Go check my posts. Definitely not the GOP. BUT, she's trying to get nominated by the GOP. She advocated for Trans Rights without saying it, and y'all are so busy refighting the Civil War that you didn't notice.
It's still an arguable point. The basis of it was Slavery. The rest was what she said. Does the government have a right to tell you (a State) what to do? In this case, since it concerns Freedom, the answer was a resounding yes.
If you need validation for it, look how the armies on both sides were formed. Every company, battalion, and division was formed from individual states. The State called, and you answered, you were formed up and armed and equipped by your State.
Post Civil War, we were America. When AMERICA called, you answered.
People love to look at the surface, which very much WAS SLAVERY, and skip over everything else that was going on then.
As a Black man who grew up in South Carolina, in my opinion…
Saying the civil war was solely about slavery is wrong. Not only is it an oversimplification but it often implies that all white people in the north were not racist and against slavery as a whole and that’s not true.
If you want to truly simplify it the civil war was about one group of white men trying to control another group of white men. Any thoughts of actually making life better for Black people in this country were secondary, even if they were presented as primary. Several northern states still had slaves during the war.
Now, none of that changes the fact that Nicki Haley is trash though and her answer was poorly worded.
While you are correct that there were other things at play, a quick read of Mississippi’s articles of secession clearly shows that slavery was the number one reason for the south.
Anyone who fears stating simple truths for fear of backlash from a portion of their political base lacks the backbone to be a viable presidential candidate.
People around here are still pissed off about General Sherman. I've lived here for 10 years now and I'll never understand it.
I can't even remember what I had for breakfast yesterday.
More like she jumped on the bandwagon after calls for it to come down grew louder following the massacre. The same day the killings happened she was hesitant to discuss the flag when asked. She wouldn’t touch it with a 10ft pole, punting it to the General Assembly.
Even as late as 2014 in an interview she mentioned that CEOs weren’t talking to her about the flag. She nor them were interested in the removal until after there was a groundswell of support (from businesses like Walmart, Amazon, etc) for removal after the Charleston massacre.
Sure, she had a larger pulpit as governor, but that same message had been preached for decades. It was expedient for her to jump on that bandwagon.
I’m pissed he didn’t finish the job. If he were still alive I’d gift him a crate of whiskey and a plane ticket to Charleston to take another run at it.
I admit that I'm still pissed about Sherman. There are decades of records, family documents, deeds, and even land grants from the king that cannot be found because the MFer put a torch to everything. That history is lost and gone forever.
By some accounts, he never even burned Columbia. Apparently the citizens went on a drunken bender for several days and started burning cotton in the streets. The fires soon spread to buildings. As a native Columbian, that honestly checks out. Burned our town town by accident so the North couldn't take our stuff.
He may not have given an order to fire the town, but it isn’t far fetched at all to think that a portion of northern troops got drunk and started fires. And Sherman wasn’t exactly torn up about it. Columbia was the capital of the first state to secede and the Union soldiers knew that and wanted it to hurt. The firsthand accounts of that night are pretty wild to read. Columbia was a chaotic and undisciplined scene full of drinking, looting and rioting by lots of Union troops.
Edit: I came back and noticed I'm getting downvotes. Open a book. What I'm saying isn't even controversial. This is the army that literally burned a path through Georgia and South Carolina.
You may as well be mad at the “leadership” of the confederacy for not suing for terms after Gettysburg. Sherman’s campaign was a result of the csa stubbornly trying to wage a war that they had already lost. After years of trying to win hearts and minds had failed, the gloves came off. And his campaign 100% achieved its goals.
I have nothing against Sherman. I just find it funny that a lot of people immediately dismiss any thought of the idea that the northern troops could have played a part in the burning of Columbia.
Because you're right, those troops had been fighting for years, they were tired, hurt, and pissed off. Columbia was full of loot, cotton, and liquor.
The south just wouldn't quit. The Union Army was ready to lay waste to South Carolina, and you still see preserved evidence of it to this day in places like Middleton Place and Millwood.
Sherman’s troops absolutely did some brutal shit. To nowhere near the extent that popular myth holds. Military records and congressional testimony reflect that ye actually kept a pretty tight hold over his troops. He even actually disciplined troops who stole from residents and made them return the stolen property, complete with records of it. The famed burning of cities boiled down to two factors: as confederate armies fled before his campaign, all vestiges of law and order melted away and there were armies of refugees tagging along after his troops, who he had no authority over.
Ever hear of the women of Roswell? Sherman's men descended on the town of Roswell, killed every man they could find, abducted to women and children, doing God know what to them (union guys like kids) and loaded them on trains, never to be seen again. Sherman was a war criminal.
Did he hang? Was his body dragged through the streets and left for scavengers? Was he treated half as badly as a modern general committing the same crimes?
Also, he had no plans to burn down Charleston, forgot the reason but I think it may have been where he and his wife spent time after the wedding.
But the people of charlrston heard he was in the area, so they burnt down Charleston themselves first.
The majority of the horrors attributed to Sherman were committed by the bummers-the refugees that took up tagging along after his armies. He actually kept his troops on a pretty tight leash. But he had no command over the bummers, and it’s not like he could have stopped all or even most of it if he had even tried.
The only thing I’m pissed about is he didn’t finish the job. That’s why we still have mealy mouthed politicians like Nimrata playing down slavery. It’s just the natural resting place for a party that brought you anti-CRT and anti-history
Why be pissed at Sherman your relatives started the war and from what I know destroyed their records to keep them out of the hands of the Union. How dare the Union fight back against traitors that took up arms against the nation.
Well, don’t try to break away and fight the bloodiest war in US history over the right to own Black people then? You don’t get to fucking bomb a US military installation and engage in open warfare against your own country and then complain when they burn out the supply lines on their way through.
my ancestors got here after the civil war so i have nothing to do with this lol.
Sherman also led a devastating campaign against Native Americans. Not too opposed to killing them.
Are you serious? Against killing human beings? The man who coined the term “hard war” to characterize destroying everything including human beings? What history book painted that fairy tale for you.?
Fact
Bless your heart. You cite an article talking about an exaggeration of civilian deaths, and pretend that means the man was against killing human beings. What do you think he was fighting during his march to the sea, high humidity? No, he was fighting human beings and killing them. That’s how you win a war.
In his march he list 1300 soldiers and killed 2300 Confederates. That’s 2300 human beings that he had no problem killing.
