Robert E. Lee was a traitor, a brute and a slaver who wouldn't even trade black union soldiers taken prisoner for the lives of his own men because he saw black people as property to be owned.https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/ …
-
-
I don’t want to speak for these guys, but they might disagree with that statement.pic.twitter.com/N5YfU94Wj3
-
I never claimed it wasn't a reason any soldier signed up or pulled the trigger. I said it wasn't the reason the Union was fighting. As in the federal government. Not the grunts. The government. Which was fighting to maintain control and power.
-
Over a region of the country that wanted to maintain and expand slavery! To say it’s not the crux of the conflict when one side has higher ambitions is silly. Would the south seceded if it could have expanded that peculiar institution further west?
-
The federal government was not fighting to prevent them from maintaining and expanding slavery. It was not fighting about any ambitions regarding slavery. The slavery issue was tangential to the Union purpose in fighting for control, at best.
-
But the slave issue was not tangential but central to the south. Ss were issues of white supremacy. Southern elites wrote as much. It was their reason for breaking away from the union. The fact that the north didn’t oppose slavery doesn’t mean it was not the bases for the war.
- Afslutning af samtale
Ny samtale -
-
-
"But slavery was exactly zero percent of the reason the Union was fighting." If you're going to be a pedant, be a consistent pedant. This is not true. A percentage of popular, military, and political support was for abolition. That percentage changed with time over the war.
-
At no point was it the actual causal reason for the war, though. The Union was fighting about slavery in the same way we're fighting in the middle east about WMDs now. That might be how they drummed up some of their support, but that's not what it was really about.
-
What you're saying, in both this comment and the previous one, is not true. I don't know how else to say it. If you won't accept it, that's your problem and your embarrassment.
-
I know the simple narrative of South=slaver=bad, North=freedom=good makes it easier for you, but no matter how hard you tell yourself it's accurate, you will continue to be wrong. But yes, I am embarrassed by the popularity of your wrongness.
-
That's not what I said. The simple narrative is yours, the one that ignores both the wider implications of a slave-based economy and the altruistic reasons that many people had for war in favor of easy cynicism. Being cynical is not the same as being informed. Sorry. Muting.
Afslutning af samtale
Ny samtale -
-
-
read the actual articles of secession for any of the 9 confederate states. They ALL mention owning slaves as the "state's right" they are protecting. So yes, it is about slavery.
-
And yet, once again, the Union wasn't fighting to end slavery. It was fighting to preserve their claimed right to rule over the states that were attempting to leave. The secession was about slavery. The war was not.
-
Ok, hold up....you’re claiming the war wasn’t about slavery, right? But... You said in a previous post that the war was about secession. You say here that the secession was about slavery. By your own reasoning, that means the war was about slavery.
https://twitter.com/rystefn/status/1121848313383243776?s=21 …pic.twitter.com/3RgOm3cU4D
Afslutning af samtale
Ny samtale -
-
-
Not zero percent. If we get to invoke racist grand-daddy who was just protecting his farm down south, we get to invoke all the abolitionists and their reasons for showing up on the battlefield. The North also had abolished 60 years prior, and slavery was THE defining topic.
-
I know you desperately want to present the narrative where anyone pointing out the truth is defending their ancestors' racism, but if you think your ancestors were any less racist, you're laughably wrong. Also, there were slave states in the north, so you're wrong there, too.
Afslutning af samtale
Ny samtale -
-
-
Actually Union was fighting against expansion of slavery but not abolition until Emancipation proc. Basically South over reached because they could not accept Lincoln as an abolitionism-curious guy so decided to pack their shit and leave. But they left in order to protect slavery
-
If the Feds had simply shrugged and let the Confederates secede, slavery would have expanded exactly zero. The Union wasn't fighting about that. The Union was fighting about enforcing rule upon the people trying to leave.
-
Ignorant. Confederates seceded because they wanted to take ball and go home when could not get Union to expand slavery. Yes won't have been expansion in Union states once they left but Confederates only left because felt Union non-expansion policy was slippery slope to abolition.
Afslutning af samtale
Ny samtale -
-
-
Slavery was not why the Union was fighting, but it was why the Confederacy was fighting and why they wanted to secede in the first place. Having said that, atrocities of war on the Union side far exceeded anything the South did. That story is often lost in these discussions.
Tak. Twitter bruger dette til at forbedre din tidslinje. FortrydFortryd
-
Indlæsning ser ud til at tage noget tid.
Twitter kan være overbelastet eller have en midlertidig forstyrrelse. Prøv igen, eller se flere oplysninger på Twitter Status.