The US Civil War

[Othelos]

The same position I have on most contemporary political issues that have a north vs south divide.

We (the northeast and west coast more specifically) were just dragging the south into the modern era. Just like with other issues, STILL.

Sorry bud. You guys are both wrong. Midwest is where it's at :p

lol

The same position I have on most contemporary political issues that have a north vs south divide.

We (the northeast and west coast more specifically) were just dragging the south into the modern era. Just like with other issues, STILL.

Agreed. Which is why the South should be separate.

I used to be in favor of this, until I realized that it totally wouldn't be worth it to split into two countries for a host of reasons, just because of some social (and other political) issues.

What we need is more autonomy.

[New Frenco Empire]

I think if the south won it wouldn last to long maybe up until the 1940's at best most likely the 1920's though. I think Texas would just end up succedeing from it and the CSA fall into some kinda of revolution and become communist or socialist. Or if it dosn't have a revolution and survive to the 40's it would sympathize with the Nazis.

No. It was never destined to win, and saying that is like cringe-worthy alt-history on the level of "wut if nazis keel america and won ww1i?"

[Distruzio]

I think if the south won it wouldn last to long maybe up until the 1940's at best most likely the 1920's though. I think Texas would just end up succedeing from it and the CSA fall into some kinda of revolution and become communist or socialist. Or if it dosn't have a revolution and survive to the 40's it would sympathize with the Nazis.

America would have probably reconquered the Confederate States once World War I broke out.

I dunno... would the Union have abandoned her ties to the English over a successful secession (assuming British intervention on behalf of the Confederacy)?

[-United Islamic Emirate-]

I think if the south won it wouldn last to long maybe up until the 1940's at best most likely the 1920's though. I think Texas would just end up succedeing from it and the CSA fall into some kinda of revolution and become communist or socialist. Or if it dosn't have a revolution and survive to the 40's it would sympathize with the Nazis.

America would have probably reconquered the Confederate States once World War I broke out.

No Woodrow wouldn't risk it he was already busy sneaking weapons on civilian passenger ships. To aid the British and French. I think the German Kaiser would have supported the CSA any way if the North did reinvade.

[Distruzio]

Agreed. Which is why the South should be separate.

I used to be in favor of this, until I realized that it totally wouldn't be worth it to split into two countries for a host of reasons, just because of some social (and other political) issues.

What we need is more autonomy.

... I'd settle for that.

[Norstal]

If every time the federal government doesn't meet my demands I rebel, that would be quite stressful on me quite honestly. I don't know how you guys live like that. Must be absurd amount of caffeine and taurine. Or maybe cocaine?

They could've battle it out in Congress and the White House even if they are losing it in Congress. Besides that, they were dominating Congress from 1854 to 1858. They lost two years, two measly years to the Republican majority, and their toddler-like tantrum is comparable to the American Revolution? Nonsense.

Alot can happen in 2 years, there is no length of time determining when or when not one should revolt. If one believes their interests and way of life is under enough danger, one should rebel. The American Colonies had their own BS reasons for seceding from the British Empire (and it wasn't about "Liberty" or "Freedom"), but they were reason nonetheless, they no longer felt the Crown had their best interests in mind and they proceeded to sever themselves from Britain.

American colonials never had a representatives in Britain. I mean, you understand why it's different right? The colonies never had any power to solve their issues peacefully. The Confederate states did and the rest of the union gave everything they wanted. Yet they still rebelled. They don't live in a banana republic where there's a dictator who holds the power to do everything. Although I guess if you sympathize with them for wanting a banana republic, then I don't really have an argument anymore.

[Olthar]

Oh, good. I was afraid I'd be the only one.

People grossly overestimate the Union's "benevolence".

No. I'm just saying that slavery is wrong.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The "Rightful" Government burned the homes of that land. There was another family less than a mile from the home of my ancestor, who had no relatives involved in the confederate army. The Union Army in the last year of the war torched both homes in 1865 when Sherman marched north from GA and passed through their town on their way to level Columbia.

Yes, they were defending their homes. Union armies made little to no effort to defend the property and rights of even those loyal in the south. Letters from reconstruction also do not paint a good picture.

The rightful government was involved in suppressing a major insurrection. Homes get burned in the process sometimes. You'll have to give me something besides letters from aggrieved Southerners stating that little to no effort was made to defend the property of Union loyalists. Reconstruction was indeed tough, but the fact remains that these were areas formerly in rebellion, and needed to be under tighter control.

[New Frenco Empire]

Oh, good. I was afraid I'd be the only one.

People grossly overestimate the Union's "benevolence".

People also tend to grossly overestimate just how much sympathy the CSA deserves.

[Infected Mushroom]

Confederates.

They fought to defend their lands from the Northern army and for State's Rights.

[Othelos]

I used to be in favor of this, until I realized that it totally wouldn't be worth it to split into two countries for a host of reasons, just because of some social (and other political) issues.

What we need is more autonomy.

... I'd settle for that.

ex. Why should the northeast have to go without universal healthcare because southern people don't want it?

We're better off economically, together, though.

[Anglo-California]

The same position I have on most contemporary political issues that have a north vs south divide.

We (the northeast and west coast more specifically) were just dragging the south into the modern era. Just like with other issues, STILL.

Sorry bud. You guys are both wrong. Midwest is where it's at

I'm from California, but I absolutely love the Midwest. Probably the best part of America. It doesn't have the hicks and blacks of the South, the hipsters and Mexicans of California, nor the smelly people of New Jersey and Philadelphia

(sarcasm before anyone kills me^)

The Midwest just has regular people

[Othelos]

Confederates.

They fought to defend their lands from the Northern army and for State's Rights.

state's rights aka slavery.

[Conserative Morality]

West Virginia's secession was unilateral, and the US constitution appears to explicitly state that unilateral secession of part of a state without the consent of the rest of the state is also illegal:

"no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State ... without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress"

As the proposal to make West Virginia acquired Federal approval under the bill signed into law by Lincoln on Dec. 22 1862, and the Restored Government of Virginia made the claim of being the true legislature of Virginia (Upheld, again, by the Federal government), they had every right to create West Virginia from Virginia.

At what point did the Virginia legislature give its consent to the Wheeling Conventions?

Or are you arguing that the Restored Government of Virginia was the legitimate government of the entire state, and could therefore give its consent to WV's secession?

Yes.

[Infected Mushroom]

Confederates.

They fought to defend their lands from the Northern army and for State's Rights.

state's rights aka slavery.

its not the same thing

[Distruzio]

... I'd settle for that.

ex. Why should the northeast have to go without universal healthcare because southern people don't want it?

We're better off economically, together, though.

It's likely my own personal bias but I, tentatively, disagree on that particular issue. But, again, it is a tentative.

[Conserative Morality]

An oligarchy ruling over a biracial system of slavery is like as antithetical to nationalism as one could get.

If the Confederates were white nationalists, they would have deported all of the slaves and stopped screwing over poor Appalachians.

Right, and if European aristocrats were actually advocates of the superiority of the noble class, clearly they wouldn't have participated in a thousand years of oppression of the lower classes. They would've just slaughtered the lot of them.

No, it was a feudal oligarchy where the wealthy, slave-owning few dominated the rest. In Europe, nationalism arose specifically to abolish these types of systems.

And in America, regionalism arose specifically to defend it.

[Distruzio]

Confederates.

They fought to defend their lands from the Northern army and for State's Rights.

You're confusing secession for states rights. The two aren't the same. It was the Northern states arguing against a southern dominated Union government in favor of states rights.

Southern states rights claptrap came about after the war.

[Benuty]

The only true side is that of their majesty Emperor Maximilian of Mexico, damn French couldn't accept the need for a moderate imperial government nor could those treasonous aristocrats who thought it better to create an oligarchy under the "republic".

Oh wait wrong civil war thread.

[Othelos]

Sorry bud. You guys are both wrong. Midwest is where it's at :p

I'm from California, but I absolutely love the Midwest. Probably the best part of America. It doesn't have the hicks and blacks of the South, the hipsters and Mexicans of California, nor the smelly people of New Jersey and Philadelphia :p

(sarcasm before anyone kills me^)

The Midwest just has regular people :)

what do you define as 'regular'

[Anglo-California]

... I'd settle for that.

ex. Why should the northeast have to go without universal healthcare because southern people don't want it?

We're better off economically, together, though.

We need more nation-building and centralization, to prevent petty regional conflicts again. The divide in America is not North vs. South. It is rich vs. poor, and rural vs. urban.

Rural Ohio has a lot more in common with rural Arkansas. Similarly, major Southern cities like Atlanta and Houston have more in common with the urban North.

[Conserative Morality]

^This. The CSA was despicable and oppressive but it was not white nationalist. They wanted cheap labor, which came in the form of black slaves. This is wrong, obviously, but is not comparable to violent racism like the KKK

Yes, much better.

The KKK was formed to preserve the racial system of the South, not to abolish it.

[New Frenco Empire]

Confederates.

They fought to defend their lands from the Northern army and for State's Rights.

You can drop the act. States Rights don't don't include puppy genocides and 24/7/365 Game of Thrones marathons.

[Othelos]

state's rights aka slavery.

its not the same thing

that was the main purpose they wanted it.

Just like nowadays they want more 'state's rights' so as to keep gay marriage and other laws enforcing equality out.

[Distruzio]

ex. Why should the northeast have to go without universal healthcare because southern people don't want it?

We're better off economically, together, though.

We need more nation-building and centralization, to prevent petty regional conflicts again. The divide in America is not North vs. South. It is rich vs. poor, and rural vs. urban.

Rural Ohio has a lot more in common with rural Arkansas. Similarly, major Southern cities like Atlanta and Houston have more in common with the urban North.

Indeed. A big issue for the Southern Nationalist crowd is how to deal with that fact. Not a few individuals clamored for the expulsion of our "mini-yankeelands" from a freed Southern Republic.