What do you think about the Confederate States of America?

What do you think about the Confederate States of America?

HUUUUUUUUGE faggots.

agree

But they were free.

Until the union invaded

Haven't seen them in a while. Where they been?

>south
>free
lmao

Ok only a few hundred people actually had slaves. The rest did not. My 3rd great grandfather died in the battle of bull run in 1861 trying to protect his home from the invading north

A weak, inferior territory that was taken by a much more technologically and economically advanced one.

In reality most of the southerners were barely ahead of the blacks that did all they're work.

Your 3rd great grandfather died trying to defend a treasonous government that only existed to protect the institution of slavery.

There's no such thing as a free society. Anarchy is true freedom, but anarchy is also for the intellectually lazy and emotionally retarded.

No he died for Virginia and to protect his state from the murderous invaders

No they were trying to protect the state's rights when they recognized the imperialist movement to, "Unify," the country under one oppressive regime. Slavery was on track to fizzle naturally and racism would have been gone a lot faster if the North didn't give them a reason to rebel.

The north had slaves too you stupid fuck. Thinking the war had anything to do with slavery... the fucking cognitive dissonance... jesus fucking christ must be a public school faggot.

The south lost, get over it.

We waz KANGSSS

Nope. Virginia existed before and Virginia existed after. I should know, I was born and raised in Virginia.

He died for an evil cause.

Fought for slavery and lost. Failed rebellion whose flag was revived as a counter-protest to civil rights and is today a universal symbol for poor dumb rednecks.

>nigger identified

So General Lee was evil too for protecting his home state?

Go kys liberal piece of shit

"Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth" - Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the CSA.

I'm sorry, I can't hear your revisionist history over demonstrable reality. The only "right' they were trying to protect was the right to have slaves.

Could you explain to an ignorant person why the south tried to recede? I thought it was over slavery

The north had almost entirely outlawed slavery by the time the war started. The north was becoming an industrial and manufacturing based economy, and didn't need free cotton pickers. The south was clinging desperately to an already obsolete way of life, and yet chose to fight to the death to maintain it.

And the south paid for it for the next 150 years.

The confederate flag is basically the right's equivalent of the rainbow flag. Poor dumb beta cucks and poor dumb rednecks are both faggots.

They didn't have many, all northern states had abolished slavery by the time war broke out, either via immediate or gradual manumission. The US didn't fight to end slavery, they fought to preserve the union. But the Confederacy seceded because of slavery (inb4 muh states rights that are all directly related to slavery)

Democrats gone wild.

>So General Lee was evil too for protecting his home state?
Yes you conservacuck.

The confederacy suceeded because they didn't want the fags in washington telling them how to run their lands, properties and laws. This is the same thing the colonies did to England, you don't seem to be protesting that because you're not much more than a yankee bitch

END OF LITERACY

>The confederacy suceeded
They didn't tho

You have no idea what you're talking about

Slavery was becoming economically obsolete and was on track to dissolve completely on its own. The north trying to restrict the Southern states' right to this system was the only reason that the South dragged out that message. It was a call to arms. Regardless of the Vice President's racist opinion, once you start losing money, you change your strategy.

Actually yea they did. Then they got invaded and lost

Here is the actual confederate flag

Idiot.

>you're not much more than a yankee bitch
8th+ generation Alabamian, greatgreatgreatgrandfather fought for the 1st GA cavalry, suck my dick redneck

>t. You don't accept the Southern brainwashing about Lee being a noble hero, so I have no rational response
*slow clap*

Isn't that the French flag?

>doesn't know the difference between seceded and succeeded
>can't spell either word
Your lack of education is he reason you're so confused about this war as well.

The universal flag of losing causes and cowards

> This is the same thing the colonies did to England
It's not the same thing, because the South had representation in Washington whereas the colonies didn't have representation in Parliament.

>Fought for slavery
>treasonous government that only existed to protect the institution of slavery.
>I thought it was over slavery

All false. It's amazing that the defining event in US history is so unknown by people. You know, there's a timeline of events that happened. It didn't just happen all at once. Abolition was a fringe movement prewar and at the beginning of the war. It was not on the table until halfway through when it became politically advantageous for Lincoln, i.e. war was going badly, European nations were poised to intervene on side of the south, and banning slavery kept them out (Europe wouldn't fight against a nation that has declared against slavery). That was halfway through the war. That doesn't mean that the war began that way. There's a fucking timeline there.

>Genes went bad since then

France won way more wars than the Confederacy.

>southern brainwashing
As a recent graduate of Texas high school I can assure you that the, "fact," that General Lee and all other confederates are evil is hammered into your skull.

garbage. it's the american isis.

Your opinion doesn't change any of the facts surrounding how the southern states succeeded or how the CSA constitution was written. It was demonstrably about slavery.

You can say whatever you like, but you can't change history.

Montherfucker, how does saying the Confederacy fought to preserve slavery equate to saying the US fought for abolition? The US fought to preserve the union.

They also lost a lot more

Check'd

I think it doesn't exist anymore.

Your understanding of genetics rivals your understanding of US history.

Napoleon > Lee

I don't give a shit about slavery, racism, all that bullshit. Bottom line, they were traitors. Period. Defend against that with your rose colored revisionist bullshit.

The South shall rise again!
> in fiction

>As a recent graduate of Texas high school I can assure you that the, "fact," that General Lee and all other confederates are evil is hammered into your skull.

