>Fights to keep the south full of blacks instead of sending

>>138377028
The confederacy had NOTHING to do with slavery, white nationalism or racism.
The CSA was going to abolish slavery soon after the war and become a model biracial state if it weren't for meddling yankees FORCING taxes on us and using FORCE to keep us together.
Sending blacks to other countries was both IMPRACTICABLE and IMMORAL, something only a degenerate yankee could think of

It was the north who gave nigs equal rights and desegregated america

this is a liberal cuck shitposter>>138378488

>>138378488
your biracial utopia would be a backwater shithole with no industry. preserving the union was mutually beneficial
>NOTHING to do with slavery
well, you could argue it wasn't the sole reason but it definitely was a major one

>>138378488
>>138378757
your proxy samefagging is obvious you rat kike

>>138378585
After confedecucks bred them for years and forced yankees not to send them away, going as far as creating a situation where freeing slaves was politically advantageous and killing the guy who'd send them back

If they hadn't been such spergs they could settle for a compromise with the northerners when they just wanted to ship them back to africa, but no, the lazy fucks just couldn't pick their own cotton
>>138378488
Kys

>>138378488
Yeah no. The general feeling among most Confederate leadership was slavery wasn't worth dealing with anymore and even if they won they likely would've come to the same conclusion as Lincoln to send them to Liberia or at least move them west onto reservations like the Native Americans. Slavery was a factor in what started the war but as it dragged on men like Lee began to see it was only dragging the south down and getting rid of them would be ideal. If the CSA won you likely would've seen a President Robert E. Lee running off a campaign of returning slaves to Africa.

>>138378585
The north just wanted to fuck over the south and seed the racial divisions they're still exploiting. Lincoln had NO INTENTION to help blacks, otherwise he wouldn't abolish slavery ONLY in the south.
He was a tyrant and a cunt who paved the way for the likes of FDR and Obama to fuck the people's and states' rights
>>138378757
It was all about STATES' RIGHTS

>>138379470
Lee was a DECENT man, unlike LINCOLN, he would give them some land to acwuire through squatters' rights

>>138378488
>nothing to do with slavery
>outright state that the reason you're separating is the slavery issue
really makes your brain go choo-choo

File: samefaag.png (6KB, 492x101px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 492x101px

>>138378918
sure thing

>>138377028
Lee fought against Northern aggression.

>>138379470
not to mention the fact that most southerners were beginning to realize the effects the master and slave relationship had on both sides involved. there's a lot of interesting research on how owning humans and chattel slavery had a ripple effect and tore apart the family unit. southerners knew slavery had to go, but the northern states were so oppressive that it was either keep slaves or completely collapse. you can make the argument that the moral thing to do was accept a full collapse, but let's be honest, most humans won't just roll over and accept death.

the union states have the luxury of virtue signaling now, even though they had just as much if not more blood on their hands when it came to slavery.

>>138379774
>whereverthefuckyouarefrom education

Keep slurping yankee cock u faggit

>>138379526
>STATES' RIGHTS
to own slaves

>>138379470
They could do this if they wanted, before thousands of white people had to die for their lazy asses and their desire to turn the south into a black-filled shithole
>>138379526
You confedecucks are fucking delusional

>>138380091
This. Bunch of cucks

>>138380091
when the north imposes its will and makes owning slaves survival necessity for southerners, they had no choice. you can't just base your entire economy on slavery and then delete it. there should have been a transition away from the practice. there were already plenty of abolition movements in the south. everyone was starting to accept that it was bad. the south just needed support from the north, but instead, the north created an enemy. and the north was benefiting from the work of the southern slaves.

File: brw6axgw116z.png (979KB, 1706x960px) Image search: [Google]

979KB, 1706x960px

>>138380019

>>138380091
>>138380264
t. Yankee faggots
>>138379998
>>138380011
THIS

READ A FUCKING BOOK YOU EUROFAGS AND SJW YANKEES

>>138380623
>he gets his education from yt

Everything makes sense now.

