DOWN WITH THE UNION!!!

It's also very religious and conservative.
What are you trying to say?

They must be gigantic pussies IRL.

That blacks tend to be the biggest per capita welfare recipients.

>OP posts a character from a movie about gangs in new york with the civil war as a backdrop
>anons start arguing about black people on welfare

Probably because 4/5ths of US presidents are from the south and they dictate policy that gets backed by middle america

That's a very funny way of saying "seceded unilaterally and fired on a federal base".

What if russia just garrisoned troops in poland with out their approval

That argument only makes sense if Poland had never been independent of Russia before. Also, those federal troops were already there, because it was a federal base located in US territory. If you wanted to use Russia, a better analogy would be Novgorod declaring independence then shooting at Russian soldiers.

>What is the novgorod republic

Any way russian bases and troops were removed from all of illegal secessions during the muscovite tsardom's collapse, by force. Its just another blatant piece of propaganda they teach in US history like leaving out pearl harbor was a military base

>Any way russian bases and troops were removed from all of illegal secessions during the muscovite tsardom's collapse, by force.

What's your point?

>Its just another blatant piece of propaganda they teach in US history

What are you talking about? No pre-college US history class teaches the minor details of the collapse of the Tsardom of Muscovy.

>Its just another blatant piece of propaganda they teach in US history like leaving out pearl harbor was a military base

What shit school did you go to that left this detail out? The fact that it was a naval base was the main reason it was targeted, as far as I know that's what every school in the country teaches.

Of course they seceded unilaterally. They didn't have to have permission from Boston and New York to do so, because they had their own sovereignty, with which they decided to secede.

>That argument only makes sense if Poland had never been independent of Russia before.
Why.

Because "Russia garrisoned troops in Poland without their approval" implies that the Russian troops have been moved into Poland. It doesn't make sense if the Russian troops were there to begin with, the way that Fort Sumter was already in South Carolina.

It's so weird that Booth was a famous actor. Lincoln actually invited him to the White House but he declined.
It's like if George Clooney tried to kill Obama

>it's like if George Clooney tried to kill Obama
That would be so fucking cool

More like Patton Oswald killing Trump

And whose fault is that?

Cuckfederates of course. It would be even worse if they seceded and the blacks didn't get to migrate north. Some southern counties were literally 80% black before the war.

My exact point.

Not only do southerners bitch about the Union that spends other state's federal dollars on them, but they also about blacks they kept in their states through way of slavery and later sharecropping.

it would have turned into Zimbabwe

>They had their own sovereignty

Go away Scalia. I thought you were dead.

>the South had legitimate sovereignty over the Union they were previously a part of
>because they said so

I don't think you know how sovereignty works.

You would only live in the south by choice pre-1950s if you were a complete retard or owned a Plantation. It gets so fucking hot and humid in the south that living there makes you go fucking crazy.

Which is why the South is today composed of business owners (sociopaths), the religious (dumbfucks), and blacks (ancestors brought there against their will).

The only reason the south is urbanized today is because of air conditioning. Period.

I live in the midwest and I fucking love humid ass southern climate. Shame there's no jobs there outside of maybe Atlanta, otherwise I'd move there already.

It's you that don't know. It's the people, not a State, who owns the sovereignty. The people give it to their representatives, who use it. The representatives of the people of the South were the ones who, while holding the sovereignty of the people of the South, choose it's independence.

So it should be valid for someone to build a drug lab in their house as long as they state their house is it's own sovereign nation?

Federal sovereignty trumps state sovereignty. And the people didn't give a shit about the Civil War. It was entirely manufacturered by the southern aristocrats.

The civil war was manufactured by the North.

Explain what a red state is.

Red = republican voting.

Except the Supreme Court ruled that once you're in the union, you can't leave again, whether you want to or not. So that cockamamy bullshit you're peddling is completely irrelevant.

That doesn't always corroborate.

>the North votes as a block, and elects Lincoln
>the South split their vote like retards and allow him an easy win
>then they illegally attempt to secede because they're butthurt about it

I will never understand how cuckfederates can seriously believe that the war was the North's fault.

So Virginia is a blue state then.

In welfare. Infrastructure costs are internal so the perspective is skewed. Blue states get the population influxes from federal projects making them permanently blue from basically migrant garbage and red states get shit because brain drain, federal negligence and no possible legal recourse to empower themselves.
That meme is cause and effect for why red states stay red.

The vast majority of slaves were imported by the North and sold in the South.

One of the reasons Southern aristocrats were totally accepting of the ban on the international slave trade was to boost the value of their domestic slaves because Yankee's couldn't import them on the cheap anymore.

After the war.

During the war the court actually ruled that secession was legal, and the impeached Lincoln for suppressing freedom of the press and waging war without the consent of congress. The Lincoln administration literally just ignored the Supreme Court for 4 years because "muh war." Supreme Court edicts don't mean shit unless the Executive enforces them.

