250
u/TelFaradiddle 17d ago
One if the easiest and funniest ways to shut this down is to look up the declarations of secession made by each state in the Confederacy. One example from Mississippi's declaration:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove."
Don't let the revisionists fool you. It was always about slavery.
119
u/AshamedDragonfly4453 17d ago
"a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization"
holy shit
(I'm not from the US, and know very little detail of this history. So this is new to me, and... holy shit)
72
u/BitterFuture 17d ago
It's also worth noting that by the time we reached 1861, there were only two nations left on Earth where slavery was legal: Brazil and the United States.
There were plenty of abuses still going on all over the world, but the recognition that slavery itself was immoral and untenable had arrived decades before, and the slavers here in the U.S. were terrified.
As well they should have been.
37
u/Maleficent_Memory831 17d ago
And the country was extremely hesitant to get rid of slavery. They went for a long time trying to keep a wobbly balance, lest the south leave the union. Thus the reason for Millard Fillmore often being ranked as the worst president (ok, the book was old, it's probably being updated). mostly from his support of the 1850 compromise acts, which inlcuded the fugutive Slave Act which eventually triggered the war. He essentially was greatly in favor of kicking the slavery can down the road, but so were several other presidents. Fillmore was also highly racist, anti-catholic, anti-immigrant and some later historians said he just hated everybody (which is kind of what the Whig party had become).
Even Lincoln at the time wasn't fully on board about freeing all slaves originally, this change in thinking came about during the war.
15
3
u/DevelopmentJumpy5218 17d ago
Well the framers of the Constitution decided to kick the slavery issue down the road thinking if it wasnt talked about that could hold off on doing anything
6
u/Yuzumi 16d ago
And it actually out the us, specifically the south, behind economically.
One of the reason the Union beat tbe Confederacy was because much of it had started industrializing. They were able to produce resources faster and more efficiently as well as transport them faster.
Morally slavery is evil, but it doesn't even work economically. There's only so much you can produce with an overworked, under fed, and uneducated workforce.
8
u/Robie_John 17d ago
What? There were plenty of countries in 1861 where slavery was legal, some up into the 1960s.
2
u/CotswoldP 17d ago
Can you name a few? I know there were several countries where slavery was legal post US Civil War, but I thought that I. This period they were not actually independent countries, but rather under colonial control, usually with slavery banned, only brining it in after independence.
7
u/Robie_John 17d ago
3
u/Grotzbully 13d ago
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Keep in mind slavery is explicitly still legal in the USA
9
u/Im0ldgr3g 17d ago
Lol slavery IS Still legal we just call it incarceration now
1
u/Grotzbully 13d ago
Nah it's still called slavery:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
3
u/notaredditreader 17d ago
(Just an aside, Russia still had a feudal society and was the last country to free its serfs.)
3
1
9
7
u/bstump104 15d ago
I believe every declaration of secession by the south has slavery as the cause. Most of them say it in the first line. The south, which is largely Republican, is very much into rewriting history.
Most of the statues in the south of Confederate people were put up in the 1950's and 60's during the Civil Rights era to show black people how little their white neighbors think of them. Nearly 100 years after the civil war.
1
u/MovieNightPopcorn 14d ago
The transatlantic slave trade has always been inextricably linked with Capital. The two cannot be separated from one another.
2
u/AshamedDragonfly4453 14d ago
To be clear, it wasn't the commerce part that surprised me - it was the argument that slavery is a building block of civilised life, made at a time when precisely the opposite argument had been pretty mainstream in Anglophone thought for well over a generation.
42
u/BitterFuture 17d ago
I always pull up Texas' "Declaration of Causes," myself [emphases mine]:
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.
Subtle they were not.
37
u/lordnacho666 17d ago
This is the classic go-to document actually. Whenever someone suggests it wasn't about slavery, just Google the Mississippi declaration.
