Was Dixie redpilled?

The Union asked Robert E Lee to lead the army. He refused to lead a force that would be at odds against his home of Virginia. Southrons by and large weren't going to let an army march and destroy their land without a fight. If that is "redpilled", then sure.

didn't the greeks and the romans have slaves as well? what's different here before the industrial revolution? I'm not arguing against what you said but I don't know much about this.
well the american revolution was by and large a tantrum about muh taxes so there's not much to support anyway. I do agree with the fight against the federal government however.

>memeflag
>american revolution about taxes

Ok kike, let me explain for your kippah crushed brain. The american revolution was a revolution in the way government was viewed. The right of every human as an individual was recognized. And no, non whites arent people.

Would love a citation

The cotton gin wasnt going to make cheap labor obsolete. Otherwise the US wouldnt still be importing mexicans to pick tomatoes for 3cent an hour and outsourcing work to chinks and pajeets, 150 years after the cotton gin.

I didnt destroy my own arguement because my point about the inevitable abolition of slavery had nothing to do with technology advances, but that the “morality” arguement which was used to abolish it was coming no matter what.

Not sure what your point is about the (((slave owners))) only representing 6% of the population. As if they are some irrelevant minority. Because that 6% are
The ones that held 100% of the political pull in the south. And they clearly had no intention of sending their pets niggers back to africa, slavery or no slavery

>memeflag
ok here's my real flag.
>The american revolution was a revolution in the way government was viewed.
no it wasn't, that's the middle school perception and it's historical revisionism. the primary purpose of the actual revolution was to go against british taxation. later they figured out they didn't want a king but really this was an afterthought.
>The right of every human as an individual was recognized.
>he believes in human rights
all of what you've just typed is kikery. also it's wrong since the constitution wasn't written until years after america became independent.

They didn’t care. When the Union marched over the Mason-Dixon Line and started burning all the elites packed up shop and ran for Florida.

The final redpill on war is that the people who start them never fight them or even give a damn about the kids they march into the meat grinder.

First of all show your shameful leaf or star. Secondly (((they))) funded both sides of the civil war (dog fuckers and penny snatchers)

In 1801 every southern state voted to ban the importation of Basketball Americans, in 1805 (((South Carolina))) reopened the slave trade to facilitate the Louisiana Purchase and imported at least 40,000 when the total population was less than 3 million. TLDR SC Sweet Tea Jews and LA Swamp Jews ruined America

no southerners are literal niggers

Google.

>The cotton gin wasnt going to make cheap labor obsolete.

No shit. When did I state otherwise? Keep up.

>had nothing to do with technology advances, but that the “morality” arguement which was used to abolish it was coming no matter what.

You are delusional if you think morality had anything to do with it. Technology is what freed the slaves, not morality; the moral argument had been around for centuries, with no avail. Mreover, slaves were actually a huge cost to maintain. Food, housing, care, enforcement...all out the window, when all you have to do is pay a fraction of that total to a few laborers, to run some machinery.

>only representing 6%

They had to get the support of the populace...The vast majority -did not own slaves...why then would they fight, if it was about keeping 'their pet niggers'?

Only 10-13 southern families survived the Civil War, the vast majority got Moored or Injuned, which is why most southern blondes have brown eyes and are r as opposed to k selective in their breeding (aka more slutty than French Canadians)

You know nothing about the American revolution. The continental congress appealed directly to King George for support.

Americans are spurred royalists if anything who’s chief compliant was the lack of representation in parliament. They viewed themselves as British citizens living abroad who had the right to official representation. Violence occurred when taxes were levied without a means to voice official dissent.

Read a book brah.

Attached: 2C119ACF-FE9B-4CB4-A811-D684C9642C8B.jpg (1024x556, 97K)

Yes and this is why to anybody paying attention to reality the American Civil War was a continuation of the American Revolution. The North was heavily indebted to the Bank of England due to rapid industrialization and levied heavy tax’s on the less developed Southern States. Fun fact: Abe Lincon and Karl Marx we’re pen pals, basically everything you need to know aside from the tea niggers funding both sides

No but Robert E Lee was one of the greatest Generals in American history and should be respected.

>Only 10-13 southern families survived the Civil War, the vast majority got Moored or Injuned,

>moored

wat?

>the civil war was about slabery
You're a moron and you don't know the actual causes for that war brainlet

Fun fact: Grant has all of the Union officers buried around Lees family home in Virginia so that Lee could never be buried there. This site is now known as Arlington National Cemetary

Explain slave states in the north then

They didn't really have a choice in the mater. When the US was a backwater europeans didn't want mass immigrate their.

euro jews played both sides against eachother financially and socially, eventually the south government caved in to their monetary support while they tried to force lincoln to do the same. they were not successful and that is why he was killed.

Niggers raped and pillaged. The first thing you notice when you live in the south as a northerner are there are barely any families that can trace their ancestors to pre 1865, I call it Russia Syndrome. The majority of the brave were culled from the herd, which is why Russians and LARPing southerners are horrible people IRL

You pulled that out of your ass.

The niggers wouldn't have been a problem if they hadn't been given rights. Instead the Yankees gave them rights and demanded that they be given equality. Dumbass northerners fell for bullshit sob stories of us keeping our fucking livestock like prisoners rather than livestock. Niggers were treated like work animals and pets with only the most irresponsible dipshits destroying their property. When a slave was beaten there was always a good reason for it.
Aside from Southerners knowing how to treat then nigger-beast they also stood against Lincolns unconstitutional power grab. Lincoln should have been impeached with the way he totally disregarded the rule of law. He ignored the constitution and centralized power making the union mandatory rather than the free association of states that we were and should have remained. I've never agreed with the stupid faggots in New York or California. How the fuck are we fellow countrymen? If those states alone were at risk I wouldn't even think about shipping off to help them. We are not a united nation and this union is bullshit. Lincoln was a damned tyrant and this nation is a prison.

Based

Have you read the Nationalist yet?

Google docs: docs.google.com/document/d/1kP9kq_AoDxhEjEPpkpMajw9Teq7qnyrsYFruYzYPU2Y/edit?usp=sharing

PDF Download: s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=90224621237022154511

They were held hostage.
Maryland wanted to join the Confederacy.

Secretary of State of the Confederacy was a Jew.

>The first Jewish-American to serve on an executive cabinet in American history, he has received the title “brains of the Confederacy” by scholars for his apparent position as Jefferson Davis' right hand.

See this:

They sold them to the south...

>The majority of the brave were culled from the herd, which is why Russians and LARPing southerners are horrible people IRL

Thats what war is for -culling the best and bravest from the herd and thusly removing any possible threat to your power.

What? You think they brought in niggers because they couldn't find white farm labour? Not to save money? Somehow an overwhelming majority of farmers in America managed to cultivate the land without going out of their way to pay someone 0 dollars per hour

Poor opressed top 1% of Southern Big Agro just had a permanent "labour shortage" just like today's corporations flooding your own country with millions of mexicans and whining that they "have to"

Attached: nirger'.jpg (790x592, 61K)

>The cotton gin wasnt going to make cheap labor obsolete
>No shit. When did I state otherwise? Keep up.
>With the invention of the cotton jin nearly a decade prior, slavery would have ended on its own,
>technology is what freed the slaves
Are you really this retarded? If technology supposedly freed the slaves then it would have made cheap labor obselete.

There is no scenario where the cotton gin somehow made it cheaper to not own slaves who work for free and pay “””free men””” a cheap wage to work instead. Which is undeniably how shit went down.

>They had to get the support of the populace...The vast majority -did not own slaves...why then would they fight, if it was about keeping 'their pet niggers'?
Ok, im going to give you babbys first redpill.
There is a thing called “propaganda”.
The political elite of many different countries and eras use it to get the support of populaces for wars by telling them the purpose of the war is different than the actual agenda.
In recent years the US starts wars in the middle east to secure more oil money for our jew overlords. And average joe will gladly go fight that war to “protect us from terrorism”
The slave owners in the south convinced a bunch of poor farmers to fight for their rights to own slaves by telling them they were fighting for “states rights and against northern aggression”
The people who fight wars are almost NEVER doing it for the same reasons the war was actually started.

I'm directly descended from men who fought in the 6th Alabama and 9th Virginia Cav. They saw combat and lived long after the war. 6th Alabama saw heavy casualties. I have no nigger blood in me. My family has been here since the 1600s.

And you are a good goy.

