When did you first realize that the Confederates were the good guys Veeky Forums?

>not using the middle french spelling

>being a frankocuck.

do we really have to have this thread again?

I bet you're cucked to ideals of liberte, egalite, and fraternite

of course. can't wait for someone to call all of this northern shitposting again.

I love the idea of the lost causes, even though they were a bunch of slaveowners. They were the "bad guys" sure, but I like them morals removed.

There are no good guys and bad guys in history. Only children view the world as such.

Secondly, it was about slavery regardless of what anybody wants to claim. It was always about slavery and the confederacy actually limited States rights to force slavery on new states.

> The states having any rights.
No true American who loves their country and unity of a single government would support this.

T. Southerner

This is not an objective end all be all post, and the civil war was not over one singular issue.
>the civil war was soley over slavery
This is a history board.

That post never suggests that it is, it disputes a popular claim about the motivations for the conflict.

When people say
>the civil war was not over slavery
They mean it was not the PRIME motivator for secession.

and they're wrong

>only MY analysis of history is correct
>you can't disagree or your a neo-confederate
Fuck off with this
>MY SANDBOX
>MY RULES
shit

you keep on throwing handfuls of straw at me. stop.

>implying I'm straw manning you
Fuck off.

Under what context?

Not the guy that you were talking to, just referring to the neo confederacy claim

> t. a Federalist
Ftfy

Century and a half old confederate butthurt is truly the best

>takes almost half a decade to beat an opponent who has 1/20th your manpower
Nice pride there, retard.

5 years ago I considered them the good guys, but actually reading about what they wanted made me pretty redpilled. If they had their way the CSA would be another Zimbabwe now.

In the case of the U.S. Civil War, that's a rare instance where it's really true.

Recommend me some decent books that put forth the argument. What are the standard pro-confederate texts?

Germans can be safely written off as the bad guys in all historical eras.

Other than that you're right though.

Remember when you fought countless wars to exterminate the indians, who were far less?

Remember how you barely won said wars and how the indians are still here?

>this nonsensical non-tangent

You know the South is the most heavily populated area in the US right? Florida has long surpassed New York in population alone.

>still being this mad

Most of the /pol/ memes about them are dead wrong.

>muh states rights
>actually centralized the shit out of the South after seceding

>muh white man's paradise
>wanted to annex Cuba and Haiti and import a cockload of spooks while the poor whites remained poor

>muh redpilled country
>secretary of state was a Jew, as were many slave owners

>muh chivarly, tradition and morals
>the south was viewed as a major hub of degeneracy, alcoholism, prostitution and gambling by the New England Puritans for decades

Not even made when its an observed factual point, shitposter san.

When the yanks started doing this shit

Another fact for you

>the south was viewed as a major hub of degeneracy, alcoholism, prostitution and gambling by the New England Puritans for decades

Compared to New England any place would be "filled with degeneracy, alcoholism, prostitution, and gambling" though

Not that you're wrong about the rest

Yeah, the North winning the war was great. Now we just pay the niggers not to work.

The Southern Aristocracy absolutely seceded over slavery. That being said in the Virginia, the state with the highest percentage of slave owners, only around 5% of whites owned slaves. How many of those slave owners actually went to war? Rich man's fight, poor man's war. Poor southern whites fought bravely which is why I understand how southerners today idealizing the war. I don't know what each individual poor white was fighting for, but the succession was caused by economics. Maybe a small part by protectionism which favored industry, but mostly by over reliance on slavery and a refusal to abandon it.

Proving my point you are in fact sore assed? Neat.

Pretty much the moment I realized that "the white man's burden" was essentially true, and black people would have been better off as slaves for the hundred years between the end of the civil war and the civil rights movement than they ended up after reconstruction.

>muh states rights
>actually centralized the shit out of the South after seceding

this is such a stupid claim, they were in middle of a total war for the survival of their existence. Washington was basically a despot during the American Revolution, doesn't mean >muh freedom was a lie.

