was the civil war /lit/?

>>8757818
It was more /pol/

The Spanish one, yeah

File: trump-confederate-flag[1].jpg (948KB, 1160x629px) Image search: [Google]

948KB, 1160x629px

>>8757818
I hope there's soon a new one so we can separate from the degenerate liberals and women-worship.

THE SOUTH SHALL RISE AGAIN

>>8757818
Aside from non-fiction masterpieces like Sherman's Memoirs and Shelby Foote's narrative history, and maybe Whitman, the Civil War has produced very little good literature

>>8757825
>live in deeply conservative nh
>people fly rebel flags

retards, all of them

>>8757818
>>8757824

This.

The US civil war was the least /lit/ of all of them.

File: 1477537219145.png (982KB, 830x1088px)

982KB, 830x1088px

>>8757825
>THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN
>non ironic
>all caps
wew lad

File: mhm.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>8757867
>non ironic

>>8757818
It was a pretty glorious war. Brother against brother, assassination, fighting to end slavery, massive cavalry charges, sieges, trench warfare it had it all. Also my husbando Grant.

>>8757932
>fighting to end slavery

Why is /lit/ so cuck'd these days?

File: 1453980188252.gif (2MB, 255x164px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 255x164px

WAS THE FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR DISASTER /LIT/?
WAS THE FALKLANDS WAR /LIT/?
WAS 9/11 /LIT/?
WAS THE WATERGATE SCANDAL /LIT/?
WAS BRAZIL LOSING 7-1 /LIT/?
WAS THE HURRICANE KATRINA /LIT/?
WAS THE INVASION AFGHANISTAN /LIT/?

HUH?
HUH?... HUH?

>>8757932
when it comes to generalship, Grant all the way

but come on McClellan is so much hotter

>>8757958
Grant's a better writer. Brains>Beauty

>>8757952
>no
>yes
>no
>yes
>no
>no
>yes

there see that was easy, chill out bro no need to sperg out

>>8757825
Fuck off, I'm from Texas and we're not joining you cucks again. Us, California, NY, and Florida basically pay for all your shit anyway.

File: desiretoburnintensifies.jpg (192KB, 901x1033px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 901x1033px

>>8757960
well if you're into writing may I suggest this handsome gentleman

File: grantland.jpg (379KB, 948x710px)

379KB, 948x710px

>>8757958
>Grant isn't hot

>>8757968
A close second. I also like Grant and Sherman because out of all generals they really understood civil war and thrived in it.

Grant was a bit of a loser in peace but a god of war.

I like how the southern generals out classed nearly every northern one. if the south had half the resources of the north the CSA would still exist. Also, the south's cause was righteous, the north, namely abraham lincoln, WAS a tyrant.

Also PGT Beauregard and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson for best generals.

>>8757992
>the south's cause was righteous
>muh lost cause
We should have burnt more of the South. Sherman didn't go far enough.

>>8757992
>tfw we'd still have had slaves and women would be back in the kitchen if we'd won

makes me hate liberalism so much

>>8757818
It was the most /lit/ war in history. Whitman, the speeches on both sides, the quips, Hampton Roads, the twisting plot-line with multiple layers of meaning, unreliable narration, it's literally poetry.

>>8757992
>muh Robert Lee made of slave-picked cotton folded over one-thousand eight-hundred and sixty one times capable of defeating any Northern general in a fair fight but the Union fought dirty

>>8757992
The civil war is pretty fascinating to study, as it's way more complex than North= Anti slavery and the good guys, and south= pro slavery and the bad guys.

Short answer, nobody was really the good guys, and slavery wasn't even the biggest issue out of all of it.

>>8758033
I can see through all of dastardly little tricks Cletus. You start out with the whole "there's no good or evil in war" chestnut, then roll out the "actually the Civil War wasn't about slavery," and when everyone's nodding along you start with the "economic causes of the Civil War."

>>8758033
>Short answer, nobody was really the good guys
The Union was definitely the good guys. Abolitionists like Lincoln wanted to end slavery, including eventually abolishing wage slavery of the factories.
>slavery wasn't even the biggest issue out of all of it.
It was the biggest issue. All the other issues stem from the question of slavery. Even the Mexican American war had its roots in slavery (as it was banned in Mexico which Texas was a territory of).

>>8758052

I'm a yankee, btw, actually kind of hate the south, and I was just commenting on that guy, not actually him.

Read up about it sometime, like most wars it's way more complex than modern notions of it are, it was a horrible mess of a thing on both sides, and slavery had a lot to do with it, but it's really not why they fought the war.

Kind of like how terrorism is why we invaded Iraq. Right?

File: 47ba172facee4ead597f531b5013b3544a21446d.jpg (27KB, 468x60px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 468x60px

>>8757818

>>8758058
>The Union was definitely the good guys

And what about the industrialists and fire-eaters from the north who were entirely pro-slavery? And how lincoln was pro-slavery up until a few months before he abolished it?

Even the parts of the north who were anti-slavery were still racist as hell, and wanted no freed slaves to be moved there.

>It was the biggest issue.

Not really, the biggest issue is how the new territories in the union were going to be structured. If they were modeled after southern states, the could block a lot of the union dominance in congress. That was the basic cause for the war. slavery is involved in it, of course, as the question as to whether it would be allowed in the territories is sort of folded in too, but the abolitionists didn't really kick the bitch into gear until the war was already on.

>>8757818
only if you were a rebel patriot instead of broke conscripted yankee scum