Slavery didn’t end because the slaves revolted. It ended because white people fought to abolish it. The North could have allowed the South to continue on as a separate nation with slaves, but they insisted the Confederacy remain with the Union, AND end slavery.
Often the downtrodden need those in power to use that power to fight for them.
Slavery didn’t end because the slaves revolted. It ended because white people fought to abolish it.
Holy revisionist history!!
White abolitionists absolutely played a role in ending chattel slavery in the United States, not the least of which were John Brown, the 48ers, and others who were doing what they did for the goal of Abolition primarily.
The vast majority of northern politicians, generals, and soldiers, were engaged in the Civil war to preserve the Union, first and foremost. Abolition was a distant secondary concern for most of them.
Furthermore, Slaves weren’t just sitting on their asses waiting to be freed by the benevolence of white people, they were agents of history all on their own. W.E.B. DuBois argued in Black Reconstruction in America that an underdiscussed turning point in the Civil War was when slaves engaged in one of the largest general strikes in American history. A strike which crippled the southern economy and thus its ability to sustain the war.
So yes, Slavery did end in very large part because the slaves revolted.
It’s not revisionist at at all. In fact you partially agreed with me, that WHITE abolitionists were prime agents of ending slavery.
Slavery ended IN PART because the slaves resisted, but it’s revisionist history to pretend that the enormous Civil War that killed millions of Americans, mostly white, didn’t play the most major role in the end of slavery.
There wasn’t a single American slave revolt that contributed substantially to the end of slavery. When Union armies started encroaching on Southern territory, slaves abandoned their posts, and headed to Northern lines, but it wasn’t anything organized. DuBois characterized it as a General Strike, but it was really just the slaves taking advantage of the opportunity of a lifetime. There was no organized revolt, no General Strike, just individual motivation to escape while it was possible.
Sure, the Union Army was fighting to preserve the Union, but they were also well aware that the ONLY issue that was dividing the Union was slavery. Literally every Southern Constitution, and the Confederate Declaration of Independence made it very clear that their single issue was slavery. Without Slavery, there is no Civil War. And without the mostly white Union Army, the South would have continued with slavery.
Du Bois wrote that, as Union forces marched through the South, enslaved laborers escaped plantations, presenting themselves at army camps to join the fight.
So even DuBois, who was the first to characterize the initial liberation of the slaves as a General Strike, acknowledged that the “General Strike” was preceded by the encroaching Union Army encouraging them. They were already essentially free. Walking off the plantation was just the slaves claiming their new status as free people.
A General Strike implies organization, and that wasn’t strictly true. They didn’t plan for it, set a date, etc. When the Army got close, and everybody knew the region was inevitably going to fall, they walked off the job. If the Northern Army hadn’t shown up, would those slaves had done a General Strike on their own? Of course not, any “General Strike” was only as a result of the approaching army, and the recognition that the end was imminent anyway.
This wasn’t a General Strike, it was just the end of slavery. It’s like characterizing the closing of a company as a General Strike. It isn’t a strike, and all the workers walked off the job, the factory just closed, and everybody lost their jobs.
No, I have a degree in history. I prefer facts to vibes.
The simple truth is that slavery was ended by the Civil War, with a Union Army that was 10% black soldiers, and 90% white soldiers. That’s just a simple fact, from our National Archives.
It isn’t revisionist history to acknowledge that slavery was ended primarily through the deaths of white soldiers, and pointing that out doesn’t make me a white savior. I have also heavily studied Critical Race Theory, and think it should be taught at a high school level in America. I think we could go a long way in educating Americans about the true and significant contributions of black Americans, but that doesn’t require making up new facts that support our personal fantasies. That’s MAGA thinking.
Nothing I said was wrong, and you didn’t even attempt to dispute it. You just went straight to calling me names because I pointed out the simple historical fact that an enormous army of primarily white soldiers was the primary driver of the end of slavery. I acknowledged that slaves and black soldiers helped, but it is simply an historical fact that the war wasn’t ended by a General Strike (which may not even have really happened, it was just one person’s characterization of the situation), it was ended by the overwhelming might of the Union Army, which was 90% white. Sorry if the truth makes you uncomfortable.
You are a shallow thinker who doesn’t understand that pointing out actual historical facts that don’t align with your 21st century ideologies doesn’t make me sexist or racist, just accurate.
Your insistence that I’m sexist and racist is ignorant, and silly. Besides, where did you get Sexist from? We were talking about slavery, so I could see where a confused person could somehow fall back on a racist label, but sexist? That wasn’t part of the discussion in any way. That was just you piling on to someone you’ve decided to hate simply because they repeated a truth that makes you uncomfortable. You’re the one spewing the bigotry, not me.
Your degree is in HIS-story. HIS being the prefix you’re choosing to use. It’s blatantly sexist by ignoring the plight women have suffered throughout time. Classic white savior tactic. Obfuscate the truth to push a racist narrative. You really think things would be better if the south won? Why would you even imply something like that?
Your degree is in HIS-story HIS being the prefix you’re choosing to use.
Imagine thinking that this is a valid argument - that “choosing” to use the world History makes me sexist, because history has His in it, so I must accept all the sexist stereotypes that have occured in HIS-tory. Or maybe I’m sexist because I won’t call it Herstory?
The word history originates from the Ancient Greek historia, meaning “inquiry,” “knowledge acquired by investigation,” or “account of one’s inquiries”.
So you see, the word history has nothing to do with gender, just because it has the letters H-I-S in it. It isn’t derived from anything to do with gender or sex, and trying to attach those meanings to it thousands of years after the fact isn’t just poor scholarship, it’s the sign of a really STUPID person.
I’ve got an idea, let’s change the subject, and argue about whether antiHIStamines are Lesbian, and if men should be allowed to take them.
Oh, yeah, I just can’t let that last one go. How does acknowledging that the Union Army was 90% white, a simple historical fact, imply that I wanted the South to win? That was obviously some attempt at an insult, but it didn’t work.
You’re telling me what you think I need to work on, so I’ll suggest that you really need to learn about Critical Thinking Skills. Because you don’t have any, and I doubt that you’ve ever been heard the term.
Slavery didn’t end because the slaves revolted. It ended because white people fought to abolish it. The North could have allowed the South to continue on as a separate nation with slaves, but they insisted the Confederacy remain with the Union, AND end slavery.
Often the downtrodden need those in power to use that power to fight for them.
Holy revisionist history!!
White abolitionists absolutely played a role in ending chattel slavery in the United States, not the least of which were John Brown, the 48ers, and others who were doing what they did for the goal of Abolition primarily.
The vast majority of northern politicians, generals, and soldiers, were engaged in the Civil war to preserve the Union, first and foremost. Abolition was a distant secondary concern for most of them.
Furthermore, Slaves weren’t just sitting on their asses waiting to be freed by the benevolence of white people, they were agents of history all on their own. W.E.B. DuBois argued in Black Reconstruction in America that an underdiscussed turning point in the Civil War was when slaves engaged in one of the largest general strikes in American history. A strike which crippled the southern economy and thus its ability to sustain the war.
So yes, Slavery did end in very large part because the slaves revolted.
It’s not revisionist at at all. In fact you partially agreed with me, that WHITE abolitionists were prime agents of ending slavery.
Slavery ended IN PART because the slaves resisted, but it’s revisionist history to pretend that the enormous Civil War that killed millions of Americans, mostly white, didn’t play the most major role in the end of slavery.
There wasn’t a single American slave revolt that contributed substantially to the end of slavery. When Union armies started encroaching on Southern territory, slaves abandoned their posts, and headed to Northern lines, but it wasn’t anything organized. DuBois characterized it as a General Strike, but it was really just the slaves taking advantage of the opportunity of a lifetime. There was no organized revolt, no General Strike, just individual motivation to escape while it was possible.
Sure, the Union Army was fighting to preserve the Union, but they were also well aware that the ONLY issue that was dividing the Union was slavery. Literally every Southern Constitution, and the Confederate Declaration of Independence made it very clear that their single issue was slavery. Without Slavery, there is no Civil War. And without the mostly white Union Army, the South would have continued with slavery.
