You are probably at an advantage. I loved history, now glaring errors stand out whenever I think of the stuff I learned. Lots of unlearning to do.
'Informed' will mean a completely different thing going forward, but perhaps feel a little lucky to have avoided the pitfalls placed in the path of previous historians.
Awesome post! We all are. Maybe when it’s all over then normal people can start taking vacations to Antarctica (and beyond?) to see what all the rave is about..! 😝
As a historian by education, my Red Pilling started when doing a paper on the War of Northern Aggression (falsely called the Civil War) at the University of SC. [The USC that was around ~50 years before California was a State....] Anyway, doing my own independent research, using some of the original documents in the archives, led me down the path of understanding that large portions of what I had been taught in the govt indoctrination centers on the subject to that point was pretty much exactly WRONG. Just 2 examples.
The South didn't attack first, nor did it fire on Ft Sumter first. (And yes, there is a distinction between "attack" and "fire". The Confederate forces fired defensively on a ship from the invasion fleet that Lincoln sent, after warning the Commander NOT to approach with an armed vessel. Unarmed re-supply ships would be allowed. So they did fire first - but at the invasion ship, not Ft Sumter.
The Constitution of the Confederate States of America (1861) OUTLAWED the slave trade. The Constitution of the United States didn't outlaw slavery until 1865 with the 13th amendment. What is the first step that the European countries did in outlawing slavery? Made the slave trade illegal.
Turns out that most slaving ships were based out of and sailed out of northern ports - Boston, New York. Only a small percentage were based in the south. It was also highly profitable. My working theory for years is that the northern slave merchants had a hand in getting Lincoln to send the invasion fleet to Ft Sumter and to start the war since they could see the writing on the wall of losing their massive income stream selling slaves in the south. Not the only reason, but a significant part of it.
While I do agree with you about the distortion, maybe you could help me understand why I'm reading their constitution differently. To me it's saying that they're outlawing importation of slaves from foreign countries, or states not part of the confederacy. I can't find where it outlaws the actual practice of slavery.
Then in Article 4 section 2 : (1)...right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
(3)...No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs; or to whom such service or labor may be due.
I didn't say they outlawed slavery. Reading for content please. They outlawed the slave TRADE (now emphasized). They could not import new slaves.
Though it is up for debate that they could still sell their own slaves to others within the Confederate states. That was probably allowed because, well - "property."
None of this is to say that slavery is right or good, or that I support it in any way. But you can't have an honest discussion about any of this if the facts aren't correct.
My point is that if the slave TRADE is made illegal, slavery would either have faded away over time, or the individual Confederate States likely would have eventually ended it themselves. No need to kill 10's of thousands of people over it. Not to mention that the oncoming trend of mechanization and industrialization was making slavery a thing of the past due to the expense of keeping them and the efficiency of mechanization (ie tractors).
Not to mention that the abolitionist movement pretty much started in the South. Yes, many abolitionists were in the North, and helped them. But most folks in the South did NOT own slaves, and not everyone supported slavery. Also, a number of slave owners were black themselves, and some of those were prior slaves. You never hear any of that in main stream history.
My apologies. Your statement about the Europeans was just subtle enough that the previous statement re U.S. Const. made it seem like a comparison rather than a precursor. I agree with everything you've said, do not question you opinion of slavery and can see how I misread your content.
You can be pleased that you encouraged someone to read the Conf. Const. today who otherwise would have been sleeping after a 12 hour overnight shift, lol.
My whole rabbit hole following that led to Q began with a youtube video showing the Younger Dryas. It's crazy but when that one thing about the world could be different than what they told me.... my mind opened up instantly and I suddenly had to re-learn everything.
That’s quite a nice bit of « Great Awakening ». It’s always marvelous to see normies landing back.
Thanks for the nugget, Fren!🙏🏻
It is enjoyable to see the Normies start seeing the Light.
You are probably at an advantage. I loved history, now glaring errors stand out whenever I think of the stuff I learned. Lots of unlearning to do.
'Informed' will mean a completely different thing going forward, but perhaps feel a little lucky to have avoided the pitfalls placed in the path of previous historians.
Awesome post! We all are. Maybe when it’s all over then normal people can start taking vacations to Antarctica (and beyond?) to see what all the rave is about..! 😝
As a historian by education, my Red Pilling started when doing a paper on the War of Northern Aggression (falsely called the Civil War) at the University of SC. [The USC that was around ~50 years before California was a State....] Anyway, doing my own independent research, using some of the original documents in the archives, led me down the path of understanding that large portions of what I had been taught in the govt indoctrination centers on the subject to that point was pretty much exactly WRONG. Just 2 examples.
The South didn't attack first, nor did it fire on Ft Sumter first. (And yes, there is a distinction between "attack" and "fire". The Confederate forces fired defensively on a ship from the invasion fleet that Lincoln sent, after warning the Commander NOT to approach with an armed vessel. Unarmed re-supply ships would be allowed. So they did fire first - but at the invasion ship, not Ft Sumter.
The Constitution of the Confederate States of America (1861) OUTLAWED the slave trade. The Constitution of the United States didn't outlaw slavery until 1865 with the 13th amendment. What is the first step that the European countries did in outlawing slavery? Made the slave trade illegal.
Turns out that most slaving ships were based out of and sailed out of northern ports - Boston, New York. Only a small percentage were based in the south. It was also highly profitable. My working theory for years is that the northern slave merchants had a hand in getting Lincoln to send the invasion fleet to Ft Sumter and to start the war since they could see the writing on the wall of losing their massive income stream selling slaves in the south. Not the only reason, but a significant part of it.
Why would anyone sacrifice their own life so that rich people can own slaves?
I asked that in school. The answers I was given were ridiculous. It wasn't enough to wake me, but it always nagged at me.
While I do agree with you about the distortion, maybe you could help me understand why I'm reading their constitution differently. To me it's saying that they're outlawing importation of slaves from foreign countries, or states not part of the confederacy. I can't find where it outlaws the actual practice of slavery.
Then in Article 4 section 2 : (1)...right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
(3)...No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs; or to whom such service or labor may be due.
I didn't say they outlawed slavery. Reading for content please. They outlawed the slave TRADE (now emphasized). They could not import new slaves.
Though it is up for debate that they could still sell their own slaves to others within the Confederate states. That was probably allowed because, well - "property."
None of this is to say that slavery is right or good, or that I support it in any way. But you can't have an honest discussion about any of this if the facts aren't correct.
My point is that if the slave TRADE is made illegal, slavery would either have faded away over time, or the individual Confederate States likely would have eventually ended it themselves. No need to kill 10's of thousands of people over it. Not to mention that the oncoming trend of mechanization and industrialization was making slavery a thing of the past due to the expense of keeping them and the efficiency of mechanization (ie tractors).
Not to mention that the abolitionist movement pretty much started in the South. Yes, many abolitionists were in the North, and helped them. But most folks in the South did NOT own slaves, and not everyone supported slavery. Also, a number of slave owners were black themselves, and some of those were prior slaves. You never hear any of that in main stream history.
My apologies. Your statement about the Europeans was just subtle enough that the previous statement re U.S. Const. made it seem like a comparison rather than a precursor. I agree with everything you've said, do not question you opinion of slavery and can see how I misread your content.
You can be pleased that you encouraged someone to read the Conf. Const. today who otherwise would have been sleeping after a 12 hour overnight shift, lol.
Thanks! And I understand how you could take it the way you initially did.
Awesome that I at least helped your red pilling a bit more!
My whole rabbit hole following that led to Q began with a youtube video showing the Younger Dryas. It's crazy but when that one thing about the world could be different than what they told me.... my mind opened up instantly and I suddenly had to re-learn everything.
AJ did nuthin wrong - https://banned.video/watch?id=61b3f9e341190915ff8eeecc
u/#q1341
It has to end where it began.
Well, if Smollett didn't do such a poor job faking his hate crime, there's no guarantee how a jury or the general public would respond.
Amazing we were the last to know….
Jussie shows us how legislation gets Congressional approval. Congress walks a tight rope.
The full show is here: https://freeworldnews.tv/watch?id=61b3f9e341190915ff8eeecc