No romance just reality Wrote:
> Smarter than you are Wrote:
> > Way to ignore the fact that racist Yankee
> > recruiters occupying plantations intentionally
> > skipped reading the parts of the EP mentioning
> > slaves in border states. No freedman in their
> > right mind would have enlisted is they had the
> > full story. They were cannon fodder pure and
> > simple. That's just plain exploitation,
> > worse than the slavery in border states alone.
> > Keep on letting the AA population live in your
> > lies and romanticized paintings tho bruh
> What makes you think for a moment that I am
> ignoring it. The fact that blacks were already
> enlisting in military units before the
> Emancipation Proclamation was announced and it
> became official U.S. policy to enlist them pretty
> much disproves the idea that blacks would not
The previous trickle of escaped and freed slaves enlisting disproves nothing. For all you know, even that trickle may have dried up if they were properly informed of the devious nature of the EP
Maybe not in the same numbers.
Damn right not the same numbers..
> cannon fodder, the same could be said for white
> infantry serving in the Union (and Confederate)
> army. By 1864, certainly in the east, the Civil
> War had become a giant meat grinder.
with the exception of (equally discriminated against) irish units, few suffered the same casualty rates as the Black troops. Cannon fodder is still a thing in a giant meatgrinder.
> The first all black regiment raised in the Civil
> War was formed by free blacks to defend Louisiana
> from invasion by the Union. The Confederate
> government chose not to use this unit into their
> army when they took over Louisiana's forces.
> Later on when some Confederate generals suggested
> freeing blacks and incorporating them into the
> Confederate army, the idea was shot down. By
> early 1865 when the Confederacy finally accepted
> that it needed to use blacks in its army it was
> too late. Lincoln played it smarter.
smarter, maybe. But still equally morally repugnant if not moreso. better to die a slave of old age than die a slave of a bayonet.. They were not really fighting for freedom, thats just what they were manipulated to believe. they were fighting for deep state control..
> If you are offended by misleading actions by army
> recruiters towards blacks, are you equally
> offended by similar actions by recruiters towards
> whites in the Civil War, or in almost every other
> war we fought?
yes, equally despicable regardless of race. Im sick of the endless imperial genocide against our own and our "enemies"
Are you offended by the idea of
> dragooning men into the army by a draft, which is
> how many in the Confederacy were forced to join,
> or forced to remain?
Drafting to defend one's own homeland is acceptable. Drafting to invade another's home is not. Apply that how you will to the civil war, although the NY draft riots leave little room for debate
And how do you feel about
> the 20 Negro Exception?
I feel there are striking parallels to leaving slaves in border states in chains. an army marches on its stomach.. not to mention border state slave owners could pay a $300 commutation of service fee, or find some poor white trash to pay to take their place.
NOW I would appreciate it you would condemn the romanticized paintings which perpetuate the revisionist lies, covering up the equally brutal and coercive treatment of black americans by both sides in a war that was fought for a variety of reasons, least of which was slavery.. The border states and the coerced enlistments prove that very conclusively, as if lincoln's own pen and Stonewall Jacksons illegal sunday school werent enough..
the only reason to lie about history is because you intend to try some shit again, deep state tyrants!