Europe: Union or Confederacy?

Europe: Union or Confederacy?

No brainwashed yankees ITT pls.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4
graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/FULLFRAMEmap.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=vWVgLLnGaWs
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

CSA all the way

The South fucked up by importing niggers to be slaves, and the North fucked up by blocking Lincoln's plans to deport the slaves to Africa.

Confederates were the good guys

>South
>Strong support of white population
>Are responsible for nigger infestation in America

Europeans have such a strange conception of our Civil war, though so do kids nowadays. I remember discussing this in a hostel with two Swiss, a Ukie, and a Norwegian and they all were taking about how much they hated niggers

What are you Euros' concept of the war?

>give people rights
>they choose to have sex surgery on their children
this is why we can't have nice things

>both manipulated by Jews to dismantle their countries from within

neither

>(((Banking)))

Jews: running the world since the 13th Century BCE.

I liek the south, I liek their music and the fact they were fighting for their home.

However, it's better the north won. Continued slavery would have just caused a Haiti situation in America where the slaves revolt and genocide whitey

Gonna have to go with the Union on this one. As much as I love the idea of states being independent of the fed, the South was already hurting their economy and people with slavery to begin with. Then as the war continued on and the CSA became desperate they started confiscating from their people to support the war.

>doesn't know Murican history

The North were the ones buying the product, the ones with the demand are the cause.
The only reason North wanted a war, was because they could not survive without The South.
>tldr
>North=Jews
>South=White men

Yankees are The Jude, make no mistake.

Wasn't the Confederacy mostly Irish?
We tried lads.

Daily reminder that (((Abraham Lincoln))) was an antichrist sodomite that wanted to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.

Most people have no clue that this war was about MONEY and about FREEDOM, not about slavery. The north industrialized first, and was pissed that the south was cutting into their profits. They wanted the money. So, let's go fight the war "over slavery" (because we already freed our slaves anyway.) Virtue signal to everybody, when it only boils down to money and power.


So, yeah, actually. I view this as a Confederacy thing.

>fighting in familiar terrain

a side effect of losing

Neither. Burgers are the products of losers that couldn't make it in their native lands. Their DNA should have been wiped out, but instead they went over and fucked that piece of land up completely. Fuck "america", there is no such thing as an "american", only losers.

>American
>History

Nigger, there is NO SUCH THING. I can trace my pure bloodline 400 years before you even where a, so called, "nation". Kys.

The south was well on their way to becoming industrialized. The north simply beat them to it. They wanted an excuse to control the states and make a big money grab.

Had they known the future they would have imported a bunch of Irishmen for cheap labor instead.

This

The Confederacy were in the right but they were bound to lose so I would support the Union to help bring the war to a hasty conclusion.

The war was about States Rights, and one of those State Rights was Slavery. So, it wasn't about Slavery, but in the end it was about Slavery.

>couldnt make it in their native lands
Kinda funny coming from someone who didnt actual descend from vikings (they raided and settled elsewhere), but rather all the cucks that got left behind

And boy does it show

UNION ALL THE WAY BAY BE

>t. One mad cuck

Hahahahaaha.
I like you Sven.

Europe of Nations. Nothing more.

He also wanted to deport all the blacks

>So there's that

And yet, America rules earth while you suck muslim cocks in irrelevancy. Its pathetic that all you have to brag about is your snownigger straw huts

Europeans know NOTHING about US history. Its all either neo-marxist propaganda about how evil everyone in america is or some neo-nazi shit about how evil america is.

Irish or German

>t.muhammed
Tracing your bloodline back a few hundred years is nothing.
Try a thousand, Black Forest of Germany.
Village has been there since before your African ancestor even decided to rape your drum playing grandmother.
What is Sven history?
>fish
>fish
>fish
>fish
>fish
>get cucked by Africans
>go back to fishing
When were you ever relevant to history?
Name one time, because Murica has been involved in every major event in the last two hundred years.

You're relevancy is limited to Sup Forums laughing at your shitty country.
You can't even own a house anymore, let alone land.

Yeah right.
Why do you think he is so exalted in the modern world?
Because the fucking Jews love him because he was going to rebuild the temple, which they believe will bring their "messiah" back, and they will rule the world and the goyim will serve them as slaves.

...

