• GladiusB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    That isn’t “technically correct”. His statement said the Civil War. Not Lincoln. If you want to go and support the racial ramblings of a moron on Twitter, it would help to technically correct yourself.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If someone means “both sides thought it was about slavery” then initially no. The south absolutely left over slavery and stuff like the fugitive slave act (“states rights” and “right to property” 💀) but originally the union was just trying to get everything back together.

      That’s part of why it feels off.

      Imagine this contrived metaphor. The union is a barber. The south paid for a haircut. The south says “This haircut sucks, I’m getting a refund with the bank.” Then the union says “Actually you owe me money and can’t do that.” Is it correct to say this spat is about a haircut? I’d think so, yes. Let’s say later the union decided “actually, I’m a good barber and it isn’t just about the money.” Is it correct to say the spat is now about a haircut? Definitely. So when someone says “The spat wasn’t initially about a haircut, the union didn’t care about their barber skills until later”… Is that correct? Technically. Does it make me suspicious they’re trying to spread Lost Cause of the South propaganda? It definitely makes me suspicious.

      Even if both sides didn’t agree the war was about slaves originally the fucking Confederacy definitely believed it was about slavery the entire time and they were founded on slavery and mentioned it in their letters of secession and their founding documents. There’s no ambiguity about that. Everything else is just a linguistic trick of whether a war being about something means both sides have to agree what it is about.

    • Aaliyah1@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      His entire train of thought is based on the idea that “Lincoln didn’t oppose slavery” which is “technically correct.” Except it leaves out all historical analysis which allows him to come to the fallacious conclusion that “the civil war wasn’t about slavery.”

        • Aaliyah1@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes, this was literally my entire point. Did you miss this?

          His conclusion rests on the assumption that in a war, two sides must be diametrically opposed to one another, so if Lincoln and the north were not fighting against slavery, therefore the south could not be fighting for slavery.

          Edit: if you need it spelled out, I am implying that this is a fallacious assumption

          Edit 2: to spell it out further, I am implying this is a fallacious assumption based in part on the reason you just laid out

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

            Then you need you access your writing capabilities. Your initial response was he was “technically correct”. He is not technically correct. He’s technically stretching the truth to match click bait on a garbage platform and spew anti racism rhetoric.

            Lincoln was not the only person fighting the Civil War. There were hundreds of thousands. You disrespect every soldier that died and for their causes by reducing it to two people making choices.

            I took History of the United States. As an undergrad. With an emphasis on the time period. Slavery was very much part of the landscape for every single American. It is utterly inept to even try and justify it otherwise.

            • Aaliyah1@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Most people who read my original comment seemed to have no issues with it. You however should work on your reading comprehension if you came away from it thinking that it’s justifying slavery.

              Did Lincoln want to outlaw slavery? Maybe we can begin there.

              I straight up don’t even know what the fuck you’re talking about in the rest of this comment. Or rather, I don’t know how it’s responding in any way to my original comment.