• Stern@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    227
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It wasn’t about slavery, I mean yeah the vice president of the confederacy made a speech saying slavery was the cornerstone of the CSA, and multiple seceding states released documents that explicitly stated they were seceding in large part because of slavery, and all the seceding states were slave owning states, and West Virginia exists because they split from Virginia as they had no slaves and thus no reason to fight to hold them, and the CSA constitution mandated that any new state would be required to be a slave state… but… umm…

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      86
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Whenever a chud gives me the “it wASnT AbOut SLavErY!” Line I always go ask them to read the seceding states articles of secession. South Carolina is my particular favorite since they started all.

       But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations… [The northern] States…have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress, or render useless any attempt to execute them… Thus the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken…

      The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

      Those [non-slaveholding] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of Slavery; they have permitted the open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace…property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

      For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the Common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the Common Government, because he has declared that the “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that Slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

      This sectional combination for the subversion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship persons, who, by the Supreme Law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive to its peace and safety.

      Not about slavery though… fucking dipshits

    • mindbleach@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You missed that CSA states weren’t allowed to end slavery.

      So if conservatives meant things when they say words - the civil war was coincidentally about slavery-having states seeking new slavery-having allies to continue doing slavery together, after flipping out when an anti-slavery party took the white house.

      But it was totes mcgoats about states’ rights. Except the right to end slavery.

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      50
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I mean they’re not entirely wrong, fighting slavery was a political tool not a moral imperative as it should have been and Lincoln didn’t in fact want to unilaterally shut it down he wanted the nation to figure it out ideally without violence.

      Ed: books people, I’m not interpreting anything Lincoln was extremely vocal about it. Listen to Lincoln, he knows Lincoln weirdly enough.

      https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery.htm

      • alvvayson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        68
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, they are entirely wrong.

        You are right that Lincoln didn’t want a war and only went to war to preserve the union. The North had the votes to end slavery without war and that is how they wanted to end it.

        Which is why the southern states seceded and started the war in order to preserve their right to own slaves.

        This ain’t difficult, people. Photocopies of the documents from that time are easily accessible and written in modern English.

        You don’t need to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphs.

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          55
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes yes, history is nuanced but your actually a Nazi if you recognize that fact…

          You see the problem there boss?

          • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            47
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s only nuanced if you ignore all the primary evidence that it really was over the issue of slavery and almost entirely about preserving slavery.

            Most of those “Well it was more nuanced because states rights and they got beneficial skills” reasons are made up by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

            • Madison420@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              27
              ·
              1 year ago

              almost entirely about preserving slavery.

              That my friend is called nuance.

              Most of those “Well it was more nuanced because states rights and they got beneficial skills” reasons are made up by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

              Please quote my statements amounting to such implied accusation.

              • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                history is nuanced but your actually a Nazi if you recognize that fact…

                Because not all nuance is created equal nor is it accurate. Much of the “nuance” of the civil war beyond southern cecession and the ensuing war was over the institution of slavery and its abolition are falsehoods spread by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

                We have plenty of primary evidence from the cornerstone speech, to the actual confederate constitution, to letters of secession to the journal entries of soldiers who fought. None of that supports the “Well it was states rights and the soldiers didn’t know better and the south was just a peace loving society that didn’t want to hurt anyone, and the north are the real aggressors (despite the confederates firing the first shots in the first battle on Northern territory).”

                But hey keep falling propaganda by apologists for a dead slaver nation-state that Hitler wrote about his admiration of in mein kampf.

              • mindbleach@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                29
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The south said ‘it’s about slavery’ as often and as clearly as possible.

                People saying ‘it wasn’t about slavery’ are entirely wrong. Regardless of what Lincoln said. Pounding the table about what Lincon said is a misleading horseshit argument regardless of whether its claims are factual. It’s not fucking relevant. The issue is: the south started a war, and they started that war over slavery.

                • Madison420@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  19
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes slavery was certainly part of it and if you can point to where I said it’s not about slavery I’d love to see it.

                  It seems to me you and a few others here have seen what you wanted in my comments rather than what was actually said.

                  • mindbleach@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    “Part?” No.

                    It’s ABOUT slavery. Slavery was the entire root cause.

                    The south started a war.

                    The war was over slavery.

                    This submission is an idiot saying “the civil war wasn’t about slavery,” and you saying “they’re not entirely wrong.” They are, though. They really fucking are. If your denial of that fact is plainly not rooted in ignorance, what the fuck are you doing?

                    You need to develop a response to criticism besides doubling down and scrambling for some way to avoid saying “whoops.”

          • GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            History is nuanced, yes. Lost Cause bullshit and slavery apologists can GTFO tho. They’re not arguing in good faith so when you chime in to let everyone know how smart you are by supporting that nonsense, you know what it looks like, right?

            • Madison420@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              21
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Bro it’s factually correct, you can read Lincoln’s diary discussing it. The statement “the civil war was about slavery” isn’t wrong it just lacking nuance in the same way the statement I added to was.

              Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed both branches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersigned hereby protest against the passage of the same.

              They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils.

              They believe that the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States.

              They believe that the Congress of the United States has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; but that that power ought not to be exercised unless at the request of the people of said District.

              The difference between these opinions and those contained in the said resolutions, is their reason for entering this protest."

              Dan Stone, A. Lincoln, Representatives from the county of Sangamon

              • GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                18
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Okay let’s try this another way .

                You are 100% correct in your assertion that the civil war was a culmination of much more than just moral outrage over slavery, and it’s a subject worth continued study.

                However, there are people who are exploiting that nuance for despicable reasons. So when you comment trying to clarify what you see as a matter of historical record, some of us see it as unhelpful because it’s continuing to provide conversational cover to those who want to use that historical record in bad faith.

                It’s true, some slaves learned trade skills, but would you come in talking that ish if the OP was about the benefits of being enslaved?

                • Madison420@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  14
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sure.

                  Agreed.

                  Why do you believe I’m one of these exploitative people and you aren’t.

                  I don’t get involved in subjectives and things I’m not particularly experienced in so I wouldn’t touch it.

                  That said, if you agree with me then what is the drama and downvote barrage about?

              • Ya_Boy_Skinny_Penis@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Dude, you think if chattel slavery never existed in the South that there still would have been a civil war?

                The civil war was 100% about slavery.

                • Madison420@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Point to where I said it’s wasn’t. You’ll be like the third person who can’t find it because I didn’t say it nor ever imply it.

      • Papergeist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It was a moral imperative for much of the North. Lincoln only barely scraped out the Republican nomination. His main opponent was William Seward who was a “radical” abolitionist. Had Seward won the nomination, there may have been some fracturing of the newly formed Republican party. So while there was indeed a portion of the population who felt the complete abolition of slavery was too far, a huge chunk agreed with Seward.

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not enough to change it by force federally, clearly. I’m well aware, that doesn’t change the fact Seward did not win and Lincoln and his supporters didn’t want radical emancipation they wanted to slow roll everything.

          And to be clear the South viewed a loss of slaves to the North as a loss of property and thus trade to the North. It’s dumb and tedious but very accurate to say it was a trade dispute, a horrific hard to visualize in full one but a trade dispute none the less.

          • nodiet@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m neither american nor well versed in american history. That being said, from the quotes I read in your linked article about Lincoln’s views on slavery it does not seem to me that the northern states had a lot of money/resources to gain from freeing slaves in the south. So, correct me if i’m wrong, but how can you call it a trade dispute if one side views it as losing property while the other side does not view it as obtaining property?

            • MasterBlaster@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well, I’ve had a neighbor claim I was doing things on his side of the property line, which he placed in the middle of my driveway. For him, it was a property dispute. For me, it was the ravings of a not-quite sane person. Think of it that way.

              You are right, it was not a trade dispute, but the raving slave-owners would say whatever they could to justify their actions and make it sound noble. Much like Putin says he invaded Ukraine to “save them” from “embedded Nazis”. For Putin, it’s a mission of peace. For everyone else, it’s an unjustified invasion.

            • Madison420@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Fair enough.

              That being said, from the quotes I read in your linked article about Lincoln’s views on slavery it does not seem to me that the northern states had a lot of money/resources to gain from freeing slaves in the south.

              They wouldn’t gain money or resources no, they would instead reach a more even economical footing with the South. It’s one of those things I think I would have to provide links to because I don’t think I could adequately explain it myself.

              So, correct me if i’m wrong, but how can you call it a trade dispute if one side views it as losing property while the other side does not view it as obtaining property?

              I mentioned the South specifically but both sides took it as a loss of valuable property to the free North. The North in many actual laws regarding freemen specifically refer to slaves as property as does the Confederate Constitution if I’m not mistaken.

      • Yondoza@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It feels disingenuous to remove morality from the equation. Morality clearly played a role which is why thinkers like Frederick Douglass are still remembered to this day. Clearly there were other forces at play- political and economic which shaped how this played out, but morality was certainly involved.

        Gonna get a little preachy here - skip this part if you don’t wanna hear that.

        All of American history from the Revolutionary war to today can be summed up with people trying to reconcile the conflict of individual freedom and equality. Those two cannot coexist, and a boundary must be placed on one in order to allow the other ideal to flourish.

        The civil war is a great example, individual freedom allows one to own another person if that is their desire. Equality says that your individual freedom cannot impede another person’s. This means slavery cannot exist in such a value system and equality was valued above individual freedom.

        The current abortion debate has the same bedrock conflict. Does an individual’s personal freedom allow them the right to stop being pregnant if they wish? Well equality says the unborn child should be considered, as the choice to terminate violates their individual freedom to exist.

        Let me be clear - in this post I am not advocating for either side in the abortion debate. I am merely trying to show that most of American history has been defined by trying to draw the line between the two founding principles of the nation.

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed both branches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersigned hereby protest against the passage of the same.

          They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils.

          They believe that the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States.

          They believe that the Congress of the United States has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; but that that power ought not to be exercised unless at the request of the people of said District.

          The difference between these opinions and those contained in the said resolutions, is their reason for entering this protest."

          Dan Stone, A. Lincoln, Representatives from the county of Sangamon

          Listen to Lincoln about Lincoln boss.

      • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It depends on the answer to this question:

        Did the South start the Civil War by seceding, or did the North start the Civil War by not letting them?

        If the South started it by seceding, it was absolutely, unquestionably over slavery. A simple look at the various articles of secession makes that abundantly clear.

        If the North started it by not letting them secede, then the Civil War was about preserving the Union, which the South was trying to leave because of slavery. The North wasn’t fighting to end slavery. The north in general may or may not have wanted that, but that wasn’t why they went to war.

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure.

          The South literally declared war so that would be hard to argue plus the whole succession thing.

          Correct.

          Also correct, those that l two things aren’t mutually exclusive nor are they in this case. I mean they don’t particularly care about the union, they wanted to keep the territories and keep the trade. If all the people of the South wanted to leave with their slaves the North world have cheered it on and in fact did with a number of southerners who went to places like Brazil and Argentina before during and after the war. Weirdly enough much like Nazis.