• doingthestuff@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    Remember how the federal government treated the south when they tried to secede. And people still celebrate it, not without good reason. But they didn’t just go to war to stop it, they burned the south to the ground.

    • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Well, there are two big differences.

      The ethical one, the South wanted to secede to keep their slaves, and to clarify because the term slavery has been run ragged by propaganda, they wanted to keep their forced labour/death camps where they could kill, maim, rape, buy and sell people, also children, and have them do backbreaking, crippling work to enrich themselves.

      On the other hand, California is contemplating this because the South, after losing their war, did a 200 year psyop to get a rapist and a bona-fide sieg heiling Nazi in power to force California to drop initiatives that would keep the Earth inhabitable and let their citizens live in peace.

      The pragmatic one is that while the South was what it was, California is still an economic powerhouse accounting for 20% of the US economy. If they would secede, and bring a few like-minded states with them, it’s not the least bit implausible that the South would be doing the burning again.

      All that said, the Russians and the Chinese are salivating at this idea I’m sure.

    • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      But they didn’t just go to war to stop it, they burned the south to the ground.

      Do that to CA and you’re shooting yourself in the foot as the US

      Destroying your most important ports and where more than 50% of your agriculture nationwide comes from is not a good idea

      • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Which is exactly why they would burn it to the ground. The federal government would never let California, let alone any state, secede peacfully. They can’t risk losing those resources and would destroy them before allowing them to be competition.

          • howrar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            Climate change = mismanagement on the part of pretty much the whole world. So technically correct.

          • OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            20 hours ago

            Question: what things were done in the 80’s to prep for wildfires? Do they do any of those things today?

              • OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                50 minutes ago

                I was alive in the 80s, I definitely know what I’m talking about. If you can’t answer the question though, then you obviously do not.

                • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  47 minutes ago

                  That’s cute of you, but I can answer the question

                  That’s why I know you don’t actually know, because your implication that the way things were done in the 80s was perfect and correct and should still be done is wrong, we’ve learned, and so shit differently now using more modern understandings and tech

                  But you’re an idiot conservative who thinks how things were done when you were young is still exactly the only correct way it seems, so fuck off

        • Siegfried@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Was it really? I was under the impression that they mostly were agricultural, while the north had all the light and heavy industries… (sorry, I’m not american)

          • WagyuSneakers@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            You are correct. It heavily contributed to their loss. Without international support, or the industries to leverage that support they were isolated, poor and out of manpower.

            If Union leadership was better in the beginning we would have seen them rolled much faster.

          • AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            This was RIGHT before the industrial revolution in America. The timing of industrialization going north because the south was utterly burned to the ground was a massive shock that is still felt today. They couldn’t switch to industrialization in time

        • ubergeek@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          A huge reason the south lost was because they were NOT an economic powerhouse…

          Much like today.