> And the US civil war wasn't fought over slavery as they want you to believe,
As who want you to believe? Because if you read the declarations of succession and the words of senators from confederate states at the time, they clearly cite slavery and "property" (read: slaves) rights.
That's true, the south's wealthy leadership was fighting to keep their slaves as their wealth depended on it.
But Lincoln, and before him, Jackson, specifically said the northern aggression towards the south was not because of slavery. Jackson even made a very explicit statement that exactly this was happening, and that slavery was only a "pretext" and not the real reason.
That is reality though it is very unfortunate that humans can often be like this.
They say it was "the war to free the slaves" but before the southern states seceded the federal government had no intention of starting a civil war and in fact had no legal basis to conduct military operations on US soil even if they wanted to forcefully end slavery.
> Because if you read the declarations of succession...
It's painfully obvious the southern states wanted the institution of slavery to continue but they knew that having been outlawed in the territories that its days were numbered, they would easily be outvoted as new states were formed and slavery would be (peacefully) ended.
And, no, I'm not some kind of pro-slavery crazy person it's just one of my many pet peeves that it's taken as dogma that was the justification for the US government to invade the southern states when slavery was ended everywhere else on earth without a massive civil war.
As who want you to believe? Because if you read the declarations of succession and the words of senators from confederate states at the time, they clearly cite slavery and "property" (read: slaves) rights.