The US north and south is one of the most obvious examples of divide & conquer strategy I have ever seen

The US north and south is one of the most obvious examples of divide & conquer strategy I have ever seen

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The whole 50 states/ federal system is America is absolutely a divide and conquer technique.
    They should have like 10-15 megastates instead because it's impossible for a state like South Carolina to exist truly independently from the federal government.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't get what you're talking about. The states existing independently from the federal government was never an intended feature. If a state government didn't answer to the federal government, that would make it its own country.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I mean it in the sense that so many little states means the federal government has to take more power in governance than was probably originally envisioned.
        The idea of a federal system is to have states be responsible for their own affairs within a wider framework but a little state in a sea of 50 states and 300m people doesn't have much independence in reality.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't get what you're talking about. The states existing independently from the federal government was never an intended feature. If a state government didn't answer to the federal government, that would make it its own country.

      the civil war was a failed divide & conquer attempt

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >They should have like 10-15 megastates
      That would be fricking awful.

      My state is a bastion of blue in a sea of red and somehow people here are happier, healthier, and more productive than any of our neighbors, old and new. Must be something in the water I guess because no one can admit our politics just work better lmao

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Do you live in Colorado?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        this goes on a state by state basis. lots of the most moved/immigrated to states by US citizens are red. the demopublican party represents the status quo regardless of whatever minimal policy differences there are.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not gonna deny the uniparty problem but there's a bad status quo and a functional status quo, and that's part of the issue.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What kind of American are you?

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it seems pointless because you're not told the actual reasons for the war

    the reasons for the war are also pointless, but it was pointlessness that was entirely organic and self inflicted

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What do you think the actual reasons are lol?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        slavery

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          We are told those reasons, then.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the actual reason for the war was a cultural divide between the settlers of the south and the settlers of the north, who constituted two entirely different groups of people. it was a war of cavaliers vs puritans/dutch/liberals/other immigrants who all centered on the northern colonies.

        the war was going to happen regardless of whether there was slavery. the line was drawn well before america even achieved independence. it was an inevitability.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If that's true then why didn't another civil war between the North and South break out yet? It should have if the two cultures were always meant to be irreconcilable, but it's been over 160 years since the last, which is much more than the timespan from the ratification of the Constitution to 1860. Also
          >cavaliers
          What exactly is this supposed to mean, they weren't 17th century supporters of the English Crown.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Radiochan

            Because the Yankee made sure that couldn't happen again with a much stronger central govt. Also in the modern era it would be more fractious anyhow.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Because the Yankee made sure that couldn't happen again with a much stronger central govt.
            How did the North specifically use a stronger central government to stop the South from rising up again up to today? A strong central government doesn't inherently mean it could stop a 2nd civil war, exerting its power could even theoretically make one more likely.
            The best explanation seems to be that the root cause of the conflict was slavery, and when slavery was legally abolished and phased out after the war, there was never a second Civil War because the South did not desire one, and it did not desire one due to the cause (slavery) simply being eliminated. Thus, it doesn't make sense for very long-term ever-present cultural forces to be the main cause of the war, as it would imply an inevitable second civil war unless there was a radical cultural Yankeefication of the South postwar.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The root cause was who got to rule the west. Stealing California was stealing one of the only economically useful areas in the west. There's a reason why western settlement stalled after the civil war beyond California existing.

            The alliance between northern and southern democrats was purely out of spite, periodically electing reform candidates when the north became ridiculous corrupt after the civil war.

            It's unironically been "over" for the US for some time in respect to a hyper corrupt federal empire with unlimited power presiding over everything. In a sense nothing has changed about the US since reconstruction and relations are more or less the same. What keeps everyone in line is the sheer amount of pro federal propaganda and fear of the federal government. I wouldn't call that effective domestic politics

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If that's true then why didn't another civil war between the North and South break out yet?
            Because the first one was ended properly. The agrotycoon slaveholders were disempowered, and in the aftermath things were handled extremely intelligently such that tensions were buried and the lines between the two were smoothed over. That's not to say the divide no longer exists, but it's trended more towards convergence over time.
            >What exactly is this supposed to mean
            Do you not know about the Virginia cavaliers? Virginia is the cultural hegemon of the southern colonies, and its appropriation as a royal colony would become a core part of the identity of Virginians. Due to its position as the "core" of the southern aristocracy, that identity would spread throughout the rest of the southern colonies. It's patently ridiculous to bring up such a trivial issue that's immediately understandable with basic understand of the colonial era and its subsequent knock-on effects. I never see this kind of confusion over why northerners are called "Yankees" even when they're not at all related to the Dutch settlers. Think of it however you like. Cavaliers vs Yankees. Jamestown vs Plymouth. If you buy into Marx's version of immanent critique, you can conceptualize it as conflict between industrialists and agriculturalists for control over the country. The point being there was a cultural divide between the southern colonies and the middle and new england colonies, and the civil war was that cultural difference coming to a head.

            The kind of people who tout the civil war to be a dispute on purely "slavery" or "states rights" are the same kind of midwits who think their significant other nagging them about buying the wrong brand of cereal is about the fricking cereal. In reality, it's because you haven't fricked them in 2 weeks and they're venting sexual frustration at you by other means.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cavaliers had zero cultural impact in the US. If anything the north is more similar to royalists with their radical wings supporting revolution for the pursuit of power

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And the Dutch didn't either, yet again I see no objection or rejection of the term "Yankee". In fact, you probably understand how these labels mutate and take on different meanings as they're (mis)used by people over a long period of time. It's painfully obvious you don't actually give a shit about any of this, which is why you continue on this substanceless throughline. All you care about is getting a "gotcha" in.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It ain't much if it ain't Dutch

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I actually do suspect the Dutch actually have a massive influence on American Business culture through New York. At the round table of the American Shadow government, there is probably a chair reserved for a man named "Jan van Dyke"

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The dutch were backwards morons that kept feudalism going in upstate new york into the 1800's until the plebs there threatened to revolt, maybe you don't know what you're talking about

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe you're an idiot who, in response to a joke responding to another joke, could not contain your urge for a "gotcha" and immediately went mask-off because you're too autistic to read social cues.
            QED

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're on the wrong board if you're looking for dickrubs

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Keep lacking having anything of substance to say and especially keep taking humor seriously. You will do a great job at convincing many people that you're very smart and well informed, and not at all some dipshit who wastes his life reading twitter threads and watching youtube video essays.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          85 IQ brown take

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The US is just like all those African and Asian post colonial countries. The colonial government is thrown out and there is instantly a civil war, with one or another side supported by the former colonizers. The Brits hadn't mastered the technique by the mid 19th century but they definitely had by the 20th.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it wasn't a real world in the true sense of the word

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Real world or war?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *