• blackbelt352@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s only nuanced if you ignore all the primary evidence that it really was over the issue of slavery and almost entirely about preserving slavery.

    Most of those “Well it was more nuanced because states rights and they got beneficial skills” reasons are made up by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      almost entirely about preserving slavery.

      That my friend is called nuance.

      Most of those “Well it was more nuanced because states rights and they got beneficial skills” reasons are made up by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

      Please quote my statements amounting to such implied accusation.

      • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        history is nuanced but your actually a Nazi if you recognize that fact…

        Because not all nuance is created equal nor is it accurate. Much of the “nuance” of the civil war beyond southern cecession and the ensuing war was over the institution of slavery and its abolition are falsehoods spread by the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

        We have plenty of primary evidence from the cornerstone speech, to the actual confederate constitution, to letters of secession to the journal entries of soldiers who fought. None of that supports the “Well it was states rights and the soldiers didn’t know better and the south was just a peace loving society that didn’t want to hurt anyone, and the north are the real aggressors (despite the confederates firing the first shots in the first battle on Northern territory).”

        But hey keep falling propaganda by apologists for a dead slaver nation-state that Hitler wrote about his admiration of in mein kampf.