Russia attacks Ukraine

Yeah, but you can find historical records by the President of the Confederacy who actually defended the rights of individuals to own slaves.

African slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing. - Jefferson Davis

And the Vice President Alexander Stephenes pretty much explains the meaning behind the question of State Rights in his speech, where he "proclaims that slavery and white supremacy were not only the cause for secession, but also the “cornerstone” of the Confederate nation.

I mean it was also about slavery (no shit) but to say it was not also about states rights and the north having the industrial power is probably a misunderstanding of the issue due to being afraid of being called racist.
 
Yeah, but State Rights when you brake it down, what did it actually mean? The right to own slaves ...
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying slavery was the sole reason for the civil war. But State Rights pretty much was about slavery.

*Edit
It's when you look historically at it in the end the civil war was pretty much the only outcome. And infact it was not a new problem either. This conflict between states alowing slavery and states that gave up on the practise.

Jefferson kinda explained it pretty well with his quote, “But, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”
—Thomas Jefferson to John Holmes, (discussing slavery and the Missouri question), Monticello, 22 April 1820.[1]

So yeah. This States Right thing, pretty much was about the "right" of the states to decide for them self if slavery was allowed. And if South didn't want to keep on that practise, then they would have never seceded.
 
Yeah, but State Rights when you brake it down, what did it actually mean? The right to own slaves ...
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying slavery was the sole reason for the civil war. But State Rights pretty much was about slavery.

Why did they want to own the slaves? Why did the north not want them to own the slaves? Was it because "black people" or because "money" or something? It was about how the south had it's economy destroyed and never recovered and the North didn't really give a shit because they just fought a war for that VERY REASON.

Money not race. Nobody gave a fuck about black people and they still don't. They only care about money.

OH AND PUTIN IS PULLNG BACK BECAUSE HE HAS NO FUCKING CHOICE.
 
Why did they want to own the slaves? Why did the north not want them to own the slaves? Was it because "black people" or because "money" or something?
That's not the point. The motivation behind why some people wanted to keep slavery is a different discussion. But that doesn't change that State Rights pretty much meant to keep the practise of slavery for the south.
I never argued that the motivation behind keeping slavery was just one single cause. Not that it would really change much in my opinion.
 
That's not the point. The motivation behind why some people wanted to keep slavery is a different discussion. But that doesn't change that State Rights pretty much meant to keep the practise of slavery for the south.
I never argued that the motivation behind keeping slavery was just one single cause. Not that it would really change much in my opinion.

No that is my point. That is all I have to say on that. They went and turned wage slavery into THE THING. Now you have no choice but to work for the plantation no matter what color you are . What is your last name sir? Sorry you are not on the cherished bloodlines that are always rich. Go to the gulag we call Wal-Mart or maybe join the military or maybe raise our retarded kids but WHATEVER YOU DO you will not control your destiny. Wanna farm like Clarksons Farm? Got millions of dollars? Then you will be a wage slave on his farm instead. Have nice time. My back hurts. RUSSIA RUSSIA

Watched some Gorky Park last night but it's so goofy with the english speaking stuff. Hate it.
 
Nobody gave a fuck about black people and they still don't. They only care about money.
That's not true, sorry. There are countless of historical quotes, documents and records that show clearly that slavery was also justified by a deep believe of supremacy. Economic reasons did play a role of course, as the south heavily rellied on agricultural products and labour present by slavery. But even common people often expressed in varying forms their belief that black people have been inferiour. Even by those that did not support slavery. Remember, abolitionists have been seen as extremists(!) back then. That doesn't mean that the majority of people in the South have been potentially KKK members who just waited for their opportunity to kill some black folks or something. But back then racism was pretty common. Including the Northern States. And not just against black people for that matter - see how they treated the Irish, Chinese or many other minorities. Supremacy however was a part of Southern Culture back then.
 
That's not true, sorry. There are countless of historical quotes, documents and records that show clearly that slavery was also justified by a deep believe of supremacy. Economic reasons did play a role of course, as the south heavily rellied on agricultural products and labour present by slavery. But even common people often expressed in varying forms their belief that black people have been inferiour. Even by those that did not support slavery. Remember, abolitionists have been see as extremists(!) back then. That doesn't mean that the majority of peopel in the South have been potentially KKK members or something. But back then racism was pretty common. Including the Northern States. And not just against black people for that matter - see how they treated the Irish, Chinese or many other minorities. Supremacy however was a part of Southern Culture back then.

I'm sorry you bought the lie Crni. I won't attempt to educate you.
 
No I get it I have to spell it out. I can't say NOBODY (nobody is hyperbole of course) I have to say "THE PEOPLE THAT PROFITED FROM THE WAR DID NOT CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE AND THEY STILL DON'T." and maybe you will get what I am saying.

The funny thing is you agree because you hate rich people but you just want to say "Nah they were really wanting to free those slaves for justice" or something. No they used that as an excuse. Because that is how war and politics always works. Lincoln did not give a shit about the slaves either it's hilarious how the history has been twisted on this subject because people are afraid.

Oh no better not think about how they might have wanted to control all the industry up north where DC was since states in the south were talking about splitting all the time. Better think it was because "THOSE POOR BLACK PEOPLE" were being mistreated. Anyway talk about Russia because it's annoying hearing you Europeans talk about my Civil War with some pretension of infallibility.

Oh yes us here down south all just believe them niggers belong in slave camps oh yes sir. Oh yes us here down south all believe in da bible too. Whewie!
The generation Moth is talking about is dying. They are the boomers.

I think the notion that we freed the slaves because we were morally aware how wrong it was all of sudden to be funny because of the way we treated the American Indians.

a3c17280-b07c-11ec-bfdb-07635036a719.cf.webp


I had to post this pic somewhere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I will try to stay calm, because I think you're missunderstanding me (or my intention here), because a lot of the points you mention are not part of any argument I made.

So let me get a few things out :

1. At no point did I say economic reasons didn't play a role. Of course slavery was a big business. Of course slavery was about profit. But why couldn't it be both? Economic motivations and racism/white supremacy? It's far easier for people to justify a practise like slavery - even if it is a business - when they can explain it as "supremacy" or "gods will". Which both have been often used as a reason. And not only by the South, but also the British and many others that kept slaves.

2. I never made the claim that they (The North) freed the slaves because of some feeling of justice or what ever. No clue from where you got that idea - I actually said that people in the north have been pretty racist as well by the way. I also said that abolutionism was even during the civil war(!) an extremist view for its time. Like there are many historical events that show that people in the north did not had a particular love in "dying" for the liberty of the black man. Just saying.

3. What do you mean "twisted" history? There. Are. Actual. Historical. Records. The Civil War as a period, before, during the war and after the war, is really really well researched. You have many biographies, written correspondences, speeches, hell counltess of letters by "common" folk even, from soldiers to townfolk what ever. And historians have gone trough a lot of that stuff. It is possible to paint an accurate picture of the culture and ordinary people of that time. Be it from the north or south.

4. >>Oh yes us here down south all just believe them niggers belong in slave camps oh yes sir. Oh yes us here down south all believe in da bible too. Whewie!<<
Dude, you're feeling well? I think you forget who you're talking to. I am not one of "those" people. I never said anything like that nor do I believe that narrative. In fact, a lot of people in those rural communities in the South are much less extreme in their views than one would expect. The south today is not comparable with what it was during the 1950s or 60s. Not saying you believe I made that argument. Just wanted to clarify this.
 
[MEDIA]

Skip to about 2:00 to skip the bullshit, but he breaks this down pretty well. Has a bunch of other great videos on Civil War history and dispelling a lot of myths surrounding it.

Many in the South in the 1850's thought the North were pushing for the eventual abolition and emancipation of the slaves (they were. The Civil War inevitably brought it about even quicker than it normally would have however by given Lincoln a proper reason to introduce it sooner after the Battle of Gettysburg, but he had the Emancipation Proclamation written up BEFORE his Presidential inauguration. He knew that due to the political climate he would need a turning point in the view of the country on the matter to declare it properly, however - which would come in the form of one of the first major successes of the Union in the Eastern Theater under General Meade).

