>CSA has Fort Pillow Massacre, Shelton Laurel Massacre, Sultana

File: 1501701381868.png (335KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 900x900px

Killing black POVs isn't "total war" tho, it's just a war crime.

>>3261552
>all those Yankee revisionist "sources"
This is a really well crafted bait

>>3261742
>yankee revisionist

my god

>>3261543
Can someone explain what international body existed in 1864 that could accuse, investigate, and punish governments for war crimes? Of course this implies that there was a list of actions to be considered as a "war crime".

File: landscape-1462471207-iwo-jima.jpg (39KB, 980x490px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 980x490px

>>3261742
You know. I've found ways to deal with the political tribalism and autistic screeching that has seemed to infect our entire political system ever since Obama became president but today I was on the web page for one of the local newstations.

There was an article about how Obama had made a tweet quoting Nelson Mandela in relation to the events in Charlottesville.

>"No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or his background or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite."

I don't even like Mandela but I can still appreciate the message and the meaning behind it, so I go down the comments to see if anyone else felt the same way I did about it.

Want to know what I found in the comment section /his/? Here is an exact quote of one of the top rated comments.

>"You know where I come from we were taught that when we claimed something someone else created or said as our own. It was called plagiarism and we would be punished and I remember hearing something about possibly going to jail as well. Shame this has been washed up bafoon still true to be in the limelight and not only that but rips off someone else's work. Shame!"

I have no words, literally none. I am ashamed for what my country has become I'm a die hard patriot I have lost limbs, friends and blood for this country. Yet many of it's citizens want a fascist/communist government or support an ideology millions of our countrymen died fighting.

We have become so lost to what it means to be American, that every person has the chance to achieve the American dream, that everyone's worth is based coupon their character not by the color of their screen or whether or not they're part of the proletariat.


I'm not here to choose or cheerlead for any side, I'm here as an American wondering how did all of this happen. When did we lose our sense of self?

The funny thing is that Sherman's March was a direct response to Hood doing the same.

Sherman wanted to meet Hood in a proper battle. Instead Hood just ran around with his army, trying to strike and disrupt Sherman's supply lines.

Sherman got frustrated and basically said "fuck this" and abandoned his supply lines, and struck at Hood'
s. They also happened to be the rest of the Confederacy's as well.

File: 1355463754684.jpg (49KB, 649x638px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 649x638px

>>3261742
>the CSA constitution
>the Articles of Secession
>revisionist sources

>>3262370
We got fat and lazy. People have been sedated and are now willing to allow tyrants to do whatever they want just so long as they get a comfy life style.
Giving up liberty for security and getting neither and all that. Hopefully we'll snap out of it before the whole thing literally collapses around us.

File: 1446869136046.jpg (67KB, 680x687px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 680x687px

>>3262370
>>"You know where I come from we were taught that when we claimed something someone else created or said as our own. It was called plagiarism and we would be punished and I remember hearing something about possibly going to jail as well. Shame this has been washed up bafoon still true to be in the limelight and not only that but rips off someone else's work. Shame!"
Enforced serfdom when?

>>3262370
Step away from the internet, anon. You're in too deep.

This isn't real life. It's not a perfect lens through which we can view the American Zeitgeist, laying down in stone what it means to be American and have American values.

It's a magnifying glass, zooming in with lightning focus on this or that one element and giving them a voice. It concentrates, amplifies. Those who do not speak are made all the quieter by those who do, since they speak ten times louder when their voice can reach millions.

Don't look at one comment on one website. Hell, don't even look at the polls or mass media. Look at a sporting event, or a big 'ol party. Look at a 4th of July Barbeque. Don't look for Americans finding a reason to hate. Look for Americans finding a reason to love.

Countries don't stand on hate. So don't bother giving the hate attention.

File: 1,864 ways of being done with your shit.jpg (1MB, 4941x989px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4941x989px

>>3261522
Can I just note that not once, in any of the art or photos I've ever seen of him, is general sherman depicted smiling?

Hell, not even looking neutral, or bored, like most of the other old photographs you find. He always has the same frustrated frown, as if he's dealt with your shit for too long already, even though you've just met him.

I can't possibly hate him. I can hate him no more than he hated the South, and he really didn't...he just wanted it over with, and he did not care, give not one flying fuck, what he had to do to get the job done.

I wonder what kind of men live now who have that level of not-give-a-fuck.

>>3263515
Sherman didn't 'hate the South', he did what he thought would work. He didn't do it out of vengeance or anything like that.
He later went on to slaughter some Injuns with Southern battalions.

File: 1501853880740.png (251KB, 602x460px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 602x460px

>>3261742

>>3261552
Whats the point? This guy clearly has an agenda, I'm not even going to finish reading this shit. Next time find someone who isn't firmly planted on one side.

>>3263661
>next time find someone who's not objectively right

No can do anonymoo

>>3261522
>less than 1,500 people combined died from those events the confederates did
>Union killed so many on the march they couldn't count it and destroyed 1.4 billion dollars worth of property
hmmmm

>>3261552
>some confederates like slavery
>therefore the war is about slavery

>>3263671
>make zero effort to actually attack unarmed people
>crops, railroads, and supplies only
>civvies who flee aren't pursued, refugees who follow are settled per Special Field Order 15
VS
>systematic abuse and execution of over a thousand helpless prisoners
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Also, they DID account it. about 3100 people were killed over the course of the campaign.

2100 of them were Union. The rest were Confederate Militia.

>>3263690
>source: your ass

>crops ... and supplies
Well gee I didn't know civilians could just eat air and didn't need crops


>enlist in army
>get caught
>get killed when you knew it was a very real risk when you signed up
I don't see an issue here

File: dafuq2.png (389KB, 574x869px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 574x869px

>>3263695
I have trouble understanding posts like this. When a man plows through your army and kills hundreds of thousands of young men in the space of a few days it's slim pickin's compared to a man leading an army through a 60-mile wide stretch of countryside, eating what they find, fighting only people who don't run away, and generally just being a considerable nuisance to the populace.

Ooooh, he took the war to the people! He's a monster! Somehow he's more monstrous than the men who led the meat-grinder battles of Antietam, Gettysburg, Shiloh, Stones River. For tearing up rail lines and eating on the run.

Never mind that General Hood had cut off his supply lines, so he actually HAD to press through to friendly lines or risk his own 60,000 men starving. But that's not an issue because they were dressed in blue.

Just like the 1500 or so men that you don't seem to mind being starved, beaten, and executed. They were dressed in blue, too. Then they surrendered. I guess that makes them subhuman, does it?

Sherman wanted one thing: to END the WAR. He wanted it with as few people killed as possible. He wanted to demonstrate to the naive bumblefucks who inhabited Georgia and South Carolina what they were actually doing to the poor sons they dressed up in grey and sent to die every day for a lost cause.

But because he did it by stealing food instead of killing men by the hundreds of thousands you call him a monster.

I just don't get you.

>>3261522
do you even understand what total war is? all the killings you listed were carried out on fair war targets, with the exception of a few minor localized incidents in which innocent civilians died. Sherman, however, was a General with a command from the President, and was responsible for ruining the lives of innumerable innocents and taking those of many others.

>>3263783
let me make it clear that I don't really find Sherman evil--his actions are generally defensible--but I hate him for what he did to my people. If the South had shown the same cruelty to the (very limited) northern territory under its control at one point or another, then they would have hurt their own cause, as Union volunteer and conscription rates were incredibly low, something like 40%, and some atrocity would just enrage the fighting-aged men who weren't already in the Union forces. It was a lost fucking cause from the start.

>>3263714
You still didn't address my points. But I'll go along with it I suppose. There is a difference between the battles you mentioned and stealing food from civilians. Soldiers in the Union enlisted by choice IIRC, and thusly knew what they were getting into and that killing other soldiers was their job. Civilians aren't like that. They're just trying to live their lives. If they wanted to fight, they'd be in the army. So the killing of soldiers is not a concern. What is, is making life hell for the common man like Sherman did. He had no regard for civilian life at all if it meant victory for him and his cause. Civilians didn't choose nor deserve the fate they got at the hands of the HellBringer himself. And you still didn't provide a source for your claims.

>>3263820
>my claims
you're fighting on multiple fronts anon. I'm just pointing out that you're giving a man shit for explicitly trying to avoid the loss of life.

It was war and he knew it. He knew it better than most, I feel. He also knew that if he kept making war in the traditional way, beating the Confederates on the battlefield while the civilians only knew war through a paper they read or a story whispered in a bar, they'd go along with it right up until it exhausted every field, barn, and meadow and they were all dying of starvation and disease.

You know, like the Japanese nearly did, because we didn't have the option of taking the war straight to their doorstep. Conventional bombing, even firebombing, doesn't break the will of a nation, and beating their armies doesn't work, especially in the antiquarian age of no war reporting, until they start to run out of troops. Which takes a good long while and *millions* of lives.

Sherman knew that the war would grind on, and on, and on, until it drained the south dry, because they believed their cause was righteous and they were defending their homes in doing so. So he hit below the belt. He broke the rules. He changed the game, because it let him do his job.

It let him win the war. And the sooner that happened, the better it was for EVERYONE.

>>3263842
You're spot on. Sherman was a great general, and all the horrible things he did sped up the end of the war, which was to everyone's benefit. But there's something incredibly disgusting about a man willing to kill innocent men, women, and children of his kindred blood like that. He was a monster, and is probably burning in Hell.

>>3263879
btw I'm not the guy you were responding to

>>3263842
>exhausted every field, barn, and meadow
You mean like he almost did throwing his troops at their lines like meat to dogs? With no sense of tactics or honor. It took them 4 YEARS to put down a country with significantly less manpower, less industry, less railroads, and still had more deaths than the Confederacy did. Fucking hell. If he really cared, he wouldn't have sacrificed his men like that or put his own troops in such a position to not have supply lines in the first place.

>>3263879
Sherman's Hell was war. He called it so, many times. At one point he begged a class of graduates at an officer's academy NEVER TO USE THE SKILLS THEY HAD LEARNED:

"I’ve been where you are now and I know just how you feel. It’s entirely natural that there should beat in the breast of every one of you a hope and desire that some day you can use the skill you have acquired here.
Suppress it!
You don’t know the horrible aspects of war. I’ve been through two wars and I know. I’ve seen cities and homes in ashes. I’ve seen thousands of men lying on the ground, their dead faces looking up at the skies. I tell you, war is Hell!"

Whatever fire and brimstone, if indeed he even believed in such things, after what he'd been through, he felt was waiting for him, it was probably still sweet release.

Look at him:
>>3263515
Look at his face. What more can you do to him that his own life hand't done already?

File: 1494567519245.jpg (85KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1280x720px

>1861+156
>people are STILL defending the Slaveholders' Rebellion

>>3263886
So let me see if I get this:

If he really cared, he'd have fought a conventional war all the way to the end? Fought until the South had no crops left to harvest, no troops left to fight with, and no land left to defend? You said yourself, they had less men, less industry, less everything except leadership and good cause to fight, and the first of those went away after a few years, and the second is openly debateable.

How long do you think the war should have gone on, then? Sherman started his march in November of 1864, just after Lincoln's re-election. The North would have been able to prosecute the war with ease for another 4 years at minimum (congress was pretty much rock solid abolitionist so the midterms were a shutout). What would another 4 years of that do to the Confederacy?

I submit to you: without this mangy devil you pile all your hate upon the Confederacy would not have realized the hopelessness of their cause so soon, and would have charged headlong into oblivion. Give him your hate, and I'm sure he would accept it; he made no illusions about his work. But without him the South as we know it would not exist.

It would have burned to the ground.

>>3263897
>current year argument

>>3263899
I'm saying the Union should've known how to fight a fucking war in the first place and used human wave like it's going out of style. And it did burn. Sherman was the one who burned it. Perhaps there was merit to all the atrocities he committed for his country. Perhaps he did end the war sooner. But there wouldn't have really been one if the Union had some form of competence in their war.

>>3263913
*not used human wave

>>3263913
>>3263916
Both sides did that, tripfag. Don't claim superiority in tactics.

And a swath of Georgia and South Carolina is a pittance compared to all 11 states. Don't lie and say you wouldn't have given it your all, you're a proud son of the South and we both know it.

You'd have gotten yourself and everyone you knew killed.

>>3263921
>both sides did that
>Union soldiers dead: 365,000
>Union soldiers wounded: 282,000
>Confederate soldiers dead: 290,000
>Confederate solders wounded: 137,000
If they did, it wasn't nearly on the scale of the Union.

>>3263929
And aren't you happy that number isn't two or three times that big?

The confederacy had a population of about 10 million people, of whom 3.5 million were slaves.

Do the math. By war's end you'd thrown nearly eight percent of your (by the CSA's definition) population into the meat grinder.

By contrast the union had a population of 18.5 million, not including slaves (Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee and Maryland, lol). Thus they had only expended about three-and-a-half percent. And again, they had the industry and agriculture (you can't eat cotton) to keep going.

It was to everyone's benefit the war ended as soon as it did. Anything accomplished in that effect, short of somehow killing as many people in the reduced timespan as would have been killed in normal war operations had the war continued, is horrors indeed.

But it will never be the greater evil than carrying the war on to the Confederacy's extinction. And I hope you can agree with me on that, at least.

>>3263965
>moving the goalposts

>>3263968
Read my posts. I've been trying to prove one point, and one point only, the entire time.

That it was good that the war ended so soon.

Tactics, casualty count, any nit you want to pick, take it. But that's all I care about.

>>3263973
Read >>3263913 again. If you're going to claim moral superiority and say that Sherman's Terror was necessary for a quick end to the war and thus saving lives, then they shouldn't have human waved the fuck of the South the way they did.

>thinking that K-D ratios matter
>caring about "honor" in warfare

Jesus Christ, the autism.

>>3263994
If anything, those human waves and their lack of effectiveness (re: disparate casualty numbers, thank you for posting those) only proved Sherman's point. He knew that the only way he'd win against a determined enemy with a homeground advantage in conventional war was to grind them down into nothing. He COULD, and any other general in his position (such as, say, Grant) WOULD: the North had the men, the guns, and the will to do it.

But Sherman wanted to avoid that.

If you want to be an idealist and say there should have been no dead at all, well, I'm not going to be an idiot and say the south shouldn't have seceded; secession was inevitable given the political and cultural conflicts prior to it. But as the devil said: War is cruelty. There is no refining it.

In his mind, once he knew the nature of the enemy, there was only one way to stop them from being destroyed.

Hate him all you like, it doesn't make him wrong.

I would also like to point out that once he DID win he immediately stopped the Terror, as you call it. In the surrender of Joseph Johnston's army he proposed peace terms so lenient his bosses in Washington rejected them.

>>3264024
But they do though. If you have to spam troops at your enemies and burn all their shit to win, then congrats on being a shit general.

>people are actually responding to a retarded baiting attention whore tripfag instead of filtering him
this is what kills boards
stop being retarded you faggots

>>3264028
>you're a shit general if you want to avoid the pointless loss of hundreds of thousands of lives
>you're a shit general if the other option is to pillage crops and fuck up railroads for several hundred miles
>you're a shit general if you give the enemy one bad winter in exchange for not robbing them of a generation of good men

being a shit general doesn't sound so bad

>>3264034
Alright, fine, I'll stop.

I just like defending WTS. He's the ultimate anti-villain of American history.

>>3264034
I'm not baiting. I'm DEbating. Very different.
>>3264027
Still hate the initial tactics, but at least it didn't drag on for longer, I suppose. I'll have to give him that.

>>3264039
filtered :)

>>3264039
>Still hate the initial tactics
So did he.

>>3264036
You're ignoring my point. He could have done all that by just being better at strategy and not spammed the first 3 years.

>>3264042
Hindsight's 20/20 ain't it.

>>3264048
Being good isn't.

>>3263661
There's literally nothing wrong with being firmly planted on one side in regards to a historical truth or falsehood.

File: 1502587195639.jpg (88KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1280x720px

>>3262370
>Judging humanity off of youtube comments

>>3261522
>what are the immortal 600

>>3264028
>you are a shit general if you leverage your advantages.

File: 562.jpg (36KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x600px

>>3261742

>>3262379
Why would Sherman expect Hood to meet for a pitched battle? Sherman's army vastly outnumbered his. Also Hood wasn't even in Georgia when Sherman started his march to the sea.

>naming a bunch of small random acts of violence during a civil war as comparable to an entire army's campaign strategy.

The only two things in that list that you can hold the CSA high command responsible for are Andersonville and Fort Pillow. Both were exaggerated by the northern press. Fort Pillow "massacre" happened during a fucking battle, so getting shot down isn't a massacre. Fort Pillow never surrendered to Confederate forces so some poorly trained freedman dropping his rifle and running when the enemy breaks through your fortification doesn't qualify as a POW. Neutral european observers said it wasn't war crimes and even Sherman agreed when he investigated it. Andersonville on the otherhand was typical of civil war prisons and the death rate among CSA prisons were on par with Union prisons, another exaggerated "war crime".

Meanwhile Sherman's March to the Sea was seen as over the line because there was little if any organized enemy resistance in the state. Virginia saw more devastation but it was understandable as it was a active war front that saw a lot of action. In addition, the march had little effect on the union war effort and Sherman's men could have been better used elsewhere. Lastly Sherman's own conduct was pretty distasteful. For a guy who championed the "natural consequences" of war he constantly complained about his men being killed by southern locals when pillaging towns and kept lying about his culpability in the destruction by blaming Hampton and other confederates for starting the fires (he later admitted to this). All in all his conduct during this time was more on the level of a bushwhacker than a high ranking union general and I haven't even touched the mass starvation and death among slaves that his march caused.

>>3264342
>"leverages advantages"
>gets nowhere and has to burn all our shit to win

>>3261522
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Douglas_(Chicago)

>>3262370
You're a good person anon.

>>3261522
What are the best Total War mods?

File: 1503101674848.jpg (32KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x360px

>>3261522
>Mods delete pro Maintenance of Confederacy statues thread
>Mods let b8 like this stay up
Wew

>>3265001
>All the starving slaves
>Thinking the Union Gave a shit about slaves
Lmao, they didn't even care enough about feeding poor Irishmen and keeping women and children from being maimed/burned alive in the work place. Why would they care about slaves?

>>3261522
>Dixiecucks still kvetching about Sherman's march on Georgia.
literally nobody ever posts about Sherman besides Yankees. Why is Civil War "discussion" on this board so awful?

>>3268282
It usually just degenerates into
>Was the war over slavery
Where yankees b8 post by over simplifying the war(it was ONLY slavery)/ accusing dixiefags of denying that slavery played any role, and where dixiefags screech in response. Then again maybe there are Yankees dumb enough to think that a civil war that took 600,000 lives was only due to one reason lel

>>3261522
>Andersonville Prison
I could be wrong, but didn't the guy running Andersonville at least tried to prevent it from becoming the humanitarian crisis that it became, but his superiors refused all of his requests?

>>3262289
>Of course this implies that there was a list of actions to be considered as a "war crime"
Happened 4 years later with the Treaty of Saint Petersburg, so everyone gets away with it

>>3268282
Most discussion of anything on this board is shit, the Civil War isn't uniquely shitty

>>3268274
The mods are leftists, there's IRC logs to prove it. They have /pol/ as the designated shitting board (meaning: total crap posting, bait, cuck porn and garbage stays on /pol/, no mod bothers to clean it up in order to maintain quality), while deleting anything race or politics related from other boards, even completely serious discussion.

>>3268274
One is about a current event this is about strategies and goals in a war centuries ago.

>>3269366

faggot

>>3265399
>knows the enemy can't replace their losses very well.
>does what he can to make the losses even harder to replace, making the enemies war even harder to fight
>not a sound or good decision

Wow, my almonds are really activated

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-20 at 2.04.03 PM.png (67KB, 1091x161px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1091x161px

>>3263661

>>3263671
>confederates invading Union territory two times enslave thousands of free blacks they find because they think of blacks as nothing but slaves
hmmmm

>>3269408
>while deleting anything race or politics related from other boards
Those don't belong on /his/, nevermind /tv/, /k/, /o/, or anywhere but /pol/.

>>3263792
they did. they enslaved blacks in occupied union territory. it doesn't get anymore horrendous than that.

>>3263879
>his kindred blood
yes because only kindred blood are real human beings!

>>3270113
>confederates invading Union territory two times enslave thousands of free blacks they

do you actually have a source for that?

>>3263929
>fight on the defensive
>wrack up more kills from union soldiers charging your lines

I hate Sherman. He was far too merciful on the south. I haven't read even a single account of a rebel head on a pike during The March, to say nothing of drawing and quartering, use of the gibbet, or any number of just punishments that the traitors had earned for themselves. Nothing but a softie.

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-20 at 4.16.12 PM.png (104KB, 464x342px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 464x342px

>>3270129
lmao

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-20 at 4.16.59 PM.png (128KB, 475x557px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 475x557px

>>3270594

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-20 at 4.17.10 PM.png (165KB, 421x646px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 421x646px

>>3270596

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-20 at 4.17.24 PM.png (165KB, 414x637px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 414x637px

>>3270598

>>3263661
>next time find a white supremacist blogger who spreads lies that make me feel in the right

ftfy, now fuck off you /pol/ack tourist. We don't want your ignorance on /his/.

File: 6023501+_33d6a520bb383d9c905c38a08ce386e6.png (23KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 200x200px

>>3270609
>We don't competing opinions on /his/
>If you disagree with me on history (the greatest and most precise field, second only to mathematics)
>YOU ARE LYING
The absolute state of this anon's mind
History is political kiddo, get over it

>>3270594
>Black soldiers and officers

You realize that Lee and the Confederacy once considered getting slaves to enlist in exchange for freedom, right?

Or are you just that retarded?

File: db0.png (77KB, 200x186px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 200x186px

>>3269512
>Posting about the preservation of monuments on /his/ , the history board
>Bannable Offence

>>3270751
that anon didn't say any of those things. The person he was responding to, on the other hand, was clearly upset that the facts he was reading were contrary to his worldview, so he took the path of least resistance in his mind and accused it of being "one-sided" despite all the evidence coming freely from the mouth of Confederates themselves.

>History is political kiddo, get over it
so this is your excuse? that history can be influenced by politics and so therefore everyone's opinion is valid?

File: 1503092818751.jpg (96KB, 523x929px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 523x929px

>>3261522
>The Civil was about Succession
>Succession was about State's rights to own slaves and obeying laws regarding fugitive slaves
>Therefore the civil War was about State's rights to have slave and enforce laws about slavery.

>>3270764
>that anon didn't say any of those things
He said that if you disagree with anything in
>>3261552
Then you're a Nazi list who needs to go back to /pol/. Lmao.
>You mean you have to accept other people's opinions and can't just dismiss them because you don't like them
Yes. You can't seriously claim that being anti-dialogical towards dialectic you don't like makes you intellectually superior. That's ridiculous.

File: Screen Shot 2017-08-20 at 5.04.55 PM.png (118KB, 464x443px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 464x443px

>>3270755
>Or are you just that retarded?
someone's butthurt. you're also outright ignoring the fact that i posted SOURCES that show that confederates enslaved or just plain slaughtered free blacks. It doesn't matter if it was from the invasion or not (pic related shows they did that too), but the fact that free blacks were treated less than human and so cruelly because that was inherent in the Southern worldview.

>You realize that Lee and the Confederacy once considered getting slaves to enlist in exchange for freedom, right?
"once" is a good way to put it. The union, meanwhile, consistently allowed blacks to serve in way higher numbers than the confederates, especially in the navy, but also in the army in the later part of the war. In other words, one was used in a last ditch attempt to even the odds against against the Union in hopes of winning the war, while the Union's allowing black soldiers was a symbol of their higher tolerance for blacks and not because circumstances forced their hand (though this certainly played a part in the later war)

File: 1502249151173m.jpg (122KB, 654x1024px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 654x1024px

>>3270781
*Secession not succession
Also,
>The only issue of states rights which the Confederacy fought for was slavery

It was a war over federalism vs states rights, slavery being one of the most prominent hot button issues of the time. Their idealogicsl differences were much more complicated than that which I will outline by quoting the "Cornerstone speech" made in 1861 slightly before the outbreak of war

>Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power, claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one; it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or to all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country, according to population and means. We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost of not less than $25,000,000.

>>3270797
>All this was done to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and the equipment of our roads was borne by those who had entered into the enterprise. Nay, more not only the cost of the iron no small item in the aggregate cost was borne in the same way, but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere? The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality, to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it. If Charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston bear the burden. If the mouth of the Savannah river has to be cleared out, let the sea-going navigation which is benefited by it, bear the burden. So with the mouths of the Alabama and Mississippi river. Just as the products of the interior, our cotton, wheat, corn, and other articles, have to bear the necessary rates of freight over our railroads to reach the seas. This is again the broad principle of perfect equality and justice, and it is especially set forth and established in our new constitution.

>>3270784
>He said that if you disagree with anything in
I think you forgot to finish your sentence. But anyway the anon responding to the picture DIDNT state why he disagreed with the picture. He dismissed it on the grounds that "he is clearly favoring one side but I can't put my finger on why he's wrong!!!", which is another way of saying that he doesn't have evidence for why he's wrong but his worldview (i.e. his ideology) tells him that anything that runs against emotional intuition is wrong.

>>3270803
Good points, though you said it yourself; slavery was one of, if not the most, contentious issues of states' rights that the South and the federal government clashed on. Too many amateur and revisionist historians try to separate the two and thus justify a 'War of Northern Aggression'.

>>3270797
Woops, forgot about the complaints of tariffs

>Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new.

The speech also goes on about the preservation of the magna carta in the New Constitution and generally tries to uphold a Jeffersonian ideal of democracy.

>>3270789
>Black soldiers in the north had been emancipated maybe 10 or 20 years prior
>South enslaves them again for taking up arms against the South
Seems pretty logical t b h
>The North was a BASTION of progressive idealogies
Lmao please don't tell me you believe this even slightly.

>>3270797
Damn you expect me to read all of that?
Yes I'm aware there were other reasons but slavery was a pivotal issue in America. The south felt intimidated by the north because the were overtaxing them and their push for abolition which were a threat to their agricultural economy. The secceded because they believed it was their constitutional right to do so and also the slavery issue. Most of the secession addresss were mostly talking about Slavery regarding the fact that the northern states were not following us the fugitive laws. Slavery may have not been the thing that triggered the Southeners to get their weapons and fight, it did play a role in slavery so many are not wrong when they say the war was about slavery.

File: 1502248985637.png (45KB, 589x743px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 589x743px

>>3270825
It was a war if northern Agression, it a war of states right vs federalism where the federal government wanted to the force the hand of the South to free slaves, accept the North's economic policies for the South, making the South pay for projects in the North, etc.

It wasn't just slavery that started the war, slavery was only one factor among many that doesn't really capture the overall conflict of sectional tensions between the North and South that had existed since the revolution.

This was the final war between the legacy of the Jeffersonians in the South and the Federalists in the North. While many Yanks tend to cherrypick the anti-racial egalitarianism of the South, they also tend to ignore what forms of positive liberty and egalitarianism the South promoted for that reason alone.

This is despite the North not even believing in total racial egalitarianism either, they simply disapproved of slavery. The North should've allowed the South to secede peacefully. I'll post the next part of the speech in a sec

>>3270845
>As to whether we shall have war with our late confederates, or whether all matters of differences between us shall be amicably settled, I can only say that the prospect for a peaceful adjustment is better, so far as I am informed, than it has been. The prospect of war is, at least, not so threatening as it has been. The idea of coercion, shadowed forth in President Lincoln’s inaugural, seems not to be followed up thus far so vigorously as was expected. Fort Sumter, it is believed, will soon be evacuated. What course will be pursued toward Fort Pickens, and the other forts on the gulf, is not so well understood. It is to be greatly desired that all of them should be surrendered.

> Our object is peace, not only with the North, but with the world.

>All matters relating to the public property, public liabilities of the Union when we were members of it, we are ready and willing to adjust and settle upon the principles of right, equity, and good faith. War can be of no more benefit to the North than to us. Whether the intention of evacuating Fort Sumter is to be received as an evidence of a desire for a peaceful solution of our difficulties with the United States, or the result of necessity, I will not undertake to say. I would feign hope the former. Rumors are afloat, however, that it is the result of necessity. All I can say to you, therefore, on that point is, keep your armor bright and your powder dry.

The South had absolutely no intention of war, none. Yet in the mainstream people blame the state of South Carolina for firing on Ft Sumter after many warning were given to the federal.government that re-arming and sending reinforcement to the Fort would be seen as an act of war. Why wouldn't they? Would it not be seen as suspicious sending massive amounts of troops to the border of a country you are having deeply seeded political tensions with?

To be Frank, the Northern Industrialists were the aggressors of the war.

>>3270832
>>Black soldiers in the north had been emancipated maybe 10 or 20 years prior
for all we know these men might well have been born in the north and descendants of northern slaves. you have no proof that they were former slaves. Even if they were, i doubt it would have been possible to identify their former masters, if they were still alive, as these people had former identities.
>South enslaves them again for taking up arms against the South
and, again, that just shows the nature of the Confederate's cause. Instead of treating these men as soldiers, instead of making some spurious "white" or "black" soldiers, the confederates chose to discriminate black soldiers based on their skin color, and treated them as subhumans without rights, unashamedly enslaving them. White Union soldiers didn't receive that treatment at all, which should tell you something. Nor do I have any recollection of any black confederate troops being enslaved or shot summarily.
>The North was a BASTION of progressive idealogies
fucking strawman. I never said this in the least. I said the Norther TOLERATED blacks more. Plenty of people hated them or thought they were an inferior race, but the Northerners never denied political and economic freedom as the Confederates did to black slaves.

>>3270877
new identities*

>>3270870
>South Carolina for firing on Ft Sumter after many warning were given to the federal.government that re-arming and sending reinforcement to the Fort would be seen as an act of war.
>declare that they'll fire unilaterally according to selfserving reasons
>denies the federal government access to its property
Confederates broke NAP

>Why wouldn't they? Would it not be seen as suspicious sending massive amounts of troops
they tried to RESUPPLY the fort, they didn't reinforce it, because even fucking Lincoln recognized that sending troops was an unnecessary aggravation of the situation. Lincoln always intended never to attack first, and the Southerners made an unforced error by attacking Fort Sumpter because aggressive camps on their side prevailed over the moderate factions.

>The South had absolutely no intention of war, none.
>meanwhile, seize all federal government forts, supplies, munitions factories on your territory and equip your armies with the looted stuff.

File: 1492193741196.jpg (42KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 300x300px

>>3268274
>Mfw I approved of Sherman wrecking the south yet also agree that the south should keep their cuckshed tier loser statues

>>3270930
>North forces South to pay for programs in the North
>North forces tariffs on the South to impede industry
First of all, the Confederacy was not Anarco Capitalism, second of all the federal government had long broken the NAP well before firing on Ft Sumter if we are to view the war through the kense of Anarcho Capitalism. I mean, it's the federal government, the existence of that in itself is a breaking of the NAP according to that political philisophy.

The North was the Federalist side, the South was Pro-States rights. The federal government decided to re-arm the forts because they probably wanted to invade the South and simply crush the rebellion. So the South fired and declared war.

>>3270930
>they tried to RESUPPLY the fort, they didn't reinforce it,
was , in every sense, the War of Northern Agression.

>They tried to resupply With ammo only
>He secretly relocated companies E and H (127 men, 13 of them musicians) of the 1st U.S. Artillery to Fort Sumter on his own initiative, without orders from his superiors.[5][6][7][8][9] He thought that providing a stronger defense would delay an attack by South Carolina militia. The fort was not yet complete at the time and fewer than half of the cannons that should have been available were in place, due to military downsizing by President James Buchanan.
Later
>After realizing that Anderson's command would run out of food by April 15, 1861, President Lincoln ordered a fleet of ships, under the command of Gustavus V. Fox, to attempt entry into Charleston Harbor and supply Fort Sumter. The ships assigned were the steam sloop-of-war USS Pawnee, steam sloop-of-war USS Powhatan, transporting motorized launches and about 300 sailors (secretly removed from the Charleston fleet to join in the forced reinforcement of Fort Pickens, Pensacola, FL), armed screw steamer USS Pocahontas, Revenue Cutter USRC Harriet Lane, steamer Baltic transporting about 200 troops, composed of companies C and D of the 2nd U.S. Artillery, and three hired tugboats with added protection against small arms fire to be used to tow troop and supply barges directly to Fort Sumter.[13][14] By April 6, 1861, the first ships began to set sail for their rendezvous off the Charleston Bar. The first to arrive was Harriet Lane, the evening of April 11, 1861.[15]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter

>>3271051
>south neglects northern industrial interests because it wants cheap equipment from other industrial nations instead of supporting National industry independent of foreign economic forces.
>south wants to keep british and others in its good graces so that european countries don't put an import tax on its cotton products
Free trade is just as much a political and sectional tool as protectionism is. Stop acting like "free trade is infallible and solves all problems!". Free trade came at the expense of northern interests, and Southerners were unwilling to compromise with the North on its economic agenda so long as it controlled the Federal Government, which the South did almost the entire Early Republic. But its grip was threatened by the formation of a unified Northern bloc, the Southerners turned bitter and IMMEDIATELY turned to secession. What patriots!

>First of all, the Confederacy was not Anarco Capitalism
I was being ironic. You are correct

>The federal government decided to re-arm the forts because they probably wanted to invade the South and simply crush the rebellion
speculation on your part. I don't doubt that the Union wanted the Southern states back in, but it's not clear that the will was there to take it back by force without the Southern blundering their way into war by Fort Sumter. Let's face it, Lincoln outplayed them and the South lost its moral highground in the Northern public's eyes by attacking the fort. War is as much about Optics and PR and Lincoln knew this from the get-go.

>>3263280
Good post brother.

>>3269814
He could have fucking done that by being good at strategy instead of throwing his own soldiers onto their bayonets

>>3271092
This

>>3264028
>if you use your advantages and win it's bad
t. Cletus

>>3270594
>>3270596
>>3270598
>>3270600

None of that has to do with your assertion that the confederates invaded union territory and enslaved "thousands" of free blacks.

>>3271457
>wasting tons of lives is using your advantages
t. Immoralist

>>3264866
>Why would Sherman expect Hood to meet for a pitched battle?
Because is he didn't Sherman could just go around wrecking things up.

>>3271558
see
>>3270789
my memory failed me and it was more in the hundreds, if that. it's also still fact that the confederates enslaved or lynched black union soldiers. I think quibbling over "where" it happened is really not the point, though I my initial statement was wrong.

>>3272023
confederates were on the defensive and entrenched in the later war, so it's not surprising that more union soldiers died storming battlements

File: Income_inequality_-_share_of_income_earned_by_top_1%_1975_to_2015.png (75KB, 400x352px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 400x352px

>>3262370
>Yet many of it's citizens want a fascist/communist government or support an ideology millions of our countrymen died fighting.
That's because the upper echelons of our society are squandering the trust that was built up with the lower levels and systematically deflecting anger towards brown skinned people.

People are feeling real economic pain, and they're lashing out as time goes on and nothing gets done.

File: 50 stars uuuu.jpg (75KB, 392x372px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 392x372px

>>3263280
Extremely good post, rekindled my faith in America

>>3263879
>he ultimately saved lives
>hes burning in hell for that
Are dixiecucks this myopic?

>>3262370
>Shame!
>Sad!
>Terrible!
It's distressing that one-word utterances of disapproval have become so commonplace in American political discourse. Maybe this annoys me more than other people, but it just seems to blatantly symptomatic of what's wrong with it on a broader level.

>When did we lose our sense of self?
I get the feeling that American identity was predicated on a particular historical context in which we actually did excel. First using slavery as an economic engine, then transitioning into industrialization, then using our developing industrial / economic power to assert ourselves as a dominant global power during the World War II.

American identity isn't some autonomous thing that flourishes in and of itself. What pride is there in being an American these days? Our political system and discourse are dysfunctional that they're producing monthly incidents of domestic terrorism, which we refuse to call terrorism, we're effectively a corporate oligarchy masquerading as a democracy (which we undermine abroad, and even then, we're a republic), and we've been blundering around foreign countries for decades.

>>3272072
Ehh, I think you're reaching there. I know it's a common talking point on the left side of the aisle that anti-immigrant sentiment or tribalism is brought on by economic fears, and the 'other' group represents an easy scapegoat, but I think there's much more to it than that. What we saw in November was less of an economic reaction by blue-collar America, but rather a means of identitarian affirmation. The rapid demographic shift in the U.S. assaults the cultural identity of White America. I forgot where I saw this study, but I assure you I'm not tlalking out of my ass, that said that the salient reason why Americans voted for Trump was not out of economic pressure, but rather out of fear of cultural displacement. Similarly, Romney won a similar amount of votes in Rust Belt States; Trump's share was larger due only to people's unwillingness to vote for Clinton.

