ONLY 5% of white southerners owned slaves. The confederate flag NEVER flied on slave ships it was only the USA flag. That's right the one we have TODAY. I'm American Indian and my ancestors were MASSACRED and ETHNICALLY CLEANSED 50 years after the Civil War under our current American Flag. Does that mean that the American Flag represents the genocide of American Indians? No, it was hijacked by power tripping white males who didn't represent the greater society's ideals. Keep the flag up brother.
Sorry but this is very condescending. The argument that "I'm sure he had a right wing professor" is NO different than me being dismissed as a liberal because I must've been brainwashed by those liberal professors off at college.
If this impressionable youth had taken five minutes with his grandfather...and HEARD about the real impurity of what that flag represented...he might have another impression.
Slavery was only brought up to keep France out of the war....Lincoln took advantage of the situation and exploited slavery for political gain...most American History classes in America are pro-government propaganda, plain and simple
@SolidGoldKalashnikov It's the flag of a political entity that didn't exist until the CSA were formed, after they seceded from the union. The overwhelming reason they seceded was to protect slavery -- their right to continue it, and to expand it. The flag, quite simply, is a symbol of slavery. Get over it. That's what the Civil War was about, and it's what the flag stands for. That's why Southern States revived in during the mid-20th century civil rights battles. Read some history.
@Z200a ok so it had nothign to do with federalism. why didn't lincoln free teh slaves immediately instead of waiting until it was necessary for the war effort? you'll find the pages of history are colored with idealism, but reality is more often driven by money. yes the civil war was about money. when they look back they'll say the war on terror was about protecting our freedoms from sharia law. but of course, like all wars, it too boils down to money.
@Z200a Right. Split the country in two to free people the vast majority of the racist country felt as lesser human beings anyway, that MUST be it. Take a history course and thank MLK and the civil rights movement.
@smartarse001 Do you know what those stars represent? They represent 11 states that seceded from the union - slave holding states - and 2 other states that did not secede (Kentucky and Missouri), but that the Confederates invaded over and over in an attempt to force them into the Confederacy.
The flag didn't exist until the CSA created it as its symbol, so "its history of usage" is inseparable from the cause of the CSA: Defense of slavery.
@smartarse001 awww...who couldnt love the swatika? A symbol that was from the Catholic church to symbolize the four directions...guess it comes down to what it really means. You could be just fine with using the N word to say its true definition...which is "stupid" or bitch...just means female dog...or ass...could be a donkey...everything that has a tainted history of HATRED behind it...has a reason WHY people hate it
@NakedWombatStuff ahhh so true, just a piece of material...so is the Constitution...just a piece of paper...what we do with that material and what that material STANDS FOR...which, regarding the Confederate Flag, was racism, exploitation, slavery, rape and murder...well...suddenly that piece of material...becomes a symbol of the things WRONG with the world...
I'm British so i am not completely aware of your guys history, but it seems to me that the civil war is a constitutional question, was the Slavery a horrible thing, yes, but did the north have the right to wage war against a group of states who wanted to get out of a union, even if slavery was horrible. It seems to me that this is like attacking Scotland because they wanted to leave the UK, or attacking Italy if they wanted to leave the EU, respond to me if i'm wrong
There were problems between North and South when the North practiced slavery. There is NOTHING wrong with a Jewish person flying a Nazi Flag (Though with the Holocaust a but odd) as long as the underlying message isn't hate. Same with a Black or anyone flying the confederate flag. Military historians have been forced by pressure to not display either flag and that's a free speech issue. You should likely learn about the early causes of the war before you pass judgement.
@Gradivus75 Most of the North got rid of their slaves in the 1820s. Most of the North/South tensions arose from slavery, directly or indirectly, most of the economic problems were also directly caused by slavery, and things like the Missouri Compromise and the Fugitive Slaves Act.
@dangerouslytalented You would think if you were willing to divide the country over a issue such as slavery, you'd make sure those newly freed slaves were given equal rights no? Split the country for slavery and have the racist nation continue to treat the freed slaves like dirt. There was ALWAYS tension between North and South even in colonial days. This is a 1st amendment issue, clearly.
When will people (like this "reporter" on a "respected" youtube channel) stop compaing the Nazi flag to the Confederate Flag. The Nazi flag is a flag of the oppressive party. The Conferderate flag is a flag of a NATION, a legally suceeded NATION, who was then attacked by the north and forced back into the Union.
@billdos6 Actually, between 1933 and 1945, the Nazi flag WAS the German national flag. However, the flag that is commonly known as the "confederate flag" nowadays, was NEVER the national flag of the Confederacy, but the Confederate Battle Flag.
Ya'll are just stirring up a lot of controversy, I'm glad this fellow brother of mine from the south takes pride in where he is from. To argue facts about the civil war would be too time consuming so because it was a complicated situation...Slavery was dying around the world at this time anyways, a lot of people in the South we're against slavery pre civil war and it was dying out of cause such as technology.
@figNEWTON749 But the actual secession was due to slavery. They wanted to keep their slaves, and said so in the articles of secession of more than one state.
And one of the main sources of tension between the North and South was slavery, particularly the Missouri Compromise, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Dredd Scott decision, and the underground railroad.
it's like jews hang a nazi flag (yeah, don't tell me the civil war wasn't about slavery because i know it wasn't, but dont tell me the south loved their blacks)
@TheConfederate1863 It was about slavery, the main cause of it was slavery, and most of the minor economic causes were also brought about by the practise of slavery.
I am truely proud of that student. He is standing up for the truth. As for the two annoucers talking, someone is showing some extreme stupidity. The war was about whether the central government had the power to tell the states in the south how to handle their economy and affairs.
And yet you make that claim despite that all the actual civil war historians say the war was caused by and about slavery as I have just pointed out. That the 'economy and internal affairs' you refer to mean slavery! That is what the economy and internal affairs in the South were based on. The South even said itself over and over, the war was about slavery:
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens on the Confederate Constitution.
"Any neo-Confederate or plain old American who wants to say, ‘No, no, it’s about states’ rights,’ has the problem that they’re not arguing with me. They’re arguing with the people in South Carolina who seceded; they’re arguing with the convention in Mississippi.”
"I don’t mean to be mean, but secession and the Confederacy was all about treason on behalf of slavery, and we have to call it what it was." Dr. James Loewen
Killing them is still wrong regardless of race. All things condidered all peoples are guilty. The important thing is to learn from our mistakes, for lack of a better word, and prevent it from happening again. It docent help to hide from the symbols we find offensive. To me personally I fly it for southern pride, when you see my flag therefor you can't claim I am racist, I can't speak for others, but what flag did they fly over slave ships?
All of you talk of southerners like we are the qorst group of people on earth. The north has dune things that are just as bad as the south's offenses, yet you still hold them as heroes. No group of people are entirely innocent. We feel that flag is a good way of showing our support of our heritage and our history even if we don't fully stand by everything dune in our name. I fly the flag, I am pro south and small government. am I racist? No. Do I support slavery? No. Some of my closest freinds
@gjbbratcher The Confederate flag does not symbolize the south, it symbolizes the Confederacy. It is incredibly sad for this black student to fly the flag of the states which fought to preserve his people's enslavement.
You know what's even dumber? People who aren't even from the U.S let alone the South who display the confederate flag (ie: Alberta, Canada). The Confederate flag is only acceptable on the General Lee. Period.
what is the big deal...Guess what! My great -grand-father fought in the confederate army(Benjamine Mackey) and he was black , what is the difference from the american flag..our people were slaves under both of them...
OK, what actual proof do you have other than a listing on ancestry(dot)com, that this Benjamin Mackey was actually a soldier. There was no such thing as the "33rd regiment of the Confederate Army" that is not how the unit designations worked at the time. I would like to see any actual provenance for this claim of being a soldier.
Benjamin Mackey could have been unfortunately been no more than a laborer. The Confederate President himself in a "Message to the Confederate Congress" on Jan 12, 1863 (which I can post if necessary) recommended the immediate execution of all black soldiers and virtually all union officers that were captured.
However in an act of generosity in the obvious recognition of reprisals, the "Response of the Confederate Congress to Message From Jefferson Davis on the Emancipation Proclamation" May 1, 1863, only prescribed death for any black soldiers and the specific officers who commanded them and spared the rest of the Union officer corps.
I really don't believe you have any real connection to this Benjamin Mackey, and I don't believe that Macke was a soldier in the "33rd regiment of the Confederate Army" any more than there was even a "33rd regiment of the Confederate Army" at all.