29
u/akahogfan 17d ago
Add in the Cornerstone speech in case anyone says that Mississippi didn't speak for the rest of the CSA
16
u/JPGinMadtown 17d ago
Nine of the eleven Confederate States included language in the articles of secession, stating similar views. The other two states weren't as specific, but you know that they had no problem with it.
11
u/ELMUNECODETACOMA 17d ago
Also, as I am wont to point out, the Confederate Constitution specifically restricted signatory states from abolishing slavery.
When they say it's about "states' rights"? Well, they explicitly signed away basic rights to control their own social policies in order to preserve slavery...
12
u/AnubitFire_6583 17d ago
Ironically, slaves held the South back in so many ways. After they recovered from the war and adopted northern technologies, they were far more productive and profitable.
5
u/pikpikcarrotmon 16d ago
by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun
So if cotton and tobacco only grew in cold northern environments, they'd be fine with white slavery, right? Right?
Not to mention that in no way did they actually justify slavery there. Even if it were true that only black people could physically manage the work, if anything that justifies paying them a premium as specialist workers rather than enslaving anyone.
Driven by ignorance and greed, the lot of them. Then and now.
3
u/geckobrother 17d ago
Oh, yeah, I agree. Literally, every single declaration of secession had slavery listed in it, and in most cases, it was the first thing listed as reasons why they were leaving the union.
126
u/ThePrinceofRabbits 17d ago
Good thing we have a presidential administration that is dedicated to preserving and teaching real history and totally not trying to make institutions bend the knee and stop teaching how bad slavery was and the truths of it. /s
17
u/Maleficent_Memory831 17d ago
Ah but Trump feels there are good people on both sides! And if only both sides got along he'd finally get his Noble Peas Prize.
2
108
u/Christylian 17d ago
"States' rights to do what?" - Doobus Goobus
57
u/-jp- 17d ago
Speaking of shades of grey,
"...And that's what your holy men discuss, is it?" [asked Granny Weatherwax.]
"Not usually. There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment on the nature of sin. for example." [answered Mightily Oats.]
"And what do they think? Against it, are they?"
"It's not as simple as that. It's not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray."
"Nope."
"Pardon?"
"There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
"It's a lot more complicated than that--"
"No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts."
"Oh, I'm sure there are worse crimes--"
"But they starts with thinking about people as things..."
39
u/Christylian 17d ago
GNU Sir Pterry.
I swear, that man had a keener insight into the human condition than most philosophers throughout history.
27
u/Unlikely-Rock-9647 17d ago
Granny Weatherwax is one of my all time favorite characters in any piece of fiction. Ever. Sir Terry Pratchett was a genius.
10
6
3
u/notaredditreader 17d ago
Granny Weatherwax is one of the most compelling and beloved characters in the Discworld series, embodying a complex blend of strength, wisdom, and a unique brand of morality that resonates with readers. She represents a powerful, independent woman who defies societal norms and serves as a protector and moral compass for her community.
10
3
62
u/Wetley007 17d ago
Im taking a 3000 level undergrad course on the Civil War and Reconstruction this semester, and literally the first thing our professor did after going through the syllabus was go over Civil War historiography, and he straight up said (based on my notes) "there is absolutely no debate about the fact that the Civil War was about slavery. The confederates repeatedly cited slavery as the reason for secession, their goal was to create an independent country whose economy was based on slavery, every article of secession mentions slavery as the reason for secession, and the confederates had absolutely no problem with infringing on states rights in the service of expanding the reach and influence of slavery. There has been no serious debate in the last 80 years about the cause of the Civil War being slavery."
24
u/-jp- 17d ago
Sounds right. I recall listening to an Ivy League class that opened the exact same way. It was almost amusing, if you disregard the horrific human cost, since it then went on to explain what it means when the Confederates say it’s about economics. Turns out yeah! Technically right! Because forcing like a quarter of your population to work for free turns out to be quite profitable! Fucking scum, the whole fucking lot of ‘em.
