Who were the sorest losers in history?

Not even close. Most of Dixie is relatively integrated with the rest of American culture and there is no real movement for the South to "rise again." Meanwhile you have PKK, Islamic State, Plaid Cymru, Naxalites, Jundallah and MEK, there's STILL a fucking IRA, etc.

The Confederates bent over and took it. They had to. I don't see any real desire to have teh Confederacy back except amongst very fringe racist groups and creepy religious quiverfull types.

>I hate these people, their way of life, and everything they value
>Better force them to stay a part of my country at literal gun point

The South did nothing wrong

Germans post WWI, are you kidding me?

>Wanting to split the nation in two
>Going against the Constitution
>Being massive faggots about "muh state rights!!!!!" instead of being civil adults
>Gets BTFO by superior North
Stay mad, Dixiefag

the only thing the north did wrong was not doing to the southerners what they wound up doing to the injuns

It was more the slavery thing, honestly.

More like the Union are the biggest sore winners in history

Seriously what the fuck guys

pic

>I hate these people, their way of life, and everything they value
>implying it isn't morally right to hate slavers and slavery

>Wanting to split the nation in two
A nation is a group of people with a distinct set of beliefs and values. The United States was not one nation in 1861. It still isn't today for that matter.
>Going against the Constitution
Cite the EXACT quote from the Constitution that says a State cannot leave the Union. Go on, i'll wait.
>Being massive faggots about "muh state rights!!!!!" instead of being civil adults
Yes, because the North refusing to return sovereign land to a now independent State with the intention of using said land to violate the State's sovereignty was totally not a blatant act of aggression. The South tried to be Civil constantly but the North kept agitating until the South finally got sick of their shit.
>Gets BTFO by superior North
Not before giving the North 4 years of embarrassing defeats and 4-1 kill ratios.

>He thinks that creating a violent guerilla rebellion in the deep Southern swamps would have been a good idea
If Reconstruction had become a genocidal crusade against the South it would literally have become Vietnam in 1865. The North was very much aware of this.

Slavery was only an issue for the Union in the economic sense, less than 20% of the population of the United States were abolitionists or fire-eaters during the war.

>Slavery was only an issue for the Union in the economic sense, less than 20% of the population of the United States were abolitionists or fire-eaters during the war.
>implying this has any bearing on the morality of slavery

>it would literally have become Vietnam

So the guerillas would get absolutely crushed and all Southern cities bombed to dust?

So you value slavery huh...

>Burning entire cities and causing the general populace to suffer just because the Aristocratic rich wanted Slaves/Cheap labor.

William T. Sherman was nothing more then a brute who impeded the advance of socialism by bring the wrath deserved for bourgeoisie upon the commoners of Dixieland.

Well common people suffer in any war, no need to blame north or Sherman
blame those who decided to seceed

Those others aren't really sore losers because they haven't even accepted that they lost yet.

Dixieshits are big into "muh heritage" and being historical revisionists painting the South as this innocent victim to Northern Aggression. They get extremely butthurt when you insist that the Confederacy was nothing special and that is was created by wealthy aristocrats seducing the dumb goyim farmers to fight for their right to own slaves.

>Yes, because the North refusing to return sovereign land to a now independent State
Fort Sumter was built by the US federal government, and the land was ceded as such. It had as much claim to it as Spain has to Gibraltar, i.e. little to none.

Get fucked you idiotic Dixiefag.

buttmad redneck detected. no other government would put up with seditious shit like the Union has done until recently

>muh slavery
Chattel Slavery was morally wrong and economically unsound, but that doesn't make enslaving an entire nation of people to another right.

A hypocrisy won't correct another hypocrisy.

And the North would decided that 10 years of fighting inna Swamp and inna Appalachian against motivated and angry Southrons isn't worth some petty agricultural lands.

Yep, sounds about right.

It was actually sold, not ceded.

But that contract was null and void when South Carolina seceded.

Also, I was born in California and have lived most of my life in Michigan. Northern Virginia is the furthest south i've ever been so you can get fucked. Being able to see the blatant hypocrisy, historical revisionism, and general idiotic butthurt, of Northerners doesn't make me a Dixiefag.

>bent over and took it

More like kept trying to push laws to make blacks slaves (Jim Crow and apprenticeship laws) and using literal terrorism with the KKK to keep blacks from voting while burning black churches, schools and lynching them.

