- cross-posted to:
- shermanposting
- cross-posted to:
- shermanposting
You must log in or register to comment.
It was about states rights.
States rights to do a slavery.
It’s important to remember that, because fascists are currently pulling the “states rights” card again and the context of what it actually meant last time is horrifying/helpful.
We should stop trying to separate the two arguments because they’re the same argument and its dangerous to pretend they aren’t.
tbf, the Confederacy abolished states’ rights to abolish slavery. So even ‘states’ rights’ isn’t a correct answer - and just like in the modern day, it’s only cover for “We do what I want when I’m in power, and what I want when the opposition is in power too”
Yep. We all need to see it for the dog whistle it is.
It’s kinda dishonest because the weed issue is also states rights, and it’s no where near what slavery was.
Imo, the civil war topic should remain somewhat simplistic in non-academic settings. The reason was slavery, period.
You could go into the stuff surrounding it some, like racism, the economy, states rights, but the focus should slavery.
You might mention that the North had slaves longer than the south did, just because Maryland was a shithole back then. Slavery should still remain the focus.
You might mention that the North had slaves longer than the south did, just because Maryland was a shithole back then.
Beg pardon? Maryland’s 1864 constitution banned slavery.
Why must we dumb it down to a single cause? Maybe it was assymmetric… that is, about slavery for the north, and about states rights for the south.
and about states rights to enslave, beat and rape humans for the south.
Yes. Or even more accurately, to leave and be left alone while doing that.
Good dog.
