Some say Haley was wrong for not mentioning slavery as the cause of the civil war

Imo you should read them all and will likely concede if you do that your opinion of "but for Lincoln" that this wouldn't have happened as it did is, ah, well, to me anyway far and away exceptionally misdirected as the stronger but for is "but for slavery".

 

Curious regarding your position on my first question.
Just to be clear, regarding Donald Trump's 2024 candidacy, you are in favor of his lead as the R candidate?
And would vote to return him to the US Presidency?

 

I've never been a Trump enthusiast, but saw him as that classic "lesser of two evils" in 2016 and 2020. For so many reasons, I'd prefer that he just goes home to Florida and plays golf for the rest of his life -- in blissful silence.

My ideal candidate would be an impossible synthesis of Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy. NO chance of anyone like that ever surfacing in this decaying country again, so, it's all back to that "lesser of two evils" crap again....

Now, I'm done with this deflection from thread topic -- got anything to say about the actual cause of the Civil War?

 

This is so goofy.

Slavery was the central reason for the Civil War....period.

Some folks want to split hairs for their own agenda but facts are facts.

 

Oooo, you're done with deflection whilst raising a deflection that the casus belli was 10A rather than slavery? You can pursue this line of debate with someone other than me Sir.

 

Sorry, but that's just sore loser whining.
The principles set forth in the Texas v White decision are eternal; there's no revisionism required. The secessionists' deficient understanding is not an argument.
What the Wehrmacht generals and others admired about Sherman was his speed and tactical flexibility.
Sherman: Soldier, Realist, American by Hart, B. H. Liddell

Amazon.com
https://www.amazon.com › Sherman-American-B-Lid...


B.H. Liddell Hart lives up to his reputation as a groundbreaking military strategist and tactician with an evaluation of the key American Civil War leader in ...

 

Well, inasmuch as the OP title is "Some say Haley was wrong for not mentioning slavery as the cause of the civil war", I'd say that a discussion about what the real cause of the "casus belli" is in order -- and that takes a serious student of the American Civil War directly to the stark difference of opinions held by Northerners and Southerners concerning states' rights!

Slavery, per se, was a very prominent feature in the overall antagonism in the situation, but the fulcrum upon which the argument was being leveraged was the 10th Amendment and the rights of the individual States versus a central Federal Government.

It's amazing that many people who have an otherwise respectable, knowledgeable understanding about so many other topics that appear in this Forum utterly fail to 'get it' about this one... but what they exhibit more than anything else is a colossal 'allergic' reaction to even a mere suggestion that States have sovereign rights, independent of the dictates of the same Federal Government that was closely limited by the Founding Fathers in our Constitution.

 

(Sigh!) Yes, and we can go back and cherry-pick enumerations of 'eternal truth' gems from every compact and charter men ever wrote, starting with the Code of Hammurabi, the Holy Bible, Roman Law, English Common Law, and proceeding right on up to our Constitution.

But to say that a Supreme Court decision (Texas v White, 1869) declaring that an individual state cannot secede from the U. S., which is issued FIVE YEARS AFTER the secession and resultant civil war ENDS is as blatantly and conveniently inventive as it is imaginative, plus so self-serving for those who want to forget that there is nothing in the Constitution itself that FORBIDS a state to be able to leave....

 

The ignorance of the secessionists does not constrain the Constitutional soundness of Texas v White.

 

You're absolutely right! Victors make the rules, and "might makes right"... just ask your General Sherman....

Have a happy new year anyhow... I remember better times when we weren't so at odds.

 

Well, if Breckinridge won, I doubt the south would have seceded and the union wouldn't have needed to be saved.

So, yeah, 'but for Lincoln'.

True, eventually the issue would have to be settled, at some future point, but whether or not it would have resulted in a war, no one knows.

"slavery' is the flip side of the same coin.

Lincoln's motive was to save the union, not to free the slaves, per se. He said so. That being said, he's widely known in the south as an abolitionist.

The south, sensing abolition on the horizon, seceded.

So, two sides of the same coin. But, again, if Breckinridge had won, I doubt there would have been a secession, and thus no war.

 

"slavery' is the flip side of the same coin.

Lincoln's motive was to save the union, not to free the slaves, per se. He said so (in a letter published in the NYTIMES). That being said, he's widely known in the south as an abolitionist.

The south, sensing abolition on the horizon, seceded.

So, two sides of the same coin. But, again, if Breckinridge had won, I doubt there would have been a secession, and thus no war.

 

The principles existed before Texas v White.
Happy New Year.

 

You'll have to concern yourself with the UK's laws.

You're guessing.

Article IV, Section 3:

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."​

States cannot secede without an act of Congress.

Are you trying to figure out a way it was okay for the South to secede? It wasn't and the leaders of the South were traitors.

