More like look at how the government uses their citizens to fight against each other to decide which wealthy group gets control. Truly a disgusting display of manipulation and inability to govern somehow transformed into “freeing the slaves” when the resulting sharecropping was often worse than slavery. Propaganda is one hell of a drug.
Yeah, no, get outta here with that confederate bullshit. Southern Slavery was an evil institution, and the Union shooting it out of the South was a good thing.
Okay, this person is completely incorrect in their claim about sharecropping. But yes, the US federal government did not think slavery was an issue worth going to war to end. The Confederacy explicitly existed to continue slavery even though it was not threatened whatsoever in the South and more by freesoilers out west, including Lincoln and most “antislavery” activists. The US invaded the Confederacy because the Confederacy picked a fight and decided to shoot first, it was not about any moral ground. The decision to implement antislavery policy as a tactic during the war is more accurately attributed to the growing food and resource crisis the Confederacy suffered relative to the huge advantage that guaranteeing freedom to the overwhelming enslaved population there created.
So, yes, it was good that slavery was abolished as a consequence of this War, but it would be distortive to suggest the Union fought to do that specifically. Solidarity among property-owning classes was a much more influential element in whether war broke out, and was indeed a huge reason why the war did not start until southerners started it despite the many good moral reasons to shut it down.
Thank you for diverging from that sharecropper dipshit!
I would mention how the American West was a constant battleground, as shown with Saint John Brown.
You are absolutely correct that while Lincoln was an abolitionist, he said he wasn’t willing to risk the Union over the “issue”. Yet despite the claimed class solidarity between the North and South propertied, the South still became traitors as soon as Lincoln was elected.
Oh yes, but the resulting sharecropping was cool and pitting families against each other to fight the wealthy’s war was great. Now run along like a good little propagandized fascist fuck.
Bud, I’m gonna have to see some sources on the sharecropping claim. Either you haven’t read enough slave narratives, or there is some insanely obscured events related to sharecropping.
Edit: Okay, so we’ve confirmed this dude is just racist.
It is simple, many slaves were treated better than sharecroppers. There was no freedom other than oppression for sharecroppers. Everytime blacks looked they would get rights the whites came in and destroyed their communities, wealth, and political capital. It was fucking torture that still exists strongly to this day.
If they were free why are they still being abused to this day? Freedom must mean something very different to you.
Bud, you gotta open you eyes to reality. No one in power at the time thought slaves were equal even Lincoln. You are going off of some re-envisioning bullshit. There are more slaves now than at anytime in history.
It is simple, many slaves were treated better than sharecroppers.
How could you possibly know this? What do you mean by “many”? eight? One hundred? Half?
Take a deep breath, calm yourself, and try to focus. I’d ask you to elaborate further on more of your comments, but first, tell me all about how it’s simple to reach that conclusion and how you made it. It should be easy to explain, because it’s simple.
Okay, Im not 100% certain of what you think you’re saying, but this and the comment below aren’t coherent.
You said sharecropping was worse than slavery, and that is not elevating the systemic racism experienced by African Americans in a post-Civil War era to the present, it actually diminishes it by denying the severity of slavery. I don’t think you realize what you’ve said, because it is immensely racist.
Black women’s bodies were objectified for their reproductive capacity throughout the history of slavery in the US, but especially so in the early decades of the 19th century after the importation of enslaved peoples was banned and the only source of growth for that population was through their bodies. This meant they were raped to produce more slaves dude, sexual violence is inherent to slavery, but think for a minute about just how brutal that single element of the institution is. This is of course not even the only form of sexual violence that occurred within African American enslavement in the US; white slave owners regularly raped women they claimed ownership over, engaged in sexual humiliation as a form of punishment, in Louisiana, wealthy owners would even participate in balls or galas where they’d display their “mistresses,” which were enslaved women.
