view the rest of the comments
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
It’ll be like the “States’ Rights” people, but infinitely worse. Being raised in the south, you’re taught that the civil war was over states’ rights, not slavery. That slavery was just the one that historians tended to latch onto, because it’s the most inflammatory topic and makes the south look bad.
And if you’re a good student and don’t bother to question that, you’ll enter the adult world believing that the south wasn’t fighting for slavery.
Was definitely taught that...
Even given some garbage about how Lincoln only came up with ending slavery late in to keep England out of the conflict... and that he regretted it.
I mean, the war didn't start because the North wanted to end slavery in the South...
It started because the federal government wouldn't force northern states who had abolished slavery to return escaped slaves to Southern states.
The part about abolishing slavery nationwide didn't come up until the war was going on, and that was more an economic sanction than anything else.
So it really did start because of state rights, it's just it was the northern states fighting for that and the Southern States wanting a federal government that was willing to force states to do stuff.
Then it's weird that all the articles of secession for all the states that seceded mention slavery right at the top.
... States rights to do what?
You have to admit the language used in your last paragraph is pretty telling
States' rights to act as a sanctuary for escaped slaves. Did you not even read the comment you replied to?
I'm not sure about that. I think it was more started on the fact that it was clear the Republicans at the time were aiming not to abolish slavery but to stop its expansion. Which in political terms means slave states were basically fucked as more states were introduced. Many people see Bleeding Kansas as a prelude to the civil war because it was about seeing if a new territory will be pro or anti slavery. Like yes the southern states were hypocrites about states rights but from their perspective* however skewed that was. The threat of anti slavery was expanding while those who were sympathetic to it were losing power in house and senate. So secession/war over slavery was inevitable, it was merely a can the founding fathers sort of kicked down the road for others to figure out.
Like, I get the idea that they thought ending slavery outright would shortly follow, but that was easily 50+ years away. By seceding and then initiating an attack on the US, all they did was bring about the end of it more decisively and quickly. If they hadn't overreacted, things would've stayed the same for an unfortunately long time.
I wouldn't say fifty years. I mean there were 2 states added to the US in 6 years from 1861 (Nevada and Nebraska, I am not including West Virginia since they wouldn't have existed in a non civil war scenario). I think they saw it as a beginning of the end for them and their oh so loved "WaY Of LiFe" so they struck out when they were in theory at their strongest.