Slavery was about 99% of what drove the entire thing, so it makes sense to me.
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.
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
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.
US civil war
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! 🤬
deleted by creator
Haiti would be better called ‘the slave revolution’
It isn’t like there aren’t multiple wars referred to as civil wars.
Very true, which is why I made sure to clarify in my title. It’s an arrogant American thing to call it the civil war… although I suppose the English say the same thing about one of their many civil wars.
Wouldn’t every country refer to the civil war that happened in their country as the civil war. Assuming that they only had one … we’ve had a few in the UK so they have their own names.
As far as I know Switzerland only had one and we call it the Sonderbund war
Only if you want to pretend it was the only civil war in the world.
Not really. I refer to our shed as the shed. It’s obviously not the only shed in the world.
People tend to use the whatever when there is one whatever that is obviously more relevant to the conversation than the others.
I genuinely had to check Wikipedia to remind myself which civil war we call the civil war. It’s the Roundheads apparently, and even that’s split into the civil war I, II and III. Ridiculous.
And Haiti is still paying for it today :(
“No it was about states rights”
“States rights to what?”
Gotta plug doobus goobus too https://youtu.be/-ZB2ftCl2Vk?si=E3ckE6fse3SD4wCd
This is my favorite argument.
Always makes me happy when I go into a thread to post this and it’s already here. ^_^
states right to sucede from the union
but then again, why did they want to sucede?
I prefer “Slaveholders Rebellion”
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.
That sounds too cool. Like a chapter in a fantasy series history book.
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
From a purely constitutional standpoint the Fugitive Slave Act was just doubling down on language already in the Constitution, so states rights doesn’t apply.
Article IV Section 2
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
“State’s rights” is usually a bullshit argument unless it’s coming from an actual constitutional scholar and they’re probably not gonna use the phrase “state’s rights.” That being said, you know, fuck slavery and those who argued in its favor.
I’m surprised it’s not called the States’ Rights War.
Because only confed apologists use that term, and to my knowledge there are no confed apologists in Iceland.
There’s almost 400,000 people on Iceland. I’d say there’s probably at least one. Maybe even two.
Maybe even three
Let’s not go overboard.
Not true. It’s still listed as such in most textbooks in the south.🙄
Yes, like I said:
only confed apologists use that term
Yes, as well as every kid that trusts their teacher before having the ability to form their own opinion.
Sadly those kids were turned into confused apologists before they could decide if they wanted to or not
Eerily similar to what happens with religions…
The primary context of your link is very old history textbooks.
This article from 2017 refers to current textbooks and teachings.
In parts of the South it’s been rebranded as the “War of Northern Aggression” 🙄
Then they get all red in the face when you ask them who shot the first shots.
That would require them to know history
They know, they choose to ignore it.
Some do. A whole lot don’t.
I’m sure there are some rednecks who call it that, but I’d be interested to know if there is a single, modern day public school text book that calls it that.
“but muh heritage” mfrs when I practice my heritage (it’s burning confederate flags and killing traitors):
States Rights to what, pray tell?
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.
It is, but not very often outside of the American south. (They prefer “The War of Northern Aggression” though.)
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.
And yet despite that, I would say that the two best things from the South were invented by black people- the music, from blues to jazz to rock and roll and soul food. Not the best revenge, but still some good revenge. A hell of a lot more people listen to rock music than listen to music invented by white people.
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.
I see the alt name for it is something like “bandariska borgarestriden”? Does it mean “borgare” as like in “citizen”, " medborgare". Is that the name for a civil war in islandic? And bandarisk relates to a banner/flag?
It’s actually “Bandaríska borgarastríðið”. “Bandaríkin” is our word for the United States, “borgari” means citizen and “stríð” means war. So yes our word for civil war literally translates to “citizens’ war” since all the participants are citizens of the same nation. Hälsningar från en Isländing i Norge
So in bandaríkin, does “band” still have something to do with rope, string or something that “binds”? I’m thinking like “förbund” in swedish. So “united” is replaced with something bound together?
“Band” in this context means united. “Bandalag” means the same as “förbund” in Swedish, so yes you’re basically correct.
Cool. Thanks for elaborating.
That goes for most of the world. Why learn about some obscure history that’s not from your own historical path.
In Chinese it’s called 南北戰爭, which means South-North War. Not as interesting as the Icelandic name though
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
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 …
Not an entire war but I’ve definitely seen the battle of red cliffs cast as a definitive battle between the north and south.
The battle of red cliffs happened in the famous Three Kingdoms era, and the battle did settle the foundation for the situation. At the time the Shu(蜀) and Wu(吴) who were south of Wei(魏) were alliances so you could say it was a battle between south and north, but when we talk about it was more like a mexican standout sort of thing(if that makes sense to you).
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.
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.
Both the War of Independence and Revolutionary War imply that it’s a civil war.
That’s what meant. A civil war is only called a civil war if the rebelling side loses. Otherwise it’s a revolution.
Eh, most governments at least have the balls to call them revolts or rebellions if they win, instead of sucking up to pure evil.
It was also about slavery, because the British government was in the process of outlawing slavery at the time, and Americans still wanted their slaves
Spicy!
They call it “Lincoln’s Tax War” in the South.
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.
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
Unfortunately nowhere near enough traitors were hanged for their insurrection and now here we are.
Andrew Johnson, objectively the worst and most destructive president our Union has ever had.
Ronald Regan is right up there with him.
Without Johnson pardoning all the rebels and leaving the cancer in the South to rot and spread we’d probably have never had Reagan as president.
Interesting. It didn’t even end Slavery in the US tho
That’ll be Slave War II
It didn’t end slavery. It’s more of a slave compromise.
What??
Probably referring to
Essentially allowing slavery.
Can you be more specific? Or is this sarcasm?
Privately owning other people became illegal, but slavery is still allowed “as punishment for crime” according to the 13th amendment. And yeah… it’s still very much a thing. https://apnews.com/article/prison-to-plate-inmate-labor-investigation-c6f0eb4747963283316e494eadf08c4e
Edit: Just saw this: https://lemmy.world/post/14352144
If the prison is owned by a for-profit company and the company they slave for is a for-profit company, doesn’t that make them property of those institutions?
It’s different today in that the people aren’t actually owned in the way that they were before the 13 amendment. Their labor is the property of the company, but they don’t have to purchase themselves back from the prison in order to be released (although prison fees are eerily similar to that practice). The 13th doesn’t specify who can profit off enslaved people’s labor, just that it’s allowed as punishment for crime. But the huge profit incentive to treat people horribly while being free of any OSHA standards or labor laws is one of many reasons for-profit-prisons need to end immediately.
The last chattel slave was freed in 1943. Knowing Better has a great video about it.
Archive
