610
submitted 8 months ago by meldrik@lemmy.wtf to c/facepalm@lemmy.wtf
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Bougie_Birdie 167 points 8 months ago

Some people will tell you, "Well ackshually it was for states' rights," but those states wanted to use those rights to enforce slavery.

It strikes me as like the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. Like, wow, you're totally right about the semantics, but at the cost of missing the point entirely.

[-] Shanedino@lemmy.world 27 points 8 months ago

Also the people kill people thing points to a need for widespread free mental health services which they definitely don't support.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago

Honestly as a non american I always thought the point of that statement was that its not guns that kill people its the way you hand them out like candy with the barest excuse for any kind of safety evaluation that kills people.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 8 months ago

Exactly. The Confederate States' Constitution explicitly mentions and regulates slavery throughout the document.

It was 100% about slavery.

Anyone who says "states' rights" without mentioning slavery is either an ignorant turd or a racist POS.

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

States rights to do what? (⌐▀͡ ̯ʖ▀)︻̷┻̿═━一-

People kill people with what? (⌐▀͡ ̯ʖ▀)︻̷┻̿═━一-

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Facebones@reddthat.com 101 points 8 months ago

I grew up in the country in the bible belt. I bought the states rights argument for a long time. I was never a Confederacy stan, but yknow sure I get it.

Then one day I actually read everyone's secession declarations and basically all of them name slavery out the jump. Welp, fuck them. 🤷‍♂️

[-] NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world 62 points 8 months ago

Article 1 of the Confederate Constitution says Slavery is a god given right and makes it illegal for any Confederate state to outlaw slavery.

So it actually reduced States Rights.

[-] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 79 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Congratulations, your kids will be ill prepared for a global world. It's sad that foreign kids will have a better grasp of American history than Americans

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] MrJameGumb@lemmy.world 76 points 8 months ago

This is probably the same person who helped get textbooks updated to show pictures of slaves dancing and having a good time 🤮

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 40 points 8 months ago

Imagine feeling threatened by the notion that enslaving people was cruel and bad.

[-] KinglyWeevil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 64 points 8 months ago

"It was about States' Rights!"

"Yeah, a State's Right to what, exactly?"

[-] Schmeckinger@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago

The top chunk missing from Texas shows pretty decisively how important that "right" was to them.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] pedz@lemmy.ca 59 points 8 months ago

I'm an introvert, probably neurodivergent, and was bullied in school. I always thought public schools were not adapted for neurodivergent people and those that could not "fit in the mold". I thought I didn't receive enough attention. I always had more questions and were afraid to ask. So in a way could understand why some people would want to avoid that for their children, by homeschooling them.

However, people like in this Tweet are the exact reason why homeschooling in my region (Québec/Canada) is generally frowned upon. It's always people against vaccination, the religious and ignorants that pushes for homeschooling, and that's also why it's very difficult to have the right to do that here. Mennonites are actually leaving the province because of that.

[-] radicalautonomy@lemmy.world 44 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

As an autistic teacher (as in I am autistic, not that I teach only autistic kids), I am on the lookout for ND kids who have slipped through the cracks. One of them this year took under my wing, and she just flourished.

When J would come into my on-level Algebra 2 class at the very beginning of this past school year, I could well recognize the fear of math lurking behind her glazed-over eyes and panicked microgestures. I suspected she was autistic due to her speech patterns, movements, and other things, so I put that idea on her counselor's radar. Not sure what became of that, but it's not my job to clock the counselors and diagnostician, so I just trusted they were doing their jobs. 😊

I started with building trust with J, by insisting that she just try and then, when she got stuck in frustration, showing her the patience she deserved and guiding her with a smile through filling the gaps in her knowledge. Once she could see that I wasn't going to jump on her wrong answers and make her feel even more stupid than she already felt, she was willing to follow through on just trying as I'd asked her to do every day. "Perfection is a myth, and Rome wasn't built in a day. So just...try! Give yourself permission to be wrong, because that is the only way learning can happen."

And so she did...her grades for the six grading periods of the school year were (approximation) 70, 75, 81, 86, 92, and 98. By the fourth six weeks, she was asking for extra examples to try in class, and she insisted upon being able to understand how to do them before the period ended. I'm not sure if I could say she loved math after my class, certainly not as much as I love it, but she was no longer afraid of it, and she had developed the tenacity and self-efficacy she needed to show any future math class what for and no mistake.

J really did my teacher heart proud!

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] pyre@lemmy.world 47 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

i wonder why the US is trailing in education

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] thesmokingman@programming.dev 42 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Two answers to stuff like this:

  1. What did the Ordinance of Secession or Declaration of Causes (and related documents) actually say? Have them pull up the language of literally any one and search for “states rights” then “slave.” Hint: you’re gonna find one but not the other.
  2. Knowing more about the revisionism is very useful as is knowing when it’s a waste of your time.

Edit: sorry about the Battlefields link; it’s the easiest aggregate of several even if it also tries to support the states’ rights argument by talking about laws while excluding it was all about laws regarding slavery.

[-] PanArab@lemm.ee 38 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

People halfway across the world know that the US civil war was about slavery.

[-] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago

yes, but those people haven't been lied to their entire elementary & high school lives on the topic.

It's systemic ignorance.

(You can see the same thing in the Philippines about their current president's history. It's sad how common it is.)

[-] Wisas62@lemmy.world 38 points 8 months ago

It wasn't even about states rights, not really. If you read the SC declaration of succession, they talk extensively about the states rights to succeed legally and why in the first 13 paragraphs, then in the 14th they start the explanation of why they are succeeding. It's about the northern states not returning fugitive slaves, as was the law at the time, and the government doing anything to enforce the Constitution. Then in paragraph 22 they discuss the election of Lincoln and his open opposition to slavery and they were worried about losing the right to have slaves.

Basically, if the government isn't strong enough or willingly to enforce its own constitution, then they didn't need to be a part of that government and they had the right to denounce that government the same way they had done with the British government during the revolution.

text

It's 100% about slavery and there isn't

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago

It was absolutely about states' rights.

... to keep the institution of slavery alive.

[-] tjhart85@programming.dev 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

And to force OTHER states to return the runaway slaves!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 36 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

And this is exactly why homeschooling exists. For the most part of course. It's people who want a certain view of History taught and don't want to have to worry about pesky things like facts or history or books. That's why so much homeschooling is deeply Evangelical Christian, and somehow even the weirder branch of Evangelical Christians if that's a thing, also why so much of it has Nazi shit involved. Yeah if you've never looked it up there's a lot of Nazi propaganda in the homeschooling community. It's just great..

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] maxinstuff@lemmy.world 35 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

iT waS aBoUt StATes rIGhtS ᵗᵒ ᵒʷⁿ ˢˡᵃᵛᵉˢ

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] AgentGrimstone@lemmy.world 29 points 8 months ago

I wish those kids luck in life

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 23 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I mean, it kind of wasn't...

Lincoln honestly wouldn't stop talking about how he wasn't gonna touch slavery.

It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I beheve I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And, more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/march-4-1861-first-inaugural-address

What started it was the south thought the feds should be able to enforce southern law (escaped slaves are still slaves, and northern states had to return them) and the Feds said they couldn't force one state to follow another state's laws.

It's a valid distinction, but almost certainly not what she told her kids.

Like when people say it was over "states rights" but ignore the Feds sided with state's rights, and the South was the one arguing for a stronger federal government.

However during the war, Lincoln did outlaw slavery, but that was more of an economic sanction to dissuade European governments funding the South by buying up resources and land. The South would have still lost but it would have taken far longer if they were selling land/plantations/slaves to wealthy foreigners

It's one of the few things pretty much everyone gets wrong when you ask what causes it.

[-] Arbiter@lemmy.world 78 points 8 months ago

Yes, the north did not go to war over slavery, but the south sure did.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 40 points 8 months ago

Claiming Lincoln was coming for their slaves isn't that different than modern ones saying Biden is coming for their guns

Slavery was the hot topic of the election, and despite Lincoln repeatedly saying he wouldn't outlaw slavery, the South kept saying it and eventually started a civil war over.

Like, the modern parallel is almost too on the nose. They're treating the border and migrants the same way

So it's important for people to understand what happened since we're facing the same shit.

[-] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 35 points 8 months ago

Basically "states rights to be able to do what exactly?"

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

Like when people say it was over “states rights” but ignore the Feds sided with state’s rights, and the South was the one arguing for a stronger federal government.

States rights to force other states to follow their laws...

[-] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 36 points 8 months ago

Their laws to do what exactly?

I mean, ultimately it's about states rights, but mostly states rights to own other human beings and treat them as cattle.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago

Bet she never read the Constitution, Confederate or otherwise:

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

"In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States."

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] uebquauntbez@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago

Isn't it 'my truth' instead of 'the truth' then? 😇

[-] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 8 months ago

well if we're being semantically accurate here. It didn't start because of slavery, slavery on its own very rarely does anything. It was the disagreement between the north and south on slavery itself, that caused the civil war. And of course, the iconic "states rights, to have slavery, but we dont talk about the slavery part because that's inconvenient and makes us look bad"

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago

"Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter-"

"Just say slavery."

"Slavery it is, sir!"

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2024
610 points (100.0% liked)

Facepalm

499 readers
1 users here now

Anything that makes you apply your hand to your face.

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS