like Ludwin von Mises said in his seminar book "Human Action", in order for Demokracy to work, it would need as a precondition, unlimited secession, down to the individual or household level. This is the most radical idea in history, an that and that coming from an Austrian national in the 1930´s, escaping national sociallisim from his native contry.
I'm thinking of becoming an anti statist but I'm not anti war. I think what Lincoln did was right. I think freedom is worth bloodshed. "In the end of the day the issue is not solved by speeches or majorety vote but buy iron and blood." Otto Von Bismark.
Terrorists attacked us... not a country. Almost all the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.... NOT Afghanistan or Iraq.... and "Towel-heads"??? How fucking old are you? Uneducated trash.
Against BIG government & Sharing the wealth to people that sit at home all day and do nothing, Well Join m-tremblay.webs.com & Sign up and stop the spin
Maybe instead of looking up cheesy ad hom lines against the Right, use Google to look up the similarities between the Liberal Party and the Third Reich. You'd be amazed.
And if you claim you can't find anything, have someone look it up for you. Ask one of your enablers, perhaps.
The real problem with this medium (and really all medium since the breakdown of debate in the United States) lies in that this guy has a preconceived notion of those who would oppose his seemingly obvious and brilliant ideas.
Not everyone who is against the war in Iraq wants to massacre rednecks in the South.
Not everyone who disagrees with him is a "dumb Statist"
He spends most of this video attacking "groups" hes labelled and doesn't like, instead of assessing policy with any reason.
The goal of the south was actually to defend their rights against the Union because they felt the north was pushing them around so they wanted to make a stand. I do not support the south's ideas and beliefs but i do support there cause.
@zipsrule That also being said the majority of people we're not fighting for it. The political and politically connected class were as a far more main goal for them. (Since they comprised the state).
Too many people think that the Union fought against slavery on the basis of it being a human rights violation. The fact that Lincoln didn't give 2 chits about the slaves but rather only cared about preserving the Union, or that Lee was against slavery as a practice gets swept under the rug in school. It's sad.
@MrBadcon Since when is self-determination idiotic and how is a perpetual union not a form of slavery? Sins of the father huh? And "unamerican". First define what it even means to be "american" (its subjective) and two, you sound like some nationalist patriotard there. And I love your majoritarian appeal at the end. Well guess what most people believe in God, that doesn't make them smart either.
As a liberal I'm tired of other liberals believing they can force authority worshipers to participate in liberality. They absolutely must live in the totalitarian state they desire. The only way for this to work is through secession of right wing anti-American states like texas and arizona (etc).
Although us liberals might seem sinister and evil because of our love of freedom, this is one goal we can work with you on. It doesn't require teaming up, we just need to work from each side.
@yubarraboo I think modern liberals want to live in a very coercive state at the least. Im with you on secession obviously, but anti-american? "American" is a vague, nebulous term with 330 million different meanings. All america is anyway is a forced collective which is totally broken and should have been broken up years ago.
Millions of free blacks was quite the good thing, no? I'm not saying Lincoln was not a bastard (I need to do more research - I wouldn't be surprised if he was the asshole that you think he is), but it seemed like you minimized the benefit of this action at around 6:25 in your vid
The Civil War was not about slavery, it was about States rights versus the Federal government. Lincoln did not officially free the slaves until the states had already succeeded. The original emancipation proclamation was actually used as a threat to try to get the states that had succeeded back into the union.
'...issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863.'
(cont.) It also shifted international support away from the South - the effect of which was massive. Of course abolishing slavery was a good thing, but more than likely it was a tactical decision on Lincoln's part. Slavery was not what the Civil War was about. Personally I think the wrong side won, we would all be better off today under a much smaller government, as we would likely have without our bloated over-sized federal government. The less government the better.
@Blairtim69: That was a reason the south was at odds with the north, but disallowing new territories the right to slavery in no way infringed on their 'right'. Slavery was not the cause of the war. The war was primarily fought over States rights versus Federal rights.
@HyperBorealOperator The morality of it is NOT a "red herring". The deep racial scars are NOT a "result of a victim industry and marxist efforts of vicitm indoctrination". How can you say that? Have you no empathy? Do you not know any black people? The problem with white people is they have NO EMPATHY for the experiences of minorities, they're just "whiners" and "lazy" to you. And to answer your next question, yes, I am white, and I am always appalled by the disgusting attitudes of many whites.
@HyperBorealOperator Yes the north did have primary motives other then slavery, however, my point is more of a moral one, I'm sorry, I should have articulated this better earlier. The south, due to their defense of slavery, were morally inferior. That's the real point I'm trying to make.
Any positive mention to the "old ways" such as segregation, slavery, confederate south, these all open up old wounds, they are all reminders of the terrible times that gave this nation her deep racial scars.
The liberal media is trying to demonize states rights, they paint the confederacy as 'terrorists' & 'racist' because they want the Federal Govt to run everything. They would likely support getting rid of the 9th & 10th amendments to the constitution.
3:32 "One of the Best books you've ever written?" How obsessed are you with dicks? I counted at least 3 times that you either mimed giving head or asked to have your dick sucked. How was this country founded on secession? My favorite line "learn some fucking history" , apparently you read one book and you are a historian. There are no words to express for how stupid you are.
@wtfoof I was going to play with your head but I figured I'd just respond. 1. Its called misspeaking, Im sorry to hear youve never done it. 2. The 13 colonies seceding from the British Empire and the subsequent war that followed due to them seceding. 3. Apparently you are a statist liberal who thinks your personal preferences of what is "right" are more "correct" then anyone elses and you feel the need to let everyone else know this. Way to go bucko.
@InTheEndIWasRight, You play with my head? Don't make me laugh! The 13 colonies were property of the Crown of England. They did not secede they revolted! To Secede, to make a formal withdrawl of membership from an organization, state or alliance.
The Colonies were not considered states by England they were colonies or Common Wealths. They formed NO alliance with England but were British possessions. But I waste my time talk to you. You not bright enough to comprehend.
@wtfoof According to MW dictionary, secession is defined as "2. formal withdrawal from an organization" and an organization is defined as "2b. an administrative and functional structure". A State is a type of organization, in this case the State was the British empire and the formal part of the withdrawal came in the form of the declaration. But yeah Im a dummy cuz I donts know how 2 understand u ther u smarty pantz.
@HyperBorealOperator Doesn't matter if they weren't rich enough to afford slaves, they were still defending a regime that fully endorsed and profited from slavery.
