**Basso wants a r****d war hawk big surprise** Didn't this guy lose a bet in the D&D after obama won and vowed to never return?
Stupid people relate to other stupid people, despite it being a bit more nuanced the crux of the issue is clear...it was slavery. Not a gotcha. Even then I would expect a politcal candidate to have the shrewdness to know what to say
I don’t think she actually believes that. I think She threw out a mix of disjointed buzzwords and talking points because she was taken by surprise by the question and didn’t want to give an answer that might alienate parts of the base. I don’t think Haley is stupid but I think this was another act of political cravenness that was see so often from the current GOP.
We can’t have a conversation about the true cause of the civil war in public? I guess I shouldn’t have posted the clips of Glory for Andre Braugher’s death then..
lawd, lawd, lawd, y'all are so predictable. you want to have a real debate about the civil war, in 2024? go back and read what Lincoln had to sat, in 1860, vs 1864, and get back to me. then we can have a debate.
Classy. Yes I know what Lincoln had to say in 1860 that he was willing to keep Slavery to Preserve the Union. The only reason why he considered that was because slave owning states were threatening to secede long before Even Lincoln was president. Why? Because of slavery and they feared that their peculiar institution would eventually be wiped out if it couldn’t expand. How difficult is it to have this discussion.
let's think about it another way: in 2024, two of the animating domestic issues for many are: The Border &Trump's eligibility. due to an (argued) abdication of its federal responsibility to protect the border,Texas has decided it needs to enforce its own borders laws. similarly, due to its own interpretation of a particularly esoteric section of the federal constitution, the state of Colorado has decided one candidate is ineligible, in a federal election, from appearing on its state ballot. other states' election administrators have taken similar positions, without recourse to the state courts. what is the issue at stake in each of these cases? Is it federal abdication of responsibility, Trump's eligibility for the presidency, or... ...the various States claiming the right to decide these issues for themselves? in 1860, the several southern states claimed a right to secede, and the union blockaded various southern ports, until Beauregard decided he'd had enough. was the issue, the right to secede? is the issue the right to protect the border? is the issue the necessity of barring Trump, consequences be damned?
Curious, what does the 14th Amendment, Section 3 say? And what did the court in Colorado rule with respect to trump?
Except the base issue in 1860 why any of that was an issue was slavery. You would have a better argument if your argument was about why New England or NY considered seceding in the mid 19th C as those were non slavery related issues regarding federal power. obviously a civil war wasn’t fought to keep New England in the Union while it was to keep slave states.
Heh... while I agree with shorty that haley is obviously running for VP, I think its easy for his to claim he isn't since trump appears to not like him... and its not like desantis isn't minimizing his attacks on trump so as to not miss out on maga support.
if you thought Robert E. Lee joined the south to defend the institution of slavery, then you are mistaken. it's far more complex.
The issue was the right to have slaves. As made clear in the secession announcement of the very first state to secede, Nikki Haley's South Carolina. The whole thing references slavery repeatedly and how the north is so horrible for trying to get rid of it. These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor. We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety. On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy. . . . We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. It was pretty openly straightforward. The north wants to take away our states' rights ... to have slaves. Therefore, we are seceding. Notice the lack of mention of other things the federal government is taking away from them. Just slaves. Over and over.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2007/06/24/the-private-thoughts-of-robert-e-lee Now if you intend to report some facebook and reddit stories to the contrary... don't: https://www.politifact.com/factchec...hecking-claims-about-robert-e-lees-position-/
1. It wasn't about why individuals fought for the Confederacy, it was why the states were breaking away. The real reason was almost always slavery. 2. Lee's wife inherited slaves saying they would have to be freed within 5 years. Lee actually went to court in an effort to not free them. Lee had his slaves whipped, believed they were property, broke up families renting out the slaves to other estates. Sure, you can find honorable or even noble elements about him if you want. It doesn't change his personal belief in slavery and what he did. I'm curious if you also work as hard to find admirable traits among Hamas members?
