Why does every brainwashed liberal think the south was fighting for slavery? How can I make them see the truth?

Why does every brainwashed liberal think the south was fighting for slavery? How can I make them see the truth?

Other urls found in this thread:

abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=R1FO9MqWugYat
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
teachingushistory.org/pdfs/ImmCausesTranscription.pdf
tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Post videos with blacks holding dixxie flags and explaining their views

Spend billions brainwashing them for 3 generations.

Wasn't the whole point independency from the Brits and the frogs?

They were fighting for a lot of things but slavery was definitely one of the major issues

Not an argument that can be won. Slavery was too entangled with it to say it wasn't a major part of it.

All you can really do is show that the state's seceded legally and were forced into war. But even that would be a hard sell.

This is why debating leftists is useless. Their brains would be better served splattered on a sidewalk than debating on the internet.

Man those dum LIBERALS think the Sun is hot and the ocean is wet! What a bunch of SHILLS, am I right?

But they were
In fact the South wanted slavery to spread to the Pacific, but the industrial north didn't want that shit

>german education
Not that war Hans

>How can I make them see the truth?
you can't, they are a lost cause

confederates were democrats

Maybe you're the one that needs to accept truth wannabe nazi redditor loser.

Arguing with people on the internet doesn't work. They'll just double down on their opinions and find facts to support them because there's no real pressure for them to admit they were wrong. When presented with an infallible argument face to face you have to immediately respond or else you are pretty much admitting you are wrong. On the internet you can just not reply to someone for minutes while you frantically scour the internet searching for facts to support your opinion

The corwin amendment:

Lincoln offered the south constitutional protection of slavery if they returned, even then they didn't return. Clearly they cared for more than just slavery.

Why is it controversial to destroy books wrote by communists that killed robed and destroyed countries all across europe

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
he said it himself. its quite obvious. Lincoln never ever wanted equal rights for niggers. too bad he failed in shipping them away, if he managed to do that there would be no white guilt in usa and usa would be 95% white. JUST

DELT DIS

dey is just coon niggers who don't know what is good fo dem selves

Fritz, geh nochmal zur Schule. Unabhängigskeitskrieg =/= Bürgerkrieg

Even though I believe it was about slavery, you have to acknowledge that war was the only logical option. Look at the economic output of cotton in 1860. Then look at the number of slaves. It was THE staple which kept our economy together.

Not going to war would have crippled our nation. Post war economies, even civil wars are booms.

...

no tard

the reason why the civil war. Textiles. Textiles was the oil of the day.
And the south could out compete the north, because of slavery.

SO the civil war was NOT ABOUT SLAVERY. it was about textiles. And even lincoln (the great emancipator) straight out said, he beleived the blacks should never be free

If you don't respect the losers of the last civil war, expect no mercy when your side loses on the upcoming one.

It doesn't matter, you'll be waiting your time because they don't care why or what they fought for, they hate them and to them the conferates were scum, end of story

the only thing that will happen is that you will be making excuses like a weak little apologetic sissy for the confederates, you will look weak, pathetic and like an idiot to them

arguing for the confederacy while being an apologetic sissy for slavery is like running into a wall head first, you gain nothing from it, except making yourself look like a fool

The bolsheviks have already taken over the schools and indoctrinated generations. It's too late for useful idiots like this.

All we can do is hope to create a generation that will break through the subversive conditioning.

robert e lee freed his slaves before ulysses s grant freed his

patrick henry owned 75 slaves. how come he gets a free pass?

they want to remove the statues of confederates
to remove the evidence of how far we've come
and reinvigorate the race war

Britbong: Confederates = Democrats. They are the same who ones fought against the Union army.

So if it wasn't over slavery what was it over? Honest inquiry, I don't know.

The Alt-Left is easily confused by the term 'Northern Aggression' because there are too many words in it. It's hard to type the entire phrase without damaging a fresh coat of Black nail polish. Safety first!

>the reason why the civil war. Textiles. Textiles was the oil of the day.
>And the south could out compete the north, because of slavery.
>SO the civil war was NOT ABOUT SLAVERY. it was about textiles. And even lincoln (the great emancipator) straight out said, he beleived the blacks should never be free

read nigger

Saying the Civil War was about slavery is like saying the Second World War was about Poland

Point out that while they seceded because of slavery, the war was caused by the North not recognizing their right to do so.

No Union formed voluntarily between two parties should be impossible to dissolve voluntarily as well. That's why we have divorce.

Tell them about these confederate supporting slave holds. And ask if they will support you removing statues of these racist.

corrected this for you

>Saying the Civil War was about slavery is like saying the Second World War was about jews

don't
tell them they are right
bluntly right
and then tell them that if they won't be tolerant poor people can do this again because of stress that was caused by their intolerant toughs

Leftism is a platform of moral absolutism.
They believe themselves and their positions to be either the most moral, or the sole moral choice, and any deviation is malicious.
You cannot reason with them because their mindset is exactly the same as that of a child too young to have begun accepting that other peoples' opinions exist. Think of a 2 year old who is making loud or high pitched noises, and you ask them to stop because it hurts your ears and they reply with "no it doesn't". That's leftism.

>patrick henry owned 75 slaves. how come he gets a free pass?
The same way all American liberals carry cognitive dissonance.

So instead of stringing together a few greentexts and saying things about Lincoln without proof, can you post me some links for reading material?

Read this:

Actually, South Did secede to maintain Slavery.
The north on the other hand, didn't so much care about slavery but rather cared about the Union:
youtube.com/watch?v=R1FO9MqWugYat 5:15 and 6:15.

The south seceded PRECISELY to maintain their right to Have slavery.

The North went to war to the South because "WE REMAIN ONE SOLE FUCKING COUNTRY, ASS!".

So, yeah, the South Quit the union So they could keep having slave.
North went to war because they didn't want a secession.

You could right it is for "state's right" But it was precisely the right of the state to have slave.

seeSouth quit in the first place because of the abolition of slavery they didn't want imposed to them.

It was about the states' sovereignty. States expressly have ALL rights that are not explicitly given to the federal government. Slavery was a state's right to decide. End of story. .The North didn't like that, they didn't want the South to be able rebel, physically or financially. So they started trying to coerce the South, and the south seceded, attempting to leave a Union they freely joined.
Fundamentally, the only reason Lincoln freed the slaves was to weaken the south as a war effort. Lincoln wanted niggers to go back to Africa in a colony called Liberia. He had no intention of keeping them around and in white society.

Since the North one the war, there has been a non-stop federal assault on state and individual rights.

Are you thinking of the Revolutionary War?

you can't, alt left don't give a fuck about objectivity they just hate white people, they can't be reasoned with, they're treating the removal of all these statues as a joke, they want you dead and your kids molested and they think it's funny

directly from Mississippi's Declaration of Secession


>In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

but hey, keep saying it isn't about slavery.

Was the slavery thing not one big propaganda campaign, America could have ended slavery years before the civil war but basically it was a convient excuse to go to war for other reasons. I mean is Lincoln not on the record as saying he didn't like nogs.
My American history is awful sorry if this is all complete bullshit

>It was about the states' sovereignty.
It was about the State sovereignty TO HAVE SLAVE.
This is the the issue. Everything else is tangential and wouldn't have caused secession.

It may all the primary source evidence in the form of journals, letters, speeches etc that confederate leaders and common soldiers left behind were they explicitly say they were fighting to keep slavery. Just a suggestion.

...

It's what they teach in schools.

>How can I make them see the truth?

If they were capable of such an intellectual feat we wouldn't be on the brink of war with the alt left.

Why does every brainwashed americunt think the Nazis were fighting to kill jews? How can I make them see the truth?

Okay thank you, but I feel like it's a fundamental issue being ignored in that slavery was the major context of this, ie, the right to own slaves which kind of gets swept under the rug wouldn't you suggest?

Even in my history books for 14 year olds it was written that the war was about secession and slaves were only an issue because the southern economy relied on their labour
Foreign kids know burger history better than adult burgers

But If Lincoln could preserve the union without freeing a single slave, he would do that.

ERGO, if secession was about slaves, then why the fuck didn't Lincoln just let them have slaves and prevent the war. Pro tip: it wasn't

fuckin ignorant frogg

It was the state's constitutional right to decide for themselves about slavery. Pre-civil war USA was like the EU now. You all should have self determination right? Because you're sovereign nation? States before the war were sovereign nations engaged a free union. A group of northern nations decided how southern nations should operate, illegally, and the southern nations responded to that illegal and immoral action by trying to leave.
At which point, the northern nations put a gun to their heads, and forced them.
It really doesn't matter what the issue was, the fact that the north didn't have the right to coerce freely associating nation states to operate according to their will.

when the war was starting the southern states issued documents with their reasons you idiot. Every single one of them puts slavery as a focal point. You're acting like a truth-obscuring leftie

Read actual historical sources instead of listening to fox/breitbart talking heads

im sorry i figured you were intelligent to take 20 seconds and google the info you need.

I being of 136 IQ, sadly place everyone on my level. Only to be proven time and time again, we are not all equal. And thought that this was common knowledge.

Meh....guess not.

at least you got nice triples

start of Georgia Declaration of Secession:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

it's like that for every southern state. Every one of them puts slavery as 1# issue.

You idiots need to get educated

American by birth, southern by grace of God. so the north are nigger lovers but refuse to live among them, nothing new under the sun.

If it was about slavery then why go to war when the inevitable industrialization was going to make it obsolete

Show them statistics on white slave ownership, the left wants everyone to think that every white person had a slave when it was like .01% of the population

>Why does every brainwashed liberal think the south was fighting for slavery? How can I make them see the truth?

because thats what we are taught in (((schools))), retard

People that are spoonfed History instead of taking the time to learn it believe that nonsense.

Why is it controversial to destroy the contents of the British Museum when colonialism put those artifacts there?

Why is it controversial to burn down the white house when it's a building literally glorifying slaveowners?

Why is it controversial to shoot commies in the streets?

>it was about state's rights! Nothing to do with slavery!
By which you mean state's rights to uphold slavery.
>well technically... yeah. But it totally wasn't about slavery!
Maybe your average yokel wasn't fighting for slavery in his own mind, but obviously that was what he was fighting for, ultimately.

wait didn't they attack federal bases first?
you don't even need to debate with right wingers, we can just tear shit down.

shut the fuck up rural scum

from the South Carolina Secession Declaration
--------
But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.

….the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her (New York) more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress….

The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burdening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the confederacy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

South Carolina Secession
teachingushistory.org/pdfs/ImmCausesTranscription.pdf

Texas Secession
tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html

Its all they talk about.

That's the teachings in schools, lucky for me I had a redpill dropping fool for a fifth grade teacher that taught her class how things weren't what they seem to have been and "private study is preferred"

You fail to understand the time period in the US. Having slaves wasn't largely thought to be immoral or wrong or anything else. The majority of the country didn't care whether niggers were owned or not. The president of the US at the time, who was one of the most popular in the North at the time, literally didn't care about the moral issue of slavery.
The north only cared about the financial issue of slavery and textiles, cotton, and tobacco. The south cared about the financial issue and they cared about the states' sovereignty.
You all forget about the events leading up to the war like Bleeding Kansas. Violent political action in Kansas as a territory tried to enter the union, they fought viciously about whether Kansas would be a slave state. Why did anyone care? Because the south KNEW that the north would violate their sovereignty with a congressional vote, which means the US congress would vote to extend their power beyond the constitution, if the north had enough votes. So states had to enter the union two at a time one slave, one not, so keeping the votes balanced in congress. Kansas tried to come in alone, so they fought.

tl;dr, it was not a moral issue at the time faggot, and actions precipitating war show that the south knew the north would try to take power if they could, and which they eventually did. The North was trying to abuse congress to take more power than they normally had. The north didn't care about slavery as a moral issue, so then why did the north want to consolidate power? Can't answer that naziboi?

There were more slaves owned in union states than in confederate states. Riddle me why the north wanted to control the south, using higher taxes and economic tariffs to control the southern economy and destroy its wealth by starting the war? It was never about slaves, that was the fake news of the day and has been perpetuated in history.

Bingo. Slavery was the hot point issue. But everyone misses the real significance of the Civil War

America died in the Civil War and became the imperial monstrosity that you see today. Federal power and taxes started then and that train has never put on the brakes.

During the civil war the states created their own armies and militias. After the civil war that stopped and the armies were controlled by guess who?

As the marxist pointed out during the civil war, the issue wasnt owning niggers, it was that the slave owners were a ruling class in their own right. They wriggled and fought at the prospect of losing their positions of authority and wealth.

Its about the $ they risked losing, not about ethics or morals, and to this day it still is all about the $$.

> If the south woulda won, we woulda had it made

It was textiles and taxes you Fucking retard.
>Go drink Fucking bleach leaf and jack off to mao\Stalin.

>They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

People cared about the abuse of the constitution a lot more then.

it's in every state declaration of secession cousin fucking rural subhuman

There is tons of historical evidence that they weren't. Just red pill the silly cunts.

Lincoln wanted to send the niggers to Liberia.

So lincoln was a racist and burning his statue in a fake news story is justified. Roger lodge

Wrong.

It was about centralisation of power. The north was federalised and established the concept that you could actually treat people worse if they were "free". Pay a worker fuck all and replace them whenever you wanted or fuck them off when they got old. Where as the south was resource heavy and had slaves which were actually treated better than other workers of those times.

It was confederation vs federation. The north turned the entire argument into a thing about slavery because it was an excellent tool for propaganda, that's why blacks still didn't get rights after the civil war. It was never about rights it was about centralising the USA under one government that they could federalise and make money from.

The founding fathers of America would have been pro-confederacy. It's all in the name the united STATES of America, they all fall under a loose government but each state operates under unique rules. Federalisation and centralisation of power is what is fucking everything up today. That's why everything is so fucking hard now because federal governments have established huge laws that can't be taken away because the entire system is gridlock. They only ever add more rules they never take them away, it's to make it so there is no freedom unless you got other cronies in high places who can grease the wheel.

If you can't support your own statement in the same breath you claimed it then why are you here? Are you this stupid? I think your I.Q. is one digit too much

If Lincoln only cared about the union and said he'd let the south keep slaves if that meant saving the union, then why didn't he do it?

/pol got me banned fuck

Now, i am an italian so i don't know dick about american history, so can somebody explain to me if the following is true and if so, why these facts are not used as sledgehammers against leftist talking points:

1) Abe Lincoln (Republican) won the presidential election by defeating a plethora of candidates (all Democrats, who could not find an unifying candidate), including the same Jefferson Davis who went on to be President of the Confederacy.

2) The Democrat controlled Confederacy was all over slavery, and the Republican controlled Union was all over abolitionism.

3) The Republican Party was created by those Whigs who wanted the institution of slavery to be abolished.

4) The original KKK were all Democrats, including fucking senators. All democrats where racist as hell, openly calling at times for the genocide of blacks, up until they finally realized that blacks vote too, and could be easily influenced to vote Democrat for all eternity by the use of gibsmedat.

The irony is most left leaning states today are taking a strong stance against the federal government. Encouraging states to uphold the Paris Accord and enact sanctuary City/state laws are reminiscent of the southern position of decentralization and states rights.

Had never heard of this before. Kind of an important part of the story.

No matter how much you try and pretend, no matter how many apologists you try and quote, the issue WAS slavery. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union at any cost and tried placating the south by saying he wouldn't end slavery but it was futile, the south needed slavery and was afraid it would end and that caused the war. When the Republican party won the election they knew slavery was coming to an end no matter what the president said. Free states outnumbered slave states, the Corwin amendment would never pass in the north, anti slavery sentiment was tearing border states apart.

Slavery started the civil war, slavery was what continued the war, the end of the war ended slavery. You guys are literally morons if you think otherwise, history is on my side of the debate.

Fuck. You guys really are superior to us. Good point will keep this in mind. Thanks for the wise knowledge, Dad. If you ever need us we are here.

>america died then
>1776 to 1864
it was a good 100 years

In high school (public) I was taught that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery and was to do with states rights. I guess I was in the minority. That was 10 years ago, god only knows what they teach them now.

Because the left wing propaganda fake news machine in the US is falsified moral superiority. They never have the conversation or discussion of factual points. They head off the real discussion by labeling groups and people as moral (SJWs) and immoral (White supremacists, racists, etc etc bigots), and make the moral people believe that the immoral ones are presently trying endanger their lives.
If you frame the entire left wing liberal progressive movement in the US in that context, then the actions of the left wing antifa and proletariat make sense. In their minds, they're morally on the high ground, and anything the immoral otherside says or does is a lie (they're immoral so they can't have facts) or an attack (asserting beliefs or rights is an attack against YOUR rights and personal physical well-being, its called microagression, inherent racism, etc).

There are no facts to discuss. And if you put the actions of the left, silencing opposition with violence, tearing down statues, and so on, it makes sense. In they're twisted minds they're just fighting against EVIL.

That's probably why you are destroying all the statues of Confederate individuals. All it would take would be to dig up some history to discover that all of them were democrats. I bet your next move would be to purge all references about the fact Lincoln was a Republican, you slaver fuck.

"Your" side of history? All of you are still slavers. Keeping your slaves down by duping them into believing your political opponents are racist instead of lynching them.

The imancipation proclamation was drafted two years into the war, start with that.

>This is the the issue. Everything else is tangential and wouldn't have caused secession.
If slavery had never taken place within Northern America the Civil War still would have taken place as a result of a different political disagreement. While the two things are inseparable in the context of history, it's just a part of the whole, wherein there was a cultural AND political discord between the rural south and the gentrified North. And the structure of the Constitution left some things at a vague stalemate between the interests and authority of the Federal government versus that of the States.

It would have happened regardless as a means of settling these issues. In a slightly more amenable and less hostile timeframe it probably just would have resulted in a few Supreme Court battles and a Constitutional congress to draft and ratify an Amendment to directly address this structural issue.

>Every one of them puts slavery as 1# issue.
But it wasn't the only issue.

They had to erase actual history because it was made illegal via civil rights legislation granting some citizens superior rights.

These rights demanded certain truths be silenced by legal decree.

Some of these include differences amongst the races and sexes and ideologies.

However an even more insidious effect was the erasure of history and philosophy that could be deemed offensive or controversial.

This lead to the censorship of real history and its replacement with a fake one in which white men are always evil and have no philosophical or practical justification for their evil actions.

This has led to entire generations believing white men are genetically evil baby raping psychopaths.

When if fact the opposite is true. Humans have always been motivated by good. Especially the masses.

They want to erase it because they don't understand it. The truth has been denied them.

And it wasn't just the Jews. This all started with the white male Berger court in the 1960's.