Oh by the way, a "sons of confederate veterans" post is not a valid source. They tellingly present no inks or provenance for their claims. And even at most all it describes is two laborers being clothed: and tellingly one with $6 pants, and one with $2.25 shirt and pants, these were obviously not uniforms, and but work clothes that were proved second hand those who were brought along as laborers. And that's even at most, as the SCV is like believing a Stormfront post about the glories of the SS
They hate the south so much but want ot keep it? By the way it was Mussolini that made the trains run on time. If you wanna learn history go to a library, colleges are apparently useless now in education, for the love of god dont get information from the media. Form your own opinion.
Both of these idiots really need a history lesson on the civil war.It's definitely not like the swastika and the nazis,far fucking from it.You didnt see confederates building large buildings in the woods surrounded by barbed wire with crematoriums,last time i checked anyway..
Either way the confederate flag and the American flag symbolized slavery at one point and in one way or another. When the American ships sailed to Africa to get Africans for slavery they were flying the American flag.
Than don't fly it because it IS a racist symbol, the Confederacy was based on white supremacy in defense of slavery, that was its entire reason for being.
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth." - Mississippi, Statement of secession
Than don't fly it because it IS a racist symbol, the Confederacy was based on white supremacy in defense of slavery, that was its entire reason for being.
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution" Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens
“Any neo-Confederate or plain old American who wants to say, ‘No, no, it’s about states’ rights,’ has the problem that they’re not arguing with me. They’re arguing with the people in South Carolina who seceded; they’re arguing with the convention in Mississippi.”
"I don’t mean to be mean, but secession and the Confederacy was all about treason on behalf of slavery, and we have to call it what it was.” Dr. James Loewen
alot of people dont know the swastika was used as a symbol of good luck and fortune for thousends of years but hitler used it as his symbol for the nazi party and looked what happend
Yea he must have slept through his classes not to know that the Confederacy was all about slavery, I mean after all, they went out of their way to admit it.
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
the wite people in this video disn the black kid need shut the fuck up they dont no what they are talking about Robert E. Lee (C.S.A.)relased his slave before the war Grant (union) did not untel he was forced to
You have no idea about what you are talking about, You obviously gleaned what you said from some bogus Neo-confederate blogs and not real history sources. Lee didn't free his slaves until after the war was going, and his plantation at Arlington was occupied by Union troops. Many of his slaves had already been effectively freed by Union troops, they were no longer of use to Lee as they were behind enemy lines, his freeing them at that point is meaningless anyway.
Lee absolutely fully supported slavery even while questioning its morality, but this moral questioning didn't stop him from having had runaways, like his slave Mary Norris, whipped. Trying to make Lee sound less favorable toward slavery than Grant is a mischaracterization so blatant that it can only be categorized as a deliberate lie.
"The will stated that the slaves were to be freed within five years, and at the same time large legacies—raised from selling property—should be given to the Lee children. But as the executor of the will, Lee decided that instead of freeing the slaves right away—as they expected—he could continue to own and work them for five years in an effort to make the estates profitable and not have to sell the property.
Lee was considered a hard taskmaster. He also started hiring slaves to other families, sending them away, and breaking up families that had been together on the estate for generations. The slaves resented him, were terrified they would never be freed, and they lost all respect for him.
There were many runaways, and at one point several slaves jumped him, claiming they were as free as he. Lee ordered these men to be severely whipped. He also petitioned the court to extend their servitude, but the court ruled against him and Lee did grant them their freedom on Jan. 1, 1863—ironically, the same day that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation went into effect." Elizabeth Brown Pryor author of "Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters
And, it was NOT GRANT himself who owned the slaves that were freed later, but his wife and her family. Grant personally had only owned one slave which was probably given to him by his father-in-law, and Grant freed that slave after only about a year. And as pointed out on the National Park service site about the Grant/Dent residence at White Haven:
"In Mary Robinson’s July 24, 1885, recollections, during an interview for the St. Louis Republican memorial to Grant following his death, she noted that “he always said he wanted to give his wife’s slaves their freedom as soon as he was able.” In 1859, Grant freed William Jones, the only slave he is known to have owned."
"Multitudes still cannot bring themselves to confront the story of slavery as both lived experience and as the central cause of the Civil War.
Federalism and "state sovereignty," as Southerners tended to call it, demands an understanding beyond slogans and uses that often skirt the deeper issues at stake in the 1850s — slavery, race, and the future of labor in an expanding republic." - Professor David W. Blight, Yale
Ahhh.. The land of the free... God bless America, the land of the uneducated, inbred, ill informed, mis-guided, ignorant self appointed "saviour"/ dick head. Fuck America, lets talk humanity.
what these liberals do is blame the confederates for slavery yet when slaves arrived in american from 1776-1806 they saw the american flag flying and slavery protected by american constitution how come so many cant use their brain only 5% of southerners owned slaves so that means 95% of confederates that fought and died on battlefield didnt own one slaves the ones that did own slaves most likely didnt fight cause they were rich
That's not the way to figure the statistic. You actually are saying that two year old children weren't owners of slaves with that statistic. Gee, no shit. The REAL way to look at is 'how many southern FAMILIES or in other words individual households owned slaves?' And when we look at it that way, the correct way, and by using the 1860 Census, we see that on average 1/3 of southern families owned slaves and that rose to about 1/2 in the deep South, making slavery quite predominate
Slavery was THE economic system of the South and it effected everyone there.
"A great many Southerners were directly or indirectly involved in slavery — they were either slaveholders, members of slaveholding families, or involved in business enterprises that depended upon slavery for their prosperity." Professor, Brooks D. Simpson
Because of the slave system, even the small farmer aspired to own a slave like a framer might aspire to own a tractor or another mule. "[So] there was the hope on the part of most of the nonslaveholders that they would some day become owners of slaves. Consequently, they took on the habits and patterns of thought of the slaveholders before they actually joined the select class." "From Slavery to Freedom" John Hope Franklin, p113
When we look at the Southern soldiers who owned slaves, the soldiers who lived with a family member who owned slaves, lived in households headed by non-family members who did; we see that nearly half of all Confederates either lived with slaveholders or were slave owners themselves. The author of the research concludes his point:
"Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery. For slaveholder and nonslaveholder alike, slavery lay at the heart of the Confederate nation.
@Rundstedt1 like i said who created slavery in america AMERICA did slavery flew under american flags for 99 yrs yet u try to blame it on the south that was only around for 4 years wow talk about picking what part of history u want rather than look at the historical facts
Slavery may have been around, but the US was not based on slavery as its was the entire purpose of the Confederacy.
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens on the Confederate Constitution
@Rundstedt1 once again just cause a political leader said it was over one thing doesnt make it true the men not fighting were saying it was over slavery yet 95% of confederates didnt own slaves my grandfathers keep journals and nowhere in it does it say they were fighthing for slavery they were actually opposed to it but didnt like the centralized government which we have today u know the one that had trillions of dollars of debt bought out by china
That's not the way to figure the statistic. You actually are saying that two year old children weren't owners of slaves with that statistic. Gee, no shit. The REAL way to look at is 'how many southern FAMILIES or in other words individual households owned slaves?' And when we look at it that way, the correct way, and by using the 1860 Census, we see that on average 1/3 of southern families owned slaves and that rose to about 1/2 in the deep South, making slavery quite predominate
Slavery was THE economic system of the South and it effected everyone there.
"A great many Southerners were directly or indirectly involved in slavery — they were either slaveholders, members of slaveholding families, or involved in business enterprises that depended upon slavery for their prosperity." Professor, Brooks D. Simpson
Because of the slave system, even the small farmer aspired to own a slave like a framer might aspire to own a tractor or another mule. "[So] there was the hope on the part of most of the nonslaveholders that they would some day become owners of slaves. Consequently, they took on the habits and patterns of thought of the slaveholders before they actually joined the select class." "From Slavery to Freedom" John Hope Franklin, p113
When we look at the Southern soldiers who owned slaves, the soldiers who lived with a family member who owned slaves, lived in households headed by non-family members who did; we see that nearly half of all Confederates either lived with slaveholders or were slave owners themselves. The author of the research concludes his point:
"Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery. For slaveholder and nonslaveholder alike, slavery lay at the heart of the Confederate nation.
The fact that their paper notes frequently depicted scenes of slaves demonstrated the institution's central role and symbolic value to the Confederacy." J. T. Glatthaar, "General Lee's Army" p.20
So sorry, your suppositions are rendered unsupportable by real academic history.
