Hundreds of years of institutional brainwashing. It's no coincidence the leaders of US education were the main enemies of the south. The victor writes the history and all that

File: 1673798569614219.png (93 KB, 1561x801)

93 KB PNG

Friendly reminder that the american south is the ONLY part of america that still retains its founding old stock anglo population
The souths succession is completely justified on those grounds alone
If the founding fathers came back to life the only part of america they'd feel some kind of familiarity to is the south.
The south was a genuine aristocracy hearkening back to olde englande. the south had the greatest social mobility in all of the united states, where poor white southerners could rise up in the ranks by becoming slave owners, joining slave patrols and overseeing plantations. poor southerners like andrew jackson and bedford forrest who were literally born in dirt floored cabins literally became landed nobility from slave trading. There was no social emnity in the south, southern poor whites and yeomen were treated kindly by the noble and generous southern aristocracy
The north on the other hand was a soulless capitalistic merchantile shithole

>>16825584
>anglo stock that is completely miscegnated and third-world tier in terms of literacy, teen pregnancies, etc.
ftfy

>>16825584
> he south had the greatest social mobility in all of the united states, where poor white southerners could rise up in the ranks by becoming slave owners, joining slave patrols and overseeing plantations. poor southerners like andrew jackson and bedford forrest who were literally born in dirt floored cabins literally became landed nobility from slave trading.

Yeah, but what about black people? Can they ever be free and rise to the ranks as an anti-slavery rich guy like Barrack Obama and Will Smith?

>>16825928
NTA, I don't even agree, but weren't there tons of black led rag to riches stories to warm the hearts of the people back then?

>>16825552
>It's another episode of Euros shilling the CSA because they wanted to kneecap America's accent

>>16825552
The difference is the Confederacy was explicitly founded to ensure slavery would never die, while the U.S. was not

>>16825949
No. The Confederacy was explicitly founded because Northern politicians repeatedly pushed for legislature that was anti-south. They were unable to develop because of that and due to the civil war and the north continuing to screw them over into reconstruction the south is now akin to a third world nation

>>16825552
Colonists in 1776
>No representation in Westminster whatsoever
>literally no legal avenue to dispute British decisions made over the governance of colonies
Southerners in 1861
>OVER represented in the Electoral College and Senate
>North bends over backwards 361 degrees 8 days a week to appease the South's insane desires to keep expanding slavery to new states
>Southerners still chimp out about it
>>16825584
>The south was a genuine aristocracy hearkening back to olde englande.
Did you miss the part where Thomas Jefferson repeatedly said he hated aristocracy, hated England, and was a proud open supporter of the French Revolution and tried to boycott trade with Britain when he was President? He was a southerner from Virginia.

>>16825584
>If the founding fathers came back to life the only part of america they'd feel some kind of familiarity to is the south.
"The Founding Fathers" weren't a monolithic, you idiot. Stop treating them as some homogenous group of prophets when they often didn't even like each other.

>>16825552
History written by the Victors. Educational standards set by the Victors have painted the losers as so wrong and bad, just as they have for all other wars. Do i agree with them? No. But they're treated unfairly by modern virtue signaling retards and idolized by just as retarded retards

>>16825965
>OVER represented in the Electoral College and Senate
They were at the whims of the north regardless
>>16825965
>North bends over backwards 361 degrees 8 days a week to appease the South's insane desires to keep expanding slavery to new states
It's not insane, it's what their economy was based off of and the north relied on southern exports as much as the south relied on northern exports. Should the north have been forced to give up factories and return to the cottage system because they were grossly violating the labor of the people and later immigrants?
>Thomas Jefferson
owned slaves and thought america should be a nation of farmers, he hated cities

>>16825552
it has become apart of the culture war because its "safe" to attack the White South.
They are racist White people and thus lefties see an easy target and conservatives get to say "see we arent racist like those southerners we hate racism too"

>>16825949
good? Slavery to enlightened Anglos is far more humane than what we have today.
blacks had a longer life expectancy then.

If their lives were so bad, why were they living longer?

infact we have their interviews saved in the library of congress. the majority of slaves hold positive views of slavery.
>https://www.loc.gov/collections/voices-remembering-slavery/about-this-collection/

>>16825552
Northerners tended to view Secession as traitorous and believed that union was supposed to be perpetual and insoluble. If you consider yourself patriotic, it's more or less the default to consider rebels as deserving to be crushed. It's also important to note. Southerners had been noxious, petulant cunts about slavery. Even to people who more mildly disapproved of slavery than outright abolitionists, they must have looked like the biggest assholes on Earth. Imagine if you were playing b-ball with a bunch of kids who are just lurching around the court fingering their own assholes and each other's, constantly crowing about how fingering assholes made them better people and real gentlemen unlike yourselves, forcing you to accept special rules and refusing to follow the ones they don't like because ass-fingerers are super special. Whenever someone disputes them, they smear their finger-shit on the ball and wipe it on your shirt as they go by and kick you in the shins, pontificating and playing the victim all the while. After a while, they've been rolled by your team. Because they were busier fingering ass, smearing shit, and arguing between themselves over how deep to stick their fingers up YOUR ass. So they take the ball and make to go home, crying that basketball isn't fair to people who score fewer points because of their constant ass-fingering and that you're unfair and mean, and then they steal your bikes. If some faggot wants to finger assholes and be a bitch, maybe that's not a big deal in itself as long as they keep it to themselves. Maybe it's a treat to be rid of such fucks even at the price of a few bikes. But if it were you, wouldn't you be really seized by the impulse to go after them and kick their asses? Especially if a popular song exhorted you to do just that?

>>16825991
No, they didnt.
Northerners didnt care about treachery or "HECKIN TRAITOR" they cared about keeping the Nation together, they didnt go ballistic like lefties do today.
Everyone in the North had a grandfather who betrayed a country.
>deserving to be crushed
not patriotic at all.
The Union was never meant to be a suicide pact and in fact the war was fairly unpopular for the entirety of the conflict with a considerable number of Northerners desiring to just let the South go.
>HECKIN SLAVERY
fuck off, slavery isnt even wrong.
you just hate slavery because it was done to black people.
Cry about it.
rest of your post is seething at White people for no discernible reason other than White people did slavery better than black people.

>>16825991
The North were the obnoxious ones. Slavery was expected and accepted of most other nations on earth. The idea that slavery was bad was a new thought being formed entirely. Look at Brazil which had way worse slavery. The USA was responsible for a tiny fraction of the slave trade. Meaning it was perfectly accepted culturally to have slaves. It was the North who suddenly imposed rules onto the South. Even though the North used slaves too just a bit prior. The only reason why the North didn't hop on slavery too initially was because the religious people in the North believed in an honest days work.