>illegally secede
The Constitution as it existed in 1860 did not address secession either way. It was not explicitly illegal or legal. The Southern states DID implicitly believe that secession was legal however mostly due to the political wrangling around the adopting of the original Constitution. At the original founding there was an implied agreement that States could leave the Union peacefully if they wished.

In point of fact, several New England states threatened to secede on occasion.

It wasn't until after the war that Secession was made illegal.

They were not accepting of shit, they wanted to see the ban lifted. Read Road to Disunion from Freehling.

Then why the confederate constitution outlaw the international slave trade as well?

>it wasn't until after the war that secession was made illegal

Not according to SCOTUS. The way they interpreted the constitution secession was always unconstitutional. So what the south 'believed' was irrelevant. The fact that the decision was postbellum changes nothing. Secession is, and always was, implicitly unconstitutional. That's the law of the land, and nothing you post on the internet will make that any less true. Stay mad cuckfederate.

>During the war the court actually ruled that secession was legal, and the impeached Lincoln for suppressing freedom of the press and waging war without the consent of congress. The Lincoln administration literally just ignored the Supreme Court for 4 years because "muh war." Supreme Court edicts don't mean shit unless the Executive enforces them.

This literally did not happen. At all. The fact that you think SCOTUS can begin impeachment proceedings perfectly encapsulates your complete and utter ignorance of the Constitution though.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Merryman
Impeached was the wrong wording, but Taney and the court literally ruled on two different occasions that Lincoln was wiping his ass with the constitution.

Point out exactly where in the Constitution it is implied that secession is illegal.

I'm waiting.

>Impeached was the wrong wording, but Taney and the court literally ruled on two different occasions that Lincoln was wiping his ass with the constitution.

But NOT that secession was legal. Everyone knows about the illegal suspension of habeas corpus and subsequent court cases. I'm still waiting for you to show me one this mythical SCOTUS decision declaring secession constitutional.

>Point out exactly where in the Constitution it is implied that secession is illegal

I don't have to famalamadingdong, because the Texas v. White decision exists.

law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/74/700

>that pic
Is this what the traitors have been reduced to? 'muh battles'? And not even victories either, because two of those were draws and two more were Union victories. (It may surprise an inbred hick like you, but you don't win by inflicting a couple extra thousand casualties when you're fighting a section of the country with twice the people.) Pathetic.

tiocfaidh ár lá

>Buttmad Yankee can't actually point out where it says it's illegal to secede accept an ex-post-facto Court decision by a biased court

>I don't have to famalamadingdong
Uh, yes you do, you were specifically asked to do so multiple times. Are you having a problem?

>he doesn't understand constitutional law

See, the beauty of SCOTUS is that the majority opinion might as well have been handed down from God on high. If they say secession is unconstitutional, then I don't actually have to point to a specific part of the constitution to justify it. The decision itself stands as all the justification I need, unless you successfully mount a challenge and get it overturned. Texas v. White says secession isn't constitutional, so unless you can point me to a subsequent decision contradicting it, then that is the final, authoritative source on the matter. You can whine about the decision all you want, but that doesn't change a thing.

oh boy

Northerners blown out of the water once again

the south wins again

>wahh SCOTUS made a decision I don't like

If you cry hard enough you might be able to use the tears to put out Atlanta.

>Muh SCOTUS

I'm still waiting for you to point out where in the Constitution as it existed in 1860 it says that secession is illegal.

And since we are apparently allowed to just make up arbitrary rules about what other people "have to accept because muh court system," then I suppose we will have to accept that Blacks don't have any rights a white man has to respect, considering that the Supreme Court made that particular ruling as well.

You don't get to point out one court decision and claim that it somehow overwrights the actual constitution. The Supreme Court interprets the law, it does not MAKE the law. It is not some magical word of god that can never be challenged or is definitive in it's interpretation.

God arguing with Yankee retards is like arguing with a particularly dumb brick wall.

>Not according to SCOTUS. The way they interpreted the constitution secession was always unconstitutional.

That's how all rulings work you autist. Technically abortion was "always" protected by the constitution, yet only became so during the 70s. You can't hold people responsible after the fact.

>Implying there aren't.

Strangely enough, Texas, one of the biggest red states, and California, one of the biggest blue states, completely bucks that trend.

>WHATS AH NIGGER DOEN IN THIS CHURCH?!

>cherry picking

If you'd like, I can quote verbatim the sections of the CSA constitution they changed to make owning slaves a constitutional right.

>accept
Southern Education, everyone

SCOTUS rulings are the law of the land, so while they cannot make new laws, any clarification of the existing ones is the definitive word on the matter. And in this case, the words of Chief Justice Chase are quite convincing:

>The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government, by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term that

the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,

and that, "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States."

Cont.

>Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Seriously this.

Why do so few people talk about this? Do they think it'll trivialize the assassination somehow? It's not even some random trivia fact, It's an important part of who Booth was and how the country would have viewed the assassination in its wake. Booth wasn't just some crazy nobody with a gun like Oswald was, he's was a highly respected and fairly famous famous actor.

