Create an account


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
GET WOKE!

Reply

#22
Reply

#23
Let them throw their tantrums nationwide. Im quite pleased with the lack of counter protests. They will burn themselves out by mid summer, literally and figuratively. The other side needs to sit this one out. There is nothing to be gained. Why rush to fight them? To keep them from burning down Starbucks and Walgreens and other corporate stores that bow and scrape for them anyway? Fuck that.

In this climate you could have a video of 20 blacks attacking a White guy with bricks and if the White guy defends himself with force HE will be the one arrested and have his life and career ruined. Let these scum show the country what a Liberal utopia looks like just in time for the elections.
Reply

#24
Oh come on saying the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. course it did. Was about money, the agricultural resources, and states rights... all of which slavery was a component of.
Reply

#25
(06-23-2020, 11:36 AM)Buchanans Wrote: Oh come on saying the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. course it did. Was about money, the agricultural resources, and states rights... all of which slavery was a component of.

Saying the Civil War was about slavery is roughly the equivalent of saying WW2 was about "The Holocaust". 

Freeing the slaves was a tactic Lincoln used to try to create turmoil in the South. Nothing more. The narrative of the war being about and because of slavery is completly false.
Reply

#26
(06-23-2020, 11:36 AM)Buchanans Wrote: Oh come on saying the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. course it did. Was about money, the agricultural resources, and states rights... all of which slavery was a component of.

I get what you are saying. There is definitely a correlation, and that cannot be argued. However, it wasn't just slavery that fed into the South's desire for State's rights, it was the hatred of a group of people that lived completely different lifestyles telling them what to do. In all aspects of life. The loss of the South's agricultural resources, or even worse, being dictated to by another country on costs, was not something the North wanted to deal with. While the North could definitely grow crops, the variety of crops and growing season length the South enjoyed was not something the North could replicate.

The war kicking off itself had nothing at all to do with slavery. There was no national outcry to fight the south over slaves. Yes there was a mostly Northern national outcry to end slavery, and the Abolitionists definitely had a strong government presence, but President Lincoln did not send us to war to free the slaves. It wasn't even on his mind at the time. He just wanted to maintain status quo...
Reply

#27
(06-23-2020, 01:55 PM)Junglist Tactikz Wrote:
(06-23-2020, 11:36 AM)Buchanans Wrote: Oh come on saying the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. course it did. Was about money, the agricultural resources, and states rights... all of which slavery was a component of.

I get what you are saying. There is definitely a correlation, and that cannot be argued. However, it wasn't just slavery that fed into the South's desire for State's rights, it was the hatred of a group of people that lived completely different lifestyles telling them what to do. In all aspects of life. The loss of the South's agricultural resources, or even worse, being dictated to by another country on costs, was not something the North wanted to deal with. While the North could definitely grow crops, the variety of crops and growing season length the South enjoyed was not something the North could replicate.

The war kicking off itself had nothing at all to do with slavery. There was no national outcry to fight the south over slaves. Yes there was a mostly Northern national outcry to end slavery, and the Abolitionists definitely had a strong government presence, but President Lincoln did not send us to war to free the slaves. It wasn't even on his mind at the time. He just wanted to maintain status quo...

To my understanding through my own research and reading, the main factor was money. (Big shock there.....lol).

Basically in addition to what you mentioned, the South's ports to the Atlantic were able to stay open all year while the North's were pretty much shut down over the Winter due to climate. Thus allowing the South to conduct trade year round while the North was hamstrung by their weather in the cold months.

Lincoln and his (((handlers))) wanted access to the money the South made during the Winter and wanted to Federalize that revenue. Thats all. No big empathetic come to Jesus moment about the mistreated Negro and his plight. Just money. Lincoln thought by "freeing" the slaves he would cause havoc and cripple the South and did it purely as a strategic maneuver. Ironically, most slaves stayed where they were.

Its patently absurd to think that 500,000+ White men from the North would willingly engage in the most brutal and bloody war in our Nations history to "free the slaves" in some act of righteous nobility. But thats the narrative put forth for the past 50+ years because of our (((public))) education system. In reality, even if you believed that narrative, black people should have nothing to bitch about since 100,000+ White men died in order to "free" them.

Civil War 2.0 is coming soon to a theatre near you. Hopefully Balkanization after that.
Reply

#28
(06-23-2020, 04:09 PM)MACK IS GOD Wrote:
(06-23-2020, 01:55 PM)Junglist Tactikz Wrote: I get what you are saying. There is definitely a correlation, and that cannot be argued. However, it wasn't just slavery that fed into the South's desire for State's rights, it was the hatred of a group of people that lived completely different lifestyles telling them what to do. In all aspects of life. The loss of the South's agricultural resources, or even worse, being dictated to by another country on costs, was not something the North wanted to deal with. While the North could definitely grow crops, the variety of crops and growing season length the South enjoyed was not something the North could replicate.

The war kicking off itself had nothing at all to do with slavery. There was no national outcry to fight the south over slaves. Yes there was a mostly Northern national outcry to end slavery, and the Abolitionists definitely had a strong government presence, but President Lincoln did not send us to war to free the slaves. It wasn't even on his mind at the time. He just wanted to maintain status quo...

To my understanding through my own research and reading, the main factor was money. (Big shock there.....lol).

Basically in addition to what you mentioned, the South's ports to the Atlantic were able to stay open all year while the North's were pretty much shut down over the Winter due to climate. Thus allowing the South to conduct trade year round while the North was hamstrung by their weather in the cold months.

Lincoln and his (((handlers))) wanted access to the money the South made during the Winter and wanted to Federalize that revenue. Thats all. No big empathetic come to Jesus moment about the mistreated Negro and his plight.  Just money. Lincoln thought by "freeing" the slaves he would cause havoc and cripple the South and did it purely as a strategic maneuver. Ironically, most slaves stayed where they were.

Its patently absurd to think that 500,000+ White men from the North would willingly engage in the most brutal and bloody war in our Nations history to "free the slaves" in some act of righteous nobility. But thats the narrative put forth for the past 50+ years because of our (((public))) education system. In reality, even if you believed that narrative, black people should have nothing to bitch about since 100,000+ White men died in order to "free" them.

Civil War 2.0 is coming soon to a theatre near you. Hopefully Balkanization after that.
Freeing the slaves was to be an economic sort of punishment. I agree that they didn't go to war for slaves but it was part of the tactical component of it. That was the labor force behind the oppositions economy. 

Balkinization?
Reply

#29
(06-23-2020, 04:54 PM)Buchanans Wrote:
(06-23-2020, 04:09 PM)MACK IS GOD Wrote: To my understanding through my own research and reading, the main factor was money. (Big shock there.....lol).

Basically in addition to what you mentioned, the South's ports to the Atlantic were able to stay open all year while the North's were pretty much shut down over the Winter due to climate. Thus allowing the South to conduct trade year round while the North was hamstrung by their weather in the cold months.

Lincoln and his (((handlers))) wanted access to the money the South made during the Winter and wanted to Federalize that revenue. Thats all. No big empathetic come to Jesus moment about the mistreated Negro and his plight.  Just money. Lincoln thought by "freeing" the slaves he would cause havoc and cripple the South and did it purely as a strategic maneuver. Ironically, most slaves stayed where they were.

Its patently absurd to think that 500,000+ White men from the North would willingly engage in the most brutal and bloody war in our Nations history to "free the slaves" in some act of righteous nobility. But thats the narrative put forth for the past 50+ years because of our (((public))) education system. In reality, even if you believed that narrative, black people should have nothing to bitch about since 100,000+ White men died in order to "free" them.

Civil War 2.0 is coming soon to a theatre near you. Hopefully Balkanization after that.
Freeing the slaves was to be an economic sort of punishment. I agree that they didn't go to war for slaves but it was part of the tactical component of it. That was the labor force behind the oppositions economy. 

Balkinization?

Absolutely.

Balkanize

divide (a region or body) into smaller mutually hostile states or groups.


Its the only way.
Reply

#30
(06-23-2020, 04:09 PM)MACK IS GOD Wrote:
(06-23-2020, 01:55 PM)Junglist Tactikz Wrote: I get what you are saying. There is definitely a correlation, and that cannot be argued. However, it wasn't just slavery that fed into the South's desire for State's rights, it was the hatred of a group of people that lived completely different lifestyles telling them what to do. In all aspects of life. The loss of the South's agricultural resources, or even worse, being dictated to by another country on costs, was not something the North wanted to deal with. While the North could definitely grow crops, the variety of crops and growing season length the South enjoyed was not something the North could replicate.

The war kicking off itself had nothing at all to do with slavery. There was no national outcry to fight the south over slaves. Yes there was a mostly Northern national outcry to end slavery, and the Abolitionists definitely had a strong government presence, but President Lincoln did not send us to war to free the slaves. It wasn't even on his mind at the time. He just wanted to maintain status quo...

To my understanding through my own research and reading, the main factor was money. (Big shock there.....lol).

Basically in addition to what you mentioned, the South's ports to the Atlantic were able to stay open all year while the North's were pretty much shut down over the Winter due to climate. Thus allowing the South to conduct trade year round while the North was hamstrung by their weather in the cold months.

Lincoln and his (((handlers))) wanted access to the money the South made during the Winter and wanted to Federalize that revenue. Thats all. No big empathetic come to Jesus moment about the mistreated Negro and his plight.  Just money. Lincoln thought by "freeing" the slaves he would cause havoc and cripple the South and did it purely as a strategic maneuver. Ironically, most slaves stayed where they were.

Its patently absurd to think that 500,000+ White men from the North would willingly engage in the most brutal and bloody war in our Nations history to "free the slaves" in some act of righteous nobility. But thats the narrative put forth for the past 50+ years because of our (((public))) education system. In reality, even if you believed that narrative, black people should have nothing to bitch about since 100,000+ White men died in order to "free" them.

Civil War 2.0 is coming soon to a theatre near you. Hopefully Balkanization after that.

EDIT: After checking the stats my numbers were off.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/artic...casualties

There were actually around 1.5 Millon White men who died during the Civil War due to combat and disease. The South suffered more casualties so even if you dont split it down the middle you can safely say at LEAST 500,000 White men died in order to "free the slaves". If academia wants to push that narrative then they also need to shut the fuck up with their virtue signaling about some random black criminal in Minnesota dying from a drug overdose while in police custody while he was violently resisting arrest who had previously served time in prison for multiple violent felonies including a home invasion robbery where he put a gun to a pregnant womans stomach and threatened to shoot her baby.
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Forum software by © MyBB Theme © iAndrew 2016