Blacks waking up to the truth of the democrat party?

[reconmark]

LMAO.. And those indians were still using bow & arrows. They were still selling their daughters off for horses. They didn't have a fucking clue about a garden. They raided, murdered and rape other tribes.


LMAO. Claiming the north went to war with the south just to end slavery is bull. It was over the economic and trade benefits that the south had over the north. Better weather in the spring, summer and fall. Meant we had a economic advantage over the north. Our trade agreements with other countries surpassed the north. Which meant the south was making a lot more money. And the north wanted to start taxing us more. Remember the tea party and what that was all about? The north was turning into the Brits. And when the foreigners were willing to pay more for things like cotton, than the yankee's, the war was on. They only used slavery as a means to sell it. You know, like the "Patriot Act." <<< Label anything like that and it's an easy sell.
BTW, there were a LOT fewer slave owners than what you may think. I think out of all the south, only 5% of the south owned slaves. Link to the below.
Looking just at the slave states then, there were 393,975 slave owners in the slave states out of apopulation of 12,240,293. So this means that 3.22 percent of the population of the 15 slave states wereslave owners.“But we have to remember that only free people owned slaves, and that the total population of the slavestates included enslaved people themselves, so we have to adjust our numbers to reflect only freepeople. Therefore, the 393,975 slave owners were out of a free population of 8,289,782, or 4.75 percentof the free population of the slave states being slave owners,” Mackey wrote.The confederacy’s 11 states had 316,632 slave owners out of a free population of 5,582,222. Thisequals 5.67 percent of the free population of the confederacy were slave owners.

Also noted, that only one member of a family was the actual slave owner. You'll find slanted statistics that'll include the entire family. Which increases the number of slave owners by a lot. Making the number exaggerated.

Matter of fact, the very first slave owner in this country, was from the north. And he was a black man. Some white folks took his slave from him and he sued to get him back.
Another point was that it was blacks selling blacks into the slave trade.
And one more point. Throughout history, there's been way more Caucasian slaves than blacks.



Those original laws of slave ownership, began being dismantled by whites. Laws were being struck down by whites. Even in the south. Blacks didn't hardly make up 1% of the population when these laws were being struck down. Hell, blacks only make up about 13% of the population now. So to say it was the blacks who ended Jim Crow, segregation and other racist crap, is just bull snot.

BTW, the last nation to end slavery was Africa. And that was only like a decade or so ago. But slavery amongst blacks still exist there. Just under the radar.

Part Two: addressing your ignorant and racist attempt at a rebuttal to facts.
It doesn't matter if the Indigenous Indians were stone age or advanced researchers it was still their land, you suggest that white people had some moral or god given right to steal, slaughter, rape and commit genocide because their skin wasn't white. This isn't even a decent rebuttal it's simply ignorant. They didn't need a garden, are you really this stupid?...lol They had and abundance of any fruit or vegetable they wanted."They raided, raped and murdered," sounds exactly like the behavior of the vikings,english, saxons, greeks, romans, welsh,british,etc. Let us know when yout brain slightly processes the point.
The english were shitting and drinking the same water, believed bathing was deadly and couldn't even properly wipe their asses, save us the eurocentric claptrap.

Slavery was indeed the root cause of the civil war, ignorance grows in and empty garden and yours is vast, White southerners introduced this half truth and many others in order to obscure and rewrite factual history much like the daughters of the confederacy. In your ignorance you have shot yourself in the foot...lol. COTTON made stupid backwards southerners ultra rich and that cotton was planted, grown and harvested by free lifetime labor aka chattel slavery.

Let’s start with the value of the slave population. Steven Deyle shows that in 1860, the value of the slaves was “roughly three times greater than the total amount invested in banks,” and it was “equal to about seven times the total value of all currency in circulation in the country, three times the value of the entire livestock population, twelve times the value of the entire U.S. cotton crop and forty-eight times the total expenditure of the federal government that year.” As mentioned here in a previous column, the invention of the cotton gin greatly increased the productivity of cotton harvesting by slaves. This resulted in dramatically higher profits for planters, which in turn led to a seemingly insatiable increase in the demand for more slaves, in a savage, brutal and vicious cycle.

