politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The fact of the matter is that slavery was negotiated endlessly. The north and south argued about it ferociously, and there were dead ass fist fights in Congress about it. Remember that the US was hardly the first, and closer to the last, nation in the west (I'm only making this distinction because I know significantly less about this time period outside of the west) to ban chattel slavery, and by a pretty good margin. It wasn't for lack of trying by the north's politicians, but the south had evolved the question of slavery into an existential matter for themselves, and basically said that "without slavery, there is no south". This made it so that every political attack on slavery was framed as an attack on the very existence of the south itself, which made the subject impossible to negotiate on. There's a lot more detail that can be got into here, like the insane performative concessions for slavery (that is, in favor of it) that the south demanded that are reincarnated in the braindead performance politics of MAGA today, but that's a story for another day.
The gist is that when Lincoln, the candidate from the abolitionist party (the republicans. Yeah, a lot has changed lol) won the election, the south had the ultimate shit fit and decided they'd sooner reject the legitimacy of the government than live under a president who, while he probably wouldn't fully abolish slavery, was against it enough to be part of the abolition party. There was no negotiating this; the founding fathers tried it, and people tried it for decades between then and the war, and when faced with the spectre of maybe having to negotiate some change or moderation, the south looked the north directly in the eye and shit its pants as loud and ferociously as possible. You can see this attitude in the Cornerstone Speech (incidentally, it is a wonderful speech to pull out when someone says the war wasn't about slavery), which is a speech by the first VP of the Confederacy about how this war is absolutely 100% about preserving slavery.
https://richardpoe.substack.com/p/how-the-british-caused-the-american
Not unlike Putin today, Lord Palmerston was pushing the South to secede.
Pitt the Elder would never.
I haven't heard of the Cornerstone Speech before, or perhaps I don't remember it from school from many many years ago. But I do wonder how did you hear about it? Class? A book? Would love to know where you acquired some of your US history knowledge because I'd like to know and learn more about the history myself and this seems like a crucial piece of history to know so I do thank you for sharing.
What?
In his inaugural address he literally said a president couldn't outlaw slavery and he wasn't even gonna try, and wouldn't even if he thought he could.
Now people are acting like it was the whole reason he became president...
He thought it was a state issue, and there's nothing the feds can do. Like with Joe Biden and abortion.
Then the South started a civil war to force the North to have slavery, like current Republican are trying to force abortion into being illegal all over.
The specifics matter, because it's still the conservative playbook.
You should read his inaugural address
https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/march-4-1861-first-inaugural-address
You should read a lot of stuff...
But start with that.
Maybe take a break, pal, that tone is unnecessary.
I just did some quick homework, and it looks like my public education has failed me again. That Lincoln wasn't going to abolish slavery isn't a shock, but I was taught that the Republicans were abolitionists, when it looks like it's actually the case that the Republicans wanted to moderate and contain slavery*. Which makes the South's defcon 5 shit fit about it that much funnier.
*There are a lot of people online talking about how the party was abolitionist, but none that provide sources, so that point is going to take more homework than I'm willing to commit to confirm or deny.
The Republicans were an abolitionist party, but the moderates (like Lincoln) believed that containing it would cause it to die out, while the radicals advocated for it to be banned immediately and outright.
The moderates were clearly wrong. The radicals were right. I'm glad Lincoln changed his mind.
Were literally staring down a second civil war, and everyone is still believing the South's propaganda from last time...
So it's pretty important that people understand why it happened last time, and they're gonna lie about it next time too.
It's not a meaningless argument like is PlayStation better than Xbox.
It's worth being upset when 99% of the country doesn't understand why we had a civil war
And no matter my "tone" it'll piss off conservatives because it's pointing out they lied.
And it pisses off moderates because it points out how the only other option still wasn't actively against slavery.
If the South hasn't thrown a temper tantrum, it could have taken decades more for slavery to be outlawed, pushing back civil rights and everything.
"Just do nothing and hope for the best" rarely works out
Wdym playstation is better
Theres no tone there, you're just insecure lol
Slow day at the troll farm?
What was the South’s argument for wanting the North to also have slavery?? I’m Canadian and not a history buff so idk much, but it seems a strange thing to try to enforce in other regions that don’t want it? I do see the parallel with the abortion access issue, so I can take a guess, but still, what logic did they they put forward for that argument (not just what they actually wanted but what they said their reasons were as well)?
There were laws that required non-slavery states to return any runaway slaves they found. Eventually, the non-slavery states said "fuck that" and just stopped doing it. I imagine it was similar to when Trump was fighting with so-called "sanctuary cities" about trying to get them to round up immigrants for deportation and they refused. Eventually, the slavery states petitioned the federal government to force the non-slavery states to enforce the runaway laws, and the feds refusal or inability to do so led to succession.
The biggest irony is that the racists still try to claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery but states' rights. In a way, it was, but not the way they imply...as they were trying to force other states to follow their state laws. Someone else mentioned that this was "still the Republican playbook," and I believe this is what they were referencing, as today we see Republican states trying to enforce their state laws requiring forced pregnancy and birth laws in states that still allow women to seek reproductive healthcare.