Haley declines to say slavery was cause of Civil War
Haley declines to say slavery was cause of Civil War
www.politico.com
Haley declines to say slavery was cause of Civil War
104 comments
-
-
She's essentially saying the same "states' rights" bullshit. Which was the right to slavery.
Ugh
-
The constitution of the Confederacy forbade states from banning slavery. The confederates were fighting against state's rights to abolish slavery.
-
The Union was not just the anti-slavery side, but the states' rights side as well.
-
-
Through that same link. Another video played and she said "Of course the civil war was about slavery, we all know it was about slavery... but it was about more than that. It was about the freedoms of EVERY individual."
Well I guess except for the slaves.
-
-
She is white supremacist trash. Props to whoever asked her that question. She isn't bothering to hide it.
-
And frankly the moderator should have walked up onto the stage and open hand slapped her for that level of a bullshit non answer. These fuckin debates are such a colossal joke. We don't even hold potential candidates responsible for absurd shit they say, why would anyone expect us to hold a president accountable?
-
-
Haley's response:
“I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are,” Haley replied. “And I will always stand by the fact that I think government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. It was never meant to be all things to all people. Government doesn’t need to tell you how to live your life. They don’t need to tell you what you can and can’t do. They don’t need to be a part of your life. They need to make sure that you have freedom. We need to have capitalism. We need to have economic freedom. We need to make sure that we do all things so that individuals have the liberties so that they can have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do or be anything they want to be without government getting in the way.”
All Haley had to do was just add in that the Confederacy was about taking away liberties of groups of people and their ability to seek out economic freedom, and that slaves had no freedom of everything.
The bar was on the fucking ground and Haley still failed to meet it.
-
It's too bad we didn't really crush the Confederates after the war. Meaning, really rub their noses in their loss, but give them a path back to redemption that doesn't involve letting them off easy.
Don't allow them to erect statues for "heritage" and so on. Don't allow them to teach about the "Northern war of aggression" and all that.
-
Marching to the sea burning everything down is my heritage.
-
-
FREEDOM!!!*
*except for what you do in bed or with your uterus, what you may want to read, unfettered access to empirical reality and other things which we’ll maybe let you know about once we figure them out.
-
Also the GOP came out to say her candidacy was “toast” and I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. Their top guy right now literally used the words state rights and said that it wasn’t about slavery. Why is Haley toast?
Am I the only one who noticed that level of hypocrisy?
-
Because everyone else is held to some kind of standard, and he's not.
-
-
Well, yeah. Because that would mean giving personhood to the group that was enslaved, and Republicans love to ask, "Well, can we really say that Group "x" are people?"
-
-
Use her full name.
Nimarata Nikki Randhawa Haley
-
I don't see how dead naming is cool simply because it will hurt her polling with racists.
Edit: Ok, explain the joke. Why is the birtherism of saying "Barrack HUSSEIN Obama" funny on our side? Why should we respect Caitlin Jenner's chosen name but not Nikki's? If it's not a joke, that is, you think it's a genuinely good idea for news outlets to refer to her this way, why?
So from personal experience, I learned Obama's middle name from the mouths' of racists, I learned Biden's middle name from the mouths' toxic masculine chauvinists, and I only hear Jenner's deadname from bigots. I don't like playing the "true name" game.
Edit 2: Ok downvoters, you've convinced me that it is ok to stress politicians' birth names in order to show disagreement. Can you now please provide a list of white politicians whose birth names we should use in order to show we do not support them? I guess we can just put their names in parentheses or something if that is easier.
-
It's a call out to all the bills republicans are passing to require use of birth names so people like Rafael Cruze and Nimarata Hailey can benefit as well.
-
Dude she is literally cosplaying a white woman.
-
It's not a dead name, she's using her middle name to narrow her proximity to being white.
-
Yeah this name calling stuff is cringe and shows how Americans have the maturity of 12 year olds. "His name is Donald Drumpf! He has a dumb name guys! HUSSEIN Obama he's a Muslim!! NIKKI IS INDIAN SHES AN INDIAN HER NAME IS ACTUALLY INDIAN!"
-
HAHAHAHA!
-
I've never understood it either. At this point I don't care which side we swing to, we should just be consistent. People either should or should not be able to dictate their own identities. We can't play the "you're only allowed to dictate your own identity if you vote blue" game if we want anyone to take our arguments seriously.
-
-
-
-
When the questioner said it was “astonishing” to hear her respond “without mentioning the word slavery,” Haley replied: “What do you want me to say about slavery?” She then asked for the next question
I understand that it was a rhetorical question....but it's kind of not. It's pretty clear that her position on slavery is going to be--much like every other opinion--entirely controlled by what her voters want her to say.
-
Party of Lincoln, huh?
-
Not for decades
-
Lincoln freed the slaves… and was swiftly assassinated for it.
-
-
Gotta court far right hicks that'll vote for potato brained Trump no matter what anyway. The only thing Haley has going for her is that her failure isnt quite as hard as Desantis.
An entire party of rot brains following Lord rot into hell.
-
Federal minimum wage are slave wages
-
Chattal slavery ended but wage slavery and prison slavery is still going strong. Your 401K manager is heavily invested in continuing it too
-
-
It kind of wasn't.
Southern states wanted the federal government to force northern states to return escaped slaves to the south.
The federal government sided with "state rights" and said the South had no control over the northern states, and the federal government couldn't force them either.
So the south started a civil war against state rights, and a couple years into it the Feds went ahead and outlawed slavery as an economic sanction against the South.
The cause wasn't as simple as "slavery" and it was pretty much the opposite of what modern day confederates pretend it was about
-
Not as simple as "slavery", but the war was caused by slavery. If there had been no slavery, there would have been no war. That's "cause", in my book.
-
but the war was caused by slavery
The war was caused by the federal government refusing to force northern states to return escaped slaves to the south...
The southern states started a war over that
If it was just over if slavery was legal, then why was the Emancipation Proclamation smack in the middle of the civil war?
If the south wouldn't have started the civil war, it would have been years if not decades before the Feds outlawed slavery.
The south wanted a strong federal government, and got it. Just not the way they wanted it.
-
-
Have you read the declaration of secession?
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
Or the Cornerstone Speech?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
Yes, the confederates were complaining about more than just slavery, but slavery was central to secession. In the examples you gave it's still all about slavery. I think looking at foundational documents and speeches makes it clear that the cause was as simple as "slavery".
-
And also white supremacy. All the states that seceded wrote an article of secession and many, if not all, bring up the importance of maintaining the superiority of the white man. It's insane how people don't know this. Even if you took out all the parts about slavery there would be a shitload of racism left.
-
-
It's not the most straightforward route to a wrong answer but you got there in the end.
-
States' rights to what?
-
-
So your long-winded, weird lost cause diatribe stating it wasn't about slavery still points out of was literally about slavery.
Well that was some cringe, Billy Madison BS early in my morning.
-
ya see it wasn't about slavery, it was about enforcement of slaver property rights. Not seeing the difference is reductionism. /s
-
So the American Revolution was about tea?
It wasn't, it was about England trying to collect taxes after not really caring while simultaneously cracking down on smuggling.
But if we're reducing things to single simple causes, it would make just as much sense to say it was about tea.
Which is why it's worth getting down voted for specificity
-
-
Don´t bother my dude. Most people prefer oversimplified explanations that fit their personal views and will downvote anyone who confronts them with something a little bit more complex than that.
-
So it was about slavery
-
-
I'm soooooo shocked :0 /s
-
It was domestic economic policy. They built a train through half the States. The ones that didn't have the slaves. Nothing to do with the slaves though /s
104 comments
Haley blaming Lincoln for the Civil War should end any debate about her fitness for office. This is pretty close to saying, basically, slavery should be legal.
Either a) she knows what really happened, but is lying because she considers the bases approval more important than reality or b) she's a fucking moron.
Raising the question: Is Haley ignorant or is she a liar?
Yes.
Yeah, I mean blaming Lincoln for the civil war and then claiming to be the party of Lincoln. Seems like that would be a little cognitive dissonance right there wouldn't it?
The base does not care about logical consistency. Indeed, it appears that many of them are altogether unaware of the concept logical consistency, and are entirely uninterested in learning or understanding it.