Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 626570351635071017
*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.
So as we see here from all the given statements, the U.S. **alone** was a main beneficiary of the institution of Slavery at its later point. Which, this incredible benefit went to define our early history making us stronger not only economically, but politically.
As the U.S. went further Westward, claiming the lands west of the Mississippi river, slavery undeniably came with it. Specifically, into the territories and also Texas. The Texan revolt against Mexico was of serious interest to the United States, both North & South. However, it was debated of how to seize Texas without war, for the **first time** in **AMERICAN** History, an anti-war movement gained prominence specifically against war with Mexico and annexation of their lands. The "**All of Mexico Movement**" was a major piece of Manifest Destiny, which if had its way Mexico would cease to exist as a country in our modern timeline [which I'm sure Alex would giggle at the possibility].
But you may ask: "What about slavery in the South at this point?", fair question if you had it in mind. At the middle of the 1840s, slavery was **very** new to the Southern states, and immediately began to make itself profitable. With the African slaves finding better climate which equals the climate of Africa from Senegal to Mozambique they hailed from, in more favorable climate the negro slaves found life a bit easier in terms of weather. As up North beyond and around the Potomac where the original American slaves come from, the weather often led to their decline in health and work quality.
With the drain of African slaves and the plantation families as mentioned earlier, the Northern States found themselves in a tough spot. And what was the alternative to Agrarianism? **Industrialization**! And make no mistake readers, Industrialization was an idea before the slave drain but there was no necessity prior to fully embrace it until most of the slave owning families relocated to fairer climate Southward.
In the Southern area of the country, Industrialization was a heated topic amongst the intellectuals and aristocratic slave owning families, many of whom felt the insitution would be irreversibly changed if they switched whole-heartedly to the new age of machines. And as this debate waged, abolitionism found prominence in the slave-depleted Northern States of the country. In regards to the "**All Mexico Movement**" from earlier which mind you is on-going simutanously with this, I present a speech to Congress from the legendary secessionist and South Carolinian, John C. Calhoun, yes! Calhoun himself:
"We have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race.... We are anxious to force free government on all; and I see that it has been urged ... that it is the mission of this country to spread civil and religious liberty over all the world, and especially over this continent. It is a great mistake" from January 4, 1848.
Now you should immediately notice, Calhoun's first section: "We have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race.", at first you'd probably find it intriguing, as slaves of this time were not of Caucasian stock but Capoid-Negroid stock from the Ivory Coast of Africa. So you may then ask: "Is he delusional?", I say **no!**, you see, the Southern version of slavery as an institution drastically altered the previous ideals of the institution from up north. Mr. Calhoun, protested the annexation of the entirety of Mexico, "This debate brought to the forefront one of the contradictions of manifest destiny: on the one hand, while identitarian ideas inherent in manifest destiny suggested that Mexicans, as non-whites, would present a threat to white racial integrity and thus were not qualified to become Americans" from my selected source: **Promised Land, Crusader State by Walter A. McDougall**.
Thus for, Manifest Destiny is at a very sharp crossroad astowhere it's direction lay be up for debate at that point in time, where Southern political opposition rejecting total annexation of Mexico, compared to the folk preaching for the absorbing the entirety of it. Now, you may laugh as the main motivation for opposition against annexation of all Mexico has ties to white supremacy; but I say it be a good thing for USA as a whole. But the cessions from Mexico did not cease with 1848, and persisted until later on in the Gadsden Purchase of 1853. Fun fact, the Jefferson Davis [currently a remarkably successful U.S. Senator], proposed limited annexation of specifically most of northeastern Mexico. While the Southern opposition protested total annexation for sake of white racial integrity, It is clear that Manifest Destiny **still** continued despite even **Southern** opposition!
The U.S. Senate rejected Southern proposals of limited annexation specifically Jefferson Davis and even Daniel Webster's (a man from Massachusetts). At this incredibly late point of Manifest Destiny, we can look back to my prior statements covering the interest of expanding slavery played part in not only the creation of the Monroe Doctrine, but American expansionism. So now this being stated, how can any of you without a shred of self-doubt, place the blame of the American Institution of Slavery solely upon the Southern United States? I call it absurd, as the South is only a product resulting **FROM** ideals and principles it was not around to have say nor participate in. That being levied as my statement, I can only condemn our participation in it -very limited as it was- but I refuse to take the responsibility of the institution from before the later South [1860] even existed as states. And from my personal investment of time and self-funded research, can attest that even historians agree that the Southern participation in the American Insitution of Slavery, was quickly becoming unprofitable in less than fourty-eight years since it's introduction in the near infancy of the Monroe Doctrine.
I highlight my early argument that the Southern participation in the institution be not the Northern halfs responsibility, if slavery be a sin. Thus for, the Northern US can only ask forgiveness for their early and influential role in the expansion and furthering the institution and the profit they reaped from it's continuation. As for the Southern later Confederate States of America, we can only ask forgiveness for our part minimal as it is. As Davis later states himself: "**African slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing.**"
Any persistence in the delusional fantasy that the South holds the lionshare of responsibility for the institution, is not only idiotic but outright dangerous. This persisted delusion, sparked by abolitionists who sought not only to downplay their states participation, but to shift blame onto the recently established Southern States is outright inflating this delusion.
Thusly, the Union cannot right its wrong by stripping the South of its "sinful" institution, but only entrench the sin by planting the seeds of resentment, political wrong, and cultural supriority over the Southern United States. The result of the war, creating the same resentment led to a drain of population amongst the whites in the South fleeing to Brazil, Belize, Honduras, Guatemala, even Mexico benefitting these nations to varying extents individually while hurting us for that time being. The actions of Radical Republicans prompting up Reconstruction even gave birth to the Ku Klux Klan, making not the South responsible but the Republican Party for its brutish and unconstitutional occupation of the post-war Confederacy.
**Speech over**
GG @Deleted User, you just advanced to level 11!
Hey now, US Marines had to save your ass in the pacific.
We lost over 30,000 marines island hopping, They were sitting at your doorstep.
@Justin Burger (Major-GA) do you mean the battle of Okinawa?
We held them at bay in Papua with a rag tag team of diggers. I seriously implore you to watch the film "kokoda". I've recommended it before
Literally the entire pacific front we saved them from you.
If we didnt step in they would of invaded australia
It was us that stopped them in Papua, the closest they got
Ah, saved them *from* us. I get you now
In-depth analysis of how the next American civil war will go down by a former red-team planner:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/LOkKFusnq8R9/
Doesn't look good for the left
I get the feeling this belongs here as well based on the fact it's audio of Sir Oswald Mosley and Mosley was historically important.
uyes