>muh white man's paradise
>wanted to annex Cuba and Haiti and import a cockload of spooks while the poor whites remained poor
>annex Haiti

you having a giggle m8, the black population didn't increase percentage wise in the south since 1790s. Stop with your golden circle theories.

>muh redpilled country
>secretary of state was a Jew, as were many slave owners

lol

>muh chivarly, tradition and morals
>the south was viewed as a major hub of degeneracy, alcoholism, prostitution and gambling by the New England Puritans for decades

so New Englanders had a self righteous stick up their ass back then too? who cares

>

>How many of those slave owners actually went to war?

almost all of them. Go read Sherman's or other Union Generals papers. The south was full of women and old men because all the men were off to war. meanwhile rich northerners could buy their way out of the draft.

Granted. But still, the vast majority of confederate casualties did not
Own slaves and were arguably. diasadvataged by the
Existence of slavery.

>and I'm mighty sorry that our race was set free too soon
Definitely plenty of folks probably agreed with him at the time.

>golden circle theories
Was Jefferson Davis also a golden circler? He certainly wanted to annex Cuba.

Dumb frogposter

Polk attempted to buy it, but Spain wasn't selling. Did the CSA ever make genuine efforts to annex it? I know Jeff Davis turned down Narciso Lopez's offer to filibuster in Cuba.

>diasadvataged by the Existence of slavery.

How so? We've gone through this in every civil war thread and their hasn't been anybody that's prove freeing the slaves helped working class whites. If anything it increased competition for jobs and depressed wages.

CSA was fully focused on the war. They would've tried buying it again after the war to secure a virtual monopoly on cotton and sugar in the Mexican gulf. Haiti would very likely be invaded considering they weren't being protected by an European empire and pretty easy to acquire.

>alt history fanfic

you can shit on the Confederacy for tons of things, but this is a bizarre point to choose. We're literally arguing the existence of something that never happened.

Hardly just alt history if some of the Confederate top dogs wanted to annex Cuba. Those who refused only did it because it was complicated (too much money for purchase / risky war with Spain), but never because they considered it non desirable.

not from their perspective. Most saw slave ownership as something they could aspire to, or at least enjoyed being above the slaves, no matter how low in the social hierarchy they were. Plus they saw free slaves as economic competition.

Neither side was good. Their should have been a third faction fighting both the Union and Confederates.

The Native Americans didn't fare so well at that.

most the natives chose sides. unfortunately for them, most chose the Confederacy.

I would have fought for the Confederacy if their champion issue for state's rights wasn't slavery.

On the other hand, aside from slavery being bad I also see why it was important at the time to keep the nation together--remember, America was less than a hundred years old, and had very little world influence or power. The Civil War also came on the (relative) heels of a large series of failed republican revolutions in Europe. The Civil War represented a litmus test for republicanism in the world--could it survive, or was it doomed to failure? While abolition seems clearly to have been among Lincoln's goals (though he tried to be wishy-washy about it), he also saw the greater purpose in preserving the Union. The methods of Sherman and Grant were brutal and bloody, but also remember that they were fighting people that would execute black soldiers or ship them back into chattel slavery. Personally I think Sherman should have done a little less of the burn+pillage stuff, but it certainly sent a message, and regardless, it's pretty easy to see the overall MORAL (if not ideological) high ground.

Their perspective and feels on the matter isn't what matters. The tragedy is how they got dicked and thought it was in their best interests. If wages went down after emancipation in the south it was because the south was fucking demolished, and the British had already transitioned to a alternative sources of cotton other than the American south. War devastation, competition in cotton on the global level and the
Decimation of the labor force is responsible for the souths economic ruin. The south would've been fucked regardless of the civil war. The civil war just accelerated Britains expansion of cotton supply chains in colonies. Not because of slavery. If the south had not relied on a single cash crop book and no wage labor they may
Have had economic diversification, higher wages, increased consumption etc. People who think that slavery was good for the south's economic development don't understand economic cycles and the global economy or sustainable growth. Also how the fuck do you expect anyone to believe that freeing the slaves brought wages for whites down? With slavery rich whites could spend the literal bare minimum to keep slaves working. There was no
Incentive to invest and diversify industry.

Nobody goes to war over that.
You are a delusional fool.
Racism was virulent in slave states.
No war without the fundamental issue of owning people like property.

Vice president Alexander Stephens himself said that if the CSA wasn't about a slave based economy, then what was it for?

I have two paternal ancestors who fought in ANVA.
They were brave and courageous, but they fought for one of the worst causes in American history.

If you're NOT in favor of the ideals of freedom, brotherhood and equality, then you are a fascist, a racist and a possible monarchist.

You are the enemy.

This is what YOU deserve:

This is getting comical, I'm going back to save all of your posts to show everyone what a LARPing twat you are.
You're actually a Spurdo meme in the flesh.
>have the same opinion as me
>or die
>even if it makes me a hypocrite
Are you advocating everyone kill themselves? Or just you.

>American "liberal" nut jobs trying to coopt classical liberalism into their Zelous religion
There is nothing inherently wrong with being a racist, a monarchist, or a fascist.

>America was less than a hundred years old, and had very little world influence or power
Dude, the US had been dicking around in Latin American affairs for decades by then. The US was more influential than you think

You're right about everything else though.

When I realized states have the right to secede from the Union of states.

>There is a difference between slavery and Chattle slavery
When will this meme end.

Speak English, you twat.
Larp?
Spurdo?
Stop being hip and confront me like a man.

>impyling your over 12 years old
Don't cut yourself on the edge of that guillotine, kid.

I mean, there was, but ultimately the reasoning was the same. Many Chattel slaves had it as good as staves in Roman pratrician families, while both were occasionally treated abhoribly in the very worst cases.

In either case, it was pretty shit. No one actually wanted to be a slave ever or would describe it as comfey.

Yes, there is.
Racism is ignorant of science.
Monarchy is a delusion that a deity has especially endowed some family that they are entitled to own people.

Fascism is dependent on racial or nationalist beliefs of superiority over others who are different from the "chosen" people.

All three ideologies are exclusivist and exclusionary.

My Socialist ideology contains all people.
Of course, those who violently want rights for only their select group are backwards-looking dullards.

I am a 52 year old disabled veteran.
I was a soldier during the cold war.

Man up, you ignorant guppy.

You are obviously decades younger than me, since I use english, and not some hip acronym or whatever geek terms YOU use.

>I was a soldier during the cold war.
>cold war

>Yes, there is.
>Racism is ignorant of science.
Science does not determine the validity of everything in this world, and it is not ignorant of science. It relies on science to support its findings of social results.
>Monarchy is a delusion that a deity has especially endowed some family that they are entitled to own people.
You have no idea what monarchism is besides the blurb upon the wiki page. Read some reactionary literature, hell read some John Milton if you want.
>Fascism is dependent on racial or nationalist beliefs
A. Racism and nationalism are not the same thing as you imply.
B. No they don't rely on that. Fascism is not one coherent ideology. The PAP of Singapore isn't racist, and the BUF wasn't racist.
>of superiority over others who are different from the "chosen" people.
Some people believe that they want to be with people like themselves. Why is this wrong?
>All three ideologies are exclusivist and exclusionary.
And? What is wrong with excluding people? Would you exclude Idi from coming into your county?
If you say yes, you're exclusionary and just as bad as me.
>My Socialist ideology contains all people.
*sniff* so you're guided completely by ideology and none by education. Go it. Your socialist ideology contains all people, except anyone who opposes you.
Do you believe hypocrisy is a good thing?
You want to exclude exclusionary people, so by default you want to exclude yourself.
>Of course, those who violently want rights for only their select group are backwards-looking dullards.
Universal rights don't exist, and looking backwards is not a criticism.

