this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2026
73 points (100.0% liked)

ShermanPosting

283 readers
114 users here now

Where we meme (joking in tone and detail, serious in sentiment) about General Sherman, the Civil War, and how the secesh traitors had it coming.

RULES

  1. No bigotry. The Union, or at least the part of the Union WE support, fought AGAINST that shite. We are anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic, anti-transphobic, and in general anti-bigot here, even if not all the lads in Union blue uniforms were.

  2. No Confederate sympathizing. Anti-democratic racist slaver traitors don't deserve shit.

  3. Follow all Piefed.social rules

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
PugJesus@piefed.social
73
Turning Point CSA (infosec.pub)
submitted 4 hours ago by PugJesus@piefed.social to c/shermanposting@piefed.social
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 1 points 10 minutes ago (1 children)

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.

  • Lincoln, Letter in Reply to Horace Greeley on Slavery and the Union

He does at the end of the letter say "I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free." but he makes it extremely clear that this is not top priority.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 1 points 4 minutes ago

He makes it clear in the immediate aftermath of the South seceding that his first priority is ending the war, yes, though other private letters also point towards just how long he planned out antislavery measures in advance, waiting for the course of the war to take a turn so they could be successfully presented.

As mentioned elsewhere, the sole uniting platform of the Republican Party at the time was anti-slavery - Lincoln ran on an antislavery platform in 1860.

[–] notsure@fedia.io 2 points 3 hours ago

I read somewhere that the state of Illinois was founded by a former slave...Is that incorrect? Hanlon's razor cometh

[–] peacefulpixel@lemmy.world -5 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

It's at best dishonest to actually believe Abraham Lincoln was against slavery. He saw that freeing the Confederacy's slaves would be a massive blow to them financially so he did. As with everything in this country, it was just business.

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 1 points 7 minutes ago

I don't think that's accurate. Lincoln was personally against slavery, however he put ending the war and reuniting the country above that. Kinda gross but I think it's the more accurate take.

Until it became clear to him that emancipation (of only the slaves in the South) would be a tactical advantage in the war, at which point he did it. But he had to be convinced and pushed to that point.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 8 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

It’s at best dishonest to actually believe Abraham Lincoln was against slavery.

The only uniting policy of the Republican Party of the time was anti-slavery policy. That's why they replaced the Whigs.

[–] notsure@fedia.io 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Do we find that history, though nuanced, leads to similar results? I only ask because history is replete with examples...favoring one over another never goes well

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking about exactly here?

[–] notsure@fedia.io 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

No one is superior, no one is inferior. Every time humanity favors one type over another it doesn't go well.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 1 points 2 hours ago

Oh, yeah, generally arbitrary hierarchies, and often even non-arbitrary hierarchies, end up poorly.

In general, human society is a question of balance of power. Once one group's power becomes overwhelming enough that its decisions can't be meaningfully disputed by the victims, increasingly immoral behavior tends to follow. The greater the imbalance of power, the greater the immorality, usually.

[–] notsure@fedia.io 2 points 3 hours ago

I find your capitalistic take disturbing.