Civil war between north and south

>civil war between north and south
>north's capital is in the south

????

Attached: confederate-states-lg.jpg (1200x873, 306K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/Lqre6c_4oWI
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Washington DC isn't in Virginia

Parts of it used to be, but those were ceded back and only the Maryland parts of D.C. were kept in order to make slavery illegal there.

>capital is named Washington
>create another state called Washington
what in the fuck

I always thought Kansas and Kentucky and Missouri were southern what the fuck. And it's so weird how far north Virginia is

We really like Washington.

Attached: based.png (404x918, 62K)

>lower canada above upper canada

Attached: cdfe653d26f90d22bc424163ffca3cdc.jpg (236x237, 7K)

holy shit
this is "Santa Maria" tier naming

why did americans made so many extra states?

Kanas is an honorary Yankee state, they voted to reject slavery and join the Union.

Washington DC isn't in Maryland either, it's an independent district

USA is bigger than you can imagine
some states should be balkanized even but they're too empty to bother

Maryland and Virginia were first, they both donated land that was turned into D.C.

Generally, in geographic terms, lower and upper/higher, refers to altitude not latitude. So for example, Upper Egypt is southern Egypt, and Upper Germany is southern Germany.

holy fuck white people are retarded when it comes to geography
how the hell they expanded around the globe instead of getting lost and dying???

It makes sense though. The low countries are called the low countries because they are at sea level.

Preventing the secession of Maryland was an immediate goal of the Lincoln Administration because (obviously) it surrounded the capital. Lincoln once said "It would be good to have God on our side, but I need Maryland." Pro-Confederate sympathies mainly existed in the eastern part of the state and Lincoln had to travel through secessionist-filled Baltimore in disguise en route to his inauguration in March 1861. The western half of the state had small farmers mainly of German ancestry and there were no slaves there; this area was solidly Unionist.

When the Confederates invaded western Maryland in September 1862, they did not encounter a warm welcome and most of the locals hid in their homes as Lee's army passed through Frederick.

Our capital is called Mexico and there's another state called Mexico.

Hardly any cunt ever saw a map so it makes sense when you live like that

>The low countries are called the low countries because they are at sea level
meh
okay you're right

they're next to each other though. Washington D.C. and Washington State are on different coasts

Kansas was only a state for a few months when the war started; despite the violence of a few years earlier, the state was strongly supportive of the Union war effort. It contributed 17 regiments to the Union army and 20,000 volunteers, above the 17,000 quota set by the state government. While not many significant battles occurred in the remote frontier state, there were many raids and guerrilla actions especially William Quantrill's massacre in Lawrence in the summer of 1864.

Being next to each other makes it worse desu.

what dye think of general e lee
youtu.be/Lqre6c_4oWI

We know the truth, don't we...

should've been hanged for treason

Attached: ATL.png (600x473, 657K)

y*nkee filth

The best part was that the capitol of the U.S. and the capitol of the Confederate states (Richmond, Virginia) are only like 100 miles apart, and neither side ever attacked the other. I have no idea why they didn't, but I imagine it had something to do with honor (or maybe bad memories from 1812?) All I know is that future generations haven't given half a shit about fire bombing capitols, so I guess the sentiment died.

The Missouri Compromise was one of the things that led to the Civil War. Basically, the South recognized that banning slavery in new territories/states would eventually gut their political power in the federal government, which would allow the fed to ban slavery. The Missouri compromise basically said that Missouri could be a slave-state (while it admitted Maine as a free state), but that slavery would be banned from the 38th parallel up (basically everything North of Missouri).

There were a bunch of these compromises that happened. Basically, from the beginning only the South wanted slavery. The founding fathers (even though plenty of them owned slaves) wanted to ban slavery, since slavery actually devalued the work of individual white farmers (how do you compete with free labor? you don't) and only the Southern agricultural states even benefited from it. One of the first compromises in our history was allowing slavery (that was the only way the Southern states would ratify the constitution and join the U.S.), but banning all new slave trade after like 20 years from the signing. It was also largely unprofitable until the invention of the cotton gin.

Along with stuff like the Fugitive Slave act, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas Nebraska Act, basically the whole situation was that the Southern elite (since the average man was actually getting fucked by slavery existing) didn't want to lose their economic or political power, and fought to keep slavery around.

Attached: 6a00d83451c36069e201bb084d3705970d.jpg (540x405, 78K)

Cont from The other side of the coin, and I can't stress this enough, was that the North wasn't exactly interested in human rights or anything. There were certainly plenty of elements in the average population like Abolitionists who wanted to ban slavery, but most of the political action was about securing economic and political influence. The Northern politicians were mostly interested in protecting economic interests (again, slavery gutted the value of working white men, so they didn't want it in their states; also, cotton become a billion dollar industry) and their political interests (more slave states meant more political influence by slave states in the federal government).

It was all basically one massive, shitty powerplay that ran for damn near 100 years because a bunch of rich cocksuckers were too busy trying to fuck each other over. That's the entire reason slavery persisted until the Civil War, and the Civil War had to be fought. Welcome to American History.

The Confederates never seriously tried to take Washington because it was strongly fortified. The closest they got was Jubal Early's raid in 1864, which was repelled.

Huh. Well that's way less interesting than imagining Lincoln and Davis yelling at each other across a fence and never doing anything about it.

Fun fact. They were initially going to call the state "Columbia" (just like the British called it British Coumbia) but they feared it would be confused with D.C.

Washington DC was the most fortified place on earth so it makes sense

>Portland, Maine
>Portland, Oregon
>Ontario, Los Angeles
>Ontario, Canada
>Santiago, Chile
>Santiago, Cuba
>Sandiego, California

The morality of slavery aside, the South did have a legitimate economic reason to fight. It was harder to convince people in the North of what they were fighting for. The Union they were fighting to save was an abstract concept at best while few people outside of New England had any desire to fight for the black man's freedom, being that he was hardly any more loved north of the Mason-Dixon Line than he was south of it, and also many working class whites feared that the end of slavery would bring a flood of blacks up north to steal their jobs and drive wages down.

Did anyone said otherwise?

We have a province called Luxembourg right next to the country Luxembourg

Attached: Pepe7.jpg (800x649, 37K)

Of course for businesses in the North it was the exact opposite; they had a huge pool of cheap black labor that would become available to them if slavery were ended.

santiago and san diego are two different names

How different are they?

The real thing that tipped the scales wasn't the Missouri Compromise but rather the acquisition of the Southwest from Mexico. Most of this new clay was a desert and completely unsuited for plantation agriculture, so the South grew increasingly worried. If they could not carve new slave states out of the Southwest, then where were they going to come from? (little did anyone suspect that the Central Valley in California would someday become a center of cotton production)

Southerners during the 1850s in their desperation began hatching new, hairbrained schemes to steal clay in the Caribbean and Central America for plantation agriculture. Southern Democrats convinced President Pierce to try and purchase Cuba from Spain, but Madrid replied that they would not sell it for any price and filibusters tried to detach more pieces of Mexico and take over Central America.

This desperation led to Bleeding Kansas. Although Kansas was not suited for plantation agriculture, Southerners were so desperate by this point to add another slave state to the Union that they didn't even care anymore if they could actually make use of it.

>There were a bunch of these compromises that happened. Basically, from the beginning only the South wanted slavery. The founding fathers (even though plenty of them owned slaves) wanted to ban slavery, since slavery actually devalued the work of individual white farmers (how do you compete with free labor? you don't) and only the Southern agricultural states even benefited from it. One of the first compromises in our history was allowing slavery (that was the only way the Southern states would ratify the constitution and join the U.S.),

An early draft of the Constitution had a clause forbidding slavery but Thomas Jefferson was talked into removing it or the South might not ratify the thing. The best solution they figured was to just stay silent on slavery.

Nigger lover

It's San Diego, not sandiego

Very different name from Santiago

Actually what happened to the world in 1850s-1860s? There seems to be many conflicts around the world during this period of time

Europe took decades to fully recover from the Napoleonic Wars so the 1820s-40s were quiet and mostly free of wars. By mid-century, everyone began fighting the great power game once again.

He's wrong though, it was called upper canada because it was further inland along the St. Lawrence River than lower Quebec, which is at the mouth

we were gonna name the state colombia but people were worried it would get confused with the district of colombia (another name for dc)
we're retarded

It's not just Europe, like i think there are at least 3 different huge scale conflicts in China in this period of time

Tiago and Diego both exist as separate names

this is just not true.

Of all generals in the ACW, probably Sherman and Longstreet had the most modern, forward-thinking ideas of war as opposed to more than half the unimaginative generals still trying to fight Napoleonic-style battles. I think it's like that in almost any profession though. There are a few geniuses who can look ahead into the future and a load of average, mediocre slugs who never learn anything new after finishing school.

Are you retarded or baiting?

>kill 600K white men to let negroes marry white women
BASED

Ha that's the funny bit isn't it ending slavery would have economically done wonders for average southerners and be worse for average northerners.
No nation goes to war over morals

There is literally nothing wrong with negroes marrying white women. An independent Confederacy would have been an unstable third-world shithole, like Haiti and Rhodesia combined, and on steroids.

Attached: amerimutt.png (420x420, 18K)

It isn't retard. Look at a map.

>Ha that's the funny bit isn't it ending slavery would have economically done wonders for average southerners and be worse for average northerners.

Except it didn't because the North was booming like never before while the South endured a century of poverty and political isolation from the rest of the country.

Your first sentence seems at odds with your second sentence and your posted image

When will the Mid-Atlantic region rise up and smack down all the smug rebellious New Englandlets and traitorous Southerners?

Average Yankee right here. Thanks for proving you're what wrong with America.

>ending slavery would have economically done wonders for average southerners and be worse for average northerners
Not at all. The Southern economy was based on mainly agricultural and therefore slave labor.

Isn't your country named after Mexico City?

it's almost like it used to be of the country luxembourg

>Thanks for proving you're what wrong with America.
What's wrong with America, and how does it apply to me?

and the north of germany was "lower saxony"

Yes.

to be fair he was a Titan of a man

>north is "up"

Attached: 1524540532566.png (645x729, 109K)

Ontario California was founded by guys from Ontario Canada