Wars, genocide, reparations, etc (split from recruiting forum)

#1,078
#1,078
Jackcrevol said:
I didnt say there werent racists in the North. I didnt say Lincoln wasnt a racist. I said he and the North did the right thing at the time. States dont or shouldnt get final say so. We dont or wont tolerate racisim or human rights abuses. That is why history remembers he and Union.
Click to expand...
If you reread your post you'll see that you did.
We shouldn't tolerate overt racism or human rights abuses, that much is agreed. But that's not from Lincoln and his crew. 'remembers him'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rikberry31
#1,080
#1,080
GoBigOrange86 said:
In fairness, many poor white southerners WERE working for themselves. It was the rich plantation-holding slaveowners who were the true beneficiaries. Poor whites were harmed by the lack of meaningful economic competition -- their services were not needed.
Click to expand...
This total bull. The poor whites in the South were harmed by the north exploitation by suppressing the South’s trade opportunities .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, InVOLuntary, UT_Dutchman and 3 others
#1,081
#1,081
Jackcrevol said:
I didnt say there werent racists in the North. I didnt say Lincoln wasnt a racist. I said he and the North did the right thing at the time. States dont or shouldnt get final say so. We dont or wont tolerate racisim or human rights abuses. That is why history remembers he and Union.
Click to expand...
We won’t tolerate racism or human rights abuses here?

What a delightfully Pollyanna worldview you possess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and rikberry31
#1,082
#1,082
rikberry31 said:
This total bull. The poor whites in the South were harmed by the north exploitation by suppressing the South’s trade opportunities .
Click to expand...
You don’t think slavery quite directly drove wages down? All those crops, tended to for “free,” that had no effect at all on job opportunities?
 
#1,085
#1,085
GoBigOrange86 said:
You don’t think slavery quite directly drove wages down? All those crops, tended to for “free,” that had no effect at all on job opportunities?
Click to expand...
The reason slavery was ever viable was because the South never had enough labor. The European immigrants chose not to go to the South. And “free” labor got cheaper after slavery with sharecroppers. And a lot of the landowners after the war were yankee carpet baggers. They stole land from Southerners.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#1,086
#1,086
rikberry31 said:
The reason slavery was ever viable was because the South never had enough labor. The European immigrants chose not to go to the South. And “free” labor got cheaper after slavery with sharecroppers. And a lot of the landowners after the war were yankee carpet baggers. They stole land from Southerners.
Click to expand...
The yankee's habit of burning courthouses made it easy for scalawags and carpetbaggers to steal the land.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rikberry31
#1,087
#1,087
Jackcrevol said:
I didnt say there werent racists in the North. I didnt say Lincoln wasnt a racist. I said he and the North did the right thing at the time. States dont or shouldnt get final say so. We dont or wont tolerate racisim or human rights abuses. That is why history remembers he and Union.
Click to expand...
If you are going to hold the entire South responsible for slavery just because they lived during that period the you will be held responsible by people in the future for the human trafficking (slavery) on the southern border and stuff like Epstein Island and P diddy. This country is the only one in history (to the present day) to free slaves. The countries that our slaves came from still practice slavery.
The South is the least racist place in the country. If you don't believe that then go to visit somewhere up north or on the west coast. I have no fear of being shot because I walked through the wrong neighborhood where I live. The north has always been racist, they just lie about it.
 
#1,088
#1,088
GoBigOrange86 said:
I am well aware of Lincoln's writings on this topic. His move to being outright "let's abolish slavery" was gradual. He was moderate for his day on the issue, but he absolutely opposed expansion.

Nothing Lincoln said is relevant to the fact that the southern leaders thought he was a threat to their "peculiar institution," which is why they began seceding in December of 1860 before he was even inaugurated.
Click to expand...
but after he had won the election and made it clear he would continue anti-southern policies, which yes included anti-slavery expansion, but that was not the only thing.

He didn't actually change, it just became politically convenient. Britain and France were seeking closer ties with the south which would have provided much more money and arms for the south. the Emancipation Proclamation was simply a tool to keep European powers from joining. there is a reason it was a pretty useless Proclamation only freeing slaves in the confederacy where he had no power. it was 100% symbolic for Europe. If he had actually changed he would have first made sure there was no slavery in the states he did control.

You don't get to claim a cause for war when it only happened a year afterwards.

and of course he was a threat to their "peculiar institution" Mr Calhoun. It was the ONLY institution that was allowed to exist in the south. Had the north not enacted extremely anti-southern policies keeping industry and development out slavery wouldn't have been the only game in town. and then there would have been more voices in the south to speak out against secession. The North created the problem with their policies. Then made it worse, backing the south into a position where they had to fight. and considering how poor the South stayed for the next 100 years, they were absolutely right to. Even after slavery ended the south was kept poor.

in their actions both before the war, and after, the powerful states in the north proved it was never about slavery. it was all about keeping a weak and poor south. and they achieved that through force.
 
  • Like
Reactions: midnight orange, InVOLuntary and hog88
#1,089
#1,089
GoBigOrange86 said:
In fairness, many poor white southerners WERE working for themselves. It was the rich plantation-holding slaveowners who were the true beneficiaries. Poor whites were harmed by the lack of meaningful economic competition -- their services were not needed.
Click to expand...
because of northern and monopolistic policies that kept industry out of the south.

it was all to keep the south poor. Slavery was the one thing making money in the south, and they couldn't allow that. not because of some moral issue, simply because it was the one prop holding up the south.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#1,090
#1,090
rikberry31 said:
Lazy take. The South is the economic engine today without slavery. The south did better after slavery, sharecroppers replaced slaves.
Click to expand...
lol wut? maybe 100 years later after the post WW2 boom finally reached the south. If it wasn't for the total mobilization and industrialization during WW2 the south would still be incredibly poor and you have so many people moving down here.
 
#1,096
#1,096
LaagerVol said:
Lol

“State run market capitalism”

Who exactly is capitalizing in that scenario?
Click to expand...

The state - right there in the description. Capitalism does not mean individuals. It does not mean democracy or any other form of governance as governance/politics is a separate entity altogether and how nations link their systems of governance with the economic policies they use varies wildly (and to complicate it further most nations use mixed economies). At it's most basic level, capitalism is about raising capital. Colonizing the New World was very much steeped in something quite similar to state run market capitalism where investors like William Shakespeare were strongly encouraged to invest in government/crown ventures. These early corporations were given government charter and often acted on behalf of governments while raising capital from individuals with means. The Tempest was inspired by one such 'encouraged' venture. GB wasn't alone in that either as other nation states transitioning from mercantilism found state based capitalism a great way to finance overseas exploration and expansion.

Today we have Russia, China, Thailand and a host of African nations using mixtures of state run capitalism paired with various political systems. TBH, a metric ton of what we do in the "too big to fail" era is 100 percent state based capitalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#1,097
#1,097
UTProf said:
The state - right there in the description. Capitalism does not mean individuals. It does not mean democracy or any other form of governance as governance/politics is a separate entity altogether and how nations link their systems of governance with the economic policies they use varies wildly (and to complicate it further most nations use mixed economies). At it's most basic level, capitalism is about raising capital. Colonizing the New World was very much steeped in something quite similar to state run market capitalism where investors like William Shakespeare were strongly encouraged to invest in government/crown ventures. These early corporations were given government charter and often acted on behalf of governments while raising capital from individuals with means. The Tempest was inspired by one such 'encouraged' venture. GB wasn't alone in that either as other nation states transitioning from mercantilism found state based capitalism a great way to finance overseas exploration and expansion.

Today we have Russia, China, Thailand and a host of African nations using mixtures of state run capitalism paired with various political systems. TBH, a metric ton of what we do in the "too big to fail" era is 100 percent state based capitalism.
Click to expand...
And it's what the progressives want here. They love them some China.
 
#1,098
#1,098
BeardedVol said:
I can't imagine the supreme effort that it takes for you to maintain this level of willful ignorance, while being exposed to factual information that contradicts everything that you post on here.

View attachment 635690
Click to expand...

You and your stupid bar charts, exactly what weapons are going to help them?

You are the definition of stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top