• mommykink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    46
    ·
    9 months ago

    The overwhelming majority of antebellum Southerners did not own slaves. The Southerners that did did not fight on the fight on the front. The people whose deaths you celebrate were victims of propaganda and conscription.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      The insurrectionists that stormed the capitol were also ‘victims’ of propaganda.

      Such ‘victims’ they were and are willing to kill US law enforcement to over throw the legally elected government of the United States.

      Such ‘victims’ that they’d like to relegate women to second or third class citizen positions in society.

      Such ‘victims’ they’d like to should migrants at the border and anywhere else they can find them.

      These people; they’re the same people: You have no obligation to offer charity to a moral position that a reasonable person should know better than to have taken.

      • mommykink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yes, this is all true. My comment is a very, very basic application of Marxist history. The ruling class has always fought their battles through the proletariat. Nobody born in the antebellum South came into this world with a desire to own other humans or one day to be needlessly slaughtered in defense of such an institution. A lifetime of propaganda and social manipulation from the elites taught them that.

        None of the people you describe were born with hatred, either. They were taught to hate by the 1% ruling class. They are victims too. Identifying a victim of a greater injustice does not excuse the microaggressions they commit as an effect of being a victim themselves.

    • PugJesus@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Historian Joseph Glatthaar’s statistical analysis of the 1861 volunteers in what would become the Army of Northern Virginia reveals that one in 10 owned a slave and that one in four lived with parents who were slave-owners. Both exceeded ratios in the general population, in which one in 20 owned a slave and one in five lived in a slaveholding household. “Thus,” Glatthaar notes, “volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.” In short, Confederate volunteers actually owned more slaves than the general population.

      Not even getting into the fact that those who didn’t own slaves often engaged in the broader practice of the (ab)use of slaves and aspired to own slaves, and were quite openly fighting to perpetuate and expand slavery.

        • PugJesus@kbin.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Well, that’s mostly a look at the modern effects of slave patrols and descendants of the practice, but yes. Slave patrols were notable in that they included mostly non-slave owning white volunteers. It really shows just how deep the rot went. Slavery wasn’t ‘incidental’ to the Antebellum South’s existence as a society, it was the Antebellum South.

      • mommykink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        So you’re saying that 9/10 did not own a slave? Sounds like an overwhelming majority to me. The quote from Glatthaar ( Here’s the link, because you didn’t cite it yourself ) also cherry-picks the most slave-owning army in the CSA.

        Not even getting into the fact that those who didn’t own slaves often engaged in the broader practice of the (ab)use of slaves and aspired to own slaves, and were quite openly fighting to perpetuate and expand slavery.

        See: victims of propaganda.

        I’ll copy my reply to another comment. You’ve seriously misinterpreted my argument, whether you know it or not.

        My comment is a very, very basic application of Marxist history. The ruling class has always fought their battles through the proletariat. Nobody born in the antebellum South came into this world with a desire to own other humans or one day to be needlessly slaughtered in defense of such an institution. A lifetime of propaganda and social manipulation from the elites taught them that.

        Identifying a victim of a greater injustice does not excuse the microaggressions they commit as an effect of being a victim themselves.

    • Kalkaline @lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      9 months ago

      They probably should have just surrendered to the North if they didn’t want to fight for the rights of rich white dudes to own slaves.

      • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Didn’t they use conscription?

        Five days later, the Confederate government passed the Exemption Act, which excused from military service select government employees, workers deemed necessary to maintain society (such as teachers, railroad workers, skilled tradesmen, and ministers), and owners of twenty or more slaves.

        Had to look it up cuz I wasn’t sure, but that last bit is extremely relevant.

        • PugJesus@kbin.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Didn’t they use conscription?

          Plenty of conscripts surrendered. Plenty of people evaded conscription. Just look at Appalachia, where slave power was weak.

      • mommykink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        They probably should have just surrendered to the North if they didn’t want to fight for the rights of rich white dudes to own slaves.

        See: victims of propaganda.

    • PapaStevesy@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      So? Name a war where the people dying aren’t victims of propaganda and conscription? My grandfather was conscripted by the German Army in WWII, but I can still make fun of Nazis and celebrate the failure of the Axis. The majority of people that participated in the Jan 6 insurrection were also victims of propaganda, that doesn’t mean I’m sad they failed and it doesn’t make it socially unacceptable to celebrate that failure. Southern Pride is Slavery Pride, that’s just the way it is.

    • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Good. Dumb chumps who support shit still got what they deserved. Hopefully their lesson on losing isn’t lost on future generations. Looking back at all the sides that lost in history, so many are right wing bullshit spitters who can spin some propaganda but have no discernable skills for anything else. Hopefully you learned from history and don’t support losers.

    • AnonTwo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      So let’s continue to celebrate the death of the confederacy, so that no more good people fall to propaganda and conscription

      The problem is we didn’t drop it when we had the chance, so the first chance they got they rewrote the history books.

      • PugJesus@kbin.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        The problem is we didn’t drop it when we had the chance, so the first chance they got they rewrote the history books.

        It’s fucking horrific. From the late 1870s to the 1940s, Lost Causers were borderline unchallenged in historical academia. We’re still recovering from that.

      • mommykink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yes, I agree, the Confederacy is a stain on the history of America and their desire to own other human beings cost the lives of 620,000 people. Included in that total are 258,000 Southerners, the majority of whom were victims of circumstance themselves.

    • ihavenopeopleskills@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I believe slavery is an inexcusable, horrible stain on our nation’s fabric, but it was the economic engine of the day down South. Not saying that doesn’t make it reprehensible: I am merely giving context. Dismantling it at the speed Washington demanded would have ground things to a halt. That’s a big reason the South fought. Another issue was gun control.

      No, I have never affiliated with any white supremacist or southern heritage group.

      • PugJesus@kbin.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        I believe slavery is an inexcusable, horrible stain on our nation’s fabric, but

        Oh boy

        it was the economic engine of the day down South. Not saying that doesn’t make it reprehensible, just giving context.

        “We built our entire society on a system that 6/7 Founding Fathers recognized as evil.”

        Maybe they shouldn’t have built their entire society around an institution that was widely recognized as evil at the time?

        Dismantling it at the speed Washington demanded would have ground things to a halt. That’s a big reason the South fought.

        Yes, the speed of [checks notes]

        … not dismantling it at all.

        Another issue was gun control.

        Fucking what.

        • ihavenopeopleskills@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          The Bill of Rights included an abolitionist amendment, but they were not confident it would pass, hence its exclusion.

          Not defending it. Don’t shoot the messenger.

          • PugJesus@kbin.socialOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            The Bill of Rights included an abolitionist amendment, but they were not confident it would pass, hence its exclusion.

            This the same Bill of Rights that was passed almost a hundred years before the Civil War?

            Not defending it.

            Pretty clearly making excuses for it.

            • ihavenopeopleskills@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago
              1. Yes.

              2. Providing context doesn’t magically make something morally correct. It illustrates the circumstances.

              There are all kinds of circumstances under which people commit grave wrongs in the face of adversity. If we’re going to punish everyone for every wrong committed regardless of surrounding circumstances, there’s far more punishment to dispense, regardless of political stripes.

              • Metal Zealot@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                You’re defending the circumstances of the time, unfortunately. You’re not even fully condemning it, or saying it shouldn’t have happened in the first place

              • PugJesus@kbin.socialOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Yes.

                So would you like to explain how a failed proposal to extinguish slavery almost a hundred years before the rebellion was a big reason why the South fought their slaver rebellion?

                Providing context doesn’t magically make something morally correct. It illustrates the circumstances.

                “But you have to understand the context!” brought up in response to a condemnation of the evil is a plea for sympathy. Don’t play coy.

                There are all kinds of circumstances under which people commit grave wrongs in the face of adversity. If we’re going to punish everyone for every wrong committed regardless of surrounding circumstances, there’s far more punishment to dispense, regardless of political stripes.

                Okay. I support only punishing people for serious wrongs committed. Like enforcing the bondage of one’s fellow man in one of the most cruel and vile systems of our nation’s history, treason, or murder of American citizens.

      • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Let’s imagine for a second that there’s a big huge magical machine that generates anything that any American could want. Anything at all! Hunger is immediately eradicated. Health problems begin to vanish. Scarcity is a thing of the past.

        Now imagine that we discover that the machine is operated by stuffing hundreds of thousands of human babies into one side of it. They can never leave. Inside, they will be sucked of all their energy and discarded as husks. Parents who try to keep their babies from being thrown into the machine are killed.

        Should we take an incremental, slow approach to shutting down and dismantling this machine, knowing that it’s driving the entire American economy now?

        Or should we just blow it up?

        slavery is an inexcusable, horrible stain on our nation’s fabric

        You could’ve just stopped there.

      • mommykink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        On one hand, I appreciate that you’ve tried to defend me, but this is not the argument I’m making. Slavery was always a morally objectable practice. My comment was in defense of the poor, maniupulated proletariat soldiers who made up the bulk of the Confederate’s army and who were sacrificed en masse for a cause they never would have believed in without a lifetime of propaganda.