Was the Civil War ONLY About Slavery? Nikki Failey's FLOP - Razör Rants 

Yeah. Simpsons used to educate you.

@@saltnessmonsternow it forces you to ingest the message.

@@eatsh1t not really, no one watches it anymore. All the good story lines already done

The dude asking the question is just as dumb as Haley.

The Simpsons that was. Now it it's own parody.

"They are asking about the Civil war help? Just tell them this "Capitalism is great, Liberality is great, and American exceptionalism". She's so inauthentic.

nailed it sir

Good point!👍🤣🤣🤣

@@goji059 I was like you deserve the backlash not because its justified but because she was stupid. Btw Ramaswamy gave a much better answer and it was authentic too.

Define warmongering abroad.

"Just say slavery." I loved that episode.

That joke would never see the light of day in current Simpsons.

​@@mupty Much like Apu himself.

True... But, most Americans also can't find America, on a map.

@@chainsawsubtlety9828*points at planet mars* it's right there, idiot. Duh 😎

Honestly I thought that was the route he was gonna go there for a punchline

If it was an anti-gun "statistician", they would find a way to claim everyone died of gunshot wounds

He did say "sane" people...

Tell that too Chicago

@@imyoursuperbeast8220 I know, right? Was sorely disappointed! 😆

Well then give us the other reasons?

​@@christopherschlacter4953😂😂 find the reasons yourself you lazy tard

The contention over to what extent the US should be Federalised as opposed to Centralised and everything in-between. Essentially, was it 'These United States of America' or 'The United States of America'. It was a debate that had been running more or less since 1776@@christopherschlacter4953

​@@christopherschlacter4953It was actually over chocolate chip cookies vs. peanut butter cookies........my vote goes to macadamia nut cookies.

@@christopherschlacter4953 Did you even watch the video or can we just plagiarize everything Razorfist said knowing that you won't watch it to check our sources?

woah there that cant be pointed out...

Shhhhhh! You're not allowed to speak facts!

One of the few times one can accurately state “Checkmate Lincolnittes!”

@@williamfrank962 not really. the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation freed only slaves in rebel held areas which he had no power over and omitted areas in the Union by name.

Why was west Virginia admitted to the union as a slave state

Yeah, Haley was kind of right, she just needed an editor. It was about the role of government. It was about the federal government annihilating the governments of the states. Which we unfortunately have to deal with today in every aspect of our lives. The Lincoln Cult is our biggest ball and chain right now and we need to ditch them. They are truly horrible.

Welcome to life in the Empire of Lies.

Exactly this. Its a shame, if she or Desantis somehow gets on the ballet they'll get my vote. If its Trump again, I'll be staying home on Nov 2.

@@bobleeswagger474not even Vivek? Bro c’mon.

🤣🤣

She is the most astroturfed politician I’ve seen in a long time. There’s more energy behind DeSantis than her even after he’s completely torpedoed his campaign no thanks to his campaign team.

As a Yankee, I second the motion.

The Confederacy were the good guys.

Okay. Traitor.

@@GreatBigRanz thanks. This fried chicken needed a bit of salt.

@@JohnDoe-pt7ru Somone failed history.

Hailey is no Clinton. She doesn't [yet] have an amassing body count of people who could have exposed the skeletons in her closet.

Trump/Vivik or bust. (And RFK as head of the intelligence agencies.)

Wish I could give a 💯 likes for that comment.

But it IS literally wrong.

A similar line is this: the only reason World War 2 was fought was because the US wanted to free the Jews from the Holocaust.

Can I borrow that?

This is America. The education system has to bring a very complex and complicated historical event has to be dumbed down to the most basic understanding possible.

She would have fallen into another trap, the states right to what? If the federal government isn't even allowed to step in to intervene on behalf of enslaved peoples, what does that say about someone who defends "states rights"?

The fact that razorfist downplays the significance of slavery as "an inconvenient fact of commerce at the time" is incredibly sus. I don't think he's pro slavery or anything like that but it reveals an intellectual laziness on his part. The ideology of racist dehumanization went so deep and widespread that it makes 0 sense to side step that and hammer on only secession.

