Hacker News Reader

Comment by nl | Hacker News Reader

> Slavery was at best an afterthought. Markets and tariffs were the reason the south seceded. Tarrifs were the reason for the civil war.

This is so wrong it's a wonder how anyone could think this.

Put it like this: the reason the South wanted low tarrifs was because they were a low cost producer.

And they were a low cost producer because of slave labor.

View on HN

> This is so wrong it's a wonder how anyone could think this.

A very long propaganda campaign (oddly, by the very same people who argue that slavery was actually a good thing that was done for those subject to it who should be thankful for it) has established it as an article of faith for a large population in this country, despite the fact that the rebels were quite explicit that the rebellion was about slavery.

I thought this was impossible, but sure enough here on HN there is someone who is literally making that exact argument: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31454920

> This is so wrong it's a wonder how anyone could think this.

I and everyone I knew was taught this is school by people who wanted to push the narrative, and it took a long time to figure out it was false.

> it took a long time to figure out it was false

Yeah I mean you have to first ignore what those Southerners themselves said were their actual reasons for secession (slavery), and what they wrote down on paper (we're leaving 'cuz we want to keep our slaves). It obviously takes a long time to learn how to ignore actual facts.

> push the narrative

Those dastardly schools, pushing Confederate states' constitutions at young impressionable minds to convince them that the Confederacy was evil. We have to stop them! /s

EDIT: I misunderstood the parent poster. Apologies.

Indeed, we went to great lengths to avoid confronting actual primary sources. It's not enough to just teach alternative history, you also have to teach learned helplessness, that only certain authorities are trustworthy, and to promote a general climate of proud ignorance (looking up things in books is for losers and caring about education is for suckers).

> we went to great lengths to avoid confronting actual primary sources

So you're saying you looked up the primary source documents for Southern secession and you still believe slavery wasn't a cause?

I think you're picking a fight here that's not there: its relatively uncontroversial that there's been an aggressive campaign since the civil war to minimise slavery as a factor, particularly in the South - you will easily find "war of northern aggression" types because that is what they are taught.

Thanks for explaining. I didn't think Southern schools were still teaching the Lost Cause as history so recently.

All of the current FUD in the southern states against CRT etc. seems like another attempt to take control of the historical narrative to once again start feeding lies to the young and mint a new generation of unquestioning voters that believe in a false history.

No, poster is saying the schools taught them not to look at those sources, because the lost cause lie was to be taught and could not sink in if the primary sources were available (which 100% contradict the "states rights" argument taught in many schools in the US, mostly in the south)

One doesn’t storm Harper’s Ferry over Mercantilism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com