>>16825991
>Northerners tended to view Secession as traitorous
remember when the north tried to secede

>>16826005
>they cared about keeping the Nation together
Which is apart of that
>protecting your nation isn’t patriotic
Ngmi
>The Union was never meant to be a suicide pact and in fact the war was fairly unpopular for the entirety of the conflict with a considerable number of Northerners desiring to just let the South go
And yet they fought anyway and had enough troops to win the day.
>fuck off, slavery isnt even wrong
Would you want to be a slave?
>you just hate slavery because it was done to black people
Strawman
>Cry about it.
You already are, you fags have been for over 150 years.
>rest of your post is seething at White people for no discernible reason
Nice cope, if you can’t argue then don’t, dismissing everything like this just shows you’re a retard that can’t refute it.

>>16826021
>The North were the obnoxious ones. Slavery was expected and accepted of most other nations on earth
“No u”, and You mean aside a good portion of Europe?
>The idea that slavery was bad was a new thought being formed entirely
Slavery has been seen as a shitty thing for a long time.
>Look at Brazil which had way worse slavery
So it’s not a big deal, but there were also worse places? If it’s not bad then there wouldn’t be anyone worse, they would just be.
>Even though the North used slaves too just a bit prior
But it did indeed end
>

>>16826055
I don't have a Eurocentric world view. The rest of the globe thought slavery was fine and didn't give a shit. It was completely unprecedented and unprincipled of the North to do this. No one was calling for the end of slavery to these lengths prior.

>>16826036
And it was stopped, yet you don’t cry about that, why is that?

>>16826021
>>16826066
>Other group does bad thing so it's fine for us to do it

>>16826066
>The rest of the globe thought slavery was fine and didn't give a shit
Aside from the parts that didn’t but they don’t matter because…
Seriously?

>>16826041
>Northerners saw the south as their nation
Explain
>would you want to be a slave
No. I wouldn’t want to be black either. Nor do I want to pay taxes. But we play the hand we’re dealt.
Why should I care about slavery when my people are on top?
No really? Blacks didn’t care when blacks were enslaving blacks. They only cared when beautiful handsome Whites were doing it because it was humiliating.
>straw man
Nope.
You personally literally have never seen a slave, never experienced slavery on either end, and your contact with slavery is largely American and not actually informed by the great array of slave societies of history.
Learn the full history of Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, and Mesoamerica. Then you may speak to me about slaves.
>you already are
???
I am from Massachusetts. The civil war was a mistake. southerners are my White brothers and southerners are far more preferable to non-Whites and enslaved non-Whites preferable to free non-Whites.
Cry about it baby girl.
>you can’t refute me calling White people cunts for a paragraph and a half
There’s nothing of substance worth my time there.
You are a subhuman.

File: Slavery-1024x520.jpg (90 KB, 1024x520)

90 KB JPG

>>16826072
If slavery is a known fact of life across the world except for a few tiny nations then it's horseshit to try and ban it the way the North did. Their economy, like nearly every other economy on earth, relied on slavery as an integral part of their nation.
>>16826074

>>16825982
>They were at the whims of the north regardless
Such is life when you live in a system where things are decided by voting, the South should have considered that before joining the Union and agreeing to the Constitution which explicitly outlined this system. Even so, they were provided with abundant measures to cancel out the powers the North was owed due to its larger population. Just the fact that 6 million had equal Senatorial representation to 21 million was a massive concession to Southern interests.
>It's not insane, it's what their economy was based off of
So? Base it off something else instead of turning everything south of the 36°30 parallel into a copy of Brazilian society. Slave plantations also didn't benefit the common Southerner, only the wealthy elite who owned them, essentially turning their society into one of extreme wealth disparity and where even free whites were living poorly if they weren't in that elite.
>Should the north have been forced to give up factories and return to the cottage system because they were grossly violating the labor of the people and later immigrants?
The fact that immigrants voluntarily came to the North should already be an indicator that life there was simply better.
>>Thomas Jefferson
>owned slaves and thought america should be a nation of farmers, he hated cities
Yes, none of which changes my previous points. Jefferson wouldn't give a shit about "pure English stock" because he fucking hated England with a seething passion and was an enormous Francophile who spent his life cheering for Jacobinism and a bunch of other things that would give the average Southerner even today a stroke (e.g. his edited Bible removing all of Jesus's divine traits).
Appealing to the Founding Fathers' opinions and sensibilities is such a stupid ploy, literally who cares what their personal thoughts were, especially when they all had different opinions on every topic and literally only agreed on seceding from Britain's yoke?

>>16826068
>it was stopped
rather the northern secession attempts and treason embarrassed them nationally and their party crumbled, then out of spite they pushed for the civil war

>>16826077
>Explain
Are you retarded? It was part of the U.S., just because they break away that doesn’t stop it from being the case, just like how Britain saw colonies in the same way, the only difference is that The colonies won, while the confederacy didn’t.
>No
Why it’s not a big deal or bad right? Why wouldn’t you want to be a slave?
>Nope
It is considering I never said anything about race, and since I’ve never seen a slave then wouldn’t that mean that race would be irrelevant given that everything would be based off of historical accounts?
>I am from Massachusetts
No you’re not, you fags always use this cope whenever you get called out.
>The civil war was a mistake. southerners are my White brothers
Is this you larp? Actually you know what post you hand and a time stamp, this sounds too ridiculous.
>There’s nothing of substance worth my time there
Considering that you’re seething this much about it that’s bullshit. In reality you just can’t argue it like I said so instead are trying to trivialize it to cope.

>>16826086
>a majority of the nations shown banned it before the Civil War
Is this supposed to prove me wrong?

>>16826116
>rather the northern secession attempts and treason embarrassed
So secession is not good and treasonous? Glad we can agree.

>>16826115
>should have read the fine print
So why is it a problem that the South wants to secede then? It was perfectly accepted in the terms they agreed to.
>Base it off something else instead of turning everything south of the 36°30 parallel
Actually the North invalidated that, see Kansas and California for examples of the North not being consistent with laws that they came up with.
>The fact that immigrants voluntarily came to the North should already be an indicator that life there was simply better.
Oh ok. The fact that the South was rich and that the North relied on its exports is an indicator that slavery is actually good

>>16826132
Well when the north was throwing their pissy fits and trying to secede they actively conspired with enemy nations, so yes that's treason

>>16826144
>Well when the north was throwing their pissy fits and trying to secede they actively conspired with enemy nations
Just like the south then? It’s a good thing both were stopped.

>>16825552
I think the Confederacy overreacted, but people hate them so much because they committed the unforgivable sin of being mean to black people.

>>16826153
>Just like the south
No?

>>16825584
>The north on the other hand was a soulless capitalistic merchantile shithole
Was?

>>16826167
>No?
Yes, asking for aid and continuing to trade with rival powers isn’t different.

>>16826174
>trading with rival powers
who?

