Nigger Worship and Its Consequences

[KiwiFuzz]

He makes a good point about the population levels being a direct result of the good living conditions. Slaves in the old south even got Sundays off if they were Christian and went to church.

Some of the slaves on some of the plantations got Sunday off, other slaves were forbidden from going to church.

Some slaves had autonomy in who they married, other slaves didn't. Some rarely got whipped, others were whipped half to death for being 15 minutes late to the fields because they needed to fix a piece of equipment first.

What your life was like was 100% dependent on who your owner was. And you couldn't quit or apply for a transfer.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

What your life was like was 100% dependent on who your owner was. And you couldn't quit or apply for a transfer.

No, you totally could get a transfer if you acted uppity enough. Like you had to get a lot of whippings first, but eventually you could get "sold down the river" and work an awesome job on a Louisiana sugar plantation.

 

[Snekposter]

For anyone curious as to why this newspaper felt the need to bash Republicans abolitionists so hard... its New York City. Gotta blame the Negro-lovers for everything wrong so you can lock in votes of your pet minority, in this case the Irish.

Its depressing how little things have changed since then, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Geddy Lee's Fee and See]

For anyone curious as to why this newspaper felt the need to bash Republicans abolitionists so hard... its New York City. Gotta blame the Negro-lovers for everything wrong so you can lock in votes of your pet minority, in this case the Irish.

Its depressing how little things have changed since then, wouldn't you agree?

Basically American democracy never really worked. The dysfunction was just less apparent back in the 1800s. Shit is why political parties were always a bad idea and why the Founders wanted a republic, not a democracy.

 

[Snekposter]

Basically democracy never really worked. The dysfunction was just less apparent back in the 1800s.

This article was written during an open secession of several states over irreconcilable differences and you're saying the dysfunction was less apparent?

 

[Tasty Tatty]

Some of the slaves on some of the plantations got Sunday off, other slaves were forbidden from going to church.

Some slaves had autonomy in who they married, other slaves didn't. Some rarely got whipped, others were whipped half to death for being 15 minutes late to the fields because they needed to fix a piece of equipment first.

What your life was like was 100% dependent on who your owner was. And you couldn't quit or apply for a transfer.

I don't want to sound like I'm diminishing the atrocity that is slavery, but that doesn't sound much different than our current working conditions, with the difference that we aren't legally owned by our employed (only figuratively). Many people complaining about work in general only have bad bosses -or rather asshole bosses- and many others can't resign for the lack of other options. You can't quit a job when there are bills and debts to pay and a family to feed. It works for some, but for the average person, they are truly fucked if they stop working even for one single month.

Makes me wonder how future generations will study our living standards. If they find a much better system than what we have now, will they see our current working system as a hideous system similar to how we see slavery from centuries ago?

 

[Geddy Lee's Fee and See]

This article was written during an open secession of several states over irreconcilable differences and you're saying the dysfunction was less apparent?

Yeah, that was a bit naive of me. I still hold onto the belief that American democracy is just a recipe for disaster. There's too many bad actors (both then and now) that use to their advantage to the detriment of the nation as a whole.

 

[Breadbassket]

The planters really wanted to protect their investment. To be fair from their perspective, switching away from it would of ruined them in their opinion. It ultimately did anyway though given the whole American Civil War thing. Afterwards America was never effected by ethics and cultural clashes over cheap labor again.

 

[No. 7 cat]

For anyone curious as to why this newspaper felt the need to bash Republicans abolitionists so hard... its New York City. Gotta blame the Negro-lovers for everything wrong so you can lock in votes of your pet minority, in this case the Irish.

Its depressing how little things have changed since then, wouldn't you agree?

New York was heavily dependent on the export of cotton. Later on poor Irish and some Gernan migrants, mostly Catholic, rioted at having to fight for a cause that could put them out of employment and result in even more black migrants from the south competing with them. The anti Catholicism of most abolitionists, their moralising piety also fuelled the anti draft riots and they were specific targets. Those Irish who rose high in the police and business and faced no prospect of being drafted, or could buy themselves out of any draft were also targeted.

Still the article wasn't making the strongest points for all its fine prose. The most pertinent argument was economic, the role of the cotton trade. The whatwboutery isn't too strong. Mill workers could leave their jobs for better wages. Kindly masters like Jeff Davis (later POCSA) and his older brother Joseph Emory modelling their plantation on the ideas of Robert Owen had some sadistic and many indifferent fellow planters. And most of the Davis slaves left Davis Bend regardless. The hardships of freedom is still better than benevolent slavery.

