ITT: Peak silent kino, pic very related.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
ITT: Peak silent kino, pic very related.
ITT: Peak silent kino, pic very related.
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
|
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
DO IT AGAIN, UNCLE BILLY!
>Following the 1866 Fetterman Massacre, in which 81 U.S. soldiers were ambushed and killed by Native American warriors, Sherman telegraphed Grant that "we must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children."[235] In 1867, he wrote to Grant that "we are not going to let a few thieving, ragged Indians check and stop the progress" of the railroads.[236]
It's just funny to me that this has become the left's rallying figure in civil war discussion
>1866
>Civil War
anon?
Tecumseh Sherman was a Union general in the Civil War. When discussing the Civil War, progressives cheer him on because he was so brutal against Confederates, which are imagined as the equivalent of today's right-wing. By making him into a darling military/historical figure, they get to feel like they're both patriotic and progressive. Bring up anything else he did and either the room goes silent or the former "patriots" become indian-loving turncoats in an instant.
You're upset he killed some natives who massacred his soldiers? This is really the post you're making?
No, I'm laughing that the same people who call him "Uncle Billy" when they want to antagonize people in Civil War discussion would also call him Hitler in any other context. You choose how you feel about him depending on who you're trying to rebel against at that moment.
What's the discussion about the Civil War that hasn't already been talked to death for the last 150 odd years? The South lost and hundreds of thousands died for a bunch of useless wealthy plantation owners. The Confederates fought for nothing of good or of any worth, and I can tell you're a little flustered since you need to bring up the frick off Sioux.
Ah, I understand that you can only comprehend comprehend one issue per topic.
Pretend if you will, a different war but this war was about the rights of the people and the rights of a state or oblast or a sub region within a country. Can you do that?
The right of the people and the state to do what exactly?
Do you feel any shame that I have to spell it out for you?
To challenge the federal government. An example would be if an Oblast of Russia wanted to legalize gay marriage or trans rights, but no Russian Oblast has that power. Only Putin has the say so.
Challenge the government because the government is doing what?
>To challenge the federal government. An example would be if an Oblast of Russia wanted to legalize gay marriage or trans rights, but no Russian Oblast has that power. Only Putin has the say so.
Don't depend your entire economy on sugar, cotton and slaves. Don't drive down white people's wages, hire them. Don't important and breed so many of the people who you consider subhuman.
It matters more that people have the right to live unmolested by their Federal Government. That is why I created a modern hypothetical situation for you.
Unless you believe that Russians Trans and PoC don't deserve rights?
In this case it's reframing things so that Union = modern left-wing and Confederacy = modern right-wing, which allows them to feign being patriotic. The irony comes when you take one step outside of the Civil War and point out that everything American would be considered extreme far right today, and none of the supposed Sherman fans would claim any of it as their beliefs.
Any power not given to the Federal government by the Constitution, including the right to secede and form their own country, which is what the Declaration of Independence described as a God-given right.
Secede why? I get you believe in the Lost Cause and "it was about states rights" but you need to just come out and say what rights those were. What was the particular intuition in the South at the time which doubled as the backbone of the economy? Or should I say the cornerstone? kek. If you set up a system dependent on free labour and human misery, it's your own damn fault if your economy would collapse in the absence of it. Most Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves. That's not a defence of their character, just a statement of fact of these absolute downtrodden poor fricks swindled by a bunch of billion equivalents to today. The South got a sweet deal at the end of it anyway, their culture wasn't entirely uprooted and obliterated, slave owners largely were unpunished and even compensated, and the states were in agreement to be readmitted back to the Union. Confederate politicians and military commanders got slaps on the wrist, reconstruction was thrown away, and the South operated pretty much exactly like it did decades before. What else do Dixie-stans want?
>and the states were in agreement to be readmitted back to the Union.
I think you mean forced with the threat of death back into the Union.
It's actually amazing how you can't address anything in my post.
I am this guy, also I quoted you directly with no embellishment.
>Secede why?
Any reason they want
>I get you believe in the Lost Cause and "it was about states rights" but you need to just come out and say what rights those were. What was the particular intuition in the South at the time which doubled as the backbone of the economy? Or should I say the cornerstone? kek. If you set up a system dependent on free labour and human misery, it's your own damn fault if your economy would collapse in the absence of it
No you don't, but say it was 100% because they wanted to keep slavery going. What is your argument against that supposed to be? It's not going to be a Constitutional argument, it's not going to be an American argument. The states are allowed to say "we want to keep having slaves" and do what they need to do to pursue life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness.
> Most Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves. That's not a defence of their character, just a statement of fact of these absolute downtrodden poor fricks swindled by a bunch of billion equivalents to today
The average non slave owning soldier joined the fight either to defend their home state or because if slavery was forced to an end, they would have 4 million free Africans living in their territories that they would suddenly have to deal with.
What argument does one need to make to convince the other side that chattel slavery and breeding them on breeding farms is immoral and inhuman? Slavery didn't even help the South, it created a greater wealth disparity between normal people and landowners than has ever been seen in the history of the United States.
>The average non slave owning soldier joined the fight either to defend their home state or because if slavery was forced to an end, they would have 4 million free Africans living in their territories that they would suddenly have to deal with.
Yeah sounds like a South problem to me. Should have won the unwinnable conflict, don't know what else to tell you Cleetus.
>What argument does one need to make to convince the other side that chattel slavery and breeding them on breeding farms is immoral and inhuman?
Here's the thing though, immoral and inhuman doesn't mean not allowed. Many prominent politicians since the founding of the country believed that slavery was terrible. Even Robert E. Lee believed that. But, the law doesn't boil down to "quit being chuds!" If that's the system people wanted, that's the system they got. The northern states decided to end slavery, the southern states wanted to keep it. It's the basis of our separation from Great Britain that people get to have the sort of government that they want.
>When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
>they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
So again, what argument can you make? It won't be an American argument, you'd have to argue for fascism or dictatorship to oppose it.
>denial of basic human autonomy and freedom of the individual
>not fascistic
Yes, that is what you're advocating. Now for the third time, answer my question.
Yes, I am advocating for basic human autonomy and freedom, and I am against the idea a human being can and should be owned and exploited for profit.
That's your own moral code then, not an argument from American historical law and philosophy. The United States had legal slavery when it was founded. Its founders by and large owned slaves, even the ones who believed slavery overall was immoral. They ended it for themselves gradually, state by state, democratically. To impose it on states who wanted to keep slavery would be tyrannical, whether you consider it a good use of a tyrant's powers or not. At that point, the earliest American principle ever put to paper stated that the Southern states were within their rights to form their own government that better suited them and their needs.
No, that's an objective moral. It is objectively true that slavery is morally reprehensible and didn't benefit the average Southerner. Screaming about so-called tyranny just makes you sound like a gigantic b***h.
>No, that's an objective moral. It is objectively true that slavery is morally reprehensible
Cool, and I even agree with you. But that has nothing to do with anything. It's not necessarily illegal to be mean. If your only perspective on this is "frick your freedom and sovereignty, what about the non-citizens?" then you have no standing in a discussion of the Civil War. You might as well be arguing that the United States shouldn't exist at all because it's all indian land.
DO YOU SUPPORT LGBTQ+ RIGHTS IN RUSSIA?
Everything you've said itt shows me you don't agree with me in the slightest. Yes, frick your "freedom" to own people, moron. You're a morally bankrupt worm and some part of you knows this, which is why you probably keep these moronic discussions on anonymous image boards where you're safe and secure.
>It's not necessarily illegal to be mean.
It's neither illegal or mean to engage in warfare against rebelling states either, but here you are b***hing about the Confederacy testing their theories and values on the field of battle and hilariously losing.
I agreed that it's immoral. Immoral doesn't mean nobody's allowed to do it.
If you're still arguing against me, you don't understand what my point is. In a discussion of the Civil War, your argument leaves you on the side of neither the Union nor the Confederacy. You're fundamentally opposed to both of them because your only concern is non-citizen Africans, not the principles of the nation or anyone else's rights. Will you at least admit to that?
I don't want to hear anything about the legality of slavery because it's irrelevant. Something being legal doesn't make it acceptable and incapable of being argued against, a simple example would be the tobacco industry or civil forfeiture.
>In a discussion of the Civil War, your argument leaves you on the side of neither the Union nor the Confederacy. You're fundamentally opposed to both of them because your only concern is non-citizen Africans, not the principles of the nation or anyone else's rights. Will you at least admit to that?
No, and this is a moronic thing to even say since the rights of Southern Abolitionists and Unionists didn't matter. And the Confederacy weren't just for their own right to own and permit the institution of slavery, they were fighting to expand slavery into states (Border states) and didn't side with the Confederates and into Indian territory they had no claim or moral/legal right to.
>I don't want to hear anything about the legality of slavery because it's irrelevant.
That's what you demanded we talk about at the start of the conversation. "States' rights." Now you're arguing that even if it is their right, it isn't, because you personally don't want them to do it.
>No, and this is a moronic thing to even say since the rights of Southern Abolitionists and Unionists didn't matter.
If there were enough of them, their states would've abolished slavery, but more wanted to keep the institution.
>And the Confederacy weren't just for their own right to own and permit the institution of slavery, they were fighting to expand slavery into states (Border states)
Even Thomas Jefferson, who was an abolitionist, wanted to increase the number of slave states, ironically to help gradually end slavery by spreading them out more and diffusing them over a larger area. This quote from him might help you put a lot of the pro-slavery side into perspective,
>there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would, to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any practicable way. the cession of that kind of property, for so it is misnamed, is a bagatelle which would not cost me in a second thought, if, in that way, a general emancipation and expatriation could be effected: and, gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. but, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.
In Abraham Lincoln's campaign speeches, he stated that blacks aren't equal to whites and that he didn't desire to make them equals or even to free them.
So again, in a discussion of the Civil War, you're both anti-Confederate and anti-Union. You don't have a side in this and "Uncle Billy" wasn't your hero.
DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD BAN GUNS?