The monument may have been for the soldiers, yes, but it is understandable that many people misinterpret it as romanticizing old racial ideals. Remember that racism is very recent history, and in some ways still current. There are many old wounds in America, and it doesn't take much to reopen them.
@InTheEndIWasRight Exactly what the great Jeff Davis said. We just want to be left alone. They do hate us, but I'll be damned if they don't keep us around because of greed and spite. "The union" is SOOOO bloody holy to them. It's more important than the supposedly important constitution. Which is more of a figurehead than the English royal family. At least people would listen to the queen halfway if she said something. I'm damn proud of my ancestors. Southron heros.
I don't think it's cognitive dissonance. I don't think many of them are even aware of these facts. I doubt they're taught in schools. Not that it would change many of their opinions anyway.
It's hard to imagine how people can support the Union for the SOLE reason of ending slavery. The Union ended racial slavery with military slavery, i.e. the draft. Lincoln's administration started the form of slavery that still exists now, by being the first administration to use conscription. Young men are still forced to register for the draft, just because of their gender. And at the state's beck and call, they will be hauled away to do what the state wants- to fight and die. It's sad, really.
The Union using the draft is not quite the same as the slaves used for labor. The soldiers were paid and when the war was over, they were able to leave.
The Slavery that the south dare not speak it's name was a tad worse.
"The Union using the draft is not quite the same as the slaves used for labor. The soldiers were paid and when the war was over, they were able to leave."
How is forced labor with a shovel that different from forced labor with a gun? Perhaps the only difference is that military slavery has taken hundreds of millions of lives across the world, and racial slavery hasn't. You are aware that many of the racial slaves were actually paid? How do you think so many bought their freedom?
"The soldiers were paid and when the war was over, they were able to leave."
If they left during the war, they would be shot for desertion. They could only leave when their slave masters, the government, told them to. They could be drafted again for another war. They were treated as property of the state. They weren't allowed to leave, they were dismissed until the government wanted them for another war. We men are still slaves in this system. We can still be forced to fight.
It has been a volunteer army for over 30 years. They get paid and their families receive benifits. They can't just leave with out going to jail, because they signed a contract.
The point I wanted to make was, Slavery was part of the civil war, and should also be presented when an entire month has been designated for it's rememberance.
No it's not. As a matter of fact, I have my draft card in my wallet right now, I could be called up at any moment and be forced to do what the state wants.
"The point I wanted to make was, Slavery was part of the civil war, and should also be presented when an entire month has been designated for it's rememberance."
There's going to be Civil War Month??? You didn't mention anything about that to me, yet.
"They can't just leave with out going to jail, because they signed a contract."
And if you know anything about the Selective Service Act, you would know they would spend up to 26 years in jail, if they did not sign. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Does this sound fair to you?
One of the reasons why people don't like the south is because one of the "rights" that they were fighting for was to own humans as property. One of the "rights" they were fighting for was to own slaves, so, that's why most people don't like the south.
And yes, Lincoln wasn't as perfect as everyone thinks he was, but he was still a good leader, and intelligent man.
And no, secession isn't always evil, although considering to do so in today's world is moreso stupid, not unAmerican.
@seanthedonconsidine I think the west cost would be way better off if they seceded. Our government is insane. Its not evil, its just insane. like this nuclear summit. Its a fucking circus for faggy college obama supporters. There is an obvious agenda behind it that they are to retarded to see. He is 100% onboard with the bush agenda, but he has to deceive people about this fact.
@seanthedonconsidine Well, california is one of the biggest economies (thought problem ridden) and if the whole west coast seceded, the east would have to do business if they wanted to import anything from asia, or else go through alaska. And I'm not 100% sure what the bush agenda is or was, but the obama agenda doesn't seam all that different. i feel like this health care thing is like through the dogs some scraps so they keep quit about the wars that aren't in their interest.
@TheVikingNinja Yes California is a large economy, and the east would have to do business with it.
You don't know what the bush agenda was, but......you are sure obama is similar to it???? How can you say that? You don't even know what you say by "bush agenda" but you know it MUST be similar to Obama's. I'd advise you to stop listening to what everyone says and look things up for yourself for a change. Yes, Obama is like bush, many of his policies are the same, but please be better informed.
@TheVikingNinja the nuclear thing seams like its about hegemony or something. Yeah nuclear weapons are a threat, but unless this country destroyed its nukes, it really has no grounds telling countrys its ok for some to have them but not all. Not to bright college kids might think obama is so wonderful for trying to make the world safe from nukes, but it kind of seams like its just an empty show that is going to produce no significant results. A waste of the billion dollars its probably costing.
@TheVikingNinja Yes, honestly, nuclear programs are pointless and hypocritical, because as long as we still have nukes everyone else will want them, and we'll never give them up. My guess is this is just a PR thing lol. An image thing. =/
@seanthedonconsidine Lincoln was a smart man, he knew how to manipulate people and get his agenda online. And a good leader yes, the best often cause mega deaths.
@InTheEndIWasRight Online? Lol no internet back then. But I know what you mean, get his agenda moving, off the ground. Of course there were deaths, that's what happens when you fight a civil war, lots of your own people killing each other. And what "rights" were these southerners defending? Other then the "right" to own people as possessions, of course. And don't give me the whole "oh you've just bought the government's mis-characterization of the south", no, I want you to list specific rights.
@seanthedonconsidine It wasnt a "civil war" The South was a totally separate nation with no desires to control the territory of the North. The North launched an invasion to subjugate the "rebellious" states. Some Southroners were fighting to own slaves, but the prevailing dynamic were not. Most were fighting to just be left alone, to farm, work and live as they liked, the right to secession and self-determination and most notably to get the usurper of the state as much out of their lives as poss
@InTheEndIWasRight Most/all southerners were fighting to own slaves, their agricultural economy depended on it. You can't run away from that fact Erik, the south needed and fought for slavery.
And the south was not trying to "get the usurper of the state as much out of their lives as possible", they had a state, a confederacy, as well. They just wanted their own state that permitted slavery and other practices that the North didn't find acceptable.
@seanthedonconsidine Only the top aristocrats of the South mainly owned slaves. Now dont tell me that the average joe was fighting just so the top classs could stay rich. Yes slavery was part of the economy, however with technological advances if there was no war the South would have had to modernize and adapt, thus letting slavery die out due to industrial progression. And thats why I said "state as much out of their lives as possible" If I said totally they would be anti-state...
@InTheEndIWasRight The average joe did what he was told. That simple. =/
He fought for a cause he believed in. Unfortunately, slavery WAS one of those causes, among other things.
