[BrexitBen]

Now that you’ve reached the end of The New York Times cheerleading for an unnecessary, bloody slaughter in the 1860s, you can now move on to World War One.

The New York Times was extremely excited about lying to the populace about why that insane conflict needed U.S. involvement.

Mountains of New York Times ink is available on that as well.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Actually, it is still not over. There is still one democrat army left in the field.

It doesn’t end until June 19th.

[BroJoeK]

BrexitBen: "Now that you’ve reached the end of The New York Times cheerleading for an unnecessary, bloody slaughter in the 1860s..."

The vast majority of Americans, then and now, thought the Civil War was 100% necessary and only so long & bloody because some Confederates preferred "extermination" to surrender.

BrexitBen: "you can now move on to World War One.
The New York Times was extremely excited about lying to the populace about why that insane conflict needed U.S. involvement."

The NY Times opposed US entry into WWI until Congress declared war on Germany.
The NY Times did not call for war against Germany in 1915, after a German U-Boat sank the SS Lusitania, killing 1,195 including 128 Americans.
In January 1917, the NY Times supported Pres. Wilson's proposals for "Peace Without Victory".
After Congress declared war on Germany, the NY Times supported the US war effort and Wilson's post-war peace plans, notably the League of Nations.