Watch BBC news

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

watch BBC news
topic of Charlottesville comes up
white nationalists want to defend a statue of Robert E. Lee from demolition
reporter goes on to say: "Robert E. Lee who fought for slavery and racism"
Why does the BBC, a (former) respected news outlet spread such lies and historic innacuracies on national television?

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

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

Snarelure
Snarelure

@Carnalpleasure
As opposed to when exactly?

SniperWish
SniperWish

SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE

DeathDog
DeathDog

@Snarelure
it's never been great but atm its the worst its ever been

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

@Stupidasole

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

Supergrass
Supergrass

@Stupidasole
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.

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

@Stupidasole
but that's not wrong

Soft_member
Soft_member

@DeathDog
it's actualy the best in world history at the moment

journalists are and always have been professional liars

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

@Stupidasole
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.

TechHater
TechHater

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

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

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

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

fought for slavery
he freed his own slaves before the war

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

@Stupidasole
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

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

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

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

@Stupidasole
He chose his side.

Once a traitor, always a traitor.

Lunatick
Lunatick

@Stupidasole
This is accurate

inb4 muh states rights

King_Martha
King_Martha

@CodeBuns
I don't care about the south but I like Challengers so SKRRT SKRRT

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

@Stupidasole
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".

Sir_Gallonhead
Sir_Gallonhead

@Lunatick
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?

w8t4u
w8t4u

@Stupidasole
Lee was literally against slavery

Firespawn
Firespawn

@CodeBuns
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.

Flameblow
Flameblow

@Sir_Gallonhead
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.

RumChicken
RumChicken

@w8t4u
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.

StonedTime
StonedTime

@RumChicken
He still fought for the confederacy
he fought for Virginia

whereismyname
whereismyname

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

What a big difference...

takes2long
takes2long

@Stupidasole
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.

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

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

It's not so complicated Cletus.

Snarelure
Snarelure

@RumChicken
which was established to uphold slavery

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

Burnblaze
Burnblaze

@RumChicken
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.

Emberfire
Emberfire

@Deadlyinx
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.

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

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

RavySnake
RavySnake

@Snarelure
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.

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

@RavySnake
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.

Fuzzy_Logic
Fuzzy_Logic

@Emberfire
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".

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

@Stupidasole
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.

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

@TalkBomber
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.

w8t4u
w8t4u

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

Inmate
Inmate

@Stupidasole

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.

Methnerd
Methnerd

@Sir_Gallonhead
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.

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

@Burnblaze
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.

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page