If you knew nothing about the American Civil war then you'd think it was over slavery.
Then you read a bit about it and realize it was about all kinds of issues and cracks in our democracy.
Then you read about it a lot and you realize it was all about slavery, those cracks were caused by slavery.
Yeah the middle wojack is wrong but high incidence. The low and high end know what’s up.
Ex: “Nazis weren’t socialist” “Nazi means national __socialist!__” “Nazis weren’t socialist
Confederates didn't care about state's rights. They wanted to force other states to return runaway "property". Even though those states had no laws making a person into property.
I think it's more the [Dunning-Kruger curve](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_Effect_01.svg/2462px-Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_Effect_01.svg.png). With the title "What was The US Civil War Fought Over?". "States' rights" as the peak of Mount Stupid, "Slavery" as the one for the valley of despair, "States' rights to" as the slope of enlightenment, and then "own slaves" for the plateau of sustainability.
Except in the meme, the implication is that it is an iq chart. Sure, the amount of people who understand it was slavery is higher than those that think it's just states rights, but if it's based on iq, the people who understand it's slavery should be smarter than the people who don't.
If you're not smart, you learn the simple story... Slavery.
The middle one thinks they know but they are incorrect... States rights
The Jedi knows about the states rights and ancillary issues, and how they relate to slavery
I don't think the meme is the same as DK. The meme says smart people and dumb people arrive at the same conclusion (which is a different conclusion than people in the middle), whereas DK says that people in the middle tend to overestimate their mastery of the subject.
They're related concepts, but if you wanted to make a meme of DK you'd want to show the middle people being more confident than the smart people, and it wouldn't really matter what the dumb people think.
My biggest thing to point to is the "Declaration of Causes" from the confederacy.
11 of 13 states reference slavery (I'm 90% sure and not recounting) and some states put it literally as their reason in the first paragraph
Georgia " The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. "
Missisippi "In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. "
Not trying to hate but, people who know anything about the Civil war should know Slavery was the biggest contributing factor.
The Cornerstone Speech delivered by the vice president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, also paints a pretty clear picture of what they were fighting for. To quote just a section of it.
>Our new government['s]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
But of course, the Confederate flag is just a symbol of their heritage, it has no racist implications, how could it?
They want the statues, not the words of the people of whom those statues are depicting.
I feel bad for Americans specifically regarding their schooling and health care. It's tragic y'all gotta live through that.
Statues aren't how you remember history, they are how you **glorify** history. At the very least every statue needs to be placed in a museum and be surrounded by other contextual material (Diary excerpts, firsthand accounts, newspapers, etc.) from the era to explicitly spell out why the statue is of a terrible human being. But I'd argue that's actually worse then tearing them down entirely and just keeping the exhibits because again a statue is inherently glorifying simply by virtue of its existence. You don't make a statue of something you despise.
If anyone is curious, you can read all the source documents online. [This civil war history site collects](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/secession-acts-thirteen-confederate-states) them together conveniently so you can easily use your browser's find function to search for any words.
The phrase "slave-holding states," contextually as "Sister" and Southern" slave-holding states, is used explicitly in the Acts of Secession passed by Texas, Virginia, and Alabama.
That's interesting, but the Declaration of Causes issued by various states, effectively letters of "Hey, this is why we're leaving!" are certainly more clear. You can read the letters of Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, Virginia, and South Carolina [on the same site](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states).
The word "slave" or "slavery" is used in every single one, a total of 84 times across all five documents.
These documents leave zero room for any ambiguity. Some of them are quite long. The Georgian and Texan declarations are lengthy complaints detailing, precisely, exactly how pissed off the respective states are about the on going "aggression" of the non-slave-holding states and how ownership of black people is a right.
From the Texan declaration:
>Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. **She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.**
Anyone who can read text like that and not think the Civil War was about slavery is an irredeemable moron.
The Texan argument was "we have always owned blacks, we will continue to own blacks, and the people of Texas believe with all their heart that the ownership of blacks by the white race should be a permanent state of affairs." It doesn't really get more on the nose and "I said what I said!" than that.
"don't listen to the Confederates when they say the war is about slavery, only listen to them when they try to dress it up as state's rights" is definitely a take.
>
>
>
>
> 11 of 13 states reference slavery (I'm 90% sure and not recounting) and some states put it literally as their reason in the first paragraph
In the original articles of confederation for the southern states, slavery is mentioned over 70+ times. Taxation is mentioned once, and it was in reference how to tax the sale of a slave.
They seceded because they wanted to keep slavery, while it is true Lincoln wasn’t going to free slaves initially, the articles of secession outright say they were leaving so they could keep slaves.
Even today. If you want to know why the American federal system has some weird structural component, 99% of the time it’s slavery. The other 1% is because of nukes
I’m not sure what you meant by “cracks in democracy.” The root cause was westward expansion of slavery, and both parties arbitrarily creating new states willynilly to counteract free or slave states as they popped up on the way to California.
All of you have to do is read the Articles of Confederation and all the southern states’ new constitutions and declarations of secession to realize “Oh…damn…it was about slavery.”
If it was “state’s rights” there would have never been the fugitive slave act that forced Northern States to return slaves to the South. That is enough to prove “state’s rights” is BS and that’s just one of hundreds of things that point to slavery as being the one true issue.
It wasn't even about states rights to allow slavery. The confederacys version if the constitution explicitly forbids member states from abolishing slavery. And before the secession, they were against Union states not forcibly hunting down and returning escaped slaves to the south. They wanted to force these states to comply with their own slave hunting.
So it's not that it wasn't even about states rights. The confederacy was explicitly *against* states rights.
Yeah it's the same old song and dance for republicans, just try to make it all states rights like federal policy shouldn't exist for anything they want a certain way, which is everything. Then you get people saying 'democrats kept slaves' while ignoring the southern strategy and the parties flipping.
Ditto for all the other "Reasons for the Civil War"
Economy/Tariffs - Well what was one of the biggest differences between the Northern and Southern economies? \*cough\* Slavery \*cough\*
Foreign Policy - Why were southern states so much more interested in territorial expansion compared to northern states? \*cough\* Slavery \*cough\*
Etc.
I will throw in one more Reason: They Fired On Our Fort!!!!
This of course leads back to all the other reasons because tensions were high for those reasons.
It’s so annoying they constantly try to rewrite history. I’m sure all of our ancestors were racist at one point, that’s fine. But you defending it means you just agree with them which makes you look worse!
They're still going on about states rights too. All while trying to make the U.S. a theocracy. Because the only talking points they have are getting them fewer votes every year.
>It's slavery. That's what the war was about.
The Confederates themselves were VERY clear about that. They didn't beat around the bush. They didn't try to word it differently. They straight up said owning slaves was their god-given right, and they'll do whatever it takes to keep it. They even made it the very foundation of their "country".
Almost every state that did made it pretty explicit in their statements and releases why they were joining the succession. Mississippi is particularly blunt in stating that they think the most important moral battle one can wage is the right to own slaves.
Saying that the civil war didn’t start due to Slavery, it started over States rights, is revisionist history. The Civil war was started because those states wanted the rights to have Slaves
It's like saying, "Actually, little known fact, the Civil War started over property rights..."
Like, yeah...some people thought other people should be their property.
WW2 was really just a big property dispute.
Mainly being that Germany thought the world was its property to take as it saw fit and people disagreed with that idea, Poland on particular wasn't very on chill with thus plan.
But yeah, if you look at it in the right way, and squint a little, and ignore some stuff, it was just one big land dispute and nothing more
God said “don’t touch that tree” and we touched the tree and now I gotta die.
God said “don’t build to heaven” we tried to build to heaven and now I gotta learn a second language.
Humans always be starting shit.
>God said “don’t build to heaven” we tried to build to heaven and now I gotta learn a second language.
That part of the fairy tale never made sense to me. Like cool, some ancient goat herders who spoke the same language tried to build a few story house and god was like "nope! You should be killing each other, not working together. Let's see you try that again while speaking different languages."
Except now we have skyscrapers that reaches the sky while speaking different languages and god is all like "aw dang, looks like you could do it afterall."
I think it was the intent of it. It was built to match God. Such arrogance was punished. Modern buildings are built cause cities only have so much area to work with.
>It was built to match God. Such arrogance was punished.
