Where do I find a book on the civil war that isn't yankee bullshit?

Fuck off billy yank.

take your yankee faggotry and get the fuck out

History is written by the winners, ya silly bitch

samefag. why can't you handle a book that is fair to both side? is it cause you want to dildo your ass as you fantasize about the conderates winning when they lost totally?

What you don't think two people can have different opinions that you?

> WOLF OF THE DEEP
> REBEL YELL
> JACK HINSONS WAR

Im only commenting on this thread because I know Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums are going to be counter signaling it and finding non-bullshit civil war research material is so hard to find.

Im a southern young man who was born in the south yet reered in the north and was taught to hate my heritage and up-bringing. My NewYork upper class schooling taught me that southern tradition is nothing more than debauchery and Incest yet history tells me otherwise.

Embrace what you are user. Do not be afraid of embracing and viewing the world through the eyes of the god-fearing south.

>Inb4 muh slavery racism
If you judge a population by a 5% minority I fear that every group should be ashamed.

t. Cletus

literally read avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

The Southern slaveholding class believed that their institution was threatened by Republican victory in the 1860 election, and seceded to prevent that. We know because that's exactly what they said.

And none of that means hating your background as a Southern man. Where slavery was least important to the economy and where the resident whites were a step above blacks on the social ladder--the mountains of Appalachia--was where most of the population opposed secession, hence the secession of West Virginia from Virginia and pro-Union militias from eastern Tennessee and northern Alabama.

...

cause reply count didn't change. you could have shooped that

number of posters i mean

>5% minority

Literally bullshit.

theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/08/small-truth-papering-over-a-big-lie/61136/

>Even more revealing was their attachment to slavery. Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally. This compared favorably to the Confederacy as a whole, in which one in every twenty white persons owned slaves. Yet more than one in every four volunteers that first year lived with parents who were slaveholders. Combining those soldiers who owned slaves with those soldiers who lived with slaveholding family members, the proportion rose to 36 percent. That contrasted starkly with the 24.9 percent, or one in every four households, that owned slaves in the South, based on the 1860 census.

>The attachment to slavery, though, was even more powerful. One in every ten volunteers in 1861 did not own slaves themselves but lived in households headed by non family members who did. This figure, combined with the 36 percent who owned or whose family members owned slaves, indicated that almost one of every two 1861 recruits lived with slaveholders. Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery. For slaveholder and nonslaveholder alike, slavery lay at the heart of the Confederate nation. The fact that their paper notes frequently depicted scenes of slaves demonstrated the institution's central role and symbolic value to the Confederacy.

He was referring to the blacks, my dude.

Slaves made up over a third of the Confederacy's population, though. Mississippi and South Carolina were majority-black.

The Civil War - A narrative by Shelby Foote is pretty great. He is a southerner himself but treis really hard to be level-headed and fair to both sides.

>Shelby Foote
Yeah OP. You got to read old shit to try to get non-partial.

Anything written recently has to constantly signal their virtue with politically correct SJW mea culpas.

>Yeah OP. You got to read old shit to try to get non-partial.
>Anything written recently has to constantly signal their virtue with politically correct SJW mea culpas.
Better than some revisionist inbred hoohaw with his "South were good boys they dindu nuffin" trickery and half-truths

>isn't Yankee bullshit
So you're looking for southern revisionist nonsense? Leave. Now. Hold this fist before you go.

Born & raised in the south but after grad school a world traveler but embrace my heritage. Slave holder ancestors both sides of my family

Barely a mention of the wholesale rape of southern women by Union soldiers during the war & reconstruction. The US government maintains it didn't happen.

>Better than some revisionist inbred hoohaw with his "South were good boys they dindu nuffin" trickery and half-truths
No they both suck.

I'll just leave this here

>revisionist inbred hoohaw
>signal their virtue with politically correct SJW mea culpas

Can both sides of this bullshit go die in a fuckin fire so we can talk some fucking Veeky Forumstory?

Probably not. Faggots.

The politically incorrect guide to the civil war.

Guy tries to argue the war had nothing to do with slavery, and that the north treated blacks worse than the south did.

Lmao

>living with slaveholders is the moral equivalent of owning slaves
>the Atlantic

Fuck off.

>No they both suck.
>Can both sides of this bullshit go die in a fuckin fire so we can talk some fucking Veeky Forumstory?

There is no "both sides"

what y'all are calling the "yankee" side isn't just what people in the north think, it's what people on the west coast think, what people in Europe think, it's even what most people in the south think because it's based on the consensus of what academic historians conclude after compiling and analyzing all of their primary sources.

Not even most southerners jump on this lost cause bullshit. It's a small fraction of butthurt southern conservatives who like to fantasize about the CSA as being some small government paradise ruined by the big, bad federal government. These are fundamentally dishonest charlatans pushing pure, unadulterated revisionism and they need to be stamped out ruthlessly

>argumentum ad populum

>. This compared favorably to the Confederacy as a whole, in which one in every twenty white persons owned slaves.

What did he mean by this?