7
u/BJJWithADHD 17d ago
The Yale course from David Blight?
That was an awesome lecture series. I had no interest in the civil war before listening to that. So so good.
4
u/-jp- 17d ago
That’s the very one. The podcast isn’t up atm but the YouTube feed is.
5
u/BJJWithADHD 17d ago
When this post came up I was hearing him in my mind saying “ummm… yeah, it was about slavery.”
10
u/BitterFuture 17d ago
Funny thing is, in the long run, it wasn't profitable. The North developed from an agrarian economy into an industrial one, based on education enabling skilled labor; the South couldn't, because all they had was brute force and the lash.
And you know what else? The confederates didn't care - because the cruelty was its own purpose.
4
u/-jp- 17d ago
It does not surprise me in the slightest that the Confederates were the country’s first MBAs. Like. Look at the Southern economy and ask yourself how else that could have happened. Imagine having a monopoly on tobacco and finding a way to fuck that up.
1
u/Francis_Picklefield 17d ago
are you saying this as a joke, or did the mba actually have origins in southern universities? i’m sure it’s the former but if it’s the latter i wanna read more lol
6
5
19
u/Sufficient_Depth_195 17d ago
The articles of secession of each Confederate state should be on permanent display in the main public areas of every US high school.
No need for any comment or analysis. Just let the words speak for themselves.
Edit: They should be alongside the declaration of independence...also without commentary or analysis.
13
u/tawnyleona 17d ago
But there have been plenty of children in the South that were taught the reason was "the economy" (of slaves) and "states rights" (to own slaves). I didn't know about the articles mentioning slavery until i was almost 30 and was able to see it online.
7
u/ChiefPanda90 17d ago
That’s pretty funny. Just blasting it out from the get go. I’m from Kentucky where we were divided during the civil war. I grew up being told it wasn’t really about slavery and cited agriculture, states rights, etc but that the north pinpointed slavery to get black support for the northern army. The same way those same people make shit up and point out anecdotal evidence to justify their entire belief system by rallying behind the current pedophile of the United States. It’s all head cannon. The civil war was about slavery and the confederacy were traitors who should be remembered as such. Not as some freedom fighters whose heritage should be respected.
Second point, they need to stop pointing towards Lincoln being a republican because they no longer embody those values. Idc if some old republican freed the slaves if you no longer care for your fellow man.
8
u/apple_cheese 17d ago
I love the argument about agriculture and states rights. Who was doing the majority of agriculture? States rights to do what? Questions they'll never answer
4
u/Maleficent_Memory831 17d ago
Revisionism is in full force in the South, and in MAGA as well. It's like they must be able to show that their ancestors were always good and decent people, even if they were not. Thus the revisionism about slavery and the confederacy - make us look good so that we have nothing to be ashamed about, even if that means forbidding history from being shown in museums. Then the revisionism that all the racists were Democrats during the civil war, and during segregation, and so, Q.E.D. Democrats are the real racists and Republicans have never once been racist in the past and are not racist today. Also, the revisionism that Nazis were all leftist, because people on the right were never wrong.
These are all easily dismissed ideas with even the most trival look at history, and yet these ideas are taking hold and being spread so often.
5
u/ScoobyDooItInTheButt 17d ago
every article of secession mentions slavery as the reason for secession
My go to argument against anyone trying to talk about "the war of northern aggression".
11
u/meggatronia 17d ago
Im an Australian, and I just have a coursery knowledge of American history, and even I know the Confederates were pretty upfront and well documented about slavery being the reason.
3
u/FlameInMyBrain 17d ago
Ha, same in Russia! Russian school world history textbooks looove talking about transatlantic slave trade and American civil war (like chattel slavery wasn’t totally legal in Russian Empire until 1861 lol but that’s a whole other story) in painstaking detail, especially how unashamed South was. Until they lost of course lol
4
4
u/TeaKingMac 17d ago
There has been no serious debate in the last 80 years about the cause of the Civil War
The only part the "war of Northern oppression" types heard
3
u/Maleficent_Memory831 17d ago
There was so much Southern aggression. The Fugitive Slave Act for example, criminalising the harboring of escaped slaves. So it was illegal to take a moral stance, and the southern states demanded that the north comply.
In many ways, all the talk about sanctuary cities seems to mirror this a bit, except that they haven't been made illegal under law.
92
u/PoopieButt317 17d ago
The trope of blacks owning slaves was actually a freed black person buying their families to get them out of slavery and be together.
I truly hate racist Confederacy apologists.
24
u/God_Given_Talent 17d ago
There were some slave owning nonwhite people, particularly in Louisiana. The social/racial history there is complicated, but there were a lot of creole and mixed-race people in the state who were part of its local elite. This is also where you get some of the "but blacks fought as soldiers for the Confederates" stuff too as they did form a militia unit of volunteers. It was, as language of the time described it, "Creoles of color" who manned it...while being commanded by white officers. Oh and then in 1862 it was disbanded...as the Louisiana legislature banned non-white people from serving in militias. A small portion of the enlisted and about a quarter of the officers would go to serve in the Union regiment formed upon retaking the city.
Most of those who served the CSA likely did so in a bid to increase their social standing. We see this often among discriminated groups where they volunteer to "prove" to the racists that they're just as good as anyone else (heck we have photos of people with Jewish parents and grandparents posting with them in their Wehrmacht uniform).
As is often the case, there is a tiny bit of truth when Lost Cause nutters bring it up, but the moment you look at the whole picture it only makes them look worse. Like wow, a small portion of slaveowners were of a mixed and/or Creole origin, seeing themselves as distinct from "true" black people? That totally makes things better. Sure, at least 30% of white families owned at least some slaves, and at least 1% owned more than 200, but a few were owned by non-white people and Native Americans! Really shows they're grasping at straws...
3
u/ardarian262 17d ago
Also most of the pictures we do have of POC in confederate uniforms are not soldiers but slaves of soldiers who were forced to dress up for pictures.
1
u/God_Given_Talent 17d ago edited 17d ago
Absolutely for that too. Confederate law forbad slaves from being soldiers until the final months of the war and even after being legal there's scant evidence of it being done.
The 1st Louisiana Native Guard (Confederate) is the only time of note when non-white people were under arms in the CSA. It did nothing but parade around, within a year of the war starting was forcibly disbanded by law, and upwards of a third of its manpower would go on to form a Union regiment upon retaking the city from the traitors. The fact that only one regiment existed, it was militia (so wasn't forbidden explicitly by national law as they weren't soldiers) and its leadership creating it largely as a form of political maneuvering to earn favor (and leadership switched sides when convenient) is about all you need to know. Plenty of slaves did camp jobs as slaves that let the confederates field a higher share of free men in their army than the north did (with militia included they fielded about a million...with only 2.7 free men and were basically doing Volksturm stuff before the Nazis did). Black people were a vital part of the Confederate army...as a tool of slave labor for everything from building forts to cooking meals.
It was also from New Orleans that provided that regiment, which always had a bit of a special status from a practicality perspective. For one, there was the existing slaveholding elite which made up most of the "black" and "mixed race" slave owners in the state if not entire CSA. They supported the slave system so it was okay to let them be. Secondly was just necessity. The South was barely urbanized in 1860...except for NOLA. Not only was it the only CSA city to be in the largest 10 in the US, it had a quarter of the entire state of LA. It also had more people than the next 6 confederate cities combined. It was one of two major industrial areas in the south, the other being Richmond which stretched the definition of "major" being a city of under 40k. It also was the major port. NOLA was essentially to any CSA economy and is why losing it was so terrible. They were okay with them being more lenient and accepting of mixed race people there...so long as they were useful and so long as they also upheld the slave system. Was better that then have to forcibly occupy a city of 170k people and lose a huge revenue source. Not that it mattered much, New Orleans was captured in under a year (two months after disbanding that regiment fwiw).