Fuck Southerners

>but that doesn't make enslaving an entire nation of people to another right.
awww tell me how you suffering in slavery

Dixiefags, Byzaboos, and Krauts

>muh states rights

Yea like fucking Dredd Scott vs Sanford didn't happen. Literally the South eroding the States Rights of the North.

Indeed, most Southerners simply view the Old South as a part of their history and heritage, nothing more. 99% of them don't even want the Confederacy back. They just want what's left of America back.

>erode Northern States Rights (Dredd Scott vs Sandford)
>whine bitch and moan about yours being eroded
>go against the Constitution
>act like faggots because you know you are losing the political and economic battle
>600k dead because of your autism

Dixiefags are the worst. Stay fucking mad you niggerfucking faggot.

t. New Yorker from Lake Placid

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1

Would also like to add that the Union military's command was fucked for a while before it was fixed and that it's easily to maintain good "kill ratios" (wtf is this CoD?) when you're fighting a defensive war. Anytime the south went on a real offensive, they were stopped.

This, fucking Southerners had a shit fit demanding Northern free states return runaways.

>implying this is over

We will string up every last fucking Unionist pig on the Day of the Rope.

>Take away and entire group of people's voting rights and way of life
>Allow their former property to vote on issues involving aforementioned people

>Expect them not to lash out
As I said before, the Union should be thanking it's lucky fucking stars that the KKK and Jim Crow was as bad as things got in the South.

Not to defend the KKK or anything, but the South was one bad incident away from going full guerilla mode as it was.

Once again, i'm a proud citizen of the United States in a Northern state, and I VOLUNTARILY concede to being a subject of my government.

Southerners were never given that option. They got a gun pointed at their head and told to stay quiet.

>Northerners mad that Democracy was working as intended
lel. Not so fun when the other guys are the ones dictating policy is it?

Only applies to States in the Union. As the Southern States voted to leave the Union, (which again, where specifically is a State FORBIDDEN to leave the Union peacefully?), the Constitutional articles no longer applied to them.

>A nation is a group of people with a distinct set of beliefs and values. The United States was not one nation in 1861. It still isn't today for that matter.

That doesn't mean firing upon a federally owned fort in your (unrecognized shithole) is OK. It's like Spain attacking Gibraltar, they have no fucking claim to it despite the fact it's been British for hundreds of years at this point.

>Yes, because the North refusing to return sovereign land to a now independent State with the intention of using said land to violate the State's sovereignty was totally not a blatant act of aggression. The South tried to be Civil constantly but the North kept agitating until the South finally got sick of their shit.

Dredd Scott vs Sanford was one of the worst examples of the abuse of states rights by the Federal Gov't and it was decided in favor of Southern States going against Northern ones. Of course butthurt cottonniggers like you will ignore this entirely because it doesn't fit your shitty revisionist narrative.

>Not before giving the North 4 years of embarrassing defeats and 4-1 kill ratios.

Yea kill your own countrymen so 1% of your population can eat cake and you continue to shovel shit you dumb inbred faggot.

>Southerners were never given that option. They got a gun pointed at their head and told to stay quiet.
such martyrs
damn ebil northerners

>deny people their God-given inalienable rights as human beings and treat them like property
>accuse people of slapping some sense into you of eroding YOUR rights
Dixieboos are something else

>Not to defend the KKK or anything, but the South was one bad incident away from going full guerilla mode as it was.

Are you fucking dumb? That's

>more dead southerners
>no fucking way to supply them since economy is wrecked
>Southerners were never given that option. They got a gun pointed at their head and told to stay quiet.

Who fired first? Oh right, would Spain fire on Gibraltar just because it was geographically linked? Come the fuck on. And stop pretending any state would have recognized you. The Brits got cotton cheaper in India and Egypt and the Frogs were too busy in Mexico anyway.

>lel. Not so fun when the other guys are the ones dictating policy is it?

What? Lincoln won the election fair and square. The South was so fucking scared they didn't even include Lincoln on their ballots and they still fucking lost. And you call us "undemocratic"?

>Only applies to States in the Union. As the Southern States voted to leave the Union, (which again, where specifically is a State FORBIDDEN to leave the Union peacefully?), the Constitutional articles no longer applied to them.

It's been ruled illegal following the Civil War by the Supreme Court unofficially. According to this article, "With all fifty states offering petitions to the central government to leave the Union, the legality of secession is now front page news in the United States. Can a state legally secede from the Union? Many, including SCOTUS Justice Scalia, suggest no. In a 2006 letter, available here, Scalia argued that a the question was not in the realm of legal possibility because 1) the United States would not be party to a lawsuit on the issue 2) the “constitutional” basis of secession had been “resolved by the Civil War,” and 3) there is no right to secede, as the Pledge of Allegiance clearly illustrates through the line “one nation.”

