Second American Civil War

I've spent a lot of time in the Adirondacks and from what I can tell the only real political difference is on the issue of gun control, outside of that both sides realistically want the same things, economic opportunity that helps the working and middle class rather than just the upper class. Its quite sad to look at the state of affairs in upstate NY, such deep economic decline. There's hardly any jobs there at all.

I'm just saying, the counties of a state that voted Trump aren't going to go along with secession just because the counties that voted Hillary are upset that Trump is president.

Perhaps not, although Trump's wins were pretty slim in a lot of upstate counties. It was just an idle fantasy anyway.

Mainly its born out of frustration with the state of American politics. I don't understand how someone could look at a person like Trump and think he's going to change things for the better. But on the other hand I REALLY don't understand how anyone could have thought nominating Clinton was a good idea. The 2016 election felt like a race between a complete idiot and the least inspiring politician in living memory, how did it come to this?

Well, it ain't gonna happen. CA would have to seize Federal property and that was basically what Lincoln used as pretext to declare an insurrection. Like Jackson told South Carolina (paraphrasing) "Sure, you got a right to revolution, and I got right to crush it." Just like 1860, a bunch of whiny Democrats can't deal with the outcome of an election.

>Most of the anti-slavery movement in the United States was not built off of the abolitionist concern for the welfare of blacks, but more so built off of the skeptical Northern white working class, who saw the Mexican-American war as a slave lobby war to expand the land open to slavery, and saw the expansion of slavery into the territories as the removal of areas for free labor to compete in

I’d add that many Northern working class Whites were also concerned about comments made in the run up to the Civil War by Northern industrialists that “capital should OWN labor” based on a philosophy that the White working class was just as poor and ignorant as Black slaves and usually lived in worse conditions then Black slaves.

The fear among poor Whites busting their asses in Northern factories, was that Northern industrialists would ally with Southern plantation owners to enslave _anybody_ regardless of race who was poor, all for their "own good" of course...

> I don't understand how someone could look at a person like Trump and think he's going to change things for the better.

Because once you strip away the media character assassination he's not anymore competent or incompetent than any other politician that's run for office, and at least his campaign gives the impression of caring about this country, as opposed to the people whose response to the slogan "Make America Great Again" is "America was never great".

It's very hard to say what international groups would do. You'd have to first look at the goals of other nations and extrapolate from there.

Pretty much every major player in the world would like to see a weaker America. For most, it means that suddenly one of the only inhibitors to a nation's ambition is gone: China would be free to pressure other Asian nations within its sphere of influence as there are no other nations capable of meaningfully opposing them, Russia could do the same for its satellite countries, and NATO nations in general are somewhat more free to make their own decisions without an overbearing force essentially able to overrule them all (Well, until France or England or Germany assumed dominance, but their overall strength is close enough that it'd be more difficult for any single member to achieve the same majority power that the US had.). In that large power vacuum, you can expect not only the US to go through turmoil, but the entire world to lose their collective shit and gear up for conflict. I know some people love to talk about how the US is probably the biggest threat to world stability, but that's not quite accurate. Their major concern is the US is the biggest threat to world self-determination; world stability, sometimes at the expense of regional stability, is one of the chief aims of the US foreign policy.

But assuming everyone else keeps things together throughout the course of another civil war, pretty much all focus will be kept on a few considerations:
>How do we ensure the US is weakened as much as possible throughout this war?
>What side do we support in order to gain as much favor with them as possible?
>If unsure, how do we ensure our contributions paint us as neutral as possible to prevent the winning side from seeing us as an enemy?

Along with that, you now have to attempt to guess how exactly this war is going to come about. What is the triggering cause? What is the predicted military might of the opposing sides? How does each sides' ideology resonate with the world community at large? All of these details will affect the compositions and size of each force, which will determine not only who's more likely to win, but also who's going to be backed by more opportunistic foreign powers (For example, if it seems like a leftist coalition is more likely to achieve victory, it's likely European powers will attempt to send token support in order to curry more favor with that faction under the pretense they'll win the war and be in better relations with them afterwards.). At best, foreign powers will only send token aid to either side; at worst, Americans going at it on their homeland will unite WW3 by drawing in all sorts of foreign powers looking to be on the winning side.