>>3272116
>slavery as an economic engine
Except that slavery was a detriment to the U.S. economy. Using farm equipment that cut down on overhead, as well as adding huge numbers of individuals to the country who could now participate in the economy, was a tremendous boon.

>>3271151
>Free trade came at the expense of northern interests
>Having the ability to pay for and work with your immediate community, city, and state before national interests came at the expense of the North so fuck you
Typical Yankee, again this goes back to the Jeffersonian ideal of state sovereignty before the federal interests.
>Using massive amounts of immigration and abusing the federal government to displace southern power in Congress is fine because it's better for the North
Typical Yankee
>Free trade solves all problem
Never said that, did I? You also seem to be selectively focusing on free trade vs protectionism and not the blatant abuse of the federal government.
>Jeffersonians dominated the early republic

LMAO

File: Incarceration-by-net-worth-decile-1.png (120KB, 786x593px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 786x593px

>>3272072
>Brown skinned people
>Dude race is just skin color lmao
I fucking hate American schools so much. People of different ethnic backgrounds have different core behavioral traits because human behavior is partially biologically determined and totally unchangeable. Saying that ethnic tensions are due solely to "Republican propoganda" is ridiculous, diversity just causes innate conflict between different ethnic and cultural backgrounds. That doesn't mean
>If you aren't of my ethnic background or culture I have to hate you
It just means that there is an in group preference amongst people which causes issues. It's not a slight difference either they are very major differences that are mostly irreconcilable unless there is a constant and common economic unifier where people no longer need to care about or notice these differences.

>>3272201
>Having the ability...
Missing the trees for the forest, the forest being the economic and social system that was slavery binding together the south

>Typical Yankee
ad hominem

>this goes back to the Jeffersonian ideal of state sovereignty before the federal interests.
Jefferson doesn't have a monopoly on the interpretation of what America should be. He was a unrealistic thinker whose vision is so powerful because it provides a set of ideas and rhetoric for justifying the defense of entrenched economic and social interests, like slavery. Not surprising as Jefferson was a slaveholding Southerner himself.
>Using massive amounts of immigration and abusing
I don't understand what you're arguing here
>Typical Yankee
ad hom butthurt
>Never said that, did I?
You were implying that all southerners wanted was free trade and yankees were going to use government to suppress them.
>not the blatant abuse of the federal government.
The blatant use of power to keep trade artificially free? So we become another agriculture-dependent shithole like Argentina did, enslaved to the eternal anglo's industrial products and coercion

>Jeffersonians dominated the early republic
are you stating this as fact or as a counterfactual?

>>3272225
>dude race is real lmao
/pol/ is an awful alternative to school desu
>People of different ethnic backgrounds have different core behavioral traits
[citation needed]
>partially biologically determined and totally unchangeable.
not due to race but being human
>Saying that ethnic tensions are due solely to "Republican propoganda" is ridiculous, diversity just causes innate conflict between different ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
sure. it also has worked though despite those conflicts

>>3272140
economic decline IS cultural decline. People are products of their environment. The less money in people's pockets, the less that they have to support local arts and small businesses, the more that aggregate demand lags and the more people sense that they don't have control over their destinies.

They bought the trickle-down kool aid and they're mad that the trickle-down is focused in the areas of high economic activity and hammering the rural areas. So people turn around and blame the people who are even bigger victims of the system than they are.

>>3272225
>I fucking hate American schools so much.
Me too, they don't do a good enough job of getting forest ape culture to shut the hell up with its trash pseudoscience
>People of different ethnic backgrounds have different core behavioral traits because human behavior is partially biologically determined and totally unchangeable.
http://www.livinganthropologically.com/2012/02/18/race-is-a-social-construction/
All your graph proves is that police systematically target blacks, even the wealthy affluent ones can't escape the excesses of mass incarceration.

>>3272262
>Biological determinism doesn't exist
[citation needed]

Also way to ignore my graph ya dufus. I gave you evidence, now go and look at it again and explain to me why poverty isn't the main factor of differences in criminality between different ethnic groups?

>>3272271
>economic decline is cultural decline
If you can point to the relationship between economic well-being and the existential fear of replacement, go ahead. I'm not arguing that one's material circumstances impacts their culture, nor would I ever. This white reaction to the current circumstances is present in upper-class areas as well, (not just the one percent, white americans in the 150k-250k bracket voted more for Trump.) You're not wrong that the current economic order is leaving blue-collar America in the dust, but that seems to matter less than cultural unity and a sense of belonging to one's nation.

>>3272345
>This white reaction to the current circumstances is present in upper-class areas as well, (not just the one percent, white americans in the 150k-250k bracket voted more for Trump.) You're not wrong that the current economic order is leaving blue-collar America in the dust, but that seems to matter less than cultural unity and a sense of belonging to one's nation.
But even the 150k-250k bracket is hurting economically. They too are seeing costs continuing to rise while wages remain stagnant, demand remains anemic (which hits the entrepreneur class particularly hard)

Everyone is hurting except for a tiny fraction of a percent at the top. It just so happens that the blue-collar workers are the ones shouldering the lion's share of the burden and misery so they're the ones getting all the press.

>>3272247
>was slavery binding together the south
Aaaaaand you're back to
>Muh slavery
Okay. Are you just going to ignore everything else we said just so you can fall back on bullshit I've already prove to be false? The
War
Was not
Over
Just
Slavery
>Jefferson was stupid
Butthurt Yankee ad hom
>Muh slavery again
Yankee is in full cognitive dissonance mode as he somehow straw mans slavery being the prime motive of both Jeffersonians AND Confederates now. Okay. Whatever you say buddy, jeez.
>I don't understand what you're implying here
>Doesn't know why we made the 3/5ths agreement in the first place
It was literally because the South had a much smaller population and thus voting power than the North but we're separated by so much land and culture that giving the North so much power over the economic interests of a land it wasn't familiar with was a moronic play.

The North started importing massive amounts of immigrants to offset this balance, then began using the federal government to disrupt a geopolitical balancer that kept the nation together.
>Do you want to be a mostly agrarian based economy
Frankly yes , intense amounts of industrialization is cancer
>So we become another agriculture-dependent shithole like Argentina did, enslaved to the eternal anglo's industrial products and coercion
>If we just BECOME the eternal Anglo then at least we are oppressive towards ourselves
>Are you saying it's counter factual
Somewhat yes, although I talked about this above.

>>3272344
>Also way to ignore my graph ya dufus. I gave you evidence, now go and look at it again and explain to me why poverty isn't the main factor of differences in criminality between different ethnic groups?
A combination of a huge number of highly subjective laws on the books combined with Institutionalized racism in law enforcement which allows crooked cops and judges to throw black and brown kids in jail for the same things that would get a white person a slap on the wrist.

Body cameras are proving how fucking easy it is for cops to goad people into resisting them and then arresting them for resisting them. They're professionals when it comes to passively manipulating people into incriminating themselves.

>>3272271
>Race is a social construct
Oh fuck of lmao. You want to know what that actually.meams?
>Racial categorization isn't 100% perfect therefore biological determininism DOESNT EXIST REEEEEEE
If race doesn't exist, why can't you have transracial bone marrow and organ transplants?

