Any good kinos about the War of Northern Aggression?

I think it was just because tensions between the north and south were so high that a northerner winning the election pissed them off a lot. But you're right. The South got what they deserved for rebelling against a government that was willing to work with them. The northerners still mistreated them after the war though

>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST SECEDE FROM A UNION YOU WILLINGLY JOINED WITH THE GUARANTEE YOU COULD LEAVE AT ANY TIME STOP THAT IT'S ILLEGAL I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL LIKE DENY YOU YOUR CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT TO SECEDE OR FOR YOU TO MAKE YOUR OWN LAWS I'M DEFINITELY NOT GOING TO ENHANCE FEDERAL POWER FAR BEYOND WHAT THE FOUNDERS SAID WAS OKAY GET BACK HERE RIGHT NOW

Attached: 1572371078261.gif (570x537, 57.56K)

Why shouldn't states be able to secede? Is this the land of the free or a Muslim Caliphate? The break during the 1860s would have been pretty simple given there wasn't a huge national debt to split up and few federal resources. Why not let each side go their own way?

>being proud of the south
>it’s at least a quarter black in most places
>lowest educated lowest IQ
>fattest
>worst schools and healthcare

DO IT AGAIN UNCLE BILLY

Attached: 445C7C2D-F31E-407F-A2A7-5F86508995FD.png (640x714, 733.42K)

>Be Canadian
>don't care about who wins
>just enjoy the kino
>close enough I can visit the museums and battlefields pretty easily with comfy roadtrips instead of stinky expensive planerides
everything about the war is in my native language
feels good, eh?

What rights were being taken that caused their secession? Genuine question.

>Why not let each side go their own way?
Because the Union's economy would cease to function without the Confederacy's crops.

more about the consequences of the war and lincoln's assassination than the war itself. great movie

You don't understand, this confrontational form of human interaction is a basic need.

Isn't part of the problem that the Constitution only has a process for joining but no process for leaving? It's like getting married to an abusive spouse who threatens to kill you if you leave.

Glory

But there was no reason to secede. No rights were being taken away,and Lincoln only ever said that there should be a single policy on slavery.

red badge of courage

White southerners get BTFO'd. Dumb retards can't even secede successfully :^)

The american civil war is kino, there should be more games and kino about it in the modern day. Too much of civil war media is dominated by “whitey feel bad for da black man”. We literally had to watch a movie in my US history class about a dramatized story of a black regiment BTFOing white southerners.

>Registered voters in Florida ahead of the Republican primary if they believed Cruz to be the Zodiac Killer; 10% believed and 28% were not sure. The other 62% did not think he was.
Southerners people

Ted Cruze is the Zodiac Killer

Attached: Ted_Cruz,_official_portrait,_113th_Congress.jpg (1024x1280, 175.09K)

Isn't the south like third world Africa?

Federal government overstepping its bounds. Originally it was only meant to oversee interstate commerce and manage a united army for each state. Otherwise, states were meant to function nearly autonomously. Now look where we are.

Obviously the southerners had some reason to want to leave because they fought for the right to do so. Is it your belief they did this because they were bored? If they wanted to leave, why not let them? Why force them to stay forever and ever?

Sounds like some serious projection on your part. Sorry us peasants don't read Wikipedia articles about minor skirmishes in our free time

>Grow up thinking the South were the bad guys
>Decide to study the Civil War more
>Learn the Confederates were actually far more reasonable and humanizing than most make them out to be
>Learn that the war was instigated entirely by Lincoln who simply didn't consider peace an option
>Learn that the North committed multiple warcrimes and Lincoln did several acts that, had he not won the war, would've easily been impeached for
>Learn that the South would've actually been significantly better for Native Americans and would give them land of their own and representation in their government, a deal better than anything the US to this day has offered them
>Learn that the South really were the good guys all along
>Learn that the only reason the South really lost was because they had multiple unfortunate events happen that were so unlucky it was bullshit
What went wrong?

Attached: 2f5c75d0e11d362bc4c79401a9b5f8346290767a7069e050a603e3b473384ac6.jpg (411x336, 64.11K)

>minor skirmish
>bloodiest war in the country's history
Ok retard.

the right to hang a stranglehold on national government thanks to the 3/5 compromise. northern industrialization and prosperity were drawing too many immigrants who eventually earned voting rights. secession was a gamble to maintain the south's control over its own fate. it didn't work because lincoln had imperial ambitions which for better or worse have been fulfilled.

>Learn that the only reason the South really lost was because they had multiple unfortunate events happen that were so unlucky it was bullshit
Haha, yes! Just bad luck, goy! Very unfortunate!