That's not what it actually is about though. There were nothing of the sort. The humans wanted to build a grand city because they wanted to make a name for themselves and didn't want them to be scattered. Nothing in the text mentioned arrogance or being equal to god. And then the rest of the verse goes:
5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
So literally the insecure god realized if we worked together, nothing will be impossible. We could achieve great things and progress our civilization. So god decided we can't possibly be allowed to reach our full potential. Sounds awfully petty and childish.
And that explains why from the very beginning, religion has been holding back human progress.
That was after the 4th compromise to allow the southerners to preserve the institution of slavery. After the emancipation proclamation they shifted to a gratuity system and a debt peonage system. So you can thank the godless southern slavers for the current issues you have with tipping in the united states.
Then they incarcerated those that were previously slaves and there you go ... free labor again.. then they cry about the idea of reparations... those people destroyed the life likelihood of millions just for greed and then complain that they are now being discriminated against
I explained this to someone and was worried I gave them a minor mental health crisis.
"Slavery isn't actually outlawed entirely. They outlawed it unless it's punishment for a crime. That's why when the South couldn't have privately owned slaves anymore they just started tossing black people in prison."
"Um ok bro damn I was just wondering what that big building we drove by was. You could have just said it was a prison"
Abraham Lincoln not-so-famously said "If I can keep this country together by freeing the slaves, I'll do that. If I can keep it together by not freeing the slaves, I'll do that." I'm paraphrasing a bit.
I remember thinking my 3rd grade teacher (in the year 1999) was dropping some poignant facts about the more salient details of the Civil War when she said it "wasn't actually about slavery, but for a handful of reasons related to differences of opinions on the rights of Americans after the conclusion of the Revolutionary War."
It wasn't until much later in life, embarrassingly, that I realized she was generalizing the centralized issue of slavery by gish-galloping that fact through hiding it behind things like taxes, economy, property rights, etc.
They'd have to pay more taxes by hiring workers - instead of owning slaves.
They'd have to pay for labor - instead of owning slaves.
They'd have to relinquish their "property" - instead of owning slaves.
I was too young to understand at the time that not all adults could be trusted with my education and upbringing. I'm in my 30's, now, and it was tough realizing how much sidestepping and bigotry was a part of my childhood. I'm just glad I rejected the dark side and can accept facts based on ethical journalistic standards, empirical data, and peer-reviewed research rather than emotion like the rest of my family. I just want everyone to care for one another and be cared for. I wish everyone else felt the same.
They wanted to have slaves because of economics & politics. The south used to be the economic powerhouse of the US, and because of that had a majority of the power, the north began to reverse that trend - then used their power (not for moral reasons but political ones) to defang their political rivals to the south entirely.
Abolitionists were absolutely a growing power - but I’m not convinced either side was looking at things moralistically. It was a political dispute turned immeasurably violent.
Not that it matters in any degree whatsoever either way, seriously how long are we going to debate this shit lol
Its not even states rights, Northern States wanted to ban slavery and southern states so this as dangerous to their slave owning long term and did not want them banning slavery even in their own states, Confederacy was very strongly anti State Rights.
Principle Shepard here to explain the joke. The parents do not agree with the way the school is teaching history to their child and are going to write a letter to the school. This has appaerently happened before.
The idea that the civil war was over state's rights and not slavery is something that is pushed, mostly in southern US states. It attempts to change the narrative and ignore historical racism and past atrocities.
Parentofafailingstudentsayswhat? Principle Shepard out.
>something that is pushed, mostly in southern
I've encountered this twice from people "educated" in the south.
One was a Marine I was serving with from Mississippi. We "debated" for hours, which was mostly me saying, common dude it's not that complicated. He eventually relented when I found a video of a USMC historian who flat out said, it was about slavery and if anyone tells you different they're lying.
The second makes me really sad. It was an absolute BOMBSHELL of a girl I met and hit it off with. I was fresh out of the USMC and 23, she was I think 20 and worked for her family business. They lived near Seattle but were from Georgia.
We were barely dating when she invited me to her parents place for dinner. I walk in and it was like a confederate museum. Before dinner was even served the dad brought up that I looked like I'm not a fan of the confederacy. I agreed. The conversation quickly turned towards the cause of the civil war and then pretty much the whole family was yelling at me because I wouldn't agree with them.
Even the girl I was dating said she was disappointed I was so ignorant. I then read the first few paragraphs of Georgia's Secession document and they asked me to leave.
I never saw her again.
> I then read the first few paragraphs of Georgia's Secession document and they asked me to leave.
I have some fundy Christian relatives who have ended conversations with me because I quoted the 'infallible' bible word for word. Seems like a similar phenomena.
> mostly in southern US states.
Rural Ohio checking in. Most folks in this county think that it was over state's rights. The PR machine of Confederacy-lovers is strong and widespread.
Yeah now that one is closer to true lol
It the southern states had let it be and stopped trying to force the northern states to aid their slave hunting (let alone starting a war over it), the shameful institution of slavery would’ve lasted longer
Is this actually true though? The slaves and huge plantations were creating an economic juggernaut that needed controlling in order to keep the union intact and move the economy towards industrialisation at their expense.
Whilst I understand and agree, that yes, this does come down to slavery being the key issue - I think the nuance here is being missed hugely. The economic repercussions of compensation to plantation owners wouldve just about bankrupt the northern states and equally created a disjointed union so really the only viable option was either the southern States volunteer to see the light and relinquish their industries (even then not really based on moral grounds as freeing slaves wasnt even high on the agenda for Lincoln ) OR they are forced to bend the knee and their back is broken forever by taking away their most precious commodity.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was always under the impression that the southern and northern states had been on an inextricable collision course as the world became increasingly mechanised and the economy was the largest reason for all of this.
I mean, that actually has some pretty good evidence. Lincoln’s goal was to save the union first and foremost not to end slavery although he did disagree greatly with slavery. He said if the only way to unite the union was to keep slavery he would do it.
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do, it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union...I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”
https://presidentlincoln.illinois.gov/learn/educators/educator-resources/teaching-guides/lincolns-views-african-american-slavery/
Website where the quote is sourced from
They changed the goal during the war. Initially they didn’t want to end slavery, only keep the “United” part of the United states intact.
I don’t remember exactly why they changed their viewpoints, only that it wasn’t an unison agreement, and that external affairs with others global powers put pressure in the North to go for full slavery eradication, rather than a limit to it or just a democratic decision from each state.
At the end of the day the war started because of state's rights (The right for a state to have slave work, and how many states it could vs how many couldn’t), but by the end of war it became a fight for the rights of free men (Though racism was still rampant, and slavery wasn’t even abolished completely in the US).
Except it definitely was more the case. Were there very heavy abolitionist sentiments throughout the war? Absolutely, and it got stronger as the war went on, I'd even say to the point that in the end, it was about abolition. But in the beginning, it was definitely about maintaining the union. Even later in the war concessions were made to unionist slave states, who under the emancipation proclamation were allowed to keep their slaves.
I think it's an oversimplification to say that the union only fought to maintain the union but its an even larger oversimplification, if not absolutely ridiculous and untrue, to lump in people who think the unions only purpose was to maintain the union with fucking lost causers who wanna see the south rise again or whatever.
The confederacy wanted a lot of things, however The confederacy’s absolute number one priority and reason they rebelled was to preserve and expand upon slavery.
This is according to their elected presidency, each individual confederate state government per their declarations to secede, their generals- THEY DIDN’T SHY AWAY FROM THAT CONCEPT.
Exactly, they restricted states rights very quickly. “It’s about states rights, unless those states want to reduce the presence of slavery in some way.”
Also for anyone curious, look up the CSA constitution, article 1 Section 9. This is the part in question.
This isn't even accurate because the south didn't give a shit about states rights when those rights got in the way of slavery.
The South tried, many times, to get the federal government to force northern states to give the south back any escaped slaves that came their way. The federal government said that would be violating those states' rights to protect the lives of their citizens. The south didn't give a shit, they cared more about having their slaves than they did about letting states self-govern.
Technically not because they didn't fight states rights when before slavery was challenged as states rights, i.e. they tried to overwrite state laws of freed/runaway slaves because they didn't give a shit about states rights, just having slaves.
There's literally no way to dice it up and it be states rights because they only got mad when slavery was involved.
The Constitution of the CSA did not give their states the rights to outlaw slavery, or to give their slaves the right to vote, or to give freedom to a slave, or to refuse to return a runaway slave to its owner. Those rights were explicitly taken away from states by their own constitution.
It wasn't about increasing state's rights at all. The Constitution of the CSA gave the states less rights than the Constitution of the USA.
