Message from @Alpaca13
Discord ID: 624228519743848468
Does anyone remember what that new movie about the Marines is called?
It might not even be out yet
Compilation of Soviet training and military exercises during the late cold war.
Weird but true fact: alot of old Afghan's believe that the US are just returning Russian's.
😂😂😂
https://www.deviantart.com/themistrunsred/art/Nazi-Germany-color-image-313911054 great place to find sweet nazi pictures with no water marks!
I just bought Walter Reder shoulders
He is very famous
Here
pictures?
GG @Deleted User, you just advanced to level 5!
The organ is the best part of the song wtf
i found two versions so i uploaded both lol
I haven't been over to take a closer look at it. Those are the pics she sent me
Me mum
I keep wanting to make a german army helmet (Stahlhelm) out of AR500 steel with modern attachment points for NVGs and shit. I'm a blacksmith so it's well within my grasp of doing.
*Looking to protect yourself, or deal some damage?*
Why not just buy a Fritzhelm
Because they aren't rifle rated. An AR500 plate helmet would stop practically anything. Also, I just like building things.
I just bought a Kar98k deactivated
GG @Deleted User, you just advanced to level 6!
That goes into meme spam or general, militaria and historical is for genuine stuff @Bodogdaddy
My apologies
GG @Bodogdaddy, you just advanced to level 3!
My speech regarding the particular institution and it’s development within the United States.
The Northern Colonies, originated from a **single** root being the English Crown; has the responsibility of most of the institution. For not only did the English profit from the slave trade, but even expanded it within the American colonies they boldly boasted of; the use of Indian, African slaves and Forced labor of criminals it experimented with a multitude of different forms.
The South at this time was under domain of the Spanish and French Crowns. Of whom records will show differ in the institution. It is nonsense and based on lies to say the South had participation in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, for the South did **not exist** during it's duration. Not only do y'all not even address my points- merely brushing them aside with any conveinent excuse such as claiming "irrelevancy" without reasoning for justification, but do not even bother to address the origins of the institution.
It is a failure, on your faction of this argument to ignore the origins. And what of the Africans who were enslaved? Their ethnic groups being: The BaKongo of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Angola, The Mandé of Upper Guinea, The Gbe speakers of Togo, Ghana, and Benin (Adja, Mina, Ewe, Fon), The Akan of Ghana and Ivory Coast, The Wolof of Senegal and the Gambia, The Igbo of southeastern Nigeria, The Mbundu of Angola (includes both Ambundu and Ovimbundu), The Yoruba of southwestern Nigeria, The Chamba of Cameroon, and The Makua of Mozambique. These, being the most ten prominent out of the forty-five African ethnic groups who were purchased by slavers or exchanged for.
The first Africans to arrive came in 1502, at the shores of the island of Hispaniola. Cuba in 1513, Jamaica in 1518, Honduras and Guatemala in 1526. Note fairly, these are **Spanish** colonies. It would not be until two-hundred years later in Jamestown, Virginia 1619 did the first negro slaves arrive in the Virginia colony held by the English crown. The origins of Anglo involvement in African slavery, can be very noted with the colonies Partus sequitur ventrem act in 1662, which classified children of slave mothers as slaves, regardless of paternity. By 1802, Russian colonists noted that "Boston" (U.S.-based) skippers were trading African slaves for otter pelts with the Tlingit people in Southeast Alaska. This source involving Russian observation can be found in "Russians in Tlingit America: The Battles of Sitka, 1802 and 1804". **HOWEVER**: These are all a few centuries before the Southern colonies even come to exist with exception of Virginia. Let's look at distribution percentage, shall we?
Portugal being the first and foremost, takes the lions share of slaves at 38.5%, with British America (excluding North America) of 18.4%. Spain, in third takes 17.5%, with French America (Louisiana territory as well) at 13.6% which fairly note; the first French slaves arrived in the French port of Mobile which would centuries later be part of Florida and then Alabama. Now, at a significantly lesser extent, comes the British North American colonies who boast of 6.45% which English Americas 3.25%. The Dutch West Indies only had 2.0% and the Danish West Indies only 0.3%, immensely lesser but still of participation status.
