European here. Can anyone explain the fascination people have with the Confederacy? What did they do?

They lost.
I know.

The north was setteled by the english
The south was setteled by spain and france.

It was the only time Americans had Kultur in the european sense. Everything else is just globalist cosmpolitan anti-culture.

No.

>The constitution and common sense allowed a state within a union to secede.
>But no fucking shit it was illegal and corrupt, and the worst part is being surrounded by people who think they have the moral high ground. Fucking idiots.

t. Internet Constitutional scholar

If the South has some sort of advanced culture that the North lacked, I'd like to know.

>leftist talking points about muh lost cause conspiracy

The romanticism of the confederacy is no different than the romanticism of the founding fathers, Napoleon, greatest generation etc. The honoring of your enemies is not unique to the civil war, just look how romantically we look back on the Indians we fought.

How is it leftist?

A lot of us Americans love them mostly for our badass rebel mentality and the sheer novel idea of American vs American warfare. They were also a very well organized military and managed to match the federal government for a long while in battle.

Anything he doesn't like or finds confusing is leftist. It's the American way.

White Supremacists and traitors.

Southerners hate the traitor part, but they ignore it because they love the white supremacy part.

Red-blooded Hamburger-American here. People are fascinated with the confederates because they actually affected history. They were the only secessionist movement to actually go through with their plans, and the opponent of the US in its only civil war.

So they're constantly used as a model for what future/hypothetical secessionist movements might be like if they succeed, and they're always looked to when people think about what a second American Civil War might be like.

As for why southerners are obsessed with it, it's because it gives them a sense of a unique identity. Same reason why people from various states in the US might identify with their state as well as being American, or even moreso. It's a funny substitute for nationalism in a country that spans the space of a continent.

>the sheer novel idea of American vs American warfare

Americans are so good at war, it's just entertaining to watch. Imagine if America were set up like the >H>R>E and there were constant wars all over the place between states in the union? We'd have shit like "War of the League of the Great Lakes" or "Texan Conquest of Oklahoma" or "The Fifty-State War to Force Florida to Secede and Stop Existing", etc.

>The Fifty-State War to Force Florida to Secede and Stop Existing
>Fifty-State
Florida itself even fought for its own non-existence.

>traitors

Sorry, but no. No Anerican can pull the "muh traitor card" - because if being a traitor is inherently bad so is the United States. You're all traitors.

its not a bad or a good thing per se, treason is t reason.

Washington was a traitor to the Crown. I doubt he would be offended if you stated that.
In the same way, south was a traitor to USA, they fought, they lost.

>Traitors
The secession was democratic, pham.

It's a simple matter of states rights.

The South wanted to make it Federal Law that Northern states had to pay to return escaped slaves, while the Northern states wanted the right to not recognize slavery in their borders.

The South seceded to secure control over their own Federal government, one that did what they wanted.

they fucked up the entirety of the Union from 1860-1865 by rebelling against Pres. Abraham Lincoln

>the states are subject to the president
>not the constitution

Enslave a shit load of people and then lose a war. But they're defenders tend to latch onto the states rights aspect of their formation (even though states rights was as much an issue for the North) and so acting like they weren't complete scum allows racists a way to wax political.

because it's the narrative repeated by leftist academics like foner to some how discredit a viable viewpoint as False. Like I said above, the romanticism of the confederacy is no different than the romanticism of the founding fathers and the War of Independence. Yet academics have no problem with allowing the Mythic beliefs that the revolution was over Muh freedoms, Muh liberty, and Muh Democracy while demonizing any positive view of the CSA.

They followed the constitution that they ratified and defied the federal government that stepped outside its bounds. They betrayed no one.

in my experience the fascination is some romanticism, and some idealism dealing with the whole concept of states rights v. tyranny or some shit.

>The South wanted to make it Federal Law that Northern states had to pay to return escaped slaves

you mean they wanted Northern states to follow their own Federal constitution? Somehow that's a violation of states rights? This is what yankees learn in school?

> Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3
>No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.

No. Very, very no.

The south was mainly settled by english and scots, that's why most of the last names there are like Williams, Smith, and Johnson.

I think most people, especially Southerners, have their own reasons.

for me personally, it's the stories of just how well a rebel army performed against a vastly superior enemy.

The Confederates were at peace from February to April of 1861, giving them about 3 months to found a government, iron out all the offices and positions, build a military that can defend the territory, and keep it fed and supplied. The confederates managed to do all of this to a surprising ability despite severe shortages of railroad track, munitions factories, or textile factories for clothing.

The Army of Northern Virginia in particular is famous for winning battles that were severely stacked against it. Winning battles against armies of over 150,000 men with just 60,000 on their side. General Lee goes down among a lot of people as a Hannibal of the New World, able to score miraculous victories against superior forces time and time again, only losing to pure exhaustion rather than being outflanked or outwitted.

it's a rare sight in history for rebels to fight so tenaciously against their former government. By all accounts, most people thought the war would be over in 3 or 4 battles, but it dragged on to be a 5 year fight to the very finish.

