this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2025
406 points (99.5% liked)

History Memes

942 readers
691 users here now

A place to share history memes!

Rules:

  1. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.

  2. No fascism (including tankies/red fash), atrocity denial or apologia, etc.

  3. Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.

  4. Follow all Piefed.social rules.

Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world

founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 89 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Explanation: In the USA, there's a bizarrely persistent idea, particularly amongst right-wing types, that the US Civil War was fought over some reason other than racism and slavery, particularly the vague call of "States' Rights".

In reality, the secessionist Confederacy was quite open and proud about their original reasons for seceding being racism and slavery, and only after their slaver asses were crushed and chattel slavery was abolished did they start to make up post-war justifications to sound less abhorrent.

[–] SalamenceFury@lemmy.world 71 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] natecox@programming.dev 30 points 1 day ago

Good goose. Always challenge the dog whistle.

[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 39 points 1 day ago (2 children)

that the US Civil War was fought over […] "States' Rights".

It was. The right of states to allow slavery and be racist.
(/s)

[–] LePoisson@lemmy.world 38 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You don't need a /s, that's literally what it was.

It's just some people pretend that isn't what the rights were that the CSA fought for. Those people are morons.

[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The /s wasn't supposed to invert the meaning of the sentence before, it was just meant to mark it as a more humorous thing since OP explained exactly that in their comment.

[–] virku@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I know, but there is no simple /[pleasedon'ttakethistooseriouslyit'shalfajokebutsomethingrealtoo]

[–] khannie@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

I would use /jk for that for what it's worth but I got your meaning nonetheless.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Actually, it's really the opposite of that. The war wasn't over States's rights to allow slavery, it was over State's rights to disallow slavery. The Kansas-Nebraska act gave states the ability to decide if they wanted it or not, and the racists worried they would get outnumbered by non-slaving states, so they wanted slavery to be mandatory.

[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

Bizarrely persistent because there are groups actively dedicated to promoting that idea. It's known as "the lost cause" and its biggest proponent are The Daughters of the Confederacy and the KKK

[–] TallonMetroid@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Also, slave states wanted the federal government to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act on non-slave states. Which is rather the opposite of states' rights.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 day ago

Also in their constitution, explicitly prohibited states from abolishing slavery.

[–] shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The United Daughters of the Confederacy played a significant role in whitewashing this history:

The United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) has played a major role in shaping how the Civil War and the Confederacy are remembered, especially in the Southern United States. Their activities—fundraising for monuments, sponsoring school‑textbook revisions, and promoting “Lost‑Cause” narratives—have often downplayed slavery as the central cause of secession and highlighted states’ rights, Southern honor, and heroic Confederate figures instead.

Starting in the late‑19th century, the UDC financed statues, plaques, and memorials that portrayed Confederate leaders as noble defenders of liberty. These monuments became focal points for public memory, reinforcing a view of the Confederacy that emphasized bravery rather than the defense of slavery.

Throughout the early‑to‑mid‑20th century, the UDC reviewed and edited school textbooks, inserting language that framed the war as a struggle over constitutional issues and “Southern way of life.” By the 1950s, many state‑approved histories still echoed this perspective, marginalizing the role of enslaved people and the economic motives behind secession.

The Lost Cause is a post‑Civil War Southern narrative that romanticizes the Confederacy, portraying its fight as noble defense of states’ rights and Southern honor while minimizing slavery’s role, and fostering white supremacy through monuments, education, and cultural memory. It also legitimizes the myth of heroic generals and lost glory.

In its 1900 constitution the group declared its purpose “to preserve the memory of the Confederate soldiers and to foster the ideals of the Southern race.” Caroline Goodlett, a founder, wrote that the UDC would “protect the honor of the white man and the true history of the South.” 

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Woodrow Wilson literally wrote and distributed Lost Cause Revisionist History, using his Yale Historian and Presidential Credentials. Wilson segregated the federal government for the first time in history, refounded the KKK, screened Birth of a Nation at the White House, used the federal government to erect statues of traitors that said they should never be memorialized, and that's just some of his domestic policies.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fuck Wilson, all my homies hate Woodrow Wilson

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago

If I had a time machine I would stop in the 1970s to pick up some real McDonald's burgers and milkshakes. Then take them to Taft in 1911. If Teddy ran against Wilson unopposed, he would have stomped him into the dirt.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think even more damning against the 'states' rights' argument is that at least one (I stopped at finding one, lol) confederate state constitution explicitly disallowed abolishing slavery, so that state literally didn't have the right to make their own decision on the matter down the line, lol.

[–] DahGangalang 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

IIRC, there's 2 that do that explicitly - I want to say it was Texas and North Carolina, but I can't be bothered to double check that.

Edit: was bothered by my lack of "bringing the reciepts" in my own comment. It appears 5 of the confederate States called out slavery in their articles of succession (tried to do a quick double check, but jfc did GA have a really long winded one and I ain't got time for that right now)

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Used to be, when racists had to keep their feelings on the down low. Haven't heard "state's rights" in ages. And I'm in the Deep South.