WHAT IF WE MADE PENN AND TELLER'S BS BUT FOR NUMALES

So what was the Civil War about if not slavery?

The Second American Revolution. Resistance to an overbearing Federal Government that taxed what it didn't help create for the benefit of North-Eastern industry robber-barons.

The idea that the Union gave even one third of a shit about Negroes or ending slavery beyond how it could aid their political goals is blatant historical revisionism.
If it wasn't, slavery would have been outlawed in the North BEFORE the Civil War started, the US's biggest port for slave-trade wouldn't have been in Boston, and the Union would not have literally rioted and torn cities apart when the government started drafting them.
Saying "the American Civil War was about slavery" is like saying "WWII was about the Holocaust".

But all of that is too complex. Modern brainlets need a black & white, good & evil narrative to understand things, because they are childish and believe in a "right side of history".
Therefore history gets revised so that the entire South rebelled because 1.6% of the total population owned niggers and didn't want to stop oppressing them. That's why those gosh durn Confederate statues have to get torn down RIGHT NOW. They are EVIL and we are GOOD.

In b4 20 (You)'s from butthurt millennials that think I'm a Southerner just because I am historically literate.

Attached: Lincoln on Slavery and the Civil War.jpg (850x400, 49K)

Yeah that the concept, it's so obvious I don't think they even denied it.

Attached: 1553583072652.png (714x800, 73K)

>The Second American Revolution.

This. People are quick to forget that the American Civil War was NOT the first time a group of slave-owning whites displeased with taxes and an uncaring government launched a rebellion to secede.
That all happened 75 years earlier.

The difference is that that secession succeeded, whereas the second one failed. And it turns out victors get to write the History books.

Attached: George Washington.jpg (604x500, 105K)

>chubby, bulgy-faced, neck-bearded nu-male with thick-rimmed glasses and a stupid-looking pompadour
>does an episode on how "Alpha Males don't ACTUALLY exist"

Attached: Biribiri Think Peer.jpg (640x960, 124K)

Slavery was banned in the North decades earlier.

>NUMALES

>t single lanklet

Even conservative think tank says you're wrong.
youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

Why? Slaves are cool.

>slavery existed for the majority of history
>it even exists today in modern Africa
>The Britbongs not only stopped slave trading in their own empire, but used their navy to stop OTHER nations from trading slaves
fuckin' white people keepin' us down

ask Conan O'Brien, he's an expert on the subject apparently

It's not, it's taking away jobs from white people and giving it to imported foreign populations.
It's practically illegal immigration with another name.

>Misrepresentation
>Oversimplification
>Fallacious logic
>Incomplete evidence
>All with the knowitall arrogance of the first middle schooler to realize that the person who talks the most is always right.

Show is garbage but I get why the lowest common denominators love it

Attached: 56162827_793202817717658_5189145384986869760_n.jpg (750x666, 40K)

Don't have sex, please

The South wanted to secede, which was their legal right, and Lincoln said FUCK THAT and waged an illegal war against them. So no it wasn't about slavery; it was about Lincoln wanting to keep the nation together.

>>slavery existed for the majority of history
>this means it's okay or justifiable
Lmao

Who are you quoting?

His program seems to be filled with fallacious and poorly researched information. his show is an easy pass for me (and not in a success sort of way)

Its both. Ending slavery would allow a power grab from the north, stopping the south succession.

More like Illiterate because you can't find a shred of that philosophical perspective until after the south lost the war and they needed to use reconstruction to heal the country through editing

Everything written leading up to the war and throughout the first half of the war we have concerning the south and their motivations for civil war concerned slavery unanimously.

Your asinine logic, Ben Shapiro.

>Prager

Attached: 1516003050252.png (250x202, 8K)

the fact that you think Penn & Teller was any better makes it very probable you're a numale too

I never said it was okay or justifiable, I said that LITERALLY EVERYONE was doing it, and to blame any one race is retarded.

I expect you're supposed to realize that white people are not the cause of slavery, and it's a human evil that will persist regardless of the times in which we live. That shouldn't be too hard for you to understand eh scamp?

I know, it's a shitty conservative think tank. But even they disagree

>So no it wasn't about slavery; it was about Lincoln wanting to keep the nation together.
The thing that was dividing the nation was slavery, try again.

>I never said it was justifiable
>EVERYBODY WAS DOING IT BACK THEN OK??
Yikes.

>white people are not the cause of slavery
Nobody said they were, strawmanning fag.

Only in specific states.
An conveniently ones where the ruling class didn't need it any more.
Emancipation wasn't total until 1863, 2.5 years into the Civil War.

If it isn't, why do you single out White People?
It's almost like you're holding them to a higher standard than the brown people.

Jews were mad about the feds putting tariffs on their cotton exports. To get out from underneath the tariffs they convinced the white men that they were being under represented in the Congress and they rebelled.

It's anti-Capitalist.

DUDE
SUBJECTIVISM
LMAO

>The thing that was dividing the nation was slavery

Slavery was one of about 20 things dividing the nation at the time, try again.

Attached: Skeptical Saten.jpg (565x575, 34K)

>why do you single out White People?
Because the topic at hand is the American Civil War, you neanderthal.

>documentation mentions an issue
>that means the entire conflict was wholly about that issue to the exclusion of everything else

Look out people, we've got a Mental Giant coming through. Try not to get stepped-on.

Why does stating a fact upset you?

Tell me about Adam.

Why is he wrong so often?

From what I understand you can go to the country of Lebanon and get a negro slave right this second for s few hundred bucks. Slavery isn't a thing of the past.

The funny thing about Subjectivism is that only the beliefs of other people get critically deconstructed. Subjectivism itself never gets questioned.

Slavery was the central issue bud. Every one of the other issues was connected to it as well.

>Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.
^Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens confirming they were seceding because they wanted to continue slavery.

>slavery
>having any impact on life outcomes 150 years later
Try again sweetie

Hmm, and why did they want to secede?

>slavery is bad
Hot take. Notice I'm not the one defending slavery.

He looks like he watched a few episodes of Hannibal and decided he wanted to wear over-the-top suits and sound smart, but didn't have any sense of style or intelligence of his own.

Because millennial Prog-zombies raised on a diet of University drivel are the ones writing his scripts.

Attached: Leftism Makes you Ugly Complilation.jpg (3000x4500, 1.52M)

If everybody did it, why do you get so triggered when white people get their blame as well?

>b-but white genocide is real tho, alex jones told me so

Can you quote something other than the cornerstone speech? It’s so overused.

>Every one of the other issues was connected to it as well.

Demonstrably false.

Also,
>One politician mentions slavery in a speech
>CIVIL WAR WAS A SLAVE-WAR, CONFIRMED

Again, you probably think the Allies fought in WWII to stop Germany from implementing the Holocaust, because FDR mentioned the poor treatment of minorities in Nazi Germany in a speech.

Because whites did it LESS than everyone else, yet were ALSO the first ones to end it.

Blame should actually match the crime.

Imagine being so low IQ you never do your own research

Slavery wasn't even abolished until AFTER the civil war started

That means it was STILL LEGAL in the so called union states.

The south had every right to seceed and the so called "good guys" killed hunreds of thousands of americans, using "freed" salves as front line fodder btw, because the threat of a competing union controlling so much territory would severely upset the finances of the rich in the north.

Nobody gave a fuck about blacks, thats just something liberal retards came up with 100s of years later to make them feel better about slaughtering so many people.

Taxation without representation

Dude, I got a bridge to sell you.

>did it LESS
They went to war for it lmao

>Leftoids unironically believe that people launched a rebellion against their home-nation and killed their own brothers and family members so that the (primarily Jewish) 1.6% of society that owned slaves could keep owning slaves. Because they were just THAT racist.

I too remember the Confederate battle-cry of "THIS IS ALL TO KEEP THOSE DURN NIGGERS IN CHAINS, BOYS! FOR THE ALT-RIIIIIIIIIGHT!!!!".

Attached: Slavery Quota.png (2096x2784, 544K)

And slavery was so integral to non-whites that they NEVER went to war over it. Or even ended it lmao.

Yeah I don't understand this. Sure the civil war is nuanced, of course. And perhaps, if you reeaaally love the South, you'd get irritated at people saying the war was exclusively about slavery and might feel like they're talking down on an area you love. But slavery was certainly at least one of the big issues, and though it's not completely true then to say "the civil war was about slavery," it's true enough. Why? Because in addition to it being partly true, the most important consequence of the war was abolishing slavery. Yeah maybe it was also about taxes or land rights or whatever, but it was also about slavery, and taxes and land rights are a liiiittle less important than fucking slavery. So obviously that's going to be the focus if you talk about the civil war. I guess it's just contrarians and Southerners butthurt that "yanks" (so retarded when they try to sound special by using that term) talk down on them because the South still has shit cities and no one really enjoys going there. Even though I'm not from there I love the South and the general attitude and vibe, but come on, let it go.

Attached: 1490220365119.jpg (460x423, 17K)

>Because they were just THAT racist.
The records of their /pol/tier rants certainly support the premise.

>When you think the Holocaust is an outright fabricated conspiracy by Jews despite the mountains of physical evidence, but you fully and wholly believe the narrative of the entire South launching a rebellion solely because they hated niggers based on the evidence of some speeches and documents mentioning slavery at some point or another.

Yea Forums really is a strange place.

Attached: Shrug Sayaka.jpg (119x141, 17K)

The shittiest cities in the south are the ones with lots of Blacks. Gee, I wonder why.

what do you think he looks like without his shirt on? do you think he's actually as soft and doughy as he looks?

Yeah, there was zero /pol/-tier rhetoric in the North. For sure. It was a multi-cultural paradise in the 1860's with zero documentation of rhetoric that would be called reprehensible today.

absolute retard

>But slavery was certainly at least one of the big issues

Nobody denies that.
Every war is over "big issues".
The denial is over the claim that:
1. Slavery was the only or even the CENTRAL issue that triggered the war, as opposed to unequal representation, encroachment of Federal oppression, economic warfare, etc.
2. That the North was in any way "fighting to end slavery" or even actually cared about doing so in general.

The issue is that modern brainlets go "Confederacy = Slavery = HATES BLACK PEOPLE" when they don't do the same for other factions in historical wars that were far, far more pro-slavery.

Numales didn't exist back then

Good response, bro.

Tell me again how the Jews faked all the dead bodies.

>Numales didn't exist before 2010

They most certainly did. The names were just different.
"Emo", "Hipster", etc.

source?

>Nobody gave a fuck about blacks, thats just something liberal retards came up with 100s of years later to make them feel better about slaughtering so many people.

This. Immediately after an even during the Civil War Norther Whites were right back to hanging negroes from trees and starting race-riots to scare them out of their towns.

>this is what white southern "patriots" believe

>outlet owned and run by a Jew tries to shift blame for slavery from Jews to Whites

What a shock. It's almost like they're embarrassed and looking to shift blame.

Attached: Jews and Slavery.jpg (602x430, 99K)

>I have no counter-arguments, so I will throw ignorant ad-homs at the person who ACTUALLY studied the shit they talk about

Attached: Tranny Wojack.png (866x898, 159K)

BASED retard not only posting prager but thinking they're opinion is somehow relevant

Attached: 1547567015958.jpg (1024x1007, 75K)

Slavery was not universally banned in the USA until the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

1863 was several years after the Civil War itself already started.

>The thing that was dividing the nation was slavery, try again.
imagine unironically seeing the world this simplistically

Attached: 1543226067911.png (447x438, 385K)

t. Public school indoctrinated retard

Ethics in Gaming Journalism.

You're a fucking retard who somehow thinks there's an overlap between holocaust deniers and people that believe "THE CIVIL WAR WAS ONLY ABOUT SLAVERY" on Yea Forums. If anything they'd be arguing why it wasn't about slavery (which is wasn't).

Also they died of typhus.

Typhus you dumb nigger

>The thing that was dividing the nation was slavery

Yes, those enlightened northerners cared VERY deeply for the poor negroes.

>You're a fucking retard who somehow thinks there's an overlap between holocaust deniers and people that believe "THE CIVIL WAR WAS ONLY ABOUT SLAVERY" on Yea Forums

I don't think there isn't any overlap.
But there's probably MORE overlap between holocaust denialialists and people convinced Southern whites went to war so that the Jewish 1.6% of the population could be mean to black people.

This.

I think the real overlap here is the JEWS DINDU NUFFIN narrative you're desperately trying to protect

Public School is where the revisionism of "The North fought to stop the naughty South from being racist" is pretty much universally taught.

>lets all get rid of our cars and ride along with niggers and spics in buses
yeah no thanks

Attached: image.jpg (960x960, 75K)

It's also where the holohoax propaganda is force fed to impressionable children

>(woman is using a stove-top to boil water for tea and burns her hand)
>"Ouch! This stovetop is hot!"
>(Adam waddles into the frame)
>"ACTHUALLY, modern research has proven that stove-top burners being used to boil water aren't really hot. It's a very commonly held misconception."
>(an article by The Guardian is cited as a reference for this in the video's description)
>"Also, did you know?: The conception that stove-top burners are hot and can hurt your hand was ACTHUALLY started by racist white people in the 1700's. This myth was used to oppress and marginalize stove-top burners for centuries onward and it still continues today, especially under the regime of a CERTAIN AMERICAN PRESIDENT..."
>"Wow, thanks for educating us, Adam!"
>(video ends and an ad plays for Full Frontal with Samantha Bee)

Attached: Whatever Elmo.gif (335x288, 471K)

>he JEWS DINDU NUFFIN narrative you're desperately trying to protect

....What? He's outright implicating that Jews were the ones primarily responsible for slaver-ownership in the South.

>But slavery was certainly at least one of the big issues, and though it's not completely true then to say "the civil war was about slavery," it's true enough.
so do you think the american revolutionary war was about sugar and paper tax? these issues were the catalyst which sparked conflict, but the war was fought over principles -- taxation without representation and reprieve from what the colonists viewed as a tyrannical government.
similarly, the civil war was fought over principles. the southern states wanted the freedom to govern themselves and felt they were under the tyrannical rule of a central government which held far more power than the framers intended. in other words, the civil war was fought because of differences in interpretation of the constitution.

>2. That the North was in any way "fighting to end slavery" or even actually cared about doing so in general.
i love it when i hear brainlet yanks regurgitating this

Attached: 1548747707651.jpg (226x223, 8K)

>not capable of articulating response
>posts a greentext ad hominem instead
based retard

Literally the only people able to shill for Public Transportation being able to serve in the place of cars and still allow people's lives to function are inner-city bluepilled poofs. Dense cities are the ONLY place its viable to rely on public-transport to get you to work or to get errands done, solely because locations are so densely packed together that bus and subway routes can be effective. And even then it's still a fucking pain in the ass even if technically usable. There's also the fact that if you live in the inner-city you literally can't afford to have a car because 2/3's of your paycheck go to paying rent after your exorbitantly high taxes.

Trying to be a functioning, working adult without a car anywhere else is completely fucked. Bus-stops are sparsely located and inconsistently scheduled, and you still end up having to walk or bike a fourth of the total route anyway since there's no chance there's a bus-stop right outside where you live directly connected to one right in front of where you work. And you're doing that walking/biking in the cold, in the heat, in the pollen, in the rain, in the sleet, etc., which is exactly what you want to have to deal with right before working an 8-hour shift.
There's also the fact that if you're busing to work you inevitably have to start your trip at least two hours earlier than when it would start if you were just driving there if you want to ensure that you will actually get there on time and keep your job. Add that same extension on time spent commuting to the trip home as well.

But yeah, lets get rid of cars and completely rely on Public Transportation to function. Fuck these people and fuck Public Transportation.

Attached: Bus on Fire 1.jpg (660x371, 44K)

Forgot to add:
There are even employers that won't hire you if you don't have a car, even if that's not an "official" requirement. An adult who has to rely on public transit is assumed to be a wino or a junkie that had a car but had it taken away. Employers also don't want to bother hiring an employee that will be an hour late because the bus broke down or was late. They'd rather hire a teenager borrowing their parents' car if it's a low-level position.
Part of living in a prosperous White Western nation is that cars are so ubiquitous that even teenagers working their first job can more often than not be counted on having access to one, if not outright owning one thanks to their parents. Employees that have cars are inherently more valuable than employees without them, and that affects your chances of ever getting hired.

If you live in any kind of Suburban or Rural setting, or even just the Outer-City, you are fucked as far as being able to rely on public transit to work a job or live an independent life unless you just get obscenely lucky.

It was an interesting idea but he really ruined it by forcing liberal politics into everything. So he really did deliver.... Even though he ruined his own show.

I like their documentary where they go to India and other 3rd world countries to learn magic tricks. They were smart and brought their own canned food so they didn't eat poo in the loo poo in their food.

Lol

Attached: image.png (680x680, 355K)

youtube.com/watch?v=CxUskbSn8jo

Did he get aids?

you're a numale, jimmy

Lincoln ran on a policy of containing slavery to the South with the expectation it would ultimately die there. His assurance that the federal government lacked the power to abolish it where it already existed carried no weight with the governments of slave states, whose members knew that an eventual majority of free states in Congress was a threat to their property. That is precisely why they voted to secede immediately after Lincoln's election.

The fact that Lincoln kept his word until his advisors convinced him that the act of rebellion itself meant the states whose rights he had promised to defend had ceased to exist, has no bearing on their decision to rebel in the first place.

>"The Civil War was about slavery!" you typically got eye-rolled at as being history-illiterate and needing to get educated beyond Fourth Grade level.

this was literally never the case

>the confederacy constitution is literally the exact same as the U.S constitution but adds an amendment that they're allowed to have slaves
>guys it totally wasn't about slavery I swear

take the blackpill jimmy

>their /pol/tier rants

If you're talking about "/pol/tier" behavior, would like to guess which side in the American Civil War literally expelled Jews en masse from Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky?

Go ahead and guess.

It literally always was.
It was even outright referenced in mainstream media like The Simpsons.

You're a zoomer that didn't get to experience the late 80's or the early 90's, so you don't know what you're talking about.

Was the American Revolution about paper and tea taxes? Was the War of 1812 about trade access? Was the Vietnam War about the Gulf of Tonkin?
You've been btfo six or seven times already, time to go.

>document includes something about slavery
>CONFIRMED. THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON FOR DA WAR, GUYS.

Yikes

please link the simpsons clip then
>You're a zoomer that didn't get to experience the late 80'
I'm confident that I'm older than you. sorry that you got your history from Yea Forums man.

holy shit, you are fucking retarded

any source on slave owners being jewish? I know slave traders were

The civil war was about money. The south used slaves and was making all the money and the government and north business owners used politics to force the ban of slave labor, not for the benefit of blacks but for the benefit of northern business men. Money. Not a humanitarian endeavor. Just like the US is never really in the middle east for humanitarian reasons.

Yeah it was about the freedom to have slaves even though economics guaranteed eventual emancipation, particularly through the advent of labor saving engineering such as the cotton gin.

the north wuz the good guys bros, the high iq city people whipped the flyover retards into shape and defeated racism forever the end

>If it wasn't, slavery would have been outlawed in the North BEFORE the Civil War started, the US's biggest port for slave-trade wouldn't have been in Boston
Slavery was already outlawed in every Union state except for Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky where the institution was minimal and dying.
>US's biggest port for slave-trade wouldn't have been in Boston
The importation of slaves was restricted in 1794 (only 5 years after the constitution was ratified) and outlawed in 1807.

> South rebelled because 1.6% of the total population owned niggers
The 1.6% figure isn't the percent of southerners who owned slaves. It's the percent of slaveholders per the entire population of the US including men, women & children. This figure is bogus because it even includes the wives of slaveholders as part of the 'non-slaveholding' population. Slavery was common in the south, with as much as 50% of families in the states of Mississippi & SC owning slaves. Most slaveholders were not uber-wealthy plantation owners either, the majority owned modest numbers of 1-10. Becoming a slave owner was not restricted to a tiny minority, but a common aspiration for any southern landholder. A higher percent of families owned slaves in 1860 than owned even a single share of stock in 1939.

lol

No slave in North, then a Southerner wanted to use niggers on his his farm in the North, North said No, the South went for on nigger hate. BOOM

This. Slavery was already dying before the outbreak of the Civil War.
Emancipation would have been passed in all states in the country on independent votes before 1900.
But that just wasn't fast enough for blacks to not have to pick cotton any more, so the Union decided that 620,000 Americans needed to die instead.

LALALALALALALALALALALAALAL
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOST

>Slavery was already outlawed in every Union state except for Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky
OK, so you're proving my point?

If you dont know what majority means and ignote the reat2 of the post, then yea.

lel

>Slavery was common in the south, with as much as 50% of families in the states of Mississippi & SC owning slaves.
Zero documentation of this.

>Most slaveholders were not uber-wealthy plantation owners either, the majority owned modest numbers of 1-10.
>Most slaveholders were not uber-wealthy
>1-10
>modest numbers
Put your fucking crack pipe down. Slaves were extremely expensive as they always were. 10 slaves isn't a "modest" number, especially when a single slave was massively fucking expensive. You didn't buy a slave like you buy a fucking Vitrola.

>A higher percent of families owned slaves in 1860 than owned even a single share of stock in 1939.
You say this like it's surprising. Stock ownership was restricted to the obsecenly wealthy until the second half of the 20th Century.
This is why "Black Tuesday" didn't affect the vast majority of Americans and really wasn't the start of the Great Depression's effects for most people outside the obscenely wealthy, which instead only started with the run on the banks in early 1931.
Also, zero documentation of this.

The cotton-gin literally SAVED slavery by making large scale cotton-plantations economically viable. Before the gin acreage was limited to how fast slaves could manually process the cotton which was the most time-intensive aspect. After the gin you could grow as much cotton as you could pick, revitalizing the market for slaves which was slowly dying until then. (If you wondered why why most of the founding fathers thought Slavery would simply go away it was because that was the trend before the cotton gin)

it was about slavery. They said so themselves, read what the confederate states said if you don't believe me. Don't let these retarded revisionists tell you nonsense about "rights"

battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

>"Slavery was outlawed in the North BEFORE the Civil War!"
>".....Except for four massive fucking states...."

You disqualified the entire statement with the exception.

civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm

I love how you revisionists always fall back on
>Slavery was mentioned once in this document, that means it caused 100% of the war
Every single time. You don't even think about the shit you post.

Also there's been zero refutation of

>civilwarcauses.org/

Sounds legit. It has "Civil War Causes" in the name, after all.

youtube.com/watch?v=SFwHQYDqf6c

Oh I guess I should have linked something more credible like a jpg infograph

oh well there must have been no one who was fighting to end/continue slavery then.

you're attempting to edit *which* reasons, just like SJWs. and you needn't be a southerner to be biased, any more than holocaust deniers need to all be former nazis.

>Slavery was mentioned once in this document
Do you seriously not know how to read? Actually read what the Confederate States themselves had to say and tell me it wasn't primarily about the economics of slavery.

>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. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

You can debunk it yourself with about 2 minutes and a calculator.
Here's the 1860 census.
civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html?fref=gc

Add up the total free population of the confederate states and divide it by the number of slaveholders.

You'll get ~13%, a number that understates the actual spread of slavery since slaves were property and could expected to be passed down to children even if they weren't technically slaveholders themselves.

DUDE just get herpes LMAO who fucking cares everyone has it just have sex with strangers what could go wrong LOL

The one video I approve of is the one about diamonds