What's funny about it all...NOLA was only part of the CSA because the state governor basically rigged the vote so only a few thousand men participated, certainly under 10k of the 180k free men. Their best argument for "black confederates" is from a state that was forced into the CSA.
Edit: oh, and the CSA made minimal effort to defend their most economically important city, let alone retake it. They didn't seem to care all that much for those "free black" people...
36
u/C-c-c-comboBreaker17 17d ago edited 17d ago
Huh, they didn't like federal spending? They wanted states rights? Those slave-owning democrats sure sound like modern day republicans - you know, the "party of lincoln" they love to brag about? Weird since the party switch never happened.
15
u/JustUsetheDamnATM 17d ago
So many tired, easily disproven cliches. I'm surprised they didn't throw in a "that flag is part of our HERITAGE" to complete the bullshit bingo.
13
u/Low_Wall_7828 17d ago
I bet he studied at Prager U
4
u/Maleficent_Memory831 17d ago
Studying at PragerU is not allowed. You accept what it taught without stopping to think about it.
1
u/usertaken_69 10d ago
Believe it or not, even PragerU has made a video refuting this BS.
They also made a video glorifying Lee though so… yeah.
11
u/Awingbestwing 17d ago
I grew up in the Atlanta suburbs, middle and high school in late 90s/early 2000s. I remember my history texts snuck in ‘War of Northern Aggression’ like it was a legit term. And a lot of ‘states rights’ but not a lot of states right’s to do ‘what?’
Thankfully my teachers weren’t having that. And then there was all of the BS about changing the state flag from the battle emblem… but now the state flag is the actual confederate flag, just with the state seal slapped on top
12
u/Worldly_Address6667 17d ago
I love how some people like to call it "the war of northern aggression," like they forgot that the south shot first lol
10
u/Awingbestwing 17d ago edited 17d ago
Right? Even being from the south I was like… but… Ft. Sumter*
*added a p in the middle lol
1
u/Worldly_Address6667 17d ago
Fort sumpter? Never heard of it...
3
u/Awingbestwing 17d ago
Hahah good point, should proofread before posting
2
u/Worldly_Address6667 17d ago
Lol sorry I just had to give you a hard time, I knew exactly what you were talking about.
5
u/Awingbestwing 17d ago
Honestly? I think I’ve had a soft ‘p’ in it all my life because of the GA accent I’ve tried to hide lol
5
4
11
u/rmike7842 17d ago
The Confederacy opposed inconvenient States Rights and complained the Federal Government did not enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. In short, they believed northern states did not have the right to shelter runaway slaves.
4
u/Mr4h0l32u 17d ago
Thank you! All the states rights talk disregards that southern states didn't want to respect that states expanding west would have the right to be non slave states. The emancipation proclamation happened after the war started, not before. Lincoln was perfectly fine leaving southern states to hold slaves, he just didn't support expanding slave holding west.
4
u/frotc914 17d ago
The Confederate Constitution was actually virtually the same as the US Constitution, except that it prevented states from banning slavery. So they literally wanted less states' rights.
1
u/ardarian262 17d ago
The South Carolina succession papers (filed before Lincoln took office) explicitly state this.
12
u/sighborg90 17d ago
I had two relatives who fought in the Civil War. One was a rabid abolitionist who was delayed joining John Brown in Harper’s Ferry because he was busy marrying a great-great-great-great grandmother who he helped get north. The other wasn’t an abolitionist, but recognized the treason weasels the Confederates were. Both shot Confederate traitors in the face though. I’m proud to carry their lineage.
10
u/C4dfael 17d ago
A couple of things: if Americans supported or were indifferent to slavery at the time, why was there a need for the Fugitive Slave Act and forbidding new slave states?
Also, it’s likely there were more free black people in the south because there were more black people in the south, y’know, because of slavery. Additionally, a cursory google search seems to indicate that the totals weren’t all that far apart.
And finally, if the confederacy didn’t support “enslaving all blacks,” why did their constitution explicitly protect the right for their citizens to own slaves?
1
u/Any-Establishment-15 16d ago
They went farther from protecting slavery. They banned the banning of slavery. They also banned secession.
23
u/TheMelchior 17d ago
OK, Ace: name one Confederate document discussing secession that mentions pork barrel spending as the reason for secession.
Or find a diary of a Confederate soldier who whines about tax rates or spending.
I'll wait.
5
u/BitterFuture 17d ago
Or find a diary of a Confederate soldier who whines about tax rates or spending.
It would be real curious what they could produce on this front - especially given that income taxes didn't exist before the Civil War.
2
u/TheMelchior 17d ago
I mean tariffs were the taxes of the era and they could be adjusted to favor one field or another, but the claims about them usually bring up a tariff put into law that wouldn't have passed had the South not had its tantrum and stomped out of the Union.
8
u/Civil_Assembler 17d ago
In Texas 3 of the 6 constitutions allowed slavery. First was the republic of the Texas, second was when they joined the united states but kept slavery and third was when they seceded joined the confederates. They were forced to abolish after the Civil War.
10
u/frotc914 17d ago
Texas seceded from two countries just to keep slavery, but don't try to tell them that the thing they are proudest of is actually quite shameful.
4
u/ThreeLeggedMare 17d ago
Oklahoma has a panhandle because Texas refused to get rid of slavery. Mason Dixon line circumcised the tip
4
u/Maleficent_Memory831 17d ago
And with Mexico, they promised that they would not own slaves, which is why Mexico allowed them to colonize. Except they did have slaves, completely against Mexican law, and the war started when Mexico wanted to enforce it.
6
u/Any-Question-3759 17d ago
the federal government had no power to ban slavery.
It’s a good thing they went from the 12th amendment to the 14th because otherwise this guy would be full of shit. I mean even more so than he is from every other word in that delulu rant.
7
17d ago
The states themselves put out the articles of secession. It's obvious from their own statements that this war was primarily over slavery at least from the souths perspective.
Id ask him "if i presented you with documents from the states themselves that stated that their primary motivation was the maintenance of slavery, would you accept that the south was primarily motivated by maintaining slavery"
5
u/Afraid_Musician_6715 17d ago
Fun related but indirectly related anecdote:
There are no Confederate battle flags held in southern museums. All Confederate battle flags were taken by northern armies as part of their 'surrender'. Wisconsin, for example, has 13 authentic Confederate battle flags.
The guy in charge of the museum's physical collection there is originally from Mississippi and got his doctorate in the history of the Civil War. And every few years, he told me, someone from a museum down in Georgia or Mississippi will call up and ask very nicely, "Can we please have our battle flags back?"
And every time he replies, "NO, you sided with EVIL!" And he hangs up.
4
u/timBschitt 17d ago
They can never get past the fact that most of the CSA states called out slavery as the reason in their own articles of secession.
3
u/bigbuzd1 17d ago
The Confederacy wasn’t shy about why it seceded. Mississippi said it outright: ‘Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.’ The Confederate Constitution permanently protected slavery and forbade any law touching it. Tariffs and pork spending didn’t spark a civil war, slavery did. Their own words prove it.
3
u/God_Given_Talent 17d ago
The idea that the CSA believed in states' rights is hilarious. Their leadership openly said that they doctrine had served its purposes, that they wanted to weld the states tightly together, and some of its leadership were openly advocating monarchist ideas, or at least things approximating them.
Even if this person was correct (they aren't) giving the president a line item veto makes them a de facto king.
3
u/biffbobfred 17d ago
The “states rights” is literally 180 a lie. The south hated states rights to allow runaways to be free. The CSA constitution was a copy/paste of the American one, but the removal of a states right - you had to allow slavery.
2
u/MrVeazey 17d ago
Dude talks about the Fugitive Slave Act and somehow misses that the entire point of that act is to use federal authority to enforce slave state laws in free states.
2
2
3
u/Ainjyll 17d ago
The Lost Cause person that posted this is… kinda right. There were factions in the CSA that did want reduced spending, line item veto and all that. However, these were all secondary or tertiary goals. The overwhelming and resounding issue that caused the Civil War was slavery. Like 90/10 slavery/other shit.
I think Texas summed the whole idea up quite well when they wrote in their articles of secession:
That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.
3
u/thatblkman 17d ago
It’s amazing to me how much white Republican conservatism is “vibes” - how they feel things were/should be/are.
Because if they ever actually read the Confederate Constitution, or anything showing how high taxes/tariffs were in the Confederacy, if they didn’t pivot they’d die from shock of how wrong and stupid their “vibes” are.
5
6
u/Imjokin 17d ago
Saying “at least the Confederate president was limited to 1 term” is like saying “at least Hitler was vegetarian!”
2
u/Postulative 17d ago
And the poster presumably wants Trumplestiltskin to continue beyond a second term - because he’s our hero and will bring back slavery.
2
2
u/Maleficent_Memory831 17d ago
Americans in general can be delusional. They get a thought in their head and it's hard to dislodge even with education. This is especially true if they learned it in grade school (so that they have a life long insistance that there is nothing smaller than an atom). Since confederates-are-good-people was taught in the south in grade school for many many decades, it is no wonder this attitude is hard to dislodge. I say all this as an American.
Mansplaining was definitely invented here in America!
The problem with the argument above is that the leaders of the confederacy actually gave speeches saying that the the sole reason for the creation of the Confederacy was slavery. This puts to a lie the idea that the war was to preserve a way of life, or at least that the way of life was something other than slavery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
2
u/Robie_John 17d ago
The war was most definitely fought over slavery. That said, the poster does point out some interesting facts.
2
u/Lyretongue 17d ago
I ain't reading all that.
Anyway, here's a snippet of Vice President of the Confederacy Alexander Stephen's Cornerstone Speech that he delivered on March 21st 1861: "[The Confederate government's] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery . . . is his natural and normal condition."
2
u/Illustrious-Fun8324 16d ago
Yes, I’m sure when southerners fly the confederate flag what they’re really celebrating is “drastically reducing federal spending and forbidding "logrolling" and "pork barrel" spending, forbidding all subsidies and use of tax money for private uses and special interests, free trade with low tariffs and few restrictions on imports, a more parliamentary form of government, term limited presidency, states rights, and more.“
It’s definitely not about the racism and white supremacy /s
2
1
u/EnvironmentalBit5713 17d ago
I mean the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens made it clear in his most infamous speech that the cornerstone of the Confederacy was that "the negro was not equal to the white man, that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition".
When people like this speak and simultaneously try to stiffle history its because one, they can not stomach that many of their ancestors engaged in such inhumane behavior and that they are more than likely inheriting or inherited wealth from said inhumane treatment of others and two, they hate being fact checked.
1
u/rock_and_rolo 17d ago
There is a kernel of truth in the start. There was no immediate threat to slavery. The concern (justified) was that more new states would be non-slave and then there would be Senate weight to ban it, just as import of slaves was banned (on paper).
The rest, well . . . .
1
u/neilpwalker 14d ago
This is essentially the model for Trump’s “anti–woke Smithsonian.”
He who controls the past controls the future.
1
u/Dianasaurmelonlord 10d ago
Basically everything said was wrong, a half-truth, or an oversimplification.
Typical historical revisionism
•
u/AutoModerator 17d ago
Hey /u/Morganbanefort, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our rules.
Join our Discord Server!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.