Comments by "Dima S" (@dimas3829) on "" video.

yeah, yeah, while Washigtno was throwing opposition and journalists in prisons, pardoning generals that massacred indians and all in all imposing quite a dictatorship which was followed by some typical junta led by a generals that opressed southerners to the extent that they started to rebel in a form of KKK.
4
+trenaareen1216 There are never rigth or wrong side in Civil war, the narrative is always on a winner side regardless. Still, it was legal to secede from the country at the time and it was quite a move to attack the ones who didn't brake the law. By the way, by undermining south's ancestors you are undermining your own - Civil war is precisely Civil war cause it is about brother fighting brother and father killing his own children.
3
+HaloRocks, oh I see, it was not federal government that massacred native americans in Sand Creek, it's not like South rose against federal government and native americans viewed federal government as evil thing too, is it? South wanted people to know their place, there was no hatred, only order european aristocracy-style, while North wanted to eradicate those who differed from them european radical believers-style. And once again, the Civil war was fought for keeping legally seceded country form gaining it;s sovereghnity. The all hight and holy goal (typical radical belivers) was invented on the way through and was totally abandoned at the end - cause, duh, segregation was worse than slavery. The south seceded cause it didn't want to get extra taxation while the federal goverment ALWAYS spent those money on the north territories and north got more and more propserios out of essentially robbing south territories.You are mixing up reasons and public statement. When ocuntry gains sovereignity it always state what it's basis is and for the South one of them was indeed slavery itself. It was what this country is about, NOT why this country decided to get it's own rule.
2
@Mansellyn my point was that the core of racism was more than just southern one but American one. Who were sent to colonize America? Unneeded radicals of the western Europe and they readily exterminated natives to claim land for their own. (Well, there were also Russian trade colonies in Alaska and California, but they fastly lost any impact on their own due to over-extension of administrative efficiency of the Russian Empire)
2
@Mansellyn was that deemed after there was no south representative left to speak against such action or after the war? Either way, supreme court was bias and there was no prohibition in Constitution from secession. Yes, plantators of the south owed black slaves... just like factory owners of the north owned white "workers". There are many cases when plantators bough Irish little girls from the North and bred them with black to get cheaper slaves. There were many brothels in the North where Irish woman were worked to the death of exhaustion while being debt slaves.Nobody gives a shit about them cause apparently white people cannot be slaves or some shit. Owning a person on itself is not something unusual, like in modern world sport teams wordlwide buy and sell their high-quality slaves' contracts to each other and the slave in question often does not have a say about it.
1
Confederacy was fighting fir freedom you asshat! For freedom from opressive northern regime that drove all those southern taxes and spent it only on the north.
1
the war was the war of two rich people, the one who controlled taxes's spendings and the other one who was paying the majority of taxes, When the later decided that he is fed up with this shit, the former decided that he will force the other one (and later on will get some extra by "reconstruction" means wihc you can google) by declaring war. Poor people were the fresh meat of war on both sides, but southerner's fresh meat was mildly richier.
1
em, I wonder where are you coming from cause as far as I know firstly it was Southern states that declared Independence, secondly it was Northern states that in absence of representatives of the south illegally declared abolishment of the slaves freed from the south (exactly in that form, the slaves that were on the territory of the norhtern states that did not prohibit slave ownership remained slaves and the southern "freed ones" were serving the yankee's army as slaves untrill the end of the war) and all other laws against the south while it was de facto and in jure already another country and morethern legislation was not legal anymore for them to enforce on the south. It was an act of agression, an act unfortinatly backed up by Russian Empire while Great Britain (whilch long before abolished slavery that is) was backing the South.
1
United States are foremost a collection of countries, if there is no representeatives from any of them - it's already illegal legislation you are talking about, federal laws are collectively decided. and president's home state Illinois didn't prohibit slavery untill very last moment of the war which the president himself didn't say a word (except shutting down free press there and prosecuting any one involved in anti-war riots that is, such a democratic way..). Change was comming but it was more of a political change than a social one. Norhern states were slowly gaining power wanting to extend on the west, southern ones wanting to extend on the south and Cuba.
1