Started By
Message

re: Haley declines to say slavery was cause of Civil War

Posted on 12/28/23 at 10:42 am to
Posted by RCDfan1950
United States
Member since Feb 2007
39688 posts
Posted on 12/28/23 at 10:42 am to
Regardless of any merits re the fine points of her reasoning...stick a fork in her...she is done. Especially as the RINO candidate.

She's a fence walker and that brand won't fly in the current either-or dynamic.
Posted by goatmilker
Castle Anthrax
Member since Feb 2009
76495 posts
Posted on 12/28/23 at 10:44 am to













Posted by Auburn1968
NYC
Member since Mar 2019
26505 posts
Posted on 12/28/23 at 10:44 am to
quote:

Pretty much every other country abolished slavery without a civil war except one. Thanks Abe.


The South American aristocrats got rid of slavery because it became clear that it was more cost effective to hire free labor as needed rather than support a slave population with food, housing and medicine year round.

Then again the Soviet gulag system was slavery's reincarnation, but without any sense of valued property so they could just be worked to death. The Soviets did use their slaves to build nice subway stations.

This post was edited on 12/28/23 at 10:50 am
Posted by Bard
Definitely NOT an admin
Member since Oct 2008
59274 posts
Posted on 12/28/23 at 10:46 am to
quote:

quote:

Haley declines to say slavery was cause of Civil War


So frickin' what?!?


You know the game the media plays. If Haley ends up somehow building enough support to be a challenger for the White House (not just the GOP primary), this will eventually be played as "Republicans hate black people so much they try to downplay that slavery ever existed" or some similar tripe.

So instead of having debates about economics, border policy, involvement in foreign wars, etc. we will get snarky-assed questions about "do you believe slavery existed in the US" because of such narratives.

Democrats can get away with not answering pointed questions (because the questioner will rarely press them), Republicans don't.
Posted by Bayou
Boudin, LA
Member since Feb 2005
42868 posts
Posted on 12/28/23 at 10:49 am to
Do y'all realize more than half of Louisiana's Fighting Tigers were foreign born - primarily Irish. Why on earth would they jeopardize their life to keep slaves in bondage? They poured their guts out (literally) to fight a tyrannical and oppressing government
Posted by BamaScoop
Panama City Beach, Florida
Member since May 2007
56808 posts
Posted on 12/28/23 at 10:50 am to
It was about slavery in a way but not for the reason the North would like to claim. They didn’t do it because they cared about slaves, they did it because the South had free labor and they didn’t! Free labor in the form of slavery allowed for much more rapid western expansion by the South and the North couldn’t allow that to happen because they would have lost power so the answer to no different than the answer is today. Start a war to prevent losing control and power. Free the slaves and make yourself look like the good guy. They never did anything for the slaves once they freed them and it actually hurt the blacks people of the time. If they would have given them
Land to farm then they would have been able to pull themselves up by their boot straps. Imagine if you lost your job today as well as every other family member and friend you had. What would be your answer? There would be no answer, you would have to rob cheat and steal to survive.
Posted by Gus007
TN
Member since Jul 2018
14712 posts
Posted on 12/28/23 at 10:52 am to
She is correct. $$$$$

Posted by dgnx6
Member since Feb 2006
89799 posts
Posted on 12/28/23 at 10:53 am to
quote:

The mental gymnastics on this topic by this board has always been worthy of a gold medal.


The civil war wasnt fought over just slavery.

This isnt that hard. Now the mental gymnastics you guys do when defining a woman or democracy, that's something to behold.
Posted by Fun Bunch
New Orleans
Member since May 2008
130270 posts
Posted on 12/28/23 at 10:53 am to
Fox News actually ran a segment this morning covering for her.

They said she was "too intellectual" for the question and was "very brave" to take down confederate flags
Posted by Bayou
Boudin, LA
Member since Feb 2005
42868 posts
Posted on 12/28/23 at 10:57 am to
quote:

They said she was "too intellectual" for the question and was "very brave" to take down confederate flags

Posted by The_Boyg
East of the Sun--west of the Moon
Member since Jul 2023
72 posts
Posted on 12/28/23 at 11:02 am to
She's right, you know. Slavery was the justification-- not the cause.

Haley did well, even though she's being publicly lambasted this morning.
Posted by ragincajun03
Member since Nov 2007
29227 posts
Posted on 12/28/23 at 11:04 am to
quote:

foreigner




She was born in and grew up in South Carolina.

She's not my top choice for GOP nomination either, but don't be a loon.
Posted by goatmilker
Castle Anthrax
Member since Feb 2009
76495 posts
Posted on 12/28/23 at 11:04 am to
quote:

They poured their guts out (literally) to fight a tyrannical and oppressing government


Thats what the rich plantation owners who ran the South would say.

Johny Reb fought cause he didn't want to see 4 million imported pissed off slaves suddenly let loose across his countryside. Who would. Most northerners felt the same.
Posted by Fun Bunch
New Orleans
Member since May 2008
130270 posts
Posted on 12/28/23 at 11:08 am to
quote:

Haley did well


lol

She did objectively terrible
Posted by Hookah
Member since Nov 2023
349 posts
Posted on 12/28/23 at 11:08 am to
quote:

So instead of having debates about economics, border policy, involvement in foreign wars, etc


No one wants to watch her debate any of this.
Posted by rmnldr
Member since Oct 2013
40305 posts
Posted on 12/28/23 at 11:17 am to
quote:

Then explain to me all the slaves owned by Northern owners? This continued after that as well. So, NO, it wasn't about slavery. Open up and stretch your mind a wee bit.



I never said that the reasons for fighting were about slavery. Which I’ve stated multiple times throughout this thread.

The root cause of the war was secession which was over slavery. Therefore the root cause of the civil war is slavery
Posted by mahdragonz
Member since Jun 2013
7056 posts
Posted on 12/28/23 at 11:37 am to
I'm going to sit here and wait for trump to swipe at Nikki.

He will write that the Civil War was about slavery and all the states rights people here will be parroting trump.
Posted by Epaminondas
The Boot
Member since Jul 2020
5914 posts
Posted on 12/28/23 at 11:40 am to
OK, you're right. Nimarata Randhawa is a "citizen" of the America-In-Name-Only Economic Zone.

I'm sure that when the framers of the Constitution talked about securing the blessings of liberty to "our Posterity" they meant the children of every Hindu and Somali that washes up on the shore.
Posted by Gaspergou202
Metairie, LA
Member since Jun 2016
14396 posts
Posted on 12/28/23 at 11:43 am to
Slavery was not THE cause of the Civil War.

It was A cause. A very important cause, but not the cause!

The South was originally the most powerful political region in the nation. From 1789-1825 the South (Virginia) provided presidents for 32 of the first 36 years.

Southern political power declined steadily thereafter. With it was tariffs, states rights, and the expansion of slavery west.

By 1860 the South had won the slavery issue! The North East and Midwest responded with the Republican Party. This was the first regional party and anti-South.

With Republican victory in 1860 the handwriting was on the wall, however Lincoln tried to assure the South that slavery would not be infringed. In his inaugural speech, Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment to constitutionally guarantee Congress would not interfere with slavery in the states where it currently existed. But their main worry was loss of political and economic power to a party that would not respect their state sovereignty.

South Caroline succeeded on December 24, 1860.

Fort Sumpter was fired upon April 12, 1861.

Lincoln calls for 75,000 volunteers for three months, including 3,500 Virginians to restore Federal property taken in the South by force.

1/3 of Virginia was secessionist, 1/3 was staunchly Union, and 1/3 was Unionist as long as the Union wouldn’t force the Confederacy back in the union. The call for 75,000 flipped Virginia’s Unionist outlook. She succeeded April 17, 1861.

On January 1, 1863, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation. It only affected slaves in the Confederacy, and was probably an unconstitutional executive order.

The 14th Amendment was adopted July 9, 1868 officially and constitutionally ending all effects of slavery.

Slavery was the linkage of all the issues. It allowed commodity agriculture like cotton, tobacco, sugar etc. It was the key economic driver of Southern imports and exports. This caused South to be the main contributor to federal revenue. They had the negative consequences of protective tariffs while the North reaped the benefits. And Northern political power would limit the expansion of the Southern slave based economy. This assured that the federal government would overwhelm states rights and lead to today’s strong federal presence in the lives of all Americans.
Posted by deltaland
Member since Mar 2011
102726 posts
Posted on 12/28/23 at 11:53 am to
It was actually about the populated industrial north using their majority representation in Congress to protect their economic interests at the detriment to the south’s economic interests. They passed protectionism laws on British imports causing the Brits to retaliate against US agricultural exports. South wanted to their states to trade independently with Britain and North said nope can’t do that. South wanted to count slaves as population to increase their representation in Congress and North said if they’re considered people as citizens then they must be free per the Constitution, you cannot count property toward representation. (3/5 compromise came of this issue that delayed the inevitable war). Mounting economic pressure led to resemtment, 3/5 compromise sparked an ongoing debate on slavery and pressure was applied to abolish it. South was already economically struggling with slaves, paying them would have destroyed the southern economy as the tariffs were putting a hurt on the cotton and tobacco industry.

Ultimately it all could have been resolved had the North been willing to give on the economic issues in exchange for abolishing slavery

Slavery was a big issue in the war but it wasn’t fought solely over that. It was because the South felt bullied and that their economic interests were being attacked from many angles. South decided to secede and form a separate nation so they could have their own favorable economic and trade policy. People tend to think the south was full of hateful racists willing to send their sons to war just to keep blacks enslaved while the North was some type of freedom loving heroic rescuer and advocate of freeing blacks from their chains and that wasn’t the case at all. Hell Lincoln had a plan to send them all back to Africa but people seem to forget that
Jump to page
Page First 7 8 9 10 11 ... 15
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 9 of 15Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram