I remember my 6th grade science teacher saying "Now were going to do a unit on evolution because the state says we have to, but we all know God created the world in 7 days"
Same school system but high school tried to fast track me (and all the smart girls) into a nursing program. Instead of an actual science class. I spent a couple days learning about the different names of wounds until I was transferred to honors bio. It wouldn't have even given me an actual science credit apparently.
My 11th grade female History teacher tried to teach us that slavery was about states rights. Even as 16yos most of us knew that was bullshit. And this was nowhere near the Bible Belt.Â
Do you mean the civil war was about states rights? The southern states did secede bc they wanted more states rights than federal in order to keep slavery alive from fear the Republicans would abolish it.
I mean that's a pretty annoying semantic argument to be making. It's pretty clear the implications from the comment (and pretty much anytime someone makes this distinction) it's to downplay the importance of slavery.
Except it's not downplaying it at all. JFC. Let me break it down Barney style for you and the other special ones out there.
The south wanted to keep slavery. Slavery bad. They thought the mean republicans were going to take it away. They said, "State need more power to keep slavery." Seceded from the union.
I think taking the detour of "oh yeah, it was about states' rights, it's just that it was specifically about the states' right to keep slaves" is completely useless and serves the initial argument that it's "about state rights". It was about slavery, it was about rich fucks being allowed to keep their slaves. What's the point of conceding that it was about state's rights? It serves no purpose.
âStates wanted more rights so they could protect their investments in slavery because they were afraid the federal government would outlaw itâ is not a complicated concept nor does it downplay the cause of the war.
I believe they are pointing out that the statesâ rights claim is simply a middleman. It doesnât change the fact that the issue at hand was slavery, literally written into the secession proclamations of most every confederate state. Referring to statesâ rights is a method used by the Lost Cause Myth supporters of the American Civil War, in an effort to both distance the core issue away from slavery directly, and to be able to appeal to a more broad claim than the one they were actually standing on.
Our economy is competitive. In abolishing slavery, the North economically disadvantaged the South, because the South's economy was disproportionately dependent on slavery. That moved both wealth and power from the South to the North. Which is why the South fought.
Stop pretending you're some fucking saint. The North didn't do it to be the good guys, they did it to enrich themselves. They used "slavery is bad" (which it is) to justify stealing wealth from the South.
The consequences of that theft are still visible today btw. Just pull up a map of poverty in the US.
This is so stupid I don't know where to start. First of all, slavery disadvantaged the South, not its abolition. When your economy is dependent on free labor, it's hard to build demand, which is why the North had a robust industrial base that the South did not.
Second, the North didn't abolish slavery before the war. The war was fought because Lincoln won the election, and had courted the abolitionist movement by promising not to allow the practice to expand into the new Western territories. The South didn't like that and decided to secede fearing future Abolition that only came after the war.
The North didn't "steal" wealth from the south. I don't know where you get that idea. Yes, the North thrived while the South suffered, but "theft" has nothing to do with it. It was just the economic consequences of losing people as property (free labor) and the subsequent migration to the North (increased demand). This wasn't "the plan".
First of all, slavery disadvantaged the South, not its abolition.
the North thrived while the South suffered, but "theft" has nothing to do with it. It was just the economic consequences of losing people as property (free labor)
It took you 3 paragraphs to go full circle and nullify your own argument. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with something like you.
Yea, everything you said is just some Lost Cause propaganda bullshit by former Confederates after the Civil War and is absolute nonsense.
Edit:Pretty sure the fool blocked me. The following is a breakdown of how his response was nonsense.
Really? I've literally never seen another person make this argument. I've seen some claim it was about "state's rights". And others claim it was about "slavery". But I've never seen someone talk about the inherently competitive state of the economy and how a policy change like this impacted it. Because I'm saying the majority arguments are both wrong.
The idea that it was done to disadvantage the south as opposed to just getting rid of slavery like everyone else for moral and frankly even general economic reasons is the part that is nonsense. Of course abolishing slavery hurt the south in the short term but all it did was speed up the inevitable as the industrial revolution made free labor vastly superior to slave labor so the south was already going to fall far behind and the north simply forced them into modernity faster. Slavery was already becoming extremely inefficient making the moral arguments against it that much stronger.
Ever hear that line "history is written by the victors"...that means the history you know is 100% correct, right? And you're not just regurgitating the North's propaganda. That's the bit that makes you a bad person, btw.
Yea, and just because a phrase is common doesn't mean it is always accurate. The Confederates were mostly left to their own devices and still kept large amounts of power and continued to spread Lost Cause propaganda like crazy. This is well know historical fact. Everything you are saying is absolutely revisionist nonsense.
Really? I've literally never seen another person make this argument. I've seen some claim it was about "state's rights". And others claim it was about "slavery". But I've never seen someone talk about the inherently competitive state of the economy and how a policy change like this impacted it. Because I'm saying the majority arguments are both wrong.
Ever hear that line "history is written by the victors"...that means the history you know is 100% correct, right? And you're not just regurgitating the North's propaganda. That's the bit that makes you a bad person, btw.
662
u/NoBizlikeChloeBiz Feb 19 '26
I had sooo many right wing teachers in school.
I remember my 6th grade science teacher saying "Now were going to do a unit on evolution because the state says we have to, but we all know God created the world in 7 days"