>>16826190
Britain

>>16826193
britian was a rival power to the north? are you retarded? you're just coping because the north was caught conspiring with rival powers

secession states decided to build armies, raid forts, and seize arms, starting a war because they did not like the outcome of a legal and proper election

>>16826205
the war was started by the north

>>16826198
>Britain was a rival power to the north
No shit, that’s why it’s the same. Were you hoping that I would just forget about that or did you forget something that was said already?
>caught conspiring with rival powers
Rival powers to who?

>>16826207
The North didn’t attack Fort Sumpter.

CSA was a backwater shithole that started a china tier civil war in terms of casualties for the sake of slavery. That was its entire contribution to history.
Washington and Jefferson created the nation. They also owned slaves at a time when it was a bit less anachronistic to do so. But regardless, anyone who's actually educated on the founding fathers sees them in the same light as they see any aristocrat from the time. Thats why you see people vandalizing their statues.

File: wvsbdyf01ef21.jpg (21 KB, 360x360)

21 KB JPG

>>16826214
>>Britain was a rival power to the north
you're retarded

>>16825584
The south was a lazy shithole

>>16826268
if they'd just picked their own cotton hip hop would have never been invented
they could have saved us

>>16826248
You’re saying that they weren’t rivals at the time? Would allies trade and offer aid to your wayward states? And you still haven’t answered who was the “rival” the north was consorting with and who were they a rival to?

>>16826277
you're a fucking moron asslick

>>16826281
>no argument
>still can’t answer a basic question
If I was wrong you wouldn’t be struggling like this.

>>16826301
at some point you're too stupid to even engage

>>16826313
No, you’re saying that to cope because you can’t argue. So you’re going to say how it’s actually all stupid while stomping your feet. If you actually thought that you wouldn’t have said this, you would have just stopped replying. Now fuck off and go throw your tantrum somewhere else.

>>16825960
>They were unable to develop because of that

Southern hillbilly White trash, please. The South sucked (and still does to this day) because it existed to only benefit a tiny parasitic minority of 1%er plantation owners

>>16826468
during reconstruction northern carpetbaggers printed 130 million dollars out of southern state treasuries for railroads alone, of which half was easily embezzled. In some states the railroads were never built at all.

In florida 1 million choice acres was sold to the north at 5 cents an acre, over 500,000 dollars went missing out of the treasury from tax revenue. The Louisiana legislature ran up a 1 million dollar bar tab and embezzled about 2.5 million dollars, the bulk of which was a 2 million dollar railroad just built and sold to the chief justice of the supreme court of lousiana's business partners for $50,000

>>16825990
>If their lives were so bad, why were they living longer?
A long life does not equal a good life.
>the majority of slaves hold positive views of slavery.
They were born into slavery and their entire world was them being a slave and nothing more. Of course they'd recall it positively it's all they knew.

>>16826005
Incorrect

>>16825991
>Northerners tended to view Secession as traitorous
This was actually sort of a retcon. Some, like Lincoln, did. Many at the time of the crisis were vehemently denying that they were fighting secession at all and protesting that they would never dare to violate such a clearly defined and fundamental political right. They claimed instead that it was self-defense and that the South was going to do x and y after fort sumter, etc. Reading primary sources and first hand impressions in journals and correspondence during the initial stages of the war really shows you what a shitshow the state of Northern opinion was and what kind of retcon was needed to make the war seem like a united and glorious effort to save the indestructible Union.

Amazing what a difference exists, between, say, the letters of a Pennsylvania economist and an article contributed by a New England intellectual or the diary of a New York businessman, and the writings of later historians.

Incidentally, both sides suffered by the war. Both sides lost their original constitutional rights and the Federal government hit peak corruption and thievery in the decades following the war. There were many corrupt men in the government previous to the war, but it was nothing like the insanity in the 50 years following.

>>16825552
American Propaganda

It is literally just that the most powerful country in the world is constantly broadcasting about how treason against it is wrong.

File: Screenshot at 2024-05-15 (...).png (241 KB, 288x596)

241 KB PNG

>>16825965
>OVER represented in the Electoral College
>right up until the North's candidate wins with neither a majority of the popular vote nor Electoral College

>>16825562
>The victor writes the history and all that
Not in the South. Revisionist perspectives are taught in many schools.

File: 329498239.jpg (250 KB, 1600x916)

250 KB JPG

>>16826221
Supplying a military fort is an act of war. Just admit that. When the USA was supplying the allies with goods Germany was also in the right to fight back because it is an act of war. A friend of your enemy is your enemy.
>>16825965
>the Electoral College
remember when this happened and Jackson won the vote but Adams still got the presidency

>>16826597
>They were born into slavery and their entire world was them being a slave and nothing more. Of course they'd recall it positively it's all they knew.
But this could never be the case for women in the North or immigrants where their only options were either don't work and die or wageslave in a factory

>>16825990
>blacks had a longer life expectancy then
Wut. It's doubled or tripled, from under 30 to like 75

>>16827115
Psychologically giving people choices makes them unhappy because they get obsessed over all the choices they don't make.

A slave by contrast isn't allowed to make choices. They could choose to runaway or something but that isn't the default option so it is easy to mentally put it out of mind as a missed opportunity. As a result unless the slave is miserable they are probably going to look back at their life thinking about all the stuff they did do rather than the stuff they didn't do.

"I served my master well" might seem like an odd thing to look back fondly upon but it does seem like they fulfilled a purpose of some kind, and it isn't functionally different than a guy who worked decades for the same company and got a little certificate for their long service. In some respects the slave lived a more fulfilling life because they served a fellow human being over some nameless entity. That guy who worked decades for the same company might have worked for different managers with different relationships with each, but the slave would have a personal loyalty to their master, or in some cases the master's children who they might have watched grow up, and so this relationship is far more "human" than that of a corporate drone.

It is easy to see that if slavery can either be hell on earth or it can be basically the equivalent of a some page who served the king his whole life but where the "king" might only "rule" like a couple acres. If one is given the better jobs within this system one might think they are blessed by a good life, but if one is stuck with the crap jobs which make the whole thing work they might think this whole thing is hell, which is the old "house" vs "field" slave dichotomy.

The South has become the scapegoat figure in a weird ritual whereby people of Ellis Island or Hart-Celler extraction prove their Americanness by hating on a subculture of Heritage Americans that is out of favor with America's ruling elite. It's like if China had an informal cultural tradition where white immigrants slander Tibetans in order to feel more Han.

