Person has a PhD

>Person has a PhD
>"The Civil War was about slavery"

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=SFwHQYDqf6c
paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/23/know-called-civil-war-not-slavery/
abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
civilwar.org/learn/articles/civil-war-facts
youtube.com/watch?v=uHDfC-z9YaE
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Person has a PhD
>"6 million Jews died in the holocaust"

>person has a PhD in physics
>doesn't know history aka not even his fucking field
Get it now?

The civil war was about the slavery of the states to the federal government, and the result was that they are and will always be slaves.

Person has a PhD
> "Toxic Masculinity"

Geography professor
>we learned so much from the muslims
12 more weeks of this shit

Most historians these days are Marxist revisionists much less some asshole that studied a completely unrelated field. PhD does not mean a master of all fields.

>talking to lefty American
>pay reparations
>I'm a Finn
>so?
>We didn't enslave anybody
>Yes but you're still white
>Russians enslaved us and sold our women to Muslims
>Not true
>It's true, here's proof
>b-b-but this isn't true

Control your lefties Burgers, it almost ruined my trip to USA

>Person has PhD in aeronautical engineering in Russia
>works in a small unventilated concrete room mending holes in galvanized steel buckets using a brazing bar and a bare electrical wire
please make some new MiGs soon, the 29 was a work of art

>Person has a PhD
>Germany started WW1

I know your pain user. 16 weeks of "the civil war was about slavery."

Dude even said that any mention of "the war was about state vs. federal rights" was made up by "muh altright boogeyman"

>person has a PhD

>merican phd in good goy

>thinking people with (((PhDs))) know more about politics and history than anyone with an internet connection

>>Person has a PhD
>>*unzips dick*

But everyone knows that "state's rights" is revisionism

>Person posts on Sup Forums
> "people with PhDs don't know more about history and politics than anyone with an internet connection"
Get it now?

>we no longer want to be part of this voluntary union of states as we think it's no longer in our interests
>gets invaded

>Person has Ph.D
>tells Tranny to cut off dick

They must not have a doctorate in history.

unless they're making mark stoler's argument that the civil war is actually about slavery by being not about slavery.

Slavery was the cause of disunion broadly and southern secession politically, although abolition was not the grand moral cause animating the northern war effort. The north fought to suppress a rebellion. It was not slavery that was morally intolerable, but secession that was politically intolerable. Also, in it's constitution, culture, and personnel the CSA of 1861 and 1862 was the USA of 1860. There was really near-as-makes no difference between the two.

These are the people Sowell criticizes in his Intellectuals and Society.

>person had a PhD
>posts on Sup Forums

>tfw told my advisor I won't take a diversity credit
>tfw they call me a neo confederate
>tfw decide i'm okay with this

Fucking. Based. Japan.

Every time.

Yankee federalist dicklickers are a special form of retarded normie.

>person has a PhD
>"WE WUZ SPACE KANGZ N SHIIET, HOL UP FO' SCIENCE"

>PhD in philosophy
>"there are no good arguments for eating meat"

i don't know how the nip does it so consistently.

>People have an MD
>Diet has no impact on autoimmune disorders

we want to gas them all and probably will within the next decade.

Can't, sorry. Only thing left to do is learn to fly helicopters.

youtube.com/watch?v=SFwHQYDqf6c

Pol potts is starting to make sense now

>It's no longer in our interests
>....Because of anti slavery sentiments

Jesus fucking christ just READ the causes for secession.

The only thing you need to believe is that the war is over and the southern traitors lost.

READ THE CAUSES FOR SECESSION. READ THEM YOU STUPID NIGGER. TRACK YOUR FUCKING EYES ACROSS THE PAGE AND COMPREHEND THE WORDS.

The civil war was about slavery though

Better ass do that, really enjoyed the country otherwise. And the face of that said lefty was priceless, she didn't know there were white slaves

Wasn't slavery legal during the civil war?
Like recognized as a legal institution by Lincoln and the US even while fighting?
How can it be about slavery if they succeeded while slavery was still legal?

>person has a GED
>"This Civil War wasn't about slavery"

it was

>history professor begins class today with, "We're going to look at the reasons behind differences in development around the world."
>Holds up "Guns, Germs and Steel"

>person has a PhD
>BECAUSE MUH SEX JUNK
>IS SO OH OH OH
>MUCH MORE THAN EITHER OR OR OR

>person has a PhD in physics
>America was not founded as a white country.

but it clearly wasnt about slavery

>The Corwin Amendment

paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/23/know-called-civil-war-not-slavery/

abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

aren't you required?

>judging history by today's moral standards
The federal government tried to ignore the constitution while the southern states broke no laws.

mine was a government professor
it gets worse

>Like recognized as a legal institution by Lincoln and the US even while fighting?

The new states were only admitted to the union if they did not allow slavery past a certain boundary. Slavery was a legally recognized institution only in the south because that was the original agreement in the formation of the union. It was the precondition behind the state signing the constitution. Sentiment turned against slavery and the North was putting pressure on the southern states to end slavery.

The south didn't appreciate efforts to disrupt their economic model because they were too stupid to industrialize agriculture and enjoyed fucking up our country by importing millions of blacks. The north didn't play nice with the national slavery laws (of returning slaves to the southern states) and this is the main reason the South seceded. They claimed that the north was willfully breaking the law as outlined in the constitution.

Once the south seceded all bets were off. National sentiment was largely against slavery, but the laws had not yet been passed to eradicate it. Lincoln was an opportunist and waited quite a while before signing the emancipation proclomation

The ENTIRE REASON FOR SECESSION WAS OVER SLAVERY. The southern states had a "legal" right to keep their slaves as outlined in the constitution and the north fighting them was basically the north proclaiming hegemony over the southern states.

All the southern states had to do was abolish slavery and they could have avoided getting 400K whites killed in the process, and kept the numbers of black people lower. The south even started the whole ordeal after capturing fort Sumter

based simpsons

The constitution allowed slavery at the time and people recognized it needed to change. I suppose you're defending slavery. You're a stupid nigger and you should lynch yourself.

No I'm not. I'm defending state right's. There is about a 0% chance that the South would have slavery today if it was allowed to separate.
If you want to change a law do it how it's supposed to be done. Don't shoot anyone who opposes you.

We did learn a few things, though.
>don't fuck your first cousins
>don't fuck goats
>don't fuck children
The list goes on, really.

>there's a 0% chance the south would have slavery

Great fucking argument you retard. Whattabout this whatabout that woulda coulda shoulda. The south rightfully seceeded and then proceeded to start the civil war.

Don't convert to islam being the chief sentiment.

The south didn't start the civil war. You can't start a war my being invaded.

No slavery was a part of it not the entire reason.

It has gradually become clear to me that the purpose of American education is to keep average and dumb people as ignorant as possible so they are pliant and easily controlled, while destroying any smart people who don't 100% but the party line. Those few smart people who do go on to control the dumb people.

>"The Civil War was about slavery"
I don't understand this meme.

Each southern state specifically mentions slavery as their primary reason for declaring war though. Below are quotes right from the first paragraph in each of their declarations:

Georgia's reason for war:
>For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
(first paragraph)

Mississippi
>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.

South Carolina:
>The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right.

Texas:
>The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

etc.

They saw anti-slavery laws as economic oppression from the federal government. State rights (if mentioned at all) came in a distant second place for reason for war for most southern states.

...

True. We'll always end up sucking the government's dick.

script status: flipped

Slaves were the most valuable property in the country in 1860. Slavery wasn't only a source of labor but of capital as well. Keep in mind there wasn't really any money in the mid 19th century. Wealth was recorded on 19th century spreadsheets. The wealth of the plantation class was held in the physical body of slaves as well as the land that was owned. The value of those slaves was leveraged in commercial dealings. The invention of the cotton gin would not have eliminated slavery. Another crop would have come along (coffee, tobacco, sugar, etc...) that would have required significant manual labor to cultivate and reap.

>The ENTIRE REASON FOR SECESSION WAS OVER SLAVERY.
I agree.
But there is a higher motive in which you are clearly aware of and yet are ignorant of at the same time.
It didn't matter what the issue was, The South would not be allowed to succeed. Whether it was slavery or whether it was over federal tax disputes.
The North were an agressor, and like you said, could largely not give a fuck about the welfare of slaves.
To say that The Union Army sacrificed 100s of thousands of their men to free the black man is a fanciful liberal revisionist way of looking at history.

>They saw anti-slavery laws as economic oppression from the federal government. >State rights (if mentioned at all) came in a distant second place for reason for war for most southern states.

Are you even reading what you write

>tfw, armed with years of cutthroat "debates" on Sup Forums, resoundingly eviscerate GG&S before variously horrified and bored classmates

Remember everyone, Sup Forums is always right.

Not all PhDs are in african-american studies

Allegedly.

I'm angling for independent study, desu. If I have to do diversity, I'm thinking I'll read Jared Taylor.

I'm glad we agree. People in the north largely used slavery as their ideological basis for waging warfare. When it comes down to it, secession was over slavery. The war that followed was the war to maintain the union.

So it can be concluded that slavery was the cause of the civil war. Was the north being tyranical? Probably. People whining that slavery wasn't the reason for war are busch league, though and have no fucking clue what shit they are spouting.

South carolina was the one that really went into state rights. Every other declaration was "muh negroes, who will tend the crops without muh negros"?

>The south even started the whole ordeal after capturing fort Sumter
>Not Lincoln sending munitions/supplies to a fort in Confederate territory despite being told it'd be taken as an act of aggression
>Not Lincoln sending a call to the Northern states to build an army against the confederacy after North Carolina defended itself from prior act of aggression
[spoiler]shiggy[/spoiler]

k

Maybe a better way to put it would be this:
Remember when we went into Iraq because Saddam had Nukes and was gonna sell em to terrorists and then we didn't find them and then the war wasn't about that anymore.
Well that's essentially what the left did with this war, except over a much longer period of time.
One can actually read books about the war from the 19th century, and then early 20th, and then late 20th and see how the narrative has evolved over time to where we are now.

>Almost all the confederate states declare that secession is to prevent the abolition of slavery.
>some mention race specifically

>"HHURR IT WASN'T ABOUT SLAVERY YOU STUPID NIGGERS" -t. modern right wing retards

This is exactly right. It's what I said . The war for the North was about putting down a rebellion, not morality.

Yes, but it wasn't the north that started the war, the south seceded specifically because they were afraid Lincoln was the next John Brown. The south cared very much about the slaves, the north didn't until it was politically expedient; even if they did have strong abolitionist movements.

Anyone that tells you an opinion besides the one I did is ideologically motivated to provide a certain viewpoint, and nothing more.

>Person has a PhD in physics
>Acts like an expert on geopolitical issues

>t. a person with PHD

civilwar.org/learn/articles/civil-war-facts

"The war began when the Confederates bombarded Union soldiers at Fort Sumter, South Carolina on April 12, 1861. The war ended in Spring, 1865. Robert E. Lee surrendered the last major Confederate army to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse on April 9, 1865. The last battle was fought at Palmito Ranch, Texas, on May 13, 1865. "

>person has Mst. in engineering
>person calls himself "scientist"

I don't know why anyone falls for the white privilage meme, European white men had massive genocides inflicted upon them in WW1 and WW2 and now we get called privileged for millions having died.

False flag. Fake news.

>"the civil war wasn't about slavery, it was about the liberty of individual states"
>nobody really gave a fuck until they tried to ban slavery

Sure thing, bud

>Seceeding from the union
>Expecting things to turn out peacefully

I'm not defending Lincoln. I've already said that the north wasn't playing by the rules. They felt that maintaining the union was the preferable option. Secession was over slavery. The north sought to maintain the union by force.

>PhD is something valuable today with high standards
There are huge amounts of females with a PhD, it's insane how naive and intellectually immature they are, in my opinion one out of ten only should really have it. Even minoritiys get PhDs enough said.

>"United States"
>states aren't united

So why not just have the states be independent nations then? You want to have the cake and eat it too, if you're a Texan and want the federal government to come help as your largest city is turned into a swamp then you're also going to have to give something in return

>Even though only the richest 1% of land owners could ever afford a slave, all those millions of Confederate soldiers went off and fought and starved in horrible conditions for slavery

I'm not arguing that it was over slavery, most of the big causes for secession can be boiled down to that, I was just contesting that the South started it when the North threw the first punch

Secession was over slavery. Full stop. The war that followed was not necessarily over that, but the conditions that arose to promote war arose because of the issue of slavery.

This is literally not debatable.
.

wow great argument there bud.

Actual Confederate Civil War veteran explains why he fought in the Civil War:

youtube.com/watch?v=uHDfC-z9YaE

>trip to USA

Well, now were here together brother. And we're the most influential nation the world has ever seen. Cheers to America!

>"The Civil War was about slavery"
Would the Civil War have happened if Lincoln was not elected on an abolitionist platform? No. Therefore, although slavery was not the only cause, it was the prime and foremost cause, to such an overwhelming extent that is fair to say that the Civil War was indeed due to slavery.

Unlike every other war in history which has been fought based on the interests of the average pleb?

>"I WAS THERE TO GUT YANKS! EVERY FUCKING LAST ONE OF THEM I'D DO IT AGAIN LONG LIVE THE CONFEDERACY!"
Not what I was expecting.

You should have castrated that man on the spot.

Here to blow you faggots out the water

>A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

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.

>This is literally not debatable.
Not debating those points. I agree.
I think that's the view anyone who knows what they're talking about and isn't shilling should take.
However, the latter part:
>The war that followed was not necessarily over that
Is no longer given weight in modern society and you can actually be called horrible things for suggesting it.
The "we died for the black man" meme has become reality for the majority of Americans.