• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nikki Haley: 'I could not look my kids in the face and justify that flag'

The flags of Britain, Portugal and Spain ( among other ) flew on the ships that brought slaves to the new world.

Are those " racist symbols " too ?

Let's not forget they sent some slaves to the Caribbean, so let's ban flags from the islands also. See how silly this can get?
 
Belatedly, reluctantly, and hesitantly.... because it wasn't the foremost cause of the war. The Union/Fedgov vs State Sovereignty/seperatism was. Lincoln said as much.

Do you believe Lincoln actually meant it though? I and many others believe that he said and did what he had to at times to keep the US together at all costs. Everyone knew Lincoln was anti-slavery even though he would talk out of both sides of his mouth from time to time for political reasons. Besides, what other major issues did the south have other than slavery?
 
The flags of Britain, Portugal and Spain ( among other ) flew on the ships that brought slaves to the new world.

Are those " racist symbols " too ?

Do those countries still have slaves? Are generations of former slaves still living with the shadow of oppression in those countries and if so, do the national flags you mentioned still act as reminders of oppression in those countries?
 
Do you believe Lincoln actually meant it though? I and many others believe that he said and did what he had to at times to keep the US together at all costs. Everyone knew Lincoln was anti-slavery even though he would talk out of both sides of his mouth from time to time for political reasons. Besides, what other major issues did the south have other than slavery?


If he talked out of both sides of his mouth on the issue, how can anyone claim to know what he really thought/felt/meant?


The South had been involved in a series of political and economic conflicts with the North for decades. A lot of involved tariffs and trade restrictions imposed on the South by the Federal Congress, at the behest of northern industrial and shipping concerns who wanted to plunder the South's foreign trade lines. Also at issue was whether the States were sovereign and still capable of exerting internal autonomy, the "null and void" crisis.

I've studied the history leading up to the war extensively. I was allowed to take some post-grad-level history courses in college; the two I chose were the Vietnam War and the Civil War, both by the same professor, a brilliant man whose classes on history were always in DEPTH... I mean in the Vietnam war class he started off on Day 1 saying "To understand the roots of the Vietnam war, you have to go back to about 1000 BC..." He was similarly thorough about the Civil War, beginning with pre-Revolution differences between the North and South in climate, economy, politics, settlements, and more, and proceeding to detail the conflicts that lead to the war. He said very plainly that while slavery was AN issue it was far from the only one, and not necessarily the most causal.

He had no dog in this fight, as he liked to point out, as his ancestors didn't arrive in America until the 1920's and mostly lived in the Northeast and Northwest. :)
 
So secession was essentially about taxes? I've never heard that one before. Taxes on everything or just specific things?

Just shows how the truth is not being taught in schools. The north was placing taxes on Southern goods to pay off the War of 1812.
 
Does that sound like a good reason to secede and start a civil war, risking hundreds of thousands of lives?


If your livelihood was being strangled away and the State you viewed as your nation unfairly plundered by distant special interests, you might think so.
 
Nikki Haley: 'I could not look my kids in the face and justify that flag' | US news | The Guardian
How could it happen that a flag which has always been a symbol of love for the South now represents racism and hatred? I feel sorry for those people who have been sticking confederate flags on their license plates since forever. Now they are all considered bigots and nazis. Maybe it's time to chill up a bit and just forget about one mentally disabled racist who used it as a symbol of his racial hatred? Because it will only distance the southerners from the rest of the country.

Because it is the flag of fighting for slavery, plainly and simply.

What is currently known as "the Confederate flag" isn't even the flag of the Confederacy as a nation. It is very specifically the war flag of the Confederacy. It is the flag they carried into battle to fight to keep slavery.

It is not the flag for love for the South. It's the flag of war for an unjust cause.
 
If he talked out of both sides of his mouth on the issue, how can anyone claim to know what he really thought/felt/meant?


The South had been involved in a series of political and economic conflicts with the North for decades. A lot of involved tariffs and trade restrictions imposed on the South by the Federal Congress, at the behest of northern industrial and shipping concerns who wanted to plunder the South's foreign trade lines. Also at issue was whether the States were sovereign and still capable of exerting internal autonomy, the "null and void" crisis.

I've studied the history leading up to the war extensively. I was allowed to take some post-grad-level history courses in college; the two I chose were the Vietnam War and the Civil War, both by the same professor, a brilliant man whose classes on history were always in DEPTH... I mean in the Vietnam war class he started off on Day 1 saying "To understand the roots of the Vietnam war, you have to go back to about 1000 BC..." He was similarly thorough about the Civil War, beginning with pre-Revolution differences between the North and South in climate, economy, politics, settlements, and more, and proceeding to detail the conflicts that lead to the war. He said very plainly that while slavery was AN issue it was far from the only one, and not necessarily the most causal.

He had no dog in this fight, as he liked to point out, as his ancestors didn't arrive in America until the 1920's and mostly lived in the Northeast and Northwest. :)

Wow a professor with brains? Now there is a rarity! What school did you go to? I would love to be able to take a class from this teacher.
 
Wow a professor with brains? Now there is a rarity? What school did you go to?



University of South Carolina baby. Go Cocks! :lamo





(Gamecocks that is... I can never say that with a straight face...)
 
It was basically what the American Revolution started over, in case you've forgotten.

Well, I looked up the tariff issue on Wikipedia because I've never heard that brought up before and it certainly doesn't look like any reason to start a civil war, let alone compare it the the Revolutionary War (jump to "tariffs" if you want):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_of_the_American_Civil_War#Tariffs

Do you maybe have a better source to justify tariffs as being a legitimate reason to secede?
 
Because it is the flag of fighting for slavery, plainly and simply.

What is currently known as "the Confederate flag" isn't even the flag of the Confederacy as a nation. It is very specifically the war flag of the Confederacy. It is the flag they carried into battle to fight to keep slavery.

It is not the flag for love for the South. It's the flag of war for an unjust cause.

Wrong are you. I guess you forgot the economic conflict the South had with the north leading up to the war? Slavery was only the main issue LATER when the yanks realized Johnny Reb was kicking their tails in more ways than one.
 
The states, supposedly, but the feds were getting more power than they were ever supposed to have. I think now we can see that a large central government is not a good thing.

You're purposely avoiding the issue. So, let me put it to you another way:

What role did state's right play in the southern state's ability to retain property rights while also generating revenue while retaining both their revenue stream prior to secession, as well as, retain their so-called "southern way of life"? What was the one thing they stood to lose under state's rights that impacted both their revenue AND their lifestyle?
 
Back
Top Bottom