@Rundstedt1 once again your going by what political politicians said not the man that walked out into the line and fought and died for what he thought was right not everyone that serves in a way agrees with the political leaders many fight for their own beliefs
What the hell are you talking about? I'm using historians and the actual historical interpretations that they support because of a thing called research and academics of the soldiers letters and papers.
..."the South fought on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about. I never heard of any other cause for quarrel, than slavery"...Col.. John Singleton Mosby, CSA...
@Rundstedt1 yes your using accounts of men that wasnt there or fought in the battles im going by my confederate grandfathers journal u know someone who fought in the battles and would know why he is fighting not some old man that was never there that doesnt have a clue what the war was over
Sigh, I am quoting historical studies that have looked a cross samples of all the materials available. Its called historical study by professional historians. You are just making crap up. And your probably made up anecdotal 'evidence' is what is garbage.
@Rundstedt1 exactly your basing your understanding on people that didnt live through the fight or even engage in the camps with the soldiers im going by my confederate ancestors journals u know they was there fought and died for what they believed in which was states rights none of my confederate ancestors owned slaves p.s. article 3 section 3 of constitution says if any president wages war on other states its treason lmao lincoln was a traitor by the constitution
So you actually have NOTHING because you are obviously making your shit up. On the other hand I have all the academic historians and all their research. And you are an idiot, it is the duty of the President to put down a rebellion and your constitution tidbit says nothing about like you assert, but it does make clear that the South was committing treason by firing on federal troops and property.
"Within the profession [historians] there's virtually no discussion or debate left of slavery as central to the antebellum south and the fundamental cause of secession and the war. To the extent within the profession there's a debate about this, people will talk about other causal factors such as economic factors creating secession and the Civil War, but those economic factors always come down to a slave economy" Dr. Eric Walther of University of Houston
You gave some made up BS that historians, as well as the South itself at the time, say isn't true, as they admitted that the cause was slavery.
-
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth." - Mississippi, Statement of secession
@Rundstedt1 Yes however winners write history, in this case the north have been the state that painted itself righteous in the civil war, however the facts still remains: Black people didn't have equal rights as white people after the war.
The reason for the war was money, the south couldn't easily just accept the destruction of their slave based economy, while the north didin't have much dependence on it. Norterners still thought black people inferior, it just didn't look good with slavery.
Well first of all, the war was about slavery, not the slave. That full civil rights were not obtained is a different story and must really be told through the era of reconstruction and later, and not the Civil war itself. That the white supremacist forces, that had been same forces that had brought about the Confederacy, regained ascendency in the South, is a failure of reconstruction, the war itself was about slavery, not civil rights.
But the Unionists did do amazing things in retrospect about Civil Rights after the war. Things all fought and undone by the ex-confederates. Voting rights will be achieved, for the first time blacks will be congressmen, judges, and hold Federal posts in the South, and Hiram Revels will serve in the Senate.
The determined try of the Unionist and Reconstructionist forces toward Civil rights WAS unfortunately undone and the nation's attention turned elsewhere, e.g. financial crisis of 1873 and the growing economic inequality during the coming era, the RR strikes of '77, and the 'Indian wars' in the West, but there was still a gallant try and one that was resisted at every turn, even violently, by the ex-confederates.
And BTW it was that Southern View about the war from after the end of reconstruction, the myth of the "lost cause," that will become the tale of the war until it is looked at freshly starting in the 1960s; giving lie to the statement about history being 'written by the victor'. In reality the only 'freedom' the South was fighting for was the right to own slaves.
"Well, historians are pretty united on the cause of the Civil War being slavery.
And the kind of research that historians have undertaken, especially in the years since the centennial, when there has been so much interest in this question of the role of race and slavery in the United States, that research has shown pretty decisively that, when the various states announced their plans for secession, they uniformly said that the main motivating factor was to defend slavery." - Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvard University
That "history written by the victor" saying is just a meaningless platitude. So are we to believe that there was no holocaust because the allies won WWII and wrote the history? By the metric of the platitude there is no history and it makes everything false.
No, that's a just cliché that is usually trotted out by those who lack truth and evidence behind their argument and do not understand the modern academic historical process.
And even your 'economic' explanation comes down to slavery; so all you do is prove Dr. Walther's statement above that I posted two weeks ago. No matter how you slice it, it all comes down to slavery.
-
"The war was ABOUT slavery. [Catton's emphasis] Slavery had caused it: If slavery had vanished before 1861, the war simply would not have taken place." Bruce Catton "Reflections on the Civil War" p5
-
"Everything stemmed from the slavery issue," - James McPherson
"First of all, without slavery there's no Civil War in the first place, there's no irreconcilable conflict, so that's a sine qua non.
Second, when people talk about conflicting economic systems, obviously the root of the conflict was that the South's economic system was based upon plantation slavery.
So one can't talk about different economic systems without once again coming back to the issue of slavery. That was fundamental to what the South was about." Professor Brooks Simpson
In his book McPherson "For Cause and Comrades" stresses the importance of slavery as one of the principal ideological considerations as to why men fought both North and South. And he makes the point that when considering the reasons the soldiers fought, the entire concept of patriotism itself in the South was tied to the idea of slavery. The notion was clearly that if slavery was destroyed, the South would lose its liberty for that act alone.
The two were inseparable, it was slavery that defined the South, so if slavery were destroyed, so would be southern liberty. McPherson found that slavery was such an accepted part of Southern life that the Southern soldiers references to it were muted in terms like 'the southern way of life' and 'Honor' of the South, but that the idea behind that 'way of life' and 'honor' is the struggle to maintain slavery.
As just part of the examples he quoted this southern soldier:
"The vandals of the North... are determined to destroy slavery...we must all fight and I must fight and I choose to fight for Southern rights and Southern liberty"
And then he states:
"This paring of slavery and liberty as the twin goals for which the Confederates fought appeared in many volunteers letters." McPherson "For Cause and Comrades" P20
@Rundstedt1 the fact is that AMERICA is to blame for slavery entirely america did protect slavery for 99 yrs before the confederacy was even thought of so really your argument should be with america since it created slavery and protected it for 99yrs while u try to blame the whole slavery issue on the south P.S. THE NORTH OWNED SLAVES TOO HENCE IT PROTECTED FOR 99 YRS
What 'America' did from the beginning about slavery was at the behest of the South who from the beginning wanted to protect it, as the institution was already dying in the North upon the nations formation. By 1820 there will only be about 3000 slaves left in the North (Macmillan Encyclopedia, "Slavery In The Civil War Era") and it was being phased out.
@Rundstedt1 wow u really think so who got rich off the back of slaves the slave master or the industrialist who bought all the products for cheap then added a ton of interest to the product THE UNITED STATES ARE TO BLAME FOR SLAVERY
Just about everyone got rich except the slave, that is the nature of slavery. And that included the slave owner how held his labor in bondage. The other parties would make just as much as before if the labor was not held in bondage, but not the slave owner, who would then have to pay for the labor power.
The fact that their paper notes frequently depicted scenes of slaves demonstrated the institution's central role and symbolic value to the Confederacy." J. T. Glatthaar, "General Lee's Army" p.20
Sorry, your suppositions are rendered unsupportable by real academic history.
You people dont know anything about him! I know he truly stands behind that flag and understands the real meaning of it.Hes not even against the darker truths about the representation of the flag and he knows people are going to think hes crazy but he dosent really care! They needed him in the 60's. Strom Thurmond wouldve treated this guy like a king because he has a lot of sense and wouldve went to bat and i think weve just seen the tip of the iceburg when it comes to politics and Byron Thomas.
Wow these "news reporters" are uneducated and ignorant. Slavery had been an issue since the Compromise if 1820. Until 1863 there were Union slave-holding States. That is two years into the "War Against Slavery". The southern states split from the Union LEGALLY---it wasn't until after the war did the Federal government enact an Amendment prohibiting a "sovereign" state to succeed.
This isn't about "right wing or left wing," but the CSA were Democrats.
There was no amendment because even as the Supreme Court in "Texas v. White" and as R.E. Lee himself knew, secession is rebellion, and rebellion is never constitutional or legal.
“Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will.
It was intended for “perpetual union” so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by a revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession, Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution. - Robert E. Lee, January 23, 1861
And the preliminary emancipation proclamation was issued on September 22, 1862, which is not two years into the war. And work on some sort of emancipation had been started almost at the war did. But again, to be clear, the war started because the South seceded over the issue of slavery, the North's initial goal was to preserve the Union, but since the Union had split over slavery the was caused by slavery.
Freeing all the slaves in the South was not an initial goal of the North in the war, but the entire reason that the war transpired related back to issues over slavery, so slavery was the root of the war and what it was over. Once it did started, for the North it quickly had to become one against slavery itself as that was the supporting institution and basis of the South. Historians agree on the issue as I have pointed out, the war was caused by and about slavery.
