Redpill me on abolitionism

Seriously, why did some Yanks give any shits about the slavery in the south? We now know that all their rigmarole about the immorality of slavery was a shit out the mouth lie and that Black folks benefitted from slavery immensely. Were they secretly based and just were opposed to slavery because it brings Black folks?
To repeat, why did anyone care about the condition of blacks in the supposedly super mega raycist 19th century US?

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Black folks benefitted from slavery immensely
    bait thread

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Oh, I'm so sorry that you were a serf in white society with all its benefits and later becoming a privileged minority instead of being a slave in Africa and just look at fricking Africa you dipshit

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >just look at fricking Africa

        Look at Africa, a continent that was 99% colonized and irreversibly altered by European colonization and the slave trades of both Europeans and Arabs?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      He's right though.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not him but he's right. Those people would have been slaves whether they were in the Americas or in Africa and while some places in south America and the Caribbean were pretty harsh and brutal, being a slave in North America was a dream life compared to being one in Africa.
      >muh whipping
      You do realize that this is a time when soldiers were flogged as well, right? That wasn't some unique thing that only happened to misbehaving slaves and it didn't happen nearly as often as the television set and public education would have you believe.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        If slavery was not the evil it is protrayed as white people cannot be the object of hate and anger. Therefore you are wrong. Off with your head, GUARDS!

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    it was actually a religious war between the puritans and the anglicans.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      which side was which?
      t. know nothing about american "christianity"

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        north was the former and south was the latter. the wrong side won if you ask me but they were going to deport the Black folks at least thus pushing america back from its inevitable slide into leftism. booth should've waited til he was out of office like seriously man i get he was a hardass but come on you doomed the country over that?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Lincoln was never actually going to deport the slaves, stop falling for bookcat moronation.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            pretty sure i have him blocked for being a papist moron but i haven't been on x in forever anyway. why would he have made liberia then? well either way the ideal scenario would've been the anglicans winning, gradually adopting industry from the north and then castrating the Black populace. we'd be posting in space right now in that universe.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >why would he have made liberia then?

            Simple. He didn't. Libera was made by the American Colonization Society, a group of mostly Upper Southern (Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, Maryland etc) slaveholders acting in concert with a few sympathetic northerners to free slaves and then send them to Africa. They did this almost entirely of their own initiative because attempts to get the Federal government involved failed.

            Robert E. Lee, IIRC, helped one of his former slaves immigrate to Liberia.

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    After the Anglo-Mexican War, the US acquired a bunch of new land,this would become New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and California. (Texas was annexed just before the War.)

    The Free Soilers wanted to ensure as much of the west as possible remained open to non-slaveowners,in any state with slavery, slaveowners would get all the best land.

    An alliance of abolitionists, free soilers, and former Northern Whigs came together in the Republican Party.

    Its slogan was free soil, free labor, and free men. Their top priority was to block the expansion of slavery into the western lands.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      stfu chatgpt

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The Free Soilers wanted to ensure as much of the west as possible remained open to non-slaveowners,in any state with slavery, slaveowners would get all the best land.
      It goes beyond that, slavery basically meant that slave owners could become extremely wealthy and powerful due to free labor. They had already taken complete control of Southern politics at that point, and people did not want a repeat of this.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ok. I've heard that they were opposed slavery primarily because they didn't want any blacks in those lands. To what extent is that true?
      But what had driven the initial anti slavery sentiment in the north?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        There was a true ethical belief that slavery was an immoral practice. Some of the more pragmatic types saw slavery as an unsustainable institution that would eventually implode. Others saw as it having a feminizing effect on male southerners with their bizarre pseudo-aristocratic lifestyle.

        But the establishment of the fugitive slave acts are really what galvanized northerners, even those who didn’t really give a shit about slavery. The thought of southern slave catchers prowling around northern towns in search of escaped slaves was off-putting at best, and fundamentally unconstitutional. All the southerners who love to take about muh heckin’ state’s rightarinos never stop to think how violating the slave acts were.

        On the political side, an expansion of slave power and a continual concentration of aristocratic slaver’s wealth was a nonstarter. All these things and more led the north to want kill slavery before it got out of control.

        Very few northerners gave a shit about blacks during all this.

