What do non-Americans know about the American Civil War?

Would have been better if the south was allowed to peacefully secede and form their own nation. The south was closer to having a genuine culture than the north.

I know the wrong side lost.

Sweden YES!

My brothers.
Yankee fags can get BTFO. Sure glad you freed the niggers, huh?

The USA won so, naturally, the rest of the world ended up losing the long run.

I know the north vastly outnumbered the south yet still act uppity about winning

The south literally stole our best generals.

DO

IT

No it wouldn't. The southeastern United States being separate presents a massive economic and national security problem. The Mississippi Basin is the core of the US - not having the entire region under a common system would make the North and South both poorer and harder to defend.

US geography naturally unifies waterfaring civilizations due to the river system. Two countries in the same river system is an inherently unstable situation.

Classic civil war scenario with deplorable rural and suburban retards believing they stand a chance against the right side of history

I only know rednecks get butthurt whenever confederate statues get removed

Attached: 1507990999325.jpg (452x675, 85K)

I know that the Union had better weapons, more manpower and that they slapped the Confederacy around for basically all of it.
More like a civil beating than a civil 'war'

I do think it was cute how the CSA basically copied the union uniforms just with different colours and also their belts said "CSA" instead of "USA".

fuck off you inbred hick

Attached: 1529474561797.jpg (9999x9999, 1.96M)

I think it's time for round 2.

The South actually had a similar level of technological development. Both sides were throwing iron ships at each other before long.

What the south lacked was manufacturing, transport infrastructure, and (ironically enough) agricultural capacity.

Any reason why California wasn't part of the confederacy? I thought the stereotype about them being a lefty state was recent.

Well that's what I've sort of picked up on. They don't even teach us that it happened here.
We only learn a little bit about the American war of Independence, like Boston massacre, tea party, Initial fighting in 1775, declaration, Valley Forge, and Yorktown.

When the fuck was Arizona and New Mexico a part of the confederacy or the South

Lincoln invented facism and he wanted those niggers out of our nation. He fought the south becuase they were too democratic and were too lazy to pick their own cotton. he foresaw the freeing of blacks and their eventual chimpouts

This

Cool then why didn't he do it? Lmao

>liberia exists

California had voted against having slavery in 1849. Because of the compromise of 1850, it entered the union as a free state.

They see it as cool.

You can ask the same about why they made so many western movies.

I always thought that it was black war against white

When the New Mexico Territory split into two and the new Arizona territory joined the CSA.
It was a north-south split though so OP's map isn't really accurate.

No, it's always been a solidly middle class state with middle class politics. Hence why it has so many poorly thought out progressive policies.

the bad guys won

Prop 8 was only 10 years ago

And being moderate on gay marriage (in favor of civil unions rather than marriage) was solidly middle class politics a decade ago. You forget that Obama and Clinton both only changed their positions on the issue in the early-to-mid 2010s.

Le North was in need for cheap labor force (lazy brit rare babies did not deliever quality stuff). They thought, les nigga ftom the South would do the dirty job in the North if "liberated". They "Drang nach Süden", massacred a lot of rednecks-bros for nothing. Liberated Tom Sawyer and Heck Finn apparently. Their Furer Abram war shot dead LOL.

an independent south would look like Brazil today

A statement like
>The south was closer to having a genuine culture than the north.
should have been a good enough indication that the user you're replying to has terminal autism.

Union victory
Stone Wall Jackson
a lot of people died
that's about it

B A S E D

>they slapped the Confederacy around for basically all of it.
Actually the South was winning up until Gettysburg 3 years into the war. However once the momentum was broken they had no way of holding back the Union who had far greater manufacturing capacity and logistics. The last 2 years of the war was the Union steam rolling the south into oblivion

Attached: THE_CSS_VIRGINIA_AND_THE_USS_MONITOR_reg.jpg (576x283, 87K)

I know that you like wars.
The world becomes peaceful if you use weapons domestically.

There's a reason for that. Lincoln knew that the war being over was not in and of itself an end to the civil strife. There was a long road of recovery ahead.

To make peace with the South, he allowed them to keep all of their history. Monuments, city names, Confederate flags quartered in state flags, etc. Union and Confederate soldiers had post-war veteran meetings together to heal the wounds.

Do not forget the civil war was only in the 1860s. There are people alive who knew people who fought in the war. The time between now and WW2 is the same time between WW2 and the Civil War.

To go out and destroy the Confederate monuments is to go out and destroy 100 years of very careful bridge building that better presidents and better people propped up than this current generation of complacent retards.

Attached: tyus-k-denneypng-34d418a3c2b33360.png (380x553, 304K)

Lol. Most of the confederate monuments were built in the 60's as a reaction against the Civil Rights movement.they have all of the hostorical aunthenticity of a McD joint.

Destroying something is a statement in and of itself. The populace clearly does not see them as a testament to racism.

>The populace clearly does not see them as a testament to racism.
If the populace doesn't want them around anymore then they clearly do see them as a racist, which they are it's impossible to argue otherwise, having monuments glorifying people who were so dedicated to proving that blacks were inferior that they went to war can't really be spun any other way

Attached: 1511223946297.png (702x490, 61K)

Even if I yielded what you're saying is true--and I do not--, destroying them now just fuels racial tensions.

Why is Maryland in the CSA?

>I know that the Union had better weapons, more manpower and that they slapped the Confederacy around for basically all of it.
Aside from the Virginia front. That aside, the Confederates did pretty much lose every other major battle/campaign of the war.

A G A I N

AGAIN

Dab on those slavers

aka the war of northern aggression. Lincoln didnt even care about the slaves until late in the war with muh EP

A way poorer brazil that would probably be living off oil exports after all the fertile land gets used up but since the plantation owners have most of the wealth guess who has access to the oil?

Southern states are associated with our own southern states where we speak our own language and don't like foreigners, especially those goddamn capital people.

The New Mexico Territory was disputed by both the North and South, and its territorial government operated out of Texas. Confederate troops under General Henry Sibley invaded New Mexico in early 1862 in the hope of establishing control of it and also eventually reaching California. After defeating a Union force at Glorieta Pass in April, their supply train was destroyed by enemy cavalry and they had to retreat.

The southern culture of chivalry and class was invented (and primarily fictionly) by Walter Scott

>Any reason why California wasn't part of the confederacy? I thought the stereotype about them being a lefty state was recent.

>lefty state
What do modern politics have to do with anything in the 1800s?

the brits supported the south because they wanted to protect their cotton or some shit

The plantation aristocracy were mostly of English and Ulster Scots ancestry and they practiced a lot of the gentlemanly culture of the English upper classes. Their religions were mainly Anglicanism and Episcopalianism as opposed to the lower class Christian sects like Baptism and Pentecostalism.

youtube.com/watch?v=h1PfrmCGFnk
We know Klint Eastwood won this war.

This was true, but also . The ruling class of Britain felt more in common with the South culturally than they did the factory workers and shopkeepers of the North. In general, most of the ruling class in Europe favored the South both out of cultural reasons and because they hoped for a divided, Balkanized United States that would not challenge them as a great power.

Who?

Hillbillies clinging to the old world got btfod hardcore by the power of finance, industry and progressive materialism. A glorious event.

The triumph of reason and greed over backwards tradition and ''honor''/

Attached: 1506929982084.jpg (800x800, 163K)

Hillbillies actually supported the Union (which is why there's a "West" Virginia)... You're thinking of "rednecks" ("white trash" works too)

Southern US is closer to original Europe than anyone else. It just has to be said.

It wasn't the lower class whites who started the war, it was the plantation richfags. They just used the lower classes as their cannon fodder.

...the plantation families who would own most of the land and probably turn the south into some sort of crazy neo-feudal state

>plantation richfags
>richfags

Not even in the same league with New England captains of industry and finance.