Source: theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/

It's not like the founding fathers were the most egalitarian of people either, ecspecially when it came to negroes.

The founding fathers and just about everyone in the pantheon of American history up until the 20th century were pretty much white nationalists.

>b-b-but it was normal for the time

It isn't normal now, because the South lost.

Try and keep up.

>Applying modern standards and morals to historical events

Ewwwwwwww

>Sumter
I responded to this point earlier. I'm not going to repeat myself.

>Dredd Scott
See above. The South democratically achieved that result. Saying it was wrong to do so literally disproves the whole idea of a government of the people.

>Cotton planters
Aside from the fact that more like 1/3 of Southerners had slaves, the poor Southerners resented being replaced by Northern industry as much as the Planter class resented Northern tariffs and culture.

300k Southerners didn't fight and die because they cared about slavery.

>The North wanted to end slavery for moral reasons
When will this fucking meme die?

>Election of 1860
Yeah, the South chose to DEMOCRATICALLY secede, an option they believed was not implied in the proceedings of the Constitutional conventions but morally guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence. Democracy working as intended.

Or do you disagree with the Revolutionary war?
>Supreme Court, some other shit, Pledge of fucking allegiance
So a bunch of things that happened 20-100 years after the Civil War prevented secession in 1860.

What the fuck, I hate the South now.

>It's okay to judge something without considering the context of the times
You are literally the cancer killing the study of history.

*not only implied

>implying it's possible to respond to history without making moral judgements

>What's perspective?

I'm gonna trigger his but... pic related.

But the Soviets weren't *real* communists!!

>were pretty much white nationalists.

What? They thought the white race should have a single country? Then why did they secede from the British? Why did they import slaves? Why didn't they start invading other white countries?

Oh, you are using the meme definition of nationalism.

>The North wanted to end slavery for moral reasons
Nobody's saying that. But at the end of the day, not having slavery is better than having it.

We aren't sore about losing. It is what happened after it.

President Andrew Johnson gave up on doing Reconstruction properly. Everything in the South was torn up, seized, and sold to carpet baggers. Then decades of no development. As the government encouraged everyone to go west.

My family owned a huge amount of land before the war. They didn't have slaves and didn't fight in the war.

US government comes in after the war and seized most of the land and gave it away to freed slaves. They cut down all the orchards to build their shacks and be subsistence farmers. They all fail in a decade because they can't into farming. Even though they were all farm slaves before the war.

Family land went from, so big it could take you all day to walk across it, to, you can throw a ball from end to end.

Not only Soviets. All communists are salty. Even here in Finland commies still vandalize statues of Mannerheim because they lost the civil war.

>I responded to this point earlier. I'm not going to repeat myself.

You said,"Better force them to stay a part of my country at literal gun point." PGT Bureaugard aimed guns at the fort following secession and past Lincoln's election and fired upon it as Anderson would not concede. The South literally fired first. Re-arming the fort when it is geographically standard is not an act of aggression considering re-arming mean't delivering food. So much for the South being Honorable they attack an island full of what would otherwise be starving men had they sunk their boats.

>See above. The South democratically achieved that result. Saying it was wrong to do so literally disproves the whole idea of a government of the people.

>Supreme Court Case
>South voting for decision

Are you retarded?

>Aside from the fact that more like 1/3 of Southerners had slaves, the poor Southerners resented being replaced by Northern industry as much as the Planter class resented Northern tariffs and culture.

You hated it because you knew you could never compete with it. The North had you guys politically and economically outmaneuvered by the Missouri Compromise. The Civil War was inevitable, certainly, but you salty pricks still persist that we started it when all the evidence points to you seceding first (without referendum too, Eastern Tennessee is an example of this), then crying when we don't give our rightfully owned land to you.

cont'd

>Yeah, the South chose to DEMOCRATICALLY secede, an option they believed was not implied in the proceedings of the Constitutional conventions but morally guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence. Democracy working as intended.

No referendum on secession led to a lot of local backlash. Biggest example is Eastern Tennessee which was pro-Union the entire time and West Virginia. It was the political class acting along with the planter class to maintain power knowing that had they stay, the average White man would be better off since free movement and exchange of labor means a better pay than scrapping by on subsistence farming.

>Or do you disagree with the Revolutionary war?

Strawman

>So a bunch of things that happened 20-100 years after the Civil War prevented secession in 1860.

It was a legal grey area back then until it was defined in the time period you referenced. There isn't a clear answer on the issue. But obviously seceding because you fear economic (and thus political) rape is quite a faggy, buttblasted thing to do.

I've seen pictures of World War 1 memorials in Germany being vandalized by left-wing Antifa. Leftists are so quick to desecrate something that they don't agree with. Pic related

At least I can agree with that.

But the government should have purchased all slaves and sent them back to Africa, not slaughtered fellow White Christians over economic differences.

>Sumter
Since you don't seem to have any reading comprehension;

The US treaty with South Carolina was literally voided when they seceded. Anderson should not have been in Sumter to begin with. The presence of Union forces on land belonging to the independent state of South Carolina was literally a blatant act of aggression.

Even if you want to follow muh feels logic Lincoln should have negotiated for Sumters peaceful return to Southern administration (an alternative that the Southern Government offered on multiple occasions). Instead he decided to simply ignore the Confederacy, leave Anderson in the fort knowing full well that it violated the sovereignty of South Carolina, and literally forced the South to fire the first shot.

I will concede that Lincoln outmaneuvered the South but that doesn't make it right.

>Dredd Scott again
The South was able to democratically work with Northern democrats to get judges in place who aligned with their interests. Is that not how democracy is supposed to work?

>you, you, you guys
I'm Northerner friend, my family was out west in the 1800's and I live in the North today. I simply disagree with the Union's actions during the war. Call me a modern day Copperhead if it makes a difference.

>referendum
I will concede that the referendums in Missouri and Tennessee were retarded and neither state should have been claimed by the Confederacy.

But West Virginia was only four counties, the rest of Virginia voted almost unilaterally for secession.

All of the states that held proper referendums confirmed secession (including Virginia) and modern research shows that the overwhelming majority of Southerners would have voted for secession if given the option.

TBC

>looks up definition of socialism
>looks at stalin
Yep, this is real socialism all right

>looks up definition of republic
>looks at napoleon
Yep, this is real republicanism all right

I really fucking hate yankees, honestly. You faggots do nothing but complain about us, move down here, and then complain even more whilst trying to change it to be like some yankee fuckhole up north.

Go back to where you came from, you stupid cunts.

>yanks movin to bumfuck nowhere

Continuing where I left off, it's nice to see that you agree with secession when it benefits the Union (West Virginia).

It's only wrong when the other guy does it right?

>Strawman
Not an argument

>Legal grey area
I can actually agree with this. Secession was not explicitly supported by the Constitution either (although it should have been), and the Confederacies actual reasons for secession were pants-on-head retarded (particularly when they still controlled the Supreme Court AND Congress).

That doesn't mean they should have been prevented from seceding however.

>What is Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and Urban Georgia?

No, you move to the cities for some fucking retard reason and ruin the rest of the state. I live in NC and somehow you faggots in Charlotte and Raleigh ruin everything even though I can't even see my neighbours.

>The US treaty with South Carolina was literally voided when they seceded.

No one recognized the South thus it was still official. As Lincoln displayed it, he made you all appear to be really organized gangsters basically, which led to no one recognizing you, which also was unlikely anyway since it would've pissed off the US too.

>incoln should have negotiated for Sumters peaceful return to Southern administration (an alternative that the Southern Government offered on multiple occasions). Instead he decided to simply ignore the Confederacy, leave Anderson in the fort knowing full well that it violated the sovereignty of South Carolina, and literally forced the South to fire the first shot.

The South wasn't legally seceded from the North. It was (again) never recognized. The leadership (and you) are literally going "it was real in my mind" with the legality and the official status of the South as an independent "nation," it was all deluded bullshit that no one bought but you kept insisting they buy.

>Instead he decided to simply ignore the Confederacy, leave Anderson in the fort knowing full well that it violated the sovereignty of South Carolina, and literally forced the South to fire the first shot.

Again, the South wasn't a State, they viewed you as extremely well organized criminals. Should a SWAT team surrender when they're surrounded by Bloods knowing what happens to them next?

>The South was able to democratically work with Northern democrats to get judges in place who aligned with their interests. Is that not how democracy is supposed to work?

