
Agian, because he doesn't use that one specific word, he couldn't possibly use other words to convey the same message. He is against slavery, I would think one could conclude that he was in favor of ABOLITION of slavery.

Of course owning someone is bad, you're fucking owning a person. Your Circassian argument wasn't even from the POV of the slaver, the father might not be evil for giving his daughter a better life as a slave, but that doesn't mean the slaver is not evil for choosing to own slaves instead of employing workers.

I think the chattel aspect is the key, and why the Christians in late antiquity started preaching against it.
Before the vast commodification of labour under the Hellenistic regimes and then Rome, "slavery" existed in two forms : indenture, and signing on to some tribe as a ward. The Bible assumes the former in its "`obed" system: you served your master for a fixed term, then you left. If you were a ward (Arabs call it wala'; the ward, the mawla, plural mawali) that's different: you were like a foster member of a family.

Chattel turned men [and women] into beasts, and the Bible couldn't even imagine such a thing. But the Romans and the Muslims sure could.

Do you make all these arguments backdoor defending slavery, because it's a race thing for you? I'm trying to figure out the motive.

Agricultural resources that the south provided became non vital near the end of the 19th century.

>A vast amounts of civilizations in the past owned slaves
oh woah, I guess that makes it okay then!

south was more cash crops

Then *don't* figure out my motive. *Don't* try to find some way of abusing the people here personally.
Assume I am making actual arguments and that I am wrestling with the issue.

Pure refined kino, but also traces of glorification of war.
But still kino.
T: not american

No, you're just acting like a slavery apologist you hear over at /pol/ with the same "eberbody did slavery so it ok" meme argument while also ignoring that there have been philosophical opponents to slavery for hundreds of years if not thousands, so you can't really use "muh product of da times" when even the US was a fucking outlier in the West when it came to the practice.

So again, it's either you're baiting me for shits and giggles or you need to defend slavery and I want to know why.

This
Also watch glory after the kino

Uhh... Why the fuck are they dressed up like muslims? They got turbans and everything

>>tfw it's impossible to have a normal discussion about the civil war and its aftermath
Because then retards have to acknowledge that slavery was wrong and the South were wrong to instigate the war in the first place. All the suffering that followed is the South's own fault.

The only way this film could’ve been any more kino would’ve been to make a nine month pregnant Anne Frank the protagonist for no reason.

Attached: 469C2CE3-EA82-43DA-AE86-024CE50D464C.jpg (2220x1846, 741K)

>also avery was wrong and the South were wrong to instigate the war in the first place

WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG NIGGER

Attached: C2FA1203-1CE2-4365-8C36-28E32844F32E.png (243x257, 80K)

you still haven't provided any anti-slavery arguments prior to Gregory of Nyssa (Christian). Who - as I've mentioned - only started noticing that slavery was bad because the Romans had started doing it on an industrial scale, where beforehand "slavery" was mostly indenture and clientage.
So, not really slavery at all, as the South understood it.
I think baiting you for shits and giggles seems like it might be fun, though.

I just looked into the context of the quote: There is none: The text (Messeniacus, a text most likely about the Messenia-Sparta conflict) doesn't exist anymore. The quote is a scholion, which means some anonymous guy wrote it as a commentary/footnote to the text (in this case, Aristotle's Rhetoric) centuries later, which makes the quote highly questionable, especially because such proto-abolitionist thought (or at least context-less quote) would be unique in the ancient world.

>was dying of cancer even as filming was underway

Richard Jordan died too young lads :(

Attached: 051F1690-4A73-403F-A99B-67C54E45931C.jpg (3840x2160, 1.54M)

>get your ass btfo
>kills twice as many Union soldiers in virtually every major engagement

Learn the meaning of words nigger

Attached: 3C770E80-D78D-4720-AF7E-9CDDB4712310.png (600x600, 285K)

is there literally ANY historical anti-slavery source you'll accept? Or is your argument that there was NO ONE, not a single thinker on earth, who was opposed to slavery before the Ameristani Civil War happened? That's just an absurd position to hold, since it's easily debunked. If it's the case that there were anti-slavery groups in human history, then you can't time-lock the belief and wave it away as a "product of the time". I'll repeat again, even in the US, the practice was considered antiquated by the rest of the Western countries in Europe.

So what in the literal fuck is your hill?

Only one side is saving a heavily pregnant Anne Frank...

Attached: B49C6736-9775-4BC3-8B1D-6D23C5ED89D7.jpg (900x884, 54K)

But I did name some: Gregory of Nyssa (late Roman), and Conrad II (mediaeval). I'll spot you the Bible too if you'll count its regulations of servitude so it doesn't turn into chattel slavery.
I'm not even your enemy here. That's what I'm finding funny about your meltdown. I'm not pro chattel slavery and I've made no arguments for it.
By contrast, for your sources, you've brought... who, exactly?
You're just venting your own righteousness, but I don't think the people here are buying it. All you got is REEE.

>lose war
>"AKSHUALLY WE WON??"

Attached: 1555620977032.jpg (406x431, 50K)

What exactly is the point of your arguments? I really don't understand. Is it to "pretend to be retarded" about the historic attitudes towards slavery? I don't know...it's to "trigger" me, because I think you're retarded?

I lost the plot, bud.

>Or is your argument that there was NO ONE, not a single thinker on earth, who was opposed to slavery before the Ameristani Civil War happened?
Nice, putting things in my mouth. I accept that there are anti-slavery sources for the 8th century onwards. Maybe earlier.

>wave it away as a "product of the time"
I don't: I "wave it away" as a product of time, place, history, zeitgeist, culture, politics of the USA in the early to mid 19th century. Just because the French had a debate about slavery in the 18th century doesn't mean the USA had it. The Jains had a debate about eating meat in the 5th century BC and concluded it's immoral. We are still debating it.

Europe abolished slavery a long time ago in the 1860s for the most part, I never denied this.
Also: isn't me, it's another guy.

And?

>U LIKE SO EPIC MAD #MELTDOWN XD NOW THIS IS GOING IN MY CRINGE COLLECTION, BASED

Nope, died. What timeline you from?

>Just because the French had a debate about slavery in the 18th century doesn't mean the USA had it.
Then it's not an isolated practice without detraction, user...then it's recognized as an evil by someone, somewhere.

Confederates attacked federal property. They could have done it peacefully, but nope.

>I hav never heard of Zouaves: The Post

Attached: B1ACD45E-E8FF-40B8-BDA1-113C3620F33B.jpg (280x420, 18K)

Martin Sheen trying to play Lee is just awful.

>Federal jackbooted thugs threaten to shell Charleston Harbor
>HURR WHY DO YOU STRIKE FIRST?

I thought he was pretty good

The facts:
1. "Servitude" in the ancient world existed in several forms : indenture, clientage, and chattel
2. Chattel is the bad kind, practiced in the American South, but the South also had the other kinds (complicating things: the house slave / field slave thing was a thing)
3. In the ancient world chattel was practised on an empire-level scale by empires, through to the Roman Empire
3. smaller states, like Biblical Israel, didn't have the resources to run slavery on a chattel scale, and formed laws to limit the two forms of servitude they knew of
3b. The Arabs were similar to Jews, pre-Islam
4. Chattel wasn't common, because the great empires weren't common
5. eventually Rome - the CHRISTIANS under Rome - figured out some of these distinctions, because they had the Bible, and Gregory of Nyssa preached against the chattel form of it

x. you won't find an ancient-world argument against "person X having person Y as a dependent in any of these forms", because no such argument was ever made, until very late.

All I am trying to do is educate you. I've presented facts. You've presented nothing - no names, no philosophers (but you say you know of many!)

But if you won't be educated, I am fine with making fun of your ignorance.

I never denied this either. I just objected to the claim that there was anti-slavery thought for "thousands of years" which is for me 2000+ years and I objected to waving away the view of people in the past, like that is not a legit argument in considering their viewpoint.

Even if the French (for example) viewed them as evil, they most likely didn't care, they felt it was right and they argued it was right with premises that made sense for them because they were born in that time with that environment.

4-hours of boring fucking crap.

and yeah, you're another guy.

actually I'm thinking neither of us are real. we're both just aspects of 's broken head

Maybe it was because I had a decade of watching him on West Wing before seeing the movie.

So, you also see the Alcidamas-quote irrelevant?

Well, not that guy, but since it's not an actual quote I'm not sure why you're trying to pretend that it is.

Why do historical revisionists try to argue with people who seem to have an actual education and knowledge of history?

No way in hell this movie would get greenlit today, not unless it was rewritten to cast all the Confederate characters as beard-twirling villiains busy raping and lyching slaves between battles or some other shit.

>If you want the real deal, find Ken Burns' The Civil War documentary, which is very worth watching.

His account is as biased as any historian's. If you want a REAL look at the Civil War, and Gettysburg especially, I suggest looking up GettysburgNPS on Youtube. It's the Gettysburg National Park Service page. They have hours and hours of lectures about the battle and about the Civil War as a whole.

