The Twin Pillars that Trump's presidency relies on

Interesting that you seem to believe that here in 2020 in the US that we have a problem with blacks slacking off while the whites pull their weight whereas it was the blacks in the slave states that must have pulled the weight or they wouldn't have been worth starting the Civil War over, regardless of your false percentages. I'd appreciate a link to your source that supports these percentages you assert.

Here are a couple of sources that seem to indicate you cannot back up your 6% assertion.

According to this link, in 1860 the total census population population of states with reported slaves was 13,163,728 of which 3,953,760 were slaves. That's 30% of the population, and this is me being lazy with a vlookup and including Utah with its 29 slaves out of 40,273 residents and a few other marginally slave states. North Carolina was about 1/3 slaves in 1860. Maybe you and all your hardworking back-breaking white folk should have done your own work to begin with and then you wouldn't have the "problem" that your practices caused in the first place?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_historical_population

Here's another that does not support your numbers by any stretch: https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery See myth 3.

The 1860 census shows that in the states that would soon secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves. Some states had far more slave owners (46 percent of families in South Carolina, 49 percent in Mississippi) while some had far less (20 percent of families in Arkansas).

This link also refutes your assertion that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery. And your preposterous assertion that it was about defending the Constitution, wherein the feckless Confederacy chose to go to war in defense of their institution of slavery.

In the official declaration of the causes of their secession in December 1860, South Carolina’s delegates cited “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery.”

Maybe you might want to read the Constitution and reference the portions of it that support your assertion that the Confederacy was formed to defend it.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

Article 1, Section 10: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation, and I could cite several additional statements in this document that support that the Union was well within the parameters of the Constitution to keep the states in the Union by force.

 

A lot of Russians are of Scandinavian descent. A lot of Swedes are of Germanic (Anglo-Saxon) descent.

I should better have simply used "Caucasian", rather than "Anglo-Saxon". Thank you for bringing up the finer point details. I stand corrected.

 

LOL, we are so divided we can't even agree whether we are divided or not!

 

Odd that you've chosen the third person plural when you are responding to the person whom you proposed was used to dealing with a bunch of effeminate, cuckolded white boys who have been brainwashed since they started school to cowtow to the other side.

Please do rationalize this for me. How exactly did you determine that I am used to dealing with those that you describe? And more importantly, how exactly does this address my argument that you would not be welcome in my company due to your anti-black rhetoric here on this forum?

 

You apparently missed the point. We had a Civil War when the only people in charge were white men. Seems not to support your assertion that our current divisions are because we're only 72% white instead of 80%. Try again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner

 

I never claimed that the Civil War supported my contentions. I did quote academic research which supports my contentions, though.

There can be more than one cause for division. Intelligent people can appreciate that.

And the percentage of White non-hispanic Americans is 63% and was 89% in 1950.

 

Unsupported numbers again from you.

Peak active strength was 2:1 in favor of the Union. If you take the low end of the estimated Rebel force against that of the Union then you have about a 3:1 disadvantage against the rebel alliance, quite likely the case toward the end of the war.

110,000 KIA/DOW versus 94,000 KIA/DOW isn't quite in line with a 4:1 kill ratio. As far as the overall dead there were about 100,000 more on the Union side but of the total about 230k on the Union side and about 170k on the Rebel side were non combat deaths.

Numbers from here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

Non-Combat death examples: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1x76d3f

 

You have fairly well been consistent in this thread about the advantage, in your opinion, of racial homogeneity, going so far as to posit that we would not have the current division we have in the US if we were still 80% white.

I offered an example that is not a matter of academic research, but rather of historical fact disproving your assertion that racial homogeneity would relieve a society of division.

And you now assert that anyone with a lick of sense knows that there can be more than one cause for division.

Says the guy who has argued throughout this thread that our division is because of race / diversity.

Good For You.

 

Yes, I assert that diversity is causing division today.

I quoted academic research that backs up my assertion.

I do not assert that racial homogeneity will ensure good relations in all circumstances. Why you think I must hold that position is beyond me. I think this is what setting up a straw man argument must look like.

 

I think that you hold that position because that is what you wrote. Just to be clear, you now recant your assertion? You acknowledge that even if the US was 100% white that it would still have divisions?

 

Of course, but they would not be as acute. Diversity is the leading cause of division in the US today. Most likely it would be class divisions. Diversity has managed to convince the white working class to join the Republican party, for goodness sake, overriding class as the most potent political variable.

 

Not as acute as a civil war?

 

Nope, not as acute as a civil war. And less acute than we see today.

 

Ok, trying to follow your logic, or what actually appears to me as your lack thereof. If the US were more white, then its current divisions would be less "acute" than we see today, but not as "acute" as when all of the power in the US was completely within the hands of white males? I'll let you have the last word on this since you seemed determined to....

 

Yes.

(1) The civil war was mainly based on economic differences between the North and the South which don't apply today.

(2) Today, divisions are mainly based on racial and ethnic differences that didn't apply during the civil war.

(3) The economic divisions then were more acute than the diversity divisions today.

Who knows what the future may bring?

And thank you for the last word.

 

[

So blacks tend to fat. That means they're entirely different types of people?

I repeat, Differences between groups of people are always exceeded by differences between individuals in those groups. That fact is really independent of anything about races or ethnicity or anything else. It's because the group characteristics are averages. It's a property of numbers and how things have to be measured and gets to the fact that races are actually just constructs we make up for convenience, with little to no actual physical existence at all and indicating nothing more than the cultural bias of the people making them.

