War of Northern Aggression

Secession =/= treason.

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What rights was the confederacy fighting for? And how is it the same as the revolutionaries?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The right to secede and do whatever the frick they wanted in their own country, same as the revolutionaries

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        But why did they secede? What right was being infringed that would make them want to? Also the US didn’t stop them from seceding they refused to give/sell them federal land in their territories which was their right. And the war started when the confederacy fired on Fort Sumpter when they wouldn’t surrender it and the island.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They did not want any right the patriots did not already have

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I like how you’re being vague as to not say the actual reason. Almost like you know you can’t argue it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You were being vague in the first place
            But the reason is irrelevant
            Either you believe there is a right to secede or you don't
            There is nothing on the law that says ''you can only secede for XYZ reasons"

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not really I asked why and for what rights and you refused to actually elaborate. You couldn’t even name one specific reason as to why they seceded.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Radiochan

            maybe the dixoids shouldn't have attacked federal forts lol

            reasons are not irrelevant at all

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          But why do Chicago and Detroit have such high crime rates?

          There are communists who believe you are a rich American, a "labor aristocrat", whose property ought to be redistributed to people living in poverty across the world. Arguably, doing so would allow an African village to get clean drinking water which will prevent some of their children dying of waterborne diseases. This makes you an evil piece of shit in their eyes, just as you view southerners.

          We can do this moral finger wringing all day, but the fact of the matter is the south inherited a situation and dealt with it as best they can to prevent their community ending up like Chicago and Detroit, to protect themselves, their family, community and way of life and they had every right to do so.

          >Fort Sumter
          Do you really think the north was just going to let the south secede? That they would mobilize their army and let it sit on the border doing nothing as long as the south never tried to retake Fort Sumter?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >But why did they secede? What right was being infringed that would make them want to?
          The same idea of "progress" that causes terror in the world to this day.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        and what were those things they wanted to do?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >and what were those things they wanted to do?
          That, friend, is none of your business, just like it was none of the North's business. A sovereign nation can do literally anything it wants inside its own borders.
          >but muh human rights
          Irrelevant. Human rights barely exist now and even less so in the 1800's.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How come the CSA constitution removed the secession clause if they thought it was such a valuable tool for liberty

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        ...directly motivated by the threat to the right to keep slaves.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          directly motivated by northerners invading the south and stealing slaves at gunpoint (underground railroad), directly motivated by economic warfare (tariffs), directly motivated by the north's refusal to solve the issue constitutionally (slavery is codified in the constitution), directly motivated by the north stealing california, directly motivated by the north saying slavery could be allowed in kansas then sending terrorists there with illegally smuggled weapons in crates labeled "bibles" and congress refusing to admit kansas as a slave state (violating the agreement they just made), directly motivated by lincoln trying to resupply northern forces in an illegally held fort in south Carolina, directly motivated by lincoln raising an illegal army to invade the south, directly motivated by lincoln invading the south illegally

          • 4 weeks ago
            Radiochan

            > northerners invading the south and stealing slaves at gunpoint
            oh no your human chattel are running away
            >tariffs
            not valid by 1857
            >solve the issue constitutionally
            Many Northerners supported a constitutional amendment banning slavery.
            >stealing california
            The people of California wanted it to be a free state. Don't you support states' rights?
            >kansas
            Dixoids were doing the same thing so that Kansas would be a slave state.
            >lincoln trying to resupply federal forces
            Wasn't illegal. South Carolina seceding was probably illegal.
            >illegal army
            How?
            >invading the south illegally
            How is it illegal for a federal govt to ensure the territorial integrity of the Union?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The right to not get invaded by an illegally raised army

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        An army that wouldn’t need to be raised if war had not been declared against them.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >it's okay to get invaded by an illegally raised army
          okay thanks for confirming that the south had a right to secede

