this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2024
186 points (97.0% liked)

Fire Memes for Traitor Haters

682 readers
5 users here now

Where we meme (joking in tone and detail, serious in sentiment) about General Sherman, the Civil War, and how the secesh traitors had it coming.

RULES

  1. No bigotry. The Union, or at least the part of the Union WE support, fought AGAINST that shite. We are anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic, anti-transphobic, and in general anti-bigot here, even if not all the lads in Union blue uniforms were.

  2. No Confederate sympathizing. Anti-democratic racist slaver traitors don't deserve shit.

  3. Follow all Lemmy.world rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] N0body 27 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

The American Revolution was a challenge to unchecked monarchial/imperial power in order to install representative government.

Mohawk teacher should understand that.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I agree entirely and have a positive view of the American Revolution, but it's also fair to see it as somewhat self-interested. If someone doesn't take a strong side looking at the American Revolution, I generally don't think too poorly of them. If someone doesn't take a strong side looking at the US Civil War, though? Nah, I don't deal with people like that. We're all Union boys and girls for those four short years. 40 Acres and a Mule!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Now, I'm not from the States so I'm not as invested in the first place but is it okay in general to be somewhat lukewarm about the American Civil War in terms of its societal effectiveness? While the slavers got beaten up very effectively (and rightly so), the aftermath was mired in compromise to such a large degree that slavery still isn't banned in the States and the underlying racism is still a major issue today.

Is that valid criticism or should the postbellum be considered strictly separate from the Civil War? I'm genuinely curious.

(And I just realized that you argue against not taking a strong side rather than not having strong feelings. My bad.)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

Oh yeah, we all mourn in this community that Reconstruction didn't do what it was supposed to - destroying slavery and racism in the South, and in failing to do so, allowed it to re-establish itself as power over the entire country again. But the Civil War itself? "Anti-democratic racist slavers vs. Flawed democracy coalition which eventually accedes to more racially positive outlook" shouldn't be a hard choice for anyone.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

It was also about slavery, at least partially. Abolitionism in the Empire was on the rise, and the colonies were afraid that the crown would abolish it empire-wide. Back in england they had ruled in 1772 that English law did not recognize slavery, so the threat to the american slave owners was very real. The so-called representative government they created was made to continue slavery and oppose abolitionism.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Back in england they had ruled in 1772 that English law did not recognize slavery, so the threat to the american slave owners was very real.

Not really. Slavery had never been well-established in England, and the British were still massively invested in slavery in all of their colonies and showed no appetite for stopping. There was no immediate risk of abolition and very little of the writing from Southerners in the American Revolution is concerned with the prospect of abolitionism from the British Empire. When the Brits took Martinique from the French Republic, which had at that time abolished slavery, they went out of their way to ensure that slaves did not receive this promised abolition, neither from the Republic nor in service against French forces.

For that matter, abolitionism in the South itself was on the rise, until the 1790s and the invention of the cotton gin, which gave slavery an order of magnitude extra economic incentive.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

And to continue colonizing westwards

Which I find rather cringe

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Brits: "Fuck's sake stop starting expensive wars"

American colonists: "F R E E L A N D"

Funny how land is 'free' when they aren't the ones paying for it, or the ones dispossessed of it.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Heh, yes but... it was also a rebellion of wealthy landowners who didn't want to pay their taxes.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Particularly taxes to pay for the troops that would protect them after the war they started that basically bankrupted England. I think they were closer to modern day Libertarians than anything else.

Still pleased with the result, though. Just, learning about the revolution beyond the Boston tea party, the Boston Massacre, and the slave-owning Thomas Jefferson waxing philosophical about the merits and necessity of a free society, led me to think of them through a modern perspective (how I might view a similar colony now) and that I probably would have been on the Crown's side.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

"We don't want to pay taxes if we don't get a say in governance" shouldn't really be all that controversial. Even the British acknowledged the absurdity of the situation, though the opinion in the British government was that the colonies should be content with 'virtual representation'.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago