Why the hell did the Confederates start a war they could not

>>2883411
>Why the hell did the Confederates start a war they could not possibly hope to win?

They didn't think they had no hope. They weren't counting on an extended war, they just hoped to defeat the federal army quickly and force a peace treaty.

>Would secession have been successful if the Confederacy remained peaceful?

Well, there was no legal basis for it, and Lincoln was quite committed to holding the union together. But maybe, if they kept pushing for it. It's hard to imagine a situation where half the country us actively trying to leave continuing for decades.

>>2883411
They possibly could have had a chance to win if they weren't under naval blockade by the union, a blockade that kept them from receiving the imported war materiel they so desperately needed as they were not as industrially developed as the north and thus not nearly as self sufficient.

However, they had excellent commanders like General Lee and Nathan Bedford Forrest that would put serious whoop ass on union armies even though they were almost always outgunned, out supplied, and under-manned compared to the union forces.

As to whether they could have peacefully seceded or not, I doubt it. The north was extremely hell bent on having a massive and wealthy United state, from north to south and east to west. If the jonny reb's had never started shelling fort Sumter, I'm sure some other crisis or reason would be found to keep the south in check through force.

I'm not prejudiced against blacks or a southerner in the most traditional sense, but it breaks my heart to see crazy SJWs tearing down old statues of general Lee and the others. You don't have to share their beliefs, but once history is destroyed you can never get it back. Same as Isis destroying ancient sites across the Levant, we'll never have those treasures of human antiquity or American historical monuments again.

>>2883461
Alright, thread's over, we have a winner.

>>2883411
>Why the hell did the Confederates start a war they could not possibly hope to win?

They hoped to gain a few early victories and then force a negotiated peace. This was based on the fact that in the north a lot of people were cultural pacifists or first generation immigrants. A.K.A people who would likely not support a long war nor want to do the fighting in any war.

>>2883461
Monuments and ruins are the common patrimony of humanity, moreso the older it is. It's not just heartbreaking but such people have forfeited their humanity as much as by ending individual lives.

>>2883411

They believed that they could win the war. They also believed that in worst case scenario France and Britain will come to bail out the South because every civilized country needed Southern cotton.

>>2883524
How retarded would you have to be to believe either of those things?

>>2883411
If it was a war for/against slavery, like the history book says, why non just make the legality of slavery a choice every state have to make?

It seem like a very, very easy way to avoid a destructive bloodbath and I refuse to think no one back then had the idea.

this >>2883461
You don't tear down the Colosseum because you think gladiatorial games were bad.

>>2883674

Lincoln would have let them keep slavery, he begged them not to secede

>>2883738

nah you do it to build St Peter's kek

>>2883770
Then why secede? All I know is "hurr slavery durr"

>>2883461
>but it breaks my heart to see crazy SJWs tearing down old statues of general Lee and the others. You don't have to share their beliefs, but once history is destroyed you can never get it back. Same as Isis destroying ancient sites across the Levant, we'll never have those treasures of human antiquity or American historical monuments again.

Kek not even a close comparison. The South is hardly as important as the ancient artifacts in the levant. Maybe if they were dated to the 1700s.

>>2883779
Lincoln was dead set against expanding slavery to newly admitted states. The confederates were afraid that without expanding slavery, the non-slaveholding states would eventually severely outnumber them, giving them leverage to abolish it somewhere down the line. The confederates wanted to keep slavery forever. Ironically, they achieved the opposite.

>>2883461
Antifa is going after the Sam Houston statue in Houston next

They aren't going to stop until they tear down the Washington monument

>>2883794
But they knew the north didn't wanted slavery because factories work better with "free" wageslave, and they knew they would become industrialized too in time.

All they needed was a century of slavery or less. Starting a war seem disproportionate to gain only a few decades over the peace option.

>>2883411
Mainly because Lincoln was elected after a long drawn out series of internal conflicts that looked to be makings of a war regardless (see bleeding Kansas). The Southerners didn't really know, nor did the Northerners know what a semi industrialized war would look like (line infantry tactics) or how one would work (industrialized vs agricultural economy). There was also a long held belief that the southern cotton monopoly on British textile mills was enough to get popular support among European powers. In hindsight this all seems pretty minimal compared to what happened, but remember that they didn't know.

File: lee-after-picketts-charge-e1435947380715[1].jpg (154KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 800x600px

Can we all just accept that Lee kinda sucked?

>Outnumbered and outgunned, but played offense instead of defense
>Defends Virginia at all costs, the rest of the CSA be damned
>Charges the Union center at Gettysburg.
>He charged the center.
>HE CHARGED THE FUCKING CENTER!
>HFW "It's all my fault."
Lee's strategies led to heavy confederate casualties when they needed all the men they could. The south could've won by fighting a defensive war on their home turf and making the union invasion unbearably expensive. It was the north that had the harder job, and had Lee not handed them his army on a silver fucking platter, the south would've had a chance.

>>2883837
To be fair to lee. It wasn't because he was a bad commander. He just let politics influence too much. Jefferson Davis wanted his prize General to wave his dick in the north after a string of honestly pretty good victories. And Lee foolishly listened. So he was more of a manipulable schmuck then anything

>>2883543
Well they are southerners anon

>>2883461
Would you erect a statue of Benedict Arnold as well?

Fuck 'em. They were traitors.

>>2883543
>How retarded would you have to be to believe either of those things?

It's not THAT retarded. The possibility of intervening was discussed in British parliament. It never got very far, though, as the British public was very anti-slavery by then, and that really was what it all came down to, despite what dixietards claim.

>>2883461
>I'm not prejudiced against blacks or a southerner in the most traditional sense, but it breaks my heart to see crazy SJWs tearing down old statues of general Lee and the others

A lot of those statues are not so old, but were erected in the last 50 years as a protest against the civil rights movement.

>>2884184
Kinda like that dumb fucking flag.

>>2884162
Indeed. People born in recent years forget how hampered information and communication was back then. The south couldn't exactly turn on the BBC and conclude "Hey guys, I don't think we're gonna get the support we thought we were."

>>2883837
Didn't the CSA invading the North change public opinion from "Who cares about what happens in Virginia" to "Oh shit nigga they be burning our houses and shit"?

>>2883461
>Same as Isis destroying ancient sites across the Levant
I hate those fuckers so goddamn much, fucking damnit.

>>2884203
I don't think opinion was ever "who cares?" but there was definitely a large segment of the north that said "is it worth it?" Enough that McClellan almost beat Lincoln in the election of 1864. Everyone forgets that.

File: Brady_-_General_WT_Sherman.jpg (95KB, 513x623px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 513x623px

>>2883411
They didn't underestimated the Union.

>You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it … Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.
>William T. Sherman 1860

>>2884120
Thank you for the input, Simple Simon.

>>2883816
>The Southerners didn't really know, nor did the Northerners know what a semi industrialized war would look like
It would seem at least Sherman predicted how it would go, i.e. the South being crushed by the North's sheer industrial output, which indeed is how it played out in the end. The Southern leadership could have used some astute people like Sherman instead of retards like Jefferson Davis.

They were a single maneuver away from winning the war, wtf are you talking about?

Secession was still a mistake though.

>>2884184
The vast majority were put up before the end of the 19th century as a means of signalling an attempt at reconciliation between north and south. Sine the end of WW2 the US has slowly been moving backwards towards the domestic political situation we had in 1860. The removal of these statues is I think just further justification for that theory.

>>2883837
Virginia was the only state that really mattered desu

>there will never be a nearby containment country to which we can deport all of the niggers and evolution deniers
Why did Lincoln ruin the country that he loved?

>>2884459
Even if the confederates somehow managed to win at Gettysburg they never would have won the war

>>2884243
Fucking Nostradamus

File: queen-of-England[1].jpg (291KB, 2197x1463px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 2197x1463px

>>2884120
All Americans are traitors to their rightful sovereign

>>2884566
This wasn't WW II, it wasn't necessary for them to burn every Union city to the ground and herd all Yankees into gas chambers. They just had to make the North willing to negotiate a settlement of some sort.

File: Laughing asian man.gif (2MB, 503x283px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 503x283px

>>2883461
>People tearing down statues of Confederate war heroes and white supremacists is the same as ISIS destroying ancient sites in the ME

Nah, good riddance. They were traitors and the south should have been beaten into submission after the war. The Union's only mistake was ending reconstruction to appease Southern Democrats.

>>2884791
>>2884791
And Robert E. Lee fucked it up, because he's a shitty general. One of many shitty confederate generals whose history has been bowdlerized by southern apologists since 1866. If the South's military leadership were a company, they'd be Blockbuster circa 2006.

>>2884805
>The union gave up on reconstruction meme

It failed and they were chase out, nothing to do with giving up

File: it aint me.png (442KB, 851x315px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 851x315px

>>2884820
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1876

>the Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South to end the Reconstruction Era of the United States. The Compromise effectively ceded power in the Southern states to the Democratic Redeemers, who went on to pursue their agenda of returning the South to a political economy resembling that of its pre-war condition, including the disenfranchisement of black voters.

Idk man sounds like they gave up in order to appease the South

>>2884825
>Republicans have to pull federal troops out to win the election
>If not, the Democrats win and pull out federal troops anyways

The Republicans didn't give up, they were cornered into leaving by the south

>>2883461
>Same as Isis destroying ancient sites across the Levant
2000 year old ancient monuments is the same as 130 year old statues of generals for the sleave army

Is this what Americans actually believe?

>>2883461
And when I said the same about memorials of Red Army soldiers in Poland, I was called a commie and a cuck ))))

>>2883793

Imagine if back then others used your argument to tear down those now ancient artifacts. The pyramids of giza were brand spanking new one day too.

>>2884858
But monuments of old rulers were torn down all the fucking time back then.

>>2884865

This is an irrelevant excuse after the fact that the other guy destroyed the reasoning in the above post.

t. not that guy

Look, let the southerners keep their statues of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis. It's their history. But I demand that a ten foot tall bronze statue of Nat Turner, holding a hunting knife in one hand and the severed head of a white woman in the other, be erected outside Richmond city hall.

>>2884925
>Yankee fantasies

>>2884935
And why not? We won, motherfucker! Be grateful we didn't plow salt into your fields, hang every member of the confederate congress, shoot every third male in Richmond, and draw and quarter every captured confederate officer. And we left so much of the south intact! We didn't burn down nearly enough southern cities. I'll never forgive Sherman for sparing Savannah. He went far to easy during his march to the sea. Southerners should erect statues of Lincoln and Grant for being far kinder conquerors than they deserved.

>>2884243
Well, he got it down to a cue. What was this guy's profession? He seems incredibly smart.

>>2884964
His profession was making his prophecy come true, having been one of the leading Union generals.

>>2884120
You're a fucking idiot. Kill yourself.

>>2884964
He was cadet at West Point at the age of 16. He had no profession prior to military service. However, he did dabble in real estate in the 1850s. Apparently, the San Francisco market has always been cutthroat:
>"I can handle a hundred thousand men in battle, and take the City of the Sun, but am afraid to manage a lot in the swamp of San Francisco."

>>2884961
>Yankee banter

>>2885033
Honestly, the fact that the sons and daughters of traitors aren't working as feudal serfs on the estates of Grant's descendants to this very day is a miscarriage of justice.

>>2883411
I don't speak coward. Could you put that into terms men can understand?

>>2885087
>Brave
>Smart
Pick one. The only way to properly attack an enemy is with overwhelming advantage.

Britain should have helped the Confederates win the war, Its almost odd to me why they didn't, they were undoubtedly the most powerful country around and completely surrounded the continent with their Caribbean islands and Canada. I know that there were some negotiations between the CSA and Britons, but does anyone know why it never amounted to anything?

>>2885155
Because the Brits were staunchly anti-slavery by that point

File: 6263941085_0b5ce780e6_o.jpg (2MB, 1193x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1193x3000px

>>2885054
>Tfw my state put a statue of Lee in the US capital rotunda

Stay mad rustbeltfag

File: SAHNC_photo_15[1].jpg (182KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 640x480px

>>2885167
>TFW when my country buried union dead on his home.

Get fucked civil war participation trophy winner.

>>2884925

I would unironically like this.

>>2885166
yes but the prospect was debated and alot of support went to the confederacy, otherwise we wouldn't have had the Trent affair.

>Entire potential country relies on the labor of niggers and cotton
>Without nigs they are completely irrelevant
lmao

>>2885183
>His home

It belonged to Mary Washington's family, he was just living there. They actually won it back in court and got the federal government to pay a fortune for it. Must have been pretty sweet to sit on the front porch and look out at all the dumb Yankees your pappy killed.

>>2885228
Damn. I can't even be mad. I concede. Your bantz are strong.

>>2885209
Obviously there would be some measure of support for the prospect of permanently crippling the US. But as delicious as it would have been for the brits, it didn't justify the effort of helping out some retard rednecks clinging to an institution loathed by the British general public.

>>2884846
Ancient monuments were made by slaveholders too, you know. Fuck off with your "moral" posturing.

File: this triggers the southerner.jpg (908KB, 2364x3000px) Image search: [Google]

908KB, 2364x3000px

>>2883461
>They possibly could have had a chance to win if they weren't under naval blockade by the union, a blockade that kept them from receiving the imported war materiel they so desperately needed as they were not as industrially developed as the north and thus not nearly as self sufficient.
But the reason they were under naval blockade was precisely because the south couldn't match the north's agricultural output.

>General Lee
General Grant was the true genius of the Civil War. Lee was really good at fighting the last war, and the eastern theater generals were really good at giving it to him. In the West Grant was spanking confederates all up and down the Mississippi

>As to whether they could have peacefully seceded or not, I doubt it.
They couldn't. The entire reason that they wanted to secede was because Lincoln said "no new slave states" and their entire economy was based on expanding slavery to new farmlands: they would have either needed to fight, invade the Caribbean, or collapse utterly.