They would be the top dogs in the industryles south bruh

That's bullshit revisionism which confederate apologist love to push. On 31 December 1862, a meeting of cotton workers at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester, despite their increasing hardship, resolved to support the Union in its fight against slavery. An extract from the letter they wrote in the name of the Working People of Manchester to His Excellency Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America says:

"the vast progress which you have made in the short space of twenty months fills us with hope that every stain on your freedom will shortly be removed, and that the erasure of that foul blot on civilisation and Christianity – chattel slavery – during your presidency, will cause the name of Abraham Lincoln to be honoured and revered by posterity. We are certain that such a glorious consummation will cement Great Britain and the United States in close and enduring regards."

>What the south lacked was manufacturing, transport infrastructure, and (ironically enough) agricultural capacity.
Despite all their deficiencies, the Confederacy did accomplish a lot in a short amount of time to convert their economy for total war. This included actions like the extremely skilled capture and transfer of the Harper's Ferry Arsenal's machinery to Richmond, which became vital to the Southern war effort. From the beginning of the war to the end, the Confederate armies always had enough shells and bullets and never faced ammunition or powder shortages.

When it came to producing stuff like artillery that required skilled labor, they fell short and their guns and shells were always poor quality and potentially even dangerous to artillery crews.

Trust me, they were. Mississippi was in the top 5 wealthiest states in 1860. After the war, it ended up in the bottom 10 and has remained there ever since.

Keep in mind that the Northeast didn't really have super-tycoons until the last third of the 19th century. Although there had always been richfags, Rockefeller and Carnegie levels of rich had yet to appear in 1860.

I know that Democrats were the real enslavers of black people, and they have ever since managed to blame republicans for their own blatant racism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

It is and to this day they still are. They've tried to engineer various revisionist stories that all Dixiecrats became Republicans in the 1960s when in fact aside from Strom Thurmond, almost all of them from Orville Faubus to Robert Byrd to Al Gore Sr. died Democrats.

To this day, a black man like Ben Carson or Clarence Thomas who dares step off the Democrat plantation becomes persona non grata.

Debatable. The amount of good versus shitty generals on both sides was roughly equal all things considered.

The South did nothing wrong, like 99% of the US army are the southerners.

Based Setomaa and Voromaa!

Traitorbro is it you? :DDD You know too much about our Setos and Võros :DDD

I thought the gentleman behind the young boy was an ostrich at first.

In 1861, Union generals capable of army command included McClellan, Grant, Buell, Canby, and Rosecrans. Confederate generals capable of army command included Beauregard, Joe Johnson, Albert Sidney Johnson, and Robert E. Lee.

In 1865, Union generals capable of army command included Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas, Ord, Schofield, and Canby. Confederate generals capable of army command were...Beauregard, Johnson, and Lee. So you can see that the South didn't have so big of a manpower pool in either enlisted men or generals.

Lincoln had an easier time getting rid of shitty generals--they could easily be sent to fight Indians on the Plains or to California or some place like that. Jefferson Davis had a harder time getting rid of his incompetents--he was kind of stuck with them. Since Lincoln was also not a career military man, he had no personal attachment to his generals that made it difficult to dump them if need be, while Davis, the West Pointer, was reluctant to fire his buddies.

Of all ACW generals, probably Sherman and Longstreet had the most modern and forward-thinking ideas of war--most generals were still trying to fight Napoleon's battles. But really, any profession is like that--there's always a few geniuses and a huge number of low IQ slugs who never learn anything new after school.

99% is way too high. Realistically it's around 65%.
Lel no. Just lived there for 4 years...I know my way around. If I could I would move there permanently. That's how much I love Estonia.

SHERMAN

Ah yes, because being an exporter of commodities is really a dynamic, growing industry. Even if the plantation owners had been able to hold together, they'd still be getting dicked by New England only a few decades later.

Ducking

Who bought them to the US again?

Maybe in the present, but in the future maybe racial tensions will decrease after children grow up not having monuments to racists and slavers.

Resource production is never a viable economic model because it only enriches the farmer/mine owner, not his labor force. Unlike the Northeast and Midwest, the South had hardly any middle class. It also breeds corruption.

The problem with those statues was because it was Soros rent-a-mobs who were bused in to demand their removal. If the locals want them removed, they are entitled to do so. Professional out of state agitators however should not.