The best answer to avoid slavery is "to stop the CSA's secession"

​@@connorpeppermint8635 issue is two fold here, you have an entrenched southern belief that the war was not about slavery and will generally handwave it i.e states rights (but which rights), then you have the modern democrats who want to wield this history like a sledgehammer in order to destroy opposition and control the modern narrative. many on the right are chiefly reactionaries to the latter who, unsurprisingly assume that the modern dems are just hyperbolic or straight up lying as per usual since that is their normal modus operandi, and will latch on to whatever is anti-dem rather than actually have a pro-slavery stance. the civil war was definitively about slavery though, through and through.

States rights To have slaves

Thin edge of the wedge, though. If you ban Congress from federally protecting the civil rights of slaves, who's to say the right to own slaves won't soon after be considered as sacrosanct as the right to own cannons?

But it didn't stop Congress from banning them in the territories, which Congress constitutionally had oversight of. That's why the amendment wasn't good enough: slavery needed to expand or else a big enough majority in Congress and state governments could one day pass the 13th and abolish slavery without any means for the South to stop them.

@@KopperNeoman Oh no, states might have decided to keep something they wanted, the horror.

Pretty sure Trump's name is on that list but feel free give him a pass because "it's different when it's Trump".

​@@user-cf3xp9kn8o Actually no, he was mentioned on the same sentence as George Lucas, neither of them went to that accursed island

@@user-cf3xp9kn8o Please show me every page number where Trump is either directly named or indirectly referred to.

@@user-cf3xp9kn8o And you joined a social media service just to make that statement. How pathetic are you?

@@user-cf3xp9kn8o He never went to the island. He already knew what was there, they all did. That's specifically why he banned him and never wanted to see his face again.

Need to check the new tech sites, usually they go up 2 hours later these days

AYE 😂

slavery wasn't abolished til 1942. no that's not a typo

@@taterc229 Explanation?

@@aLadNamedNathan the last slave was freed in Texas in 1942 and was made illegal by executive order. the 13th amendment still allows slavery as punishment for crimes. look it up if you don't believe me

@@taterc229 I know what the 13th Amendment says. Who objects to imprisonment for a crime? (Other than the Woke people, of course!) And if that's what you're trying to base your argument on, consider the fact that people are still imprisoned today for crime--so your claim that slavery ended in 1942 holds no water. For that matter, slavery in the sense of imprisonment will never end because human nature does not change. (Unless, again, the Woke completely take over. But on second thought, I withdraw that claim. If the Woke people take control, Conservatives will be the first people going to prison--in their millions.) If you want to try to salvage your claim here at all, then tell me the name of this supposed last slave who was freed in 1942. Tell me where in Texas he was enslaved, and tell me who enslaved him. Tell me the circumstances of his emancipation. What is this executive order you speak of? I won't be holding my breath.

@@aLadNamedNathan it's one google search away. not only am I not reading all that, I'm not spoon feeding you either

I imagine it would've been possible but yes the pain would hurt.

I don't think that's entirely true, even in those days there was a growing sentiment among the southern populace that slavery was bad albeit one of those reasons was racial purity but there was also an economic angle that states resources had to go to keeping slaves from escaping. With the industrial revolution beginning to kick off I don't doubt that slavery would have ended one way or another.

Slavery would have ended within the next 20 years or so (and most knew it). Machines were taking the jobs of slaves and it essentially just sped it up a few years. Making them pay wages to slaves alone, and allowing them to pay off their “debt” (indentured servitude like) would have probably been acceptable to all sides.

One of the biggest consequences of abolition was the suffrage granted to the politically illiterate. Just like Haiti, you cannot expect sub-100 IQ people to responsibly participate in government. But hey, free Republican voters!

Not only that, but in a place like the South, generations of people had to convince themselves that slaves weren't human beings so they could rationalize their American beliefs with their ongoing violation of inalienable rights. Hence why so many in the CSA didn't want slaves in the army: if blacks made as good a soldier as whites, it would be an admission that their entire view of black inferiority and slavery was wrong. They said as much themselves.

Correct, because it is all about feelings not facts.

​@@arthurpendragon3000"those videos we watched in school had a sad song playing and my teacher told me the southerners were satan incarnate so it must be true! Mean while my college professor says I should hate people who dont agree with me and the government nevers dids nothing wrong evers!".

Obvious trap. I saw that coming before I had my morning coffee.