 

[Molag Bal]

Came expecting an article from some dumb WN website; left .

Besides the obvious continued worship of ghetto culture, there are parallels to the current Troon hysteria and worship. Will our current struggles be read about 150 years from now?

My simplified view of the Roman Empire is that they built a large and powerful empire with a strong ethos that spanned most of south and middle Europe. Then a few centuries in, they suddenly went full retard, opened their borders to German immigrants while the native population engaged in gay bathhouse orgies, followed by the complete collapse of their nation leaving nothing but destruction in the wake of its influence.

People in the distant future will look upon the US in the same way, you might as well swap out some names, keep the rest the same and you wouldn't be that far off.

 

[World Famous Quasi Payer]

The disruption of the Union is not enough for these men; they want blood, and they would callously exterminate every slaveholder, from Virginia to Florida, in order to realize their favorite, and we may add fiendish, purpose.

This could be written about most liberal shitheads today.

Union: "What about when you pressured the federal government to pass the fugitive slave act in 1850 which required the capture and return of escaped slaves even if they were in a free state thus requiring northern states to be complicit in slavery even though they found it abhorrent? Isn't that a restriction of states rights?"

Given that states already had extradition via the constitution, I don't see how an act to get northern states to enforce existing law is a violation of states rights.

For anyone curious as to why this newspaper felt the need to bash Republicans abolitionists so hard... its New York City. Gotta blame the Negro-lovers for everything wrong so you can lock in votes of your pet minority, in this case the Irish.

Its depressing how little things have changed since then, wouldn't you agree?

Not really, I wouldn't want to move to another nation and then immediately be drafted to fight in a very idiotic and pointless war. All while my "president" suspended my rights and locked up people for wrong think.

 

[Snekposter]

Not really, I wouldn't want to move to another nation and then immediately be drafted to fight in a very idiotic and pointless war. All while my "president" suspended my rights and locked up people for wrong think.

The North's conscription is hilariously overstated. It only applied to those who were citizens or in the process of becoming such, and only in cases where states failed to meet their recruitment quotas. And wouldn't you know it but Tammany Hall was shoving every immigrant they could get their hands on through the citizenship system for votes. All told less than 10% of the US Army was conscripts (2%) or substitutes (6%), and a substantial portion of those substitutes were prior volunteers who were reenlisting. It was also only started in March of 1863. The rioters also burned down an orphanage, so fuck 'em.

Meanwhile in the South, conscription was even more harsh and harshly opposed, and enacted in April of 1862, 11 months before the North began doing so. Turns out public support for wars tends to drop fast when they're started under false pretenses of quick victory.

 

[Berrakh]

it’s amazing how far this country came when its only consistent political plank was, in modern parlance, white supremacy. And how quickly it has unraveled when it went in the opposite direction.

That said America isn’t going to collapse soon. It will just get worse and more expensive.

The only correct narrative about the civil war is both sides fought for niggers. So the fact it’s an endlessly lied about and misrepresented conflict with innumerable competing narratives is no accident. It’s hard to defend on its own merits no matter who you ”stan”.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

I know a lot of people can't get past the soaring 19th century rhetoric, but it's a weak argument to go from "the North wants to abolish slavery because it's unprofitable" to "slavery has exploded in the South because the slaves are having a great time." This wasn't a charity and these weren't volunteers.

I'm actually curious as to what your average educated person in the North knew about how the slave trade worked because they seem to be assuming they were regular economic immigrants.

From what I've seen of it Northerners had little practical understanding of slavery or slave society. They tended to either be radicalized into believing it was constant whippings and bloodhounds and rape (so, same as modern man's view on it) with the added twist that slave owners were effeminate and soft cowards (lol), or they didn't know much about it at all and had the same sort of view as a minstrel show. Southerners regularly complained about the ridiculous questions they would ask when traveling and assumptions they would make.

Black fertility is an interesting thing, because I don't know where it comes from and would like to. Agrarian peasants breed quickly anyways and they were subject to both incentives (like rewards of better housing, food, and payment in kind for childbirths), coercion (rape), and both (giving bucks favored women as personal concubines as rewards for productive work) to encourage their fertility to go as high as possible. On the other hand, abortion and contraceptive techniques are a cultural universal, and people, you'd think, would have some willingness to try to restrain their fertility, especially if you know your children will be born into a bad world and could be taken from you arbitrarily. I think there may be a counterintuitive explanation, though, that a person who has no ability to control their or their children's incomes (just knowing that they'll be taken care of) may find that the best way to increase their own quality of life is a large family, especially as a precaution (in economics they have a "precautionary demand for fertility," usually applied to issues of disease) against family separation (need more kids to prevent being left alone).

Slaves also just had different notions about marriage and age of consent, Blacks tended to pair off in teenage years and that remained true long after the end of slavery (something they shared with Southerners and Mexicans).

When it comes to the slave lifestyle, they were generally better off than the industrial proletariat in terms of health and calories, but that misses the major point that they lived in a very unstable family environment (not so much because of masters willfully selling off family members, but more because of bankruptcies and inheritances) with little personal freedom. People generally prefer to have a little bit of luxury even if it means giving up some health. In some sense, the master would invest in the amount of health that would maximize profit, and that tended to be higher than the amount of health the slave (or free counterparts) would want to buy for themselves, not that dissimilar from governments legislating nanny state regulations. Industrial workers could have eaten less sugar and more veggies, bought more medicine and tobacco. Slaves also were made to work much more hours (moreso than working intense hours), the threat of violence is more of a necessary replacement for the fear of losing a job than it is productivity-raising itself. When slaves were freed they tended to cut back their hours by about a third (basically going from working all day long to just most of the day).

One of the things I find fascinating about slave behavior is that before emancipation they had very little alcohol abuse problems because their ability to get alcohol was heavily limited (either by rule or by lack of opportunity), and then after emancipation their alcoholism rates skyrocketed, especially because they (like Indians) only knew to drink to get drunk. So, compare a slave eating a VERY bland diet of mostly cornmeal and bacon and garden veggies, but a ton of it, and getting lots of healthful exercise and drinking, versus an industrial worker who is paid the absolute bare minimum and often goes hungry and sick, and then a master who has unlimited amounts of food and liquor and a culture that encourages him to drink as much as he can. (Southern planters had a culture of hedonism where their men would often start drinking from the moment they got up and go until they went to bed in a stupor.)

All told, if a person is focused on health and fertility as measurements of well-being, American Blacks were an incredible success story, but common sense is that there are much more important measurements of life satisfaction. (The common sense one: If you let them leave, do they? )

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

The North's conscription is hilariously overstated. It only applied to those who were citizens or in the process of becoming such, and only in cases where states failed to meet their recruitment quotas. And wouldn't you know it but Tammany Hall was shoving every immigrant they could get their hands on through the citizenship system for votes. All told less than 10% of the US Army was conscripts (2%) or substitutes (6%), and a substantial portion of those substitutes were prior volunteers who were reenlisting. It was also only started in March of 1863. The rioters also burned down an orphanage, so fuck 'em.

Meanwhile in the South, conscription was even more harsh and harshly opposed, and enacted in April of 1862, 11 months before the North began doing so. Turns out public support for wars tends to drop fast when they're started under false pretenses of quick victory.

I'm surprised at how low the conscription rate goes. Is there any distinction in US Army here and state militias, or does it mean US Army in the general sense of all Union forces? I mean, I have something like at least five conscripted Union ancestors I've stumbled across on Ancestry.com looking for draft cards.

Definitely right about the South's conscription being much more intense, worth noting though that they were in the state of a defensive total war against a numerically superior enemy.

Southern Unionism and Southern revolt against the war effort are things I feel go greatly unnoticed, I think because Southern yee-yee Neo-Confederates don't like the subject matter and Yankees/Unionists tend to like their own simple morality play. It wasn't until the past few years I started learning a lot more about Appalachian Unionism (particularly in my immediate vicinity, the breakdown of which towns, even which neighborhoods, were on which side) and the little revolts like the Free State of Jones. I mean, the Draft Riots were just riots, but they had their direct equivalent in the Confederate Bread Riots, and the Jones County revolt was so successful it liberated several Mississippi counties by itself before war's end. That is way more than anything the Copperheads were willing to do. But Southerners were also being bled dry by war taxation and requisition of supplies - stealing food - in a way Union civilians didn't have to face.

Never thought about it before, but I reckon wartime political repression must have been much more intense in the South, too, than in the North. It was before the War, Fire Eaters were only constitutionalists up until abolitionists would come into their neighborhood, and then they turned to banana republic thug tactics.

 

[Snekposter]

I'm surprised at how low the conscription rate goes. Is there any distinction in US Army here and state militias, or does it mean US Army in the general sense of all Union forces? I mean, I have something like at least five conscripted Union ancestors I've stumbled across on Ancestry.com looking for draft cards.

Definitely right about the South's conscription being much more intense, worth noting though that they were in the state of a defensive total war against a numerically superior enemy.

The actual text of the law.

Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That the enrolment of each class shall be made separately, and shall only embrace those whose ages shall only be on the first day of July thereafter between twenty and forty-five years.

Sec. 11 . And be it farther enacted, That all persons thus enrolled shall, be subject, for two years after the first day of July succeeding the enrolment subject to be called into the military service of the United States, and to continue in service during the present rebellion, not, however, exceeding the term of three years ; and when called into service shall be placed on the same footing, in all respects, as volunteers for three years, or during the war, including advance pay and bounty as now provided by law.

Sec. 12. And be it further enacted, That whenever it may be necessary to call out the national forces for military service, the President is hereby authorized to assign to each district the number of men to be each district. furnished by said district ; and thereupon the enrolling board shall make a draft of the required number, and fifty per cent in addition, and shall make an exact and complete roll of the names of the persons so drawn, and of the order in which they were drawn, so that the first drawn may stand first upon the said roll, and the second may stand second, and so on ; and the persons so drawn shall be persons drawn, notified of the same within ten days thereafter, by a written or printed notice, to be served personally or by leaving a copy at the last place of residence, requiring them to appear at a designated rendezvous to report for duty. In assigning to the districts the number of men to be furnished therefrom, the President shall take into consideration the number of volunteers and militia furnished by and from the several states in which said districts are situated, and the period of their service since the commencement of the present rebellion, and shall so make said assignment as to equalize the numbers among the districts of the several states, considering and allowing for the numbers already furnished as aforesaid and the time of their service.

SEC. 16. And be it further enacted; That as soon as the required number of able-bodied men liable to do military duty shall be obtained from the list of those drafted, the remainder shall be discharged ; and all drafted persons reporting at the place of rendezvous shall be allowed travelling pay from their places of residence ; and all persons discharged at the place of rendezvous shall be allowed travelling pay to their places of residence ; and all expenses connected with the enrolment and draft, including subsistence while at the rendezvous, shall be paid from the appropriation for enrolling and drafting, under such regulations as the President of the United States shall prescribe ; and all expenses connected with the arrest and return of deserters to their regiments, or such other duties as the provostmarshal shall be called upon to perform, shall be paid from the appropriation for arrest and return of deserters, under such such regulations as the President of the United States shall prescribe, Provided, The provost-marshals shall in no case receive commutation for transportation or for fuel and quarters, but only for forage, when not furnished by the government, together with actual expenses of postage, stationery, and clerk hire authorized by the provost-marshal-general.

Considering only around 60k tops were actually drafted you must have exceedingly unlucky ancestors. As to drafts, I assume it covers only those specifically drafted for service, as opposed to militia units called up.

As to it being defensive, well... they started it at Fort Sumter. The North just decided to finish it.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

An article I submitted was deleted by the mods because it was two years old. Just sayin'.

Good.

Because 2 years isnt funny. 200 years is funny.

 

[Snekposter]

Good.

Because 2 years isnt funny. 200 years is funny.

To be pedantic, its not 200. Its 160 and change.

 

[Berrakh]

Kinda depressing how dire the consequences are for missing the forest for the trees— the debate is about the nuances of slavery and how bad it really is or isn’t instead of the destiny of the negro in America.

So now we have people who feel they have to set the record straight about who did what and how far they went with it during the Civil War scoring easy discourse points but to no real end.

 

[quackrock]

Confederacy: "This is about states rights! The federal government is interfering in our way of life! We must resist this tyranny!"

Union: "What about when you pressured the federal government to pass the fugitive slave act in 1850 which required the capture and return of escaped slaves even if they were in a free state thus requiring northern states to be complicit in slavery even though they found it abhorrent? Isn't that a restriction of states rights?"

Confederacy:"..…............WE JUST LIKE WHIPPING BLACK PEOPLE, ALRIGHT? STOP KINK SHAMING US! "

Slightly off-topic, but the vague terms used by Southern simps to excuse the Civil War ("It was about state's rights!" Oh yeah, which rights again?) mirrors the vague language used by libs to attack opponents on culture war issues ("They're banning books!" Oh yeah, which books?).