>I am a 52 year old disabled veteran.
A. Disabled in the head I'm assuming.
B. What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across theUSAand your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.
>I was a soldier during the cold war
Where are the broofs?
>Man up, you ignorant guppy
You know nothing about me, this is an anonymous image board
>You are obviously decades younger
See above.
>since I use english, and not some hip acronym or geek terms YOU use
Calm down John, we know you hate everyone one of us "stupid little faggots", go oil your abs and jerk off to scat porn in [s4s]

PAP aren't exactly fascist bruv

For the southern elites it was about being sore losers over losing the election to the party that was against expanding slavery westward, which the institution required in order to survive as an economic enterprise in the long term.

For the Northern elite it was about telling the southerners they had no right to be uppity pieces of shit because they lost said election.

For the people who fought it on both sides it was basically an even more violent than normal football game between two favorite son sports teams. It was fought for basically no goddamned reason at all but it gave abolitionists the excuse and opportunity they needed to finally abolish slavery.

I would say they qualify in the very broad and expansive term of Fascism.
If anything, they are Democratic Fascism.
whoda thunk.

>virulently anti-communist
>built upon a cult of personality
>revolutionized their national economy to something never seen before
>Rhetoric junkies
>a nation of people bound by an iron will of Lee Kawn Yew
Pretty fascist to me bruv.
doesn't make them bad in any way, pretty based actually.

...

...

The mere fact that your B section is a post that I've seen a thousand times on many boards, shows that you are not to be taken seriously.

I served in the 4th &5th battalions of the 327th Infantry Regiment , Fort Richardson AK.
I was trained at Fort Benning GA.
After my AK service, I was transferred to Ft Campbell KY. The disabling event occurred there.
I received an honorable discharge.

Singaporean here. The PAP and Lee Kuan Yew are fascist at heart. For fuck's sake, look at the company the old fuck had.

The PAP did work with the Commies in the 50s, then purged them all (along with a few other political parties) via Operation Coldstore.

The Singapore Armed Forces is also largely Chinese and Indian (demographics mostly), with Malays being unable to reach the higher echelons of army leadership or be in sensitive military units. Sadly, it's not because of racism, but because they might eacape to Malaysia, deapite the fucking history saying otherwise.
Singapore is also one of the few democratic countries to successfully sue a rival politician that had served in Parliament. I wish I was kidding.
Freedom of expression is non-existent, let alone freedom of speech, and yes, if you are an artist or a creative sort, you can't fucking criticize the PAP in any form, or you don't get funding.
Singapore's economy is basically every American politician's wet dream: the PAP doesn't even bother to hide the fact that it serves the corporate entity and not the people, who are seen as cogs in a system.
And guess who is a founding member of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Or said nothing about Pol Pot and his fucking genocide. And quite possibly supplied the machineguns that committed genocide.

There is nothing "based" about Singapore. It is a psychological shithole.

>That being said in the Virginia, the state with the highest percentage of slave owners, only around 5% of whites owned slaves

Two thing wrong with this statement.

1. The highest concentration of slave ownership was in Mississippi

2. It gives you a much more accurate depiction of slavery in the south when you count of the percentage of HOUSEHOLDS that owned slaves than just slave owners divided by population. When you consider HOUSEHOLD slave ownership, it was nearly 50% in Mississippi and South Carolina. Over 30% in Georgia, Alabama & Florida. Just under 30% in Texas, Virginia, North Carolina & Louisiana. Much higher than your "only 5% of whites owned slaves!"

Source of the statistics: civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm

when I read I'll Take My Stand by the Southern Agrarians and I realized that the plantation economy was the GOAT way of life and that Yankee Industrialism is poison.

>I'll Take My Stand

My nigga, hopefully we revert back to this with slaves replaced with drones.

You received a discharge for being an autistic edgelord.
Fuck off.
The PAP are entirely based.
Fuck off.
>household slave ownership
>household income
When will these memes end

Coming from a man born and raised in Alabama, you're an idiot, OP.