Redpill me on the American Civil war /pol

Redpill me on the American Civil war /pol

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4
youtube.com/watch?v=nbFty9nZUac
youtube.com/watch?v=gpJt6bjls4k
youtube.com/watch?v=c-W5fGCAzOk
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Like, the reasons besides 'muh slavery'

>1770s -- colonies want to break from England because their interests weren't being (sufficienly) represented
the declare civil war and become independent entities. they voluntarily ally with each other for mutual benefit

>1860s -- southern states want to break from US because their interests weren't being represented

FUCK YOU RACISTS, GET BACK IN LINE

Your meme is missing an apostrophe.

what does the last one mean?

You (plural) would have if I would have

State's rights to keep slavery.

Sure, it was mainly about slavery, but they didn't fight die because they wanted to keep black people as slaves SO fucking bad, they were pissed off because these northern yanks thought they could just simply 51-49 us and tell us what to do and we had to simply roll over and take it.

I have lived in the South my whole life and that meme made me kek hard

this meme is getting quite amazing

>tfw no qt black gf to slowly redpill
What's even the point, lads?

The entire south isn't texas dumbass.
In fact, Texas was the most useless aspect of the Confederacy

You all would have if I would have

But I've never heard of "if" being cut off. "Id" needs an apostrophe to be I'd

The south was legislatively bullied around by the north. They didn't have much of a voice politically and over and over they'd pass laws that didn't affect places like New York but completely fucked over Georgia or Texas. The most important one being slavery. In fact Texas gave up the top sliver of their state to Oklahoma so they wouldn't be counted in some weird latitudinal law in order to keep their slaves. While the war itself was initiated by the political forces of the Union vs Confederates, many people owned farmland in the conflict areas so it became a war about property invasion. All around it was shitty and literal next door neighbors, cousins, brothers were smeared on the lines. While the leaders themselves may be correctly dubbed "evil" or "racist" the actual soldiers at least deserve none of it.

this, Texas would have likely joined the north because we didn't give two fucks about slaves. We didn't have our entire economy built on it like Virginia and shit. But with our geographical location it felt natural because we had more in common with the southerners than the notherners.

Thank you.

States rights

/thread

Texas is the only state with distinctive culture in America

Yeah but it's a pretty retarded one tbqhfamalamadingdong

T. Texan

Wrong. The east coast (From New England to Georgia, Florida not counting) and Louisiana are the most cultured parts of the America.

Damn

False. Louisiana.

As others have said, states' rights. Also, those who were pro-slavery often were for economic reasons - without slavery, the south's economy would have collapsed. It only didn't after the war because freedmen so often went back to work for their masters, but for wages.

States rights vs Federal control.

i hate this pic

To PROCREATE and PRESERVE YOUR RACE AND CULTURE

You stupid?

yeah but their interests included wanting to own niggers

as a yankee i wouldn't have minded if you guys seceded though

The numbers don't lie

The state's right to do what exactly?

whatever the States desired. If Tennessee wanted to propose a tax on deep sea fishing, won't hurt them, right? but i'm sure Maine would be quite pissed. Things like that.

So the right to ignore the laws of the federal government, in other words?

But the south's economy did collapse, the yankees practically salted the earth, leaving the south destitute and to make it even worse, carpet bagging northerners came down to exploit the desperate. That's why the southern states went from being the richest region of the US to being the fucking poorest, which has persisted to this day.

You sure loosing all those slaves wasn't the really cause of their economic turmoil?

Yeah essentially. States law would trump fed law. We live in the timeline where fed law trumps state law.

Keep seeing this shitty drawing.
> Kind of interesting you can tell the BLM artist didn't even have enough respect for white people to find a quintessentially 'white' philosopher. We get 'MUH ROBURT LEE' while Ms. Sassy Blaque with the teased hair gets 'De Gert Life N' Tymes of Markus Garveeeeeeeee'

I guess they could have put Marcus Aurelius's "Meditations" on the cover, but that wouldn't jive with their faggot ass, rayciss interpretation of MY FUCKING WHITE CULTURE.

No one will ever believe that I was a hardcore lib five years ago. The joke ain't over yet though.

No, that definitely caused it and I never implied the opposite, the south simply couldn't compete without slavery. I'm just pointing out that the north was undeniably brutal in subjugating the south, politically, socially and economically.

South decided to chimp out white folk style because muh slavery and the fact it may be curtailed in the future. Given the fact it was a large portion of their economic base and also large swaths of white southerners were interested in maintaining it for personal financial gain/as 'proof' whites were superior to blacks they decided to secede and attack the North. They then proceeded to get shitcanned hard because most industrial capacity was in Northern cities and the South's military leaders were less than stellar.

In the century and a half since people in the South have pushed for a revision of history into the idea that it was over the rights of states to do what they want (despite the Confederate Constitution specifically outlawing Confederate states from abolishing slavery) and a sort of resistance against the loss of the ways of the antebellum south.

tl;dr racist rich folk convince everyone else in the south that becoming a traitor nation and delcaring war on america is a totally smart idea and proceed to get btfo so hard that they cry and try to pretend they did it for different reasons even 150+ years later

>undeniably brutal in subjugating the south
The world's smallest violin plays for the slave owners.

okay, people make fun of this "accent", I don't even live in the south I've lived in the Dakotas my entire life, so how the fuck are you supposed to say something like this? Someone vocaroo themselves saying "You all would have if I would have." or something like that with each word clearly distinct from another. What does that even sound like? If I try to do it I can barely make it through and I trip over myself because I'm thinking ahead of where I'm talking

The federal government was shitting on the smaller states because (((they))) needed a war. In order to force change in the American south, it had to be destroyed first.

The south was upset because slavery was likely going to be abolished now that Lincoln was president and the republicans controlled congress, so they decided to leave to protect their economic interests. Lincoln didn't give a fuck about slavery, said he would do nothing to interfere with the institution, and planned to deport them to the recently formed colony of Liberia. He invaded the south because of 'muh keep the union together'. The emancipation proclamation freed slaves in reconquered territory only (the union still had four remaining slave states) so as to cripple them economically so they couldn't rebel again. Slavery was later abolished by constitutional amendment after the war ended and Lincoln was dead.

I don't think that everyone in the south owned slaves, nor do I think that the resulting period of willful sustained economic decline managed by the north and the subsequent social stagnation did much of a favour for the black communities that were freed so magnanimously by the north. You could argue that they were freed only to be then imprisoned economically. Almost like the north didn't really give a single shit about slavery going against black people's fundamental human dignity and just wanted to use it for political power.

>they decided to secede and attack the North
>attack the North
bullshit fag, the north broke the NAP by illegally occupying confederate territory

You've obviously never been to America outside of the cities.

Born in Salem Massachusetts , now living in North Carolina ask me anything! I'm Puerto Rican btw lol I love the south more fyi it's just more relax down here , everyone even moves slower here, went to mass for a year first thing I notice is my cousins walking faster then me! It was weird I hadn't realized I had slowed down so much.

>I don't think that everyone in the south owned slaves
I imagine few of the blacks did.
>You could argue that they were freed only to be then imprisoned economically.
You sound like an expert on the evils of capitalism and misused political power. Are you a Leninist like our friend Bannon?

Slavery need to go, the Union was preserved. Lincoln was right. The South had a hissy fit but its totally understandable

Its really just an American tragedy

I don't think anyone except for abolitionist radicals thought blacks could live in harmony with whites

Utmost resect for the soldiers of both sides

Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proc to ensure France and Great Britain wouldn't intervene further in support of the CSA

>How do you do?
>How'd'ye do?
>Howdy
Native Americans showed us up with shortening it all to
>How
Red skins are the true redpill.

Yeah except we got rid of the Articles of Confederation and replaced it with a centralized Federal Government. Not even Washington would agree with you.

Secessionists deserve the rope

America would never be powerful and strong if we let the CSA go.

ok the north told the south they had to do as they were told and the south was like you niggers dont know the meaning of the word sophistication and lincoln was like thems fighten words

then there was a war , but the north lost. and this was in all history text books until like the 50s when it was phased out by all publishers

if your wondering how the north was able to keep everything as a single country if they lost well they played it cool for a couple years then rode in shot men raped women and burned down the white house which was in the south at the time. then rebuilt the white house in DC and claimed to be the winners

when booth shot lincoln it wasnt because he supported slavery it was because lincoln had basically started a war without a declaration of war and murdered unarmed men. immediate retaliation for such a horrendous crime

It was poor and middle class whites fighting and dying so rich democrats could continue to own people as property.

>alla y'all'd've dunnit too

Most of those in the confederate states, Robert E Lee included, didn't want to separate from the union. Most of the founding fathers didn't want to separate from the British, Washington included. They fought long and hard to gain the representation before they decided they had no better option in both cases. The nation would be stronger and better today if the North pulled their heads out of their asses. This is coming from someone who has lived all over the country and read a lot on the history of the civil war. I'm not a southerner nor a northerner.

As much as I think the Confederacy was in the wrong ideologically, they were definitely the superior side of the conflict, even if they had no chance of winning it at all.

Better states, better songs (Dixie's Land), better generals.

Seriously though, every reason anyone can come up with here eventually ties back to slavery.

It was about slavery.

Here's the head of the West Point history department discussing the issue:
youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

In as much as the Iraq war was about oil. We both know it was much more complicated than that, though. At least I hope you're not that dumb.

Your cognitive dissonance is frightening. Just watch the video.

It's not cognitive dissonance to say it's fucking stupid to try to reduce all causes down to one issue when there were many issues at play.
Don't be a stupid prick.

Maybe if you keep attacking me instead of thinking about the argument you're making people will believe you instead of the facts.

I've heard it all before, and there is nothing in that video that refutes what I have said. Maybe if you would make a real argument based on what I have said instead of linking a video for someone else to make a separate case for you, I wouldn't call you out for being a stupid prick.

The south was passing the north economically. The north wanted to maintain power so they offered a tax, they also had 4 slave states themselves. The south said hell naw to the tax and the war started. The south didn't have near the men, weapons, transportation as the north did and still fought hard. It's why the south has so much pride and evolvement in history and the civil war. As a result the niggers were freed and it took its toll as you can tell. The negros had more shelter, food and clothes during slavery as they do right now, and that's a fact. Oh yea and slavery itself was a Jew business. This was the easy dumbed down version

I apologize for making claims and then backing those claims up with sources with the proper credentials. I forgot that yelling your opinion loudly makes it a fact.

the blue pilling here is just too much

what kind of crap is this

What claims did you back up about my "cognitive dissonance"?
All you did before that was splat down a video. So you put down a video, one which I was already aware of and have seen, then you simply say
>muh cognitive dissonance
instead of addressing what I said. But I am the unreasonable one? Amazing.

Libertarian historians get it right.
youtube.com/watch?v=nbFty9nZUac
youtube.com/watch?v=gpJt6bjls4k
youtube.com/watch?v=c-W5fGCAzOk

It has been foretold.