Yep. There is only one way to combat racism, and that is to quit participating in it and judge each individual by their behavior / character. EVERY time one group is given favor based solely on the melanin content of their skin or their group identity, racism occurs. I understand the inclination to try and right past wrongs by favoring o…
Yep. There is only one way to combat racism, and that is to quit participating in it and judge each individual by their behavior / character. EVERY time one group is given favor based solely on the melanin content of their skin or their group identity, racism occurs. I understand the inclination to try and right past wrongs by favoring one group over another, but as our mothers tried to teach us, two wrongs don't make a right.
The assumption that Whites are one thing, and blacks are another thing is as racist as it gets. Some Whites fought and died, fighting other Whites, to free blacks from slavery. Yet the Woke Supremacists pretend that all Whites are the same. Try to find ANY time in history when a race went to war with itself over the rights of another race.
Well, no. There were hardly any whites fighting for or against slavery. That's what they call a canard.
By the way, Lincoln was very clear about this and only changed to muh slavery" when he realized that he might lose that war of aggression (meant to "save the Union" with or without slaves/blacks)
Sure - if you want to argue that the wealthy merchants and politicians whose machinations resulted in the war were not motivated by the slavery issue (except inasmuchas it was necessary to their wealth) then I would tend to agree.
And if you want to further argue that many Southerners were fighting not to preserve slavery but for "States' rights" then I would agree with that.
And if you want to argue that the politicians who motivated the yankees to fight were cynically and hypocritically exploiting the slavery issue I would agree with that.
Despite all that, a very great number of Union volunteers were motivated to fight almost entirely by the slavery issue, no matter the corruption and hypocrisy of their leaders.
So the war was indeed about slavery because that's what most of the people with rifles were fighting for.
You might want to read more about Lincoln and what he actually said about slavery. He was adamant about keeping the Union together.
From the article at Abbeville Institute I linked to below:
If the North was fighting a Crusade of Liberation, why didn’t she wage war on New York and Boston, the largest African Slave-trading ports in the world in 1861 (8)? Or on Africa herself and her slave-raiders – such as the Kingdom of Dahomey – the largest exporters of African slaves in the world (9)? Or on New England and her manufacturing profits gleaned from slave-picked cotton, and from rum manufactured from slave-harvested sugar cane and distilled for trading along the African coast for more slaves (10)? Why? Because slavery was not the issue of the “Irrepressible Conflict,” as William Seward contended (11). The “Irrepressible Conflict” was between the “opposing and enduring forces” of an agrarian economy and an industrial economy. The respective labor systems of the antagonists were just as irrelevant in this conflict as in any other war of conquest.
Yes - I agree the leaders and political operators (not just Lincoln) had their own motivations, many of which had little or nothing to do with slavery.
But the troops were fighting against slavery - and therefore it is not reasonable to suggest that the war wasn't about that. It was about that. And it was about other things too.
I could post link after link of letter northern soldiers wrote about the war. SOME fought for slavery AFTER it became untenable to simply use the secession as a reason. The initial reasons for war had ZERO to do with slavery.
Anyone who has studied this knows this. Its ridiculous to argue further.
Very likely. That doesn’t really change anything wrt to the causes people were fighting for and against - merely the extent of the misguidance of almost all parties involved
You base this on what? My great great grandfather fought for the north in the Civil war. My wife's great great grandfather was killed at Antietam, fighting for the North. Certainly Whites also fought for the South, FOR slavery.
Are you suggesting that the civil war just didn't happen? How do you explain the origins and purpose of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments?
My Fathers, too, fought in that "war of aggression". What you fail to acknowledge is that it was the North that attacked the south (to keep it in the Union). If you are unaware of this, you certainly do not need to be writing articles on Substack about the subject.
Your arrogance is not becoming. Every time I counter your unfounded claim, you just come up with another unfounded claim, rather than defend your previous unfounded claim.
If you were reasonable, you might find me agreeing with you to some extent. I defend state's rights almost as much as I condemn slavery. But besides the southern states insisting on their right to own slaves as well as insisting on their right to secede from the Union, they also attacked Fort Sumpter militarily. Ford Sumpter was a federal facility. And that was not the only such incidence. Having seceded from the Union and declaring The Confederate States of America to be a country separate from the USA, firing on Fort Sumpter was an act of war, by any definition. And that justified Lincoln sending in troops.
There was a certain amount of sympathy in the North for just letting the southern states secede, but firing on Ft Sumpter changed Northerner's attitude real quick. It has been hypothesized that if the CSA had negotiated with Lincoln instead of firing on his troops, there might never have been a civil war. We'll never know for sure.
Didn't Lincoln send a "relief fleet" to Fort Sumpter thus provoking a defensive action by the South ? He wanted that war like Roosevelt wanted America to enter WW2
Look up any study of the CW, and look at the list of events that lead to the CW. Every single one revolves around slavery. Missouri compromise, KS-NE Act, Bleeding Kansas, John Brown's raid, Dredd Scott, etc. etc. Furthermore, the southern politicians that voted for secession gave speeches explaining why they were voting to secede. They mentioned slavery quite a bit...
Even here in Australia ( no skin in the game ) it was obviously a war of Northern aggression. Slavery would have died a natural death without a war. No right minded person approves of slavery but only the European people put an end to it as a trade. Instead they treated their own poor people worse in the industrial revolution, children stolen from the streets to send to the colonies and poor people as indentured slaves. Slavery denied poor people work.
Britain ended the African slave trade at tremendous cost but note that the British rich slave owners were compensated from the public purse to free their slaves
I had family that fought in that war. None of my family members owned saves. They despised slavery, even when they didn't care one way or the other for the slaves. They were fighting against an overwhelming invading force intent on keeping them submissive and our money flowing. Period.
The fact is that very rich people owned slaves (the largest contingent in population percentages was jews AND they owned most of the ships). The poor people (my family) hated slavery because it kept them in perpetual low wage debt slavery.
Thank you for your comment. Probably the most astute I've seen and you aren't from here.
The acting “masters”, as part of their pursuit of wealth and power, propagandize the people to believe both conflict and compliance are about independence, freedom and the moral or religious high ground.
Certainly, they held massive disdain for independence, since THAT is exactly what they wanted stopped. These centralized "masters", as you put it, could never control the south's wealth if they were independent.
It's beyond absurd to think that hundreds of thousands of poor dirt farmers would die a horrible death and millions would be maimed for life just so some rich fella could keep or not keep his slaves. That's like throwing your life away so that some dude could keep his stable of Lamborghinis!
Yes. Whites didn't go to Africa and captures slaves. They went to Africa and BOUGHT them. The slaves were already enslaved by other blacks and Arabs. In the 1700s, WHITES were examining the idea of the individual having God given rights that no government could overrule. We take that for granted now, but the idea was INVENTED by White Europeans in the 1700s. As the examined this idea, they couldn't help seeing that slavery contradicted that ideology. And so they worked to end slavery. Not all Whites, of course, but significant numbers actively campaigned against slavery. In the end, it wasn't blacks who ended slavery in Africa. And it wasn't the Arabs. It was White people who ended it.
You are buying into their kumbaya nonsense. That bullshit only works on White people, everyone else knows it is BS and they'll keep taking advantage of those who run around trying to be everyone's friend.
The next CW will be pro-White Whites versus everyone else. If 'everyone else' wins, the Whites on that team will learn to regret it.
I was fortunate to grow up in a 50/50 environment. I lived through the Jim Crow laws and rode in the back of the bus so I could sit with friends. I stand by what I said. We’re all individuals. Group identity politics are wrong regardless of which direction they are approached from.
Yep. There is only one way to combat racism, and that is to quit participating in it and judge each individual by their behavior / character. EVERY time one group is given favor based solely on the melanin content of their skin or their group identity, racism occurs. I understand the inclination to try and right past wrongs by favoring one group over another, but as our mothers tried to teach us, two wrongs don't make a right.
The assumption that Whites are one thing, and blacks are another thing is as racist as it gets. Some Whites fought and died, fighting other Whites, to free blacks from slavery. Yet the Woke Supremacists pretend that all Whites are the same. Try to find ANY time in history when a race went to war with itself over the rights of another race.
I recently published this post, which relates:
https://sezwhom.substack.com/p/re-revisionist-history
Well, no. There were hardly any whites fighting for or against slavery. That's what they call a canard.
By the way, Lincoln was very clear about this and only changed to muh slavery" when he realized that he might lose that war of aggression (meant to "save the Union" with or without slaves/blacks)
I disagree with this.
Sure - if you want to argue that the wealthy merchants and politicians whose machinations resulted in the war were not motivated by the slavery issue (except inasmuchas it was necessary to their wealth) then I would tend to agree.
And if you want to further argue that many Southerners were fighting not to preserve slavery but for "States' rights" then I would agree with that.
And if you want to argue that the politicians who motivated the yankees to fight were cynically and hypocritically exploiting the slavery issue I would agree with that.
Despite all that, a very great number of Union volunteers were motivated to fight almost entirely by the slavery issue, no matter the corruption and hypocrisy of their leaders.
So the war was indeed about slavery because that's what most of the people with rifles were fighting for.
You might want to read more about Lincoln and what he actually said about slavery. He was adamant about keeping the Union together.
From the article at Abbeville Institute I linked to below:
If the North was fighting a Crusade of Liberation, why didn’t she wage war on New York and Boston, the largest African Slave-trading ports in the world in 1861 (8)? Or on Africa herself and her slave-raiders – such as the Kingdom of Dahomey – the largest exporters of African slaves in the world (9)? Or on New England and her manufacturing profits gleaned from slave-picked cotton, and from rum manufactured from slave-harvested sugar cane and distilled for trading along the African coast for more slaves (10)? Why? Because slavery was not the issue of the “Irrepressible Conflict,” as William Seward contended (11). The “Irrepressible Conflict” was between the “opposing and enduring forces” of an agrarian economy and an industrial economy. The respective labor systems of the antagonists were just as irrelevant in this conflict as in any other war of conquest.
Did you read my comment?
Yes - I agree the leaders and political operators (not just Lincoln) had their own motivations, many of which had little or nothing to do with slavery.
But the troops were fighting against slavery - and therefore it is not reasonable to suggest that the war wasn't about that. It was about that. And it was about other things too.
I could post link after link of letter northern soldiers wrote about the war. SOME fought for slavery AFTER it became untenable to simply use the secession as a reason. The initial reasons for war had ZERO to do with slavery.
Anyone who has studied this knows this. Its ridiculous to argue further.
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/secession-was-not-about-slavery/
They were propagandised to fight
Slavery would have ended without a war
Very likely. That doesn’t really change anything wrt to the causes people were fighting for and against - merely the extent of the misguidance of almost all parties involved
You base this on what? My great great grandfather fought for the north in the Civil war. My wife's great great grandfather was killed at Antietam, fighting for the North. Certainly Whites also fought for the South, FOR slavery.
Are you suggesting that the civil war just didn't happen? How do you explain the origins and purpose of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments?
My Fathers, too, fought in that "war of aggression". What you fail to acknowledge is that it was the North that attacked the south (to keep it in the Union). If you are unaware of this, you certainly do not need to be writing articles on Substack about the subject.
Are you so ignorant of Lincoln's own words?
Your arrogance is not becoming. Every time I counter your unfounded claim, you just come up with another unfounded claim, rather than defend your previous unfounded claim.
If you were reasonable, you might find me agreeing with you to some extent. I defend state's rights almost as much as I condemn slavery. But besides the southern states insisting on their right to own slaves as well as insisting on their right to secede from the Union, they also attacked Fort Sumpter militarily. Ford Sumpter was a federal facility. And that was not the only such incidence. Having seceded from the Union and declaring The Confederate States of America to be a country separate from the USA, firing on Fort Sumpter was an act of war, by any definition. And that justified Lincoln sending in troops.
There was a certain amount of sympathy in the North for just letting the southern states secede, but firing on Ft Sumpter changed Northerner's attitude real quick. It has been hypothesized that if the CSA had negotiated with Lincoln instead of firing on his troops, there might never have been a civil war. We'll never know for sure.
And its been "hypothesized" that the entire Ft Sumpter thing was a false flag because the south warned the people to leave the fort.
Every aspect of what you write is bullshit. Its the tired old lie.
Instead of reading your lies and bullshit, study what actual brainiacs write about it instead of your shitty, lying, substack.
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/what-was-the-war-about/
Didn't Lincoln send a "relief fleet" to Fort Sumpter thus provoking a defensive action by the South ? He wanted that war like Roosevelt wanted America to enter WW2
Why are you here pushing your BS? No one cares.
Don't be ridiculous.
Look up any study of the CW, and look at the list of events that lead to the CW. Every single one revolves around slavery. Missouri compromise, KS-NE Act, Bleeding Kansas, John Brown's raid, Dredd Scott, etc. etc. Furthermore, the southern politicians that voted for secession gave speeches explaining why they were voting to secede. They mentioned slavery quite a bit...
Some did. A few did.
But the war was created by the North. The South simply wanted out of the Union. That is what Secession is. Not a call to war.
Its unfortunate that so many people fall for the garbage ideology of Centralized Power. It is the very catalyst for many of our woes.
Even here in Australia ( no skin in the game ) it was obviously a war of Northern aggression. Slavery would have died a natural death without a war. No right minded person approves of slavery but only the European people put an end to it as a trade. Instead they treated their own poor people worse in the industrial revolution, children stolen from the streets to send to the colonies and poor people as indentured slaves. Slavery denied poor people work.
Britain ended the African slave trade at tremendous cost but note that the British rich slave owners were compensated from the public purse to free their slaves
I had family that fought in that war. None of my family members owned saves. They despised slavery, even when they didn't care one way or the other for the slaves. They were fighting against an overwhelming invading force intent on keeping them submissive and our money flowing. Period.
The fact is that very rich people owned slaves (the largest contingent in population percentages was jews AND they owned most of the ships). The poor people (my family) hated slavery because it kept them in perpetual low wage debt slavery.
Thank you for your comment. Probably the most astute I've seen and you aren't from here.
The acting “masters”, as part of their pursuit of wealth and power, propagandize the people to believe both conflict and compliance are about independence, freedom and the moral or religious high ground.
Certainly, they held massive disdain for independence, since THAT is exactly what they wanted stopped. These centralized "masters", as you put it, could never control the south's wealth if they were independent.
It's beyond absurd to think that hundreds of thousands of poor dirt farmers would die a horrible death and millions would be maimed for life just so some rich fella could keep or not keep his slaves. That's like throwing your life away so that some dude could keep his stable of Lamborghinis!
You've got issues. Get help.
The British spent a huge amount of money and devoted a lot of manpower and sacrificed lives to end the African slave trade
Yes. Whites didn't go to Africa and captures slaves. They went to Africa and BOUGHT them. The slaves were already enslaved by other blacks and Arabs. In the 1700s, WHITES were examining the idea of the individual having God given rights that no government could overrule. We take that for granted now, but the idea was INVENTED by White Europeans in the 1700s. As the examined this idea, they couldn't help seeing that slavery contradicted that ideology. And so they worked to end slavery. Not all Whites, of course, but significant numbers actively campaigned against slavery. In the end, it wasn't blacks who ended slavery in Africa. And it wasn't the Arabs. It was White people who ended it.
Correct. Now we have wage slavery instead
You are buying into their kumbaya nonsense. That bullshit only works on White people, everyone else knows it is BS and they'll keep taking advantage of those who run around trying to be everyone's friend.
The next CW will be pro-White Whites versus everyone else. If 'everyone else' wins, the Whites on that team will learn to regret it.
I was fortunate to grow up in a 50/50 environment. I lived through the Jim Crow laws and rode in the back of the bus so I could sit with friends. I stand by what I said. We’re all individuals. Group identity politics are wrong regardless of which direction they are approached from.
I prefer basing my behavior on games theory and logic rather than faith-based suicidal altruism.
Race is not melanin
Not strictly and solely, no.