Mafia III

You really seem invested in my liking the Union given they're a bunch of genocidal racists who conquered the Native American's land via a campaign of ethnic cleansing and resettlement.
You seem to love defending their actions in the Civil War.
I think of the Confederacy as basically just under the Nazis as a group.
:lmao:
God you're stupid.
I think that only qualifies as hypocritical if I have an objection to you or Kremin blocking me.
btw blocking someone for having a different opinion than you/proving you wrong is the most pussy SJW shit in the world good God are you trying to just lose any respect anyone could have for you?
Wha-

You do realize the War of Northern Aggression was fought mainly because of State's Rights, and not slavery, right?
We've been over this in another thread. He's totally bought into the liberal "teh south wuz da ebul slavers they wanted to lynch 6million blacks!" narrative.
 
Wha-

You do realize the War of Northern Aggression was fought mainly because of State's Rights, and not slavery, right?

Over in the Red Dead Redemption page, I posted the Declaration of Independence for the Confederacy's States and they all stated the war for independence was for the protection of the right to enslave Negroes and to guarantee that slavery as an institution was protected. The Southerners of the Civil War were not fools. They knew what they were fighting for and why.
 
Over in the Red Dead Redemption page, I posted the Declaration of Independence for the Confederacy's States and they all stated the war for independence was for the protection of the right to enslave Negroes and to guarantee that slavery as an institution was protected. The Southerners of the Civil War were not fools. They knew what they were fighting for and why.
Yes, they knew they were fighting the encroaching and ever increasing in power federal government that was stomping all over the rights of the states and issues with slavery was the straw that finally broke the camel's back you nimrod.
 
Over in the Red Dead Redemption page, I posted the Declaration of Independence for the Confederacy's States and they all stated the war for independence was for the protection of the right to enslave Negroes and to guarantee that slavery as an institution was protected. The Southerners of the Civil War were not fools. They knew what they were fighting for and why.
fought mainly because of State's Rights
 
I wager the South didn't want to have most of their labor force "fired" overnight along with the overreach of government concerns, which the South has been historically against. So it's both really.
 
Yes, they knew they were fighting the encroaching and ever increasing in power federal government that was stomping all over the rights of the states and issues with slavery was the straw that finally broke the camel's back you nimrod.

Excepting of course the fact the South had repeatedly done their very best to abridge the rights of Northern states and newly acquired states in order to make sure the institution of slavery was protected. The Dredd Scott decision is basically all about Southern judges attempting to encroach the federal government into states right in order to expand slavery.

But to repost the line.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

And if you want an idea of how the Southern states were willing to use violence to try and intimidate Northerners into complying with the propagation of slavery:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner
 
Excepting of course the fact the South had repeatedly done their very best to abridge the rights of Northern states
[citation needed]
When did they try to change the North's laws?
and newly acquired states in order to make sure the institution of slavery was protected.
Because abolitionists were doing the same thing in reverse to try and force people to vote their way instead.
The Dredd Scott decision is basically all about Southern judges attempting to encroach the federal government into states right in order to expand slavery.
No, it was about keeping slaves from being able to just cross into the North and not have their masters be allowed to take them back which would be against the law at that time since they counted as personal property.
Already been responded to in the last time you started your "oh whip me more me and my ancestors are so evil" spiel.
 
I don't disagree actually. I believe they were fighting for the states right to have slavery.

:)
Which the government overrode in some areas. That had gone against our Constitutional right as a the nation we were founded on.
 
When did they try to change the North's laws?

The Dredd Scott decision is the basic one of trying to establish slavery in the North via legal decision.

Because abolitionists were doing the same thing in reverse to try and force people to vote their way instead.

Ah, so we're in "he did it first" territory now.

No, it was about keeping slaves from being able to just cross into the North and not have their masters be allowed to take them back which would be against the law at that time since they counted as personal property.

Except, that wouldn't be the law in the North where slavery didn't exist by state rights.

Already been responded to in the last time you started your "oh whip me more me and my ancestors are so evil" spiel.

As long as you don't call me a Union apologist. The ones who ended slavery were the ones who slaughtered the Native Americans.

Which the government overrode in some areas. That had gone against our Constitutional right as a the nation we were founded on.

Yep. The government was taking a moral stand against an evil institution which made mockery of any principles we were supposed to be standing for. Then again, the Constitution didn't guarantee the rights of women or men who weren't property owners either. They also changed repeatedly.
 
And tell you what: Personally, I don't think it's right to shit all over someone's ancestry when you know literally nothing about them.

Generalizing someone's entire family tree, calling them shit like rednecks, hicks, racists, etc. just because of the actions of a few people and some mean words that someone got offended once is just plain wrong in general.
 
RACIST Southerners and anti-Reconstruction forces and members of the world's most successful terrorist organization.

Phipp's brain right now:

img013.jpg


Because I remember when you said this:

Much like being rich in America is something all citizens aspire to being, such is the case of White Southerners hoping to eventually own slaves of their own. It also is a matter of social status and prestige as there was a fear that Blacks once freed would take away jobs from Whites as well as push them out economically.

as well as this:

I'm up for not mentioning my desire to murder Confederates.

and this:
I'm hoping this will take place during the Civil War and we'll be able to shoot up some Confederates.

So no, you doofus, this clearly isn't about just racist Southerners, in your twisted self-hating mind you've seemed to have come to the conclusion that ALL Southerners that participated in the Civil War are racist by default because apparently every single one of them (MILLIONS of people) all wanted to own slaves when most of them barely had any aspirations besides keeping their little farmsteads and defending their lands. You've made that very clear that you think Confederates and Confederate apologists must all be "ebil wacist scum". Some of them were, I certainly won't deny that, but to act like every single one was is completely stupid. For someone who considers themselves a scholar and masterful author, you need to learn how to word your phrasing better because if every single person that fought in the Confederacy was a racist (as your poorly worded statements point to you believing) then there wouldn't be a single Native American on Southern soil right now, and there certainly wouldn't be any accounts of black Confederate soldiers, conscripted or not. They'd be killed outright.

Nice calling me out earlier by the way, out of nowhere, when I hadn't even posted on this thread before now. If you're going to try and call someone out, don't do it like a pussy and act all sarcastic.
 
The Dredd Scott decision is the basic one of trying to establish slavery in the North via legal decision.
Already proved it wasn't.
Ah, so we're in "he did it first" territory now.
Which is territory you brought us in by saying "oy vey the south tried to change the north's laws so it's ok when the north does it".
Except, that wouldn't be the law in the North where slavery didn't exist by state rights.
The Bill of Rights gave rights to personal property which slaves were so yes, it was the law in the North.
As long as you don't call me a Union apologist. The ones who ended slavery were the ones who slaughtered the Native Americans.
lol you just fucking hate White people in general don't you? They can do no right. They end slavery? Bring up amerindians.
 
Ragemage, you realize that 40% of all Southern families owned slaves and they were among the first to join the all-volunteer Confederacy army before they introduced conscription. Bluntly, what you're saying is horseshit.

Also, another piece of evidence about how the South didn't give a SHIT about states right is one of the major issues was the refusal of the North to enforce the Fugitive Slave Acts.

Or as a better explanation of it.

http://qz.com/378533/for-the-last-time-the-american-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/

Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), in which the US Supreme Court ruled that state authorities could not be forced to help return fugitive slaves to the South. Ensuing individual state legislation in New England would double down on that very ruling, expressly forbidding state officials from enforcing the federal Fugitive Slave Acts, or the use of state jails to detain fugitive slaves.

As for the last...

lol you just fucking hate White people in general don't you? They can do no right. They end slavery? Bring up amerindians.

I'm against slavery and genocide. Why is this controversial? Oh right, they're brown so who gives a shit.
 
Ragemage, you realize that 40% of all Southern families
Yes FAMILIES. So with that statistic if you're great uncle twice removed owned slaves you're grouped into that slave owning family. People had very big and complicated families back then, that statistic means shit, the important one is that the total population of the United States that owned slaves was an extremely small percent, like, single digit and that's counting all the non-White slave ownsers too.
I'm against slavery and genocide. Why is this controversial? Oh right, they're brown so who gives a shit.
No, you just go out of your way to find every reason to shit on White people you can. Literally in order to mention a good thing like White people (including those in Europe) ended slavery you had to mention something else bad that we did.
 
Ragemage, you realize that 40% of all Southern families owned slaves and they were among the first to join the all-volunteer Confederacy army before they introduced conscription. Bluntly, what you're saying is horseshit.

And where exactly are you getting 40% from? That's a falsehood that literally any google search will disagree with:

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3557

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2956.html

https://infogr.am/how-many-white-southerners-owned-slaves-in-1850

I even went so far as to pull all non-pro Confederacy articles just so you can't call them biased. You're welcome. You pulled 40% out of your ass but you go ahead and stick with that narrative.

Also, another piece of evidence about how the South didn't give a SHIT about states right is one of the major issues was the refusal of the North to enforce the Fugitive Slave Acts.

Not entirely sure what you're saying here. The Fugitive Slave Act wasn't a state-wide law or a law that could be upheld by different states based on how they felt. It was a Federal law, passed by Congress. Even today Federal law still holds precedence over state laws. For example, look at gay marriage. Most red states and some blue states hate the idea of supporting it, but because it's Federal Law they are literally forced to comply. It's the same thing here. The North was breaking FEDERAL laws, this had NOTHING to do with states' rights. Try again.
 
Bullshit. Only about ~5% or so owned slaves. Those that fought in the war voluntarily were those who wanted to secede.

Either secede or some other reason.

The "Small Truth Over A Big Lie" article in the Atlantic pointed out this number is ignoring the number of Confederates who lived with slave-owning families such as being the brother, son, daughter, or spouse of. In other words, the numbers are much-much higher when counting families versus individuals but said families were neck-deep in slavery.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/08/small-truth-papering-over-a-big-lie/61136/

Even more revealing was their attachment to slavery. Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally. This compared favorably to the Confederacy as a whole, in which one in every twenty white persons owned slaves. Yet more than one in every four volunteers that first year lived with parents who were slaveholders. Combining those soldiers who owned slaves with those soldiers who lived with slaveholding family members, the proportion rose to 36 percent. That contrasted starkly with the 24.9 percent, or one in every four households, that owned slaves in the South, based on the 1860 census. Thus, volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.

The attachment to slavery, though, was even more powerful. One in every ten volunteers in 1861 did not own slaves themselves but lived in households headed by non family members who did. This figure, combined with the 36 percent who owned or whose family members owned slaves, indicated that almost one of every two 1861 recruits lived with slaveholders. Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery. For slaveholder and nonslaveholder alike, slavery lay at the heart of the Confederate nation. The fact that their paper notes frequently depicted scenes of slaves demonstrated the institution's central role and symbolic value to the Confederacy.

More than half the officers in 1861 owned slaves, and none of them lived with family members who were slaveholders. Their substantial median combined wealth ($5,600) and average combined wealth ($8,979) mirrored that high proportion of slave ownership. By comparison, only one in twelve enlisted men owned slaves, but when those who lived with family slave owners were included, the ratio exceeded one in three. That was 40 percent above the tally for all households in the Old South. With the inclusion of those who resided in nonfamily slaveholding households, the direct exposure to bondage among enlisted personnel was four of every nine. Enlisted men owned less wealth, with combined levels of $1,125 for the median and $7,079 for the average, but those numbers indicated a fairly comfortable standard of living. Proportionately, far more officers were likely to be professionals in civil life, and their age difference, about four years older than enlisted men, reflected their greater accumulated wealth.
 
The "Small Truth Over A Big Lie" article in the Atlantic pointed out this number is ignoring the number of Confederates who lived with slave-owning families such as being the brother, son, daughter, or spouse of. In other words, the numbers are much-much higher when counting families versus individuals but said families were neck-deep in slavery.
Literally just what @Vergil mentioned above lol
 
I take great pride in my Southern heritage. The South is not just the Confederacy and the attempt to link the most shameful part of our past with our pride is something I'm disdainful of. The South should not laud the treason of Fort Sumter and its subsequent time but laud those who chose to rise above it and build a better life. Black and Whites together forming a community which I hope will continue to grow. Famous writers, artists, musicians, and heroes in war time.

But the slaveowners? The KKK? That's like asking Columbians to take pride in Pablo Escobar.
 
Back
Top