>>12319 >1962 >1960 >1961 what

>>12319 They also left out the part where it was the Democrats who were slave hording to begin with.

It's generally left until college that the Emancipation Proclamation effectively freed no one. I don't see how this isn't in accordance with the current "fairy tale" that Americans tell themselves about the Civil War. It is, of course, discordant with Critical Race Theory, but knowing that that would require the Liberals who wrote this to actually be knowledgeable about beliefs that they defend (for no other reason than to "own Conservatives"). CRT is a bunch of Marxist bullshit anyway, so that's a ¿win? I guess.

>>12319 No one accepts the truth: In the South, owning a few niggers was the thug life. You weren't a baller unless you owned a couple of niggers, and everyone, even the niggers, aspired to be a baller with a couple of niggers. In the North, factory owning kikes were tired of the micks and wops asking for higher wages (more green paper), and thought, "maybe if we flooded the job market with people grateful to have jobs, we can keep wages low." So, the plan was struck: abolish the thug life. And the South was like: "ah, fuck no." What the North came to take was the very ideal of what it meant to be a prosperous, affluent person in the South. The South fought for slavery or state's rights as much as William Wallace (Braveheart) fought for freedom: they fought for an ideal that was being stolen away from them, and these other things (slaves, state power, the king of Scotland) were incidental to that ideal.

>>12344 I'm sure that was a typo and he meant 1862, 1860, 1861 >>12431 The American Civil war was not fought over slavery, it was fought over a tariff that was going to be placed against imported industrial goods, which would have destroyed the southern economy. The same thing almost happened several decades prior. Fun facts, The largest slave trading port at the beginning of the war was New York City In the early days of the war Union troops would capture run away slaves and return them to their owners in the south Lincoln stated that if he could save the Union by preserving slavery he would do it The southern constitution included the right to own slaves, but it also made the international slave trade illegal And southern secession was perfectly legal. Read South Carolina's declaration of independence for some good insight on this

>>12904 >And southern secession was perfectly legal. Read South Carolina's declaration of independence for some good insight on this This was the states rights aspect of the war

>>12904 >The American Civil war was not fought over slavery, it was fought over a tariff that was going to be placed against imported industrial goods, which would have destroyed the southern economy. The seceding states all published declarations of causes of secession, and they were all primarily about slavery and the belief that the North was going to try to take it away from them (which was somewhat unlikely until the war made it politically useful), and because they were mad about things what they felt was a lack of enforcement of fugitive slave laws among the northern states. Only like two states even mentioned anything other than slavery, and those mentions were like one sentence each. Still, they did not declare war. They just tried to exercise their right to leave. That is where the argument about "states' rights" comes in. But their stated motivations for wanting to leave were almost entirely about slavery. If you want to go further in the argument that it wasn't about that, you could mention how the average soldier did not fight for the reasons the political elites stated in their declarations, but rather they fought because their homeland asked them to, and they felt they were defending their families and countrymen. The average soldier, of course, never owned slaves, and was very far from the type of subculture that did. But the ones that did made clear that their love of slavery was the primary reason they wanted to secede, and thus, perhaps slightly indirectly, was the primary reason they got all those poor, non-slave owning people to fight and die against northern forces.

>>12930 >The seceding states all published declarations of causes of secession, This was very educational, thanks for the tip. I read all of these declarations, and I see your point. I also noticed the repeated complaint of the Federal government both overstepping their bounds and not fulfilling their duty. It seems like we are still fighting this same fight today.

>>12319 >America is for anyone from anywhere! That's definitely what the Founders wanted! <ignore that they literally said nonwhites aren't human <ignore that they said nonwhites could never become citizens and that no laws, including the Constitution, were written to apply to them <ignore that they all expected slavery to end soon, and that the only solution was to deport all Africans from the US forever lol, oh well

>>12930 >The seceding states all published declarations of causes of secession, and they were all primarily about slavery No, the South were upset that the North was being prejudice against them because they allowed slavery, NOT because slavery was practiced. Today, it would be equivalent to states and their citizens being deprived of equal and fair treatment on a national and/or interstate level because they restrict abortion, or because they have no gun control laws. In addition to that, there were still the five slave states the remained in the Union during the civil war, and the fact that the American-Indian mercenaries that Lincoln hired practiced slavery as well. Which is why Congress slammed through the 13th amendment immediately after the way.

