Who was in the wrong here?

So Lincoln?

>le epic "i know u are but am i XD"

>imagine being this assblasted

Both and neither.

Lincoln did everything he could possibly do to prevent the union from splitting and repeatedly told the southern States he wouldn't abolish slavery in the south. They refused to listen and sperged out when he got elected and Lincoln, as president, considered it his duty to prevent secession. He continually offered olive branches to only be spurned and then it all blew up with Sumter, again after Lincoln repeatedly told the confederacy he could not allow the continued seizure of federal property.

Obama said he's close Guantanamo, but it's still open for business

If you post anything this retarded again, I recommend you take a mandolin to your fingers.

Probably everyone.

>He continually offered olive branches to only be spurned
Probably because the main problem from the Southern point of view was norther dominance and not how to take the assurances of a man who had been elected by the other half of the country.

>lol, lincoln did everything he could to keep those redne... I mean southerners in the union. He was going to let them keep their slaves after all lololol...
Basically the north had been taking protectionist measures, erecting tariffs on manufacturing goods. These goods were necessary to the southern economy.
So essentially, the south had to pay far higher prices--while the south was getting rich--and all the while disperaging the south.

The slaveholding aristocracy demanded complete oligarchic political and economic control of the country and when they failed to attain it they sought to settle for just the south

>The slaveholding aristocracy demanded complete oligarchic political and economic control of the country
Is that what you call law enforcement and fairness under the gov't?
>le oligarchy
Oligarchy was the only reason for our constitution. It kept the Lincolns and the Sumners away from political conventions and in places where they needed to be, namely, working the fields or teaching schoolchildren. It gave the Hamiltons and the Washingtons shaping power over the nation's future.

Attached: brainlet.png (645x729, 75K)

cope

Like the time Lincoln refused to even see CSA diplomats over the Fort Sumter issue? The south sent their own olive branches plenty of times too.

There was no CSA, those states were then and are now and forever part of the Union

Attached: civilwar.jpg (300x927, 141K)

>forever
Lol

Attached: brainlet .png (403x448, 53K)

California wanted to leave because illegal immigrants get deported, it's not that much of a stretch

Wanted

>start watching Ken Burns' Civil War
>every five minutes something amazing that is about to secure swift victory for the Union happens
>"But then McClellan did X"

Attached: 1445790409998.png (269x602, 164K)

that's right, wanted to leave because criminals were being prosecuted

You were for make thing this thread.

The bearded one

>He spent the first few years of the war sitting in DC surrounded by 100,000 troops and cycling generals.

Lincoln was more competent than most of his generals desu. He had a telegraph room set up in White House so he could personally monitor battles hour-by-hour.

Attached: lincoln reading telegraph.jpg (584x329, 52K)

kek

Well, Anne Frank didn't become pregnant in the timeline where Lincoln won so the answer is obvious...

Attached: his is a states' rights board.png (1544x1064, 3.35M)

THE DAMN LINCOLN WAS WRONG.

THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!

Attached: Gettysburg union surrounded.jpg (1920x1080, 506K)

Not promoting Nathan Bedford Forrest to commanding general of the Army of Tennessee

Attached: mfw.jpg (600x600, 39K)

Pure bullshit. People have adapted this narrative because they refuse to criticize Lincoln. If you are the Commander in Chief and the war is executed horribly, its ultimately your fault. McClellan wasn't nearly as bad as people claim, Pope and Hooker were retarded choices, Halleck was a mediocre appointment, and even Grant is overrated in terms of what he did after being promoted to General of the Armies of the US.

Love this game

Just played this battle from the Union side

>Grant is overrated
You take that back!

shouldve just stopped at the third one, the rest are dumb and no need to turn it into a B^U wall of text

Grant enjoyed dirty black slave cock

This

This

Attached: his in a nutshell.jpg (2048x1511, 2.45M)

>McClellan wasn't nearly as bad as people think

He figuratively punted, what should've been, a swift victory at Antietam. He deserves every bit of criticism that he gets.

Also Lincoln surrounded DC with troops because one aggressive invasion by Lee would be enough to seize the capital and empower the anti-war members of congress enough to possibly kill the political support for the war.

>second to last box
This but unironically

I made this. Surprised no one else (especially here) did already.

Attached: we did it.jpg (800x450, 176K)

The funny thing is that the pic is actually accurate for once, they did preserve the Union

Their predecessors in the 1840s/50s for pretty much doing nothing to reduce tensions. Lincoln was a moderate for his party and half the CSA had seceded before he took office. Jefferson Davis didnt even want to be president. The Union was in the wrong for what they did during reconstruction which basically led to the current subjugated/subservient and inferior status of the south in modern america.

It was the autist wilkes booth whomstve did that

Neither

If George III was in the wrong in the American revolution then Lincoln was wrong in the northern aggression war

Attached: Benjamin-West-George-III-crop4.jpg (1720x1228, 991K)

Makes no sense at all

what do you mean?

>americans rebel
"we fight tyranny"

>someone rebels against americans
"traitors, we must crush them"

hypocrisy much?

>states secede from the united kingdom
>states secede from the united states
>no similarities whatsoever
at least come up with an argument, brainlet, say "muh slavery" or something

>Their predecessors in the 1840s/50s for pretty much doing nothing to reduce tensions.
What else could they have done besides the compromises that were tried? Other than just allowing the expansion of slavery

>murderer imprisoned for murder
"it's justice"

>innocent man imprisoned for murder
"injustice, we must free him"

hypocrisy much?
America and England were different nations with equal governments, the federal government and the states were the same nation where the latter government was subordinate to the former.

The continental congress had the authority to secede from the British Empire because the Empire was not a nation state, but a confederation of nations, one of which was America. Since America had been abused by the chief nation for 11 years, the congress was called to represent America before them. 2 years later, they saw fit to declare independence.

>>murderer imprisoned for murder
>"it's justice"
>>innocent man imprisoned for murder
>"injustice, we must free him"

yes, but in both the war of northern agression and the american rebellion the crime was equal

>The continental congress had the authority to secede from the British Empire
Wrong, the american colonies were god-given possessions of King George III and all his descendants, while USA was a federation of states

if anything CSA's authority to secede was more just than the 13 colonies one

I mean the 1850s "compromises" basically destroyed those earlier compromises like the missouri compromise, kansas-nebraska act led to some of the earlier pervasive violence between the two sides. Had they held a more moderate position than the popular soveirignty votes in the territories it would have been much more likely that slavery would have been abolished diplomatically as it was in a decent part of the western world. Congressmen were entering the capitol armed for gods sake after the sumner beating with the cane which was about kansas-nebraska. As industrialization became more profitable throughout the 1800s plantation slavery would have rendered itself obsolete.

Yankoid faggots of course
>Hey lets just is anti-democratic means of ending an anti-egalitarian process
>What can go wr-

Attached: 1520740049100.png (880x730, 54K)

>yes, but in both the war of northern agression and the american rebellion the crime was equal
So taxation without representation is the same thing as the lawful election of a president in accordance with the provision of the Constitution of the United States?
Really makes me think.

>As industrialization became more profitable throughout the 1800s plantation slavery would have rendered itself obsolete.
Many people in the 1850s were convinced that slave agriculture had prevailed over abolition in the Western Hemisphere, based on things like Britain removing tariffs on slave-produced sugar. Their confidence may have been misplaced but it wasn't baseless.