Maybe his great great grandfather fought in the civil war. A lot of black fought on the southern side for a war all about slavery. And congrads to Turn for playing the hitler card. Btw the hitler cross was once a jewish symbol he destroyed just fyi
All bullshit from you. The idea of 'black confederates' are a myth not supported by real historians. When asked about so called black confederates; scholars will say as here:
"This is a fiction," Fergus M. Bordewich, renowned historian and author of five nonfiction books, told The Root about the latest rancorous debate about black Confederates that comes as the nation's commemoration of the Civil War's 150th anniversary continues.
I cant help but ask this....had you paid attention in U.S. history, i wouldnt find myself asking this question....but have you not ever heard of the Buffalo Soldiers? Black CSA patriots who were very well known for their actions. And no, they were not forced to fight, they were all slaves who had been freed and chose to fight on their own free will. "Black confederates a myth"? Thats like trying to say the Holocaust never happened. Seriously, look into it.
You complete moron, I teach history, and now I get to make a fool of you. The Buffalo Soldiers were Union veterans idiot who fought in the west against the Indian tribes AFTER the civil war. And historians Laugh at the idea of their being black confederates you idiot.
"This is a fiction, It's a myth," continued Bordewich, author of Washington: The Making of the American Capital and Bound for Canaan: The Underground Railroad and the War for the Soul of America. "It is nonsense. I could be blunter than that, but you get the drift. It's a meaningless term, 'black Confederates.' There is no evidence whatsoever from any responsible source that there was more than the occasional slave who was forced to serve in the war."
Bordewich is not alone in his position. Top-ranking scholars have repeatedly torpedoed the myth, including Bruce Levine, the renowned professor of African-American studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Edwin Bearss, historian emeritus at the National Park Service; and Henry Louis "Skip" Gates, editor-in-chief of The Root and chair of Harvard's W.E.B. Du Bois Institute"
"From a light-hearted point of view, if there were all these black Confederate soldiers, given that we don't see them show up [in historical records] as prisoners or killed or wounded, they must have been the best troops the Confederacy ever had, because they were never killed, wounded or captured. So an entire army of black Confederates would have been invincible.
If black Confederates were already there, one is at a loss to understand why white Southerners debated so ferociously over the introduction of blacks in the Confederate army late in the war. Certainly, there were blacks who accompanied the Confederate armies — servants of officers, wagon drivers, cooks, teamsters and the like. But they weren't there, by and large, of their own volition." Professor Brooks Simpson
So sorry it is you that is on the side of those that deny the reality of history as historians will tell you that the Civil War was caued by slavery and that the idea of there being all thse black confederate soldiers willingly fighting to keep themsleves in slavery it a lie. And I have the degrees and accreditation to teach this at all the higher levels education. Your post was ignorant and laughable.
Yes, I guess so, but a history teacher passionate about the accuracy of how history is presented should not be unusual.
Besides... Buffalo soldiers? You would think he would think of checking a bit before posting that. It was like he was TRYING to insult his own competency and intelligence. And with the tone of his post I was under no obligation to show him any patience. He is so certain and proud of his little tidbit, and yet so ridiculously wrong, it's both sad and funny.
"It's a myth," continued Bordewich, author of Washington: The Making of the American Capital and Bound for Canaan: The Underground Railroad and the War for the Soul of America. "It is nonsense. I could be blunter than that, but you get the drift. It's a meaningless term, 'black Confederates.' There is no evidence whatsoever from any responsible source that there was more than the occasional slave who was forced to serve in the war."
Bordewich is not alone in his position. Top-ranking scholars have repeatedly torpedoed the myth, including Bruce Levine, the renowned professor of African-American studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Edwin Bearss, historian emeritus at the National Park Service; and Henry Louis "Skip" Gates, editor-in-chief of The Root and chair of Harvard's W.E.B. Du Bois Institute"
And a Swastika like symbol has been used by many cultures, but it was never a Jewish symbol. And the Swastika the Nazis used represented racism and hatred, just as the flag of the Confederacy represents racism and slavery.
What a terribly misguided, young man.
upabittoolate 2 days ago
Dumb Nigga,it's a swastika idiot.
Nubias 4 days ago
Keep the flag flyin!! :)
GilmoreSpillmore 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ONLY 5% of white southerners owned slaves. The confederate flag NEVER flied on slave ships it was only the USA flag. That's right the one we have TODAY. I'm American Indian and my ancestors were MASSACRED and ETHNICALLY CLEANSED 50 years after the Civil War under our current American Flag. Does that mean that the American Flag represents the genocide of American Indians? No, it was hijacked by power tripping white males who didn't represent the greater society's ideals. Keep the flag up brother.
AdventOctober 5 days ago
Sorry but this is very condescending. The argument that "I'm sure he had a right wing professor" is NO different than me being dismissed as a liberal because I must've been brainwashed by those liberal professors off at college.
majinspy 5 days ago
Jews with the Nazi Flag! LOL! Priceless.
TheMasculinist 6 days ago
If this impressionable youth had taken five minutes with his grandfather...and HEARD about the real impurity of what that flag represented...he might have another impression.
TheMasculinist 6 days ago
Slavery was only brought up to keep France out of the war....Lincoln took advantage of the situation and exploited slavery for political gain...most American History classes in America are pro-government propaganda, plain and simple
xDANCINRICKx 1 week ago
Im a member of the TYT army and I came across this video again while looking for a black flag song
ncp9one 1 week ago
wow you guys have really entrenched yourselves to this simplified, black and white version of the civil war. have fun not thinking.
SolidGoldKalashnikov 1 week ago
@SolidGoldKalashnikov It's the flag of a political entity that didn't exist until the CSA were formed, after they seceded from the union. The overwhelming reason they seceded was to protect slavery -- their right to continue it, and to expand it. The flag, quite simply, is a symbol of slavery. Get over it. That's what the Civil War was about, and it's what the flag stands for. That's why Southern States revived in during the mid-20th century civil rights battles. Read some history.
Z200a 1 week ago
@Z200a ok so it had nothign to do with federalism. why didn't lincoln free teh slaves immediately instead of waiting until it was necessary for the war effort? you'll find the pages of history are colored with idealism, but reality is more often driven by money. yes the civil war was about money. when they look back they'll say the war on terror was about protecting our freedoms from sharia law. but of course, like all wars, it too boils down to money.
SolidGoldKalashnikov 1 week ago
@Z200a Right. Split the country in two to free people the vast majority of the racist country felt as lesser human beings anyway, that MUST be it. Take a history course and thank MLK and the civil rights movement.
Gradivus75 3 days ago
But its such a lovely looking flag - its got a big thick blue X, outlined in white on a red background with pretty white stars in it.
Who couldn't love the design of that flag.
Its history of usage is another thing entirely.
smartarse001 1 week ago
@smartarse001 Do you know what those stars represent? They represent 11 states that seceded from the union - slave holding states - and 2 other states that did not secede (Kentucky and Missouri), but that the Confederates invaded over and over in an attempt to force them into the Confederacy.
The flag didn't exist until the CSA created it as its symbol, so "its history of usage" is inseparable from the cause of the CSA: Defense of slavery.
Z200a 1 week ago
@smartarse001 awww...who couldnt love the swatika? A symbol that was from the Catholic church to symbolize the four directions...guess it comes down to what it really means. You could be just fine with using the N word to say its true definition...which is "stupid" or bitch...just means female dog...or ass...could be a donkey...everything that has a tainted history of HATRED behind it...has a reason WHY people hate it
TheMasculinist 6 days ago
It's just a piece of material.
NakedWombatStuff 1 week ago
@NakedWombatStuff ahhh so true, just a piece of material...so is the Constitution...just a piece of paper...what we do with that material and what that material STANDS FOR...which, regarding the Confederate Flag, was racism, exploitation, slavery, rape and murder...well...suddenly that piece of material...becomes a symbol of the things WRONG with the world...
TheMasculinist 6 days ago
@TheMasculinist Then we might as well ban just about national flag.
