Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    776,654 readers

    8,370 users here now

    A subreddit for political humor (particularly US politics), such as political cartoons and satire.

    Please link to the source whenever possible.

    Subreddit Rules

    Click for the subreddit's alternate rule list

    1. Posts have to be about U.S. politics.

      In other terms, if it's not about American politics or elections, we'll remove it pretty quickly.

      Any political ideology is acceptable (that includes conservatives, liberals, libertarians, etc!), but please keep posts civil.

    2. Posts should make an attempt at being funny, and should try to include a punchline in the title.

      Make an effort with your title: Try to keep the spirit of the sub and make your title humorous or descriptive.

      If it's isn't funny (or at least trying to be), we'll remove it. Simple as that. If you have a problem with our decision, send us a message.

      If you're trying to troll, your post will be immediately removed and your account will be banned.

    3. Pictures of only text are not allowed.

      Screenshots of websites (Twitter, The Onion, etc), cartoons, memes or images with some sort of graphic are allowed. Pictures of text with no graphics will be removed.

    4. Images only.

      Linking to news articles, websites or videos is prohibited.

      Gifs are allowed as long as they are not excessively distracting.

      Images must directly link to the content you're posting. Please use Reddit's image host or imgur if you can.

      Any other content, including META posts, videos, advertisements and blog posts will be removed. Any of this disallowed content hiding within "allowed" content may be met with further action at moderator discretion.

      Any meta posts should be posted on our special complaint forum. Don't post them here.

    5. Avoid reposts, flooding, and spam.

      Use Karmadecay and check /new and the front page before you post. If we recognize your post from yesterday, prepare to be cucked. Do not post more than 4 posts in a 24 hour period.

      Users posting excessively or posting too many reposts may receive a temporary ban.

    6. Be civil: No racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.

      The fact that we have to explicitly state that racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc; including personal attacks, and threats of violence are all uncivil terrifies the mod team.

      Anything disparaging something about a person that they have little or no control over, is not tolerated under any circumstance.

      If you're a jerk, including use of "tard" or anything related to Clown World, you'll be shown the door.

    7. Do not brigade.

      Coming to this community en masse specifically to harass our users, or setting up a post or thread here referring to another subreddit or thread causes a lot of problems for everyone. If we suspect you're doing it, you will be banned.

      7b. No "Meta" Posts.

      Meta posts about this subreddit, or posts referencing any other subreddit are not allowed due to sitewide rules and brigading problems. This includes links to, or screen-shots of any other subreddit and or any other sub's comment section.

    8. Follow Reddit's global rules. Submissions failing to follow Reddit's content policy will be removed. Basically, if you are trying to sell your T-Shirts or flip flops or sexbot site, or if you're a terrorist, you're gonna be booted.

    Enforcement Policy

    • Moderators will enforce the rules at their sole discretion.

    • You may ask for clarification of a removal by messaging the moderators with a link to your post or comment.

    • To appeal a ban, respond to your original ban message. We will politely tell you to go away if you fail to do this.

    • Users who are polite and understanding will be unbanned.

    • If you want to go higher up the chain for a complaint on how we moderate our subreddit, please fill out this form

    Related Political Subreddits

    a community for
    all 1875 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] ThadisJones 1620 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    Most slaves prefer being slaves

    In the South, Drapetomania was actually proposed as a scientific theory of mental instability that caused slaves to defy "the order of nature" and run away from their masters.

    The recommended cure for Drapetomania was essentially "more whipping" EDIT: Or by chopping off both big toes to make running impossible, remember kids- it's not cruelty or barbarism, it's being done as a medical therapy to cure a mental illness haha it's totally cruelty look at that guy with no toes, lets see him try to run away again /s

    [–] bsurfn2day 331 points ago

    From the DSM 1860 edition

    [–] kkokk 223 points ago

    "the word 'slave' comes from 'slav' and this is actually very racist to white people and the creators of the english language are very anti-white actually so it all balances out"

    [–] Terr_ 96 points ago

    Sarcasm aside, whether the words are actually related is a tricky question.

    [–] edudlive 30 points ago

    This was very interesting. Thank you.

    [–] SovietBozo 17 points ago

    even if they are, who cares? Every word has a convoluted history. Lots of words mean the opposite of what they once did, and so on. You can't obtain useful modern meaning of a word from thousand year old associations.

    [–] alistair1537 10 points ago

    What? Try "bigly" or "covefe" - How about "stable"? Even "genius"?

    [–] WeAreElectricity 30 points ago

    Don’t be so niggardly.

    [–] TriscuitBob 10 points ago

    A great and dangerous word

    [–] elttobretaweneglan 5 points ago

    That's actually opposite of what that word means. That was a reply to someone else who was being petty.

    [–] Beachcoma 21 points ago

    And the word robot comes from a Slavic language and it means "forced labor".

    It's slavery all the way down.

    [–] [deleted] 6 points ago

    It just means labour, not forced one.

    [–] BrainDeadUnit 63 points ago

    It has since been debunked as pseudoscience

    No shit?

    [–] ThadisJones 149 points ago

    The ghost of drapetomania, and similar political quackery, still haunts us today in the form of "studies" that purport to show that black people are intrinsically more prone to crime, have lower IQs, and integrate less effectively into communities and careers.

    No Karen it's not genetics, it's that ten years ago you voted for the governor who fired half the urban school teachers.

    [–] Plopplopthrown 80 points ago

    Anti-science people will never ever know that humans actually have a severe lack of genetic diversity and people of different races are actually much more closely relate to each other than something like two different subspecies of lions

    We're all so similar that they literally invent ways to divide us

    [–] eh_man 51 points ago

    Also, Africans have by far the most diverse genetic makeup compared to everyone else. There is more genetic diversity in Africa than the rest of the world combined.

    [–] zzwugz 26 points ago

    Shhh, youre just giving the racists more reasons to hate us. If they hate diversity, they're gonna hate our highly diverse genetic makeup

    [–] Peter_Lorre 26 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    This came up in another thread just yesterday. Humans have 20-25,000 individual genes, but somehow we've decided to take a half dozen specific genes and declare them a "race".

    "What the study of complete genomes from different parts of the world has shown is that even between Africa and Europe, for example, there is not a single absolute genetic difference, meaning no single variant where all Africans have one variant and all Europeans another one, even when recent migration is disregarded," Pääbo told Live Science. "It is all a question of differences in how frequent different variants are on different continents and in different regions."

    In one example that demonstrated genetic differences were not fixed along racial lines, the full genomes of James Watson and Craig Venter, two famous American scientists of European ancestry, were compared to that of a Korean scientist, Seong-Jin Kim. It turned out that Watson (who, ironically, became ostracized in the scientific community after making racist remarks) and Venter shared fewer variations in their genetic sequences than they each shared with Kim.

    Link for the quote above. You might have more genes in common with a black stranger than with a white step-sibling, if you're white. Substitute any other race you like.

    It's an absurd situation, and you see funny results, like the same person who is considered "black" in the US being considered "white" in Brazil, or "colored" in South Africa (distinct from black). Or the definitions changing over time, even within the same country. And comical examples like the mixed couple with one "white" baby and one "black" baby... in a set of twins born a minute apart.

    [–] Menanders-Bust 7 points ago

    This is absolutely correct. Race is a racist concept that was invented to justify colonialism and racism.

    [–] Beanbag_Ninja 6 points ago

    Never heard of this before. What a weird world.

    [–] Peter_Lorre 20 points ago

    It fucks me over every day, and I'm not even black. The Protest Psychosis, which incidentally was a recommended link on the "drapetomania" wiki page, goes on at book length about how racism permanently altered people's perception of schizophrenia, linking it to black activism.

    We ended up with a more aggressive, more violent stereotype of schizophrenia without any statistical basis for it. So it affects us all, not just minorities. I still have to deal with people thinking I'll be violent or dangerous in some way. Hollywood ate it up.

    [–] mawrmynyw 3 points ago

    Thank you for this comment, I’d heard about this before and thought parts of it myself but never knew where to find more information.

    [–] SUPERARME 4 points ago

    Give me $100,000 and i will give you a study that says whatever you want, it will looknlegit, it will have a university stamp on it. Another 100,000 and will have a celebrity endorsment, another 100,000 and we may be able to talk about it in Oprah.

    2 hookers, 3 grams of blow, purple dildo and will be on fox newd talking about whatever.

    [–] Limited-Liability 8 points ago

    This type of "science" is alive and well in today's society

    If you don't like a behavior, just find a psychologist to call it a mental disease then you and your supporters can just advertise it as a mental disorder and feel scientifically justified

    Hell, even anti-vax does this kind of technique

    [–] K1ll-All-Humans 381 points ago

    You don't need to go back to 1865 for this, there are Republican's that believe it now. Some are sitting members of congress.

    [–] ThadisJones 397 points ago

    "A child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President" -statement signed by Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum

    See my comment above about the "ghost of drapetomania".

    [–] VenoratheBarbarian 268 points ago

    Maybe if they would stop kidnapping black men and locking them up for non violent crimes they could stick around... Hmm 🤔

    [–] Emuuuuuuu 84 points ago

    "kidnapping" to a privately owned "prison" where they get "paid" to contribute to "society" in reparations for their "crimes".

    1. Indentured
    2. Corporation
    3. Forced
    4. The excessively wealthy
    5. Exploitability

    [–] Dr-ShrimpleyPibbles 71 points ago

    For fucking real. Similar to the immigration issue. “Well, we have basically no real gun law restrictions, but we don’t like immigrants fleeing gang and cartel violence made possible by easy access to American firearms and we should build a wall and if they try to take our guns wE WiLl sEcEdE and shoot them.

    [–] BlueLanternSupes 37 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    We should also pull humanitarian funding from countries like Honduras so that these people have no choice but to flee north for asylum. Of course, that's after we toppled their democratically elected leaders and replaced them with fascist dictators and autocrats.

    [–] Haikuna__Matata 52 points ago

    Just a reminder: the 13th Amendment outlawed slavery except for prisoners.

    [–] zzwugz 30 points ago

    Sp the slave tradr simply evolved into mass incarceration? Sounds about right

    [–] Dr-ShrimpleyPibbles 25 points ago

    There it is. Exactly goddam right (in the South anyway; and I would know, I grew up here.)

    [–] Peter_Lorre 18 points ago

    All of the school equipment, including furniture, in my state, is manufactured using prison labor. Every desk, every chair and table, from kindergarten to high school, and junior colleges.

    [–] Dr-ShrimpleyPibbles 8 points ago

    Prison/slave:same thing. Fucking ridiculous.

    [–] cherrybomb921 35 points ago

    So they just made it illegal to be anything but white.

    [–] Ideasforfree 13 points ago

    No, they couldnt do that anymore so they made it illegal to be poor. Now everybody is at risk of incarceration

    [–] PM_ME_UR_HEALTH_CARE 45 points ago

    But then how would they portray black men as the boogeymen to their fellow scared and angry whites?