>>16825552
Whenever confederates cry about their state right over owning black people and fucking over every poor farmer, don't forget that these people tried to influence other states into becoming slave states and enforcing the rules they have on them

>>16825552
>can /his/ explain a non american why the confederates were "bad" or any worse than the founding fathers of america?
One of them killed their countrymen for a lack of representation and oppressive taxation. The Confederates killed people because they lost an election after a century of everyone else kowtowing to their political dick swinging.
>> in 1776 slave owning, traitorous aristocrats secede from their home nation and decide to create their own nation
They were far more impressive and forward thinking people than even the finest the Confederates had to offer
>>this is seen as good, is celebrated, and is seen as a truimph for freedom and democracy
It was
>>in 1861 slave owning, traitorous aristocrats secede from their home nation and decide to create their own nation
A perfect copy of the USA with the sole exception of slavery being constitutionally protected
>>this is seen as the worst thing ever
Because it was
>Why is it like this?
Because it was a poor cause and was latched on to be fat mouth breathers who live in a shack in the woods and vote

>>16825562
Ya no, the founding fathers didn't fight the war of independence to maintain slavery. The CSA did. Also lol the person who writes it writes history anyone left alive can contribute to the narrative.

>>16825552
They tried to fill the Southern United States with Africans and tried to destroy the Union.

>>16826221
>The North didn’t attack Fort Sumpter.
that's actually incorrect, fort sumpter wasn't garrisoned until south carolina seceded.

>>16827120
black life expectancy was never lower than 30 in the American South, the only time it was low was when they were in africa.

>>16827160
this sounds like a lot of cope because blacks didnt actually chafe under slavery lmao.

>>16826641
nta, but he is correct on all counts.
>>16826597
A long life mean's their life wasnt bad, therefore you can not say that slavery was bad because it wasnt producing the negative outcomes we see today in life expectancy.
>theyd recall it positively because they never experienced anything else
They were freed, they experienced free life, they said they looked upon slavery favorably and one even said he wishes to serve his master after he dies.

Your argument makes no sense because not only did they experience a free life, they determined a free life was of lower quality than life as a slave.
sounds like slavery is actually le good lol

>>16828401
Some did. Others didn't.

The distinction of slavery was a lot more like the distinction between nobility and commoner. As such you have people chafing under the ancien regime but you also have people who were fine, but the system itself needed to be replaced because it wasn't suitable to a modern society.

>>16826418
>Plenty of conservative whites aren't pro-dixie.
>conservative
You mean lefties going at 5mph rather than 150 mph right?
There are ZERO Right Wing Americans who arent pro-Dixie.
The only critique of Dixie that has ever been made by those who arent left wing was done by Southerners who supported Adolf Hitler in the 40s, thats it.
Are you a Southerner with Sympathies towards National Socialism?

>>16826230
>backwater shithole
Whiter than America today.
>China tier
hardly.
>slavery
you mean keeping blacks from destroying the country?
Yes.
>anachronistic
preventing blacks from torching the Continental US is hardly anachronistic.
>any aristocrat from the time
only the mentally ill hate their own aristocracy.

>>16828416
The Union was literally National Socialist

>>16826230
>china tier civil war
literal retard

>>16826117
>it was part of the US
but it wasnt apart of the North which is where Northerners were from, surprising I know.
So for Northerners to see the South as their homeland is absurd.
In fact people didnt even feel a patriotism towards the "country" they felt a patriotism to their state which they saw as primary over the country itself.
Britain never saw the colonies as anything more than a dominion, it was never considered "theirs" thats why the colonies werent permitted to influence England itself.
>Why wouldnt you want to be a slave
because I have an IQ of 139 and my maximum potential would be capped as a slave, I am also capable of governing myself without needing to life in an adult daycare.
those enslaved in the 1860s.... well you know how they are, they arent like me.
>its not a big deal
Taxes arent a big deal either, I dont want to pay them, yet I pay them because thats the lot in life I was dealt.

Why shouldnt blacks just be slaves since thats the lot they were dealt in life? Maybe they should have fought harder? My ancestors won the civil war, why shouldnt we enslave blacks again?
>I never said anything about race
American slavery was not colorblind, dont insult us by claiming ignorance.
>you always use this cope when called out
????
Also, are you implying someone's ethnic background can delegitimize their argument?
Cool! black people by virtue of being formerly enslaved should not be allowed to get a say on slavery because they are biased due to their ethnic background.
>larp
nonsensical.
Whites have to stick together to survive, why are you against White solidarity?
Rest of your post is cope because you are against White solidarity.

You are a leftist or a jew.
end yourself

>>16826115
Jefferson was in favor of a Whites only policy for America.

>>16828434
Youre not ready for the Wendelpill.
Take your meds.

>>16826021
Slavery in the South was anachronistic at best.

>>16826198
>>16826248
If Britain wasn't a rival to the US, who the fuck was?

>>16825965
>Did you miss the part where Thomas Jefferson repeatedly said he hated aristocracy, hated England, and was a proud open supporter of the French Revolution and tried to boycott trade with Britain when he was President? He was a southerner from Virginia.
Retard
>despite being of english descent, despite being an english radical whig and living in an english society, despite learning old english and LARPing as an anglo saxon and wanting hengist and horsa on the seal of the united states jefferson was le anti english because he disliked the british government
???
are you retarded
And jefferson loved the natural aristocracy, he disliked inbred entrenched aristocracies

>>16825597
White southerners are 100% white and cluster with scots and englishmen
>>16825928
why should they?

>>16825552
in 1776 it was a lot more than "slave owning aristocrats," the independence movement started in New England and Pennsylvania
They were bad because they made their whole "thing" about seceding over the "right" to own human beings as property and thought they could do it because Britain would buy their cotton. They thought wrong.
>>16825584
Those "old stock anglos" sure didn't care about their fellow poor Whites since they really really wanted Negro slave labour.

>>16828573
when you go to war and fight somebody, that's a rival

>>16828450
>Whites have to stick together to survive, why are you against White solidarity?
Slaves suppressed poor white wages in the South. If you really did care about your people why would you want to revive a system which hurt them?

>>16828905
>independence movement started in New England and Pennsylvania
Virginia and NC were literally the first to declare independence. The british lost a majority of their casualties fighting in the south. The british fought a war of abolition and ended slavery in NYC (which was 1/3 slaveholders) which they occupied during the war. The Americans pushed to have their slaves returned during the Treaty of Paris and the british rejected this.

>Those "old stock anglos" sure didn't care about their fellow poor Whites since they really really wanted Negro slave labour.
Poor whites weren't jumping to compete for cotton picking jobs with slaves. It was the opposite, freed slaves immediately started crowding southern cities and competing for white jobs after the war leading to race riots in Memphis/New Orleans.

Not to mention that the two areas in America that have the most persistent white poverty are Kentucky and West Virginia, the two southern states that sided with the Union. Didnt work out for them it seems.


OP is right and the recent trend in academic history will use this obvious parallel to destroy the legacy of the founding. In two generations all of you left wing fags will be celebrating the removal of Washington & Jefferson.

>>16829144
Slaves did jobs whites didnt want. Thats the entire reason they were imported in the first place. Most indentured servants would rather go off and become smallholders after their servitude was up. The reason that poor whites didn't like slavery was because they didnt like living around large populations of blacks. Abolition only worsens these issues.

