How did perfidious albion resist the urge to destroy the United States?

just a reminder

Most of the action would be in Europe and on the high seas in form of the blockades and privateering (this essentially being the reason the Russian navies went to New York and San Francisco), I do not think there would be any non-american boots on the ground

Wow you must be a really smart nigger, eh?
Then explain to me, what a slave owner would be doing during a war?
That's right, he wouldn't have to be in the war! He would probably be old and too rich to have to go. The ones who suffered and died were not people who had slaves.

Which means, any war hero these people have should be allowed to be commemorated, and their names should not be erased from history!

>Russia and Prussia were bros with the U.S
>The U.S stabs Prussia in the back during WWI
>The U.S turns it back on Russia
Fucking hell. Where is my U.S-Russian Empire- German Empire alliance?

What are the Irish?

...

is the screaming guy on the right sam hyde

this is retard logic though

>Irish
>European

The potatoniggers were basically perceived as an alien race back then.

and how is my logic retarded? where is your argument? Your argument is retarded, because its something a preschooler would say! Instead of an unbased insult, how about you show me why my logic is wrong?

The Irish are European don't move goalposts. There was also a lot of Germans fighting for the Union.

>The potatoniggers were basically perceived as an alien race back then.
>back then

>Commerating retards who willingly let themselves be used by the 1% just so they can continue to profit

The Right never changes.

>wanting to erase 300,000 people who died in a war they had no choice in going to

>perfidious albion

Nathan Bedford Forrest plz

Russia emancipated it's people just two years before the USA. I wonder if....?

Yeah history tends to be written by the winners. How many black slaves who had no choice in life were erased from history?

>implying illiterates squatting in someone elses shack had any impact outside of rebelling and running away

>no choice

also, how is that erasing them you stupid fuck?

there were always adversaries to britain on the continent that could be allied with in that case, Russia, prussia, etc.

You assume they would side with the CSA? Politically that would be impossible to square, for both parties. UK was more staunchly abolitionist than the US. It would be a Devil's bargain for either of them and would not hold up under tragic casualties.

And assuming they played for the Union, they would be as well-prepared to face the Rebs as they were the Minutemen. Confederates fought like Revolutionaries on meth, while the Union fought more like the British on tuberculosis. Brits would get their asses kicked for the same reasons the Union did. That's my theory, at least.

your opinion of union success doesn't match with the historical record

I'm a progressive lefty and I believe monuments to Confederate soldiers should remain. Confederate leaders, however, should be removed and placed in their appropriate context, probably the African-American Smithsonian. Anyone who wishes to experience history, should go and fucking learn the history. Anyone who wishes to worship them, ought to brave enough to enter a bastion of niggery.

That is, if they can survive the transfer. The Daughters of the Confederacy commissioned shitty, flimsy, cheap work in order to cover as much negro territory as they could.

The bongs did side with the Confederacy. They built Confederate warships, and wound up paying a settlement to the USA for that crime. They also supported the continental incursion into Mexico, and once the Civil War ended they ran at the first threat. The only reason they didn't intervene directly is that Canada would disappear from them forever if they had.

nazi

>ywn sail the high seas on the CSS Alabama

feelsbadman

>Implying illiterates who were too incompetent to win a war had any impact

Conservatives are afraid of museums

All monuments should go to museums if the taxpayer doesn’t want them.

Kek at this delusion. The Civil War was viewed as a brawl between amateurs

Not quite.

The Europeans weren't too impressed with the quality of the soldiers or the generalship, but they did take interest in telegrams, railroads, artillery, and especially the new Ironclads.

On the other hand, European observers were very critical of certain aspects. Foremost was the ability for neither armies to capitalize on victories in the European manner, which they saw as amateurs being unable to keep their armies cohesive for a pursuit. The second thing they were critical about was American cavalry, which fought mainly as mounted infantry or carbine-armed skirmishers. It seemed cowardly and lacking in elan compared to European curassiers.

American observers later said the same thing about the Franco-Prussian war.

>falling for the rebel yell meme
The only reason the Union had higher casualties was because the south is a swampy disease infested shithole and the Rebs were more likely to murder prisoners.

Doesn't match up with the account's I read, can you give a source for these claims?

> Confederates fought like Revolutionaries on meth

honestly I think the Western theater had Union commanders who had a better grasp of how warfare had evolved in the last 60 years and that's why they did so much better

Outproduce your opponent, attack his infrastructure, don't let him catch his breath