• 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'

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?

Read this response from Goshen, it will enlighten you.
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.
 
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.

Are we seriously still pretending the Civil War wasn't about slavery, despite the fact that several states' official declarations of secession and war were SPECIFICALLY addressing their belief in the inferiority of the black race as their main reason for it? What, did the Yankees sneak into their state buildings and write those declarations for them?

Whatever. You're just choosing intentional ignorance.
 
University of South Carolina baby. Go Cocks! :lamo





(Gamecocks that is... I can never say that with a straight face...)

Columbia is a beautiful city. Used to show my horse there at the fairgrounds every March. How many times did you eat at California Dreaming?
 
Are we seriously still pretending the Civil War wasn't about slavery, despite the fact that several states' official declarations of secession and war were SPECIFICALLY addressing their belief in the inferiority of the black race as their main reason for it? What, did the Yankees sneak into their state buildings and write those declarations for them?

Whatever. You're just choosing intentional ignorance.

Slavery was AN issue. ONE. Not the only one. If I am choosing to be intentionally ignorant then you had horrible history teachers.
 
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.

Ok, do you have a link or would you mind explaining how unfairly the Fed gov't was treating the southern states, because I skimmed over the topic of tariffs and it looks like most southerners wanted to secede because of slavery, not tariffs. This is according to the wikipedia page (under "Tariffs"), so if you have a better source, please let me know.
 
Slavery was AN issue. ONE. Not the only one. If I am choosing to be intentionally ignorant then you had horrible history teachers.

No, I've just read the source material. And it's about slavery and the supposed inferiority of the black race. Basically nothing else.

I'm sorry this offends you so, but that's reality. And the denial of this fact is one of the many reasons the South is still thought of as quite racist. But that's your cross to bear, I guess.
 
Ok, do you have a link or would you mind explaining how unfairly the Fed gov't was treating the southern states, because I skimmed over the topic of tariffs and it looks like most southerners wanted to secede because of slavery, not tariffs. This is according to the wikipedia page (under "Tariffs"), so if you have a better source, please let me know.

Its wikipedia, no wonder.
 
No, I've just read the source material. And it's about slavery and the supposed inferiority of the black race. Basically nothing else.

I'm sorry this offends you so, but that's reality. And the denial of this fact is one of the many reasons the South is still thought of as quite racist. But that's your cross to bear, I guess.

Like I said, you need a history lesson
 
Columbia is a beautiful city. Used to show my horse there at the fairgrounds every March. How many times did you eat at California Dreaming?


Hm. If I remember right it had just opened. I can't actually recall eating there... My buds and I were more commonly found at Taco Bell or the Pizza Inn.
 
Simple, it was over the state's right to govern themselves, as this country was originally founded.

That argument seems a bit disingenuous to me considering that some states secession declarations specifically list grievances against other states for exercising their own states rights. Specifically laws that interfered with the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave act and limiting the southerners ability to transport slaves through their states.

For example, the Texas succession statement calls out specific northern states for exercising their our states rights in these matters.



"The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith."




Some would say the Confederacy fought against states rights (the rights of norther states) rather than for them.
 
That argument seems a bit disingenuous to me considering that some states secession declarations specifically list grievances against other states for exercising their own states rights. Specifically laws that interfered with the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave act and limiting the southerners ability to transport slaves through their states.

For example, the Texas succession statement calls out specific northern states for exercising their our states rights in these matters.



"The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith."




Some would say the Confederacy fought against states rights (the rights of norther states) rather than for them.

That's because those states were taxing the Southern states out the yin yang, and the South, as you might expect, did not like that. Who would after all?
 
Are we seriously still pretending the Civil War wasn't about slavery, despite the fact that several states' official declarations of secession and war were SPECIFICALLY addressing their belief in the inferiority of the black race as their main reason for it? What, did the Yankees sneak into their state buildings and write those declarations for them?

Whatever. You're just choosing intentional ignorance.

A) The North, up to and including Lincoln himself, believed that African slaves were generally inferior to whites as well. His ultimate hope was to ship them all off to Africa as such. The North can claim no moral high ground with regards to racism.

B) Of course slavery was mentioned by the South as being one of their reasons for going to war. It was literally the crux of their entire economic system.

That does not, however, mean that it was ever the South's primary reason for going to war, nor that it is the only thing the flag stands for.
 
Read this response from Goshen, it will enlighten you.

Thank you for the insightful and most eloquent retort. :roll:

I like how this professor does like everyone else who rationalizes the South's attempt to retain slavery. It wasn't they wanted to hold onto people who they claimed as property and keep them inferior and subservient, but it was all about economics - taxes, tarriffs, profits. Property rights is never part of the rational because it would force such people to face the inhumanity of slavery. It's never about forced labor because it would force such people to again face the inhumanity of slavery. And it's never about how White slave masters or even Whites in the north kept Blacks under their thumb as it were, i.e., anti-slave laws, Jim Crow, etc., ensuring that Blacks even when freed could easily and unjustly be forced right back into bondage.

Taxes, tariffs, profits, property rights, lifestyle disruption in the south (and in the North to a lessor degree)...all used to justify an inhuman practice some of our Founding Fathers tried to abolish when this country was first broke from its mother stem. Twenty-five years after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the issue of slavery was suppose to be placed back before Congress to debate. That never happened and as a result, Southern states used every excuse in the book to hold onto this despicable way of life. They held on so tight that well over a century later, we're still "fighting" about it today.

Shameful...
 
A) The North, up to and including Lincoln himself, believed that African slaves were generally inferior to whites as well. His ultimate hope was to ship them all off to Africa as such. The North can claim no moral high ground with regards to racism.

B) Of course slavery was mentioned by the South as being one of their reasons for going to war. It was literally the crux of their entire economic system.

That does not, however, mean that it was ever the South's primary reason for going to war, nor that it is the only thing the flag stands for.

Well, at least we finally got someone to tell the truth of it.
 
Thank you for the insightful and most eloquent retort. :roll:

I like how this professor does like everyone else who rationalizes the South's attempt to retain slavery. It wasn't they wanted to hold onto people who they claimed as property and keep them inferior and subservient, but it was all about economics - taxes, tarriffs, profits. Property rights is never part of the rational because it would force such people to face the inhumanity of slavery. It's never about forced labor because it would force such people to again face the inhumanity of slavery. And it's never about how White slave masters or even Whites in the north kept Blacks under their thumb as it were, i.e., anti-slave laws, Jim Crow, etc., ensuring that Blacks even when freed could easily and unjustly be forced right back into bondage.

Taxes, tariffs, profits, property rights, lifestyle disruption in the south (and in the North to a lessor degree)...all used to justify an inhuman practice some of our Founding Fathers tried to abolish when this country was first broke from its mother stem. Twenty-five years after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the issue of slavery was suppose to be placed back before Congress to debate. That never happened and as a result, Southern states used every excuse in the book to hold onto this despicable way of life. They held on so tight that well over a century later, we're still "fighting" about it today.

Shameful...

As opposed to what, voluntary economic ruin and decades worth of depression?

What on Earth did you expect?

Threatening someone's livelihood and way of life has always been one of the quickest ways to come to blows with them.
 
Exactly. I understand why she's doing, but I still think it's a cowardly "sell out" move all the same.

The simple fact of the matter is that what we have now is a fair compromise. The battle flag isn't flying over the Capital. It's flying over a war memorial. There's actually a Black History monument on the opposite side of the grounds as well.

The way things are now represents a perfectly equitable reflection of our state's actual history, culture, and demographics. The changes being proposed frankly seem to be a Hell of a lot more about deliberately spitting in the face of Southern culture, and enforcing "P.C." cultural supremacy than anything else.

Damn those leftists like NASCAR and Nikki Haley for enforcing leftist PC cultural supermacy!!!
 
A) The North, up to and including Lincoln himself, believed that African slaves were generally inferior to whites as well. His ultimate hope was to ship them all off to Africa as such. The North can claim no moral high ground with regards to racism.

B) Of course slavery was mentioned by the South as being one of their reasons for going to war. It was literally the crux of their entire economic system.

That does not, however, mean that it was ever the South's primary reason for going to war, nor that it is the only thing the flag stands for.

But Lincoln ultimately thought slavery was horrible for slaves and masters alike, unlike the South, and that imo is the moral high ground. And you say he believed AA's were inferior to whites, how could he understand the potential of African Americans when they rarely had the chance to prove it?
 
Are we seriously still pretending the Civil War wasn't about slavery, despite the fact that several states' official declarations of secession and war were SPECIFICALLY addressing their belief in the inferiority of the black race as their main reason for it? What, did the Yankees sneak into their state buildings and write those declarations for them?

Whatever. You're just choosing intentional ignorance.

----------------
All wars are never about just one thing & "The War of Northern Aggression" / "Civil War" was no exception.

1. There has never been a situation in which Industrial States/societies have lived near Agrarian societies without the Industrial States invading, seizing or Colonizing Agrarian States for their natural resources


2. If the North fought under the moral banner of "Freeing the Slaves", why was the Emancipation Proclamation made after 2 years of Fighting?

3. Lincoln despised Black people; his first choice was to deport liberated slaves. His blatant bigotry was shared by his fellow Northerners

4. Northerners were descended from England's Puritans while most Southerners were descended from the Cavaliers/ Royalists. They carried much of that enmity with them from England's Civil Wars.


There are other complex reasons but as long as the victors write the history, School Textbooks will continue to perpetrate the falsehood that the C.W. was Just about slavery.


Thanks
 
Back
Top Bottom