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Considering the confederates attacked first yes it was justified. Why wouldn’t it be?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That Fort was Confederate property, Lincoln swore up and down he was going to turn it over to them.. while blatantly not doing that.
            If I walk onto your property and begin to destroy it, you'd have every right to shoot me.
            Also the first causalities were in Maryland when protesters were killed by feds.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >That Fort was Confederate property
            No it was federal property and they had no real claim to it
            >Lincoln swore up and down he was going to turn it over to them
            He wanted it to be abandoned but went against it, most likely because it would show weakness. That still doesn’t change what happened.
            >If I walk onto your property and begin to destroy it you'd have every right to shoot me
            So you acknowledge that the Union was justified, good to know

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >lincoln supported forces that attacked southern forts and then tried to resupply them
            hmm

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >if you shoot at people they will shoot back
            Gee, what a novel concept

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That has nothing to do with what I posted

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And what you posted had nothing to do with what I said but that didn’t stop you.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You lied, I did not. There's a difference

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How did I lie? Maybe you should elaborate before making moronic claims.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You know how you lied

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No considering I didn’t lie and when pressed to explain how you can’t give an answer.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No it wasn't. It was South Carolina property.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong they ceded ownership in 1836

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/ctJdREg.jpeg

            Okay, what if I take the view that Southern secession was entirely legal, but that firing on Ft Sumter was an act of war (inb4 it was part of SC, they had already given the land to the US FEDERAL GOVT and should have thought about that before they seceded).

            ConfederaBlack folk signed their own death warrant. I think most Northerners would have been fricking happy to let the South frick off until they acted like morons and attacked US Sovereign soil.

            On top of that slavery was both a moral and economic mistake (not that I particularly like Black folk, but enslaving any sentient being is still morally wrong).

            I have zero issue with the view of the US Federal Gov't invading an independent Southern Confederacy that attacked them and kept 2/3rds of it's population in chains. Cry me a fricking river about your "rights" while simultaneously subjugating most of your population in chattel slavery. Frick off, you legally seceded and then acted like your own barbaric Black folk and got put down for it.

            Two key things about Sumter, it was a State army rather than Federal, and the fort in question was made for the sole purpose of interdicting a major harbor.

            Devolved powers and secession make for very weird events.

            Not really I asked why and for what rights and you refused to actually elaborate. You couldn’t even name one specific reason as to why they seceded.

            Representation in the federal government was actually a fairly large one, Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in most of the South yet won the election anyways.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in most of the South yet won the election anyways
            Only possible because the Democratic party split due to the South's absolute fricking autism about spreading slavery.

            The South actually had a disproportionately massive advantage in Congress all throughout the early period of the US thanks to the 3/5ths compromise. They had like a fourth of the (voting legal citizen) population but nearly half the congressional seats.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They're right to secede from a system which no longer benefited or represented them.

      The same principles which motivated the Patriots to take up revolution against King George

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >They're right to secede from a system which no longer benefited or represented them.
        If only the patriots and the confederates left lists of their complaints about the system they left so we could compare them. Or maybe one of them gave a speech describing a certain thing as the "corner stone" of their revolution.
        Sadly, both sides only left vague reasons of no longer benefiting or feeling represented and we'll never know more than that.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >If only the patriots and the confederates left lists of their complaints about the system they left so we could compare them.
          What'd be the purpose of this? They're both just list grievances leading to the same conclusion. They don't like the current system and wish to be separate.

          Same reasonings motivated the reactionary forces in both wars, simple maintainence of their power, and resources.
          The British king was never going to allow rebels to stop paying taxes and take land and resources from his empire, so the same motivated the imperalists of the North.

          The south could have wanted to secede because they wanted to establish an egalitarian utopia, and the north would have warned and subjugated them with all the same vitriol.

          >Sadly, both sides only left vague reasons of no longer benefiting or feeling represented and we'll never know more than that.
          There's nothing vague about what I said. It's truth is why you're butthurt.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Radiochan

            >The south could have wanted to secede because they wanted to establish an egalitarian utopi
            except they didn't and they made it clear they wanted to secede to maintain the ownership of Black folks as human chattel
            the American Revolution is not reviled simply beacuse the people who warred against the Crown did so because they wanted their rights as Englishmen and did it for Enlightenment values
            Jefferson wanted to include a condemnation of slavery into the Declaration of Independence, but was talked into not doing it

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah I see the trip and realize I shouldn't be surprised some moronic women or troony completely misses the point, doesn't engage with the point, and instead goes off on its "but they hecking slaves " tangent lmao

          • 4 weeks ago
            Radiochan

            that was literally the main overarching reason for the secession Black person

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn't matter to the question of secession's LEGAL validity. "But Muh Slaves!" is actively ignoring the point being made to obsess over ethics.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Radiochan

            >It doesn't matter to the question of secession's LEGAL validity.
            kind of does, intentions matter
            >"But Muh Slaves!" is actively ignoring the point being made to obsess over ethics.
            ethics is what it's all about

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It doesn't matter to the question of secession's LEGAL validity.
            >kind of does, intentions matter
            Hey bored ape troony moron, you're almost there.
            In what scenario, or under what "intentions" do you see the North or any Central US government simply allowing a portion of its people and territory to unilaterally secede, something akin to the lauded modern divorce?

            The point of the Southern Secesion was a test to see if the Union really was a union of States. Where each state is a part of the union voluntarily and can leave whenever he wants voluntarily, such is the case with as any other group or club of individuals.

            This was clearly not the character of the union. Consequently, the South was brutalized such that the question be buried and never test the fragile system again.

            It only makes sense, why would any empire allow itself to collapse.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Radiochan

            The Sotherners said they were doing it in order to keep slaves. They were very loud about this. That was their stated intention.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            was that before or after the north spent 30 years telling the south they were going to upend their entire society and set all the Black folk free with no compensation

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the north spent 30 years telling the south they were going to upend their entire society and set all the Black folk free with no compensation
            That never happened. Even within the so-called Black Republicans, the most they'd agreed on before the war was that the expansion of slavery should be halted. There was no path to manumission, let alone abolition, let alone uncompensated abolition. Except of course, that secession and Civil War created exactly that outcome, making what the South did one of the most ironic and self-defeating courses of action in human history.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What'd be the purpose of this? They're both just list grievances leading to the same conclusion.
            The conclusion would not exist without the grievances. The grievances, and their validity are the important point, not just that they felt the system no longer benefited them.

            It doesn't matter to the question of secession's LEGAL validity. "But Muh Slaves!" is actively ignoring the point being made to obsess over ethics.

            >It doesn't matter to the question of secession's LEGAL validity.
            It was no way a settled matter at the time that the south had a legal right to succeed, and even if they did that wouldn't suddenly make them the good guys. Its not as if following the letter of the law erases any ethical considerations. As it happens, later legal decisions decided they did not have this right, so the point is mostly moot.
            >The point of the Southern Secesion was a test to see if the Union really was a union of States. Where each state is a part of the union voluntarily and can leave whenever he wants voluntarily, such is the case with as any other group or club of individuals.
            No, it wasn't. A large number of southern legal thinkers had decided, a few decades before, to interpret the union like that. The leaders of the confederacy new that many did not share this understanding, which is why they immediately armed themselves for war as soon as they succeeded. They knew their decision was a defacto declaration of war, one they thought they could win. They did this not as a noble test of freedom, but because they felt that slavery was under a long term threat of being eliminated by a northern super majority, and they needed to break things off before the situation escalated.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >If only the patriots and the confederates left lists of their complaints about the system they left so we could compare them.
        What'd be the purpose of this? They're both just list grievances leading to the same conclusion. They don't like the current system and wish to be separate.

        Same reasonings motivated the reactionary forces in both wars, simple maintainence of their power, and resources.
        The British king was never going to allow rebels to stop paying taxes and take land and resources from his empire, so the same motivated the imperalists of the North.

        The south could have wanted to secede because they wanted to establish an egalitarian utopia, and the north would have warned and subjugated them with all the same vitriol.

        >Sadly, both sides only left vague reasons of no longer benefiting or feeling represented and we'll never know more than that.
        There's nothing vague about what I said. It's truth is why you're butthurt.

        >a system which no longer benefited or represented them.
        Because they lost an election, having had decades of pro-Southern Presidents and associated national-level political figures?
        Inherently, participating in an election is assent to the outcome; if one evaluates the 'legitimacy' on whether one's candidate wins, there's no point in having elections.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >They're right to secede from a system which no longer benefited or represented them.
        That's moronic. The Founding Fathers had several attempts to negotiate a peaceful solution and they explicitly had no desire to leave the British Empire. Shit like the Boston Tea Party occurred in 1773, 3 full years before 1776 and even it was a protest against specific intolerable acts.

        The colonists had no literal representation in Parliament (no taxation without representation). The King was revoking colonial charters, pulling British officers out for crimes in the colonies to be tried in more lenient naval courts, and putting Boston under occupation and blockade.

        What were the grievances of the South? What did the Northern states do exactly that started the Civil War? Lincoln winning the 1864 election and being explicitly anti-slavery expansion in the west? Fricking tyrant Lincoln wasn't even inaugurated yet and South Carolina left. This is why the Civil War looks like a Southern ape out. The Founding Fathers repeatedly attempted several times to try a peaceful resolution with the King, including the Olive Branch Petition. What did the South try? What did the North even do to the South prior to them seceding? The South had nothing. They had representation in Congress as outlined in the constitution. Leaving just because things aren't going your way is the spoiled playground brat equivalent of taking your toys and going home when you're losing and you're becoming less popular. Such a system is moronic.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >What were the grievances of the South?

          They don't need a grievance you daft person. They had the right to secede for any reason or no reason at all. It's like a modern marriage, you can end it on a whim, and if it destroys the other party's life, that's not your problem.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Might makes right

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      bucked

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The United States is a trade and defense union. Of course one can leave it just as much as one can leave the European Union. That is until the federal government overstepped and aggressively attacked sovereign states.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So then what would you call the Confederacies pretty blatant disregard for Kentucky's declaration of neutrality? Sounds like they weren't respecting Kentucky's soverignty, which it definitely has and totally isn't a convenient legal fiction to justify the driving of human beings like livestock.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Oh no they put a small fortification in the furthest western county in the state which claimed to have seceded from the state of Kentucky

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Patriots made multiple attempts to reconcile with the crown, even sending the Olive Branch Petition after the battles of Lexington and Concord. The Confederates seceded unilaterally after the election of 1860 and attacked federal property. The colonies did not have representation within Parliament, whereas the Confederate states were full members of the Union.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      northern forces attacked a fort first, the south shot first is revisionism

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Which fort

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I forgot what it was called, started with an L

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The fort was called for moultrie, it was the first fort attacked preceding the civil war by loyalists, the same that went to occupy sumter. The sumter lie is literal propaganda

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why do lost cause gays always make up the dumbest shit?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Very interesting if you think about it, the truth is right in front of anybody that wants to look it up

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Already did and it says you’re wrong. But let me guess it’s all false except for

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >muhhh lost cause
            Yankee pushed mythology.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >muh
            You’re already shooting low son
            >Yankee pushed mythology
            Literally founded by former confederate soldiers trying to cope and was propagated by their children.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They also swore an oath to the (nominally) divinely-ordained crown.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Even if it was, treason against tyrants is no vice, just as loyalty to them is no virtue, as Benjamin Franklin would have put it.

    George Washington was a traitor. Thomas Jefferson was a traitor. William Wallace was a traitor. Claus von Stauffenberg and Wilhelm Canaris were both traitors. The Freedom of Russia Legion are traitors.

    If that's the company he's keeping, I doubt Robert E. Lee would have been particularly bothered by such a label.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Secession is not among them, thus it is not prohibited
    Article I, Section 10 states many things a state cannot do without the consent of Congress or otherwise, seceding and forming a separate government would necessarily go against some of these prohibitions.
    More importantly Article VI says
    >Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution
    State legislators cannot break away from being governed by the Constitution while saying they are still following the Constitution, thus it breaks the oath.
    Article VI also says
    >This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    The Constitution cannot be the supreme law of the land if a state were to reject the Constitution by seceding. It would necessarily mean the states are first and not the Constitution and laws of the Union.
    >the power to prohibit secession is not listed among the powers delegated to the United States
    The Constitution gives Congress the power to punish treason.
    (1/2)

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It also gives Congress the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions," and the necessary and proper clause states that the federal government has the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers."
      This is like saying the United States is not given the power to task people with enforcing the rightful laws toward foreigners becoming citizens and to pay these people salaries for doing so, because the Constitution does not specifically say this, even though it provides for the power to set rules of naturalization of immigrants.
      >After secession, Southerners no longer owed allegiance to the United States
      Not if (when) secession was illegal.
      (2/2)

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The image contradicts itself on the American Revolution
    >"The American Revolution was treason"
    >"You have to owe allegiance to a country before you can commit treason against it"

    Otherwise I completely agree.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    “The official story that the war was about the South’s desire to protect and expand slavery and the North’s determination to abolish it is not merely an error in academic history. The evidence against it has not been ignored so much as it has been suppressed. It had to be suppressed because it contradicts the legitimizing myth of the centralized nationalist regime that emerged after the war. Having been repeated so often it has come to be believed because of repetition.”

    ~ Robert Penn Warren

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It wasn’t really suppressed either, more it just showed up one day out of the mouths of men that had just lost a four year conflict over protecting and institution that only the highest echelon of their society partook in and had to now justify betraying their country for it. Naturally they went into denial. While the north wasn’t originally fighting to end slavery, the south was absolutely fighting to expand it.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And the North more or less accepted it and went along with ''muh tragic brother war''
        Since they did not care that much about slavery and wanted to make amends with other whites
        There were Union veterans still alive when the first statues were built and Birth of a Nation came out
        The later off course was extremely popular in the North; with it's ending depicting an anti-Black alliance between Northerners and the KKK
        A century later we get culture wars and CRT, so now leftists decide to dig up the Civil War for propaganda

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The north’s motives do not somehow make the lost cause myth become true all of a sudden. And what I said does not change.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >It wasn’t really suppressed
        b***h Black person can you point out a single modern textbook that says the souths motivations weren't purely slavery

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Read the whole post before throwing a temper tantrum.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Seeing as every single confederate state mentioned slavery in their declarations of independence I’d say slavery was pretty god damn centeral to why the succeeded.

      Not only that but ignoring slavery then the only other justification for succession they have is that they didn’t like who won the election. Not to mention they didn’t give a shit about states rights when they passed the fugitive slave act.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You're moronic

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Seeing as every single confederate state mentioned slavery in their declarations of independence
        not true

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Okay, what if I take the view that Southern secession was entirely legal, but that firing on Ft Sumter was an act of war (inb4 it was part of SC, they had already given the land to the US FEDERAL GOVT and should have thought about that before they seceded).

    ConfederaBlack folk signed their own death warrant. I think most Northerners would have been fricking happy to let the South frick off until they acted like morons and attacked US Sovereign soil.

    On top of that slavery was both a moral and economic mistake (not that I particularly like Black folk, but enslaving any sentient being is still morally wrong).

    I have zero issue with the view of the US Federal Gov't invading an independent Southern Confederacy that attacked them and kept 2/3rds of it's population in chains. Cry me a fricking river about your "rights" while simultaneously subjugating most of your population in chattel slavery. Frick off, you legally seceded and then acted like your own barbaric Black folk and got put down for it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That is that one officer dressed in green?