That's not Democracy, that's the functions of the Senate who vote on Judges. I'm not denying that it is democratic, but it is inconsistent with what you are championing (states rights), which the said case trampled upon the rights of Northern states.

contd

This isn't even a fucking contest, its the Italians after Rome fell. Literally from the 400s to halfway through last century these cucks have been trying to restore a long dead empire and failed each and every time. Shittiest thing about it is fucking Romaboos pop up everywhere in the civilized world and when you talk about how much Italy has sucked at war for the longest time, "Oh well they/we had Rome and we owned Europe" like no, you owned the western part, not even all of Britain, no part of Ireland and not even half of Germany. You got the North of Africa and the holy lands with your piece of Europe, but you guys lost half your empire and then when you finally got sacked and destroyed, Byzantines thought "oh shit, we's Romans, lets go remake Rome" and so the process began.

Maybe you should learn some vocabulary you inbred redneck bum. The term is carpetbaggers.

I know what carpetbaggers are but I prefer the term 'yankee' since it insults every single person up north.

>It's only wrong when the other guy does it right?

I see your point but West Virginia recognized that what was happening was breaking the law. Is it wrong to not jump off a cliff because others already have?

>Not an argument

You made a statement that was a Strawman. You can elaborate on what you mean if you wish.

>That doesn't mean they should have been prevented from seceding however.

I say it would. It's been proven by the conflict itself that we are stronger together. At the time, many viewed secession as an affront to the Constitution and the Government. Many felt it was a middle finger in the face of the Republic because the South knew it was politically cornered (and would soon be, if not already, economically). They were already a minority in the House and would be condemned eventually in the Senate and Electoral College.

Italy was pretty competent during the Italian wars. Also Edward Gibbon was a non-Cucklic saint.

>he thinks yankee is an insult

>yankee
AH! so insulted

>South Carolina was not recognized
>Southern secession wasn't recognized
So even though the government of South Carolina voted, through democratic processes, to secede, and the people overwhelmingly supported it, that didn't actually make it secede?

Government is derived from the consent of the governed. The people of South Carolina no longer consented to rule by the Union, and were therefor an independent Country.

Which makes what the Union did an act of aggression.

>States rights
When did I ever say anything about State's rights?

I think that States should have the right to peacefully secede from the voluntary Union. But I don't take it any further than that. If a State is voluntarily in the Union than it must abide by the rules set forth by Congress and the Executive.

>West Virginia
Well, because I agree with the right of Secession, I actually think West Virginia's counter-secession was totally justified, and legally correct.

>Secession should be prevented
So you think it's morally justifiable to trample over a people's self government, burn down their homes and infrastructure, remove their voting rights, and destroy their culture, because it *might* have weakened the Union?

I can't really offer a counterpoint to that, but I simply disagree. The people of the South had a right to self government if that was their wish. Forcing them at gun point to conform to the Constitution tramples over the very political foundations of the Constitution itself.

If government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, then how can you justify FORCING others into a government?

>Yankee
>Insult
You do realize that to most the world "Yankee" is a term for Americans in general right?

>he called me a yankee
>MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM

America in Vietnam.

Just admit a country can be wrong when it goes to war; you say it about every other country in the world.

>Which makes what the Union did an act of aggression.

But they don't have to recognize the secession or referendum. There isn't any document or written law saying they have to prior to the Civil War. The only way you could conceivably take the claim is through violence which you must win. Since you didn't, I, along with others, see the claim as useless.

>So you think it's morally justifiable to trample over a people's self government, burn down their homes and infrastructure, remove their voting rights, and destroy their culture, because it *might* have weakened the Union?

We are arguing about the issue surrounding Secession, not the conduct of the war. However, I do think secession would have weakened the Union. Why?

1. Secession that is successful and permitted allows the breakup of the Union further in the future due to the possible precedent set in 1860-1861.
2. The Union would have lost a decent economic output that gave us good relations with the United Kingdom and other European countries due to the demand for cotton. Without the South, we would have definitely been on less friendly terms. (I recognize that this would have deteriorated eventually anyway due to the expansion of cotton plantations in various colonies like India, Egypt, etc.)
3. The Constitution and various other founding documents champion the rights of individuals and man. Slavery is morally bankrupt and an affront to this and the ideals set forth by the founding fathers and the documents they wrote.
4. Secession would block us from having vital infrastructure and locations for commerce and possible military purposes. For example, if the South seceded, they would have taken all the military property in the South, control the Mouth of the Mississippi, etc.

con'td.

