Like when people say it was over “states rights” but ignore the Feds sided with state’s rights, and the South was the one arguing for a stronger federal government.
The Southern states though they had the “right” to force northern states to return escaped slaves.
Not over if slavery was legal, but over if a slave was still a slave in a state that outlawed slavery.
But I don’t even think you read the last comment if you had to ask that
So long story short… essentially the right they wanted to have was the right to enslave people. Dress it up all you want but a rose by any other name is still a rose.
The south thought of a slave as a slave. And their children would also be slaves.
The North viewed them as enslaved humans, who were just humans once they were in a state without slavery.
That is a deep and fundamental difference. It changes so much about how both sides viewed slavery. The North was ok with some escaping, but they really weren’t going to lift a finger to stop it either.
While the South literally saw them as property.
If Lincoln had caved, it would have turned I to a total shit show. Not just northern cops, but “bounty hunters” who would likely grab any Black person they saw.
You really don’t see why details are important? I can just let it go if it doesn’t.
How could that possibly be construed as Confederate sympathy? I’m sorry, I know you mean to be on the right side of an argument, but in what way is saying “southern states did not see slaves as people” even remotely sympathetic to them?
There is importance in the level of detail being presented. This is what the phrase “those who forget history are doomed to repeat it” refers to. When we gloss over all nuance to the point that discourse becomes “this side good, that side bad,” then we no longer have a portrait of how that came to be. Without such understanding, we lose the ability to prevent, and our sole recourse becomes reaction.
Pointing out that the southern states legitimately thought of slaves as less than human, mere property that should be returned via the force of the federal government when northern states would not comply, does nothing at all to make them seem any less monstrous. Instead, it shines another light on the inherent fascism of their stance - “Do as we say, or we will make you.” When that failed, they threatened and ultimately attempted secession in a bid to form their own government.
The South did not want freedom. They wanted compliance. They wanted to dictate. They wanted control over someone else’s body to be instituted at the federal level. Do the parallels to modern right-wing neofascist rhetoric need more emphasis?
Likewise, being cognizant that the North was content to turn a bind eye until the Union was threatened in no way excuses the South’s stance on slavery. What it does, though, is emphasize how complacency and compromise with bad actors until it’s too late is often a far too easy path to take.
There’s much more that can be said, but I’m going astray of the topic at hand. At no point in the chain of comments was @[email protected] or anyone else presenting a favorable or defensive view of the failed Confederacy. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous and outright vile.
A lot of people just want to label one side “evil” and one side “good”.
That’s just not how life works, it’s not that clean cut.
And if you go the simple route and say they were just evil, you miss the “why”.
That “why” is very very important because we need to stop it from happening again.
And if you take a second and look around, shits real close to going bad again. We literally can’t afford to ignore the details.
Unfortunately lots of people aren’t smart enough to see all that, they want it to be like a football game where everyone picks one side and hates the other.
It’s tribal behavior baked into our dna, and it takes a significant amount of smarts to get around those instincts. Some people just can’t
The Southern states though they had the “right” to force northern states to return escaped slaves.
Not over if slavery was legal, but over if a slave was still a slave in a state that outlawed slavery.
But I don’t even think you read the last comment if you had to ask that
So long story short… essentially the right they wanted to have was the right to enslave people. Dress it up all you want but a rose by any other name is still a rose.
No. The states and the Feds all agreed on their right to own slaves and nothing was going to interfere with that “right”.
It’s not dressing it up. It makes everyone look worse…
Then why did the confederates specifically say it was about slavery when they surrendered?
Is that really a big difference? The point is the south wanted their slaves and they rebelled against the north to keep them
Huge.
The south thought of a slave as a slave. And their children would also be slaves.
The North viewed them as enslaved humans, who were just humans once they were in a state without slavery.
That is a deep and fundamental difference. It changes so much about how both sides viewed slavery. The North was ok with some escaping, but they really weren’t going to lift a finger to stop it either.
While the South literally saw them as property.
If Lincoln had caved, it would have turned I to a total shit show. Not just northern cops, but “bounty hunters” who would likely grab any Black person they saw.
You really don’t see why details are important? I can just let it go if it doesn’t.
This is only a difference in perception not in reality.
The reality is that the southern states perception of slaves was and is wrong.
You seem to think that what the south said is more important with regard to the war than what they did.
Thats some Confederate sympathy If I ever saw it. Let me guess you’re from the South and white?
How could that possibly be construed as Confederate sympathy? I’m sorry, I know you mean to be on the right side of an argument, but in what way is saying “southern states did not see slaves as people” even remotely sympathetic to them?
There is importance in the level of detail being presented. This is what the phrase “those who forget history are doomed to repeat it” refers to. When we gloss over all nuance to the point that discourse becomes “this side good, that side bad,” then we no longer have a portrait of how that came to be. Without such understanding, we lose the ability to prevent, and our sole recourse becomes reaction.
Pointing out that the southern states legitimately thought of slaves as less than human, mere property that should be returned via the force of the federal government when northern states would not comply, does nothing at all to make them seem any less monstrous. Instead, it shines another light on the inherent fascism of their stance - “Do as we say, or we will make you.” When that failed, they threatened and ultimately attempted secession in a bid to form their own government.
The South did not want freedom. They wanted compliance. They wanted to dictate. They wanted control over someone else’s body to be instituted at the federal level. Do the parallels to modern right-wing neofascist rhetoric need more emphasis?
Likewise, being cognizant that the North was content to turn a bind eye until the Union was threatened in no way excuses the South’s stance on slavery. What it does, though, is emphasize how complacency and compromise with bad actors until it’s too late is often a far too easy path to take.
There’s much more that can be said, but I’m going astray of the topic at hand. At no point in the chain of comments was @[email protected] or anyone else presenting a favorable or defensive view of the failed Confederacy. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous and outright vile.
A lot of people just want to label one side “evil” and one side “good”.
That’s just not how life works, it’s not that clean cut.
And if you go the simple route and say they were just evil, you miss the “why”.
That “why” is very very important because we need to stop it from happening again.
And if you take a second and look around, shits real close to going bad again. We literally can’t afford to ignore the details.
Unfortunately lots of people aren’t smart enough to see all that, they want it to be like a football game where everyone picks one side and hates the other.
It’s tribal behavior baked into our dna, and it takes a significant amount of smarts to get around those instincts. Some people just can’t