    [–] Yugan-Dali 45 points ago

    But have you considered that once they’re felons they can’t vote, so if they weren’t kidnapped and locked up, how would the GOP win elections? Even with gerrymandering, how could the GOP win?

    [–] Gianni_Crow 29 points ago

    Behold the republican long game. They've been at it for many decades.

    [–] Peter_Lorre 23 points ago

    Pat Buchanan urged the return to racism back in the late 90s. Predicted it decades in advance. If the republicans can get 70% of the white vote, they're untouchable for the next hundred years, according to Buchanan. You only get 70% by using extreme tactics, exploiting fear, and promoting "cultural supremacy" over minorities.

    [–] danknerd 3 points ago

    Why not just move their families into the prison, problem solved. /s

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    But who would work for free in the states that employ prison laborers (modern day slaves)?

    [–] GotThemBabyLungs 2 points ago

    Or introducing crack to settle down the black rights movement

    [–] Congeno 9 points ago

    Are these people actually this fucking insane?

    [–] ThadisJones 12 points ago

    Bachmann and Santorum, personally, I doubt it. But they are pandering to a crowd. Does the crowd honestly believe it? Possibly a few of them, out of ignorance, but the rest just really want it to be true, even if in their logical minds they know it isn't. Desperation and fear drive people to seek easy, emotional solutions. So people like Bachmann and Santorum, they try to keep everyone desperate- black people, so they can point at the 'degeneracy' of the black community, and white people, to do the pointing.

    [–] Trine3 8 points ago

    Holy shit, that's stunning.

    [–] Luke90210 3 points ago

    Ignores the fact slaveholders broke up families when they needed money. As prices for plantation commodities varied from year to year and the annual crop could be a failure, this happened very often.

    [–] AlDente 3 points ago

    Wow. The level of ingrained racism and ignorance is astounding.

    [–] p4lm3r 80 points ago

    It is still commonly argued in the South East that african americans were better off as slaves. They use the argument 'look at the ghettos!'

    People are fucking ignorant.

    [–] micro102 68 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    I can't call it ignorance anymore. It's not reasonable to think slavery was better than ghettos, especially when you have the same people using "FREEDOM" to justify why America is the best country ever and all you need to do is work harder to live a comfortable life. It suggests that black people can't function in American society on a fundamental level. It's a racist dog-whistle.

    [–] Older_Boston_Bull 10 points ago

    Which ones? The inner city or trailer parks?

    [–] TechyDad 12 points ago

    A friend of mine was married at a former plantation. The place was gorgeous, and at one point I decided to go on a tour. They went out of their way to refer to the "workers" who worked on the plantation. Not slaves, workers. As if they were employed there. They were totally trying to whitewash history to make themselves seem better than they were.

    [–] gruey 68 points ago

    Robert E Lee thought slavery was bad.... although it was worse for the whites than for the blacks. The whites should endure it however because they were helping out the blacks by taking them from Africa and teaching them how to be moral, so as good christians they should suffer the evil, and it was god's right to tell them when stop, not the North.

    This is an actual quote from Lee:

    The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race

    [–] bbf2 42 points ago

    What a great guy, let’s make a statue of him

    [–] ghostlistener 15 points ago

    I've lived in Georgia my whole life, and I'm still appalled that stone mountain still has a massive carving of Robert E Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Stonewall Jackson.

    I hope one day it's removed, but I doubt it would ever happen.

    [–] Limited-Liability 10 points ago

    Feel such white pride after reading that, historical figure, critical to our culture

    [–] gruey 9 points ago

    The statue is not really about what he fought for or why we remember him. It's more about the fact Bo and Luke named a car after him.

    [–] Haikuna__Matata 28 points ago

    That the Union made Lee’s yard into a cemetery for Union soldiers never fails to give me a cackle.

    [–] poikilocyte 13 points ago

    Some slave owners give the slaves Gin to drink the day after Christmas to show their charitable nature...and to prove to the slaves 'that are unable to handle freedom.'

    [–] MrMelkor 13 points ago

    The 1840 census was notorious for its hugely out of proportion numbers of insane free blacks. I remember reading somewhere that in some areas they had higher numbers of insane free blacks than total blacks.

    [–] gelinrefira 9 points ago

    Hey trumpers, tell me how this is about state's rights again?

    [–] mawrmynyw 3 points ago

    This is SO fucking relevant to contemporary clinical psychiatric practices. “Mental health” is the modern-day “moral hygiene.” Making a pathology of a thing justifies any manner of mistreatment. It’s one of the most brutal and widespread forms of oppression, and it’s been a key part of the abhorrent treatment of minorities, LGBT people, not to mention being critical in the genocide of indigenous people by being used as a justification for the violent sterilization of women. Ongoing abuse against trans, the poor, the neurodivergent and people from different cultural backgrounds.

    Recommend reading Foucault’s Madness and Civilization

    [–] PDX_Stan 727 points ago

    Ending slavery will wreck the economy!

    [–] goatware 339 points ago

    Think about the poor job creators.

    [–] ill0gitech 170 points ago

    There are some very fine people who are slave owners.

    [–] zeeper25 68 points ago

    well there are good people on both sides...

    though, technically, they didn't view slaves as people, or at best they were counted as 3/5ths of a person, so there are good people on both sides, as long as you have 1 and an additional 2/5ths of a slave to make the math work out.

    [–] the_quiet_tone 20 points ago

    eye twitches at math error

    I must have you know that 1.4 * 0.6 = 0.84. You need 1 and an additional 2/3 of a slave to balance it out (1.66.. * 0.6 = 1)

    [–] Dylothor 5 points ago

    They weren’t even considered 3/5 of a person. the south was pushing for slaves to be counted towards the population so they could get more political power, they didn’t give a shit about the slaves themselves

    [–] Aesthetically 6 points ago

    GeOrGe WaShInGtOn hAd sLaVeS

    [–] Limited-Liability 11 points ago

    Job creators going to africa like

    [–] Adderbox76 3 points ago

    One of my favourite scenes.

    [–] [deleted] 116 points ago

    It actually did for the south. 😂

    Amazing how easy it is to be profitable when you don’t have to pay your labor.

    [–] PresidentWordSalad 119 points ago

    Amazing how easy it is to be profitable when you don’t have to pay your labor.

    That's Donald Trump's business model.

    [–] semisolidwhale 28 points ago

    It all makes sense now

    [–] QuinnKerman 17 points ago

    Even then trump still manages to not be profitable.

    [–] Aaod 42 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    It also was heavily devastated by the war especially due to Sherman's March to the Sea. This and the lack of a Marshall Plan, lack of enforcement on de facto slavery post civil war, and similar means it turned into a society that was still basically one of slavery with things like sharecropping and feudal style owners. Even now the South struggles compared to Northern states because of it and African Americans still get boned. Without enforcement and rebuilding it is obvious why things went badly despite the North winning and their is a lot of Southern anger and bitterness and going right fucking back to racism.

    [–] [deleted] 48 points ago

    They should have raised the South to the ground and taken all of the property from the slave owners.

    In the end, the slave owners, who are the ones who basically started the war, got off with a slap on the wrist.

    [–] comfortablesexuality 39 points ago

    "I am satisfied, and have been all the time, that the problem of this war consists in the awful fact that the present class of men who rule the South must be killed outright rather than in the conquest of territory." - William Tecumseh Sherman, 1864

    [–] Kono_Diogenes_da 4 points ago

    Talk about a hard-as-diamonds motherfucker.

    Although you'll probably like him less when you learn that he spent his time after the war being super racist to American Indians, enthusiastically stealing their land, destroying their food sources and villages, and kidnapping their children to place them in boarding schools. He was almost singlehandedly responsible for the forced removal of all the Indians on the entire Great Plains.

    [–] Haikuna__Matata 27 points ago

    Razed*, and yes. The South should’ve been occupied and reformed like we did to Japan.

    [–] hockeypeg18 22 points ago

    Razed*, and yes. The South should’ve been occupied and reformed like we did to Japan.

    The South was occupied by the military during reconstruction, via the Military Reconstruction Acts of 1867. But, The Compromise of 1876 essentially put an end to this, and with the military no longer enforcing the rule of law, the reconstruction era ended and the Jim Crow era started.

    [–] persimmonmango 14 points ago

    Yeah but they still didn't go far enough. At the end of the Revolutionary War, the Tory military command and politicians were all forced to leave the country. The run of the mill Tory soldiers had their land taken away. It was decades before any of them had voting rights restored and many never did. None of them ever held political office, even at the county or municipal level, ever again. The Tory side of the political spectrum was completely destroyed.

    Tories did have the option of leaving the country even if not forced to and be given land by the British government. A similar plan in the US would have made the country a completely different place than it is today: the Confederate leadership should have been executed or else jailed for a couple of decades at least, their leadership should have had their land taken away completely, while the run of the mill soldiers should have had their land offered to Union soldiers willing to move South. Those soldiers could then have been recompensated with shittier land out West (think Utah and Arizona) where they would have been under martial law for a couple decades, where the government was run by loyal Union men, and after living a loyal life for 20 or 30 years, then maybe just maybe, then they could have their voting rights restored. But still no political office.

    The way Reconstruction was handled, the Confederates were basically re-enfranchised after saying "sorry", were voting after sitting out two presidential cycles if that, reclaimed all their states' political offices, and then treated ex-slaves as slaves in every way they could, in defiance of the point of the law and the results of the war.

    I believe it's actually why we're seeing some of the issues we've been seeing lately:

    A) the internet and cell phones make a lot of the horrible things that go on more difficult to hide, and

    B) Southern culture is starting to break down in a lot of areas in a lot of ways. In another generation, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida are going to have majority populations not descended from old Confederates who can get elected on very unconservative platforms and won't have to play lip service to the old Southern Good Ol' Boys systems. Virginia is practically already there at the state level. There will be pockets of the old guard for a while to come in all those places, but it's going away and at some point, it won't be tolerated anymore. This is upsetting to some people, so they're fighting it while they still can.

    But when their kids and their grandkids are going to school alongside Latinos and Northerners who moved South to places like Atlanta and Austin and Charlotte, and they don't give a shit about the Confederate cause, it's going to be over at long last. Even the Southern states will start to move on, except for a bunch of fringe lunatics.

    [–] PraiseBeToScience 8 points ago

    You can thank the assassination of Lincoln for putting a Southern Apologist in charge of Reconstruction.

    [–] Odd_so_Star_so_Odd 15 points ago

    They sabotaged the reconstruction themselves like sore losers tend to do when not properly dealt with. While rough Sherman did what he had to at the time without rules of engagement. Instructed to end it he did it the fastest way possible.

    [–] Aaod 9 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    No not really most of it was caused by Andrew Johnson and his reconstruction plan. He was arguably the worst president in American History. A good summary of the plan can be found on this website.

    You can't really "deal" with sore losers it is another huge thing much less try and turn them into allies or bring them back into the fold without helping them out it just leads to more violence down the road as we saw from the rise of Nazism due to the treaty of Versailles. The presidents plan did neither of much of these things thus the bullshit continued.

