So do all southern Veeky Forumstorians shitpost confederate nostalgia and "muh war of northern aggression" or am I the...

you're embarassed that your ancestors were fucking badass warriors who fought for what they believed in and kicked major ass? you sound like a faggot to be quite honest

T - white guilt faggot

As a Yankee I've had sympathy with the South even if I personally don't hold some of the views that it represented in the war (Slavery and the Anti-Catholicism of a mostly Baptist government.)

They were constitutionally in the right to secede though, and they definitely did not deserve to be invaded and razed to the ground by Union forces.

I don't know, I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you don't have a little bit of pity or empathy in the matter you might be soulless, because the right side of the conflict didn't fight in this case.

That doesn't apply to civil war. Civil war history always goes this

>civil war starts
>side B loses
>side A treats the losers bad for a while
>historians of said country treat side B as a victim

This is the case all over the west.

Not that guy, but he's somewhat right. Many /pol/acks are short sighted retards who see the CSA as good just because it kept niggers in chains, but don't see the immidiate negative effects it had on white people.

>poor whites (vast majority of Confederate citizens) earning fuck all because black slavery driving down wages
>no incentive for technological improvement / industrialization that would create a white middle class
>greedy southern planters insisting on breeding and importing even larger number of niggers which would make shit only worse for whites
>splintering America and effectively making it weaker

If /pol/ wasn't so utterly stupid they'd realize the CSA was anti-white.

Not to mention that American African Culture is the main reason why The U.S is behind most devoloped and even many devoloping countries in education

Bringing in African Slaves was the biggest Mistake America ever Made and Lincoln should be seen as a white Hero for trying to end it

You do know that only a fraction of American users of /pol/ like the CSA?

I was obviously referring to those /pol/acks who do, hence why I said "many" instead of "all".

They're probably the same retards who masturbate to the free market while arguing about immigrants taking their jobs

I don't think anyone in the west outside of butthurt Southerners think the Confederacy was the victim

/pol/acks and edgelords and racist fags do

If there hadn't been a slave owing landed gentry, there wouldn't have been a war.

this

...

Pretty much this. The South was essentially a Neo-Feudal craphole in every sense of the word. Had the Confederacy succeeded, it would have become the North American Brazil at best, or the next Haiti at the absolute worst.

I'm massively embarrassed at the lack of foresight by southern leaders.

They should have looked far into the future and seen the possible repercussions of the black problem on their descendants.

I think if they would have given some thought they would have agreed with Lincoln and compromised. Start sending them back to Africa, replace them with European/Latin America labor.

>all these leftist atheist cucks in this thread

White And Proud

das right brother

in duke's name, amen

If Union troops hadn't been occupying rightful Confederate clay there wouldn't have been a war

...

>b-but the South shot first
>sovereign nations should just let foreign armies camp out where ever they please

>sovereign nation
Unrecognized secession

>were fucking badass warriors
>kicked major ass

Unironically being this much of a Bubba

>sovereign nation
>unrecognized

no need o be embarrassed

just bring up Sherman
and Atlanta
and a box of matches

fucking slave owners got the shit blown out of them

>burns down the south
>then goes and massacres buffalo to deny food to the Indians
what a fucking madman

EPIC BRO

Ha ha Americans are so fat! And stupid!

I have seen like a hundred Civil War threads on this board, and not once have I ever seen somebody get remotely triggered by the thousands of Sherman pictures that get spammed every time by Yankees pretending we're the ones with an obsession.

Worst meme ever.

I take it you were never here the first day this board was created?
Top fucking kek

Oh my god, why do you post this bullshit in every thread. The idea that the international slave trade would have begun again is absolutely ridiculous and categorically false. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about and are just fishing for replies. You and anybody that replies to you should just off yourself immediately.

Since when does recognition matter for shit? If a country is fully autonomous in its affairs and is printing its own currency and making its own laws do you seriously need your government to tell you it "exists"? What kind idiot are you?