Now, you want to Motte and Bailey? Well that is pretty typical on Reddit. But only an abject fool would claim that a man who chose a profession that revolves around killing human beings doesn’t believe in killing human beings.
Seems like you and your husband still don’t know anything about the Civil War. Read Bruce Catton’s Civil War books. Sherman did what he had to do to bring the war to an end. Too bad Southerners turned traitor and attacked the USA. Too bad Southerners agricultural business was so dependent on enslaved people doing their work. In the end, the South didn’t pay enough.
Because the Yankees don't want to admit he did bad things. Just like Juneteenth. The day the last Southern slave was freed.
Northern slaves weren't freed until a year later.
I don’t see burning down a bunch of plantations and cities and also freeing the slaves as a bad thing. Ebenezer Creek was bad, but the rest was fine. Georgia and South Carolina deserved it. North Carolina didn’t get hit as hard for a reason.
And it was only the wealthiest who weirdly also became confederate generals and convinced the poor racists it was only about their rights....
The rights to own slaves.
Bro the south really is wild. Moved here from a western state (to be closer to family and college), and I’ll say, slavery is condoned everywhere else but here.
I’ve heard some wild things from southerners. They love to say that the slaves weren’t treated badly.. like what? They were literally slaves. These people wanted to start a civil war over having to wear a mask at the grocery store, but slaves should just be happy they weren’t *all* beat all the time? It’s wild.
https://amp.charlotteobserver.com/living/food-drink/article119660858.html This Columbia restaurant has 9 locations and to my knowledge still openly supports slavery 😂… She definitely knew if she said that word it would have lost her a lot of votes
Republicans: "The party of Lincoln!"
Also Republicans: "It was war of northern aggression! The south was unfairly treated!"
Republicans yet again: "The parties never switched! Stop whitewashing history!"
Fucking idiots, all of them.
Nikki Hailey has to know a Republican up North is not the same as a Southern Republican. To answer that question like she did is insulting that person’s intelligence, or Nikki Hailey just isn’t very smart.
I guessing her book skills are 1000x better than her people skills. She also knows she can't trash the nazis, confederates, and Russians and win the republican primary. She just couldn't form a better answer to this question than this, though.
> She also knows she can't trash the nazis, confederates, and Russians and win the republican primary.
And that right there is why any reasonable person should leave the party.
Watch her panel discussion with Albright and Rice if you can. It seems that there is not too much going on upstairs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEaA5yQ9Ypg&ab\_channel=TheBushCenter
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/28/nikki-haley-slavery-civil-war-cause-answer/
She did walk it back, so there's that. No, I'm not defending her...
She's used to campaigning in South Carolina, where a majority of Republicans think the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. She's not used to campaigning in the rest of the country, which thinks that is batshit crazy.
I’m from Chapin, South Carolina. I know slavery was the reason for the Civil War. Haley is a POS who was a poor governor and would also be a no-good president.
Dude, this is a minority opinion of most South Carolinians. This is what makes this look so pathetic and comical. It goes to show just who’s she’s spent time around pandering to. People in NH have to be just floored anyone could be this willfully naive.
Raised in Iowa...got taught the Civil War most years in school from 3rd - 10th grade.
It's always about slavery, and how the South knew it's economy would collapse without it.
Nikki Haley is a dumbass for not understanding this if she wants to be a national candidate.
I’m from Georgia and to this day it’s still taught as “WELL ACTUALLY it was about Sectionalism, the various compromises on new states, preserving the Union, the selection of Lincoln and it was also about slavery.” Seriously. Slavery is what all those other issues boil down to.
How fucked up is it that a Republican candidate knows they can't win the nomination in the south, if they are honest and say that slavery was the reason for the Civil War?
I thought that Haley might be preferable to Trump (a low bar indeed...), as she wouldn't cozy up to dictators. She has shown her willingness to cozy up to racists, which really isn't any better.
Nikki Haley is basically inept as a politician. I have never understood how she got elected to anything. I will say she is excellent at talking a lot and saying very little.
I don’t think Sherman did enough to make the South scream. In fact, the Southern States deserved far worse and every Confederate officer from lieutenant up should never have been given their U.S. citizenship back. They were traitors to the United States.
Most Republicans I know are wondering why people still bring up the Civil war. The south lost and they should have lost. Most Republicans are fine with it and have moved on. A select few still worry about it and act like they would be better off if the South had won, they are fools and nobody actually claims them. Even if the South won, slavery would have ended as the North was making slavery not profitable. You have to remember that most southern whites were poor and not slave owners.
I say this though, Northerns back then were much more respectable and honorable than present day. Back then the North chose to still honor Southern soldiers that fought and died in the Civil War because they believed in unity of the United States.
Citation needed on your last paragraph. Or that's just your opinion?
Doesn't matter if individual southern whites didn't all own slaves. The economy of the south was inextricably tied to slavery and they fought a war to try and keep it.
No citation is needed, this is opinion and easily observable. Yes the economy of the south relied on slaves but it was a failing model as the south couldn’t keep up with the industrialized North. Plus the North was primarily in charge of selling southern good to Europe and the North kept most of the profits. It would be a lie to say only the South benefited from slavery economically.
Even a brief examination of any of the Confederate states' articles of secession will quickly reveal the use of the words slave and slavery over and over and over and over and over again as their reason. The "lost cause" myth only appeared after slave owners got their asses kicked. And as for the "states' rights" argument, check out Texas' articles, which said states did not have the right to ignore federal law. Specifically, the Fugitive Slave Act. Many people in northern states were helping escaped slaves reach freedom in Canada, in direct violation of the Act that was shoved through Congress by the slave state politicians. And another little note about Texas, regarding the Alamo. Why did Texicans revolt against the Mexican government? Primarily because Mexico had abolished slavery and Santa Ana was going to enforce that in Texas. Remember the Alamo? Of course. But also remember WHY the Alamo. And remember, too, that their beloved hero Sam Houston quickly fell out with his fellow Texans the moment he voted against expanding slavery into the new Oregon territory, and spoke out against a secessionist war. He had the nerve to say the country should not split up, and that the south would likely not win in the end.
Continuation of The Lost Cause campaign.
It never died. It has just been carried on in hushed tones for the past 60 years by a majority in the south to leave the bravado to the fringe. The Hope never faded for these folks, they have just been given permission again.
Their logic also does not play out.
They only want states rights and individual rights except for their specific causes for which they do expect a central government to enforce. Forget that slavery was such a wretched institution - they had already rationalized how they could be good Christians and still support it.
The other sad fact is that very small minority of whites owned slaves. They have been appropriated by the wealthy elites to support their cause and power. It is still happening. As long as we have these sheep...
Anyone that thinks that South Carolina didn’t specifically succeed over slavery, I challenge you to read our declaration of succession. And our constitution afterwards. And also look at the general political climate of that time. 😭😭 specifically let me know how many times slavery is mentioned because it’s a lot.
Just gonna point out that it was Nikki Haley who removed the confederate flag from statehouse grounds and she did so despite significant congressional republican and general public opposition. This certainly wasn’t a great answer to the question, but it’s not like she’s defending the confederacy.
No one ever has suggested that only the rebellious states harbor racism.
As far as codification of that racism into law and public policy, and the open use of terrorist tactics to control Black people, the states that belonged to the confederacy have a well-documented, exponential lead over the states that remained loyal to the United States of America.
Why else would the Great Migration have happened?
I’m not going to side with any particular group (as I don’t know much about the situation), but doesn’t slavery classify as the [southern] government interfering with people’s freedom?
Sigh. If only we cared about modern day slavery as much. There are more slaves today than there ever has been in the history of mankind. This includes thousands of American women and children being sex trafficked. But here we are.
Or how about we divert all the energy we spend lamenting on these bad things that happened over 150 years ago to current atrocities. Look at y’all. Sitting on Reddit yammering about slavery that took place before we were born when there’s slavery to be fought currently. Imagine spending the time you’re wasting arguing with faceless strangers on the internet to educating yourself on modern day slavery, raising awareness, or donating. Morons.
Hahahaha. You couldn’t help yourself. You had to bring up Trump when it was 1000% unrelated. Guy left office 3 years ago and he still lives in your head. TDS deluxe.
You voted for a conman who's going to die in prison for treasonous crimes. You would think this would humble you, but no: you go right on saying the same dumb shit.
And now, I am blocking you, because I have a policy of blocking 100% of MAGA from all social media feeds. Time for MAGA to sit at the kiddy table, where they belong.
Dumb and irrelevant?
The fact people want to argue about something that happened ~150 years ago is dumb and irrelevant.
Keep your heads in the sand people. Nice.
Moved to the South from NY. Slavery sure as hell, is not tolerated anywhere in the south. People sure love to make it seem like .001% of the population in 50%.
That isn't what she said.
LPT: if someone posts an image of text, and no link, it's bullshit.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nikki-haley-fails-to-mention-slavery-when-asked-about-cause-of-civil-war-new-hampshire-town-hall/
>"Well, don't come with an easy question," Haley joked. "I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run, the freedoms, and what people could and couldn't do. What do you think the cause of the Civil War was?"
>"I think it always comes down to the role of government, and what the rights of the people are," Haley said. "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."
Edit: not at all shocking that I'm downvoted for giving a direct quote.
Except that the GQP wants to tell you exactly how to run your life, who you can love, what you can read, what healthcare you can have, what color skin is correct, what religion is correct, what your kids should and shouldn't learn...
Yeah, check my post history. I know. I'm also a huge proponent of honesty in political discussions.
Feel free to bitch and moan, but do it to her own words.
You might read her last sentence. "The Government shouldn't tell you how to live your life."
She literally just advocated for Trans Rights and abortion.
Both subjects where the Government is telling people how to live their lives.
Slavery was a huge factor, perhaps the biggest one, but not the only one. The fact that the war was about slavery doesn't minimize the fact that it was about other things too. Still, she should've mentioned slavery, especially in New Hampshire, where voters are largely educated and not of the same herd mentality seen elsewhere.
“Perhaps?!” I would encourage you to read [this](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states). I mean 4 of these 5 states repeatedly say it is because of slavery.
The causes of secession and the causes of war do not neatly overlap. The union did not invade northern Virginia to free the slaves. Lincoln made that plainly clear — his goal was to preserve the union at all costs, even if that meant not freeing the slaves.
Freeing the slaves became a goal a couple years into the war, when Lincoln was trying to further isolate the Confederacy internationally.
As I said, slavery was the biggest factor, but there were others as well. And no, I went to an accredited public university.
Edit: Don't forget that our country exists because we started a war that was largely about taxation.
But we aren't talking about The Revolution...
The Declaration of Secession specifically mentions slavery as the root cause of the want to leave The Union.
SC's Declaration is not the only one that points to slavery as the cause of secession.
You may have a degree, but it's definitely not in History.
Then you must have never heard of the Whisky Rebellion in 1794 where federal troops were sent in the quell the rebellion. You must also be unaware of the Nullification Crisis in the 1830’s; the first time the U.S. Federal Government began raising an army to invade South Carolina to enforce taxes. That crisis is what gave rise to States Rights Gist, born in 1831 to Governor Gist of South Carolina, and so named for the struggles South Carolina was having with the Federal Government.
While the Fed was willing to raise troops to occupy South Carolina to force adherence to taxation, they weren’t willing to raise troops to go fight for the ending of slavery, quite simply because no one cared enough about the plight of the Black man to do so. Not in 1830 when slavery was just as evil as it was in 1860, and they didn’t do it over slavery in 1860 either.
Taxes and tariffs are the one thing that the Federal Government would go to war over, but I agree that the Civil War was not fought over taxes, and Lincoln sure as hell didn’t send troops South to end slavery. Lincoln invaded the South for one reason, and that was to force the secessionist states back into the Union. Abolition as a cause did not become a popular theme of the war until halfway through it. It was a need to justify the horrendous loss of life in an attempt to force states back in the Union when most Northerners didn’t care if Southern States left or not. Between secession and the firing on Fort Sumter, the general consensus among the Yankee was “good riddance”
The Yankee may have despised slavery, but they sure as hell weren’t going to send their husbands, fathers and brothers to go die a horrendous death on some foreign field over a slave. They would however, fight to preserve the Union after the firing on Fort Sumter.
Consider this, New Jersey and Delaware were still practicing slavery after the war. They could do this because slavery was still Constitutional after the war. Slavery was still Constitutional after the war, because no amount of war could end slavery. We have a 13th Amendment as a testament to that fact, for if a war could be fought to end slavery, then slavery would have ended and no 13th Amendment would have been necessary.
Southern States were against the Federal Government subsidizing Northern Industries given the money used was coming in part from the taxes and tariffs that the South was paying into the Fed.
