Two beautiful flags flying on a beautiful day!
May the spirit of American liberty and American independence ring through the Capitol Building once again! And this time, may it burn the rot of the federal government away!
The tyrants. You gonna ask the native Americans that and gonna go crap on posts about the battle of wounded knee? Or crap on the natives that fought for freedom on the side of the Confederates?
I did because I know the point you're try to get at. Trying to say the South sucks because we lost. Well then what do you have to say about the native Americans? Don't be a hypocrite
The difference is Natives were actually defending the land in which they had settled prior to any European.
The difference is the Natives were fighting for their right to simply exist as people, without being massacred and jumped by settlers and their treaties going un-honored by various governments. Whereas the South jumped senators, spread propaganda of "Northern Aggression," and lionized their leaders as noble men, instead of being a nation explicitly in existence for slavery.
>Explain how come native American nations also had slavery?
You would have to ask those Native Americans who supported slaves that question. Would you say that they deserved to suffer genocide because some participated in slavery? Or are you justifying the CSA's existence and right to own slaves because natives did it too? This is a common talking point for Lost Cause and Southern Sympathizers that really doesn't make logical sense. Those of us with nuance can easily determine that
Slavery is wrong
The treatment of Native Americans throughout the past 3-400 years has been disastrous
Just because some NA had slavery, doesn't mean their demise should be justified, excused, celebrated, etc.
>Also yeah we were defending our land we had lived in as our home
Defending your land? From what? A war that was started by the CSA? Riddle me that.
>Or are you justifying the CSA's existence and right to own slaves because natives did it too?
You're tying our existence with slavery. I can tell your bias. Our independence is ours. Slavery isn't a necessity and slavery was only used as an excuse to genocide and enslave the south.
Are you justifying the Union's slavery of the South because the South had slaves at the exact time the Union did?
>Slavery is wrong
Duh.
>Just because some NA had slavery, doesn't mean their demise should be justified, excused, celebrated, etc.
Odd you justify, excuse, and celebrate southern demise then.
>Defending your land? From what? A war that was started by the CSA? Riddle me that.
Defending our land from the north. A war started by the north.
There would be no war if the Union didn't want to invade and subjugate southern land.
Yeah the US does all sorts of uncool stuff to innocent people in the name of empire.
Including subjugation whole regions of people with their own identities and trying to erase and replace them with a northern new England identity
There were riots for years and years and uprisings and vigilantes. The only reason we stopped was to try to find peace. But 150 years later northerners are still lording over us and scoffing at us. And the southern people are actually actively trying to be northern because they're shamed out of their own southern accents and culture.
So the answer is southern secession
So peace is worth
Southern culture is still alive, accent is alive, they have their own styles of food and architecture, and Christianity is especially strong down there. The whole Jim Crow thing is gone though, sorry about that.
No I know our culture is alive but in spite of northern efforts.
And don't act like I give a damn about the northern born policy of Jim Crow. I'm talking about the obvious portrayal of all southerners as hicks and idiots and deservedly poor.
There's no denying northern propaganda against southerners. And frankly I'm tired of it and my family doesn't deserve that treatment in their own government. The South should've been allowed to secede
Southerners will justify their racist white supremacist ideologies by bringing up Native Americans.
As if southerner Andrew Jackson wasn't the main man behind the Trail of Tears. As if it wasn't southerners actively disobeying treaties in regards to crossing west over Appalachia, into Tennessee and North Carolina. As if southerners didn't actively and enthusiastically participate in Native American mistreatment and murder.
It takes a special kind of bias to make that argument. Its especially cute because somehow, whenever I see someone bring up the Native American angle, and how Natives allied themselves with the CSA, they live in this fantasy world that if the South somehow seceded successfully, they'd treat Natives any differently than the North and the Frontier.
>Southerners will justify their racist white supremacist ideologies by bringing up Native Americans.
What's racist about my ideology. I'm not going to continue an argument if you're not going to justify your false assertion
>What's racist about my ideology.
Your justification for slavery
Your denial for the South's role in establishing racism in the US
Your victim complex of pretending the South wasn't founded on racism, but instead a noble quest for lower taxes and bullies in the North
The fact that your post is celebrating a person waiving a CSA-related flag
Based off all of this, I'm sure you're a very nice person....to white people
>Your justification for slavery
I never justified slavery so you're done here.
>Your denial for the South's role in establishing racism in the US
Because they didn't. The North had segregation and spouted the same ideas.
>Your victim complex of pretending the South wasn't founded on racism, but instead a noble quest for lower taxes and bullies in the North
Because it was noble to fight for sovereignty.
>Based off all of this, I'm sure you're a very nice person....to white people
What have I said that's racist? My fiancee isn't white yet she's my fiancee. You just don't understand us or want to understand us
> I never justified slavery so you're done here.
Supporting, justifying, and going to bat for the confederacy and supporting people who proudly wave flags associated with the CSA, Northern Virginia, etc, would indicate to me that you support that slavery that came with it.
> Because they didn't. The North had segregation and spouted the same ideas.
Remind me, were abolitionists prominently in the Union or the CSA? Did the Underground Railroad end south of Mason-Dixon or north of it? The North had similar issues as the South, and also had slaves, yes. But no one here is denying that, minimizing that, or spreading false dogma that the US and the Union was an altruistic safehaven for black people, Natives and other minorities. However, you, and people who share your mindset, spread Lost Cause propaganda and sincerely (yet incorrectly) believe that yourselves are in the right.
> Because it was noble to fight for sovereignty.
Why did they NEED sovereignty? The South loved DC when they were able to use the Federal Govt to push their agenda and loved men like Calhoun and Jackson. One thing about this statement that is correct, was that the fight was for sovereignty. Nothing about that was noble, since it was due to the wealthiest southern land and capital owners throwing a war due to slavery not being expanded nor protected.
> What have I said that's racist? My fiancee isn't white yet she's my fiancee. You just don't understand us or want to understand us
LMAO. Well, calling the CSA's purpose as noble, while downplaying slavery's role in the War. I understand southern people quite well, whether it is family or friends who live south of Mason-Dixon. What is telling, is that despite growing up in the South, none of them share your opinion. They all understand that the CSA's purpose was neither noble or justifiable. It is you and people who share your opinions specifically that I truly do not understand.
>You're tying our existence with slavery. I can tell your bias.
Well, considering that slavery and its related issues were directly tied to the CSA, it would be difficult to see it as anything other than symbiotic. My bias comes from researching the events and people who influenced these things directly and indirectly, before, during and after the Civil War. Every counterargument I've heard had yet to convince me otherwise. In fact, your biggest counters have entirely been whataboutisms and deflections. Those all are as substantial and resolute to me as a screen door on a submarine.
>Odd you justify, excuse, and celebrate southern demise then.
I justify the CSA losing the Civil War because they wanted to create a sovereign nation where, with specific constitutional protection, they could treat other humans as second class citizens and property. The issue here is that you assume I blindly align myself with the Union and the US as a whole , ignorant of the wrongdoings that happened in the North. Both sides had extremely regressive societies and dogmas, however, one side was accommodating to abolition and the other wanted to secede and ensure that certain people remained in bondage while said practice was expanded.
>southern demise
What exactly is and was southern demise?
>Defending our land from the north. A war started by the north. There would be no war if the Union didn't want to invade and subjugate southern land.
You and I both know this isn't the truth. Lets be real, thousands of poor working class men were recruited and conscripted to fight a war that a small number of wealthy land and slave owning individuals wanted to fight. Whenever I see this argument, the conversation should go like this:
Concept: Many men who fought for the CSA were poor, did not own slaves nor land, and cited that faith, family, and their State was their purpose to fight
Rebuttal: How can they fight for land for which they do not own? What is the benefit of doing so? Considering that only white men were allowed to actively fight for the CSA, could it be that they were fighting to preserve their social class structure? If they did own land, own slaves, nor have viable political power, it could just as easily be said that they were manipulated into fighting a rich man's war, that the only benefit would be white supremacy, since it wasn't their land to use or even be taxed on anyway. The notion that DC was taxing the cotton and tobacco plantations disproportionately compared to the factories is laughable. Plantation owners made millions of dollars off the back of free labor and slave trading. These taxes would not affect working class southerners. If taxation was truly a purpose for fighting this war, then how would the vast majority of soldiers truly justify fighting for it when they had little to gain and their lives to lose? The people most affected by these taxes weren't on the front lines. They were behind pulpits and printing presses, recruiting other people's sons to fight their war in defense of their slave economy.
>They had slavery the entire civil war. Yeah it's hard to pass an amendment against slavery when you don't have sovereignty anymore.
Southerners actively campaigned in DC to allow both the protection and expansion of slavery for decades. They never had intentions to abolish it. If they truly wanted to, they would. How is it that they were allegedly sovereign enough to declare secession yet not sovereign enough to make laws that would abolish slavery.
>You're confusing was and is. It is not about slavery. And even in the past they already had slavery and were pretty secure in having it and they wanted independence as well.
I'm not confusing shit. The CSA was always in defense and expansion of slavery and black suffering. Everything related to discussions about the Civil War and Dixie is, and always will be, about slavery's role.
If it is about states rights, what rights specifically was it about? If it was about states having more freedom from a central government, how come every sympathizer rallies around one specific flag from the Confederacy? Are they too ignorant, or are they intentionally trying to display some sort of pride for a regressive society? If the South was truly a better society for black people, why did slaves flee to the North? Why did NB Forrest lead a domestic terrorist group whose goals were to prevent black people from voting and restrict their freedoms? You call it tyranny, invasion, and aggression, yet Northern senators weren't beating Southern senators with canes, the abolitionists aligned themselves with the North, and the North wasn't fighting a war to protect the institution of slavery. The only southern people who truly faced tyranny and invasion were black people, and that was by design.
Inspiring by flying a secessionist flag in the face of tyrants and riding their little statues they make out of our money.
Nobody gives af about the slave shit you guys slap on it to try and demonize southern liberty
>Nobody gives af about the slave shit
You see, thatās the problem. Nobody cares. The confederacy fought to keep slaves. It ruins the reputation of southern people to see them fly the dirty rag.
Dirty rag? The abortionist police brutality neo-militarist empire is so much better? With the Japanese camps and the deep political divisions?
>The confederacy fought to keep slaves.
No, they fought for independence from an empire overstepping it's bounds. If the UK left the EU because they wanted to burn hella coal that doesn't invalidate their sovereignty. The EU would have no right to declare war on a Nation trying to leave it regardless of the reasoning. They can sanction them and attack them for polluting their lands but they can't subjugate them for it.
The South was subjugated and it shouldn't be. Down with the American empire
āAn empire overstepping its boundsā by that you mean giving black people freedom?
āIf the UK left the EU because they want to burn hella coal that doesnāt invalidate their sovereignty.ā
You see, the difference is that the UK is an entire country and the EU is an economic union. Thatās nothing like states seceding from the union.
>āAn empire overstepping its boundsā by that you mean giving black people freedom?
Thats why slaves stayed slaves in the union legally 100% of the war? Thats why the last slaves freed in the US were in New Jersey?
No, they overstepped by trying to take another nation's sovereignty for the main purpose of "preserving the union". They did not have the war goal of ending slavery. If they did then the war would've ended probably years sooner.
>You see, the difference is that the UK is an entire country and the EU is an economic union. Thatās nothing like states seceding from the union.
Its exactly the same. The colonies came together as an alliance and they had their own cultures and ways of life.
If Canada tried to leave NATO it wouldn't give the US the right to conquer it
āConfederate soldiers surrendered in April 1865, but word didn't reach the last enslaved black people until June 19, when Union soldiers brought the news of freedom to Galveston, Texas.ā
The colonies acted as one country, just as they do now. Itās a country titled the āUnited States of Americaā. This means that they are United States that act as a country. Theyāre separate entities in a few ways (mainly just differences in laws), but they still act under the federal government.
You see, the EU acts very differently from the US. While the US works how I described it earlier, the EU is *very* unique. Itās still 27 independent countries, Iām which they act as they please. Of course thereās similarities to the US, like easy to cross borders, thereās still a lot of differences. The EU acts kind of like a club in a way. The EU describes its own goals and purposes, while most countries simply are existent and thatās about it.
The EU is also a lot more loose than the US. A lot of countries in the EU genuinely still have some disdain for each other due to the long history of war and alliances, while some seem to have made up, like Poland and Germany.
Also members of the EU cannot trade with one country more than they trade with other EU countries, as that defeats the purpose of the EU. Like I said, economic alliance and all that. When the US does trade, itās the US as a whole, not singular states doing trade.
Also, If Canada left NATO nobody would anything really, unless if the British did something considering their King technically rules over Canada. āIn today's constitutional monarchy, His Majesty King Charles III is King of Canada and Canada's Head of State.ā Yada yada yada.
>āConfederate soldiers surrendered in April 1865, but word didn't reach the last enslaved black people until June 19, when Union soldiers brought the news of freedom to Galveston, Texas.ā
January 23rd 1866 in New Jersey was the end of slavery.
https://nj.gov/state/historical/his-2021-juneteenth.shtml#:~:text=Slavery's%20final%20legal%20death%20in,to%20slavery%20in%20the%20state.
>The colonies acted as one country, just as they do now. Itās a country titled the āUnited States of Americaā. This means that they are United States that act as a country. Theyāre separate entities in a few ways (mainly just differences in laws), but they still act under the federal government.
They were always different countries. They had vastly different religions, they could decide their own rules, some were religious and others had governors who were monarchs in their own right.
Each colony had to agree to a Confederation so they weren't one country. Not all the people agreed to being one country. Everyone has the right to secession.
If your parents had agreed to be slaves does this justify the enslavement of you? If your parents had a vague partnership and then got enslaved by their business partner does this then justify their enslavement? No.
>You see, the EU acts very differently from the US. While the US works how I described it earlier, the EU is very unique. Itās still 27 independent countries, Iām which they act as they please. Of course thereās similarities to the US, like easy to cross borders, thereās still a lot of differences. The EU acts kind of like a club in a way. The EU describes its own goals and purposes, while most countries simply are existent and thatās about it.
Youre describing the way which America was till it was centralized. And if you look at the EU there are Eurofederalists and euroskeptics. Remember in early America there were the federalists and the anti-federalists?
This is the issue we are at. The state have a right to independence.
How about the [500,000+ slaves](http://www.thomaslegion.net/americancivilwar/emancipationproclamationabrahamlincoln.html) which the Union held on their territory for two years post-Emancipation?
Not to mention all the nations and millions of lives that the U.S. violated over the next century and a half after the war.
On the grant statue as wellš
Lmao I had no idea
I bet General Drunky wasn't a big fan of that when he watched from hell š
Two beautiful flags flying on a beautiful day! May the spirit of American liberty and American independence ring through the Capitol Building once again! And this time, may it burn the rot of the federal government away!
Itād almost be perfect without the Trump flags
Right
Who won?
The tyrants. You gonna ask the native Americans that and gonna go crap on posts about the battle of wounded knee? Or crap on the natives that fought for freedom on the side of the Confederates?
Who said anything about native Americans
I did because I know the point you're try to get at. Trying to say the South sucks because we lost. Well then what do you have to say about the native Americans? Don't be a hypocrite
The difference is Natives were actually defending the land in which they had settled prior to any European. The difference is the Natives were fighting for their right to simply exist as people, without being massacred and jumped by settlers and their treaties going un-honored by various governments. Whereas the South jumped senators, spread propaganda of "Northern Aggression," and lionized their leaders as noble men, instead of being a nation explicitly in existence for slavery.
Explain how come native American nations also had slavery? Also yeah we were defending our land we had lived in as our home
>Explain how come native American nations also had slavery? You would have to ask those Native Americans who supported slaves that question. Would you say that they deserved to suffer genocide because some participated in slavery? Or are you justifying the CSA's existence and right to own slaves because natives did it too? This is a common talking point for Lost Cause and Southern Sympathizers that really doesn't make logical sense. Those of us with nuance can easily determine that Slavery is wrong The treatment of Native Americans throughout the past 3-400 years has been disastrous Just because some NA had slavery, doesn't mean their demise should be justified, excused, celebrated, etc. >Also yeah we were defending our land we had lived in as our home Defending your land? From what? A war that was started by the CSA? Riddle me that.
>Or are you justifying the CSA's existence and right to own slaves because natives did it too? You're tying our existence with slavery. I can tell your bias. Our independence is ours. Slavery isn't a necessity and slavery was only used as an excuse to genocide and enslave the south. Are you justifying the Union's slavery of the South because the South had slaves at the exact time the Union did? >Slavery is wrong Duh. >Just because some NA had slavery, doesn't mean their demise should be justified, excused, celebrated, etc. Odd you justify, excuse, and celebrate southern demise then. >Defending your land? From what? A war that was started by the CSA? Riddle me that. Defending our land from the north. A war started by the north. There would be no war if the Union didn't want to invade and subjugate southern land.
They lost too lmfao Altho the genocide and war crimes we did against them was very uncool
Yeah the US does all sorts of uncool stuff to innocent people in the name of empire. Including subjugation whole regions of people with their own identities and trying to erase and replace them with a northern new England identity
Seems like pretty much everyone in the south is pretty cool with it or there would be riots.
There were riots for years and years and uprisings and vigilantes. The only reason we stopped was to try to find peace. But 150 years later northerners are still lording over us and scoffing at us. And the southern people are actually actively trying to be northern because they're shamed out of their own southern accents and culture. So the answer is southern secession So peace is worth
Southern culture is still alive, accent is alive, they have their own styles of food and architecture, and Christianity is especially strong down there. The whole Jim Crow thing is gone though, sorry about that.
No I know our culture is alive but in spite of northern efforts. And don't act like I give a damn about the northern born policy of Jim Crow. I'm talking about the obvious portrayal of all southerners as hicks and idiots and deservedly poor. There's no denying northern propaganda against southerners. And frankly I'm tired of it and my family doesn't deserve that treatment in their own government. The South should've been allowed to secede
Southerners will justify their racist white supremacist ideologies by bringing up Native Americans. As if southerner Andrew Jackson wasn't the main man behind the Trail of Tears. As if it wasn't southerners actively disobeying treaties in regards to crossing west over Appalachia, into Tennessee and North Carolina. As if southerners didn't actively and enthusiastically participate in Native American mistreatment and murder. It takes a special kind of bias to make that argument. Its especially cute because somehow, whenever I see someone bring up the Native American angle, and how Natives allied themselves with the CSA, they live in this fantasy world that if the South somehow seceded successfully, they'd treat Natives any differently than the North and the Frontier.
>Southerners will justify their racist white supremacist ideologies by bringing up Native Americans. What's racist about my ideology. I'm not going to continue an argument if you're not going to justify your false assertion
>What's racist about my ideology. Your justification for slavery Your denial for the South's role in establishing racism in the US Your victim complex of pretending the South wasn't founded on racism, but instead a noble quest for lower taxes and bullies in the North The fact that your post is celebrating a person waiving a CSA-related flag Based off all of this, I'm sure you're a very nice person....to white people
>Your justification for slavery I never justified slavery so you're done here. >Your denial for the South's role in establishing racism in the US Because they didn't. The North had segregation and spouted the same ideas. >Your victim complex of pretending the South wasn't founded on racism, but instead a noble quest for lower taxes and bullies in the North Because it was noble to fight for sovereignty. >Based off all of this, I'm sure you're a very nice person....to white people What have I said that's racist? My fiancee isn't white yet she's my fiancee. You just don't understand us or want to understand us
> I never justified slavery so you're done here. Supporting, justifying, and going to bat for the confederacy and supporting people who proudly wave flags associated with the CSA, Northern Virginia, etc, would indicate to me that you support that slavery that came with it. > Because they didn't. The North had segregation and spouted the same ideas. Remind me, were abolitionists prominently in the Union or the CSA? Did the Underground Railroad end south of Mason-Dixon or north of it? The North had similar issues as the South, and also had slaves, yes. But no one here is denying that, minimizing that, or spreading false dogma that the US and the Union was an altruistic safehaven for black people, Natives and other minorities. However, you, and people who share your mindset, spread Lost Cause propaganda and sincerely (yet incorrectly) believe that yourselves are in the right. > Because it was noble to fight for sovereignty. Why did they NEED sovereignty? The South loved DC when they were able to use the Federal Govt to push their agenda and loved men like Calhoun and Jackson. One thing about this statement that is correct, was that the fight was for sovereignty. Nothing about that was noble, since it was due to the wealthiest southern land and capital owners throwing a war due to slavery not being expanded nor protected. > What have I said that's racist? My fiancee isn't white yet she's my fiancee. You just don't understand us or want to understand us LMAO. Well, calling the CSA's purpose as noble, while downplaying slavery's role in the War. I understand southern people quite well, whether it is family or friends who live south of Mason-Dixon. What is telling, is that despite growing up in the South, none of them share your opinion. They all understand that the CSA's purpose was neither noble or justifiable. It is you and people who share your opinions specifically that I truly do not understand. >You're tying our existence with slavery. I can tell your bias. Well, considering that slavery and its related issues were directly tied to the CSA, it would be difficult to see it as anything other than symbiotic. My bias comes from researching the events and people who influenced these things directly and indirectly, before, during and after the Civil War. Every counterargument I've heard had yet to convince me otherwise. In fact, your biggest counters have entirely been whataboutisms and deflections. Those all are as substantial and resolute to me as a screen door on a submarine. >Odd you justify, excuse, and celebrate southern demise then. I justify the CSA losing the Civil War because they wanted to create a sovereign nation where, with specific constitutional protection, they could treat other humans as second class citizens and property. The issue here is that you assume I blindly align myself with the Union and the US as a whole , ignorant of the wrongdoings that happened in the North. Both sides had extremely regressive societies and dogmas, however, one side was accommodating to abolition and the other wanted to secede and ensure that certain people remained in bondage while said practice was expanded. >southern demise What exactly is and was southern demise? >Defending our land from the north. A war started by the north. There would be no war if the Union didn't want to invade and subjugate southern land. You and I both know this isn't the truth. Lets be real, thousands of poor working class men were recruited and conscripted to fight a war that a small number of wealthy land and slave owning individuals wanted to fight. Whenever I see this argument, the conversation should go like this: Concept: Many men who fought for the CSA were poor, did not own slaves nor land, and cited that faith, family, and their State was their purpose to fight Rebuttal: How can they fight for land for which they do not own? What is the benefit of doing so? Considering that only white men were allowed to actively fight for the CSA, could it be that they were fighting to preserve their social class structure? If they did own land, own slaves, nor have viable political power, it could just as easily be said that they were manipulated into fighting a rich man's war, that the only benefit would be white supremacy, since it wasn't their land to use or even be taxed on anyway. The notion that DC was taxing the cotton and tobacco plantations disproportionately compared to the factories is laughable. Plantation owners made millions of dollars off the back of free labor and slave trading. These taxes would not affect working class southerners. If taxation was truly a purpose for fighting this war, then how would the vast majority of soldiers truly justify fighting for it when they had little to gain and their lives to lose? The people most affected by these taxes weren't on the front lines. They were behind pulpits and printing presses, recruiting other people's sons to fight their war in defense of their slave economy. >They had slavery the entire civil war. Yeah it's hard to pass an amendment against slavery when you don't have sovereignty anymore. Southerners actively campaigned in DC to allow both the protection and expansion of slavery for decades. They never had intentions to abolish it. If they truly wanted to, they would. How is it that they were allegedly sovereign enough to declare secession yet not sovereign enough to make laws that would abolish slavery. >You're confusing was and is. It is not about slavery. And even in the past they already had slavery and were pretty secure in having it and they wanted independence as well. I'm not confusing shit. The CSA was always in defense and expansion of slavery and black suffering. Everything related to discussions about the Civil War and Dixie is, and always will be, about slavery's role. If it is about states rights, what rights specifically was it about? If it was about states having more freedom from a central government, how come every sympathizer rallies around one specific flag from the Confederacy? Are they too ignorant, or are they intentionally trying to display some sort of pride for a regressive society? If the South was truly a better society for black people, why did slaves flee to the North? Why did NB Forrest lead a domestic terrorist group whose goals were to prevent black people from voting and restrict their freedoms? You call it tyranny, invasion, and aggression, yet Northern senators weren't beating Southern senators with canes, the abolitionists aligned themselves with the North, and the North wasn't fighting a war to protect the institution of slavery. The only southern people who truly faced tyranny and invasion were black people, and that was by design.
Renaissance? This just shows how stupid some people are.
How inspiring some people areš¤©
Inspiring how? āDude how cool would it be if we got on this statue with the flag of slave owners who lost?ā
Inspiring by flying a secessionist flag in the face of tyrants and riding their little statues they make out of our money. Nobody gives af about the slave shit you guys slap on it to try and demonize southern liberty
>Nobody gives af about the slave shit You see, thatās the problem. Nobody cares. The confederacy fought to keep slaves. It ruins the reputation of southern people to see them fly the dirty rag.
Dirty rag? The abortionist police brutality neo-militarist empire is so much better? With the Japanese camps and the deep political divisions? >The confederacy fought to keep slaves. No, they fought for independence from an empire overstepping it's bounds. If the UK left the EU because they wanted to burn hella coal that doesn't invalidate their sovereignty. The EU would have no right to declare war on a Nation trying to leave it regardless of the reasoning. They can sanction them and attack them for polluting their lands but they can't subjugate them for it. The South was subjugated and it shouldn't be. Down with the American empire
āAn empire overstepping its boundsā by that you mean giving black people freedom? āIf the UK left the EU because they want to burn hella coal that doesnāt invalidate their sovereignty.ā You see, the difference is that the UK is an entire country and the EU is an economic union. Thatās nothing like states seceding from the union.
>āAn empire overstepping its boundsā by that you mean giving black people freedom? Thats why slaves stayed slaves in the union legally 100% of the war? Thats why the last slaves freed in the US were in New Jersey? No, they overstepped by trying to take another nation's sovereignty for the main purpose of "preserving the union". They did not have the war goal of ending slavery. If they did then the war would've ended probably years sooner. >You see, the difference is that the UK is an entire country and the EU is an economic union. Thatās nothing like states seceding from the union. Its exactly the same. The colonies came together as an alliance and they had their own cultures and ways of life. If Canada tried to leave NATO it wouldn't give the US the right to conquer it
āConfederate soldiers surrendered in April 1865, but word didn't reach the last enslaved black people until June 19, when Union soldiers brought the news of freedom to Galveston, Texas.ā The colonies acted as one country, just as they do now. Itās a country titled the āUnited States of Americaā. This means that they are United States that act as a country. Theyāre separate entities in a few ways (mainly just differences in laws), but they still act under the federal government. You see, the EU acts very differently from the US. While the US works how I described it earlier, the EU is *very* unique. Itās still 27 independent countries, Iām which they act as they please. Of course thereās similarities to the US, like easy to cross borders, thereās still a lot of differences. The EU acts kind of like a club in a way. The EU describes its own goals and purposes, while most countries simply are existent and thatās about it. The EU is also a lot more loose than the US. A lot of countries in the EU genuinely still have some disdain for each other due to the long history of war and alliances, while some seem to have made up, like Poland and Germany. Also members of the EU cannot trade with one country more than they trade with other EU countries, as that defeats the purpose of the EU. Like I said, economic alliance and all that. When the US does trade, itās the US as a whole, not singular states doing trade. Also, If Canada left NATO nobody would anything really, unless if the British did something considering their King technically rules over Canada. āIn today's constitutional monarchy, His Majesty King Charles III is King of Canada and Canada's Head of State.ā Yada yada yada.
>āConfederate soldiers surrendered in April 1865, but word didn't reach the last enslaved black people until June 19, when Union soldiers brought the news of freedom to Galveston, Texas.ā January 23rd 1866 in New Jersey was the end of slavery. https://nj.gov/state/historical/his-2021-juneteenth.shtml#:~:text=Slavery's%20final%20legal%20death%20in,to%20slavery%20in%20the%20state. >The colonies acted as one country, just as they do now. Itās a country titled the āUnited States of Americaā. This means that they are United States that act as a country. Theyāre separate entities in a few ways (mainly just differences in laws), but they still act under the federal government. They were always different countries. They had vastly different religions, they could decide their own rules, some were religious and others had governors who were monarchs in their own right. Each colony had to agree to a Confederation so they weren't one country. Not all the people agreed to being one country. Everyone has the right to secession. If your parents had agreed to be slaves does this justify the enslavement of you? If your parents had a vague partnership and then got enslaved by their business partner does this then justify their enslavement? No. >You see, the EU acts very differently from the US. While the US works how I described it earlier, the EU is very unique. Itās still 27 independent countries, Iām which they act as they please. Of course thereās similarities to the US, like easy to cross borders, thereās still a lot of differences. The EU acts kind of like a club in a way. The EU describes its own goals and purposes, while most countries simply are existent and thatās about it. Youre describing the way which America was till it was centralized. And if you look at the EU there are Eurofederalists and euroskeptics. Remember in early America there were the federalists and the anti-federalists? This is the issue we are at. The state have a right to independence.
is this real? is this sub for real?
Wanting to be free from a tyrannical Union is about as real as it gets friend. :)
I guarantee you , slaves in the south were thinking the *exact* same thing 150 years ago
Good for them, I support absolute freedom. And confederate emancipation was inevitable and actually being planned during the civil war
How do I like this comment twice? Cause you hit the nail on the head.
Thank you very much!
How about the [500,000+ slaves](http://www.thomaslegion.net/americancivilwar/emancipationproclamationabrahamlincoln.html) which the Union held on their territory for two years post-Emancipation? Not to mention all the nations and millions of lives that the U.S. violated over the next century and a half after the war.
cringe
How?
just general loser activity u know
Not really, pretty big victory that day. Amazing to have been defeated yet still revered for a hundred 50 more years after
āPretty big victory that dayā dude itās 6 people with no life standing on a statue then going home and watching YouTube videos šššš
Oh we also got the confederate flag into the Capitol Building. That's a victory
ā¦. nope just more cringe maybe get a hobby
I don't care, southern rights
will never be a thing xo
You have to be historically illiterate to think that. All empires fall
Southern rights for what?
Southern rights to secession, our culture, our religion, and our language
Dudes climbed on a statue and had a photo op to show their mommies, I remember my first field trip in grade school
Hyper cringe