Genetically whites and blacks are nearly indistinguishable, they certainly breed true and any biologist will tell you that is the real determination of identity in any species.

 

I vote other, because this wins the award for the dumbest poll ever. Congratulations.

 

And what troubles me about your posts is that you approach every topic as if it were a binary choice...and that your choice is always the superior one. That sort of thinking, from my own personal experiences, is usually from religious people, but if that term offends you, then let me narrow it down to what is euphemistically called "magical thinking".

I personally do not have any issue with anyone who wishes to engage in magical thinking, but when that thinking is presented as some sort of fact, or "common" sense, then it certainly becomes an issue to be able to communicate rationally, especially on a debate forum.

 

It's not binary nor religious, nor magical- it's called critical thinking. And it doesn't make sense to people who neither understand it or don't use it.

 

You stated that Trump is a liar and now you tell me there are books on the subject but you can't come up with a single example? Bullshit!!!!!

 

You know it when you see se it

 

Goodness is not subjective

Many absolutes in reality.

 

Oh goody I didn't think anyone was actually going to try. I'm going to address this in piecemeal because there's quite a bit to correct here. BTW I love when someone questions my ability to source my claims.

It's not a debate over who is more productive. I can produce you as many sources as you'd like. From construction, to office work, to overall productivity. Here's a good starter; workplace productivity.

https://www.economist.com/united-st...s-that-effort-at-work-is-correlated-with-race

Well if you want to have this discussion, it would behoove us all if you would not be lazy and stop regurgitating propaganda from websites which don't source actual facts.

Here is the actual census from 1860: https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/agriculture/1860b-09.pdf?#

Page 247 will be the page we're looking at. It gives an aggregate for the number of slaveowners by state in the US. Ignoring DC, Nebraska and Utah, the total number of slaveowners within the United States was 383,637. The total population in the southern states (i did you a favor and didn't even include maryland's free population but did count their slaveowners) was 7,579,504. Now I know you were being lazy, but let's do a little math. 383,637 / 7,579,504 = .050615 x 100 = 5.06% Now I'm sure those numbers could be adjusted slightly up or down given total population size, but my number of less than 6% slaveowners is a solid estimate.

You see you're pushing the perfect example of what propaganda is. The "household" argument. To claim that the ENTIRE household is impugned as slaveowners when ONE member owns a slave. So grandma, their abolitionist son and little suzie ALL get impugned as a slaveowner. And your side MUST do this because the ACTUAL number of slaveowners was so pathetically low so as to make your slavery being the cause of the civil war argument preposterous. So instead you have to find a way to inflate the numbers and even THEN the best you have is 30% which isn't even remotely a majority. The household argument is incredibly dishonest. It's tantamount to stating that if there's a household with 8 members in it and one of them is a thief then ALL 8 of them are thieves.

Not only is it an incredibly dishonest argument but it's logically preposterous.

 

Now as for this gem. As I just pointed out, less than 6% of the white populace owned slaves in the south. That means the other 94% broke their backs in the fields daily to compete against that free slave labor. To assert that 94% of the people went to war and sent their children to fight and die so that the 6% could keep their slaves is ridiculous.

If your argument is, however, that the leaders of the confederacy (many of whom were slaveowners) went to war in order to defend slavery then please tell me, why didn't they simply sign the Corwn Amendment? An amendment which would have ended secession and guaranteed slavery as an inalienable constitutional right. An amendment which had already passed Congress, had full support from Lincoln and had already been ratified by multiple union states. Please explain to me why ANYONE would choose to risk EVERYTHING they have including lands, homes, wealth, position, power, life of their friends and families and even their own lives, to enter into a war that they KNEW they had little to no chance of winning (given their resources and disadvantage in numbers) when they could accomplish the EXACT same goal of the preservation of slavery with zero risk and a 100% guarantee of success simply by signing a piece of paper?

The north and federal government had breached contract in regards to the constitution time and time again. They had done it so much that the SCOTUS ruled their actions to be unconstitutional and the north simply ignored the ruling because they knew that their proxy the federal government including the executive would never enforce the decision. You cannot refuse to uphold your obligation under an agreement and then demand through threat of violence that the other side continue to uphold theirs. There's not a court in the history of the world who would rule in your favor outside of a kangaroo court.

The south were not the traitors to our country and the constitution upon which it was founded, the north was.

If you and I enter into an agreement and we both willfully sign a contract that defines our rights and responsibilities under said agreement.

Years later I come back and say, "You know, I never liked this part of our agreement because I consider it to be immoral. As such, I'm no longer going to uphold this portion of our contract, whether you like it or not." You respond and say, "That's fine, if you want to unilaterally alter our agreement without my consent, then I want out of our partnership."

Who is the traitor in that scenario? You or I?

If I then come back and say, "No, you're not leaving our partnership and if I have to murder your men, women and children to stop you, then that's what I'm going to do."

Who is in the right and who is in the wrong? Furthermore, if placed in that position, would you not fight back?

 

You presented a binary choice when you started this thread, with the exception of, "other."

Well, here is the other based on the reality of Trumps' political model.

From my post on December 2nd, 2019...

"Trump actually is that smart. And his campaign used the Clausewitz triad to develop strategies.
The Alinsky model has been totally outmatched by the brilliance of Clausewitz.
And most of the Dem intellectual and academia think tanks are still perplexed."

The Clausewitz Triad consists of three basic components.

Spirit, Loyalty and Morale.

I absolutely love it when the media mocks him regarding, "loyalty," issues. They are playing right into his wheelhouse.