It was an incredibly brutal war too. Not only in the battles but on the civilian population aswell. The south got ducked bad in the end and the north was able to consolidate it's power in the end.

CSA had no chance.

>Irish or German

Most germans immigrants were in the north user.

>all these filthy fucking rebs ITT

Confederacy

based on my vague knowledge of murican history from movies

...

what movies?

Union, without Confederacy the Union/Lincoln could have deported blacks back to Africa if he had the political power. But you can never know if he was being honest with that plan or was it just politician lying.

Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant, a war criminal, mass murderer and a nigger lover.

Also I'd like to point ou that Lincoln became a bit of a tyrant during the war. Jailed people who spoke badly of the union or in favor of the csa. War is tough in all but the north kinda went full Soviet Russia on it with the whole "just keep throwing more men at it" thing.

The north had the ironclad technology and that's almost all they needed strategically.

Any movements supply shipments via the Mississippi were quickly stopped and the south became effectively blockaded

I love CSA music but I hate their policies. For me the most rational side to support would have been Union.

>OH MUH GOD LINCOLN WAS AN EVIL DICTATOR!

>worships Hitler

really made me think

thats a FUCKING LIE. he only ever planned on having SOME newly freed slaves be sent to work in CENTRAL AMERICA. nothing was ever said thats close to deporting all blacks to africa. total fabrication.

Dixie is the GOAT national anthem tbqh. I don't even care about the MUH LOST CA USE fags but I would be proud to have a song like Dixie as my nation's anthem.

t Sven Svensonsonsonsonsonson

it's funny because your 400 year old bloodline will disappear in the next century and we losers will still dominate the world. btw you guys totally predicted crazy liberal women destroying the west in that movie miss julie, your nation has been cucked for a long time sven, eat shit.

Liberia was a part of Africa the American government owned and had been just that since the abolishment of the slave trade. Free black men formed their own little groups in america to convince blacks to go back there and form their own new country.

We were basically taught that the North wanted to abolish slavery, the South didn't want and they chimped out.

He mentioned sending them to Liberia early on during his debates with Stephen Douglas (likely to pull sway from racist northerners who were abolitionist but still wanted blacks out of the country), but you're right that it never really was put on the table during his administration.

I was more or less comparing him to Stalin. Not that the ends didn't justify the means but they had the advantage in so many categories that it's hard not to. They lost so many men in comparison to the south that it almost seems like a mini eastern front.

The south left before Lincoln even took office. It was more of the fact that the newly aquired western territories wouldnt be allowed to even have slave, and the slave states would be out numbered.

And ever since the REvolution, slave and free states had always bickered with each other, so they felt that they would be out numbered and would never get their way in america again. Which is pretty much true since 10 states didnt even have Lincoln on their ballots and he still won.

But he never said he was going to take away their slaves and even had a few meetings with southern delegates to try to get them back into the union which all failed.

It wasnt just the north saying "free slaves" and then the south said "no, we leaving"

Union because Lincoln wanted to send all the slaves back to africa, the Confederacy wanted to keep them as slaves (and thus dooming the US to it's nig problem once they finally got freedom)

Reminder that this man ruined the USA forever

Daily reminder that the southern state's rights argument is horseshit since southerners chimped out every time a new state like Kansas or Nebraska decided they didn't want slavery.

Also pro-slavery people used to literally go into northern states before the war and execute entire families of innocents to try and intimidate the states into not being abolitionist.

Unironically this, at least the micks assimilated while niggers never will

Invade anyone is curious about this just google "Bleeding Kansas"

this

youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

Don't you have a black cock you have to suck yankee nigger

thats ignoring the various tariff issues and northern bias within the federal government. the average guy didnt own slaves and didnt give a shit about it.

the south and north had a major cultural divide and the north had far more representation in our national government (dude to population mostly) so southerners decided to rule themselves. pretty simple.

>Lincoln wanted to send all the slaves back to africa
Fake News

(((banking)))

>the average guy didnt own slaves and didnt give a shit about it.

It wasnt just giant plantations user. A family might own 1-3 slaves. And it was so intragal to the economy that everyone was connected to it somehow. This isnt even hidden because southerns outright said it was over slavery. They changed it to "muh states rights" after they lost. Losing a war is hard, but its damn near impossible to mentally accept losing while you defended a morally disgusting institution like slavery.

