• Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    120
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Haley blaming Lincoln for the Civil War should end any debate about her fitness for office. This is pretty close to saying, basically, slavery should be legal.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      1 year ago

      Either a) she knows what really happened, but is lying because she considers the bases approval more important than reality or b) she’s a fucking moron.

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I mean blaming Lincoln for the civil war and then claiming to be the party of Lincoln. Seems like that would be a little cognitive dissonance right there wouldn’t it?

      • gravitas_deficiency
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The base does not care about logical consistency. Indeed, it appears that many of them are altogether unaware of the concept logical consistency, and are entirely uninterested in learning or understanding it.

  • PunnyName@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    ·
    1 year ago

    She’s essentially saying the same “states’ rights” bullshit. Which was the right to slavery.

    Ugh

  • Suavevillain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    She is white supremacist trash. Props to whoever asked her that question. She isn’t bothering to hide it.

    • Bakkoda
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      And frankly the moderator should have walked up onto the stage and open hand slapped her for that level of a bullshit non answer. These fuckin debates are such a colossal joke. We don’t even hold potential candidates responsible for absurd shit they say, why would anyone expect us to hold a president accountable?

  • ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    1 year ago

    Haley’s response:

    “I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are,” Haley replied. “And I will always stand by the fact that I think government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. It was never meant to be all things to all people. Government doesn’t need to tell you how to live your life. They don’t need to tell you what you can and can’t do. They don’t need to be a part of your life. They need to make sure that you have freedom. We need to have capitalism. We need to have economic freedom. We need to make sure that we do all things so that individuals have the liberties so that they can have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do or be anything they want to be without government getting in the way.”

    All Haley had to do was just add in that the Confederacy was about taking away liberties of groups of people and their ability to seek out economic freedom, and that slaves had no freedom of everything.

    The bar was on the fucking ground and Haley still failed to meet it.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s too bad we didn’t really crush the Confederates after the war. Meaning, really rub their noses in their loss, but give them a path back to redemption that doesn’t involve letting them off easy.

      Don’t allow them to erect statues for “heritage” and so on. Don’t allow them to teach about the “Northern war of aggression” and all that.

    • PorradaVFR@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      FREEDOM!!!*

      *except for what you do in bed or with your uterus, what you may want to read, unfettered access to empirical reality and other things which we’ll maybe let you know about once we figure them out.

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

      Also the GOP came out to say her candidacy was “toast” and I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Their top guy right now literally used the words state rights and said that it wasn’t about slavery. Why is Haley toast?

      Am I the only one who noticed that level of hypocrisy?

    • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, yeah. Because that would mean giving personhood to the group that was enslaved, and Republicans love to ask, “Well, can we really say that Group “x” are people?”

  • NounsAndWords@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    1 year ago

    When the questioner said it was “astonishing” to hear her respond “without mentioning the word slavery,” Haley replied: “What do you want me to say about slavery?” She then asked for the next question

    I understand that it was a rhetorical question…but it’s kind of not. It’s pretty clear that her position on slavery is going to be–much like every other opinion–entirely controlled by what her voters want her to say.

    • Ook the Librarian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      99
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t see how dead naming is cool simply because it will hurt her polling with racists.

      Edit: Ok, explain the joke. Why is the birtherism of saying “Barrack HUSSEIN Obama” funny on our side? Why should we respect Caitlin Jenner’s chosen name but not Nikki’s? If it’s not a joke, that is, you think it’s a genuinely good idea for news outlets to refer to her this way, why?

      So from personal experience, I learned Obama’s middle name from the mouths’ of racists, I learned Biden’s middle name from the mouths’ toxic masculine chauvinists, and I only hear Jenner’s deadname from bigots. I don’t like playing the “true name” game.

      Edit 2: Ok downvoters, you’ve convinced me that it is ok to stress politicians’ birth names in order to show disagreement. Can you now please provide a list of white politicians whose birth names we should use in order to show we do not support them? I guess we can just put their names in parentheses or something if that is easier.

        • Ook the Librarian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          40
          ·
          1 year ago

          Are you seriously in favor of the bills? Why are you trying to enforce them? I vote against racist proposals whenever I can. I certainly don’t try to enforce ones that are not even effect.

          • IMongoose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            39
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s calling out hypocrisy, not support. It’s also bringing attention to how short sighted the GOPs plans are. If they support bills that hurt themselves in unintentional ways, how can we trust them to pass bills that work in their intended manner?

            • Ook the Librarian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              16
              ·
              1 year ago

              Does pointing out that Trump has no idea about Christianity bothered these people? At least when you do that, it’s not some attack via a racism Trojan horse.

              Hypocrisy does not matter to the right. It does matter to my reflection. Using her “real name” is using racism as a weapon. I don’t care if it is indirect or that it only hurts racist.

              (This post is self-plagiarized from elsewhere in this thread.)

            • Ook the Librarian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              I know who she is. I want to know if I am responding to a serious proposal or a joke. Because the thing is, the “joke” is hard to distinguish from a call to action. And therein lies the problem.

              • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I neither proposed anything or suggested acall to action, I was pointing out that she’s a hypocritical cunt

                • Ook the Librarian@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I am discussing the comment:

                  Use her full name.

                  Nimarata Nikki Randhawa Haley

                  I took your comment as a defense of that comment. Are you defending it as a joke or as a call to action?

        • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          All politicians at this level are products of marketing consultants. Biden is cosplaying as a younger person with his lifts and fillers. Trump is cosplaying as a rich guy. Obama cosplayed a progressive etc. Clinton failed cosplaying as a likable normal human person.

        • Dran@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          1 year ago

          Is a trans woman a man cosplaying a woman? If you doubt her sincerity that’s a fair argument towards her being generally untrustworthy, but I don’t think that’s what most people mean when they say stuff like this. It’s just bigotry of another kind. She always struck me as generally perceiving herself as a white american woman. Who gets to decide who is brown but the person themselves? Am I brown because I’m Greek? I have naturally darker skin than some who identify as black or brown but I’ve never felt anything other than white.

          • Yewb@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            I dont think transgender should be part of this conversation, people can do whatever they want its their body their right.

            I would put “ted” cruz into this same boat if you are in politics and are running for office where your constituency cant handle a person of color if they knew???

            Maybe cosplay is not the right word, what would you call it?

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

              people can do whatever they want its their body their right

              This whole conversation started over Nikki vs Nimarata. Why can that logic not be extended to someone’s name, whether it’s this, someone experiencing gender dysphoria, or someone who doesn’t like to be called Matt because their name is Matthew?

        • spongebue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          25
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          So you’re gatekeeping who can act white? Please tell me how you’re not here, because I’m having a hard time seeing this as anything but controlling how she should act due to her race and that’s not ok. What she said (or didn’t say) is bad on its own, but bringing her race into it just unnecessarily muddies the waters

          Edit: everyone is happy to downvote, but nobody wants to say why she can’t act like a white American woman (including using a name that better matches that profile) because she’s born to Indian parents 🤷‍♂️

          • Yewb@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            I would agree with you actually, its her racist constituency that would not vote for her unless she portrayed herself as a white woman that is the issue.

            I also agree that skin color / race is subjective and does muddy the water.

            • Ook the Librarian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, yewb. Let’s not let people forget who she really is, an Indian! I’m sorry lady, did you want to get ahead in conservative politics? Well, you should have thought of that before you became an Indian.

              Do you not hear yourselves?

              If she feels that immigrants should take pains to assimilate, I will disagree with her points, but not her identity.

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

                I get it but whataboutism says: what if it was a white woman pretending to be African American to sway brown voters?

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

                  Pretending of any kind should be shamed, but just because a person grew up as a minority in their own community shouldn’t preclude them from identifying with the plights and cultures of said community.

                  Basically what I’m saying is skin color shouldn’t matter, experience and honesty should.

        • naught
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          51
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Still has Barrack Hussein Obama vibes. What point are we making here?

          Like yeah, she’s a race traitor cosplaying a white woman, but surely we have better points to make than hoping her base is racist enough to hate her based on a vaguely foreign name, which is not really at all a secret. meh.

