3 ms·

> If anything, this is an argument against reparations. Slavery has been around and accepted since before the Bible was written; we just keep finding ways to re

> If anything, this is an argument against reparations. Slavery has been around and accepted since before the Bible was written; we just keep finding ways to redefine it. An entire war was waged in which people died fighting to restore slaves' freedom. The debt has been paid. It does not matter how long slavery has been around. What matters is that the nation accrued gigantic collections of material wealth on the backs of American slaves. The American Civil War was NOT fought to restore the freedom of slaves. The Civil War was started because the South decided that they had "state's rights" to slavery. It was never fought to "end slavery." It was fought to put down a rebellion, the same way that Washington put down multiple rebellions during his tenure as POTUS. No debt has ever been paid. Those union soldiers were never fighting to end slavery. They were fighting to maintain the union. Those are fundamentally different objectives. Your perspective is not held by any scholarship on the matter past jingoistic elementary school textbooks.

jstarfish 3y ago
There are even more cynical takes that could be explored (I, too, have been through the mental gymnastics of the liberal American college, an institution most welcoming of tolerance for race discussions), but the net result is that slaves were liberated and assimilated at the cost of significant loss of human life. That abolition of slavery aligned with other objectives does not negate my point that slaves benefited from the war, at the expense of people who didn't owe them anything. > The Civil War was started because the South decided that they had "state's rights" to slavery. It was never fought to "end slavery." It was fought to put down a rebellion, the same way that Washington put down multiple rebellions during his tenure as POTUS. You just made the argument that the South seceded over a single issue-- slavery. The North responded by declaring war on its own countrymen (it was the North that declared war, remember)-- and not because they wanted to keep slaves, but because the South was out of line. Were that the case, we could have avoided the bloodiest battle in American history by simply negotiating an outcome where the South was allowed to keep its slaves. We don't care about ending slavery, anyway, so who gives a fuck? Keep your goddamn slaves. Surrender your arms and apologize. At any point during the war, the Union could have ended it by making the same concession-- they didn't care about ending slavery, right? We'll just keep throwing our sons at the problem and have them shipped back in neat little boxes though. Once the rebellion was over, the Union could have packed up and went home and still let the South keep its slaves (because it was never about slavery!), or left the slaves to their fate as abandoned property, but instead they were emancipated and had their personhood recognized by the Union that you claim only got involved to big-dick the South. So the Civil War was entirely about preserving the ego of a bunch of Narcissists whose progressive social values and efforts in abolishing slavery in their own backyard somehow translated to a lack of interest in going to war with a clique of rebels that refused to adopt the same principles, until someone cucked Honest Abe. That much could not stand. We were totally cool with letting the South continue having slaves-- they just needed to be taught a lesson in respect. Come on. This isn't how politics or statecraft works. The situation is more nuanced than either of us is getting into (economic advantages to war, slavery, etc.) but this is more histrionic than history.
int_19h 3y ago
> Those union soldiers were never fighting to end slavery. They were fighting to maintain the union. The Union soldiers could and did fight for both things. I reminder that this one one of the most popular marching songs for Union troops at the time: John Brown's knapsack is strapped upon his back! His soul is marching on! His pet lambs will meet him on the way; They go marching on! They will hang Jeff Davis to a sour apple tree! As they march along! Now, three rousing cheers for the Union; As we are marching on! Of course, individual opinions could and did vary a lot, but the very popularity of the song surely demonstrates the common sentiment among the troops. The elites, now, that is a more interesting question.

jstarfish 3y ago

There are even more cynical takes that could be explored (I, too, have been through the mental gymnastics of the liberal American college, an institution most welcoming of tolerance for race discussions), but the net result is that slaves were liberated and assimilated at the cost of significant loss of human life. That abolition of slavery aligned with other objectives does not negate my point that slaves benefited from the war, at the expense of people who didn't owe them anything. > The Civil War was started because the South decided that they had "state's rights" to slavery. It was never fought to "end slavery." It was fought to put down a rebellion, the same way that Washington put down multiple rebellions during his tenure as POTUS. You just made the argument that the South seceded over a single issue-- slavery. The North responded by declaring war on its own countrymen (it was the North that declared war, remember)-- and not because they wanted to keep slaves, but because the South was out of line. Were that the case, we could have avoided the bloodiest battle in American history by simply negotiating an outcome where the South was allowed to keep its slaves. We don't care about ending slavery, anyway, so who gives a fuck? Keep your goddamn slaves. Surrender your arms and apologize. At any point during the war, the Union could have ended it by making the same concession-- they didn't care about ending slavery, right? We'll just keep throwing our sons at the problem and have them shipped back in neat little boxes though. Once the rebellion was over, the Union could have packed up and went home and still let the South keep its slaves (because it was never about slavery!), or left the slaves to their fate as abandoned property, but instead they were emancipated and had their personhood recognized by the Union that you claim only got involved to big-dick the South. So the Civil War was entirely about preserving the ego of a bunch of Narcissists whose progressive social values and efforts in abolishing slavery in their own backyard somehow translated to a lack of interest in going to war with a clique of rebels that refused to adopt the same principles, until someone cucked Honest Abe. That much could not stand. We were totally cool with letting the South continue having slaves-- they just needed to be taught a lesson in respect. Come on. This isn't how politics or statecraft works. The situation is more nuanced than either of us is getting into (economic advantages to war, slavery, etc.) but this is more histrionic than history.

int_19h 3y ago

> Those union soldiers were never fighting to end slavery. They were fighting to maintain the union. The Union soldiers could and did fight for both things. I reminder that this one one of the most popular marching songs for Union troops at the time: John Brown's knapsack is strapped upon his back! His soul is marching on! His pet lambs will meet him on the way; They go marching on! They will hang Jeff Davis to a sour apple tree! As they march along! Now, three rousing cheers for the Union; As we are marching on! Of course, individual opinions could and did vary a lot, but the very popularity of the song surely demonstrates the common sentiment among the troops. The elites, now, that is a more interesting question.