Robert E. Lee was an honorable ma-

>The South fought to preserve slavery
The reason that's misleading is because the South SECEDED to preserve slavery, they didn't go to war over it.

This is the most tumblresque bullshit I've ever seen. Revisionist history doesn't change the facts of what actually happened.

>mfw

You dumb fuck, you expect him to act against his political directive and say fuck it to the whole fucking reason the South was fighting the war in the first place? Also, what the fuck was Grant doing bandying words when Union soldiers were STARVING AND FREEZING TO DEATH IN PRISON CAMPS.

The south didn't start a war. They exercised their right to leave the union and proceeded to get a mob beating which resulted in such a jarring paradigm shift that the economy collapsed irreversibly.
Whether it was a good thing or not they NEEDED slavery and nothing has fucked those people over more than quitting cold turkey.

God responded to their "exercise" with salting the earth and massacring the armies with starvation

>Unionists
>human

Reminder that Henry Wirz was doing God's work.

That looks like the face you make when you've seceded and the unionists won't GTFO your land.

>It's another "Reddit Atheist Pretends to believe in God and Gets it Wrong" episode

I'd rather Confederate sympathizers/Lost Causers just admit they like slavery and hate niggers and get it over with. No sense in pretending to deny why the South seceded and fought.

>plantation owners actively fucking you over
>abolitionist god punishes you for eternity
Sounds like a regular Catch 22 user.
Perhaps you would have had the moral fortitude to make the right decision? Being the nicer guy here.

>I'd rather
I know. The world is much harder place to address morally when there's subtlety. Unfortunately you don't get it so clear cut.

DO IT AGAIN GENERAL SHERMAN

>mfw remembering his plantation got turned into Arlington National Cemetery for Union troops
deserved every bit of his light punishment

DO IT AGAIN UNCLE BILLY

T.nigger

lmao amazing rebuttal my friend, I'm sure everyone takes you very seriously

200 years on and they still can't handle the banter

>The south didn't start a war.
except they did, you uppity nigger. What is the Battle of Fort Sumter?
>They exercised their right to leave the union
Such right doesn't exist, and never existed. The Constitution outright says in it's first sentence that it's intentions were to"form a more perfect union' (i.e. it's assuming some pre-existing customs and expectations from our previous system, that may or may not be included in the text of the original constitution), to which one can look at the Articles of Confederation, which starts off with "Articles of Confederation and PERPETUAL UNION..." followed with the States in the Union at the time. This sets the uncontested precedent that the Union was not made to dissolve or States allowed to leave. This is the argument Lincoln used, and it's what both Supreme Court cases used back in the 19th century and now in the 20th century. If they wanted States to leave, they would've included a process for them to formally do it or wrote about plans of including it in.
>NEEDED slavery
they could've gradually phased it out, like Lincoln and the Republicans wanted to but the South were a bunch of emotional faggots that they brought everything that happened on themselves.
>fucked those people over more than quitting cold turkey.
get fucked. The South could be way much better today if they didn't disenfranchise both blacks and poor whites and invested more in education and infrastructure.

"frosty" "stilted" "bad faith" just an unbiased reporting of history here folks

>his stilted language revealed something about his bad faith in defending this abhorrent practice
nice authorial integrity ye got there

I don't understand why there'd even be biographies or even schoolbooks on this anymore, everything since after the 1880s that isn't a reprinting of earlier sources is either revisionism or regurgitating what was already known without plagarizing as to make $$$.
Here is the earliest textbook on the history of American slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction in 3 volumes, it's from teh 1870s.
google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=history of the rise and fall of the slave power
And here's Grant's memoirs (no need for biography)
books.google.com/books?id=4zMTAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=grant memoirs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjYu5f1yp7XAhVX0mMKHRhwBOQQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
And Jefferson Davis' own books.
books.google.com/books?id=nNgBAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=rise and fall of the confederate government&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjv0sHRy57XAhUD3WMKHXieApwQ6AEIVzAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false

books.google.com/books?id=4VAuAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=rise and fall of the confederate government&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvmfaYzJ7XAhVQ6mMKHW-DBfIQ6AEIRjAG#v=onepage&q=rise and fall of the confederate government&f=false

books.google.com/books?id=KFEuAQAAIAAJ&pg=PP13&dq=rise and fall of the confederate government&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvmfaYzJ7XAhVQ6mMKHW-DBfIQ6AEIMDAC#v=onepage&q=rise and fall of the confederate government&f=false

>tfw Grant banned Jews from serving in the Union army as as soldiers and officers and didn’t want to flood the US with more niggers

>I don't understand why there'd even be biographies or even schoolbooks on this anymore
You said the reasons why yourself; revisionism and to make money.

Does he not know that Grant had slaves?

Maybe he knows that grant released the slave he inherited when he needed money instead of selling another person/

...

DO IT AGAIN UNKY BILLY

The Republican party then also partly inherited the platform of the liberty party which was very much abolitionist.

Grant had one slave, who he acquired from his father-in-law and then freed.

pretty based desu.

Do it again Uncle Bill.

you know that he is the one who surrendered. he did so because he was tired of seeing brothers and fathers killing one another.