Russia has always made remarks about supporting a seperatist movement in the US, but it's not about altruism or the right of self-determination, but rather because a fragmented US is less able to exert pressure over their own actions.

>just because the counties that voted Hillary are upset that Trump is president.
All right well how about if Trump sent 200k soldiers into LA and SF?

and yet if you take one real look past the slogans it becomes painfully obvious that the only thing he's interested in making great is his bank account

>a bunch of people who are hurt by mere words and against gun ownership waging war against law enforcement, the military, and a bunch of pissed off people who are just plain sick of their bullshit
It's a pretty unrealistic premise.

I wouldn't count on much sympathy.

This

Modern liberals don't start fucking revolutions, are you all mad?

No, shit.

>hurr political slogans designed to appeal to the masses of morons should reflect muh personality in a TRUE and HONEST manner

It's like saying "politicians lie" "businessmen lie". Do you want a medal?

Why not? They're Americans.

His bank account is already great, and a man with his ego is not going assume a position of historical relevance like the presidency just to make a few extra billion at the end of his life that he'll never be able to spend, in exchange for going down in history as "the guy who sold out America for a cheap buck".

Only an idiot, or a young man who sees the presidency as a stepping stone to greater power would do that. The only stepping stone an old wealthy man in his seventies is looking for is one that leads to the immortality of history. Which leads me to believe that even if he is misguided his motivations are sincere.

Unless you believe in conspiracy theories of how Trump is a Manchurian candidate controlled by Putin in which case all bets are off.

So they claim...

>going down in history as "the guy who sold out America for a cheap buck".

What's that again?...

>Modern liberals don't start fucking revolutions, are you all mad?

They don't have the balls, as they know full well that modern Rightwingers literally dream of the day the Left tries to launch a revolution.

>not anymore competent or incompetent than any other politician that's run for office,
That is very apparent to be wrong the moment you look at topics like law or foreign affairs.

I highly doubt Trump knows anything about public law, methodology of interpretation or the big three schools of international relations. Presidents without a background in legal education tend to not know, but past ones at least have gotten prepared by having to go through prior institutions like congress.

Bill Clinton was a young man who saw the presidency as a stepping stone to greater power. To put things in perspective Trump and Clinton are the same age, and Trump is only running for president now while Clinton was in his forties when he first ran for president.

None of those things are prerequisites for a competent presidency. They might make things slide more easily through the system but they're not necessary to be a successful chief executive.

I don't understand what definition of "competence" you're using then.

>no one remembers the bonus army

not even close op

>but like there'll totally be a second american civil war because shit's all polarized :^)

None of that matters. There is a huge and powerful federal army this time, and no state militias that could feasibly challenge it. In /pol/speak, liberals can't mount a rebellion because they don't have enough guns.

Only if there's signs of fracturing inside of the US military itself is there a snowball's chance in hell of civil war. As it stands, there's just going to be 4 years of liberal whining and butthurt until Trump loses his next election.

One that doesn't rest on the implicit assumption that a lawyer is inherently the best person suited to serve as chief executive of a country.

Seems more like you're operating under a definition where no skill matters at all, if he's equally competent and incompetent to all other politicians that have ever existed.

What the hell does Clinton’s age have to do with selling out America for a cheep buck, by not only signing NAFTA into law but actively campaigning for it (while accepting millions in donations from labor unions)?

Trump is calling for an end to NAFTA and forcing the return of all those jobs back to the U.S. - how is that "selling out America"?