          Edit: Plenty of people change their names to more Americanized versions. This is probably the least egregious thing she has ever done… This is a trivial point at best and hypocritical at worst

          • foggy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            But Barrack was an African American democrat with an extremely progressive base?

            The point being made here was quite clearly missed by you.

            • naught
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              35
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              My point is that we’re calling out her scary foreign name for brownie points with racists and xenophobes. I understand how very different the situations are otherwise. Idk why everyone on lemmy is so aggressive lately jeezus

              • gravitas_deficiency
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                20
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It’s the same reason I refer to Lady Graham as such: because they’re a powerful politician who have a core personal trait that’s inimical to their base that they try REALLY hard to hide, and that the conservative news sphere tends to help hide (for now).

                It’s an open secret that Graham is a HUGE closet case, and he has backed every single heinously anti-gay law, resolution, and regulation that crosses his desk, amongst many other awful things.

                Similarly, Nimarata Nikki Haley (née Randhawa) is campaigning on staunchly immigrant-hostile policies (again: amongst many other awful things), but is herself a (white-passing) immigrant.

                We are simply hoisting them on the petard of their own hypocrisy. If these inconsistencies are repeatedly, consistently, and unavoidably pointed out, it’ll start to filter through to their base, and the racist elements of the GOP (but I repeat myself) will start to notice, and her viability as a candidate will diminish. It’s an unfortunate tactic that we feel forced to take, but we do feel forced to take it, as this is very much an existential political struggle.

                Edit: I do want to say that /u/naught absolutely has their head in the right place, and that I further deeply wish I didn’t feel like shitty tactics like that are genuinely and truly necessary at this point in time. The fact that I may be willing to stoop to rhetorical levels that /u/naught isn’t does not make me more “right” than they are. I just have a different calculus about what I’m willing to do in a political context that I view as pretty dire.

                • naught
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Lady Graham is pretty offensive IMO. You can’t just take a bigoted joke and throw it at bad people. You’re still participating in homophobia. If a black republican ran for president I wouldn’t be asking to see his birth certificate, let alone be throwing racial epithets

                  Two wrongs and all that.

              • foggy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                13
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, not for brownie points with racists and xenophobes.

                So the racist xenophobes can recognize that this batshit insane lady is actually quite plainly someone they hate for no reason.

                No problem reminding them to take the garbage out.

                • Ook the Librarian@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Does pointing out that Trump has no idea about Christianity bothered these people? At least when you do that, it’s not some attack via a racism Trojan horse.

                  Hypocrisy does not matter to the right. It does matter to my reflection. Using her “real name” is using racism as a weapon. I don’t care if it is indirect or that it only hurts racists.

              • YeetPics@mander.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t understand what you’re saying, the racist xenophobes are her supporters.

                If they don’t want to support her because of her “very scary” legal name they can either stop supporting her or reverse their support for the law forcing legal names being used…

                • naught
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I understand that they are shitty and racist – why do we have to feed into that? I get the irony! I really do. It just feels hypocritical to me. I would rather us tackle the issues rather than gleefully playing the identity politics game

      • Dran@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve never understood it either. At this point I don’t care which side we swing to, we should just be consistent. People either should or should not be able to dictate their own identities. We can’t play the “you’re only allowed to dictate your own identity if you vote blue” game if we want anyone to take our arguments seriously.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          People who deny rights to others don’t deserve to have that right for themselves. Everyone else deserves the right to define their own identity, but those assholes have waived that right.

      • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah this name calling stuff is cringe and shows how Americans have the maturity of 12 year olds. “His name is Donald Drumpf! He has a dumb name guys! HUSSEIN Obama he’s a Muslim!! NIKKI IS INDIAN SHES AN INDIAN HER NAME IS ACTUALLY INDIAN!”

  • Bobmighty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Gotta court far right hicks that’ll vote for potato brained Trump no matter what anyway. The only thing Haley has going for her is that her failure isnt quite as hard as Desantis.

    An entire party of rot brains following Lord rot into hell.

    • that guy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Chattal slavery ended but wage slavery and prison slavery is still going strong. Your 401K manager is heavily invested in continuing it too

    • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Remember people, minimum wage=minimum effort. No favors, no “we’re family at this company” bullshit. Do the absolute bare minimum and go home, turn off your phone.

  • BakedGoods
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    America needs to grow the fuck upp and at least pretend to act like adult. To us over in Europe you look like mentally disabled children.

  • blazeknave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It was domestic economic policy. They built a train through half the States. The ones that didn’t have the slaves. Nothing to do with the slaves though /s

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    84
    ·
    1 year ago

    It kind of wasn’t.

    Southern states wanted the federal government to force northern states to return escaped slaves to the south.

    The federal government sided with “state rights” and said the South had no control over the northern states, and the federal government couldn’t force them either.

    So the south started a civil war against state rights, and a couple years into it the Feds went ahead and outlawed slavery as an economic sanction against the South.

    The cause wasn’t as simple as “slavery” and it was pretty much the opposite of what modern day confederates pretend it was about

    • DrDeadCrash@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      64
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not as simple as “slavery”, but the war was caused by slavery. If there had been no slavery, there would have been no war. That’s “cause”, in my book.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        47
        ·
        1 year ago

        but the war was caused by slavery

        The war was caused by the federal government refusing to force northern states to return escaped slaves to the south…

        The southern states started a war over that

        If it was just over if slavery was legal, then why was the Emancipation Proclamation smack in the middle of the civil war?

        If the south wouldn’t have started the civil war, it would have been years if not decades before the Feds outlawed slavery.

        The south wanted a strong federal government, and got it. Just not the way they wanted it.

        • DrDeadCrash@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t really disagree with anything you said, I still say that it all boils down to “slavery” as the (root) cause.

          The war was caused by the federal government refusing to […]

          Inaction isn’t the “cause” of an event, so what was the action?

          I’d say: Providing (to runaway former slaves) the same safety and protections everyone else was already getting from the state (ex. Wisconsin).

          What “actions” do you think were the cause of the civil war?

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            27
            ·
            1 year ago

            I still say that it all boils down to “slavery” as the (root) cause

            And I say that’s a reductionist view and makes it sound like the point of the civil war was the federal government outlawing slavery. Which likely wouldnt have happened for a long time if not for the civil war happening.

            What caused the civil war was the Southern states seceding from the US.

            The reason they started it was the federal government said while they wouldn’t make slavery illegal federally, they also wouldn’t force the non-slave states to treat escaped slaves as slaves once they made it to the North.

            • ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              22
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You keep saying that the war wasn’t started over slavery because this that and the other, then immediately follow with cause being due to the south seceding, the reasoning for their secession was due to the fact that the federal government would not enforce southern slavery laws.

              So, by your own reasoning slavery was SPECIFICALLY the reason the war was started. Details matter, but what you are dealing in is called pedantry which only succeeds in confusing the issue in favor of those who support slavery.

            • DrDeadCrash@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              And I think people use this whole argument to confuse the issue.

              While the federal government wasn’t the “savior of the slaves” in the way that it is often explained in elementary school, that does describe well the dichotomy of morality that existed at that time between slavers and non.

        • ersatz@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Stop saying it was just about returning escaped slaves. There were many, many factors involved. Lincoln ran on a platform that included banning slavery in new states. The South was unhappy about that. Until then they had all sorts of compromises where new states were split between slave states and free states. They knew the balance of power was slipping away from them. It wasn’t just about one thing, but all of the factors involved slavery.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_events_leading_to_the_American_Civil_War

        • FireTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          why was the Emancipation Proclamation smack in the middle of the civil war?

          Because Cassius Marcellus Clay publicly refused to accept Lincoln’s appointment to Major General in the Union Army unless Lincoln agreed to emancipate the slaves. Lincoln had originally planned to do it after until pressured.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          The war was caused by the federal government refusing to force northern states to return escaped slaves to the south…

          Would that have been an issue if slavery had been made illegal already like in most of the rest of the Western world?

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nope, but pre civil war the American federal government said it didn’t have the power to force southern states to outlaw slavery.

            If it wasn’t for the civil war, it likely would have taken a lot longer.

            A lot of shit has changed since then, USA used to be more like NATO with each state being closer to a sovereign country.

            Ironically the south started the civil war because they wanted a stronger federal government, and that was the result. It just wasn’t under their control.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ironically the south started the civil war because they wanted a stronger federal government

              Then it’s weird that every single one of the articles of secession mention slavery in the first paragraph. Sort of like they started it because of slavery.

              • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                The declarations of secession from the southern states makes it clear they are seceding because of the federal government’s unwillingness to enforce their laws regarding ownership of slaves (right to private property) in non-slave states. At the same time Lincoln had no intention or even thought he could legally do anything about slavery in the south, very plainly stated in his first inaugural address on March 4 1861 as he desperately tried to avoid a civil war:

                “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

                For the north, and America as a whole, the idea that the war was about slavery as a moral evil was something the slaves themselves fought for. Even though they faced racism from northern troops many former slaves understood the reason for the war to a deeper level than even their northern generals.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Like I said, all of them mention slavery. Almost immediately. I’m not sure why you’re pretending they don’t.

                  I mean the Mississippi one, for example, says:

                  Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

        • markr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Dred Scott was still in effect in 1860. The federal government was not involved AT ALL in enforcement of slaver’s ‘property rights’ in non-slave states, that enforcement was up to the states, and was generally done by bounty hunters. The election of Lincoln, with the almost certain consequence that Kansas would be admitted as a free state, was the proximate cause of South Carolina’s secession. Slavery was obviously the critical factor, regardless of the enforcement or non-enforcement of Scott.

        • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Love the actual history getting downvotes here… this also doesn’t conflict with it being about slavery. The thing we shouldn’t do is equate “about slavery” in the way the Confederate states meant it when they seceded, with “about slavery” in the sense of abolition. Lincoln did not enter the war to emancipate slaves and fight for abolition, his first inaugural address on the eve of war leaves no question, a direct quote:

          “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

          Lincoln’s primary motivation was keeping the Union together at first, and obviously that changed, because we have the Emancipation Proclamation. The moral issue of slavery was hugely important for the North’s motivation and for people to fight though, many being emancipated slaves who understood the true point of fighting more than their northern white commanders, and who also faced racism from other northern soldiers yet still fought with them. The point is it wasn’t some goodness of the government that defined this war to be about slavery, it was actually the slaves that did that and those that were sympathetic to this cause.

          Barbara Fields is an expert on civil war history and makes the case for this view in this excellent interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ncnTNkeoOM The question of Lincoln’s motivations at the beginning of the war as Union before slavery and whether he can be excused is addressed at 55 minutes.

          “it was the battle for emancipation and the people who pushed it forward… it was they who ennobled what otherwise would have been meaningless carnage into something higher. When a black solder in New Orleans said “liberty must take the day nothing shorter” he said in effect that when we count out those who have died and survey the carnage is must be for something higher than Union and free navigation of the Mississippi River”

          Spotswood Rice, a former slave, writes to Kittey Diggs, 1864:

          I received a letter from Cariline telling me that you say I tried to steal, to plunder, my child away from you. Not I want you to understand that Mary is my Child and she is a God-given rite of my own. And you may hold on to her as long as you can. But I want you to remember this one thing, that the longer you keep my Child from me the longer you will have to burn in hell and the quicker you’ll get there. For we are now making up about one thousand black troops to come up through, and want to come through, Glasgow. And when we come woe be to Copperhood rebels and to the Slaveholding rebels. For we don’t expect to leave them there. Root nor branch. But we think however that we (that have children in the hands of you devils), we will try you the day that we enter Glasgow. I want you to understand Kittey Diggs that where ever you and I meet we are enemies to each other. I offered once to pay you forty dollars for my own Child but I am glad now that you did not accept it. Just hold on now as long as you can and the worse it will be for you. You never in your life before I came down here did you give children anything, not anything whatever, not even a dollars worth of expenses. Now you call my children your property. Not so with me. My children is my own and I expect to get them. And when I get ready to come after Mary I will have both a power and authority to bring her away and to exact vengeance on them that holds my Child. You will then know how to talk to me. I will assure that. And you will know how to talk right too. I want you now to just hold on; to hear if you want to. If your conscience tells that’s the road, go that road and what it will bring you to Kittey Diggs. I have no fears about getting Mary out of your hands. This whole Government gives cheer to me and you cannot help yourself.

          (It’s not known if Spotswood had a showdown with Kittey but there are property records indicating he lived with Mary and his wife after the war.)

          Edit: It’s people downvoting historical letters from freed slaves and historians reading testimonies of black Union soldiers that makes me think my time on this website is just about over…

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

            Hey, I upvoted you and I appreciate this. The other day someone downvoted pictures of my cat. Some people just suck. I appreciate you.

    • GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Have you read the declaration of secession?

      https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

      Or the Cornerstone Speech?

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

      Yes, the confederates were complaining about more than just slavery, but slavery was central to secession. In the examples you gave it’s still all about slavery. I think looking at foundational documents and speeches makes it clear that the cause was as simple as “slavery”.

      • Algaroth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And also white supremacy. All the states that seceded wrote an article of secession and many, if not all, bring up the importance of maintaining the superiority of the white man. It’s insane how people don’t know this. Even if you took out all the parts about slavery there would be a shitload of racism left.

    • inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      So your long-winded, weird lost cause diatribe stating it wasn’t about slavery still points out of was literally about slavery.

      Well that was some cringe, Billy Madison BS early in my morning.

      • markr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        ya see it wasn’t about slavery, it was about enforcement of slaver property rights. Not seeing the difference is reductionism. /s

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        So the American Revolution was about tea?

        It wasn’t, it was about England trying to collect taxes after not really caring while simultaneously cracking down on smuggling.

        But if we’re reducing things to single simple causes, it would make just as much sense to say it was about tea.

        Which is why it’s worth getting down voted for specificity

        • aalvare2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          It sounds like your argument is “if it’s okay to be reductionist, then there are no limits.” But there can totally be limits - it depends on the size of the leap.

          All of your posts can be boiled down to “it was about strengthening the federal government, specifically in support of slavery”, but reducing this further to “it was about slavery” isn’t a big leap. That’s what the downvotes are all telling you.

          Saying the American Revolution was about

          England trying to collect taxes after not really caring while simultaneously cracking down on smuggling

          And boiling that down to “it was about tea” is a WAY bigger leap than the one about the Civil War.

          A similarly sized leap would probably be saying “it was about taxes.” Personally, I wouldn’t care enough to “um, actually” someone who’d make that kind of leap.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            Saying it was about taxes leaves it open to “unfair taxes without representation”.

            America was treated better than any other colony due to how difficult the journey was.

            The rich (who mostly all smuggled various stuff including slaves) didn’t want to pay any taxes and convinced the poors that the rich paying taxes was enough for a lot of them to die in a brutal war, after which only 60% of white adult men could vote. No other races or women were able to.

            So yeah, I’ll take down votes in exchange for details. That shit often matters in history

            • aalvare2@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Saying it was about taxes leaves it open to “unfair taxes without representation”.

              Yeah? Well I’d argue that saying “slavery” leaves it open for “the strengthening the federal government in support of slavery.”

              So yeah, I’ll take down votes in exchange for details. That shit often matters in history

              I’m gonna presume to know something about the majority of internet strangers who’ve downvoted you: they didn’t downvote your details. They downvoted your assertion that the details challenge the idea that it was about slavery. It seems to us like you’re being overly pedantic.

              You’re not a martyr for truth, you’re a martyr for your personal opinion on the answer to the question “assuming the Civil War was principally about strengthening the federal government in support of slavery: is saying that the Civil War was about slavery a reasonable summation?”

              If instead of saying “it wasn’t about slavery bc …” you’d just said “for some added nuance, …”, then most of your downvotes would be from ppl challenging your information.

              As for that information, do you have any arguments against what GoodbyeBlueMonday or banneryear1868 have said? They are, so far, the only ppl to cite actual sources, and it apprears neither of them agree with your assertion that it wasn’t “about slavery”. And reading/listening to their sources doesn’t convince me of that, either.

    • Nakedmole@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Don´t bother my dude. Most people prefer oversimplified explanations that fit their personal views and will downvote anyone who confronts them with something a little bit more complex than that.