>but it breaks my heart to see crazy SJWs tearing down old statues of general Lee and the others.
No, fuck that. You don't get to make statues for losers, that's what you call a participation trophy: a government funded participation trophy for a culture which lionized history's most ruthless welfare queens. They were put there many years later by the same assholes who voted for Jim Crow. Those statues represent the blatant distortion of history, a deliberate, bald-faced attempt to obscure the truth. True lovers of history cheer for the removal of those statues.

>>2883837
Lee was a pretty good tactician but a poor strategist, had no real sense of how to win a war. That's why Grant and Sherman were his superiors.

>>2884120
>Benedict Arnold
>traitor

>>2884120
Only his leg

>>2883794
No. The first half of this answer is correct, the second half is dangerous and it's a shame it's so widely taught. The South did NOT want to keep slavery forever, and was well-aware that it was on its way out with technology, and they were also well-aware of the abolitionist movements in other countries in the West.

The South was concerned that if slavery were to be abolished, blacks would not integrate successfully into American society, due to actions on behalf of both blacks and whites. And if you look around American society today, I think that that reasoning was true enough.

Not defending slavery, but they certainly didn't expect to keep it that way forever. Uneducated individuals who were bred for farm and housework were released into society and were told to be happy, but they had no idea how society worked and what they were to do with their freedom, and now we have a particularly dangerous cultural divide between whites and blacks here in the US (although to be fair there would always be some sort of divide, just probably not to this magnitude).

>>2885191
Don't stop there! A statue of Lincoln putting Davis in a rear naked choke hold. A grand oil painting of an eagle plucking an eye out of Stonewall Jackson's head. A mural of Billy Yank skewering a rebel drummer boy on the end of a bayonet. A giant LED billboard playing a short video of a black union soldier dragging a white southern girl by the hair to somewhere off screen.

>>2885377
>the South did NOT want to keep slavery forever

(citation needed)

>>2885377
If they expected slavery to end they wouldn't enshrine it in their constitutions. The Confederate Constitution even explicitly forbids any of its states from outlawing slavery.

>>2885374
Ha!

>>2885377
Freedom does not rely on some test of competency. Every year that passed without complete, unconditional abolition was an unforgivable sin and a stain on our country.

>>2885424
>Every year that passed without complete, unconditional abolition was an unforgivable sin and a stain on our country.
You mean like all those years New York was a slave state? And Pennsylvania and New Jersey?

>>2885459
Yes. Seriously, what the fuck did you think I was gonna say? Furthermore, I will say without hesitation that the most racist cities of the 20th century have been the very Yankee cities of NYC, Chicago, and Boston.

>>2885339
How was he supposed to win the war then? The Lee-Davis strategy really was the best the south could do. Of course they made mistakes but so did the union.

>>2885424
>Every year that passed without complete, unconditional abolition was an unforgivable sin and a stain on our country.

Should've sided with the British then. They tried to free the slaves in the colonies.

>>2885478
>The Lee-Davis strategy really was the best the south could do.
No. No, it fucking wasn't.

>>2885322
>the north's industrial* output

>>2885485
So what was the right one?

>>2885471
I don't know, I only posted in this thread twice.

I don't know either if racism can really be assessed. I live in California, which was largely shaped by the attitude common to the west, keep the slaves out.
>For some years past I have given this subject [African-American settlement in California] my most serious and candid attention; and I most cheerfully lay before you the result of my own reflections. There is, in my opinion, but one of two consistent courses to take in reference to this class of population; either to admit them to the full and free enjoyment of all the privileges guaranteed by the Constitution to others, or exclude them from the State. If we permit them to settle in our State, under existing circumstances, we consign them, by our own institutions, and the usages of our own society, to a subordinate and degraded position, which is in itself but a species of slavery. They would be placed in a situation where they would have no efficient motives for moral or intellectual improvement, but must remain in our midst, sensible of their degradation, unhappy themselves, enemies to the institutions and the society whose usages have placed them there, and for ever fit teachers in all the schools of ignorance, vice, and idleness.
>We have certainly the right to prevent any class of population from settling in our State, that we may deem injurious to our own society. Had they been born here, and had acquired rights in consequence, I should not recommend any measures to expel. They are not now here, except a few in comparison with the numbers that would be here; and the object is to keep them out.
>1st Governor of California, Peter Burnett's First Annual Message to the Legislature, December 21, 1849

>>2883411
They hoped to get support from europe, thinking that they would try to protect their cotton.

>>2883426
>There was no legal basis for it

Yes there was. It was entirely legal under US law to secede.

File: map-slave-growth1.jpg (4MB, 1395x1967px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1395x1967px

>>2885377
> The South did NOT want to keep slavery forever, and was well-aware that it was on its way out with technology,
Yeah, because who needs facts when it's pretty obvious that facts are prejudiced against southerners

File: lynching[1].jpg (19KB, 226x240px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 226x240px

>>2885504
There was violent racist terrorism in California's history, but the targets were mostly Chinese and Mexicans. Blacks suffered their share of police harassment, but nothing compared to the mass beatings and killings suffered by the aforementioned groups.

>>2885500
Asymmetrical warfare. Saboteurs, assassinations, bombings, basically whatever it would take to make life hell for an occupying force and make bills expensive for DC.

one has to wonder by the majority of southerners allowed a practice that saw their opportunity for labor greatly maligned to exist

they lived in the most wretched poverty, no matter the class

>>2885526
>What is population density

The slave population as a percentage of the south never increased after the revolution.

>>2885559
Which is to say that the slave population increased exponentially.

>>2885541
>>>2885500 (You) #
>Asymmetrical warfare. Saboteurs, assassinations, bombings, basically whatever it would take to make life hell for an occupying force and make bills expensive for DC.

Ah, so what the Confederates attempted to do against Sherman resulting in him burning down everything in site? Yeah, doesn't sound like a winning strategy. The civil war was a way over land and giving it up to the union was a surefire way to lose.

>>2885541
>Asymmetrical warfare.
That's ridiculous. What are they going to do when the U.S Army starts freeing and arming slaves and starts getting ALL of its political goals achieved?

In the era of muzzle loading rifles, irregulars got their asses kicked by blocks of infantry.

The confederacy's absolute best chance of victory was curb-stomping the U.S. Army long enough to achieve European recognition of statehood. They lost that chance right after Antietam.

>>2885541
The first targets were the natives who in California were systematically exterminated and the killers paid by Sacramento per body. The Chinese and Mexicans were barred from settlement not outright eliminated.

>>2885565
and don't forget consolidating into the hands of a tiny aristocracy of welfare queens, who owned plantations with 10,000s of slaves which they clung too with religious fervor, instead of like in the revolution era where gentlemen farmers owned dozens, maybe hundreds of them, and frequently freed them after his death.

>>2885577
>Slavery during the era of the founding fathers was ok until the evil Confederates made it bad

Yankee revisionism is so bizarre

>>2885568
They attempted way too late

>>2885571
So don't put a bunch of irregulars in an open fucking field against a block of infantry. Slit infantry throats at night in their tents. Attempt the gunpowder treason against a different target in DC once a week. Go where there's few union soldiers and raise hell. Make them march soldiers there. Repeat. Don't win battles. Don't hold cities. DO blow up railroads and trains, behead union sympathizers, destroy union equipment, and run up union costs as much as possible. It'd probably take a few war crimes, but they could do it.