Now, there a zillion different scenarios on how exactly all of this could go down. I think we should first start looking at the different factions within the US who are ultimately the feuding majorities that are likely to cause problems. I'll start by simply grouping them into Republican and Democrat sides, though I'd imagine by the time we got to our who "let's ignite a civil war for dominance" phase, it's very likely these two sides could be calling themselves something different.

DEMOCRATS
>Urban based workers, laborers, etc.
Members of this group are primarily concerned over working conditions, unions, pensions, healthcare, anything that ensures they have the material means to live. They may or may not share the egalitarian ideals traditionally espoused by the left. They consider themselves as enemies of the right because they see the right's plans as the reduction or removal of the things that allow them to continue to draw a steady paycheck and afford services.

>Immigrants, undocumented workers, the poor
All of these people rely on the state services endorsed by the democratic party to the extent they simply cannot exist otherwise without them. In addition, in the case of immigrants who would face deportation in a more conservative society, they have no choice but to support a party that would see to their continued existence. Opposes the right both on grounds of reduction of welfare and because of a desire to actually, you know, remain in the US.

>Intelligentsia, college students, academics, etc.
Can't really find a good word that quite describes the entire group very well, but this is the group that pushes social issues as the forefront of their agenda. Identity politics, that sort of thing. While their numbers may actually be a minority within the left, their influence is often one of the most felt due to their ability to "get their voice heard" the most. By that, I mean this is the faction of people most adept at using art, media, and whatever else that lies at the cutting edge to push their message across the most amount of people (Or sometimes, the right people) with the least amount of manpower. This isn't a huge voting block in and of itself, but the ability to drum up support among the previous two groups essentially makes them one of the most influential. At war with the right because of the opposition of social reforms and protection of specific identities.

REPUBLICANS
>Rural workers and populations in general
Despite often having low or even lower income than some of their city counterparts, rural people are often more satisfied with their status in life for reasons not quite understood. Be it lower cost of living, better natural working conditions than their urban counterparts, or just local social pressure or patriotism, this faction tends to vote to towards what they see as the party that preserves their way of life, both somewhat economic and somewhat social, to which it sees the left as threatening to destroy their way of life.

>The military
Often drawn from a similar stock of people as above, which somewhat explains their line of thinking as to why they vote the way they do. In the grand scheme of voting, the military makes up a smaller chunk of the population sort of like the intellectuals of the left do, but what they lack in numbers, they make up for by being probably the most dangerous force in the advent of conflict.

>Christians and traditionalists
Grouped because there's actually a lot of people who might've grown up Christian but don't really espouse a particular church, merely follow similar guidelines. These guys are pretty much the social antithesis of the intellectuals' platform in the sense they advocate for mostly moral values before everything else. Unlike the intellectuals, pound for pound, they don't really have the influence of pushing their message out to people, at least anymore compared to decades past. They're still a larger population of people however and have a lot of overlap from the first Republican group above. Opposes the left for what they see as a lack of morals and social values. Note that some support the left however for their focus on social services in the economic sense, especially in urban centers.

>Business and wealthy
A tiny voting base, but large wealth helps to finance various campaigns to push their agenda out there, be it influencing the voting public or lobbying for specific platforms. While it's made up of various types of people, most of a vested interest in ensuring that their business interests and profits are protected first, which naturally pits them against the left.

>Libertarians and other radicals
A pretty small minority on the republican side, but one of the loudest. In a sense, they somewhat function like the sounding board of the right like the intellectuals of the left. However, more like their conservative breathern, they're often slower to adopt new methods and stratagems that would aid them in this. Even if a lot of their ideas are too controversial to be espoused by the masses, they do get people talking about various issues and help to solidify groups to less radical causes.

>skill
"Skill" is not one of the qualifications required to run for the office of president, beyond the skill of running a successful campaign at least, and I can't think of a single president in modern history who could be considered particularly "skillful" anyway upon considering their legacies.

>What does Clinton's age have to do with it?

see
>in exchange for going down in history as "the guy who sold out America for a cheap buck".
>Only an idiot, or a young man who sees the presidency as a stepping stone to greater power would do that.

