Watch BBC news

>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?

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

As opposed to when exactly?

SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE

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

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

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.

but that's not wrong

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

journalists are and always have been professional liars

...

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.

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

>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

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

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

He chose his side.

Once a traitor, always a traitor.

This is accurate

>inb4 muh states rights

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

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".

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.

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.

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

>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.

>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.

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".

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.

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.

>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.

>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.

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.