Yes that's modern cuckism. The reality is that Lee and some of his generals were some of the finest military minds in US history, and that is why the military still honors them and teaches their strategies. It hurts cuck butts to admit, but men like Lee embody the honor and patriotism of the revolution generation. It pains them to admit it, so they just play the race card. Bunch of fucking retards.

Well if you've ever taken a proper course in history you would know that it's not enough to ask What happened, you need also to ask Why it happened which is what you fail to do.

Yup. Read the articles of succession from any of the Confederate states. They all cite slavery as the main reason. "States Rights" is redneck fantasy revisionist history

The south was being oppressed by the north and wanted to leave. The north sent armies to force them to not be allowed to leave. To me, that seems like oppression

Not in height

To me, chattel slavery seems like oppression.

He wasn't that short

sure is summer in here

3 inches difference. Both

Yeah, the South was doomed from the start because of the industrial might of the North. But almost the entire officer corp was from the South, and went home to defend their states. And they did spectacularly well, considering. The only real exceptions were Sherman, who fought an irregular war behind enemy lines. And then Grant, who wasn't exactly an inspired commander, but he was competent and didn't make serious mistakes, which is what the North needed.

Says the manlet

If you say that the south fought to preserve slavery, then you are also implying that it was being threatened by the north, which it wasn't. derp more.

I think the problem is that people know shit about this event. In their mind it's a date, a battle, Lee and Lincoln, and that's about it. To them we moving along, then BAM war, then it ended instantly and we moved on. Nope, decades of political conflict leading up to it. That conflict was centered around whether or not new territories coming into the union would be free states or slave states, and the conflict was over that because it would upset the balance of power in the federal government. And if you don't know why that was a big deal, then you don't understand the mindset of someone from the early 19th century.

More blacks owned and traded slaves then White's less then 1% of Americans every owned slaves

No, says the person who realizes 5' 7" wasn't considered short in the time and place napoleon lived.

>and went home to defend their states.

People act like that is "treason". Nonsense.

>If you say that the south fought to preserve slavery, then you are also implying that it was being threatened by the north, which it wasn't. derp more.
Did you hit your fucking head or something?

>
So Delaware was a Southern State then? You stupid fuck.

> arguing that 5' 7" isn't a manlet
> not realizing that Napoleon was 5" shorter
> and that while that was average for a poorly-fed peasant of the era, it was pretty short for someone who actually grew up eating meat

>This from a 4chins neckbeard who gripes against blacks in every other thread but here pretends to care about black slaves in the 1800s
Kek

Did they swear an oath to the United States of America? Did they break that oath?

Sounds like treason to me.

Delaware is owned by the DuPonts. So for all practical purposes, it's still a slave state.

>buying into the napoleon midget meme despite a total lack of evidence
Tell me more

Though it's not nearly as bad as using the wrong pronoun.

>I can project into you anything I've ever read on Sup Forums to build a strawman argument hehehe!
Yawn

Nah, I think you should learn to read first.
> Owen Connelly (2006). Blundering to Glory: Napoleon's Military Campaigns. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 7.

>The top 1% convince the other 99% of their retard followers to be willing to fight and die for them in the name of "freedom" all so they can keep their exploitative life of slave ownership

literally the modern republican party and its followers lol.

Technically, it is. But this is why states were primary, and federal government was secondary, so it means something very different today.

5'2" in the system he was measured in equals 5'7" in the units we use retard.

So if you get an order to pick up a gun and join in an army that is going to invade your home - i.e. probably destroy or seize your property, your neighbors, etc, you are just gonna sign up because derp im uh patriot? unlikely. you're also looking at history and making judgements from the perspective of someone in 2017 which is false. You do not understand the relationship between citizens and the federal government from the perspective of someone of that time. The nation was still relatively new and a lot of people were still very cautious of an overbearing federal government. And people saw their home as where they were from... most people did not venture out of their own counties. Most people lived out in the country, not in cities. Someone in the mountains of virginia did not really see someone from new york or maine as anything but a foreigner.

Seconded

Last time I checked it's the politicians and celebrities advocating violence against the conservatives these days

> why
when

That's not treason anymore than renouncing your citizenship today and becoming an expat is treason. Look up the fucking word.

Something trump would never do. Those evil libruls!

Literally nothing you just said is relevant to whether or not what they did was treason. Treason is sometimes justified, though in this case I don't think so.

Would you prefer 157 cm? Because it still works out to 51.8".

Well since the liberals want violence against conservatives, it would make sense for conservatives to defend and retaliate

Try 1.68-1.70 m

Protip: French inch =/= imperial inch

> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3, Clause 1

>literally citing the first thing you found on Wikipedia under "napoleon complex" which popped up when you googled his height
Oh, was it a good read? Google for a few seconds longer and see if you don't arrive at a different conclusion.

I've provided a source, and you've just made unsourced claims.

I didn't get it from that article, user. And if you think it's incorrect, then provide a source. Until then, you're an idiot.

That you haven't read yourself, you just copy pasted from a wiki article. Look at ANY ducking reputable source, 5'2" in French units = 5'7" in international units. This will take you ten seconds if you're slow.

In retrospect, the north would be even more prosperous now if it didn't have the uneducated, unproductive southerners dragging down the economy for the last 150 years. Should have let them secede.

> finally provides a source
> oops, no he doesn't

They either measure him with a French or an imperial yardstick at his death. If French, his height conforms with British accounts hat put him around 5'6". If not, there is substantial discrepancy in contemporary reports of his height.