The clear path is an act of Congress and a state law.

It's set out in the Constitution

Secession was caused by a wish to protect the institution of slavery and a fear for the future if the slaves were freed.

There was a bloody war the rebels won. More than a few would have had stretched necks if they had lost.

Congress has the power to conduct relations with other countries. We can add territory or subtract it. We can add states, but you say otherwise?

The key here is your wish to secede doesn't mean you get to leave. Congress has to agree.

The South claimed they had the right to secede. They did not.

But there was--get the federal government to pass legislation that would let you go.

Huh? What does this have to do with the South seceding without agreement of the federal government.

You said that. Without a deal with the feds, the South were traitors.

 

Could be. Trump is sounding increasingly like a fascist.

 

You may be motivated by the 10th, but it's just an excuse for the racists. Anyone stupid enough to be a racist isn't operating at a high level.

Because slavery was the cause. Many Southerners were illiterate or poorly educated. Their relationship with the Constitution was akin to that of professed Christians to the Bible who can't name the four gospels.

I said help should be based on need, not race.

What's the agenda you're conjuring up for me?

LBJ was wrong, but that's because he was a racist.

 

Article IV, Section 3:

"New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."​

The way out is the way in--an act of Congress.

 

Excellent piece.

'Nikki Haley’s comment on the US civil war was no gaffe'
Sidney Blumenthal

snip:

"It may not have occurred to Haley that there are no Confederate monuments in New Hampshire. There are nearly 100 in the state to the Union cause. One-tenth of the population of New Hampshire at the time served in the Union army: 32,750 men, of whom nearly 5,000 died, 130 in Confederate prisons. The fifth New Hampshire volunteer infantry had the highest casualty rate of any Union regiment. About 900 soldiers from New Hampshire fought at Gettysburg, suffering 368 casualties, many of whom are buried at the cemetery there, where Lincoln delivered his address explaining their sacrifice for a “government of, by and for the people”. The monument to the fifth New Hampshire is one of five monuments to Granite state units at the Gettysburg battlefield.

If Haley appears unfamiliar with the history of New Hampshire’s contribution to the preservation of democracy and emancipation, she is certainly well acquainted with South Carolina’s attempt at its destruction, and the history that both preceded and followed it, which has been apparent in her efforts to soften and cover it up.

Surely, when she entered her office as governor in the state capitol of South Carolina in Columbia, Haley recognized the larger-than-life brass statue of John C Calhoun, "

cont:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...leys-comment-on-the-us-civil-war-was-no-gaffe

 

I agree.

 

Yet the stated purpose of the secession was to preserve slavery.

Let's say that you buy a 4 scoop triple fudge ice cream cone and become so enraptured by it that you stop dead in the middle of 5th Ave. to enjoy it. The police arrive and tell you to move along but you refuse. While they might not have cared about your eating triple fudge and tell you so they do care that you let traffic flow. So, given the choice they now take your triple fudge cone from you to get you out of the street.

Lincoln was in a situation where he could say he doesn't care about your owning slaves, only about preserving the Union, but was in a position where the South insisted on secession as the only means under which they could realistically own slaves because they knew slavery was going to end. Like you knew someone would take your triple fudge away from you no matter how much they claim otherwise.

 

I'd liken it to heads and tails of the same coin

Heads = Lincoln wants to save the union, and if he could save it without freeing the slaves, he would do it, because he stated this in a letter to the NYTimes

Tails = The south, sensing that Lincoln was an abolitionist, seceded, forcing lincoln, with this knowledge, to free the slaves in order to save the union.

 

States can leave with Congressional approval (an act of Congress) and the approval of the state involved. Both are required. Says so here...

Article IV, Section 3:

"New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."​

It makes sense given states have often been formed from U.S. territory.

 

The actual cause was slavery. Hands down.

 

Without trying to be coy, I honestly don't see in that text of Article IV, Section 3 anything that forbids a state to leave the United States. I do see that it says established states cannot be 'subdivided' or 'melded together' to make one new state out of two existing ones. And it does say that Congress has the power to dispose of any of the property belonging to the Federal Government (i.e., the United States), but in 1860 the individual, sovereign states were not construed by anyone to be the "property", per se, of anyone in any collective sense but that state's citizens!

As I've said repeatedly, AFTER the Civil War, and AFTER Lincoln and his Northern faction had mangled and permanently crippled the 10th Amendment, the underlying basis for everything changed... but... BEFORE the Civil War, what we remember today as "States Rights" were very real, very tangible, and very enforceable. And, again, very honestly, I simply do not see that any state was forbidden the right to leave....

Brilliant. I'll bet it took you all of ten seconds to type that.

 

From Texas v White:
"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.[8]"