this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2024
58 points (98.3% liked)

Today I Learned

16981 readers
569 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I prefer "Slaveholders Rebellion"

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Ohh I like that.

Slap em a little more on the branding, you didn't "own" anything, cousin fuckers, you just held them against their will.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Don't forget that the south was trying to force the north ro send back escaped slaves, depite the north using their states rights to say no. The south would also send Bounty hunters to go kidnap free born black people to sell into slavery. So yeah, states rights was an issue. The right to identify people as human.

But let's not also forget that the confederate constitution had a passage that says that there will not be any laws capable of being passed that infringe on the right to own black people

Article I Section 9(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Slavery was about 99% of what drove the entire thing, so it makes sense to me.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

"No it was about states rights"

"States rights to what?"

Gotta plug doobus goobus too https://youtu.be/-ZB2ftCl2Vk?si=E3ckE6fse3SD4wCd

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

This is my favorite argument.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

states right to sucede from the union

but then again, why did they want to sucede?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

I think it's a better name. My only issue is that it is an even better name for what happened in Haiti, where the enslaved rose up, defeated their masters, got revenge, and formed a nation.

I wish the nation was more of a success today, but it should still be celebrated as a victory for humanity.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I wish the nation was more of a success today

Me too. You can mostly thank the US and especially France for that tbh. They both extorted Haiti for a debt of lost "property" owed to France. And by "property" I mean formerly enslaved human beings! That shit went on for 122 years and the first annual payment "owed" was of SIX TIMES the annual revenue of Haiti! 🤬

Wikipedia article

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The New York Times did what I think was the best article ever on this entire subject in 2022, and while it is a very long read, it is a deep and accurate dive into the French history, endless threats of war and repayments, and then the US coming into take whatever was left in the 20th century. And the pictures are also incredibly good, especially the ruins of La Citadelle in the fog (having just read exactly what it was there for).

Easily the most informative -- and moving -- piece I have ever read on Haiti. If I remember correctly, it started off as a journalist's attempt to tally the actual numbers, and ended up being a great deal more. It also explores how it wasn't just the loss of Haiti's cash to France, but the parallel loss of not having any of that cash invested in its own people, commerce, or society: it was a double blow that has gone on for centuries.

Here are the links for anyone interested:

NY Times -- The Root of Haiti’s Misery: Reparations to Enslavers

Gift link

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Haiti would be better called 'the slave revolution'

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Personally I'd rather "The Slaver's Treason"

Don't even dignify it with calling it a war, it was an act of treason and ought be looked at as nothing more than a national betrayal made in the name of paranoid slave oligarchs

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Clarify which of the two you're talking about at the start of your post. The post you're replying to is mostly discussing Haiti and your comment made be do a double-take.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Interesting. It didn't even end Slavery in the US tho

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

They call it "Lincoln's Tax War" in the South.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I've also heard "the War of Northern Aggression". No idea how common either is. I assume it's just a handful of crazies playing pretend.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I wish it was just a handful of crazies. The Lost Causers have shaped our nation as much as anyone else. Held us back at every step forward.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I've started to think about it as the second US civil war, the first being the war of independence.

That's just me being a smartass though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Technically true. The War of Independence WAS a civil war. It was a British civil war.

Goes to show that the victors write the history book.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Both the War of Independence and Revolutionary War imply that it's a civil war.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

That's what meant. A civil war is only called a civil war if the rebelling side loses. Otherwise it's a revolution.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I'm Icelandic and I just learned about this now! To be fair I learned fuck all about pre-20th century US history in school and I've basically just puzzled it together through movies and references online.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In Chinese it's called 南北戰爭, which means South-North War. Not as interesting as the Icelandic name though

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Given Chinese history you'd think that name would be reserved for...well IDK draw any time china wasn't unified out of a hat lol

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Well we do have a period called the Northern and Southern dynasties, but most of the time we are devided into multiple states and it's hard to tell who is south and who is north, so ...

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (6 children)

I'm surprised it's not called the States' Rights War.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

In parts of the South it's been rebranded as the "War of Northern Aggression" 🙄

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Then they get all red in the face when you ask them who shot the first shots.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That would require them to know history

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

They know, they choose to ignore it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Some do. A whole lot don't.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Because only confed apologists use that term, and to my knowledge there are no confed apologists in Iceland.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

There's almost 400,000 people on Iceland. I'd say there's probably at least one. Maybe even two.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Let's not go overboard.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Not true. It’s still listed as such in most textbooks in the south.🙄

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Yes, like I said:

only confed apologists use that term

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

The primary context of your link is very old history textbooks.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

States Rights to what, pray tell?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Don't even grant the premise. The State's Rights argument is entirely bullshit. The secessionists controlled the federal government and slavery was federal law. It was abolitionists in Wisconsin and Vermont that were freeing escaped slaves, and new territories wanted to vote to determine whether slavery would be law. The South opposed their right to do so. Lincoln had not threatened to free the slaves before the war, he just wasn't willing to enforce the federal Escaped Slaves act. That was all it took for the southern states to try to leave America.

But you don't have to take my word for it.

[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. . . .

The only time secessionists invoked a state's right to do anything was to secede.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

"but muh heritage" mfrs when I practice my heritage (it's burning confederate flags and killing traitors):

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It is, but not very often outside of the American south. (They prefer "The War of Northern Aggression" though.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Any time you hear that phrase unironically, ask what war that is, and then go "oh you mean the Rebellion of Southern Cowards? That's the only way I've heard it phrased other than civil war"

I may not be a descendant of William Tecumseh Sherman, but I grew up in the same area, and maybe it's just something about the water or the geography but I really feel an urge for Southern BBQ and a brisk walk to the ocean when Southern Cowards start speaking up again.