Is this board mostly Yankees circlejerking?

And even if thet hadn't, no competent commander is going to leave a major production center and transportation hub like Atlanta unguarded in his rear.

probably from plebbit. though i have to say, most redditors are some variety of social democrat soyboy bullshit, not a sister fucker.

I dont really care if the northeners were innocent or not,or even if they were really fighting about niggers or whatever
Southerners are just annoying hillbilly hicks who mouth off that theie culture is superior and wanting to relive a war from 150 years ago like spergy kindergarteners

As long as NBF still shits in this board, Shermanposting will always have its place here.

>muh lost cause
The north may have been fighting for the primary reason of preserving the union, but the south chose to secede and begin hostilities because they saw the prohibition of slavery in new territories as a threat. The declaration of causes for secession by several southern states mention preserving slavery, Even Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens stated "Our new government [...] its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth".

I do believe their is a line between being a skeptic of the Pro Union side and a lost causer and to me that line is the importance of slavery as a primary if not the primary cause of the civil war.

This. Now we get to exist as a based union full of third worlders! I can't for our iq average to fall below 90!
Then, maybe the supreme court will invest the president with whatever powers remain to the people and we'll finally have Lincoln's government by the people- the right people, the ones in charge at a certain hour.

>Even Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens
lol, why is it that you morons are so predictable? Your constant falling back on the same few tired old quotes only shows that really you know nothing about the war.

>Seriously, do people still believe this mythology in 2016?
We're in 2018, bud. Nice bait.

It was backed up by the confederate constitution, which outlawed the abolition of slavery in the states. They literally took away states rights for the purpose of enforcing slavery.

I mean I can kinda judge him for that but it doesn't matter because he's dead and my judgment doesn't really mean anything.

I think it's ok to Shermanpost because the South has this idea in their head that not only could they do another Civil War but they could win it. And like most American violence it's just chest bumping and shit talking, but there's a lot of dudes out there who would jump at the bit for a chance to kill some Yanks.

As if we didn't see how well that worked out last time. I wonder if we will ever learn any sort of lasting lesson that can be passed down the generations.

>Quote by Confederate authority that disproves lost cause revisionist nonsense
>'People bring it up a lot, so it's invalid!'
t. Cleetus

"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization." - Georgia Declaration of Secession
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." - A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
"[Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time." - A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.

Well, obviously a confederation based on state power is going to leave most of the power to the constituent states.
>fails to reply to me
>spells cletus wrong
lol I'm not reading the rest of that

You are genuinely a brainlet if you believe a not insignificant portion of southerners think civil war would be a good plan or even feasible

>Waaah it was over muh slavery just look at the declarations of secession I've never read but heard that word slavery appears over 100 times in it
Newsflash, it was states rights AND alavery. The amount of liberal Yankees trying to oversimplify history is sickening on Veeky Forums

>obviously a confederation based on state power is going to leave most of the power to the constituent states
Right, which brings up the question of why they would take away the power of those states? Before states had the choice of whether to abolish slavery or not, but in the CSA slavery was constitutionally enforced on the states regardless of whether they wanted to have it or not.

More like slavery as a proxy for state power, which the new england wanted to exert over the south

For fucks sake, how many times an I going to have to refer braindead Yankees to read the full primary source documents that their favorite blogs cherry picker from?

If you would read the rest of the "cornerstone speech"
>Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. The power, claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one; it rested solely upon construction. We of the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or to all necessary aids for facilitating it.

>With us it was simply a question upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country, according to population and means. We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost of not less than $25,000,000. All this was done to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. The cost of the grading, the superstructure, and the equipment of our roads was borne by those who had entered into the enterprise. Nay, more not only the cost of the iron no small item in the aggregate cost was borne in the same way, but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere? The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality, to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it. If Charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston bear the burden.
TLDR The cornerstone speech is literally talking about state sovereignty and state wide localism in the same speech Yankees like to cite as having nothing to do with states rights.

Because States rights, anti-racial egalitarianism, pro slavery, and various economic and constitutional amendments is too much to read. The only thing that *actually* mattered was the racism and slavery, everything else just didn't happen

Yeah, I misread your post, please quote the amendment

>Article I Section 9(4)
>No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

>CSAboo complaining about being full of third-worlders

Does this limit state governments or only the general government? The state government was to be the real unit of governance as I understand it.

Either way, that doesn't do much for the theory of the ebil slave power, especially when you take into account the fact that that very constitution also prohibited the importation of slaves.

That makes perfect sense considering it was not the CSA that wanted to import millions of peasants.
>anime fags
>extra chromosome
pick two faggy boi

>That makes perfect sense considering it was not the CSA that wanted to import millions of peasants

Yet the politicians and elite of the South unironically effectively shut down Congress for years in the interest of flooding new states with them, fought a war in order to keep them here, and then later spawned politicians like Wilson, LBJ, Bill Clinton, and the Bushes - all of which were massive contributors towards America's pro-Third World immigration policies. You fags just can't stop pining to be plantation owners.

>Yet the politicians and elite of the South unironically effectively shut down Congress for years in the interest of flooding new states with them
What does that matter? They were in the country already. It would have done nothing but disperse their population and influence, as Jefferson himself affirmed.
> fought a war in order to keep them here
As opposed to submitting and keeping them here? fucking kek
and nice d'souza finish

CSA fought for the right to keep importing cheap labor foreign immigrants.

CSA expressly prohibited the importation of slaves in their constitution you dumb fuck

They were allowed to import them from the 3rd world country called the CSA.

>CSA was allowed to import slaves from the CSA
what are you even trying to say

SHERMAN, DO IT AGAIN - Grant

>downvotes
>comments
>>>/reddit/

Buddy, the South is effectively third-world.
It's like Eastern Europe with more incest.

>almost pertained to my post
Well done lol

...

They are just a bunch of teenage edgelords trying to be ironic or something. Give them time and they will grow up.

Maybe we'd all do history a favor by reading the teaching the Corwin aka Ghost Amendment. Which passed the US Congress and was signed by the US President in 1860 and approved by incoming President Lincoln.

It was already being ratified by the states before the War for State Rights vs Federal mandates started. It allowed the South & North to keep forced servants and slaves IF they did not exit the USA.

Yes!! the North had slaves all the way thru the end of the War.

So how was the war about solely about or primarily about slavery? If the North was willing to allow slavery in order to keep the raw materials, food and discriminatory Southern tax revenues flowing for the North?

>downvoted

Son, do you know where you are?

Can't make this shit up

bump

this is a leddit copypasta btw

>threads talking about how Confederate victory results in Anne Frank becoming pregnant get posted almost daily
>requests for porn of pregnant Anne Frank having sex with Rhett Butler, Jonah Hex, Sam Watkins, Richard Kirkland, or Nathan Bedford Forrest pop up almost daily
> Veeky Forums's roster on the Rigged wiki literally has a greentext about Confederate pregnant Anne Frank shooting Hitler for a description

Are you sure it isn't the other way around?