Haley seeks to clean up controversial remarks on Civil War

[Gunny]

As stated in another thread, when it comes to history there are some stupid, simple people out there. Byron Donalds: "Slavery, period". This man and other uneducated people like him make decisions for all of us and their only answer to the US civil war is "slavery, period".

Not seeing too many people that learned one damned thing about it beyond what they can exploit for a payout:rolleyes:

Haley seeks to clean up controversial remarks on Civil War | The Hill (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4380011-haley-seeks-to-clean-up-controversial-remarks-on-civil-war/)

[Kathianne]

As stated in another thread, when it comes to history there are some stupid, simple people out there. Byron Donalds: "Slavery, period". This man and other uneducated people like him make decisions for all of us and their only answer to the US civil war is "slavery, period".

Not seeing too many people that learned one damned thing about it beyond what they can exploit for a payout:rolleyes:

Haley seeks to clean up controversial remarks on Civil War | The Hill (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4380011-haley-seeks-to-clean-up-controversial-remarks-on-civil-war/)

Seems to me the easiest answer in that situation would be along the lines of, 'Most Southerners would emphasize state's rights. Most Northerners would say, slavery. Neither has a monopoly on truth.'

[revelarts]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?50282-Civil-War-began-because-of-Slavery&highlight=confederacy

I do think it's funny that some on right want others to look at all the detailed nuances of causes for the Civil War but want everyone to believe that our 20th & 21st century wars are mainly about "freedom", "Right & Wrong" "democracy" "defense!" etc...
And Not REALLY about economics at all.

Somehow recent wars don't have to be Constitutional either,
but for the Civil War the constitution was supposedly violated in ways that have to be condemned with righteous indignation.

[Kathianne]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?50282-Civil-War-began-because-of-Slavery&highlight=confederacy

I do think it's funny that some on right are want others to look at all the detailed nuances of causes for the Civil War but our 20th & 21st century wars are mainly about "freedom", "Right & Wrong" "democracy" "defense!" etc...
And Not REALLY about economics at all.

I believe that there are reasons to go for short and simple if not looking for drawn out debate. My way, Haley would have not stepped in it.

[Gunny]

Seems to me the easiest answer in that situation would be along the lines of, 'Most Southerners would emphasize state's rights. Most Northerners would say, slavery. Neither has a monopoly on truth.'Those were the selling points to the people by government and media. Neither argument holds much water with me as anything more than means to an end. In the end, it was more about who was going to control government/the direction of the country, and the money.

[Gunny]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?50282-Civil-War-began-because-of-Slavery&highlight=confederacy

I do think it's funny that some on right want others to look at all the detailed nuances of causes for the Civil War but want everyone to believe that our 20th & 21st century wars are mainly about "freedom", "Right & Wrong" "democracy" "defense!" etc...
And Not REALLY about economics at all.

Somehow recent wars don't have to be Constitutional either,
but for the Civil War the constitution was violated in ways that have to be condemned with righteous indignation.Minus the "military industrial complex", right?

[revelarts]

I believe that there are reasons to go for short and simple if not looking for drawn out debate. My way, Haley would have not stepped in it.

You're answer is an interesting political answer. Much better than what she gave for sure.
But i'm not sure that would have satisfied very many people.
I guess for some who aren't as invested, they might think it's a good attempt to rise above.
But for those invested in the question, the compromise with "your truth" portion would still enflame.

[revelarts]

Minus the "military industrial complex", right?
Right, it has NO influence on ANYTHING ever.
At least not very much. Maybe on $500 toilet seats, but that's it.

[Gunny]

You're answer is an interesting political answer. Much better than what she gave for sure.
But i'm not sure that would have satisfied very many people.
I guess for some who aren't as invested, they might think it's a good attempt to rise above.
But for those invested in the question, the compromise with "your truth" portion would still enflame.

It has been only a rare occasion and not anytime recently that I have engaged in discussing the US Civil War objectively with anyone.

For the sake of making a point: if, in fact, the Civil War was fought solely over the moral issue of slavery then we, as a people, come up woefully short on having learned a damned thing from it.

[revelarts]

It has been only a rare occasion and not anytime recently that I have engaged in discussing the US Civil War objectively with anyone.

For the sake of making a point: if, in fact, the Civil War was fought solely over the moral issue of slavery then we, as a people, come up woefully short on having learned a damned thing from it.

I think you're right.

however i think the wording of the question is something that most people trip over too.

Was the SOLE cause the moral issue of slavery?
Or
Was the MAIN/DETERMINATE cause the issue of slavery?

the simple answer to the 1st question is NO.
the simple answer to the 2nd question is YES.
One would have to imagine some unreral hypothetical world where there were NO slaves in the U.S. from 1776 forward and then contrive other reasons why the U.S. would have a Civil War or any Secessions.
But the reality is that since the making of the constitution the only MAJOR rift north & south was the slavery issue... morally, economically & legally.
the MAIN Complaint from the South over the election of Lincoln was that he was thought to be an Anti-Slavery president.
The only MAJOR difference in the Confederate Constitution was it's take on slavery.

[Gunny]

I think you're right.

however i think the wording of the question is something that most people trip over too.

