You must log in or register to comment.
Explanation: In the USA, there’s a bizarrely persistent idea, particularly amongst right-wing types, that the US Civil War was fought over some reason other than racism and slavery, particularly the vague call of “States’ Rights”.
In reality, the secessionist Confederacy was quite open and proud about their original reasons for seceding being racism and slavery, and only after their slaver asses were crushed and chattel slavery was abolished did they start to make up post-war justifications to sound less abhorrent.
Good goose. Always challenge the dog whistle.
that the US Civil War was fought over […] “States’ Rights”.
It was. The right of states to allow slavery and be racist.
(/s)You don’t need a /s, that’s literally what it was.
It’s just some people pretend that isn’t what the rights were that the CSA fought for. Those people are morons.
The /s wasn’t supposed to invert the meaning of the sentence before, it was just meant to mark it as a more humorous thing since OP explained exactly that in their comment.
But /s is to mark sarkasm?
I know, but there is no simple /[pleasedon’ttakethistooseriouslyit’shalfajokebutsomethingrealtoo]
I would use /jk for that for what it’s worth but I got your meaning nonetheless.
What…?
Actually, it’s really the opposite of that. The war wasn’t over States’s rights to allow slavery, it was over State’s rights to disallow slavery. The Kansas-Nebraska act gave states the ability to decide if they wanted it or not, and the racists worried they would get outnumbered by non-slaving states, so they wanted slavery to be mandatory.
Also, slave states wanted the federal government to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act on non-slave states. Which is rather the opposite of states’ rights.
Also in their constitution, explicitly prohibited states from abolishing slavery.
Bizarrely persistent because there are groups actively dedicated to promoting that idea. It’s known as “the lost cause” and its biggest proponent are The Daughters of the Confederacy and the KKK
The United Daughters of the Confederacy played a significant role in whitewashing this history:
The United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) has played a major role in shaping how the Civil War and the Confederacy are remembered, especially in the Southern United States. Their activities—fundraising for monuments, sponsoring school‑textbook revisions, and promoting “Lost‑Cause” narratives—have often downplayed slavery as the central cause of secession and highlighted states’ rights, Southern honor, and heroic Confederate figures instead.
Starting in the late‑19th century, the UDC financed statues, plaques, and memorials that portrayed Confederate leaders as noble defenders of liberty. These monuments became focal points for public memory, reinforcing a view of the Confederacy that emphasized bravery rather than the defense of slavery.
Throughout the early‑to‑mid‑20th century, the UDC reviewed and edited school textbooks, inserting language that framed the war as a struggle over constitutional issues and “Southern way of life.” By the 1950s, many state‑approved histories still echoed this perspective, marginalizing the role of enslaved people and the economic motives behind secession.
The Lost Cause is a post‑Civil War Southern narrative that romanticizes the Confederacy, portraying its fight as noble defense of states’ rights and Southern honor while minimizing slavery’s role, and fostering white supremacy through monuments, education, and cultural memory. It also legitimizes the myth of heroic generals and lost glory.
In its 1900 constitution the group declared its purpose “to preserve the memory of the Confederate soldiers and to foster the ideals of the Southern race.” Caroline Goodlett, a founder, wrote that the UDC would “protect the honor of the white man and the true history of the South.”
Woodrow Wilson literally wrote and distributed Lost Cause Revisionist History, using his
YalePrinceton Historian and Presidential Credentials. Wilson segregated the federal government for the first time in history, refounded the KKK, screened Birth of a Nation at the White House, used the federal government to erect statues of traitors that said they should never be memorialized, and that’s just some of his domestic policies.Holy shit
Fuck Wilson, all my homies hate Woodrow Wilson
If I had a time machine I would stop in the 1970s to pick up some real McDonald’s burgers and milkshakes. Then take them to Taft in 1911. If Teddy ran against Wilson unopposed, he would have stomped him into the dirt.
I think even more damning against the ‘states’ rights’ argument is that at least one (I stopped at finding one, lol) confederate state constitution explicitly disallowed abolishing slavery, so that state literally didn’t have the right to make their own decision on the matter down the line, lol.
IIRC, there’s 2 that do that explicitly - I want to say it was Texas and North Carolina, but I can’t be bothered to double check that.
Used to be, when racists had to keep their feelings on the down low. Haven’t heard “state’s rights” in ages. And I’m in the Deep South.
That is some despicable graphic design. Almost impossible to read. Do better.
In middle school I remember having to write an essay about how the civil war was because of political, economic, and social issues. Of which I don’t fully remember the arguments but I vividly remember being taught that and having to write this essay on it. Grew up in Texas for reference.
Political issue: “We want to keep slavery legal”
Economic issue: “If we abolish slavery, the economy will suffer”
Social issue: “We’re racist”
How a small thing just ripples through! The economical reason was probably a driving force in maintaining the other two issues alive…
Yep, can’t get more cut and dry than that.
Remember the Alamo!
When a bunch of racist white guys died fighting to be independent from Mexico because Mexico wouldn’t let them own slaves.
states’ rights to do what?
Somebody less lazy than me post the goose.
Just for you :)
Thanks <3
Atun-Shei Films does good run downs on the US civil war and arguments of Confederate apologists
There were states that rewrote their state constitutions to specifically enshine slavery when they joined the Confederacy. South Carolina was one, I’m not sure of the others.
If it wasn’t about slavery, someone should have told all those states.
Imagine that though. SC shows up to the summit with slavery in its constitution and all the other Confederate states are like, “WHOAH SC, what the hell?” And SC is just like “what the fuck are we even here to talk about then, y’all misconstrued this whole damned thing.”
Not sure about their constitution, but Mississippi’s articles of secession are pretty fucking clear too.
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.
Um, yeah, having workers who work for free is a pretty great “material interest”, but really missing the point here. This reminds me of the argument that slavery wasn’t great for the slaveholders, either, because they constantly had to worry about the enslaved workers organizing and fucking killing them, which happened pretty often.
This also reminds me of defenses of capitalism where they say “Look at all of the great things created by capitalism!” and then wave in the general direction of all of technology.
This reminds me of the argument that slavery wasn’t great for the slaveholders, either, because they constantly had to worry about the enslaved workers organizing and fucking killing them, which happened pretty often.
Not very often in the American South.
Sadly, the system of slavery in the Americas was exceptionally brutal, even by the low standards of slavery - but in the USA, it had an additional component ‘protecting’ the slavers - intense racism based on phenotype.
In many slave societies, the prospect of a slave blending into free society is a constant topic of concern - precisely because a slave could, theoretically, as you say, murder their master and then just… slip away. In American slavery, where slaves were largely a phenotypically apparent minority with only marginal opportunities for freedom - at least by the height of slavery in the South in the 1810s onward - there was nowhere to run to after offing a slaver. You couldn’t easily ‘blend in’ with the free population, because the only free population that you could ‘blend in’ with was nearly as oppressed as you were.
The only escapes that could be had needed to be planned and subtle - hence the Underground Railroad which helped fugitives on foot escape across half a fucking continent.
Yeah I can see this man who looks like Frances McDormand getting a colonoscopy is clearly a superior male specimen.
It’s always the C.H.U.D.s who think they’re so superior…
It is 50% about states rights and 50% about the government not enforcing the then constitution.
It’s just convenient that both those were directly related to slavery. Definitely not the reason for succession 😂 It’s been taught in the South for years this way.
Just in case you don’t know the SC articles of recession specifically mention the personal liberty laws passed by northern states.
The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution>
They are specifically referring to the fugitive slave act of 1793 and 1850 and the government not enforcing the states to abide by the Constitution.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution;>
secession means to split away
succession means to follow (the heir follows his deceased father on the throne)
Thanks for nit picking
Sorry wasn’t meant in that way
