What would the world be like without Abe Lincoln?

[Tigerace117]

Well some of the old powerheads still having power does not mean the old powerstructure remained, because it did not, germany had fascists, socialists, anarchists, and capitalists all battling it out in the streets in a rush to fill the vacuum left by the former german empire, the weimar republic was a shell of it's former empire. And old members supporting hitler was not a surprise, many of the combat vets from ww1 ended up siding with fascists as did the people because they were scared of socialists and anarcho sommunists. Hitler used the glory of the old empire to rally support, while using attacks by socialists to justify his brownshirts(which literally did the same to the socialists) and later using attacks by socialist groups as well as the short lived bavarian soviet republic and the reichstag fire to feed into peoples minds a fear of socialism.

People who take power after a collapse do so with commodities, claiming it was raping and stealing and killing is not only being dishonest, but also laughable. Granted such things occurred numerous times in history in much more volatile times, however in the case of the south and for weimar germany, their currency was worthless, southern dollars were barely worth being used as toilet paper and the mark after ww1 was so bad at one point you would need a wheel barrow full of marks to buy a loaf of bread. This puts land owners and other commodity owners as the winners, those who had their money somewhere other than cash, things that can be traded when money is worthless or land that could be leased to workers to produce food to trade to other countries without a destroyed currency.

And yet more historical ignorance from you. The most powerful street gangs in Germany, the Freikorps, were made up of former Imperial German Army troops, many of which still had monarchist tendencies. One of the Kaiser's top commander was with Hitler at Munich. Arguing that the Kaiser's regime had "just vanished" or didn't influence the Nazis is a bad joke.

Oh really? This is exactly what your beloved slavers did to gain power,

"Armed guerrilla warfare killed thousands of Negroes; political riots were staged; their causes or occasions were always obscure, their results always certain: ten to one hundred times as many Negroes were killed as whites." Masked men shot into houses and burned them, sometimes with the occupants still inside. They drove successful black farmers off their land. "Generally, it can be reported that in North and South Carolina, in 18 months ending in June 1867, there were 197 murders and 548 cases of aggravated assault.[64]

Klan violence worked to suppress black voting, and campaign seasons were deadly. More than 2,000 people were killed, wounded, or otherwise injured in Louisiana within a few weeks prior to the Presidential election of November 1868. Although St. Landry Parish had a registered Republican majority of 1,071, after the murders, no Republicans voted in the fall elections. White Democrats cast the full vote of the parish for President Grant's opponent. The KKK killed and wounded more than 200 black Republicans, hunting and chasing them through the woods."

Yes, just as the Nazis did in Germany, the former Confederates and the Klan took advantage of a delusional people with a burning hatred for a minority group and used that to fuel their control over the south, and to create an oppressive, tyrannical regime which brutally oppressed Americans for a century. Their real value, in the eyes of your heroes, is that they could murder and rape innocent people at will--- and that, more than anything else, is the legacy of the Confederacy you love so much.

 

[beerftw]

And yet more historical ignorance from you. The most powerful street gangs in Germany, the Freikorps, were made up of former Imperial German Army troops, many of which still had monarchist tendencies. One of the Kaiser's top commander was with Hitler at Munich. Arguing that the Kaiser's regime had "just vanished" or didn't influence the Nazis is a bad joke.

Oh really? This is exactly what your beloved slavers did to gain power,

"Armed guerrilla warfare killed thousands of Negroes; political riots were staged; their causes or occasions were always obscure, their results always certain: ten to one hundred times as many Negroes were killed as whites." Masked men shot into houses and burned them, sometimes with the occupants still inside. They drove successful black farmers off their land. "Generally, it can be reported that in North and South Carolina, in 18 months ending in June 1867, there were 197 murders and 548 cases of aggravated assault.[64]

Klan violence worked to suppress black voting, and campaign seasons were deadly. More than 2,000 people were killed, wounded, or otherwise injured in Louisiana within a few weeks prior to the Presidential election of November 1868. Although St. Landry Parish had a registered Republican majority of 1,071, after the murders, no Republicans voted in the fall elections. White Democrats cast the full vote of the parish for President Grant's opponent. The KKK killed and wounded more than 200 black Republicans, hunting and chasing them through the woods."

Yes, just as the Nazis did in Germany, the former Confederates and the Klan took advantage of a delusional people with a burning hatred for a minority group and used that to fuel their control over the south, and to create an oppressive, tyrannical regime which brutally oppressed Americans for a century. Their real value, in the eyes of your heroes, is that they could murder and rape innocent people at will--- and that, more than anything else, is the legacy of the Confederacy you love so much.