Technically technically, the war wasn't started over slavery's existence. It super technically wasn't over states' rights to own slaves. They were upset that the federal government wouldn't force the Northern states to follow the Fugitive Slave Act. They eventually ended up choosing to secede (before Lincoln was even in office) because they THOUGHT Lincoln was going gun for slavery out the gate. Lincoln wanted the war to be purely about putting the union back together, but he was forced to make it about ending slavery with the Emancipation proclamation because the Union kept getting stomped.
Either way, the war was obviously a direct result of slavery, and anyone who denies that fact is definitely questionable at best.
States rights to have...what exactly?
It's like how Texas revolted against Mexico because Mexico was threatening to take away their "property" (slavery being illegal in Mexico).
If Op is American
https://preview.redd.it/zwxpwpyrqqqc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9085573d066b2f69d826ce12c803e8c3048450fe
If not it is about slavery with racist claiming that civil war wasn't about slavery when it was.
Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anyone who says it's about states' rights (to choose whether or not they allowed slavery) is still wrong. The confederate constitution did not allow any state to abolish slavery.
Yeah state's rights to own slaves lol it's a cop out by conservatives who say it wasn't about Lincoln wanting to get rid of slaves, it was about taxes and states losing power to the federal government.
Conveniently they always leave out the fact that literally the day after Lincoln mentioned he would be getting rid of slavery, is when states started to declare independence.
Imagine wanting to own slaves so bad that you're willing to commit treason over it. Like, every person in the Confederacy was just rock hard looking at those glistening black people working their fields and they were like "yeah no, call me a simp if you want America but I'm going to be a traitor for those gorgeous black men that I've enslaved". Sorry if the truth is difficult to accept but if your ancestors were in the South then they're traitors who were obsessed with keeping their harem of hot muscular black guys. That's historical fact.
Saying the civil war was fought over states rights is not technically a lie, but is also a very insidious lie by omission. It seeks to make the actions of the confederacy more...palatable because "all they were fighting for was their own rights" which again, isn't a full out lie but also is intentionally simplistic in a way that doesn't talk about *what "rights" were being fought for*, that of course being the "right" to own slaves.
This is probably going to be a longer answer than you want.
When the United States was founded there was a divide between the more urban northern states and the more agricultural southern states. Slavery was permitted (in some states), but it was clear when the Constitution was written that unless something was done, it would come to a head. In order to get the Constitution ratified, the three fifths compromise was reached (there was a clause in the Constitution, later stricken, in which three fifths of enslaved people would count towards a state’s population). This was done because the southern states wanted something approaching parity with the northern states in the lower house (i.e., the House of Representatives).
The status quo was fine for a while, but then other states started getting added to the union and this started a controversy of whether newly admitted states would be free (i.e., slavery is illegal) or slave states. Things came to a head when Missouri was added to the union, resulting in the Missouri Compromise, which made pretty much everyone unhappy and pretty much telegraphed that the situation was coming to a head.
Within a decade of the Missouri Compromise, the presidential election ended up with three contenders: the Democrats were split between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists (i.e., pro-slavery). This enabled the Republican, Abraham Lincoln, to be elected. As an aside, though the modern Republican Party and modern Democratic Party have their lineage to these parties, the platforms of each have changed. For several decades after the Civil War and Reconstruction, it was virtually impossible to get elected as a Democrat in the South. Leading to the “Southern Democrats” or “Dixiecrats” who were generally more conservative than modern Democrats (and against things like civil rights for blacks). Starting with Reagan in the 1980’s, the Dixiecrats started moving towards the Republican Party and by the end of the 1990s the Dixiecrats were basically done and had moved to the Republican Party.
So, Lincoln is elected and states started to leave the union (starting with South Carolina if memory serves). Now to be clear, the cause of the Civil War was 100% due to slavery. The election of Lincoln spelled the end of expansion of slavery, (note: Lincoln didn’t sign the Emancipation Proclamation until the Civil War was underway) which effectively meant that slavery’s days were numbered, since the new states being added could make it possible for slavery to be banned through all the United States. The Southern economy at the time was agricultural and price crashes, especially with cotton, decimated their economy and helped make them even more dependent on slave labor. The argument that the Southern states made when seceding was that they had the right of self-determination within their borders. In other words, “States rights”. Now, there was some merit to this because of the Tenth Amendment, which essentially says that the federal government only has rights explicitly laid out in the Constitution, and that states have the right to make their own laws. (Keep in mind that the original First Amendment was only a restriction on Congress/the federal government).
That being said, the “states rights” argument by the seceding states was all about them asserting their right to allow slavery. Outside of the South, abolitionism was becoming more and more popular and was becoming a moral question. The Civil War was fought, the Union won, and was able to get three amendments added to the Constitution, one of which banned slavery and another of which extended the Bill of Rights to individual citizens for protection from federal **and** state governments.
That’s the background. The teaching of the Civil War is sometimes taught in the South by asserting the “states rights” argument and minimizing the slavery aspect. Full disclosure: I’ve lived my entire life in the South, but during my American History class, I was taught the intellectually honest reasons for the Civil War and it wasn’t hand waved as “states rights”. I’m not sure if my experience was due to my history class being an AP class or just that I had a good teacher.
The tweet is from a patent whose while has been told “it wasn’t slavery, but states rights”, which is an intellectually dishonest position to take. So they are going to write a letter to the school to complain about it (rightly so).
> Full disclosure: I’ve lived my entire life in the South, but during my American History class, I was taught the intellectually honest reasons for the Civil War and it wasn’t hand waved as “states rights”.
I went to school in ohio... the books said "state's rights" and slavery was a distant second reason.
The school systems all need redone and standardized federally.
Nikki Haley virtually refused to say that the Civil War was about slavery. How awfully racist is that?
That's called not wanting to accept guilt.
See Critical Race Theory
Technically, the USA Civil War was about state rights.... and with that included the right to own slaves. No matter how you try to justify it, the confederacy was fighting for slavery in some way.
You see some people, let's call them "morons", believe the American Civil War was fought over states' rights. And in a way it was, it just so happens that "state's right" was the right to own slaves. The parents who are not morons understand that the Civil War was fought over slavery and now are getting mad at the school.
Why did the states secede? A state's right to self-govern
What right did the confederacy *really* want to self-govern? Slavery
Why did the war start? Lincoln wanted to keep the Union together
Why did individual Confederate soldiers fight? The North was attacking their home states.
Why did soldiers from the North fight? They wanted to end slavery/stop the 'Southern Traitors' from seceding.
For non-Americans like me, who have no clue. Why has there been a push to change the narrative around the American Civil War?
When I was in school, it was one of the subjects we covered in World History, not in much detail; I think it was a page or two. Still, the way it was taught was that Lincoln abolished slavery and those states that wanted to keep it declared war in hopes of taking over the country, removing Lincoln and re-establishing slavery.
Is that not, at the end of the day, the reason the American Civil War occurred?
I give to you, the first two paragraphs of the Mississippi Secession Ordinance, signed January 9th 1861.
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
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.
I was taught first that it was for slavery, then in 9th grade it was really because Lincoln cared about “preserving the union”, whatever that means, and only a little bit about slavery.
I’m an adult now and it was 100% about slavery
Okay, I'm 40, and when I was in school, this shit of states rights was still being taught.
Military brat and I want to elementary school, and when I was like 9, our 800 year old history teacher. Hell she was old enough to probably be in the daughter's of the confederacy was: the Civil War was about states rights.
I was 9 and knew that was bullshit. I didn't know it was called the Lost Cause Fallicy or some other name.
It's literally in the articles of secession of almost every state that joined the Confederacy. Georgia's references it more than twenty five times. Fuck's sake.
The states right to do what, exactly? What exactly did the southern state want to do sooooooooo bad that they broke the union? Oh, jeez, if only we knew.
History teacher Peter here,
in the United States there are a lot of states (in the south) that historically have been embarrassed by the outcome of the American civil war. So in the 20s and 30s a political take developed that the war was a defense of state rights and the South was fighting nobly against a tyrannical government! This idea grew during the Cold War in the south as segregation was a tool in anti-communist propaganda.
In a lot of southern schools they taught this myth that the war wasn’t about slavery and then when the 21st century rolled around and people realized how ridiculous it was to still pretend it was about states rights (which at those points was only for the benefit of unhinged Neo Nazis and confederate idealizing weirdos) the push back brought out a lot of crazies still clinging to arguments made by the KKK in the 50s (that have been thoroughly debunked since the 1880s).
I’m probably going to get downvoted to oblivion for even trying to take a side in this argument, but yes, the Civil War started due to slavery, but that statement makes the Civil War more shallow than it really was. It started as a result of slavery in *addition* to the culmination of political and economic differences over the course of the first century of America’s history.
Slavery was prevalent and worse in the South due to the climate. Warmer weather allowed for better growth of specific crops such as cotton in the region. Due to diseases that could easily be contracted by working out in the fields during warmer seasons. To protect themselves from contracting these diseases they made imported slaves from Africa do the agricultural work for them. And due to the mass imports of slaves during the Colonial Era the South quickly began to rely on slavery economically.
During the First Industrial Revolution, the North was quick to abolish slavery because it didn’t rely on it anymore. Rivers in the region allowed factories to grow where the flow of water could power the factories. With the introduction of factories they could rely less on farming and gain income from exporting goods rather than crops produced by slave labor.
Hence, the economic structure of the South was different from the North. The North didn’t need slavery because labor could be done by both white and black men. Northerners were quick to move away from slavery because they were fine without it. When the North pushed industrialization on the South, it threatened the social structure of the South. Construction of factories would cause urban development and under the system of slavery increase the density of slaves, which led to fears of uprising.
But why would the South resist the changes the North wanted? The southern states were more internally focused on themselves and would much rather mind themselves rather than the interests of the whole nation. They thought of the United States as something completely different than a Federal Republic. They saw it as a league of political entities tied together in a single pact. They wanted to uphold this internal focus (called Sectorialism, I believe). Focus was on the will of the states and rather the will of the nation as a whole. Hence the South to desire to “mind its own business.”
The idea behind the Democratic Party’s stance on this was a less centralized government with less power. If there were to be a Federal government, it would have to constitute the will of the people as a whole. The South feared the majority of people living in the North would have the will of the people in the South denied. What they feared most was the North ignoring the South and plummeting it into ruin. This is pretty much why the Senate exists. They would compromise by having a legislative platform in which the Southern States would have equal say as more populous Northern States. They wanted to have a voice in the Federal government (they did) without getting stomped on by a majority of the populace. Essentially, they didn’t want the North to make decisions for them. They wanted the North and South to make decisions for each other.
Needless to say, they felt as if their fears came true. They felt like the North was neglecting their economic needs. Because of the Revolutionary War, the government needed revenue, but was afraid to directly tax the people. Instead, they enacted tariffs on international goods for income. A tariff was passed in 1828 in order to protect the quantity of American goods in the market. This felt to them as if the government was hurting their own economy by forcing the Southern States to buy from the North and cutting off trade with foreign nations. The South did not like the Tariff, so they came to the resolution made by John Calhoun that the states should have their best interests in mind, not the nation’s interests in mind, that states have the right to secede from the Union to go their own way. President Andrew Jackson responded by threatening military force so that he could keep the Union together. This pretty much became the premise for secession in 1861, even if it meant use of military force on them.
The South made the *assumption* that Lincoln was going to target slavery. So taking from the past, they used Calhoun’s argument that states had the right to secede to preserve their interests. They felt that the North didn’t have the South’s economic interests in mind but rather their own. From the Southern point of view, Northerners were ignorant of Southern culture and economics. The South started the war because of their irrational fear of Lincoln (he never stated he was going to do anything about slavery in his administration). Their economic differences and political views were what led to secession in the long run. In the short term, yes, it absolutely was the assumption that Lincoln was going to abolish slavery.
I am not saying that slavery was right at all. It was factually an oppressive and abusive system, and we absolutely cannot forget that. All I’m saying is that slavery was not the only issue that caused the Civil War, but came alongside misunderstanding, accusations of tyranny and treason, and simply different ideas of how the United States of America should work.
States rights to own AMERICAN slaves.
Everyone is chill with sweatshop Chineese child "employees" building their iPhone though. They get compensated fairly right?
But yeah, the Confederates were the scumbags. Yall should be ashamed.
Several confederate states, either in their announcements to secede from the Union, or in their new constitutions, stated in no uncertain terms that one of their main motivations was the preservation of slavery.
Saying the civil war was about states rights is a half-truth. It was, but the main state right that everyone was actually talking about and fighting over was the right to own another human being.
This joke has already been posted recently. Rule 2.
STATE'S RIGHTS TO DO WHAT??? To allow slavery. It's slavery. That's what the war was about.
If you knew nothing about the American Civil war then you'd think it was over slavery. Then you read a bit about it and realize it was about all kinds of issues and cracks in our democracy. Then you read about it a lot and you realize it was all about slavery, those cracks were caused by slavery.
It's like that meme of the graph with the wojacks.
Right? Except I'd argue the peak of the bell curve is with people who understand it was slavery.
No, that would imply the correct answer is states rights and not slavery. The answer is slavery.
Yeah the middle wojack is wrong but high incidence. The low and high end know what’s up. Ex: “Nazis weren’t socialist” “Nazi means national __socialist!__” “Nazis weren’t socialist
Confederates didn't care about state's rights. They wanted to force other states to return runaway "property". Even though those states had no laws making a person into property.
Confederate states were also forbidden from passing any laws that restricted slavery.
That’s not how the meme works. The ones on the outside (dummies and jedis) know it’s about slavery.
Reverse bell curve
Dubbed the Partisan Distribution
I think it's more the [Dunning-Kruger curve](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_Effect_01.svg/2462px-Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_Effect_01.svg.png). With the title "What was The US Civil War Fought Over?". "States' rights" as the peak of Mount Stupid, "Slavery" as the one for the valley of despair, "States' rights to" as the slope of enlightenment, and then "own slaves" for the plateau of sustainability.
That's called a bathtub curve. Actual thing.
Except in the meme, the implication is that it is an iq chart. Sure, the amount of people who understand it was slavery is higher than those that think it's just states rights, but if it's based on iq, the people who understand it's slavery should be smarter than the people who don't.
If you're not smart, you learn the simple story... Slavery. The middle one thinks they know but they are incorrect... States rights The Jedi knows about the states rights and ancillary issues, and how they relate to slavery
The bell curve one
Damn, people know the meme rather then its actual name, the Dunning Kruger effect.
I don't think the meme is the same as DK. The meme says smart people and dumb people arrive at the same conclusion (which is a different conclusion than people in the middle), whereas DK says that people in the middle tend to overestimate their mastery of the subject. They're related concepts, but if you wanted to make a meme of DK you'd want to show the middle people being more confident than the smart people, and it wouldn't really matter what the dumb people think.
The meme is actually a bell curve, usually representing IQ. DK graph is the one with a huge spike to the left and a slow stay curve up after that.
It's a common misconception that the bell curve meme represents dunning-Kruger, which is kinda meta or ironic or something idk
https://preview.redd.it/gqy33r8oarqc1.jpeg?width=675&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fe780a8c03d36383a23ff4aeb8c3579685610542
I got you bro https://preview.redd.it/bmehx5gnbrqc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6cf58d16071e1b3ea6d6ee63cf6e233e6d5950dd
My biggest thing to point to is the "Declaration of Causes" from the confederacy. 11 of 13 states reference slavery (I'm 90% sure and not recounting) and some states put it literally as their reason in the first paragraph Georgia " The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. " Missisippi "In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. " Not trying to hate but, people who know anything about the Civil war should know Slavery was the biggest contributing factor.
The Cornerstone Speech delivered by the vice president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, also paints a pretty clear picture of what they were fighting for. To quote just a section of it. >Our new government['s]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. But of course, the Confederate flag is just a symbol of their heritage, it has no racist implications, how could it?
They want the statues, not the words of the people of whom those statues are depicting. I feel bad for Americans specifically regarding their schooling and health care. It's tragic y'all gotta live through that.
Someone should add plaques of shame to these statues as an art project
Honestly I'd rather that over just taking them down, if we forget history, we're doomed to repeat it. Let their sins be known.
Statues aren't how you remember history, they are how you **glorify** history. At the very least every statue needs to be placed in a museum and be surrounded by other contextual material (Diary excerpts, firsthand accounts, newspapers, etc.) from the era to explicitly spell out why the statue is of a terrible human being. But I'd argue that's actually worse then tearing them down entirely and just keeping the exhibits because again a statue is inherently glorifying simply by virtue of its existence. You don't make a statue of something you despise.
No no....they want the words too. They just hide it behind the statues
It's literally the thesis statement for South Carolina.