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    True, but the winner of the war makes the rules and writes the history.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Of course the founders committed treason. I just think they had better reasons then the confederates did.
    Also the constitution does not grant the right to succeed, or at least such a right was never universally agreed upon, either by the founders or at the time of the civil war.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
      Opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

      This is the truth really. I dont know why normies dont just fall back on this, especially when they are left wing types who hate America anyway so these appeals to patriotism and duty are such obvious bullshit.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratva.asp

    We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will:

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Huh, i wonder where this Burke Davis guy's from
    https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/davis-burke-1913-2006/
    Oh wow, Virginia, i'm sure this isn't pure cope, can't see why anyone undertaking the absolutely politically neutral thing of writing pro-confdederate histories of the civil war during the 60's would possibly have any bias leading, to, say, quoting a literal slave owning jurist in Lieber, also hailing from Virginia, who i'm also sure had absolutely no affiliations that would've coloured his legal opinions on the matter, Or, quoting a justice appointed directly to combat radically anti-slavery sentiment within the party, specifically to a member of that virulently anti slavery section of the party.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I remember when IQfy was a pro confederate site

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why would I want to spread slavery to the western states? I'm anti-black, not pro-black.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Cope more, Cletus. All of your ancestors are burning in hell.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When will the north apologize and pay reparations for their illegal war of aggression?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      When will you stop fantasizing about fricking your cousin?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm convinced yankees and yankee-wannabees have an incest fetish. It's like a more concentrated version of mutt's law.
        >The longer a thread on the South continues, the more likely it is an Ellis Islander will bring up incest

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's raw mathematical statistics. Go take a 23andme, and I bet you $10 that you both have African admix, and a family tree that doesn't fork as much as you hope. It is almost 30 times more prevalent the farther south you go.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Wop's Law

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm European, we've always supported Dixie

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://x.com/Jeff_Davis1808
    https://x.com/NBForrest83
    https://x.com/jjfThompson

    I was surprised to learn there's a pretty sizable group on Twitter that keeps the truth about Lincoln alive.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fact: The Confederates seceeded over slavery, because they couldn't plow their own fields
    Fact: Neo-confederates on the internet will NEVER condemn slavery, because that's what this is all about

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what's wrong with slavery again?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why aren't you a slave since it's apparently so great and all?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I don't know

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Confederatards are unironically against the revolutionary war now
    truly grim

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Secession =/= treason.
    Inherently, it is 'treason'.
    If the Brits wanted to believe that the American Revolution was a successful perfidious rebellion, more power to them. America adopts the American perspective, in which it's men like Benedict Arnold who were the traitors.
    >after secession, Southerners no longer owed allegiance to the United States
    Unilateral transfer of 'allegiance' is treason. And in areas whose state governments didn't attempt secession, the secessionists tried to provoke rebellion, showing that their goals directly involved undermining the US government.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If heaven ain't a lot like Dixie
    I don't want to go
    If heaven ain't a lot like Dixie
    I'd just as soon stay home
    I was one of the chosen few
    To be born in Alabam'
    I'm just like my daddy's son
    I'm proud of who I am
    I went through a lot of good women
    And shook old Jim Beam's hand
    If I never see the pearly gates
    I've walked through the promised land
    If heaven ain't a lot like Dixie
    I don't want to go
    If heaven ain't a lot like Dixie
    I'd just as soon stay home
    If they don't have a Grand Ole Opry
    Like they do in Tennessee
    Just send me to hell or New York City
    It would be about the same to me
    I've got wild honey trees
    And crazy little weeds
    Growing around my shack
    These dusty roads ain't streets of gold
    But I'm a happy right where I'm at
    All these pretty little southern belles
    Are a country boy's dream
    They ain't got wings or halos
    But they sure look good to me
    If heaven ain't a lot like Dixie
    I don't want to go
    If heaven ain't a lot like Dixie
    I'd just as soon stay home
    If they don't have a Grand Ole Opry
    Like they do in Tennessee
    Just send me to hell or New York City
    It would be about the same to me

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