Civil War

>>33388677
union, because I'm not a traitor and I don't come from a long line of congenital traitors.

Also, I think its morally wrong to own people as pets and have my entire economic structure be based on racial slavery.

Also, this has absolutely nothing to fucking do with anything related to /k, so fuck you. there's no reddit gold here. No one's upvoting shit.

Also, fuck you.

>>33388685
fpbp

>>33388677
If I was born in the 1820's I'd either be in Hanover or the Netherlands.

>>33388685
SJW pls go

>>33388685
Take it easy edgelord. Damn. What i don't get is why the use of muskets...when the cartrige was already invented. i mean 3 spm. fuck

File: speeches_lincoln.jpg (25KB, 360x235px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 360x235px

Was he really just King George III without a crown?

>>33388677

CSA, even though I'm Asian.

Civil War got some Asians in the mix for both sides.

Union, because I'm from Ohio. I still hate niggers, and so did most of the Union. The war was really just about fucking over the South.

>>33388719
>I still hate niggers, and so did most of the Union.
And yet they died in agony so that they great-great-great graddaughters could get Blacked on Blu-Ray and their great-great-great grandsons could get sued into homelessness for not baking fags a wedding cake.

It's almost like they were used and if they'd known what they were really fighting for they would have stayed home and tended to their crops instead/

Union. In Colorado where our biggest contribution to the war effort was massacreing Indians and waving our dicks at the New Mexicans.

File: hillarytitan.jpg (26KB, 475x414px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 475x414px

>>33388733
You would be stuck with that anyway because the Democrats who led the South became shills for the negroids in the 1960s.

>>33388762
>You would be stuck with that anyway because the Democrats who led the South became shills for the negroids in the 1960s.
It is obvious from this comment that you learned your history from public schools.

>>33388767
It's obvious that you trust politicians way too goddamn much.

>>33388677
Why the fuck do I have to be in my forties when the war starts?

Fuck you faggot.

File: blackwimminz.jpg (48KB, 425x329px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 425x329px

>>33388767
Furthermore, I just had the most incredible epiphany and idea for a history paper- if the South had won the Civil War, we'd still be in the same mess of race relations as we are right now. Slavery would still be abolished in the mid-1800s, the negroes would still have migrated into the cities and especially up North, and everything would still suck.

>>33388788
So that you have the wisdom to choose a side just like General Lee. I admire the guy so much, serve in the nations army but still rise up to fight for you homeland regardless of personal feelings. THAT is what a soldier should be, not a fucking mercenary.

>>33388677
would I rather succumb to disease in a grey shirt or a blue shirt hmmm tough choice

>>33388900
Coward

>>33388709
yes.

>>33388677
knowing what I know now?
neither. I sell my inventions to both sides and move to London.

File: 1274051964726.jpg (92KB, 722x722px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 722x722px

>getting killed in a war for someone elses political gain
I'd keel dem injuns for gold tho

>>33388706
>What i don't get is why the use of muskets...when the cartrige was already invented
The British were upgrading their arms and were selling off their old muzzle loaders for cheap. Purchasing these was actually a logistical coup for the South, since they were generally lacking in war material right at the start of things.

>>33389067
Yeah but, both sides used them...

>>33388685
fucking yankee

>pets

more like farm monkeys/draft animals. Have you even seen what releasing them from bondage has resulted in?

>traitor

yeah being on the side that married politics and money which destroyed our democracy and forever gave world banks and industries overwhelming power over the people would have been a good move desu.

>not fighting for the south

>not fighting for freedom from globalist scum

>>33388709
Yes. He turned America into a worse tyranny than England could've hoped to be.

>>33388685
Lincoln was a traitor to the American people and all American ideals.
He was the first step to the violation of the constitution we see today. Just because Woodrow was twice the scumbag, doesn't invalidate the fact that Lincoln was a traitor to the founding fathers.

>>33388677
Union by birthplace, Confederate by choice.

>>33388685
>implying blacks are actually people

3/5ths at best, and even that is quite generous.

>>33388685
My dad was born and raised in connecticut, i was raised on AF bases. I have at least four or five generations of federal military lineage, and i've spent the last 12 years in indiana, so im no southerner.

I would fight for the south. But, i also think owning slaves is immoral.

State's rights > muh feels. And if the slaves want to be free, they need to do it themselves. The civil war was the very first American gibsmedats

>>33390391
>I would fight for the south. But, i also think owning slaves is immoral.
Massachusetts anon here, FUCKING THIS.
Slavery wasn't as big of an issue in the Civil War as it was made out to be. Lincoln being a tyrant and dictator ruining American ideals was a much bigger issue.

>>33388677
why not start a new civil war in 2020? :3

>>33389375
Congratulations on losing. And on being a parasite on the actually productive states. And on lacking any moral compass.

>>33388677
Congratulations on the /not k post that gives 6 people an excuse to type the word nigger un-ironically.

your (You), sir

File: inquisitive froggo.jpg (28KB, 640x519px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 640x519px

>>33388677
>Hey guys let's have a politically incorrect discussion about the Civil War. By the way the topic of this thread is weapons from the civil war so don't report it lol

>>33390668
>complaining about political incorrectness
You are the cancer that's killing this country you globalist bootlicker

File: gat1865.jpg (50KB, 419x295px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 419x295px

rata tat tat thats the sound of my gat

Civil war, first deployment of the Gatling Gun, by the north, of course, and war has never been the same sense.

the Union of course, not only because they were inevitably the winners but because maintaining the union is more important than muh slaves and muh racial superiority.

>>33390739
>missing the point
I know Confederaboos were dense, but I didn't know they were this stupid and obstinate.

>>33388704
>thinking owning another person is immoral makes you an sjw now

/pol/, srsly, pls go

I'd have joined the 7th Pennsylvania Cavalry and rode first in the western campaigns and then with General Sherman on his march to the sea.

Union. Death to traitors.

>>33388685
this basically

>>33388706
I'm pretty sure edgelord is the wrong term to use here tbqh.

>>33389067
Not really, the North was upgrading its tooling during the civil war to newer cartridge based systems. Like the Spencer Carbine, Trapdoor Springfield (both in .45-70 gov iirc), and Henry Repeater in some other small cartridge.

>>33390319
You say this, but the south argued differently.

allowing for 3/5 was a northerner's appeasement.

>>33388677
If I lived in the south, the confederacy.
Lincoln was a commie faggot who overstepped the bounds of his power.

If I lived in the north, aid for the confederacy.
Lincoln was a commie faggot who overstepped the bounds of his power.

>>33388685
>union, because I'm not a traitor and I don't come from a long line of congenital traitors.
It like you have no understanding of the civil war, or the nature of the republic...

>Also, I think its morally wrong to own people as pets
Fuck off socialist. If I own a dog, then I own its puppers.
If you don't like it, then buy the doggo from me. Property rights solve all problems.

>and have my entire economic structure be based on racial slavery.
... wew

>>Also, this has absolutely nothing to fucking do with anything related to /k, so fuck you.
>civil war
>war
>unrelated to /k/
I'm not to sure about that...

>there's no reddit gold here. No one's upvoting shit.
Then why are you here?

>>33392411
>not allowing for the ownership of people is socialism

/pol/, pls

>>33392548
If self ownership is legitimate, then ownership of others is legitimate.
(If I am willing to sell myself, why shouldn't I be permitted to do so?)

The only other option is that everyone is property of the state. So yeah, it's a socialist thing.

>>33392583
Owning someone is infringing on their freedoms and right to self-determination, though.

File: ZKCXVpE.jpg (206KB, 1220x918px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1220x918px

>>33392411
>>and have my entire economic structure be based on racial slavery.
>... wew


>implying it wasn't

>>33392691
>Owning someone is infringing on their freedoms and right to self-determination, though.
Am I the government? No.

Rights are only restrictions upon the government.
Somewhat un/related: There are no positive rights. All rights are absolute.

File: ancap-meme-generator.png (200KB, 547x402px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 547x402px

>>33392411

Kill yourself.

>>33392705
Partus sequitur ventrem

I would be on the Union side, for the sole fact that the south rebelled because a democratically elected president was troublesome for them. It's a bit like the libtards protesting against Trump today (but with guns)
Also my favorite rifle in that war would be the Henry.

>>33392799
>I'm not the government therefore when I hold someone against their will and force them to work for free it's not oppression

/pol/...come on

>>33392833
I'm not the government, so I can't infringe on their rights (other than property rights).

>>33392842
Why is it OK when you do it but not ok when "the government" does? What separates government from a person?

>>33392799
>Rights are only restrictions upon the government.
Rights are freedoms and entitlements (Life, Liberty, and Property, for example) that no one, not another person nor the government, can take from you. You only define rights in this way to fit your ideology that it's acceptable for you as an individual to infringe on another's rights, but not for an institution to do the same.

>>33392873
his fee-fees

File: download (2).jpg (4KB, 480x91px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 480x91px

Also,
>1860's
>Advent of experimental weapons (repeaters, lever action, etc.)
>Both sides still use muskets
Like, I know they didn't use the traditional musket balls in the war but with that logic World War 1 should have been fought with fucking matchlocks.

>>33388685
>its morally wrong to own people as pets
ok but what about slaves, though? massachusetts attempted to secede when the US refused to abolish slavery. so why would you be union? wouldn't you want to secede from the union and abolish slavery too? have you read the constitution and noted that we still have slavery in it today? only the US is allowed to own them, but, it's still there.

>>33392922
morality isn't derived from laws

File: 1417506311126.png (321KB, 678x840px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 678x840px

>>33388677
You are now aware that the Civil War was started because blacks wanted to own slaves and were angry that someone tried to take away their rights to dominate other members of their race.

>>33392873
>Why is it OK when you do it but not ok when "the government" does?
I didn't promise not to [insert action], the government did.
Rights are literally just promises from the government to not do something. (which is why all rights are absolute, otherwise they are privilege rather than a right)

>What separates government from a person?
good question.


>>33392889
>Rights are freedoms
Yes.
>and entitlements
No.

>that no one, not another person nor the government, can take from you.
Reread the 5th.

>You only define rights in this way to fit your ideology
Yes.

If you have a positive right, then someone else is forced to do something. It's the opposite of freedom.
If you have a negative right, then the government is prevented from doing something.
It is freedom.

>for you as an individual to infringe on another's rights
If your premise was legitimate, then the 9th and 10th amendments would prevent everyone from taking any action against another person that wasn't explicitly legislated to be permitted.
Your premise isn't legitimate.

>>33392920
Ask yourself this:
if caseless arms magically solved the heat issue, would you arm yourself with a caseless firearm for a civil war?
Or would you go with the cheaper, more plentiful, and mature-technology of fixed ammunition?

>>33392920
iirc General Ripley threw an autistic shitfit about the rate of fire being a waste of ammunition, and ended up preventing repeating rifles from becoming more widely used

>>33388677
Union, because I was born in MA. You don't really get to pick when conflicts happen based on geography.

Confederacy all the way.
Not because I approve of slavery, but because the states should have, and still do, have the right to determine what goes on in their territory, and the Union was filled with federalist, big-government assholes.

John WIlkes Booth was still a fucking moron though.