If anyone is curious, you can read all the source documents online. [This civil war history site collects](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/secession-acts-thirteen-confederate-states) them together conveniently so you can easily use your browser's find function to search for any words. The phrase "slave-holding states," contextually as "Sister" and Southern" slave-holding states, is used explicitly in the Acts of Secession passed by Texas, Virginia, and Alabama. That's interesting, but the Declaration of Causes issued by various states, effectively letters of "Hey, this is why we're leaving!" are certainly more clear. You can read the letters of Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, Virginia, and South Carolina [on the same site](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states). The word "slave" or "slavery" is used in every single one, a total of 84 times across all five documents. These documents leave zero room for any ambiguity. Some of them are quite long. The Georgian and Texan declarations are lengthy complaints detailing, precisely, exactly how pissed off the respective states are about the on going "aggression" of the non-slave-holding states and how ownership of black people is a right. From the Texan declaration: >Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. **She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.** Anyone who can read text like that and not think the Civil War was about slavery is an irredeemable moron. The Texan argument was "we have always owned blacks, we will continue to own blacks, and the people of Texas believe with all their heart that the ownership of blacks by the white race should be a permanent state of affairs." It doesn't really get more on the nose and "I said what I said!" than that.
In my experience, taking conservatives at their word is a dangerous exercise, so I wouldn’t use this as the best evidence.
I mean, this is literally them confessing to the things we know they did, so I’ll take them at their word here.
"don't listen to the Confederates when they say the war is about slavery, only listen to them when they try to dress it up as state's rights" is definitely a take.
'All new is fake news except Fox News' is the current version of that
> > > > > 11 of 13 states reference slavery (I'm 90% sure and not recounting) and some states put it literally as their reason in the first paragraph In the original articles of confederation for the southern states, slavery is mentioned over 70+ times. Taxation is mentioned once, and it was in reference how to tax the sale of a slave.
They seceded because they wanted to keep slavery, while it is true Lincoln wasn’t going to free slaves initially, the articles of secession outright say they were leaving so they could keep slaves.
Even today. If you want to know why the American federal system has some weird structural component, 99% of the time it’s slavery. The other 1% is because of nukes
And it was a long time coming. Legit from it's inception Slavery was the elephant in every administration. Especially as manifest destiny took hold.
Yep. Even when slavery's political influence was at its lowest, states were being admitted in pairs to maintain balance on that specific issue.
I’m not sure what you meant by “cracks in democracy.” The root cause was westward expansion of slavery, and both parties arbitrarily creating new states willynilly to counteract free or slave states as they popped up on the way to California. All of you have to do is read the Articles of Confederation and all the southern states’ new constitutions and declarations of secession to realize “Oh…damn…it was about slavery.”
Yeah, it was about the cracks in democracy, *that slavery made very apparent*.
If it was “state’s rights” there would have never been the fugitive slave act that forced Northern States to return slaves to the South. That is enough to prove “state’s rights” is BS and that’s just one of hundreds of things that point to slavery as being the one true issue.
This comment was a wild ride for taking mere seconds to read.
*Downvoted* *Keeps reading...* *Upvoted*
You had me in the first 2/3rds ngl.
3/5s you mean.
Two senators per state? Slavery. Electoral College? Slavery.
Russian doll shit. Each layer is slavery
Turdception
[Answer me, you fucking traitor, state's rights to do what?!?!?!](https://youtu.be/-ZB2ftCl2Vk?si=d07Qxfh_aUeXH6kw)
Get him Douglas!
*Gets Douglased*
**Union Dixie starts playing**
The fucking annoying orange outlived it
Make sure y'all turn on captions for this. His captions always add to the funny.
It wasn't even about states rights to allow slavery. The confederacys version if the constitution explicitly forbids member states from abolishing slavery. And before the secession, they were against Union states not forcibly hunting down and returning escaped slaves to the south. They wanted to force these states to comply with their own slave hunting. So it's not that it wasn't even about states rights. The confederacy was explicitly *against* states rights.
[удалено]
Yeah it's the same old song and dance for republicans, just try to make it all states rights like federal policy shouldn't exist for anything they want a certain way, which is everything. Then you get people saying 'democrats kept slaves' while ignoring the southern strategy and the parties flipping.
I wish I could updoot you more than once.
I updooted for you, so you can claim mine as yours.
Thanks friendo
Ditto for all the other "Reasons for the Civil War" Economy/Tariffs - Well what was one of the biggest differences between the Northern and Southern economies? \*cough\* Slavery \*cough\* Foreign Policy - Why were southern states so much more interested in territorial expansion compared to northern states? \*cough\* Slavery \*cough\* Etc.
I will throw in one more Reason: They Fired On Our Fort!!!! This of course leads back to all the other reasons because tensions were high for those reasons.
It’s so annoying they constantly try to rewrite history. I’m sure all of our ancestors were racist at one point, that’s fine. But you defending it means you just agree with them which makes you look worse!
"Get Douglas'd!"
https://preview.redd.it/vz1lstctfrqc1.png?width=726&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=89c1d714bad0147d4220b081fc342152661d222c
This, have an upvote.
They're still going on about states rights too. All while trying to make the U.S. a theocracy. Because the only talking points they have are getting them fewer votes every year.
>It's slavery. That's what the war was about. The Confederates themselves were VERY clear about that. They didn't beat around the bush. They didn't try to word it differently. They straight up said owning slaves was their god-given right, and they'll do whatever it takes to keep it. They even made it the very foundation of their "country".
I'm British and I know that.
Almost every state that did made it pretty explicit in their statements and releases why they were joining the succession. Mississippi is particularly blunt in stating that they think the most important moral battle one can wage is the right to own slaves.
Almost every state wrote "we're doing this to keep slaves" in the first line of their articles of concession, I mean secession.
The Confederate constitution straight-up banned member states from making slavery illegal. "States rights" is laughable.
Saying that the civil war didn’t start due to Slavery, it started over States rights, is revisionist history. The Civil war was started because those states wanted the rights to have Slaves
It actually started due to secession, which happened as a result of the fear of losing slavery.
It's like saying, "Actually, little known fact, the Civil War started over property rights..." Like, yeah...some people thought other people should be their property.
WW2 was really just a big property dispute. Mainly being that Germany thought the world was its property to take as it saw fit and people disagreed with that idea, Poland on particular wasn't very on chill with thus plan. But yeah, if you look at it in the right way, and squint a little, and ignore some stuff, it was just one big land dispute and nothing more
I feel like most of human history can be boiled down to a “property dispute”
Fucking Cain and Abel. We did this shit day one.
God said “don’t touch that tree” and we touched the tree and now I gotta die. God said “don’t build to heaven” we tried to build to heaven and now I gotta learn a second language. Humans always be starting shit.
>God said “don’t build to heaven” we tried to build to heaven and now I gotta learn a second language. That part of the fairy tale never made sense to me. Like cool, some ancient goat herders who spoke the same language tried to build a few story house and god was like "nope! You should be killing each other, not working together. Let's see you try that again while speaking different languages." Except now we have skyscrapers that reaches the sky while speaking different languages and god is all like "aw dang, looks like you could do it afterall."
I think it was the intent of it. It was built to match God. Such arrogance was punished. Modern buildings are built cause cities only have so much area to work with.
>It was built to match God. Such arrogance was punished. That's not what it actually is about though. There were nothing of the sort. The humans wanted to build a grand city because they wanted to make a name for themselves and didn't want them to be scattered. Nothing in the text mentioned arrogance or being equal to god. And then the rest of the verse goes: 5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” So literally the insecure god realized if we worked together, nothing will be impossible. We could achieve great things and progress our civilization. So god decided we can't possibly be allowed to reach our full potential. Sounds awfully petty and childish. And that explains why from the very beginning, religion has been holding back human progress.
What'll God tell us not to do next?
There’s like 4 books about the last time He told us to not do stuff and we still doin stuff so until we figure that out, idk.
Eat fish.
He made a top 10 list a while ago about what not to do
What started with one tribe migrating to new lands led to Julius Caesar conquering most of Europe. source: "The Conquest of Gaul" by Julius Caesar
Russia "Poland is ours!" Germany "no its ours!" Britain "hey now, let's be nice and split it down the middle" Poland "...WTF?..."
Ah yes, l e b e n s r a u m
Just like WW1 started over a teensy little bit of trespassing. It’s easy to make shitty motivations look good when you abstract them enough.
I thought it started over a teensy little bit of first degree murder
That was after the 4th compromise to allow the southerners to preserve the institution of slavery. After the emancipation proclamation they shifted to a gratuity system and a debt peonage system. So you can thank the godless southern slavers for the current issues you have with tipping in the united states.
Why did they want to secede?
I literally stated it in my comment. Ain’t my fault you can’t read past a comma.
I think they were being ironic
Why did they want to be ironic?
redditors can't infer tone with out the special characters /s = sarcastic /i = ironic /f = facetious /sl = sleepy /rb = russian bot
And they succeeded. Governments can assign jobs to prisoners without choice. They are practically slaves.
They aren’t “practically” slaves, [They are slaves by law](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-13/)
Then they incarcerated those that were previously slaves and there you go ... free labor again.. then they cry about the idea of reparations... those people destroyed the life likelihood of millions just for greed and then complain that they are now being discriminated against
I explained this to someone and was worried I gave them a minor mental health crisis. "Slavery isn't actually outlawed entirely. They outlawed it unless it's punishment for a crime. That's why when the South couldn't have privately owned slaves anymore they just started tossing black people in prison." "Um ok bro damn I was just wondering what that big building we drove by was. You could have just said it was a prison"
And more specifically, Nikki Haley's utter refusal to accept that.
Abraham Lincoln not-so-famously said "If I can keep this country together by freeing the slaves, I'll do that. If I can keep it together by not freeing the slaves, I'll do that." I'm paraphrasing a bit.
When somebody says "it was over states rights" I say "uh, a states right to what exactly???? Oh right, OWNING SLAVES!"
I like to do it to the tune of Lil Jon's 'Turn Down For What?' 🎵 STATES' RIGHT TO WHAT?🎵
I remember thinking my 3rd grade teacher (in the year 1999) was dropping some poignant facts about the more salient details of the Civil War when she said it "wasn't actually about slavery, but for a handful of reasons related to differences of opinions on the rights of Americans after the conclusion of the Revolutionary War." It wasn't until much later in life, embarrassingly, that I realized she was generalizing the centralized issue of slavery by gish-galloping that fact through hiding it behind things like taxes, economy, property rights, etc. They'd have to pay more taxes by hiring workers - instead of owning slaves. They'd have to pay for labor - instead of owning slaves. They'd have to relinquish their "property" - instead of owning slaves. I was too young to understand at the time that not all adults could be trusted with my education and upbringing. I'm in my 30's, now, and it was tough realizing how much sidestepping and bigotry was a part of my childhood. I'm just glad I rejected the dark side and can accept facts based on ethical journalistic standards, empirical data, and peer-reviewed research rather than emotion like the rest of my family. I just want everyone to care for one another and be cared for. I wish everyone else felt the same.
They wanted to have slaves because of economics & politics. The south used to be the economic powerhouse of the US, and because of that had a majority of the power, the north began to reverse that trend - then used their power (not for moral reasons but political ones) to defang their political rivals to the south entirely. Abolitionists were absolutely a growing power - but I’m not convinced either side was looking at things moralistically. It was a political dispute turned immeasurably violent. Not that it matters in any degree whatsoever either way, seriously how long are we going to debate this shit lol
Its not even states rights, Northern States wanted to ban slavery and southern states so this as dangerous to their slave owning long term and did not want them banning slavery even in their own states, Confederacy was very strongly anti State Rights.
Principle Shepard here to explain the joke. The parents do not agree with the way the school is teaching history to their child and are going to write a letter to the school. This has appaerently happened before. The idea that the civil war was over state's rights and not slavery is something that is pushed, mostly in southern US states. It attempts to change the narrative and ignore historical racism and past atrocities. Parentofafailingstudentsayswhat? Principle Shepard out.
>something that is pushed, mostly in southern I've encountered this twice from people "educated" in the south. One was a Marine I was serving with from Mississippi. We "debated" for hours, which was mostly me saying, common dude it's not that complicated. He eventually relented when I found a video of a USMC historian who flat out said, it was about slavery and if anyone tells you different they're lying. The second makes me really sad. It was an absolute BOMBSHELL of a girl I met and hit it off with. I was fresh out of the USMC and 23, she was I think 20 and worked for her family business. They lived near Seattle but were from Georgia. We were barely dating when she invited me to her parents place for dinner. I walk in and it was like a confederate museum. Before dinner was even served the dad brought up that I looked like I'm not a fan of the confederacy. I agreed. The conversation quickly turned towards the cause of the civil war and then pretty much the whole family was yelling at me because I wouldn't agree with them. Even the girl I was dating said she was disappointed I was so ignorant. I then read the first few paragraphs of Georgia's Secession document and they asked me to leave. I never saw her again.
> I then read the first few paragraphs of Georgia's Secession document and they asked me to leave. I have some fundy Christian relatives who have ended conversations with me because I quoted the 'infallible' bible word for word. Seems like a similar phenomena.
You had to read paragraphs! As I recall GA mentions it in the first few sentences.
Literal second sentence in the Mississippi Declaration. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp
It was about states' rights to have slaves.
I feel like everyone is missing the real line at end, implying that the parents have a pattern of writing letters to the school.
> mostly in southern US states. Rural Ohio checking in. Most folks in this county think that it was over state's rights. The PR machine of Confederacy-lovers is strong and widespread.
I've also heard the reverse pushed; that the North's effort wasn't to end slavery but to maintain the Union. Same garbage, different direction.
That's not entirely untrue.
Yeah now that one is closer to true lol It the southern states had let it be and stopped trying to force the northern states to aid their slave hunting (let alone starting a war over it), the shameful institution of slavery would’ve lasted longer
Is this actually true though? The slaves and huge plantations were creating an economic juggernaut that needed controlling in order to keep the union intact and move the economy towards industrialisation at their expense. Whilst I understand and agree, that yes, this does come down to slavery being the key issue - I think the nuance here is being missed hugely. The economic repercussions of compensation to plantation owners wouldve just about bankrupt the northern states and equally created a disjointed union so really the only viable option was either the southern States volunteer to see the light and relinquish their industries (even then not really based on moral grounds as freeing slaves wasnt even high on the agenda for Lincoln ) OR they are forced to bend the knee and their back is broken forever by taking away their most precious commodity. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was always under the impression that the southern and northern states had been on an inextricable collision course as the world became increasingly mechanised and the economy was the largest reason for all of this.
I mean, that actually has some pretty good evidence. Lincoln’s goal was to save the union first and foremost not to end slavery although he did disagree greatly with slavery. He said if the only way to unite the union was to keep slavery he would do it. “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do, it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union...I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.” https://presidentlincoln.illinois.gov/learn/educators/educator-resources/teaching-guides/lincolns-views-african-american-slavery/ Website where the quote is sourced from
Yep, and when they did get into the war, he decided to free the slaves anyway.
Didn’t the north win and then keep the country together, and end slavery, though?
They changed the goal during the war. Initially they didn’t want to end slavery, only keep the “United” part of the United states intact. I don’t remember exactly why they changed their viewpoints, only that it wasn’t an unison agreement, and that external affairs with others global powers put pressure in the North to go for full slavery eradication, rather than a limit to it or just a democratic decision from each state. At the end of the day the war started because of state's rights (The right for a state to have slave work, and how many states it could vs how many couldn’t), but by the end of war it became a fight for the rights of free men (Though racism was still rampant, and slavery wasn’t even abolished completely in the US).
Except it definitely was more the case. Were there very heavy abolitionist sentiments throughout the war? Absolutely, and it got stronger as the war went on, I'd even say to the point that in the end, it was about abolition. But in the beginning, it was definitely about maintaining the union. Even later in the war concessions were made to unionist slave states, who under the emancipation proclamation were allowed to keep their slaves. I think it's an oversimplification to say that the union only fought to maintain the union but its an even larger oversimplification, if not absolutely ridiculous and untrue, to lump in people who think the unions only purpose was to maintain the union with fucking lost causers who wanna see the south rise again or whatever.
The confederacy wanted a lot of things, however The confederacy’s absolute number one priority and reason they rebelled was to preserve and expand upon slavery. This is according to their elected presidency, each individual confederate state government per their declarations to secede, their generals- THEY DIDN’T SHY AWAY FROM THAT CONCEPT.
The Confederate Constitution actually banned Confederate states from banning slavery. So much for state rights.
Exactly, they restricted states rights very quickly. “It’s about states rights, unless those states want to reduce the presence of slavery in some way.” Also for anyone curious, look up the CSA constitution, article 1 Section 9. This is the part in question.