>>16292 I'm loyal to the concept of the United States, as it was originally envisioned. But we're a long way from there, and the Founding Fathers would've balked at Clown World and White Genocide. So, I guess you can be a loyal American, while being against GAE.

>>12319 > will anyone take a stand against it? No. Most people openly support globohomo these days.

>>12319 >Lincoln was a nice guy LMFAO

>>12319 Not surprised at all. Leftists can't help themselves when it comes to rewriting history.

jews have no end in their depravity give them an inch and they take the world kill them all

>>16297 Even Kate in her first episode recognized Lincoln as a dictator.

>>16302 lincoln being a dictator was based the problem with the civil war is that the south played it along defensive lines instead of smashing the yankee scum look at robert e lee, a principled man look at lincoln, a power hungry maniac one is an idealist and one is a realist

>>16303 that’s why in times of war you need to be absolutely ruthless or you’ll lose. Both home and abroad

>>16303 >look at lincoln, a power hungry maniac How? The guy was a reserved small town lawyer. His "biggest" claim to fame was debating then-incumbent Senator Douglas two years earlier.

>>16307 he conquered the south by sacrificing his own countrymen and used muh slaves as an excuse

>>16307 he destroyed the united states. he created precedent that the constitution was merely a suggestion and could be suspended at the lesiure of the government. because that is what he did. and admits to doing so

>>16329 >>16309 >he conquered the south by sacrificing his own countrymen So, he should have allowed the European powers to step in and completely fund the South's secession, thereby dividing the country even further and allowing for some united effort from the East (Europe) to come in and crush the now divided U.S.? You do know that, back in the 1830's, the various European powers all universally declared that the continued existence of the United States, in any form, was a direct threat to their control, right? >and used muh slaves as an excuse That never happened. The war was never about slavery. That is a modern myth. Even Lincoln, in the first half of the war, stated on numerous occasions that all the South had to do was withdraw their claims of secession to end the war, NOT outlaw slavery. If you're talking about the Emancipation Proclamation, that was an executive order that came into place towards the latter half of the war when the South was hurting and he was pouring on the fire for the purposes of ending the war as soon as possible. In fact, you if you want to know how the North received it, they ridiculed Lincoln about the EO every day until the moment he was assassinated. Also, you guys DO realize that much of the division between the views of the North and the South had been developing for YEARS, right? Things were not going along "swimmingly" between their diverging ideals, and the South was planning to secede regardless of whether it as Lincoln or any other Republican candidate who won the 1860 election due to how much the Northern states had mistreated them over the years.

>>16333 South was ruled by rich Jews that owned most of the slaves. The reason why the South lost is that they took money from the (((Bank of England))) to fund their civil war.

>>16377 No, the south lost because it had much less manpower and industry, also an inferior navy.

>>16378 Northern colonies and the Crown conspired to keep the South from industrializing even before the Revolution. A hundred and fifty years before the Civil War, local colonial legislatures and governors saw New York and Pennsylvania becoming wealthy from industry and approached the Crown about it. They were told to fuck off and that their purpose was to grow cheap cotton and tobacco to make London (((bankers))) rich. After the Revolution they tried again. The same New York and Boston (((bankers))) whose family fortunes were made in the slave trade were demonizing them over slavery and told them to fuck off, that they wouldn't allow Georgia and Virginia to build factories and mills that would compete with New York and Pennsylvania. A generation before the Civil War, leaders from Southern states bypassed the government and the banksters altogether and approached industrial concerns in France and Prussia and the UK and attempted to purchase factory tooling directly. Northern (((banksters))) responded by having their hired shabbas-goy politicians raise tariffs to block the deal. Banksters: "You stupid hicks, why don't you industrialize? Why are you so poor and stupid? Why do you oppress the negroes we just sold you? You're subhuman!" Southern leaders: "We're trying to industrialize, but you won't let us." Banksters: "What? And let you compete with us? We could never let you do that, because you're stupid subhuman hicks!" Lather, rinse, repeat, for two hundred years, until Southern politicians decide that the union they voted to join wasn't beneficial to them and voted to leave. The dictator Lincoln strongarmed them and forced them to stay, though his war was illegal.