• GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    History is nuanced, yes. Lost Cause bullshit and slavery apologists can GTFO tho. They’re not arguing in good faith so when you chime in to let everyone know how smart you are by supporting that nonsense, you know what it looks like, right?

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Bro it’s factually correct, you can read Lincoln’s diary discussing it. The statement “the civil war was about slavery” isn’t wrong it just lacking nuance in the same way the statement I added to was.

      Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed both branches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersigned hereby protest against the passage of the same.

      They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils.

      They believe that the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States.

      They believe that the Congress of the United States has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; but that that power ought not to be exercised unless at the request of the people of said District.

      The difference between these opinions and those contained in the said resolutions, is their reason for entering this protest."

      Dan Stone, A. Lincoln, Representatives from the county of Sangamon

      • GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Okay let’s try this another way .

        You are 100% correct in your assertion that the civil war was a culmination of much more than just moral outrage over slavery, and it’s a subject worth continued study.

        However, there are people who are exploiting that nuance for despicable reasons. So when you comment trying to clarify what you see as a matter of historical record, some of us see it as unhelpful because it’s continuing to provide conversational cover to those who want to use that historical record in bad faith.

        It’s true, some slaves learned trade skills, but would you come in talking that ish if the OP was about the benefits of being enslaved?

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure.

          Agreed.

          Why do you believe I’m one of these exploitative people and you aren’t.

          I don’t get involved in subjectives and things I’m not particularly experienced in so I wouldn’t touch it.

          That said, if you agree with me then what is the drama and downvote barrage about?

              • justabigemptyhole@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                It is a bit hard to distinguish between a bad faith arguing and someone who is being pedantic. Poe’s Law may parallel this. Maybe that’s what they thought?

                • Madison420@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I am being pedantic… It’s quite literally in the first comment. Nuance does indeed tend to be pedantic or tedious.

              • GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                You seemed done, and I told you i get where you’re coming from, so I’m not sure what else we have to talk about.

                I’m into tabletop games and medieval history if you want to talk about that?

      • Ya_Boy_Skinny_Penis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Dude, you think if chattel slavery never existed in the South that there still would have been a civil war?

        The civil war was 100% about slavery.

            • Madison420@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You didn’t prove anything because you’ve provided no evidence but rather elucidated us all to your lazy lackadaisical bad faith argument style. Try harder or you know at all if you’re going to insert yourself into things you clearly don’t understand nor have any intention to learn.

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Point to where I said it’s wasn’t. You’ll be like the third person who can’t find it because I didn’t say it nor ever imply it.