5. More likely than not, the South would have probably been extremely unstable, most of the power lie in the Planter-Political class that disenfranchised Whites byusing Slaves. There is no way they would sit idle for long post-secession. If you ask me, preventing secession would actually benefit the white working class in the South given they can continue to freely move north and find new, obviously more prosperous, work there (I know they had shitty conditions but factory labor like that paved the way for the Gilded Age and our rise as a super power, it was gonna happen despite the shit conditions and living style.)

>If government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, then how can you justify FORCING others into a government?

It's because they lost. That is my justification. Their cause was morally bankrupt and only sought to support the rich at the expense of the uneducated masses. They ignited the conflict and lost. Now don't get me wrong, I see your point about people seceding for their own government and whatnot, but the Souths intent and method was flawed and extremely risky for the average pleb in the South at the time.

>It's because they lost. That is my justification. Their cause was morally bankrupt and only sought to support the rich at the expense of the uneducated masses.
It's either the one or the other. If your first statement is true, then the second is entirely irrelevant. Your argument is that might makes right.

Yes.

>recognition of secession
I did not mean to imply that the North had any legal duty to officially recognize secession, only that it SHOULD have done so, and that it was not morally justifiable to deny a people their right to self government.

>Stuff about secession weakening the Union
I'm not arguing with that. Obviously secession would have weakened the Union. I want to know if you value Union over a people's right to self government. If that's the case then we have a moral disagreement that we won't be able to reach a consensus or understanding on.

In the end I believe that self government is more important than the strengths or weaknesses of the Union.

I agree with what I saying. The core of your argument is that might makes right, and I don't agree with that.

Might makes reality, but it doesn't make right.

Morality exists as a set of principles outside of physical realities, and can only be determined on an individual basis.

Then you are a liar.

Muslims

>I did not mean to imply that the North had any legal duty to officially recognize secession, only that it SHOULD have done so, and that it was not morally justifiable to deny a people their right to self government.

It was still seen as an affront to the Union however and most Northerners, including Lincoln, which is why he made this his primary argument.

> I want to know if you value Union over a people's right to self government. If that's the case then we have a moral disagreement that we won't be able to reach a consensus or understanding on.

Union but I can understand grievances made by you however.

>Might makes reality, but it doesn't make right.

The reality is that the South had a really poor cause for secession given the causes and who was pushing it and that they lost the Armed Conflict for their goal of seccession. Is it morally correct? I don't know. Is it reality? Yes. Do I believe that the cause of the Union was Just? Yes. The cause of the South? No. I don't think we can reach agreement.

?

how might things have been different if Alexander had died as an old man and was able to raise a male heir to adulthood?

Why are Yankees such sore winners? Every civil war thread here is always posted by northerners getting nuttier for some reason.

How else are they supposed to inform us that we're butthurt?

Fair desu

Why are dixiefags so intent on proving OP right?
Like look at this shit Who the fuck spends time making fanfic images of Lee? Why are they so butthurt?

Serbia
>The king died and doomed us to 500 years of islamic domination, BUT IT WAS ALL PART OF HIS DIVINE MASTER PLAN

I hope netflix or HBO or whatever makes a miniseries out of Turtledove's Great War series so I can have some live action Dixie-wank

Oh look someone who doesn't pretend to be retarded because they're buttmad about communism

communists

"give me reparations so i can spend it on booze and drugs"

>the government should have purchased all slaves and sent them back to Africa
Ah, ok you just hate niggers.
>Lets send back all these people we took and just let them go.
Just a bad as murdering them wholesale. You think slaves would have been able to survive in Africa after having every cultural survival technique lost to them?

>Troops shouldn't have been in Sumpter because our illegal succession claimed that fort as ours.
Kek.

China and NK

>would be arrested

Unless you're a Muslim of course, then you can scream Sieg Heil and Heil Hitler all you want.

youtube.com/watch?v=isRnEx4HIzQ

>just hate niggers
No, I think that freeing several million uneducated black slaves with no attempt to prepare them for independence or education on how to survive was completely fucking retarded.

They have should have been given a cursory education on basic agricultural techniques and then sent to an African colony.

Or was 100 years of Jim Crow and racial discrimination, and then another 50 years of neo-slavery through ghettos and wellfare culture, a better and more ethical alternative than giving free blacks the tools and land to create their own state and to decide their own destiny?

>illegal secession
Where, exactly, is secession made illegal in the Constitution as it existed in 1860?

American niggers, obviously