It Wasn’t a ‘Civil War.’ It Was the Slaveholders’ Rebellion.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/02/opinion/civil-war-slaveholders-rebellion-slavery.html?unlocked_article_code=1.2VA.OW1v.UwuaYndQIpEj&%3Bsmid=url-share
173 points · 20 comments · view on lemmy.world
20 Comments
nkat2112@sh.itjust.works · 53 pts · 30d
A great article - thank you for sharing, OP. Here follow the first three paragraphs:
CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 30d
This might be why the cons reacted so hard to the media calling their J6 day of terrorism an "insurrection".
Some guy on Denver Post's commenting system tried to get my posts deleted when I used the term. He really reacted to me calling it what it really was, though: terrorism. Sometimes some magameathead would be on-duty for moderation and would oblige this asshat.
But he took to writing "insplerection!" as some kind of mockery when people would discuss conservatives and their party's insurrection.
JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org · 14 pts · 30d
You also have the whole Iraqi insurgency as a background. People who went into the middle east to fight against an insurrection and who were told that those insurgents were the bad guys really do not like being called insurgents themselves.
Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world · 45 pts · 30d
IMHO, the easiest response to the “state rights” lie is to link people to the ordinances of cause and declarations of secession that states drafted before they peaced out.
They all immediately say that this is about slaves and a lot have fun language about black people being inferior or well suited for picking crops.
It’s in writing, clear as day, in the documents they used to secede. If you believe the “states rights” cause, you clearly haven’t listened to what those southern leaders were saying at the time. You’re probably just being fed cherry picked snippets that support a false narrative.
Tower@lemmy.zip · 27 pts · 30d
"States rights to do what, exactly?"
BadmanDan@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 30d
“We didn’t want rebellion, but the Union went all North Korea on us and tried taking away our right to human slaves, so we started blastin!”
realitista@lemmus.org · 9 pts · 30d
I will call it this from now on.
anomnom@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 30d
The next big lie is that it ever ended. We’ve been fighting a cold civil war since Lincoln was killed. There was a brief lull during reconstruction but we never truly stopped the slavers and white supremacy that caused the hot war.
Anti_Iridium@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 30d
Absolutely the most accurate description of the war, so ever since highschool thats how I've seen it.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 3 pts · 30d
A truly civil war would be far less destructive, I think. I mean, killing each other and blowing shit up is far from civil.
Makhno@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 30d
A true civil war would just be a line of men slapping eachother with their gloves until one side cries uncle
Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 30d
What’s so civil about war anyway.
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 30d
Seems pretty fucken apt to describe a civil society. Generally so called savage societies had ways of dealing with problems before they exploded, unlike say Rome who got into civil wars every other Thursday or they burned Constantinople down because their team lost.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 2 pts · 30d
Now we burn down cities when our teams win.
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 30d
Oh they did that as well, just not as thorough.
savvie@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 30d
now we burn down a planet dominated by fossil fuel emissions
inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 29d
Buh my state rights!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZB2ftCl2Vk
quick_snail@feddit.nl · -10 pts · 30d
C'mon, it was racists on both sides
CaliforniaSober@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 30d
Fucking stupid on one side only.
quick_snail@feddit.nl · -4 pts · 30d
Lincoln campaigned on the supremacy of white men over black man. His speech in Illinois was dripping with racism and quite explicitly white supremacist
Edit: are you down voters actually that ignorant of history?