What is the one thing you'd change in history?

[Republic of Coldwater]

This would hurt the Confederate Economy due to their reliance on trade, which would, alongside internal pressures force the government to either do the "compromise" or completely end slavery.

You assume that they'll switch from southern cotton to Indian and Egyptian cotton to pressure them, and not just for economic reasons. You also assume that these internal pressures exist to a magnitude great enough to change the government. Which they don't.
"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association."
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/s ... b1861.html

They would be the most easily swayed, as they don't own slaves and don't directly see the benefits it has, and when you have most of the Southern White population opposed to slavery, and at least a few plantationers disagreeing with slavery or viewing it as evil, and then you have foreign pressures, how can't the CSA end slavery?

Easy. More people are set on slavery than you think. More people think it's an African American's place in the world to be in chains.
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

Not necessarily 50 years, perhaps 10-15 years.

That's not going to be the case, though. And that would still be too long. You don't care because you wouldn't be enslaved.

Yet, in those 10-15 years, we saw a surge in violence.

Still not worse than slavery.

Once uncommon practices against blacks happened nightly, and that led blacks to be in constant fear.

"Uncommon practices" and "constant fear" were always prevalent. This didn't change anything for the worse.

Back in slavery, a master wouldn't randomly whip a slave unless they did something that in the eyes of the slaveholder was wrong,

It's just lie after lie with you, isn't it?
"Besides slaves' being vastly overworked, they suffered brandings, shootings, and "floggings." Flogging was a term often used to describe the average lashing or whipping a slave would receive for misbehaving. Many times a slave would also simply be put through "wanton cruelties" or unprovoked violent beatings or punishments.[7]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_ ... ted_States
I suggest you read this again, because you clearly don't understand it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_ ... ted_States

Not to mention that blacks actually were paid very little or cheated from their wages and lived in substandard conditions, which caused many to starve to death or succumb to diseases.

Things were worse under slavery.
"Besides slaves' being vastly overworked, they suffered brandings, shootings, and "floggings." Flogging was a term often used to describe the average lashing or whipping a slave would receive for misbehaving. Many times a slave would also simply be put through "wanton cruelties" or unprovoked violent beatings or punishments.[7]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_ ... ted_States

Likewise, during slavery, blacks wouldn't have that same level of fear as they did during Reconstruction.

You aren't black, yet you know how we felt?

and they wouldn't be randomly shot, lynched, maimed or tortured.

"Besides slaves' being vastly overworked, they suffered brandings, shootings, and "floggings." Flogging was a term often used to describe the average lashing or whipping a slave would receive for misbehaving. Many times a slave would also simply be put through "wanton cruelties" or unprovoked violent beatings or punishments.[7]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_ ... ted_States

That resulted in more fear,

You have no proof of that.

Sure, the Europeans did want to instill their culture and their values in Africa and Asia and subsequently wiping out their culture, but that doesn't mean they abhorred slavery.

... What? I think you're using 'abhorred' wrong. This only adds to my argument.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abhorred

Freedmen's Village, in my knowledge was in Virginia, which is still southern. For Freedmen's town, they seem to all be in the south, and were organized by the Freedmen's Bureau, which seized lands from white southerners and gave them to blacks, although very few was allocated due to the lack of manpower. From their location, it would mean that those towns and settlements would be under attack by white people,

Your source only added to my point.
"The Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment brought 4 million people out of slavery in the defunct Confederate States of America. Many freedmen migrated from white areas to build their own towns away from white supervision. They also created their own churches and civic organizations. They started schools, which both adults and children attended to learn to read and write."

which further intensified the fear from freedmen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedmen%27s_town

You have no proof to support that.

Watch the Documentary. Freedmen were attacked because they're black, whilst back in slavery, they were only attacked for what their master viewed as misconduct and usually never killed.

I don’t need to. I know that that’s not the case.
"Besides slaves' being vastly overworked, they suffered brandings, shootings, and "floggings." Flogging was a term often used to describe the average lashing or whipping a slave would receive for misbehaving. Many times a slave would also simply be put through "wanton cruelties" or unprovoked violent beatings or punishments.[7]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_ ... ted_States

There seems to be conflicting reports, with some people stating that they surrendered and were shot, with others stating that the people didn't surrender and were shot.

There are more that say it was a massacre.

Regardless, General Forrest later cleaned up his racist past, and argued for racial equality in a time that saying such things could get you shot.

But he wasn't shot. Which I find suspicious.

Alongside more people domestically opposing slavery as society moves on,

This would only really be a thing after many decades.

the government would be under extremely heavy pressure to end slavery.

Again, This would only really be a thing after many decades.

This would only take a decade,

No. It would take a lot longer. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association."

as they would have a sense of urgency once a nation that was painted as a nation of slavers win.

Or they could lose faith and fall apart.

Well, I am not black, so I don't know.

Exactly. Realize that you're arguing with someone over an experience that isn't your own.

From what I can see, racism is really uncommon today, but correct me if there is still prejudice against your people,

There's a lot. It is still quite prevalent. It varies from place to place, and sometimes repackages itself as micro aggressions, like offhanded comments and, if one has curly hair, trying to touch or feel it.

not to mention the constant fear of persecution.

This was always the case. Fear was everywhere during slavery.

That became more common during reconstruction,

You haven't proven this.

Sure, it wasn't slavery by name, but its still slavery.

Greenwood, Freedman's Village, Allensworth, Freedmen's Town, Davis Bend, Rosewood, Muchakinock, and Blackdom say it wasn't slavery for everyone.

Instead, their chances of employment are lower with so many slaves occupying the jobs,

That's more like an argument for slavery. If African Americans were freed, that would mean more competition because they would be being paid and potentially seen as equal by the rest of the world. Although they didn't necessarily own slaves, they felt superior.

but in Reconstruction, some people did it because of the fact that they were black, not because they viewed that they were something wrong.

...What? Being black and free was seen as something wrong. That's why they did it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_of_slaves_in_the_United_States#Punishment_and_abuse
Slaves were punished by whipping, shackling, hanging, beating, burning, mutilation, branding and imprisonment. Punishment was often meted out in response to disobedience or perceived infractions

And those of us that escaped and started our own communities didn't have to deal with that.

Punishments were sometimes taken to assert the superiority of the master, but during Reconstruction, whipping, maiming and shootings happened out of the blue, rather than happening to punish for infractions or to assert the superiority of the master.

You don't have proof of that.

No, free blacks, blacks that were free.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaves_and ... onfederacy
Yes, some may have been forced, but there might've been a free black who decided to fight for the Confederacy. We never know as we can only see from accounts from the people in the Battlefield and from the people of the time.

If that's the case, and they did join and they weren't forced, then guess what book they belong in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom
They're siding with the people who would see then enslaved. That's disgusting.

no medical care,

No proof that it was good. Also, unlikely, considering the tortures we went through.
http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/02/24/ ... -africans/

and constant fear of death from nature and from white people,

That existed before emancipation. You don't understand that, do you? You don't really know what slavery was like.

unlike slavery, in which slaves were at least fed and taken care of so they won't die,

Many slaves did die from torture. They could be used as lessons against other slaves who would dare to act against their oppressors.
http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/02/24/ ... fricans/8/
https://americanslavehorrors.wordpress. ... -examples/

As I said before, the first 15 years of freedom wasn't freedom, blacks were constantly intimidated,

You really can't grasp that we were afraid before then, too, can you? That's a shame.
https://americanslavehorrors.wordpress. ... -examples/

and were constantly barred from voting and even killed.

Slaves couldn't vote and were killed so that's not much of a point.

They lived in substandard conditions and had starving stomachs lingering for some food and terrible health conditions.

This was the case before emancipation as well.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experie ... story.html
"enslaved people were clothed, fed and housed only minimally to ensure their survival and capacity for labor. "
"The diets, high in fat and starch, were not nutritionally sound and could lead to ailments, including scurvy and rickets. Enslaved people in all regions and time periods often did not have enough to eat; some resorted to stealing food from the master. "
"Clothing, distributed by the master, usually once a year and often at Christmastime, was apportioned according sex and age as well as to the labor performed by its wearer. Children, for instance, often went unclothed entirely until they reached adolescence."
"Elderly slaves who could not do physical labor were not given the shoes or extra layers of clothing during the winter that younger fieldworkers were. Whereas many field workers were not given sufficient clothing to cover their bodies..."

It wasn't until the mid 1870s to the 1880s that the blacks had better conditions than slavery, and in that time, if the CSA won, slavery would've ended, and all that hate against blacks wouldn't have happened.

No, it wouldn't have. It would have continued for far longer.
"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association."
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/s ... b1861.html

Of course, they would ideally import all cotton as there is more cotton, and the law of supply and demand means that the prices would be cheaper, which would benefit the British people. However, they could easily get by by importing Egyptian and Indian Cotton. They don't have to import southern cotton and still get by perfectly fine. Given the previous actions of the British, which include using military force to stop the slave trade and deciding against helping the CSA once they were painted as slavers, they would be certainly willing to pressure a nation that would rely on their cash and would need to surmount strong relations to combat the US when they have nothing to lose. Furthermore, they wouldn't feel very easy aiding or allying with a nation with slavery as they themselves are against slavery. Furthermore, that Declaration was written by the upper 25% of the population, the plantationers, and there are even some plantationers who think that the institution was evil. They said that it won't end in the Declaration, but it has no legal meaning and doesn't dictate any laws, and nor will it stop the CSA from ending slavery once the abolitionists rally up that 75% who may not be in the most ideal of economical conditions because of slavery, as they take away jobs away from that 75% of the southern white population.

Not when abolitionist rally the 75% of southern whites who don't own slaves and explain that jobs are taken away from them due to slavery, that it doesn't do them any good, and when you get a good portion, you can get that portion to vote in anti-slavery politicians. You can put all of that pro-slavery rhetoric from the declarations, but the bottom line is this: Abolitionists would concentrate their efforts on the CSA, as it would be the last bastion of slavery in North America, and the populist method would be used, as it would be very effective towards the 75% who don't benefit from slavery.

10-15 years would be enough time for the CSA to realize that their economy is failing due to the lack of exports, for them to realize that they need strong military relations in which the British won't allow, in which industrialization, which is integral to combat the north is happening slowly due to the Europeans controlling imports, and to see that there are many anti-slavery politicians and that a good portion of the 75% of non slaveholders are anti-slavery. When we have all of these factors in conjunction, the CSA Government itself might have enough Congressmen and Senators to pass a bill that ends slavery or does the "compromise" I stated above.

Fair enough, what the KKK and White League did did happen during slavery, but I doubt 135 Blacks were killed in a single county. However, blacks starved to death, they died of ailments. Slaveholders wouldn't starve their slaves to death and may give their slaves medical treatment to preserve their value, so to some extent the condition was better.

Fair enough, things weren't very nice for slavery, but by no means were things better in Reconstruction. Blacks suffered the same treatment, and actually starved, whilst back in slavery although the diet wasn't very healthy, they didn't starve to death.

Oops. Wrong Wording. My bad

What I meant was that just because they screwed over the cultures of Africa and Asia and instilled their cultural values on the people because they felt that their culture was inferior, it doesn't mean that they loved slavery. They still abhorred slavery regardless.

Watch the documentary. White people raided these settlements, and the condition was probably terrible given the lack of monetary resources blacks had, as they were paid little to nothing during slavery, and were still paid little to nothing during Reconstruction.

These beatings are cruel and immoral, but it didn't suddenly halt during slavery, what the KKK did to freedmen was the same as what happened during slavery, and killing would've happened more often, as I sure as hell haven't heard 135 slaves being killed by a master.

Then can you explain why a Union Lieutenant went and said that there wasn't a surrender?

There isn't a 100% chance of you being shot for saying such things, but it was particularly precarious for doing such a thing during the time. I have yet to see evidence pointing to him doing it for some reason other than supporting equality for blacks, especially when at such a time, most people which espouse such beliefs won't make a speech to avoid violence, as if Forrest said such a thing in front of the KKK or the White League, they would probably get really pissed.

Many decades? The British used military force to halt the slave trade, and could easily hold things against the CSA without losing much to pressure them to end slavery, and once again, abolitionists would see the CSA as the last bastion of slavery, and they would concentrate their efforts, most likely on the 75% who don't benefit from slavery and probably suffer negative consequences from slavery to rally them to oppose slavery. That 75% of southern whites can then be used to vote in officials who want to end slavery and that would finally end slavery. Giving the abolitionists 10 years is more than enough to end slavery.

Lose faith when a single nation leaves the Union? I don't think anti-Islamists in America would lose faith if ISIS takes the Middle East, they probably would be very angry and demand action to stop ISIS.

Interesting. I personally haven't seen any of these micro aggressions, but from what I can see, shouting the N word or being overtly racist is taboo in today's society.

And that fear didn't subside during reconstruction, it continued on. They still feared getting maimed, whipped, tortured and shot at, and they still had substandard conditions and were paid little to nothing. Yes, there were black settlements, but if you watch the documentary, there were cases in which white people raided these freedmen's settlements.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY4-qO0TwHM

Many working class southern whites have a hard time finding jobs because slaves occupied a lot of mechanical and hard labor jobs. If you free the slaves, whites would have a fair chance of getting in, instead of having basically no chance, and they might feel preferred by the plantationer as the person is white, not black, and of course, back in the day, blacks were seen as inferior.

It can't be exactly traced to that, sure, that did motivate some people, but I'm sure that if they came back without things destroyed, they wouldn't go around harassing them as much. Sure, they would still persecute them, but the utter destruction of the south and the anger amongst white southerners surely fueled the fire for a lot of these violent actions. If you can get white southerners to agree that slavery is only beneficial to a quarter of the white population, but damaging to the employment of the other three quarters, they wouldn't be very friendly towards slavery, as the slaves take away a lot of job opportunities, whilst with freed slaves, the whites would have a chance to get the jobs that the blacks once had. Sure, black people would compete, but firstly, the farmers and plantationers are happier paying a white man wages than a black man wages, given that they think that blacks are inferior, and secondly, I would rather have a good chance of getting that job rather than having no chance because of the fact that they are basically permanently occupied by black people.

And got raided by white people.

Not if they are free blacks. There were black people who were free, and those people, if I remember correctly comprised of 10% of Charleston's population. If they were slaves, if they voluntarily fought, I don't know what is wrong. That is a personal decision and may be a stepping stone for giving blacks some individual autonomy, which isn't bad.

I don't know how accurate Atlanta Black Star is, but from what I can see on the Treatment Article on Wikipedia, historians have concluded for slaves having adequate to inadequate medical care. Yes, blacks were tortured, but that didn't stop during Reconstruction, it continued on for at least a decade with all of these terrorist organizations around.

And continued on after Emancipation.

I don't know how accurate Atlanta Black Star or Wordpress is (I'm particularly suspicious of Wordpress), but given that it is true, Reconstruction didn't stop such atrocities from happening, and these sources only prove that it was to assert the superiority of the master, which is still wrong, but it showed that there was some reason behind the torture and killings. Now I'm not going to support torture or killing, as both are moral evils that should never exist on this planet, but that still happened during Reconstruction, and this time for no reason but the fact that these people were black.

You guys were still afraid and suffered from the same atrocities for years following Emancipation.

Yeah they lived in substandard homes, and constantly had no food and no medical care.

Far longer despite all of the pressures from abolitionists using the 75% of non slaveholders to oppose slavery, and foreign pressures and denial of strong military relations? I think not.

[Sun Wukong]

Or, perhaps he would have been able to focus on domestic policy. Perhaps the 2001-2003 tax cuts would not have instigated a large deficit. Various controversial laws relating to security would not have been passed, and certain defense measures not taken. This would have given him a much more positive record on civil liberties.

Overall, he might have had a better legacy.

George W. Bush is a good man. Sure, he wasn't the sort of leader we needed at the time, but his heart is in the right place and he cares for the nation.

I freely say that as a dedicated social liberal and civil libertarian.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/sessio ... -tax-cuts/
Actually revenues increased in 2004, and reached 2001 levels in 2005. If we hadn't increased spending and did spending cuts, while launching a more efficient attack on Afghanistan instead of shipping in a Conventional Army and instigate nation building, we would've only had two years of deficits, and then we would still have a balanced budget. Maybe if Bush also let the market decide the interest rates or have a gold standard, we wouldn't see inflated prices which may have also increased the deficit.

You almost seemed credible until you brought up the gold standard as a serious policy.

[The Archregimancy]

I would try and stop the development and/or transmission of a lethal strain of Yersinia pestis in mid-6th-century Egypt.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Of course, they would ideally import all cotton as there is more cotton, and the law of supply and demand means that the prices would be cheaper, which would benefit the British people. However, they could easily get by by importing Egyptian and Indian Cotton. They don't have to import southern cotton and still get by perfectly fine.

So best case scenario, the south is an irrelevant backwater, because they can be outsold by the Britain's own colonies. Great.

Given the previous actions of the British, which include using military force to stop the slave trade and deciding against helping the CSA once they were painted as slavers, they would be certainly willing to pressure a nation that would rely on their cash and would need to surmount strong relations to combat the US when they have nothing to lose.

Not very convincing, since there were still politicians and an upper class, along with the fact that it only patrolled international waters. Also, they might be too occupied with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa

Furthermore, they wouldn't feel very easy aiding or allying with a nation with slavery as they themselves are against slavery.

Doesn't mean they'd go deliberately out of their way to pick up where the north left off.

Furthermore, that Declaration was written by the upper 25% of the population, the plantationers, and there are even some plantationers who think that the institution was evil.

You keep bringing up slaveholders that thought it was evil, and ducking behind the fact that they're slaveholders by calling them "plantationers" (which is cowardly) but know this: it's all talk. They say it's evil, but they still take part in it, and you have no demographics on how many of these people actually exist and think the way they do.

They said that it won't end in the Declaration,

They still want it to continue forever. You read that part, right?

but it has no legal meaning and doesn't dictate any laws,

Doesn't really change anything.

and nor will it stop the CSA from ending slavery once the abolitionists rally up that 75%

Which will take 50 years or more.
"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association."
https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/s ... b1861.html

Abolitionists would concentrate their efforts on the CSA,

And yet you haven't proven that in the slightest.

10-15 years would be enough time for the CSA to realize that their economy is failing due to the lack of exports,

Any way you look at it, this would be the case, and abolishing slavery wouldn't help them. The British have a new source, and there's no point in threatening the CSA at all, when you're just going to leave them entirely anyway to have more money in your pocket.

and to see that there are many anti-slavery politicians and that a good portion of the 75% of non slaveholders are anti-slavery.

More assertions with no basis in reality. Wonderful.

When we have all of these factors in conjunction, the CSA Government itself might have enough Congressmen and Senators to pass a bill that ends slavery or does the "compromise" I stated above.

Key word there is might, which you yourself put. Might. You see why your argument is terrible? It's based completely off of wishful thinking. 10 to 15 years is still too long for me to wait in chains. But you don't respect black people so you wouldn't understand that.

Fair enough, things weren't very nice for slavery, but by no means were things better in Reconstruction. Blacks suffered the same treatment, and actually starved, whilst back in slavery although the diet wasn't very healthy, they didn't starve to death.

Five Points District, Weeksville, Davis Bend, Freedmen's Town, Muchakinock, Buxton, New Philadelphia, Freedman’s Village, Blackdom, Greenwood, Allensworth, Rosewood, the community of Nicodemus, movements to New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, and Chicago, southern Ohio, central Missouri, eastern Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California all are great examples of many of us being free after Reconstruction.

White people raided these settlements,

Not all of them. There's no way to say most of them, either, since there were a ton that were undocumented.

and the condition was probably terrible given the lack of monetary resources blacks had, as they were paid little to nothing during slavery, and were still paid little to nothing during Reconstruction.

The name "Black Wall Street" says they weren't all living in absolute poverty.

These beatings are cruel and immoral, but it didn't suddenly halt during slavery,

Never asserted that they did.

what the KKK did to freedmen was the same as what happened during slavery,

Not exactly. The difference is there were many towns and more places to escape to.

Then can you explain why a Union Lieutenant went and said that there wasn't a surrender?

Can you explain why a confederate Sergent says there was? Along with evidence that points to a massacre and other Union sources saying it happened?

I have yet to see evidence pointing to him doing it for some reason other than supporting equality for blacks, especially when at such a time, most people which espouse such beliefs won't make a speech to avoid violence, as if Forrest said such a thing in front of the KKK or the White League, they would probably get really pissed.

He started the KKK, which you keep saying is worse than slavery. His goal was also

The British used military force to halt the slave trade,

In international waters.

abolitionists would see the CSA as the last bastion of slavery, and they would concentrate their efforts,

You haven't proven this.

Giving the abolitionists 10 years is more than enough to end slavery.

But it would take far longer, because slavery was embedded in southern culture.

Lose faith when a single nation leaves the Union?

And wins a war.

I don't think anti-Islamists in America would lose faith if ISIS takes the Middle East,

False equivalent. Slavery wasn't viewed in the same way as radical Islam.

Interesting. I personally haven't seen any of these micro aggressions, but from what I can see, shouting the N word or being overtly racist is taboo in today's society.

It isn't necessarily the N word, but things can get pretty heated. At school, there was an anti-police brutality protest and before too long someone was shouting at the protestors that they [the person shouting] hated black people. And it wasn't one lone crazy person, since they had friends who stood by them.

Yes, there were black settlements, but if you watch the documentary, there were cases in which white people raided these freedmen's settlements.

But it's less prevalent now, since there are many settlements and not all of them are subject to raids. Reconstruction is not worse than slavery.

and they might feel preferred by the plantationer as the person is white, not black, and of course, back in the day, blacks were seen as inferior.

Not necessarily in the workplace. We were seen as sub human beasts whose place on the planet was to serve.

If you can get white southerners to agree that slavery is only beneficial to a quarter of the white population,

Which wouldn't happen.

the farmers and plantationers are happier paying a white man wages than a black man wages, given that they think that blacks are inferior,

Not as workers, because then they would have stuck to indentured servitude.

if I remember correctly comprised of 10% of Charleston's population.

Get an actual source.

If they were slaves, if they voluntarily fought, I don't know what is wrong.

They're fighting for slavery, and they're the ones who are being enslaved. That's pretty wrong.

Yes, blacks were tortured, but that didn't stop during Reconstruction, it continued on for at least a decade with all of these terrorist organizations around.

There was some tortured, but as I've already shown, many were free.

You guys were still afraid and suffered from the same atrocities for years following Emancipation.

You aren't black, yet you suddenly know how we all felt. Interesting.

Far longer despite all of the pressures from abolitionists using the 75% of non slaveholders to oppose slavery,

They wouldn't, though. This 75% still would support slavery.

and foreign pressures and denial of strong military relations? I think not.

It's pretty entrenched in southern society, and time would only worsen that.
“It is impossible for us to suppose these creatures [enslaved Africans] to be men; because allowing them to be men, a suspicion would follow that we ourselves are not Christians.”
It's pretty entrenched in southern society, and time would only worsen that.
“The consequence will be that our men will be all exterminated or expelled to wander as vagabonds over a hostile earth, and as for our women, their fate will be too horrible to contemplate even in fancy.”
And that's Supreme Court Justice Henry Benning, talking about what would happen if black people were set free.
(French political theorist Montesquieu)

[The Cobalt Sky]

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/sessio ... -tax-cuts/
Actually revenues increased in 2004, and reached 2001 levels in 2005. If we hadn't increased spending and did spending cuts, while launching a more efficient attack on Afghanistan instead of shipping in a Conventional Army and instigate nation building, we would've only had two years of deficits, and then we would still have a balanced budget. Maybe if Bush also let the market decide the interest rates or have a gold standard, we wouldn't see inflated prices which may have also increased the deficit.

You almost seemed credible until you brought up the gold standard as a serious policy.

He also thinks the world would be better if the south won.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Getting Andrew Jackson to shoot John Calhoun in a duel might be neat.

[Yuketobaniac]

I would simply murder the first Hominid

Okay Megatron.

Well... you failed me yet again starscream...

[Earl of Sandwich IV]

I'd go back to 2008 and make John McCain president.

[The Nuclear Fist]

I'd go back to 2008 and make John McCain president.

There isn't a way to pull that off that doesn't involve implausible levels of voter fraud.

[Socialist Tera]

I'd go back to 2008 and make John McCain president.

There isn't a way to pull that off that doesn't involve implausible levels of voter fraud.

The obvious way is for the republican party to have the equivalent of the brown shirts to intimidate voters.

[Dain II Ironfoot]

I'd go back to 2008 and make John McCain president.

I would actually go further back and avoid him being born.

[New Rogernomics]

Clothes.

[Islamic State of UKIP]

I'd go back to 2008 and make John McCain president.

He wasn't eligible to be president. He was born in Panama, which at the time held the same status as Puerto Rico does today as he was naturalised at birth.

[Neuereland]

Make sure we didn't see a rise in anti-white marxist sentiment in the west so we could avoid the cultural genocide that has been brought upon the west today.

[Meryuma]

Make sure we didn't see a rise in anti-white marxist sentiment in the west so we could avoid the cultural genocide that has been brought upon the west today.

Please name 5 "anti-white marxist" philosophers and explain how their views have influenced the cultural consensus of the modern west. Also provide a definition of genocide.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I'd go back in time and show Violet the festering cesspool NSG became.

[Sebastianbourg]

I'd go back to 2008 and make John McCain president.

He wasn't eligible to be president. He was born in Panama, which at the time held the same status as Puerto Rico does today as he was naturalised at birth.

The US has always had trouble defining what a 'natural-born citizen' is and according to some legal experts all those who have been American citizens since birth are natural-born citizens. It's a legal grey area.

[Sebastianbourg]

Clothes.

Mate, that would be a really good thing in some cases but a really bad thing in most cases.

[Conscentia]

Make sure we didn't see a rise in anti-white marxist sentiment in the west so we could avoid the cultural genocide that has been brought upon the west today.

I don't recall that any of that ever happened or is happening.

[Sheltopolis]

I'd find the one guy (if there is one) who first thought of the idea of God or gods and eliminate him. Seriously, I think religion crippled us as a society, the belief that there is an invisible magician up there in the sky, watching everything you do, keeping score, and if you disobey any of His laws you shall be punished and sent to suffer and burn in Hell for all of eternity.

Religion is a way to maintain an obedient citizenry and has been the justification for countless unspeakable atrocities throughout human history.

[Sebastianbourg]

I'd find the one guy (if there is one) who first thought of the idea of God or gods and eliminate him. Seriously, I think religion crippled us as a society, the belief that there is an invisible magician up there in the sky, watching everything you do, keeping score, and if you disobey any of His laws you shall be punished and sent to suffer and burn in Hell for all of eternity.

Religion is a way to maintain an obedient citizenry and has been the justification for countless

Many things have served as justification for unspeakable atrocities throughout human history; religion just happens to be one of them.

[The Orson Empire]

I'd find the one guy (if there is one) who first thought of the idea of God or gods and eliminate him. Seriously, I think religion crippled us as a society, the belief that there is an invisible magician up there in the sky, watching everything you do, keeping score, and if you disobey any of His laws you shall be punished and sent to suffer and burn in Hell for all of eternity.

Religion is a way to maintain an obedient citizenry and has been the justification for countless

Many things have served as justification for unspeakable atrocities throughout human history; religion just happens to be one of them.

Indeed. Unfortunately, religion is very easy to use in order to justify an atrocity.

[Marcurix]

I'd find the one guy (if there is one) who first thought of the idea of God or gods and eliminate him. Seriously, I think religion crippled us as a society, the belief that there is an invisible magician up there in the sky, watching everything you do, keeping score, and if you disobey any of His laws you shall be punished and sent to suffer and burn in Hell for all of eternity.

Religion is a way to maintain an obedient citizenry and has been the justification for countless unspeakable atrocities throughout human history.

Religion is far more complex than that, and what you're describing is a disproving narrative of the perceived general Christian religion. Given there are many other religious perspectives, it would be unfair to paint them all as such.

We should also consider that religion, at least the Christian and Islamic ones, had a close link to science because they ultimately sought to answer the same question.

[Marcurix]

I'd go back to 2008 and make John McCain president.

He wasn't eligible to be president. He was born in Panama, which at the time held the same status as Puerto Rico does today as he was naturalised at birth.

If he wasn't eligible to be president he wouldn't have got the nomination.

[Sebastianbourg]

He wasn't eligible to be president. He was born in Panama, which at the time held the same status as Puerto Rico does today as he was naturalised at birth.

If he wasn't eligible to be president he wouldn't have got the nomination.

Exactly.