its more likely that she can no longer complain about trump and doge shutting NGOs down during the shutdown lol

Yeah, good thing I'm in texas. I can get it from a farmer 20 minutes away, great cows, all named and happy and on an open pasture, grass fed. You can even pat them while they milk the cows for you.

Cool, i will read this and check it to determine how factual it is.

Why are you so against pam? Because of the Epstien list? Give it time. In 1 month if it's still not released you would be justified

Yes please

Yes history just like modern day is very complicated and muddy. There are many aspects

Oh okay cool. I can look into it further.

You make claims with no evidence. You can't seem to refute the base argument which is that the south left because of slavery as the main reason.

Okay, can you cite anything to support these claims? So I can look into it

I'm having trouble actually getting evidence for what you are alluding to unless you agree with the statement below: Initial research seems to suggest European powers, mainly Britain and France, were primarily responsible for control of the Atlantic slave trade.

I assume you are implying Jews? Jews, while involved in the war on both sides (with estimates of 7,000 serving the Union and 3,000 the Confederacy

How does this have anything to do with the original post which is that some people on here state that the civil war happened because of state rights.

You seem to be confused by, well... a lot. you seem to think because the South's reason for war was Slavery that would also mean it was the Union's reason as well - A fallacious argument.

1. "The South was another country" argument

   • The Confederacy was never officially recognized as an independent nation by any major power. (a key factor of sovereignty)
   • The U.S. government viewed secession as illegal, making it an internal rebellion rather than a war between sovereign states.

2. "Disagreement with policy isn’t rebellion"

   • Secession wasn’t just disagreement—it was an armed insurrection. The Confederacy took federal property, attacked Fort Sumter, and waged war against the Union.
   • The Constitution doesn’t grant states a unilateral right to secede. Supreme Court rulings (like Texas v. White, 1869) confirmed secession was unconstitutional.

3. "We were never a democracy"

   • The U.S. is a constitutional republic, which is a form of democracy. The Founding Fathers used "republic" and "democracy" interchangeably in their writings.
   • The 1st Amendment protects speech, but it doesn’t shield states from consequences when they take up arms against the government.

4. "Few quotes from politicians = war motives?"

   • The secession declarations from multiple states explicitly cited slavery as their reason for leaving. These weren’t just a few politicians’ opinions; they were official government documents.

5. "The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t apply to the North"

   • True, but it was a war measure meant to cripple the Confederacy. The 13th Amendment permanently abolished slavery nationwide.
   • Border states like Maryland and Missouri abolished slavery before the war ended, without needing the Emancipation Proclamation.

6. "Other countries had slavery; why didn’t we invade them?"

   • The Civil War wasn’t just about "freeing slaves"—it was about the survival of the Union against a rebellion rooted in preserving slavery.

This point would also combat the notion that the civil war was due to state rights.

I agree with you but this entire thread was misdirection and Strawman. The post is specifically to combat people claiming that the main reason for the war was state rights.

Instead of relying on hearsay, rely on historical evidence.

• The South wanted federal intervention FOR slavery. (the opposite of state rights)
• The States wrote why they left the Union : Slavery

What was the main reason though? It wasn't state rights. I'm sure cotton issues worsened tensions. It wasn't the reason for war though.

Can you provide LOC or other citations which, can be used as a foundation for this argument? Its a believable assertion, but I go based on evidence.

This is not a legitimate historical document... it was made by Chiniquy, a former Catholic priest turned anti-Catholic activist.

Wow, I guess you just ignore the evidence and opt for a bunch of false notions.

Slavery was the core issue from the start

• Southern states explicitly cited slavery in their secession declarations. The first shots were fired before Lincoln took action against slavery.

"States' rights" was a cover for protecting slavery.

• The Confederacy itself denied states' rights when it suited them (e.g., banning states from abolishing slavery in the Confederacy).
• The Southern states wanted federal protection for slavery enforced on other states.

False Claims About Slavery’s Decline

• Slavery wasn’t “steeply declining” before the war. The enslaved population had been growing, and the demand for new slave territories was a major Southern goal.

• Slaves were expensive, but that didn’t mean the system was ending. Planters were fully invested in keeping slavery alive and expanding westward.

Falsehoods About Lincoln

• the South fired first at Fort Sumter.** The comparison to Zelensky is absurd.
• Lincoln was fighting an internal rebellion, not suppressing democracy, he kept elections even during war.

The Confederacy documented its own reasons for war—slavery.

• Southern leaders were clear about their motives.

Primary sources refute these myths.

• Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens openly said slavery was the "cornerstone" of their new government.

The Industrial Revolution Shifted Economic Power Away from the South By the mid-19th century

• The North had an economy through manufacturing, finance, and infrastructure.
• The South remained dependent on plantation agriculture.
• The North’s growing industrial power and labor force made it less reliant on Southern cotton.

The South Attacked the First

• The Civil War wasn’t some Northern power grab. After seceding, the South fired the first shots at Fort Sumter in April 1861. Lincoln had made no moves to abolish slavery in the South at that point.

Would you like me to write an article on this? Check my other articles I enjoy writing about history thats not in the books

you are very welcome

This is great! For those wondering, Mebendazole is the human derivative of Fenbendazole, if you can it it great but Fenbendazole is actually more bioavailable than Mebendazole.

Feel free to checkout my protocol page and cancer related pathways. https://communities.win/c/Protocols/p/199hXDmDtx/nonsmall-cell-lung-cancer-protoc/c

Article III, Section 3 Allows Congress to impose a unique penalty called "corruption of blood," which could bar heirs from inheriting property, money etc. But only if Congress enacts it as part of the punishment.

The president can still pardon for crimes against the "United states" but any state could also charge this person with Treason against the State. Which the federal pardon would not cover.

Doesn't matter, treason is the only offense which has a limit on pardoning. You can pardon the action of treason but, pardons for treason do not extend to its punishment.