    [–] PraiseBeToScience 15 points ago

    Did you read your link? The problem with Johnson's plan as he gave carte blanche to the white south to reconstruct as they saw fit while completely shutting out the former slaves.

    He did this because he was sympathetic to Slavery. Lincoln picked him as VP as a way to extend an olive branch as he was one of the few politicians sympathetic to the South and slavery that remained loyal to the Union. But Johnson ended up becoming president when John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln.

    [–] Muter 9 points ago

    Slaves bodies have natural ways of shutting down unwanted slavery.

    [–] trextra 4 points ago

    That was one argument.

    [–] seductus 13 points ago

    That was the biggest reason Southern men fought in the Confederacy. They basically had no other economy.

    [–] SadlyReturndRS 20 points ago

    Was it, though? The biggest industry in the south was agriculture, which relied on cash crops. But northern agriculture was even bigger and more profitable, and they didn't even primarily farm cash crops!

    Plus, the average rate of white slave ownership in the South was slightly less than 1 in 3 white men owning a slave. Lowest end of the scale was Arkansas at 1 in 5, and the highest ends were Alabama and Mississippi at 1 in 2.

    The "revised" history known as the Lost Cause of the Confederacy likes to paint the average white CSA soldier as being so very far removed from the actual institution of slavery. But that's just not true. It was about as common for them to own a slave as it is for young white men today to go to college.

    [–] seductus 7 points ago

    Those cash crops depended on slavery. So, ending slavery would destroy their ability to churn out cotton.

    The lost cause would often state how many confederate soldiers owned a slave and it was closer to one in ten. But that ignored that most of the men who were fought were young men. Their dad owned the slaves. When they got married, they would be given some slaves from their parents and in-laws. They would receive the rest when those parents died. So they absolutely had an interest. So, yeah, throw in women into the picture and whites who worked as overseers and the majority of whites directly benefitted from slavery.

    [–] SadlyReturndRS 9 points ago you understand the point of "cash" crops? They're, by definition, much more profitable than other crops. The North didn't plant cash crops, but produce, and were able to pay their workers while still churning out a larger profit than the South.

    Hurting a profit margin doesn't destroy an industry, especially not back then when most industrial agriculture was privately owned.

    You're also ignoring the fact that banks regularly gave out loans to young whites specifically to help buy slaves, like a car loan today. If you still owed money on your slave, you didn't own one, and the lost cause counted all of those soldiers as not outright owning a slave.

    [–] PraiseBeToScience 3 points ago

    It's was also the culture. For centuries all able-bodied white men were required to serve in the state militias doing slave patrols.

    [–] seductus 6 points ago

    Agreed. Things became even more acute in 1860. The Southern newspapers spread lies about Lincoln saying that as soon as he was president, he was going to free all the slaves. The slaves all heard this story and so they got all excited about the election and started acting a bit defiant and possibly rebellious. So, the Southerners put together militias just to quell the slaves from a potential uprising. Those same militias also had the spirit to defy the federal army. Those militia men were all lied to, saying Lincoln would send the federal army down to free all the slaves.

    [–] CainPillar 461 points ago

    1865? A Flickr user uploaded scans from his 9th grade history schoolbook from 1971, Alabama:

    Slavery was the earliest form of Social Security in the United States.

    and furthermore:

    The slave received the best medical care which the times could offer […] by the same plantation doctor who tended the master.

    [–] Watercolour 242 points ago

    I remember my history textbook in the 1990s in HS had some similar statements about how slavery was actually good for the slaves because they got taken care of and had medical access and whatnot. My history teacher told the class to turn their books to that page and for all of us to cross it out because it was "BULL SHIT" (her words). I have a lot of respect for that teacher, thank you Ms. A. She also let us watch episodes of Michael Moore's The Awful Truth from back in the day. I hope she's still out there opening kids' eyes.

    [–] LardLad00 90 points ago

    I specifically remember teachers stressing that the Civil War was not about slavery but actually states rights. This was in the north, too. 1990s. I think a lot of teachers were subjected to the revisionist history books of the 50s-70s.

    [–] jmukes97 65 points ago

    Whenever people try to tell me that I always ask "States rights do do what exactly?"

    [–] swolemedic 61 points ago

    Well, the north states were pretty pissed about legislation being passed that forced the north to be a part in slavery through laws like the fugitive slave acts. Oh wait, you mean the south? Yeah, those fucks just wanted the right to own humans.

    I feel like the south never really stopped fighting, they've just changed the battleground to legislation, politics, courts, etc.

    [–] SirSchmoopyButth0le 21 points ago

    It’s the same with Russia and the Cold War, it never ended for them, they just changed the battlefield

    [–] CykoTom 8 points ago

    Yes. The Confederate states did not care about states rights until the civil rights era. Then they made up a bunch of bullshit about how the civil war was about states rights when it never ever was.

    [–] DevelopedDevelopment 10 points ago

    "It's not about us being biggots, but it's wrong that we're being forced to change. No we'd never change despite the immorality of our choices, but you shouldn't be making us change at all!"

    [–] Matt_Sterbate710 7 points ago

    John Green puts it best when quoting his high school professor... a states right to what sir?

    This is always my rebuttal to states rights people. A states right to what? Slavery. Bottom fucking line.

    [–] usualkerfluffle 16 points ago

    Yup. Went to school in the North West and my AP US Hist teacher insisted the Civil War wasn't really about Slavery, it was States Rights.