That's important. Can you try to imagine what it would feel like if some famous actor (George Clooney is actually pretty appropriate) turned out to be a political radical that assassinated a major political figure? It would fuck with a lot of people's heads.

>I fucking love humid ass southern climate
I live in Houston and fuck you, you don't know what you're fucking talking about

>buttmad yankee
i'm not the one who lost the war :^)

>Austin is nothing but Furries

Oh like the Corwin amendment they turned down?

Because it isn't really a trend. Disregarding the problems of determining what is a red state and blue state, you still need to also determine which time period you are looking at. This just a meme on the internet that gets repeated so often people accept it as true.

I was talking about the real south, not the Mexican shitpile that is Texas.

No, I was thinking more:

>No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

daily reminder there were BLACK slaveowners in the south

daily reminder libs will never mention that fact

America pls

You must be brain dead because every American knows and takes for granted that Pearl Harbor is a military/naval installation.

>leaving out that Pearl harbor was a military base

Senpai, I'm pretty sure not one single teacher ever has left out the fact that Pearl Harbor was a military base. The sinking of a bunch of ships is kind of essential to the story. Now, your Howard Zinn acolyte teacher may have told you that in other schools they pretend Jap fighter planes dove out of the sky and strafed a bunch of random citizens to death, but it's just not true.

kay? vast majority were still white. of course the majority of whites in the south didn't own slaves

And??
Just because there was one black who stole enough to buy a slave doesn't make secession justifiable.

I don't think he means it justified secession, more like talking about the horseshit notion that white people should forever repent for slavery even though only a minority of whites owned slaves while black slavers are ignored by everyone.

No white person I know has ever repented for slavery.

600 000 whites died in a war to abolish it.

Not to mention that the South took a massive fucking hit in order for slavery to be abolished, and it still hasn't recovered.

There's plenty of anti-black sentiment and, honestly, probably a little pro-slavery sentiment still out there, absolutely. That said, it doesn't negate the damage that has been done. Whites have suffered.

The fuck you saying.

Pearl Harbor was a military base, the homebase of the Pacific Fleet and the big reason the Japanese sent their best to destroy.

Even if your stupid conspiratard teacher confused Pearl Harbor for the Aleutians Campaign, there was only ONE recorded instance of a plane strafing shipwrecked survivors/civilians, the Aleutians also had a military base, and the Americans got an intact A6M3 Zero there.

And I'm the retard playing a stupid boatsluts Webgame. Shit, even Michael Bay knew Pearl Harbor was a fucking military installation.

fuck you, I didn't own slaves. I don't even have slave owning ancestors. plus the vast majority of whites in the south never owned slaves, although they might have supported it or were extremely racist

You are right but I was talking modern day.

Why are you saying Fuck you I'm literally saying that no white person has ever or should ever repent for slavery.

>implying a that a constitution for a 'more perfect union' doesn't imply that it is eternal
>implying that the implicit promise of participating in an election is accepting the results of it.
>implying seceding because you couldn't deal with the fact that slaver was going to expand to the territories isn't childish as fuck

Dixies are sub-humans

This is where the Southerner stops replying.

Ooh ah up the RA

>"muh perpetual union"
Note the Yankee's confusion and lack of understanding.

One phrase in the Constitution doesn't overrule the implied acceptence of secession during the constitutional convention.

Shelby Foote put it best, "No southern state would have entered into the Union if they were not of the understanding that they could leave it."

When the South agreed to enter the Union it was with the sole understanding that they could leave at any time. When they actually chose to exercise that right the Yankee nation decided they didn't like that and arbitrarily decided that it was totally okay to cheat States out of their sovereignty because "muh feels."

It's okay though, the South has certainly gotten it's payback by draining money from the Northern states and undermining the Union's political unity by unilaterally opposing whatever politics the Yankees support.

>It would fuck with a lot of people's heads.
It really fucked with Lincoln's

Actors weren't really that big until Hollywood and television. George Clooney is known everywhere from Kamchatka to Oatagonia, I don't think anyone outside of the US would know who Boothe was if not for the assassination.

>implied acceptance
>this legally binding document that we all signed explicitly prohibits what we did, but the spirit of the law backs me up here

Every time I have a conversation with a Confederate apologist, I am reminded why Sherman burned Atlanta.

ignoring all the redneck and yankee fagfest going on in this thread, Can we talk about Gangs of New York? Why did he shout Down with the Union? wasn't he a Know Nothing Nationalist? Know Nothings were ex-whigs and supported republicans for the most part. Yet the movie makes them seem close to Tammany Hall, which was a Democratic Organization. Anyone care to explain this?

>this legally binding document that we all signed explicitly prohibits what we did,
>explicitly prohibits

You seem to misunderstand the word "explicitly".

>The Jews killed Lincoln
NO