Red Dead Redemption 2

Well I could make a nuanced argument in game about how the destruction of Reconstruction trapped Southerners in poverty and helped weaken the South overall for the benefit of a minority of White oligarchs who were desperately hanging onto an already failing resource.

But....

teeturtle_pew-pew-kitty_1465881171.full.png
I wonder how you'd feel if the same logic applied to a game about being a British soldier cruising around Africa gunning down Zulu tribesmen by the bucketloads or someone shooting up BLM rallies...
But nah let's not think about that. Let's shit on Southerners some more!
 
I love South Park, where it had an episode of one of the main character's dad saying 'nigger' and then being hunted down by a bunch of good redneck hillbillies.

I wonder how you'd feel if the same logic applied to a game about being a British soldier cruising around Africa gunning down Zulu tribesmen by the bucketloads or someone shooting up BLM rallies...
But nah let's not think about that. Let's shit on Southerners some more!
I'm seriously up for the first one. I've always wanted an RPG set in colonial Africa.
 
I wonder how you'd feel if the same logic applied to a game about being a British soldier cruising around Africa gunning down Zulu tribesmen by the bucketloads or someone shooting up BLM rallies...
But nah let's not think about that. Let's shit on Southerners some more!

I have Southerner shooting privileges as one. :)
 
Doesn't realize Civil War was more then slavery.

It's interesting but I dislike the way Southern apologists attempt to state their ancestors didn't know what they were fighting for.

Georgia

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.

South Carolina

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.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

What else do they mention as reasons? Uhm....actually, it's all about slavery.

In effect, it was about States Rights.

The State right to have slaves.

The Confederation of the United States Constitution

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
 
In effect, it was about States Rights.

The State right to have slaves.
Yeah, let's forget things like cultural differences, trade, state rights (who was more powerful? The States or the Federal government?) and various other reasons.

A large part was because of how aggressive the abolitionist movement was in their aims. They claimed obedience to a higher law above the constitution.
 
It's interesting but I dislike the way Southern apologists attempt to state their ancestors didn't know what they were fighting for.

Georgia

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html



South Carolina

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







What else do they mention as reasons? Uhm....actually, it's all about slavery.

In effect, it was about States Rights.

The State right to have slaves.
I hate when retarded liberals attempt to state it was only about slavery. It was about the federal government's power growing and over extending it's reach over the South by stripping States of their power despite what the people of those states wanted, especially when so much of the United State's wealth came from the South. Plus theres the issues of cultural divide that had been growing between the North and the South since the founding of the country. You're a fucking cuck of a Southerner if you seriously just look at the complicated issue of the Civil War and go "lol le racist confederates got what they deserved xDDDDD" and I seriously hope you're not from one of the actual Confederate states originally because if so I'd be ashamed to be of the same people as you.
 
Yeah, let's forget things like cultural differences, trade, state rights (who was more powerful? The States or the Federal government?) and various other reasons.

I should point out the complete bullshit of the Southern appeal to states rights. The South had no problem attempting to increase the strength of the Federal government in order to increase the power of slavery. The Dredd Scott decision was an attempt to legalize slavery above the Mason-Dixie Line and was a attempt to use the Federal government as a cudgel against the abolitionist movement and make it impossible to smuggle slaves North. The South constantly and aggressively attempted to make sure any new US states were an equal number of slavery states to Union ones, even against the will of the locals.

Fuck those guys.

A large part was because of how aggressive the abolitionist movement was in their aims. They claimed obedience to a higher law above the constitution.

And thank God for that.

I hate when retarded liberals attempt to state it was only about slavery. It was about the federal government's power growing and over extending it's reach over the South by stripping States of their power despite what the people of those states wanted, especially when so much of the United State's wealth came from the South. Plus theres the issues of cultural divide that had been growing between the North and the South since the founding of the country. You're a fucking cuck of a Southerner if you seriously just look at the complicated issue of the Civil War and go "lol le racist confederates got what they deserved xDDDDD".

You think very poorly of the South. They knew they were for slavery and proudly proclaimed it was about slavery. They had the courage of their vile convictions.
 
Oh we knew what we were fighting for. But you're a complete moron if you think it was all about slavery only. Only the richie riches of the South owned slaves, and those people didn't even fight in the war. The common men fought, and they didn't fight for slavery only, that's a ridiculous assumption. Most of the soldiers on the battlefield had never owned a a slave or hell, they were sharecroppers who worked alongside blacks. I can't get sources rn because I'm at Walmart but I will prove this once I return home.
 
I should point out the complete bullshit of the Southern appeal to states rights. The South had no problem attempting to increase the strength of the Federal government in order to increase the power of slavery. The Dredd Scott decision was an attempt to legalize slavery above the Mason-Dixie Line and was a attempt to use the Federal government as a cudgel against the abolitionist movement and make it impossible to smuggle slaves North. The South constantly and aggressively attempted to make sure any new US states were an equal number of slavery states to Union ones, even against the will of the locals.

Fuck those guys.
I'd like to point out the complete bullshit of your remark on their appeal to state rights. Technically this goes both ways, as the abolitionists attempted to strengthen the federal government so that they could decrease the power of slavery. They attempted to ban slavery below the Mason-Dixie line, and attempted to use the federal government as a cudgel against the Southern states and make it impossible to own slaves south. The Abolitionists constantly and aggressively attempted to make sure any new US states had no slavery, even against the will of the locals.

Too easy.
 
2013-03-25_00008.jpg


No need to lionize the Constitution or Founding Fathers.

Oh we knew what we were fighting for. But you're a complete moron if you think it was all about slavery only. Only the richie riches of the South owned slaves, and those people didn't even fight in the war. The common men fought, and they didn't fight for slavery only, that's a ridiculous assumption. Most of the soldiers on the battlefield had never owned a a slave or hell, they were sharecroppers who worked alongside blacks. I can't get sources rn because I'm at Walmart but I will prove this once I return home.

Eh, it's a bit more complicated than that. While the poor Whites of America, which the majority of Southerners were, aren't individuals who owned slaves--they had very much a vested economic interest in the system of slavery. 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.
 
I come back to see what's up. Oh look, Red Dead Redemption 2! Something to talk about! Let's see what's-
I'd like to point out the complete bullshit of your remark on their appeal to state rights. Technically this goes both ways, as the abolitionists attempted to strengthen the federal government so that they could decrease the power of slavery. They attempted to ban slavery below the Mason-Dixie line, and was attempted to use the federal government as a cudgel against the Southern states and make it impossible to own slaves south. The Abolitionists constantly and aggressively attempted to make sure any new US states had no slavery, even against the will of the locals.
15489746-confused-businessman-with-gesture-and-smile-on-his-face-isolated-on-white-Stock-Photo.jpg
 
I'd like to point out the complete bullshit of your remark on their appeal to state rights. Technically this goes both ways, as the abolitionists attempted to strengthen the federal government so that they could decrease the power of slavery. They attempted to ban slavery below the Mason-Dixie line, and was attempted to use the federal government as a cudgel against the Southern states and make it impossible to own slaves south. The Abolitionists constantly and aggressively attempted to make sure any new US states had no slavery, even against the will of the locals.

Too easy.

Oh, I don't disagree. The issue of slavery is more important than the Constitution or rights of States vs. Federal government. It's not one you can compromise on and the fact the United States did for centuries is the reason the conflict became the impossible situation it was. It's really a despicable example of cowardice that so many politicians thought they could just pass the issue onto the next term rather than confront the head on.

So, anyone up for talking about what they hope and don't for RDR2?

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

:)
 
I used to think the abolitionists were good people but... well, thanks to this brief discussion I did some research and many were the equivalent of lynch mobs, breaking laws and beating up anyone who supported slavery or wanted to bring escaped slaves back.
 
Back
Top