NationStates

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 7:39 pm**

Low-level guerilla warfare my ass.

Far less that, more loosely-connected but still organized terrorist activities perpetrated on Republican officeholders and partisans of all hues throughout the South, abetted and implicitly supported by the Democratic Party and its paramilitary affiliates, in the years between the end of military government and the 1876 elections.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 7:40 pm**

Duhon wrote:
Drongonia wrote:And all of a sudden... just like that... people elected Hitler

If on the basis of such stupidity (and let me reiterate: that shit is stupid) people will elect an asshole they're pretty much looking for an excuse to kick someone upside the head.

>> believing a years old meme is real

What the fuck is this, Facebook?

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 7:40 pm**

Duhon wrote:Low-level guerilla warfare my ass.

Far less that, more loosely-connected but still organized terrorist activities perpetrated on Republican officeholders and partisans of all hues throughout the South, abetted and implicitly supported by the Democratic Party and its paramilitary affiliates, in the years between the end of military government and the 1876 elections.

In other words......low level guerrilla warfare.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 7:41 pm**

Duhon wrote:Low-level guerilla warfare my ass.

Far less that, more loosely-connected but still organized terrorist activities perpetrated on Republican officeholders and partisans of all hues throughout the South, abetted and implicitly supported by the Democratic Party and its paramilitary affiliates, in the years between the end of military government and the 1876 elections.

We should never have negotiated with terrorists. As we can see now, it only emboldened them. We lost generations to that cowardice. We should have had them all tried and hanged.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 7:41 pm**

Totally Not OEP wrote:
(Image)

Me irl tbh

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 7:42 pm**

Totally Not OEP wrote:
Asherahan wrote:Serious question why didn't the US annex Cuba and the Caribbean islands in the 1890s and 1900s?

Because by 1900 the Sugar trade, the only source of value for the Caribbean isles, was no longer as profitable as it once was. In the case of Cuba as well, a long running guerrilla war was being waged and had allowed for the development of Cuban nationalism, which meant annexing it would've put the U.S. in the exact same spot as Spain once was in.

But if the Confederacy had managed to hold the Union oft or, God fucking forbid, conquer the North, you'd see the implementation of the Golden Circle in earnest -- first the Caribbean and most of Mesoamerica, then northern south America --

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 7:42 pm**

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Totally Not OEP wrote:
(Image)

Me irl tbh

We need to elect Ron White by the way.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 7:43 pm**

Duhon wrote:
Totally Not OEP wrote:
Because by 1900 the Sugar trade, the only source of value for the Caribbean isles, was no longer as profitable as it once was. In the case of Cuba as well, a long running guerrilla war was being waged and had allowed for the development of Cuban nationalism, which meant annexing it would've put the U.S. in the exact same spot as Spain once was in.

But if the Confederacy had managed to hold the Union oft or, God fucking forbid, conquer the North, you'd see the implementation of the Golden Circle in earnest -- first the Caribbean and most of Mesoamerica, then northern south America --

That, in all reality, would've never happened.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 7:44 pm**

Totally Not OEP wrote:
Duhon wrote:Low-level guerilla warfare my ass.

Far less that, more loosely-connected but still organized terrorist activities perpetrated on Republican officeholders and partisans of all hues throughout the South, abetted and implicitly supported by the Democratic Party and its paramilitary affiliates, in the years between the end of military government and the 1876 elections.

In other words......low level guerrilla warfare.

The difference is a fine one, OEP.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 7:47 pm**

Totally Not OEP wrote:
Duhon wrote:
But if the Confederacy had managed to hold the Union oft or, God fucking forbid, conquer the North, you'd see the implementation of the Golden Circle in earnest -- first the Caribbean and most of Mesoamerica, then northern south America --

That, in all reality, would've never happened.

In a slave society fresh off the aggressive Union yoke, decades removed from all but the vestiges transatlantic slave trade? Count me extremely skeptical.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 8:01 pm**

Duhon wrote:
Totally Not OEP wrote:
That, in all reality, would've never happened.

In a slave society fresh off the aggressive Union yoke, decades removed from all but the vestiges transatlantic slave trade? Count me extremely skeptical.

For one, that's seriously overstating their goals and two, whatever they may have wanted, the actual ability to get it done is another matter. I'd also like to point out that functionally none of the Fire Eaters were represented in the upper echelons of the Confederate government.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 8:04 pm**

Totally Not OEP wrote:
Novus America wrote:
But as you said their fears were unfounded, it is obvious Lincoln has no intent or power to ban slavery in the South. So even if defended slavery justified the war (when obviously that is still a horrible justification) slavery was not even seriously threatened!

I said they were unfounded because I have the benefit of hindsight, the Southerners of 1860 did not. Even if they did, the South by 1860 had developed its own national identity and thus, in that spirit of self determination, I find them in the right; those men were my ancestors, and I don't begrudge them for doing what they had to do to enact their vision and defend their homes in the process.

It was quite clear Lincoln could not ban slavery without a war.
Even at the time.

And what about self determination for the black population?

It was only “self determination” (amongst basically all other rights) for the sake of denying self determination to blacks (who in some Confederate stares made a majority of the population).

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 8:35 pm**

Conserative Morality wrote:
Duhon wrote:Well, speaking of the South and its barbaric "Cause", here's a question: could anything have prevented the split of the Union and descent into Civil War, during the 1860s and afterwards?

We could have rounded up and shot every slaver in the South.

Tbh we should’ve went a lot harder on the South during Reconstruction than we did, we should’ve rounded up Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens and all other Confederate military and political leaders and figures and had them tried and locked up for treason for the rest of their natural born lives. The occupation should’ve also been bolstered and strengthened and the former confederate states denied readmission and representation in Congress longer. You don’t get to have your temper tantrum and get off with a light smack on the wrist.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 8:38 pm**

Communist Zombie Horde wrote:
Duhon wrote:
Nothing says patriotism like adopting the cause of literal traitors.

The south is not traitors we are the most patriotic people in the world.

So “””patriotic””” that you threw the biggest temper tantrum in American history by committing treason against your own country in order to preserve your “””right””” to own human beings as property.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 9:55 pm**

Totally Not OEP wrote:
(Image)

That tweet's kinda old.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 10:56 pm**

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:
Communist Zombie Horde wrote:The south is not traitors we are the most patriotic people in the world.

So “””patriotic””” that you threw the biggest temper tantrum in American history by committing treason against your own country in order to preserve your “””right””” to own human beings as property.

If you wanna be technical it was about:

1. Being salty they lost the elections and Lincoln took power

2. Muh Slaves

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 11:33 pm**

Conserative Morality wrote:
Duhon wrote:Well, speaking of the South and its barbaric "Cause", here's a question: could anything have prevented the split of the Union and descent into Civil War, during the 1860s and afterwards?

We could have rounded up and shot every slaver in the South.

Should have. That that didn't happen was honestly one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in human history, and most certainly in American history, to be quite honest. Now, instead, we continue to endure deep-rooted racial divisions in America because the poisonous roots of Confederate ideology were allowed to fester post-war and manifest into another century of ruthless, outright oppression, and we have far too many people keen on riding the Lost Cause train and acting like it's a fucking point of pride that hundreds of thousands of people were needlessly slaughtered in one of the bloodiest wars in history because some enriched fuckwits decided that torturously keeping people in chains and oppressing them for their entire lives, all so that they could keep being rich off cash crops, was more important than not doing exactly that.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 11:35 pm**

Torrocca wrote:Should have.

So American slavers get the bullet, but not Nazis? Make up your bloody mind.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 11:35 pm**

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:
Torrocca wrote:Should have.

So slavers get the bullet, but not Nazis? Make up your bloody mind.

I never said they shouldn't've had the same. :^)

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 11:37 pm**

Torrocca wrote:I never said they shouldn't've had the same. :^)

You've literally challenged WRA and OEP when they said that you wanted to have Nazis shot and killed. I guess now we know without a doubt.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 11:38 pm**

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:
Torrocca wrote:I never said they shouldn't've had the same. :^)

You've literally challenged WRA and OEP when they said that you wanted to have Nazis shot and killed. I guess now we know without a doubt.

Nah, I challenged them on the words of a post they quoted, where I didn't explicitly state that. My beliefs were irrelevant to that discussion about semantics. :^3

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 11:40 pm**

Torrocca wrote:Nah, I challenged them on the words of a post they quoted, where I didn't explicitly state that. My beliefs were irrelevant to that discussion about semantics. :^3

Sorry buddy, I'm not buying what you're selling.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 11:41 pm**

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:
Torrocca wrote:Nah, I challenged them on the words of a post they quoted, where I didn't explicitly state that. My beliefs were irrelevant to that discussion about semantics. :^3

Sorry buddy, I'm not buying what you're selling.

Well, I'm sure you can easily find that conversation from the last thread and see that it, indeed, was an argument over semantics. :3

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 11:44 pm**

Torrocca wrote:Well, I'm sure you can easily find that conversation from the last thread and see that it, indeed, was an argument over semantics. :3

Too much damn work for too little gain.

Posted: **Sat May 18, 2019 11:49 pm**

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:
Torrocca wrote:Well, I'm sure you can easily find that conversation from the last thread and see that it, indeed, was an argument over semantics. :3

Too much damn work for too little gain.

Took a minute, tops.

See how that post OEP quoted says nothing about shooting and killing Nazis? :3

NationStates

Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again