>States rights
To engage in a morally reprehensible institution known as human chattel slavery as stated in Alexander Stephens' Cornerstone Speech. That's literally all that needs to be said. I'm 100% certain I know more about Antebellum South, the Civil War, and the Reconstruction Era than you do. I think this can mostly be attributed to how much you homosexuals hold dear to historical revisionism and the Lost Cause.
You are the lost cause.
As expert as I'm sure you are, your only beliefs, your only arguments, revolve entirely around the slaves. Any knowledge you have about the subject, none of it has been used to reflect on or understand the rights of Americans and the principles of the United States.
I'll even give you the opportunity to establish a principle for yourself, where if you can't agree with this, then I'm convinced you never had a genuine argument to begin with:
Many third world nations have laws that we in the US, including and probably especially you, find morally reprehensible. Do you believe that the United States should invade all of Africa, South and Central America, the Middle East, and parts of Asia and wreak havoc until they run their societies how (you) believe they should?
The entire war revolved around slavery.
The president of the Union said "frick slaves" and most didn't care either way
That's cool bro.
here the dumbass leftoid admits that he is a dumbass leftoid who has no real opinions or values besides whatever his emotions compel him to do and think
don't talk to leftists, don't respond to leftists
(i am not talking to him, i am talking to the humans in the thread)
you are a moronic Black person homosexual that sucks Putins wiener.
>nooo, don't make me answer a question I haven't read the answer to on twitter! what am I supposed to say?!
Is that the end of this, then?
No, I didn't even read your posts. You are a moronic vodka Black person for being so incredibly trolled that you keep wasting time with logical well thought out and explained arguments, but you slurp up this Black folk shit like some kinda Indian that eats with his left hand and poo's in the river.
Can you point me towards a legal document stating what right the confederate states had to expand slavery into the border states and the west? just one paper.
Why would they not have the right to advocate for that?
why would they?
Because it's a normal political matter
This post doesn't mean anything, it's just words. what right did the confederate states have to expand slavery outside the south?
Unless there's something that prevents them the right to say they want slavery in newly admitted territories, what are you getting at?
What newly admitted territories? What about the border states, why didn't you say anything about them?
The border states already had slavery
That agreed to stay in the Union and gradually reduce slavery and eventually end it. So uh again, why did the Confederates go to war over this when they weren't in any danger of losing their status as slave states?
And the Confederate states didn't agree to stay in the Union or end slavery, so they seceded. This brought about a war which we today call The American Civil War.
>And the Confederate states didn't agree to stay in the Union or end slavery
They weren't being asked to end slavery they were told that new states and border states wouldn't be slave states. But aristocrats gonna aristocrat and 160 years later some moron is still defending said aristocrats.
Also let's take a moment to appreciate the fact the Confederate constitution made succession illegal.
As abolition becoming a growing movement and more states abolished slavery, they figured they'd be better off breaking away and setting up their own government that caters entirely to their states instead of trying to compromise with free states over everything. This is what the Founding Fathers said was supposed to happen when there were fundamental political disagreements.
do you know why border states were border states
DO YOU SUPPORT CLOSED BOARDERS FOR ISRAEL?
Stop humoring the redditor.
>Any power not given to the Federal government by the Constitution, including the right to secede and form their own country
Seceding because of supposed governmental tyranny didn't make too much sense to me because the declaration of independence granted certain freedoms to those born in America, yet the very idea of slavery (the one issue founding fathers were very touchy about because they had to present a unified front) restricts peoples' freedoms. Only a small portion of antebellum south had slaves on the levels we imagine today, yet its those people and some others for various reasons that drove the policy for secession. The slaveholding senator class with the most to lose were the ones who started the war.
>the declaration of independence granted certain freedoms to those born in America, yet the very idea of slavery (the one issue founding fathers were very touchy about because they had to present a unified front) restricts peoples' freedoms.
It wasn't so much "those born in America," it was Americans, who were white people by definition. Their policies and their philosophies were developed to guide the future of their own people.
>Only a small portion of antebellum south had slaves on the levels we imagine today, yet its those people and some others for various reasons that drove the policy for secession.
As was expressed in the Jefferson quote many posts back, many people would have been fine with slavery ending in theory, but not if there wasn't a damned solid plan to deal with its aftermath. Imagine if there was a serious movement to abolish the meat industry, and the only plan for the billion of cows, pigs, and chickens afterwards was "just release them next to peoples' homes and walk away"
>many people would have been fine with slavery ending in theory
Who? Aristocratic slave owners? Frick you right in the ass homosexual, they harboured no such beliefs and again, went to way to expand their enterprise outside their own states.
The common man, the soldiers.
Here's one of Lincoln's cabinet members, Montgomery Blair, describing the situation:
>The problem before us is the practical one of dealing with the relations of masses of two different, races in the same community. The calamities now upon us have been brought about, as I have already said, not by the grievances of the class claiming property in slaves, but by the jealousy of caste awakened by the secessionists in the non-slaveholders.
>It was by proclaiming to the laboring whites, who fill the armies of rebellion, 5 that the election of Mr. Lincoln involved emancipation, equality of the Black folks with them, and consequently amalgamation, that their jealousy was stimulated to the fighting point.
>Nor is this jealousy the fruit of mere ignorance
and bad passion, as some suppose, or confined to the white people of the South. On the contrary, it belongs to all races, and, like all popular instincts, proceeds from the highest wisdom. It is, in fact, the instinct of self-preservation which revolts at hybridism.
They didn't care about slavery, they just didn't want to have the freed slaves dumped all over them.
The common man and soldiers weren't making policy, they were starving and fricking dying for wealthy land-owning slavers.
And they fought because they had their own stake in it
What stake?
Not having 4 million Africans freed next to their homes
You're acting as if this was already the set course for the eventuality of the end of slavery when Lincoln was going to allow the slave states to remain fricking slave states. Your history is all fricking wrong and moronic and you should feel bad for being such a moron.
They could see it coming, which obviously it did. Your frustration doesn't make your argument look more convincing.
>They could see it coming
See what coming?
The end of slavery throughout the US, Black citizenship, and mixed society
None of these were guarantees and again for like the third or fourth time, Lincoln was willing to let them keep slavery just to hold the Union together. That's again, for the third or fourth time now, not to say he was first considering stripping slavery away from them, he wasn't. The entire fricking conflict hinged on the absolute 100% indisputable fact that the Southern states wanted to expand slavery into border states new states carved out of the West (in violation of treaties and the rights of Native Americans). The war had nothing to do with their own slaves. You saying the end of slavery was the only inevitable outcome is just a poor justification for why the Confederates went to war and it doesn't make any sense.
They were predictions that turned out to be true.
>Lincoln was willing to let them keep slavery just to hold the Union together.
But for how long? You had a growing abolitionist movement with a lot of momentum behind it, slavery was being phased out throughout the Union and in new territories. They figured it was a matter of time, which of course it was.
>You saying the end of slavery was the only inevitable outcome is just a poor justification for why the Confederates went to war and it doesn't make any sense.
Technically speaking, they went to war because the Union came after them with cannons. If they were able to leave peacefully, the war wouldn't have happened.
>Technically speaking, they went to war because the Union came after them with cannons.
Nope.
That is true
Fort Sumter grew legs and walked too close to Confederate borders?
It was in the Confederate state of South Carolina. They asked the Union army to leave, which they refused.
No, it was in the US state of Carolina and was the property of the US Federal government.
South Carolina*
South Carolina had seceded from the Union, and asked the now foreign military to leave its border
As I previously showed you, the attempt to secede was illegal and in violation of the US Constituion and the ideas of the Union in the minds and writing of the Founding Fathers.
You didn't show that, which is why we got to this point in the conversation, and now you're doubling back to avoid my current point
I feel like an American should understand the Constituion and specifically the 10th Amendment.
So what you're saying is, they picked a fight, then lost it.
They at least won that fight. When everyone else started fighting, it got messy.
The yankees have always had more people and more materials. It was an entirely meme-based decision because they'd never expect they would actually lose to the northerners, despite the northerners having every advantage.
>It was in the Confederate state of South Carolina.
The federal, judicial, and legislative government didn't agree and let South Caroline secede from the United States
The South Carolina state government had exercised its power
Where did these powers come from?
The powers granted to the state not enumerated in the Constitution
So if it wasn't in the constitution, then it's just the powers they gave themselves.
With nothing to actually back it up.
Whatever isn't granted to the Federal Government is granted to the states to decide for themselves
It sounds like a poor decision to pick a fight with a power that has more manpower and resources than you, and has no current distractions from resolving your insurrection, and who are your literal geographical neighbors.
No see I already explained to you that secession wasn't legal earlier. And this is a pretty remarkable argument you're trying to make from a legal standpoint when the Confederates didn't bother trying to go through any sort of legal process before raiding armouries and attacking forts. The Confederacy knew full well that their cessation was about as legal under US law as the American cessation was under British law.
>No see I already explained to you that secession wasn't legal earlier.
No, you tried to post the Articles of Confederation, which hadn't been in effect in US politics in nearly a century by then
>No, you tried to post the Articles of Confederation
Because you in your infinite moronation made the moronic play of trying to say the Founding Fathers supported unilateral secession despite the fact the state they created specifically forbade it.
>despite the fact the state they created specifically forbade it
For a few years while they were still fighting the Revolutionary War, and then they didn't include it when they came up with the finalized US Constitution
Excuse me moron?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland
Are you talking about the same Constitution that gives the Federal government broads powers such as this? Cause I hope for your argument's sake, you're not doing that.
That's a case of a state trying to do something TO the federal government, not to be independent
>In its ruling, the Supreme Court established firstly that the "Necessary and Proper" Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. federal government certain implied powers necessary and proper for the exercise of the powers enumerated explicitly in the Constitution, and secondly that the American federal government is supreme over the states, and so states' ability to interfere with the federal government is restricted.
You are actually fricking moronic, that's all there is to say. Like actually 100% mentally challenged.
That doesn't apply to secession though
>the American federal government is supreme over the states
>so states' ability to interfere with the federal government is restricted.
The states can't make policies that prevent the federal government from being able to do its job. The federal government functions exactly the same after secession, to those in its jurisdiction.
lmfao
Is that the end of your argument?
When you're not part of the United States, the federal government does not affect you, nor you it. The Confederate states had left the system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
lol
What state law conflicts federal law here? You haven't even argued that there is a federal law forbidding it. The closest you got is that you have an idea that there probably ought to be, based on a defunct and short-lived policy that preceded the Constitution and wasn't in effect at any point in that century.
In what universe do you believe it's the Federal government's right to stop a state from taxing a national bank, but it isn't the right of the Federal government to prevent a rebelling state from rebelling and attacking a federally owned fort?
In one example a state is requiring the federal government to pay taxes to it, in another a state isn't a part of the country
In what universe do you believe it's the Federal government's right to stop a state from taxing a national bank, but it isn't the right of the Federal government to prevent a rebelling state from rebelling and attacking a federally owned fort?
If you're going to ignore my answer, then while you're thinking of a response to it, let's look at this a little closer. First you said secession itself was illegal. Now you're saying it wasn't illegal BUT they fricked up by attacking a US fort that was in their state. Right?
Yeah but in what universe?
Cutting off a limb is both making the limb independent of the body while also doing something to the body itself
In Mccolluch v Maryland, the supreme court said that Congress had the power to create, but states did not have the power to destroy federal creations. In that case they said Maryland's tax on the national bank was unconstitutional because it would allow them potentially to thwart any federal program. If that was not a power reserved to the states then leaving the union definitely isn't.
What powers?
But whose powers are they if the state doesn't intend to belong to the union anymore? They can't claim to be part of a set (through claiming that their actions are legal in that sets law) while simultaneously claiming that they were separate from that set.
Most soldiers didn't give a frick about slavery, that's mostly true. It's also true most didn't own slaves since they were poor fricks being fricked up the ass by slave owners to the point of fighting for their sole interests, whether they understood it or not.
>It wasn't so much "those born in America," it was Americans, who were white people by definition. Their policies and their philosophies were developed to guide the future of their own people.
They would've written that in the Constitution then, but free blacks have been a part of America since its early years as a British colony. Slavery was always a touching issue that the founding fathers procrastinated on which came to a head. Your definition of white isn't even their definition of white, as those such as the Germans weren't included. It was intentionally left to be open ended and applicable to all.
>As was expressed in the Jefferson quote many posts back, many people would have been fine with slavery ending in theory, but not if there wasn't a damned solid plan to deal with its aftermath.
He had the IQ, political skill, wisdom, and sense of clemency, but confederate gays couldn't take the L. The country wouldn't been so much different if not for the incompetency that followed Lincoln. Lincoln had won his second term and only then freed the slaves in the 13th amendment, he understood the value of taking time and gathering support.
>They would've written that in the Constitution then
They had other policies to express that. The first meeting of Congress established that only white people could be citizens of the United States. Free blacks were resident aliens. This was also a view expressed in the personal writings of virtually every Founder.
>Your definition of white isn't even their definition of white, as those such as the Germans weren't included
You're referring to a famous quote by Benjamin Franklin, who was speaking literally rather than racially, much less legally. Even eye-talians were present at the signing of the Declaration of Independence and were considered white.
>They had other policies to express that. The first meeting of Congress established that only white people could be citizens of the United States. Free blacks were resident aliens. This was also a view expressed in the personal writings of virtually every Founder.
They've expanded the limits of citizenship consistently since that first meeting anyway. And what exactly what was their definition of white at the point? And also expressed in the personal writings of every founder is their own personal qualms about owning slaves with some being against it personally but having to support it for political reasons.
>You're referring to a famous quote by Benjamin Franklin
I'm not, the Germans held very little political power until the mid 1800s after period of integration. Being present at the signing doesn't equal a signature. The limits of broad power in the colonial eras and early United States era on a state and national level was restricted to British ancestry at first, then slowly expanded outwards.
And I'm looking through the notes of the first meeting of Congress now, what exactly did they to say to define that the constitution's policies and their philosophies were developed to guide the future of their own people?
>They've expanded the limits of citizenship consistently since that first meeting anyway.
Not they, people hundreds of years later and for various reasons.
>And what exactly what was their definition of white at the point?
People of European heritage.
>And also expressed in the personal writings of every founder is their own personal qualms about owning slaves with some being against it personally but having to support it for political reasons.
Right, which is also true of many Confederate generals.
> I'm looking through the notes of the first meeting of Congress now, what exactly did they to say to define that the constitution's policies and their philosophies were developed to guide the future of their own people?
What else what the Constitution of their own country do?
>Not they, people hundreds of years later and for various reasons.
Starting with 1868, free blacks were only considered resident aliens because of the issue the ideas of citizenship would bring towards the idea of slavery.
>People of European heritage.
Where do they bring this up in the meetings? I'm reading through the summaries of the first meetings and they're talking about tax stuff and import laws and such. House of Representatives, 1st Congress, 1st Session is pulled up, along with Senate, 1st Congress, 1st Session.
And that's the problem, there was no general vote amongst the free population of the seceding states, who were citizens of the United States. They never had a choice to leave. They fought for various reasons. Slavery itself would've died out as it died out in all other societies anyway. They only used Africans to assuage their guilt / justify their actions to themselves by using a people's vastly different.
>What else what the Constitution of their own country do?
The constitution that was intended to be amended and changed according to the will of the people for their benefit and to pursue the things plainly outlined in the constitution.
It's a joke moron
Well, its a shit joke then because it wasn't funny, and was the typical npc-response smooth brained morons like you trot out when called out for your own bullshit. Frick off moron.
Not even that anon.
You hit the nail dead on, the same people who burn the USA flag all of a sudden become patriots the moment the civil war, ww2 or jan 6 are brought up, all of a sudden everyone who disagrees is a traitor to the nation and American warcrimes are super hecking wholesome 100.
>??
woman post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_Canyon
the peaceful berrypicking Sioux.
Leftists are morons, film at eleven
I only cheer him on to piss off the Confederate supporters, he's known in history for brutality for a reason.
The south needs a regular dose of extreme brutality- when we yankees don't provide it, they start doing it to themselves. And then they start thinking they're our -equals- because we both can brutalize the south, which is disgusting.
naw, we needed a stronger leader. Johnson couldn't cut it.
Don't frick with America
He was a goddam great American. Him, along with men like George Patton we're unlikely to see the likes of again.
>DO IT AGAIN, UNCLE BILLY!
DO IT AGAIN, UNCLE BILLY
CMON YOU SILLY OLD FOOL D'YA KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS IT MEANS
>southern tears
DO IT AGAIN UNCLE BILLY
it's the contrarian thing to do now
wonder if liberals realize what sherman said about slavery Lmao
>Black folks in the great numbers that exist here must of necessity be slaves. Theoretical notions of humanity and religion cannot shake the commercial fact that their labor is of great value and cannot be dispensed with
still burned Georgia that makes him based
>oh whoops we just attacked all the civilians in Georgia, how will we recover?
>lets attack all the civilians in the other states and make up some fake moral bs
DIXIE are a soul.
A unique people.
Dixie aren’t responsible for goldberg and goldbergs “temporary foreign workers”/slaves.
Especially without true state rights.
>oh lets give all the foreign workers citizenship and destroy your unique people.
No.
As a Dixiegay plz burn Atlanta.
>so cucked you draw something like this
wowsers
sherman was a Black person lover
people are throwing tantrums on Reddit because of this
By showing silent films from People of Colour
>(per 100,00 population)
>100,00 population
>100,00
So, is it "10,000" or "100,00"?
Birth of a Nation is good. The climax is legit heroic
I don't understand you. Are you racist or not? Please understand, by modern standards racism is identifying some as black, however by a sane person's standards that would be a valid description of a human being.
Listen to David Dukes radio show
>was so kino that it started the second wave of the kkk
Unironically has any other movie had this much real world impact?
>it's another highschool drop-out chuds try to pretend to be history MAs on an anonymous image board dedicated to Tibetan Dry Pottery
Southern LARP film made by a Freemason. Yawn
Dixie gays are honestly some of the biggest cucks on this side of the planet. Hundreds of thousands of poor uneducated hillbillies fought and died in a war to protect the interests of an aristocratic larping elite who wanted to preserve the right own and breed Black folk on an industrial scale, thereby driving jobs down and making poverty for the same white trash that much worse.
>It's another leftard malding that they lost the culture war and had to cuck post on the internet.
a recent remake was airing on tv in france
i legitimately don't understand what's so bad about it
>I gradually came to hate them
kino
Look, Hitler was a controversial guy, but who here is gonna be the dumbfrick that tries to say he ain't spittin?
great post in that screencap. now I see what people mean that the site has gone to shit.
I know this is just a shit throwaway thread, but the reaction to that film actually did lead to the peak of Silent Film kink when Griffith made Intolerance.
DO NOT RESPOND TO LEFTISTS
This. Also, consider reading the rules and FAQ to learn more about many different things like
>quoting
or how not to bump a thread
>the troonoid's copypasta has been deleted
good work, jannies, those raiding troons dont belong in a board where we discuss movies. Fricking insects.
The Union didn't go to war to end slavery in the South, that wasn't the issue. The Confederate rebelled and went to war in an attempt to expand their moronic institution outside of their borders, just to make a handful of rich homosexuals even richer.
>[T]he Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
>Article II.
>Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/99-02-02-2655
>But the ability & motives disclosed in the Essays induce me to say in compliance with the wish expressed, that I do not consider the proceedings of Virginia in 98-99 as countenancing the doctrine that a State may at will secede from its constitutional compact with the other States. A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it
>It surely does not follow from the fact, of the States or rather people embodied in them, having as parties to the compact, no tribunal above them, that in controverted meanings of the Compact, a minority of the parties can rightfully decide against the majority; still less that a single party can decide against the rest, and as little that it can at will withdraw itself altogether, from a compact with the rest
It's not worth it to bring up the Founding Fathers to defend a state that rebelled against the very idea of the United States.
>It surely does not follow from the fact, of the States or rather people embodied in them, having as parties to the compact, no tribunal above them, that in controverted meanings of the Compact, a minority of the parties can rightfully decide against the majority; still less that a single party can decide against the rest
How many states were in the confederacy?
If the powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution are to remain in the hands of the United States and outside the responsibilities of the states, as the 10th clearly stipulates, then it really goes without saying that the states can't be independent. This isn't hard to understand. My advice, don't bring up the Founding Fathers to defend the Confederacy ever again. None of them would have agreed with it based on the legal documented they themselves drafted and the opinions they gave on the powers that hold the union together and why.
>If the powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution are to remain in the hands of the United States and outside the responsibilities of the states, as the 10th clearly stipulates, then it really goes without saying that the states can't be independent
As part of the Union they delegate certain powers to the Federal government, but obviously if they leave the Union, that doesn't apply anymore. There's nothing in the Constitution that says they may not secede, and the Articles of Confederation were a brief stepping stone before the Constitution, and was written sloppily enough to contradict itself in ways like "the Union must be perpetual and unchanging" "unless we decide to change it later"
No, it is literally not the right of any state to leave the Union unilaterally for any reason they can imagine.
A right given by God and Nature, as they said to King George
Yeah?
American 'history' is gay and uninteresting
The national debt is Israels not ours.
All victory to Canaan and the victims of Sherman etc.
My soul is for Dixie girls not Israels kings.
This post was made by a leaf who is possibly Pakistani or Chinese. He likes spamming every single homosexual general on Cinemaphile.
https://desuarchive.org/int/search/username/OwU/
No. I’m a white. But you however ARE an Israeli.
You can’t be apart of my world if you’re going to harm my people.
I don’t know what else to say about that.
No, unfortunately you are not white. The consensus on Cinemaphile is you are a shade of brown.
Gosh obviously a white wouldn’t be a racist Nazi?
How about you surprise me and turn out to be a cute girl lusting for my Nazi wiener instead of a boring waste of everyones time.
And all victory to the true souls of the Middle East and China.
DIXIE SOUL IS GOD
HEY
I WANT UTOPIA
HEY
I WANT PROGRESS
HEY
I WANT MY PEOPLE
Remember the ideals of true channers.
Think of what all true souls love for.
All victory to all whites.
Every nation is nationalism.
Every society is socialism.
All victory to all Nazis.
All victory to utopia.
Progress is progress.
THRIVE.
My peoples absolute divinity/love is unconditional.
End the confusion and meaningless facade conflicts.
Demand true progress.
Every Dixie does it for Dixie soul.
Dixie are a unique people.
A unique soul.
That wants to THRIVE utmost.
Any other explanation of the war is nonsense. Vast amounts of Dixie suffered with no association to nonsense claimed.
You would say that you can burn down New York because Amazon put a factory there full of 20 million “foreign workers” and New York refused to have the immigrants under the circumstance that Amazon is banned?
Dixie just didn’t want many Africans in the first place.
Besides, as of now Yankees get the idea. Any true yank wants Dixie to thrive and win. Lest the USA becomes a wasteland.
True yanks reject Israel.
As a native born american, the best thing that the south can do would be to perish entirely, other than texas, the one part of the south that does not rely entirely upon subsidy to survive, and actually produces more in tax income than it takes in in subsidy.
>as a native born diarrhea fart I want the death of white civilization
My love of Dixie is greater than your love of anything.
Especially the pile of dirt facade economy and facade government you hide under
I recall actually reading that Dixie pay far more than they get back. That their “taxes” are actually pure theft.
Besides, if the boarder situation hypothetically gets worse, the only Wild West will be in Texas, and love is well aware they’ll cure it before it bothers anyone else.
OwU
Victory to Canaan
Victory to philistines
Cured be Israel and its rotten soulless dreamless golem
>man I really LOVE being a welfare sponge
I know you do. No work ethic on any of you.
If this was your actual rationale you would also be arguing that the best thing black americans could do would be to perish, because as you know they also exist at an economic deficit.
I don't wish for them to perish, but your unoriginal and half baked take does.
What is it today with shills spouting progressive establishment talking points about historical events instigating flame wars on Cinemaphile? Take that shit to /misc/ or Cinemaphile.
>oh no, I've spammed thoroughly on every board and now am reviled
>those SHILLS!
How has there never been a fan dub of this with over the top accents?
Redditors are losing their shit over this kino. Slavery was obviously evil and most slave owners were israelites anyway but we fricked up by not sending all the Black folk back to Africa like Lincoln intended. If we would’ve done that everyone would have won.
Ironically, the movie does its best to make it clear that it's not a statement about the Civil War or any real life people. It uses the Civil War simply as a setting to tell a story about how resentment and retaliation can lead to a terrible chain of events that harms everyone.
People seem to find themselves cheering when the KKK shows up to run down the black soldiers, and then they get mad at the movie for making them feel that way when the whole time the film was trying to show them that violence is bad.
Like what Monroe did?
>Peak silent kino
Film
That was cool. Well worth wading though this thread to find
As of now, every true yankee is with Dixie.
Those who would sling shit and screeches at Dixie aren’t true Americans.
Blessings to utopia and thriving true society. Blessings to true leaders.
Blessings to SOUL.
The future of the USA isn’t Congo-Israel.
>having a schizo meltdown because you've been called a welfare queen
lol
Pay off the “national debt”, Israel.
My people don’t belong to y’all.
Besides, we own the farms. There’s nothing else in America except the farms.
Canadians have free healthcare and all drugs legal and rebuke Israel and reject Israel in every way.
All Dixie reject Israel and its kings. We worship the love/divinity of each other and get fat and breed and crush y’all under our fat tomboy potbellies and fat futa thighs.
We choose progress and utopia while y’all parasites grasp desperately to the belief a single damn Dixie or a single damn yank is going to contribute to Israel and its grand husken facade anymore.
We eat your corpse.
We take welfare exclusively to further kill the facade “government”.
In a real progressive society there’s proportional UBI and antitrust laws. In a real society jobs are actually real. Most things should be free as is. And proportional UBI has farmers, doctors, and scientists the highest paid members of society…. rather than awarding thieves.
>it's ISRAEL'S fault we lost!
lol
>we don't belong to y'all
lol
>we own the farms
lol
Can't wait until you lie to yourself enough to instigate the second march to the sea.
He says while trying to pretend to be a Yankee
If you ever were, you got that licence revoked long ago, tumour
Nope, still a yankee, ya traitorous c**t.
Come kill everyone in the south for betraying Israels bloated ugly rotten corpse.
Show us that true Yankee utopian soul, the desire to make all free and thriving and good! Show us how we betrayed your dream to give us divinity via real progress. And sob while you do it.
“Y-you should’ve just submitted to Israel!”
Every yankee wants you dead.
It -would- save a lot on welfare and subsidy.
I’m not going to let you kill everyone in the USA.
Besides, the ones on welfare nowadays is the israelites. And we’re cutting y’all off from the iron dome as well.
The future is DIXIE AS HELL.
OwU
https://on.soundcloud.com/ZYaBPX6FMHznaTZx7
Again, plz burn Atlanta and save the rest of Georgia.
phoneposting should be bannable
My brother in Christ, the KKK watch this shit.
And?
Pic related > BOAN
I bless the Yankee revenge against Israel.
y'alls raght HYUCK HYUCK all dem is flag burnin' kaw-mu-nists that doesn't support PRESIDENT TRUMP
You have to admit it's pretty hypocritical to call people "Traitors" when your side is constantly talking about how America is the most evil hecking unwholesome thing ever.
What side's that?
The same one that would bear General Sherman's children if they got the chance.
I would let him ram the frick out of me if he burned Georgia again, if I had the chance.
>Every major city in Georgia burns
>ie where all the Yanks and tax dodging Hollywood people ran to.
>State goes beet red.
For the third time I WISH A homie WOULD
The side that responds to the phrase "Make America Great Again" with "America was never great"
I would never say that, I'd say stop being swindled by political hucksters and their slogans.
Meanwhile Hillary Clinton's slogan was "ready for change" and Biden's was "build back better." Does that sound like a more healthy, pro-American slogan?
I said stop being swindled by slogans. Stop it right now.
You have to vote for somebody. Which sounds better to you? "I love America" or "I hate America"?
"America is okay" is preferable but that's just me personally in my opinion myself
I would vote to have you deported
From what country?
>From what country?
>The side that responds to the phrase "Make America Great Again" with "America was never great"
What makes you think someone's on that side simply because they think the CSA was an elite rebellion to keep the right to keep slaves? They started everything, no one forced them to secede, to fire on fort sumter, etc
I've never known a patriot to disrespect the whole Southern half of the country. USA or CSA, they were and have always been regarded as fellow Americans. The slaves don't even factor into it, the Union had slaves too until about 1800.
When did I disrespect the whole Southern half of the country? There was no common vote to secede.
Secession was pretty disrespectful to the entire Northern half of the country. Outright rude even.
>You have to admit it's pretty hypocritical to call people "Traitors" when your side is constantly talking about how America is the most evil hecking unwholesome thing ever.
I'm a trump republican and I think Lincoln did the right thing in his actions, the confederates were a bunch of plantation owning traitors that slaughtered their own countrymen for their bank accounts.
You think it's better that we freed the slaves and made them all citizens and set in motion the browning of America?
Stop planting words in my mouth. There's no telling what would've happened since the coward rebels killed the greatest hope of a genuine reconciliation. And they were already there anyway, plus anti-miscegenation laws were enacted after anyway, the same laws could've been put into effect. Thomas Jefferson participated in the browning of America 60 years before the civil war anyway, calm down.
The Civil War is kino
It's kind of boring and too long (probably depend on the version/speed). Also, the music by Alloy Orchestra (?) was kind of mediocre.
I re-watched it on youtube with some old soundtrack (with Ride of the Valkyries during the climax) and I guess it was better, but the quality was kind of shit.
Since then I watched a lot of silent movies and I wouldn't put Birth among my favorites.
This is the general issue with silents. Music is very important, so if the official release has mediocre music the movie won't be as entertaining/impactful as it should be.
It's the best when the movie has an official soundtrack like Metropolis or Nibelungen.