Nikki: What Slavery?

[Lakers Legend#32]

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/28/nikki-haley-civil-war-comments-response-00133268?fbclid=IwAR1kzE3LrBlgkQaGDC0LECmJ0f2_BQso W5xxpMqczz6WTcaZKhBBfMlWbBc

Southern governor does not acknowledge slavery's role in the cause of the Civil War.


And she is suppose to be the alternative for "sane" Republicans?

[Lakers Legend#32]

Nikki keeps digging her grave deeper and deeper.

She came out with a word salad today claiming the the Civil of War was about freed of choice.

So now she is pro-choice?

[FultzNationRISE]

Nikki keeps digging her grave deeper and deeper.

She came out with a word salad today claiming the the Civil of War was about freed of choice.

So now she is pro-choice?


Well it was, although slavery was obviously one of the principle choices they sought to defend.

If the Civil War was "about slavery" that would mean the south was fighting to impose slavery on the north. It wasnt.

They were fighting encroachment from the federal government on their state policies. This was an existing tension since the very beginning, after the Revolutionary War the South resisted the idea of consolidating each state's debt into a federal collective, since the South had lower debt levels and found it unfair. And there were other such issues all along the way, although of course slavery was a big one of them.

But of course, the more sophisticated a concept is, the fewer people can understand it.




The average person is much better at:


https://previews.123rf.com/images/annotee/annotee1602/annotee160200026/52650150-angry-man-screaming-with-hands-to-his-mouth-to-demonstrate-his-point.jpg

"RRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSS STTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[Bill Gates]

Well it was, although slavery was obviously one of the principle choices they sought to defend.

If the Civil War was "about slavery" that would mean the south was fighting to impose slavery on the north. It wasnt.

They were fighting encroachment from the federal government on their state policies. This was an existing tension since the very beginning, after the Revolutionary War the South resisted the idea of consolidating each state's debt into a federal collective, since the South had lower debt levels and found it unfair. And there were other such issues all along the way, although of course slavery was a big one of them.

But of course, the more sophisticated a concept is, the fewer people can understand it.




The average person is much better at:


https://previews.123rf.com/images/annotee/annotee1602/annotee160200026/52650150-angry-man-screaming-with-hands-to-his-mouth-to-demonstrate-his-point.jpg

"RRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSS STTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

The average person is who fought in the Civil War, and to most of them it was about the slaves.

Just like if there were a Civil War today, most of the dumb asses partaking would be people like Chewing fighting over very simple minded reasons. "Our freedom from the evil Dems!".

[Patrick Chewing]

The average person is who fought in the Civil War, and to most of them it was about the slaves.

Just like if there were a Civil War today, most of the dumb asses partaking would be people like Chewing fighting over very simple minded reasons. "Our freedom from the evil Dems!".


Hi Bill Gates alt,


Yes, the Dems are a scourge on this planet and I would gladly mow them down given the legal opportunity.


Muslims and Libs. No place on God's Green Earth.

[Baller234]

Democrats clutching their pearls over Nikki Haley as if Hillary Clinton didn't call a KKK recruiter her friend and mentor.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryweuBVJMEA

[j3lademaster]

Well it was, although slavery was obviously one of the principle choices they sought to defend.

If the Civil War was "about slavery" that would mean the south was fighting to impose slavery on the north. It wasnt. The Civil War was to fight slavery from expanding westward. The plantation Barons overfarmed their own lands and needed new soil to keep up their productivity and profits.

I'm sure if they have the power to impose slavery on the Union they would, but fighting to preserve(let alone expand) slavery is also fighting for slavery. Implying slavery wasn't 99% of their grievances is bad faith at best. The Civil War was about slavery, the secession states said so themselves. Their declarations were well documented.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

Literally every paragraph touches on slavery or the benefits of it.


They were fighting encroachment from the federal government on their state policies. This was an existing tension since the very beginning, after the Revolutionary War the South resisted the idea of consolidating each state's debt into a federal collective, since the South had lower debt levels and found it unfair. And there were other such issues all along the way, although of course slavery was a big one of them. Yeah, and the encroachment was slavery. They didn't have the infrastructure to survive without it. It's honestly the purest of examples of why unregulated hypercapitalism is bad. The wealthy planters were so powerful and influential they were able to control govt, creating a new aristocracy within themselves. The creation of the aristocracy then makes a barrier of entry for any foreign investment, so it prevents any kind of new revenue streams to grow their economy as a whole. The plantations also didn't have to pay taxes, while the rest of them had to pay a staggering 50%. This is all the while the top 1% of the south were multiple times wealthier than the 1% of the free states. Another issue was the stagnation of innovation. Plantations became so wealthy selling agriculture goods they never developed their states. It's why they wanted to expand slavery westward, their own lands were overfarmed. They were decades behind in transportation for instance. Capitalism only innovates ways to make money, not ways to help society after all, though sometimes improvement to society can be a biproduct.


the South had lower debt levels and found it unfair.And this. What source did you base this off of? I couldn't find anything in concrete numbers post 1861-65 because the actuarial science of the south was so poor, but by all accounts with the lack of taxation on the wealthy which resulted in an insane wealth disparity, being at low debt levels is impossible. This isn't to say they weren't wealthy, I think Mississippi was the richest state in the nation at the time, but as I said before all of the wealth is at the top and not being taxed.

