Why did Dixie lose the civil war...

This is a good answer. Alot came down to attrition. Union was drawing on freed slaves and Irish potato famine immigrants to bolster ranks. The whole timing issue of the humanitarian edicts of the era, emancipation and refugee acceptance, worked to a dubious advantage for the union. I'd have been more impressed had they not put these people on the front lines, but such is the way of things.

Is it safe to say that both world wars would never have happened the way they did had the south won the civil war?

In the early years of both, allied factions were receiving very necessary trade from a unified United States. Had that been fragmented, I suppose it might be argued there could not have been potential for that material support.

I don't know how to quantify that. I think, yes, it would have had a profound impact.

should read "I suppose it could be argued there could not have been potential for that "level" of material support.

I'm guessing having 1/3 the population and roughly1/5 the wealth of the north had something to do with it.

Hard to say. The South winning the ACW sets up a rather unstable political situation in America, and it's very likely to have a round 2 in 15 years.

yanks getting shot on their way to invade, looting, burning, and pillaging southern homes is ALWAYS a good thing

>on a history board
>claiming that slavery had nothing to do with the US Civil War despite the fact that the Confederates openly admitted in documents that the reason that they seceded was because they believed that the Republican party would make a serious push at ending slavery which was the source of the South's economy and immense wealth of its political class.
>not committing suicide for being a moron

Another interesting "What If" is if the South split away in 1789 during the Constitutional Convention. Would there have been a Golden Circle?

the circular argument we keep seeing is really just summed up in these two statement.

the south seceded among many reasons, but chief among them was the preservation of the slaveholding system that kept their social hierarchy and economy afloat.
the north invaded to preserve the union however, and had no designs to abolish slavery at the wars beginning, and only issued the emancipation proclamation to moral justify the war once northern citizenry begin to take issue with the fact that their sons were being sent to die invading a country that wanted little more than to simply be independent.

TL;DR: Lincoln was a massive jew

I agree. However, what does need corrected is the common assertion, "The American Civil War was because of slavery", when it was one part of a greater economic formula. Slavery was an issue between states when there was a question of Texas being involved as a state. It was not, however, the "reason" for the conflict.

It could also be argued that opportune time would add fighting men to the Union side as . I think the Union wanted to sooner than later, but it worked to a strong benefit.

>secede because you don't like the idea of democracy going a way you don't like
>get your shit wrecked
>cry about how unjustified the war was and how they should have let you take half the country.

This is arguing a split USA could have won a "Spanish American war" and had possession of Guam, Phillipines, or even for that matter, had the back to usurp and claim Hawaii in the first place, to even be so involved in the Pacific for WW2.

>the south is beholden to the north, and can have no measure of self-determination
>>let you take half the country
>>take
as if it was the north's property

>"I AM A BIG RETARD WHO TWISTS HISTORY TO CONFORM TO MY VIEWS!!"
>except you're wrong you idiot
>"CRY SOME MORE HAHAHAH!!"

>the north invaded to preserve the union however, and had no designs to abolish slavery at the wars beginning, and only issued the emancipation proclamation to moral justify the war

Not quite. Lincoln always wanted to abolish slavery - that's why his election triggered secession. He just didn't want to abolish it at the expense of the union. Hence all of his assurances that he had no immediate plans to do so. Abolition would do nothing if the slave states left.

Can a dixiefag explain to me why they need to disconnect the Civil War from slavery when they hate blacks anyway?

A few answers.

Firstly, I'm not a CS supporter, but I am a sympathizer. I do not hate blacks and their are many like me.
Secondly, beforehand slaves that did not work on the factorylike cotton plantations were more akin to helpers around the homestead. Their "masters" worked in the fields with them, they assisted with cleaning and cooking in the house, and in most cases it wasn't so much the sort of whips and chains that typical notions of slavery bring to mind as much as it was that they purchased help.
The fall of the social hierarchy with emancipation also created a lot of the modern racial tension in that it created the situation we see today.
There is also at play the nature that white southerners will be in larger contact with southern blacks, and this creates a more "realistic" attitude towards things in that southern whites are going to see plainly the problems with the black communities that northerners can disregard from their far-away moral high horse. Living with each other, there is still overwhelmingly politeness towards each other which lent to the old adage paraphrased that a northerner, for all their talk, won't associate with a black person, and a southerner, for all their supposed racism still works with them on a daily basis.

>democracy is great unless it doesn't go your way

Wow, it's amazing how deluded some people can be

>slaves that did not work on the factorylike cotton plantations
Oh, so slaves that weren't most slaves?

The south was a shitshow. The Civil War was fought on behalf of rich plantation owners, poor whites counter-revolted against the CSA just because they were aristocratic dipshits running around trying to protect their income source at the expense of everyone else.

I'll preemptively that I just checked my first statement and it wasn't very accurate. No one needs to tell me I'm retarded.

If it wasnt about slavery and slave masters and whites were in such harmony before the war. Why did the politicians of the south punish blacks so greatly? Sounds a bit unfair when the war wasnt about blacks and it was the Union who destroyed the south.

The union had the Father of Industrial warfare on their side

I wish the North had just told the South to fuck off

We don't need or want you

Kinda stacked against them from the start, in a way.
Defensive War-->actually doing well
The history books won't tell you that the South was kicking ass at the beginning. This is due to the defensive nature of the CSA's army. Any military strategist will tell you that a defensive force, even 1/2 the size of the attacking force, has a distinct advantage.

>owning property is a crime
I want marxists to leave

>get arrested for possession of heroin
>hurr durr fucking Marxists it's muh property

Except slavery was legal at the time.
Do you support ex post facto arrests? If you do, then you shit on the constitution more than any southerner did..

I was insulting you based on the idea that owning something CAN'T be a crime, which is what your post implied.

They were just worse in every way pretty much. Only thing they had was home field but that can take you only so far.

Tears of joy over winning?

Dixie refused technology in favor of slave labor while the Yankees embraced it. The main leverage the south had was cotton that Europe could fill with linen. No industry guarantees the south loses. Also the war was not only about slavery. To most on here I know that's common knowledge but it bears repeating.

>and slave masters and whites were in such harmony before the war
Don't put words in my mouth. It's just silly to believe that the folks they worked and lived with on a daily basis would hate the shit out of each other.

And this applies to you and the above, but I didn't say that plantations weren't horrible, and I didn't say how many were on plantations and how many weren't. But most whites wouldn't be hateful to their help, but a plantation could have a handful of dickhead whites and hundreds of resentful blacks.

Because many working class whites hatred that emancipated slaves were taking their jobs by storm, AND they still had a iron-like hierarchy that they were displeased was uprooted.

Nice argument faggot

After a k:d ratio like that I'd hope you cry after finally having it over

Because Southerners are all bark and no bite.

Sherman gave them what they deserved.

His argument was valid and all you had was tears meme.

Pic related. You dumb fuck.

The concept of duty is not Marxist.

The only good dixie is pic related

The casualties of the war were 100% American.

All the blood shed in the war is on the hands of the traitors. They destroyed their economy, their political influence and their honor.

>not only about

Yes. Sure.
I'll buy that over
>not about

It's a shame a handful of our founding fathers knew that shit was bad and wanted to fix it, but were too greedy and wanted to stay competitive as private businessmen.

And to think all they had to do was admit owning humans was bad, not secede, and use their wealth to reinvest in industry. They could have even negotiated reparations for lost """assets"""

Anything was better than secession. Imagine the Cold War with America split into two or more nations. Nasty stuff.

Good thing Roosevelt used Jingoism and Rough Riders and Imperialism to heal the wounds.

Yeah. Even if you sympathize with them, secession was absolutely moronic.

>ex post fact arrests worse than owning people

The dixie grows more senile every year.

You're right. Slavery was legal. Pic related.

If that's not enough, ask yourself, if you were a slave, and master left his rifle close enough for you to grab one night, what would you do?

All y'all had to do was not invade the south. Lincoln openly made the war about preserving the union, and to do that they killed southerners.

Hell, we'd be better off without most of em. Apart from Texas, they're an economic liability.

I'm the most vocal confederate sympathizer ITT but the whole war was just a tragedy.

I don't necessarily think that the north winning was "good" but it's still for the best

All y'all had to do was recognize that owning humans is bad, give them their freedom, invest your agricultural wealth in industry, and negotiate reparations for your lost """assets"""

The United States wasn't going to survive on the world stage being a bunch of slave owners.

lawful ownership is not a crime

It was mostly due to the difference in manpower- not only for the obvious reasons, but because the South drafted almost all the shipwrights and carpenters into the army, allowing the North to maintain naval superiority. They blockaded the South from Chesapeake Bay to the Rio Grande and sent gunboats up the Mississippi river, both of which had a massive effect.

and the northern abolitionist plan that largely consisted of just fucking up the south economically and socially was going to be such a great contrast?