>>138380652
We did. Southern states as well as Confederate government cited slavery issue as the main reason of seccession. That's what those people said. Their statements>your delusions and wishes.
Now as to why Southerners fought, that's different, but main reason for seccession was slavery.

>>138380532
And they still didn't give a fuck about the right of northern states
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

>>138380975
>>138381026
>more plebbit-tier yt vids
PATHETIC

And even your shitty map shows it was about STATES RIGHTS

Im done

>>138381184
Typical low-IQ confedenigger
>>138380975
Exactly. The record is Crystal clear

>>138380975
the secession documents including slavery isn't the silver bullet of the discussion. yes, the south wanted to keep slavery, but it was an economic necessity at the time. abolition would have happened regardless of the outcome of the war.

imagine owning a plantation and all of the sudden all of your laborers walk away. how are you going to survive? the north was benefiting from the crops in the south and kept a steady flow of slave picked goods coming into their enlightened cities. if the north actually cared, they would have helped transition the southern economy into a more sustainable model. instead, they oppressed the southern states and backed them into a corner with no options. when you corner a frightened dog, it attacks.

this stuff isn't difficult. not to mention that an overwhelming majority of southerners didn't even own slaves.

>>138381184
Yes, states rights, to decide whether people could own slaves or not. CS Constitution was pretty much US Constitution except institution of slavery was protected.

>>138381453
>yes, the south wanted to keep slavery
And the rest is just trying to justify thia cuckoldry.

Every single time you see a BLM march or a blacked vid, remember who is to blame for keeping them here due to laziness

>>138379753
Lee was a decent man. He noted that a slave lived in better conditions in America than they did in Africa free. But he also made it very clear he believed Virginia would be better off if blacks were gone. The only choices then would be to either send them to Liberia, Panama, and the Caribbean like Lincoln or send them west into their own territory like the Indians.

>>138380011
Poor white southerners particularly disliked slavery which is why many had unionist attitudes before secession hit and during the war many still joined the Union Army and those that did join the CSA did so more to protect their state than for slavery.

>>138380264
You have to understand the context of the period. Neither side thought the war would last long. Most thought after a couple minor skirmishes Lincoln would either completely roll over and give the south whatever they wanted to rejoin the union or just let them have independence and wash his hands of the matter. Instead a long, bloody war was fought which neither side planned for. As it went on more and more southerners began to question the necessity of slavery. Men like Lee made it clear they'd be happier just getting rid of slavery entirely and calling it a day. You're also ignoring that there were slave states still in the union like Delaware so slavery wasn't exactly a southern exclusive issue. There's a letter a southern unionist wrote in prison to Lincoln that flat out said Lincoln should've just bought out the slaves from all of the slave owners then sent them to Liberia. This would've killed fears of southern economic collapse and slave owners couldn't bitch about the government making them lose capital they invested in slaves. A part of the north's failure was not solving the economic issues the south would face from abolition before suggesting the idea.

>>138381453
Majority of Southerners didn't own slaves, but that's not the point. Point is slave owners were the main force behind seccession and they started a war to protect their right to own other people. And of course their reasons were mainly economic, but that's irrelevant. Economic reasons are present in every political decision since the begining of time.

>>138381652
I agree that importing slaves should have never happened, but that's a meaningless point to argue. even Lincoln wanted to deport them.

>>138381891
And dixiecucks murdered him for it

>>138381851
No it's entirely economic. Imagine you own a massive farm and the government suddenly came in and said you're no longer allowed to use tractors and they'll be taking your tractors. They don't offer you compensation for taking your tractor and don't offer you alternative methods to farm without it so you don't go into bankruptcy. Now imagine the government made this no tractor decree to a large section of the United States. This is why secession happened. Abolitionists were pushing for something without ways to keep the southern economy balanced when slavery is removed and the aristocrats revolted because of it. This is even ignoring the dozens of other factors the south had in secession.

