>lose civil war
>put under what is effectively occupation
>turn it around and reverse the situation with the federal government catering to your whims
how did they do it?
>lose civil war. >put under what is effectively occupation
>lose civil war
>put under what is effectively occupation
>turn it around and reverse the situation with the federal government catering to your whims
how did they do it?
Screeching and stamping you feet every time anything counter to your agenda comes up, pulling all the dubious shit when people loyal to you or too weak to oppose you happen to be in positions of power, and cultivating political cliques
>Screeching and stamping you feet every time anything counter to your agenda comes up, pulling all the dubious shit when people loyal to you or too weak to oppose you happen to be in positions of power, and cultivating political cliques
Sounds like Democrats never change
It's politics 101 fren.
Best post right here.
>"turn it around and reverse the situation with the federal government catering to your whims "
Examples?
Reconstruction failed as the Federal government allowed former confederates almost free reign in order to expediate unification. Later on you had laws enacted for the benefit of the south or due to the south
Republicans were hopelessly corrupt and inept largely dinosaurs living off of the winnings from the Civil War which were easily brushed aside by people posing as gentlemen but really just being bloodthirsty sycophants
it helps that immigrants after the war exploited sectional weaknesses in the north to weaken the republicans. Something something hubris
The US has a long history of immigrants moving into it's midwestern cities and turning them into corrupt mob run hellholes. There's one city near me where it was taken over by irish (the actual irish and not scots irish) and the Mayor was a huge publics works guy, Irish of course. Everybody know he owned the concrete factories in town and made all the concrete for all his public works and got paid for it. This is pretty common behavior with the irish
If there’s any ethnic/religious group that deserved to wiped from the face of the earth, it’s undeniably the Irish, cathcucks and protcucks alike. /misc/trannies cry about “muh jooz” but it’s clear who has done the greater damage
>Use the Irish to put down the South
>Surprised they take over the North afterwards
Northern WASPs are not very smart, are they?
>send thousands of Irish against the Scots-Irish South
Sounds pretty based to me
>surprised they take over the north after
Which states besides Mass, exactly? Because pre-civil war NY sent the Irish into mosquito-ridden swamps to die building the Erie Canal lmao
>Because pre-civil war NY sent the Irish into mosquito-ridden swamps to die building the Erie Canal lmao
Well that was a mistake, all my ancestors went west from there as far as Utah.
Instead of them all dying you ensured there would be a minority of Irish colonizing west.
>muh polygamists
>muh salt lake city
And now your ancestors legacy is the epitome of degenerate white people living in sin lmfao. A shame Smith ever made it out of NY alive
Solidarity.
They didn't. It's why they're still crying and threatening revenge.
It's always rather humorous seeing yankoids paint the southerners as the bitter party yet just about any time you see the war mentioned a yoid is the one who brought it up initially. Still subconsciously coping over how you lost more men to an enemy you outmanned and outgunned?
>the bitter cunts who still make a point of lionizing their failed rebellion like a cultural security blanket are actually the ones who are totally moved on with it and you dumb yanks are the ones who have a problem with letting go lol
This is a classic example of the psychological phenomenon of projection, class.
>how did they do it?
Terrorism and Assassination campaigns
The south was still poor and backwards until well into the 20th century when a lot of federal money started pouring into the region during the Great Depression. The one party Democratic south meant a lot of southerners had been in office for decades, chairing committes in Congress and steering disproportionate amounts of fedbux towards Dixie. This continued with WWII and the growth of the military industrial complex, accelerated with air conditioning making the region habitable. Reconstruction failed and the Lost Cause myth was accepted by all sides, but the south was the poor armpit of America until the modern era.
>was
It still is
when the north occupied the south they signed a bunch of loans on behalf of them, from this period until the 1920's they never got out from under the debt. It's a very little talked about period in history, the economic plundering of the south
actually a lot of the printed money that was supposed to go towards rebuilding the south during FDR went towards researching the nuclear bomb
>actually a lot of the printed money that was supposed to go towards rebuilding the south during FDR went towards researching the nuclear bomb
So money was taken from useless eaters and given to people who did actually something with it?
>they signed a bunch of loans on behalf of them
Source. Now.
Even northern industrialists said reconstruction was a "vindictive, abusive, corrupt political racket"
three leading (Northern) historians on reconstruction all claim
"the (Republican) party ignored presidential vetoes, court rulings, took the vote away from whites and gave it to blacks, formed puppet governments run by Republicans pollical operatives, and USED THIS TO PLUNDER THE TAXPAYERS OF THE SOUTH FOR MORE THAN A DECADE AFTER THE WAR ENDED."
Those a pro-northern sources
I’m talking about the loans retard, now prove it
"The expenses of the governments were largely increased; offices were multiplies in all departments; salaries were made more worthy of the now regenerated and progressive commonwealths; costly enterprises were undertaken... The result of all this was promptly seen in an expansion of the state debts and an increase of taxation that to the property-owning class were appalling and ruinous."
northerner source
>northerner source
I don’t doubt you. Why are you insisting on being such a disingenuous homosexual?
because I don't care if you believe me or not
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning_School
>The views of the Dunning School dominated scholarly and popular historical depictions of the era from about 1900 to the 1930s
must be some "lost cause myth"
Holy kek I knew it
you knew from 1900 to the great depression everybody in the north considered reconstruction a failure and a crime? Meant to extract wealth from a glorified colony?
I knew you weren’t revealing your source because you’re a dixoid retard who had to go all the back to the fucking 1900’s to fulfill his need for some confirmation bias. Lol, lmao even
>the south was the poor armpit of America until the modern era.
Ironically the South created every single thing that made America culturally unique
>bourbon
>barbecue
>jazz
>rhythm and blues
>cowboys (Texas)
Yankees while cry about this but the South is literally the only reason America has a distinct identity and isn't a cultureless void like Canada.
>>jazz
and blues
(Texas)
Literally none of these are specific to America, lmao. I love when burgers try to claim fucking barbeque specifically as their culture, as if every human culture doesn't do this. Do you claim breathing as American culture too, Tyrese??
Where tf are the non-American cowboys?
He meant the Mexican vaqueros and South American gauchos
Southerners are stupid but northerners are even more stupid for sparing them and tolerating.
Literal domestic terrorism from both southerns and northern sympathizers. President Grant did try to stop their killing of federal troops and lynching of africans by creating the department of justice, but the constant infighting within his administration for petty reasons caused the federal government to give mass political concessions to southern states after his presidency.
The guy who would've reigned in the south was shot in a theater, and his VP was a Confederate sympathizer due to a retarded rule they had back then that your VP had to be your political opposite
Lincoln would have fallen in line and done the same thing as party leadership
it's actually beneficial that he was assassinated to the Union and probably his greatest political contribution to the US that he died a martyr and not remembered for his actual goals
>Reconstruction failed as the Federal government allowed former confederates almost free reign in order to expediate unification. Later on you had laws enacted for the benefit of the south or due to the south
No wonder why they're so bitter
>Get trillions in free labor
>Remain dirt poor
Wtf??? What did they spend the money on???
Importing British/Northern manufactured goods because they were too retarded to ever build their own industries like the North did. Jefferson straight up says we should have an educated aristocracy ruling class, “muh yeomans” (which was always a slim minority of a ‘middle class’ to separate the planter class from the unwashed masses) and virtually no industry. Just agriculture.
Call southern aristocracy insane but they believed that an agrarian society was more virtuous than an industrial society. That said the profit they grew out of the ground dwarfed northern exports who were still in the old colonial regiment of cod and furs. So they were actually far wealthier than northern colonies, money which was eventually taxed away by the north and used for general northern corrupt bargains. The north didn't even have any industry until the crown forced them to start building ships. The north didn't even have textiles for another 90 years after that. So literally after independence is the only point where you start to see the north slightly edge in front of the south economically. And this is with even the crown acknowledging how wealthy the colonists had gotten and trying to tax away their wealth for 140 years. Even then the south were considered crown loyalists until their secession. Even then they held out hope for Britian intervening in an obviously ill fated and ill initiated brother war but they turned up their nose. That was probably when the colonial south died spiritually, if not due to the scorched earth policies and reconstruction
>muh tobaccy
Wow what a revelation that using free labor to produce a monoculture on a par of demand with sugar will create huge profits for the minority that owns all the land. Please tell me more
>The north didn't even have any industry until the crown forced them to start building ships.
And the South never did. You’re also overlooking the century-long depression that occurred between 1676 and 1776 following Bacon’s Rebellion/King Philip’s War. The entire eastern seaboard became overly reliant on Britain post-76 because literally none of the colonies could do without British supplies yet, let alone also field an army strong enough to hold the Indians at bay.
>That was probably when the colonial south died spiritually
Couldn’t have happened to a worse system. The South tried (and succeeded, if you consider sharecropping as one step above slavery) dragging feudalism into the latter half of the 19th century and rightfully got BTFO’d for it.
The south didn't allow poor destitute thugs and brigands to take of their city like the north, so land ownership was much higher. It's probably hard for a retard like yourself to understand how mass immigration into your urban center kills the city.
Actually the north was embarrassingly un-stratified having much larger differences in wealth because of their propensity for illegal immigrant labor.
Imagine trying to pretend the north was more virtuous than the south on wealth disparity alone when it was actually far worse in the north!
Absolute moron
>it’s another “b-b-b-but the North” deflection post because d*xoids can never admit the South was Haiti 2.0 in the middle of the 19th century while the rest of the civilized world had long since moved on
Lol, lmao even
Well you lied about the south being poor when not only were they usually beating the north in profit and the quality of living was actually higher
you're the one who is emotional
>b-b-but the aristocracy was rich at least!!!
And that’s a good thing… why?
Profiting off of free nagger labor and indentured WHITE laborers is not a “morally superior” system you retard.
>the quality of living was higher
Yeah if you were one of the aristocrats lmao. Otherwise you were a) an indentured laborer hoping to not die before you were free, b) a slave, or c) a “free” farmer caught between losing 50% of your fortunes to taxes for the aristocrats that were exempt, and the other 50% to the Indian attacks that your government refused to do anything about despite taking your tobacco for forts that they never built. See picrel, homosexual. Try educating yourself for once
>n-no you!!!
Pathetic
>lie about the south's wealth
>BUT THE BLACKS
>this isn't about the blacks
>BUT THE ARISTOCRACY
There have been many in depth studies into the south on a state by state basis and it economic development and they have found in no state was there a lack of a robust middle class. Even in absolute shitholes like Louisiana that even Lincoln left a slave state during occupation out of fear of its collapse had a burgeoning middle class. It's a myth
>they have found in no state was there a lack of a robust middle class
This was true of the North as well and they had a bigger middle class because there was a degree of social mobility.
>the south didn't have social mobility
what's next, are you going to claim they floated around on carpets? this is getting a bit ridiculous, are you just going to keep throwing out libtard buzzwords and saying the south didn't have it without actually knowing if that's true or not
>There have been many in depth studies
Link them then
>Louisiana
Thanks to the fucking Mississippi river. Goddamn can’t you d*xoids ever stop being disingenuous homosexuals?
>wealth disparity doesn't count because we don't count the farm equipment as people
Actually it does, and the South still had a giant underclass of poor farmers and laborers even without counting slaves who weren't paid anything. It's rich to hear a moral argument supporting the wealth disparity from a slave state. 25-35% of the population didn't even get fucking paid, which skews the income disparity so hard you literally cannot deny that the South had a worse income disparity. Profits are easy when you don't have to worry about your workman's wages beyond feeding them cast offs and housing them in shacks.
>if you lie
Not that anon
>not a good look
Says the retard carrying the torch of slavers and trying to argue a moral superiority in wealth disparity
Tell me, is 1 more than 0?
Oh, it is? Then the South was not more virtuous in regards to wealth disparity.
>the south wasn't economically because of slavery
>okay how does that make sense
>well it only makes sense if you consider every slave an underpaid worker
So your assertion that the south was poor actually has no basis in reality
>So your assertion that the south was poor
I never made that assertion, retard.
I didn't say there was no social mobility in the South, dipshit. There was more in the North, though.
>muh libtards
Lmao brainrotted homosexual
your ignorance of southern society before the civil war does not validate your belief that there wasn't a society
>social mobility
Do you consider land ownership the highest degree of social standing? Or are you an urbanite that deifies doctors and minstrels?
Because you could go from a literal shit eating European peasant to a landowner in about 5 years in the south if you put in the work, making you a citizen too. And they only took young people, the average age was like 23. So you're ripe marring age and have the knowledge of farming and the largest deposit of arable earth on this planet before you. I mean, that seems like social mobility to me.
They called those people Yeoman, a name dating from the 14th century.
>Yeoman Archer is a term applied specifically to English and Welsh military longbow archers (either mounted or on foot) of the 14th-15th centuries. Yeoman archers were commoners; free-born members of the social classes below the nobility and gentry. They were a product of the English form of feudalism in which the military duty of a knight to his lord (which was implicit in tenure feudalism) was replaced by paid, short-term service. By negating the tactical advantage of large numbers of cavalry (mounted knights and men-at-arms) with their ability to rapidly fire volleys of arrows, Yeoman Archers are considered part of the Infantry Revolution of the 14th century.
"It is full little courtesy," said the potter.
"As I have heard wise men say,
If'n a poor yeoman come driving over the way,
To hold him on his journey."
"By my troth, thou says truth", said Robin.
"Thou says good yeomanry;
And though thou go forth every day,
Thou shalt not be held by me."
If you weren’t a disingenuous retard you’d know that by Jefferson’s time the yeomen of Virginia were a very, very small minority among the general population. The majority of whites were indentured servants or just straight-up left Virginia for Kentucky, Tennessee, etc. BECAUSE there was no land left to have among the tidewater and piedmont plantations. There’s a reason West Virginia forcefully threw off the tidewaters chains on them the moment they had a veritable chance.
That's a myth, one that goes along with the myth that there was no middle class in the south (which is the exact same as saying there were no yeoman).
Even in Louisiana, the darkest blackest shithole in the US only the cotton fields were near 100% slave owners. And the parish right next to it which was perfect for cotton? Diversified crops and only 37% of the landowners owned a slave. There's your middle class, right next to the planters, even using land that the planters could use better themselves for profit.
But ultimately agriculture did consolidate in places like it is want to do, usually during massive recessions. In the 1830's the north's for profit agriculture collapsed because of the cheap and fertile farms in the midwest so that all the farmland was bought up by dairy producers or what have you
>there was no middle class in the south (which is the exact same as saying there were no yeoman).
No one is claiming this you homosexual. You’re just proving you have no leg to stand on.
You also never answered me here
about “muh in-depth studies” because you clearly can’t.
I'm literally reading from a study on Louisiana right now on this exact issue
In the sugar producing parishes the percentage of slaveholders was
also high. In Ascension Parish 47 per cent of the agricultural heads of
families were slaveholders
Only 47% of the sugar producers owned a slave?! What the fuck? In Louisiana? The most "evil" form of slave farming known to man in the Caribbean?
Those white people must have been slaves, or had been fooled in some way, there's no profit in growing sugar yourself.
>I'm literally reading from a study
Fucking link it then you homosexual. But you won’t because you’re not. You’re just a contrarian retard.
Hey at least I have a source, you were literally lying, now it's my fault you were lying? Are you 8 years old?
Holy fuck are you ever pathetic.
>have complete ignorance of southern antebellum culture
>state factually wrong things about them being poor and backwards
>move goalposts to "they were mean to blacks"
>move goalposts to there was greater wealth disparity
>move goalposts to there was no middle class
>get proven wrong every time
>get mad that I have a source
pathetic?
0/10 you zoomers have no idea how to troll
I wouldn't call your schizoid delusions trolling
Post your “source” already cunt
>still no source
Pathetic
>your belief that there wasn't a society
No one said there wasn't one you absolute cretin
>Imagine trying to pretend the north was more virtuous than the south on wealth disparity alone
A large underclass of slaves ruled by a planter aristocracy is far more of a moral blight upon a society than a large underclass of laborers.
At least the North paid them, poor wages as they were. This is without taking into account the dirt farmers who didn’t even have slaves in the South.
Slaves aren't the humans we're talking about here, we're talking about white people. I assume you're a white person? If not you probably shouldn't talk about the subject.
If you lie about the south's performance and when this is pointed out you start crying about nignogs that's not a good look
>muh whites
If all you /misc/trannies were rangebanned as of yesterday this boards quality would skyrocket. You will never have an ethnostate, have sex, be a woman, etc. etc. you chinless genetic waste
>yankoids
D*xoids can’t meme
The reality is both sides were cringe and the US federal state system was doomed to be destroyed no matter who one. Literally greedy merchants led by a moralizing tyrant vs wannabe aristocrat slavers determined to conquer more land full of brown people to collect like pokemon. Further more there was a never any real chance this conflict was going to be side stepped or resolved peacefully prior to the of outbreak of true war, the South and North had been functionally separate societies at odds with one another since before the revolution not to mention all the smaller subdivisions or the mid Atlantic. The moment they started running out of easy land to take they turned on each other like animals put into a competitive environment of limited resources. The only thing keeping the peace for so long was the giant empty continent full of natives so far behind technology it was only a matter of time until they were subdued.
The North made the right choice just as did the South, both wanted to be king of the continent, both want their culture and society to become the basis for the future of the northern new world. It just turns out that factories and rail lines all made to the same gauge are more helpful in a war than millions of slaves constantly at risk of rebelling.
Every other country in the world managed to end slavery peacefully, the north just wanted to push the issue because they couldn't afford to pay the south and fund their colonization of the west. So rather that put themselves at a disadvantage with the south to stay as a union they just crushed them
Based
Fuck slavers
Wow that's anti-semitic!
Anglos only embarked on their supposedly good hearted campaign so there was a wider consumer base for their manufactured goods anyway, just look at how there were brits living/working in borderline inside the wealthiest empire on Earth and not a single shit was given about slavery in places like the muslim world (because they didn't have as much potential as customers)
>in borderline slavery*
That was one of the posts of all time
>Wow that's anti-semitic!
Good
>Anglos only embarked on their supposedly good hearted campaign so there was a wider consumer base for their manufactured goods anyway
Cope based on speculation.
>just look at how there were brits living/working in borderline
Why the fuck would I listen to a word you say if you cant even construct a sentence?
>inside the wealthiest empire on Earth
Holy shit dude. Poor people exist. Guess slavery is totally kosher and not a symptom of a failed society.
>and not a single shit was given about slavery in places like the muslim world (because they didn't have as much potential as customers)
They are routinely called savages for the practice and had the US Navy deployed to destroy them after they kept fucking around the Mediterranean
lmao, he's right and you're a complete fucking idiot. The other major slave destination was Brazil and the monarchy worked for decades to make it possible to abolish slavery (which was much harder in a rural country) and even after many years of both the government working towards that and British pressure there was still a military coup that installed a republican dictatorship after slavery was finally ended (and that's in a country where mulattoes and such were much more integrated in society than in the US). Those loyal to the monarch even offered to fight but he said he didn't want to spill brazilian blood and decided to simply concede. Then the country was under a dictatorship for years following decades of an oligarchic government which was more or less what dixie aristocrats might do if they had the helm. If you call that a peaceful end....
>the South was... LE POOR
No it wasn't. You had poor illiterate peasants with names like tanner and Carter becoming self made men in just a few years. Andrew Jackson was born in a dirt cabin and became a wealthy reputable plantation owner. This same pattern is found across the South. Southern men who wanted work could just get free money basically by becoming an overseer or a slave hunter
Southern society was incredibly propserous
>aristocracy is… LE GOOD!!!
Southern “men” aren’t men, they’re just the cuckolded slaves of someone else.
YE HAW
When people think America they think Dixie.
Representative democracies aren't good at oppressing large, politically active groups because the opposition party or parties can get a lot of votes by advocating for their interests.
Southern whites were the majority in most of the South, were organized, and had an expectation of political participation.
In addition there was effectively no political will to permanently hold down the south with troops or enact harsh reprisals on former confederates.