Trump is 70 years old, the oldest man to become president in US history, his next big step in life is the grave. As compared to Clinton who could reasonably consider the presidency as just another step in the road upon becoming elected at 46 years of age. Clinton could realistically believe he would be able to spend the money he gets from selling out America, Trump on the other hand could realistically die of natural causes before he even finishes his first term.

>I think I speak on behalf of Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire when I say that we don't want anything to do with Massachusetts or NYC.

You only say that because you know Massachusetts is the leader of the New England States and your economies are too tied to MA to have an independent policy.

Stay buttblasted, but you know it.

These groups may change and move over time, but right now, they're pretty much on the sides listed. Even though social issues get lumped with economic ones due to the two party nature, there's a lot of people who could go either way on issues because neither side represents a complete picture of what they want unlike the smaller parties in European politics.

With the sides as they are, in the event of war, the Republican side of things once again winds up with the lion's share of the military and military assets, large swathes of sparsely populated land, and the biggest bankroll of either side due to the wealthies' interests mainly lying there. The Democratic side would wind up in control of the cities, of more industrialized areas, the majority of goods production, and many of the major ports. Also of note is that many of these cities function as the center of government for regions within the US, which would help to maintain order, or in this case, a sense of normalcy throughout their regions. The Republican side would have to recreate these institutions out of whole cloth or revert to military law.

The amount of military standing on both sides would be greatly affected by the circumstance of the outbreak of conflict. By default, we assume soldiers will follow commands and maintain order, meaning that in small, isolated events, even conservative soldiers will attempt to put down rebellion in territories until they reach critical mass, assuming a populist rebellion among the conservative citizenry. If the rebellion starts in the military itself at higher eschalons of command, a large portion of the military structure will remain in hands of the conservatives, which will greatly reduce the liberals chance of victory by denying them the most effective tools of waging war: soldiers and military structure.

Due to the military's tendency to want to maintain order, there are no avenues available for the left to instigate the civil war. In the same way soldiers tend to value order over personal politics (To some degree at least), many would have no problem quelling a liberal rebellion before it got out of hand, using their revolt as a just cause to strike back. What this means in practical terms is that as long as the right continues to win things legalistically, the left has no ability to contest them in a force of arms; rebellion will solely come from members of conservative parties, or it won't come at all.

Assuming, however, that somehow the military's command structure, supplies, and other important aspects somehow manage to split 50-50, America will be thrown into much longer conflict. The Republican aims will be to siege the cities and retake them, cutting off their supply lines and ports and starving the Democrat held territories until surrender. The Democrat side would probably include an offensive campaign to prevent a siege by fighting a conflict outside the general boarders of cities, attempting to press Republican armies away from vital territories and continue their war effort. Keeping the ports in working order to allow for trade for supplies and uninterrupted commerce would be another top priority. Assuming the right cannot recapture cities fast enough, it's very possible that the right would eventually, similar to the first civil war, run out of equipment to actually conduct a proper war. Once this happens, the Republican side will start losing ground quickly, leading to a surrender.

No matter what side gains an advantage, both are going to be subject to guerrilla warfare for much longer; terrorist acts on both sides similar to the current state of the US armies securing towns in the middle east or Britain in Ireland would become common for many years until there is no more hope of concessions for that side.

>to run for the office of president
I don't think anyone was talking about the skill to get to the office, but rather the skills that impact your decisions when you're already IN office.

Do you genuinely believe that it wouldn't make a difference to someone's decision making and outcomes whether that someone is capable or not capable of, for example, noticing when one's positions are logically inconsistent, or whether one's capable of hiring the right people, or whether one's capable of dealing with the bureaucratic apparatus in such a way that it actually does what one wants it to do?

>Can't really find a good word that quite describes the entire group very well
Communist fifth column.

