Why do some parts of the country run like an Ottoman Caliphate?

What if a large portion of the Confederacy had been made up of people who had lost their jobs when the international slave trade started to collapse in the late 18th and 19th Centuries?

People with Viking heritage could sometimes be hard to tell from people from North Africa. The Vikings were probably part Berber. They may actually have started from the navy of the Umayyad invasion of Gaul. It has been genetically found that the Vikings were multiethnic. I had heard somewhere that North African sailors can have a twangy way of adding syllables when they talk.

It has also been said that the Southern army had surprisingly liberal attitudes toward blacks and mixed-race people serving in their ranks. There was no difference in pay, for example, unlike the North. It has also been remarked that if it weren't so, they would not have had an army. I think that means they needed the numbers. But what if they weren't white Southerners who had intermarried with Blacks? What if they were simply from North Africa, and had lost their gig selling slaves to Europe or South America, and decided to come here?

The Ottoman empire or their former vassals the Barbary States could have had their personnel involved in the African slave trade. They had expertise and experience. There are a few etymological suggestions the Ottomans had sold European slaves to West Central Africa, such as the word for a traveling minstrel, griot, being similar to the Lithuanian for playing an instrument, "grot" or "groti." There is also the fact that the West African pronunciation of Nigeria sounds like Lithuanian for "the nation of the bad or disobedient" or Negerija, which may be what the Central European slaves called themselves if they got sold downriver to the Malian empire. That tends to prove they were there. It's possible their personnel also assisted in the international trade in African slaves.

All throughout the late 18th and the 19th centuries, Europe and the Americas were banning slavery left and right. The traders would have been losing their gigs. England and the United States were actually blockading the Slave Coast with naval squadrons starting in 1808 and 1819.

I have suggested there's a small chance some of the freedmen disappeared around the end of the Civil war. I have suggested there's a small chance black African slave traders from Africa found a way to come here and pay people off and steal identities in order to get a new place to live after their slave trading gig expired in Africa.

What if it wasn't just black Africans and what if it wasn't just at the end of the Civil War?

It's about room. When their source of foreign trade collapsed, perhaps the traders couldn't just retrain as something else. Perhaps their societies had not enough means of upward or sideways mobility.

What if all throughout the early 19th Century, more and more former Ottoman or Berber slave traders came here as more and more nations banned slavery or the international slave trade?

What if the plan was to create their own independent Caliphate?

a reply to: Solvedit

It has also been said that the Southern army had surprisingly liberal attitudes toward blacks and mixed-race people serving in their ranks. There was no difference in pay, for example, unlike the North. It has also been remarked that if it weren't so, they would not have had an army. I think that means they needed the numbers. But what if they weren't white Southerners who had intermarried with Blacks? What if they were simply from North Africa, and had lost their gig selling slaves to Europe or South America, and decided to come here?

I hate to be "that guy" but I kinda need a source for the claim that the confederacy allowed blacks or slaves to engage in combat whatsoever. From what I've known they were not allowed in combat or allowed to serve in the confederate military whatsoever. They were cooks and stuff and some got compensated some did not.

a reply to: Solvedit

Explanation: S&F!

I bring a biblical point of view to this ...

What if Noah didnt get drunk and pass out naked in his tent only for his youngest son Ham to find him and go tell his two brothers, forcing them to walk backwards and cover Noah with his cloak eh?

Because when Noah awoke, he instinctively knew what had occurred, and he cursed Ham's son, Canaan, to be his brothers SLAVES for evermore.

Black and Slave: the Origins and History of the Curse of Ham (Caution, PDF file! At your own risk ok.

Ham meant ‘black,’ ‘dark,’ and ‘hot’ (Peterson, 43). If these etymological assumptions are correct it may indeed imply that the ancient Israelites saw a connection between black Africans and slavery.

Ham (son of Noah)

Ham[a] (in Hebrew: חָם), according to the Table of Nations in the Book of Genesis, was the second son of Noah[1] and the father of Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan.[2][3]

Ham's descendants are interpreted by Josephus and others as having populated Africa and adjoining parts of Asia. The Bible refers to Egypt as "the land of Ham" in Psalm 78:51; 105:23, 27; 106:22; 1 Chronicles 4:40.