>>138381989
You do realize most southerners resented Booth for killing Lincoln right? Lee himself was quite upset about it.

>>138377028
Alpha confederate needs no propaganda or payment goes to fight with southern lead against yankee invaders virgin unionist wasnt even born in america is cannon fodder poor homeless irish immigrants needs extensive payment and propaganda about veing good guys fightin to liberate negroes

>>138377028

The casus belli for the Civil War for the Confederacy was about protecting the southern aristocracy.

They own the majority of slaves and 3/5s compromise gave them massive political clout. The ending of slavery would not only distrupt their economy but their political power.

They felt that the institution of slavery was a "State Rights" and Federal government had no say in it because of the 10th Amendment. They have been contesting this ever since the USA was created in 1789.

The election of Lincoln was the straw that broke the camel's back.

>>138382320
It was economic and racial, but that's absolutely irrelevant. They started a war so they could keep owning other humans like tools. They didn't have any higher ideals or goals.

>>138381541
Negroes arent equals to whites.

>>138381851
and so is sedition and oppression. why do these points get belabored to death? the north saw their main source of crops being cut off when the CSA was formed and invaded to save themselves under the false banner of being the saviors to the enslaved. the north didn't care anymore about the well-being of slaves than the south did.

File: Screen Shot 2017-05-03 at 2.23.24 PM.png (368KB, 738x292px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 738x292px

>>138382643
>o-one Southerner = 10 Yankees
>surrenders to a NEET alcoholic

>>138382757
No there were higher ideals. For example the south were much more strict in their interpretation of the Constitution than the north. In fact you can still see this today. It played a major role in how secession came about. It's also why none of the Confederate leaders were brought before the Supreme Court because secession wasn't against the Constitution. Even Scalia when asked about secession said the war was what solved that question. On top of this people like Davis were full believers of a southern nationalism where the south could run it's own affairs without having to deal with the north anymore. Economy though is always the biggest factor of any war in history though.

>>138383007
Every man is equal in rights. Your Founding Fathers said so. If you hate America you shouldn't live there m8.
>>138383013
Confederates literally planned to invite European armies to invade America. They were traitors. They were elites who sent poor to die so they could defend a bygone and terrible institution. They attacked first.
Sorry, there are few conflicts in human history that are as clear-cut morally as ACW.

>>138383684
And negroes arent men, because they arent equal to white men, different races, you are saying "people" as we are all identical this assumption is incorrect and negroes are their own "people" not A singular people.

>>138383684
The Founding Fathers also said only white men and some white women were even eligible for citizenship in the United States. They also had extensive help from France and Spain in the Revolution.

>>138377028
Don't bully Lee. He did his best.

>>138383317
Seccession was legal, I didn't talk about that.
I merely said they secceeded so they could keep owning slaves. Everything else was subservient to that motivation.

File: Screenshot_2017-08-20-17-20-05.png (644KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

644KB, 720x1280px

>>138383684

>>138378488
>model biracial state

I've yet to see one exist

>>138383991
Owning slaves was part of economic reasons. Unfair tariffs also were part of said economic reasons. Only morons deny the role slavery played but the aristocrats were not sadists crying about losing some niggers to whip. They were crying about the north's push to destroy the southern economy, often to the benefit of the northern economy.

>>138377028
>he actually believes confederate soldiers were fighting thinking "I just want to make sure that rich plantation owner gets to keep owning niggers"

>>138383905
They had help so they could achieve independence from a European empire. Confederates wanted to invite European empires again.
>>138384121
Yes, immigrants, not British and French armies. Is the difference confusing you?>>138384301
They were not sadists, slaves were the source of their economic and political power, and they wanted to retain that. That doesn't really change anything. They started a war so they could own other humans. The end.

>>138384393
They were fighting to retain the posiation of white man superior to negro.

>>138384393
That wasn't their personal motivation but yes, they practically fought and bled for that.

