>>17450379
>But even then, why wasn't "treason" and the charge of being a "traitor" used much in the civil war?
???

Because the north wanted to ensure a large-scale insurgency wouldn't pop up in the south. In the eyes of northern leadership, executing high ranking confederate officers/politicians for treason would just create martyrs. Obviously we all saw how reconstruction turned out, so I think the north should've just taken the kids gloves off

>>17450715
>here’s proof it was on the lips of everyone, one stamp
>>17450748
It was because they weren’t actually traitors.
>>17450379
Not really.
People throw around “traitor” today in an attempt to disassociate the South with their American heritage as a way to rehabilitate the American image in a shitskin friendly way, it allows them to say “no America wasn’t a racist White supremacist state, that was the treacherous confederacy”.

If you’re not a White American pulling for White Americans to be the majority and sole rulers of America you don’t get a voice.
Simple as. If you’re not on my team. We do not need to entertain anything you say.

>>17450754
>White Americans to be the majority
By that logic, weren't the confederates the ultimate traitors? They wanted a large slave class to do their bidding, many of the northerners just wanted to send them back to africa

>>17450748
>Obviously we all saw how reconstruction turned out, so I think the north should've just taken the kids gloves off
So they should have made what happened during Reconstruction a million times worse? Fucking retard
The nation was also financially ruined by that point - the government didn't have the money to keep troops in the South, the public didn't want to keep paying war-level taxes, and most of all, the soldiers wanted to go the fuck home not babysit the backwater white savages that made up the populace of the South

>>17450838
Would've cost no money to kill that retard Jefferson Davis

>>17450754
>People throw around “traitor” today in an attempt to disassociate the South with their American heritage as a way to rehabilitate the American image in a shitskin friendly way, it allows them to say “no America wasn’t a racist White supremacist state, that was the treacherous confederacy”.
No, they're traitors because they violated the terms of the Constitution in favor for a return to the Articles of Confederation (hence "Confederate") because they were butt mad over being economically outmoded by the irrelevance of slavery, and the moral disgust toward the institution.

>>17450983
> they violated the terms of the Constitution
The charges, officer?

>>17450379
>AWAY DOWN SOUTH
IN THE LAND OF TRAITORS
RATTLESNAKES AND ALLIGATORS

Is this a b8 thread?

>>17450764
Dixoids can't mentally process the fact that the Confederacy was the only thing keeping the nigger issue alive. The entire black population of the US would have been something like a 1/4, at best, if Southerners hadn't turned breeding and selling them into the most profitable industry in the US.

>>17450896
Waste of a bullet. He was already deathly ill and lived every day in agony even when in power.
I'd put that bullet between McClellan's eyes for dragging the war out beyond a year with his cuckoldry in the Penninsula Campaign. Spent more time writing home to his wife about how big Lee's "army" was and how badly he wanted to get fucked by it than actually leading his men.

>>17450379
Not really. One of the interesting things I found while looking through old newspapers was an 1867 editorial about the war and its rationale. Basically, many northerners saw the war as a dispute over 'disunion.' Not 'treason,' which was a much more loaded term.

>The State is White

>July 27, 1867 - THE HARTFORD TIMES, Connecticut, Editorial

>The above motto is significantly put forth in capitals in the Hartford Times in referring to the late elections, and these three simple words contain a platform of principle within themselves. "The State is White." If we could divest the whole question now before the country of all extraneous matter, and just get this simple platform before the people, we might hope for deliverance. For six years a party has been working with all the power they could command, to blacken or mongrelize the country. The people most directly affected resisted, but unfortunately in resisting, set up the issue of disunion.

>Thousands who would not have fought to niggerize the country, felt compelled to resist that effort. That phase of the question is now past, but still this party is just as fierce to carry out its amalgamation ideas as ever. Indeed, fiercer, for now they assume that because large masses of the Northern people supported them in the war, to prevent disunion, they are equally as earnest in a desire to niggerize the country.

>This we doubt, and indeed, we feel sure, if the real question could be put before the people, "Do you desire this to be a white or mongrel country?" the result would be an overwhelming verdict for a white country. Can we not get the issue simplified to this? Let us lift the Democratic party out its old ruts, as seems to have been the case in Connecticut, and combine all who want a White country on one side, and all who want a Mongrel country, like Mexico, on the other. The White party would sweep into power like a whirlwind.

>>17451199
>I'd put that bullet between McClellan's eyes for dragging the war out beyond a year with his cuckoldry in the Penninsula Campaign.
But the siege of Petersburg was perfectly fine, right?

>>17450764
No? They were a White majority country with White supremacist laws.
even if the slaves were citizens (they werent) the country was still Whiter than America is today.
>Northerners wanted them to go back
still do.
>>17450983
>the terms
The constitution isnt a contract, and so what? We dont worship a document, its not a suicide pact.
I understand Lincoln's proto-National Socialism but at the same time, in hindsight, would have been better to let the South go or at the very least hang all abolitionists and bribe/coerce/implore the Southern Elite to join the American national project.
The South hasnt benefitted us, it wasnt industrialized, it was very poor, their elites were very poor, they retained the original American mode of economy (like a living past), and they could serve as a strong buffer state easily influenced by their wealthier more populous neighbor.
Also, just imagine NYC, Chicago, LA without non-Whites.
Peak VGH.
>slavery was outdated
so what?
>moral disgust
sensationalism from a vocal minority.
no one actually fought to end slavery.
>>17451193
>dixoids
where?
Who?
>I am racist like you
You're not racist.
Stop pretending to be racist.
>The US would have been 1/4 black
how? How are they going to get citizenship in the Union if the South is allowed to secede?
The blacks stay in the Confederacy and the Confederacy was a White supremacist White majority state.
>it would have gone like Brazil
Brazil wasnt run by White supremacist Anglo-Saxons.
>most profitable industry in the US
The Grain industry was more profitable than ALL slave output combined.
You dont know this because you dont actually know anything about the era.

>>17451199
>its McClellan's fault his own side cut his supply lines because he was a heckin democrat

I will never understand why shitlibs dont capitalize on this, such an easy victory.
>Rethuglicans, Sabotaging the march of progress since 1861
and then have a picture of Union Soldiers marching behind a General carrying a flag that says McClellan 3, Lee 0 and in the background its the Republican elephant giggling while pushing an "AMMO" cart off a bridge into the Potomac river.

You animals should pay me for that.

>>17450379
Most people just called them rebs or secessionists.