The south most likely would have always had slavery, because even if it would have become industrialized, it would still require labor, and slavery was still legal. I doubt that the laws in the south would change to abolish slavery unless the union forced them too.
@seanthedonconsidine I would just have to disagree. I dont see how or why the average man would fight for the aristocrat class of the South when the masses knew full well that fighting for them and their lively hood would not be conducive to theirs. If every other western nation ended slavery without a war, what makes you think one was needed to do so here? And not true, the British could and would have gotten cheaper cotton from India & Egypt, slavery would no longer have been cost effective.
@InTheEndIWasRight Yes a war may not have been necessary, however, I think that if the south continued to profit from slavery, they would not have abolished it. I may be ill-informed, but how would industrialization make slavery unprofitable?
In any case, we are talking of the past, so, who knows who would have been right. I do admit that I should know more of what the other side is saying, not just the story given to me in the school's official textbooks.
@seanthedonconsidine Well defiantly give the book in the video a read. As for slavery, its simple really. The industrial revolutions technological innovations would have made slave labor inefficient and unprofitable. The cotton gin was outproducing any slave by far and it would only be a matter of time before slavery was dead.
@InTheEndIWasRight Yes, the cotton gin was far more productive, but, what of the person who runs the machines? Why not employ slaves to run your machines? This way, you only need less of them, so they're that much more cost-effective. You say "it would only be a matter of time before slavery was dead" you have no way of knowing that. Why not just have slaves run the machines?
@seanthedonconsidine Well they could have done that, but they wouldn't have needed that many "slaves" anymore, in fact if the South industrialized without the war, most jobs could have probably been filled by white workers. But it is obvious that natural progression had and would have eliminated slavery.
@InTheEndIWasRight I see no reason why slavery would have just bled away, and died out. If it is still profitable, it will always exist. Slavery exists today, in far greater numbers then ever before. If the south continued to profit from slavery, they WOULD have kept it. It is not obvious that "natural progression had and would have eliminated slavery", because if it was still profitable, then they would have kept it, guaranteed. But, this is all speculation, as history is different.
@seanthedonconsidine As time goes on an society values change, it doesnt matter if slavery can be "profitable" if no one desires it then it wont exist. But slavery is not always profitable. One must take into account the workers themselves. Why did most slaves stay put? Due to ideological belief in their masters. If you work all your workers to death or near death that wont be profitable due to productivity.
@InTheEndIWasRight True, the values of the society might have changed to prohibit slavery, but I doubt it. Societies usually tend to rationalize profitable institutions, even if they are immoral. Governments tell their people that when bombing innocent civilians that they are "eliminating terrorist threats" and when invading other countries that we are "fighting for our freedom". If you keep the slaves brainwashed, which is easy (yes there will be defectors but the majority will stay in line)...
@seanthedonconsidine I still just dont see it lasting long if there wasnt a war. Not saying racism in both the north and south would have gone away, I just dont think the war was at all needed to end it. In my view when looking at it since other nations ended it without any death, thats no reason to say it was needed here. But all else I can say is check out Toms book on lincoln, I know that'll clear some points up.
@InTheEndIWasRight Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, perhaps they would have ended slavery on their own like the English did, who knows.
I just might look up that book. Honestly, I'm a little busy right now (currently already have alot of things on my reading list), but maybe someday I'll give it a read. =)
@InTheEndIWasRight The schools should not even be bringing that up. It is a blatant appeal to emotion the only way to make us feel any sort of sympathy for an evil regime who butchered millions of men, women, and children of all races. The Union army was one of the most evil armies ever constructed and did not even contain a vast majority of northerners. There were 6 northern states who vehemently opposed the war. It was full of criminals and foreigners and a tool
@Luigi84289 research it was the north that kept cramming more and more slaves below the mason dixon. Secession is natural and restores natural rights and freedom. Giving the people of whom 96% owned no slaves control.
@InTheEndIWasRight (cont.) then you don't have to work them to death. Just keep them alive and satisfied, brainwashed into life-long forced servitude, and.....you have a very profitable system. Is this moral? No. Is it possible? Yes, and I think could have definitely happened.
@InTheEndIWasRight used to destroy the American Confederate form of government that had dominated up until that time. The CSA freedom movement was no different than the 1776 movement when all the states in that one had slavery. If we have learned anything isolating the slave states and allowing them to govern themselves shortens the lifespan of the institution. If people would
(cont)...But a push for a Confederacy type state as opposed to the forced perpetual union lincoln was trying to impose is lessening the influence of the state. As for the rest I reposted a 4 part series on the war, that might clear somethings up. I also highly recommend the book I mentioned too.
To say the north was abolitionist and the south was totally racist and into slavery and it was just Lincoln abolishing slavery is a total oversimplification of what was going on during those times. The abolitionist movement worked for years and years to abolish slavery plus there were prominent abolitionists from both the south and the north, men, women, white, blacks etc. First wave feminist movements that worked for greater legal equity for women also worked within these abolitionist groups.
I'd like to see a state secede. Texas maybe? If any states secede it's obvious it will be for economic and not moral reasons, as with any wide scale conflict. If Texas secedes because of taxation I will immediately move there as long as the US Govt doesn't intend to invade...again.
The whole "patriotic" argument is dumb, especially when liberals use it, it's no different from the neo-conservatives' use of it. What the Hell is American patriotism? Isn't protest a form of patriotism?
It can be justified because we always have been and will be second class citizens. We're the only group I can think of that it's still ok to openly make fun of. Any other group will sue you along with their advocacy group. Looked down upon by our yankee "brothers". Alexis De Tocqueville even noted the differences on his trip to America. We'd be much better off on our own. That being said, Odin can take Lincoln in a cage match.
@CapnConfederacy Exactly. Southroners are the only ones still "OK" to make fun of. If they hate us so much, then damn, well let us go. All we ask is to be let alone.
modern liberals worship history and through it the US state, so to them secession is blasphemy. secession breaks apart their beloved quest to use the power of leviathan to enforce their "higher," "progressive" values onto everything that moves.
as atheists, they see themselves as the epitome of reason, as modern liberals they view everyone either as dumb, helpless puppies, or greedy suit men. only through their great reason and higher morals can they guide all the morons to utopia, saving them from the exploitation of the suits.
it's a thin veneer of moralizing bullshit covering an ocean of malice and brutality.
One last thing, secession would not only weaken corporate power, but this weakening would provide a more level playing field for these urban progressives and left wing activists to take on landlords, developers, bankers, and other plutocratic interests on a municipal and regional level, and perhaps initiate economic alternatives like cooperatives, collectives, communes, mutuals, land trusts, and so forth.
It would also be easier for the Left to protect their "rights" from the influence of current state legislatures. It would be much more possible to decriminalize drugs, prostitution, gambling and other consensual crimes (which greatly oppress the modern liberal left) - and these type of changes would obviously weaken and undermine the police state and prison-industrial complex.
Jefferson later wrote to William H. Crawford in 1816: "If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying 'let us separate.' I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture."
Virginia had the option to secede before she joined the union.
In Jefferson's first inaugural address, he stated: "We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
Lincoln also suspended habeas corpus and arrested southern sympathizers, just imagine if Obama suspended habeas corpus and began arresting muslim sympathizers, rofl, both mainline political factions would go bananas. Lincoln also opposed laws permitting intermarriage between races. He was one of the greatest tyrants in American history.
You are a very intelligent young man. History is indeed written by the victor. The Civil War was not about slavery but economics. Northern business could not compete with southern slave labor and wanted it stopped not on human grounds but on profit margins. Most liberals are good decent people who care about human suffering but falsely believe that govt will solve all their problems and supply them with everything they need. A govt that can provide all you need can also take every thing you have
"A government that can at pleasure accuse, shoot, and hang men, as traitors, for the one general offence of refusing to surrender themselves and their property unreservedly to its arbitrary will, can practice any and all special and particular oppressions it pleases.
The result -- and a natural one -- has been that we have had governments, State and national, devoted to nearly every grade and species of crime that governments have ever practised upon their victims; and these crimes have culminated in a war that has cost a million of lives; a war carried on, upon one side, for chattel slavery, and on the other for political slavery; upon neither for liberty, justice, or truth. (cont)
...And these crimes have been committed, and this war waged, by men, and the descendants of men, who, less than a hundred years ago, said that all men were equal, and could owe neither service to individuals, nor allegiance to governments, except with their own consent." - Lysander Spooner
"Our constitutions purport to be established by 'the people,' and, in theory, 'all the people' consent to such government as the constitutions authorize. But this consent of 'the people' exists only in theory. It has no existence in fact. Government is in reality established by the few; and these few assume the consent of all the rest, without any such consent being actually given." - Lysander Spooner
@RaymondDundas back in 2004 at an event for the league of the south. I didnt know about the austrian school or anything much like that back then, I was a confederate really at the time so I bought a copy and he signed it lol
You speak the truth man
connorNcharlie 2 months ago
like Ludwin von Mises said in his seminar book "Human Action", in order for Demokracy to work, it would need as a precondition, unlimited secession, down to the individual or household level. This is the most radical idea in history, an that and that coming from an Austrian national in the 1930´s, escaping national sociallisim from his native contry.
megatherium100 5 months ago in playlist More videos from InTheEndIWasRight
Lincoln was a murderer.
lillybart123 5 months ago
I'm thinking of becoming an anti statist but I'm not anti war. I think what Lincoln did was right. I think freedom is worth bloodshed. "In the end of the day the issue is not solved by speeches or majorety vote but buy iron and blood." Otto Von Bismark.
44SCB 6 months ago
Hi, Victor Pross hwew. i love your videos. Maybe you'll like mine. Check it out.
Victorprossart1 10 months ago
In hindsight, maybe Lincoln should have just let the South go. It is said that slavery would have been abolished in the South eventually.
jpx08 11 months ago
Terrorists attacked us... not a country. Almost all the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.... NOT Afghanistan or Iraq.... and "Towel-heads"??? How fucking old are you? Uneducated trash.
gvsfgdf 1 year ago 2
@gvsfgdf What the fuck are you talking about? I know the 9/11 hijackers were from saudi arabia.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
Its funny when people put someone up to be a liberal hero like ghadi or lincoln,only to find out later they had racist views,
Whatever4690 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Against BIG government & Sharing the wealth to people that sit at home all day and do nothing, Well Join m-tremblay.webs.com & Sign up and stop the spin
weezup11 1 year ago
@MrBadcon
Maybe instead of looking up cheesy ad hom lines against the Right, use Google to look up the similarities between the Liberal Party and the Third Reich. You'd be amazed.
And if you claim you can't find anything, have someone look it up for you. Ask one of your enablers, perhaps.
USAon3 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The real problem with this medium (and really all medium since the breakdown of debate in the United States) lies in that this guy has a preconceived notion of those who would oppose his seemingly obvious and brilliant ideas.
Not everyone who is against the war in Iraq wants to massacre rednecks in the South.
Not everyone who disagrees with him is a "dumb Statist"
He spends most of this video attacking "groups" hes labelled and doesn't like, instead of assessing policy with any reason.
kingbobbett 1 year ago
Comment removed
kingbobbett 1 year ago
The goal of the south was actually to defend their rights against the Union because they felt the north was pushing them around so they wanted to make a stand. I do not support the south's ideas and beliefs but i do support there cause.
skatertrix411 1 year ago
@skatertrix411 Btw for people who don't know Lincoln's goal was not to end slavery but was to preserve the Union.
skatertrix411 1 year ago
Sorry, I mispelled oppressive.
zipsrule 1 year ago
@zipsrule
you also misSpelled misspelled xD
USAon3 1 year ago
A small slave holding minority comprised the Southern state and duped others into fighting an opressive North in an effort to maintain slavery.
zipsrule 1 year ago
The majority of southerners were duped into fighting another person's war.
zipsrule 1 year ago
@zipsrule That also being said the majority of people we're not fighting for it. The political and politically connected class were as a far more main goal for them. (Since they comprised the state).
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@zipsrule Slavery was one of the things fought for by the state known as the CSA. But it was not the total or overarching reason for secession.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight
Too many people think that the Union fought against slavery on the basis of it being a human rights violation. The fact that Lincoln didn't give 2 chits about the slaves but rather only cared about preserving the Union, or that Lee was against slavery as a practice gets swept under the rug in school. It's sad.
elsquibbs 1 year ago
@MrBadcon well if secession in unamerican than your a traitor to england dumbass take your head out of your ass!!! liberal scum
Southernjuggalo63 1 year ago
@MrBadcon Since when is self-determination idiotic and how is a perpetual union not a form of slavery? Sins of the father huh? And "unamerican". First define what it even means to be "american" (its subjective) and two, you sound like some nationalist patriotard there. And I love your majoritarian appeal at the end. Well guess what most people believe in God, that doesn't make them smart either.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight keep up the good work i subcribed and hope to hear more from a level headed person
Southernjuggalo63 1 year ago
@Southernjuggalo63 I hope I can deliver. I'm prone to ranting but I'm glad you can get something out of it, thank ya.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
You hit the nail on the wall on this one.
ShredYouWithShrapnel 1 year ago
@ShredYouWithShrapnel thanks man
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
The Southern States fought for "states' rights" to do what.
zipsrule 1 year ago
@zipsrule to make their own decisions rather than have it like today the federal government shoves it down your throat
Southernjuggalo63 1 year ago
You are the man! I am a big secessionist. Your delivery is not my style, but your got are so right.
robertiacomacci 1 year ago
I hate liberals and conservatives, those are 2 very weak and flawed political ideologies.
y2zgt 1 year ago
@y2zgt here here on that
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
lincoln infact hated blacks.... he just did not want slavery in his nation and like he stated he is a fasict warpig
pgilly8 1 year ago
"I freed the WHAT!?!!??"
--A. Lincoln, the morning after the war
USAon3 1 year ago
Tom DiLorenzo rules. All of his books, articles, and lectures are wonderful.
AustinW90 1 year ago
what's with using the word retard? just don't get that.
margatefamily 1 year ago
As a liberal I'm tired of other liberals believing they can force authority worshipers to participate in liberality. They absolutely must live in the totalitarian state they desire. The only way for this to work is through secession of right wing anti-American states like texas and arizona (etc).
Although us liberals might seem sinister and evil because of our love of freedom, this is one goal we can work with you on. It doesn't require teaming up, we just need to work from each side.
yubarraboo 1 year ago
@yubarraboo I think modern liberals want to live in a very coercive state at the least. Im with you on secession obviously, but anti-american? "American" is a vague, nebulous term with 330 million different meanings. All america is anyway is a forced collective which is totally broken and should have been broken up years ago.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
Millions of free blacks was quite the good thing, no? I'm not saying Lincoln was not a bastard (I need to do more research - I wouldn't be surprised if he was the asshole that you think he is), but it seemed like you minimized the benefit of this action at around 6:25 in your vid
techjunkie92 1 year ago
The Civil War was not about slavery, it was about States rights versus the Federal government. Lincoln did not officially free the slaves until the states had already succeeded. The original emancipation proclamation was actually used as a threat to try to get the states that had succeeded back into the union.
'...issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863.'
AnduinX 1 year ago
(cont.) It also shifted international support away from the South - the effect of which was massive. Of course abolishing slavery was a good thing, but more than likely it was a tactical decision on Lincoln's part. Slavery was not what the Civil War was about. Personally I think the wrong side won, we would all be better off today under a much smaller government, as we would likely have without our bloated over-sized federal government. The less government the better.
AnduinX 1 year ago
@AnduinX
Of course it was about slavery.
The states that succeeded, did so because the federal government was disallowing new territories the right to slavery.
Also at issue was the rights of run away slaves and free slaves.
Blairtim69 1 year ago
@Blairtim69: That was a reason the south was at odds with the north, but disallowing new territories the right to slavery in no way infringed on their 'right'. Slavery was not the cause of the war. The war was primarily fought over States rights versus Federal rights.
AnduinX 1 year ago
@HyperBorealOperator The morality of it is NOT a "red herring". The deep racial scars are NOT a "result of a victim industry and marxist efforts of vicitm indoctrination". How can you say that? Have you no empathy? Do you not know any black people? The problem with white people is they have NO EMPATHY for the experiences of minorities, they're just "whiners" and "lazy" to you. And to answer your next question, yes, I am white, and I am always appalled by the disgusting attitudes of many whites.
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
@HyperBorealOperator Yes the north did have primary motives other then slavery, however, my point is more of a moral one, I'm sorry, I should have articulated this better earlier. The south, due to their defense of slavery, were morally inferior. That's the real point I'm trying to make.
Any positive mention to the "old ways" such as segregation, slavery, confederate south, these all open up old wounds, they are all reminders of the terrible times that gave this nation her deep racial scars.
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
The liberal media is trying to demonize states rights, they paint the confederacy as 'terrorists' & 'racist' because they want the Federal Govt to run everything. They would likely support getting rid of the 9th & 10th amendments to the constitution.
JebBlack2010 1 year ago
3:32 "One of the Best books you've ever written?" How obsessed are you with dicks? I counted at least 3 times that you either mimed giving head or asked to have your dick sucked. How was this country founded on secession? My favorite line "learn some fucking history" , apparently you read one book and you are a historian. There are no words to express for how stupid you are.
wtfoof 1 year ago
@wtfoof I was going to play with your head but I figured I'd just respond. 1. Its called misspeaking, Im sorry to hear youve never done it. 2. The 13 colonies seceding from the British Empire and the subsequent war that followed due to them seceding. 3. Apparently you are a statist liberal who thinks your personal preferences of what is "right" are more "correct" then anyone elses and you feel the need to let everyone else know this. Way to go bucko.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight, You play with my head? Don't make me laugh! The 13 colonies were property of the Crown of England. They did not secede they revolted! To Secede, to make a formal withdrawl of membership from an organization, state or alliance.
The Colonies were not considered states by England they were colonies or Common Wealths. They formed NO alliance with England but were British possessions. But I waste my time talk to you. You not bright enough to comprehend.
wtfoof 1 year ago
@wtfoof According to MW dictionary, secession is defined as "2. formal withdrawal from an organization" and an organization is defined as "2b. an administrative and functional structure". A State is a type of organization, in this case the State was the British empire and the formal part of the withdrawal came in the form of the declaration. But yeah Im a dummy cuz I donts know how 2 understand u ther u smarty pantz.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@HyperBorealOperator Doesn't matter if they weren't rich enough to afford slaves, they were still defending a regime that fully endorsed and profited from slavery.
The monument may have been for the soldiers, yes, but it is understandable that many people misinterpret it as romanticizing old racial ideals. Remember that racism is very recent history, and in some ways still current. There are many old wounds in America, and it doesn't take much to reopen them.
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
@HyperBorealOperator Word, agreed...
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight Exactly what the great Jeff Davis said. We just want to be left alone. They do hate us, but I'll be damned if they don't keep us around because of greed and spite. "The union" is SOOOO bloody holy to them. It's more important than the supposedly important constitution. Which is more of a figurehead than the English royal family. At least people would listen to the queen halfway if she said something. I'm damn proud of my ancestors. Southron heros.
CapnConfederacy 1 year ago
@CapnConfederacy Very much agreed...