>>16829069
Who had the US fought wars with at that point?
>Mexico
Significantly weaker, especially considering that they constantly had civil wars.
>native tribes
Infinitely weaker.
>Barbary states
On the other side of the Atlantic, and again much weaker.
>Britain
An actual great power with neighbouring colonies and ongoing territorial disputes.
So, even by your retarded definition, Britain is the only power that can be called rivals.

>>16827204
This. The Civil War is quickly becoming the new ethnogenesis for New Multimutt America. The Paradox of the Founders which OP elucidated is just an unfortunate factoid that they can hand wave away like tha majority of the libtards ITT.

The real problem for Libtards is that the new anti-white left who have taken hold of Academia will use this paradox to attack every aspect of American Patriotism. The current academic view of the Civil war even promotes the idea that Blacks freed themselves LOL and libshit white historians are too pathetic to disagree. Remember when they gave mild criticism to the 1619 project and immediately apologized.

I shit you not when I say the Jefferson Davis will be vindicated. The new anti-white left has been pretty consistent in that his views are the legitimate legacy of the founders vision.

>>16829196
>poor whites don't want to do certain jobs
>we should import slaves that whites hate to be around and force them to work
Why couldn't wealthy southerners just pay whites more money to do these jobs? Wouldn't that be more beneficial to white people in the short term and long term?

>>16829218
britian was the US's main trade partner, unless there was an active war between them they weren't enemies. This was such the case that even when britian was actively at war with the US new england was covertly making deals with them and undermining US war efforts. This is treason, trading with britian during the civil war isn't treason, if it was then the north was also committing treason.

>One nation is created with the intention of breaking off from a separate government across an entire ocean
>The other wants to come into existence for the sole purpose of continuing to keep people in chains

>>16829238
>we should import slaves that whites hate to be around and force them to work
It was the Northeastern merchants who ran the slave trade and built their wealth off selling enslaved labor to planters at better margins.BTW this was gone by 1808 so nobody supported this anymore by the time of the Civil War.

>just pay whites more money to do these jobs?
sorry I forgot libtards simultaneously can't understand history or economics. You can't just decide to suspend basic supply and demand. The absence of slavery would just mean a glut of black free labor which would still drive down white wages.

The only way out of this system was to push slaves out of the south and into the southwest. This was the goal of Jefferson and Madison who became ardent slave expansionists during the Missouri question. The idea that market forces would cause soil exhaustion in the southeast and push slavery south and west. Both Virginia and Maryland were able to decrease their slave reliance between 1800-1860.

If anything, it was the north that was impoverishing the south. The southern planters were essentially just overseers for northern capitalists. The southern economy produced the raw materials for northern industry (mostly textiles). When the south attempted to industrialize, they would just be targeted and out-competed by northern industry. The tariff protected northern industry from Europe but nothing was protecting southern industry from the north.

I could get further into the weeds on the economic dimensions but it would probably be a waste of time on /his/.

>>16828453
Yes and unlike /his/ Jefferson had a non-retarded idea of what "white" meant,

>>16829336
>"Our fore fathers came over here for liberty of conscience, and we have been nothing better than servants to ’em all along this 100 years, and got just enough to keep soul and body together, and buy their goods to keep us from freezing to death, and we won’t be their negroes. Providence never designed us for negroes, I know, for if it had it wou’d have given us black hides, and thick lips, and flat noses, and short woolly hair, which it han’t done, and therefore never intended us for slaves. This I know is good a sillogissim as any at colledge, I say we are as handsome as old England folks, and so should be as free."
>John Adams

>>16828458
I'm more in favour of Fremont

>>16829355
This is just Adams proclaiming that white Americans aren't niggers and won't serve Great Britain. Nothing to do with America's policy on keeping slaves.

>>16829157
Slavery was literally used to depress free White labour, nona.
Also Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia are commonly thought to be the worst states for poverty and they were the Deep South.

File: high-poverty-counties-by-(...).png (30 KB, 563x449)

30 KB PNG

>>16829512
Are you just willfully ignoring the concept of different job sectors? Slavery kept blacks out of white jobs. After emancipation, freedman left plantations (work whites didnt want) and entered towns and competed for white jobs. This was literally the cause of the Memphis riots. Poor whites who lived in areas with a large slave population did not want to compete with free black labor.

>Also Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia are commonly thought to be the worst states for poverty
Yes because you're a ignorant foreigner who says "labour". Those states are poor because they have a high % black population (who are in poverty in every state they live in). However for white poverty, the upper south is worse, specifically WV & KY.

>>16827063
The president cannot constitutionally be elected without an electoral college majority. Please go back to your homework.

>>16827905
>One of them killed their countrymen for a lack of representation and oppressive taxation. The Confederates killed people because they lost an election after a century of everyone else kowtowing to their political dick swinging.
This is what gets me about the Confederates and 1776 comparisons. The issues of 1776 were like decades long issues with a lot of back and forth. Both sides sent petitions, trying to find a peaceful resolution. In Parliament's case, they simply treated the colonist as inferiors. Like consider that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was 13 years before 1776, that forbade colonists was expanding westward. And the major taxes like the Sugar/Stamp Acts were in the 1760s. The colonists literally did everything they could to protest until outright military revolt.

Compare that to the CSA. There were tensions, sure, but they had navigated the Mexican American War, the Missouri Compromise, etc... So what changed? Lincoln won the Presidency without a single southern electoral vote, and the South chimped out. South Carolina and others seceded before Lincoln even took office, with several explicitly stating hostile anti-slavery actions by the North... by Lincoln... who wasn't even in fucking office yet.

Side note, but official Republican platform was the prevention of expansion of slavery into any newly admitted states and the territories. The Republicans did not want to emancipate current slaves in slave holding states since everyone knew it was constitutional. The South chimped out because they knew their stranglehold on politics was waning, and they would lose the long game... for slavery... which Lost Cause-ers later decry as a dying institution anyways.

>>16829691
>However for white poverty, the upper south is worse, specifically WV & KY.

Yeah, this is very true. Whites in the Deep South tend to be quite middle class. White poverty is rarer there. Kentucky, West Virginia and parts of southwest Virginia however have tons of really bad white poverty, that's on a scale unimaginable to most people who aren't familiar with that region.

Its also where things like country music, bluegrass and NASCAR originated, something most people associate with the Deep South even if it was really from the Upper South at first and usually markers in Southern society until idk the 1950s or so as being low class.

>>16829691
Slavery was meant to fuck over the poor White. Why do they have a high black population, again?

>>16829780
Why are whites poorer in less slave dependent Upper South states (Kentucky) than more slave dependent Deep South states (Georgia)?

>>16829718
>In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations—northern and southern—Atlantic and western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts.
>George Washington, FAREWELL ADDRESS 1796

>the Federalists compleatly put down, and despairing of ever rising again under the old division of whig and tory, devised a new one, of slave-holding, & non-slave-holding states, which, while it had a semblance of being Moral, was at the same time Geographical, and calculated to give them ascendancy by debauching their old opponents to a coalition with them. Moral the question certainly is not, ... however it served to throw dust into the eyes of the people and to fanaticise them, while to the knowing ones it gave a geographical and preponderant line of the Patomac and Ohio, throwing 14. states to the North and East, & 10. to the South & West. with these therefore it is merely a question of power: but with this geographical minority it is a question of existence. for if Congress once goes out of the Constitution to arrogate a right of regulating the condition of the inhabitants of the states, it’s majority may, and probably will next declare that the condition of all men within the US. shall be that of freedom. in which case all the whites South of the Patomak and Ohio must evacuate their states; and most fortunate those who can do it first. and so far this crisis seems to be advancing.
>Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 26 December 1820

The founders themselves saw the election of a sectional party as the death knell of their union. You must be truly deluded to think their descendants didn't understand that.

>>16829790
Kentucky and West Virginia had poorer natural resources. The slave population in Kentucky prewar was about as high as the average in the South, about a quarter of the total population.
Missouri was also a Union and a slave state, and is not as poor by far. Same with Maryland and Delaware.

File: 1718310977195.jpg (192 KB, 534x577)

192 KB JPG

>>16825552
Normal Americans don't care. It's only the demoralized/communist lunatics who make a big fuss about it.

>>16829780
>Slavery was meant to fuck over the poor White.
slavery successfully expanded in the gulf states because it provided a means of quick settlement and movement of large scale labor in a subtropical labor intensive environment. It would not have been replicated with just free white labor.

The abolition of slavery in the british west indies saw a overall economic decline in those regions. It didn't see a mass migration of white immigrants excited to finally compete with darkies for plantation jobs.

>>16829803
>Kentucky and West Virginia had poorer natural resources.
you are legitimately retarded and not worth responding to anymore, goodbye.

>>16825552
can you explain to me why slavery is bad?

>>16829857
It depresses wages for the free population and the slavers have to provide for their slaves.
You know, since you don't care about the moral perspectives on the matter. Any apologist for slavery always thinks of themselves as the master, and not the far more likely perspective of being the slave.
>>16829844
Poorer soil.
>>16829838
Yeah, it got settled with Negroes instead of Whites. Real winner there by the people who supposedly wanted a White ethnostate.

>>16829308
China is the largest trading partner of Taiwan, before WW1 Russia and Britain were the largest trading partners of Germany, and I'm sure there are countless of other examples. Economic ties and geopolitical friction are by no means mutually exclusive.
And no, I wouldn't say that it was treason to trade with Britain, but it was treason to try to get them to join the war and likewise was it treason to rebel against the Union in the first place.

>>16829962
Ignoring the main component of brutish/german relations during WWI was a naval blockade of trade

File: 1719977462743493.jpg (190 KB, 966x1284)

190 KB JPG

>>16828058
The Constitution was a compromise document between the 13 colonies, the principle concessions were nationalized trade negotiations and slavery. So new england got disproportionate representation in trade and virginia got disproportionate representation through slavery. new england was so elitist they tore their hair out over having to go to philadelphia, which they viewed as a backwater.

When the capitol was moved to the potomac (its present location), they viewed it as a personal insult. This, along with the south's expansion, and the 1807 embargo caused a schism in national politics that lead to the civil war. These are the people that until the bitter end hated the average voter, especially after the expansion of enfranchisement, to the point that even pretending to care about the average person in order to win elections caused them discomfort.

>>16829144
Poor Whites could eventually own slaves and then have a form a sustainable profit from working the land.
This is also independent of value generation as there is no economic trickery with rates of exchange, slaves will perpetually build up an estate until one lives like a king and the slaves live like second son gentry.
This is the logical conclusion of the American Style slavery.

File: rio.png (1.46 MB, 1240x827)

1.46 MB PNG

One only has to look at South America, where the agrotycoon aristocracy was never challenged, and you will realize exactly what awaited an America where these people were never dis-empowered. Pic related.

This is actually hindsight, and has nothing to do with the real reason the war was fought. It is as irrelevant and "missing the point" as State's Rights and Slavery arguments are. The real point of the war was a clash between two distinct cultures that served to draw a line in the sand under the same flag. The American civil war was a clash between these two different ways of life, inevitable from the very start. No more, no less.

>>16830646
was Brazil ever 65% White in its entire history?

>>16830646
Are you sure Brazil isnt the result of abolition?

>>16830669
Without Abolition, Brazil would look like Haiti

File: argentina.jpg (164 KB, 940x550)

164 KB JPG

>>16830667
Argentina certainly was, and let's take a look-see at how they're doing.

Oh...

>>16830682
did Argentina also abolish slavery?

>>16830678
explain? Why would Brazilian men abandon the defense of Brazil?

>>16830678
Haiti was 95% black. Brazil would never reach those numbers regardless of abolition. Cuba, nor Brazil were never actually in fear of a haiti style revolution.

>>16830684
Not until after they killed all their slaves.

>>16825552
its a psyop by the yanks to legitimize destroying an economic union for their greed. The so called yanks were so not racist that blacks basically didnt exist in their territories until the Great Migration period.

>>16825552
>> in 1776 slave owning, traitorous aristocrats secede from their home nation and decide to create their own nation
Many were not slave owners. Those from the north usually did not own slaves and some even had humble origins. Nor was slave owning an important issue at the time. Slavery was legal across the British empire and would be for some time.
>in 1861 slave owning, traitorous aristocrats secede from their home nation and decide to create their own nation
Unlike the last conflict, which was over taxes and representation, this conflict was all about slavery and keeping slavery legal and growing.

>>16825584
>Friendly reminder that the american south is the ONLY part of america that still retains its founding old stock anglo population
That’s why it rules

>>16830715
so the slave descendants arent causing them problems?

>>16830740
it's hard to have descendants when everybody's fucking dead anon

File: his map shipping_routes_1(...).png (729 KB, 1280x2291)

729 KB PNG

>>16826767
>the Federal government hit peak corruption and thievery in the decades following the war. There were many corrupt men in the government previous to the war, but it was nothing like the insanity in the 50 years following
What do you think contributed the most to eventually reverse this trend?

Also, could you recommend some books from late 19th century which were influential in that period but are mostly forgotten today?
>pic unrelated

>>16830897
republicans nearly killed their party in about a decade following the war. even after it was scandal after scandal. Most of the "robber barons" of the gilded age made all their money from the civil war. After the civil war you have events like Black Friday (1869) where president grant's sister helped robber barons corner the gold market

interestingly the only reason they could so this is because a large part of the 2.8 billion dollar debt (some say 5 billion) from the civil war was purportedly owned by the Rothschilds who got grant elected to make sure the US paid them in gold.

>>16830733
The british pushing a war of abolition during the revolution was 100% a contributing factor for the Patriots to declare independence. It is the final accusation against the King in the Declaration of Independence.

