Scholarly history of Civil War vs. popular "history" of Civil War

[Hauldren Collider]

We should apply the same principle to German Holocaust deniers. Oh, wait, that would be ****ing stupid.

Arguing over casus belli doesn't mean they think that black people should be slaves or supported southern slavery. Holocaust denial is clearly antisemitism, whereas while this might be correlated with racism it certainly doesn't demonstrate someone is racist.

[Hauldren Collider]

Also regarding creationism/evolution, from an objective standpoint it isn't often possible to say which debates consist of correct people and shouting idiots and which debates consist of two unique and legitimate points of view.

I know you're going to pull a godwin on this and bring up holocaust denial, but that has entirely different motivations than religious beliefs.

[Kuciwalker]

Arguing over casus belli doesn't mean they think that black people should be slaves or supported southern slavery.

No, it just means they are apologists for a brutally evil society and also morons.

[Kuciwalker]

Also regarding creationism/evolution, from an objective standpoint it isn't often possible to say which debates consist of correct people and shouting idiots and which debates consist of two unique and legitimate points of view.

Of course it is, just as much as we can objectively say that creationists are wrong and the Earth is round.

[Hauldren Collider]

Arguing over casus belli doesn't mean they think that black people should be slaves or supported southern slavery.

No, it just means they are apologists for a brutally evil society and also morons.

Morons, no, deluded, I guess so, but honestly none of them are trying to bring back the good old days of Jim Crow or slavery so who the hell cares? Stop passing judgement on them, there are far worse crimes than this. Do you also get angry when people speak fondly of the Roman Empire?

Consider that the reason they are apologists and not just outright saying "I think it was okay and fine!" is because they DON'T think that slavery was okay but still feel attached to their state.

[Kuciwalker]

Morons, no

Wrong.

but honestly none of them are trying to bring back the good old days of Jim Crow or slavery so who the hell cares?

1) I thought you had read your goddamn Orwell.
2) Your arguments still all apply against holocaust deniers.

Stop passing judgement on them

No.

there are far worse crimes than this

blah blah blah I can't complain about anything short of murder blah blah

Do you also get angry when people speak fondly of the Roman Empire?

No, because the Roman Empire was ****ing awesome.

[Hauldren Collider]

The apologists for communism actually wanted communism. The apologists for slavery don't want slavery. It's completely different. No one is worried that the white supremacists are going to convince everyone that slavery was actually okay and fine for black people.

The furthest extent of mainstream historical revisionism is that there were factors other than slavery motivating the civil war. That's a far cry from "well communism isn't so bad the soviet union just screwed up"

[Kuciwalker]

The apologists for communism actually wanted communism.

I thought you had read your goddamn Orwell.

Apparently not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Consider that the reason they are apologists and not just outright saying "I think it was okay and fine!" is because they DON'T think that slavery was okay but still feel attached to their state.

By justifying a brutal system dedicating to continuing slavery. It's like people being apologists for the Japanese regime during WW2 - well they don't think the Rape of Nanking is okay, but they are still attached to their state! It's minimizing the crimes of the regime.

[DinoDoc]

I thought that it was obvious that State's Rights were at the center of the causes for the Civil War. Hell war nearly broke out in 1832 over tariffs. It just so happens that one of the rights they were interested in at the time was the right to keep people in chains.

[MrFun]

. . . so who the hell cares?

Willful distortion of history is just wrong, period. It should always be spoken against when such distortions are expressed. Horrible people in the past in different time periods have used distortions of their nation's/ethnic group's history to carry out actual plans of action.

Those are some of the reasons why I care.

[MrFun]

I thought that it was obvious that State's Rights were at the center of the causes for the Civil War. Hell war nearly broke out in 1832 over tariffs. It just so happens that one of the rights they were interested in at the time was the right to keep people in chains.

You like peeing on historical facts, don't you?

[SlowwHand]

I thought that it was obvious that State's Rights were at the center of the causes for the Civil War.

Correct.

[Dauphin]

My understanding is that the war wasn't about slavery, unless you think the South were vindictive racists who wanted to keep the black man down (hmmm). It was about economics. The economic value of keeping slavery made it worth while attempting to secede and it was by far the largest economic factor.

I never studied the stuff, this is just what I absorbed by metaphorical osmosis.

[Elok]

I don't know a lot about Holocaust deniers, but AFAICT when southerners blather about states' rights, it isn't because they believe in slavery or genuinely think the war was just. They're simply refusing to face up to the fact that their ancestors were so cleanly in the wrong--the motivation is pride, not hate.