What was the Civil War really about?
(rumble.com)
Comments (25)
sorted by:
like all wars, it was about (((bankers))) not wanting to lose control
Northern Elites: the South cannot be allowed to secede at any cost
Northern Plebs: Muh Slavery
Southern Elites: the north cannot be trusted to respect our independent state rights, so we must sever ties. Also, our Jewish elites want to perpetuate slavery and they make us a lot of money.
Southern Plebs: Muh Rights and Freedoms (also, halfway through the war the north decided to rape pillage and murder our civilian towns, so fuck them and I don't care why)
the civil war was a case of two sides fighting four different wars.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp
Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861
Does this answer the question?
while this is all true, Lincoln offered to enshrine slavery into the United States Constitution if the South remains part of the Union, and the South refused. the fundamental thing that caused the South to secede was the fact that they did not trust the North to respect the economies and autonomy of the Southern States, even amongst the southerners who did in fact want to abolish slavery (Robert E. Lee among them).
of course, when you look at reconstruction, they were absolutely right.
Yeah almost every individual state declaration specifically mentioned slaves.
I think when a state seceded that forced the war to happen.
Completely incorrect you left wing retard. Most secession throughout history did not provoke a war.
I wonder why everybody laughs at christcucks. Oh wait, no I don't.
You'll hate me regardless, so I might as well be honest
I don't know you so I can't hate you.
Drink bleach and fuck a machete, you left wing retard.
Name one other time a US state seceded without causing a war. It's like Article 1 of the constitution.
A US state. How is that the standard? But I have at least one, West Virginia seceded from Virginia.
But of course the standard is secession everywhere, not just in the USA where it only happened once against the federal government. You can look at any number of Soviet Satellite states that seceded. That's a lot of secession right there.
Any empire that declines (ahem, USA) will see states or nations secede.
Lol they weren't talking about "most secession throughout history."
Also, what a terrible point to make.
"Most athletes throughout history didn't die from cardiac arrest. Therefore, it's incorrect to say that any athletes died of cardiac arrest."
The question is whether or not it is valid to think secession "forces" war. Based on history, no.
Nobody asked that question until this comment. Dunno why you'd react so strongly with an answer when nobody asked.
Clearly you aren't following the thread of conversation.
"I think when a state seceded that forced the war to happen."
This doesn't mean that a state seceding always means a war will happen. It means in this case, secession forced a war to happen.
If you think following a Darwinian murderer is Christian, you might want to pray about that.
Many people. People in his own country. People in his own party. People in other countries (for example Poland). And the list goes on.
States rights. To own slaves.
⅗
a) Suggested civil (common) tempts one to ignore being (unique); while suggested war (imbalance) tempts one to ignore being one piece/peace (choice) within whole (balance).
b) Consenting (want or not want) to suggested tempts one into a conflict (war) of reason (want versus not want); while permitting others to redefine the sides into for example north vs south; blue vs red; union vs confederacy; us vs them etc.
Choice can only exist at the center (life) of balance (inception/death), so choosing any suggested side imbalances choice.
In short: one's choice (consent) elects chosen ones (suggestion).
a) Suggested whataboutism (fiction) tempts one to ignore perceivable (reality).
b) Opposite of about implies directly, hence being (life) directed (inception towards death)...
Ball horn caramel