Now, the value of cotton: Slave-produced cotton “brought commercial ascendancy to New York City, was the driving force for territorial expansion in the Old Southwest and fostered trade between Europe and the United States,” according to Gene Dattel. In fact, cotton productivity, no doubt due to the sharecropping system that replaced slavery, remained central to the American economy for a very long time: “Cotton was the leading American export from 1803 to 1937.”

The Role Cotton Played in the 1800s Economy | African American History Blog | The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross

Cotton was 'king' in the plantation economy of the Deep South. The cotton economy had close ties to the Northern banking industry, New England textile factories and the economy of Great Britain.

www.pbs.org

Further attempts at rewriting history that only stupid people believe.."why would poor whites that owned no slaves fight in the civil war?"
They did it ti maintain the racial hierarchy in this country and particularly in the South. The lowest, dirtiest most ignorant white person could claim superiority over the most intelligent, educated and accomplished Black person simply because they lacked melanin in their skin.

Though only a few held any slaves, almost all middle class southerners supported the slave system because they enjoyed the privileged status that a racially based society bestowed on them, and they feared that they would have to compete with the slaves for land and work if African Americans were free
.https://web-clear.unt.edu/course_projects/HIST2610/content/04_Unit_Four/13_lesson_thirteen/03_southern_soc.htm#:~:text=Though%20only%20a%20few%20held,if%20African%20Americans%20were%20free.

Wealth, Slaveownership, and Fighting for the Confederacy: An Empirical Study of the American Civil War​

The war was fundamentally fought over the institution of slavery. We might expect that as white farmers in the Antebellum South became wealthier, their incentives to preserve slavery likewise rose, possibly making them more willing to fight for the Confederacy. This logic is consistent with research throughout political science highlighting how individuals are motivated to fight due to grievances against the state (Cederman, Gleditsch, and Buhaug Reference Cederman, Gleditsch and Buhaug2013; Gurr Reference Gurr1970; Humphreys and Weinstein Reference Humphreys and Weinstein2008; Paige Reference Paige1978)—in this case, grievances against a federal government they saw as threatening an institution that they had been socialized into and upon which their future livelihood depended.

Wealth, Slaveownership, and Fighting for the Confederacy: An Empirical Study of the American Civil War | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core

Wealth, Slaveownership, and Fighting for the Confederacy: An Empirical Study of the American Civil War - Volume 113 Issue 3

www.cambridge.org

I understand how ignorant you were when you attempted AND FAILED to compare African slavery to white chattel slavery. Try to become a little more educated...
Many African slaves were eventually freed and absorbed into their owner's kin group. Another difference was that in African societies most slaves were female. Women were preferred because they bore children and performed most field labor. They were not only responsible for agricultural production, but for spinning and weaving and other productive tasks.

Slavery in early sub-Saharan Africa took a variety of forms. Before the fifteenth century, there was some chattel slavery in sub-Saharan Africa, under which slaves could be bought and sold like livestock.

But most slavery in Africa differed profoundly from the kind of plantation labor that developed in the New World. The gap in status between masters and slaves was not as wide as it would be in the New World. While most slaves were field workers, some served in royal courts, where they served as officials, soldiers, servants, and artisans. Under a system known as "pawnship," youths (usually girls) served as collateral for their family's debts. If their parents or kin defaulted on these debts, then these young girls were forced to labor to repay these debts. In many instances, these young women eventually married into their owner's lineage, and their family's debt was cancelled.

Digital History

You can attempt a rebuttal, however one can read and simply come to the factual conclusion that you are basically ignorant of the entire subject matter.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It doesn't matter if the Indigenous Indians were stone age or advanced researchers it was still their land,

Why?

 

[TruthNotBS]

Every 4 years we see the same old from the left.
Keep calling Republicans “racist” and never hold Dems accountable for destroying inner cities.

“Democrats have not destroyed anything”
^^ That pretty much says it all. Total disconnect from reality. Don’t you dare notice that cities run by Dems for the last 50 years are total shit holes, or you’re an Uncle Tom!

Perhaps if you stop kicking out the homeless from your right-wing-run cities and house them, and stop criminalizing substance abuse and forced them into rehab (where they belong, not in jail), we wouldn't have liberal-run cities full of homeless junkies.