Give me a break, it took most of the world eight fucking years to recognize the US

shout out to based Morocco

I wonder why they recognized us that early

Yep, and nearly every day since. Nobody gives a shit. It is honestly the weakest and most inane trolling in existence. At least you could step it up and get on the level of the "CSA was anti-white" guy if you're just here to b8 and shitpost.

It matters to the laws and thus the citizens of the united states of America as we are beholden to the decisions made by the supreme court of the united states of America.

>Since when does recognition matter for shit?
Since forever, otherwise John McDick and his libertarian buddies would be making microstates all over the place.

>If a country is fully autonomous in its affairs and is printing its own currency and making its own laws do you seriously need your government to tell you it "exists"?
Yes, which 0 governments did with the CSA. The U.S.A only became legitimate as a country when France recognized it.

>I've been here since day 1
>nobody gives a shit
you know, except people here that went complete apeshit when the sticky used Sherman's picture
that's the definition of triggered if I've ever seen it.

US paid the customary bribe to avoid their piracy.

>Sultan Mohammed III (r.1757- 1790) became the ruler of an unstable Morocco, his first goal was to turn Morocco into a regional power and began reforming the Government and the nation (introducing Nobility such as the Pashas & Caids).

>At the same time, American ships were being attacked by Barbary Pirates (modern Algerians & Tunisians), as the US was fighting the Revolutionary War it couldn't deploy a fleet to patrol the waters. So they asked Morocco for help.
(as well as Kevin Fitzpatrick's answer, American Merchants often landed in Morocco).

>Seeing this as the perfect opportunity to flaunt Morocco's newfound stability and power, Sultan Mohammed III agreed and became the first ruler to recognize the USA as an independent nation.

t. some fag on quora

Because American merchant vessels enjoyed good trade relations and the Sultan wanted to keep those relations high after the Revolution broke out.

>Since forever, otherwise John McDick and his libertarian buddies would be making microstates all over the place.
Yeah that's totally like the entire southern half of the US seceding and forming a coherent self-governing state with millions of people in it.

>The U.S.A only became legitimate as a country when France recognized it
it became a legitimate country when it was governing itself independent of foreign influence. Again, are you really so much of a useless person that you can't accept something that blatantly exists unless an official body tells you that it's okay?

thanks lads, the Sultan seemed pretty based.

That's like saying being against gay marriage is illegal because the Supreme Court established its legality, are you fucking retarded?

you seem upset

...

Sherman was a war criminal and a poor representation of the board. He didn't deserve to be in the sticky.

Going unrecognized is different than being illegal and you know that you living meme.

I love when /pol/ leaks and they try to pretend they understand history or governance.

It's cute.

Pretty sure that is was mostly Algerians and Tunisians doing most of the piracy.

>Sherman was a war criminal
Stop applying modern ethics and law to history

>and a poor representation of the board
Tacitus or THE VENERABLE B E D E should've been the sticky image.

I agree Herodotus is a better representation, but you are lying to yourself when you say people are not triggered by him.

>southern half of the US seceding and forming a coherent self-governing state with millions of people in it.
>Coherent
>Half the states threaten to succeed mid-war becaus Davis wanted to draft slaves to fight.
Wew
>. Again, are you really so much of a useless person that you can't accept something that blatantly exists unless an official body tells you that it's okay?
Existing is not the same as being diplomatically recognized. If that were the case, the Caucuses would be literally unrecognizable from what the official borders show.

cool.

Secession was made illegal retroactively and was not illegal at the time of the CSA's secession. You are applying modern American laws and ethics to a nineteenth century political scenario, which is pretty much the same thing as condemning Sherman as a war criminal because of modern standards of war crimes.

>and was not illegal at the time of the CSA's secession.
No shit, that's why the U.S. government didn't attack immediately following its succession. The CSA quickly lost the moral high ground when it chose to attack Fort Sumter

t. ugly american

Sherman's tactics would be fine if they were used against a foreign enemy, but to burn, pillage and rape what are your own countrymen's cities and towns? That is unacceptable behavior for a general in a civil war.

>T -
Fuck off, edgy newfag.

>Stop applying modern ethics and law to history
I'll admit that the laws at the time didn't technically make him a war criminal, but the ethics, even at the time, forbade people to do the stuff he did. This is why Sherman was special; he did a lot of dickish things that all the other generals refused to do because of ethics.

>What distinguished Sherman from most other armies was the intentionality of his destruction. His actual orders were not far from the ordinary, but in his correspondence made his intentions clear. Although other armies wrought similar kinds of destruction, Sherman was different. He launched a campaign for the sole purpose of making war on civilians and turning them against the war. Where other generals tried to constrained the depredations of their men, Sherman encouraged them.

>Where other generals tried to constrained the depredations of their men, Sherman encouraged them.
Based as fuck

[dueling banjos intensifies]

And why is diplomatic recognition relevant to historical discussion, exactly? You're right, the world's borders don't fit what actual borders show, very rarely have they at any point since the 20th century. So what? Are we going to just pretend Kosovo or Transnistria isn't independent (when it is) or that Crimea is 100% under Russian control (which it is) because of diplomatic games?

The US government didn't attack immediately because it didn't even have a decent army. The entire US army before the civil war numbered about 15000 men, which is tiny. It simply took months for both sides to build actual armies to fight.

>brings up the subject of religion for no reason
You shitheads really are cancer.

>he did a lot of dickish things that all the other generals refused to do because of ethics.
He was both ahead of his time and true to the history of warfare.

How much more based can you get?

Traitors to the union got off easy.

We were not countrymen.

>Are we going to just pretend Kosovo or Transnistria isn't independent (when it is) or that Crimea is 100% under Russian control (which it is) because of diplomatic games?

Yes, welcome to reality

There is NOTHING based about what he did. The war would have been won exactly as quickly if he didn't commit war crimes, but the south wouldn't have resented the north as much. Sherman did harm to the civilians of the south and to the cause of the Union.

talk shit get hit

The North's goal was to bring them back into the union, so they would be your countrymen very soon.

That was never disputed. Glad they're back despite the carnage.

What would america be without Missouri or Mississippi?

Don't know, you're the tyrannical dumbasses that died in droves to bring us back to complain about us for the next century and a half, why don't you tell me?

>complain about us for the next century and a half
because the south never ever bitches at the north.

The difference is the south is justified in bitching since it genuinely tried to leave but was forced back in.

only when you move here.

>this warped view of modern civil war discussion

I'm a southerner and no I don't think it as a war of northern aggression. My state didn't join until after Fort Sumpter incident and it was a huge debate, we proceeded to get stomped and our Capital was taken relatively easy and they knew this would happen, and yet they still fought because they believed in something and that's not embarrassing. I respect them for standing up. Don't take this as a muh heritage, I disagree with a lot of confederate policy and the slave economy.

A bit off topic but how come Morocco never tried to have a Colonial Power?
They were right next to the Atlantic Ocean and were the Closest thing to a Nation State in the Middle East at the time

And then when it did, it BTFO the south so fucking hard it's still far behind the rest of the country economically.

Get fucked south cuck

what state?

maine

>warped
Not at all. Literally every Civil War discussion boils down to "you're shit and I wish you weren't part of this country and I hate you but hardy har har did we kick your asses when you tried to leave get on our level [picture of Sherman]".

>And then when it did, it BTFO the south so fucking hard
4 years and a negative casualties ratio against a country with 4 times less population and like 20 times less industry isn't anything to brag about.

>it's still far behind the rest of the country economically.
That's because niggers aren't forced to be productive anymore, so they drag everyone else down with them.

Judging by that post alone, it seemed like keeping atop their domestic situation was a full time job.

Arkansas

Really? They generally seem to start with some slave economy apologetics and end with the notification that the conflict will reignite one day.

>still this btfo

Get fucked hillbilly

I would expect the people on the offence to take more casualties than the people defending

On a tactical level, sure, but not on a strategic one in the 19th century.

Really? Because they don't.