NationStates

Communist Zombie Horde wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Imprison all the lefties too.

Thats well and good but between the south and lefties most of america will be in jail.

Conserative Morality wrote:I'd like to take a moment to remind everybody that Philip The Arab was a well-respected Emperor whose downfall was due to poor circumstances, that Julia Domna was the most revered Empress, MOTHER OF THE ARMY CAMPS, MOTHER OF THE FATHERLAND; and that her relatives and descendants were not discriminated against for being of Syrian descent. Roman ideas on the near east were fueled by the standard of divine kingship championed by the Egyptians, Seleucids, and Parthians.

Hanafuridake wrote:I'm not suggesting that Romans adhered to 19th century racialist notions of a biological threat, but that many of the themes of the Yellow Peril have similarities to Roman beliefs about an imminent Eastern threat to their culture and civilization. This can't fully be squared to politics alone because of Roman fears about emasculation and the alleged effeminacy of the Orient.

Hanafuridake wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:I'd like to take a moment to remind everybody that Philip The Arab was a well-respected Emperor whose downfall was due to poor circumstances, that Julia Domna was the most revered Empress, MOTHER OF THE ARMY CAMPS, MOTHER OF THE FATHERLAND; and that her relatives and descendants were not discriminated against for being of Syrian descent. Roman ideas on the near east were fueled by the standard of divine kingship championed by the Egyptians, Seleucids, and Parthians.

I'm not suggesting that Romans adhered to 19th century racialist notions of a biological threat, but that many of the themes of the Yellow Peril have similarities to Roman beliefs about an imminent Eastern threat to their culture and civilization. This can't fully be squared to politics alone because of Roman fears about emasculation and the alleged effeminacy of the Orient.

Bienenhalde wrote:

Communist Zombie Horde wrote:Thats well and good but between the south and lefties most of america will be in jail.

There are plenty of southerners who do not support the KKK and plenty of northerners who are not leftist. Or are you deliberately trying to offend everyone with your rubbish regional stereotypes?

Northern Davincia wrote:>fought defensively
>attacked Fort Sumter

Are you implying the KKK are patriots?

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
Who would be left? There's nobody left to rise after that.

Us good Americans who aren't lefties, KKK members, southerners, rich or politicians of course!

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Communist Zombie Horde wrote:I don’t think the lefties will be ok with that. Remember- terrorist organizations are fine if they say they are anti-racist.

Imprison all the lefties too.

Communist Zombie Horde wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:>fought defensively
>attacked Fort Sumter

Are you implying the KKK are patriots?

No- thats wrong. The civil war was not about blacks or slavery for the most part. It was all political and economic difference. The north wanted to make their money by factories and their industry while the south wanted to make their money by agriculture. The north wanted taxes and workers who would benefit their economy while the south wanted state autonomy to benefit their economy. Big government helped Yankees, small government helped Southerners. The south wanted to leave because of the north’s authoritarianism- but the north didn’t want that. With more resources, the North was bound to win. A quick attack was the only way to make sure the north didn’t have momentum. A war was bound to break out anyway. Lincoln laughed at it and didn’t take it seriously. Then he attacked. The whole war was fought defensively for the south. There was no threat for most the north of houses being burnt and property stolen and people murdered and brutally put down by occupation. The confederates were desperate and they had some good men. When I talk about these men, I mean the men who opposed slavery on a moral basis but were patriots- and knew the north shouldn’t shove around the south and take states rights. The south would have eventually abolished slavery and ended racism- but they didn’t want to after the north made them angry. Moral of the story is big government is always bad.

Genivaria wrote:

Communist Zombie Horde wrote:No- thats wrong. The civil war was not about blacks or slavery for the most part. It was all political and economic difference. The north wanted to make their money by factories and their industry while the south wanted to make their money by agriculture. The north wanted taxes and workers who would benefit their economy while the south wanted state autonomy to benefit their economy. Big government helped Yankees, small government helped Southerners. The south wanted to leave because of the north’s authoritarianism- but the north didn’t want that. With more resources, the North was bound to win. A quick attack was the only way to make sure the north didn’t have momentum. A war was bound to break out anyway. Lincoln laughed at it and didn’t take it seriously. Then he attacked. The whole war was fought defensively for the south. There was no threat for most the north of houses being burnt and property stolen and people murdered and brutally put down by occupation. The confederates were desperate and they had some good men. When I talk about these men, I mean the men who opposed slavery on a moral basis but were patriots- and knew the north shouldn’t shove around the south and take states rights. The south would have eventually abolished slavery and ended racism- but they didn’t want to after the north made them angry. Moral of the story is big government is always bad.

This is some mediocre fake history here.

Communist Zombie Horde wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:>fought defensively
>attacked Fort Sumter

Are you implying the KKK are patriots?

No- thats wrong. The civil war was not about blacks or slavery for the most part. It was all political and economic difference. The north wanted to make their money by factories and their industry while the south wanted to make their money by agriculture. The north wanted taxes and workers who would benefit their economy while the south wanted state autonomy to benefit their economy. Big government helped Yankees, small government helped Southerners. The south wanted to leave because of the north’s authoritarianism- but the north didn’t want that. With more resources, the North was bound to win. A quick attack was the only way to make sure the north didn’t have momentum. A war was bound to break out anyway. Lincoln laughed at it and didn’t take it seriously. Then he attacked. The whole war was fought defensively for the south. There was no threat for most the north of houses being burnt and property stolen and people murdered and brutally put down by occupation. The confederates were desperate and they had some good men. When I talk about these men, I mean the men who opposed slavery on a moral basis but were patriots- and knew the north shouldn’t shove around the south and take states rights. The south would have eventually abolished slavery and ended racism- but they didn’t want to after the north made them angry. Moral of the story is big government is always bad.

Communist Zombie Horde wrote:The south would have eventually abolished slavery and ended racism- but they didn’t want to after the north made them angry. Moral of the story is big government is always bad.

The Confederate Constitution wrote:(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

Communist Zombie Horde wrote:The south would have eventually abolished slavery and ended racism- but they didn’t want to after the north made them angry. Moral of the story is big government is always bad.

The confederate constitution prohibited that.

The Confederate Constitution wrote:(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

North German Realm wrote:

Communist Zombie Horde wrote:No- thats wrong. The civil war was not about blacks or slavery for the most part. It was all political and economic difference. The north wanted to make their money by factories and their industry while the south wanted to make their money by agriculture. The north wanted taxes and workers who would benefit their economy while the south wanted state autonomy to benefit their economy. Big government helped Yankees, small government helped Southerners. The south wanted to leave because of the north’s authoritarianism- but the north didn’t want that. With more resources, the North was bound to win. A quick attack was the only way to make sure the north didn’t have momentum. A war was bound to break out anyway. Lincoln laughed at it and didn’t take it seriously. Then he attacked. The whole war was fought defensively for the south. There was no threat for most the north of houses being burnt and property stolen and people murdered and brutally put down by occupation. The confederates were desperate and they had some good men. When I talk about these men, I mean the men who opposed slavery on a moral basis but were patriots- and knew the north shouldn’t shove around the south and take states rights. The south would have eventually abolished slavery and ended racism- but they didn’t want to after the north made them angry. Moral of the story is big government is always bad.

General Sherman didn't do enough, it appears.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

North German Realm wrote:General Sherman didn't do enough, it appears.

He did more than enough. The lost cause of the south spread after the war, and more violence against civilians wouldn't have stopped that.

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:

North German Realm wrote:General Sherman didn't do enough, it appears.

He did more than enough. The lost cause of the south spread after the war, and more violence against civilians wouldn't have stopped that.

Communist Zombie Horde wrote:

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:The confederate constitution prohibited that.

The csa wouldn’t have existed for long. It was going to end from the start. It was more of a political stunt than a real country.

Totally Not OEP wrote:I don't understand the obsession with Sherman as a Yankeeboo hero; him and Grant both were shit Generals that got lucky.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

Totally Not OEP wrote:I don't understand the obsession with Sherman as a Yankeeboo hero; him and Grant both were shit Generals that got lucky.

Strategy is just formalized luck, change my goddamn mind.

Totally Not OEP wrote:I don't understand the obsession with Sherman as a Yankeeboo hero; him and Grant both were shit Generals that got lucky.

Communist Zombie Horde wrote:

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Strategy is just formalized luck, change my goddamn mind.

Most of the Union’s generals.

Communist Zombie Horde wrote:

Totally Not OEP wrote:I don't understand the obsession with Sherman as a Yankeeboo hero; him and Grant both were shit Generals that got lucky.

Grant wasn’t even lucky. He just sent waves of troops to outnumber. It’s like the Soviet unskilled mob trope except actually true.