😎 y trump 1 🇺🇲

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
Every mayo is one a racist Hulk, they're not relly rayciss but if ur a big meanie and call them racist too much they'll get mad and turn into a rayciss 4 real and run crying to a white supremacist. Who also is not racist ofc, even though white people constantly threaten minorities that they'll vote for him.


That's not because he's racist of course, because no white is racist and would never vote for a racist, even though they are openly voting for him expressly as retaliation for perceived wrongs to them and know that the prospect of him leading the nation causes great fear and anxiety in the minds of minorities. Again, that is not because he is actually racist, his 'racism' is just a figment in the imagination of crazed hysterical darkies who must still be in shock from leaving their lives of luxury on the plantation. They are merely using that figment in the imagination of non whites as a useful tool to redress the injustice of them being called racist. Even though no racism will actually happen.


Did you know that the whites who traveled down to Africa for slaves never actually wanted slaves in the first place? They were just walking along the beach, minding their own business, when black Africans randomly came up to them and started screaming that they were racist. So, you know, they didn't want to, but they had to capture and imprison and enslave them after that. The whole time they were like 'You know I'm not really racist and I'll stop and free you the moment you acknowledge that?' and the irrational darkies just kept on screaming rayciisss anyway as they were lead away to the pleasure domes of the plantations. And white people just sighed and accidentally had to go along with this, when though they were never really racist.


Actually it was the blacks who really enslaved themselves if you think about it b/c the actual capture was done by western funded slave tribes, who were Africans, on the order of non racist Europeans. Like imagine if an Arab sheik paid an American criminal rapist to kidnap a blonde blue eyed child for his sexual pleasure. In this instance, wouldn't it be the responsibility of the west for imprisoning and enslaving their own children for money? Of course not! Everyone knows Arabs are pedophiles and it would just be another instance of Muslim savages attacking white women. Simialiarly, white people were never actually responsible at all for slavery of Africans either.


Also slavery was really good for blacks because they got an awesome life in America right? So really we did them a favor. Even though, again, it was actually blacks enslaving themselves, and slavery was actually good for them, the plantation was awesome and they were super well fed and stuff and they get awesome lives in America, due to idiot savage blacks enslaving themselves, so a pat on the back to white people for helping blacks out like this on this thing that they did to themselves and we have no responsibility for.


My point is that racism has never actually existed. White people just get called racist for no reason, and sigh and have to retaliate against their aggressors. But their retaliation isn't racism either. So racism wouldn't exist if people would stop calling whites racist, you see?


Except for racism against whites, which is the only real form of racism that exists. Like when white liberals hire a token black to add a little spice to their workplace in the hope that a little extra rhythm here and there will make them feel happier, stupid magatard white nephews of hiring managers nationwide lose out on a small number of sweet gigs they otherwise would have gotten. Which is super unfair and an act of aggression on the part of black people. You know if black people weren't so racist, they'd work for free, that way the white liberal could get an extra sassy workplace *and* the magatard nephew could get the job he deserves. Every actual person mentioned would win under such a scenario. But because blacks are so selfish and demand pay, someone has to lose out!


Also because this exists FYI I'm going to immediately assume that every black person I met nationwide only got their position through AA, even though the vast majority of them did not and I usually have no proof, and I will be really openly shitty about it everywhere and call them incompetent at every opportunity to wild acclaim in public firms. Which isn't racist BTW because it's true. Also I would've called them incompetent anyway but thanks white liberals for giving me this sweet excuse, sometimes black people inadvertently get thrown a few scraps due to the way that some whites choose to look after their own interests, and when that happens great opportunities open up to be a smug piece of shit and never let them live it down and demand gratitude while simultaneously demeaning them. Although again all of that would've happened anyway, and none of it is racist, because racism doesn't exist and I'm not one, and also you're the real racist.


I'm a centrist lol 😎
 
why Trump one

giphy.gif


giphy.gif
 
.
The Irish in Monserrat has slaves as well, but that doesn't chime very well with your petty pathetic pitiable paltry PC prose, now does it?

While Barbados had very few Irish planters, the island of Montserrat is an important place to include in our discussions. Montserrat illuminates not only the ‘Irish slave’ experience but also the role of the Irish in the transatlantic slave trade. Montserrat was arguably the only truly ‘Irish’ island in the colonial Caribbean. Irishmen first arrived after being expelled by the British from St Kitts in the 1630s and they remained the major white population until at least the late eighteenth century. Irish people filled every level of social strata and religious persuasion on Montserrat, from indentured servant up to governor, revealing that they were not a heterogeneous group: they represented both the colonised and the colonisers. Evidence from government records, court ledgers and private papers of the planter class highlight that the Irish larger landowners were often enthusiastic exploiters of the African slave trade, and their laws and court records in particular reveal stark distinctions between the status and treatment of indentured servants (also usually Irish) and chattel slaves.

To give some examples, there are details of laws enacted in 1683 restraining ‘unchristian-like association of white people w’th Negroes’, whose very existence reveals a distinction being placed between European indentured servants and African chattel slaves. Likewise, the King’s Bench and common pleas (a form of lower court concerned with property and the recovery of debts) from 1752–4 reveal a significant number of cases of plaintiffs suing for the return of African chattel slaves who had been ‘stolen’ by other landowners, often in an opportunistic way in the immediate aftermath of the death of their owner. The African slaves are always referenced in terms of their monet-ary value and are often unnamed: in legal terms they are treated as livestock. There is no comparative example for white indentured servants. An extreme example can be found in the same ledger, where two landowners of Irish descent (Sweeny v. Lynch) saw Andrew Lynch sued for ‘trespass … [to] beat, wound, ill treat a negro man slave named Sampson the property of the said Edmund Sweeny so that thereof the said slave died’. The case was held in a lower court because the murder of an African slave was considered a crime of property and it was not considered of interest to a higher court. As with many of these cases, it was later dropped without any sanction of the defendant.

https://www.historyireland.com/18th...sh-in-the-anglo-caribbean-servants-or-slaves/
 
Last edited:
Does anybody know the single most important reason why the North won the Civil War?

Hmm, apparently not. Well it was railways, Richmond has five main railway lines that terminated there but they were all different gauges. There were also no rolling mills in the South so they were unable to restore or replace tracks destroyed by Sherman's neckties.

The battle of Chattanooga would have been won by the South, if not for the North building poontoons across rivers carrying rail tracks. This enabled them to send reinforcements in 10 days rather than two months or more. The South also destroyed railway lines but the North was able to replace them quicker, thus having far less impact, they also had standard gauge tracks.


 
Last edited:
Does anybody know the single most important reason why the North won the Civil War?

I would argue that if you wanted to point to any one single reason the South lost a war they very well could have won it would have been the same issue that caused the war. Slavery. Due to the confederacies uncompromising policies on slavery they were not able to adequatly utilize their human resources either in industry to support the war or on the battlefield. It prevented them from gaining political, financial, military and material support from foreign powers and it prevented them from developing a cohesive and strong central government that could dictate the course of events and allocation of resources.

The Confederacy came within a Whisker of winning that War politically. Had Gen. Lee not been an incredibly lousy strategist they would have. My contention is that if in the summer of 63 had Jeff Davis fired Gen. Lee and replaced him him with a Gen who understood that the Confederacy was losing the War in the west and had that general not even won at Vicksburg, Chattanooga, and Atlanta but just slowed down the Union advance so that by the election of 64 Atlanta had still stood....the Confederacy would have won the war cause Lincoln would have lost the election and McClelland would have been in a political position where he would have had no choice but to negotiate a peace with the Confederacy.
 
Hmm, apparently not. Well it was railways, Richmond has five main railway lines that terminated there but they were all different gauges. There were also no rolling mills in the South so they were unable to restore or replace tracks destroyed by Sherman's neckties.

The battle of Chattanooga would have been won by the South, if not for the North building poontoons across rivers carrying rail tracks. This enabled them to send reinforcements in 10 days rather than two months or more. The South also destroyed railway lines but the North was able to replace them quicker, thus having far less impact, they also had standard gauge tracks.



The Battle of Chattanooga probably would have been won if that dunderhead Lee hadn't of pulled Longstreets Corp out of the theater and back to Virginia before the Union attacked at Chicamagua.
 
The Battle of Chattanooga probably would have been won if that dunderhead Lee hadn't of pulled Longstreets Corp out of the theater and back to Virginia before the Union attacked at Chicamagua.

Any chance that you might address my contention that the railways made all the difference, notwithstanding all the other things you mention?
 
Any chance that you might address my contention that the railways made all the difference, notwithstanding all the other things you mention?
of course they made a difference. The entire lack of industrialization in the Confederacy played a critical role. The single reason they lost? Not hardly.

The Confederacy lost a war they could have won, other nations have that had far greater disadvantages, primarily due to poor political and military leadership, more the former than the later and its policies towards slavery played a singularly important reason why.

So no. Lack of logistics played an important role but Slavery was the single biggest reason the Confederacy went to war and the single biggest reason why they lost the war.
 
Any chance that you might address my contention that the railways made all the difference, notwithstanding all the other things you mention?

Yeah, the Whigs/GOP had been pushing rail for some time. With the south out of Congress, the transcontinental railroad finally got uncontested support, and, of course, it was built exclusively on American soil.
 
of course they made a difference. The entire lack of industrialization in the Confederacy played a critical role. The single reason they lost? Not hardly.

The Confederacy lost a war they could have won, other nations have that had far greater disadvantages, primarily due to poor political and military leadership, more the former than the later and its policies towards slavery played a singularly important reason why.

So no. Lack of logistics played an important role but Slavery was the single biggest reason the Confederacy went to war and the single biggest reason why they lost the war.

I said that railways were the single most important reason and that's true without a shadow of a doubt. Sherman knew that very well which was why he devoted so much resources to disabling the South's railways. I suggest that you read this excellent article about it.

http://www.civilwar.com/history/weapons-44543/railroads-79476.html
 
Last edited:
Back
Top