What did this cop mean by "You want another day like Saturday, don't you?"?
Please, help me to solve the mystery… what did he mean?
Why are you guys not spreading this?
It means he wishes he could have had the day off on Saturday to march with his fellow Nazis
Sure the Confederates did not fight only for slavery, in their minds they could be fighting against Lincoln as the anti-christ. But it still would not matter, because slavery was the main means of production for the southern economies. So ideological motivations and economic/material interests are not equivocal.
Really makes you think.
She's wants violent clashes between Nazis and anti-fas. He wants peace and order, he's a good guy.
Most confederate soldiers were just guys who got conscripted because they lived in the part of the country that seceded. Just like how most soldiers in the nazi army weren't members of the nazi party.
Good thing that statue isn't depicting some random asshole who got conscripted.
Yeah, fuck Robert E Lee
This quote changes nothing
After that quote is usually when they say that it's also a "necessary evil".
He helped his wife to be free, and then helped funding their new home Liberia. (Which wasn't a shithole until 1965).
Really makes me think. The black people should have revolted and farmed for their own needs instead of being forced into wage labor.
Makes him look worse honestly. Either he was lying or was seriously spooked. Should have read Stirner.
oops sorry for my bad english
**He helped his wife to free the slaves
What did Robert E Lee mean by this? Pic related
This. Lee believed that god put slavery there for a reason.
It will forever be an enigma. Impenetrable!
The war wasn't reslly about the issue of slavery, many people in the union would have been perfectly content to keep it in place. It was about states' rights, and federalism vs anti-federalism
Yeah fuck him
He was le enlightened centrist of his time?
The right to own slaves.
I gjess that's one way to see it, and i find slavery absolutely abhorrent, but it's not a correct assumption to think the intention behind the Union engaging in war was solely driven by emancipating slavery. Perhaps you could say that was one of the most obvious motivators of the confederacy and i'd agree, but I think the civil war is misunderstood by a lot of people on the premise of it being a moral battle between the two sides
It wasn't about morality. It was strictly economic in nature and slavery played a major role in that economic battle.
" A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."
this is the justification in the declaration of war
the fact that Robert Lee sided with them despite being anti-slavery markes him as the biggest cuck in history.
No it was an economic battle.
The economic issue being slave labor vs wage labor. Industrial Capitalist vs Plantation Gentry. Marx knew this and he wrote about it at length.
The civil war being about slaves does not necessarily make a moral argument.
everyone who fought on the side of the nazis is a criminal, perhaps with the possible exeption of the finnish since they were already at war
there were resistance movements in every occupied country
if you have the guts to out and fight with a gun to your back you have the guts to say fuck it and risk getting shot
Not everyone has a contact with a resistance group. Most people, especially in those times, were disgusted by the idea of betraying their country and would ostracize or turn in anybody who didn't support the nation even when it did horrible things. And most Germans weren't really aware of everything the state was up to. If most soldiers in the modern day knew the kind of shit their countries did without telling them, they'd probably not be soldiers either.
This frames it better for me and agreed on all points, my original post kinda redundant now as I was referring to the moral sentiment behind when people refer to the war as being about slavery. It definitely was through an economic lens
Just going to repost what I said in another thread because I'm lazy
Not defending CSA in the slightest, it was pretty much reactionary to a t. But you have to be pretty unread to not know about how the whole thing was more or less perpetuated by Northern industrialists in competition with Southern plantation owners and how even though the English route to abolishing slavery was open multiple times (as automation was picking up), it was in the industrialists favor to go to war. It was more of a conflict between southern plantation capitalists, who were beginning to feel the pressure from the emerging northern factory model and whos entire economy depended on slaves, and the nothern factory capitalists who needed both control of the cotton prices in the south as well as the removal of influential plantation owners with weapon and ship constructers also benefiting greatly. Slavery only really came to the limelight as both a way to cripple and agitate the south as their money was more or less in the slaves (pre-war) and as moral justification to rally support (during the war). Its a lot easier to say to abolishionists and non-slave state citizens "We are fighting to unite the union and liberate slaves" instead of "We are fighting for industrialists economic interests and to build factories during reconstruction". Again not defending the CSA, its good that they're gone and was vitally necessary to get where we are now, but I always feel the focus on slavery distracts from the actual economic reasons it was done.
While events like bleeding Kansas were definatly the powder keg that eventually caused the whole thing to go off and the attitudes of the pro-slavery groups were both reactionary and ideological, we have to look at the economic self-interests of the capitalists of the time and the strict material conditions of the states involved. There was a lot of economic meddling ocurring in a lot of states and nothern industrialist were securing monopolies across the US (monopolies which would carry far post war) with very wealthy southern landowners funding pro-slavery groups like the ones in Kansas as a way to expand market and to counter northern factory construction. I suppose though that my last statement was phrased poorly, I was mostly trying to say the war wasn't really fought for moral reasons or to free slaves but that slaves just happend to be part of the economic framwork caught in the middle and was never really the true motivation of what was a capitalist war between old industry and new industry.
Interesting link regarding the statements of the seceeding states, pretty reactionary but interesting non the least civilwar.org
Hes obviously talking about establishing a 4-day work week.
Don't forget the north was also really racist. "Send them back to Africa" was a popular opinion at the time. A lot of northerners had an opinion similar to "the south is too tolerant" for wanting blacks at all. There is no good side of the war.
Yeah, its also important to note that at the time that northern industrialists were also buying up a lot of businesses down south and driving out the local competitors to secure monopolies. To quote Georgia's declaration (warning, its pretty predictably reactionary):