RIP Araysar

Ossoi said:

you mean a country with natural gas reserves has cheaper electricity than a country without? Imagine my shock.


The only thing less shocking is that you've been away sulking for god knows how long but you still rely on last years material.

Click to expand...

zzeris said:

That became defacto US law bub. That's a little stronger than a single year's ban, isn't it?

Click to expand...

Yes, because power and loss of power was the primary initiator of the Civil War. Sure, free labor was a part of that but not all of it. Not by a long shot.

Click to expand...

Very true except who had the power disadvantage in the 1850s? Who had every single agreement discarded because the other side was disingenuous? Sure, slave states used slaves as a means to maintain a balance of power with northern states but the underlying issue, just like today is over power.

Again, do modern Dems care about blacks and Hispanics? Just like 19th century Dems, they don't. Are you sure the underlying positions over 150 years ago were specifically about slavery for everyone, or just certain parties? Did Russia invade Ukraine primarily to help Russian speaking people or did they do it to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO? Could both be primary reasons? Could there be more primary reasons for the Civil War than muh slavery!!!? The answer is obviously yes.

Click to expand...

Araysar said:

I'm talking about one slave owner promoting it in the year that it was passed, not that the law was only valid for one year. But that obscures the larger point?

So fucking what? A single slave owner could have a dozen reasons to promote that ban if he wanted to. Literally meaningless.






And the power was ultimately derived from slaves. So slavery is the primary initiator of the civil war as clearly stated by Mississippi declaration of secession. They didn't open the Declaration by saying "we are seceding because Northerns are trying to take away our power". They said "we are seceding because Northerns wants to get rid of slavery and our economy and social order can't exist without slavery"

Furthermore, the abolitionist movement predates the formation of US, many northerners I clouding some Founding Fathers opposed slavery on moral grounds.





The 19th century slave holding Dems literally tell you point blank in their Declarations that they are seceding because of slavery. Slavery being the institution on which they have built their entire economic system and social order. The wrangling in Congress over power and 3/5ths compromise only exists insofar to preserve that institution of slavery. This can't be made anymore clearer. This is factual historical record, offered by themselves.

You have this relationship backwards. You think the wrangling over slavery exists simply to jostle for power in DC but in reality, the jostling for power in DC exists to preserve institution of slavery in the South in which their entire economy and society was built.

Click to expand...

Virginia Ordinance of Secession (April 17, 1861) - Encyclopedia Virginia

An Ordinance To repeal the ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, by the State of Virginia, and to resume all the rights and powers granted under said Constitution. The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America...

encyclopediavirginia.org

Palum said:

I'm hoping LLR does the Christlike thing for Christmas.

Click to expand...

Araysar said:

"Made even more ridiculous by the fact that they are most likely doing it on the mistaken belief that the civil war was about slavery when it wasn't. The slavery connection comes from the 1960s when the Democrats, under JFK, wanted to find a way to increase their standing amongst black people so they rewrote history - literally. I mean hell, Lincoln and his fellow Northerners had to hold speeches and write articles telling their soldiers that they were fighting for other, more important things, than to free some joggers, since none of them wanted to fight for that.

They also ignore the question as to why these monuments were built in the first place, especially during the timeframe of about 1890-1920, when those who fought and survived were in their senior years. It was done as a means to heal a rift in the nation, as an acknowledgment that both sides had points they fought for, that mistakes were made by both sides, and most importantly, there were heroes on both sides fighting for what they believed in.

It's this more than anything that pisses me off about the whole fucking thing. But that's what you get when you either stop teaching history, or teach a false version of it.". -- @Aaron

Come on bro, "States Rights" is mid-20th century revisionism to distance the Confederacy from slavery. Up until the civil rights era no one had any problems with Civil War being fought about slavery until the Left made it culturally verboten. In the secession proclamation of several states like Mississippi and South Carolina they openly state that they are seceding because of slavery because slavery is the most important thing.

Here is Mississippi's version, note how they get right to it in 2nd paragraph. No need to waste time. And they don't switch gears because there was basically no other reason for them.

"A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

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. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it."

Click to expand...

zzeris said:

For some states, it was imperative to maintain slaves for their business enterprises. Especially South Carolina's rice trade. For others, it was more trying to balance the aggression of the northern states. The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 was easily passed by Congress and promoted by a slave owner in a slave state. The 3/5ths clause was specifically put in to balance power between southern and northern states, and it was the northern states who didn't feel like blacks were people and still didn't pay 'free' black people for their work. The biggest riots of the 19th century were in northern states that 'hired' black people for cheap labor which pissed off mainly immigrants. The most powerful people in the South owned slaves and 'represented' their interests in Congress but a lot of the issues for many southerners was the efforts by the north to take their representation. Just like Dems are doing today with their efforts to end the electoral college.

In the end, representation of the South was shit on and 'free states' were the excuse to push northern regional superiority into national superiority, much like Dems are doing today with their transgender, DEI, and racism pushes. What we see with illegal immigration is EXACTLY what the northern states were doing in in 19th century. Are Democrats and some GOP businessmen trying to save those poor Hispanics from their own bad decisions? Or are they trying to get cheap labor while pushing for illegals to vote? It's the same kind of power play and has little to do with helping poor negros or poor Mejicanos.

Click to expand...

Araysar said:

I'm talking about one slave owner promoting it in the year that it was passed, not that the law was only valid for one year. But that obscures the larger point?

So fucking what? A single slave owner could have a dozen reasons to promote that ban if he wanted to. Literally meaningless.






And the power was ultimately derived from slaves. So slavery is the primary initiator of the civil war as clearly stated by Mississippi declaration of secession. They didn't open the Declaration by saying "we are seceding because Northerns are trying to take away our power". They said "we are seceding because Northerns wants to get rid of slavery and our economy and social order can't exist without slavery"

Furthermore, the abolitionist movement predates the formation of US, many northerners I clouding some Founding Fathers opposed slavery on moral grounds.





The 19th century slave holding Dems literally tell you point blank in their Declarations that they are seceding because of slavery. Slavery being the institution on which they have built their entire economic system and social order. The wrangling in Congress over power and 3/5ths compromise only exists insofar to preserve that institution of slavery. This can't be made anymore clearer. This is factual historical record, offered by themselves.

You have this relationship backwards. You think the wrangling over slavery exists simply to jostle for power in DC but in reality, the jostling for power in DC exists to preserve institution of slavery in the South in which their entire economy and society was built.

Click to expand...

Chris said:

That's Easter, not Christmas. Totally different Pagan festival masquerading as a Jewish festival.

Making Araysar sleep in a barn would be more appropriate, which is kinda what the rickshaw is.

Click to expand...