Don't get me wrong, American rightoids are dumb too, but there's like a special kind of r-sluration with foreign rightoids.
Why is a bong here trying to argue to me the civil war wasn't over slavery?
Reported by:
- of_blood_and_salt : They hated him cause he spoke the truth.
- eva_isaKONG : i love pizza. he makes me laugh
- deleted___account : Xenophobia
Why are foreign rightoids that post about American politics so dumb on average?
- 242
- 64
Top Poster of the Day:
Punished_Arestovitch
Current Registered Users: 25,543
BROWSE EFFORTPOSTS
SITE GUIDE
HOLES
PING GROUPS
Live commit: 25abdca
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The civil war was about states rights, not about slavery.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The state of American education.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I think the nuance people miss is that it was totally about slavery but only because the north used banning slavery as a cudgel through which to potentially decimate the southern economy and subject the confederate states to a more near total northern control than they were already under.
Had they decided to ban anything else on which the economy was dependent the reception would probably have been just as violent. But thats not the way the chips fell because their econony happened to be based on something morally abhorrent.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I don't know, the cornerstone speech seems to be going well beyond economics:
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I like to entertain the idea that the general will of the voters is not represented by one speaker. I have no quotes or speeches to back it up but it seems to me the threat of removing the entire labor force of thr agriculture industry in one fell swoop is a much bigger motivator than "i hate black people lol" but both can absolutely be true at the same time.
I like to talk about the nuance of it because reddit leftists like to wield "it was about slavery" in a way that paints a broad brush over hundreds of thousands of people with no hope of ever owning a single slave who would apparently rather die than see one on the street.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This is a common misconception, Lincoln wasn't going to end slavery in one swoop, Slavery was already dying because the expansion of slavery was banned and no new slaves could be imported.
This is conflating micro causes with macro causes. When we say the civil war was over slavery we mean slavery was the macro cause, whatever the individual soldiers thought isn't all that relevant.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
99% of people saying it's about slavery absolutely don't know about the other causes, and genuinely think they went to war solely over darkey hate. You're giving the average r-slur giving their opinion on poltics way too much credit. Simplifying it down to slavery on a marco level is still a disservice to the paradigm shift that that era was for the federal government, and the idea of what a state is.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
All of the other causes are linked explicitly too slavery, there was no issue in the country capable of causing the civil war other than Slavery.
Like, this is literally basic history.
The bigger issue is the historically illiterate don't understand the secondary causes or how they also tie into slavery.
Any competent historian will tell you this, the only people that keep trying too harp on "secondary causes of the civil war" are idiots trying too over-complicate something too make themselves seem smarter than they are.
Trans lives matter.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Thanks for putting it better than any of my
drafts would have ended up being.
There is no singular cause for conflicts, each has a long laundry list of grievances that culminate over years until they spill over into the streets. Everyone wants to fight but it just so happens that whatever r-slur was lucky enough to get elected just beforehand gets to write the history books according to their personal priorities.
Yes the leadership and populace was filled to the brim with racist ideology, absolutely. That fact however, has been constantly used consistently since that time period to preach to and belittle an entire portion of the country as lessers. Banning slavery was a moral, just cause, but was also a growing more educated urbanized northern population flexing an ever strengthening voting power to assert moral superiority over what was an already weakening south. It was clear to them that this trend would continue for other things as well.
Look at the Tariff of Abominations for starters
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
π΄π΄π΄
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Exactly this. It's what Thatcher did in the UK in the 1980s. The working classes in the northern parts of the UK were getting a bit too big for their boots, demanding things such as living standards, so Thatcher shut down all the mines, closed all of Britain's industry and fricked the working classes out of their existence.
It's easy when you're a comfortable middle-class armchair intellectual to dismiss all these, very real, people as racist caveman scum, but when the elite can just whip away an entire economy and devastate entire demographics all while not hurting their own pockets, it's hardly possible to get a real understanding of the true motives.
It'd be like like codecels today being outsourced entirely to India and future armchair historians dismissing them as racist for opposing it. No, they're fighting for their living.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I mean it's less "outsourcing the jobs" and more just shutting down the mine since none of the voters are going unemployed for it.
But its the same history repeating itself last year, a majority of people unaffected by an issue voting for restrictions to be imposed on the little guy from a moral soapbox that they can afford because they work from home. I wouldn't dare compare the moral atrocities of slavery to the spread of disease, it's just simply the complete lack of empathy to the reprecussions of those actions
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
I'm not American.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The state of whatever you are education.
You better be trolling.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
They really sperg out when you prove slavery was a failing business venture that the βββbanksβββ at the time wanted out of. Nooooo they stopped slavery bc they were the good guys
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context