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@tpsisokayiguess I got the "my dick being sucked" department covered haha
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
I don't think it's cognitive dissonance. I don't think many of them are even aware of these facts. I doubt they're taught in schools. Not that it would change many of their opinions anyway.
Guncriminal 1 year ago
@Guncriminal this is true...
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@silentbob36 people to govern themselves?! thats darn horse shit!
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
makes me think of one of your old videos where you were taking about obama making military service mandatary for the over 18s
prankmypants 1 year ago
@prankmypants that was a long time ago now haha
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight
in the beggining you were right too lol
prankmypants 1 year ago
It's hard to imagine how people can support the Union for the SOLE reason of ending slavery. The Union ended racial slavery with military slavery, i.e. the draft. Lincoln's administration started the form of slavery that still exists now, by being the first administration to use conscription. Young men are still forced to register for the draft, just because of their gender. And at the state's beck and call, they will be hauled away to do what the state wants- to fight and die. It's sad, really.
menareangrynow 1 year ago 2
@menareangrynow exactly...
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@menareangrynow
The Union using the draft is not quite the same as the slaves used for labor. The soldiers were paid and when the war was over, they were able to leave.
The Slavery that the south dare not speak it's name was a tad worse.
You were property from birth to death.
No chance of ever changing your status in life
no pay, or compensation at all
marrriage was illegal
abuse and murder was common
Blairtim69 1 year ago
@Blairtim69
Remembering the confederate soldiers (who were also drafted) the army and the confederate states as a whole is not the issue.
The issue is to exclude the unpopular parts of the civil war.
It should be remembered as a whole.
Blairtim69 1 year ago
@Blairtim69
"The Union using the draft is not quite the same as the slaves used for labor. The soldiers were paid and when the war was over, they were able to leave."
How is forced labor with a shovel that different from forced labor with a gun? Perhaps the only difference is that military slavery has taken hundreds of millions of lives across the world, and racial slavery hasn't. You are aware that many of the racial slaves were actually paid? How do you think so many bought their freedom?
menareangrynow 1 year ago
@Blairtim69
"The soldiers were paid and when the war was over, they were able to leave."
If they left during the war, they would be shot for desertion. They could only leave when their slave masters, the government, told them to. They could be drafted again for another war. They were treated as property of the state. They weren't allowed to leave, they were dismissed until the government wanted them for another war. We men are still slaves in this system. We can still be forced to fight.
menareangrynow 1 year ago
@menareangrynow
It has been a volunteer army for over 30 years. They get paid and their families receive benifits. They can't just leave with out going to jail, because they signed a contract.
The point I wanted to make was, Slavery was part of the civil war, and should also be presented when an entire month has been designated for it's rememberance.
Blairtim69 1 year ago
@Blairtim69
"It has been a volunteer army for over 30 years."
No it's not. As a matter of fact, I have my draft card in my wallet right now, I could be called up at any moment and be forced to do what the state wants.
menareangrynow 1 year ago
@Blairtim69
"The point I wanted to make was, Slavery was part of the civil war, and should also be presented when an entire month has been designated for it's rememberance."
There's going to be Civil War Month??? You didn't mention anything about that to me, yet.
menareangrynow 1 year ago
@Blairtim69
"They get paid and their families receive benifits."
For some fun, read this:
h t t p : // w w w . huffingtonpost . com/joshua-kors/when-the-army-uses-enhanc_b_536727 . html
menareangrynow 1 year ago
@Blairtim69
"They can't just leave with out going to jail, because they signed a contract."
And if you know anything about the Selective Service Act, you would know they would spend up to 26 years in jail, if they did not sign. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Does this sound fair to you?
menareangrynow 1 year ago
One of the reasons why people don't like the south is because one of the "rights" that they were fighting for was to own humans as property. One of the "rights" they were fighting for was to own slaves, so, that's why most people don't like the south.
And yes, Lincoln wasn't as perfect as everyone thinks he was, but he was still a good leader, and intelligent man.
And no, secession isn't always evil, although considering to do so in today's world is moreso stupid, not unAmerican.
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
@seanthedonconsidine I think the west cost would be way better off if they seceded. Our government is insane. Its not evil, its just insane. like this nuclear summit. Its a fucking circus for faggy college obama supporters. There is an obvious agenda behind it that they are to retarded to see. He is 100% onboard with the bush agenda, but he has to deceive people about this fact.
TheVikingNinja 1 year ago
@TheVikingNinja Let me guess, you live in the west coast? How would they be better off by secession?
What is the "obvious agenda behind it"? What is the "bush agenda"? And please don't go all Alex Jones on me lol, really, what is it?
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
@seanthedonconsidine Well, california is one of the biggest economies (thought problem ridden) and if the whole west coast seceded, the east would have to do business if they wanted to import anything from asia, or else go through alaska. And I'm not 100% sure what the bush agenda is or was, but the obama agenda doesn't seam all that different. i feel like this health care thing is like through the dogs some scraps so they keep quit about the wars that aren't in their interest.
TheVikingNinja 1 year ago
@TheVikingNinja Yes California is a large economy, and the east would have to do business with it.
You don't know what the bush agenda was, but......you are sure obama is similar to it???? How can you say that? You don't even know what you say by "bush agenda" but you know it MUST be similar to Obama's. I'd advise you to stop listening to what everyone says and look things up for yourself for a change. Yes, Obama is like bush, many of his policies are the same, but please be better informed.
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
@TheVikingNinja the nuclear thing seams like its about hegemony or something. Yeah nuclear weapons are a threat, but unless this country destroyed its nukes, it really has no grounds telling countrys its ok for some to have them but not all. Not to bright college kids might think obama is so wonderful for trying to make the world safe from nukes, but it kind of seams like its just an empty show that is going to produce no significant results. A waste of the billion dollars its probably costing.
TheVikingNinja 1 year ago
@TheVikingNinja Yes, honestly, nuclear programs are pointless and hypocritical, because as long as we still have nukes everyone else will want them, and we'll never give them up. My guess is this is just a PR thing lol. An image thing. =/
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
@seanthedonconsidine Lincoln was a smart man, he knew how to manipulate people and get his agenda online. And a good leader yes, the best often cause mega deaths.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight Online? Lol no internet back then. But I know what you mean, get his agenda moving, off the ground. Of course there were deaths, that's what happens when you fight a civil war, lots of your own people killing each other. And what "rights" were these southerners defending? Other then the "right" to own people as possessions, of course. And don't give me the whole "oh you've just bought the government's mis-characterization of the south", no, I want you to list specific rights.
