Nikki Haley getting dragged
- Thread starter mcmurtry66
- Start date
But didn’t Lincoln claim at the beginning it wasn’t about slavery, but whether a state had the right to secede? He started bringing in the elimination of slavery years later, no?
Lincoln didn't initially believe that eliminating slavery was necessary to maintain the Union. Only later did he realize that if the Union was going to be re-united after the war, slavery couldn't be maintained.
That’s my point. The South definitely seceded because of slavery and what it thought the North would do.
But Lincoln did not enter the war to eliminate slavery. He had a technical—legal—reading of the Constitution that he thought forced him to act. And he didn’t have to. Plenty of Northerners didn’t want a war.
Lincoln said if it saved the union he wouldn't free any slaves, or he would free them all if that is what it took. He never intended for the war. The war came because of secession, why did they seceded?
When Lincoln entered the war, I don’t think there is any evidence he intended to free the slaves.
The South fought for slavery, the North for union (simplistic, not everyone fought for the same reasons).
I think she very poorly articulated that the Civil War was fought to restore the Union, to end slavery, and to allow extension of Constitutional rights to slaves.
But in response to the question “what caused the Civil War,” the answer MUST contain slavery. “Because the South feared a Constitutional and legislative termination of slavery through federal mandate” would be a fine answer.
But her answer (paraphrasing - “it was about assuring freedoms to everybody”) left out the “end slavery” part, and allowed the dishonest interpretation that she (to quote CNN “told a crowd that the Civil War was about government interfering in people’s freedoms.”
Sure, the Secesh thought a state had the right to permit slavery and a right to withdraw from the Union over slavery or any other issue. As the Constitution existed prior to February 1865, they were right about permitting slavery. I agree with Grant about the Secesh being wrong about secession:
“Doubtless the founders of our government, the majority of them at least, regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment. Each colony considered itself a separate government; that the confederation was for mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and war among themselves. If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies; it changed still more when amendments were added; and if the right of any one State to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new States, at least so far as the new States themselves were concerned. It was never possessed at all by Florida or the States west of the Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the treasury of the entire nation. Texas and the territory brought into the Union in consequence of annexation, were purchased with both blood and treasure; and Texas, with a domain greater than that of any European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the public lands within its borders. It would have been ingratitude and injustice of the most flagrant sort for this State to withdraw from the Union after all that had been spent and done to introduce her; yet, if separation had actually occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of her institutions and her geographical position. Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution. Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship—on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror—must be the result.”
Such discussion was above the heads of the participants in the New Hampshire discussion and the folks who reported it.
The Dems want to run against Trump. CNN-based media is following the marching orders to attack folks who threaten his GOP role, even while creating legal mess after legal mess to the swamp bigger.
To return to my own point above, secession only raised such questions because of slavery.
He said that early - not late.
Once he knew even the Emancipation Proclamation was at risk, he knew that Constitutional amendment to end slavery was the only answer. And his political mastery to get it through the Senate and the House before the South could see their demise was (so far) the biggest political win since 1776.
Obviously, slavery's days were numbered. I'm not sure enough people realized that at the time to avoid war, though. But anything is possible. Dred Scott certainly didn't help.
You and COH should just merge your accounts.
Individual reasons varied, often the reason was one was drafted. Or new immigrants saw it as an opportunity. Very few individuals fought over slavery. On the union side, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain is one of a few who I can think of that fought over slavery. Many became converts, the Joint Committee rewarded officers who were abolitionists. So for many, claiming that wasn't a truth. I do believe JLC though.
He rides bikes. I cannot abide.
Now Trump jumps in with both feet saying the Civil War should have been negotiated and that Lincoln wouldn't have the same "cachet" if it has been.
Lincoln offered, strongly, to not touch slavery where it existed. He did not believe new territory should come in slave, and the bloodshed of Kansas should alone be a good reason why not. Until '63 Lincoln always said he was not an abolitionist.
There were some people in the Republican Party who believed Blacks deserved equality, Lincoln was not. Here is a quote from him:
Of course Lincoln probably didn't think to monetize Civil War deaths. Maybe that would have stopped the war sooner.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Lincoln offered, strongly, to not touch slavery where it existed. He did not believe new territory should come in slave, and the bloodshed of Kansas should alone be a good reason why not. Until '63 Lincoln always said he was not an abolitionist.
There were some people in the Republican Party who believed Blacks deserved equality, Lincoln was not. Here is a quote from him:
- I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermingling with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior. I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
Of course Lincoln probably didn't think to monetize Civil War deaths. Maybe that would have stopped the war sooner.
The River of Blood (monument) - Wikipedia
Haley's closing the gap in New Hampshire:
Trump 39%
Haley 32%
He's playing the birther bullshit card again, so he must be worried.
Seems like in The Con's mind everybody is ineligible for the presidency except him - - - a soon-to-be convicted felon who corruptly and illegally tried to overturn an election he lost.
Trump 39%
Haley 32%
He's playing the birther bullshit card again, so he must be worried.
Seems like in The Con's mind everybody is ineligible for the presidency except him - - - a soon-to-be convicted felon who corruptly and illegally tried to overturn an election he lost.
Birther conspiracy originated from the Clinton campaign, never forget.
Last edited:
No matter what she does in nh she will follow up losing her own state. She has no chance unfortunately
No, it didn't. That's a lie Trump told, which you believe, because Trump.
They weren’t as blatant about it as Trump but indeed they did. From staffers spreading emails to Mark Penn questioning his “Lack of American roots”.
“We’re not sayin, we’re just sayin….”
Subsequently they launched a similar campaign about “Russian collusion” in 2016. That one got more traction.
Yes, much more traction. And understandably so.
No, they didn't. Conservative bloggers started it. Someone on the Clinton campaign forwarded a chain email (and I think was fired over it), but they didn't originate it.
Never forget Trump repeated the lie for years. Never forget he promoted similar bullshit birther lies against Cruz, Harris and now Haley.
Probably an accurate summary...
www.politico.com
- Started by some dude in Illinois in 2004.
- Promoted by some Hillary supporters in 2008 as she was losing to Obama.
- Her campaign never officially promoted it, fired some random aide that promoted it via an email internally and Twitter, almost immediately.
- Trump picked it up and ran with it
No, Clinton didn't start the birther thing. This guy did.
Despite what Trump says, the 2008 Clinton campaign and the candidate herself never trafficked in the rumors.
www.politico.com
Trump couldn’t vote for himself if convicted before the election:
State Voting Laws & Policies for People with Felony Convictions - Felon Voting - ProCon.org
Some states have laws on the books that contradict current state policy as enacted by the current governor. Here we have tried to list the current policy as it impacts those with felony convictions. Please note the last updated date on this page and consult your state government if you have any...
felonvoting.procon.org
Maybe if Florida allows it for Felons who are appealing.
I should have said felons that were appealing their convictions.
Similar threads