Curse of Ham

In the Book of Genesis, the curse of Ham is described as a curse which was imposed upon Ham's son Canaan by the patriarch Noah. It occurs in the context of Noah's drunkenness and it is provoked by a shameful act that was perpetrated by Noah's son Ham, who "saw the nakedness of his father".[1][2] The exact nature of Ham's transgression and the reason Noah cursed Canaan when Ham had sinned have been debated for over 2,000 years.[3]

The story's original purpose may have been to justify the biblical subjection of the Canaanites to the Israelites,[4] or a land claim to a portion of New Kingdom of Egypt which ruled Canaan in the late Bronze Age.[5][6]

In later centuries, the narrative was interpreted by some Jews, Christians and Muslims as an explanation for black skin, as well as a justification for enslavement of black people.[7][8]

Personal Disclosure: As for an Independent Caliphate ... I think that is possible!

a reply to: Solvedit

My family came from Turkey, where my dad's great uncle ruled in the Ottoman empire in the 1880s. He was not Turkish, nor Muslim. He was a Christian Armenian and was best friends with the Sultan.

originally posted by: Shoshanna
a reply to: Solvedit

It has also been said that the Southern army had surprisingly liberal attitudes toward blacks and mixed-race people serving in their ranks. There was no difference in pay, for example, unlike the North. It has also been remarked that if it weren't so, they would not have had an army. I think that means they needed the numbers. But what if they weren't white Southerners who had intermarried with Blacks? What if they were simply from North Africa, and had lost their gig selling slaves to Europe or South America, and decided to come here?

I hate to be "that guy" but I kinda need a source for the claim that the confederacy allowed blacks or slaves to engage in combat whatsoever. From what I've known they were not allowed in combat or allowed to serve in the confederate military whatsoever. They were cooks and stuff and some got compensated some did not.

There allegedly were a few according to some historians but it was less than one percent of the enslaved and less than one percent of the Confederate army.

I am mainly referring to soldiers who were, perhaps in some cases only ostensibly, of mixed race.

a reply to: Solvedit

Thanks really i have been experiencing so many Mandela effects and flip flops and weird stuff lately i just had to make sure I wasn't going crazy i hope I didn't come off wrong hehe I just kept getting stuff totally unrelated when I was searching even on gibiru its like they want to hide history or rewrite history idk. Some days I feel like I am in a totally different dimension suddenly.

a reply to: Solvedit

The wiki link to the ottoman empire and the slave trade is the cleaned up version

en.m.wikipedia.org...

www.aei.org...

originally posted by: SolveditThat tends to prove they were there. It's possible their personnel also assisted in the international trade in African slaves.

That was unclear. All that blather about Central European slaves being sold in West Africa was meant to prove the Ottoman Empire was there, or their vassals the Barbary States.

Which suggests their personnel may have participated in the Transatlantic Trade too because they were experienced slave traders and sailors.

Some suggest there need not have been so many people involved in the slave trade but the money they brought in supported a lot of farmers, blacksmiths, etc.

Those people may have needed a new society with more room if the slave traders were steadily losing their source of foreign income starting in the late 18th Century.

And then it hit me: What if it was the European-looking ones that had to go?

Maybe the Barbary Pirates really did what pirates are said to have done. Maybe when they captured a ship, they let the captured sailors decide to join the pirates or walk the plank.

Maybe when piracy and the slave trade were becoming suppressed throughout the later part of the 18th and the 19th centuries, there was no longer enough room in the Barbary States for all the people because of the end of foreign income from piracy and slave trading.

So the pirates and slave traders were encouraged to try to get in to America because there was room. The people in their homeland whom their income had supported also had to go.

Can it be they sent the ones who had clearly intermarried with Europeans on the theory that they must be connected to piracy or slave trading and thus no longer supportable? The traders may not have been able to (openly?) sell white slaves in the Americas but they probably had them.

Consider picturing the rebel flag with the punisher skull superimposed onto the middle upper red field.

a reply to: Solvedit

And Why do Some just do This ?







LOVE is Everything BABY !

More evidence suggesting that some of the people here may actually have been Ottoman or Barbary States slave traders until just before the Civil War.

Then they and anyone who had anything to do with the pirate or slave trading economy may have been asked to leave North Africa because the end of the foreign income from piracy or slave trading might have otherwise caused a famine.

