• Nate Cox
    link
    fedilink
    English
    322 months ago

    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.

    • @PugJesusOPM
      link
      English
      152 months ago

      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”

      • Nate Cox
        link
        fedilink
        English
        102 months ago

        Yep. We all need to see it for the dog whistle it is.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -92 months ago

      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.

      • @PugJesusOPM
        link
        English
        92 months ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 months ago

          Sorry, it was Delaware. They got rid of it with the 13th. The south were forced when they lost the civil war. It’s only a separation of a few months, but it’s there.

  • @Anticorp
    link
    English
    82 months ago

    State’s rights to do what?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    52 months ago

    It was state rights until they get a federal majority in all three branches then it’s all about the central government.

  • THCDenton
    link
    English
    32 months ago

    State’s rights is weird

  • Quokka
    link
    fedilink
    English
    22 months ago

    I thought it was about absolute monarchists vs constitutional monarchists.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -17
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Why must we dumb it down to a single cause? Maybe it was asymmetric… that is, about slavery for the north, and about states rights for the south.

    • @surewhynotlem
      link
      English
      122 months ago

      If only the South had written down why they wanted to separate…

      • @evidences
        link
        English
        102 months ago

        Yeah it’s to bad we don’t have well written missives from each of the states that seceded, I guess we’ll never know.

    • @grue
      link
      English
      72 months ago

      Except no, it was 100% a lie in the South, too. The first fucking thing they did after secession was to write themselves a constitution that was mostly copy-pasted from the US Constitution except for where they explicitly removed states’ rights to abolish slavery.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 months ago

      Nah, it was slavery for the south. For the north, it was about keeping the union together and slavery second.