What Southern """values""" other

>>2210498
white supremacy

states' rights (to own slaves)

>>2210498
white supremacy. It was vital to their ideology and national identity.

Also expansionism (for more slave states). The Mexican-American War was unpopular in the north and backed by the south. The Confederacy planned, after getting their independence, to invade Mexico, colonize it, and turn it into a giant slave plantation.

>>2210498
Cuckoldry.

http://www.ibtimes.com/white-southerners-likely-have-more-black-dna-whites-elsewhere-us-study-1765498

I'll never understand southern pride in the confederacy. Why are they proud of their ancestors for fighting and dying for the right of a few plantation owners to keep their pet slaves?

File: Dixie Boogieman.jpg (17KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x300px

BOO!

>>2210522
Because Southerners love niggers. They literally went to war and the country apart just so they could keep their niggers.

>>2210522
People naturally support the underdog. Were it the North fighting to own slaves, and the south won, the north wouldnt have nearly the romanticism the south does.

>>2210498
Anything I could come up with would be somehow tied to the institution of slavery.

>nations embodying "values"
One of the worst memes emnating from the Enlightenment. Nations do not embody "values"; they embody people, and fighting for people is always correct

With that said, fighting the Confederacy (which is distinct from the South) was correct because it wasn't actually properly representing its people by recognizing an arbitrary distinction between them, but what the North was doing instead of taking power from the Confederacy and giving it to the South was fighting the whole South. This was wrong. The winners of the Civil War ought to have been everyone but the cabal ruling the Confederacy, but instead it was just the Union, and the slaves until the aristocracy that wasn't correctly crushed managed to basically take back control.

The Union ought to have redistributed land from that old aristocracy to the people of the South, both black and white, but they didn't.

Carpetbaggers are the scum of the earth, back then and even now.

>>2210498

Freedom.

Liberty.

Self-determination.

Self-reliance.

>>2210651
>redistributed
>seize land and give it to niggers
Yeah no. Blacks should've been deported.

>>2210498
Niggers were supposed to be sent back, but Booth ruined everything

If modern liberals knew that the Confederacy was actually the niggerloving nation they wouldn't ban the Dixie flag ever

Which comes to my question, why do you fags like the Union when it was actually even moreso racist than the Cuckfederacy?

The South only ever wanted anything to do with niggers since they were used as workers to fuel their economy and the North never wanted to have anything to do with him whatsoever.

File: 1478532338241.jpg (288KB, 640x710px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 640x710px

oh wow fantastic thread xD

>>2210680

>Freedom, Liberty, Self-determination, Self-reliance.

...In a state that allowed and indeed encouraged slavery and called it the cornerstone of their government?

The Union should have stepped in, armed and trained the former slaves, then left

That way they'd be respecting self-determination while still not allowing slavery to continue

Of course Lincoln could have never allowed that because "muh union" but it would have been the correct thing to do; those against self-determination can kindly fuck off

>>2210501
>>2210513
>white supremacy is bad
>but black supremacy is good
why doesn't leftypol kill themselves if they hate white people so much?

>>2210694
bah we complain about every part of our country

that's democracy

>>2210752
>straw man
wew

>>2210752
Who are you quoting?

>>2210800
leftypol

File: admiral-raphael-semmes.jpg (43KB, 445x538px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 445x538px

>>2210501
>>2210508
>>2210513
>>2210517
>>2210522
Weeeeeeeeeeeeew faggots at /lefy pol/ swarmed this thread huh?

Okay Ill keep this as brief as I can.
The confederacy and the Union were at eachothers throats for MUCH larger and more dire reasons than "Muh slavery" -

At the time of the war less than 5% of the population owned a slave. This would mean that to articulate a moral position against a group and using a 5% minority as representative of the whole is permissible by these anons standards.

This means by the same logic it is permissible to regard all black men as felons, all women as thieving gold diggers, all Mexicans as rapists, all old people as ignorant, all Germans as cucks, and all gays as being infected with AIDS or HIV.

At the time of the civil war there was a large difference between the more agrarian and folk beliefs of the south and the more worldly or urbanized belifs of the north. The south held standards and moral responsibility based almost entirely upon tradition and biblical knowledge while the north held to more philosophical roots such as John Locke. This means that the "Union" was broken long before the civil war began; as a nation that is divided on such core principals of morality is surely not "one people" the "E plubis unum" could no longer be used as a truthful or representative slogan.

Now was the civil war justified and a legitimate war? Possibly - specifically we see no clause in the bill of rights regarding the succession of a territory or republic; however the fact that the united states is refereed to as a "UNION" would denote a voluntary association by the states - COMPULSORY relationships are not "unions" by definition. So in the very core of what the "united states" was it would be legitimate for a large swath of territory which was unhappy with the way they were treated or unhappy with unjust (in their opinion) laws to have recourse in the removal of association from the "UNION"

Being losers.

>>2210833
> At the time of the war less than 5% of the population owned a slave. This would mean that to articulate a moral position against a group and using a 5% minority as representative of the whole is permissible by these anons standards.

And what do you think was the overlap between that 5% and the social, religious and political leadership of the region? If everyone else was so different, why did they fight for these morals en masse?

File: 1480177275608.jpg (229KB, 510x600px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 510x600px

>>2210833
Pt.2

The cultural divide ran deeper than just biblical morality however. While the northeast was a melting pot of European culture and opinions the south was largely a strictly "ENGLISH" province aside from Scottish and Irish hill-folk that would make the Appalachian mountains there home.

The idea of slavery being appalling is a legitimate opinion to be certain - however contemporary historians estimate within 60 years industrialization of the south would have reduced the need to slavery to such a point where it would have been nearly non-existent; even during the abolitionist debates there were decenting voices which called for patience and economic tarrifs to break the opinions of the south.

The failure to wait - A SINGLE GENERATION cost 1.2 MILLION american lives.

It is also worth mentioning that the civil war was a war based in the DEFENCE of land which was already owned by the south - there were no pushes to acquire allready held land by the north. Even the most conquest heavy general such as "Stonewall Jackson" wanted only for the war to stop and for the NORTHERN INVASIONS to end.

>TLDR Slavery is horrible and a violation of human rights, however the civil "war" was certainly not civil and illegitimate legally as a "war". The south just wanted to be left the fuck alone and the north were too impatient to wait 1 generation for mechanization of agrarian land to end slavery and as such killed 1,264,000 Americans not to mention the civilian casualties and HUGE loss in economic profits due to northern "scorched earth" policy.
Also
>Inb4 "confederate butthurt southaboo" I have studied history in a major university for 6 years, read journals and primary sources from the war and am well read on the conflict as well.

>>2210833
The lack of a secession clause doesn't indicate that the founding fathers ever thought it would be a potential good idea. The more likely assumption is that every framer after the Revolution realized that the cornerstone of survival for the infant nation was unity. Even by the 1860's, the chances are good that, had the South maintained its sovereignty, that both nations would have suffered long-term.

If you take things from the perspective of the times, Lincoln was charged with keeping a still-growing nation from perceived death. There were plenty of questions and boundaries being asked and pushed regarding secession as a political tool; Lincoln put any of those issues to rest by setting the precedent that no, secession would never again be legitimately entertained as a political tool.

It had the unfortunate side-effect of consolidating power to the federal government, but that's a whole other topic.

You legitimately can't tell me that the US would have ever reached the splendor and influence it gained and maintains had lost the Civil War.

>>2210863
Also it's easy to say that they could have waited knowing what we do now, but even in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, do you think that in the 70's we would have ever dreamed of carrying a phone, camera, calculator, note-taking device, flashlight, voice recorder, video camera, etc. all on our person, let alone in a singular device?

File: Lemat revolver 7.jpg (36KB, 783x507px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 783x507px

>>2210856
Exactly my point anon, and thank you for being so courteous in your reply I know this is going to be a shitstorm form both sides being angry about the war.

The anwser to that is that the civil war was fought because of reasons much larger than the 5% of slave holders.

I rememer reading an account of a union soldier who spotted a confederate prisioner - not even 18 and clothed in rags. The union officer asked him "You are too poor to own land - let alone slaves. Why do you fight?"
The boy replied
"Because your here sir"
The young soldier was doing what is natural for any identity group to do : Defend their people - Many of the poorest of southerns saw this war as a military encroachment to a cultural schism..

Imagine how you would feel if people who call themselves your "countrymen" told you your entire way of thinking was backward and stupid and you just needed to get with the times and stop being so evil. Then launched a military invasion into your state/town?
- I would bet good money that you would do whatever it was in your power to defend the people and ideals you hold dear.

Many of the young men fighting on the confederate side did not even have uniforms and were found to be fighting with there grandfathers rifles - some being even used in the civil war. The lead shortage was actually so horrible that many men were only issued 8 lead shots and were pitted against numbers much greater and better equipped in order to defend thier towns. - Note that the confederacy did not even HAVE proper artillery, they could not siege the north properly even if they wanted to lending even more credence to the historical position that the Confederate/Northern conflict was a defensive one.

File: 1478666279271.jpg (74KB, 600x372px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 600x372px

>>2210883
Oh of course not!
Again thank you for remaining civil. The North would have definitely been damaged economically by southern succession in the short and long-run. especially regarding the raw resources grown and collected in the south.

However what "makes sense" or what is "efficient" is not always "moral" or "legally justifiable"

Just like slavery was technically legal yet immoral

The civil war was an illegitimate war regardless if it would be a net positive (which it was not counting the loss of life and economic growth) or economically sensible.

Not only was the wrongful killing of THOUSANDS of young men wrong - it destroyed the southern agrarian cash crop economy and any hopes of sustainable future. The "Reconstruction" was a massive failure as we can see today and the south (Especially former cotton states and regions like Tennessee and Kentucky along with northern Alabama which i have personally had the displeasure of seeing ) NEVER recovered.

In the end did lincoln fighting to keep the union together benefit the WHOLE of the country - yes
But
Did it also kill over a milion young men, destroy almost every crop in the south, create depression level starvation, make a distrust between the north and south that still exists, and create a economic crisis that is still observable 100 years later in the process - yes

Whether keeping the union together and ending slavery IMMEDIATELY was worth it is a subjective question but I would argue that it was not.. too much death, too many young men slaughtered for next to no reason.

>>2210752
literally when did he even say black supremacy was good what the fuck

>>2210902
>Imagine how you would feel if people who call themselves your "countrymen" told you your entire way of thinking was backward and stupid and you just needed to get with the times and stop being so evil. Then launched a military invasion into your state/town?


Are you retarded? The South started the war and pushed into the North as quickly as possible.

Soldier should have shot the faggot Southern coward.

All Southshits do is drain our tax dollars. Oh, and they are why we have blacks. Too fucking lazy to work so they need slaves. Gas em.

>>2210833
cornerstone speech dumbass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

>>2210930
leftypol supports black supremacy

>>2210833

The 5% opened fire on the US military and stole US land.

If they wanted they were free to go find unclaimed land or invade Mexico to set up a slave state. They decided they would take US land. They lost.

Are you so retarded you don't know the South started the fucking war?

>>2210900
Yes well im not arguing for "Hind sight 2020" England had already abolished slavery in its provences due to industrialization. And like I said in my comment there were already dissenting opinions to the idea of violent abolitionism which argued that industrialization would work the same way in the south that it did in the north. I read about the specific "term" for these opinions in one of my courses but cannot remember it now and a quick google search only gave me articles on quippy fast - facts on non-academic websites. I will try to find it in my text books later tho.

>>2210938
While the South did "technically" fire the first shots, it was in response to Northern troop movements. The Union wanted to bait the South to make the war that much more justifiable and the CSA took it.

But again, that instance is a matter of perspective. Since the federal government viewed the secession as illegal, it saw all government possessions within the CSA's borders (and indeed the CSA itself) as Union territory under occupation. Their perspective was to reclaim a federal military installation from a rebellion, although they knew full well how it was going to turn out.

>>2210863

>Inb4 "confederate butthurt southaboo" I have studied history in a major university for 6 years, read journals and primary sources from the war and am well read on the conflict as well.

One doubts this, since, for instance, you claim, in post >>2210833

that the slaveowning population was 5% and a tiny proportion of the South, ignoring that a household's property was almost universally held by the patriarch, and that you could have several generations under one roof, and large families.

That's why, for instance, contemporary censuses noted the percent of families owning slaves, not individuals.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

which rises to 8% of the country even when you have a big fat 0 for all the northern states, which had considerably higher populations.

And I am not someone who is particularly educated on the subject, just hang around internet fora.

>>2210966

>That's why, for instance, contemporary censuses noted the percent of families owning slaves, not individuals.

This came out wrong, I meant to say in addition to, not in place of.

>>2210960

There were no Union troop movements near Charleston. There was a small garrison that couldn't be resupplied because the Confederates fired on an unarmed merchant ship approaching Sumter.

In several places US soldiers withdrew from towns to avoid provoking the population, only to be besieged. The South then started the war by opening up artillery on US soldiers.

That is literally how the first shots happened.

They literally asked for it. Sherman did nothing wrong.

File: 1461456363704.png (4MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1920x1200px

>>2210938
>The south started the war
Yes the chose to succeed
>Pushed north as quick as possible
Um no? There were more northern states that became "confederate" after the conflict began but that was voluntary after seeing the success of the original dissident confederate territories.
>Soldier should have shot that poor ragged southern teenager
Well we can definately tell who has the moral high ground here and how polite you are to boot! :)
>>2210939
>Slavery is the cornerstone of the confederacy
This is because this was a large economic issue that a result of differences in cultural upbringing and ideas of ethics and morality.

you could easily see how silly it is to make positions by this by using this analogy.
>America is based on speedy trails
(6th) Amendment in the Bill of rights -
yet we see that the judicial system is not "speedy" also the (4th) amendment states that Americans being secure in their positions unless a warrent is present is also untrue.

All constitutional documents are written protecting the most "Prevalent" issues of the time - The confederacy was slavery, The United States was the forcible compliance to English search/seizure among other things.
>>2210952
The did not "Take" U.S. land they lived there in states and many had been established since the signing of the constitution. Leaving the consensual relationship of a "Union" which is what the united states was defined as by the founding fathers -
Is
Not
Theft.

Also Wew lad i was right that people were going to be huge faggots about this. I have articulated my arguments and given my credentials - Spoken with respect yet instantly I get

>"Heuh heuh wat r u a dumbass dun u kno dat da south lost faggot? LOLOL did i mention how killing unarmed children is totaly justified as long as they are from the south heuheuheuh"

The anons who remain respectful and level headed when talking about important things like the lost of over a million lives have my thanks.

>>2210833
Rapists are mostly white though not mexicans. And illegals commit less crime rates vs US citizens.

>>2210863
What literature/primary sources/journals would you recommend for this subject?

>>2210960
>this
saying the confederacy "started the war" and fired the fist shots would be like me kicking down your front door and you shooting me in your living room.
Only for me to complain you fired the first shots and it wasnt justified.

>>2210833
How am I leftypol, you literal nigger? And I mean LITERAL nigger. Your "whites" are literally just a bunch of mullatoes unlike northerners.

Abe's goal was to deport all the niggers back to Africa after the war, except a Southern nigger loving retard killed him.

>>2211008
>succeed
Nothing triggers me more than people spelling secede as succeed. I mean not only have those two words completely different meaning, they are also spelled differently. How the fuck can you confuse the two?

>>2210947
>he actually believes the "leftypol is capable of things" meme

/leftypol/ is like 50 people and 750 inactive posters, you faggot.

>>2211015
>your living room is yours
>fort Sumter didn't belong to the CSA
Apples and oranges. It would be more like me going into YOUR living room and shooting you, because I feel like your living room is a threat to me.

>>2211024

You could, for instance, be a retarded redneck with only 6 ancestors three generations up.

>>2211025
those 50 people support black supremacy

>>2210966
>>2210987
I am aware of the 8% statistic, I personally do not use it because the statistics on slavery ownership in the south are dicey at best (this is caused by the nature of the slave trade as a whole and the southern tradition of bargaining as well as "breeding" slaves - despite the fact we "have numbers" those numbers may be exceeding the true numbers or fall below the truth as well) - In Uni we were taught that there are claims of 1.6% all the way to 15% depending on your source of document and historian so 5% is a good base number to use as a general figure. I would not say that it was EXACTLY 5% because that would be extremely unlikely - its just a base number that works as a good estimate. If it is 3-4% higher or lower it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things; either way its a massive minority.

>>2211048
CSA supported black supremacy by importing niggers and having them fuck their wives.

>>2211008
>Consensual relationship of a "Union"
When the Constitution would have became law of the land without full unanimous consent?

One reason the American governmental system is structured the way it was is because the founding fathers realized that there would be many divisive issues to come, and that ultimately a system would need to be enacted that had the potential to overcome short-term dissent, even with a potential majority, for the benefit of the nation's future. Not the South's, not the North's, but the betterment of the United States. While at that time there was much more emphasis on state sovereignty and autonomy, there was still very much thought put forward to the survival, progress, and integrity of the nation as a whole; preventing mob rule is one example.

I agree that, looking back, the loss of life for the outcome is lamentable, especially considering how the aftermath was handled (or more accurately mis-handled), however this entire discussion (and almost any similar one on this topic) becomes so intermixed with arguments based in the perspective of the times and arguments based in hindsight.

>>2211032
Fort Sumter did not belong to the CSA as the CSA was not recognized as a sovereign entity.

>>2211062
>Fort Sumter did not belong to the CSA
That's what I literally fucking said.

Is the confederacy basically white people wewuzism?

>>2211072
>mulatto people wewuzism
FTFY

>>2211068
Fuck, I thought you were refuting instead of clarifying the analogy. My bad.

File: overhead.jpg (12KB, 582x386px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 582x386px

>>2211049

You know how I know you didn't learn this stuff in uni? Not only did you fail to notice the enormous flaw in your own chain of reasoning, but you completely failed to comprehend a tiny, 139 word post. Universities are not going to pass someone without even the most basic literacy skills.

What I was saying, is that YOUR comment

>At the time of the war less than 5% of the population owned a slave. This would mean that to articulate a moral position against a group and using a 5% minority as representative of the whole is permissible by these anons standards.


Is incredibly misleading, due to the way property division worked (which again is something you'd know if you took this in a uni level course). Houses, plantations, horses, almost everything was usually titled in one member of the household. There would be more than one person in said household, using stuff, such as the house, or in this case, the slaves. We're not talking a tiny minority here, we're talking roughly 1/3 of the non-border state population as being in a household with slaves.

>>2211024
>>2211039
>Succeed
>secede
My bad for the misspelling but I am typing quickly while I work on a paper for work.

Also
I always found it funny how people are 100% okay with bigotry about
"Heuh heuh imbred poor people living in the hills! What faggots! hahaha Hillbillies dont have electricity and access to education/employment what lazy citizens"

Yet would be appalled at the statement

"Niggers are such faggots! so much crime! haha whats that? Education and employment are 6 foot under the ground in innercity environments?? Who cares stupid porch monkeys"

>My bigotry is the only permissible bigotry
>Totally fine with criticizing poor whites
>Would never be caught dead bad mouthing poor blacks in similar situations.

>>2211078
But how does your analogy make sense then? Fort Sumter wasn't Confederate, it belonged to the Union - they literally stole it at gunpoint.

>>2211081
I'm not him

>>2211080
I criticize poor uneducated for being poor and uneducated and being proud of it.

>>2211080
I think you're too slow in the head so I'll repeat it for you:

As proven above, "White" Southerners aren't really white. They all have a varying degree of nigger ancestry, which is explains why southern "whites" are just as poor as southern niggers.

I am the furthest thing from a leftist, I merely think you lot are tainted racial mongrels and there is absolutely nothing noble in chimping out and starting a war because you want to racemix even more.

>>2210819
Provide the quote supporting black supremacy, please.

File: 1477809205015.jpg (273KB, 960x895px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 960x895px

>>2211079
>Being rude and condescending for no reason
Yes I am aware of how property division works in the south, and yes i am aware with the argument "Well only 1 person in the house owned slaves/plantation property cuz muh patriarchal rural traditional society - but more than one person used the slaves!!!"

This position has been blown to pieces a million times over again. The problem is assuming that just because a family member is taking advantage of slavery (asking a slave to cook/clean) this is the same as OWNING a slave. Which it is not by any definition of the word. The aunties, the cousins, the sisters, the children, the wives.
DID
NOT
HISTORICALLY
OWN
SLAVES
The use of a thing does not equate to the ownership of a thing.

Also you can speak to me properly or fuck off. I dont respect and reply to edgelords on the internet who make accusations they cannot backup and are dicks for no reason while trying to be funny and failing at it.

>>2211051
>leftypol starts talking about his interacial fantasies AGAIN
why do leftists hate white people?

>>2211092
just look at leftypol, revleft, or any of the communism subreddits

>>2211095
>being against niggers existing in my country and whites breeding with them is leftism
Back to the oven

File: 1480891183459.png (615KB, 559x700px) Image search: [Google]

615KB, 559x700px

>>2211085
>This much bait
Thats not even a legitimate position.
Also its pretty funny to hear some one act "Noble" while criticizing the south by calling them "mongrels" considering they were the side trying to preserve European identity. In case you fell asleep during the last election the South and Midwest kept America from a Clinton presidency. So go back and jerk off to Portlandite Aids and North-Eastern Heroine junkies and just like the civil war

Leave

The

South

Alone.

>>2211116
>European identity is living in a 50% nigger "nation"
"No."

This isn't bait you stupid fuck. You legitimately aren't white, see >>2210517

>>2211116
I want to keep the south, I mean the lands. It's the inhabitants who need to get gassed.

File: 1480950431039.jpg (437KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 1280x960px

>>2211051
>>2211095
>>2211100
Actually it is. Notice that the south moved against homosexuality, Transgenderism, Drug use, and promoted traditional family values..

Gee..
You really hate Conservationism dont ya?
You almost sound like a elitist little lefty faggot if i didnt no better.... Id think I smelled a leaf or a Swede...

>>2211125
>suddenly tries to deflect and talk about faggots and drugs when he's been outed as a mongrel

File: 1464682595658.jpg (180KB, 517x768px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 517x768px

>>2211121
>>2211124
> Mfw ancestry runs back to the revolutionary war on both sides and some fedora tipping faggots have the gaul to call ME a mongrel.
Kek
Also
>heuheuh gas duh south
Remind your self that the majority of the military comes from the south. While NYC cucks itself into oblivion Dixie will still be here promoting christian values and European heritage.

>>2211134
*sniff sniff sniff sniff*
Hanz is that you?
Sven?
Only countries who are inundated with lefty politics project this much.

>>2211137
>ancestry runs back to the revolutionary war
Yeah sorry but just because your great grandpappy was Sambo the nigger who picked cotton on Andrew Jackson's plantation, it doesn't make you white.

>>2211138
I'm honestly fucking baffled how can anyone make the mental leap to think that not wanting to live in a country chock full of niggers constitutes leftism. It's the direct opposite. I want a white country, you wanted a country full of niggers.

>>2211140
> Silly Yankee knows he can say this shit on a computer because he would get his teeth knocked in if he said this to a southern man.
Its really cute how the north devalues its ancestors to the point where it is acceptable to mock them and others - Its no wonder you guys are so filled with gays and degeneracy, you couldnt possibly care if your forefathers looked down in disappointment

>>2211144
>I'LL FUCK YOU UP IRL FOR BEING MEAN TO ME !!!
Yeah, irrational anal anger and threatening people with violence over opinions, is in fact very much a nigger trait. Thanks for proving me right.

>>2211094
taking advantage of a person that is forced to listen to you or face punishment isn't any better.

>>2211137
During the revolutionary war the south was already 40% black, so you're saying you descend from those niggers and using this as a point of pride over the 100% Germanic northerners?

>>2211142
Idk Hanz,
Attacking the single most traditionalist christian section of the country is grounds for questioning, I mean projecting "muh degeneracy muh black ppl r bad and stuff" onto the single most conservative and religious swath of land is suspect.

>>2211137
>European heritage
Is this the same south whose "whites" contain the most black DNA of anglos in the US?

>>2211158
>traditionalist christian
I don't give a fuck. I give a fuck about race. Moreover the South isn't really Christian, all those retarded Megachurches and Snake handlers and blathering retards asking for your money come from the South, it's not real Christianity.

>>2211148
>"Oh golly gosh! I should be able to insult your family and be free of violence"
In fact very much a cucked nu-male trait.
Thanks for proving me right :)

If I had to choose

I would definitely rather be a mongrel "southerner" who still had his nuts and honor when compared to a pathetic low t numale who thinks violence is"just bawbaric an scawwy! :'("

File: 1860.jpg (197KB, 800x618px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 800x618px

>>2210833
>At the time of the civil war there was a large difference between the more agrarian and folk beliefs of the south and the more worldly or urbanized belifs of the north.

He-Haw, please.

In 1860, most everybody in the North was agrarian. Most everybody on the fucking planet was agrarian in 1860.

The fact is that the South's _ENTIRE_ casus belli was muh slavery!

>>2211149
To be fair, even if women, children, or help would have disagreed with the practice, it's unlikely that more than a small number would have attempted to influence the head-of-household, especially with as much societal history that slavery had at the time.

>>2211166
Calling Southerners part niggers isn't an insult, it's an objective biological fact. Why do you keep deflecting from the fact that southern "whites" carry the most nigger blood out of all Caucasians in the US, AND southern blacks are 20% white on average? Somebody's been doing the cucking, and it sure wasn't us!

>>2211165
>I dont care about values
> I only care about my race

Reaaaally now? That makes alot of sense actually. I mean if you think about it there are TONS of whites who are little bitches and who whine and stick things in their asses. Gays, trannies, shit even cross dressers I would wager - If you want to go live with them thats okay and you have my blessing :)

Personally. I think Tradition, Virtue, Honor, and Faith are much more important.

But have fun listening to your roommate enema himself before his 100% euro phenotype lover comes over. ;)

>>2211094

No, I"m being rude and condescending to pop that little fake balloon you made about being university educated on the subject when it's clear you aren't.

>and yes i am aware with the argument

Unlikely, given your response here, which completely fails to even assume it existed, even when it's right in your face. .>>2211049


>The problem is assuming that just because a family member is taking advantage of slavery (asking a slave to cook/clean) this is the same as OWNING a slave

No, that is not the problem. The problem is that you asserted, in this post >>2210833

that the slaveholding population was not representative of the south, on a numbers game based purely around ownership stats, when someone who is supposedly university educated ought to know better than to use such ridiculous, reductionist arguments.


The only person who has been bringing up moral arguments in this thread is you, which is not how they teach history. Analyze and explain, don't take sides; and since you are not willing or able to treat this as a historical analysis, I see no reason to extend any sort of professionalism or respect to your dumb, illiterate ass.

>>2211166
>I would definitely rather be a mongrel
Well you already are, so wish granted.

>>2211166
Kinda funny to call us numales considering you can't even win your wars.