This isn’t even getting into the myriad of other vectors of violence, the brutal punishments that were inflicted on them, the degree of forced labour, forced malnutrition (yes, worse than simply being a poor farmer), the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 even allowed the abduction and forced enslavement of relatively any African American in slave or free states should they find themselves in an unfortunate position.
The reason why slavery was bad is the same reason there are constant attempts by racists in the US to claim that racism is over because the “actual” bad elements of it are abolished and the only reason there is discrimination afterward is due to some innate flaw in black people or individuals’ character. They did it after slavery was abolished, after black men were elected to political positions, after the great migration, after the Civil Rights Act, after Obama got elected. Erasing the brutality of slavery to elevate some other form of oppression neglects the reality that those two forms of oppression are relational, both in their historical developments and in the ways each are facilitated within a racist system.
Please, do not spread misinformation irresponsibly, even if you’re trying to do something good.
I asked for any source and you linked some (inadequate) secondary sources below that simply discuss that sharecropping was discriminatory. Slavery wasn’t bad just because it was racist, and you clearly thought that was the case. I’d be happy to provide a reading list when I have a minute.
Also, you not only said that, but you said it multiple times explicitly throughout this thread. Bud, you gotta stop pretending to know about shit you clearly don’t know well enough about.
What is the serious fuck are you talking about!? I was pointing out the end of slavery didn’t materially improve the lives of sharecroppers in the South. Life got worse, not better which is a conundrum if you believe in a progressive movement in history. They had no protection, they were raped and murdered at will. I am not saying it was better than slavery but rather a new form of torture.
You have got to be trolling or perhaps acting stupid on purpose. I really don’t care at this point.
More like look at how the government uses their citizens to fight against each other to decide which wealthy group gets control. Truly a disgusting display of manipulation and inability to govern somehow transformed into “freeing the slaves” when the resulting sharecropping was often worse than slavery. Propaganda is one hell of a drug.
Yeah, no, get outta here with that confederate bullshit. Southern Slavery was an evil institution, and the Union shooting it out of the South was a good thing.
Okay, this person is completely incorrect in their claim about sharecropping. But yes, the US federal government did not think slavery was an issue worth going to war to end. The Confederacy explicitly existed to continue slavery even though it was not threatened whatsoever in the South and more by freesoilers out west, including Lincoln and most “antislavery” activists. The US invaded the Confederacy because the Confederacy picked a fight and decided to shoot first, it was not about any moral ground. The decision to implement antislavery policy as a tactic during the war is more accurately attributed to the growing food and resource crisis the Confederacy suffered relative to the huge advantage that guaranteeing freedom to the overwhelming enslaved population there created.
So, yes, it was good that slavery was abolished as a consequence of this War, but it would be distortive to suggest the Union fought to do that specifically. Solidarity among property-owning classes was a much more influential element in whether war broke out, and was indeed a huge reason why the war did not start until southerners started it despite the many good moral reasons to shut it down.
Thank you for diverging from that sharecropper dipshit!
I would mention how the American West was a constant battleground, as shown with Saint John Brown.
You are absolutely correct that while Lincoln was an abolitionist, he said he wasn’t willing to risk the Union over the “issue”. Yet despite the claimed class solidarity between the North and South propertied, the South still became traitors as soon as Lincoln was elected.
Oh yes, but the resulting sharecropping was cool and pitting families against each other to fight the wealthy’s war was great. Now run along like a good little propagandized fascist fuck.
TIL being anti-slavery is fascism, poor John Brown
Did I say slavery was a good thing? Man you are fucking stupid.
Look buddy, it’s neat you have the same takes and cadence as Everyone’s Wildly Racist Uncle. Real neat, you have a lovely one, cya!
Bud, I’m gonna have to see some sources on the sharecropping claim. Either you haven’t read enough slave narratives, or there is some insanely obscured events related to sharecropping.
Edit: Okay, so we’ve confirmed this dude is just racist.
It is simple, many slaves were treated better than sharecroppers. There was no freedom other than oppression for sharecroppers. Everytime blacks looked they would get rights the whites came in and destroyed their communities, wealth, and political capital. It was fucking torture that still exists strongly to this day.
If they were free why are they still being abused to this day? Freedom must mean something very different to you.
Bud, you gotta open you eyes to reality. No one in power at the time thought slaves were equal even Lincoln. You are going off of some re-envisioning bullshit. There are more slaves now than at anytime in history.
How could you possibly know this? What do you mean by “many”? eight? One hundred? Half?
Take a deep breath, calm yourself, and try to focus. I’d ask you to elaborate further on more of your comments, but first, tell me all about how it’s simple to reach that conclusion and how you made it. It should be easy to explain, because it’s simple.
How could you possibly not know this!?
Oh, that is right you have profound ignorance.
https://youtu.be/dgV_0o604bQ?is=cSp8q-0xBIYn4osz
https://wams.nyhistory.org/primary-source/sharecroppers/
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/harvest-sharecropping-slavery-rerouted/
You can draw you own fucking conclusions, but I won’t hold my breath.
Okay, Im not 100% certain of what you think you’re saying, but this and the comment below aren’t coherent.
You said sharecropping was worse than slavery, and that is not elevating the systemic racism experienced by African Americans in a post-Civil War era to the present, it actually diminishes it by denying the severity of slavery. I don’t think you realize what you’ve said, because it is immensely racist.
Black women’s bodies were objectified for their reproductive capacity throughout the history of slavery in the US, but especially so in the early decades of the 19th century after the importation of enslaved peoples was banned and the only source of growth for that population was through their bodies. This meant they were raped to produce more slaves dude, sexual violence is inherent to slavery, but think for a minute about just how brutal that single element of the institution is. This is of course not even the only form of sexual violence that occurred within African American enslavement in the US; white slave owners regularly raped women they claimed ownership over, engaged in sexual humiliation as a form of punishment, in Louisiana, wealthy owners would even participate in balls or galas where they’d display their “mistresses,” which were enslaved women.
This isn’t even getting into the myriad of other vectors of violence, the brutal punishments that were inflicted on them, the degree of forced labour, forced malnutrition (yes, worse than simply being a poor farmer), the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 even allowed the abduction and forced enslavement of relatively any African American in slave or free states should they find themselves in an unfortunate position.
The reason why slavery was bad is the same reason there are constant attempts by racists in the US to claim that racism is over because the “actual” bad elements of it are abolished and the only reason there is discrimination afterward is due to some innate flaw in black people or individuals’ character. They did it after slavery was abolished, after black men were elected to political positions, after the great migration, after the Civil Rights Act, after Obama got elected. Erasing the brutality of slavery to elevate some other form of oppression neglects the reality that those two forms of oppression are relational, both in their historical developments and in the ways each are facilitated within a racist system.
Please, do not spread misinformation irresponsibly, even if you’re trying to do something good.
I didn’t say that. Listen, if you want to make up an argument go ahead. Have fun acting like a dumbass.
I asked for any source and you linked some (inadequate) secondary sources below that simply discuss that sharecropping was discriminatory. Slavery wasn’t bad just because it was racist, and you clearly thought that was the case. I’d be happy to provide a reading list when I have a minute.
Also, you not only said that, but you said it multiple times explicitly throughout this thread. Bud, you gotta stop pretending to know about shit you clearly don’t know well enough about.
What is the serious fuck are you talking about!? I was pointing out the end of slavery didn’t materially improve the lives of sharecroppers in the South. Life got worse, not better which is a conundrum if you believe in a progressive movement in history. They had no protection, they were raped and murdered at will. I am not saying it was better than slavery but rather a new form of torture.
You have got to be trolling or perhaps acting stupid on purpose. I really don’t care at this point.
You seriously have to start reading your own comments before you post them. Reread the thread ✌️
You expect me to believe you have zero reading comprehension!? Go troll someone else and stop acting like a dumbass.