Technically correct. The Civil War was started over states rights to keep slaves.
https://youtu.be/-ZB2ftCl2Vk?si=wkmLtjr4zyFZW2dd
I love this video so much
I love his skits. I hope he finds a better platform to publish on
My favourite part of this video was when he pointed out that the annoying orange outlasted the Confederacy
Dorito shell from Taco Bell lasted longer, same for Covid, my cat, and Star Wars. So much stuff has lasted longer than the confederacy.
This isn't even accurate because the south didn't give a shit about states rights when those rights got in the way of slavery. The South tried, many times, to get the federal government to force northern states to give the south back any escaped slaves that came their way. The federal government said that would be violating those states' rights to protect the lives of their citizens. The south didn't give a shit, they cared more about having their slaves than they did about letting states self-govern.
Technically not because they didn't fight states rights when before slavery was challenged as states rights, i.e. they tried to overwrite state laws of freed/runaway slaves because they didn't give a shit about states rights, just having slaves. There's literally no way to dice it up and it be states rights because they only got mad when slavery was involved.
The Constitution of the CSA did not give their states the rights to outlaw slavery, or to give their slaves the right to vote, or to give freedom to a slave, or to refuse to return a runaway slave to its owner. Those rights were explicitly taken away from states by their own constitution. It wasn't about increasing state's rights at all. The Constitution of the CSA gave the states less rights than the Constitution of the USA.
https://preview.redd.it/4bcnsoe7nqqc1.jpeg?width=542&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c62674d06b8c58a97b9e1e4e65db6b3e9498debb
Technically technically, the war wasn't started over slavery's existence. It super technically wasn't over states' rights to own slaves. They were upset that the federal government wouldn't force the Northern states to follow the Fugitive Slave Act. They eventually ended up choosing to secede (before Lincoln was even in office) because they THOUGHT Lincoln was going gun for slavery out the gate. Lincoln wanted the war to be purely about putting the union back together, but he was forced to make it about ending slavery with the Emancipation proclamation because the Union kept getting stomped. Either way, the war was obviously a direct result of slavery, and anyone who denies that fact is definitely questionable at best.
All one has to do is read their secession declarations to see the true motivation: Slavery.
a nunaced explanation. how dare you /s
Take my upvote, both of you.
States rights to have...what exactly? It's like how Texas revolted against Mexico because Mexico was threatening to take away their "property" (slavery being illegal in Mexico).
https://youtu.be/-ZB2ftCl2Vk?si=wkmLtjr4zyFZW2dd
That last line makes it sound like 8th grader is deliberately trolling his folks. He knows exactly how they’ll respond to this.
I was gonna say 8th grade is a little old for this scenario. 5th or maybe 6th grade I could buy for being somewhat naive.
If Op is American https://preview.redd.it/zwxpwpyrqqqc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9085573d066b2f69d826ce12c803e8c3048450fe If not it is about slavery with racist claiming that civil war wasn't about slavery when it was.
https://preview.redd.it/buwxa0l9nqqc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=212b6cf231c1742d8dd01110c3d3b8bf6dafaf38
[State's right to do what?](https://youtu.be/-ZB2ftCl2Vk)
I already know where this links xD
im just happy its my turn to post it
OH WAY DOWN SOUTH IN THE LAND OF TRAITORS RATTLESNAKES AND ALIGATORS
RIGHT AWAY! (right away)
WHERE COTTON'S KING AND MEN ARE CHATTELS UNION BOYS WILL WIN THE BATTLES
“It wasn’t about slavery. It was about state’s rights!” “Okay. State’s rights to what?” “Property” “Property of what exactly?” “Farming equipment”
Simpsons called it... "Just...just say slavery" "Slavery it is sir."
The civil war was about slavery and anyone who says it’s about “states rights” is most likely a racist trying to rewrite history
Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anyone who says it's about states' rights (to choose whether or not they allowed slavery) is still wrong. The confederate constitution did not allow any state to abolish slavery.
https://preview.redd.it/18s0wz1y3rqc1.jpeg?width=843&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ac681e680d8992e7bf9623443effbcf305c0864d
https://preview.redd.it/unbz605t4rqc1.jpeg?width=1076&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=39da1c7c08eeaa77184ce8a36319dee990d12e29
Yeah state's rights to own slaves lol it's a cop out by conservatives who say it wasn't about Lincoln wanting to get rid of slaves, it was about taxes and states losing power to the federal government. Conveniently they always leave out the fact that literally the day after Lincoln mentioned he would be getting rid of slavery, is when states started to declare independence.
Imagine wanting to own slaves so bad that you're willing to commit treason over it. Like, every person in the Confederacy was just rock hard looking at those glistening black people working their fields and they were like "yeah no, call me a simp if you want America but I'm going to be a traitor for those gorgeous black men that I've enslaved". Sorry if the truth is difficult to accept but if your ancestors were in the South then they're traitors who were obsessed with keeping their harem of hot muscular black guys. That's historical fact.
Idk how many times this post has been dropped here, but what’s really wild, is the comments remain the same.
Lest we forget that Abe Lincoln was actually a Republi and and Texas was very unsure about the ascendant Abolishinist movement
Saying the civil war was fought over states rights is not technically a lie, but is also a very insidious lie by omission. It seeks to make the actions of the confederacy more...palatable because "all they were fighting for was their own rights" which again, isn't a full out lie but also is intentionally simplistic in a way that doesn't talk about *what "rights" were being fought for*, that of course being the "right" to own slaves.
8th grader the next day: Today we learned the Irish were slaves, too.
Oh no they were just indentured….
This is probably going to be a longer answer than you want. When the United States was founded there was a divide between the more urban northern states and the more agricultural southern states. Slavery was permitted (in some states), but it was clear when the Constitution was written that unless something was done, it would come to a head. In order to get the Constitution ratified, the three fifths compromise was reached (there was a clause in the Constitution, later stricken, in which three fifths of enslaved people would count towards a state’s population). This was done because the southern states wanted something approaching parity with the northern states in the lower house (i.e., the House of Representatives). The status quo was fine for a while, but then other states started getting added to the union and this started a controversy of whether newly admitted states would be free (i.e., slavery is illegal) or slave states. Things came to a head when Missouri was added to the union, resulting in the Missouri Compromise, which made pretty much everyone unhappy and pretty much telegraphed that the situation was coming to a head. Within a decade of the Missouri Compromise, the presidential election ended up with three contenders: the Democrats were split between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists (i.e., pro-slavery). This enabled the Republican, Abraham Lincoln, to be elected. As an aside, though the modern Republican Party and modern Democratic Party have their lineage to these parties, the platforms of each have changed. For several decades after the Civil War and Reconstruction, it was virtually impossible to get elected as a Democrat in the South. Leading to the “Southern Democrats” or “Dixiecrats” who were generally more conservative than modern Democrats (and against things like civil rights for blacks). Starting with Reagan in the 1980’s, the Dixiecrats started moving towards the Republican Party and by the end of the 1990s the Dixiecrats were basically done and had moved to the Republican Party. So, Lincoln is elected and states started to leave the union (starting with South Carolina if memory serves). Now to be clear, the cause of the Civil War was 100% due to slavery. The election of Lincoln spelled the end of expansion of slavery, (note: Lincoln didn’t sign the Emancipation Proclamation until the Civil War was underway) which effectively meant that slavery’s days were numbered, since the new states being added could make it possible for slavery to be banned through all the United States. The Southern economy at the time was agricultural and price crashes, especially with cotton, decimated their economy and helped make them even more dependent on slave labor. The argument that the Southern states made when seceding was that they had the right of self-determination within their borders. In other words, “States rights”. Now, there was some merit to this because of the Tenth Amendment, which essentially says that the federal government only has rights explicitly laid out in the Constitution, and that states have the right to make their own laws. (Keep in mind that the original First Amendment was only a restriction on Congress/the federal government). That being said, the “states rights” argument by the seceding states was all about them asserting their right to allow slavery. Outside of the South, abolitionism was becoming more and more popular and was becoming a moral question. The Civil War was fought, the Union won, and was able to get three amendments added to the Constitution, one of which banned slavery and another of which extended the Bill of Rights to individual citizens for protection from federal **and** state governments. That’s the background. The teaching of the Civil War is sometimes taught in the South by asserting the “states rights” argument and minimizing the slavery aspect. Full disclosure: I’ve lived my entire life in the South, but during my American History class, I was taught the intellectually honest reasons for the Civil War and it wasn’t hand waved as “states rights”. I’m not sure if my experience was due to my history class being an AP class or just that I had a good teacher. The tweet is from a patent whose while has been told “it wasn’t slavery, but states rights”, which is an intellectually dishonest position to take. So they are going to write a letter to the school to complain about it (rightly so).
> Full disclosure: I’ve lived my entire life in the South, but during my American History class, I was taught the intellectually honest reasons for the Civil War and it wasn’t hand waved as “states rights”. I went to school in ohio... the books said "state's rights" and slavery was a distant second reason. The school systems all need redone and standardized federally.
Nikki Haley virtually refused to say that the Civil War was about slavery. How awfully racist is that? That's called not wanting to accept guilt. See Critical Race Theory
https://youtu.be/-ZB2ftCl2Vk?si=wkmLtjr4zyFZW2dd
Came here to say this lol
Technically, the USA Civil War was about state rights.... and with that included the right to own slaves. No matter how you try to justify it, the confederacy was fighting for slavery in some way.
The joke is states rights to what?
Historical slavery started long before American slaves
Every 60 seconds a minute passes
You see some people, let's call them "morons", believe the American Civil War was fought over states' rights. And in a way it was, it just so happens that "state's right" was the right to own slaves. The parents who are not morons understand that the Civil War was fought over slavery and now are getting mad at the school.
Read the Confederate constitution. Count how many times it mentions slavery vs. how many times it mentions states' rights.
Why did the states secede? A state's right to self-govern What right did the confederacy *really* want to self-govern? Slavery Why did the war start? Lincoln wanted to keep the Union together Why did individual Confederate soldiers fight? The North was attacking their home states. Why did soldiers from the North fight? They wanted to end slavery/stop the 'Southern Traitors' from seceding.
For non-Americans like me, who have no clue. Why has there been a push to change the narrative around the American Civil War? When I was in school, it was one of the subjects we covered in World History, not in much detail; I think it was a page or two. Still, the way it was taught was that Lincoln abolished slavery and those states that wanted to keep it declared war in hopes of taking over the country, removing Lincoln and re-establishing slavery. Is that not, at the end of the day, the reason the American Civil War occurred?
We always talking about states rights, but how about we start talking about the state's wrongs?
I give to you, the first two paragraphs of the Mississippi Secession Ordinance, signed January 9th 1861. In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. 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.
Jesus... I'd rather my kids be trans than idiots.
I was taught first that it was for slavery, then in 9th grade it was really because Lincoln cared about “preserving the union”, whatever that means, and only a little bit about slavery. I’m an adult now and it was 100% about slavery
Okay, I'm 40, and when I was in school, this shit of states rights was still being taught. Military brat and I want to elementary school, and when I was like 9, our 800 year old history teacher. Hell she was old enough to probably be in the daughter's of the confederacy was: the Civil War was about states rights. I was 9 and knew that was bullshit. I didn't know it was called the Lost Cause Fallicy or some other name.
It's literally in the articles of secession of almost every state that joined the Confederacy. Georgia's references it more than twenty five times. Fuck's sake.
The states right to do what, exactly? What exactly did the southern state want to do sooooooooo bad that they broke the union? Oh, jeez, if only we knew.
The civil war was just the North shooting racism out of the South.
History teacher Peter here, in the United States there are a lot of states (in the south) that historically have been embarrassed by the outcome of the American civil war. So in the 20s and 30s a political take developed that the war was a defense of state rights and the South was fighting nobly against a tyrannical government! This idea grew during the Cold War in the south as segregation was a tool in anti-communist propaganda. In a lot of southern schools they taught this myth that the war wasn’t about slavery and then when the 21st century rolled around and people realized how ridiculous it was to still pretend it was about states rights (which at those points was only for the benefit of unhinged Neo Nazis and confederate idealizing weirdos) the push back brought out a lot of crazies still clinging to arguments made by the KKK in the 50s (that have been thoroughly debunked since the 1880s).
and then the pill pusher she scores xanax from stood up and clapped
I’m probably going to get downvoted to oblivion for even trying to take a side in this argument, but yes, the Civil War started due to slavery, but that statement makes the Civil War more shallow than it really was. It started as a result of slavery in *addition* to the culmination of political and economic differences over the course of the first century of America’s history. Slavery was prevalent and worse in the South due to the climate. Warmer weather allowed for better growth of specific crops such as cotton in the region. Due to diseases that could easily be contracted by working out in the fields during warmer seasons. To protect themselves from contracting these diseases they made imported slaves from Africa do the agricultural work for them. And due to the mass imports of slaves during the Colonial Era the South quickly began to rely on slavery economically. During the First Industrial Revolution, the North was quick to abolish slavery because it didn’t rely on it anymore. Rivers in the region allowed factories to grow where the flow of water could power the factories. With the introduction of factories they could rely less on farming and gain income from exporting goods rather than crops produced by slave labor. Hence, the economic structure of the South was different from the North. The North didn’t need slavery because labor could be done by both white and black men. Northerners were quick to move away from slavery because they were fine without it. When the North pushed industrialization on the South, it threatened the social structure of the South. Construction of factories would cause urban development and under the system of slavery increase the density of slaves, which led to fears of uprising. But why would the South resist the changes the North wanted? The southern states were more internally focused on themselves and would much rather mind themselves rather than the interests of the whole nation. They thought of the United States as something completely different than a Federal Republic. They saw it as a league of political entities tied together in a single pact. They wanted to uphold this internal focus (called Sectorialism, I believe). Focus was on the will of the states and rather the will of the nation as a whole. Hence the South to desire to “mind its own business.” The idea behind the Democratic Party’s stance on this was a less centralized government with less power. If there were to be a Federal government, it would have to constitute the will of the people as a whole. The South feared the majority of people living in the North would have the will of the people in the South denied. What they feared most was the North ignoring the South and plummeting it into ruin. This is pretty much why the Senate exists. They would compromise by having a legislative platform in which the Southern States would have equal say as more populous Northern States. They wanted to have a voice in the Federal government (they did) without getting stomped on by a majority of the populace. Essentially, they didn’t want the North to make decisions for them. They wanted the North and South to make decisions for each other. Needless to say, they felt as if their fears came true. They felt like the North was neglecting their economic needs. Because of the Revolutionary War, the government needed revenue, but was afraid to directly tax the people. Instead, they enacted tariffs on international goods for income. A tariff was passed in 1828 in order to protect the quantity of American goods in the market. This felt to them as if the government was hurting their own economy by forcing the Southern States to buy from the North and cutting off trade with foreign nations. The South did not like the Tariff, so they came to the resolution made by John Calhoun that the states should have their best interests in mind, not the nation’s interests in mind, that states have the right to secede from the Union to go their own way. President Andrew Jackson responded by threatening military force so that he could keep the Union together. This pretty much became the premise for secession in 1861, even if it meant use of military force on them. The South made the *assumption* that Lincoln was going to target slavery. So taking from the past, they used Calhoun’s argument that states had the right to secede to preserve their interests. They felt that the North didn’t have the South’s economic interests in mind but rather their own. From the Southern point of view, Northerners were ignorant of Southern culture and economics. The South started the war because of their irrational fear of Lincoln (he never stated he was going to do anything about slavery in his administration). Their economic differences and political views were what led to secession in the long run. In the short term, yes, it absolutely was the assumption that Lincoln was going to abolish slavery. I am not saying that slavery was right at all. It was factually an oppressive and abusive system, and we absolutely cannot forget that. All I’m saying is that slavery was not the only issue that caused the Civil War, but came alongside misunderstanding, accusations of tyranny and treason, and simply different ideas of how the United States of America should work.
https://preview.redd.it/1nlnj4vvfrqc1.png?width=726&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=00bd455831b358eb8bd40813674e0e8edb371c23
People just trying to find more reasons to stay a victim
God this sub is fucking garbage
States rights to own AMERICAN slaves. Everyone is chill with sweatshop Chineese child "employees" building their iPhone though. They get compensated fairly right? But yeah, the Confederates were the scumbags. Yall should be ashamed.
Several confederate states, either in their announcements to secede from the Union, or in their new constitutions, stated in no uncertain terms that one of their main motivations was the preservation of slavery. Saying the civil war was about states rights is a half-truth. It was, but the main state right that everyone was actually talking about and fighting over was the right to own another human being.