This faggot was indeed very wrong in general, but the golf coast was at different times and in different areas French and Spanish colonies.

Started shit
Got hit

And Southerners are still fucking pissed about it so they've collectively deluded themselves into thinking it was about muh rights and the flag is about muh heritage rather than about slavery.

Its sorta like how even if your home team loses you still root for them

For whatever reason when people look back at that period they look at the map and say "huh i live in one of the formerly confederate states so I guess im on their side"
T. Georgian

Confederates saw themselves as the true successors to the ideals of the founding fathers. They would not see themselves as traitors to America, just the North.

Stonewall Jackson.

>implying all of those are mutually exclusive

The French and Spanish areas weren't populated by Europeans until the US took them, though. With the exception of some parts of the modern state of Louisiana, it was mostly just native Americans and a couple of whites. The vast majority of white Americans in those regions are not descended from French or Spanish settlers, they are descended from British immigrants and colonists who moved there after the US gained the land.

true. I'm from the south and most of the people I know all can trace they ancestry to someone that fought in the american revolution that were paid in land grants in the south

Exactly. Politics be damned, southerners like the CSA because it was the south, simple as that. It's why Texans wank about our Republic. It's because it's like the CSA with less stigmatism.

Nigga I'm a northerners and even I know they didn't enslave anyone those Africans enslaved each other we just bough them

They legalized slavery and made it illegal to stop slaves. There is no evidence that they really promoted states rights significantly more than the north. Interstate commerce was one and a big deal though.

Absolutely not true. Look up the history of chattel slavery, Bartolomé de las Casas, and why we chose to use Africans instead of Native Americans like we did before.

African slavery was bad, but it isn't the same thing as American Slavery. It was keeping families hostage and claiming them as trophies or prisoners of war, not claiming that they are less/not a person and forcing them to do all your work. There are several slave diaries that compare along with written accounts of the differences from slave owners and third parties.

Are you implying it wouldn't?

Howdy fellow Texan! Hope the floods aren't fucking you up too much. I agree, it's a nationalism type thing.

>African slavery wasn't so bad

Jesus, leftists are truly insane.

>The slaves in Africa, I suppose, are nearly in the proportion of three to one to the freemen. They claim no reward for their services except food and clothing, and are treated with kindness or severity, according to the good or bad disposition of their masters. Custom, however, has established certain rules with regard to the treatment of slaves, which it is thought dishonourable to violate. Thus the domestic slaves, or such as are born in a man’s own house, are treated with more lenity than those which are purchased with money. ... But these restrictions on the power of the master extend not to the care of prisoners taken in war, nor to that of slaves purchased with money. All these unfortunate beings are considered as strangers and foreigners, who have no right to the protection of the law, and may be treated with severity, or sold to a stranger, according to the pleasure of their owners."
>Travels in the Interior of Africa, Mungo Park,

Howdy. Flooding hasn't been too bad around the San Antone area, where are you at?

they were racist and racism is wrong

They got their asses kicked. Surrendered. Went back to their farms and swore never to take up arms again. A couple of generations later, as they were rapidly dying off, their grandkids and great grandkids started making up a bunch of bullshit propaganda about them and how great they were.

How about state's rights?

Propaganda. The South didn't give a fuck about states rights unless they happen to benefit directly from it. States rights were one of the first things the Confederacy threw out the window when it formed a government.

Much the same to this day.

...

Not exactly a culture, that's more of a belief. Plus, considering it okay to use state laws as an excuse to trample over individual rights protected by the constitution is pretty fucked up desu.

man, fuck horsey

>leftists
How the fuck does that have to do with being a leftist?

His lines are pretty good, his coloring too. The people are a bit too overexaggerated though, like the noses.

i would but i don't want to end up in jail

They had the same constitution as the USA except all of the parts they added were hilariously specific and overall terrible things to put into a constitution. Also prohibiting the banning of slavery forever.

The confederacy was shit. Part of the northern argument against slavery was "look at how shitty the south is" and then they blamed slavery for a lot of the backwardness in the south.

I'm calling bullshit on this post. Sounds like someone asking the history nerds to do their homework for them.

but it is kind of true. Southern reliance on slavery prevented industrialization and created an angry mulatto population. The only thing southerners have now is the military and strip clubs

The CSA had a clause in its constitution that states should be able to secede if they want, technically they could've splintering forever.

ayo FUCK WHITEY

Yeah I mean I agree with it. Slavery was a moral disgrace but also it made for a shitty southern economy.

Because the whole "chattel" slavery was worse than African slavery is a well known post colonialist talking point. Both were equally horrific.

>Southern reliance on slavery prevented industrialization

When will this meme die.

Academics definitely don't propagate the idea that the revolution was about freedom. I mean shit they stop telling you that in high school

Except they couldn't. And they hanged secessionists for "treason" when they tried to secede from the CSA and rejoin the US.

>United STATES of America
>Confederate STATES of America

states can secede or stay, not random citizens you dupe.

Whatever it is on God's green Earth that you're smoking, I want some.