Kinda. It also had to do with political power, if you recall how representation in congress works, you get more representatives based on the size of the population in a given state. However, the existence of the slave population threw this for a loop, as suddenly a state like Maine, despite having a larger population than say some southern states, had the same number of representatives, cause back then slaves counted as 3/4 of a person when it came to this count, therefore a large slave population was ensured that many Sourthern states had equal or more power than some northern states. Lincoln and the Republican Party, didn’t like this, as since near all the southern states didn’t like him or his policies, he feared that further westward expansion would enable the south to eventually have more power than the north, ensuring he or his group would not be able to win on congress.

Yes and no. It wasn't so much the institution that Northern opponents of slavery's expansion had a problem with. It was that the presence of slaves of any stripe in the western territory would likely come from the Southern states, to whom the North was ideologically and economically opposed, thereby increasing Southern representation in the Congress and electoral college. This disbarment of Southerners from the western territory was listed among the principal reasons as to why South Carolina, as an example, seceded. Slavery itself as an institution would likely not have lasted long in the west owing to the lack of suitable farmland south of the Mason-Dixon line. Jefferson Davis himself admits that in his postwar history/memoir The Rise of the Confederate Government.

Kind of, Lincoln wanted a form of compensated emancipation, where any freed slaves would be bought from the slave owner and sent to an American colony in Africa. The war wasn't about the existence of slavery but it's expansion, the South wanted to conquer Mexico and Latin America to spread slavery there and ensure their political and economic power would expand further. The emancipation proclamation was made not to damage southern logistics but to deny them foreign aid. Britain was happy to buy southern cotton even after it abolished slavery, and almost certainly would have joined the war against the north if the war was not made to be about slavery. Look up checkmate lincolnites by atun shei films, it has far more detail and far more nuance than most observations of this topic.

No, basically the north was taxing the hell out of the south. The south was no happy about this and this is what caused the war. The slaves were definitely a part of it but arguably the smallest part of the war. It was mostly about government tyranny telling others how to live their lives and overtaxing them.

That's how it's taught in history class. The biggest beef was that the more populous (and thus more represented in Congress) North was using its power to rule the South almost like an agricultural colony rather than co-equal states according to the Constitution. South Carolina almost seceded under Jackson because the federal government was using protectionary tariffs to a) fund the government through Southern exports and b) funnel cheap raw goods into the North (the UK textile industry was dependent on Southern cotton, and the North used this to raise a bunch of federal revenue at the expense of the South and the UK). Slavery was a sort of last stand where abolishing it would need a Senate majority, and so long as the slave states maintained at least a 50/50 balance, it wouldn't happen. The federal government then started using a moralistic stance on slavery to try to justify abolishing it without having to go through that pesky Constitutional process of, you know, writing a bill and passing it. The South rightly saw this as an end run around the Constitution, and the articles of secession argued that such overreach would not stop there (and my oh my how that has aged). Even the infamous Dredd Scott decision had its logic based on the novel idea that if the law is bad, you should write a new or revised law and then pass it rather than try to change it by dictatorial fiat. And that is the Secession Crisis, NOT the Civil War. The cause of the Civil War is that a bunch of states who had voluntarily signed onto a mutual protection and cooperation treaty decided it was no longer in their best interests, peacefully left, and were then invaded by a hostile, foreign army intent on subjugating them. For comparison, imagine if the EU's reaction to Brexit was sending soldiers from Spain, France, and Germany to invade, including offering citizenship to African and Middle-Eastern migrants who fought for them.

Yes I caught that

Americans don't even know why the Loyalists rebelled against Congress, for Pete's sake.

To be fair, I think they try to teach these moments history at too young of age where things are be properly dissected and understood. Instead it's taught with a political bias to influence at an impressionable age.

Civil War is taught to 10 year olds, you're done with it by the end of middle school. It's purposely done that way so teenagers don't think about the fact that they're slaves to the federal government and if they try to break away they'll be murdered for trying to keep everything they earn. Remember kids, the ancient pharaohs required slaves to either give up 25% of what they made/grew or work 1/4 of the year for the pharaoh. In 2023 the average USA adult will pay 50% tax to the various forms of the state. In both cases the individual will be jailed or shot if they try to change that.

