You must log in or register to comment.
Explanation: In the US Civil War, the core of the conflict was over the rights of Black folk as human beings, with the secessionist Confederacy being in support of race-based slavery and white supremacy as the literal foundation of their government and society, and openly and proudly so; and the Union, the democratically elected pre-war government, eventually, reluctantly, coming around to the idea of abolishing slavery and affording Black folk equal rights. Some Unionists were more based on this issue than others.
When Black soldiers began to be employed by the Union after the first year of the war, the slaver Confederates were shocked and appalled, and often objected in ways that were sometimes hilariously pathetic, and sometimes… tellingly gruesome and cruel. This is the case of the former - when captured Confederate soldiers learned that they were going to be escorted as PoWs by a unit of Black troops, they protested to Union General George Thomas. He told them to fuck off, but eloquently, as seen in the meme. The slaver scum meekly submitted after being put in their place, like slavers generally do when they aren’t separated from their victims by chains and whips.
For bonus points, the unit of Black troops were almost certainly not the only troops he could spare at the time, lmao.
I though the slavery question was mostly a pretext and a propaganda argument of the Union…
That the federated were fighting for a federal union of states, while confederated fighted for a confederation ; in that way, a federation could pass a law that (by example) could force member states to renounce to slavery ; while a confederation could only make it a wish of harmonisation of local laws, each state remaining independant.
On the side of slavery, an other question was discussed. The main principle of US economy policies. Protectionism (high tarifs on imports, to let US industry develop without much international competition ; sacrifying agriculture which main sales were at export), or free-market Liberalism (no tarifs, let all US companies face and benefit of international competition, and therefore sacrify some industries for agriculture’s benefits).
Free-market partisans were favorable to confederation, so each state fixes its own tariffs. Protectionism partisan were more favorable to a federation, so that agricole states may not easily choose to buy industrial good from foreign countries.
The thing with slavery is that it may make sense (economicaly only) in a system based on agriculture. But for industrials, slavery is harming the needed productivity ; slaves are far too expensive compared to (not united) workers paid per piece.
Also, the victory of the federated allowed effectively the industry to get the main part of US internal market and reduced the agricultural exports. But it did not allow those on the wrong side of the “line of color” to have access to a decent life… And so it seems to me that the division was more on the economical vision than for humanist reasons.
Am I that wrong?
You have repeated propaganda spread by the Daughters of the Confederacy almost verbatim.
The Confederacy required a state to ratify slavery in it’s constitution to join. The secessionists more than once in the build up to the war said that their identity as states was inseparably tied to slavery.
There was an entire ethical ‘code’ in the South that required a gentlemen to beat with a stick any man that dared speak openly against slavery. This lead to a senator beating a man nearly to death on the Senate floor in 1856.
Slavery in this case specifically refers to the involuntary and permanent bondage of all black people. Having a single traceable ancestor of African origin anywhere in your family tree meant you were black.
The primary and only issue that lead to the civil war was the threat of talking slavery away. This is an indisputable fact. Arguing otherwise is like trying to argue the earth is flat, and camels can pass through sewing needles.
Absolutely wrong. All of the Confederate states explicitly name slavery as the purpose of their secession. The Confederate Constitution itself actually reduced state powers in several areas. The Confederate Constitution - embodying both of these issues - explicitly forbids individual states from ever abolishing slavery. The Confederate states were not given the power to impose their own individual tariffs. Agricultural exports were not reduced after the war.
OP explains what their understanding is, asks if they are mistaken.
Lemmy: FUCK YOU!
This will be instructive, and many of the letters of succession are singing from the same hymn book, though not every one.
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union
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. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
while a confederation could only make it a wish of harmonisation of local laws, each state remaining independant.
If that is true, then why did they feel the need to bake this straight into the constitution?
Article I Section 9(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Them there confederate boys sure do love their state rights.
Yes, you’re that wrong. It was about slavery from the start. Read the letters if secession and the confederate constitution. Slavery is explicitly mentioned as a reason for secession several times and the constitution is virtually the same as the US constitution but with the explicit inclusion of slavery.
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States | American Battlefield Trust https://share.google/apb20y4F1EStHk7pE
DEI Union recruitment smh
I can’t believe they are literally destroying the Union (that we want to destroy) with their wokeness 😔
