There's a definitely a debate to be had about Lincoln's actions and the extreme measures he took, but once bullets started firing everything changed. Lincoln didn't suspend habeus corpus and imprison dissenters until the South fired upon Northern troops. There's a big distinction.

And I'm not talking about 1808. I'm talking about 1860. The South were outliers among the Western world, and was viewed as such. Rich Southerners wanted to continue to have cheap labor, while also maintaining their racial superiority.

And I am not here to defend the actions of the Federal Government when it came to slavery. That was abhorrent. But what I can stay is the Federal Government got it correct when it came to slavery and the Civil War

No... he was deported during the war, when he was openly supporting letting the states secede while they were killing Union soldiers.

And yes I support historical relativism, but even in the 1860's slavery was widely viewed as an amoral practice. America was one of the last Western nations to abolish slavery, and the Northern states were universally moving towards either abolishing it or preventing its expansion. Also, no new slaves were allowed to be shipped in for over a decade before this, so New England ship captains were not involved. Only the rich Southern planation owners wanted to expand it. Even in those times the South was a moral outlier

Or can see positives in the review of it versus fully condemning it. Again it is not perfect, but gives a different perspective than traditional American history is taught.

And you're right, a Civil War/Revolution can be morally justifiable given the circumstance. The Hatian or America revolution are examples as those that were justifiable

Yes, that would be. The Confederacy in particular was a great combination of white supremacy and treason that is easy to point out. And before you make the argument of self determination, the slaves in the Confederacy, who made up a large part of the population, had no say and were being forced to go along with a treasonous government trying to separate themselves from a Union trying to free them.

Like I said it was not perfect, and I'm glad they reviewed and updated it (as all historical texts should) but associating anyone who supports the 1619 project, or pointing out the Confederacy was primarily focused on the continuance of slavery and white supremacy, as racist is the straw man.

1619 project was not perfect, but to straw man the entire project like that is quite a logical leap

No, mostly because Hancock's country wasn't primarily formed to preserve slavery

Oh I wasn't trying to imply anything against you. Just giving my opinion

Controversial I realize, but the guy did openly support letting the Confederacy secede and later conspired to overthrow the governments in the Midwestern states. Suppressing open treason I think it reasonable, especially during the Civil War

It was an accident. He thought the pistol was not loaded. Pretty big fuck up lol