Saying that the Civil War was "fought over slavery" is like saying that World War II was fought over Poland. It's a childish oversimplification that only takes the main catalyst into account and ignores all the other factors.
I agree but you're still a gigantic faggot
The PC academia wants to say slavery caused the Civil War as much as they want to say the stock market collapse and evil banks caused the Great Depression. It is a false cause, producing a simplistic false narrative that mind-numb teens
In history class (who's mind didn't go numb in high school history????).
It then gets used to profligate the agenda of the left: evil rich people, blacks are downtrodden victims, and it's all the Republicans' fault.
Slavery DID cause the war. The war was started by the south, who attacked a military base because... who knows why. However, the goal of the North was to restore the union. This is why I hate Lincoln for ending the war without negotiating, just by killing everyone and burning everything.
Still fighting that war, huh!
Agree. The civil war was fought over the preservation of the union. Lincoln said so himself. However slavery was the primary reason the south seceded.
Saying the Civil War was fought over slavery is like saying World War II was fought over freedom.
No, no, no, that was William Wallace against King Longshanks.
Well I guess I agree since WWII was not fought over "freedom"
Bingo, nailed it on the head.
I agree. It's more complicated that just "slavery".
The liberal indoctrination shows
Carcino, in one sentence tell me what caused the civil war.
If you can say what happened in once sentence you're oversimplifying a complicated situation and making yourself look ignorant while also insulting the intelligence of others.
That's what I thought.
You can't win carcano, it's over... it's gonna happen ...
Read the articles of secession from every state that tried to leave the Union. Slavery was why they did it. Their words, not mine.
Snowflakes should read them before whining about revisionist historians.
And for the record, invasion of Poland didn't have shit to do with it. 🙄
The whole premise of this question doesnt work. You are comparing the entire policy of "slavery" to the specific act of "invasion of poland" which doesn't work. You should connect an act with an act, or policy/idea with policy/idea. Compare like with like. A workable comparison would be the "invasion of poland" with the "attack on Harper's ferry" or the "election of Lincoln."
Both are catalysts of war.
Yes, the difference being one is a singular act and one is a broad policy. They don't work as comparisons to each other due to this. One is a specific singular action "Germany invaded poland" while one is a broad policy that lead to actions in its name "there were disagreements over slavery".
Yep, and I believe that belief is heavily based in oversimplified American history textbooks. It's the easiest way to explain the war and wrap it up in a multiple-choice "one answer is correct" way.
Low expectations run the gambit of public education in the U.S., and the bar is set for the lowest common denominator.
I agree. It's sad that our schools are failing to teach accurately.
It's also sad that most people don't look further into history than their high school textbooks.