You're a working-class right-winger, brainwashed by your wealthy capitalist employer, who's dangling the carrot in front of you saying "You can become like me, your co-workers are your competitors and adversaries, socioeconomic classes don't exist, don't unionize, follow orders and work hard for me and maybe one day you'll be a fief-lord-master like me". Adam Smith the father of capitalism identifies your capitalist employer as a:

"What are the common wages of labor, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen (employees) desire to get as much, the masters ( capitalist-employer) to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine (to unionize - form labor unions) in order to raise (to raise their wages/salaries), the latter in order to lower the wages of labor.
It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily (the wealthy capitalist-employers/masters, form their own unions in the form of super-PACS, chambers of commerce, industry associations, guilds, armies of lobbyists, think tanks..etc); and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen." (Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations - Book I, Chapter VIII) - EMPHASIS MINE

MASTER.

HE USES PROFANITY, BUT WHAT HE SPEAKS IS NONETHELESS TRUE IF NOT PROPHETIC:

​

THEY OWN YOU.

Working-class right-wing conservatives are brainwashed lackeys, working for the masters, against their own interests. Your Republican politicians are constantly defunding government programs that could clean up our cities from all of the criminality and fix much of the social issues you're here complaining about. BUT unfortunately you've been led to believe, that the divinely created institution of government is supposedly ALWAYS EVIL, and should never get involved in the economy, unless of course the billionaires need some bailout money, paid by Uncle Sam (public funds saves the day). You've been brainwashed by satan, to hate government and love the wealthy masters of mammon who enslave you:

.​

You cry "tyranny!!!", over a government mask mandate in the middle of a deadly nationwide pandemic, because the government supposedly shouldn't be able to tell you to wear a mask in crowded public venues and then like a hypocrite, you turn around and use the heavy hand of government to criminalize a young man with a drug charge for smoking a joint (Ingesting "illegal plant material" into HIS OWN BODY), undermining his ability to support himself (get a job) and find housing. Then you have the gall to complain when that young man becomes a violent criminal. What did you expect?

Are you really an American Patriot who loves personal sovereignty and liberty when you criminalize someone for smoking cannabis or eating pot brownies?

Supposedly you're AMERICAN PATRIOTS, but then you allow a cabal of anti-Christ, Zionist Jews to take over our government and society, liberalizing it to the point that people can't even define what a woman is.

​

Satan always counterfeits the real Maccoy, the genuine, turning it into something wretched and repulsive. He takes true Israel (The Church of Jesus Christ) and replaces it with an anti-Christ secular, satanic "Israel" which you now serve at the expense of America and the lives of your children. Are you right-wing Zionist Republicans really American Patriots? Do you really love America?

It's not the Star of David, it's the Star of Satan.


​

Satan takes the spirit-led brotherly love and communalism of the original ancient Israelite school of prophets and the early church (Acts 2:42-45, Acts 4:32-37) and transforms it into Marxist, atheistic communism and the godless Soviet Union (created by anti-Christ Jews. Karl Marx and Engels his partner in crime, were atheist Jews. The founders of the Jewish State Of Israel were anti-Christ, atheist, Socialist Marxists).

​

Satan has you working-class right-wingers pursuing worldly riches like demon-possessed mammon hoarders and worshipers, rather than pursuing the Kingdom of God in Jesus' Name. How are you righteous before your King and Lord? America is nothing without Jesus Christ. This constitutional republic can't survive without a righteous citizenry, full of the Holy Spirit. Democracy doesn't work without a people who are born-again and filled with the Spirit of God. You've betrayed yourselves and your heavenly King by selling America down the river for the counterfeit secular state of "Israel". Judge righteously America or lose your country.

Trump isn't any better:
​

Daughter - Jewish Zionist convert, his son-in-law, Jewish Zionist, and his daughter-in-law, Jewish Zionist. Most of his administration was full of Zionist Jews. If he wins the election in 2024, it will be even more Zionist Jewish than in his first administration. These people serve the secular, atheist, Jewish State of "Israel"(Israhell). Fake -"Israel".

TELL ME WHO YOU CAN'T CRITICIZE AND I'LL TELL YOU WHO'S YOUR MASTER. ​

 

[theHawk]

Supposedly you're AMERICAN PATRIOTS, but then you allow a cabal of anti-Christ, Zionist Jews to take over our government and society, liberalizing it to the point that people can't even define what a woman is

LOL I am certainly not a pro-Israel or for Marxist, Globalist Jews that are destroying this country.

I’m glad to see American patriots waking up to fake conservatives like Ben Shapiro who put Israel above America.

 

[TruthNotBS]

LOL I am certainly not a pro-Israel or for Marxist, Globalist Jews that are destroying this country.

I’m glad to see American patriots waking up to fake conservatives like Ben Shapiro who put Israel above America.

Amen. Trump unfortunately is seriously compromised.

 

[2aguy]

I do know what Jim Crow laws were and google is there to be used. I was born in 1961, I know what Jim Crow looked like. It looked like a neighborhood without sidewalks and dirt streets until you got to the white community.

And created and sustained by the democrat party.

 

[TruthNotBS]

And created and sustained by the democrat party.

You keep pretending the problem IS JUST the Democratic Party. The Republicans are also the problem.

 

[2aguy]

You keep pretending the problem IS JUST the Democratic Party. The Republicans are also the problem.

The bigger problem is the democrat party.

 

[badger2]

Part Two: addressing your ignorant and racist attempt at a rebuttal to facts.
It doesn't matter if the Indigenous Indians were stone age or advanced researchers it was still their land, you suggest that white people had some moral or god given right to steal, slaughter, rape and commit genocide because their skin wasn't white. This isn't even a decent rebuttal it's simply ignorant. They didn't need a garden, are you really this stupid?...lol They had and abundance of any fruit or vegetable they wanted."They raided, raped and murdered," sounds exactly like the behavior of the vikings,english, saxons, greeks, romans, welsh,british,etc. Let us know when yout brain slightly processes the point.
The english were shitting and drinking the same water, believed bathing was deadly and couldn't even properly wipe their asses, save us the eurocentric claptrap.

Slavery was indeed the root cause of the civil war, ignorance grows in and empty garden and yours is vast, White southerners introduced this half truth and many others in order to obscure and rewrite factual history much like the daughters of the confederacy. In your ignorance you have shot yourself in the foot...lol. COTTON made stupid backwards southerners ultra rich and that cotton was planted, grown and harvested by free lifetime labor aka chattel slavery.

Let’s start with the value of the slave population. Steven Deyle shows that in 1860, the value of the slaves was “roughly three times greater than the total amount invested in banks,” and it was “equal to about seven times the total value of all currency in circulation in the country, three times the value of the entire livestock population, twelve times the value of the entire U.S. cotton crop and forty-eight times the total expenditure of the federal government that year.” As mentioned here in a previous column, the invention of the cotton gin greatly increased the productivity of cotton harvesting by slaves. This resulted in dramatically higher profits for planters, which in turn led to a seemingly insatiable increase in the demand for more slaves, in a savage, brutal and vicious cycle.

Now, the value of cotton: Slave-produced cotton “brought commercial ascendancy to New York City, was the driving force for territorial expansion in the Old Southwest and fostered trade between Europe and the United States,” according to Gene Dattel. In fact, cotton productivity, no doubt due to the sharecropping system that replaced slavery, remained central to the American economy for a very long time: “Cotton was the leading American export from 1803 to 1937.”

The Role Cotton Played in the 1800s Economy | African American History Blog | The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross

Cotton was 'king' in the plantation economy of the Deep South. The cotton economy had close ties to the Northern banking industry, New England textile factories and the economy of Great Britain.

www.pbs.org

Further attempts at rewriting history that only stupid people believe.."why would poor whites that owned no slaves fight in the civil war?"
They did it ti maintain the racial hierarchy in this country and particularly in the South. The lowest, dirtiest most ignorant white person could claim superiority over the most intelligent, educated and accomplished Black person simply because they lacked melanin in their skin.

Though only a few held any slaves, almost all middle class southerners supported the slave system because they enjoyed the privileged status that a racially based society bestowed on them, and they feared that they would have to compete with the slaves for land and work if African Americans were free
.https://web-clear.unt.edu/course_projects/HIST2610/content/04_Unit_Four/13_lesson_thirteen/03_southern_soc.htm#:~:text=Though%20only%20a%20few%20held,if%20African%20Americans%20were%20free.