>>138384566
>They started a war so they could own other humans.
You know that every race from every continent around the world owned slaves at some point? You know that white people were the first ones to end slavery? You are getting mad that it took time for everyone to do it which is pretty unreasonable.

>>138384705
If you are against the proposition of white man superior to the negro it leads to the 50% meme and cuckholding.

>>138384729
The flags and the monuments to soldiers aren't a symbol for slavery though, they are a symbol for the south which is home to many people with many beliefs. Even the civil war was still about more than slavery, slavery is like the spark that started it but not the true reason. Just like how a fire doesn't continue to burn because of a spark.

>>138384864
If the negro were still in his place in a plantation then the negro would never become a problem or threat to the white man.

>>138384824
You know morals and society change over time?
>white people
Not Southern elites I'm talking about. Why are you Americans always using "white people" as if we are all same?
And why are you even mentioning that, where did I blame white people for slavery?
If you are white Christian man and you want to put yourself in same league as some African warlords and Muslims, that's your shame, not mine or of white people collectively.

>>138385208
Yes they do what does that matter? Are you saying you are judging the civil war with your modern morals? Then it just makes you even more wrong.

>>138384566
The Founding Fathers got aid from European empires for independence. The Confederacy wanted aid from European empires for independence. There's zero difference. Also every nation on this planet has had slavery with it still being very common and widespread in Africa and the Middle East. Maybe you should go talk to Saudi Arabia that still exists instead of a nation that's been dead for over 150 years. It's really easy to find Saudi clerics that still advocate for slavery.

>>138385125
I agree and I never talked about that, I find this tearing down of statues idiotic.

>>138385386
So you acknowledge that while the civil war started because of economic disputes about slavery it continued because of a desire for independence and sovereignty? Even the American revolution wasn't just about the tariffs the founding fathers had their own vision of what a country should be and that's what it really became about. Establishing their country.

>>138385341
Why are you pretending stance on slavery was different in mid-19th century?
>>138385359
You seen to think I'm attacking you personally or modern Southerners, and I'm not doing that. We are talking about history.

>>138385732
>Why are you pretending stance on slavery was different in mid-19th century?
It was transitioning, not everyone wanted to abandon it. So yes it was different because it is universally panned now.

>>138385617
No I don't. Look, if Lincoln somehow magically guaranteed their right to own slaves, would they separate? Of course they wouldn't.
And of course it was economic and political, they didn't want to own slaves so they could own slaves, but that's irrelevant, it was still about owning other people.

>>138385853
It was pretty much dead in Europe ignoring Ottoman Empire, and even most of your Founding Fathers decades before ACW considered it a horrible institution.
It was totally incompatible with the ideals USA was founded on. It is totally incompatible with Christianity.

>>138385971
You are focused on the beginning of the war when it doesn't matter once the war begins the motives evolve. It's foolish to think because it started about disputes between slavery that means it continued to be about that forever.

If the civil war wasn't about slavery why did all those confederate states cite slavery specifically in their Declaration of Independence?

>>138384705
That's funny, because Lincoln apparently felt the same way.

>While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races -- that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making VOTERS or jurors of negroes, NOR OF QUALIFYING THEM HOLD OFFICE, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any of her man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
>Sept 18, 1858, Lincoln-Douglas Debate

>>138386169
Yes but you also know that none of the founding fathers fought to end it right? They were fighting to create their country. The point is it wasn't so black and white trying to end Slavery. It's easy to look back on it now as something to so easily be solved.

>>138378918
This
>>138378488
You're not really American

File: 1497737830896.jpg (33KB, 464x309px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 464x309px

1.) The world isn't black and white. Sweeping generalizations like "it was about state's rights" and "it had NOTHING to do with maintaining slavery," sorry, intelligent people have more nuance than that.

2.) An alternative way of regarding the Confederacy is that it was a bunch of rich plantation owners who had a vested interest in maintaining slavery tricking a ton of poor, white non-slaveowners into thinking they were fighting in their own self interests as opposed to the Southern aristocrats.

3.) If the Union had their way, the blacks would have been sent back, and we would have been a white utopia with no inner cities problems, very low crime rates, but after the Civil War, the nation was spent and the political will was gone.

4.) The South fired the first shot.

FYI, I'm a Southerner. That Confederate flag is not my flag.

>>138386232
Yes, I'm talking about begining of war. Later on a form of proto-nationalism developed and there were even plans to end slavery.
>>138386426
They didn't fight it because it's not very prudent to fight half of your own country while fighting British Empire.

>>138378585
The North is more segregated these days desu. They also didn't intervene with Jim Crow as soon as the economy got back on track.

>Abraham Lincoln using a loop hole as president to enact martial law onto the south to free slaves through an proclamation that never passed congress till one year after the 10 confederate states seceded since they were no longer represented in congress.

Honestly how unconstitutional was Abraham Lincoln in facilitating the war and killing off 750k Americans?

>>138385732
And my point is the Confederacy did nothing unique that the Founding Fathers didn't do themselves. As far as the Confederates were concerned they were the heirs of the Founders' legacy and the north was leading the union off the path the Founders set and they weren't entirely wrong.

>>138385971
Lincoln did guarantee it. They left anyway.

>>138386169
Robert E. Lee also called it a horrible institution. Few in America actually liked it but saw it as a necessary evil until it could be replaced. Machines from the Industrial Revolution did just that.

>>138386237
Only hardcore Confederate romanticists deny slavery played a role. Really people shouldn't say "it wasn't about slavery" and instead "it wasn't only about slavery."

>>138386426
Actually some of the Founders tried pushing for abolition but the anger it received was so harsh they decided it was more important to keep their new country stable instead of breaking the nation apart.

>>138386951
Then what are you even arguing? You are saying the Civil War was about slavery but that is a huge simplification. It also makes morons believe that the confederacy was trying to spread slavery. There are many retarded Americans who believe shit like that, if you asked them what the confederacy was they would say they were trying to enslave black people. The ignorance of all these Americans is why they are freaking out about the monuments.

>>138377028
The North was never going to deport the blacks, they didn't after the war they fucking won and abolished slavery. They didn't want them in their own states while opposing slavery among several other issues that led to the war.

>>138386623
1. Correct

2. Half correct but the Union brought a lot of negativity on themselves in the south by often times treating the locals like shit. I have a great-great uncle who joined the Confederate Army after the Union trashed his property for no reason.

3. Yeah no. Lincoln said he'd only send willing blacks back to Africa and most were refusing to go because Liberia was a disaster even then. The most Lincoln could've done is put them on reservations in the west.

4. Correct but ignores vital pieces of the story. The Confederacy attempted diplomacy with Lincoln many times over the Fort Sumter situation. They offered to pay for all federal land in the south. Lincoln refused to even talk to southern diplomats. Instead Lincoln began militarizing the forts by sending even more troops and supplies. How was the Confederacy supposed to interpret that when someone refuses to talk to their diplomats and places soldiers so close to one of their major cities?

>>138387069
Let's be real, divided America would fall back into European sphere sooner or later. Would you be fine with that?>>138387161
I'm saying slavery was the main motivation for seccession among those who orchestrated it.

>>138387634
Ideally? No. I prefer America the ruler of it's own destiny. That doesn't mean however we're in a better place now thanks to our politicians past and present who have trampled all over the system the Founders put in place

>>138383013
they cared more about the white man tho, didn't want their grand-grand-grand-daughters 200 years from then to be blacked just so they didn't have to pick cotton

>>138383317
except when it came to wanting to force northern states to send blacks back to the south, against their states' rights to not recognize slavery

>>138380091

I hate niggers as much as the next guy but yes, it was about that.

>inb4 eurocuck

i'm american.