NakedWombatStuff 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Both of theses bitches are ignorant as fuck. Especaily the fagot on the left.
garcie0621 1 week ago
@garcie0621 why do you say that?
dangerouslytalented 1 week ago
Comment removed
garcie0621 1 week ago
I'm British so i am not completely aware of your guys history, but it seems to me that the civil war is a constitutional question, was the Slavery a horrible thing, yes, but did the north have the right to wage war against a group of states who wanted to get out of a union, even if slavery was horrible. It seems to me that this is like attacking Scotland because they wanted to leave the UK, or attacking Italy if they wanted to leave the EU, respond to me if i'm wrong
toberses11 1 week ago 2
@toberses11 The problem was, the South seceded AND THEN FIRED FIRST. It was not like the North had a choice in the matter.
dangerouslytalented 1 week ago
Those racist Dukes of Hazzard, having the rebel flag on their car. :sarcasm:
tgbotg 1 week ago
the stupidest Negro in the U.S.A !!
NeoQuello 1 week ago
He has to be the dumbest BLACK GUY EVER! What in idiot...!
Equality4ya 1 week ago
Comment removed
sprPee 1 week ago
There were problems between North and South when the North practiced slavery. There is NOTHING wrong with a Jewish person flying a Nazi Flag (Though with the Holocaust a but odd) as long as the underlying message isn't hate. Same with a Black or anyone flying the confederate flag. Military historians have been forced by pressure to not display either flag and that's a free speech issue. You should likely learn about the early causes of the war before you pass judgement.
Gradivus75 1 week ago
@Gradivus75 Most of the North got rid of their slaves in the 1820s. Most of the North/South tensions arose from slavery, directly or indirectly, most of the economic problems were also directly caused by slavery, and things like the Missouri Compromise and the Fugitive Slaves Act.
dangerouslytalented 1 week ago
@dangerouslytalented You would think if you were willing to divide the country over a issue such as slavery, you'd make sure those newly freed slaves were given equal rights no? Split the country for slavery and have the racist nation continue to treat the freed slaves like dirt. There was ALWAYS tension between North and South even in colonial days. This is a 1st amendment issue, clearly.
Gradivus75 3 days ago
Lil Jon and the Eastside Boyz flaunt the flag too.
LordCalculus 1 week ago
question for the guy on the left: is stupidity a requirement to be a commentator or do you just throw it in for fun?
jimmydc95 1 week ago
Its about states rights.
calimar28 1 week ago
the guy is a dumb nigger fucker
H95Shooterv12 1 week ago
The guy in the video needs to stfu
imaStonesFan 2 weeks ago
When will people (like this "reporter" on a "respected" youtube channel) stop compaing the Nazi flag to the Confederate Flag. The Nazi flag is a flag of the oppressive party. The Conferderate flag is a flag of a NATION, a legally suceeded NATION, who was then attacked by the north and forced back into the Union.
billdos6 2 weeks ago
@billdos6 Actually, between 1933 and 1945, the Nazi flag WAS the German national flag. However, the flag that is commonly known as the "confederate flag" nowadays, was NEVER the national flag of the Confederacy, but the Confederate Battle Flag.
dangerouslytalented 1 week ago
Comment removed
RealinAmerica 2 weeks ago
@RealinAmerica The states rights to enforce the enslavement of an entire race of people?
dangerouslytalented 1 week ago
Ya'll are just stirring up a lot of controversy, I'm glad this fellow brother of mine from the south takes pride in where he is from. To argue facts about the civil war would be too time consuming so because it was a complicated situation...Slavery was dying around the world at this time anyways, a lot of people in the South we're against slavery pre civil war and it was dying out of cause such as technology.
figNEWTON749 2 weeks ago
@figNEWTON749 If by "dying" you mean the entire economy of the sout depended on it then yes it was "dying".
africandude1 2 weeks ago
@figNEWTON749 But the actual secession was due to slavery. They wanted to keep their slaves, and said so in the articles of secession of more than one state.
And one of the main sources of tension between the North and South was slavery, particularly the Missouri Compromise, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Dredd Scott decision, and the underground railroad.
dangerouslytalented 1 week ago
it's like jews hang a nazi flag (yeah, don't tell me the civil war wasn't about slavery because i know it wasn't, but dont tell me the south loved their blacks)
TheConfederate1863 2 weeks ago
@TheConfederate1863 It was about slavery, the main cause of it was slavery, and most of the minor economic causes were also brought about by the practise of slavery.
dangerouslytalented 1 week ago 2
Slavery was a small part of the war... TYT needs a history lesson.
soaffb1337 2 weeks ago
If we can't save America we can and will
gjbbratcher 2 weeks ago
Hell yeah! The south will rise again
rccrawlerguy1 3 weeks ago
Southern people come in all colors and sizes! The guy on this video talking about slavery blah blah blah can suck my southern DICK!
xMusicIsMyGasolinex 3 weeks ago
Heritage not Hate!
xMusicIsMyGasolinex 3 weeks ago
I am truely proud of that student. He is standing up for the truth. As for the two annoucers talking, someone is showing some extreme stupidity. The war was about whether the central government had the power to tell the states in the south how to handle their economy and affairs.
howard100190 3 weeks ago
@howard100190 (1/3)
And yet you make that claim despite that all the actual civil war historians say the war was caused by and about slavery as I have just pointed out. That the 'economy and internal affairs' you refer to mean slavery! That is what the economy and internal affairs in the South were based on. The South even said itself over and over, the war was about slavery:
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@howard100190 (2/3)
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens on the Confederate Constitution.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@howard100190 (3/3)
So:
"Any neo-Confederate or plain old American who wants to say, ‘No, no, it’s about states’ rights,’ has the problem that they’re not arguing with me. They’re arguing with the people in South Carolina who seceded; they’re arguing with the convention in Mississippi.”
"I don’t mean to be mean, but secession and the Confederacy was all about treason on behalf of slavery, and we have to call it what it was." Dr. James Loewen
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
Y'all must be from the North. If you don't get the flag, don't complain about it. Don't tread on us.
Runn3rdude 3 weeks ago
Killing them is still wrong regardless of race. All things condidered all peoples are guilty. The important thing is to learn from our mistakes, for lack of a better word, and prevent it from happening again. It docent help to hide from the symbols we find offensive. To me personally I fly it for southern pride, when you see my flag therefor you can't claim I am racist, I can't speak for others, but what flag did they fly over slave ships?
gjbbratcher 3 weeks ago
...and the North went west and killed all the Indians in their path, that wasn't racist or anything. History is covered up, and we are all lied to.
Runebone13 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Are black
gjbbratcher 3 weeks ago
Are blac
gjbbratcher 3 weeks ago
All of you talk of southerners like we are the qorst group of people on earth. The north has dune things that are just as bad as the south's offenses, yet you still hold them as heroes. No group of people are entirely innocent. We feel that flag is a good way of showing our support of our heritage and our history even if we don't fully stand by everything dune in our name. I fly the flag, I am pro south and small government. am I racist? No. Do I support slavery? No. Some of my closest freinds
gjbbratcher 3 weeks ago
@gjbbratcher The Confederate flag does not symbolize the south, it symbolizes the Confederacy. It is incredibly sad for this black student to fly the flag of the states which fought to preserve his people's enslavement.
pnoozi 3 weeks ago
You know what's even dumber? People who aren't even from the U.S let alone the South who display the confederate flag (ie: Alberta, Canada). The Confederate flag is only acceptable on the General Lee. Period.
LikwidSnake 3 weeks ago
what is the big deal...Guess what! My great -grand-father fought in the confederate army(Benjamine Mackey) and he was black , what is the difference from the american flag..our people were slaves under both of them...
bigdeneen 4 weeks ago
@bigdeneen (1/4)
OK, what actual proof do you have other than a listing on ancestry(dot)com, that this Benjamin Mackey was actually a soldier. There was no such thing as the "33rd regiment of the Confederate Army" that is not how the unit designations worked at the time. I would like to see any actual provenance for this claim of being a soldier.
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago
@bigdeneen (2/4)
Benjamin Mackey could have been unfortunately been no more than a laborer. The Confederate President himself in a "Message to the Confederate Congress" on Jan 12, 1863 (which I can post if necessary) recommended the immediate execution of all black soldiers and virtually all union officers that were captured.
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago
@bigdeneen (3/4)
However in an act of generosity in the obvious recognition of reprisals, the "Response of the Confederate Congress to Message From Jefferson Davis on the Emancipation Proclamation" May 1, 1863, only prescribed death for any black soldiers and the specific officers who commanded them and spared the rest of the Union officer corps.
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago
@bigdeneen (4/4)
I really don't believe you have any real connection to this Benjamin Mackey, and I don't believe that Macke was a soldier in the "33rd regiment of the Confederate Army" any more than there was even a "33rd regiment of the Confederate Army" at all.
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago
Oh by the way, a "sons of confederate veterans" post is not a valid source. They tellingly present no inks or provenance for their claims. And even at most all it describes is two laborers being clothed: and tellingly one with $6 pants, and one with $2.25 shirt and pants, these were obviously not uniforms, and but work clothes that were proved second hand those who were brought along as laborers. And that's even at most, as the SCV is like believing a Stormfront post about the glories of the SS
Rundstedt1 4 weeks ago
They hate the south so much but want ot keep it? By the way it was Mussolini that made the trains run on time. If you wanna learn history go to a library, colleges are apparently useless now in education, for the love of god dont get information from the media. Form your own opinion.
bfs69er 4 weeks ago
Both of these idiots really need a history lesson on the civil war.It's definitely not like the swastika and the nazis,far fucking from it.You didnt see confederates building large buildings in the woods surrounded by barbed wire with crematoriums,last time i checked anyway..
gottalovetheganja420 4 weeks ago
the reporter on the left needs to stop acting like a smart ass cunt
BrandonBlaze904 1 month ago
Either way the confederate flag and the American flag symbolized slavery at one point and in one way or another. When the American ships sailed to Africa to get Africans for slavery they were flying the American flag.
miked21dbz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@arkee71
Than don't fly it because it IS a racist symbol, the Confederacy was based on white supremacy in defense of slavery, that was its entire reason for being.
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth." - Mississippi, Statement of secession
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
U FUCKING BASTERS I HATE THIS TYT THIS BLACK MAN IS A HERO FROM THE LOVE OF THE SONS OF THE CONFEDERATE VETERANS
StormTrooperTK1337 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@arkee71
Than don't fly it because it IS a racist symbol, the Confederacy was based on white supremacy in defense of slavery, that was its entire reason for being.
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution" Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
Comment removed
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
“Any neo-Confederate or plain old American who wants to say, ‘No, no, it’s about states’ rights,’ has the problem that they’re not arguing with me. They’re arguing with the people in South Carolina who seceded; they’re arguing with the convention in Mississippi.”
"I don’t mean to be mean, but secession and the Confederacy was all about treason on behalf of slavery, and we have to call it what it was.” Dr. James Loewen
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
I'm European and for me it's just a damn flag, whiners can go hang themself.
dangar45 1 month ago
alot of people dont know the swastika was used as a symbol of good luck and fortune for thousends of years but hitler used it as his symbol for the nazi party and looked what happend
dethshred356 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Learning American and European history from a fucking Turk and a Kurdish Whore. I'll pass.
For those who want to learn where the Confederate Flag came from. Look up the 'Cross of Saint Andrew'.
And no.. im not even Southern. I just have a brain. Unlike the idiots who host this show.
ThirdRomeAquilo 1 month ago
Bad History Teacher, huh?
timmg3 1 month ago
@timmg3
Yea he must have slept through his classes not to know that the Confederacy was all about slavery, I mean after all, they went out of their way to admit it.
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens
Rundstedt1 1 month ago 4
the wite people in this video disn the black kid need shut the fuck up they dont no what they are talking about Robert E. Lee (C.S.A.)relased his slave before the war Grant (union) did not untel he was forced to
The C.S.A will rise agin
mulefarms 1 month ago
@mulefarms (1/7)
You have no idea about what you are talking about, You obviously gleaned what you said from some bogus Neo-confederate blogs and not real history sources. Lee didn't free his slaves until after the war was going, and his plantation at Arlington was occupied by Union troops. Many of his slaves had already been effectively freed by Union troops, they were no longer of use to Lee as they were behind enemy lines, his freeing them at that point is meaningless anyway.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@mulefarms (2/7)
Lee absolutely fully supported slavery even while questioning its morality, but this moral questioning didn't stop him from having had runaways, like his slave Mary Norris, whipped. Trying to make Lee sound less favorable toward slavery than Grant is a mischaracterization so blatant that it can only be categorized as a deliberate lie.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@mulefarms (3/7)
"The will stated that the slaves were to be freed within five years, and at the same time large legacies—raised from selling property—should be given to the Lee children. But as the executor of the will, Lee decided that instead of freeing the slaves right away—as they expected—he could continue to own and work them for five years in an effort to make the estates profitable and not have to sell the property.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@mulefarms (4/7)
Lee was considered a hard taskmaster. He also started hiring slaves to other families, sending them away, and breaking up families that had been together on the estate for generations. The slaves resented him, were terrified they would never be freed, and they lost all respect for him.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@mulefarms (5/7)
There were many runaways, and at one point several slaves jumped him, claiming they were as free as he. Lee ordered these men to be severely whipped. He also petitioned the court to extend their servitude, but the court ruled against him and Lee did grant them their freedom on Jan. 1, 1863—ironically, the same day that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation went into effect." Elizabeth Brown Pryor author of "Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@mulefarms (6/7)
And, it was NOT GRANT himself who owned the slaves that were freed later, but his wife and her family. Grant personally had only owned one slave which was probably given to him by his father-in-law, and Grant freed that slave after only about a year. And as pointed out on the National Park service site about the Grant/Dent residence at White Haven:
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@mulefarms (7/7)
"In Mary Robinson’s July 24, 1885, recollections, during an interview for the St. Louis Republican memorial to Grant following his death, she noted that “he always said he wanted to give his wife’s slaves their freedom as soon as he was able.” In 1859, Grant freed William Jones, the only slave he is known to have owned."
You have now been corrected by a history teacher.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 so what was the C.S.A actuly fighting for slaves or States rights ?
mulefarms 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mulefarms
It was fighting for slavery as they made clear.
"Multitudes still cannot bring themselves to confront the story of slavery as both lived experience and as the central cause of the Civil War.
Federalism and "state sovereignty," as Southerners tended to call it, demands an understanding beyond slogans and uses that often skirt the deeper issues at stake in the 1850s — slavery, race, and the future of labor in an expanding republic." - Professor David W. Blight, Yale
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
completely not like the jewish-nazi reference. THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN
reb738 1 month ago
Ahhh.. The land of the free... God bless America, the land of the uneducated, inbred, ill informed, mis-guided, ignorant self appointed "saviour"/ dick head. Fuck America, lets talk humanity.
dtsmucker 1 month ago
what these liberals do is blame the confederates for slavery yet when slaves arrived in american from 1776-1806 they saw the american flag flying and slavery protected by american constitution how come so many cant use their brain only 5% of southerners owned slaves so that means 95% of confederates that fought and died on battlefield didnt own one slaves the ones that did own slaves most likely didnt fight cause they were rich
Southernjuggalo63 1 month ago
@Souther (1/6)
That's not the way to figure the statistic. You actually are saying that two year old children weren't owners of slaves with that statistic. Gee, no shit. The REAL way to look at is 'how many southern FAMILIES or in other words individual households owned slaves?' And when we look at it that way, the correct way, and by using the 1860 Census, we see that on average 1/3 of southern families owned slaves and that rose to about 1/2 in the deep South, making slavery quite predominate
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Southernjuggalo63 (2/6)
Slavery was THE economic system of the South and it effected everyone there.
"A great many Southerners were directly or indirectly involved in slavery — they were either slaveholders, members of slaveholding families, or involved in business enterprises that depended upon slavery for their prosperity." Professor, Brooks D. Simpson
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Southernjuggalo63 (3/6)
Because of the slave system, even the small farmer aspired to own a slave like a framer might aspire to own a tractor or another mule. "[So] there was the hope on the part of most of the nonslaveholders that they would some day become owners of slaves. Consequently, they took on the habits and patterns of thought of the slaveholders before they actually joined the select class." "From Slavery to Freedom" John Hope Franklin, p113
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Southernjuggalo63 (4/6)
When we look at the Southern soldiers who owned slaves, the soldiers who lived with a family member who owned slaves, lived in households headed by non-family members who did; we see that nearly half of all Confederates either lived with slaveholders or were slave owners themselves. The author of the research concludes his point:
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Southernjuggalo63 (5/6)
"Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery. For slaveholder and nonslaveholder alike, slavery lay at the heart of the Confederate nation.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 like i said who created slavery in america AMERICA did slavery flew under american flags for 99 yrs yet u try to blame it on the south that was only around for 4 years wow talk about picking what part of history u want rather than look at the historical facts
Southernjuggalo63 1 month ago
@Southernjuggalo
Slavery may have been around, but the US was not based on slavery as its was the entire purpose of the Confederacy.