In our defense we were educated in government schools, obviously they are going to push pro-government propaganda.

its literally called the founding fathers because it was a bunk of middle aged men who came together and "founded the nation" being "fathers of the nation". its no diffrent then in europe how you lot refer to your nations ancient and beloved monarchies and histroical figures its not worship its respect.@revilo178

Because the CSA had already negotiated a plan to abolish slavery the same way Britain had - gradually and economically. If the Union didn't hurry up and do the same, Britain would OBVIOUSLY assist her erstwhile ally in seceding from the hypocritical traitors.

The USA had to prevent itself from becoming a target of Britain's War on Slavery after all. It would not have won.

Yes. people often forget that Lee's push to Washington was supposed to be reinforced from Canada, but wasnt after the Czar of Russia threatened war with the British if brit soldiers entered the US. United Statesians get a bit myopic when it comes to their internal dispute.

​@@elLootoi'm pretty sure Cassius Clay was involved with getting russia in on that.

@@elLooto Because most have been spoonfed sanitized and very heavily watered down history. Its not incorrect. Its just wildly inaccurate to boil down the Civil War to "Slavery", when it was far more than just that.

The problem is that the vast majority of people simplifying it down for slavery are (rather ironically) very afraid of exercising their own personal freedoms. They're quite literally incapable of considering the entire reason people would be willing to fight back then because they lack the moral conviction to be willing to do so themselves.

Let’s all agree, it happened over Lincoln farting towards the south, waving his hands to make it drift. After all, wars only happened for only one reason. WW2 started off as beer bet between Hitler and Stalin. Korea was all about BBQ. Vietnam was about French hogging the dope. Desert Storm was about a spider. Right? 😂

weak federalists youre a pos be quiet those weak federalists won the majority of the engagements in the civil war despite being outnumbered and outgunned. those weak federalists saw the nations fastest growing economy in world history under thomas jefferson. please spare me youre republican take on how strong and weak each side was and btw only the whigs were federalists please quit pretending everyone supported your ideology. we are not a federal republic we are a constitutional one the difference being a federal republic can change our ,laws ad naseum. they cannot change our bill of rights without a general agreement of 2/3rds of congress. the federalist party btw was gone by the civil war and lincoln was a life long whig who pushed the whig agenda both during and after the civil war. federalists were our weakest party from 1812 onwards and the actual debate was over whether federal or state rights had authority and since the states founded the federal government it was their agent and had no right to dictate laws to them by every legal standard before and since so please read a fucking book

southerners believed in representative democracy btw not federalism and they also didnt want directly elected senators but wanted an electoral college for them. you simplifying both sides down to federalist is disingenuous.

@@bas-tn3um You know... the first four words he wrote were "I'm not an American..." "Disingenuous" is probably a big stretch, here.

Best way to put it would be: “Is the European Union one nation or a bunch of different ones?” Very similar situation

Careful! Dumping this much truth at once may give the woke tards small brain owies!

NH is not in good shape anymore, is it? Or is that some social media bs? I do know they just coughed up their only classic rock station worth half a dam across the entire landscape so I await your answer.

Honestly, it is worse. An actor may learn a thing or two to play better the character. A social studies teacher is not only full of shit, he is spreading that shit into his students.

I had to go back and pause the video at that point. From the way it was worded, I thought it had been posted by Mr. Beat (not Mr. Beast!). Then I realized that was silly--Mr. Beat isn't old enough to have taught 33 years. But Mr. Beat sticks in my craw, what with all his implying all the time, "I'm a licensed history teacher. Therefore I have the right to tell your children what to think."

Just because you do something for a long time does not mean you have done it correctly or that you are any good at doing such thing. The majority of people who say this usually are terrible at that such thing from my experience.

@@aLadNamedNathan Mr. Beat is the worst. He tries to pretend to be even-handed, but all you have to do is watch his electoral college video to see that he's a partisan lib.

What if he’s a good teacher?

The South made it about slavery and rebelled against an abolitionist being elected . They feared that freeing slaves would make them equal to whites and that there would be reprisals for wrongs done such as what happened in Haiti. Lincoln wanted a limited war against the rebellion to keep the Union intact.

The same historians that also approved of destroying statues because “they were racists” or some other nonsense.

@@ghostfear2011 do you disaprove of swastika symbols being removed from postwar germany? I don't think you should tear down statues willy nilly though to question their utility and cultural value is certainly a prudent thing to do, no? especially if you're going to have statues of people who fought a civil war to keep slaves

@@HarrDarr

​@@HarrDarrYes. Yes I do. Out of sight, out of mind. They should have been Constitutionally protected (along with a ban on building new ones)

@@HarrDarr Why don't you have a seat over there...

LOL! ""Our position is thoroughly identified with 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 . . . a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization . . . There was no choice left us but . . . a dissolution of the Union."" But do go on with the revisionist horseshite you tell yourself.

Because slavery was the pillar around which over half of the debates, issues, and compromises in America had revolved over the previous 60 years. All these other issues of states' rights, taxation, and federal power traced back to slavery as the reason they were being debated about.

​@@1kranitell me how slavery has anything to do with a federal government raising a military to invade its own states, of which many are leaving perfectly legally? Is it legal to drag your wife by her hair when she tries to leave because she was doing something you didn't like?!

Only the uneducated mention slavery first.

@@spazemfathemcazemmeleggymi272 Its the 6 stages of Kevin Bacon game. They can pick anything and, in some way, lead it back to slavery. And so, they say it had to directly deal with slavery. It's the historian disingenuous way of arguing it was 100% slavery.

@@als3022 the fact still remains. I would willingly die for a state that protected slavery, especially if I was a slave myself in it, AGAINST a federal government that clearly has no problem with slavery but a big problem with black people living in America. A federal government which invades it's states is not longer a federal government it is a direct threat to our lives.

Exactly. If it was, the north would have declared war far before the 1860s. The south left, the north thought it was illegal, the south didn't, and they had a war to decide who would impose their interpretation. Slavery was the issue that prompted the south to secede. Now, that doesn't mean northerners didn't have moral problems with slavery. Many did, but they didn't fight the war for that moral reason.

@@mattm7798 often wonder what would have happened had SC went to the courts.

@@mattm7798 one can also disagree with the Southern cause while also disagree with the Federal prosecution of the war and with the glorification of said war. We buried over 2% of our population at the time cause politicians failed.

The South wanted to expand slavery into the new territories and have the north respect the institution of slavery. Had the north 'let the south go', it may have quickly become the west also and who knows what might have happened if they wanted to eventually go into northern territory. They had already seized all the federal owned property in the south through violence so official ownership wasn't something they completely respected.

Judging by the wording of the corwin amendment I think there was more to it then him simply "letting it continue"

Well, preserving the union is the Presidents first duty, is it not?

@@elLooto How in the good Lord's name is invading states that have already legally left the union "preserving the union!?" What about the thousands of black and whites raped and murdered under Lincoln's orders and approval is "preserving the union??" If you or I were married and our spouse legally divorced us so we then proceeded to beat and rape them is that preserving our marriage?!??

Hasn't Vicksburg fallen to Union hands by that point, splitting the rebels in half?

I see this brought up all the time and I really wonder why people think this is a good argument. The civil war didn't happen because the south had slaves. It happened because the south refused to stop expanding slavery into the territories. Its not surprising at all that Lincoln would prioritize the integrity of the union above emancipation. You'll also notice when reading the writings of southerners from the time that absolutely nobody was talking about "states rights" until AFTER the war, when they were desperately trying to recover their image.

Never thought I'd defend Nikki Haley, but pretty much. An election is no time to try to illuminate one of the most complicated and highly propagandized issues of our history, especially when it was prompted by a likely disingenuous gotcha question.

@@Tyler_W I think you pretty much nailed it.

Isn't Texas just maintaining its share of the federal border? I don't see Texas putting up fences on its border with New Mexico or Oklahoma, for that matter.

@@zerefsunlimitedshipworks yes but the federal government can claim supremacy and stop Texas from doing so. The federal government asserting it's ability to do this was a major reason why the south seceded.

Nah, he'd just leave the room. But not before being lost and then directed to the exit.

Choco Choco Chip with a little pre teen hair

The man couldn't even answer a scripted and rehearsed softball question about "what was your favorite part of the year" on New Year's Eve without launching immediately into a unintelligible rambling mess.

Lesser of two evils eh? 😂

chocolate chip!

But Britain paid off the slaveowners! 1776 or something!

He also suspended Habeas Corpus and jailed his political opponents for speaking out against the war.

That always rubbed me wrong when I discovered that Britain and most European nations did so but we had to have a bloody war to do so.

He was a railroad lawyer, what do you expect from a corporatist?

​@@mrcliff3709To hell with paying the slaver, that's worst than paying reparations to the freedmen on behalf of the slaver. Mass repatriation of all Black people was the only moral option.

Well, there was a single issue for Lincoln. Lincoln wanted to enslave the south. Whatever lead up to the first state deciding not to wish to remain part of the union became fairly irrelevant the moment that Lincoln decided to use violence to enslave anyone who wishes to escape.

​@@NeuromancerismSo you are fine with terrorists ceasing military assets and taking what they want? Doesn't matter their reason you don't negotiate with terrorists and yes the southern men were terrorists.

Except that it can be, and it was Slavery.

@@GreatBigRanz Indeed. Sadly, the slavers of the north won historically.

The Confederate state governments had that right. Contrast 1776, where the colonial governments WERE treasonous, and a third of Americans outright enlisted in the British Army to overthrow them for having the gall to not ASK them first. It is quite a stark contrast.

Well, no. Objectively no. That's why the 14th Amendment was made, for insurrection. Also, saying it would have been treason would basically amount to recognizing that the Confederacy was a real nation, which the Union has never done because it was considered illegitimate, therefore it was a rebellion and not exactly treason Details matter.

I completely agree... sure you can see in photos and paintings how he felt like he personally failed the founders. But he was right to let voluntary members of a pact, to leave voluntarily. But this is when we were free and not whatever it is, we are now. Free compared to other current nations, slaves and serfs by our founding fathers and documents. The south was right, and slavery would have been abolished anyway at the state level. Like it was supposed to be. But removing yourself from someone trying to conquer you covertly is never a crime. Its a duty. All hail liberty and free states from federal mafia control!

​​@@dfmrcv862go ahead and keep licking that boot on you neck, its not going to make it any easier for your neck. The simple fact is that by your standards, the american revolution was a rebellion, not a revolution, and the founding fathers should be tried for rebellion. And either you admit I'm right, at which point no one here will take you seriously, or admit your wrong at which point I'm done here anyways. The logic is silly and fairly backwards. Just as the found fathers declared that we should not follow unjust laws and tarrifs, and left the nation of england, the american south said they would not follow the unjust laws and tarrifs, and left the USA.

@@dfmrcv862 So forming a separate country and fighting a war against a government that supposedly has legal authority over you isn't treason? You mean like how the Founding Fathers did literally the exact same thing, under pain of treason? Got it.

Agreed

A gargantuan one, looking down on all of us subjects,

​@@cousinzeke4888Washington had one where he mimicked a Roman god.

@@blacktigerpaw1 They won't mention that along with the other statues that deify former presidents/founding fathers because it goes against their narrative.

It's just a convenient Casus Belli that has a bit of truth in it. It sounds much better to say 'We fight for ending slavery' than 'We fight to preserve our dominance over you'.

It was slavery. Historians are laughing at you. The states themselves told us the reasons. No mention of a Morrill tax in any of them. 90% of the reasons given by southern states was slavery related.

Oh, I was always told by my better-than-average history teachers that the Civil War was about the power balance between the Feds and the state governments. Slavery was an important issue but it was not THE issue OR THE PRIMARY REASON the American Civil War started. Yes, there was a North Vs South thing and clash of culture and the unease about slavery but it was mainly the power balance issue which WOULD be dogging us more today if so many politicians weren't in love with renewing feudal states and bowing to a central crown authority! We don't have kings but some of us are in love with turning the Presidency into a de facto kingship.

I read years ago and you have to dig to find to it but American manufacturers were up set that the southern cotton brokers were selling cotton to English buyers for higher prices and had in caused major shortages for American industry @@AvengerII

And somehow she didn't honestly mean it any of those times.

"9 .. 11" Lois Griffin, Family Guy.

@@ShadoSnipr- When people like you don’t hear the actual words- but only hear what you want to hear.

​@@michaelgarrow3239 Or people like you who ignore what people do as opposed to what they say.

@@sexistspaghettios - Can you give me an example? I wasn’t aware she owned slaves… 🤓

Correct. It was a luxury that was on the way out. Only the few wealthy could afford them and Ely Whitney was about to make most of them obsolete as a tool in the work force.

mexican american war was before?

@@scoliosis9478 you’re right, stealing the land that was never yours from Mexico makes Russia taking back land that was theirs and where the population wanted to be Russian look justified.

@@saltnessmonster All I was saying was the your timeline was messed up. But yes the Mexican American War was based, Mexico was a land of colonizers just as the USA was in a time when wars of conquest happened all the time, they lost and we’ve done more with the land then they would have.

@@scoliosis9478I agree, but Biden can’t grand stand haha. What Russia is doing is far less immoral.

Careful, you're gonna get labeled "antisemitic".

@@UltimateThanos Every single time!

@@UltimateThanos Probably some other istaphobe label.

Lincoln and Wilson are the same. Income tax, unnecessary expansions of suffrage, unnecessary war, everything. The only difference is that Lincoln's bodies are buried here while Wilson's are in Europe.

When the CSA attacked Sumter, they attacked a federal outpost which Lincoln, as both the chief executive and commander of armed forces, is obliged to defend. It's the same reason why federal marines showed up at Harper's Ferry: the feds are obliged and allowed to defend their outposts and holdings, same as a state government would. As for Habeas Corpus, Lincoln initially only did that along rail lines to ensure Congress could get back to D.C. He also did it because Congress wasn't in session to even vote on it. Finally, Lincoln limited Emancipation to areas outside of Union control because as President, he couldn't unilaterally free slaves in Union territory. He used the context of rebellion to give his commanders permission to emancipate any further slaves they came across. The Proclamation was a war order, effectively saying that slaves will be confiscated from the rebellious regions and then, as their new owner, the federal government will free them. Lincoln wanted to issue the Proclamation as early as 1862; his cabinet talked him into taking the war rammifications into account.

However the loaded question. She kind of got it right but her answer was "Problematic" to the MSM and the dolts who believe their BS.

Bro, im from illinois, too, and my high school and the three others nearby were even named after Lincoln. One even has a massive penny outside its main doors. Shits crazy they treat him like a god or something. Im surprised our god damn mascot wasn't just lincoln himself.

Because they intended to makes slaves of us all via the 'industrial revolution' and they did a bang up job of it

Bawahahahaha 🤣🤣🤣

The State's Right to secession. It was because of tarriffs and trade that started the tensions, because the textile industry in the North bought cotton from the agricultural South.

​@@georgejones5019 It was tariffs and taxes that compelled the Compromises of 1820 and 1850? It was tariffs and taxes that Dred Scott was issued to solve? It was tariffs and taxes that people were afraid would carry over from Bleeding Kansas as a result of Dred Scott? Come on, dude, any cursory glance at U.S. history over the preceding 50 years will tell you slavery was a cornerstone issue of debate and crisis LONG before 1860.

@@1krani And none of those crises ended in a civil war. It was Lincoln's campaign promises of overbearing taxation and tariffs on the South that caused this crisis. Slavery is still part of it, as it was also part of commerce, henceforth it's still a factor, but not a direct cause of neither the secession crisis, nor civil war.

Go ahead and read the articles of secession from the southern states. Its pretty obvious they were concerned about 1 state right in particular

It literally was about slavery

People say the left can't meme, but that's not quite accurate. They just can't make their own, they've given us plenty.

Abortion is evil in pretty much exactly the same way that slavery is evil; it dehumanizes a group of people based on arbitrary factors

@@LynetteTheMadScientist Imagine believing a person doesn't own their own flesh. 🤣

@@skaldlouiscyphre2453 Your flesh ends where another human's flesh begins. It's like rights. You already got your choice: Your choice was to fornicate without taking any precautions, and once that choice has resulted in the very predictable consequence of creating a new human life inside your body, you no longer can pretend it's about your body, whatever gets in the way be damned. Otherwise, everyone who supported Kaepernick taking the knee must also support Chauvin for doing the same. His body, his choice.

@@skaldlouiscyphre2453 Imagine believing that a separate organism growing inside of a woman's womb is part of "her flesh". 🤣