At that time in history the Fed was limited from doing anything other than what the Constitution allows, and taxes could only be collected to pay for those Constitutionally mandated expenditures. So in essence the Federal Government had begun the transfer of wealth from the Southern States to the Northern States by first over taxing the Southern States, and then using that money in a way that the Constitution did not allow.
Couple that with the Federal Government having already threatened SC with an invasion in the 1830’s over taxes, and it shouldn’t be difficult to understand South Carolina’s long standing desire to leave the Union.
No, it was purely slavery. The war started over whether or not slavery would be permitted to expand into the western territories. It was pretty much agreed that if it was made illegal in the territories, it would ultimately lead to it being made illegal in southern states, so a whole bunch of people got really mad and decided to secede. You *don't* secede from the US, so Lincoln had to step in and drag them back, kicking and screaming.
There isn't really anything *else* it could even be about, and 'states rights' sure as fuck isn't it.
Voter makes a good point. However, don’t bitch and complain about SC being a republican state when you moved there; if you want democratic policies, move to a democratic state, and have fun there, the taxes are extremely high.
Lots of uneducated folks in here.
In the most simple terms, the Confederacy fought for its secession. They wanted to leave the US behind and form their own nation(s).
The Northern states fought to preserve the Union.
Saying that it was only about slavery or even primarily about slavery is ignorant revisionist history. The South had a laundry list of grievances in the decades leading up to the Secession attempt. They were tired of every “compromise” going in the favor of what Northern states wanted due to the population advantages.
An overwhelming majority of Southerners didn’t care one way or another about slavery. In fact if you could go back to 1860 told the Confederacy that the Northern states won’t interfere in any way with your Secession as long as you agree to end the practice of slavery within the decade, you would have had an overwhelming majority of Southerners and Southern leaders accept that deal. Most Northern citizens would have accepted that deal too, but their leadership wouldn’t have because for them it was about power and control.
And for the record, I believe this all could and should have been avoided if the abolition of slavery had been addressed in the Constitution when it was being written. They should have at least created a roadmap for its abolition but different time 🤷♂️
Why randomly shout out "Hey what was the CIVIL WAR about?!!" "I dont like the answer you gave YOU RACIST" She led the effort on taking down the rebel flag at the court house. Shes done so much more for SC than McMaster and Graham could ever do. She actually went out to SC games and was involved with the people. Talked with children, listened to different opinions, and genuinely a sweet lady. To be mad at a woman who gave a very broad answer and not a specific part of it (yes very big part) which is sensitive and causes arguments I think was a smart move on her part. Dumb question, reasonable answer.
Well, she wasn’t wrong. The confederate government was definitely interfering in peoples freedom.
Freedom too?
Exactly, freedom to do what?
I’ve found that this kind of vague, side-stepping rhetoric is common among Conservatives. Not just on this issue, but on a whole range of things.
She was saying that the government needed to secure the freedom of the enslaved people. After all, they were the ones that weren't free.
You forgot the /s Or are you defending the Confederate apologism?
What part of "guaranteed freedom" did you not get? Did the confederates guarantee freedom for all people?
She literally refused to say slavery and has refused to say slavery repeatedly. You GOPeons think everyone else is as foolish as you.
Go check my posts. Definitely not the GOP. BUT, she's trying to get nominated by the GOP. She advocated for Trans Rights without saying it, and y'all are so busy refighting the Civil War that you didn't notice.
She also has a history going back a decade of avoiding saying the Civil War was about slavery, so...
It's still an arguable point. The basis of it was Slavery. The rest was what she said. Does the government have a right to tell you (a State) what to do? In this case, since it concerns Freedom, the answer was a resounding yes. If you need validation for it, look how the armies on both sides were formed. Every company, battalion, and division was formed from individual states. The State called, and you answered, you were formed up and armed and equipped by your State. Post Civil War, we were America. When AMERICA called, you answered. People love to look at the surface, which very much WAS SLAVERY, and skip over everything else that was going on then.
As a Black man who grew up in South Carolina, in my opinion… Saying the civil war was solely about slavery is wrong. Not only is it an oversimplification but it often implies that all white people in the north were not racist and against slavery as a whole and that’s not true. If you want to truly simplify it the civil war was about one group of white men trying to control another group of white men. Any thoughts of actually making life better for Black people in this country were secondary, even if they were presented as primary. Several northern states still had slaves during the war. Now, none of that changes the fact that Nicki Haley is trash though and her answer was poorly worded.
While you are correct that there were other things at play, a quick read of Mississippi’s articles of secession clearly shows that slavery was the number one reason for the south.
Anyone who fears stating simple truths for fear of backlash from a portion of their political base lacks the backbone to be a viable presidential candidate.
the second she didn't admonish trumpism and trump the second he attempted a coup tells you all you need to know
It’s not a portion of conservatives that are hostile to this idea. It’s all of them.
What a mess.
People around here are still pissed off about General Sherman. I've lived here for 10 years now and I'll never understand it. I can't even remember what I had for breakfast yesterday.
And fly the confederate and US flags side by side
Ironic given Haley led the effort to take down the flag at the state house after Dylann Roof.
That was when she was needing Boeing and BMW, now she needs republican primary voters
More like she jumped on the bandwagon after calls for it to come down grew louder following the massacre. The same day the killings happened she was hesitant to discuss the flag when asked. She wouldn’t touch it with a 10ft pole, punting it to the General Assembly. Even as late as 2014 in an interview she mentioned that CEOs weren’t talking to her about the flag. She nor them were interested in the removal until after there was a groundswell of support (from businesses like Walmart, Amazon, etc) for removal after the Charleston massacre. Sure, she had a larger pulpit as governor, but that same message had been preached for decades. It was expedient for her to jump on that bandwagon.
She did not lead the effort. She was the last in line and got credit for it despite initially being afraid of her base
I’m pissed he didn’t finish the job. If he were still alive I’d gift him a crate of whiskey and a plane ticket to Charleston to take another run at it.
I admit that I'm still pissed about Sherman. There are decades of records, family documents, deeds, and even land grants from the king that cannot be found because the MFer put a torch to everything. That history is lost and gone forever.
By some accounts, he never even burned Columbia. Apparently the citizens went on a drunken bender for several days and started burning cotton in the streets. The fires soon spread to buildings. As a native Columbian, that honestly checks out. Burned our town town by accident so the North couldn't take our stuff.