Southerners fought for many reasons. Were they fighting to defend their homes? Sure. Did many join after warcrimes perpetrated unto them by Union soldiers? Definitely. Did they genuinely believe in the doctrine of a Confederal republic and the devolution of central power into the hands of the states? Possibly, we know certain politicians did - this very thing had been an argument since the creation of the United States, going all the way back to Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson butting heads over the matter and eventually creating the very first political parties, the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans.

But a big one, THEE big one, was the fear of "servile insurrection". Their fear of emancipation, even Southerners who didn't own slaves feared emancipation would inevitably bring about a rebellion of the African and African-American born populace in the US, they had a term specifically for it - "Servile Insurrection". Basically they were worried about the slave populace starting a race war upon obtaining their freedom... which didn't happen and was absolutely absurd but that's how they thought.

I took History as a major whilst I was in college. A big favorite topic of mine had always been the Civil War, stemming back and originating from the war gaming days of my youth, as I had grown up playing games like Sid Meier's Gettysburg. My love for Civil War history would unfortunately, inevitably bring me into contact with expounders of the "Lost Cause" myth - a myth that the cause of the Confederate States of America and the rebels was a righteous one borne around the desire to live the way they wanted to live without being "oppressed" by the North, that slavery wasn't the purpose or a main cause of the war but rather an unfortunate byproduct that the Confederacy would have eventually done away with themselves anyways. That the CSA had every right to secede from the Union that the thirteen colonies had to secede from the British Crown, and the CSA's rebellion was just as legitimate as the American War of Independence. All myths.

By the way, I'm not aggressively liberal either. I'm actually further right leaning than I am left. Fuck, I'm RIGHT of right. And so I don't hold this opinion out of some blind adherence to left-wing politics that makes me want to condemn the Confederacy and anything that has anything to do with it. But that doesn't change the fact that the CSA was NOT a nation full of "good ole' southern boys who just want to be left alone by the damned tyrant Lincoln".

Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the CSA. Cornerstone Speech
Alexander Stephens said:
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.

The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics.

Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail.

That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech

This man was an evil bastard. And they made him the Vice President of the Confederacy.
 
Last edited:
Kinda reminds me to those situations where people said Ukraine looked funny at Russia. So Putin had to invade. To fight Ukranian agression.
 
from my knowledge a lot of the folk who are parroting the Neo Confederate crap and are openly defending the CSA while moonlighting as neo nazis are morons out in the west.
From my experience those people are larpers who got internet poisoning and are also into cat boys and other degeneracy and they should all be mocked, thoroughly.
 
From my experience those people are larpers who got internet poisoning and are also into cat boys and other degeneracy and they should all be mocked, thoroughly.
Exactly. And they are. By their peers in the west and by us in the south. Least i can say- Hey at least we aint that bad. I mean the south has a few hits against it but we've thrown that shit to the curb and dont embrace it anymore nor like folks who do. It feels nice to sit out on the lawn and drink beer and count cattle
 
It feels nice to FUCK YOUR SISTER YOU MEAN!? DEEEEEERRRRRRRR.
When the Boomers all die (not yet fam) we will see where the southern culture really stands.
 
It feels nice to FUCK YOUR SISTER YOU MEAN!? DEEEEEERRRRRRRR.
When the Boomers all die (not yet fam) we will see where the southern culture really stands.
Were you jabbing at me friend? We're not Alaska btw. Eh itd probably stand like nothing much changed as it is now in 2022. Still probably be a lot of fried and sweet foods and tea in mason jars. I dont see much changing except the boomers and hardcore morons who believed jim crow should be law dying out
 
Were you jabbing at me friend? We're not Alaska btw. Eh itd probably stand like nothing much changed as it is now in 2022. Still probably be a lot of fried and sweet foods and tea in mason jars. I dont see much changing except the boomers and hardcore morons who believed jim crow should be law dying out
No.
 
Russia did all of this to buffer up the Volgograd region, and they're not going to just slink back home after this "AH WELL, GUESS WE JUST LOST THEN :O" so yes, this will - somehow - sooner or later - end with territorial concessions. It might also end with tactical nuclear deployments, if ONLY to simply go "we take Donbass, even if we have nothing left but wheelbarrows and fire-crackers to fight with"
 
Back
Top