Why do some people who call themselves patriot where flags that symbolizes a separatist movement ?

there really need not be any statues to indians, they were brutal killers

>where

Because the Jacobins in Washington threw the Constitution into the gutter.

The 'confederate flag' doesn't symbolize a separatist movement, it symbolizes a specific unit of the Confederate Army that was considered heroic during the Civil War..

Why was the North so terrible at winning battles without incurring huge losses?

Same reason the Brits had trouble in the Revolution. Confederate armies knew their battlegrounds better, had pressure to preserve their resources, had slight advantages in the form of aristocratic, wealthy and well-educated leadership, and also had a master general who combined all of these traits.

The Union's chief advantage was overwhelming production capabilities and supply lines.

better supplies as well, and better trained regular infantry

>had slight advantages in the form of aristocratic, wealthy and well-educated leadershi
>slight
The Northern leadership was quite literally a rabble. The only Northern prodigy was Lincoln.

It used to symbolize a specific unit in the Confederate army. It's symbolized dumb racist trash for the last 150 years. Unspecifically.

were all the slave soldiers tallied towards losses?

I agree. This is a flag of rebellion against the United States. Men who fought under this flag killed American soldiers. But its not that simple, and regardless of what you think they stood for (undeniably slavery) their existence adds depth to American history.

>I agree. This is a flag of rebellion against the United States
Where the fuck do you morons come from. A few decades after the war, there was mutual admiration on both sides. No one cares what some fag 150 years later thinks of the flag.

Lee himself thought the banners themselves should no longer be flown, the war was over, irksome symbols that divide americans with fury should be abandoned

>Lee himself thought the banners themselves should no longer be flown,
That's a myth thrown about recently in the furor over confederate monuments. He merely advised a certain organization to delay until the wounds of the war had been mended.
>irksome symbols that divide americans with fury should be abandoned
Whom did it divide until recently? I say the only division came from those who divided themselves, voluntarily, in order to express received sentiments.
>let's import a rabblement of foreigner and erase a section's history to end division

>"Civil War"
>Not War of Northern Aggression

>not The Great Redneck Chimpout

>not the "we want to make the american voice weaker in the world war"

The ideals of the Confederacy, including slavery, were more in line with the original intent of the founders of the USA than the Union government at the time.

>The ideals of the Confederacy, including slavery, were more in line with the original intent of the founders of the USA
Almost all the founding fathers found slavery to both rob men of their god-given rights and deny freed men economic mobility. Jefferson advocated for eventual emancipation as well.

This is very true, and it's a damned shame we didn't cast off the bad job of slavery from the get go.

That didn't stop them from being slaveowners. The US is a country founded on slavery

no

>. Jefferson advocated for eventual emancipation as well.
And mass deportation. Convenient part to leave out.
Moreover, the rebellion was due to much greater sectional controversies than occurred during the revolution

So did Robert E Lee, that doesn't mean shit

Of course it didn't stop them. The majority of the slave owning FF's inherited their plantations through inheritance. This doesn't disqualify them from disliking or condemning an institution which went against the ideals they fought and bled for. Slavery is anti-American no matter how you try to justify it.

The difference is that in one area the practice died out and in the other area the practice exploded

The US being a country founded on institutional slavery and white supremacy is a firm belief of progressive intellectuals like Ta-Nehisi Coates. It is you who are arguing against mainstream thought to claim that slavery is not fundamentally American.

another matter is that the nation was in fact not founded upon slavery, nor did it show up until later when the crown wanted land cleared for industrial pitch production

Gotta say, I have wondered that myself.

Slavery is not fundamentally American if it goes against every ideal that was borne of the revolution and the fathers who built the pillars of this nation. As I mentioned previously, the institution did more than rob men of their rights, it prevented working class whites from obtaining jobs as well. It is hypocritical to defend slavery as fundamentally American while claim to follow the ideals of those before you.
>And mass deportation.
And? This doesn't change the fact that he was anti-slavery. Maybe if the slave-owning class were not such chimps we wouldn't have had a civil war or have as many blacks in our country.

But Georgia was a state.

>freedom

That irony is so strong I can taste the nigger's chains.