I don't know why so many people think leftists are all BTFO by Trump. If I was a leftist I would be happily looking forward to the next 4 years because the republicans put an idiot into office. People don't seem to get there is a difference between leftist and liberal, and what I see now is leftism becoming more popular, because things like Arizona creating a law that defacto bans protests that they don't like. (whats that, some guy thew a rock at one one of those pretests? They are all rioters now and we can arrest them and confiscate their phones and cars).

No civil war needed, just wait 4 years.

Aside from not being a part of the corrupt Washington establishment machine aka. "capable of dealing with the bureaucratic apparatus", I don't see how any other politician that has run for president in recent memory has given any indicator being more " logically consistent " or prone to hiring "competent people" than Trump does. Certainly not when considering the current state of the country or international relations.

It was the "experts" after all who created this environment in which a man like Trump could successfully become president, perhaps it's time we reconsidered just what exactly qualifies someone as being an "expert" in the first place.

I don't see a civil war happening while Trump is President. If it happens, it will be after he leaves office.

I do, however, see the Blue states be less willing to give the feds money that many of the red states need to stay afloat.

Asides from a few Red states like Texas, many more of the blue states pay more to the Feds than what they get back, while many of the red states take more than they give. New York and Cali can be all like 'Louisiana can pay for its own roads'.

Maine would be forced to become closer to MA to pay for its own maintenance, or just accept greater levels of poverty. That Canadian border and forests can get expensive.

I don't see a realistic chance of civil war within the next four to eight years, but I do see a potential for fast and dramatic ramp-ups in parallelism and paramilitarism, particularly as the liberals and left loosen their anuses over gun rights.

We see this already in the ANTIFA movements, (whatever you may think of their members or methods) armed opposition-by-presence to conservative and far-right elements, including conservative elements of law enforcement. It is at the moment fairly defanged and directionless, but that could change easily and quickly into a far more coordinated, ideologically defined method. We could even see alignment between these groups and conservatives now oppositional to mainstream Republican support for Trump (think the naturalist and fundamentalist segments of the conservative/right voterbase, people who are already voicing opposition and discontent) as it becomes more and more clear what the administration's goals are. This general distrust in public institutions' ability to protect the peace could, especially combined with deregulation and expanded corporate influences, spiral into a general distrust of *all* public institutions, on a scale that we haven't seen since the civil rights era.

I'd fear an inter-party civil war a-la McCain and Graham vs Trump and Rand Paul before I'd worry about some pansy ass leftists. Deep State cronyism vs the Trump administration could have global ramifications.

It's times like these where the flux of change and breakdown of order allows our society to once again become malleable. These are the times when men can forge their own ideas on what path the nation should take and rally others to their cause.

Some see these times of unrest as an unraveling of a nation, but I'd rather see it as a renewal. A chance to become something better than what we once were.

>undocumented workers
>rely on the state services endorsed by the democratic party to the extent they simply cannot exist otherwise without them.
They dont use welfare for themselves their american children do.

nice to see retards looking forward to a live version of the turner diaries

Any Californian Anons wanna weigh in on weather or not the sheer ass-pain and autistic screeching in the Sunshine state is enough to make secession a possibility?

California (and pretty much every state for that matter) has far more to gain by staying in the union and deeply protesting/state-level countering actions they find unsuitable than seceding.

As a Texan, I sure hope not. It would make us feel entirely inadequate if someone else were to leave the union first.

This is true for just about every union of states, not just the US. Everyone gains more working together than attempting to compete for the most part. We'd have to really, really hate each other to split apart, because at the end of the day, we still enjoy each other more than the rest of the world.

>I'm just pointing out that we are technically at a point of regional divide that we haven't seen since the American Civil War.
The East Coast won't support the west coast in this instance, New Englanders and New Yorkers don't actually care enough to leave or even support Cali should they leave the union

>White working class was just as poor and ignorant as Black slaves and usually lived in worse conditions then Black slaves.