Attached: 1558663615805.jpg (420x480, 31.77K)

Attached: 1275999592723.jpg (469x428, 57.08K)

The "Waters of the United States" court fight during the Obama administration is a good example of this. It would have given Washington DC control over every drainage ditch in the country. If you wanted to put in a conduit so you could build a driveway over a ditch in your front yard, someone in DC would have had to approve it first.

The expansion of constitutional federalism in the US and Australia at the expense of states rights is an issue, but user at this point the cat's out of the bag and it's not going back in the Federal government is too ingrained.

some dude in my small oregon town drives his pickup around town with two confed battle flags sticking six feet out of his bed.
I think my state sent like 20 total people during the war, and they fought for the north. Southerners are weird.

Battle history in general is reserved for underages and redditors who "frickin love history". Sorry for stating facts, bud.

>the only reason the South really lost was because they had multiple unfortunate events
Not really. They never had the industrial power to compete with the north.
They did as well as they did because the union had a conga line of shit generals before Grant.

no it's actually really nice, and affordable. only the parts dominated by blacks are third world, go figure

>>Grow up thinking the South were the bad guys
>>Decide to study the Civil War more
>>Learn the Confederates were actually far more reasonable and humanizing than most make them out to be
>>Learn that the war was instigated entirely by Lincoln who simply didn't consider peace an option
>>Learn that the North committed multiple warcrimes and Lincoln did several acts that, had he not won the war, would've easily been impeached for
>>Learn that the South would've actually been significantly better for Native Americans and would give them land of their own and representation in their government, a deal better than anything the US to this day has offered them
>>Learn that the South really were the good guys all along
>>Learn that the only reason the South really lost was because they had multiple unfortunate events happen that were so unlucky it was bullshi
Not calling you a liar, but where can I read up on all of this?

Well, there still was that whole bit of having slaves but the industrial revolution eventually would have made them more trouble than they were worth.

>War of Northern Aggression
>the south fired the first shot
What did they mean by this?

> “I always understood that we went to War on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about,” Mosby observed. “I never heard of any other cause of quarrel than slavery.”

Col John S Mosby

If the South hadn't have lost Stonewall and if their plan to storm DC hadn't gone through, they could've easily won the war. Or a bunch of other smaller battles that were lost over minor mistakes had gone differently, history could've been so much different

Isn't there some black nigger bull that can pound your anus more easily than the chat? You can't tell me there isn't one black bull that will pound your anus for free. You can't be THAT ugly right?

I was surprised by the number of Confederate flags I saw in Buenos Aires. Turns out lots of people like them as a symbol of rebellion against an oppressive government rather than a connection with the Confederate States of America.

>the parts dominated by blacks
so when you take out all the areas dominated by minorities you have what, 20% of the south?

It's quite ironic then that the black units were actually the worst units. The last battle of the Civil War at Rancho Presidio actually saw black units get BTFO by a numerically inferior white force.

Well, that didn't happen. What if a gamma ray burst killed everyone the first day of the Gettysburg battle?

>The South tells Lincoln not to arm a fort with military supplies and that it'll be seen as an act of aggression
>Lincoln does this anyways despite continued warnings
>The South carefully destroys the shipments and even helps provide aid to those on the Union side hurt, with the only people dying being on the Union side being self-inflicted and caused by their own ineptness

>"hurr the south started the war!"

Attached: _71764522_bbc_familyguy.jpg (466x260, 21.66K)

Palmito Ranch*

>The fuck was their problem?
They were democrats.

Stay away from the dark purple. Anything in the mountains will be ok.

Attached: ancestry.png (964x720, 1.02M)

The Union forever, you revisionist faggot.

>At this point 'the south' is not (and was not ever) a legitimate legal entity
>Even if it was it has no right to tell the democratically elected leader of a sovereign nation what to do with its property on its land.

the ken burns documentary is absolute kino. as good as the vietnam one.

>eventually
It was already happening. Look at the Missouri compromise. Even without bringing up the moral question of slavery people were turning against it as an institution because it was hard to compete with ultra rich plantations on an open market so independent farmers saw abolition as a means to level the playing field.
One of the biggest objections to emancipation was the question of what the fuck do you do with all these people.
You can send them back to africa, but these people had been born and raised for generations in the US so they're as african as I am irish, so is that where they belonged? Do you enfranchise them and deal with a whole new demographic? Or do you just kick the can down the street and let other people figure it out?

>At this point 'the south' is not (and was not ever) a legitimate legal entity
It's very telling that you think this actually means anything. The Union doesn't recognize them as a state, and that means they don't exist? That means the Confederacy doesn't recognize itself as a government? It means their warnings that they will consider you aggressive aren't real?

>ATF tells David Koresh not to stockpile his compound with illegal weapons and that it'll be seen as an act of aggression
Wowie, why didn't he just comply?

The industrial revolution turned everyone into slaves that wasn't a banker or a robber baron. They don't need slaves when the entire population of the country is slaves right?

Yes Cletus, it means you can't fire on SUVs that take u-turns on your property because they are "threatening you". Stop looking for excuses to do harm to others.

>union wins, slavery abolished
>wealthy southerners hire back their slaves as labourers (because what else were they going to do)
>life continues more or less the same as before, briefly
>carpetbaggers come in and ruin the south forever
I don't think the south was primarily concerned with preserving the institution of slavery so much as their way of life in general, including poor whites who didn't even own slaves. Secession and the ensuing war were a bad move--because they lost. A misplayed hand.

If Lincoln was ever going to seriously consider peaceful negotiations with the South, either to bring them back in to the Union or to let them peacefully secede, he wouldn't have tried to put a massive stash of weapons right near one of their major cities after being told not to.

The fact is Lincoln never considered peace an option, he was 100% set on sending Americans to the worst war we've ever faced.

hot take:
slavery was wrong but the states did have the right to secede

rebelfags are the cringiest of the cringe. Worse than wehraboos.

Things would have been better off had they not seceded since even if slavery was abolished, integration of slaves would have probably gone better than the north just saying fuck you here's a bunch of uneducated masses that can vote now.

>Now look where we are
Living in a far more cohesive and effective nation that is able to project power world wide and control international commerce?

Look at the old mill villages in the south. You were paid in company vouchers that could only be redeemed at company stores which set their own prices, and you couldn't leave because your "money" wasn't any good anywhere else.

>Living in a far more cohesive and effective nation

Attached: 1555648956021.webm (742x718, 2.8M)

>Living in a far more cohesive and effective nation

Oh, my.

Yep, that's true. They also ran competing businesses out by underpricing, redlining, and creating 'land buffers'..

Liked

Hello Mr. Fed

>Saying you are a sovereign nation makes it legal and true
>The democratically elected leader of a sovereign nation needs to bend to the whims of any group saying they are a legitimate political entity.
If the residents of Charleston declared tomorrow they were the protectorate of Charleston and 'warned Trump' not to militarise for sumpter.
Would anyone believe their statement was legal or valid and would Trump listen?

Ken Burns
Gods and Generals

>cohesive and effective
What do you think he meant by this? Granted, it might be more effective at making us all slaves, but I don't know what else he could mean by effective.

Attached: 1380333410764.jpg (206x237, 7.39K)

Out of curiosity say peace was an option and the south successfully seceded, what would both the USA and CSA look like in the modern day?

>The Union doesn't recognize them as a state, and that means they don't exist?
No one recognized them as a state, they at no point were a legitimate political entity despite what they thought.

>implying projecting power worldwide is a good thing
I'd take Rome of 300BC a million times over Caesar's Rome

Attached: 773px-Laurens_Caton_d'Utique_(RO_147).jpg (773x600, 105.87K)

The Confederate states had a legal right to secede. And the Union threw a bitch fit and effectively shouted 'NUH UH' when they didn't have a right to.

I read a great article about the restoration of the cyclorama of the battle of atlanta.
It talked a lot about how the history and perception of the civil war has been constantly evolving and reacting to popular consensus since the war ended.
Sort of like all those civil war statues in the south that didn't exist until the 50s to spook the spooks away from voting, but how everyone assumes they've been there forever.

this, all of appalachia (one of the most beautiful regions in the US), most of the gulf coast (ditto), all of tennessee except for memphis. big cities are out, except for a few like Nashville and Tampa (if you consider FL part of the south) but there are plenty of nice smaller ones. very affordable and plenty to do. also better weather than up north. if I didn't like deserts and mountains so much the south would be where i settled, no question.

Probably roughly the same, save for Texas being part of the US.

The south would be brazil because of all the blacks and latinos. Lots of christianity in the govt probably. The north would just be diet canada.

>Out of curiosity say peace was an option and the south successfully seceded, what would both the USA and CSA look like in the modern day?
There is absolutely no chance (zero, nil) that the north wouldn't eventually attack the south over something OR vice versa, unifying it again by force

Can you show me any statute or legal precedent that suggests or compels the president of the USA to negotiate with self-appointed political entities about what he can or cannot do with the federal army on federal land?