• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    2 months ago

    Why are you trying to argue semantics where none are required?

    Because details are important?

    Why do you want to reduce an entire civil war down to one word in a way that makes both sides seem better than they were?

    Trying to obfuscate the issue

    Literally the opposite of what’s happening here…

    • ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s not like we are talking about states rights to sell alcohol or do anything else.

      It was specifically the rights of one state to force another state to enforce slavery. Again, if slavery were removed from the equation we would not be talking about the civil war as we know it. That doesn’t mean a civil war wouldn’t have happened for another reason, but it didn’t, and entertaining any other reality is just fiction.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        It was specifically the rights of one state to force another state to enforce slavery

        Exactly.

        And the Northern states and the Feds were cool with maintaining the status quo of legal slavery until halfway thru the Civil War.

        So if the South hadn’t gotten greedy and tried to force a strong federal government, slavery would have stayed legal. But they tried and both won and lost at the same time.

        They got the strong federal government they asked for, it just wasn’t on their side.