Except I literally gave you an example of one…The massive general strike of slaves which crippled the southern economy
https://daily.jstor.org/did-black-rebellion-win-the-civil-war/
So even DuBois, who was the first to characterize the initial liberation of the slaves as a General Strike, acknowledged that the “General Strike” was preceded by the encroaching Union Army encouraging them. They were already essentially free. Walking off the plantation was just the slaves claiming their new status as free people.
A General Strike implies organization, and that wasn’t strictly true. They didn’t plan for it, set a date, etc. When the Army got close, and everybody knew the region was inevitably going to fall, they walked off the job. If the Northern Army hadn’t shown up, would those slaves had done a General Strike on their own? Of course not, any “General Strike” was only as a result of the approaching army, and the recognition that the end was imminent anyway.
This wasn’t a General Strike, it was just the end of slavery. It’s like characterizing the closing of a company as a General Strike. It isn’t a strike, and all the workers walked off the job, the factory just closed, and everybody lost their jobs.
Sounds like you’re a white savior
No, I have a degree in history. I prefer facts to vibes.
The simple truth is that slavery was ended by the Civil War, with a Union Army that was 10% black soldiers, and 90% white soldiers. That’s just a simple fact, from our National Archives.
It isn’t revisionist history to acknowledge that slavery was ended primarily through the deaths of white soldiers, and pointing that out doesn’t make me a white savior. I have also heavily studied Critical Race Theory, and think it should be taught at a high school level in America. I think we could go a long way in educating Americans about the true and significant contributions of black Americans, but that doesn’t require making up new facts that support our personal fantasies. That’s MAGA thinking.
Sounds like you have a deep disdain for anyone non white, you should consider working on that. By the way, your degree, HIStory, sexist as fuck.
Well, I tried to be respectful, and offer facts as my reply, but this one is a special kind of self-righteous dickhead.
Yes that’s why I’m asking you to work on your outdated, sexist and racist beliefs.
Nothing I said was wrong, and you didn’t even attempt to dispute it. You just went straight to calling me names because I pointed out the simple historical fact that an enormous army of primarily white soldiers was the primary driver of the end of slavery. I acknowledged that slaves and black soldiers helped, but it is simply an historical fact that the war wasn’t ended by a General Strike (which may not even have really happened, it was just one person’s characterization of the situation), it was ended by the overwhelming might of the Union Army, which was 90% white. Sorry if the truth makes you uncomfortable.
You are a shallow thinker who doesn’t understand that pointing out actual historical facts that don’t align with your 21st century ideologies doesn’t make me sexist or racist, just accurate.
Your insistence that I’m sexist and racist is ignorant, and silly. Besides, where did you get Sexist from? We were talking about slavery, so I could see where a confused person could somehow fall back on a racist label, but sexist? That wasn’t part of the discussion in any way. That was just you piling on to someone you’ve decided to hate simply because they repeated a truth that makes you uncomfortable. You’re the one spewing the bigotry, not me.
Maybe YOU should work on THAT.
Your degree is in HIS-story. HIS being the prefix you’re choosing to use. It’s blatantly sexist by ignoring the plight women have suffered throughout time. Classic white savior tactic. Obfuscate the truth to push a racist narrative. You really think things would be better if the south won? Why would you even imply something like that?
Someone is off their meds.
Imagine thinking that this is a valid argument - that “choosing” to use the world History makes me sexist, because history has His in it, so I must accept all the sexist stereotypes that have occured in HIS-tory. Or maybe I’m sexist because I won’t call it Herstory?
So you see, the word history has nothing to do with gender, just because it has the letters H-I-S in it. It isn’t derived from anything to do with gender or sex, and trying to attach those meanings to it thousands of years after the fact isn’t just poor scholarship, it’s the sign of a really STUPID person.
I’ve got an idea, let’s change the subject, and argue about whether antiHIStamines are Lesbian, and if men should be allowed to take them.
Oh, yeah, I just can’t let that last one go. How does acknowledging that the Union Army was 90% white, a simple historical fact, imply that I wanted the South to win? That was obviously some attempt at an insult, but it didn’t work.
You’re telling me what you think I need to work on, so I’ll suggest that you really need to learn about Critical Thinking Skills. Because you don’t have any, and I doubt that you’ve ever been heard the term.