>>2211174
Lmao
Little bitch boy gets scared when confronted with his aversion to violence and starts screaming
>B-But WE ARE MORE WHITE THAN YOU!
>... you might be more honorable.. capable.. self reliant.. stronger.. more masculine... BUT YOUR STILL JUST MONGOLS >:(

Idk anon, I know I am white (well you say mongrel but im sure you know better than ancestry . com)... but if being a northerner and being white makes you this effeminate it almost makes me want to say that maybe I dont want to be 100% pure blood arian phenotype..
I mean if being "White"
Makes you a little bitch..
Seems like a pretty bad idea man

>>2211189
Just over 500,000 verses over 1 Mil
+ No navy and verry little artilery..
And we still killed more..
Sounds pretty good to me there mr euro nu-male phenotype :)

File: ((())).jpg (187KB, 545x489px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 545x489px

>>2211181
>I'm racemixed and surrounded by nothing but niggers but at least I get to keep my Christian values!
Yes, get fucked.

>>2211214
>no navy and very little artillery
>WE DIDN'T HAVE DA TEKNOLOGY
Absolutely your fault, because your lazy fat asses weren't intelligent and hardworking enough to build factories to create advanced military equipment, and instead just loafed around forever.

Pretty much the same principle as the European colonization of Africa, with you being the Africans.

>>2211224
If your primary income is well-established and bringing you decent profit, why would you dump money into an uncertain venture when (at the time) your countrymen had that base covered? It's not like they could've just whipped up an entire arms industry in the 20 or 30 years leading up to the war, and even in that time it was uncertain if it would come to armed conflict.

>>2211241
>if your entire economy is medieval Uganda tier and 90% of your people do easy work that even a nigger can do or lazy about, why improve?
I bet the hunter gatherers asked the same before the colonist ships arrived lmao

>>2210498
Old times here are not forgotten

>>2211249
That's not true. Medieval Uganda had diversified crops.

>>2210517
It's interesting to read antebellum accounts, about how Northerners basically considered Southerners to be subhuman and it had nothing to do with slavery. But generally when midwestern farms already had neatly organized, industrialized farming and sophisticated irrigation, the southerners were just lazy as fuck cattle herders who didn't even bother fencing their property and spent most of the day drinking alcohol and sleeping.

In Freehling's Road to Disunion it's neatly explained how during a trip down the Mississippi from St.Louis to Louisiana, people immediately realized they entered a total shithole upon reaching Tennessee and it only got worse the more south they went.

Post offices, railroad networks, everything was already utter shit in the south WAY before the civil war.

Wew

>>2210513
>Also expansionism (for more slave states). The Mexican-American War was unpopular in the north and backed by the south. The Confederacy planned, after getting their independence, to invade Mexico, colonize it, and turn it into a giant slave plantation.

The North should have done this....

>>2210752
Nobody says this you mouth-breather

>>2211266

Not much has changed since then either, the South is still garbage.

>>2210966
/pol/fag utterly BTFO

Well the idea was that if you didn't own slaves, an independent South would make an economy that would allow you to climb up the socioeconomic ladder and buy a few.

>>2211137
>promoting Protestantism
>good

File: 1461934223809.png (46KB, 363x364px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 363x364px

>>2210498

>>2210902
>I rememer reading an account of a union soldier who spotted a confederate prisioner - not even 18 and clothed in rags. The union officer asked him "You are too poor to own land - let alone slaves. Why do you fight?"
>The boy replied
>"Because your here sir"

Right, that's why the rebs started bombing fort sumter

>>2210752
>4 replies

I am ashamed of you, /his/

>Muh only 5% of the population owned slaves

Slaves were 30% of the population. Making it a lot more important

>>2210498
>What Southern """values""" other than slavery was the South fighting for?
It was an American value.

It was called the Declaration of Independence.

File: 1480506916057.jpg (258KB, 678x674px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 678x674px

>claim to love democrary
>claim all men are free
>claim to hate tyrants

>throw shitfit when freemen declare they are free
>throw shitfit when democracy isn't in their favor
>Throw shitfit and become conquering tyrants because you are only free if we let you.
>Burn the country to the ground in order to make it free
>sure glad we only do that to Muslims these days
>the south are the ones who are violent gun toting war mongers
>not the north who are literally doing the same thing today just using the souths superior fighters to do the job.

Reminder that the only region on america with culture is the south. I'm a slav so I'm not biased in any way.