>>138384393
their personal motives are irrelevant

In practice they fought so that more blacks could be bred and kept in the south for the benefit of their elites

Nobody cares why american soldiers fought against Saddam or Hitler, why should I care if they were retarded enough to think they were think for anything else than guaranteeing the blackening of the nation for the benefit of their (jewish btw, Judah P Benjamin) masters?

I heard Lincoln just got in to office abd the civil war started. I also heard marshall law was being considered as Trump was getting into office. Maybe something stopped the "event."
Now we will be ready for whatever it is. We had more time. ;_;7 lol idk

>>138388610
Vacation or seeing family over there?

>>138385341
>abolitionism
>modern morals

No. Confedecucks were just retarded and immoral by their own standards. Even spics weren't fighting to become blacker anymore by then

File: 1500837180824.png (68KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 2000x2000px

>>138387633
Those are fair points, but let's get to the meat of the matter. When you fly that Confederate flag, tell me what your end game was? Importing more blacks, maintaining slavery when it was already falling out of acceptance throughout the West, with the British Empire having dismantled the institution a couple of decades earlier? Then you hold on to the institution longer than everyone else and end up like a South African pariah state?

No matter which way you want to slice it, the Southern aristocrats wanted to expand and maintain their lucrative institution, at the expense of the long-term demographic makeup of the country. They wanted to expand it numerically, and geography-wise.

The Union wasn't even trying to abolish slavery. What was so contentious in the years before the Civil War was their attempts to STOP its spread. The South were the aggressors. Lincoln didn't come in with a platform to impose anything on the South. He simply wanted to maintain the Union.

What we can both agree on though is that the war was pure autism. Hundreds of thousands of young white men who could have grown up to be inventors, poets, engineers, died because the Southern aristocrats and the northern industrial elite couldn't communicate. It seems to be a war waged out of spite and hatred, not logic or sense.

Also, the north and the south ended up having a good run together, with all of us becoming the premier global economic and military superpower and all. #bettertogether

>>138388674
Because these are monuments to soldiers and generals not to politicians or plantation owners. Besides your view on the civil war is a complete simplification of it and is dishonest.

>>138389021
Funny how slavery in Spanish colonies was pure hell, yet this is never mentioned and they don't seem to have major racial problems today.

>>138389021
We are already quite fucked. What the fuck were we thinking? Was it (them) perhaps

Funny how all the confedecuck-defenders consistently move the goalposts and get into side discussions about irrelevant bullshit, isn't it?

Get over this, they themselves made clear wtf they wanted, and they are 100% to blame for shit like BLM and BLACKED

>>138389248
because no retard in their colonies decided it was in their best interest to get hundreds of thousand of their men killed to breed more blacks when it was clear slavery was on the way out, and didn't try to base their identity on their defeat in this quest for hundreds of years afterward

>>138389021
You do realize that the Confederate constitution explicitly forbid the importation of slaves from anywhere outside the U.S. right? They did not want to make it "blacker" just to preserve it while the economy still relied on it.

>>138389440
Why wont Africa abolish slavery?

>>138389271
See for urself
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_P._Benjamin

>>138389643
>wanted to keep breeding blacks
>didnt want more blacks

Wew lad, are we supposed to think they'd have old ass niggas picking their cotton?

>>138389655
Because they're dumb niggers who don't care about getting blacked, just like confedecucks

See? More side-tracking and irrelevant bullshit

It's like dixiefags can't think about this issue without being personally offended (which isn't an argument) and deciding to shill for their retarded ancestors that created half their problems for selfish dumb reasons

>>138389897
I could easily turn that around and say, "Wew lad, are we supposed to believe the south were gonna have black people picking cotton forever when machines can do a much better job of it"

>>138390065
even extending this for a single year was fucking stupid

The longer they were lazy fucks the blacker the south became.

People who are so lazy they'd send their children to the slaughter for their right to blacken their land might as well keep going on their own stupid way until they realise they're poor, black and irrelevant just like african countries did

File: 1501996451910.jpg (334KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 2048x1536px

SERIOUS QUESTION HERE:

Did the southern states really feel like they needed their own country? I mean, they were as european-like as the northern folks.