You have no actual argument that isn't rooted in revisionist history, you fucking idiot.
>Firstly, I'm not a CS supporter, but I am a sympathizer.
We can stop right there, nothing you say will be true at all
>Secondly, beforehand slaves that did not work on the factorylike cotton plantations were more akin to helpers around the homestead.
This is a lie. An estimated 60% of slaves worked on plantations picking cotton. And the ones that didn't were not helpers dipshit, they were still slaves
> Their "masters" worked in the fields with them, they assisted with cleaning and cooking in the house, and in most cases it wasn't so much the sort of whips and chains that typical notions of slavery bring to mind as much as it was that they purchased help.
Dishonest statement, the point of the slave was to do unwanted work, the master may have gone out and did some tidying up, but the slaves did the bulk of the work.
>There is also at play the nature that white southerners will be in larger contact with southern blacks, and this creates a more "realistic" attitude towards things in that southern whites are going to see plainly the problems with the black communities that northerners can disregard from their far-away moral high horse.
Another dishonest statement. You say this as if the problems most blacks are facing today, the same ones their ancestors faced when they were freed slavery, is due to their race. It isn't, it can be traced right back to the end of slavery. Let me ask you a question, when exactly did black people become equal to whites? Like when did they have equal access to the same level of education and actual protection under the law that white people did? Was it right after slavery ended? Sometime around the civil rights movement?
>...and a southerner, for all their supposed racism still works with them on a daily basis
Yeah, forget the KKK and the hundred years of state sanctioned lynchings and Jim Crow. The South was super polite

Nah, we should've occupied them longer and not given them their freedom so soon. They went straight to lynching blacks and keeping them as second class citizens, setting us back about 100 years in race relations

>there are people who support betrayal to the US government

>kill 300,000 yankees
>lose less than a third of that
>all bark and no bite
If we're all bark and no bite, why don't you come down and try it again?

>They went straight to lynching blacks and keeping them as second class citizens, setting us back about 100 years in race relations
1. Lynching wasn't only a Southern phenomenon
2. Lynching existed before the Civil War
3. You had a higher chance of being struck and killed by lightning than by lynched as a black man.

Just because your U.S. history teacher in high school played up lynching doesn't mean it was an every day occurrence in reality.

>fuck up your economy because of muh feelings

funny considering northern industrialization was bankrolled off southern slavery.

>half of nation built on genociding natives takes a moral high ground towards other half of nation

Also Jefferson never said that quote and was a proponent of the south and slavery apologist, you're the senile one

>use their wealth to reinvest in industry.

this is a yankee meme, industry couldn't happen in the south due to climate. Jefferson's grandson who supported the confederate cause had a very good speech saying that if the south wanted to industrialize, then they would have to secede in order to protect their fledgling manufacturing from northern competition in the same way the North needed tariffs to protect their manufacturing from Europe.

that's where you're wrong kiddo

>This is a lie. An estimated 60% of slaves worked on plantations picking cotton.
i already told you that i wasnt discussing any numerical amount. nothing in my post said it was not 60%, i specifically said that once who were NOT working on plantations.
>And the ones that didn't were not helpers dipshit, they were still slaves
a slave is a helper, but if you think anyone wants to spend all day literally whipping the shit out of their single or small handful of houseslaves, you're an idiot
history is littered with all manner of slavery, and little of it was constant chains and whips
>Dishonest statement, the point of the slave was to do unwanted work, the master may have gone out and did some tidying up, but the slaves did the bulk of the work.
source? if someone is running their own homestead, they're going to have lots of work to do and not much money lying around to just buy (very expensive) slaves. they're going to work because there's work to be done.
>Another dishonest statement. You say this as if the problems most blacks are facing today, the same ones their ancestors faced when they were freed slavery, is due to their race. It isn't, it can be traced right back to the end of slavery. Let me ask you a question, when exactly did black people become equal to whites? Like when did they have equal access to the same level of education and actual protection under the law that white people did? Was it right after slavery ended? Sometime around the civil rights movement?
>Yeah, forget the KKK and the hundred years of state sanctioned lynchings and Jim Crow. The South was super polite
you aren't elaborating your point precisely enough for me to feel like i can properly "address" anything, so I'm just going to give it my best shot.
when i said "a more "realistic" attitude towards things in that southern whites are going to see plainly the problems with the black communities" you took this to mean im some /pol/tard that thinks blacks are by nature or genetics

cont
just shitty. i meant that its things like how northerners can hear things like "black folks are incarcerated at a rate four times higher than whites" and think its institutionalized racism and not that blacks are commiting crime at a much higher rate than whites. I also know that this is do to a variety of factors, like sistematic povery, drug use, broken family units, gang problems, and much much more. northerners would sooner say that blacks can do no wrong rather than actually look at the scene and recognize there is a problem in need of fixing. many would call that simple notion racist because it dares to say that black communities are full of criminals.

>"studies" history
>good guys & bad guys
KYS

>defending your home is an absolutely neutral thing, there can be no right or wrong in this scenario

Not to mention that most confederate state constitutions had "right to slaves shall not be infringed" as amendments.

Whatever the north's position, the south was all in for slavery, for good.

Academic history is an absolutely neutral thing
but I forget where I was.

The states didn't make new constitutions when they joined the CSA.

>just shitty. i meant that its things like how northerners can hear things like "black folks are incarcerated at a rate four times higher than whites" and think its institutionalized racism and not that blacks are commiting crime at a much higher rate than whites.

Southerner here. Blacks are punished, police, and incarcerated disproportionately. They are way more likely to be caught for petty crimes like drug possession. They are way more likely to be pulled over. Their neighborhoods are policed by overwhelmingly non-black police. A lot of crime statistics about blacks on the internet are exaggerated and circulated to create negative perception.

One of our presidential candidates, the one who wants to make america great again, whatever that means, posted false statistics on twitter that I've seen circulated on /pol/ before.

factcheck.org/2015/11/trump-retweets-bogus-crime-graphic/

This nation has a problem insisting blacks commit more crimes when they don't.

It's also easy to generate false statistics when we have biased law enforcers and far more property owning whites who can commit crimes secretly in the privacy of their own homes.

>blacks don't commit more crime than other groups.

How about you skip on down to your nearest black inner city neighborhood and spend the night there?

This is a good concise explanation for why the South lost.

Arguably their biggest loss was diplomatic: not getting recognition from the European powers. That's why you see a marked shift in recorded Confederate thought from the beginning of the war, where they openly boasted of preserving the institution of slavery, to the end of the war, where they hid their intentions behind more vague, general terms like "state's rights" and "property rights" instead.

>Anyone who challenges me to think is a Marxist and needs to stop right this instant

>I do not hate blacks and their are many like me.
>their are
I guess the stereotype of the dumb redneck who can't spell is true

You wouldn't happen to have an sources or proofs backing your statements other than that article disproving that Facebook-tier photo your link addressed, would you fellow Dixielander?

Because the FBI says otherwise, and I can't imagine how you'd be able to prove that blacks commit rape and assault on a magnitude several times larger than whites solely by way of the unreportedness as you describe.
fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43#disablemobile

Sorry my dude, my phone screws with me

>they're
:^)

blacks commit far more murders proportionally than whites, how can you even argue against that? That the police are making up dead bodies?

I got a better chance of being struck by lightning then being killed by ISIS. That doesn't mean I want ISIS in the U.S. Senate.

less railroads, factories, and population

Because they were treasonous scum.

...

in addition to the fact that the union had a much higher population to begin with

They had been counting on naval assistance from France and Britain but Lincoln threatened to annex Canada, among other things, in retaliation while France was too busy invading Mexico to lend them much help. Also they thought Maryland might join them and give them an easy victory by surrounding DC, but Lincoln had the whole state occupied to prevent this from happening.

>what is false equivalence
Lad...

>way smaller population compared to the north
>way less industrial production than the north
>practically no navy and therefore no commerce with other nations possible

There's almost no way they could have possibly won militarily. Maybe if the war became so politically unpopular there could have been a peace treaty, but the north kept winning so that never happened.

>everyone at the time said it was about slavery
>claim 150 years later it had nothing about slavery

It was actually most directly about the expansion of slavery into the western territories.

That was always the idea, the south thought that could just fight hard enough that they would realize trying to stop their secession was not worth the cost. Dixie only went northwards once they realized killing hundreds of thousands of Yankees was still not enough and that they needed to bring the horrors of war northwards so that politically the support would collapse. And it almost worked, rioting erupted in a number of major northern states.

based sherman

>oh sherman pls don't use scorched earth tactics on our beautiful southern countryside

BURN IT DOWN

They went on the offensive when they should have dug in.

Sherman's march to the sea was a meme made up by butthurt georgians. Georgia wasn't destroyed any worse than Virginia. Sherman was a meme general and only gets celebrated because Yankees had a pretty shit officer core other than Grant/Sheridan.

corps*