Sorry, couldn't hear ya Jeffy, too busy raping Georgia and South Carolina.

Why dont you look up who Judah Benjamin was.

>advantages
>banking

kek

I bet you can track it all the way back to mohammed, dear Ahmed

Exactly.

This is why families in the south had 13+ kids. Kids were FARMHANDS. Most people in the south did not own slaves. But everybody suffered for the war.

Federation

>It wasnt just giant plantations user
it mostly was user. sorry to burst your bubble but less than 5% were slave owners and even when you add in families as you mentioned 3/4th of them still had no relation.
>And it was so intragal to the economy that everyone was connected to it somehow
no more than you supporting chinese sweatshop workers who make your iphones dumbass. being part of the economy does not = support for it. the oil industry today is a perfect example actually.

>This isnt even hidden because southerns outright said it was over slavery
no shit. plenty of the higherups or actual slaveowners themselves DO have a vested interest in the war over that. that DOES NOT mean the average man did.

Take the war in Iraq for example. was it over oil? YES. now is that the reason the average american supported it? (initially ofcourse) NO.

>They changed it to "muh states rights"
When they say states rights its more nuanced then that and you know it. It goes back to what i was saying about lack of representation within the federal government. thats why they were advocating for more states rights in the first place. the cultural divide was clear. and so the south collectively decided to break away from what they saw as an increasingly disconnected government. (ironically similar to the american revolution)

>it mostly was user.

No, it wasnt. There were small families that owned maybe 1 or 2 slaves. You are factually wrong saying otherwise.

1/4 of all southern famalies owned at least one slave

graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/FULLFRAMEmap.pdf

>no more than you supporting chinese sweatshop workers who make your iphones dumbass.

non sequitur. Youre also lashing out at me because you realize you are losing the argument.

And you just said it wasnt about slavery, and are now conceding that it was as if you always argued that? lol

>When they say states rights its more nuanced then that and you know it.

I was the one who explained it as such here

youre the one spouting revisionist bullshit while posting southern meme pictures. Sorry, but facts and reality over ride irrational feels every time.

>>user presupposes that all slaves were in the south to make an argument.

The North had slaves too. The war was not about ending slavery. This confuses cause and effect.

Federation? Did someone say the Federation? Well of course they're going to beat the Zeon rebels.

Sorry, but you're wrong. 1/4th of southern families did not own slaves.

I'm one of those people with a hope chest filled with old letters written in war time in handwriting that appears to have been written by the Queen of England. (Penmanship meant something back then.) Nobody in my family owned slaves. None of the families in their communities owned slaves. In all of those letters, not one reference to anybody owning a slave. It simply was NOT the norm for poor farmers. The south was mostly poor, barely self-sustaining farmers.

Some of my family in Louisiana were acquainted with some in the mulatto community, and if you do your research there, you will uncover a rich history of a caste system where freed blacks owned slaves. Our history books do not cover this. I'm not sure how they're reflected in the slave ownership demographic, but if there is no breakdown by race, and simply by people in the south who owned slaves, you have a substantial number of mulattoes represented. Since most of our history books are completely cucked, one of the best ways to research mulatto culture is to research the history of Voodoo.

An uncle on my mother's side of the family donated a portion of their land to freed blacks after the war. Then, his brothers had to help them with their finances, as they had no idea how to survive on their own at all.

Fuck you

Neither.
One united nation state. Fuck the states there's only one America.
We can dream.

Literally this.

The amount of mental gymnastics lost causers pull to deny that slavery was the biggest issue that led to the war never ceases to amuse me.

Slavery was by far the number one issue that the 1860 election was fought over, and when the Republicans won the South chimped out because they couldn't handle the fact they couldn't force new states to instate slavery or follow their bullshit fugitive slave laws.

The Southern cause of states' rights is a meme.

It just shows your ignorance of actual history.

I'd be interested to hear your opinions on the Vietnam War. Our history books have fucked that one up big time, too.

Give me some sources on where you get your actual history from then.

>Was about states rights
The war was about the economics of slavery, pure and simple. From a monetary point of view, Slaves were the single biggest capital in the south. You can't deny that.

The north had the population and the wealth to industrialize faster. They didn't free the slaves because it was "the right thing to do." Then they beat the south to the punch of becoming industrialized themselves (smaller population, less wealth) to seize control of the entire pie.

Most southerners were brainwashed into the "Muh states rights" argument by rich slave owners. It's not much different than today. The poor are fooled into the rich man's game.

Dixie all the way!
youtube.com/watch?v=vWVgLLnGaWs

The south was too busy making money off of free labor to industrialize. They had no incentive to modernize.

Ironically cotton farming is heavily automated.

Great tune, regardless of how people feel about the Confederacy.

It was actually Lincoln's favorite song, he had the band play it at the event held after Lee surrendered.

Great song, although there are many claims that it was actually written by a guy from Ohio.

>No, it wasnt.
i assumed you were speaking in terms of land area. its obvious you havent been around many farms. but what you're saying supports my claims regardless.
>1/4 of all southern famalies owned at least one slave
lets assume that number is accurate. (which its certainly debatable itself)
3/4th of them did not own slaves. succession from the union, much less the war would have been impossible with only 1/4th support of the population. and that is also assuming that literally every family member of each family is in total agreement. you're blowing up your own arguments here.

>non sequitur.
top kek do you know what a non sequitur is? safe to assume you're trying save face because its a perfect example as to why the statement you made was irrational.
you implied that because slavery was integral to the economy that even non slaveowners in the south shared their views.
>you are losing the argument.
not an argument. improve your replies.
>And you just said it wasnt about slavery
for the common man, yes. i stand by this.
>and are now conceding that it was
no, i explained that a handful of men reliant on slavery would obviously have a vested interest.

>I was the one who explained it as such here
explained improperly with false reasoning. which is why i corrected you here >youre the one spouting revisionist bullshit
afraid not senpai. you're giving the same lines as a public middle school class. falling outside that category doesn't make me the revisionist. (ironic for you to say so)

>while posting southern meme pictures
i posted a civil war portrait and a girl wearing a dress. nice "memes" i suppose.
>Sorry, but facts and reality over ride irrational feels every time.
Sorry, but contrary to what reddit might have you think, ending a comment with "i have the facts" and a smug remark doesn't help your argument. there's not gonna be any "le upboats! xD" for you.

Dixie actually wasn't popular in the South until near when the war started. It was a song written for blackface minstrel shows, which were much more popular in the North than South.

So the concept of building enough capitol to invest in industrialization to earn more money in the future is a concept that doesn't compute with you?

The north did not free the slaves out of the goodness of their hearts. Slaves were no longer useful to them. Like I said, they had the means to become industrialized first. Then they saw an opportunity to eliminate competition by waging a war "about slavery," even though industrialization was the future of the south.

Next you'll tell me fast food restaurants are introducing kiosks because they want to free their workers.

> opportunity to eliminate competition
What competition. Britain?
>Building enough capital
The south had enough capital. But they chose not to use it for industrialization. Why would they, they were making money hand over fist in cotton and tobacco. There was no sign or move towards any industrialization. The south wasn't economic competition. If anything the war hurt several industries (textiles being a big one)

But the north would technically take a big hit from removing slavery, because the vast majority of their sugar and cotton for their mills came from the south. If there was no worry about the moral dilemma of slavery, then both sides would've been better off with the south keeping it.

Forcibly annexing a freed south to control their supply of sugar and cotton was the goal. Utterly destroying them through war, rendering them practically a third-world country, took any fight out the people.

>Forcibly annexing
They were already part of the US since 1776, I wouldn't exactly call that "annexing"

>Control the supply of cotton
Which was making northern textile manufacturers millions. So not seeing an argument. How is destroying your suppler a good business plan?

>Which was making northern textile manufacturers millions
the north implemented a tariff on exporting cotton. now obviously this was all done through the federal government. the south lacked the representation to block or repeal it. by leaving the union they maintained control over their goods.

>How is destroying your suppler a good business plan?
Yeah i don't think they intended to destroy their supplier. Better wording would be control their supplier.

Confederates. Wish we intervened in the war to be honest. We could have helped preserve southern independence.

It's called burning everything to the ground and rebuilding it to your liking. And ownership.

People say "it was just the states" but this was basically like one country completely roflstomping another to seize total power. If the south had been left alone, it's very possible we would have two countries, both industrialized. I think in the end, we're better off as one country, but how we got there was completely wrong.