Now that the civil war in america is over, does Sup Forums side with the union or Confederacy?

Now that the civil war in america is over, does Sup Forums side with the union or Confederacy?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman's_March_to_the_Sea
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>inbreds and drunks or White anglos driving the nation toward progress

The Confederation was cool, but had a shit cause.

daily reminder the republicans were against the constitution, to be more multy-culti

daily reminder the democrats were the racist and wanted closed cooperation with the crown

there is no better cause than balkanization

I always sympathized with the Confederacy

not necessarily the point of contention (slavery) but the idea of state autonomy and agency, and also how they were facing really stacked odds

>The Confederation was cool
No

The north obv, but they should of won the war in under 2 years. It's embarrassing that it took them 4

The confederacy of course. The north had no valid casus belli to go to war against them as they had legally seceded from the union. The whole slave thing is complete utter bullshit that only yankcucks could come up with. It was a brazen expansionist move by the north, pure simple.

>as they had legally seceded from the union

you cant legally secede because secession is illegal, you stupid swed

". . .if i could end this war without freeing a single slave, i would do it. . ."
-t. Lincoln

>but the idea of state autonomy and agency,
This had nothing to do with the civil war, years after the tune for why the war started changed to romanticism the south and make them seem less racist and more legitimate.

>and also how they were facing really stacked odds
They were winning the war for quite some time and if they had gotten foreign backers they could have won. When no one stepped in to help all the Union had to do was apply pressure and let attrition do its magic.

>had legally seceded from the union
There is no leaving the USA once you become a State, that is very explicit in our constitution.

>Sherman
is that the tank man?

Lincoln was a hick from the back country who made something of himself, he hated nigs just like every white American.

>american """""constitution""""" says so
good one, literally no politician has ever cared about what your constitution says

>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.
Since secession is not part of the constitution that means it is up to the states. Of course the ruling in 1869 made it illegal, but at the time it was perfectly legal, you stupid yank.

The tank was named after him. He bantered the South pretty hard.

>To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Yes the M4 tank is named after Sherman.

Sherman probably committed war crimes against the south to subdue the confederacy. He believed in total war against all enemies. That's why he is a hero in the north and a villain in the south

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman's_March_to_the_Sea

It was no an illegal act ergo it's was not an insurrection or against the laws of the union.

>Since secession is not part of the constitution that means it is up to the states

>New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress

the north because they aren't losers.

>had no valid cassus belli
You won't see me spewing ignorant bullshit about Sweden. Do the same.

Union.

Maybe under the Articles of Confederation they could have argued that.

Not under the constitution which unified all the states into one government.

The law does not explicitly state anything of the sort, and it can be easily argued that secession should be up to the individual states.
If you had any understanding of law then you would know that when there is no precedent all you can do is try and deduce what the inherent point of the law is and make decisions based on that.
The point of the constitution was not to create a state from which none can legally secede due to political differences, that would be quite ironic concidering the founding fathers ruled over a nation that had just seceded from the United Kingdom.
The civil war was the result of Northern imperialism and nothing else, the law was not on their side.

>The law does not explicitly state anything of the sort

Union, not because i like Black but because those Confederacy is the one imported black.

What part of "they left the union" did you miss? You're grasping at straws.

>You won't see me spewing ignorant bullshit about Sweden
I see it literally every day

The Texas v. white case came after the civil war and, as you probably are aware, the constitution prevents any law or ruling from being applied retroactively. The fact is that it wasn't illegal when the confederacy was formed.

are you incapable of reading?

YOU CANT DO THAT

...

No it doesn't, behold
This dictates that a state within the union can't perform the functions of the federal government. Nothing concerning secession.
This concerns the divisions of states who are already in the union.
Nothing concerning secession.

I meant this negro

>The law does not explicitly state anything of the sort, and it can be easily argued that secession should be up to the individual states.
Wrong, States are subject to the federal government, they do not get to act interdependently on the world stage, there is nothing "easily argued" about that stance to suddenly go "hey I going to leave now"

>The point of the constitution was not to create a state from which none can legally secede due to political differences.
That was exactly why it was created because true federalism which we had before didn't work. There needed to be a unified currency and military to streamline defense and commerce. There was no going back for states once they entered the constitution

>The civil war was the result of Northern imperialism and nothing else, the law was not on their side.
That's funny since the south controlled the federal government for the majority of the USA's history up until that point. If it was anything it was Southern Aggression and pride that could not allow them to give Northern states any sort of power in the federal government that lead to the civil war.


The idea that the Civil war was about State rights is a meme anyways, it was about slave owners seeing the writing on the wall that western culture was turning against slavery and that they were going to lose their property, so they took up arms and tried to carve out their own nation, and they failed.

Well considering the fact that the Civil War wasn't really over slavery and I'm from the South, i'd go with Confederates. I was taught in school that this was a war over race but Freedom Proclamation was just a move by Lincoln to destabilize the south. When you look at the production rates there was almost no way the south could win a drawn out war.

wasn't the South more Anglo than the North at that point

>Confederacy
+Decentralized government/state's rights
+Better culture
-Slavery

>Union
+A US that includes the South is far more of a military power, which in the long run is good for Poland
+Wanted to deport Africans back to Africa after the war
-Oppressive
-War crimes
-Denied self-determination to what was essentially an independent state

>muh legality
Even if we ignore the fact that the South struck the first blow by attacking FEDERAL forts and troops, sovereignty and independence come down to one thing: strength. Are you strong enough to repel whoever would wish to extinguish your independence? Yes? Then are and will remain independent. No? Then that's too bad - your independence is null and void.

>Confederacy
- Economic and political backwardness which would have left the vast majority of the Southern population behind (all those disfranchised, poor whites as well) for generations
- A goddamn feudal oligarchy of landed plantation owners who corrupted and controlled the political process in the South for generations, and who would have done so if not stopped (and, indeed, they still did manage to semi-monopolise political power in the South even after the defeat)

>backwardness
try again without buzzwords
there is literally nothing wrong with agrarian society, industrialization in the 19th century meant slave conditions in horrible, unregulated, unsafe conditions. I would rather be a happy redneck than some dirt poor fresh off the boat Irish factory worker.

>feudal oligarchy
...right

The horrible conditions of the Industrial Revolution improved significantly, and become semi-decent by 1914. Of course, the trajectory after that gave us our modern comforts (and it might have come about much faster if not for the world wars).

Not literally a feudal oligarchy, I'm speaking hyperbolically. But they did monopolise the wealth and political power, and disenfranchised poor whites.

I still hold no love in my heart for the yankee nation and support my State and the Confederacy. The South will rise again!

One of the most badass generals in the War, 2bh.

The union
Had the confederacy won the US would have continued to divide into many smaller warring nations.

>The South will rise again!
Rising would require walking. I imagine the only thing the south can do these days is right their rascal scooter to the local Waffle House to keep up their svelte 400 lbs.

>The same guy that wanted to eradicate the Native Americans
What a noble cause

>The whole slave thing is complete utter bullshit that only yankcucks could come up with.
Thankfully, many soon-to-be Confederates put down their reasons for secession in writing, so we can turn to primary sources from the period and see what the secessionists had to say.

The State of Mississippi, why are you breaking with the Union?

>In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Oh! Well then.

The state of Georgia, what did you put in the official records?

>The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

o-oh.

Immediately after the war, Dodge proposed enslaving the Plains Indians and forcing them “to do the grading” on the railroad beds, “with the Army furnishing a guard to make the Indians work, and keep them from running away”. Union army veterans were to be the “overseers” of this new class of slaves. Dodge’s proposal was rejected; the U.S. government decided instead to try to kill as many Indians as possible.