>>138390490
Different cultures. Agrarian south and industrial north. Different values, different expectations on what the country should have been. The South felt like it was time to leave and try things on their own. North didn't much care for the idea.

>>138388335
It was a federal law and when you're part of the union you're required to follow the law. It doesn't matter if say New York didn't recognize slavery because that slave was still property in say Alabama so they still had a duty to return it. That'd be trying to say California doesn't recognize illegal immigration so they can intentionally interfere with ICE.

>>138389131
Importing blacks was already over even before the war began and the international slave trade was already drying up. There were also Confederates who were against slavery and I mentioned earlier if the CSA survived you likely would've seen men like Robert E. Lee running for President on an anti-slavery platform. Now getting to Lincoln I do agree the south overreacted to him personally. He was definitely the conservative wing of the new Republican Party. The south did however have rightful fear of radical Republicans and for good reason when you consider the negative effects radical Republicans had on the south during Reconstruction. I wouldn't say the south were the aggressors so much as they got overly defensive. Southern Democrats would've been better off extending an olive branch to Lincoln for an alliance against the radical Republicans than anything. The war was a terrible thing though but the wounds of the war were already healed. There's pictures of Union and Confederate veterans sitting side by side sharing stories and telling jokes. There's speeches by Theodore Roosevelt admiring the bravery of both sides and considering statues to Union and Confederate soldiers a blessing. Personally I take the Roosevelt approach. We're stronger together as one nation again but northerners and southerner alike have the right to admire their ancestors' efforts as long as in the here and now we're working together to better the country.

>>138390730
>different cultures and values
How? How did they manage to develop those in different ways when the original settlers came from the same part of England?

>>138390490
At the time period? Yes. The north and south were extremely different in economy and extremely different in social and cultural values. The two viewed the world very differently and ran their countries very differently. You might as well ask why Sweden and Russia aren't one country.

>>138379904
Are you mentally handicapped, or do you not know what the word "proxy" means?

>>138378488
Hitler digits confirmed and checked

>>138391079
The north was colonized heavily by Puritans. Puritan values heavily influenced northern culture. Many of these Puritans were also Anglo. The south was colonized heavily by Ulster Scot Presbyterians and later was gaining Methodist and Baptist influences when the Presbyterian Church wasn't capable of quickly providing churches to new communities. Religion played a heavy part in how the two formed.

>>138391079
You're assuming they all came from England. The south were mostly Scots and Scotch-Irish. NC also had a huge German population. New England were mostly WASP's.

>>138391553
>>138391596
Thanks for the info. Some guy once asked me about reasons why south and north hated each other back then, and we didn't know why

>>138378488
>The confederacy had NOTHING to do with slavery, white nationalism or racism

it literally only exists because of these three things

>>138392696
>exists
nope, they lost over 100 years ago

>>138391079
Scots-Irish v. Anglo.

>>138393175
whoops

>>138377028

Lee is not a symbol of slavery. He is a symbol of southern pride/heritage and sticking by your homeland. He was first pick to be the Union General rather than Grant, btw.

>>138393518
>southern pride
the south needs better reasons to be proud of, instead of losing a war to keep getting blacker every year

No wonder nothing is achieved. Worship losers, be a loser

>>138392267
No problem, the differences are pretty interesting honestly even if it does cause problems both sides at times. It's partly why I think Roosevelt was pushing for a singular American culture.

>>138393518
This. Southerners buy Lee portraits because Lee is the definition of southern gentleman. It's quotes like these that make him an admirable man the south still loves to this day.

"I have fought against the people of the North because I believed they were seeking to wrest from the South its dearest rights. But I have never cherished toward them bitter or vindictive feelings, and have never seen the day when I did not pray for them."

"True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels them — the desire to do right — is precisely the same."

"Sir, if you ever presume again to speak disrespectfully of General Grant in my presence, either you or I will sever his connection with this university."