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
@seanthedonconsidine It wasnt a "civil war" The South was a totally separate nation with no desires to control the territory of the North. The North launched an invasion to subjugate the "rebellious" states. Some Southroners were fighting to own slaves, but the prevailing dynamic were not. Most were fighting to just be left alone, to farm, work and live as they liked, the right to secession and self-determination and most notably to get the usurper of the state as much out of their lives as poss
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight Most/all southerners were fighting to own slaves, their agricultural economy depended on it. You can't run away from that fact Erik, the south needed and fought for slavery.
And the south was not trying to "get the usurper of the state as much out of their lives as possible", they had a state, a confederacy, as well. They just wanted their own state that permitted slavery and other practices that the North didn't find acceptable.
Erik, please don't romanticize the south lol
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
@seanthedonconsidine Only the top aristocrats of the South mainly owned slaves. Now dont tell me that the average joe was fighting just so the top classs could stay rich. Yes slavery was part of the economy, however with technological advances if there was no war the South would have had to modernize and adapt, thus letting slavery die out due to industrial progression. And thats why I said "state as much out of their lives as possible" If I said totally they would be anti-state...
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago 2
@InTheEndIWasRight The average joe did what he was told. That simple. =/
He fought for a cause he believed in. Unfortunately, slavery WAS one of those causes, among other things.
The south most likely would have always had slavery, because even if it would have become industrialized, it would still require labor, and slavery was still legal. I doubt that the laws in the south would change to abolish slavery unless the union forced them too.
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
@seanthedonconsidine I would just have to disagree. I dont see how or why the average man would fight for the aristocrat class of the South when the masses knew full well that fighting for them and their lively hood would not be conducive to theirs. If every other western nation ended slavery without a war, what makes you think one was needed to do so here? And not true, the British could and would have gotten cheaper cotton from India & Egypt, slavery would no longer have been cost effective.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight Yes a war may not have been necessary, however, I think that if the south continued to profit from slavery, they would not have abolished it. I may be ill-informed, but how would industrialization make slavery unprofitable?
In any case, we are talking of the past, so, who knows who would have been right. I do admit that I should know more of what the other side is saying, not just the story given to me in the school's official textbooks.
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
@seanthedonconsidine Well defiantly give the book in the video a read. As for slavery, its simple really. The industrial revolutions technological innovations would have made slave labor inefficient and unprofitable. The cotton gin was outproducing any slave by far and it would only be a matter of time before slavery was dead.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight Yes, the cotton gin was far more productive, but, what of the person who runs the machines? Why not employ slaves to run your machines? This way, you only need less of them, so they're that much more cost-effective. You say "it would only be a matter of time before slavery was dead" you have no way of knowing that. Why not just have slaves run the machines?
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
@seanthedonconsidine Well they could have done that, but they wouldn't have needed that many "slaves" anymore, in fact if the South industrialized without the war, most jobs could have probably been filled by white workers. But it is obvious that natural progression had and would have eliminated slavery.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight I see no reason why slavery would have just bled away, and died out. If it is still profitable, it will always exist. Slavery exists today, in far greater numbers then ever before. If the south continued to profit from slavery, they WOULD have kept it. It is not obvious that "natural progression had and would have eliminated slavery", because if it was still profitable, then they would have kept it, guaranteed. But, this is all speculation, as history is different.
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
@seanthedonconsidine As time goes on an society values change, it doesnt matter if slavery can be "profitable" if no one desires it then it wont exist. But slavery is not always profitable. One must take into account the workers themselves. Why did most slaves stay put? Due to ideological belief in their masters. If you work all your workers to death or near death that wont be profitable due to productivity.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight True, the values of the society might have changed to prohibit slavery, but I doubt it. Societies usually tend to rationalize profitable institutions, even if they are immoral. Governments tell their people that when bombing innocent civilians that they are "eliminating terrorist threats" and when invading other countries that we are "fighting for our freedom". If you keep the slaves brainwashed, which is easy (yes there will be defectors but the majority will stay in line)...
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
@seanthedonconsidine I still just dont see it lasting long if there wasnt a war. Not saying racism in both the north and south would have gone away, I just dont think the war was at all needed to end it. In my view when looking at it since other nations ended it without any death, thats no reason to say it was needed here. But all else I can say is check out Toms book on lincoln, I know that'll clear some points up.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, perhaps they would have ended slavery on their own like the English did, who knows.
I just might look up that book. Honestly, I'm a little busy right now (currently already have alot of things on my reading list), but maybe someday I'll give it a read. =)
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight The schools should not even be bringing that up. It is a blatant appeal to emotion the only way to make us feel any sort of sympathy for an evil regime who butchered millions of men, women, and children of all races. The Union army was one of the most evil armies ever constructed and did not even contain a vast majority of northerners. There were 6 northern states who vehemently opposed the war. It was full of criminals and foreigners and a tool
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@Luigi84289 research it was the north that kept cramming more and more slaves below the mason dixon. Secession is natural and restores natural rights and freedom. Giving the people of whom 96% owned no slaves control.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight (cont.) then you don't have to work them to death. Just keep them alive and satisfied, brainwashed into life-long forced servitude, and.....you have a very profitable system. Is this moral? No. Is it possible? Yes, and I think could have definitely happened.
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight used to destroy the American Confederate form of government that had dominated up until that time. The CSA freedom movement was no different than the 1776 movement when all the states in that one had slavery. If we have learned anything isolating the slave states and allowing them to govern themselves shortens the lifespan of the institution. If people would
Luigi84289 1 year ago
(cont)...But a push for a Confederacy type state as opposed to the forced perpetual union lincoln was trying to impose is lessening the influence of the state. As for the rest I reposted a 4 part series on the war, that might clear somethings up. I also highly recommend the book I mentioned too.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight That's admirable, and yes, I always thought it'd be nice to learn more about the confederacy, so I might look into that sometime.
seanthedonconsidine 1 year ago
THANK YOU for making this video! I am a ardent supporter of secession & I would love to see it happen someday.
GloomMaven78 1 year ago
@GloomMaven78 no problem at all, thank you
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
To say the north was abolitionist and the south was totally racist and into slavery and it was just Lincoln abolishing slavery is a total oversimplification of what was going on during those times. The abolitionist movement worked for years and years to abolish slavery plus there were prominent abolitionists from both the south and the north, men, women, white, blacks etc. First wave feminist movements that worked for greater legal equity for women also worked within these abolitionist groups.
TheGravenIdol 1 year ago
@TheGravenIdol Exactly. Look at Lysander Spooner, an abolitionist who supported the South. History has truly been rewritten.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
I'd like to see a state secede. Texas maybe? If any states secede it's obvious it will be for economic and not moral reasons, as with any wide scale conflict. If Texas secedes because of taxation I will immediately move there as long as the US Govt doesn't intend to invade...again.
The whole "patriotic" argument is dumb, especially when liberals use it, it's no different from the neo-conservatives' use of it. What the Hell is American patriotism? Isn't protest a form of patriotism?
BloodiCheeseCake 1 year ago
@BloodiCheeseCake Texas or perhaps new hampshire. And true, last I knew dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
I'm doing a research paper on this topic! :D
Purplegoddess656 1 year ago
@Purplegoddess656 if you need more on this topic, definitely use delorenzos book and also give a look at SLM news from the user RedShirtArmy
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
It can be justified because we always have been and will be second class citizens. We're the only group I can think of that it's still ok to openly make fun of. Any other group will sue you along with their advocacy group. Looked down upon by our yankee "brothers". Alexis De Tocqueville even noted the differences on his trip to America. We'd be much better off on our own. That being said, Odin can take Lincoln in a cage match.
CapnConfederacy 1 year ago
@CapnConfederacy Exactly. Southroners are the only ones still "OK" to make fun of. If they hate us so much, then damn, well let us go. All we ask is to be let alone.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
"retard liberals" that's redundant
MachineLegion 1 year ago 2
@MachineLegion word haha
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
4:45
you forgot mass-murderer, but i suppose that goes without saying when it comes to tyrants
x0TheJackal0x 1 year ago
@x0TheJackal0x yeah with them its just a default really
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
show your tats again
DeraJa 1 year ago
@DeraJa im sure thatll happen again ha
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
modern liberals worship history and through it the US state, so to them secession is blasphemy. secession breaks apart their beloved quest to use the power of leviathan to enforce their "higher," "progressive" values onto everything that moves.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago 2
as atheists, they see themselves as the epitome of reason, as modern liberals they view everyone either as dumb, helpless puppies, or greedy suit men. only through their great reason and higher morals can they guide all the morons to utopia, saving them from the exploitation of the suits.
it's a thin veneer of moralizing bullshit covering an ocean of malice and brutality.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago 10
@junior00bacon00chee WORD, say it loud man, completely agree
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
One last thing, secession would not only weaken corporate power, but this weakening would provide a more level playing field for these urban progressives and left wing activists to take on landlords, developers, bankers, and other plutocratic interests on a municipal and regional level, and perhaps initiate economic alternatives like cooperatives, collectives, communes, mutuals, land trusts, and so forth.
RjWeapon 1 year ago
@RjWeapon I agree on all point man, I know its not much of a response, but your very true on your comments
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
Comment removed
RjWeapon 1 year ago
It would also be easier for the Left to protect their "rights" from the influence of current state legislatures. It would be much more possible to decriminalize drugs, prostitution, gambling and other consensual crimes (which greatly oppress the modern liberal left) - and these type of changes would obviously weaken and undermine the police state and prison-industrial complex.
RjWeapon 1 year ago
Jefferson later wrote to William H. Crawford in 1816: "If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying 'let us separate.' I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture."
RjWeapon 1 year ago
Virginia had the option to secede before she joined the union.
In Jefferson's first inaugural address, he stated: "We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
RjWeapon 1 year ago
Lincoln also suspended habeas corpus and arrested southern sympathizers, just imagine if Obama suspended habeas corpus and began arresting muslim sympathizers, rofl, both mainline political factions would go bananas. Lincoln also opposed laws permitting intermarriage between races. He was one of the greatest tyrants in American history.
RjWeapon 1 year ago
honest abe.... wasn't so much after all :(
he hated black people
had nothing to do with freeing anybody. TRUTH IS COMING TO ALL!!!!!
desire4liberation 1 year ago
You are a very intelligent young man. History is indeed written by the victor. The Civil War was not about slavery but economics. Northern business could not compete with southern slave labor and wanted it stopped not on human grounds but on profit margins. Most liberals are good decent people who care about human suffering but falsely believe that govt will solve all their problems and supply them with everything they need. A govt that can provide all you need can also take every thing you have
NewAmericaNow 1 year ago
@NewAmericaNow thank you kindly, and i very much agree
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
"A government that can at pleasure accuse, shoot, and hang men, as traitors, for the one general offence of refusing to surrender themselves and their property unreservedly to its arbitrary will, can practice any and all special and particular oppressions it pleases.
(cont)
BIackOp 1 year ago 2
The result -- and a natural one -- has been that we have had governments, State and national, devoted to nearly every grade and species of crime that governments have ever practised upon their victims; and these crimes have culminated in a war that has cost a million of lives; a war carried on, upon one side, for chattel slavery, and on the other for political slavery; upon neither for liberty, justice, or truth. (cont)
BIackOp 1 year ago 2
...And these crimes have been committed, and this war waged, by men, and the descendants of men, who, less than a hundred years ago, said that all men were equal, and could owe neither service to individuals, nor allegiance to governments, except with their own consent." - Lysander Spooner
BIackOp 1 year ago 2
"Our constitutions purport to be established by 'the people,' and, in theory, 'all the people' consent to such government as the constitutions authorize. But this consent of 'the people' exists only in theory. It has no existence in fact. Government is in reality established by the few; and these few assume the consent of all the rest, without any such consent being actually given." - Lysander Spooner
BIackOp 1 year ago 2
Time for Quotes of Wisdom!
"Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper." - Thomas Jefferson
"He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors." - Thomas Jefferson
"I do not take a single newspaper, nor read one a month, and I feel myself infinitely the happier for it." - Thomas Jefferson
BIackOp 1 year ago 2
Holy hoppin horseshit! You met Thomas DiLorenzo?
RaymondDundas 1 year ago 2
@RaymondDundas back in 2004 at an event for the league of the south. I didnt know about the austrian school or anything much like that back then, I was a confederate really at the time so I bought a copy and he signed it lol
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
Your hair is sexi awesome!
osteopathy4u 1 year ago
@osteopathy4u just got it cut lol
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
"The winners of a war are the ones that get to write its history" ~ Francis Duggan
Obama always tried comparing himself to Lincoln, makes perfect sense, they are both anti-liberty authoritarians
JahLoveOnline 1 year ago
@JahLoveOnline Word!
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
nice video, I enjoyed it.
TheVikingNinja 1 year ago
@TheVikingNinja danke
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago