It's sad that this is even a debate in 2026, I thought we finally buried the lost cause myth for good already
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2026
616 points (99.0% liked)
Political Memes
12093 readers
1522 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
It's because different states are allowed to teach different truths to children. So now we have citizens that believe completely different facts. Because facts are no longer universal, perception of reality is fundamentally warped between groups.
Excuse me, it was about state rights. Sure, sure, the states were making the argument that they had the right to keep slaves, but how is that relevant to your argument?
"No, it was about states' rights!"
"States' rights to do what?"
"... >:[ "
It was explicitly NOT about states' rights. The Confederacy hated states' rights. They were the ones pissed they couldn't enforce their shitty laws in the North. They prevented any of their member states from ever outlawing slavery.
That line isn't just a cutesy way of hiding the ugly part behind the technical truth, it's a flat out lie.
You're absolutely right, and I had no intention to mean otherwise with my memery. Apologies for the misunderstanding!
They why did the confederate state’s formal declarations of succession say that slavery was the reason they were succeeding?
secession, seceding
I don't think they were succeeding
Fucking autocorrect.
Autoincorrect
Article I Section 9(4) of the Confederate constitution:
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Yeah, they specifically restricted state's rights.
Technically it was over a state's rights to ban slavery.
The slavers really hated that and wanted to expand as much as possible.
B̵̃ͅ ̷̰̆U̵͇̾ ̷̪͝Ṟ̶͛ ̴̙͋Ṇ̷̌
Remember when Republicans did shit recently in the name of "state's rights" to hate and then when states that didn't want Trump's bulashit said "oh let's pass our own laws to undo his cuntery" Republicans and Trump said these states had to follow federal law?
Ra damn Trump and Republicans are hypocrites.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Yeah my rural southern school drilled the "it wasn't slavery" over and over.
They conveniently omitted pretty much every article of secession that cited slavery. Instead just focused on how late the emancipation was and how it avoided emancipating slaves in Union states.
So maybe the North wasnt sufficiently abolitionist, but the South sure as hell thought they were.
Still think that everyone in power in the south should've been hanged for treason.
It's not too late.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Don't know why that had to be a picture, but yes, and almost every state's declaration had the same point in it, usually the first paragraph.
But no, my school didn't teach that. They only acknowledged that the north had not yet absolutely banned slavery everywhere and the states seceeded before they even tried to come down hard on the insitution. They desperately want to erase the fact that the south very much had the moral low ground.
load more comments
(1 replies)
So was the Alamo. Growing up in Texas we're taught to believe the soldiers were heroes.
Oh yeah. I forgot about the Alamo.
I remember the culture shock of going to college in the south and having entire classes of incoming students believe this. And the lost cause shit. And all of the other bullshit.
They still refer to it as the war of northern aggression. A lot
I'm certain they do. Political science education across the south is absolute garbage.
As history? Sure.
As propaganda? It's top notch.
I had a history professor in the south that had his own theory based on congressional deadlock over the construction and route of the transatlantic railroad. Made everyone buy a copy of his "book" from a local copying shop for like 150 bucks, it was just a packet of copied paper that you had to put together in a 3 ring binder.
Dropped that class after 2 weeks.
Sounds like an absolute douche. A fucking coffee shop?
Copy and print shop, basically a store that just sold access to a big office printer with the ability to scan/copy and fax. It was a little mom and pop one that was located next to the university. They had deals with a couple of the sketchier professors who had their own little shelves that they would sell overpriced class supplies and expensive prints of their required readings.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
As posts over in Piefed are saying, it was about the state's rights to have slavery. Very specifically, it was about the right for new states to have slavery. Till that point, the political divide was along slave states VS not slave states, a divide which partially exists to this day. As such, to maintain the balance of political power, each new territory added as a state would alternate between being a slave state and free state. However, with expansion into the west, a representation of progress and freedom, the federal government proposed a ban, not on slavery, but the enacting of new slave states. All existing Southern states would still have slavery.
Fun fact! Utah entered the union as a slave state but did not secede (because they thought seceding would invite federal attention and they had enough of that in the Mormon War). I'm not sure what makes the fact fun, but it's on the list
Instead they tried to contribute nothing to the union cause.
Another unfun fact, that's why Oklahoma has a panhandle. Texas wanted to enter the Union as a slave state, but it wasn't allowed below a certain line of latitude. So Texas gave up some of its territory to ensure it could enter as a slave state, and a portion of that territory became the panhandle.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
It was all about slavery. But it would also be a mistake to think it was those who wanted to keep slavery on one side, and those who wanted to abolish slavery on the other. The abolitionist position was still a minority one in the North at the time of the war. The South didn’t just want to preserve slavery, but wanted to expand it westward. Most in the North - including Lincoln himself - were fine with letting the South keep their slaves, but didn’t want it to expand as that would foreclose much of stolen western lands to white yeoman farmers (i.e. the Free Soil movement). IIRC Lincoln offer the Southern states the right to keep slaves in perpetuity so long as they stayed in the Union.
Wasn't the Fugitive Slave Act also a big reason? The North was not OK with Southern states coming up and kidnapping freed slaves
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Don't make us sing John Brown's Body at you. I'm high as fuck I'll do it
My eyes have seen the Glory
view more: next ›