>Two great movements, or rather one great and one very small movement, may be observed in constant and busy operation as to the negro race. The small movement is that of the fanatical Abolitionists, who would free the whole race and put them on a social and political equality with the whites. The great movement is that proceeding from hostility of race, and proposes to get rid of the negroes altogether, not to free them. This movement is not confined to the North. Thousands, we regret to say, at the South, who think slavery a blessing to the negro, believe the negro a curse to the country. So far as the slaves are concerned, this opinion is fast changing. Men begin to look more closely at what the slaveholders have been doing since our Revolution, and find that they have been exceeded in skill, enterprise and industry, by no people under the sun. They have settled a vast territory from the Alleghany to the La Platte - from the Rio Grande to the Ohio, contending all the while with blood-thirsty savages and a climate more to be dreaded than even those savages themselves - and are already producing a greater agricultural surplus than any people in the world.
-George Fitzhugh, Sociology for the South (1857)

Attached: Screen Shot 03-13-18 at 09.39 PM.png (486x751, 144K)

So rebelling against your sovereign lawfully taxing you is just but rebelling against a president that unlawfully forces states to amend their laws is not?

how is this game for someone who has never played this kind of games before (Total War and such)

I can kinda see where they are coming from. But the part of the country where there weren't slaves was advancing in farming technology like machinery that would have surpassed human labor slave or not in efficiency and you know the danger of slave revolts and cost of maintenance of the slaves versus of a combine that could harvest cotton.

>America and England were different nations with equal governments

Attached: 1519101939236.png (800x800, 84K)

Fitzhugh was a scurrilous sociologist. Slavery had been less profitable for a long time

>So taxation without representation
They had representation- virtual representation. And the Southerners had representation- inadequate representation.

You think the revolution was "lawful?"

>condense a 15k union army in the corner of the map, charge with a 18k confederate army in hopes of making them all surrender.
>Weaken their position by having my heavy artillery shatter them before a great charge.
>Charge all my fresh brigades into the routing union army.
>"Yes! With this master stroke the entire union army will be captured!'
>mfw endless melee in corner of map
>mfw take more losses and have the brigades I sent in be routed.
>Spend the rest of the battle shelling the union forces, only manage to wipe 60% of their army.

This game was really hard to beat, the defence of the captured washington is so fucking awesome though, me and general Lee defending the north whilst my trusted assistant defends the city.
My assisted ended up having less troops then he needed so I sent some troops to the bottom of the map to reinforce him.
Union takes 5x casualties I win the war.
>tfw no civil war manga where normal loli becomes a killing machine.

Attached: Based loli.png (890x620, 655K)

>>America and England were different nations with equal governments
>America and England were different nations with equal governments

Attached: cave jew.png (125x216, 18K)

This, but pregnant Anne Frank being given Jack Hinson's sniper rifle and being turned loose upon the Reich in a hormone-induced killing spree

Attached: Jack Hinson.jpg (606x474, 172K)

A man of culture I see.

Attached: brain problems.gif (500x283, 1.85M)

Pro-slavery figures usually argued that free blacks were more violent than slaves even with the possibility of revolt. And they pointed to longer working hours and unhealthy conditions in Northern factories as arguments for manual labour. A machine to replace manual cotton picking wasn't developed until the 30s.

It wasn't lawful, they lacked representation in parliament, and Lincoln hadn't even taken office when the rebellion began, let alone abused it. This is beside the point that according to the Constitution state laws and constitutions are invalid when they contradict federal law, so if he pushed abolition it wouldn't have been unlawful.
>They had representation- virtual representation
Virtual representation is no representation at all. One might as well say the king virtually represents all his subjects, so it is his prerogative to tax them at will.
>And the Southerners had representation- inadequate representation.
The south had appropriate representation. The inadequacy of their representation was inasmuch it was not an oligarchy ruled by the slaveholding aristocracy, which then settled for the south alone instead to be their fiefs.
>You think the revolution was "lawful?"
Absolutely. When the war began, it was just self-defense against an army that sought to enslave them by any means necessary. From July 4th, 1776 on, it was defense of their country against invasion by a hostile foreign belligerent.

>It wasn't lawful
says who?

Natural law and the British constitution.

I think it's easier than the Total War series. There's little to no strategic management of your army. Once you max out political points there's no shortage of funding so long as you win battles. Winning battles is easy after you have an hour of experience. I love Ultimate General Civil War, but there is not a lot to it unfortunately. It's good for what it is. Worth playing imo.