If race doesn't exist, then why doesn't poverty correlate more to crime than race?

>>3272382
>Institutional racism
Oh yeah all those racist black cops patrolling black neighborhood and arresting black people going before black judges and black jurors.

Christ kid, lmao. There is no institutional racism that causes a TEN FOLD increase of criminality in the 9th wealth decile. Maybe you should just accept that anti-social personality traits are genetic?

File: one of these cities is significantly more segregated than the other two.png (121KB, 1050x550px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1050x550px

>>3272386
>>Racial categorization isn't 100% perfect therefore biological determininism DOESNT EXIST REEEEEEE
more like
>"look, biological determinism exists because of all these cosmetic differences REEEE STOP OPPRESSING ME WITH FACTS LIBERAL KEK!"

>If race doesn't exist, why can't you have transracial bone marrow and organ transplants?
WRONG
http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,1607,7-127-29843-152055--F,00.html
https://organdonor.gov/about-dot/grants/programs/minorities.html
>If race doesn't exist, then why doesn't poverty correlate more to crime than race?
because poverty is a complex issue with many contextually sensitive factors at play. And the only reason crime correlates with race to the extent that it does is because when you segregate an entire ethnic minority in shitty ghettos with shitty infrastructure and shitty opportunities for success, you get shitty people.

>black cops patrolling black neighborhood
see the graph?
>Christ kid, lmao.
I remember when I was a college sophomore who thought he knew everything and thought that ridicule is an acceptable substitute for a well sourced argument

>Maybe you should just accept that anti-social personality traits are genetic?
Maybe you should just look in a mirror for someone with anti-social personality traits?

>>3272225
>People of different ethnic backgrounds have different core behavioral traits because human behavior is partially biologically determined and totally unchangeable
lol no
It's entirely culture

An ethnic Chinese who grows up western under western parents acts totally western.

>>3272408
>Cosmetic differences
Why can't you have transracial implant then and why doesn't poverty correlate more with crime than race? It's almost like behavior is biological determined by genetics...
>Wrong
*Right
https://bethematch.org/transplant-basics/matching-patients-with-donors/how-does-a-patients-ethnic-background-affect-matching/
>Rich people.are living in the ghetto
LMAO

Blacks in the 9th wealth decile, who live in well off communities, have ten times the likelihood of incarceration, implyinga much higher prevelancy of criminality.

>Research into genetic associations in antisocial personality disorder is suggestive that ASPD has some or even a strong genetic basis. Prevalence of ASPD is higher in people related to someone afflicted by the disorder. Twin studies, which are designed to discern between genetic and environmental effects have reported significant genetic influences on antisocial behavior and conduct disorder,[20]

In the specific genes that may be involved, one gene that has seen particular interest in its correlation with antisocial behavior is the gene that encodes for Monoamine oxidase A (MAO-A), an enzyme that breaks down monomamine neurotransmitters such as serotonin and norephinephrine. Various studies examining the gene's relationship to behavior have suggested that variants of the gene that results in less MAO-A being produced, such as the 2R and 3R alleles of the promoter region have associations with aggressive behavior.[21][21][22] The association is also found influenced by negative experience in early life, with children possessing a low-activity variant (MAOA-L) with who experienced such maltreatment being more likely to develop antisocial behavior than those with the high-activity variants (MAOA-H).[23][24] Even when environmental interactions (e.g. emotional abuse) are controlled for, a small association between MAOA-L and aggressive and antisocial behavior remains.[25]

>>3272426
>An ethnic Chinese who grows up western under western parents acts totally western.
Wtf? There is no such thing as a western race. There is Caucasians, if that's what you mean, but no Eastern Asians do not behave like Caucasians.

Culture =/= biology. If biological determinism does not exist and behavior is purely cultural then people with schizophrenia and Borderline Personality Disorder logically cannot exist.

>>3272374
>Muh slavery
thats not an argument. you're trying to ridicule and belittle the idea of slavery and wish it away, but disappear it won't
>not slavery
it was in the main about slavery. i've made these conclusions from my readings
>Jefferson was stupid
never said that. he had flashes of brilliance but was unrealistic and self-serving and the "jeffersonian" ideal is the crowning achievement of idealism but very self serving in practice.
>being the prime motive of both Jeffersonians
they were very much connected. jeffersonianism, states rights and slavery were all connected. Southerners tended to be the jeffersonian idealists, not northerners.
>It was literally because the South had a much smaller population
no. the populations were equal at that time, the 1780s. the slaves gave the South the population advantage. 3/5's compromise was made because the NORTHERN states feared that the southern states would outweigh them in the house of representatives. taking off the other 2/5s was a concession by the south, so the northerners wouldn't get scared. The northerners were still angry nonetheless. The northern states were also the ones who also voted on the 2 senator per state to even out the population odds. Ironically, the northern states would outpopulate the southern ones soon enough. Immigration was more from economic imperatives I think, and inability to enforce immigration so well and the need for people to populate the west. Early America had a chronic shortage of labor, you know. This is why what they called the "American system" of interchangeable parts and reliance on mechanical devices was pioneered in these days. The south received its fair share of immigrants, too, though less than the north.

>Frankly yes , intense amounts of industrialization is cancer
agreed, but industry is ultimately good for national defense. I'm all for rural idylls but it wasn't realistic in 19th century geopolitics.

>>3261522
>Sultana Bombing?
please hep me relucidate dis bafflin' concept.

>>3272505
>You're trying to make slavery go away
Lmao never said that nor implied that, nor was slavery as bad as people made it out to be. Hell, slaves in the South had better lives than supposedly """""free""""" men being worked to death in large industrial operations and being executed by Pinkertons for wanting insurance. All our slaves had insurance automatically, if they got injured we at least sent a doctor to treat them instead of letting them die in the streets lmao
>I've made these conclusions from my readings
Who were obviously shit tier Yankee revisionism from what you're saying about Jefferson being an idealist hypocrite. The Federalists had extremely idealistic goals of copying the British Parliamentary system and having a massive federal government as well, ones which the Jeffersonians refuted heavily. Likewise the Federalists tried to unite the country while Jeffersonians were spergs for state soveriegnty (which was one of the reasons for the somewhat failure of the Articles of Confederation, although the Articles and the Anti-Federalists are blamed far too much for the problems of organizing post revolutionary America). They balanced each other out for as long as they could. Slavery was not the main issue between these two groups, and many people in the Confederacy held abolitionist views. Saying that slavery is the main motive if the civil war is both over simplifying and a falsity.
>Slavery was the main reason behind the Jeffersonians and Confederacy lmao
Agrarian based societies we're, and slavery was the most profitable way to run farms and like I said already, because of the 3/5ths compromise, one of the main method the South and North tried to offset the power of the North to keep the Nation unified was via slavery as well. Slavery in itself was not the main goal of the Jeffersonians even slightly, it was the agrarianism and state sovereignty.

>>3272505
The Populations were largely the same
*If you counted slaves , then the South technically had more. White male land owners were more numerous in the North. The 3/5ths compromise was created in order to appease both the North and South while establish a geopolitical balancer
>Agreed, but what the jeffersonians wanted was unrealistic.
Jeffersonians were not primitivists, they advocated for a slower rate of industrialization overall, which would be extremely practical

>>3274106
>nor was slavery as bad as people made it out to be.
I know that very well. It's more the social and political implications of it I don't like.
>Hell, slaves in the South had better lives than supposedly """""free""""" men being worked to death in large industrial operations
A common line of argument of Southerners and probably true in those days.
>All our slaves had insurance automatically, if they got injured we at least sent a doctor to treat them instead of letting them die in the streets lmao
"Slavery as positive good" is a nice idea but it all depended on the whims of the particular landowner. It's essentially delegating authority and law to a million petty despots. I suppose in theory it decentralizes risk of a single unfair authoritarian despot to rulle them all, but that is just as well achieved with strong states' rights (which I'm not against). And despite the exploitation of the northern wageslaves, though, at least they had political freedom and a degree of freedom of movement and upward mobility denied to slaves. Planter paternalism is contrary to free labor and I agree with the Freesoilers that it gave planters unfair competitive advantage vis a vis white workers, allowing them to use their slaves to degrade the economic value of free labor.

>>3274378
cont.
There's a reason that the yeoman's situation in the south was more impoverished and less trong in the South; because the southern slave owners put small farmers out of business and, if not that, made them entirely reliant on their economic power which derived from their leverage over bonded men. This is also the reason why you have a belt of regions stretching from north carolina, virginia and tennessee of small farmers who despised the economic power of slave elites in the lowlands of their countries. It's why west virginia split off, why eastern tennessee almost succeeded in doing so as well during the ACW.
>he Federalists had extremely idealistic goals of copying the British Parliamentary system and having a massive federal government as well
Britain as a genuinely centralized state only arose in the 1880s. the early republican period British state would be at its strongest because the Napoleonic wars were expensive and required a degree of state power unprecedented up to that time. But as soon as the Napoleonic wars ended, PM Liverpool and his successors cut down government expenditures, taxes and programs to a ridiculous degree. To say British parliamentary system was a strong central government, then, is a crude simplification and ahistorical.
>Likewise the Federalists tried to unite the country while Jeffersonians were spergs for state soveriegnty
The federalists imo were in the right. Had they been given a true mandate they could have forged a national american identity stronger than the petty version we have today. Internal improvements would have seriously linked the nation and led to orderly development and settlement of western lands. Like the national highway in the 1950s, it would have benefitted everyone and we'd earlier have had a tradition of grand infrastructure to be proud of instead of the patchwork ad hoc network that the jeffersonians allowed by their denial of Clay's american system.

>>3274490
>The Federalists had extremely idealistic goals
I think they were more concrete. As I keep saying, Jeffersonians used grandeloquence to put a figleaf over what amounted to small minded defense of sectional or state interests over a vision of transforming american into a truly unified nation where states rights' could have still been respected and strong.
>They balanced each other out for as long as they could.
Well the federalists disintegrated by the time of the War of 1812. Their only real legacy is in the Supreme Court where John Marshall would continue to pass federalist interpretations of the constitution for decades. Whigs were essentially denied a chance at governing because the southern blocking almost all of Quincy Adam's programs and William Henry Harrison fucking dying of pneumonia. Besides those two, Southern Jeffersonians won the day.
>(which was one of the reasons for the somewhat failure of the Articles of Confederation
its an interesting period. I only know the revisionist accounts of the Founding Fathers turning against the AOC because ironically it was too democratic and chaotic for their taste.
>Slavery was not the main issue between these two groups
It wasn't. Slavery really became an issue in the 1840s but once the issue came to the fore it never went away. It was always latent in the background in the 1830s and even the 20s, but a change occurred from southerners going from slightly ashamed to unapologetic proponents of slavery in the 1830s, and their desire to spread the institution to new states through conquest in the West.

>>3274544
>Slavery was not the main issue between these two groups, and many people in the Confederacy held abolitionist views. Saying that slavery is the main motive if the civil war is both over simplifying and a falsity.
They existed, but it's contested how influential or powerful they were. The fact of the matter is is that radical secessionists and slavery apologists seized control when push came to shove and they effected secession from the union with lame Southern unionist protest.
>Agrarian based societies we're, and slavery was the most profitable way to run farms and like I said already
efficiency vs. rights debate. it's a moral issue. but if you're one to say that industrialization should have been a controlled process as opposed to the chaotic reality, I see no reason why we should praise slavery as an economically efficient institution despite the gruelling discipline needed of a slave labor force to harvest cash crops for export.
>offset the power of the North to keep the Nation unified was via slavery as well.
I don't see how slavery had to do with uniting the nation. As it was many northern states maintained slavery until the 1810s and 1820s, so the distinction was less important at that time.
>Slavery in itself was not the main goal of the Jeffersonians even slightly
ideology and economic power are impossible to divorce, especially in such an economically and socially influential institution as slavery. Yes, there were other reasons for state's rights, but state's rights resonated as much as it did because it denied the federal government from interfering in states' economic and political affairs, the two being controlled by.... you guessed, it rich and powerful slaveowners. Of course there were northern democrats, too, but iirc they became as powerful as they did because of racebaiting irish immigrants, which runs contrary to your idea that the federalists/whigs exploited immigration to overtake the south.

>>3274115
>they advocated for a slower rate of industrialization overall, which would be extremely practical
practical in what regard? I'm all for controlled industrialization though. The French are the best example of steady industrialization because they were afraid of the social tensions caused by industrialization. But it still came with suffering nonetheless and more important it required heavy state interference (and elite consensus) to make ensure the process was as controlled as it was. That was lacking in America and controlled industrialization would have been a paradox had jeffersonians tried to enforce it.

File: pure bliss.jpg (62KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 540x720px

>>3270808
I love this fucking board so much.

File: 0dmg.png (287KB, 562x544px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 562x544px

>>3261522
It isn't one sided, only morons would say that. But, there's a difference between isolated events and guerrilla fighters, and an entire military campaign which was dedicated to burning down civilian homes. The North wasn't fighting a moral crusade, and the South wasn't a civil rights group. It was a white man's war over secession. The South believed they were being unfairly ruled by the North and could form their own country. The North believed that to be illegal. South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter after weeks of asking the garrison to leave. It wasn't until Lincoln violated the constitution multiple times that Virginia, the most pro Union southern state succeeded. Virginia saw most of the combat, and btw, never mentioned slavery in their article of succession. Although Lee shared the same thoughts of blacks as his Virginian neighbors, he had never seen the worst of it, like the large cotton fields in the deep south. He also called it "a moral and political evil" and was pro Union. he fought for the south because he believed his land was being invaded by the north, and his primary duty was to Virginia. Once fort Sumter happened, the floodgates opened, and federal troops swarmed the South.

The confederates weren't a terrorist group that through bombs into New York banks. They never wanted a war, just to govern themselves. But, you are right. Once the war got heated, atrocities were carried out on both sides.

>>3261522
>Andersonville Prison
>Blockade Confederates severely limiting their food supply
>Hurr, why aren't you feeding us?

>>3262370
>I have lost limbs, friends and blood for this country
Time stamped pic of the stump, or you're a LARPing faggot fishing for (you)s

>>3261543
>Crime

Not even that.

>>3263661
>man, this "truth" stuff is so overrated. When are we gonna give outright fabrication a chance?

>>3264028
>shit general
>wins

"If it's a stupid plan, but it works, it's not stupid" - Murphy's Law

>>3268242
DEI for Rome 2, FOTE + Europa Perdita for ATTILA, Darthmod for Empire, Stainless Steel for Medieval, Rising Sun for Shogun, L'Eagle for Napoleon, [spoiler]Lorehammer for Warhammer[/spoiler]

>>3272023
You know, I used to hate tripfags, but I'm starting to enjoy them. They're always wrong and insane, and it makes them easier to filter. Something about /his/ just makes crazy retards put a name to their insanity.