Some people will tell you, "Well ackshually it was for states' rights," but those states wanted to use those rights to enforce slavery.
It strikes me as like the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. Like, wow, you're totally right about the semantics, but at the cost of missing the point entirely.
Also the people kill people thing points to a need for widespread free mental health services which they definitely don't support.
In my area, they say they support it but in the same breath will say they don't believe in therapy or medications.
Source: my very Republican family
people kill people
I know! Le'ts ban murder then! That'll fix it!
(oh wait...)
Honestly as a non american I always thought the point of that statement was that its not guns that kill people its the way you hand them out like candy with the barest excuse for any kind of safety evaluation that kills people.
Exactly. The Confederate States' Constitution explicitly mentions and regulates slavery throughout the document.
It was 100% about slavery.
Anyone who says "states' rights" without mentioning slavery is either an ignorant turd or a racist POS.
It is was not 100% about slavery. It's worse than that because it was also about the fear of treating black people like political equals, and black men having sex with their pure white daughters.
States rights to do what? (⌐▀͡ ̯ʖ▀)︻̷┻̿═━一-
People kill people with what? (⌐▀͡ ̯ʖ▀)︻̷┻̿═━一-
I grew up in the country in the bible belt. I bought the states rights argument for a long time. I was never a Confederacy stan, but yknow sure I get it.
Then one day I actually read everyone's secession declarations and basically all of them name slavery out the jump. Welp, fuck them. 🤷♂️
Article 1 of the Confederate Constitution says Slavery is a god given right and makes it illegal for any Confederate state to outlaw slavery.
So it actually reduced States Rights.
Congratulations, your kids will be ill prepared for a global world. It's sad that foreign kids will have a better grasp of American history than Americans
Now that is not really difficult. Most Americans learn little about American history for a start (and even less about some key issues where America had its low points), and nearly nothing about international history.
What American kids learn about WWII is the glory that the Americans have won over European fashism and Japanese imperialism, and how they helped people after the war. What they don't learn about is how Germany got into the fashism (which has loads of shocking similarities to what is happening with Trump and the GOP at the moment!), or the atrocities that American soldiers and the government did back then.
As an American I learned about the trail of tears, the gilded age, the Haymarket Affair, and the utter failure of the Wilson administration and how it plunged Germany into desperation
What I didn’t learn about was how light our touch was in executing nazi and imperial Japanese leadership. And how instead we chose to back fascists over communists in basically all of Asia and South America immediately after seeing the utter destruction of fascism. Actually I did learn that Ho Chi Minh was democratically elected so I guess I learned some of that, despite attending a Catholic school.
I suspect they don't learn about the 1001 coups uncle Sam either directed or backed around the world, either.
They don't learn how the US helped Europe mostly to help the conversion of it's own overgrown war industry back into a civilian behemoth? By exporting all of its own products instead of rebuilding the local infrastructures? Odd.
Congratulations, your kids will be ill prepared for a global world. It's sad that foreign kids
willhave a better grasp of American history than Americans.
This is probably the same person who helped get textbooks updated to show pictures of slaves dancing and having a good time 🤮
Imagine feeling threatened by the notion that enslaving people was cruel and bad.
I'm an introvert, probably neurodivergent, and was bullied in school. I always thought public schools were not adapted for neurodivergent people and those that could not "fit in the mold". I thought I didn't receive enough attention. I always had more questions and were afraid to ask. So in a way could understand why some people would want to avoid that for their children, by homeschooling them.
However, people like in this Tweet are the exact reason why homeschooling in my region (Québec/Canada) is generally frowned upon. It's always people against vaccination, the religious and ignorants that pushes for homeschooling, and that's also why it's very difficult to have the right to do that here. Mennonites are actually leaving the province because of that.
As an autistic teacher (as in I am autistic, not that I teach only autistic kids), I am on the lookout for ND kids who have slipped through the cracks. One of them this year took under my wing, and she just flourished.