Was the SOLE cause the moral issue of slavery?
Or
Was the MAIN/DETERMINATE cause the issue of slavery?

the simple answer to the 1st question is NO.
the simple answer to the 2nd question is YES.
One would have to imagine some unreral hypothetical world where there were NO slaves in the U.S. from 1776 forward and then contrive other reasons why the U.S. would have a Civil War or any Secessions.
But the reality is that since the making of the constitution the only MAJOR rift north & south was the slavery issue... morally, economically & legally.
the MAIN Complaint from the South over the election of Lincoln was that he was thought to be an Anti-Slavery president.
The only MAJOR difference in the Confederate Constitution was it's take on slavery.

I find the idea that other than the usual, noisy minority giving one whit about Southern state slavery preposterous. It was/is however an easy target to demonize as it is now and was then becoming morally reprehensible. Especially to those who didn't own any.

However, if you took away Southern slavery, you destroyed the South's means of economic therefore political power in DC. If slavery was limited to only those states where it existed, the admission of more free states tipped the political balance of power which was unacceptable to Southern states as it gave political decision-making to Northern industrialists.

The South made the war about defending slavery and state's rights. Lincoln sold the war as preserving the Union at all cost. He did not make it about slavery as he felt he could not gain enough popular support for a war based on "freeing the slaves". He's on record for stating more or less that if he could preserve the union he would allow slavery to remain where it already was. Even when he gave the Emancipation Proclamation, it was a strategic and tactical gamble, as much as it was a political one. He freed only those slaves in states in rebellion for the purpose of forcing Southern soldiers from the front lines to return home and defend against slave uprisings that more or less never materialized.

The South was forced to defend its Achilles heel against what was a real threat to its economic power. The struggle for control of government and its power however didn't just appear because of the moral issue of slavery. As early as the 1820s Southern states were threatening to secede over tariffs that favored Northern industrialists. They two sides spent 40-ish years piling on bandaid compromises not really acceptable to either side, mostly the South because it didn't need the North.

That freeing the slaves was even a primary concern for Lincoln is revisionist. It justifies and glorifies the righteousness of the Northern states subjugating the Southern states to its will.

[revelarts]

I find the idea that other than the usual, noisy minority giving one whit about Southern state slavery preposterous. It was/is however an easy target to demonize as it is now and was then becoming morally reprehensible. Especially to those who didn't own any.

However, if you took away Southern slavery, you destroyed the South's means of economic therefore political power in DC. If slavery was limited to only those states where it existed, the admission of more free states tipped the political balance of power which was unacceptable to Southern states as it gave political decision-making to Northern industrialists.

The South made the war about defending slavery and state's rights. Lincoln sold the war as preserving the Union at all cost. He did not make it about slavery as he felt he could not gain enough popular support for a war based on "freeing the slaves". He's on record for stating more or less that if he could preserve the union he would allow slavery to remain where it already was. Even when he gave the Emancipation Proclamation, it was a strategic and tactical gamble, as much as it was a political one. He freed only those slaves in states in rebellion for the purpose of forcing Southern soldiers from the front lines to return home and defend against slave uprisings that more or less never materialized.

The South was forced to defend its Achilles heel against what was a real threat to its economic power. The struggle for control of government and its power however didn't just appear because of the moral issue of slavery. As early as the 1820s Southern states were threatening to secede over tariffs that favored Northern industrialists. They two sides spent 40-ish years piling on bandaid compromises not really acceptable to either side, mostly the South because it didn't need the North.

That freeing the slaves was even a primary concern for Lincoln is revisionist. It justifies and glorifies the righteousness of the Northern states subjugating the Southern states to its will.

pretty much.
And as i said..
Was the MAIN/DETERMINATE cause the issue of slavery?
the simple answer to the question is YES.

the reality is that since the making of the constitution the only MAJOR rift north & south was the slavery issue... morally, economically & legally.

I didn't mention Lincoln. And what you said is what i learned in school. and outside of school.
Summarized in the Fredrick Douglas's eulogy of Lincoln which I read in high school.
Nikki Hailey's question wasn't about Lincoln was it?

Is this CivilWar question asked or hoped to be answered publicly to lessen the assumed smear on the South of 150 years ago?
Is that why the question is brought up so often publicly and so hotly and unobjectively discussed?

You've given me the emotional key.
the blind spot of my boarderline autism could never figure that out. thanks man.

[Gunny]

pretty much.
And as i said..
Was the MAIN/DETERMINATE cause the issue of slavery?
the simple answer to the question is YES.

the reality is that since the making of the constitution the only MAJOR rift north & south was the slavery issue... morally, economically & legally.

I didn't mention Lincoln. And what you said is what i learned in school. and outside of school.
Well summarized in the Fredrick Douglas's eulogy of Lincoln which I read in high school.
Nikki Hailey's question wasn't about Lincoln was it?

Is this CivilWar question asked or hoped to be answered publicly to lessen the assumed smear on the South of 150 years ago?
Is that why the question is brought up so often publicly and so hotly and unobjectively discussed?

You've given me the emotional key.
the blind spot of my boarderline autism could never figure that out. thanks man.In reference to Haley being asked the question, I can only refer you to the OP. In so many words, it's a set up question. With all the obvious problems we are facing, who gives a flip what Haley believes was the primary cause of the US Civil War? Except someone from the opposition trying to trap her with a deflection in the hopes of labelling her a racist? Once labelled racist by the leftist morons, any and everything one has to say is dismissed with that accusation.

I have always found it half-amusing, half-absurd when the left tries so hard to label her some establishment, white bread racist. The daughter of Indian immigrants. Being Republican/conservative/otherwise thinking apparently nullifies gender and race minority status to these talking piles of excrement:rolleyes:

[fj1200]

... it's a set up question.

Bam!