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens on the Confederate Constitution
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 once again just cause a political leader said it was over one thing doesnt make it true the men not fighting were saying it was over slavery yet 95% of confederates didnt own slaves my grandfathers keep journals and nowhere in it does it say they were fighthing for slavery they were actually opposed to it but didnt like the centralized government which we have today u know the one that had trillions of dollars of debt bought out by china
Southernjuggalo63 1 month ago
@Souther (1/9)
That's not the way to figure the statistic. You actually are saying that two year old children weren't owners of slaves with that statistic. Gee, no shit. The REAL way to look at is 'how many southern FAMILIES or in other words individual households owned slaves?' And when we look at it that way, the correct way, and by using the 1860 Census, we see that on average 1/3 of southern families owned slaves and that rose to about 1/2 in the deep South, making slavery quite predominate
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Southernjuggalo63 (2/9)
Slavery was THE economic system of the South and it effected everyone there.
"A great many Southerners were directly or indirectly involved in slavery — they were either slaveholders, members of slaveholding families, or involved in business enterprises that depended upon slavery for their prosperity." Professor, Brooks D. Simpson
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Southernjuggalo63 (3/9)
Because of the slave system, even the small farmer aspired to own a slave like a framer might aspire to own a tractor or another mule. "[So] there was the hope on the part of most of the nonslaveholders that they would some day become owners of slaves. Consequently, they took on the habits and patterns of thought of the slaveholders before they actually joined the select class." "From Slavery to Freedom" John Hope Franklin, p113
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Southernjuggalo63 (4/9)
When we look at the Southern soldiers who owned slaves, the soldiers who lived with a family member who owned slaves, lived in households headed by non-family members who did; we see that nearly half of all Confederates either lived with slaveholders or were slave owners themselves. The author of the research concludes his point:
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Southernjuggalo63 (5/9)
"Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery. For slaveholder and nonslaveholder alike, slavery lay at the heart of the Confederate nation.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Southernjuggalo63 (6/9)
The fact that their paper notes frequently depicted scenes of slaves demonstrated the institution's central role and symbolic value to the Confederacy." J. T. Glatthaar, "General Lee's Army" p.20
So sorry, your suppositions are rendered unsupportable by real academic history.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 once again your going by what political politicians said not the man that walked out into the line and fought and died for what he thought was right not everyone that serves in a way agrees with the political leaders many fight for their own beliefs
Southernjuggalo63 1 month ago
@Southernjuggalo63
What the hell are you talking about? I'm using historians and the actual historical interpretations that they support because of a thing called research and academics of the soldiers letters and papers.
..."the South fought on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about. I never heard of any other cause for quarrel, than slavery"...Col.. John Singleton Mosby, CSA...
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 yes your using accounts of men that wasnt there or fought in the battles im going by my confederate grandfathers journal u know someone who fought in the battles and would know why he is fighting not some old man that was never there that doesnt have a clue what the war was over
Southernjuggalo63 1 month ago
@Southernjuggalo63
Sigh, I am quoting historical studies that have looked a cross samples of all the materials available. Its called historical study by professional historians. You are just making crap up. And your probably made up anecdotal 'evidence' is what is garbage.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 exactly your basing your understanding on people that didnt live through the fight or even engage in the camps with the soldiers im going by my confederate ancestors journals u know they was there fought and died for what they believed in which was states rights none of my confederate ancestors owned slaves p.s. article 3 section 3 of constitution says if any president wages war on other states its treason lmao lincoln was a traitor by the constitution
Southernjuggalo63 1 month ago
@Southernjuggalo63
So you actually have NOTHING because you are obviously making your shit up. On the other hand I have all the academic historians and all their research. And you are an idiot, it is the duty of the President to put down a rebellion and your constitution tidbit says nothing about like you assert, but it does make clear that the South was committing treason by firing on federal troops and property.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago 2
@Southernjuggalo63
"Within the profession [historians] there's virtually no discussion or debate left of slavery as central to the antebellum south and the fundamental cause of secession and the war. To the extent within the profession there's a debate about this, people will talk about other causal factors such as economic factors creating secession and the Civil War, but those economic factors always come down to a slave economy" Dr. Eric Walther of University of Houston
Rundstedt1 1 month ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 Trollolololololololololololololololol to you again, sir. We've given you reasons for secession.
RebelSoldat1 1 month ago
@RebelSoldat1
You gave some made up BS that historians, as well as the South itself at the time, say isn't true, as they admitted that the cause was slavery.
-
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth." - Mississippi, Statement of secession
Rundstedt1 1 month ago 8
Comment removed
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 Yes however winners write history, in this case the north have been the state that painted itself righteous in the civil war, however the facts still remains: Black people didn't have equal rights as white people after the war.
The reason for the war was money, the south couldn't easily just accept the destruction of their slave based economy, while the north didin't have much dependence on it. Norterners still thought black people inferior, it just didn't look good with slavery.
Imhornydadcomeinside 3 weeks ago
@Imhornydadcomeinside (1/8)
Well first of all, the war was about slavery, not the slave. That full civil rights were not obtained is a different story and must really be told through the era of reconstruction and later, and not the Civil war itself. That the white supremacist forces, that had been same forces that had brought about the Confederacy, regained ascendency in the South, is a failure of reconstruction, the war itself was about slavery, not civil rights.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@Imhornydadcomeinside (2/8)
But the Unionists did do amazing things in retrospect about Civil Rights after the war. Things all fought and undone by the ex-confederates. Voting rights will be achieved, for the first time blacks will be congressmen, judges, and hold Federal posts in the South, and Hiram Revels will serve in the Senate.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@Imhornydadcomeinside (3/8)
The determined try of the Unionist and Reconstructionist forces toward Civil rights WAS unfortunately undone and the nation's attention turned elsewhere, e.g. financial crisis of 1873 and the growing economic inequality during the coming era, the RR strikes of '77, and the 'Indian wars' in the West, but there was still a gallant try and one that was resisted at every turn, even violently, by the ex-confederates.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@Imhornydadcomeinside (4/8)
And BTW it was that Southern View about the war from after the end of reconstruction, the myth of the "lost cause," that will become the tale of the war until it is looked at freshly starting in the 1960s; giving lie to the statement about history being 'written by the victor'. In reality the only 'freedom' the South was fighting for was the right to own slaves.
"Well, historians are pretty united on the cause of the Civil War being slavery.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@Imhornydadcomeinside (5/8)
And the kind of research that historians have undertaken, especially in the years since the centennial, when there has been so much interest in this question of the role of race and slavery in the United States, that research has shown pretty decisively that, when the various states announced their plans for secession, they uniformly said that the main motivating factor was to defend slavery." - Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvard University
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@Imhornydadcomeinside (6/8)
That "history written by the victor" saying is just a meaningless platitude. So are we to believe that there was no holocaust because the allies won WWII and wrote the history? By the metric of the platitude there is no history and it makes everything false.
No, that's a just cliché that is usually trotted out by those who lack truth and evidence behind their argument and do not understand the modern academic historical process.
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@Imhornydadcomeinside (7/8)
And even your 'economic' explanation comes down to slavery; so all you do is prove Dr. Walther's statement above that I posted two weeks ago. No matter how you slice it, it all comes down to slavery.
-
"The war was ABOUT slavery. [Catton's emphasis] Slavery had caused it: If slavery had vanished before 1861, the war simply would not have taken place." Bruce Catton "Reflections on the Civil War" p5
-
"Everything stemmed from the slavery issue," - James McPherson
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@Imhornyd (8/8)
"First of all, without slavery there's no Civil War in the first place, there's no irreconcilable conflict, so that's a sine qua non.
Second, when people talk about conflicting economic systems, obviously the root of the conflict was that the South's economic system was based upon plantation slavery.
So one can't talk about different economic systems without once again coming back to the issue of slavery. That was fundamental to what the South was about." Professor Brooks Simpson
Rundstedt1 3 weeks ago
@Rundstedt1
Imhornydadcomeinside 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 THE AMERICAN COUNTRY AND ECONOMY WAS BUILT ON SLAVERY YET YOU ONLY BLAME THE SOUTH MAN PEOPLE ARE RETARDED NOWADAYS LOL
Southernjuggalo63 1 month ago
@Southernjuggalo63 (7/9)
In his book McPherson "For Cause and Comrades" stresses the importance of slavery as one of the principal ideological considerations as to why men fought both North and South. And he makes the point that when considering the reasons the soldiers fought, the entire concept of patriotism itself in the South was tied to the idea of slavery. The notion was clearly that if slavery was destroyed, the South would lose its liberty for that act alone.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Southernjuggalo63 (8/9)
The two were inseparable, it was slavery that defined the South, so if slavery were destroyed, so would be southern liberty. McPherson found that slavery was such an accepted part of Southern life that the Southern soldiers references to it were muted in terms like 'the southern way of life' and 'Honor' of the South, but that the idea behind that 'way of life' and 'honor' is the struggle to maintain slavery.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Southernjuggalo63 (9/9)
As just part of the examples he quoted this southern soldier:
"The vandals of the North... are determined to destroy slavery...we must all fight and I must fight and I choose to fight for Southern rights and Southern liberty"
And then he states:
"This paring of slavery and liberty as the twin goals for which the Confederates fought appeared in many volunteers letters." McPherson "For Cause and Comrades" P20
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 the fact is that AMERICA is to blame for slavery entirely america did protect slavery for 99 yrs before the confederacy was even thought of so really your argument should be with america since it created slavery and protected it for 99yrs while u try to blame the whole slavery issue on the south P.S. THE NORTH OWNED SLAVES TOO HENCE IT PROTECTED FOR 99 YRS
Southernjuggalo63 1 month ago
@Southernjuggalo63
What 'America' did from the beginning about slavery was at the behest of the South who from the beginning wanted to protect it, as the institution was already dying in the North upon the nations formation. By 1820 there will only be about 3000 slaves left in the North (Macmillan Encyclopedia, "Slavery In The Civil War Era") and it was being phased out.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 wow u really think so who got rich off the back of slaves the slave master or the industrialist who bought all the products for cheap then added a ton of interest to the product THE UNITED STATES ARE TO BLAME FOR SLAVERY
Southernjuggalo63 1 month ago
@Southernjuggalo63
Just about everyone got rich except the slave, that is the nature of slavery. And that included the slave owner how held his labor in bondage. The other parties would make just as much as before if the labor was not held in bondage, but not the slave owner, who would then have to pay for the labor power.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
Comment removed
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Southernjuggalo63 (6/6)
The fact that their paper notes frequently depicted scenes of slaves demonstrated the institution's central role and symbolic value to the Confederacy." J. T. Glatthaar, "General Lee's Army" p.20
Sorry, your suppositions are rendered unsupportable by real academic history.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You people dont know anything about him! I know he truly stands behind that flag and understands the real meaning of it.Hes not even against the darker truths about the representation of the flag and he knows people are going to think hes crazy but he dosent really care! They needed him in the 60's. Strom Thurmond wouldve treated this guy like a king because he has a lot of sense and wouldve went to bat and i think weve just seen the tip of the iceburg when it comes to politics and Byron Thomas.
rebulun 1 month ago
Wow these "news reporters" are uneducated and ignorant. Slavery had been an issue since the Compromise if 1820. Until 1863 there were Union slave-holding States. That is two years into the "War Against Slavery". The southern states split from the Union LEGALLY---it wasn't until after the war did the Federal government enact an Amendment prohibiting a "sovereign" state to succeed.
This isn't about "right wing or left wing," but the CSA were Democrats.
Jaxar1 1 month ago
@Jaxar1 (1/4)
There was no amendment because even as the Supreme Court in "Texas v. White" and as R.E. Lee himself knew, secession is rebellion, and rebellion is never constitutional or legal.
“Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Jaxar1 (2/4)
It was intended for “perpetual union” so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by a revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession, Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution. - Robert E. Lee, January 23, 1861
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Jaxar1 (3/4)
And the preliminary emancipation proclamation was issued on September 22, 1862, which is not two years into the war. And work on some sort of emancipation had been started almost at the war did. But again, to be clear, the war started because the South seceded over the issue of slavery, the North's initial goal was to preserve the Union, but since the Union had split over slavery the was caused by slavery.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Jaxar1 (4/4)
Freeing all the slaves in the South was not an initial goal of the North in the war, but the entire reason that the war transpired related back to issues over slavery, so slavery was the root of the war and what it was over. Once it did started, for the North it quickly had to become one against slavery itself as that was the supporting institution and basis of the South. Historians agree on the issue as I have pointed out, the war was caused by and about slavery.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
Maybe his great great grandfather fought in the civil war. A lot of black fought on the southern side for a war all about slavery. And congrads to Turn for playing the hitler card. Btw the hitler cross was once a jewish symbol he destroyed just fyi
darkwarriorkane 1 month ago
@darkwarriorkane (1/4)
All bullshit from you. The idea of 'black confederates' are a myth not supported by real historians. When asked about so called black confederates; scholars will say as here:
"This is a fiction," Fergus M. Bordewich, renowned historian and author of five nonfiction books, told The Root about the latest rancorous debate about black Confederates that comes as the nation's commemoration of the Civil War's 150th anniversary continues.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1
I cant help but ask this....had you paid attention in U.S. history, i wouldnt find myself asking this question....but have you not ever heard of the Buffalo Soldiers? Black CSA patriots who were very well known for their actions. And no, they were not forced to fight, they were all slaves who had been freed and chose to fight on their own free will. "Black confederates a myth"? Thats like trying to say the Holocaust never happened. Seriously, look into it.
MyBallsYourFace91 1 month ago
@MyBallsYourFace91 (1/6)
You complete moron, I teach history, and now I get to make a fool of you. The Buffalo Soldiers were Union veterans idiot who fought in the west against the Indian tribes AFTER the civil war. And historians Laugh at the idea of their being black confederates you idiot.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@MyBallsYourFace91 (2/6)
"This is a fiction, It's a myth," continued Bordewich, author of Washington: The Making of the American Capital and Bound for Canaan: The Underground Railroad and the War for the Soul of America. "It is nonsense. I could be blunter than that, but you get the drift. It's a meaningless term, 'black Confederates.' There is no evidence whatsoever from any responsible source that there was more than the occasional slave who was forced to serve in the war."
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@MyBallsYourFace91 (3/6)
Bordewich is not alone in his position. Top-ranking scholars have repeatedly torpedoed the myth, including Bruce Levine, the renowned professor of African-American studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Edwin Bearss, historian emeritus at the National Park Service; and Henry Louis "Skip" Gates, editor-in-chief of The Root and chair of Harvard's W.E.B. Du Bois Institute"
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@MyBallsYourFace91 (4/6)
"From a light-hearted point of view, if there were all these black Confederate soldiers, given that we don't see them show up [in historical records] as prisoners or killed or wounded, they must have been the best troops the Confederacy ever had, because they were never killed, wounded or captured. So an entire army of black Confederates would have been invincible.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@MyBallsYourFace91 (5/6)
If black Confederates were already there, one is at a loss to understand why white Southerners debated so ferociously over the introduction of blacks in the Confederate army late in the war. Certainly, there were blacks who accompanied the Confederate armies — servants of officers, wagon drivers, cooks, teamsters and the like. But they weren't there, by and large, of their own volition." Professor Brooks Simpson
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@MyBallsYourFace91 (6/6)
So sorry it is you that is on the side of those that deny the reality of history as historians will tell you that the Civil War was caued by slavery and that the idea of there being all thse black confederate soldiers willingly fighting to keep themsleves in slavery it a lie. And I have the degrees and accreditation to teach this at all the higher levels education. Your post was ignorant and laughable.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 Jeez, you're really passionate about that, eh?
Troggleboggle 1 month ago
@Troggleboggle
Yes, I guess so, but a history teacher passionate about the accuracy of how history is presented should not be unusual.
Besides... Buffalo soldiers? You would think he would think of checking a bit before posting that. It was like he was TRYING to insult his own competency and intelligence. And with the tone of his post I was under no obligation to show him any patience. He is so certain and proud of his little tidbit, and yet so ridiculously wrong, it's both sad and funny.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@darkwarriorkane (2/4)
"It's a myth," continued Bordewich, author of Washington: The Making of the American Capital and Bound for Canaan: The Underground Railroad and the War for the Soul of America. "It is nonsense. I could be blunter than that, but you get the drift. It's a meaningless term, 'black Confederates.' There is no evidence whatsoever from any responsible source that there was more than the occasional slave who was forced to serve in the war."
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@darkwarriorkane (3/4)
Bordewich is not alone in his position. Top-ranking scholars have repeatedly torpedoed the myth, including Bruce Levine, the renowned professor of African-American studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Edwin Bearss, historian emeritus at the National Park Service; and Henry Louis "Skip" Gates, editor-in-chief of The Root and chair of Harvard's W.E.B. Du Bois Institute"
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@darkwarriorkane (4/4)
And a Swastika like symbol has been used by many cultures, but it was never a Jewish symbol. And the Swastika the Nazis used represented racism and hatred, just as the flag of the Confederacy represents racism and slavery.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fuck this video
fuck TYT
right wing teacher? the kid can't have his own views?
nazi flag is not even close to the confederate flag.
What the hell is wrong with these people?
blackrebelmuslim 1 month ago