>>2885577
More than a third of southern families owned slaves in 1860. More men owned slaves in 1860 than Americans owned a single share of stock in 1929.

File: 1486797762493.jpg (52KB, 717x478px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 717x478px

>>2885600
Such dishonorable tactics would be utterly unbecoming to any true Southern gentleman

>>2885600
That shit doesn't work, once the union captured all the objectives they could just sit on them and replace the southern governments. Zeroro academic historians think a insurgency would've worked.

>>2885594
Dear God, you fucking southerners are so fucking dense.

Nobody said it was fucking ok. What I said was that the "welfare queens" you spend so much time idolizing was expanding the institution of slavery in ways that wasn't even fathomed during revolutionary times. Not a single founding father predicted that the Cotton Gin, a labor saving device, would all of a sudden make slavery insanely profitable

File: Im a good ol rebel.gif (16KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 645x773px

>>2883837
>Tfw there is a timeline where Lee wins at Chancellorsville and then adopts a Fabian strategy, UK sides with CSA, and the CSA insurgents grind down Union forces till the election leading to McClellan becoming president, peace being secured, and the CSA succeeding.
>Slavery is later abolished in the 70's/80's
>Minority blacks migrate to north
>South becomes good friends with UK and industrializes more due to cotton trade but no slaves so need machines
>North becomes good friends with Germany as CSA had Brit help
>Mfw its the CSA who are the good guys and come to the help of the Entente as the Zimmerman telegraph is addressed to Mexico and the Union who agree to split the south
>Mfw ww1 has a western western theater
>Tfw ywn see the Germans be defeated by Anglo French army who then launch a D-day style invasion (with every different type of imperial force under the sun) of the south to help the CSA against the combined US Mexico army whilst the Japs land in California and the Canadians attack from the north.
Shit man though I like the Confederates, I'm glad they lost as the world would be so fucking different without a full strength USA. Would the Entente have been even able to defeat the Germans?

File: Lincoln on freedom.jpg (67KB, 342x460px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 342x460px

>>2885600
>So don't put a bunch of irregulars in an open fucking field against a block of infantry. Slit infantry throats at night in their tents. Attempt the gunpowder treason against a different target in DC once a week. Go where there's few union soldiers and raise hell. Make them march soldiers there. Repeat. Don't win battles. Don't hold cities. DO blow up railroads and trains, behead union sympathizers, destroy union equipment, and run up union costs as much as possible. It'd probably take a few war crimes, but they could do it.
Ok, first of all, life is not like the movie, Red Dawn.

Those kind of insurgencies only last for as long as they have a foreign sugar daddy, or a bunch of really wealthy sugar daddies at home.

No European power wanted anything to do with the confederacy, mostly because they freed their slaves through compensatory emancipation around the time that the Yankees did.

Ask yourself this question: if it really was such a dying industry, then how come compensatory emancipation wasn't even an option for the south? That's where the government buys your failing business for fair market price, and you make it out of a dying industry with a nice chunk of capital to start investing in a new one. They flat out rejected it, every time, because as far as they were concerned, their destiny was a slave owning empire straddling the Caribbean. And the rest of the civilized world thought they were nuts, which is why they rebranded into vaguer talking points like "state's rights", but weren't fooling anyone except other southerners.

And once all of the overseers flee to escape the approaching Union Army, there goes your domestic sugar.

>>2885704
>>Slavery is later abolished in the 70's/80's
Such a fucking pipe dream with you southerners.

The CSA constitution made abolition effectively impossible. It would be the equivalent of trying to overturn the bill of rights: it was embedded into the very core of their government.

If the south had its way, slavery would have spread into the midwest, driving out all the free soilers violently opposing them, and south into Mexico

>>2885820
In that alt-history scenario, the CSA abolishing slavery the decade after the war is a tad ridiculous, but abolition was inevitable. I think they would've held on until the 1910s or 20s, when its continuing existence would've made it a world laughing stock a la South African apartheid in the 90s. I imagine a timeline of liberalization roughly like
>1878, anti-cruelty laws regulate treatment of slaves
>1889, a maximum age is instated past which a slave becomes free
>1897, Slave's rights instated. Slaves must be fed so much, work no more than so many hours, be provided shelter in such condition, etc.
>1903, cities and counties may ban slavery at their discretion.
>1907, slavery is no longer passed parent to child. All children henceforth are born free.
>1919, All remaining slaves freed without restriction or condition.

>>2885899
>abolition was inevitable
I disagree.

Abolition is never inevitable.

Technology makes it as easy to enslave large numbers of people as it does to free them.

You would not have seen those kind of laws until the 1950's and 60's when cameras and television would have made it virtually impossible for the south to hide the abuses any longer.

Has anyone read Killer Angels? My friend just loaned me it. Haven't read it yet.

>>2885913
Really? You don't think the turn of the century muckrakers would've put a dent in it?

>>2885663
>Tfw I can already recognize that one New England autist from every civil war thread

>>2885663
>Not a single founding father predicted that the Cotton Gin, a labor saving device, would all of a sudden make slavery insanely profitable

You realize the founding fathers were still alive during the spread of the cotton gin right?

>>2885710
Europe didn't give a fuck about slavery, they didn't help the CSA because it would've been a stupid idea.

>>2883411
>>….That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.…

slavery made them happy...

>>2886208

>Europe didn't give a fuck about slavery

Ugh.....yeah they did. That was the primary reason why they didn't support the confederacy. There were plenty of upper-class brits who wanted to help the confederacy but popular opinion against slavery prevented this. (The Russian fleet also helped)

File: 5852aa46bbc72.image.jpg (67KB, 1136x640px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1136x640px

>>2886169
Better than being the Cletus who totes out the same tired old lost cause revisionist bullshit which no legitimate historian ever saw fit to even dignify with a response. You know, until one of your kind walked into a church full of little old black ladies and got a little closer with his "heritage".

Then the historians opened entire websites dedicated to shutting you the hell up forever. It's practically a sport at this point, your arguments are so vacuous and unsourced that all you have left is memes and good old fashioned right-wing ridicule.

File: 1480388587322.jpg (508KB, 1250x700px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 1250x700px

>>2886267
lol your rantings are always a treat

>>2886220
>That was the primary reason why they didn't support the confederacy.

It was the height of European Imperialism. The French and British would've looked past the issue of slavery if it were in its interest. The Brits for instance dealt quite a bit with the arab world where slavery was still widespread. The main reason they didn't get involved was because it would've jeopardized their interests in Canada (for the british) and Mexico (for the french). They also would've made enemies with the US for the small reward of maybe gaining southern cotton if the confederates won. The cotton trade was being blockaded by the union anyways so why not just wait for the war to be over and see who wins.

File: Abraham-Lincoln-Quotes-3.jpg (84KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1024x768px

>>2886284
You know what my treat is? Your tears when they take away your government funded participation trophies. Cry some more about your statue of Robert E. Lee, a guy most famous for looking sharp in a uniform and losing, it gives me a big ole laugh every time.

Especially when I'm driving past statues of people who deserved to be immortalized.

My treat is a lot better than your treat, which is rationalizing a lost cause and pretending to be retarded on the internet.

>>2884805
>white supremacists
So literally everyone in the 19th century? You think the North thought of niggers as equals just because they outlawed slavery?

>>2886333
keeping going, i'm almost there.

>>2883461
good post

it's also relevant to add that the atmosphere of the North at the time was pretty apprehensive towards war, especially on a large scale. The South was convinced at the time that all they needed was to score a few landmark victories that'll scare the Union into backing down, and it almost worked at Bull Run, where there was serious talk about just letting the Southern states go.

But the war did push on despite the Confederate victories in the first year, Union citizens in the North however had little stomach for it, with draft riots erupting in major cities due to the poor enthusiasm for war, most notably in New York.

The South kept searching for that landmark victory that would bring the Union to the negotiating table, and getting more and more ambitious every time with Bull Run, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Antietam, and Gettysburg to try and find that one battle that'll make the Union give up. Their landmark victory never came and the South lost to attrition, which the Confederate leaders all knew would happen if they didn't find a quick end to the war.

>>2883411
>>2883482
You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it … Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.

File: Virginia-Battles-Civil.jpg (787KB, 1200x1762px) Image search: [Google]

787KB, 1200x1762px

>>2883837
>Defends Virginia at all costs

Virginia is now, and has always been, the best state in the country.

>>2886307

The idea that the slavery issue somehow did not heavily influence how people outside the US viewed the conflict as it was going on is straight-up delusional. Everybody saw it as a conflict of freedom vs. slavery. A not insignificant number of European abolitionists journeyed to American just for the opportunity to join the US army and help abolish slavery. The only exceptions were upper-class brits who saw the American civil war as an opportunity to finally get back at the US for the insurrection of 1776. But the idea of supporting the confederacy was deeply unpopular among the middle and lower classes of Britain, specifically because of the slavery issue. Despite efforts by the upper-class to rally support for the confederacy, the general public reacted with utter revulsion at the concept, and try as they might, the upper-class was unable to sway public opinion on this issue. This prevented Britain from taking advantage of the situation as much as it could have.

>>2883411
Well, if Lincoln had stuck to the constitution, then there wouldnt have been basis for war, now would there?

>>2886824

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you're allowed to chimp out and attack federal property just because your preferred candidate lost a presidential election.

>>2886816
stop being melodramatic. The British never got involved because the South never had the upper hand. They debated about mediating a peaceful separation between the two sides during the string of Confederate wins early in the war but after Antietam the prospect of a southern victory was slim.


>Everybody saw it as a conflict of freedom vs. slavery. A not insignificant number of European abolitionists journeyed to American just for the opportunity to join the US army and help abolish slavery.
>But the idea of supporting the confederacy was deeply unpopular among the middle and lower classes of Britain, specifically because of the slavery issue. Despite efforts by the upper-class to rally support for the confederacy, the general public reacted with utter revulsion at the concept, and try as they might, the upper-class was unable to sway public opinion on this issue.

Who gives a fuck about what Tommy Chimney Sweep in Manchester thought about the war.His opinions of muh freedom and liberty didn't fucking matter when the British government crushed the Indian Rebellion and incorporated it into the Empire and it didn't matter during the American Civil War. Jesus christ give your soap box a rest mate.

File: livefreeordiegranite[1].jpg (169KB, 479x640px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 479x640px

>>2886813
Get fucked.

>>2884858
dude those statues aren't even that old. And you can't compare statues to a fucking pyramids.

>>2883461
meh, its fine to take down statues as long as they're preserved in museums

>>2885322
>Those statues represent the blatant distortion of history, a deliberate, bald-faced attempt to obscure the truth. True lovers of history cheer for the removal of those statues.
A-fucking-men.

>>2884162

I don't know, the trent affair really riled up the brits for a brief time

>>2883837

>Defends his home, the reason he turned down command of the Union army, at all costs, the rest of the CSA be damned

Gee color me surprised

>>2887188
Sic semper tyrannis

>>2886824
could you explain this more, i still dont get it exactly, what did lincoln do that caused them to rebel?
I know the south was getting heavy taxes thrown at them before the war
I know people were mad about the outcome of the election
But what exactly made them despise Lincoln?

>>2883461
>They possibly could have had a chance to win if they weren't under naval blockade by the union,
True, but it seems unlikely they wouldn't have been under blockade, unless the Brits and French intervened (which was also unlikely)

>but it breaks my heart to see crazy SJWs tearing down old statues of general Lee and the others.
Ausfag here who thinks Southerns were stupid as fuck for ever rebelling, but I got to agree with you here.

>>2887347
Yes, death to the tyrants that were slave owners.

>>2883411
memes

>>2883411
My understanding was they almost did win. The war was tiresome and weariness and apathy had taken hold in much of the north.

Had Lincoln lost his reelection his replacement would have likely negotiated.

>>2887910
So basically if the south had stayed on the defensive and not invaded the north trying to impress the Europeans they might have pissed the voters off enough to vote in a pussy.

File: stonewall.png (494KB, 510x719px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 510x719px

>>2885322
.....The statues are for fallen soldiers and their families. The Robert E. Lee one was built 1884. It is not causing an uprising or anything. It has been in place for 150 years as a cultural/heritage monument

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee_Monument_(New_Orleans,_Louisiana)

And that is just one of many of the statues they are taking down..

You also forget that Robert E. Lee after war completely helped revive tension between North and South. Read up on him post war, it's amazing what he did.

>>2886839
But it does say you are allowed to chimp out and throw private property into boston harbour because you're butthurt about a comparatively tiny tax, right?

>>2887921
>.....The statues are for fallen soldiers and their families.
If that were true, then they would be statues of common confederates, not their leadership.

Those statue are for intimidating negros. They were put there as part of a deliberate campaign of terror to frighten them into submission.

>>2888285

>a comparatively tiny tax
First of all, the Boston Tea Party was a protest over a tax cut for a state-sponsored monopoly and was prompted by the government bailing them out

http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/1BB0C8F894BB490B852577020083A6F6?OpenDocument

And second of all, rebelling because you're being taxed without representation is the common reason for rebellions throughout history. Rebelling because you're a welfare queen who wants to keep their government hand outs is another thing, entirely.

>>2888312

>its not chimping out when we do it

So it wasnt even private property then, but state property?

And the colonists were just as much "welfare queens" as you accuse the south of being. The tax was a tiny fraction of shat the crown was putting into the colonies.

And no. Historically, extremely few violent revolutions have been started by a wealthy elite bitching about the price of luxury beverages.

It seems more and more like there is very little difference between the souths "chimp out" and the colonists. Hell, they were even dressing up as amerindians, literally LARPing about "muh freedumbs (to take gibsmedats and give nuffin in return"

Face it, the union was founded by your detested "welfare queens". Its your natural state of being, so why blame the south for behaving the only way they know how?

>>2887646
>what did lincoln do that caused them to rebel?
Nothing. They started seceding before he took office.

>>2887918
Even if they did stay on the defensive, they still probably would've lost, but their odds would've been much better.

>>2888312
>Those statue are for intimidating negros.
Eeeeh. They certainly added to the pathos of the Jim Crow south, and having to pass a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest would probably leave a bad taste in the mouth of black folks, but something tells me that the sculptor carefully, painstakingly shaping these statues wasn't thinking "This is really gonna scare some darkies."

>>2885704
>Slavery is later abolished in the 70's/80's

I hope you mean the 1970s/80s, since there is no way in hell the CSA was going to end it in the 1800s.

>>2888805
>but something tells me that the sculptor carefully, painstakingly shaping these statues wasn't thinking "This is really gonna scare some darkies."

It would be the people commissioning them, not necessarily the sculptor, but yes, keeping darkies in their place was and is very much a part of Lost Cause bullshit.

>>2883779

because this tiny cadre of maniacs swept up everyone and shit spiralled out of control, also the South was insane about muh states rights

>>2883837

>Outnumbered and outgunned, but played offense instead of defense
Right because having a foreign invader lot and pillage your entire country while you just hang back and chill is superb strategy
>Defends Virginia at all costs, the rest of the CSA be damned
You realize he was just the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia. Or are you too stupid to read?
>Charges the Union center at Gettysburg.
He was also putnumnered 2-1 at Chancellorsville and divided his Army and attacked...and it worked. Don't get me wrong Picketts Charge and Gettysburg in general should have been avoided. Lee made the foolish mistake of believing his men were invincible after 3 years of victories

> Lee's strategies led to heavy confederate casualties

Ima stop you right there retard go actually read several books on the civil war and tactics of the time and come back to this board when you're not spewing autism at a rate that would make a GAU-8 blush.

>>2888843
>Muh lost cause Boogeyman
>t. Foner

Creating statues to generals and politicians that served your state isn't out of the ordinary. The northern States put up tons of statues of union generals.

File: 12143252345345.jpg (164KB, 982x1024px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 982x1024px

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liberty_Place_Monument

>>2888956
The Northern states get to. We won. The losers should've buried their history in shame and spent the next few decades distancing themselves form their totally preventable failure and unforgivable evil.

>>2883411
It's really easy to look back on something and think it was a no brainer, but from the south's position they had the best drilled military and generals as well as the defacto military state Virginia, so the odds seemed much more even, and in actuality the war was quite close and a win at Gettysburg could have changed the whole course of it all, so I don't get what point you're trying to make is. There were riots in New York about the draft and all kinds of unexpected chaos late in the conflict. It really could have swung either way especially with foreign powers being as strong as they were at play.

>>2883674
They tried that in Kansas and it didn't work out so well.

>>2883461
>They possibly could have had a chance to win if they weren't under naval blockade by the union
I don't get this argument. Isn't this the same as saying "they could have won if the north hadn't shot back at them"?

>>2888970
>Hurr Durr but they didn't win

No shit. Napoleon lost as well and the first French empire crumbled, yet the Arc de Triomphe was still completed. Stop moving the goalposts. You said it was about scaring negroes when it obviously wasn't.

>>2884243
Do it again Uncle Billy!!

>>2888986
Do we really need to post >>2884243 again? He predicted what would happen and that's exactly how it went down. It's not a matter of hindsight, really. Anyone who looked at the raw numbers of what the North could field vs the South should have seen it as the folly it was.

>>2885600
That very much happened though. Bushwacking was a thing. It wasn't enough on its own.

>>2889109
I wasn't that guy. I responded to him, in fact. Fuck the French too. I was in another thread with an OP salivating over Napoleon, talking about what a bloody monster that little Corsican prick really was.

>>2885130
So no brave men were ever smart.

Going through life this smug, and this ignorant, cannot be easy.

>>2889258
>So no brave men were ever smart.
Fact.

>>2888805
>having to pass a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest would probably leave a bad taste in the mouth of black folks
Forrest may not be the best example, since he actually spoke in favor of racial conciliation later in life. Anyone who actually favors the reconciliation of the races in the South would therefore be best advised to leave Forrest's statues alone. Or at most adorn them with a new plaque which informs the reader about how a Confederate general changed his mind. This would do far more good for the country than just tearing old monuments down. Doing that is just born out of spite and grievance and will not serve racial harmony.

>>2889276
>since he actually spoke in favor of racial conciliation later in life.
So did segregationist and known rapist George Wallace. Who gives a fuck what you think AFTER you're influential?

File: The_British_Spider_Empire.jpg (118KB, 382x540px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 382x540px

>>2886816
The general public is a concept that is of no relevance until far into modern times. Lower public is irrelevant to the aristocracy unless there is lynch mobs. Its also irrelevant to the wealthy, even more so because social segregation was far heavier before the world wars.

One of the problems Britain is facing, is that as their nobles houses legal power gets diluted, so do their long term policies and guts. Populist politicians simply do not have the same long term staying power, or internal will to agree on greatness.
Nevermind that "the greatest education a man can get" doesn't include good IRL experience with the class society, so Britain is slowly experiencing a segregation horror and a strong face to deny that.

>>2884243
But was he right because of the numbers on the paper?
Or because they had fought long enough to gauge each others power?
Or because the tactics the South has employed had showed no sign of evolution, so they would lose at their current pace?
Or because they understood that France/Britain/Spain wasn't interested in a Empire expansion, when South/North was so closely tied, and it was a logistic nightmare to move a army over the sea?

>>2889291
It goes to show that even people who did some reprehensible shit are not lost causes. If you want racial harmony then you should not discourage people from changing their mind and repent, even if only in some small way. And since Forrest's old comrades gave him shit for it, apparently they saw his talk as a potential danger to their Jim Crow agenda.

>>2889310
That first one, numbers on paper. When he said that, it was 1860. It's no great surprise he was so insightful; he was a professor at a military college at the time he wrote that letter to a segregationist colleague.

>>2889327
>And since Forrest's old comrades gave him shit for it, apparently they saw his talk as a potential danger to their Jim Crow agenda.
News to me; you've given me some reading to do, anon. As a white man married to a black woman, I've got a bone to pick with modern segregationists like the NOI (a presence in our city), and feel some moral ambivalence about an important figure with a similar story, Malcolm X. He would consider me less than human, and people like my wife as unforgivable race traitors for most of his political life, except for those few years at the end. Still coming to grips with how to feel about him, so I guess I can give Forrest a look.

>>2889273
I believe it was Julius Caesar who said it best.

A coward tastes death a thousand times; a valiant man but once.

>>2889391
No, that was some obscure, little playwright in England.

>>2885517
yeah with 2/3rds, because you can at that point legally write yourself out of the constitution, but that's not what they did. They didn't use legal channels because they didn't have 2/3rds of the states or both houses, which if they did they could have legally rewritten their constitution on the back of a receit with nothing but "we want slaves n shiet"and that would have been totally legal because our Constitution is designed to almost be completely changeable in every way, you can even amend the bill of rights and take away all our rights, even that would be legal.

But one day saying "no thanks we're just gonna leave without the 2/3rds" and just leaving is not legal. They could have done it legally, but they did not.

t. bachelor's in polisci theory

File: Who.gif (448KB, 500x275px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 500x275px

>>2884243
>tfw you will never live in the timeline where Sherman became POTUS

>>2889452
I don't think there exists such a timeline, because Sherman simply did not want to be president.

>>2889452
The same thing that made him a great general would've made him a poor civilian leader. His soldiers would've followed him to the gates of hell, but most citizens aren't soldiers.

>>2888409
>So it wasnt even private property then, but state property?
Jesus Christ, I can't believe that I have to explain the concept of taxation without representation to you.

People don't like it when you take things from them without giving them anything back. People don't like it when you systematically exclude them from the decision-making process. Even well paid slaves yearn for freedom and self-agency

This would only be comparable to the lost cause of the south if the south was pushing for compensatory emancipation in the unflinching face of yankee insistence for full abolition, and only seceded after exhausting every other option, but it was the exact inverse of that: slave holders refusing to budge, refusing to surrender their dreams of building a slave owning empire that stretched west and south, and it was the Yankees trying to convince them to accept things like compensatory emancipation, and they seceded the moment that the political climate was no longer convenient for them.

>And the colonists were just as much "welfare queens
The difference is that the colonists ended the practice, while the southerners institutionalized it. Every new generation dilutes the crazy of the previous generation.

>And no. Historically, extremely few violent revolutions have been started by a wealthy elite bitching about the price of luxury beverages.
But they all start for the exact same reason: people's faith in the public government shatters when they don't believe that the state is responsive to their needs. Their attitude becomes "why should I care about a system that doesn't care about me?" and it doesn't just affect the very poorest; it affects every level of society, even the wealthy.

>why blame the south for behaving the only way they know how?
Because it was willful ignorance, a semi-conscious decision to ignore the truth.

>>2889360
>I can give Forrest a look.
Don't let the lost causers pull the wool over your eyes: Nathan Bedford Forrest's defining talent was his ability to make life hell for all the people around him. This worked fine when you needed irregulars to harass government forces, but in peace all it did was turn him into a terrorist.

He was great at it, and spent the entire civil war as a major thorn in the Union's side, and then went on to found a terrorist network that was in operation for many decades after his death, even experiencing a renaissance in the early 20th century.

>>2887263
The people who want these statues taken down aren't the type of people who would see the value is letting something they disagree with survive in any form.

>>2890768
Forrest didn't found the Klan, although he was an early member and probably took on a leading role for some time. By the end of his life he had renounced Klan policy completely, however, and disbanded his chapter.

>>2891019
>see the value is letting something they disagree with survive in any form.

>"hey guys, lets put negros in chains and steal their labor. It's totally okay though, they're not technically human"
> Those damn Yankees won't let us blatantly steal negro labor, so we'll use debt-slavery, segregation, disenfranchisement, and a campaign of terror to deprive them of their liberties

Some ideas deserve to die. It's as simple as that.

And those statues belong in a museum dedicated to Jim Crow, provided that the museum is specifically structured to teach children the insidious danger of manipulating history in order to deceive and persecute.

If not, melt them down and make dragon dildos out of them. At least dragon dildo culture isn't actively trying to fuck over a minority.

>>2893024
African Americans have the highest standard of living of any black ethnic group. That was true during Jim Crow as well. Stop crying about muh slavery already. Their ancestors being bought was the best thing to ever happen to them, especially when the descendants of those who sold them now live in West African squalor.

>>2893036
>African Americans have the highest standard of living of any black ethnic group.
And that's thanks to Yankees, not confederates.

This is sport to me. The only ones in this thread crying are the ones losing their participation trophies.

>>2883473
>no one else can comment because ome anon had a good post
Go and fuck your mother

>>2893056
They had better standard of living as slaves too. Reconstruction starved tens of thousands of slaves and put them into absolute poverty. It's funny you whine about debt slavery considering it was the Yankees that introduced that to the south as a way to make Freeman farm cotton instead of the substance farming they desired.

>>2893197
you're false flagging right? I refuse to believe somebody honestly has such a distorted, twisted, and sadistic view. What kind of cunt actually tries to argue they had it better off as slaves just because they had trouble integrating into society after being slaves for hundreds of years? That's like keeping a guy chained to your basement for 6 years and expecting him to run a marathon the day you set him free.

So please tell me you're just false flagging and not actually this much of a piece of shit. At the very least I hope you realize that the dehumanized form of communication we're currently taking part in is the only reason you're comfortable making such claims, without this anonymous veil to protect you from having your unfiltered retardation connected to your real life, you would never have the courage to say such stupid and narrow-minded thing.

>>2884961
>Fuggin Southerners are such pieces of shit we should have murdered as many as possible and made the land unlivable, they're all animals who should be driven into the sea!
>t. Coastal Liberal
2 seconds later
>Why does everyone outside of California and New York not like us?
>t. Coastal Liberal

>>2893253
The belief that reconstruction was a failure that hurt Freedman was a pretty common academic view for the one hundred years after it's end. Only recently have social justice "historians" decided to revise it into some muh freedom mythology that you obviously believe. Why don't you move to Detroit if you want to see yankeefied blacks.

>>2885600
You probably don't know this, but asymmetric warfare is really only effective in the age of modern media.

The information warfare victories that come with the current population center based insurgency models only works if the information about your actions can reach the voting population of the occupying state almost immediately.

>>2893312
It would not have been the case had the Freedman's bureau been properly funded and not prematurely cut short. But southern Democrats couldn't have that now, could they? God forbid they not be allowed to dictate unfair contracts to illiterate tenants and steal the property of ex-slaves at will.

>>2893312
yeah ok then. Reconstruction being difficult at first, mostly because of southern resistance, means that we should have never tried in the first place. Nice argument, I bet you try to make it all the time in real life...oh what's that, you wouldn't be caught dead saying such stupid shit with actual accountability because 4chan is your shitposting outlet where you spam unfiltered retardation you couldn't otherwise say because your arguments are retarded once another human being actually explains it to you in person? Yeah, I figured.

Daily reminder that southerners are the dumbest people on the internet.

File: 1465527978108-sp.gif (498KB, 255x235px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 255x235px

>>2893333
quads of truth

checked

>>2893333
>Implying I wouldn't say this in public

Why? I haven't said anything rude. Meanwhile your posts are nothing but 10% generalities and 90% silly insults. I doubt you talk that way irl. I honestly like talking to blacks about this stuff. At least when I compare the statues of Confederates to the slaves owning founders they agree with me. Meanwhile white liberals and Yankees will go through fits of rationalizations to argue "ITS DIFFERENT". Black people tend to see through the virtue signaling of Yankees.

Also, reconstruction failed because of stupid policies and the idea you could create a minority government out of corrupt locals, carpetbagging businessmen, and uneducated Freedman. It didn't work obviously. My favorite story is where abolitionists tried to set up a yankeefied plantation with "free labor" and we're upset when the freeman didn't want to work. Eventually the Freedman fed all the cotton seed to the cattle causing massive wealth loss.

>>2893450
look at this retard and laugh

>unironically saying "yankee" and expecting people to take you seriously

>>2883411
>Would secession have been successful if the Confederacy remained peaceful?

No, I don't think so. If you look at the Confederacy's structure and economy, essentially they would have become an English-speaking Brazil with bits and pieces constantly trying to escape, and a massive, angry black population.

When the boll weevil (which decimated the Southern cotton industry after the Civil War) arrives in the South, the Confederacy is doomed, even if they survive the war. It becomes Haiti-tier almost overnight, and the states not dependent on cotton would leave.

>>2893460
>Being upset by the word yankee

File: 1457927392302-tv.jpg (75KB, 468x701px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 468x701px

>>2893518
>being the kind of person that has that word in their vocabulary unironically

>>2893538
"Yankee" is used throughout the south, and not always in the derogatory. Most commonly, it's simply a statement of someone or something's origins. "My Yankee Sister-in-Law is coming down for Thanksgiving."

>>2883543
not that much, the South was burning cotton and letting it rot in order to create a shortage, in order to pressure France and Britain to support them.

France was the closer of the two to come support them, though. They almost did.

>>2883461
I'm a leaf so obviously I have no emotional attachment to Lee or any other Confederate. But that said, I agree with you on the fact that history should not be destroyed, be it good or bad.

It is also a slippery slope. Look now - students want to rename stuff named after James Madison, because he was a slave owner. The next one to go will be Houston, then Jefferson, then Washington. The history of the country is purposely being erased.

>>2893538
Do northerners really get offended by the word yankee? It's such a harmless exonym. Please tell me it's just this guy.

>>2884120
not now, but if one were already standing, I would not call for it to be taken down.

>>2893467
>boll weevil

This. I think a lot of people misunderstand what a massive impact this had on the South, and what it would have done to a "successful" Confederacy. It completely destroyed their most important product, which the economy of several states relied on. IMO, the South is lucky that they "lost" the war, because they would have been much worse off on their own.


>>2893538
Yankee is still used in the South to refer to Northeasterners, and not just the baseball team. I'm from Connecticut, but I've got family in NC, Texas, and Florida, and I've heard the word used casually in all three states.

>>2884441
Sam Houston followed along the same philosophy I believe.

>>2893577
I've never seen/heard anyone get offended by it. I guess it might piss off people from Boston though, because of the whole Yankees vs Red Sox rivalry.

>>2893450
>Black people tend to see through the virtue signaling of Yankees.
Tell that to the Clintoncrats. They're still confused as to why Trump did better with blacks than any republican since Reagan.

>>2893450
>My favorite story is where abolitionists tried to set up a yankeefied plantation with "free labor" and we're upset when the freeman didn't want to work. Eventually the Freedman fed all the cotton seed to the cattle causing massive wealth loss.
I'd never heard of this. That's hilarious.

>>2887263

Isn't that what is happening? Like, I understand people have differing opinions with Confederate stuff, isn't putting that stuff into museums and cemeteries the most logical compromise?

>>2894072
It happened during the Port Royal experiment. Forgot the name of the book though, pretty interesting read.

>>2883793
when the american republic falls and out of it the american empire births your comment will be very stupid.

>>2895087
I know this is going to eventually happen. Pretty crazy to think about.

>>2886333
what fucking sore winners northerners are, and im not even american.

File: 1398465620869.png (150KB, 1044x884px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1044x884px

>>2895102
>>2895087
Tell me more

Replace all confederate statues with Sherman statues.

Remind the Johnny Rebs who won.

>>2896918
Well, all governments have an end point and the US is no different. However I do think it might happen this century. I think the Republicans can easily rely on white voters to hand them electoral victories in the Senate, House, and Presidency. Because of geography this might not line up to a popular majority. Democrats will continue to complain of the electoral map being unfair causing a constitutional crisis. Top Democrats have already started they want the electoral college to go.

>>2897980
>Well, all governments have an end point and the US is no different.
If you're claiming that all governments are the same and go through the same progression you are woefully misinformwd
>However I do think it might happen this century.
Based on what
> I think the Republicans can easily rely on white voters to hand them electoral victories in the Senate, House, and Presidency.
Why do you lump "white voters" together as if they are all of one mind and vote 100% the same on every issue, I can tell you now a college age white voter in North Carolina is going to vote differently on most issues than an 80 year old white voter in Mississippi, who votes much differently than their father voted, and so on.
>Because of geography this might not line up to a popular majority.
If you mean gerrymandering, which is illegal
>Democrats will continue to complain of the electoral map being unfair causing a constitutional crisis.
Last I checked the South was the only region to ever do anything about "the elctoral map being unfair" and we saw how that turned out
>Top Democrats have already started they want the electoral college to go.
Any links or quotes of "top democrats" saying this and have any actions been taken to get rid of the electoral college

>>2888285

stop applying the constitution to the past. ex post facto laws faggot

File: 1455120482612.png (1MB, 1864x4327px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1864x4327px

We've all pretty much accepted the civil war was over slavery, right?

>>2898208
Of course slavery wasn't the only issue, but it was the issue. The north was more than willing to compromise on the extension of slavery (Missouri, Kansas-Nebraska), on enforcing the fugitive slave act, on protective tariffs, and even ran on a Republican platform of allowing slavery to continue in those states and territories that they already existed and wait for gradual emancipation by not allowing more slaves to be brought in or compensatory emancipation but on the slavery issue the South would not budge. As we saw in the Pierce and Buchanan administration there was an overwhelming support for the continuation of slavery and the Supreme Court in the Dredd Scott case stated in clear language that not only were blacks not citizens given protection under the constitution they were not people. Not people. They were property of their owner and for anyone aiding and abetting in helping that property escape their owner they would be thrown in jail. So many steps were taken to appease the south but nothing could be done.

>>2898041
>Why do you lump "white voters" together as if they are all of one mind and vote 100% the same on every issue

It's a generalization calm down. It's common knowledge that Republicans have been winning a ever increasing portion of white voters. Trump got a highest percentage of the white vote since the Reagan 84' landslide, yet still lost the popular vote.

>If you mean gerrymandering, which is illegal

I'm pretty sure it's not but I'd have to check. Anyways, the Republicans have a path to a majority within the Senate and electoral college regardless of national popular majority.

>Last I checked the South was the only region to ever do anything about "the elctoral map being unfair"

New England complained about it during the early 19th century and the modern left have been going on about it since November. Did you miss every slate, vox, and huffpo article calling it a retrograde institution?

>Any links or quotes of "top democrats" saying this

Eric Holder and Barbara Boxer both said it needs to be abolished.

>>2898208
>Posting bait in a civil war thread that has got to 200 replies without talking about muh states rights

kys

>>2898268
>Not people. They were property
Interesting episode from the civil war. Some slaves pressed into service were put to work as laborers near the front. They fucked off due north in short order. A Confederate officer parlayed with Union troops demanding the return of said slaves. The Union was still bound by its own laws, and the law was that escaped slaves were to be returned to their master.
"No can do," said a union higher up. He said something to the effect that the slaves were military equipment captured in the normal course of war, and their previous owners can get fucked.

File: curry_tragic_prelude.jpg (147KB, 876x512px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 876x512px

>>2883674
>why non just make the legality of slavery a choice every state have to make?
They did, but the Slaveowners refused to play fair.

>>2893342
It's funny when the digits of a post saying something that goes against /pol/ are the kind that they arbitrarily decide have value.