Why do Southerners continue to honor their ancestors for fighting a war in defense of slavery? It's like being proud that your great grandfather was Jack the Ripper.
>muh states' rights
What rights, exactly? The only rights that were mentioned in the South Carolina Declaration of Causes were rights pertaining to slavery: the right to have fugitive slaves returned and the right to travel with slaves in the territories. There's no mention in there of tariffs or any of the other issues that divided the country.
>black Rebels
Yes, there were blacks in the Confederate army, but they were drafted. Very few volunteered for it compared to black enlistment rates in the US army.
>Lincoln was a tyrant
Yes, he was, but so was Jeff Davis. So is every president in time of war. Civil liberties have always been abrogated in the name of war effort.
Why do Southerners continue to honor their ancestors for fighting a war in defense of slavery...
> Why do Southerners continue to honor their ancestors for fighting a war in defense of slavery?
Answered your own question, burger.
>It's like being proud that your great grandfather was Jack the Ripper.
That'd be pretty cool, especially since he got away with it.
>He still thinks the war was about slavery, lol
The guy in this picture, his name was Gordon, was whipped not by his slave master but by some left to look over the estate while they were away. This slave attempted to murder his wife and burn down the estate and was waving a gun around at people. He was whipped for behaving like a psychopath and was lucky they didn't execute him. Remember that whenever you see this picture, which was used out of context as a piece of anti-white propaganda for well over a century.
i would take pride in my ancestors no matter what they did
blood is blood
The North was not fighting to end slavery, but the South was fighting to keep it. The proof of it is from the Southern leaders themselves. Look at everything they ever said about the matter.
If somebody kidnapped you, forced you to work in his backyard for no pay, and beat you whenever you said or did anything about it, wouldn't you burn his house down? I know I would.
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.
A. Lincoln. Washington, August 22, 1862.
You just proved my point. Abe Lincoln did not care about slavery, but the South did. Why did the South break the union in the first place? Because of slavery.
>Abe Lincoln did not care about slavery,
So obviously the war wasn't about slavery but about re-uniting the country.
> but the South did.
The south didn't want the north dictating what it could or could not do.
>Why did the South break the union in the first place?
Because the federal government tried to tell it what to do. It was a federal power issue.
>Because of slavery.
Did you know that the first US slave owner was black? Did you know the first slave owners in North America were the indians? Did you know that at it's height, less than 2% of the population owned slaves? Did you know that Jews were responsible for the slave trade?
There is tons you don't know about the civil war. Stop basing your beliefs on you obviously limited knowledge.
Personally, what I admire is the way men like General Lee faced defeat in such a dignified way.
> If somebody kidnapped you.
This didn't happen, most were born into slavery not kidnapped.
> forced you to work in his backyard for no pay,
Except they paid for everything of yours and you didn't have to worry about anything, like a child.
> and beat you whenever you said or did anything about it, wouldn't you burn his house down?
That's not why they would beat them, they beat them for raping and attacking people.
> I know I would.
I possibly would too, but that's besides the point. I'm not implying that slavery was morally justifiable, it's obviously immoral, but certainly not to the degree people seem to think today. Slavery in the United States was probably far better than slavery in Africa or Islam and basically anywhere else at any time in human history though. And we don't see Africans or Muslims atoning for their past sins.
youtube.com
But my point was that this picture is an abolitionist piece of propaganda that was spread to justify the civil war (which killed hundreds of thousands of white men and left hundreds of thousands maimed for life) and the propaganda was meant to convey that whites were monstrously whipping and attacking black slaves and it did this with shit like this which is completely out of the context of why they were being whipped.
>This didn't happen, most were born into slavery not kidnapped.
Not to mention the fact that most slaves were sold into slavery by other blacks.
And that slavery still exists in Africa today.
Funny how blacks never get any of the blame for slavery, huh?
>So obviously the war wasn't about slavery but about re-uniting the country.
On the part of the North, that's true.
>The south didn't want the north dictating what it could or could not do.
Specifically what? What was the north doing in 1860 that was so bad?
>Because the federal government tried to tell it what to do. It was a federal power issue.
When? How? What other issue was there in 1860?
>Did you know that the first US slave owner was black?
There was no USA back then, just English colonies. By the time the USA became a thing, slavery had already existed for a long time.
>Did you know the first slave owners in North America were the indians?
Obviously since there was nobody here back then except them.
>Did you know that at it's height, less than 2% of the population owned slaves?
Yes, I did. That is another reason not to like the Confederacy. They conscripted poor whites and forced them to fight and die for the benefit of the planter elite.
>Did you know that Jews were responsible for the slave trade?
Jews and gentiles were slave traders.
That's fair. He had a sense of duty and honor, and you have to respect him for that, but other Virginians served the Union with duty and honor, so there's no reason he couldn't have done that.
>This didn't happen, most were born into slavery not kidnapped.
A human being is born with a natural right to be free.
>Except they paid for everything of yours and you didn't have to worry about anything, like a child.
They "paid" for it with money generated by the slaves' labor. The planters didn't do a damn thing all day except sit around sipping tea.
>That's not why they would beat them, they beat them for raping and attacking people.
Attacking people who had held him in bondage. His attack was fully justified as self defense.
Christ, the Country would've been so far better off today if we didn't have the south dragging the rest of the US down.
morality serves a purpose, its purpose is not the interests of all life but the interests if your life and your kind.
>And we don't see Africans or Muslims atoning for their past sins.
Aren't we supposed to be more civilized than them?
>whites were monstrously whipping and attacking black slaves
But they really were. It would be one thing if it didn't happen and the Abolitionists just made it up, but it did happen.
Yeah, but nobody is erecting public monuments to African slave traders, at least not that I'm aware of.
The only fate of niggers in my country must be slavery or deportation.
That's not morality at all, but sociopathy.
The strange thing is that blacks joined the same party that enslaved them.
Life is eat or die.
In order for life to live you must eat other life.
I dont attone for being the victor, the loser must attone for losing.
And the purpose of this life is to reproduce your kind, we are following our true purpose as the white race.
>fighting a war in defense of slavery
Only niggers say shit like this, nigger.
Also, do you realize that every white person on this board fucking hates living around niggers? Even if other brown menaces remained, if we got rid of just niggers, crime rates would drastically reduce. If we got rid of beaners, even with all the pajeets and yellow skins and sand niggers, our crime rate would be one of the top 10 lowest in the world.
Fuck niggers, should have sent them back or killed them all.
That is the opposite of how shitskins think tho.
Nigger, living among the white man as a slave was like winning the lottery. None of you niggers will go back unless we force you, because you know how bad you suck.
Didn't lincoln offer the south slavery if they would end the war? The north and south also hated each other for a lot of reason, not just slavery. Slavery was the hot issue, but the feud between the two was way deeper than slavery.
>Specifically what? What was the north doing in 1860 that was so bad?
Attempting to destroy the south's industry. Forcing the south to bend to the will of the north.
Do you really think the 3/5ths compromise was about being racist to blacks? No, it was to strip power from the southern states.
>There was no USA back then, just English colonies.
Still black.
>Obviously since there was nobody here back then except them.
Even though Whites were here first.
>Yes, I did. That is another reason not to like the Confederacy. They conscripted poor whites and forced them to fight and die for the benefit of the planter elite.
lmao! where do you get this shit?
>Jews and gentiles were slave traders.
>Yeah, but nobody is erecting public monuments to African slave traders, at least not that I'm aware of.
There's literally nothing wrong with erecting monuments to southern generals. Why do you hate White heritage so much?
Should we tear down Mouth Rushmore as well? two of the faces on it were slave owners.
For the record I know this thread is bait but I'm just following along out of boredom desu.
It is false to say all slaves were kidnapped, it is not false to say all slaves are slaves. And I don't think anybody has any rights but I do agree the slavery is immoral, which is exactly why I said this in the post you are responding to.
I also pointed out that slavery was a world-wide thing and it's kind of strange that only in the United States is slavery ever discussed as this 'monstrous' thing when they were treated far better than any other slaves of any other place or time period in human history, also the Arabs had been doing this to blacks for centuries and only 3% of the entire Atlantic Slave trade took place in the United States. So it really makes no sense that this is the whole legacy of the south, about this one issue.
My response was about the specific picture you and other propagandists use, of Gordon. He was not whipped for being a slave, he was whipped for being psychopath who tried to kill his own wife, murder people on the plantation and burn the whole place down.
> Attacking people who had held him in bondage. His attack was fully justified as self defense.
He tried to kill his own wife. ;\ Kind of destroys your narrative. Or are you going to narrative bandaid that with some other fiction?
