The whole war was about slavery. The Confederate states wanted to have slaves. When Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860, they threw a tantrum, claimed the election wasn’t legitimate (sound familiar?), then seceded and tried to form an independent nation.
Anyone who says that it was about states’ rights is being disingenuous. The Confederate Constitution mentions slavery and includes regulations for it.
The Confederacy also wanted to deport all Jews (except for one - the Secretary of The Treasury) and eventually conquer Mexico and use them as slaves as well. The brown ones.
The Confederacy also would have enslaved any Native Americans remaining in those states.
The vast majority of southern soldiers were too poor to ever own a slave and were treated only slightly better than slaves. It was very obviously the white supremacist elitist class exploiting everyone else.
The Republican party regurgitates a lot of the Confederate talking points.
Anyone who says that it was about states’ rights is being disingenuous.
Oh, it was about states’ rights. Mostly one right in particular that they reasonably feared was going to be taken from them by federal action, specifically the right to own other people as property. So not a particularly **good ** right to be the one you draw the line at.
It’s probably not a coincidence that the federal government expanded it’s powers a lot more and a lot more quickly after the Civil War than before, though.
Ah…well, it was always implied. It’s a stretch though since in the South, cousin stuff isn’t incest. That’s just normal, otherwise the population would decline rapidly in terms of numbers.
That’s actually quite an interesting approach and I wonder what the limits of implications are.
Could we for example imply that Bo and Luke are not only shagging Daisy and each other, but in addition have raped and/or murdered numerous other people? Could we imply they’ve lynched anyone? If we can, what else could we infer? If not, why not? What limit did we exceed?
Or could we go the other way and imply that they do lots of anti-racism stuff offscreen and that they’re using Confederate symbology and names not to glorify it but to mock it? And that they are therefore non-racist and (with additional implications) non-incestuous?
Since one aspect of racism is ascribing negative traits to a particular people group regardless of any evidence that those traits are true (like for example the English thinking of Irish people as stupid, although for the most part I don’t think we do that any more), could ascribing incest and racism to citizens of southern states in itself be racist?
General Lee - Robert E Lee, general of the Army of Northern Virginia, the main army for the Confederate States of America.
Jefferson Davis - president of the Confederate States of America.
The Flag - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America#First_flag?wprov=sfla1
The whole war was about slavery. The Confederate states wanted to have slaves. When Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860, they threw a tantrum, claimed the election wasn’t legitimate (sound familiar?), then seceded and tried to form an independent nation.
Anyone who says that it was about states’ rights is being disingenuous. The Confederate Constitution mentions slavery and includes regulations for it.
The Confederacy also wanted to deport all Jews (except for one - the Secretary of The Treasury) and eventually conquer Mexico and use them as slaves as well. The brown ones.
The Confederacy also would have enslaved any Native Americans remaining in those states.
The vast majority of southern soldiers were too poor to ever own a slave and were treated only slightly better than slaves. It was very obviously the white supremacist elitist class exploiting everyone else.
The Republican party regurgitates a lot of the Confederate talking points.
Oh, it was about states’ rights. Mostly one right in particular that they reasonably feared was going to be taken from them by federal action, specifically the right to own other people as property. So not a particularly **good ** right to be the one you draw the line at.
It’s probably not a coincidence that the federal government expanded it’s powers a lot more and a lot more quickly after the Civil War than before, though.
What about the incest?
Ah…well, it was always implied. It’s a stretch though since in the South, cousin stuff isn’t incest. That’s just normal, otherwise the population would decline rapidly in terms of numbers.
That’s actually quite an interesting approach and I wonder what the limits of implications are.
Could we for example imply that Bo and Luke are not only shagging Daisy and each other, but in addition have raped and/or murdered numerous other people? Could we imply they’ve lynched anyone? If we can, what else could we infer? If not, why not? What limit did we exceed?
Or could we go the other way and imply that they do lots of anti-racism stuff offscreen and that they’re using Confederate symbology and names not to glorify it but to mock it? And that they are therefore non-racist and (with additional implications) non-incestuous?
Since one aspect of racism is ascribing negative traits to a particular people group regardless of any evidence that those traits are true (like for example the English thinking of Irish people as stupid, although for the most part I don’t think we do that any more), could ascribing incest and racism to citizens of southern states in itself be racist?