Well if you're actually ignorant I guess that would be truthful. The south abandoned Congress in the 50's during the leadup to the Civil war over tariffs. Lincoln offered to enshrine slavery in the Constitution to get them back. They refused. The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery except that Lincoln freed them to spite the Southern States refusal to come to the table.
They are both the Wars to substitute Executive Non-Representative Mandates for a Representative Republic. But the central issue is always disguised as an emotional crusade for "(n)justice."
Though an argument could be made it is civil war 3, the revolution being the first one, successful from the “rebels” point of view.
But the battle never ends, so it could be the continuation of a 250 year WAR of Independence from Tyranny.
The first civil war was about states rights on tariffs.
Sure why not ...
Are you that ignorant of history or just trolling?
Neither
Well if you're actually ignorant I guess that would be truthful. The south abandoned Congress in the 50's during the leadup to the Civil war over tariffs. Lincoln offered to enshrine slavery in the Constitution to get them back. They refused. The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery except that Lincoln freed them to spite the Southern States refusal to come to the table.
The second civil war was always going to be democrats trying to reinstate slavery. They have never given up on it. Its all they think about.
They are both the Wars to substitute Executive Non-Representative Mandates for a Representative Republic. But the central issue is always disguised as an emotional crusade for "(n)justice."