Now in fairness, these percentages changed overtime as the timeline ranges from 1519 to 1867, however, let's focus **specifically** on Britain's role in slavery. Eric Williams a Marxist politically with the book "Capitalism and Slavery (1944)" rejects the moral explaination and argued that slavery was more profitable such as the sugar cane plantations. And he is correct, morals play no significant part in the origins and later life of slavery until the later period of the United States of America where abolitionism took root.
Despite being a Marxist, he makes a valid argument. And let's look more closely, on North American participation in the institution of slavery, excluding Canada for now:
The introduction of slaves was a slow, gradual process that is unavoidable fact. This had affect on every single colony of the thirteen; and Britain at this time had valid interest in the protection of the American Colonial institution of slavery. That being stated, Britain had no involvement in protesting its growth despite the population at home in the isles growing more abolitionist. illiams went on to argue that slavery played a major role in making Britain prosperous. The high profits from the slave trade, Williams before mentioned said, helped finance the Industrial Revolution. Britain enjoyed prosperity because of the capital gained from the unpaid work of slaves. The 1807 prohibition of the international trade, Williams argued, prevented French expansion on other islands. Meanwhile, British investors turned to Asia, where labor was so plentiful that slavery was unnecessary. Williams went on to argue that slavery played a major role in making Britain prosperous. And you may ask, "what source do you have to state this on?", *Barbara Solow and Stanley L. Engerman, eds, British capitalism and Caribbean slavery: The legacy of Eric Williams (Cambridge University Press, 2004).* specifically.
Slavery, especially due to its immense profit to the empire grew in North America because of the Anglo-Saxon interests than say the Crowns of France and Spain who were before the original nations introducing slavery to the Americas behind Portugal.
It is important to understand the origins, to then discuss the later portion of the institution within the American States. And now, let's delve into Manifest Destiny: It is clear, America was expansionist from the start even during the Revolution our attempted invasion and annexation of Canada being a failure, it is very obvious that the single setback of the Quebec Campaign was no deterrance to the expansion of our ideals. Agrarianism, was a significant piece in American economic principles before we embraced Industrialization; and Manifest Destiny was a major expansion of this principle and with it the introduction of slavery into the conquered Southern states and lands west of the Mississippi. I shall go into detail, of slavery's expansion:
It can be pinpointed that the War of 1812 is the start of this expansion. Where we drove out the Indian tribes, replacing them with the white colonists and immigrants who came. It was a brilliant strategy, I support Jackson's ideals of Indian removal but my support for Jackson is irrelevant and so we move on: The Founding Fathers my **specific** reference being John Quincy Adams being such an early proponent of continentalism, later came to regret his role in helping the expansion of slavery and even went further to oppose the annexation of Texas.
So we see here, even before we reached the Mississippi the expansion of slavery was a well-entrenched ideal even to our founding fathers of making the South the agrarianist bastion of which they envisioned. The massive drain of slaves and plantation families from the Northern colonies hit them economically, but we'll get to that in a bit.
Such as the Louisiana Purchase, doubling our size as a country. The Polk Administration in the 1840s also being a very supportive piece, and a piece of a letter Adams wrote to his father gives some light: "**The whole continent of North America appears to be destined by Divine Providence to be peopled by one nation, speaking one language, professing one general system of religious and political principles, and accustomed to one general tenor of social usages and customs. For the common happiness of them all, for their peace and prosperity, I believe it is indispensable that they should be associated in one federal Union**". My argument for this, is that even before the South was **colonized** by the Anglo-Saxon folk of the Isles, slavery and it's expansion was a forefront ideal of the American dream. Agrarianism, being the root of this.
This expansion westward with slavery being as well expanded to cover the new territories came later as we all know, a serious debate. But before abolitionism gained any relevance or political significance, slavery expansion went uncontested finding support from our founders. Adams again being my highlighted individual as he orchestrated the Treaty of 1818, which established the Canada–US border as far west as the Rocky Mountains, and provided for the joint occupation of the region known in American history as the Oregon Country and in British and Canadian history as the New Caledonia and Columbia Districts. We can even credit the **Monroe Doctrine** -which ended European colonialism- for being a major piece in the expansion of slavery westward. The Monroe Doctrine and "manifest destiny" formed a closely related nexus of principles for a start.
Because while the doctrine did not specify expansion, expansion was an American necessity in order to enforce the Doctrine.