I bet you think the iraq war was about stopping terrorism against the US too

They couldn't because of the sub-tropical nature of the american south, and europeans didn't mass immigrate into america until it brcame the place to be, so in the beginning their was no choice, but to staff it with africans.

The Iraq war was George Bush being petty AF for Saddam trying to kill his father. If it was planned, they probably said they would be a false flag akin to Pulse Night Club and it turned out to be the trade centers. So the man could either admit complicity or go along with his requested war, Cheney took care of the (((logistics)))

So all hard labour in the south was done by niggers? That would be the logical consequence if "whites couldnt work there". Even most farming wasn't done by slaves.

Look, a small fraction of American farmers owned slaves and they managed to cultivate the entire continent from the Atlantic to the pacific with white labour. The idea that a group of rich plantation oligarchs in a few states set up an entire system that gave them free labour because they "had to" is ridiculous. They are no different than modern big agro mass employimg illegal mexicans and whining about "jobs americans won't do plz give us more"

Attached: I had to do it.jpg (1300x1006, 231K)

>thinks that slavery and cheap labor, are the same thing...
>...doesnt understand the point of words and differentiating between similar concepts...
>...calls others retarded

>There is no scenario

Slaves werent free...And cheap wage workers were ...cheaper...both facts, which I already addressed. Perhaps you should take time and understand what is being said to you, boy.

>“propaganda”
>The people who fight wars are almost NEVER doing it for the same reasons the war was actually started.

My entire point is this, imbecile. They were "propagandised" not with "muh slavery", but with folkish -"this is our land" shit.

>The slave owners in the south convinced a bunch of poor farmers to fight for their rights to own slaves by telling them they were fighting for “states rights and against northern aggression”

So...then they werent fighting for the right to own people....?

At this point youre going to want to go back and re-read your first post. Reconcile...

>Hurr durr there were no white people to pick cotton in south because it was too hot and humid so we NEEDED niggers.
This is based on nothing. Stop projecting your need for bbc on the 1800s south.

If there were no white laborers why did so many landless whites suffer from lack of ability to find work and a living wage during slavery?

Attached: 343EF968-0ED9-4765-B21A-599815F9114A.jpg (314x499, 23K)

No they didn't. You do know all the confederate states signed a declaration of secession right?

>Literally paying money to get more niggers into their country
they were the most cucked faggots in recorded history

Attached: atomic smug.jpg (1255x2300, 1.06M)

The north produced more of basically everything. The south was dependent on tobacco, cotton, and sugarcane, which two of them were a controlled global economy from Europeans. Nice try, revisionist.

If the north wanted to get rid of niggers then fighting a war to free them was the wrong way to do it.
Working through solely political means could have ended slavery without letting the niggers run free all over our continent.
The war wasn't fought to free niggers. Lincoln wanted power. That's why he imported voters. They knew they were never going to ship the niggers back. He knew the niggers would be indebted to him and his party and saw potential voters. The goal was to create an empire. Unamerican bullshit.

If cheap wage workers were cheaper than slaves then why did they ever own slaves to begin with? Cheap wage workers always existed

>At this point youre going to want to go back and re-read your first post. Reconcile...

I dont need to reread anything. You are the one who still cant grasp that the reason for a war isnt what the poor men fighting it believe.

>So...then they werent fighting for the right to own people?
In their minds and what they believed the soldiers absolutely were not.
But in reality thats what the political elites and slave owners started it for and thats what the poor man was dying for he just didnt know it.

Want to go back and re read something?
OP asked if dixie was “redpilled”.
Thats what my original post addressed.
How can you call someone redpilled if they are fighting a war that serves someone elses interests, just because they were told it was about something else?

You are sounding like a commie mr. Plumber

The main reason they were not redpilled was to allow a small clique of plantation oligarchs to mass import completely foreign free labour at the expense of everyone else in the South. The Southerners were literally cucking themselves out of wages, safety and, in the end, a future just so that a group of people who were rich anyway would get even richer. They should have cracked down on the oligarchs and demanded to put their fellow citizens and their common good ahead of profit margins. The rebels should have rebelled against the cancerous part of their own elites and set them straight. Expel the negroes, make example of a few oligarchs. Ban slavery get labour laws for your own countrymen. that would have been "redpilled"

Attached: goodnight.jpg (750x402, 27K)

america didn't exist as a country when they were imported.

Luckily the southern oligarchs werent commies and now you have niggers

The south was just as fooled by the masons as the north. I don't see either side as being better than the other.

Correct. This is more or less what i said they should have done in my original post

No.
Both sides were bluepilled and used by the Jews to make a civil war in order to further advance their plans of full spectrum domination over the USA.

What you fail to realize is that when african slaves were imported, basically nobody lived in the south, it was very sparsely populated at the time. We're talking 16-1700's. So there was no robust low class white population to cuck out of work. Thier was an immense labor shortage for low agricultural work, and europeans largely would not move to america to do that given a choice. Most of the very early whites in america were essentially exiles in one capacity or another. There was an immense labor shortage.

Do you realise that you will be BLACKED too mr. Plumber?

>My opinion now is that if the south was TRUELY redpilled, as soon as the tensions started to rise between them and the northern states they would have come to a compromise to send all their niggers back to africa.
The poor whites in the south woul've ended up making more money had the niggers been sent back to Africa, because all of the wage depression the niggers caused would've disappeared.

>get labour laws
KYS pinko fag.

I basically posted the same thing in this post. The niggers were resulting in poor whites making less money due to wage depression caused by job saturation.

They reason why that couldn't really be done is because after a few generations in the americas, a mulatto class formed, though they were still considered "black" via the one drop rule. The became the faces of framing helping slave/"blacks" as nothing short of a humanitarian cause. Pic related.

Attached: article-2107458-11F33AB0000005DC-275_470x804.jpg (470x804, 107K)

Corporations going around labour laws looks like mr Goldstein CEO of Big Agro hiring 100000 border jumpers instead of Americans and putting honest farm workers and competing farm owners out of work. You will never have a nation without basic labour laws because you need rooted communities to have a national feeling. Big multigenerational families living in moreless one place for a long period of time. You need a living wage for that, otherwise corpos will keep flooding your place with exotic foreigners every 5 years and your son will not be able to start a family because he has to compete with Paco and Pajeet for every job opening.

No labour regulation might have worked in the Wild West lolbertarians idolize but in the XXIst century it looks like the low white birth rate, opioid crisis and population replacement burgers whine all the time about

Attached: (((economics))).jpg (728x546, 186K)

oh. This is where the Neo-nazis hang out these days.

>Tobacco and cotton and fucking sugarcane north of the mason dixie

You cant be serious

>If cheap wage workers were cheaper than slaves then why did they ever own slaves to begin with?

Because wage workers werent cheaper than slaves....before technology made the labor of 4 men, equivalent to that of 40 -another point that Ive already made, previously.

>I dont need to reread anything.

No, youre right. And you also havent been consistently having your ass handed to you here, either...

Im so tired of stupid people.

>You are the one who still cant grasp that the reason for a war isnt what the poor men fighting it believe.

Like I said, re-read your own writing. This conflicts with your own logic. You cant on the one hand claim that the war was about non slave owners fightng to keep slavery, and then claim on the other hand that they were 'propagandized' into fighting for other reasons...idiot.

>In their minds

Thats been my whole argument, stupid. Now youre just moving the goal posts. There were many reasons for the war; it absolutely was not about slavery. Economics were the primary driver, as the south was already paying the lionshare of the countries debt and the north wanted more. Slavery only entered the picture to appease a small minority of slaveowners, because they were worried about losing their investment. For the majority of the populace however, the war was about the right of the south to secede.

You can assume all you want, but in the end -everybody knew that slavery was on its way out -so there was no need for a war over it...and more to the point, -whatever- reason an individual soldier had for fighting the war, was real.

>How can you call someone redpilled if they are fighting a war that serves someone elses interests, just because they were told it was about something else?

Because it was about 'something else'...really, what are you even doing here? Go back to rebbit.

>If Southerners were truly "redpilled" they would not have imported a huge population of niggers
It was the Dutch in Jew York that started that.
The South barely had niggers before the Yankee shipping merchants started bringing them in.
Indentured servants were much more common in the South before that.

OK let me rephrase that: bringing niggers into your country to put them to work instead of your own countrymen because you would have to actually pay fellow whites money is the opposite of redpilled. The southerners weren't redpilled and neither were any Americans that engaged in it or did not criticize it in the name of white not negro interests

Attached: 1488.jpg (493x667, 70K)

There was no country when they were imported. What don't you understand about that.

None of my logic conflicts.
In this post you continue to make it obvious you cant make a distinction thay what the lower class thought they were fighting for isn’t representative of why the war was actually started.

If youre tired of stupid people stop looking in the mirror.

Do you know how much a slave cost in today's dollars?
In 1850, a hard working African slave cost what would amount to about $60,000 today.
They were horribly expensive and only found on plantations of the wealthy.

ok. But there were states, right? White Americans were organized into polities of one sort or another that should have acted in the common good and prevented that, that's what I mean.

I'm not raging against Americans of the past, I just noted that they weren't really "redpilled" so to speak, if they were fine with any inhabitants of their states bringing in Africans. You want to do your business in our white community? Hire whites. That's how it should have been.

They still had way more raial solidarity than current whites but unfortunately not eough

Attached: 1534077911426.png (1384x1600, 2.68M)

Yes.

Edmund Ruffin's contributions to soil science have largely been forgotten because "he's racist".

Attached: IMG_8752.jpg (1315x1920, 667K)

It's not even a case of being "redpilled". It was a case of lack of other viable options. If there were enough whites in the southern colonies to fill the necessary agricultural needs, that were willing and able, then their is no way they would have spent countless dollars on african slaves, to staff their plantations.

>Edmund Ruffin's contributions to soil science have largely been forgotten because "he's racist".
God Damn I love the Old Dominion.
I can't wait to finally shell DC and bayonet every carpet bagger.

no dude, the south was so decentralized that even Alexis de Tocqueville states that the south had almost nothing between it's cities but impoverished shacks and the occasional oasis of a plantation
slavery was still commonplace in ALL the colonies at the time, even the north imported slaves
eventually all slave trading from outside the US stopped, they decided they had imported enough niggers to breed with and didn't need new stock anymore (interestingly enough the US was the only place in the Americas where slaves weren't being worked to death so fast they had to keep shipping over africans to function like Brazil or the Caribbean)

The slave ships were largely owned by a specific tribe.

uncle ted isnt dead, dipshit.

That's what I meant in my posts.

The slave owning oligarchs were the cancer of the South's White community. Slave labour was unneccessary, only benefited a few and generations of southern normies paid dearly for it. Normie White farmworkers who made the bulk of confederate ranks would have been better off if they stormed the mansions of slaveowning rich men who were cucking them out of wages and flooding their homeland with savage niggers instead of attacking the US Army. Unfortunately Southern leaders did not lead their people against the few slaveowners and their pets and instead told them to shoot heavily armed fellow whites en masse.

Attached: confs.jpg (190x266, 13K)

In my post, I made it clear that what the soldiers thought they were fighting for and what a few rich dudes were fighting for, were equally real and valid.

You are the arrogant nigger, disregarding the very real concerns of the lower classes and dismissing them with your normie tier -left wing "muh slavery" -high school level of understandin on the topic.

Muh slavery!...what are you even doing here, commoner?

Another son of Jamestown?

They were right about State rights and Taxes.

They went full retard before securing key allies from Europe though. Plus they should of purged the officers and politicians before the war broke out. Too many traitors in the ranks.

you're basically claiming the poor southern whites should have led a commie revolution
fucking retard

Piotr, if you really think the War of Damn Yankee Aggression was about slavery, I have a Bridge in the desert to sell you.
The war had almost nothing to do with slavery, it was much more significantly about representation in Congress.
Prior to the war, the North had a strong grip on the House, but the Senate kept the situation balanced.
As more western states were allowed in, the senate began to flip.
The South feared that having both houses of congress against would lead to a functionally totalitarian society where one half of the county ruled the other.
You know, sort of like the situation the US is in today.

Most of those whites saw agricultural labor as below them, which is similar to the current situation where whites complain about mexicans coming to america, and picking fruit, when those same whites know damn well that they would rather spend the rest of their days in an insane asylum than to live like that.

That would be more of a white nationalist revolution? Just no slavery and no niggers in our white states. You want to do farming business in ur white communities you have to hire local whites and pay them a living wage. How is that communism? Private propery stays, just no niggers, the USA is for whites

Attached: diverse.jpg (500x289, 16K)

One of my ancestors was born in Kentucky but fought for the Union. He had two brothers who died fighting for the union as well as a cousin who fought with a confederate cavalry unit.

The civil war wasn't cleanly defined by north & south, the war caused schisms in many families...especially in the border states.

Attached: IMG_8745.jpg (1936x1936, 1.01M)

>our
Your not even american.

When Georgia was founded by James Oglethorpe, slavery was actually outlawed until the Methodists petitioned for legal slavery to allow Georgia to compete with other states that permitted slavery.

this is compounded with decades of economic warfare from northern industrialists who wanted to limit the markets the south had access to with tariffs in order to force them to rely on the north
this is where the whole nullification crisis came into being, SC almost seceded long before the civil war over the same issues of where states rights ends and federal rights begin

>kill the rich and take their stuff
>not commie shit
fucks sake man
the choice to keep slaves was more a deliberate cultural decision than an economic one, these were men who idealized ancient greece and rome and wanted to live out that lifestyle of patrician landowners, being the patriarch of their own tiny kingdom with their family and their slaves/subjects
in reality, the slavery in the south was more akin to race based serfdom, a lot more feudal in structure than people imagine
youtube.com/watch?v=NwHEMdOhoIs
watch this if you want a more in depth explanation

You never hear Brazil, Latin America, Spain, Portugal or Sephardic Jews being given their share of the blame for the slave trade.

Sometimes I wonder why?

I meant what the whites rebelling against slave owners would have said

Normie white laborers were the main victims of slavery. Niggers were slaves in Africa already, their fate was better in America if anything. Masses of southern farmers were cucked out of wages and had their homelands flooded by thirldworlders to the benefit of the very few

Attached: 1533036299087.jpg (1024x576, 79K)

I said states, I should have said colonies as that Methodist meddling occurred in the 1750's.

My bad.

(((someone))) must've made the decision i imagine
the alternative to being a slave in the south for an african was to be sent to south america, the caribbean, or the middle east
all of which were magnitudes worse
stop applying modern politics to the 1800s, you're not viewing the era objectively
most southern whites would not work for wages because they wanted to own their own land and built themselves up
these are men descended from sharecroppers or indentured servants who had it drilled into them that working for another man was less preferable than working for yourself, because their fathers had been forced to do that very thing
i see the point you're making, but the culture of the south is too different from the cultures in europe to expect the same kind of political movements to form regarding elites

>i see the point you're making, but the culture of the south is too different from the cultures in europe to expect the same kind of political movements to form regarding elites

OK I wasnt aware of that. We never really lacked farmhands here even after serfdom got abolished in the 1860s (lol).

Attached: 1532110546773.jpg (960x960, 244K)

>masses

You still don't get it. in 16whatever year their were not that many people living in the american south period. It was a straight up frontier. It was a matter of being able to muster enough manpower to work the land.

obligatory

Attached: Confederacy.jpg (238x1024, 85K)

the history in the early south is honestly a big hole in early american history, the expansion into tennesse/kentucky/alabama was the frontier for a while, but ill greentext a summary
>colonies form
>southern colonies become primarily agrarian
>some rich anglo landowners come over and set up plantations and farms
>originally these farms were worked by poor whites brought over as indentured servants
>after their indentured servitude was over they often sharecropped (worked someone else's land and payed them a share of their harvest)
>as time went by these poor whites slowly spread westward into indian territories setting up homesteads and small towns
>this leads to dozens of small scale wars with local tribes
>some tribes (the five civilized tribes) adopted european farming techniques at this point (some even set up plantations and owned slaves) and get along better with the whites
>this happens slowly from the late 1600s through the early 1800s without much being recorded as many of these poor whites were illiterate
>this sets up the structure of the antebellum south
>the rich old planters whose families had lived on the same land and worked it since they came over and who had replaced their forced labor from white debt-slaves to black slaves
>those white debt-slaves and their descendants moved to emptier land to build their own lives
>both groups being highly agrarian and they tended to be self sufficient in small communities

last thing i will mention is that there absolutely was a big gap between southern rich and southern poor, it actually seems the rich southern elites preferred their slaves to the poor white "trash" that lived out in the hills
the antebellum south is fascinating but there's limited information on the early part unfortunately, seems like it just gets treated as the leadup to the civil war