>>16825584
The midwest is also pretty much it's founding stock

>>16825597
Teen pregnancy is a good thing retard

>>16830733
>comitting treason and owning blacks as chattel is noble but only as long as you don't do the former explicitly because of the latter.
the levels of cope is truly insane.

>>16831133
>treason
treason to what? They obeyed the will of the states from which they were brought up in.

>>16825552
If America lost the Revolutionary War, George Washington and the founding fathers would be branded traitors.
If the Confederacy had won, Abraham Lincoln would have been seen as the devil.
History is only ever one side of the tale. Very rarely have the victorious ever been seen as the evil ones- and usually hundreds if not thousands of years after the fact, or after they then lost to someone else.

The CSA was only attempting to continue the tradition the founding fathers gave them. Abraham Lincoln effectively killed the state as an institution of power and making federalism the 'new normal'

>>16829798
>The founders themselves saw the election of a sectional party as the death knell of their union
And both parties were by this point blatantly sectional, advocating for their respective sections' interests at the expense of the nation, and ultimately those very sections.

>>16826570
Proof? Source? Literally anything that validates your claim?

>>16829355
>Providence never designed us for negroes, I know, for if it had it wou’d have given us black hides, and thick lips, and flat noses, and short woolly hair, which it han’t done, and therefore never intended us for slaves.
Irish Nationalist tier syllogism.

>>16831133
I didn't say any of that. I just think there is a difference between fighting to protect slavery and fighting over political representation and taxes.

>>16830623
If the only way to get rich is through slavery youll bottleneck your economy to be overly reliant on slavery and imports. Men in the North had more job opportunities and valuable skills that could create greater industry and growth. Meanwhile the South was plagued with a lack of any innovation or growth and insane wealth inequality.

>>16829696
I misspoke, what I meant to say was neither a majority of the popular vote nor a single electoral vote in the South.

>>16825552
Most of the Founding Fathers weren't really pro slavery and expected it to die out in a couple of generations, which it almost did until the creation of the cotton gin. There was also a lot of actual issues regarding representation, heavy handed British treatment of the colonies and such. The Confederates were traitors who betrayed the country because of slavery.

>>16831354
Maybe don't tax the south more than you tax the north while stealing states during western expansion from the south because they have gold. Maybe don't funnel money into the contemporary equivalent of antifa who thinks it's alright to form a different treasonous government in a slave state that doesn't like slavery. Maybe don't threaten to secede because you're so elitist and conspire with US enemies to get special favors. Maybe don't try and silence all dissent when you're in power . Maybe don't create a party for the sole purpose of antagonizing the south etc etc

>>16832279
oh also, maybe don't form a national bank for the sole purpose of printing money for embezzlement when the rest of the country has to pay for it through inflation

>>16832279
>Maybe don't tax the south more than you tax the north
The southern planters did not pay tax, and most of federal revenue was generated in New York which is not a southern state.
>while stealing states during western expansion
The only state that was "stolen" was kansas, and that was by slavers in one of the most obvious bits of bullshit ever done by any political faction.
>Maybe don't funnel money into the contemporary equivalent of antifa who thinks it's alright to form a different treasonous government in a slave state that doesn't like slavery.
Is... is this Kansas? Are you talking about Kansas? I don't see what else you could be talking about, and if so you need to shut your fucking facehole, because that is literally just fucking wrong. Kansas was majority non-slavers, the non-slavers had the actual right to the government when slavers literally fucking invaded, stole the government and imposed their will on the rest.

>>16831322
Not true, most of human history saw agricultural labor as the backbone of the economy.
The South wasnt "plagued" with a lack of green line go up as much as it was more stable and sustainable.
>wealth inequality
this doesnt really matter when the difference is measured in sq acreage rather than how many personal jets does one own.
I agree there was way less potential for an industrial revolution, but this also means they do not have the disadvantages of undergoing the industrial revolution such accelerating pollution, inflation, the dismantling of regional localism, and the emergence of a "zeugitai" like caste that would agitate for a more democratic political structure.
ironically the South was the only subset of the English that werent obsessed with the generation of wealth thus why they held onto sustenance over profit even as they could have very easily transitioned into an incredibly wealthy industrial nation like the political North did.

not for nothing, the North's 'Mid West' is still a shithole where they suffer extremely degenerate shitlibism but without the cope of having a high tech urban core like the North East.

>>16830756
Isnt this is a good thing?
Doesnt this mean Argentina would be much worse if they merely abolished slavery and had former slaves doing what they do there?

What do you think the net economic benefit of having blacks in America is?
I must also say this benefit should outweigh the negatives of having blacks in America such as their elevated rate of criminality and non-assimilable nature.

>>16832341
>has to blatantly lie about the south not paying all the taxes in the Union
every time

>>16832279
>free soil was antifa
no, slavers were just assholes

>>16833864
slavers were the least likely of all people to be assholes because they had to rule over blacks.

>>16833872
They wanted to bring in blacks to be farmhands the exact same Democrats nowadays want to bring in illegal immigrants

>>16833043
>Not true, most of human history saw agricultural labor as the backbone of the economy.
society has exponentially improved since the end of that, most of human history has been hunter gatherers

>>16833895
the foreign hordes today are given status above citizens while blacks were movable property.
not even remotely comparable.

White supremacy > White ethnostate > weird liberal brazil

>fundamentalist christian abolitionists = antifa
lol

same shit different day
the demonRATS are at it again with their woke nonsense. us common sense conservatives with jewish christian values need to work together. i have black friends. i am not racist. i hate the south. those Confederates would have been wokies if they had been around today.
support israel
- BIG DAVE
- Ford Strong
-slugger of 62 little league

sent from my iphone

File: 1720473223192.jpg (176 KB, 1024x832)

176 KB JPG

>>16833925
They were BLM

>>16827104
Not since common core.

>>16827644
>these people tried to influence other states into becoming slave states and enforcing the rules they have on them

...No they didn't.

>>16833948
Today they would have been ardently pro-life and anti-sodomy evangelicals, not BLM faggots.

File: My_Sides.jpg (117 KB, 1024x1016)

117 KB JPG

>>16825552
>CSA
>it was ruled by a bunch of corrupt idiots who LARPing as noble aristocrats and feudal lords
>many slave owners genuinely saw their slaves as their extended family and treated them like their damn children
>cuckoldry and racemixing was beyond rampant, which is why the average American Black is 20% white on average and why the "White" Southerners carry the most black genes out of all white Americans
>it contained counties that were 80% black where black slaves were commanded by black overseers and with no white person around them to keep them in check they often went on crime sprees against whites
>secret societies like the Knights of the Golden Circle and even Jefferson Davis himself legitimately thought places like Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic and even Mexico should be annexed to boost slave population, which would effectively make the country like 80% non-white (Rhodesia, anyone?)
>many southern aristocrats, especially the landed planters around New Orleans and Charleston, genuinely wanted to re-establish the Atlantic slave trade routes which means more blacks, blacks, blacks and more blacks
>most rural yeoman whites especially in the upland south (Kentucky, Virginia outside of the tobacco belt, Missouri etc) fucking loathed Slavery because it prevented progress and kept them poor as fuck by devaluing labor costs, West Virginia broke away and joined the Union precisely because of this
>the Secretary of State was a literal Jew and many slave owners for that matter were Jews

Also: What a retarded comparison. The South was not a colony of the USA (not before the Reconstruction at least) like the Thirteen Colonials were for England, the South was part of the Union with the North and they still had an advantage in congress by using fucking slaves as numbers of seats/votes being that they were not American citizens. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers only wanted to annex Cuba while dixietards wanted the entire Caribbean.

>>16833982
>>it was ruled by a bunch of corrupt idiots who LARPing as noble aristocrats and feudal lords
Half of them were descended from aristocrats and lords
The other half descended from hearty yeoman stock who became aristocrats through trading slaves
>many slave owners genuinely saw their slaves as their extended family and treated them like their damn children
Disproves the myth that slaves were oppressed
>cuckoldry and racemixing was beyond rampant, why the "White" Southerners carry the most black genes out of all white Americans
if white southerners are mullattos then why do they cluster and collate almost exactly with englishmen? >>16825584
>>it contained counties that were 80% black where black slaves were commanded by black overseers and with no white person around them to keep them in check they often went on crime sprees against whites
no proof for this
>>secret societies like the Knights of the Golden Circle and even Jefferson Davis himself legitimately thought places like Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic and even Mexico should be annexed to boost slave population, which would effectively make the country like 80% non-white (Rhodesia, anyone?)
The british empire owned territories which were 99% non white yet britain the country remained 100% white
>many southern aristocrats, especially the landed planters around New Orleans and Charleston, genuinely wanted to re-establish the Atlantic slave trade routes which means more blacks, blacks, blacks and more blacks
no proof
> West Virginia broke away and joined the Union precisely because of this
wrong
over half of all west virginians who fought in the civil war fought for the confederacy
the upper south was split but it was not anti confederate. just as many fought for the confederacy as fought against it
The south is literally the only good part of america seeing as it wasn't the result of autistic puritans or hippy quakers but english cavaliers and north english/lowland scots border reivers

>>16833921
The economics are literally the same.

Look, recently people have gone crazy with sanctuary city nonsense but there was a good few decades where illegal immigration went largely unnoticed and it was just people trying to bring in people to undercut wages.

The Democrats both back then and now were trying to protect their cheap labour because they don't want to pay the full citizen wage. I have no desire to hold someone in a lower station than me. I want to create a society of citizens without citizens bringing in non-citizens to undermine other citizens.

>>16834012
Ironic, the policies that filled the US with dysgenics were pushed by northern progressives that didn't give a fuck what happened to the US if they flooded the US with coolies as long as their government grant embezzled railroad they won in a poker game got finished

>>16833982
>The South was not a colony of the USA
yes it was. The South relied on the North. It was a colony tier economy

File: Dixie's Future is Haiti's(...).png (89 KB, 1030x594)

89 KB PNG

>>16834007
>Half of them were descended from aristocrats and lords The other half descended from hearty yeoman stock who became aristocrats through trading slaves
Most of them bullshit, only the elite. Do you base a person being "descended from aristocrats and lords" based on their surname? If so, it's wrong. People had their surnames to LARPing their prestige, not because they were royal descendants (something similar happened here in Brazil: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silva). Being a rich slave owner as well as being bourgeois does not make you an aristocrat, but an oligarch.
>Disproves the myth that slaves were oppressed
I said many, not all, you functionally illiterate. If southern slavery was good for all of them, the Underground Railroad wouldn't exist. It is logical that these slaves who were seen as family members were domestic servants rather than the plantation workers who were the majority.
>if white southerners are mullattos then why do they cluster and collate almost exactly with englishmen?
Why do you compare them to Englishmen when the British Empire had already abolished Slavery when the Civil War happened? You know that if the USA were still their colony, that would have made white southerners more mulatto than they are today.
>no proof for this
Lowndes County, Mississippi (1860):
>Total population: 25,176
>White population: 8,045
>Enslaved population: 17,000

Beaufort County, South Carolina (1860):
>Total population: 38,805
>White population: 6,568
>Enslaved population: 32,530

Adams County, Mississippi (1860):
>Total population: 19,399
>White population: 5,384
>Enslaved population: 13,302

Chicot County, Arkansas (1860):
>Total population: 12,547
>White population: 1,573
>Enslaved population: 10,701

St. John the Baptist County, Louisiana (1860):
>Total population: 9,703
>White population: 1,168
>Enslaved population: 8,098

Madison County, Mississippi (1860):
>Total population: 24,173
>White population: 5,283
>Enslaved population: 18,382

1/2

>>16834317
>The South relied on the North
that's not what a colony means, but oddly enough you shitposting retards arrived at sort of the right conclusion. The south was an economic colony of the north. The north tariffed their importation of industry to keep them from competing

after the war the north took them over and embezzled hundreds of millions building railroads into the middle of nowhere to try and maximize their cotton output

File: I WILL ENSLAVE THE INFERI(...).jpg (3.94 MB, 2714x1552)

3.94 MB JPG

>>16834329
Wilkinson County, Mississippi (1860):
>Total population: 16,910
>White population: 3,137
>Enslaved population: 13,516

Brazoria County, Texas (1860):
>Total population: 8,167
>White population: 1,918
>Enslaved population: 6,160

Jefferson County, Mississippi (1860):
>Total population: 17,279
>White population: 3,271
>Enslaved population: 13,037

>Colleton County, South Carolina (1860)
>Total population: 20,125
>White population: 5,156
>Enslaved population: 14,906

>The british empire owned territories which were 99% non white yet britain the country remained 100% white
The difference, my dear retarded Dixietard, is that those non-white countries that the British Empire owned were A FUCKING OCEAN AWAY FROM THEM, that is, British non-whites, at least not part of the elite who were not educated in the United Kingdom for indoctrination purposes, could not go easily to the United Kingdom unlike non-whites from the Golden Circle who would simply cross overland via America Central or sea in the Caribbean like the Marielitos.

>no proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire-Eaters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_(military)
>wrong over half of all west virginians who fought in the civil war fought for the confederacy the upper south was split but it was not anti confederate. just as many fought for the confederacy as fought against it
Even you won't believe this nonsense, the Union had 32,000 men from West Virginia, while the Confederacy only had 9,000-10,000. Less than double the Union.

2/2

Maybe your somewhat right, but it doesn't mean you should say that

>>16833061
They literally did not pay tax. This is fully a thing Southerners invented after the civil war was over. The southern states didn't even believe this during the actual conflict.