You're either insane or down right retarded.

He wouldn't need to. Californian secession is a huge meme and non-possibility solely because every one of the state's industrial/financial centers is ludicrously militarized. There are three military bases within twenty miles of my house *alone*, and I live at the fringes.

>"capable of dealing with the bureaucratic apparatus"
There doesn't need to be corruption involved at all for someone who is knowledgeable about the intricacies of public institutions to have an advantage in actualizing one's goals to someone who isn't. Even in a fully functioning bureaucracy full of only the most virtuous people in the country that are 100% loyal to the principal, which is never the case, a dumb president that doesn't know how public bureaucracy works and can work won't see his goals actualized as efficiently - if at all - compared to one who isn't.

Do you genuinely believe that being able or not even being able to solve a game theoretical problem like finding a pareto optimum in a national security crisis would have zero impact on outcomes?

>You're either insane or down right retarded.

I don't know, who had it worse, agrarian black slaves or the poor sons of bitches in mines and factories in England/wales?

Hard to tell who actually had it worse.

>the only thing he's interested in making great is his bank account
Literally unless the man is literally embezzling money from the government, odds are what's good for the Trump brand business will be largely good for the American public. His business model exists on the basis of licensing over priced merch and hotels to middle class people who want to feel as if their gaudy high class nuevo rich. Those types of people need money.

downright retarded it is

>odds are what's good for the Trump brand business will be largely good for the American public

this is how people actually think

>, noticing when one's positions are logically inconsistent,
Logical inconsistency is meaningless in the realm of politics. Policies are decided first by feeling then by rationalization later. If you critically anylized the positions of the major parties there is no rational framework behind them. Merely a set of random planks gathered and assorted together to obtain votes.

As for hiring people, any successful business man of any kind, will have that skill. It isn't magic to know when the person you hired is shit and needs to be fired. If anything he has more experience in this field than some two-bit partner in a law firm who decided politics was an easy path to money and power.

And for the bureaucracy, as President, you are the head of the bureaucracy. You can reorganize it, however, the fuck you please so that operates the way you want it too. The president isn't some glorified manager.

An Irish factory worker can leave everything behind and go jerk off in the rockies, black slaves can't without having one eye looking out for slave catchers. There's a difference between coercion and outright oppression.

>Do you genuinely believe that being able or not even being able to solve a game theoretical problem like finding a pareto optimum in a national security crisis would have zero impact on outcomes?

Something which almost none of our previous President's have ever done. America is not some sort technocracy where High level academic degrees confer power.

>this is how people actually think
>Everything is zero sum

Thing is... If the Federal Government crushes a California secession when the Californians voted overwhelming to leave, then the rest of world would consider the United States a dictatorship. Not sure how that would turn out if the US got embargo'd. China and Russia wouldn't care other than making themselves look good, but Europe and the rest of the Americas would throw a shit fit.

Where did he imply that it was zero sum?

China would collapse in about 10 fucking days if they stopped selling cheap products to the US

>strawman

Nah, that's bullshit. Crimeans OVERWHELMINGLY voted to join Russia yet the USA and entire Europe threw a bitchfit about it. Nobody actually gives a flying fuck about democracy, countries only care about their allies and their masters and their interests.

Your a fucking autist. If tens a million of Chinese can starve and not bother to even protest in the streets, what makes you think them being unemployed will make them overthrow the Chinese government.

>Logical inconsistency is meaningless in the realm of politics. Policies are decided first by feeling then by rationalization later. If you critically anylized the positions of the major parties there is no rational framework behind them. Merely a set of random planks gathered and assorted together to obtain votes.
And yet, if you want to have success, rather than just appearing to be successful, it'd serve you to know when policies you pursue are literally impossible to reconcile.

>It isn't magic to know when the person you hired is shit and needs to be fired.
It literally is magic to _know_ that a person needs to be fired, if you aren't capable of analyzing the parameters that decide whether that person needs to be fired. So, skills like being able to read statistics about the success or failure of that person and knowing whom to trust lead to a comparative advantage.

>nd for the bureaucracy, as President, you are the head of the bureaucracy. You can reorganize it, however, the fuck you please so that operates the way you want it too. The president isn't some glorified manager.
The president is a glorified manager. Being able to restructure the whole apparatus however you want, which he actually can't because of constraints on time, money and the personnel pool, doesn't clear bureaucracy of fundamental problems such as the asymmetric information between the president and his agents.

They weren't starving when the kids were willing to get run over by Deng "Chinese Characteristics" Xiaoping, not to mention Hong Kong are westaboo

Last I checked most US allies were wary of us.

Last time I checked countries aren't going to ditch NATO membership and vital economic connections over some horseshit like California. Not to mention that unilateral secession is ILLEGAL as per Texas v. White so the US would only be enforcing its constitutional law.

I'm sure there's a plan to fast-track that legislation if it looks likely that CA is able to follow through.

You are saying it yourself: Almost none.

Keyword: Almost, which is already enough to disprove his claim that skills don't matter.

Those elections are plagued with pervasive questions about their legitimacy, voter fraud, intimidation and outright fudging to get the desired result. I personally think cultural repatriation is a fine goal, but we don't have all the info here, even if Ukraine joining NATO is bad for everyone except Ukraine.

>pervasive questions about their legitimacy, voter fraud, intimidation and outright fudging to get the desired result
In other words, the US establishment didn't like the results, so it's not legitimate.

No, it's not. In the plantations around New Orleans almost all slaves died by the time they turned 20, they worked in Malaria infested swamps with live crocodiles in them, if someone died work continued, and only stopped for public executions/whippings,etc. One of the worst punishments was for trying to escape and a slave would the tendons in your legs slashed so you could never run again and every step you would take for the rest of your life would be pure agony, and they still expected you to work after that. What the Bongs went through doesn't even compare.

>live crocodiles
You mean alligators? Crocodiles never lived in New Orleans.

What's the difference even.

>being a fucking retard

The secession "movement" is stupid and no one in my (lefty) political circles actually takes it seriously.

We still loathe Trump, but most of us would rather stay and fight for our country.

It's a water lizard user, but tell us your knowledge.

Not him, but crocs are salt water dwellers and alligators freshwater. There's also structural differences between crocs and gators' jaws and bones, and if memory serves, crocs tend to be much bigger than gators.

Not that the original post isn't correct in meaning (There's dangerous shit in the swamp that can kill and eat a man), but it's important to know the difference between the two. It'd be like calling an SUV a pickup truck.

>crocs are salt water dwellers

They can be they're not exclusively salt water, not even the salt water crocodile.

Gators have U snout, crocodiles have V snout. Also crocs are much bigger on average.

Don't get me wrong, I'll take being free over slavery any day but the fact is that White factory workers were on par with Black slaves, the only exception was that Whites could quit their job (and starve...)

But the Northern industrialists who employed them had absolutely no requirement or compulsion to care for their workers in any way beyond a shitty paycheck for grueling and monotonous labor; get your arm ripped off by ridiculously unsafe machinery? You're fired and replaced by a new worker (and starve...)

As the Industrial Revolution rolled along and craftsmen became interchangeable robotic workers, they became completely disposable, whereas Black slaves were an investment and had a relationship with their owners.

For instance, Blacks slaves could actually retire when they got old live out their lives on the plantation while old White workers just got kicked to the curb (and starved...)

>In the plantations around New Orleans almost all slaves died by the time they turned 20

Sure is militant Black historical revisionist in here.

>reddit spacing

Son, I was posting to Usenet 20 years ago when you were still in diapers and nobody had heard the terms Reddit or "social media".

That's in fact the proper way to make a post.

Its also the proper way to email your boss, but I don't think the people who keep going "REEE REDDIT SPACING" have jobs.