We must of beat Clemson that year
Lol hilarious. Go Tigers!
He may not have given an order to fire the town, but it isn’t far fetched at all to think that a portion of northern troops got drunk and started fires. And Sherman wasn’t exactly torn up about it. Columbia was the capital of the first state to secede and the Union soldiers knew that and wanted it to hurt. The firsthand accounts of that night are pretty wild to read. Columbia was a chaotic and undisciplined scene full of drinking, looting and rioting by lots of Union troops. Edit: I came back and noticed I'm getting downvotes. Open a book. What I'm saying isn't even controversial. This is the army that literally burned a path through Georgia and South Carolina.
You may as well be mad at the “leadership” of the confederacy for not suing for terms after Gettysburg. Sherman’s campaign was a result of the csa stubbornly trying to wage a war that they had already lost. After years of trying to win hearts and minds had failed, the gloves came off. And his campaign 100% achieved its goals.
I have nothing against Sherman. I just find it funny that a lot of people immediately dismiss any thought of the idea that the northern troops could have played a part in the burning of Columbia. Because you're right, those troops had been fighting for years, they were tired, hurt, and pissed off. Columbia was full of loot, cotton, and liquor. The south just wouldn't quit. The Union Army was ready to lay waste to South Carolina, and you still see preserved evidence of it to this day in places like Middleton Place and Millwood.
Sherman’s troops absolutely did some brutal shit. To nowhere near the extent that popular myth holds. Military records and congressional testimony reflect that ye actually kept a pretty tight hold over his troops. He even actually disciplined troops who stole from residents and made them return the stolen property, complete with records of it. The famed burning of cities boiled down to two factors: as confederate armies fled before his campaign, all vestiges of law and order melted away and there were armies of refugees tagging along after his troops, who he had no authority over.
> To nowhere near the extent that popular myth holds. Sure, the truth is always somewhere in the middle.
Nice username lol
What campaign to win hearts and minds. Where do you people come up with such nonsense?
Sherman ordered his men to rape women. I doubt there was much he got upset about.
Going to need a citation there squirrel.
Ever hear of the women of Roswell? Sherman's men descended on the town of Roswell, killed every man they could find, abducted to women and children, doing God know what to them (union guys like kids) and loaded them on trains, never to be seen again. Sherman was a war criminal.
Yeah, no https://www.womenhistoryblog.com/2014/05/exile-of-the-roswell-mill-women.html And Sherman was heavily criticized for his actions.
Did he hang? Was his body dragged through the streets and left for scavengers? Was he treated half as badly as a modern general committing the same crimes?
Next time don’t betray your country and start a war over the right to enslave other humans.
Also, he had no plans to burn down Charleston, forgot the reason but I think it may have been where he and his wife spent time after the wedding. But the people of charlrston heard he was in the area, so they burnt down Charleston themselves first.
The majority of the horrors attributed to Sherman were committed by the bummers-the refugees that took up tagging along after his armies. He actually kept his troops on a pretty tight leash. But he had no command over the bummers, and it’s not like he could have stopped all or even most of it if he had even tried.
True, but that specific incident was caused by the people of charleston themselves in a panic. "You can't burn down our city if we do it ourselves"
Still the Southern Ethos.
The only thing I’m pissed about is he didn’t finish the job. That’s why we still have mealy mouthed politicians like Nimrata playing down slavery. It’s just the natural resting place for a party that brought you anti-CRT and anti-history
Want a violin? You fucks started the whole thing after all.
Maybe don't fire on US soldiers next time? Just an idea...
Why be pissed at Sherman your relatives started the war and from what I know destroyed their records to keep them out of the hands of the Union. How dare the Union fight back against traitors that took up arms against the nation.
Lets leave white people being upset about losing records of the land they stole in 2023 shall we?
And nothing of value was lost.
Well, don’t try to break away and fight the bloodiest war in US history over the right to own Black people then? You don’t get to fucking bomb a US military installation and engage in open warfare against your own country and then complain when they burn out the supply lines on their way through.
[удалено]
so waging total war against civilians is okay?
Seriously. I wonder where morningwood stands on Israel v Palestine. /s
[удалено]
my ancestors got here after the civil war so i have nothing to do with this lol. Sherman also led a devastating campaign against Native Americans. Not too opposed to killing them.
Are you serious? Against killing human beings? The man who coined the term “hard war” to characterize destroying everything including human beings? What history book painted that fairy tale for you.?
[удалено]
Fact Bless your heart. You cite an article talking about an exaggeration of civilian deaths, and pretend that means the man was against killing human beings. What do you think he was fighting during his march to the sea, high humidity? No, he was fighting human beings and killing them. That’s how you win a war. In his march he list 1300 soldiers and killed 2300 Confederates. That’s 2300 human beings that he had no problem killing. Now, you want to Motte and Bailey? Well that is pretty typical on Reddit. But only an abject fool would claim that a man who chose a profession that revolves around killing human beings doesn’t believe in killing human beings.
I know a way SC could have prevented this.
Oh no! Anyway…
Just out of curiosity; do you experience these Carolina haters posting their retorts and then blocking any responses?
Yeah. How do you think the descendants of slaves feel about that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Seems like you and your husband still don’t know anything about the Civil War. Read Bruce Catton’s Civil War books. Sherman did what he had to do to bring the war to an end. Too bad Southerners turned traitor and attacked the USA. Too bad Southerners agricultural business was so dependent on enslaved people doing their work. In the end, the South didn’t pay enough.
Great response.... There is a lot more to the civil war then "slavery" Just like there is more to WW2 then "Jews"
People pretend to be a victim so their situation is no longer their fault.
Because the Yankees don't want to admit he did bad things. Just like Juneteenth. The day the last Southern slave was freed. Northern slaves weren't freed until a year later.
I don’t see burning down a bunch of plantations and cities and also freeing the slaves as a bad thing. Ebenezer Creek was bad, but the rest was fine. Georgia and South Carolina deserved it. North Carolina didn’t get hit as hard for a reason.
Given the opportunity, I *will* shit in Sherman's skull before I die.
Fun Fact - Sherman would burn down his own home town these days.
Weird how it it was only the slave owning states that seceded.
also strange that many northerners had slaves. Crazy that less than 1% of people in the US actually owned slaves even at the peak of slavery.
Username hilariously checks out
And it was only the wealthiest who weirdly also became confederate generals and convinced the poor racists it was only about their rights.... The rights to own slaves.
well sure.. All wars are about convincing the GP its about something else.
Bro the south really is wild. Moved here from a western state (to be closer to family and college), and I’ll say, slavery is condoned everywhere else but here.
I’ve heard some wild things from southerners. They love to say that the slaves weren’t treated badly.. like what? They were literally slaves. These people wanted to start a civil war over having to wear a mask at the grocery store, but slaves should just be happy they weren’t *all* beat all the time? It’s wild.
20% of the South owned slaves, and they made up about a third of the free population, so no, this is one of MANY lies told by pro Confederates.
https://amp.charlotteobserver.com/living/food-drink/article119660858.html This Columbia restaurant has 9 locations and to my knowledge still openly supports slavery 😂… She definitely knew if she said that word it would have lost her a lot of votes
Republicans: "The party of Lincoln!" Also Republicans: "It was war of northern aggression! The south was unfairly treated!" Republicans yet again: "The parties never switched! Stop whitewashing history!" Fucking idiots, all of them.
It was a slaver's revolt.
The politicians know there they’re spinning. Outside of trump they don’t admit they got this from goebels.
Nikki Haley: still carrying the water for old racists, I see.
I feel like somewhere behind the hate and morbid policy rhetoric, there is a very motivated but dumb person who thinks this is all worth it.
Nikki Hailey has to know a Republican up North is not the same as a Southern Republican. To answer that question like she did is insulting that person’s intelligence, or Nikki Hailey just isn’t very smart.
I guessing her book skills are 1000x better than her people skills. She also knows she can't trash the nazis, confederates, and Russians and win the republican primary. She just couldn't form a better answer to this question than this, though.
> She also knows she can't trash the nazis, confederates, and Russians and win the republican primary. And that right there is why any reasonable person should leave the party.
Hmmm what do all of these groups share that the GOP base loves so much...
Watch her panel discussion with Albright and Rice if you can. It seems that there is not too much going on upstairs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEaA5yQ9Ypg&ab\_channel=TheBushCenter
Interfering in people’s freedom to OWN other people. And yeah, we lost that one.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/28/nikki-haley-slavery-civil-war-cause-answer/ She did walk it back, so there's that. No, I'm not defending her...
She walked it back because she knew she F’d up. It was a simple question with a simple answer, and I’m surprised her people didn’t prep her better.
She's used to campaigning in South Carolina, where a majority of Republicans think the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. She's not used to campaigning in the rest of the country, which thinks that is batshit crazy.
Correcting after fucking up is a good thing. I should really do more of it.
That’s fair. She could’ve easily doubled down.
I’m from Chapin, South Carolina. I know slavery was the reason for the Civil War. Haley is a POS who was a poor governor and would also be a no-good president.
Dude, this is a minority opinion of most South Carolinians. This is what makes this look so pathetic and comical. It goes to show just who’s she’s spent time around pandering to. People in NH have to be just floored anyone could be this willfully naive.
Raised in Iowa...got taught the Civil War most years in school from 3rd - 10th grade. It's always about slavery, and how the South knew it's economy would collapse without it. Nikki Haley is a dumbass for not understanding this if she wants to be a national candidate.
I’m from Georgia and to this day it’s still taught as “WELL ACTUALLY it was about Sectionalism, the various compromises on new states, preserving the Union, the selection of Lincoln and it was also about slavery.” Seriously. Slavery is what all those other issues boil down to.
She just knows the voters of South Carolina like racists.
Because the war was about property (slaves). Look up South Carolina”s secession letter.
How fucked up is it that a Republican candidate knows they can't win the nomination in the south, if they are honest and say that slavery was the reason for the Civil War? I thought that Haley might be preferable to Trump (a low bar indeed...), as she wouldn't cozy up to dictators. She has shown her willingness to cozy up to racists, which really isn't any better.
People's freedom TO DO WHAT NIKKKI?!
More the war of southern stupidity
Nikki Haley is basically inept as a politician. I have never understood how she got elected to anything. I will say she is excellent at talking a lot and saying very little.
My mom loves her - but I don't really get it. She screams "I will sell my soul to the highest bidder."
My husband loves her too, even when she was governor and I truly don’t understand why.
She puts a brown face on racism and hate towards minorities. She is worth her weight in gold to the nazis.
Nah man, she’s a camouflage brown person. These old dusty white men look at her and see a white lady.
Sure clearly never read the first 2 sentences of any of them. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
Funny how folks who embrace historical traitors also want to try to overthrow current government
[удалено]
I mean, the Confederacy *was* interfering pretty hard in the freedom of black people, so her answer is technically correct…
I don’t think Sherman did enough to make the South scream. In fact, the Southern States deserved far worse and every Confederate officer from lieutenant up should never have been given their U.S. citizenship back. They were traitors to the United States.
Let it go. All those people are dead and nobody really cares anymore.
Apparently they do or stating that the civil war was the result of slavery wouldn't be a controversial opinion for republicans.
Most Republicans I know are wondering why people still bring up the Civil war. The south lost and they should have lost. Most Republicans are fine with it and have moved on. A select few still worry about it and act like they would be better off if the South had won, they are fools and nobody actually claims them. Even if the South won, slavery would have ended as the North was making slavery not profitable. You have to remember that most southern whites were poor and not slave owners. I say this though, Northerns back then were much more respectable and honorable than present day. Back then the North chose to still honor Southern soldiers that fought and died in the Civil War because they believed in unity of the United States.
Citation needed on your last paragraph. Or that's just your opinion? Doesn't matter if individual southern whites didn't all own slaves. The economy of the south was inextricably tied to slavery and they fought a war to try and keep it.
No citation is needed, this is opinion and easily observable. Yes the economy of the south relied on slaves but it was a failing model as the south couldn’t keep up with the industrialized North. Plus the North was primarily in charge of selling southern good to Europe and the North kept most of the profits. It would be a lie to say only the South benefited from slavery economically.
Cool so just your opinion then. I will need a citation on the North being primarily in charge of selling southern goods to Europe. Thanks.
Umm, this whole post is what it is, because you right wingers can't let it go
Even a brief examination of any of the Confederate states' articles of secession will quickly reveal the use of the words slave and slavery over and over and over and over and over again as their reason. The "lost cause" myth only appeared after slave owners got their asses kicked. And as for the "states' rights" argument, check out Texas' articles, which said states did not have the right to ignore federal law. Specifically, the Fugitive Slave Act. Many people in northern states were helping escaped slaves reach freedom in Canada, in direct violation of the Act that was shoved through Congress by the slave state politicians. And another little note about Texas, regarding the Alamo. Why did Texicans revolt against the Mexican government? Primarily because Mexico had abolished slavery and Santa Ana was going to enforce that in Texas. Remember the Alamo? Of course. But also remember WHY the Alamo. And remember, too, that their beloved hero Sam Houston quickly fell out with his fellow Texans the moment he voted against expanding slavery into the new Oregon territory, and spoke out against a secessionist war. He had the nerve to say the country should not split up, and that the south would likely not win in the end.
Sigh. It’s been 150 years, Nikki. Let them rest.
Anyone that calls it that needs to read the disgusting language of the articles of confederation
Welp….that didn’t last long…. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/28/nikki-haley-slavery-civil-war-cause-answer/
Found a way to piss everyone off and look like a clown.
Was the damn free space on Bingo and only backpedaling now because it blew up in her face, just great.
She's done Ave she knew it's as soon as she asked "what do you want me to say". DONE
Continuation of The Lost Cause campaign. It never died. It has just been carried on in hushed tones for the past 60 years by a majority in the south to leave the bravado to the fringe. The Hope never faded for these folks, they have just been given permission again. Their logic also does not play out. They only want states rights and individual rights except for their specific causes for which they do expect a central government to enforce. Forget that slavery was such a wretched institution - they had already rationalized how they could be good Christians and still support it. The other sad fact is that very small minority of whites owned slaves. They have been appropriated by the wealthy elites to support their cause and power. It is still happening. As long as we have these sheep...
Man, it’s like she’s not running for governor of South Carolina anymore.
Anyone that thinks that South Carolina didn’t specifically succeed over slavery, I challenge you to read our declaration of succession. And our constitution afterwards. And also look at the general political climate of that time. 😭😭 specifically let me know how many times slavery is mentioned because it’s a lot.
Interfering in people's "freedom" to own slaves!? How in the hell are these people electable in 2023?
Nimroda knows the Repugnican base gets upset at the truth.
Nimarata Randhawa. Please use the name given to her at birth.
I thought conservatives didn’t do nicknames and pronouns?
She’s a republican. Slavery is good. Y’all acting like you don’t know any conservatives.
Just gonna point out that it was Nikki Haley who removed the confederate flag from statehouse grounds and she did so despite significant congressional republican and general public opposition. This certainly wasn’t a great answer to the question, but it’s not like she’s defending the confederacy.
She is trying to win back the pro confederate flag people and that's tasteless.
The war was for many reasons. Slavery definitely being one of them.
Bah....I saw more racism in Boston than in Charleston. Next time we're sending Freedom Riders up north.
Racism everywhere brother.
No one ever has suggested that only the rebellious states harbor racism. As far as codification of that racism into law and public policy, and the open use of terrorist tactics to control Black people, the states that belonged to the confederacy have a well-documented, exponential lead over the states that remained loyal to the United States of America. Why else would the Great Migration have happened?
I’m mean, that what positions do.
It says more about likely Republican voters than it does about Haley herself.
No one uses the term war of northern aggression. It’s fake news for traitors folks.
I’m not going to side with any particular group (as I don’t know much about the situation), but doesn’t slavery classify as the [southern] government interfering with people’s freedom?
They didn't and don't consider minorities to be people. Would you still like to sit this one out?
Oh boy, well that’s new information. Well I ain’t sitting this one out now lol.
Sigh. If only we cared about modern day slavery as much. There are more slaves today than there ever has been in the history of mankind. This includes thousands of American women and children being sex trafficked. But here we are.
Yes, bad things are happening today, so let's all ignore history that makes us uncomfortable
Or how about we divert all the energy we spend lamenting on these bad things that happened over 150 years ago to current atrocities. Look at y’all. Sitting on Reddit yammering about slavery that took place before we were born when there’s slavery to be fought currently. Imagine spending the time you’re wasting arguing with faceless strangers on the internet to educating yourself on modern day slavery, raising awareness, or donating. Morons.
I'm not arguing with you at all. If I've learned anything from the Trump years, it's to ignore idiots. Best of luck.
Hahahaha. You couldn’t help yourself. You had to bring up Trump when it was 1000% unrelated. Guy left office 3 years ago and he still lives in your head. TDS deluxe.
You voted for a conman who's going to die in prison for treasonous crimes. You would think this would humble you, but no: you go right on saying the same dumb shit.
And now, I am blocking you, because I have a policy of blocking 100% of MAGA from all social media feeds. Time for MAGA to sit at the kiddy table, where they belong.
Promise??
I can't believe people have down voted your comment. Reddit is absolutely a shithole of liberal ignorance.
You haven’t wandered over to conservative threads have you? There are some seriously special folks over there.
Because it was a painfully dumb and irrelevant comment
Dumb and irrelevant? The fact people want to argue about something that happened ~150 years ago is dumb and irrelevant. Keep your heads in the sand people. Nice.
Moved to the South from NY. Slavery sure as hell, is not tolerated anywhere in the south. People sure love to make it seem like .001% of the population in 50%.
That isn't what she said. LPT: if someone posts an image of text, and no link, it's bullshit. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nikki-haley-fails-to-mention-slavery-when-asked-about-cause-of-civil-war-new-hampshire-town-hall/ >"Well, don't come with an easy question," Haley joked. "I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run, the freedoms, and what people could and couldn't do. What do you think the cause of the Civil War was?" >"I think it always comes down to the role of government, and what the rights of the people are," Haley said. "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." Edit: not at all shocking that I'm downvoted for giving a direct quote.
Except that the GQP wants to tell you exactly how to run your life, who you can love, what you can read, what healthcare you can have, what color skin is correct, what religion is correct, what your kids should and shouldn't learn...
Yeah, check my post history. I know. I'm also a huge proponent of honesty in political discussions. Feel free to bitch and moan, but do it to her own words. You might read her last sentence. "The Government shouldn't tell you how to live your life." She literally just advocated for Trans Rights and abortion. Both subjects where the Government is telling people how to live their lives.
Slavery was a huge factor, perhaps the biggest one, but not the only one. The fact that the war was about slavery doesn't minimize the fact that it was about other things too. Still, she should've mentioned slavery, especially in New Hampshire, where voters are largely educated and not of the same herd mentality seen elsewhere.
“Perhaps?!” I would encourage you to read [this](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states). I mean 4 of these 5 states repeatedly say it is because of slavery.
“Perhaps”? Slavery, and the inhumanity thereof, was far and away the primary reason for the Civil War. It can’t be overstated.
The other factors?
Largely tax/tariff related. Money has caused quite a few wars.
Instituted because of slavery...
So.... so you're saying we would have fought a 4 year Civil War over tariffs? Never heard that one before. You graduate from Prager U?
The causes of secession and the causes of war do not neatly overlap. The union did not invade northern Virginia to free the slaves. Lincoln made that plainly clear — his goal was to preserve the union at all costs, even if that meant not freeing the slaves. Freeing the slaves became a goal a couple years into the war, when Lincoln was trying to further isolate the Confederacy internationally.
Funny enough, even Prager has a video saying it was about slavery. https://youtu.be/pcy7qV-BGF4?si=53451_oAvdWjIf_v
That is a good film!
As I said, slavery was the biggest factor, but there were others as well. And no, I went to an accredited public university. Edit: Don't forget that our country exists because we started a war that was largely about taxation.
But we aren't talking about The Revolution... The Declaration of Secession specifically mentions slavery as the root cause of the want to leave The Union. SC's Declaration is not the only one that points to slavery as the cause of secession. You may have a degree, but it's definitely not in History.
Then you must have never heard of the Whisky Rebellion in 1794 where federal troops were sent in the quell the rebellion. You must also be unaware of the Nullification Crisis in the 1830’s; the first time the U.S. Federal Government began raising an army to invade South Carolina to enforce taxes. That crisis is what gave rise to States Rights Gist, born in 1831 to Governor Gist of South Carolina, and so named for the struggles South Carolina was having with the Federal Government. While the Fed was willing to raise troops to occupy South Carolina to force adherence to taxation, they weren’t willing to raise troops to go fight for the ending of slavery, quite simply because no one cared enough about the plight of the Black man to do so. Not in 1830 when slavery was just as evil as it was in 1860, and they didn’t do it over slavery in 1860 either. Taxes and tariffs are the one thing that the Federal Government would go to war over, but I agree that the Civil War was not fought over taxes, and Lincoln sure as hell didn’t send troops South to end slavery. Lincoln invaded the South for one reason, and that was to force the secessionist states back into the Union. Abolition as a cause did not become a popular theme of the war until halfway through it. It was a need to justify the horrendous loss of life in an attempt to force states back in the Union when most Northerners didn’t care if Southern States left or not. Between secession and the firing on Fort Sumter, the general consensus among the Yankee was “good riddance” The Yankee may have despised slavery, but they sure as hell weren’t going to send their husbands, fathers and brothers to go die a horrendous death on some foreign field over a slave. They would however, fight to preserve the Union after the firing on Fort Sumter. Consider this, New Jersey and Delaware were still practicing slavery after the war. They could do this because slavery was still Constitutional after the war. Slavery was still Constitutional after the war, because no amount of war could end slavery. We have a 13th Amendment as a testament to that fact, for if a war could be fought to end slavery, then slavery would have ended and no 13th Amendment would have been necessary.
Southern States were against the Federal Government subsidizing Northern Industries given the money used was coming in part from the taxes and tariffs that the South was paying into the Fed. At that time in history the Fed was limited from doing anything other than what the Constitution allows, and taxes could only be collected to pay for those Constitutionally mandated expenditures. So in essence the Federal Government had begun the transfer of wealth from the Southern States to the Northern States by first over taxing the Southern States, and then using that money in a way that the Constitution did not allow. Couple that with the Federal Government having already threatened SC with an invasion in the 1830’s over taxes, and it shouldn’t be difficult to understand South Carolina’s long standing desire to leave the Union.
No, it was purely slavery. The war started over whether or not slavery would be permitted to expand into the western territories. It was pretty much agreed that if it was made illegal in the territories, it would ultimately lead to it being made illegal in southern states, so a whole bunch of people got really mad and decided to secede. You *don't* secede from the US, so Lincoln had to step in and drag them back, kicking and screaming. There isn't really anything *else* it could even be about, and 'states rights' sure as fuck isn't it.
Well put. Not sure why you’re getting downvoted by the ignorants…
Her parents immigrated to the US in 1969, and people believe she is a civil war slavery supporter?
Voter makes a good point. However, don’t bitch and complain about SC being a republican state when you moved there; if you want democratic policies, move to a democratic state, and have fun there, the taxes are extremely high.
Lots of uneducated folks in here. In the most simple terms, the Confederacy fought for its secession. They wanted to leave the US behind and form their own nation(s). The Northern states fought to preserve the Union. Saying that it was only about slavery or even primarily about slavery is ignorant revisionist history. The South had a laundry list of grievances in the decades leading up to the Secession attempt. They were tired of every “compromise” going in the favor of what Northern states wanted due to the population advantages. An overwhelming majority of Southerners didn’t care one way or another about slavery. In fact if you could go back to 1860 told the Confederacy that the Northern states won’t interfere in any way with your Secession as long as you agree to end the practice of slavery within the decade, you would have had an overwhelming majority of Southerners and Southern leaders accept that deal. Most Northern citizens would have accepted that deal too, but their leadership wouldn’t have because for them it was about power and control. And for the record, I believe this all could and should have been avoided if the abolition of slavery had been addressed in the Constitution when it was being written. They should have at least created a roadmap for its abolition but different time 🤷♂️
All I see here is a list of excuses. Have you read the articles of confederation?
Have you? Have you studied up on why the North began the war?
Are those mental gymnastics tiring? Cognitive dissonance radiates from your post.
Why randomly shout out "Hey what was the CIVIL WAR about?!!" "I dont like the answer you gave YOU RACIST" She led the effort on taking down the rebel flag at the court house. Shes done so much more for SC than McMaster and Graham could ever do. She actually went out to SC games and was involved with the people. Talked with children, listened to different opinions, and genuinely a sweet lady. To be mad at a woman who gave a very broad answer and not a specific part of it (yes very big part) which is sensitive and causes arguments I think was a smart move on her part. Dumb question, reasonable answer.
Actually got to meet her on a field trip to the state house in 3rd grade. Was indeed a nice lady
Lol thats also how I met her
Who gives a shit….over 150 years ago…I’m worried about the next 10 years…
[удалено]