>watch BBC news >topic of Charlottesville comes up >white

because modern media is not about facts but about pushing a narrative and getting more viewers

>>3235648
As opposed to when exactly?

SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE

>>3235650
it's never been great but atm its the worst its ever been

File: dodge challenge of racial cleansing.jpg (146KB, 975x1033px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 975x1033px

>>3235594

We should be slitting the throats of the lying press and crushing the skulls of Antifags with Dodge Challengers at the foot of the statue in Lee's honor.

Death to the Union and death to ALL Unionists

>>3235594
BBC didn't do history research. Lee fought for his state because the state wanted to secede, he only gave a partial fuck about slavery.

They also failed to mention that if V.A had decided to stay with the Union, he would've fought for the Union. Overall, Lee was a pretty cool guy, sad he didn't stay with the Union considering alot of the military liked him and thought he would stick to the Union.

>>3235594
but that's not wrong

>>3235670
it's actualy the best in world history at the moment

journalists are and always have been professional liars

File: 170px-General_sherman.jpg (9KB, 170x221px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 170x221px

>>3235679

>>3235594
He fought to uphold slavery, it may not have been the reason why he fought but it's what his side stood for. I don't see what's wrong with the BBC's statement.

>>3235679
You are on a list and being monitored by the FBI as I type this.

>>3235670
>but atm its the worst its ever been
No it was way worse in the late 1800s

>fought for slavery
>he freed his own slaves before the war

>>3235594
BBC dindu nuffin. It's dickhead journalists who have to bring their political bias into everything, always has and always will be. The press is full of people like that

>>3235751
The charger did have ohio plates. Did William "No Niggers in my Army" Sherman come back to protect the statue for his redemption arc?

>>3235594
He chose his side.

Once a traitor, always a traitor.

>>3235594
This is accurate

>inb4 muh states rights

>>3235679
I don't care about the south but I like Challengers so SKRRT SKRRT

>>3235594
Because that's what his state stood for. Yeah yeah states' rights. It was states' rights over slavery. This is well documented on both "sides".

>>3235790
>implying the confederacy didn't fight for state rights and the defence of the principles of the founding fathers
slavery only became the unofficial reason of war because of propaganda. Can't exactly tell modern day yanks that the South fought for the founding fathers and that their current government is a monster in the eyes of said founding fathers. That wouldn't be too patriotic now would it?

>>3235594
Lee was literally against slavery

File: 594.jpg (108KB, 535x588px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 535x588px

>>3235679
Death to niggerloving Southerners, inventors of the Democratic Party, and destroyers of USA. If it wasn't for Booth killing Lincoln, we would've shipped them all back to Africa.

I am a proud supporter of the Union, born and raised in New Orleans. Fuck Dixie.

>>3235980
It didn't fight for States rights, it fought against them. The Confederate constitution was even more restrictive to the member states in order to make sure slavery was preserved.

>>3235996
He still fought for the confederacy, which was established to uphold slavery, ergo he fought for slavery. Its not fucking complicated. Jesus christ the length right wing retards will go to to discredit media organisations is truly mind numbing.

>>3236034
>He still fought for the confederacy
he fought for Virginia

File: 1486764505784.png (195KB, 417x578px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 417x578px

>>3235594
Yes, you're right. Robert E Lee fought for States Rights - to enforce slavery and racism.

What a big difference...

>>3235594
But he did. Lee was infamous for his horrible treatment of slaves and hatred for freedom and democracy. If it weren't for him, racial equality would've been achieved by now.

>>3236035
Virginia was part of the confederacy you dim witted retard. So yes, Lee fought for the confederacy.

It's not so complicated Cletus.

>>3236034
>which was established to uphold slavery

It was established for the south to make its own country.

>>3236034
Do you think 100000s of poor white southerners just upped and decided they were going to risk their lives for some rich guy's slaves? That's not what happened.

They were all fighting to defend their state and its rights against northern aggression. General Lee could have had a cushy job with the winning side but decided to go with his home state for the same reason, because it was what his conscience told him. Their cause was right.

Slavery? It was being phased out anyway. Brazil was even more backwards than the south and slavery was abolished there in the 1880s so we could expect slavery to be phased out by the 1870s or sometime then.

The north didn't care about the freed slaves, they spent a fortune in lives and money on the war but wouldn't spend a dime relieving the starvation that followed. Whatever the south fought for, the north wasn't fighting to free slavery and they started the war by occupying sacred sovereign South Carolinan soil.

>>3236102
I find it massively amusing how literally any book on the Civil War affords a more nuanced understanding of it, and yet online discourse is always indicative of illiteracy, usually on both sides.

>>3235679
You would literally be governed by Mexicans if we had let you split Cletus, think about that for a moment.

>>3236110
>It was established for the south to make its own country
Because the North wouldn't allow them to continue with their slave economy.

There's no other reason why they wanted to secede.

>>3236121
>Because the North wouldn't allow them to continue with their slave economy.

The north made no such laws when they seceded. In fact, the north promised they wouldnt take away their slaves.

File: pPBS3-23244594dt.jpg (145KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 500x500px

>>3236114
Exactly. At the least, people should take the quick study guide by watching the entire 11 hours of Ken Burn's documentary "The Civil War".

File: it was about the states rights - to own slaves.jpg (721KB, 1198x1600px) Image search: [Google]

721KB, 1198x1600px

>>3235594
Not that the BBC hasn't ruined entire franchises with this crap, but that's entirely accurate, even if it may or may not have been his personal motive.

>>3236119
And what are you basing this on, Juan?
Mexico was being invaded by France during the Civil War and was basically an unstable political shitshow thereafter until la Revolucion (1920), and even then it was still very weak and poor. An independent CSA (assuming it remains independent) would just be a slightly poorer USA that abolishes slavery a decade or so later.
Not to mention, CSA would probably be backed by the European powers to keep the USA isolated, divided and insular.

Honestly I would be fine with all the confederate memorials as long as they had Loyalist and French/Spanish (when applicable) memorials too.

>>3235594

>fought for Virginia which was a part of the confederacy
>the confederacy fought for their rights to keep slaves

Can we just hang traitors already? /pol/tards need to be hanged. Seriously.

>>3235980
>because of propaganda
Shut the fuck up you stupid cunt. Just about every state that seceded had slavery as their primary grievance in their declaration of secession.

>>3236112
You hear of this thing called Propaganda my dude? You think thousands of continental Europeans and colonials died in WW1 for retarded policy by politicians despite that being the exact reason behind the war? Every single state stated that their secession was for slavery, the constitution of the CSA explicitly stated that slavery was to be legal no ifs and buts and ex post facto laws. Besides, the south controlled the house and senate for years before the war, and even held the supreme court with justices sympathetic to their interests during the war. If their cause was right why did they fuel so much blood in Kansas, and tried to double back on political agreements like the Missouri compromise?

You're right that the North didn't care about slavery, it cared about unity of the state, but that doesn't mean that slavery wasn't at the heart of the war.