• Madison420@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Bro it’s factually correct, you can read Lincoln’s diary discussing it. The statement “the civil war was about slavery” isn’t wrong it just lacking nuance in the same way the statement I added to was.

    Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed both branches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersigned hereby protest against the passage of the same.

    They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils.

    They believe that the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States.

    They believe that the Congress of the United States has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; but that that power ought not to be exercised unless at the request of the people of said District.

    The difference between these opinions and those contained in the said resolutions, is their reason for entering this protest."

    Dan Stone, A. Lincoln, Representatives from the county of Sangamon

    • GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Okay let’s try this another way .

      You are 100% correct in your assertion that the civil war was a culmination of much more than just moral outrage over slavery, and it’s a subject worth continued study.

      However, there are people who are exploiting that nuance for despicable reasons. So when you comment trying to clarify what you see as a matter of historical record, some of us see it as unhelpful because it’s continuing to provide conversational cover to those who want to use that historical record in bad faith.

      It’s true, some slaves learned trade skills, but would you come in talking that ish if the OP was about the benefits of being enslaved?

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure.

        Agreed.

        Why do you believe I’m one of these exploitative people and you aren’t.

        I don’t get involved in subjectives and things I’m not particularly experienced in so I wouldn’t touch it.

        That said, if you agree with me then what is the drama and downvote barrage about?

        • EhList@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          As they are not Lost Cause adjacent they cannot be that person you are suggesting.

            • justabigemptyhole@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It is a bit hard to distinguish between a bad faith arguing and someone who is being pedantic. Poe’s Law may parallel this. Maybe that’s what they thought?

              • Madison420@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I am being pedantic… It’s quite literally in the guest comment. Nuance does indeed tend to be pedantic or tedious.

            • GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              You seemed done, and I told you i get where you’re coming from, so I’m not sure what else we have to talk about.

              I’m into tabletop games and medieval history if you want to talk about that?

    • EhList@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except it WAS about slavery as that was the primary reason why the South started the war.

      Your point would be akin to saying that the Second World War in Europe wasn’t just about the Axis invasions because there are also complaints that Germany built too many telegraph lines vs what was permitted in the Treaty of Versailles. I mean yes those exist but that doesn’t change that the war was really about stopping the fascist invasions.

    • Ya_Boy_Skinny_Penis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Dude, you think if chattel slavery never existed in the South that there still would have been a civil war?

      The civil war was 100% about slavery.

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You didn’t prove anything because you’ve provided no evidence but rather elucidated us all to your lazy lackadaisical bad faith argument style. Try harder or you know at all if you’re going to insert yourself into things you clearly don’t understand nor have any intention to learn.