>>argumentum ad populum
>99 dermatologists tell you that dark splotch on your skin is cancer and will kill you
>1 quack tells you it's a freckle and then goes on a rant about how all the other dermatologists are in cahoots with the pharmaceutical industry
There's really not an equivalence, you just have a problem with authority

Something about your use of numbers seem kinda fishy to me, friendo! You're making an analogy of 99 : 1 when I highly doubt that's the case (i.e., you're making shit up).

OH I'M A GOOD OLD YANKEE
WELL THAT'S JUST WHO I AM
FOR FUCKING ALL MY COUSINS
I DO NOT GIVE A DAMN
EIGHT-HUNDRED-THOUSAND REBKEKS
LAY ROTTING IN THE DUST
I GUESS THEIR WHOLE SECESSION MEME
TURNED OUT TO BE A BUST

>Something about your use of numbers seem kinda fishy to me, friendo! You're making an analogy of 99 : 1 when I highly doubt that's the case (i.e., you're making shit up).
Because I'm being generous. There's only a handful of lost cause revisionists and none of them are taken seriously by the entire body of academic historians so the ratio is probably closer to 1,000 : 1

>shitposter doubles down on his retarded nonsense

t.cleetus

Not a book but here's something straight from the horse's mouth: civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

But unfortunately it doesn't really mesh well with your narrative.

Time to crash this shitty waste of a thread with no survivors. Confederate revisionists pls go and stay go.

>cuckfederate revisionist calling anyone else a shitposter

>there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that Southerners would fight and die for anything but slavery, revisionists!

No, no, it was possible. They just didn't.

Nobody is saying that literally every soldier was fighting to preserve slavery, but that was why the war was fought (never mind that it wasn't in any immediate danger to begin with).

>the "they died for MUH STATES RIGHTS and MUH SUTHERN PRIDE" meme again

The problem is that people take the political aims of the leaders, which did start a war for slavery, and then they extrapolate that to say that every fucking Southerner fought and died because of "muh racism". If you had an army marching to your doorstop, and you really felt like the federal government was overreaching and you held ANY sense of pride, wouldn't you be tempted to fight back?

>d-duh any dissenting opinion must be racist!!

To a certain extent, I see people do the same shit when they talk about "Nazis", like every goddamn German had a hand in getting the gas ready and putting the Jews on the trains. It's a sort of blanket black-and-white thinking where if your leader is bad, EVERYBODY ELSE MUST BE BAD.

Kek, I didn't even mention race or racism and you're already getting defensive.

That's why you keep posting pictures of black girls like it's going to trigger me, you useless shitposter.

...

Not him, but a picture tells a thousand words.

>the north was fighting to free qt black slave girls

>declarations of succession
No shit, retard. Everyone knows that the leaders started the war for slavery. What we're talking about here is whether it is appropriate to cast EVERY FUCKING PERSON IN THE CONFEDERACY under the same evil that their leaders committed.

>implying there's anything wrong with these pictures
Exactly this.

>succession
secession, my b.

The same leaders that they elected, for the same principal causes that the war was fought over, for the same dominant ideology of whites "in heavenly-ordained superiority over blacks"?

No, we can't cast every single person in the Confederacy under the same sins, but to imply that this absolves the Confederacy itself in any way is disingenuous. Would you prefer if you and your ancestors are called "good southerners", virtuous and anti-slavery and pro-federal intercession? :^^^^

>elected
>On February 9, 1861, the provisional congress at Montgomery unanimously elected Jefferson Davis president and Alexander H. Stephens vice president.
Hmm...the provisional congress elected them...weird. Does that sound like a democratic election to you, dipshit?

This is also completely ignoring the fact (selectively) that WHITE MEN IN THE FUCKING UNION FELT THE SAME WAY ABOUT BLACKS (read: Abraham fucking Lincoln)

But, oh, I'm apparently the revisionist.

>What we're talking about here is whether it is appropriate to cast EVERY FUCKING PERSON IN THE CONFEDERACY under the same evil that their leaders committed.
It's not. The average confederate fought gallantly for his homeland and while many came from families with slave owning members, most didn't own slaves and were actually suffering from the presence of slavery because its presence was dissuading industrialization and making it extraordinarily difficult for poor whites to find work.

And over the course of the war, a healthy respect for the other side fosters between opposing soldiers and by the wars conclusion, both union and confederate soldiers celebrated peace side by side.

It still doesn't change the fact that these poor whites were taken for a ride by unscrupulous minority of power brokers who sold them a manufactured narrative in a bid to establish themselves as aristocrats in a European style feudal state.

>Yankees are falling for this obvious bait

So you're saying that the entire Confederate government was somehow completely totalitarian, with no democratic mandate or other form of approval whatsoever from the masses?

No one ever claimed that there weren't significant numbers of Union whites that had a negative view of blacks, or that Lincoln himself wasn't a racist -- but that doesn't change the fact that the Northerners of the Union were, by and large, militantly against slavery, unlike apparently their southern counterparts.

>I was only pretending to be retarded!

>a yank protests he's not a yank

I will never understand these sort of southern Americans

This is my first post, but civil war threads are almost always started by /pol/ level bait.

Yankee is a term for a northern american. Calling us all yanks is the same as when we call everyone in the UK English.

oh I see, then you are south american