- This topic has 137 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 1 week ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Why did the Confederacy wait until the last minute to grant emancipation in exchange for military service to any of their slaves?
There were 3.5 million slaves in the South. Just 1% of that in manpower would have brought Robert E. Lee to roughly equivalent numbers to Grant during the Appomattox Campaign.
-
They almost rioted even at that point. Most Southerners would rather lose than free blacks themselves.
-
No blacks didn’t care. There were a lot of black soldiers they just didn’t see combat because it was all north.
-
The Whites were rioting. And blacks were fighting for the North. You don’t understand history.
-
scrotebrain, incoherent reply.
-
-
-
-
Because the whole point of the war was to stop Haiti 2.0, and giving blacks guns was just accelerating the start of Haiti 2.0. When it came out to the public that blacks would be armed there were mass desertions and what remained of any resolve to resist the Union was extinguished because at this point there was little difference between the Confederacy and Union in policy.
-
But the entire civil war was fake. It’s refuted by demographics.
Blacks didn’t care or do anything nor did anyone. It was literally a nonevent.-
[…]
Where are you getting this argument from? Open to hearing it, but have absolutely no idea what you’re referring to. Are you saying Gettysburg etc didn’t happen?
-
No physical evidence
-
Can you make the argument? What do you mean by demographically impossible?
What about all the photographs? Shell damage inside buildings, etc?
-
-
He’s a schizo that sages threads by spamming incoherent garbage and regularly gets banned
-
-
-
Not just fear of armed uprising, southerners saw themselves as a knightly class defending the established order. They saw themselves as the greatest warriors in history, and that blacks were subhumans too feeble minded for good soldiering. Their entire worldview comes crashing down when they start arming blacks to fight
-
The North thought the same way. Hating blacks was universal
-
The elites didn’t, and they’re the ones whose opinion matters.
-
>The elites didn’t
Yes anon, everybody hated blacks back then.-
Except for all those pesky abolitionists who were extremely organized and active in the 1850’s.
[…]
Yes, I understand this, it’s a form of race woke af welfare that gives obscene profits to the well connected, keeps poor whites propped up economically and culturally, and requires continuous expansion in order to maintain. The south wasn’t revolting because Lincoln was coming to take away their slaves, they revolted because he was halting the westward expansion of slavery, and they could see the writing on the wall and knew that it would mean the end of their lifestyles
-
Slavery was never profitable. It lost money. You’re literally a scrotebrain.
-
Those weren’t distributed evenly, and that’s the point: it enriches a well connected minority and impoverished the rest. Also, your calculations fail to note the fact that slaves breed more slaves for free (even go breed themselves and sell their own children into slavery), and that they could make a profit selling new slaves to new slave plantations being created out west. It was a giant Ponzi scheme
Lies
Slavery was being kept alive as a zombie institution that was like the agrarian version of corporate welfare for plantation owners. Meanwhile, anti-slave militias functioned as a type of workfare for poor whites, meaning that no matter how down on their luck they had fallen, they could maintain their lifestyle by grabbing their gun and horse and joining an anti-slave militia and make a respectable fee returning runaway slaves. That’s to say nothing of the middle managers, traders, overseers, and bean counters employed by an industry which overwhelmingly dominated the economy, and the associated tradesmen and service sector jobs benefiting from the stolen wealth funneling into their communities
-
Can you name one prominent abolitionist that wasn’t a crackpot christian that genuinely wanted to end slavery out of sympathy for blacks that wasn’t some sort of socialist?
-
Yes, I know your impulse is to dismiss them as radical socialists and crackpots. That’s why you’re pulling shit out of your ass
You don’t pay the slaves in food, you make them grow their own
-
So you understand, the only abolitionists that pretended to care about blacks were socialists. Most abolitionists however were religious crackpots that feared retribution from God
-
Abolition was associated with the back to Africa movement.
-
Many people who weren’t abolitionists wanted to ship blacks out of the country, what’s your point? You think they liked blacks?
-
President John Quincy Adams, Cassius Clay, Elizabeth Van Lew, and John C. Frémont.
-
What
-
Those are abolitionist who weren’t John Brown-tier schizos.
-
Slavery for Van Buren was purely political, same with Lincoln. They both "supposedly" became radicalized after the Mexican American war because of how much territory it would have given to the South if they didn’t intervene. That’s schizo tier.
-
>allegedly
Allegedly you’re still just inventing narratives. In all of Lincoln’s private correspondences he detested slavery and compared it to his childhood spent toiling away on the neighbor’s farm just so his old man could have more beer money -
>In all of Lincoln’s private correspondences he detested slavery
Before or after secession -
Literally his entire life. He had to moderate himself early in his political career until he realized that there was no point in trying to convince hicks from the backwoods of Illinois of his ideas, and decided that they needed a larger platform
-
>you see he was actually SECRETLY an abolitionist the whole time!
Uh huh -
>the evidence doesn’t exist because I don’t believe that it exists
Go read a book -
post evidence of him being an abolitionist before being a politician
-
Look, I know that you’re just a pathetic dixiecuck who feels entitled to the sweat of another man’s brow, but I’m not doing your homework for you. Go read a book, go do a google search, all you need is to put in the minimal effort and you can find out for yourself.
-
post evidence
-
>reeeeee give me your labor scrote!
No, fuck off scrotebrain -
Is it because there is no evidence
-
Nah, you’re just too damn lazy to do your own research and want life spoonfed to you because you have the intellectual and emotional capacity of a toddler
-
Why are you so mad? Are you black?
-
Because your willful stupidity is loathsome and you’re besmirching the honor of a great American because you think everyone deep down is as much a deceitful liar as you are
-
Can you name one instance of Lincoln commenting on slavery negatively before he was a politician?
-
No, because I’m not close to my bookshelf right now, but even if I was, I already told you that I’m not doing your homework for you. There are endless books written about Lincoln’s life. Go read one
-
>No
Then why did you claim to have that knowledge -
I’m not here for your instant gratification
-
You’re here to make unfounded statements apparently
-
I can’t fix stupid
-
I guess that means you’ll keep making up bullshit
-
I guess that means you’ll just keep being an entitled dixiecuck demanding everyone else do his bitchwork for him
-
-
You literally didn’t read, slavery was not profitable, it did not generate cash flow. It’s impossible to pay Slaves food and make profit on cotton. But whatever it collapses anyway. It barely lasted any time.
-
Actually you did read, you just phrased it differently. You probably could make money purely as a Ponzi scheme aspect where you didn’t actually need slaves.
-
-
-
-
Even abolitionists hated blacks. Most of them were just religious nuts who thought that Jesus would curse them if they let slavery continue. It wasn’t about blacks at all, they could have been arabs or natives.
-
Elaborate on the welfare idea
-
White mans burden. Slave owners were lawyers or had real jobs. Agriculture is overwhelmingly unprofitable in monetary terms and as soon as modern farming started it became subsidized. In the past agriculture was funded by other things or was for subsistence.
You cannot possibly profit of taxes or something else takes the profit.
-
-
-
Including the radical republicans? the idea that there was nobody who wasn’t racist is pure ignorance, it was pervasive, but there are also pervasive ideas in society today that will probably seem as awful in a decade, gay rights is one instance.
-
Even people that weren’t considered racist in the 1850’s would be considered a huge racist today
-
a garden gnome hadn’t invented the idea of "racism" yet. Everyone back then would take one look at africa and immediately know whats up.
-
Exactly my point
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
They were worried that arming freed slaves would either lead to slave revolts or just result in them defecting to the north at the first opportunity
-
[…]
[…]
Are you the same scrotebrain that goes into every other thread claiming that every single historical event was just made up?
-
You’re literally a scrotebrain. It’s literally demographically impossible. You’re just a spammer. But I mean you just act scrotebrained for attention and don’t matter.
-
He’s a holocaust worshipper trying to discredit holocaust denial by denying every events
-
He’s a garden gnome who perpetually seethes about Holocaust denial
-
I think its the GDP schizo, has the same types of arguments and graphs
-
-
-
Supply’s was the problem, not manpower. Same reason Germany didn’t recruit all the Ukrainians.
-
Cause their entire raison d’etre was slavery and white supremacy.
-
>give slaves guns
>slaves shoot you and run to Union linesThe only way this strategy could have worked would have been when the Confederacy still had the upper hand and the blacks had reason to believe they had more to benefit from siding with their masters than siding with their "liberators" (I use quotations because the vast majority of the Union Army were not interested in fighting a war to free the slaves) and requires at least the appearance that their masters are going to win.
-
Civil war was fake. Refuted by demographics.
-
Slaves were workers, with all the whites off fighting in the war they were needed in the fields more than ever. One of the main worries of plantation owners was that while they were away fighting in the war was that their slaves would hurt their wives and children
-
It’s a shame they didn’t, more Nat Turners would have been great.
-
Isn’t this the same problem Spartans had with the Helots? Thinking about it, Epaminondas’s solution of freeing and resettling the Helots is pretty similar to how the Union dealt with plantation slaves following the Emancipation Proclamation. Or even how Eumenes of Pergamon promised freedom to slaves that revolted against the Romans.
Serms like a fatal flaw shared between slave-centric societies.
-
Well the South was never supposed to be in total war with the North, the Spartans were a society built around conquest.
-
The south required westward expansion just to remain above water. They revolted because Lincoln put his foot down about there being no new slave states.
Spartans were also really reluctant conquerors because they knew the longer they remained away from their home territory, the more likely a slave revolt became
-
>The south required westward expansion
No it didn’t. I don;’t know where you heard that but it’s wrong-
Haven’t you ever heard of Bleeding Kansas? The Missouri compromise? Have you ever read anything about the election of 1860?
-
>Haven’t you ever heard of Bleeding Kansas
WORLD STAAAAAAAAR-
that’s not part of bleeding kansas, dipshit
-
woke af scrotebrain
>amerishart knows less about its own history than a foreigner
many such cases -
-
>foreigner thinks random bits and pieces are all of US history
scrote, that happened in Washington DC. Bleeding Kansas was in *Kansas* (and Missouri) -
You’re a triple dipshit, I’m legitimately astounded
You’re not only pig-ignorant but bat-blind
-
>any room with the word "kansas" in it is in Kansas
It was a stupid fight in Washington DC that just happened to take place at the same time, the Southerner didn’t even care about the issue being discussed and was just mad that the guy criticized his cousin for being a piece of shit. -
>w-well they weren’t physically IN Kansas…
lol this is no way to save face, scrotebrain
-
-
-
You said they required expansion, that’s not true.
-
Intensive agriculture had bonked the southern soil and was driving down crop yields, but southerners were maintaining their lifestyles by acting as middlemen shipping slaves to western territories
-
Cotton yields in the South continued to climb for over 50 years after the Civil War, you have no idea what you’re talking about
There was no requirement, expansion of slavery into the territories was protected by the constitution and law. Slavery being free to expand into the territories was expected by all, that’s why free soilers and abolitionists were fringe groups
-
>Cotton yields in the South continued to climb for over 50 years after the Civil War,
Yeah, it’s almost like they switched to more efficient agricultural techniques than forced labor -
Tennessee Valley was a devastated wasteland until the 40’s from the Civil War, they just farmed elsewhere.
-
>There was no requirement, expansion of slavery into the territories was protected by the constitution and law.
John Breckinridge literally ran on a platform of instituting a federal slave code -
I looked it up and that just meant he wanted to standardize it for territories before they became states, the old system had the sloppy territorial and local governments handling it all in a semi-official way. New states would still get to decide.
-
>just wanted to standardize it
Yeah, standardize territories as slave territories. What’s your empty, disingenuous point here
>New states would still get to decide.
Yeah, once they’d been overrun with slaveholders and slaves, dominating the small homesteaders and free farmers like they dominated their home states. And if they resisted, there’s always terrorism. The idea was to make ALL territories unattractive and basically unlivable for free-soilers, and keep them from attaining political majority.Popular sovereignty was never about leaving the political future of slavery to an even chance or popular whim. It was a program specifically intended and designed to extend, expand and secure slavery’s influence geographically and politically.
-
Why shouldn’t people have the right to decline to compete against slave labor?
-
>expansion of slavery into the territories was protected by the constitution and law
Except this absolutely wasn’t the case after the Kansas-Nebraska act was passed. That’s why there was considerable violence in Kansas to decide the issue of whether it would be a free or slave state. -
It allowed for popular sovereignty, for states to choose for themselves if they would be slave states.
-
I see what you’re trying to say, but I would argue against slavery being "protected." The Constitution didn’t protect slavery, the only thing protecting it up to that point was local/state legislation and on a larger scale the Missouri Compromise.
-
Slavery was protected, states could vote to be slave states. Keep in mind this was after Tammany Hall essentially broke the law and claimed California as a free state in 1850 because gold was discovered. (It was supposed to be a slave state by law under the Missouri Compromise). The Kansas Nebraska act actually abolished the protection of northern Louisiana purchase states from slavery and allowed the states there to become slave states if they so chose.
-
Yep, as usual the South got the better end of the deal but still sperged out and claimed victimhood. That whole era was about desperately appeasing those subhuman wiggers but they rebelled anyway.
-
Lincoln was elected because he was going to reverse the Kansas Nebraska act
-
And the south would still get to keep all their new freaking states, even if the bill passed. There were plenty of political solutions available but they sperged out, and never even asked to be allowed to secede peacefully and just started shooting at us. Bunch of dumb wiggers.
-
What new states? They gained no new states from the kansas nebraska act, slavery was just kept open as an option in the territories. Minnesota banned slavery and Oregon banned blacks from the state all together.
-
Missouri, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona. Why do they need more? Why is that worth starting a war over when the bill wasn’t even passed yet?
Politicians threaten shit they can’t do all the time, if Biden actually did what he said he would we’d be in a civil war right now.
-
The point is even though the Kansas Nebraska act passed congress ignored Kansas’ admission as a slave state three times. So even though the South basically gained nothing from it the North was still going to refuse to obey it. It wasn’t about slavery at that point
-
that’s just silly lol
-
How? Whigs collapsed after the Kansas Nebraska act because they supported slavery but proposed wildly different Federal level economic interference like massive subsidized railroads and steel, basically a ball of corruption. Democrats were a much more popular choice because the economy was doing great, this also meant that slavery’s support was stronger than ever, giving the South quite a big political reach. This caused a power vacuum where the only sort of party that could stand against the Democrats was a sectionalist one (meaning they survived on the differences between the North and the South). The Republican party, and Lincoln’s entire platform (Lincoln being a Whig), was to oppose the burgeoning Southern Democrat powerhouse and to deliver a corrupt government system that would subsidize american industries in the North. They of course accomplished this by strapping dynamite to the dam of slavery, swatting the slavery hornets nest, whatever allegory you want to come up with. Slavery was political, it was used to produce a sectionalist crisis to push corrupt business and and explosively expanding federal government.
-
too bad they didn’t care enough to just suck it up and let slavery die lol
-
Who?
-
-
The South "required" expansion to remain even in terms of delegates in the senate. When the Kansas-Nebraska act was passed, it completely changed this dynamic as states were allowed to decide the issue of slavery by popular sovereignty
-
It blows my mind that the south literally started a war because congress wouldn’t force other states to allow slavery on their behalf but people still say the war was somehow about "state’s rights".
-
Because it is a peoples history and thats about as little nuance as you can get
-
The Constitution of the Confederacy explicitly denied the right of any state to outlaw slavery.
They were dumb hicks who couldn’t be honest with themselves. -
>w-well they weren’t physically IN Kansas…
lol this is no way to save face, scrotebrainStop posting any time
-
-
This
is the simple explanation and the more complicated explanation is the "Ponzi Scheme" where they had to keep selling to scrotebrains who wanted to start plantations in new states to not go bankrupt with a useless system
-
-
Basically the whole of US politics for the previous 40+ years before the civil war centered around how new territories would handle slavery, when the compromise was broken shit hit the fan fast
-
-
Not that anon but the expansion of free states in the west would inevitably result in Congress being dominated by anti-slavery congressmen.
-
-
-
-
Aren’t you embarrassed to post pictures like that?
-
-
-
-
Hard to do that when your entire rebellion is predicated on slavery.
-
Because their entire society was predicated on the idea that blacks were a lesser race and would revolt if given the chance. It’s the same reason no Greek city state ever armed their slaves even if enemies were at the gates.
-
[…]
First post woke af post.
-
scrotes are completely worthless as soldiers. Even worse than the Chinese.
-
They were busy trying to get a population that was primarily made up of uneducated, low caste members to assimilate into their culture. What is mostly labeled racism today, is mostly paternalism. The paternalism of the south is hardly different from what the English had with the Scots. They had a duty to take time to educate and insure proper culture, rather than force policy change on the basis of BS geopolitical grounds hidden behind virtue signaling. Even when the yankee got his way the south (negros homeland) was destroyed, many freed blacks died in yankee camps (hundreds of thousands), and then instilled a culture of self hate along the way. The south simply had real foresight. It was also a legal practice at the time.
Idk
There was at least one all black volunteer battalion from LA that I know of, that was made up of the wealthier slave owning free black men.
-
nobody here denied the south has always loved scrotes and was attempting to turn the entire continent into one giant negro stud farm.
-
>Idk
-
>i-it was a paternal institution ok
>they were just educating the slaves for hundreds of years so they could free and integrate them
you’re only embarrassing yourself
>also they were allowed to
keep digging-
You’re just a child man. If you really have a base in history you would come down and try to understand what I’m saying. I shouldn’t have to discuss any further details.
-
>y-you just don’t understand
lol I understand Lost Cause bullshit and slavery romanticism perfectly well. You scrotes haven’t had new arguments or takes for the last hundred years, let alone since the last thread where lost cause scrotebrains got their asses crammed. as they do invariably, literally every day on this board-
"Blah blah blah I’m a stupid scrote."
Okay but why should we care -
lol
-
-
-
-
-
Racism, the confederate’s ardently believed in the propaganda line that was used to justify slavery, that blacks were inherently inferior and fit only for uncomplicated servitude.
-
They also believed the sky was blue and water was wet and other propaganda of that nature.
What they believed was enforced by what they saw every day all day long their entire lives, they weren’t "propagandized" into believing it.
-
You’re scrotebrained.
-
This is about propaganda from the jim crow era. Nothing you gave has anything to do with the attitudes southerners gained towards black people during the centuries of slavery.
-
Religion was often used in pro-slavery propaganda.
-
It was practically an entire war fought between moderate protestants and radical protestants.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Probably because the entire reason they left was because some aristocrats wanted to squeeze as much profit out of slavery as they could before it could no longer be extended, so trying to free slaves in exchange for military service would make the whole thing pointless, not helped by the fact they also went back on their word for free slaves a couple of times so now you have a bunch of soldiers whos loyalty to you is tedious at best especially after 1863.
-
Schizo thread
-
Racisim cripples a nation OMG. Simple as.
-
Imagine if nogs got the right say “we fought on both sides of the war” there would be no room for a distinctly White American identity which could not be twisted into a multiculti party.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.