In his memoirs, Sherman has high praise for Thomas Clark Durant, the vice president of the Union Pacific Railroad, as “a person of ardent nature, of great ability and energy, enthusiastic in his undertaking”. Durant was also the chief instigator of the infamous Credit Mobilier scandal, one of the most shocking examples of political corruption in U.S. history. Sherman himself had invested in railroads before the war, and he was a consummate political insider, along with Durant, Dodge, and his brother, Senator John Sherman.

President Grant made his old friend Sherman the army’s commanding general, and another Civil War luminary, General Phillip Sheridan, assumed command on the ground in the West. “Thus the great triumvirate of the Union Civil War effort,” writes Sherman biographer Michael Fellman, “formulated and enacted military Indian policy until reaching, by the 1880s, what Sherman sometimes referred to as ‘the final solution of the Indian problem’”.

What Sherman called the “final solution of the Indian problem” involved “killing hostile Indians and segregating their pauperized survivors in remote places.” “These men,” writes Fellman, “applied their shared ruthlessness, born of their Civil War experiences, against a people all three [men] despised. . . . Sherman’s overall policy was never accommodation and compromise, but vigorous war against the Indians,” whom he regarded as “a less-than-human and savage race”

>B-but they was oppressing the blacks

i like the south because it's a qt

>le decentralized confederacy meme
The Confederacy had America's first federal income tax and conscription laws. It also mandated that slavery be legal in any state that joined and states had no option of later outlawing slavery if they so chose.

It was a war of Northern aggression.

Bear Creek massacre

As the Shoshone used tomahawks and bows and arrows for defense, the soldiers appeared to lose control. After killing most of the men and many of the children, they raped and assaulted the women. In some cases, soldiers held the feet of infants by the heel and "beat their brains out on any hard substance they could find." Women who resisted the soldiers were shot and killed. One local resident, Alexander Stalker, noted that many soldiers pulled out their pistols and shot several Shoshone at point blank range. The soldiers burned the Shoshone dwellings and supplies; they killed anyone they found in the shelters.

And people wonder why the Native Americans fought for the Confederacy

Fuck of commieperialist.

Paper doesn't carry much power. The only thing that works is cold hard steel or a bullet of brass.

Cool, the South still explicitly seceded because of slavery.

And the north pretending they were any better is not an excuse for genocide

Also
>new york draft riots
>pulling immigrants from boats and making them fight for American citizenship while also refusing to hire them
>no Irish need apply

More Union hypocrisy
The Sand Creek Massacre resulted in a heavy loss of life, mostly among Cheyenne and Arapaho women and children. Hardest hit by the massacre were the Wutapai, Black Kettle's band. Perhaps half of the Hevhaitaniu were lost, including the chiefs Yellow Wolf and Big Man. The Oivimana, led by War Bonnet, lost about half their number. There were heavy losses to the Hisiometanio (Ridge Men) under White Antelope. Chief One Eye was also killed, along with many of his band. The Suhtai clan and the Heviqxnipahis clan under chief Sand Hill experienced relatively few losses. The Dog Soldiers and the Masikota, who by that time had allied, were not present at Sand Creek. Of about ten lodges of Arapaho under Chief Left Hand, representing about fifty or sixty people, only a handful escaped with their lives.

The massacre disrupted the traditional Cheyenne power structure, because of the deaths of eight members of the Council of Forty-Four. White Antelope, One Eye, Yellow Wolf, Big Man, Bear Man, War Bonnet, Spotted Crow, and Bear Robe were all killed, as were the headmen of some of the Cheyenne military societies. Among the chiefs killed were most of those who had advocated peace with white settlers and the U.S. government. The net effect of the murders and ensuing weakening of the peace faction exacerbated the social and political rift developing. The traditional council chiefs, mature men who sought consensus and looked to the future of their people, and their followers on the one hand, were opposed by the younger and more militaristic Dog Soldiers on the other.

>not only are we going to refuse to seek peace but we're going to kill the Indians who prefer peace too and strengthen the resolve the militant faction!

Founding fathers and colonial America had slaves
You hate them too?

The British were trying to outlaw it

That does not disprove his point. Nobody here is claiming that the Union is perfect and that the Confederacy was pure evil, but the slavery debate was a huge part of the causes for the war.

>Slavery is worse than genocide!
wew lad

I'm not claiming that, nobody is claiming that. The Union didn't fight the Confederacy for fucking human rights, they fought the Confederacy to stop them from seceding. This does not change the fact that the Confederacy tried to secede because they wanted to maintain slavery.

Cool, the South still explicitly seceded because of slavery.

That is what I said and that is all that I said. It was in response to
>The whole slave thing is complete utter bullshit that only yankcucks could come up with.
and was thus an assertion that, yes, it was actually about the issue of slavery, even by the Confederates' own reasoning.

I have not commented on the morality of slavery, nor have I commented upon the morality of Union actions, and furthermore I lust for bloodshed and yearn to bathe in the entrails of the innocent anyways.

That also doesn't change the fact that the North's official policy for the Native Americans was genocide after they determined they weren't fit to be slaves

Wonderful. The South still explicitly seceded because of slavery.

Nobody is claiming that the Union was a paragon of virtue.

Cool, the the north still explicitly sought out the Native Americans for genocide.

Even the Confederacy gave Native Americans representation and high ranks in its military.
Last Confederate general to surrender was a Cherokee chief

And even the Mexicans preferred to work with the Confederacy instead of the Union.

They even shot at Union troops

Wonderful. The North still explicitly committed genocide

Yes they are
Apparently slavery is worse than genocide

Who's claiming that the Union is flawless? I'm pretty sure the genocide of Native Americans is common knowledge.

People that claim the South was bad for slavery while ignoring the North was commiting genocide and pulling immigrants from boats and making them fight for American citizenship while also refusing to hire them.

How delightful. The South still explicitly seceded because of slavery.

You've made a good effort at turning this into a tu quoque contest, but it's really transparent. I was not stating any value judgments when I first cited Mississippi and Georgia's declarations of secession, and I have been avoiding stating any judgment since.

I am somewhat startled that your immediate response to "Yes, southern states did explicitly secede because of slavery" is "Northerners are hypocrites! They killed Indians" when nothing was said on my part regarding the morality of anything.

That's wrong, the South was the first to fire a shot.

So nobody in this thread, then. Sure the average person who forgets most of his lesson after history class might think that, but anybody with interest and knowledge in history won't write the Union off as a utopia of morality.

I'll fight and die for Dixie, come round two.

>progress
Fuck off, you cultureless faggot.

>wasn't the South more Anglo than the North at that point
Still is.

He was a white nigger. First nigger to burn down a city for no reason in the United States.

How delightful. the North still explicitly committed genocide on the Native Americans as official government policy

You see that bear creek massacre?
Happened during the civil war

>You've made a good effort at turning this into a tu quoque contest, but it's really transparent. I was not stating any value judgments when I first cited Mississippi and Georgia's declarations of secession, and I have been avoiding stating any judgment since.
Pointing out the Unions hypocrisy is tu quoque?
Sounds like you're attempting damage control

>I am somewhat startled that your immediate response to "Yes, southern states did explicitly secede because of slavery" is "Northerners are hypocrites! They killed Indians" when nothing was said on my part regarding the morality of anything.
The British attemted to get rid of slavery in Colonial America.
The only reason you don't hate the founding fathers is because they didn't "explicitly" say they were rebelling for slavery.
But they still had them
If you are going to point out the flaws in someone don't be surprised they do the same to you.

I actually surprised you are so offended that I brought up the North's hypocrisy in regards to official government policy on Native Americans and how they treated the poor and immigrants during the draft

>feudal oligarchy
If I remember correctly, the masters had a disproportionate amount of political influence as they controlled the slaves' votes as stipulated in the 3/5 compromise. Maybe I'm wrong though.

The South had a racial hierarchy instead of "muh one drop" autism. Imperialism is all Yankee-driven. Globalism, minus the kikes, is all Yankee-driven. All of the problems in the world that America is blamed for, that weren't caused by kikes, were caused by Yankees.

You're downplaying the North's hypocrisy while stating that because they South seceded because of slavery they were worse

Slaves couldn't vote. The 3/5ths law says that a slave only counted as 3/5ths as a person in a population census, so slave owners wouldn't be over represented in the house of representatives.

The Northeast has a better culture than the South.

>Pointing out the Unions hypocrisy is tu quoque?
Literally, yeah. It's "oh yeah? but these guys also did a thing". It changes nothing about the original statement, which is that the South explicitly seceded because of slavery.

>The British attemted to get rid of slavery in Colonial America.
Slavery was abolished in the British Empire nearly 60 years after the Declaration of Independence.

>The only reason you don't hate the founding fathers
I have said nothing about my feelings for the Founding Fathers.

>If you are going to point out the flaws in someone don't be surprised they do the same to you.
I did not say slavery was a flaw. I said (all together now) the South explicitly seceded because of slavery.

The Northeast doesn't have a culture at all. It's all a bunch of godless hedonists. California has more culture.

Oh right. Makes sense.

Sure sounds better than a culture of Walmart and hicks.

All these assholes crying about slavery when the last country to abolish slavery did it in the far away year of 2007.
Look up Mauritania

Also slavery didn't go away
It just went underground like most illegal things

I like how nobody gives the middle east shit for slavery especially since it turned most of their black slaves into eunuchs.
Pic related

And this changes nothing that the north's official policy for the Native Americans was genocide.

>Slavery was abolished in the British Empire nearly 60 years after the Declaration of Independence.
Key word British "empire"
Britain itself abolished it longer than that.
But allowed some of it in the more remote parts of its empire

>I have said nothing about my feelings for the Founding Fathers.
I'm just pointing out they had slaves

>I did not say slavery was a flaw. I said (all together now) the South explicitly seceded because of slavery.
And (all together now) I pointed out the North explicitly sought out the Native Americans for genocide as per official government policy even during the civil war.

Southerner here. Don't even bother arguing with cuckfederates. They're immune to logic and have an entire mythos built up about how the southern planters (and the peckerwoods that protected them) were good boys who dindu nuffin. It's literally serb-tier delusion and revisionism.

I should be ashamed that a Swede knows more about our history and Constitution than an American, but, sadly, accept it as the new normal.

The Union of course. Fuck the South and their cause.

>Total War to annihilate any chances of Confederate victory
>No reason
He did eventually secure the surrender of the Carolinas and Georgia, I believe.

>Now that the civil war in america is over
It's been over for 150 years, user

There's plenty of inbred Southerners that refuse to give up.

>Southerner here
Sure thing, kid. We know a Yankee transplant when we see one.

Why are you trying to change the subject? Is it that hard for you to admit the South seceded because they feared that EVENTUALLY slavery would lose popularity?

Is inbreeding as much of a problem among white southerners as some people make it out to be? Have never seen it backed up with reliable statistics.
I don't think he's denying that the South was economically dependant on slavery, just that the North didn't have the moral high ground when demanding the abolishion.

Neither. But if I had to choose it would be the union

My mom is a yankee, but my dad's family has lived in Virginia since Jamestown. We can't all be sister-fucking peckerwoods like yourself :^)

If you go into the heavy wooded areas yes but no not really inbred

Yeah it's one of those stereotypes.
Inbreeding occurred among all isolated comminutes.
The states most known for having inbred communities out in the woods are the most northern of the southern states like Kentucky and West Virginia.

Not changing the subject if I admit the south seceded because slavery but also bring up the North's hypocrisy especially since they actively used genocide as official government policy even during the civil war