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    tl;dr a prince from some tribe in africa was sold into slavery accidentally and wound up in the US. because he was a muslim and deeply religious americans figured out he was special and got him into contact with an interpreter and he got to go back home (and buy a bunch of slaves)

    Quakers in the US heard about weird events like these and assumed the worst and that there were tons of intelligent african gentlemen of status being kidnapped by slavers and started spreading tidbits of this misinformation around for other similar or maybe even invented events.

    the end

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    see picrel
    Abolitionism was an outgrowth of reformed protestantism, the ancestors of abolitionists cut their teeth fighting against hierarchical figures and institutions in the old world (catholic church, kings, aristocracy) and they saw slavery as a relative of old world oppression. Puritans support parliament, Puritans go to US, become yankees and support abolitionism
    >tldr a certain breed of protestants hate social hierarchy and they have been engaging in various forms of social revolution since the middle ages

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    They opposed slavery because not everyone was a complete c**t like you. Would you like your town to be sacked, all the young and old of your family to be murdered and you and a few adults transported across the world to work hard brutal labour for the rest of your short life? Some think that this is a bad thing to do to another person, especially in a supposedly christian country where you are supposed to love thy neighbour.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Would you like your town to be sacked, all the young and old of your family to be murdered
      If this happened it would have been by other Africans.

      >you and a few adults transported across the world
      Africans today are desperate to be transported to Europe and America so you tell me

      >to work hard brutal labour
      It was neither of these. Generally in America it was standard agricultural work.

      >for the rest of your short life
      Look at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001449839790680X: "slaves fared better, and the birth cohorts of the 1840s were almost as tall as their white counterparts".

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >If this happened it would have been by other Africans.

        Who fricking cares? Why do you morons always use this excuse when it comes to Africans? I don't see black people make light of the Norse enslaving other Europeans during the Viking Age, slavery is slavery. And in the case of slavery in the Americas (including the USA), it was slavery that blatantly denied the humanity of the people enslaved, and for hundreds of years scientific racists tried defending slavery by claiming that Black Africans as a whole were a different species, if not non-humans all together that would do better under enslavement.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          And even if the average enslaved African was treated slightly better than in the Caribbean and Latin America (where in many nations slavery was more or less an endless meat grinder killing millions of people, and in the case of a few nations, lasted up until the late 1800s), the average life expectancy of a slave was around 22 years old. Compare that to your average white person around that time, whose average life expectancy was in their 40s.

          https://books.google.com/books?id=ScpPBinpzwoC&q=Time+on+the+Cross%3A+The+Economics+of+American+Slavery#v=snippet&q=Time%20on%20the%20Cross%3A%20The%20Economics%20of%20American%20Slavery&f=false

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm sure a book that calls it "time on the cross" has no bias. That claim doesn't even show up in your snippet view.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          reddit moment

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >not being moronic = reddit moment

            have a nice day. Immediately.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          And even if the average enslaved African was treated slightly better than in the Caribbean and Latin America (where in many nations slavery was more or less an endless meat grinder killing millions of people, and in the case of a few nations, lasted up until the late 1800s), the average life expectancy of a slave was around 22 years old. Compare that to your average white person around that time, whose average life expectancy was in their 40s.

          https://books.google.com/books?id=ScpPBinpzwoC&q=Time+on+the+Cross%3A+The+Economics+of+American+Slavery#v=snippet&q=Time%20on%20the%20Cross%3A%20The%20Economics%20of%20American%20Slavery&f=false

          >Bad thing is bad so you aren't allowed to say that it could have been worse in different circumstances or that is somehow justifying bad thing
          This neighbor

          reddit moment

          was right, you've got serious plebbit energy

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because liberals invented universal human rights, and also a great defender of property rights, and at least a number of them was uncomfortable by the contradiction with man being both human and property. Justifications for slavery only ever make sense for people who are used to it by default. Most abolitionists were removed from slave society, so they looked at it like we view industrial farming - we've gotten used to it, but when we have to think about it, we admit it's kinda messed up-

  8. 3 months ago
    Radiochan

    probably because, among other reasons, the South was forcing the Yankee to ship runaway slaves back down South

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Would you want to be a slave?

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Slavery is an offense against God and eliminating slavery earned God's blessing and so America rose to dominate the world in the next century.

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    OP is being disingenuous.
    The framing is asking but then also denying a reason why.
    Going so far as to run damage control on chattel slavery, even stating it to be a positive.
    Also.
    >raycist
    Cringe.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *