@IAmNotAlpharius
Slavery really fucked the southern economy.
Slavery was like crack cocaine for the South. The more they relied on it, the richer they got, the more they wanted to keep it, but it only benefited the top planter class while poor whites got zilch from it because they don't own armies of slaves the way the plantation owners did. If anything, the destruction of slavery probably opened up job opportunities for poor whites in the South that they previously didn't have due to slavery taking up most of the labor-intensive tasks.
Also the people pushing for unrestricted immigration are the same people whose ancestors benefitted the most from slave labor. A lot of immigrants are just a few steps above slave labor. The companies can for them at any time for having no papers, faked papers, or faking their age. Just like that boy who was killed in that food processing plant. It’s ultimately the same motivation: Cheaper labor that can’t organize, fight back, or complain.
There's also another motivation, especially in Europe. The fact that the natives don't breed as much as they used to. Unlike America where certain parts of the population, from Latinos, to hillbillies, to ghetto people and Hasidics reproduce like rabbits, white people in Europe don't breed as much as they used to. Less people means less taxpayers, less consumers, less workers, less soldiers, and most importantly less GDP.
After trying every trick in the book to get them to breed, the governments and rulers of Europe had two choices-let their GDP rankings drop and let themselves become pawns in the political game of chess between America and Russia like they were during the Cold War, or dump large numbers of peasants from third-world nations who have high birth rates and naturalize them so that you can have large numbers of people who can work, pay taxes, and buy shit, keeping your GDP ratings up.
Obviously, Europe's ruling class chose the latter, because they'll be damned if they became America's bottom bitches again. But that choice had its own set of consequences, especially since they imported most of these third-world peasants from the Muslim world, which does not understand western concepts of law and order, since the latter is formed from a Christian perspective with limited governments and constitutions, which had its roots from Latin Christendom where the Pope or the nobility can hold the king or the emperor accountable if he breaks the law, whereas most Muslim nations only have such things like constitutions or republics as set dressings; they operate more like late Roman dictator states or principalities.
Some people say the Muslims haven't left the Middle Ages, but that's being generous; they haven't left the late Roman era yet, so many Muslim states are dictatorships, principalities, or oligarchies, the kind you'd see in the more corrupted, later iterations of the Roman Empire. So of course, this causes trouble when the Muslim migrants don't really understand Europe's secular laws and why they run contrary to Islam's values since the Muslims combine state and religious functions.
So basically, the rush to open-door immigration in Europe is far more complex than ''hurr durr evil elites want to kill whites and destroy white culture!'' In reality, the migrants are being brought in because the elites failed to get the native whites of Europe to breed, and they don't want to lose their coveted GDP status and be reliant on America. Someone like Danny-boy doesn't see nuances like these. As for the USA, it's more like what you said; corporations want expendable workers that can't unionize or complain.
They’re also the same types that love that cheap Chinese labor which totes is 100% ethical.
Some libertarians and capitalists keep defending that system of labor. I can't understand why. Sure, you get cheaper smartphones, but having us rely on one of our political rivals for products like these means that our money is funding the very same system we decry here at home.
As someone who likes history I also agree with your comments regarding the motivation of the war. The confederates out right say they’re fighting to protect the institution of slavery because it was a pillar of their economy.
That's why I can't buy it when morons like Danny-boy keep arguing that slavery would've gone away naturally if the South won. These morons think that slavery would naturally disappear even though the South fought a war just to preserve it. It's as naive as thinking that Hitler would've calmed down if the West gave him the Sudetenland.
I’d also argue the war was really about two different economies, they couldn’t exist while the other did. Or at least not in the same country. Which imo is a different take than saying the north was fighting to end slavery because they saw it as morally wrong, it was in the north’s own interests because working class free men didn’t want to compete with slave labor. It’s not really that different of a gripe that many workers have with free trade with China or with unregulated immigration.
That was the cause of the battles in the western territories. Free white men didn't want to give up the jobs and opportunities to slaves who don't get paid a dime. That's where most of the resistance towards slavery spreading to the west came from; few resisted slavery for the moral reasons, most people who resisted slavery didn't give a damn about blacks, but they did care about the fact that black slaves took jobs away from God-fearing white Anglo citizens.