Wealth, Slaveownership, and Fighting for the Confederacy: An Empirical Study of the American Civil War​

The war was fundamentally fought over the institution of slavery. We might expect that as white farmers in the Antebellum South became wealthier, their incentives to preserve slavery likewise rose, possibly making them more willing to fight for the Confederacy. This logic is consistent with research throughout political science highlighting how individuals are motivated to fight due to grievances against the state (Cederman, Gleditsch, and Buhaug Reference Cederman, Gleditsch and Buhaug2013; Gurr Reference Gurr1970; Humphreys and Weinstein Reference Humphreys and Weinstein2008; Paige Reference Paige1978)—in this case, grievances against a federal government they saw as threatening an institution that they had been socialized into and upon which their future livelihood depended.

Wealth, Slaveownership, and Fighting for the Confederacy: An Empirical Study of the American Civil War | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core

Wealth, Slaveownership, and Fighting for the Confederacy: An Empirical Study of the American Civil War - Volume 113 Issue 3

www.cambridge.org

I understand how ignorant you were when you attempted AND FAILED to compare African slavery to white chattel slavery. Try to become a little more educated...
Many African slaves were eventually freed and absorbed into their owner's kin group. Another difference was that in African societies most slaves were female. Women were preferred because they bore children and performed most field labor. They were not only responsible for agricultural production, but for spinning and weaving and other productive tasks.

Slavery in early sub-Saharan Africa took a variety of forms. Before the fifteenth century, there was some chattel slavery in sub-Saharan Africa, under which slaves could be bought and sold like livestock.

But most slavery in Africa differed profoundly from the kind of plantation labor that developed in the New World. The gap in status between masters and slaves was not as wide as it would be in the New World. While most slaves were field workers, some served in royal courts, where they served as officials, soldiers, servants, and artisans. Under a system known as "pawnship," youths (usually girls) served as collateral for their family's debts. If their parents or kin defaulted on these debts, then these young girls were forced to labor to repay these debts. In many instances, these young women eventually married into their owner's lineage, and their family's debt was cancelled.

Digital History

You can attempt a rebuttal, however one can read and simply come to the factual conclusion that you are basically ignorant of the entire subject matter.

The Timucua of Northern Florida practiced slavery and cannibalism. The attempt to synthesize a Navajo-English dictionary failed.

 

[YoursTruly]

Amen. Trump unfortunately is seriously compromised.

IE the duopoly

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The GOP might be able to pick off a few percentage points, but blacks love the government handouts, so the vast majority will stick with the party that keeps them addicted.

 

[YoursTruly]

Part Two: addressing your ignorant and racist attempt at a rebuttal to facts.
It doesn't matter if the Indigenous Indians were stone age or advanced researchers it was still their land, you suggest that white people had some moral or god given right to steal, slaughter, rape and commit genocide because their skin wasn't white.

I didn't say they had any moral right to steal, rape or do any harm to indians. I'm saying that's what happened. And they didn't do because of their skin color. They did it because they wanted the land.

This isn't even a decent rebuttal it's simply ignorant. They didn't need a garden, are you really this stupid?...lol They had and abundance of any fruit or vegetable they wanted."They raided, raped and murdered," sounds exactly like the behavior of the vikings,english, saxons, greeks, romans, welsh,british,etc. Let us know when yout brain slightly processes the point.
The english were shitting and drinking the same water, believed bathing was deadly and couldn't even properly wipe their asses, save us the eurocentric claptrap.

No, they were practically starving most of the time.
The left ear of corn is what the indians used to have.

And yes, the what man used to be retarded in some ways. And still are. They thought that the earth was flat, that witches exist and that owning people was OK.
Now days, look at the indian. Like the blacks, most of them are still completely dependent on the government. You ever been to a reservation? I have. I almost married a Navajo from NE Arizona. Alcoholism and drugs run rampant through those villages.

Slavery was indeed the root cause of the civil war, ignorance grows in and empty garden and yours is vast, White southerners introduced this half truth and many others in order to obscure and rewrite factual history much like the daughters of the confederacy. In your ignorance you have shot yourself in the foot...lol. COTTON made stupid backwards southerners ultra rich and that cotton was planted, grown and harvested by free lifetime labor aka chattel slavery.

Slavery came to the north, via a black man. The first slave in the USA was a black man owning a black man.
Nothing is free. Slaves cost a lot of money to buy, feed and house. This is why the vast majority of white didn't own slaves.
95% of the south didn't own a slave. But you think the vast majority of them fought and died to keep something they didn't have to begin with. How retarded is that.
That's like todays south going to war with the north to keep their Lamborghini's.

Let’s start with the value of the slave population. Steven Deyle shows that in 1860, the value of the slaves was “roughly three times greater than the total amount invested in banks,” and it was “equal to about seven times the total value of all currency in circulation in the country, three times the value of the entire livestock population, twelve times the value of the entire U.S. cotton crop and forty-eight times the total expenditure of the federal government that year.” As mentioned here in a previous column, the invention of the cotton gin greatly increased the productivity of cotton harvesting by slaves. This resulted in dramatically higher profits for planters, which in turn led to a seemingly insatiable increase in the demand for more slaves, in a savage, brutal and vicious cycle.

LMAO..... Only the rich people had slaves. If you know your history, there were very few rich people in the south. It was either upper class or dirt poor. 95% of the south were dirt poor.
Foreign countries were paying a higher price for southern cotton than the north. Forcing the north to pay more. Which cut into their northern profits. Why did we go to war with every country since the Korean war? Money.
I'm not, and by god don't you say I am, but I'm not saying that slavery wasn't part of the reason for the civil war. But if the south had become it's own country, it would've completely tanked the norths economy. Especially because of the hatred the south had for the north from all their yankee BS. (taxes and trade restrictions)

Now, the value of cotton: Slave-produced cotton “brought commercial ascendancy to New York City, was the driving force for territorial expansion in the Old Southwest and fostered trade between Europe and the United States,” according to Gene Dattel. In fact, cotton productivity, no doubt due to the sharecropping system that replaced slavery, remained central to the American economy for a very long time: “Cotton was the leading American export from 1803 to 1937.”

Proving my above point.

Further attempts at rewriting history that only stupid people believe.."why would poor whites that owned no slaves fight in the civil war?"
They did it ti maintain the racial hierarchy in this country and particularly in the South. The lowest, dirtiest most ignorant white person could claim superiority over the most intelligent, educated and accomplished Black person simply because they lacked melanin in their skin.

If the blacks were that smart, Africa would be a lot more advanced. But too many down there are still using child labor to mine minerals with shovels and buckets. They still have people going hungry in the desert because they're too stupid to move where food grows.

Though only a few held any slaves, almost all middle class southerners supported the slave system because they enjoyed the privileged status that a racially based society bestowed on them, and they feared that they would have to compete with the slaves for land and work if African Americans were free

You mean like all civilizations? Even as far back as when whites were slaves? That's a human nature trait. Not a racist one. The American indian had slaves. The Africans had slaves. The middle easterners had slaves. Asians had slaves. There were slaves in almost every nation in the world throughout history.
Because people back then were stupid and horrible. And some still are.

Democrats & CINO's have found a way to enslave both blacks, whites, American indians. It's called the welfare system.

 

[TruthNotBS]

The bigger problem is the democrat party.

In some ways yes, and in other ways no. The Republicans should know better, because many of them claim to be disciples of Jesus Christ, and yet they're not behaving like Christians.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I didn't say they had any moral right to steal, rape or do any harm to indians. I'm saying that's what happened. And they didn't do because of their skin color. They did it because they wanted the land.



No, they were practically starving most of the time.
The left ear of corn is what the indians used to have.
View attachment 861830

And yes, the what man used to be retarded in some ways. And still are. They thought that the earth was flat, that witches exist and that owning people was OK.
Now days, look at the indian. Like the blacks, most of them are still completely dependent on the government. You ever been to a reservation? I have. I almost married a Navajo from NE Arizona. Alcoholism and drugs run rampant through those villages.


Slavery came to the north, via a black man. The first slave in the USA was a black man owning a black man.
Nothing is free. Slaves cost a lot of money to buy, feed and house. This is why the vast majority of white didn't own slaves.
95% of the south didn't own a slave. But you think the vast majority of them fought and died to keep something they didn't have to begin with. How retarded is that.
That's like todays south going to war with the north to keep their Lamborghini's.


LMAO..... Only the rich people had slaves. If you know your history, there were very few rich people in the south. It was either upper class or dirt poor. 95% of the south were dirt poor.
Foreign countries were paying a higher price for southern cotton than the north. Forcing the north to pay more. Which cut into their northern profits. Why did we go to war with every country since the Korean war? Money.
I'm not, and by god don't you say I am, but I'm not saying that slavery wasn't part of the reason for the civil war. But if the south had become it's own country, it would've completely tanked the norths economy. Especially because of the hatred the south had for the north from all their yankee BS. (taxes and trade restrictions)


Proving my above point.



If the blacks were that smart, Africa would be a lot more advanced. But too many down there are still using child labor to mine minerals with shovels and buckets. They still have people going hungry in the desert because they're too stupid to move where food grows.


You mean like all civilizations? Even as far back as when whites were slaves? That's a human nature trait. Not a racist one. The American indian had slaves. The Africans had slaves. The middle easterners had slaves. Asians had slaves. There were slaves in almost every nation in the world throughout history.
Because people back then were stupid and horrible. And some still are.

Democrats & CINO's have found a way to enslave both blacks, whites, American indians. It's called the welfare system.

Unfortunately, the black slave trade was mostly run by anti-Christ Jews.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I didn't say they had any moral right to steal, rape or do any harm to indians. I'm saying that's what happened. And they didn't do because of their skin color. They did it because they wanted the land.



No, they were practically starving most of the time.
The left ear of corn is what the indians used to have.
View attachment 861830

And yes, the what man used to be retarded in some ways. And still are. They thought that the earth was flat, that witches exist and that owning people was OK.
Now days, look at the indian. Like the blacks, most of them are still completely dependent on the government. You ever been to a reservation? I have. I almost married a Navajo from NE Arizona. Alcoholism and drugs run rampant through those villages.


Slavery came to the north, via a black man. The first slave in the USA was a black man owning a black man.
Nothing is free. Slaves cost a lot of money to buy, feed and house. This is why the vast majority of white didn't own slaves.
95% of the south didn't own a slave. But you think the vast majority of them fought and died to keep something they didn't have to begin with. How retarded is that.
That's like todays south going to war with the north to keep their Lamborghini's.


LMAO..... Only the rich people had slaves. If you know your history, there were very few rich people in the south. It was either upper class or dirt poor. 95% of the south were dirt poor.
Foreign countries were paying a higher price for southern cotton than the north. Forcing the north to pay more. Which cut into their northern profits. Why did we go to war with every country since the Korean war? Money.
I'm not, and by god don't you say I am, but I'm not saying that slavery wasn't part of the reason for the civil war. But if the south had become it's own country, it would've completely tanked the norths economy. Especially because of the hatred the south had for the north from all their yankee BS. (taxes and trade restrictions)


Proving my above point.



If the blacks were that smart, Africa would be a lot more advanced. But too many down there are still using child labor to mine minerals with shovels and buckets. They still have people going hungry in the desert because they're too stupid to move where food grows.


You mean like all civilizations? Even as far back as when whites were slaves? That's a human nature trait. Not a racist one. The American indian had slaves. The Africans had slaves. The middle easterners had slaves. Asians had slaves. There were slaves in almost every nation in the world throughout history.
Because people back then were stupid and horrible. And some still are.

Democrats & CINO's have found a way to enslave both blacks, whites, American indians. It's called the welfare system.

Europe still controls much of Sub-Saharan Africa, economically, politically, militarily..etc. European colonialism has changed but it's still alive and well in Africa.

 

[IM2]

This is a black republican speaking.

 

[IM2]

Unfortunately, the black slave trade was mostly run by anti-Christ Jews.

There were Jewish slave owners but they didn't control the trade.

White "Christian" men did.

 

[IM2]

Europe still controls much of Sub-Saharan Africa, economically, politically, militarily..etc. European colonialism has changed but it's still alive and well in Africa.

Not just sub saharan Africa.

 

[TruthNotBS]

There were Jewish slave owners but they didn't control the trade.

White "Christian" men did.

Not true. Very few whites owned slaves when compared to the amount of Jews who did. The cause of most of our problems in this country aren't blacks but anti-Christ, secular Jews who have dual citizenship (dual allegiance) and hate Christian Western European civilization. The greatest threat to our country and humanity in general, are Zionist secular Jews, including those Jews who want to liberalize America and the West socially. Due to the amount of influence and power that they have, they're the greatest threat.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Not just sub saharan Africa.

They also influence North Africa, but they're brutally exploiting sub-Saharan Africa for its natural resources. All of their former colonies. There's a move now in Africa to get rid of French influence in Africa in countries like Burkina Faso and Mali, among others.