Attached: battle_scene.jpg (600x404, 82K)

I only found out about Alcidamas from this thread.
It is interesting, and *if* it is a pagan-era rebuttal of Aristotle on the natural-slave theory, I'll revise my comment that Gregory was first.
Doesn't much alter my summary though. Except for pulling #5 back a few centuries.
Alcidamas - if his comment is for real, which my alter-ego has already doubted here - wasn't a major philosopher. I can go to the bookstore and ask about Aristotle and maybe Lucian and they'll know what I'm talking about. Alcidamas will have them looking up their cell-phones. Honestly Gregory of Nyssa isn't that well-known either.

Gentleman, if we win here today and save Union, some day our descendants will vote to turn their sons into girls, to deprive their own children and people of work and education, to make of our people minorities in our own country, to disarm the public, to concentrate all power in the federal government, and then to abolish the government in favor of a global super state with supreme power over every soul.

Fix bayonets.

Attached: 1556625874409.jpg (1024x517, 93K)

Someday I need to get some Civil War reenactors together and have them dress up and chant,

"No border, no wall, no USA at all!"

Film it and put it on the internet.

Do you that Anne Frank would be pregnant if the Confederate States had won the American Civil War? Pic related.

The US had their own interment camps for Confederates.

Southern men died. From best we can now tell around 300,000.

There was large scale extermination. The gas chambers are obviously true.

But there would not have been if the Good Men of the Confederacy had been there to stand up to the Nazis (Anne Frank herself was nearly saved by the nephew of a Confederate soldier, Nathan Straus Jr.).

Germans were parasites, feeding on millions of innocent European men, women and children to provide for themselves. The same thing happened to the South in 1864, with Sherman’s vermin murdering and plundering their way across Georgia and the Carolinas.

When you are shown pictures of the whipped slaves the Yankees found at the end of the war, those are Drapetomania (mostly) and contraband victims. Drapetomania does not somehow magically make you emaciated and skinny.

The subliminal messaging in Jeff Mangum songs clearly indicate that Anne Frank was pregnant at the time of her death.

e.g like it was pointed out above, Anne Frank would be nine months pregnant in April 1945, literally weeks before the end of the war, if the CONFEDERACY had won the Civil War and been around to give Germany a proper ass-pounding. Even the jews admit this. And her baby would have survived the camp... living until 1980, becoming wealthy telling his mother’s story.

It's a shame that hordes of retarded Slavs, Bongs, and Yankees were sent to do a Southerner’s job… e.g. a company of Confederate soldiers from the University of Mississippi suddenly bursting from the treeline just as the Gestapo are about to drag a ready-to-pop Anne Frank on a truck bound for Auschwitz, introducing the Germans to the thundering roar of the Rebel Yell and the fury of Southern men. Thus winning Anne’s heart and allowing them to liberate her from her heavily pregnant state.

Sexually.

Attached: 6E2F3E96-BFCC-493B-A1BC-95B0838B2F4A.jpg (3500x2400, 1.06M)

Attached: deport_this.jpg (250x188, 13K)

so gay

I’ll do it

t. reenactor

Attached: 6B5BD9C1-FD7F-4349-BEDD-AA5C05DAE7F7.jpg (4032x3024, 3.6M)

Good bread lads

Attached: 55CDDE9B-7940-418A-9BBD-49B7A8E1AC11.jpg (1024x733, 81K)

Challenge accepted

Attached: D3240D5D-D3FA-43EB-B40B-99CAAF901A65.jpg (372x209, 10K)

Attached: 19719656-C155-4F69-8179-B2716AB39C06.png (1440x1872, 1.27M)

ENOUGH WITH THE ANNE FRANK

Attached: super_busy.jpg (1338x708, 109K)

in the future (next couple of years) I think I'm going to attend an AmRen conference and propose this idea. It'd be good optics. Just repeat what the traitors are saying, dressed up as Union soldiers. The very same men who made today's America possible, but whom modern progressives will eventually demonize just as they have the Confederates and the Founding Fathers.

Attached: roberteleeportrait.jpg (1414x1604, 599K)

Colonel Arthur Freemantle, read his diary, "three Months in the Southern States" , an interesting insight into how foreigners viewed the Civil War and the U.S. in general.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Months_in_the_Southern_States

W.S. Hancock was downright respectable, and Buford had a spectacular portrayal in that film, what the fuck are you on about? Sure the movie had a majority of CSA viewpoints (like it's source material did), but the Unionists were extremely respectable and endearing as well.
They are memeing, he lived until just before WW1 started. He visited the 50 year anniversary at Gettysburg.
>bodies dropped is what wins wars
Fuck off, you're probably dumb tankie sovietboo too, retard. Dying (or killing) doesn't win wars, logistics does. The CSA had none of it; and much of it was self-inflicted too.
>The very same men who made today's America possible
That's just as dumb as saying WWII GI's fought for fags and degeneracy. You fags are the same type that think progression is linear are that the "dark ages" is the reason we aren't space travellers and stupid shit like that.