>They exercised their right to leave the union

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that states have the right to secede, and Article 1 of the Constitution explicitly says that the Federal Government shall have the power to suppress rebellions.

>The south didn't start the war
>they exercised their right to leave the union
>they needed slavery

This is all bullshit.

>Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that states have the right to secede
All powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved duly and exclusively for the states and or the people, according to the tenth amendment.

Secession is not rebellion.

>Didnt start a war
>Attacks a federal fort with fucking cannons

Their military base was on our land

>except they did, you uppity nigger. What is the Battle of Fort Sumter?
Their military base was on Confederate land

That land was sold to the Federal government at an agreed upon price. It wasn't southern land anymore.

your land was on our military base

See The land was federal property dumbass. It was literally bought and paid for by the federal government and sold by the state.

And than we seceded therefore it wasn't federal land anymore

Kek that's not how property rights work. That land ceased being state land the second it was sold. The secession of the state in no way effects the land of federal property.

Not even fucking Confederates thought it did. They fully recognized it was federal property and attacked because they believed it was being prepared for military action against them.

Basically communism is white supremacist and very few blacks opposed slavery. The black units in the union army were unmotivated and surrendered quickly.

(((Cohen)))

>not a single citation
what is this? a fiction book?

>71
>72

I know you're dumb but are you blind?

such a poison bent in the narrative belays a poor chronicler

DO IT AGAIN UNCLE BILLY

I'm talking about that in that crop there aren't any citations. The author could be quoting fucking Buzzfeed. The numbers in that crop are meaningless if you don't know who he's quoting

I see this was an elaborate /jp/ / [s4s] set-up. Well done.

regardless of what was the confederacy its welfare leech fanboys are 10 times worse

He was honorable.

The north started a war to impose it's will

>Primary sources suggest that many individual Union soldiers were actually motivated by abolitionist sentiments though.
A lie.

Robert E. Lee: Whatever you do, don't build any monuments of me or the confederacy, let the union heal.
Southerners: Fuck you Lee, I do what I want.

>retarded southerners were pieces of shit

Who knew? Sherman should've burned it all down.

what?

Give Guantanamo back to Cuba then.

No. We have to violate human rights there and then say communism (which Cuba is not) doesn't work.

Who are you quoting?

Sephardic. They're the good ones.

newfag

>new

oh boy seems legit in this day and age

>which resulted in such a jarring paradigm shift that the economy collapsed irreversibly.
The plantation owner class fucked over the rest of the South on this one, actually. They actively resisted industrialization by legislating against it, holding the South back and keeping it a shithole.

Imagine being this assblasted

>ww1 thread
>it is always brits and french being butthurt about krauts
>ww2
>it is always brits and ivans being butthurt about krauts
>american civil war thread
>it is always northerners being butthurt about confederates

What is with all these winners being butthurt about the losing side? It would make more sense if it was krauts and southerners whining about brits, yanks, and ivans.

>le based Jews

>the new Grant bio
yeah
its lefty propaganda

They're annoyed because the uppity losers just won't stay down.

>cohen

cause a bunch of fedora wearing faggots support these losing sides and spread false information

grant got william jones as a "gift" from a family member, and freed him before the war began. lee owned slaves through his wife, and inherited some of them himself. he also had them flogged, including a young woman.

when will dixieboos learn to read

Regardless of the truth of these things, the author is injecting so much personal opinion into his writing that this book surely is worthless.

>trusting an account written by a general talking about his biggest enemy

Because pop culture history narrative about the losers are characatures that paints the losers as cartoonishly evil and projects modern moral values on their actions instead of contemporary ones. This causes the loser's supporters to swing the proverbial pendulum the other direction with a counter characature painting the losers as morally just in every single action.

Does anyone have the pic with all the reasons the South seceded?

This one?

Let's say that the south wins

How long do they keep slavery? Around 50 years? It's hard to imagine any country going into the 20th century with legal slavery

yeah that's the one, thanks

Fucking this. I can't stand modern writing and journalism. It's all become emotionally charged pandering and polticial bias.

Motherfucker giving the bone dry facts. That's all i want. I don't care how boring it is. All i want is stated facts.

But returning stolen property (even garbage as in this case) is pretty honorable.

Bit of irony really. Since the Union never recognized the South as anything more than states in revolt, Grant demanding escaped slaves be returned to the Union would be unconstitutional within the Union as well. He was asking Lee to violate the law in the CSA and the USA. Kind of funny if you think about it.

>(((Cohen)))
>(((Chernow)))
George Washington literally did the same thing during the revolution. Of course the lefties know they can't tear down his character yet, sogive it a decade or too.

>Union: "Ha! we took your plantation and buried all of our men you killed!"
>Lee: "That wasn't mine, it belonged to Mary Washington's family"
>Mary Washington's family: "Better give us our plantation back!"
>Union: "..oh ok"
>Mary Washington's family: "Ew too many dead yankees, we'll sell it back to you"
>Union: "..t..thank you. don't worry we'll make it into a memorial to Lee"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lee_(1882)