When J would come into my on-level Algebra 2 class at the very beginning of this past school year, I could well recognize the fear of math lurking behind her glazed-over eyes and panicked microgestures. I suspected she was autistic due to her speech patterns, movements, and other things, so I put that idea on her counselor's radar. Not sure what became of that, but it's not my job to clock the counselors and diagnostician, so I just trusted they were doing their jobs. 😊
I started with building trust with J, by insisting that she just try and then, when she got stuck in frustration, showing her the patience she deserved and guiding her with a smile through filling the gaps in her knowledge. Once she could see that I wasn't going to jump on her wrong answers and make her feel even more stupid than she already felt, she was willing to follow through on just trying as I'd asked her to do every day. "Perfection is a myth, and Rome wasn't built in a day. So just...try! Give yourself permission to be wrong, because that is the only way learning can happen."
And so she did...her grades for the six grading periods of the school year were (approximation) 70, 75, 81, 86, 92, and 98. By the fourth six weeks, she was asking for extra examples to try in class, and she insisted upon being able to understand how to do them before the period ended. I'm not sure if I could say she loved math after my class, certainly not as much as I love it, but she was no longer afraid of it, and she had developed the tenacity and self-efficacy she needed to show any future math class what for and no mistake.
J really did my teacher heart proud!
As an autistic woman who was beyond inept at maths, I wish I'd had you as my teacher.
I can always remember the day when I found out I'd scored around 12% and 8% on my simultaneous equations homework, and the teacher went through it on the board... I was so embarrassed that I went bright red, and even worse, my glasses steamed up
I would love to understand and be able to do maths
i wonder why the US is trailing in education
if those yankees could read, they'd be so angry right now.
Two answers to stuff like this:
- What did the Ordinance of Secession or Declaration of Causes (and related documents) actually say? Have them pull up the language of literally any one and search for “states rights” then “slave.” Hint: you’re gonna find one but not the other.
- Knowing more about the revisionism is very useful as is knowing when it’s a waste of your time.
Edit: sorry about the Battlefields link; it’s the easiest aggregate of several even if it also tries to support the states’ rights argument by talking about laws while excluding it was all about laws regarding slavery.
It wasn't even about states rights, not really. If you read the SC declaration of succession, they talk extensively about the states rights to succeed legally and why in the first 13 paragraphs, then in the 14th they start the explanation of why they are succeeding. It's about the northern states not returning fugitive slaves, as was the law at the time, and the government doing anything to enforce the Constitution. Then in paragraph 22 they discuss the election of Lincoln and his open opposition to slavery and they were worried about losing the right to have slaves.
Basically, if the government isn't strong enough or willingly to enforce its own constitution, then they didn't need to be a part of that government and they had the right to denounce that government the same way they had done with the British government during the revolution.
It's 100% about slavery and there isn't
iT waS aBoUt StATes rIGhtS ᵗᵒ ᵒʷⁿ ˢˡᵃᵛᵉˢ
Well, for other states to to respect South Carolina's property rights (and the property was people).
But these same fuckers balked at northern states passing laws for harboring escaped slaves. So much for state sovereignty.
It was always slavery. They literally thought they'd built the pinnacle of civilization.
People halfway across the world know that the US civil war was about slavery.
yes, but those people haven't been lied to their entire elementary & high school lives on the topic.
It's systemic ignorance.
(You can see the same thing in the Philippines about their current president's history. It's sad how common it is.)
And this is exactly why homeschooling exists. For the most part of course. It's people who want a certain view of History taught and don't want to have to worry about pesky things like facts or history or books. That's why so much homeschooling is deeply Evangelical Christian, and somehow even the weirder branch of Evangelical Christians if that's a thing, also why so much of it has Nazi shit involved. Yeah if you've never looked it up there's a lot of Nazi propaganda in the homeschooling community. It's just great..
That’s… not really homeschooling. The US is so weird. Are there not curriculums (curriculi?) to follow and standard exams to sit regardless of where your education took place? Most the homeschooled people I know lived in the arse end of nowhere growing up and didn’t have another choice.
That's not really true with everyone. I know a fair number of home schooled people and there were taught better than the schools. When you're in school, you can only learn as fast as the slowest learning. The "smarter" kids are held back. When we were in lockdown from the pandemic, kids could learn at their own rate from the online classes, and half my sons class was done with the semesters curriculum before the first quarter was done. The teacher had to find more for them to do which resulted in half the class jumping a grade when everyone went back to school.
I would let me kid do online schooling in a heartbeat if I could, he'd be miles ahead compared to going to school.
What you’re describing isn’t “homeschooling”, it’s really “distance learning” or “online schooling”. It’s still proctored by professionals and taught by credentialed teachers, and uses widely accepted curricula and content that is also taught in a regular school.
“Homeschooling” in a lot of ways leaves the teaching and day-to-day up to the parent. They only have to give benchmark tests mandated by the state to show the child is progressing every year, but what they teach the rest of the time is up to them. Which is why a lot of conservative groups like it, so they can teach their kids their version of history and leave out the parts that are uncomfortable.
Your kid was learning the public school curriculum in a remote setting. This is vastly different than mom or dad giving them dubious materials from a religious company selling home schooling crap.
Yes that's why I didn't say everyone I said for the most part. Because for every one kid like the one you're talking about there's 50 that don't get anywhere near that level of quality education. Even ignoring all of the racist sexist and let's be honest evil indoctrination that goes on in homeschooling, there's also a large amount of abuse and exploitation that goes on. Homeschooling is a shit show.
You would quickly run into a problem where your kid doing it. That problem being that a lot of that online schooling is from Prager U, and companies like that. They have cornered a lot of the marketplace on homeschool materials. So the only thing he'd be miles ahead on is thinking that black people liked being slaves.
I wish those kids luck in life
They're going to need it.
But, if they're lucky they will potentially just be successful enough to reproduce and spread that information to the next generation...
Not guaranteed, but still... Natural selection does have an ultimate purpose after all.
Bet she never read the Constitution, Confederate or otherwise:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp
"In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States."
The articles of secession of every single state mention slavery as the primary motivation, usually within the first paragraph.
Isn't it 'my truth' instead of 'the truth' then? 😇
well if we're being semantically accurate here. It didn't start because of slavery, slavery on its own very rarely does anything. It was the disagreement between the north and south on slavery itself, that caused the civil war. And of course, the iconic "states rights, to have slavery, but we dont talk about the slavery part because that's inconvenient and makes us look bad"
I mean it gets worse than that. You can really put it down to a southern overreaction. Lincoln was pretty upfront about being against the expansion of slavery and admitted prior to his presidency that he did not believe the president had the authority to outright end it. If the south had not seceded and started the civil war over their unfounded fears of losing slavery then it's very likely that slavery would have existed in this country for a few more decades.
The Lincoln - Horace Greeley correspondence really makes the country look bad on the issue overall, especially when you look to the Congress of Vienna's statements on slavery which occurred roughly 50 years prior to the American Civil War.
Edit: Before someone loses their mind, yes the war was about slavery, just going further in detail.
and now, as a semi tangentially related trinket, texas thinks that they have the power to secede from america.
It only gets deeper.
I can't remember the exact details, but I read years ago that Lincoln actually made an anti-abolitionist joke involving talking about hanging one in a speech while running for senator.
"Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter-"
"Just say slavery."
"Slavery it is, sir!"
(Burns Jury duty summons)
To be fair, only one word in that statement was false. You change the last "the" for "my" and it is a completely and accurate depiction on why homeschooling exist.
Could that be considered a form of child abuse? Then again if it is, brainwashed maga morons indoctrinate their kids into the dumbass way of thinking every day. It's really sad to see kids holding trump signs. Parents making kids hold the sign of a child rapist's name is extremely concerning.
I mean, it kind of wasn't...
Lincoln honestly wouldn't stop talking about how he wasn't gonna touch slavery.
It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I beheve I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And, more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/march-4-1861-first-inaugural-address
What started it was the south thought the feds should be able to enforce southern law (escaped slaves are still slaves, and northern states had to return them) and the Feds said they couldn't force one state to follow another state's laws.
It's a valid distinction, but almost certainly not what she told her kids.
Like when people say it was over "states rights" but ignore the Feds sided with state's rights, and the South was the one arguing for a stronger federal government.
However during the war, Lincoln did outlaw slavery, but that was more of an economic sanction to dissuade European governments funding the South by buying up resources and land. The South would have still lost but it would have taken far longer if they were selling land/plantations/slaves to wealthy foreigners
It's one of the few things pretty much everyone gets wrong when you ask what causes it.
Yes, the north did not go to war over slavery, but the south sure did.
Claiming Lincoln was coming for their slaves isn't that different than modern ones saying Biden is coming for their guns
Slavery was the hot topic of the election, and despite Lincoln repeatedly saying he wouldn't outlaw slavery, the South kept saying it and eventually started a civil war over.
Like, the modern parallel is almost too on the nose. They're treating the border and migrants the same way
So it's important for people to understand what happened since we're facing the same shit.
Sooo...
States rights to keep slavery, got it.
...
I hate to be the one that breaks this to you, but American conservatives lie about their reasons the vast majority of the time.
So while the South did claim that they started the war because the Feds were going to come take their slaves, that's just not true. As evident by Lincoln's inauguration speech. Check it out, it's mostly about slavery and how he wasn't going to outlaw it.
The South saying he was going to, should be listened to as much as when their modern counterparts like trump also make crazy claims about what is happening.
Hell, they called Biden a communist and kept saying he was gonna take their guns.
Why would anyone take an American conservative's words over facts?
The South lied about why they started the war, that shouldn't be surprising.
My counter to that, which states rights did the Southern states fight for?
Like when people say it was over “states rights” but ignore the Feds sided with state’s rights, and the South was the one arguing for a stronger federal government.
The Southern states though they had the "right" to force northern states to return escaped slaves.
Not over if slavery was legal, but over if a slave was still a slave in a state that outlawed slavery.
But I don't even think you read the last comment if you had to ask that
Eh. I'd argue that's kind of a narrow interpretation of events. The violence in the territories in the lead up was 100% about slavery. That conflict just kept surging up through more official organizational structures. Lincoln dragged his heels in and was slow to emancipate, but John Brown was in kanasa chopping people up with a broadsword in 1856.
but John Brown was in kanasa chopping people up with a broadsword in 1856.
Yeah. But Kansas isn't in the South...
That was over new states all being against slavery by default. The slave states wanted some of the new states to also have slaves.
And that comes back full circle to slave states fearing a federal ban on slaves, they wanted to balance slave/free states so they wouldn't be outnumbered in the House/Senate.
Now, he was a badass tho, and was raiding the South prior to the civil war trying to start a slave revolt... But it didn't end up well for him.
But I was talking about legal means, not a revolt. Which would have been morally right. But not legal under their laws at the time.
You’re taking the quoted text out of context. Lincoln said that because he was trying to preserve the union.
But he was still against the expansion of slavery, he was very anti-Slavery: http://www.abraham-lincoln-history.org/lincolns-view-on-slavery/
The southern states seceded because they wanted to expand slavery, and hence the civil war.
Guess you fucked up by not clarifying at the start that slavery still was the reason, but their is much more nuance. People ain't gonna read that wall of text and still won't to rid themselves of potential trumpets.
That sounds like what I was told in school up here in Ohio. People are in here with a chip on their shoulder downvoting you into oblivion because Lemmy is an echo chamber and doesn't care to actually be correct so long as their tribe wins.
That sounds like what I was told in school up here in Ohio.
Sorry... you're saying that makes it true? That's terrible reasoning. You probably were taught all kinds of things about drugs in Ohio which were complete lies.
You were also probably given a far rosier picture of American history than you should have been. Or were you taught, if you were taught about her at all, that Sally Hemmings loved Jefferson and wanted to be with him despite the fact that he never actually released her from slavery, suggesting he knew better. And despite the fact that even if the slave loves you, you still probably aren't giving the slave the choice to say no when you want sex, what with them being a slave.
But I know I sure wasn't taught that Jefferson raped his slave that he paraded around as his mistress in my grade school.
Further, she asks why it started. To that: the secession of the confederate states.
