2
17

[–] Anam 2 points 17 points (+19|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Guess that's why blacks loyally vote for the Dems. They are just nostalgic for the days of 100% employment, courtesy of the Democratic party.

0
3

[–] CowWithBeef 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

From an evolutionary biology standpoint, west Africans probably gained an exceptionally big advantage from becoming slaves. There are many times more offspring of that era's slaves than of that era's west Africans who stayed home. Slavery is a viable strategy for natural selection, particularly if the world of non-slaves is dangerous or not conducive to reproduction. Supposing the Amish would enslave 5000 Japanese folks and encourage them to keep a similar birth rate as themselves. Within 300 years there would be more Japanese people in the USA than in Japan.

[–] [deleted] 3 points 14 points (+17|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

2
8

[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 2 points 8 points (+10|-2) ago 

Slavery was one of the biggest portions of the State's Rights argument. It wasn't fully about slavery like schools try to teach, otherwise every slave state would have seceded, but to pretend that was not a large part of it is wrong.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] slwsnowman40 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It wasn't about slavery until Europe started paying attention about halfway through...it was a Bankers' War first.

0
3

[–] WeekendBaker 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

wait till you point out the emancipation proclamation was only for secessionist territory. This meant tanker controlled land around places like Louisiana that ran Sugar plantations, and all the unionist states that allowed slavery, were exempt.

It was literally a “in land we do not control we are making up laws”

0
2

[–] JoeFacts 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It was about money but sold as government telling you what to do. The argument slippery slope had a much quicker grasp back then. Remember, the had 3/5ths of a person which they then got vote power from that. They now had a possibility of having to pay the slaves and losing a portion of their voting power. Of course the war didn't really stop slavery. It expanded and really created prison labor in the US. A lot of times the just arrested people on silly crimes and forced them to work. This was used to fight regular workers asking for simple respect. It was used for a lot of industries in both the north and south until the rise of unions in the north who contested it.

1
2

[–] everlastingphelps [S] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

It wasn't about slavery. It was about rich planters not wanting to pay full wages.

1
5

[–] The_Laughing_Storm 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

No it wasn't. It was because the north and south where developing different cultures and the top dog hasn't been established yet. They were drifting apart and a war of supremacy was inevitable. The north stroke first and won. Ending slavery was necessary to mobilize the population and ensure politicians kept power because of the popularity contest we know as democracy.

0
0

[–] Wharleas 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Mostly true but the north didn't strike first. Secessionists acted without authority, which dragged the southern governments into the war. In the early years of the war the south made good gains as well. The north just had a stronger economy, numbers and support of the international community.

1
3

[–] Obergruppenkraken 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

the Democrats of then are the exact same as the Democratic of today

The civil war was about negro farm equipment

Democrats are da reel waccissts

Yawn

1
1

[–] Laurentius_the_pyro 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

The Donald is leaking again.

0
1

[–] classy_nigger 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

With great popularity comes great stupidity.

1
2

[–] cattarhero 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Yeah, some old Spanish philosopher once said something along the lines of, "Those who ignore history, are destined to repeat it". Sorry I can't remember his name, but it's the truth.

0
1

[–] selpai 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Hmm? You're going to have to explain this perspective. If you're talking about slaves, then it was the lack of federal law that allowed for their existence. If you're talking about taxes, then i don't understand the cheap labor comment. I would expect a post like this to link to an article, at least. Why was this upvoated? It explains nothing.

Also, you know that the general consensus on Voat is that the bad guys won the civil war, right? Nothing about this post makes sense, not even it's intent.

0
1

[–] AnarchicAlpaca 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Emancipation was more about bolstering union troops with "freed men"... 10% of the Union army were black. They were promised security and of course freedom, they received neither. They got the opportunity to wear a costume with a gun and die. Mercenaries at best. Slavery was being phased out anyway, and the South had a number of educated blacks in government. The lie has been promulgated for so damn long, it's in the gorillion realm.

0
1

[–] AnarchicAlpaca 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Union= the USA as a corporation. Secession was the refusal to be under the thumb of said corporation,and the north wanted their due tax revenue.

load more comments ▼ (7 remaining)