How did the south have "inadequate representation"? Are you saying this because after the western states voted against slavery they lost a 50% balance in congress? That's not inadequate representation. They had the exact amount of congressmen to represent states that supported slavery.

No he didn't. He fucked up pretty bad in the Penninsula Campaign, but he performed pretty well in the Maryland Campaign. If you want to know more:

youtube.com/watch?v=WPM4SeXaIuY

McClellan wasn't very good, but the shield around Lincoln has made him look pathetically awful when he wasn't. The truth is that Lincoln and most of the Union army command throughout the war were pretty bad. They mostly won by having superior numbers and technology and grinding the south down because they were not good tacticians. Lincoln was a shrewd and deft politician, but not a very good CiC.

He was as the General of the Armies of the US. He was quite good in the west and not the terrible president people think, He was dealt a totally broken country and things could have gone much worse.

where in the British constitution of 1776 or prior does it state that taxing colonies was illegal?

That is true on lower difficulties, but when on MG or higher, you do not get nearly the same resources, especially in terms of captured weapons, and you have to use scaling to your advantage to be successful. You have to spend way more money for veteran troops too or else the enemy will always outperform you man for man. Its got its flaws, but its still the best CW game.

>No he didn't

Care to elaborate on this stance any rather than linking to a one hour lecture from a park ranger?

McClellan completely mishandled the northern engagements at the cornfield and sent inexperienced units into a situation he had no proper intel on. In addition, he held reserves simply because Lee scared him. This is completely ignoring the fact that under his supervision Burnside committed one of the biggest blunders of the war trying to storm that bridge.

McClellan shit the bed and had there been a general half as competent as Lee facing the Confederates Antietam would have been the first and only battle of the Maryland campaign.

>and only battle of the Maryland campaign

Should've said north of the Potomac.

how about the first game? worth picking up? the UI looks terrible.

Why were sunken cheeks so common then?

>the top 1 percent jewish controlling oligarchy was good for the union goy! they totally had the best interest of the american people with them
jesus christ, you alt lite dixieboos keep on getting worse and worse by the day

New England is the only civilized place in the United States, of course the North was right in brutalizing s*utherners

better diets and more outside exposure in early life meant that people usually didn't have their facial development stunted.

Because infants transitioned directly from mother's milk to solid foods without a period of eating mushy processed junk in between, leading to the development of correct swallowing pattern

is the confederacy the symbol of alt lite civic nationalists?
who honestly believe that having a black majority state with a government run by a few collect jews is a good thing?

Attached: 1516942846745.png (800x812, 643K)

>british constitution
oh boy cletus, looks like you should of finished high schol

Attached: 5e195ee8ef169c4caf53ccf1d19f04eeae6e0927e160a2f49d804cea09057634_1.gif (250x214, 567K)

Yes

Southerners are retards and wholly responsible for the US having a black underclass

i dont remember the founding fathers creating america so they can protect the interests of the jewish upper class

They literally considered constituting a permanent upper class

>unironically spouting marxist talking points
you dixieboos really are pathetic

>be represented by people across the ocean
>this is fine
>be represented by too few people to maintain a semblence of self rule
>it’s okay cuz duh proportionz is right

He inherited a shitty, disorganized, and inexperienced army two weeks before the battle of Antietam and still turned the Confederacy back. He could not have bagged Lee because of Lee's well planned retreat through mountainous terrain only allowed rear guard action across a small front. He also, you know, had just been dealt a huge blow to his already rag-tag army. This is pretty well established nowadays. Lee was hurt, but would have fought like hell if McClellan attacked again. This narrative also ignores the fact that McClellan's conservative approach is because he cannot be destroyed, under any circumstances, or the war might well be lost. Here is another park historian who can shed some insight:

youtu.be/CDtDejFPru0?t=387

When it says nobody is to be taxed without representation.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom
They had quite a bit of a say in the government of the United States, it's just that when literally every other state voted against them they didn't get what they wanted.