I have heard it said that the Confederates wouldn't have had an army if they hadn't been permissive about persons of mixed race serving under equal terms as whites. What if some of them were actually persons from North Africa rather than part white, part African?

a reply to: Solvedit

People with Viking heritage could sometimes be hard to tell from people from North Africa.

Are you sure of this?

The Vikings were probably part Berber.

That's the first I've heard of that.
Any sources?

They may actually have started from the navy of the Umayyad invasion of Gaul.

The Vikings were from Scandinavia.
They did take slaves whose blood did become part of the Viking genepool but not to any great extent.

originally posted by: visitedbythem
a reply to: Solvedit My family came from Turkey, where my dad's great uncle ruled in the Ottoman empire in the 1880s. He was not Turkish, nor Muslim. He was a Christian Armenian and was best friends with the Sultan.

The people of the South used to call themselves "Utman" which is Arabic for Ottoman. The fact that they are not speaking Turkish suggests they came from a vassal state or ally of the Ottoman Empire rather than being actual Turks (or Rumi.)

Your family's post-Bellum migration suggests you have nothing to do with what I am talking about. I was suggesting the possibility that North Africa had to ask all the people supported by the pirate and slave trading economies to leave when the nations of Europe and South America were banning the international slave trade in the late 18th and early to mid 19th century. (And possibly using steam power to have more effective patrols.)

Those folks all had to go somewhere but they could have obeyed the laws instead of trying to create their own caliphate. Suppose the nations of Europe and South America goaded them into rebelling because they chose to take up their former pirate ways, then sold them just enough guns to hang themselves?

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Solvedit
The Vikings were from Scandinavia.
They did take slaves whose blood did become part of the Viking genepool but not to any great extent.

Google that.

I just realized another thing supporting my theory.

Maybe France offered such attractive terms for the Louisiana Purchase because a secret part of the deal was the US had to take in the pirates and give them a way to go legit, which in those days probably meant farming.

originally posted by: Solvedit

More evidence suggesting that some of the people here may actually have been Ottoman or Barbary States slave traders until just before the Civil War.

Then they and anyone who had anything to do with the pirate or slave trading economy may have been asked to leave North Africa because the end of the foreign income from piracy or slave trading might have otherwise caused a famine.

I have heard it said that the Confederates wouldn't have had an army if they hadn't been permissive about persons of mixed race serving under equal terms as whites. What if some of them were actually persons from North Africa rather than part white, part African?

Posting this picture and this point on another site got me banninated.

It was a site where there were rebel flag avatars and people insisted on calling it the "War Between The States" or even "The War of Northern Aggression."


Whoomp! There it is! Whoomp! There it is! Whoomp! There it is!

Can it be one factor which precipitated the US Civil war was the Crimean war disrupting trafficking networks from Central and Eastern Europe? The Crimean Khanate has been mentioned as a source of European slaves.

The international crackdowns on piracy and the exportation of slaves from Africa in the late 18th and early to mid 19th century may have led to the Barbary States-based pirates and traders needing a new home to prevent famine in their homeland, and they may have come to the US especially those who had intermarried with European captives.

What if it had been the plan to continue their trafficking ways but the Crimean war disrupted all that? What if they turned their pressure onto their fellow Americans in order to obtain their stock?

What if, despite perhaps not understanding the cause, their fellow Americans clearly felt so "leaned on" that they started the Wide Awakes organization to prevent the hijacking of the political system to make it easier to traffic Northerners as well as fugitive slaves and free blacks?

When a politician today claims there is law and order despite rampant crime, it's possible they are just really bad at their job. But can it be that in some cases they want it to be harder to acknowledge and effectively counter crime, in order to give their constituents an easier time leaning on, intimidating, possibly even trafficking those they wish to replace?

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Solvedit

People with Viking heritage could sometimes be hard to tell from people from North Africa.

Are you sure of this?

The Vikings were probably part Berber.

That's the first I've heard of that.
Any sources?

They may actually have started from the navy of the Umayyad invasion of Gaul.

The Vikings were from Scandinavia.
They did take slaves whose blood did become part of the Viking genepool but not to any great extent.

www.msn.com... 01&cvid=53ba908bc4ed4746e398a2837ef0b7dd&ei=17