Well of course imperial german soldiers made up one of the largest factions, they were also in other faction, however troops of an old regime were not the old regime.



Now you are arguing the klan to prove your point, however those murders did not just grant them power, many of those were people who already had power(land owners) or people deposed of power after the civil war. Terrorism however did not yeild all those people power in the south, their possession of a valuable commodity during an economic and monetary collapse gave them power. Even as confederate dollars became worthless, and the exchange rate was terrible for us dollars after the war, landowners did what was called sharecropping, or leasing the land for a share of crops that would be traded for us dollars.


Now you are calling them my heros, and calling people not 100% against the confederacy as racists murderers and rapists, seems when you can not argue on merit you need to resort to a major amount of logical fallacies.

 

[beerftw]

Lol yet more historical ignorance. Neither West Virginia nor Delaware were "part of the North"; both states had large domestic pro southern(in other words, pro slavery) sentiment, and in fact Confederate raiders operated throughout the state during the entirety of the war. If yet more historical ignorance is the best you can do you really should read a history book

Oh really? People protesting the removal of Confederate statues has nothing to do with.....people protesting the removal of Confedate statues?

Really bud?

I get that you have to be incredibly blind to reality to not see the Confederacy for what it was, but that's a whole new level of derail you've descended into.

West virginia was part of the union as was deleware, trying to rewrite history to fit your argument is utter ignorance at best, and using pro confederate sentiment as a means to try and claim which state was part of the union is a failure of logic, as all states had pro confederate sentiment. However west virginia broke away from the confederate virginia to join the union, and deleware was part of the union, and the union capital had legal slavery as well, so is the capitol of the union not part of the union either?


The confederate statue topic has nothing to do with this argument at this time unless you want to connect it to reconstruction, otherwise you are just building strawmen as your original argument seems to be falling apart.

 

[Tigerace117]

West virginia was part of the union as was deleware, trying to rewrite history to fit your argument is utter ignorance at best, and using pro confederate sentiment as a means to try and claim which state was part of the union is a failure of logic, as all states had pro confederate sentiment. However west virginia broke away from the confederate virginia to join the union, and deleware was part of the union, and the union capital had legal slavery as well, so is the capitol of the union not part of the union either?


The confederate statue topic has nothing to do with this argument at this time unless you want to connect it to reconstruction, otherwise you are just building strawmen as your original argument seems to be falling apart.

A Neo Confederate claiming others are trying to "rewrite history" is absolutely hilarious, by the way. If a "Union state" largely controlled by pro Confederate guerillas and a "Union state" crawling with Confederate sympathizers is the best you can do, well, you might as well give up right now.

But hey, I get it. Any straw in a crisis to defend your slaver heroes, right?

Yes, I get that you are frantic in the face of an argument you can't debunk and thus have to make even more flimsy justifications for defending your heroes, but even for you that's weak.

 

[Tigerace117]

Well of course imperial german soldiers made up one of the largest factions, they were also in other faction, however troops of an old regime were not the old regime.



Now you are arguing the klan to prove your point, however those murders did not just grant them power, many of those were people who already had power(land owners) or people deposed of power after the civil war. Terrorism however did not yeild all those people power in the south, their possession of a valuable commodity during an economic and monetary collapse gave them power. Even as confederate dollars became worthless, and the exchange rate was terrible for us dollars after the war, landowners did what was called sharecropping, or leasing the land for a share of crops that would be traded for us dollars.


Now you are calling them my heros, and calling people not 100% against the confederacy as racists murderers and rapists, seems when you can not argue on merit you need to resort to a major amount of logical fallacies.

So your argument is that the troops, officers, symbols, and interests of the old regime...... don't have any influence on the new regime that utilized them.

Your argument lacks in logic.

The Klan was your heroes' armed wing after the war buddy. It was founded by former Confederate officers, composed of former Confederate troops, supported by former Confederate civilians.......

Except no, even in the very mild treatment of the South many of these terrorists were men who'd lost much of their wealth or power with the end of slavery and wanted to get a system as close as possible to the old one in place ASAP, and were willing to commit numerous crimes and acts of terrorism to accomplish that.

I already debunked that line of argument buddy. Terrorism enabled them to regain political power, and in the collapse of an economy a willingness to use violence automatically becomes the replacing factor.

Yes, I know all about slavery lite; it was as close to slavery as your heroes could manage without technically being actual slavery.

The Confederacy was a despicable regime which fought for slavery and whose adherents committed murder, rape, and terrorism in the course of brutally oppressing innocent Americans for a century. Just like those who admire Nazi Germany, admiring the Confederacy tells you quite a lot about a person.

Seems to me your desperate defense of your Confederate heroes has failed spectacularly.