The only people who romanticize the founding fathers are Tea Party morons. Academics would point out Thomas Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hennings, or John Adams arguing that the president should be addressed as "his excellency, the president", or that George Washington was an aristocrat, one of America's wealthiest presidents ever, and probably only joined the revolution because he was denied a spot in the British Army. This is because leftist academics would rather examine them as whole people, not just as symbols or ideals, and this tends to infuriate Teatards and other right wingers who want everything to be a moral issue and need symbols and ideals with which to beat people over the head.

But specifically related to the Civil War, the overwhelming consensus of academic historians side with the Union's interpretation of events even as they point out the considerable flaws and blunders which defined the Union effort. While they'd be the first to point out the Union's flaws, they'll also be the first to point out that the Confederacy was basically a giant revolt over the states' right to define a living human being as the private property of another.

>The only people who romanticize the founding fathers are Tea Party morons.

Bitch please. Every liberal and left-wing academic I ever met thinks that the founding fathers were a bunch of old white property owning males who traded authoritarianism for a slightly better oligarchy which was still basically authoritarian for anyone who wasn't an old white property owning man, and that the history of the United States since then has been the history of progress from a barbarous state to a civilized one.

Shit like lionizing the founding fathers and rote memorization of the constitution are for right-wingers looking for someone to champion their ideas.

Claimed and explored first with established Spanish and French influenced culture... but beyond that, the English and Germans have claim

Because Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were big time confederaboos who cemented it's legacy in the public's mind.

>Teddy Roosevelt
since when?

They resisted the judaization of the American government like the Sons of Liberty did the British government.

it is tho

Fuck off leftist

Both were better than the wage slavery of the Irish immigrants desu

...

...

>What did they do?

they lost and have been big cry babbies since

Americans suffer from a lack of culture (I mean real culture, not culture in the pussy anthropological sense.)
As the country grows in age and history, one would expect this issue to resolve itself. Instead the American mythos remains dismal: the world and its leaders tell us that America is a nation of immigrants, essentially as a means of denying it a community through which culture could only be created, that America is a nation of "ideals", that America is the New World, et cetera. It all sounds nice and forward-thinking until you have to live here. America and its Americans are an abstraction. In effect, they define Americans as non-human.
The Confederacy is the most emblematic phase of one of the only American identities available - the Southerner.
Unfortunately they lost, their way of life was slandered, and nowadays being an American means a rootless atomized hedonism strictly defined by consumerist tendencies and a leader who goes on apology tours in Hiroshima to embarrass his people by condemning one of the only other genuinely American identities (the WWII era male) for the sake of looking cool in front of his cosmopolitan friends.

>reads american psycho once

you should write that stuff down
one day someone might give a shit

Have never read it and don't know anything about it, but it's nice to receive confirmation of the truth of my comment, evidenced by the apparent ubiquity of its occurrence.

his mother was a rich southern belle who championed the confederacy and in Teddy's own words " was completely unreconstructed". Also being a macho man he was always embarrassed that his northern relatives bought their way out of serving in the war while all of his southern uncles fought for the confederacy and he'd often brag about their exploits. He also had a particular boner for Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson. This is what he wrote in 1900.

>The militant spirit of these last certainly stood them in good stead in the civil war. The world has never seen better soldiers than those who followed Lee, and their leader will undoubtedly rank, without any exception, as the very greatest of all the great captains that the English-speaking peoples have brought forth; and this although the last and chief of his antagonists may himself claim to stand as the full equal of Marlborough or Wellington.”

You know America has culture other than backwards dixie fags?
>What was Manifest Destiny
>What was the Wild West
>What was the Harlem Renaissance
>What was the Roaring 20's
There's plenty more too

Wasnt manifest destiny a southern thing as well? Whigs and northerners hated it.

This.
The South's military fought toe-to-toe with the Union despite being both outmanned, out-funded, and outgunned. That's why people love it so much. It's a good underdog story.

The Union navy won the war, not the army. The army did not pull their weight at all until Grant came along.

Ignore the "both". I just woke up.

>It's a good underdog story.

underdog stories are much better when yo don't lose

the South was handily beaten by the Union
sorry slavery lovers, you done lost

Ever seen Rocky?

The civil war was not about slavery.

First of all, the north did not ban slavery. The emancipation proclamation outlawed slavery in the south but northern border states were still allowed to keep slaves. It was basically just a big fuck you to the confederacy to try and get their slaves to revolt.
The south only wanted to keep slaves because their economy was almost entirely based on cotton and agriculture. That's literally where almost all of their wealth came from. The north didn't care because they had a burgeoning industrial sector as well as trade. Without slaves the south economy would collapse, since they needed lots of cheap labor to stay alive. In a way it was about slavery, but it was more about the south wanting the right to self determination and states' rights. That just happened to include slavery. Most southerners considered it a matter of self determination.

Most modern southerners do not believe in slavery. They may be racist, but southern states have more black people than most other states, so are actually quite diverse, and everyone mostly gets along peacefully. Many southerners are ashamed of slavery and are just as progressive as people in other regions.