>slavery is immoral
That is only true if you make them suffer. Most suffering during slavery was at the hands of other niggers. Hell I would flee a plantation too if I had to stay around niggers.
there are monuments to nelson mandela, who did some horrible things. martin luther king was a misogynist, following the same line of logic the left uses we can destroy anything that has a dual meaning.
...
Attempting to destroy the south's industry. Forcing the south to bend to the will of the north.
But what industry in particular? I'll answer for you: They were mainly protecting agricultural industries that would have been destroyed by the abolition of slavery.
>Do you really think the 3/5ths compromise was about being racist to blacks? No, it was to strip power from the southern states.
Do you even know what the 3/5ths compromise is? When the country was founded, southern states wanted black slaves to count towards their population and representation in congress, despite blacks having no right to vote or chance of being citizens. It was the 18th century version of commiefornia counting illegal spics towards their seats in the House. The north wanted only free men to count, but compromised to allow states to count 3/5ths of their slave population. The compromise ended increasing the representation of southern states in congress.
>but other Virginians served the Union
Traitors to their families and homeland
Going to war against the people and the land who nurtured you, just because someone in Washington tells you to do so, isn't something honorable.
>Also, do you realize that every white person on this board fucking hates living around niggers? Even if other brown menaces remained, if we got rid of just niggers, crime rates would drastically reduce. If we got rid of beaners, even with all the pajeets and yellow skins and sand niggers, our crime rate would be one of the top 10 lowest in the world.
Yes, blacks commit a lot of crime. What's your point?
Then why did slaves run away from their masters to serve the Union army as soon as the opportunity came?
>each other for a lot of reason
Like what? Name one.
>Attempting to destroy the south's industry
How? Are you referring to tariffs? By 1860, most of the tariffs had been reduced to levels the South found acceptable. If the South didn't secede in 1828 over the Tariff of Abominations, why would they do it in 1860.
>Still black.
Most of the slave owners in colonial America were white.
>Even though Whites were here first.
What the fuck are you talking about?
>lmao! where do you get this shit?
Google "confederate draft"
>Why do you hate White heritage so much?
I don't hate white people or white heritage. Why not erect monuments to white people who made the right choice, rather than the wrong choice?
>Should we tear down Mouth Rushmore as well? two of the faces on it were slave owners.
Washington and Jefferson were both opposed to slavery. Washington set his slaves free in his will. Jefferson would have as well, but it was not legal to do so by the time he died.>murder people on the plantation
It's not murder. It's self defense. If somebody kidnaps you, you have the right to fight back--with deadly force if necessary.
>He tried to kill his own wife. ;\ Kind of destroys your narrative
Why did he try to kill his wife? Please provide sources that he did indeed kill his own wife.
I think those monuments should be torn down too.
>Going to war against the people and the land who nurtured you
They didn't see it that way. They saw it as fighting to defend the South from the Confederate government. Remember that a lot of people in the South, both black and white, were opposed to the Confederacy. The Constitution says the army is supposed to suppress insurrections.
you understand most of the (((slaveowners))) were kikes, right? the civil war wasnt about slavery, is about destroying the south so kike bankers could have total control.
(You)
>He tried to kill his own wife. ;\ Kind of destroys your narrative
Why did he try to kill his wife?
> Please provide sources that he did indeed kill his own wife.
According to witnesses of the event, he tried to kill his own wife. Here is he is, in his own words:
""Ten days from to-day I left the plantation. Overseer Artayou Carrier whipped me. I was two months in bed sore from the whipping. My master come after I was whipped; he discharged the overseer. My master was not present. I don't remember the whipping. I was two months in bed sore from the whipping and my sense began to come – I was sort of crazy. I tried to shoot everybody. They said so, I did not know. I did not know that I had attempted to shoot everyone; they told me so. I burned up all my clothes; but I don't remember that. I never was this way (crazy) before. I don't know what make me come that way (crazy). My master come after I was whipped; saw me in bed; he discharged the overseer. They told me I attempted to shoot my wife the first one"
Slaves were whipped for doing the exact same things blacks do today to get into trouble. Robbing people, raping women and attacking people. Let's stop pretending to be surprised by this, it's obnoxious.
Source?
I'm looking for a reliable citation. I can't just take the word of somebody on an anonymous Siberian bear hunting forum.
Not it isn't, it's like being proud of your ancestors because they wanted freedom from a government that was forcing them to do something they didn't want to do. Slavery was worldwide and nobody ever really bothered to defend it until white people did. You even admit that some blacks voluntarily join the confederation yet you still have trouble working out why people would still be proud of their ancestors fight for freedom
>because they wanted freedom from a government that was forcing them to do something they didn't want to do.
And what exactly might that have been? What was the government forcing the South to do in 1860?
>You even admit that some blacks voluntarily join the confederation
Very, very few. The overwhelming majority of blacks volunteered to help the Union. Even blacks who did not fight helped the Union army in other ways.
So they beat him into a coma and told him, after he came to, that he had tried to shoot his own wife? Sounds like the overseer was lying to stay out of trouble with the master. How would a slave even have access to a firearm? If Gordon really were insane, then why would the Union army have allowed him to enlist? He would have been a liability to them.
>>murder people on the plantation
>It's not murder. It's self defense. If somebody kidnaps you, you have the right to fight back--with deadly force if necessary.
And I already addressed this you fucking retard. Don't make me repeat myself or I won't play along with this gay bait thread any longer. He tried to shoot his own wife. He was not 'fighting back', he was just being violent.
See my reply to that here:
> So they beat him into a coma and told him, after he came to, that he had tried to shoot his own wife?
No, 'they' didn't beat him into a coma 'Overseer Artayou Carrier' did. 'They' (the people present) said this is what happened. And he didn't mention in his story that anyone said otherwise.
> Sounds like the overseer was lying to stay out of trouble with the master.
There is simply no evidence that what you are saying took place. In contrast there is testimony of the slave that this is what the people present said occurred. You can say everyone was lying but that's just like your story you are making up based on no evidence.
> How would a slave even have access to a firearm?
I don't know. Maybe there was one present and he accessed it like anyone else might access a firearm?
> If Gordon really were insane, then why would the Union army have allowed him to enlist? He would have been a liability to them.
I never said he was insane, I said that there is testimony that he behaved extremely violently at least for one day of his life. There was a massive civil war going on at the time with hundreds of thousands dead and hundreds of thousands maimed beyond recognition, I don't think they were super picky. He was the right age and physical health and seemed ok during the examination.
Iowa here; not a southern-folk.
I really don't give a shit about what happened in the past. People wanted freedom from oppression, and they took ques from the 'boston tea party', but underestimated the greed the northerners had invested in.
In the end, as it sits now; we're all Goym/Gentiles -vs- 'God's chosen people', so if you want to prove your worth, then do something about it.
Pic is definitely not related. Target the source, not the symptom. Remove the root! You all damn-well know what the root of the problem is, so take heed in caution.
The confederate flag doesn't belong anywhere in current politics. They were rebels and they lost, they don't get to fly their flag.
The monuments should stay because they are monuments to dead Americans
>South: Man, selling these commodities is expensive; we should get slaves to do the work
>North: okay, we're going to do the same
>South: wow, because of our climate, growing conditions for lucrative commodities (such as tobacco and cotton) are allowing our profits to skyrocket!
>North: b-but we can't make as much money because of our climate ;_;
>South: tough titty; guess we're rich and you're not lmao
>North: so it's treason then
>South: beg pardon?
>North: SLAVERY IS IMMORAL (unchains slaves)
>South: you're literally just saying that because you're not making as much money
>North: no, no we really mean it. In fact, we're making it law that you can't own slaves. See? We're taking the moral high ground.
>South: fine, do what you want. We're still gonna keep our slaves and make money, bitches.
>North: challenge.
>South: fuck off
>North: war.
>South: fine, but because of the sheer size of our land compared to our population, it might be difficult for us to win this thing
>North: we won! See? Slavery is wrong. #lovetrumpshate #blacklivesmatter #communism4lyfe
Let's not forget the Jews involvement....
You're forgetting the Jewish involvement...
Agreed.
>Then why did slaves run away from their masters to serve the Union army as soon as the opportunity came?
They didn't. There were 250,000 free black people in the south during the war. 10% joined to fight along side their former masters.
southernheritage411.com
True American
You guys are so stupid.
I bet every time you sneeze you blame the Jews for it too.
You're literally retarded
>I bet every time you sneeze
Only if I fart at the same time. Sneezes are still white peoples fault.
Sotherners should rot in hell for bringing niggers here in the first place.
>They saw it as fighting to defend the South from the Confederate government.
The southern states voted to join the Confederacy. Stop being an idiot. The only Virginians who fought for the north were people who had be living there their entire lives. Thomas and Scott were born in Virginia but were practically northerners by the time of the war.
Because it was a war of independence, slavery played a secondary role and they were even willing to give it up when they had to choose between the two. The Americans fight on the side of slavery during the revolutionary war as well.
>Even though Whites were here first.
Wait what? I didn't know that. Do you have a source on that. I'm interested in learning more
Blacks were transitioned and acclimated to slave life through Brazil or the Caribean. That nigger got those marks from those places, not the United States.
>Washington and Jefferson were both opposed to slavery.
>Jefferson would have as well, but it was not legal to do so by the time he died
HAHAHAHAHA fucking yankees. I swear the mental gymnastics they go through to defend the founders and whine about the confederates is insane. Washington brought his slaves to a free state during his presidency and used a loophole to keep them enslaved. He also freed his slaves after he died because he had no heirs, it was a pretty common thing to do. My ancestors did it in the 1830's after all of this children left the state so Jefferson could have easily have done it as well. In fact Jefferson did free some of his slaves, the ones he fathered with his slave bed wench so it was some law stopping him from freeing the rest. Washington and Jefferson were both southern apologists and defended the institution of slavery. Jefferson himself was worried that a northern abolitionist party would try and destroy the south and that the south needed to expand slavery to survive.
Why don't we hear about the Muslim slave trade? It started 700 years before the US slave trade.
Protip Keyword: Castration
Lincoln offered to amend the constitution in support of slavery if the south wouldn't secede. This one fact proves it was not about slavery.
Lol except it was the north who did.
How has the south become so degenerate and retarded today?
It's neat to know faggots are still butt hurt over the lack of shits we give about niggers or political correctness
DARK SOULS 4 CONFIRMED
Nice (((Education))) you've got there.
It's not actually it's mostly do to this neat little thing called communication technology you see user as communication technology becomes more and more widely available and advanced it allows everyone to be heard of course this can create the illusion of a small minority being a massive majority something you should know about from various raids done on here.
Why does the US shun it's British ancestry?
>"WE WUZ GERMANS"
>muh africa
>muh confederacy
Look at how much shit in the US has a British name, Look at all the """germans""" with British last/first names, speaking english.
Stop trying to scrub out your British past!
>Why do Southerners continue to honor their ancestors for fighting a war in defense of slavery?
Go on safari in Baltimore or East St. Louis for a few weeks and come back and ask again.
Also that nigger in the picture is a slow fucking learner.
Because Comedy Central
How does that prove it? If that's true, it's just shrewd politics. The Southerners knew that Northerners would eventually try to remove slavery and Lincoln's party was full of abolitionists.
>would eventually
You've never experience war have you senpai? An eventual threat is rarely worth going to war for and good luck convincing people to die for a cause because of an eventual threat that could be settled diplomatically. The war was only about slavery to a few.
I'm pretty sure southerners have been going on about their "anglo-saxon" and "scotch-irish" heritage since forever.
how could they try and remove slavery if it became protected by the constitution? They would have to consult the south if they wanted to.
You think preemptive wars don't exist?
If it wasn't about slavery, what was it about? The hot issue at the time was the expansion of slavery, nothing else really.
Why do you think the expansion of slavery was such a thorny issue? Get enough Free States and that doesn't matter.
Everyone in my area goes on and on about their Cherokee heritage more, which is fucking weird and 99% bullshit for most people.
>t. East TN mountain fag
That misplaced pride is to cover up the nigger blood so many so called whites across the South carry
It's funny because after the civil war Linconl wanted to ship all the niggers back to Africa but it got seriously apposed. He also did not want them to have the rights as whites history.com
Is that a slave? I just see a guy who doesn't listen
Constitutional amendments are a lot harder to overturn than that. Even with the present 50 states, you would still need a southern state to pass any amendment.
But yes, the south didn't want the north to expand because they were fearful of the republican party gaining complete control of the federal government and making the south a politically powerless appendage. Remember that the Republicans were the U.S.'s first geographic party and everything about their platform was northern centric (not counting the obvious slavery stuff).
Freeing those dumb animals worked out great didn't it? Mr we are all equal...suckstart a shotgun
Under what moral code do you live by that slavery is not patently immoral?