And yet they are not the ones being torn down. The threads on Veeky Forums white knight them every time.

What the fuck are you trying to say?

Because they're patriots of said separatist nation? Secession attempts have been crushed all throughout history, look at Ireland for example, but they kept popping back up. The South never rose again mainly because reconstruction was so thorough but the cultural differences remain.

the CSA was the only true America

yanks were a carbon copy of a typical European state and culture

rebs government and culture was purely not european, purely american

Why would you share this stupid opinion?

Natives were on a losing side since europeans introduced pathogens that plagued them for generations and took all their shit.

But they did only go to war to protect the institution of slavery and their white supremacy.

I forget the term for them, but there are records of the people in charge of rallying the confederate states together in the time leading up to the war, they were clearly promoting the survival of institutional slavery and racial inequality.

your mind on yank history

>FREEDOM AND LIBERTY IS AMERICAN
>PROCEEDS TO DEFEND EVERYTHING THAT GOES AGAINST SAID FREEDOM AND LIBERTY
the irony is hilarious

>wanting to take part in the world war at all

I think I explained why I think they aren't deserving of statues.

They were brutal killers. They were not noble members of our civilization, they presented nothing of value to it, they have no worth to our society, and on a more fundamental level they weren't americans.

didnt expect anymore than a strawman from you yank, run along

Southernbros, why can't we all be Yankees?
Us whites who've been here since before independence need to stick together, and kick niggers and foreigners out.
Slavery is bad. But so are niggers.

>native americans
>weren't americans

Also, history is all about killers and subjugators, how else you think we are able to prosper. At the very least I think they are the original inhabitants and have interesting culture and a sad history that goes deeper than brutal killers, if we got confederate statues im cool with them having them too. Especially since its probably in a relevant area to something historic.

this is patently false
basically every country in europe was still a monarchy at the time

nice bait tho

not when it's to promote slavery, you fuck

Buddy please im trying to flex my noggin here, gimme a counter argument.

slavery was bad because it brought niggers into the country

Slavery and white supremacy are integral to the character of the United States

Every President before the 70s was probably a white supremacist.

Denying a class of people their inalienable rights is the opposite of the American character, user. Are you even American?

>Maybe if the slave-owning class were not such chimps we wouldn't have had a civil war or have as
How would that have changed anything? The same people were in charge either way.

I like to give the benefit of the doubt and believe someone isnt ethnocentric garbage without a clear sign, but yeah.

You're the one attempting to whitewash American history.

People have natural rights. This is includes the right to own one's body, and not be a slave. This does not include the right to live in this country.
Slavery is terrible. But so are niggers.

this is nonsense, you should stop now

I never once denied that our FF's advocated for a white society, user. Jefferson saw the blacks as inferior but still advocated for eventual emancipation as even they have the natural rights of man. Perhaps you should go read early American history and learn the ideals behind the men who actually fought and bled for this country.
Niggers can have their natural rights in Africa as Jefferson insisted, but instead we live in the timeline where white niggers had to larp as European nobility and be a step above actual niggers.

Then let's send them all to California and kick California out.

Thereby you follow the constitution as it were word of god and ignore having killed off the natives, among other things and brought the niggers in on the first place to serve as a cheap workforce to flourish the economy?

Why do you need to reafirm yourself of your superiority over a massive chunk of the human race tho? Theres some brainlets out there but going this route is just a massive ego jackoff, since there is no real evidence to there being an inferior race (no control group ever set)

Mass deportation is an interesting topic, since anyone who knows about Reconstruction can tell you that a sudden emancipation of such a huge number of people that then become dependent due to, by design, lacking any skills or capabilities is unsustainable. It's also quite telling that pro-African groups up until maybe the 80s (when African American culture began to take root in the mainstream) also advocated for a return, physically first and later culturally/spiritually, to Africa - a system that never really worked.

>learn and abide by 200yo ethnocentric ideals

>implying said 200yr old ideals aren't compatible with the modern era

>ideal that was borne
Too bad that doesn't actually translate to reality.

>implying any ideal birthed within the last 300years isnt

>tfw postmodern ideals win over superior traditional ideals

That move by african americans came from a bit of an identity crisis, having lost your knowledge of any particular origins and knowing only you came from slaves from another continent that just got over european colonization and is a total wreck must have been neat.

I just want whatever ideal will slow down global natality, not directly align with any religious institution and promise to kill the planet as slowly as possible while giving livable wages and not having over 50% of all wealth in the hands of >10%. Also racism in any form isnt cool, id be cool with it if there was actual data to go from and not cherry picking that ignores any historical effects or sociological dinamics.

This post is the epitome of soy.

It doesn't help that African revivalism was almost completely revisionist garbage either. The pan-African identity, which really had no validity and was created by a population generations removed from African cultures and societies, was just trash and it's a shame that later Revivalists who weren't pan-African were downplayed or misrepresented for going against the grain (Chinua Achebe, for example).

The reality is that we're only just in this generation hitting the point that African Americans have existed in American society for long enough, with the cultural presence strong enough, to begin producing their own cultural heritage, and I think in the next few decades if they can escape ideological plantation traps we'll begin seeing another renaissance in the African American community.

>i want 'word salad of contradictory and reality-defying utopian dreams'
Sort yourself out kid. Everyone and everything is dying anyways, start by accepting that and get out of fantasyland.

Sorry 2 much wine I guess, why not set the aim high for a utopia since the shot is bound to constantly fall short anyway

There were no slave soldiers. Colored who fought for the union were freemen already or freed upon escaping to the north by the emancipation proclamation. The south didn't arm their slaves, using them for labor and grave digging.

>freely enter a mutual union where you have no restrictions on representation but can't secede unilaterally
>try to secede unilaterally
>lose
>bitch and moan 150 years later about how the guys who created the union where you can't secede unilaterally would totally support your unilateral secession

>but can't secede unilaterally
lol

Amendment: they can't LEGALLY secede unilaterally. They're welcome to try, and they're also welcome to have Sherman burn their cities.

They don't need to. The general government cannot legally stop them.

why are dixiemutts always a close second behind stormweenies when it comes to the "we wuz the good guyz and shietz we shoulda won the war" delusion?

>why do southerners always support the southern cause

>dying for obviously jewish interests just because your region signed up for it
congrats for falling for the easiest jew tricks in history and becoming the only civil war in history where one side broke off specifically to protect the elite upper class when literally every other civil war ever has been for the exact opposite reason.
make sure to clean your "i support israel do you have a problem with that?" bumper sticker

One man's treason is another man's patriotism. In other words...
youtube.com/watch?v=G1W3FmvI5Bs

It's a damn shame the Negro was brought to this continent...

Dixies are the ultimate cucks. Literally defending an institution that prevented them from receiving well-paid jobs.

>becoming the only civil war in history where one side broke off specifically to protect the elite upper class
As opposed to the northern robber barons who would launch the guilded age in a decade

This guy sees the bigger picture.

Reminder that Lincoln wanted to send all the niggers to Liberia

You can be a patriot and still appreciate your cultural heritage user.

Why do people who call themselves patriots
>kneel for the national anthem?
>undermine American power and hegemony and support our enemies?
>take no pride in 95% of American history?
>have no real understanding of 99% of American history
>import millions of illegals to undermine the homogeneity of the culture and feed off the welfare system that is supposed to exist for Americans?
>fetishize European lifestyles and government, especially the EU
>cry about the Confederacy 150 years later while simultaneously mirroring their actions in refusing to acknowledge and attempting to undermine the duly elected president?

I'm a both sides guy, but you can't honestly believe that people who fly the battle flag are less patriotic than your average Joe. Besides, a part of why people fly the battle flag instead of the various national flags is because it has different symbolism. It is less about signifying a wish to separate from the US and more about displaying support and morale for the various causes, beliefs, and ways of life of traditional America, whether its racial or not. I absolutely would consider it in bad taste to fly national confederate flags outside of historical sites, but I have no problem with the battle flag whatsoever. I think most "patriots" would agree. Its a way of signifying that there is something special and sacred about the union and that it should never be dissolved, but also that you are not going to let the federal government dictate your morality of lifestyle and will fight them if necessary.

They legally did

was grant a shitty tactician?