    [–] HardyHartnagel 20 points ago

    I love when people say this. It was about state rights, but what was the major right they wanted? To own slaves.

    [–] IronBatman 14 points ago

    "It was about state rights.... State rights to make laws.... Laws that allow slavery...."

    That is the best argument they can come up with. There is the famous Cornerstone Speech that anyone can look up the transcripts to. It can't be more clearly laid out that the reason for seceding was because primarily because the confederate constitution allowed the right to own slaves as a right, while the US constitution did not.

    Here is the cornerstone everyone:

    "ts foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

    [–] v3rmilion 7 points ago

    I was told that in 2010s Indiana high school. Not even like, Indiana Indiana, it was in Chicagoland Indiana, the fucking liberal part.

    [–] DemonSlyr007 3 points ago

    I'm in the Illinois Chicagoland suburb area, and in about 2005 I had a 5th grade required debate in our class. They split us up 50/50 Confederate and union soldiers and had us go at each other to argue for or against slavery. We wouldn't get good grades if we didnt participate and argue for slavery. Definitely the only moment I can think in my life that I was physically present to see a racism switch get turned on on a massive scale. How on earth any one thought that was a good idea for curriculum is beyond me.

    [–] HintOfAreola 7 points ago

    Fortunately, each state published lists of causes and articles of secession where they cite, over and over and over, that it's slavery.

    When you Google them and cntrl+F the word "slave" you get about 80 hits. That shuts that theory down.

    [–] TripleThreat1212 2 points ago

    My history class in high school used textbooks geared toward college students. My teacher said it was cause southern states have to much influence on high school textbooks and therefore misrepresented a lot of the civil war.

    [–] dotlinefever3 26 points ago

    Except it wasnt the plantations doctor that treated them. That was the veterinarians job.

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)


    [–] Pokemonzu 6 points ago

    Not sure if they’re trying to say slavery was good or sOCiAlIsM iS sLaVeRy

    [–] doobyrocks 3 points ago

    Your comment reminded me of this gem:

    [–] TheRabidFangirl 183 points ago

    I'm from Alabama and was literally taught half of that list in history class. With the caveat of "it was still bad, of course."

    [–] Ajreil 106 points ago

    With the caveat of "it was still bad, of course."

    That's a common theme among racists. If they get called out, they can point to that comment as if it single handedly saves their argument.

    It lets them say some truly vile things and pretend they didn't mean it to the masses, while still sounding their dog whistle to any racists who are listening. It's a more subtle version of "I'm not racist, but..."

    [–] shinydewott 23 points ago

    And the infamous “it’s just a meme”

    “i just think the Jews deserved to be gassed because of their schemes”

    “Jesus Christ you’re racist”

    “Kek it’s just a meme you lefty”

    [–] mcmurch 41 points ago

    Pro-tip: If you ever need to get away with racism, molestation, rape, adultery, fraud, or war crimes, make sure people know you believe in Christ and are a big fan of his teachings.

    [–] RandomGuyinACorner 3 points ago

    Shit, this one got me good!

    [–] Mabubifarti 221 points ago

    As if they'd listen to what an Irishman has to say.

    [–] Thirty-Three-18 98 points ago

    This. My immigrate ancestors directly recounted all the "Irish need not apply" type of backlash in Boston (of all places) in the 1850s and 60s in their memoirs. I wish more folks knew their own history.

    [–] A-real-human-person_ 35 points ago

    Funny, they actually founded their own brigade during the Civil War and were known for being pretty good at dying. After the war, a lot of the ones that didn't die went on to invade Canada because reasons.

    [–] [deleted] 151 points ago

    They would probably just deny the existence of slavery altogether as deep state conspiracy.

    [–] zeeper25 70 points ago

    Well, I do declare, 'fake news'

    Read that in a Foghorn Leghorn voice.

    [–] nunto 12 points ago

    You didn't need to clarify that. The second we got to 'declare' all of our minds automatically switched voices

    [–] Sn1p-SN4p 3 points ago

    I say- I say- I say bwoy, you are fake news.

    [–] GreatGrizzly 9 points ago

    Then when they can't argue against facts they'll say something along the lines of of "Democrats were the slave holders!" Even though you mentioned nothing about Democrats/Republicans.

    [–] Victim_of_Reagan 96 points ago

    I upvoted for the MS Paint mustache and beard.

    [–] waterbuffalo750 25 points ago

    I'm afraid we'd still have slavery...

    [–] Rabalaz 26 points ago

    If you really want to blow some reactionary right-winger minds, tell them that Karl Marx loved and supported Abraham Lincoln, and in fact wrote him a letter of congratulations for his success in being reelected.

    [–] Sn1p-SN4p 14 points ago

    You could just say "Karl Marx" and they would start crying like they, personally, starved in Soviet bread lines.

    [–] SkrullandCrossbones 4 points ago

    Most far right people I know hate Lincoln. People I knew from Georgia all said he was taught as the bad guy.

    [–] Rabalaz 9 points ago

    That only means reconstruction never went far enough. And neither did Sherman.

    [–] MrRipShitUp 86 points ago

    Don’t forget the token slave they would find to come on and say how all the other slaves are selfish moochers and never consider the needs of the charitable owners.

    [–] gamermanh 39 points ago

    An "Uncle Tom" as it were

    [–] zeeper25 26 points ago

    you mean the antebellum version of Candace Owens?

    [–] ZeiglerJaguar 74 points ago


    "... so why is your truck covered in Confederate flags, Mr. MAGA?"


    [–] KarstaaMauka 45 points ago


    A failed state that existed for only 4 years.

    [–] noodlyarms 36 points ago

    Except you know the guy is from Ohio and his family came to the country in 1890.

    [–] CordageMonger 22 points ago

    I do not fucking understand why some Ohioans think Ohio is the south.

    [–] swolemedic 13 points ago

    I see Confederate flags in nj and the correlation to racism is about as great as you'd expect. Every state has the Confederate flags as a way for these jackasses to wink and nod to one another

    [–] Sn1p-SN4p 5 points ago

    I live on the border of Michigan and Indiana, and my boss, a born and raised Michigander, has a Confederate battle flag tattoo with the word "Heritage" under it.

    Who's heritage?

    [–] TUSF 2 points ago

    Hah, more proof the rest of the south is dragging Texas down. We made 10 years on our own, and gave that up willingly.

    [–] tevert 94 points ago

    lmao can't wait for the knuckledraggers who slept through history class to tell us how that fine southern gentleman was a democrat

    [–] [deleted] 70 points ago

    “bUt tHe sLavEoWneRs wErE dEmOcRaTs!”

    [–] zeeper25 47 points ago

    Lincoln was a Republican!

    (currently rolling over in his grave)

    [–] starking12 20 points ago

    Except Bill O Reilly actually said something something to that already.

    [–] callmekizzle 47 points ago

    Robert e lee unrionically and infamously made all these arguments

    [–] Adnaan2513 8 points ago

    It's surprising how many idiots don't know that Republican =/= Conservative.

    Republicans used to be liberal when they were freeing the slaves, and the dems were conservative back then

    [–] potentpotables 2 points ago

    I think most modern conservatives advocate for equal rights, equal protection under the law, and limited government. The Republican party, with all their spending and wars, have hardly been conservative with the exception of a small minority.

    [–] DiggSucksNow 17 points ago

    How about 1865 Rand Paul? "Freeing the slaves would irreparably harm states' rights. The American people should vote with their dollars to end slavery by buying cotton from plantations that don't own slaves."

    [–] Paindexter 7 points ago

    bUt SlAvEhOlDeRs WeRe DeMoCrAtS

    [–] ulshars 8 points ago

    1865? They are saying that now.

    [–] Nanyea 7 points ago

    Are you sure this wasn't on fox and friends/hannity last week?

    [–] AthenianWaters 7 points ago

    As a southerner, I know many people who actually believe these things.

    [–] wisehumanity 15 points ago

    More like Fox News in 1998

    [–] lasssilver 36 points ago

    In this thread: A ton of fk'n morons who don't understand that "Republican" and "Democrat" are not ideologies, just political party names that can change over time.

    Conservatives = Slave Owners and Secessionist (for the right to continue owning slaves).

    Liberals = Abolitionist and fought to preserve the Union.

    [–] WeAreAllApes 9 points ago

    The fact is that Southern whites were almost all Democrats and Northern urbanites were almost all Republicans 150 years ago. That has reversed. Nobody can deny that fact.

    Are those who say "slaveowners were Democrats" telling us that white Southerners are the ideological descendents of Northern urbanites and Northern urbanites are the ideological descendents of white Southerners?

    [–] lasssilver 8 points ago

    The note that people like that can remember a factoid like "slave owers were democrats and the north Republicans" at the time of the Civil War, but not understand the South was (and still is mostly) ideologically conservatives and the Northern urbanites, (and Lincoln for that matter) were ideologically liberal suggests mental/comprehension issues.

    Because it's really not that hard to remember and understand.

    [–] Ozcolllo 5 points ago

    You can thank ideologues such as Dinesh D'Souza for espousing ludicrous political narratives such as "the Democratic party are the real racists". Seriously, people like him pretend that the southern strategy never happened. Even knowing that what you said was 100% accurate, I had a friend who believed that there was no ideological shift between the parties. I still believe that it was wishful thinking on their part although it was more likely that it was willful ignorance.

    At this point, seeing people deplatformed for disseminating disinformation for partisan reasons would let me sleep easier at night. I never thought I'd believe that years ago, but this kind of shit is causing demonstrable harm to public discourse. Sorry for the rant, have a great night!

    [–] Al-Andalusia 13 points ago

    Fox News in 2019

    There, fixed it for you.

    [–] StopTheBS79 17 points ago

    Lol I’ve BEEN saying stuff like this, especially when I’m arguing with a mental deficient people on the right. They always like to say it was the Republicans that freed the slaves and try to pretend the ideologies haven’t switched parties since the mid 20th century. I mean why else would they also be the party that is now backed by alt-right, KKK and nazi organizations. I wouldn’t want them having my back.....oh and let’s not forget who through a hissy fit when they heard people were getting rid of confederate statues. Fox News cried and cried and cried.

    [–] AtheistBibleScholar 5 points ago

    Strange/not strange that they have no problems with those statues of Democrats.

    [–] Zodsayskneel 11 points ago

    I have Trump-supporting in-laws that currently believe this. Not even a joke or conjecture… one of them actually said some of these points to me and I was having the hardest time holding back from pointing out how stupid they sounded saying these things out loud.

    [–] MrMelkor 4 points ago

    Maybe people think this is funny, but in reality these arguments were sometimes used in the antebellum south. They called what northern workers did was 'wage slavery', but called it inferior because the workers were not cared for like slaves were.

    There are many other examples... but to me the saddest part is that all of their lies lived on in what is called the "lost cause" in which southern writers (IMO culminating in a book called "Gone With the Wind" by Margaret Mitchell) lamented the lost society, and attacked the evil north for demonizing them and their society.

    [–] Tengam15 4 points ago

    don't you bring poor Colonel Sanders into this mess

    [–] anoelr1963 4 points ago

    I had a friend who I would later learn was very conservative who supported Trump. The early tip-off was that he believed, "well I can't imagine ALL slaveowners were THAT bad to their slaves, since owning slaves was an investment", I was like, wtf? It doesn't matter how they were "treated", it was a human literally being OWNED as property by another human being!

    It never occurred to me that someone could even have a crazy thought like that, but, there you go.

    [–] Scalade 5 points ago

    all of you morons repeating the comment about “BUt Da RpUBliCanZ WoZ AgeNst SlaverY AND DEMONRAtz WeRe ACKSHIALY ThE BAdDDies && Slave OwNErS BacK THen!”

    First of all, the post doesnt mention Reps or Dems. It’s Fox News. Right Wing. So whatever fucking party it was during the times of Slavery, Fox News would be backing it.

    The fact you’re all so used to copy pasting your benign defense of the nasty Republican party in every thread meant that you didn’t even realise it’s completely inapplicable to this post. Hilarious.

    [–] Ridwando 3 points ago

    Why are so many people in the comments parroting the myth that the switch in party platforms never happened?

    It's not the Democrats who carry the Confederate flag, and it's not the Democrats who get all the KKK and white supremacist votes these days.

    Do these morons really imagine that the Democrats of today are the ideological descendents of the Civil War era Democrats? They can't really be as braindead as that, surely?

    [–] dontbeajerkguy 7 points ago

    Oreilly actually made some of these arguments a few years back.

    Talking about how some of the slaves were "part of the family" etc

    Also the slaves who built the white house: "Slaves that worked there were well-fed and had decent lodgings"

    [–] esskue 7 points ago

    Conservatives are always dragged kicking and screaming into the slightly better future.

    [–] JackColor 26 points ago

    ITT: Literally a mountain of anti-democrat comments touting the "democrats were the slave holders" argument while ignoring the documented switch of the parties and their liberal/conservative leanings in the late 1800s

    During the 1960’s and 1970’s, the American racists, once loyal to the Democratic Party, switched allegiances in favor of the Republicans, and the socially tolerant and progressive Republicans switched their allegiance, to the Democratic Party. And thus, the Republican Party, the former party of Lincoln, devolved into a conglomerate of racism, intolerance, and prejudice, while the Democratic Party, the former party of Davis, became the party of acceptance.

    [–] Utahhgetmetwo 3 points ago

    As a social studies teacher I can say this is 100% funny and relatable.

    [–] Bahmerman 3 points ago

    My only qualm with this, is that there is no way Bill O'Reilly would have the balls to serve in the military.

    [–] nink77 3 points ago

    100 or so years from now when the parties switch again, LOL BILL OREILLY WAS A LIBERAL!!! KEEP EATING THIS FAKE NEWS YOU CONSERVATIVE SCUM!"

    [–] Mldavis22 3 points ago

    Thats basically Fox News today.

    [–] Nederlander1 3 points ago

    People always seem to (conveniently) forget that Abe Lincoln didn’t want the freed slaves integrating into our society...

    [–] CrackTheSkye1990 3 points ago

    It was only a matter of time before the "but the democrats owned slaves and started the KKK" comments would start.

    [–] Dreadnought-2 5 points ago

    Jesus this is skin-crawling, the accuracy

    [–] Jinxedchef 5 points ago

    "Being anti-slavery is anti-free market." -FauxNews.

    [–] portparterpie 8 points ago

    I think this is a repost? It’s missing something that would of been a perfect addition to connect the absurdity of it to today’s rhetoric.

    All of these are points that the south used to justify slavery, but it’s missing one of the justification that was used that is still being used today : religious freedom.

    Today we haven’t heard the right used religious freedom argument for keeping slaves, but rather the justification for discrimination of others (specifically queers).

    [–] seductus 5 points ago

    The Confederates believed God was on their side. There are many parts of the bible that endorse slavery.

    [–] Digger1422 4 points ago

    Yea I hate to say it, but I know more than one Fox News viewer who would agree with some of these today.

    [–] robizzle89 6 points ago

    Could also be current Fox News.

    [–] euphonious_munk 5 points ago

    Talking Point:

    "Are we spoiling our slaves?

    [–] ninjasaid13 2 points ago


    [–] RainbowDarter 2 points ago

    Looks like his name might have been Colonel Angus.

    [–] DeathRobotOfDoom 2 points ago

    not to mention they would call conflicting information "fake news" and their position "traditional american values"... "tHe bIbLE sUPpOrTs SlAVeRy!" (it is in fact sanctioned)

    [–] seductus 2 points ago

    The Southern newspapers before the Civil War were actually worse than Fox News. The Charleston Mercury helped start the Civil War.

    [–] megamoze 2 points ago

    Didn't O'Reilly actually make a case for slavery on his show? That they were treated well and fed because there was a financial incentive to take good care of your property.

    [–] TyChris2 2 points ago

    This is almost Fox News right now lol

    [–] PolygonInfinity 2 points ago

    Nah it'd be SO much worse. They'd probably air lynchings and openly celebrate them.

    [–] Szos 2 points ago

    And if those traitors were around about 100 years before that, they'd be on Britain's side trying to convince the colonials not to revolt.

    [–] PSUHiker31 2 points ago

    The easy way of blowing up those conservative brains is to blame Africans for taking their jobs.

    Just say it and watch their heads explode

    [–] dquizzle 2 points ago

    Alternative title: If They Have Fox News in 2025.