this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
1737 points (97.5% liked)

Confidently Incorrect

4040 readers
2 users here now

When people are way too smug about their wrong answer.

Posting guidelines.

All posts in this community have come from elsewhere, it is not original content, the poster in this community is not OP. The person who posts in this community isn’t necessarily endorsing whatever the post is talking about and they are not looking to argue with you about the content in the post.

You are welcome to discuss and debate any topic but arguments are not welcome here. I consider debate/discussions to be civil; people with different opinions participating in respectful conversations. It becomes an argument as soon as someone becomes aggressive, nasty, insulting or just plain unpleasant. Report argumentative comments, then ignore them.

There is currently no rule about how recent a post needs to be because the community is about the comeback part, not the topic.

Rules:

• Be civil and remember the human.

• No trolling, insults or name calling. Swearing in general is fine, but not to insult someone.

• No bigotry of any kind, including homophobia, transphobia, sexism and racism.

• You are welcome to discuss and debate any topic but arguments are not welcome here. I consider debate/discussions to be civil; people with different opinions participating in respectful conversations. It becomes an argument as soon as someone becomes aggressive, nasty, insulting or just plain unpleasant. Report argumentative comments, then ignore them.

• Try not to get too political. A lot of these posts will involve politics, but this isn’t the place for political arguments.

• Participate in good faith - don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguements sake.

• Mark NSFW posts if they contain nudity.

• Satire is allowed but please start the post title with [satire] so other users can filter it out if they’d like.

Please report comments that break site or community rules to the mods. If you break the rules you’ll receive one warning before being banned from this community.

This community follows the rules of the lemmy.world instance and the lemmy.org code of conduct. I’ve summarised them here:

  1. Be civil, remember the human.
  2. No insulting or harassing other members. That includes name calling.
  3. Respect differences of opinion. Civil discussion/debate is fine, arguing is not. Criticise ideas, not people.
  4. Keep unrequested/unstructured critique to a minimum.
  5. Remember we have all chosen to be here voluntarily. Respect the spent time and effort people have spent creating posts in order to share something they find amusing with you.
  6. Swearing in general is fine, swearing to insult another commenter isn’t.
  7. No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia or any other type of bigotry.
  8. No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Just decontextualized nonsense. I suspect this is a corruption of some idea about lincoln's thoughts about slavery paired with some wholly fabricated victimhood propaganda about the slave states.

For anyone who (like me) had trouble with history: After Kansas elected to be a free state the soon-to-be confederacy saw the writing on the wall for slavery. When the electoral college fucked up with a split vote between 4 candidates lincoln (an abolitionist) came out on top after several vote rounds as he was the closest to start. Instead of taking the political L peacefully the pro-slavery faction decided to kill as many people as possible and got wrecked.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

After Kansas elected to be a free state the soon-to-be confederacy saw the writing on the wall for slavery.

Yes but the writing on the wall for slavery probably would have looked like a gradual process of reforms that slowly chipped away at enslaver power.

It was the end of southern domination of the American political system.

[–] ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

It was the end of southern domination of the American political system.

Technically, they are still dominating our political system through minority rule.

[–] shadowspirit@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It was the end of southern domination of the American political system.

Is it fair to say Virginia's dominance of the American political system? Granted, it takes two to tango but Virginia was in the driver's seat for many decades leading up to and following ratification of the Constitution.

The war was absolutely about slavery. The sad thing is most of the people who died didn't have a hole to piss in. A rich man's war fought by poor men.

[–] gonzo0815@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The sad thing is most of the people who died didn't have a hole to piss in. A rich man's war fought by poor men.

Off the top of my head I can't think of a war where this wasn't the case.

[–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Quite a few revolutions but that's it.

[–] Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lincoln was not an abolitionist, and made express remarks to the contrary during his campaign.

"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ... I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

[–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Taking any statement as representative of a person without full context is shady at best.

Stephen Douglas had just accused him of being an abolitionist. He was listing all the "extreme" views radical abolitionists held that go beyond just the end of slavery. He was maintaining the Republican Party stance of halting the expansion of slavery without directly supporting equality.

Its the same as a modern liberal getting called a socialist because they hold one view that lines up with socialism, then replying with a laundry list of very-socialist things they don't support.

[–] Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. 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 where it now exists. I believe 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.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

We look to our condition, owing to the existence of the two races on this continent. I need not recount to you the effects upon white men growing out of the institution of slavery. I believe in its general evil effects on the white race.
See our present condition-​-​the country engaged in war!--our white men cutting one another’s throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of slavery, and the colored race as a basis, the war would not have an existence. It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated.

You either were, or you weren’t an abolitionist. Abolition itself was radical. Lincoln was not an abolitionist, by his own admission. He did not desire to free the slaves, and he didn’t even believe them to be capable of reason and intelligence until he interacted with actual abolitionists like Frederick Douglass during the civil war and saw freed slaves in action against the south.

[–] SnowdropDelusion@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don’t have interest in prolonged discussion today, but I would like to point you to Wikipedia’s surprisingly good article on Abraham Lincoln and slavery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Instead of taking the political L peacefully

Political blocs don't die easy. Like the modern Republican party, they'll fight to save their own power.

This wasn't just one political loss, it was the doom of the Southern power bloc.