• morgan423@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    166
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

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

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      104
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      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.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        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

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        7 months ago

        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

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

          • nogooduser@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

              • nogooduser@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                14
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                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.

          • SomeoneElse@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

  • AdmiralShat@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 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

    • Liz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

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

      • Transporter Room 3@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 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.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

  • Holyhandgrenade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    7 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.

    • mumblerfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      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?

      • Holyhandgrenade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        7 months ago

        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

        • mumblerfish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          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?

    • Somethingcheezie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      That goes for most of the world. Why learn about some obscure history that’s not from your own historical path.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      7 months ago

      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

      • Ignasi@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 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 …

        • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Not an entire war but I’ve definitely seen the battle of red cliffs cast as a definitive battle between the north and south.

          • Ignasi@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            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).

  • Klear@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

    • w2tpmf@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

    • Letme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      29 days ago

      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