- cross-posted to:
- shermanposting@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- shermanposting@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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”
Yep. We all need to see it for the dog whistle it is.
I thought it was about absolute monarchists vs constitutional monarchists.
Good dog.
It was state rights until they get a federal majority in all three branches then it’s all about the central government.
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.
If only the South had written down why they wanted to separate…
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.
and about states rights to enslave, beat and rape humans for the south.
Yes. Or even more accurately, to leave and be left alone while doing that.
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.