So yeah, the union saw slavery as unsustainable. Eventually your own land will become overfarmed which will cause you to have to expand, and once the western lands are overfarmed you will have to resort to conquest and imperialism; so it was something that had to be stopped. Lincoln ran on preventing westward expansion of slavery, so thus the secession and the Civil War. The south has had cultural differences for decades by now, war and secession was never seriously considered until slavery was threatened.

[FultzNationRISE]

And this. What source did you base this off of? I couldn't find anything in concrete numbers post 1861-65 because the actuarial science of the south was so poor, but by all accounts with the lack of taxation on the wealthy which resulted in an insane wealth disparity, being at low debt levels is impossible. This isn't to say they weren't wealthy, I think Mississippi was the richest state in the nation at the time, but as I said before all of the wealth is at the top and not being taxed.


Read my statement more carefully.


https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/the-compromise-of-1790

[bladefd]

Well it was, although slavery was obviously one of the principle choices they sought to defend.

If the Civil War was "about slavery" that would mean the south was fighting to impose slavery on the north. It wasnt.

They were fighting encroachment from the federal government on their state policies. This was an existing tension since the very beginning, after the Revolutionary War the South resisted the idea of consolidating each state's debt into a federal collective, since the South had lower debt levels and found it unfair. And there were other such issues all along the way, although of course slavery was a big one of them.

But of course, the more sophisticated a concept is, the fewer people can understand it.




The average person is much better at:


https://previews.123rf.com/images/annotee/annotee1602/annotee160200026/52650150-angry-man-screaming-with-hands-to-his-mouth-to-demonstrate-his-point.jpg

"RRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSS STTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

The south didn't want to give up their slaves, who were crucial to their economy, because they provided free labor. They found it a threat to their economy and way of doing things & believed that states rights gave them the power to decide how they should run their own state. They wanted the new western states like California to also decide for themselves whether they want to allow slaves. That was one of the major reasons for the civil war. So ya, slavery was certainly a big reason for the civil war, but not the sole reason ofc.

The number of slaves was at a peak just before the Civil War. The civil war had to be fought for us to abolish slavery once and for all.

[j3lademaster]

Read my statement more carefully.


https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/the-compromise-of-1790Okay so... if the Union takes on the Rev War debt and the Confederacy doesn't, they'd have less debt than the union? Is that what you mean? Because if so, I agree. Besides that, there's nothing to substantiate that the Confederacy had less debt than the Union especially if you look at how their economies were run. Just say what you mean, I don't want to read that article I know what the 1790 Compromise is.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Muslims and Libs. No place on God's Green Earth.

Nikki is a Muslim to white male MAGA voters.

[FultzNationRISE]

Okay so... if the Union takes on the Rev War debt and the Confederacy doesn't, they'd have less debt than the union? Is that what you mean? Because if so, I agree. Besides that, there's nothing to substantiate that the Confederacy had less debt than the Union especially if you look at how their economies were run. Just say what you mean, I don't want to read that article I know what the 1790 Compromise is.

I'm saying the north-south tension over federal policy vs states rights goes back to the very beginning of America as a nation. It isnt something nikki haley made up in hindsight to gloss over slavery. It was a well known point of conflict. Slavery of course was the major point of contention that brought the issue to a boil. But the confederates did not fire on Ft Sumter because there were any slaves there for them to take. They did not engage the union because the south could not tolerate the north's decision to abolish slavery in the north. They did it to get federal forces out of what they believed was now an independent nation and not union jurisdiction.

The primary reason they seceded was to maintain their economic way of life, a major cornerstone of which was slavery. The reason for the war was continued union presence in 'seceded' territory.

But lets face it, this question was only asked because it's a well known "gotcha" all the people who dont really know anything have memorized as a way to trap whatever person or group theyre trained like dogs to oppose and denounce. It's super corny.

[Lakers Legend#32]

You would think Nikki saying the Civil War was caused by the federal government opposing slave owners would appeal to white male MAGA voters.

[ILLsmak]

Read my statement more carefully.


https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/the-compromise-of-1790

I think you're right tho. My uncle, rest him, put that on me when I was a kid. The guy who taught me chess. And nah he's not a racist. It's nuts what people do nowadays. I do think slavery was entwined in there, and maybe some of the union guys were fighting against slavery, but I do think it was more like a govt overreach thing. It's sad when you can't trust history anymore, and all the people who were well read / studied from eras before 'this one' are going to die out. It will be impossible to reason with people.

It blows my mind that certain people can't discuss shit without melting down over racism. I mean, it's so bad that some people might think when I say certain people I'm being racist. haha, but I'm not. It was a joke for awhile, but now it's REAL.

History is important, and it's a shame they are trying to rewrite history. I do think you have to include slavery, but to say ' the Civil war wasn't really about slavery ' is a fair statement. It might be a bit edgy to catch people's attention, but people seem to believe these days that it was just like... WE WANT OUR SLAVES *** U and the other side was like NO, SLAVERY IS BAD!

And that was the line. haha. So that's why the whole south is pretty much still pseudo-racist and the confederate flag is a hate symbol.

O well. I'm glad I got a lot of different info from different sources. I guess if the truth dies out, it dies out. I tend to think things will work themselves out.

Edit: another thing is how crazy and bloody the civil war was. Dudes went all in. I can see why if you think they were only defending slavery that they are just bad people heh. But keep in mind after it all settled, we got back together. It was kind of amazing we were able to move past it. Why people are still on it is beyond me.

-Smak

[ShawkFactory]

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/28/nikki-haley-civil-war-comments-response-00133268?fbclid=IwAR1kzE3LrBlgkQaGDC0LECmJ0f2_BQso W5xxpMqczz6WTcaZKhBBfMlWbBc

Southern governor does not acknowledge slavery's role in the cause of the Civil War.


And she is suppose to be the alternative for "sane" Republicans?

So the moral of the story is that slavery sucks. And that is was a big reason for the civil war but not at all..the only reason?

Unless you have something to actually contribute maybe lets just move on? In general. Not just this thread specifically.

[Nanners]

Nikki Hayley (her real name is Nimrata Randhawa: not a joke, heres a source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikki_Haley)) is an idiot.

The correct way to answer this question would be pointing out the fact that back during the civil war era, the racist southern democrats were huge supporters of slavery... and the good people of the american north were forced to create a new party to combat the democrat obsession with controlling black people - this party was the republican party and Abraham Lincoln was the first republican candidate.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Hi Bill Gates alt,


Yes, the Dems are a scourge on this planet and I would gladly mow them down given the legal opportunity.


Muslims and Libs. No place on God's Green Earth.

Poopsie's regular, "I can't contribute to this thread because I'm poorly educated", so I'll just make it a generic "Liberals are destroying my life" response.

[Norcaliblunt]

Well it was, although slavery was obviously one of the principle choices they sought to defend.

If the Civil War was "about slavery" that would mean the south was fighting to impose slavery on the north. It wasnt.

They were fighting encroachment from the federal government on their state policies. This was an existing tension since the very beginning, after the Revolutionary War the South resisted the idea of consolidating each state's debt into a federal collective, since the South had lower debt levels and found it unfair. And there were other such issues all along the way, although of course slavery was a big one of them.

But of course, the more sophisticated a concept is, the fewer people can understand it.




The average person is much better at:


https://previews.123rf.com/images/annotee/annotee1602/annotee160200026/52650150-angry-man-screaming-with-hands-to-his-mouth-to-demonstrate-his-point.jpg

"RRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSSSSS STTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

For the average person state and local laws are way more oppressive than the federal government. Yeah there are overarching examples like a federal income tax and federal drug laws but for the most part it’s the state and local governments controlling you. Everything from California forcing you to vaccinate your kids to Texas making abortion illegal to dry counties in the Bible Belt to whatever.

What’s hilarious is the hypocrite peeps of the south acting like they are more free when their whole culture is based on slavery. You can’t make this shit up. Lmao.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Darling Nikki,

You are a woman of color running for prez on a party platform of white supremacy.

[Patrick Chewing]

Darling Nikki,

You are a woman of color running for prez on a party platform of white supremacy.

She's not a Democrat.



And let me know when the Democrats have two Indians and one Black person running in the same primary.

[Lakers Legend#32]

She's not a Democrat.



And let me know when the Democrats have two Indians and one Black person running in the same primary.

Poopsie's proud of his tokens.

[diamenz]

why do liberals get so caught up in white-knighting anyone they can even remotely consider a minority?

just for argument's sake, if libtards were wiped off the face of the earth (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKUOB8MN4Kc), everyone would go the morgan freeman route (https://m.youtube.com/shorts/Eui0Nwlqlz8) and the entire conversation would just up and disappear. no one left to "marginalize", no one left to trigger.

peace on earth too, probably.

[Patrick Chewing]

if libtards were wiped off the face of the earth (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKUOB8MN4Kc)

https://media0.giphy.com/media/WlzQQveWn6s8se3Ajo/giphy.gif

[GimmeThat]

slavery: when there are more guns than people

[Nanners]

Democrats clutching their pearls over Nikki Haley as if Hillary Clinton didn't call a KKK recruiter her friend and mentor.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryweuBVJMEA

Democrats arent clutching their pearls at all... Nimrata Randhawa is more popular with the democrat base than she is with republicans.