As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The "Lost Cause" is an interpretation of the American Civil War viewed by most historians as a myth that attempts to preserve the honour of the South by casting the Confederate defeat in the best possible light. It attributes the loss to the overwhelming Union advantage in manpower and resources, nostalgically celebrates an antebellum South of supposedly benevolent slave owners and contented enslaved people, and downplays or altogether ignores slavery as the cause of war. It became the philosophical foundation for the racial violence and terrorism employed to reverse Reconstruction and for the reimposition of white supremacy in the Jim Crow era.
A film example of the lost cause bullshit is gods and generals. Sweet jumping fuck I have never cringed so hard watching a movie, I think it gave me permanent nerve damage.
[Atun-Shei’s video breaking down why that movie sucks so bad is a comfort watch to me at this point.](https://youtu.be/S3E2FdedPwU?si=ckMQSRFIWwSwySma)
I was raised by a racist, bigot who preached this Lost Cause philosophy. Incidentally, he was also acquainted with the elder Shaara, and, as a Confederate reenactor, appears in Gods and Generals as an extra.
I feel like way too many people learned their history of the Civil War through Gone With the Wind. It’s a work of fiction, like you said, that romanticizes forced labor camps and southern American aristocracy.
My dad believes Gone with the Wind is a better representation of slavery than the thousands of diaries, journals, pictures, artwork, and first hand first hand accounts that completely discredit it. He doesn't really believe that, but that's what his racist ass chooses to say out loud because he's too much of a coward to admit he's a racist even though I've heard him go on plenty of racist rants in my lifetime.
I was taught this growing up in Florida (early 2010s). I remember another big component of this was being taught the southern generals were incredibly intelligent and brilliant strategists, and the northern generals were idiots who only won because of huge unearned advantages.
Learning about the lost cause theory in my adult life was WILD to say the least.
There's a lot of idiots everywhere. There's not enough talented people to fill every job, so you work with what you have in the system you have.
It was worse back then when you could just buy a commission.
Yeah, as a Californian in a good school district, I'd never been exposed to it until I joined the army and most of those guys had been taught the Lost Cause propaganda.
One thing that recently dawned on me, think about how much over-representation while the US was being set up the south had for the first 75 years due to the 3/5ths clause.
Today, prisoners from urban areas that are incarcerated in rural areas count toward the rural areas population for representation, but aren't enfranchised
That was the whole point. The south wanted them to be slaves but also wanted them to count for population representation. The Northerners, logically, said if they aren’t free people then how can they count for government representation? The north caved and made a bad compromise and the left of the this country has been following the example since.
Adding onto this, when Congress was debating tax obligations under the Articles of Confederation, southern states initially objected to that ratio because it meant that they would have to pay higher taxes. Congress wasn't able to reach a compromise for this issue, but it created a precedent that was brought up again during the Constitutional Convention and representation in Congress.
Great - it was a good first step. Years have passed since that amendment was added. The folks wanting to game the system to figure out a way around the text, as dubious as that “way” may be have succeeded in doing so. Hence why we need to Amend it more, or toss it and start again. It was supposed to be a LIVING document, but then, ya know, greed and power and people happened.
You don’t know the Constitution very well if you’re saying this. It was ignored intentionally and kicked down the curb until the Reconstruction amendments. Jefferson, a southern slave holder, actually wrote an anti-slavery pronouncement into the original Declaration of Independence in 1776, but the other southern states insisted it be removed. Again, it was omitted in the 1789 ratification of our original Constitution. I am certain you and I are on the same side with these issues, but it doesn’t help when you say things like this which aren’t true. It makes you look like you’re a right winger lol.
The book NO PROPERTY IN MAN discusses this question at length (as in, the entire book): whether the founders were enshrining slavery in our Constitution. I'm with you that it was not their intent to protect it and that the provisions that were ratified were compromises to get slave states on board.
Wanting to Amend a living document to protect those referred to it as “other people’s” is right wing?
While the 14th may have repealed the language of Article 1, Section 2 - it still remains an impact hundreds of years down the road and could be easier to negate if we continued to amend that document. Any system that is around long enough can be “gamed” by those with power, money, and intent. Such as another user pointed out in this thread that currently the 13th amendment is circumventing the 14th by using Prisoners for Slave Labor.
I’m well aware of the varying stances of our founding father’s on slavery - the deal they made with the Slavers of the South to establish this country was folly even if necessary at the time to fight off the British. We need to correct it, it is a poison that harms ALL of us in perpetuity.
No, not at all. I’m all for amending it logically and appropriately in accordance with the law. I’m saying that the statement “slavery is also literally baked into our Constitution” isn’t factual at all, which is usually something right wing people do.
The current document, even with the current “edits” is still based on a compromise between the powers of the original colonies and that compromise was that “other peoples” do not have the same rights or count as much as the “white” people do. The compromise between the Slavers and Power brokers of the other colonies is this country’s “original sin” and corrupted our “experiment” right out of the gate. Not sure a system established corruptly can ever be recognized as anything but - however, here we are, once again - dealing with this original sin as a society just as we have had to since the founding. We will ever be able to find our way through and rise up to correct these injustices? Your guess is as good as mine.
I’d recommend not using so many terms you got from propaganda outlets. For profit media is only designed to get clicks/views/interactions through sparking outrage. Your diction is a perfect mirror of theirs. The current document doesn’t have slavery “literally baked into it.” Our experiment was tainted from the beginning by ignoring the issue of slavery, but it didn’t bake it into itself.
We do keep coming back to these issues over and over again. It’s going to continue to take time, but I think we can get there. It’s important that those of us who are on the side of equality and truth and justice don’t spread misinformation in the same way that slavery sympathizers do.
Propaganda? Can you be more specific as to what phrase(s) you are referring to in my comment(s) that come across this way?
I avoid TV news like the plague and read more nuanced, long form articles if reading about these topics. I read from multiple sources - even the batshit crazy ones just to see what the “messaging” is on the other side of the aisle. I’m well aware of the cooperate ownership of our media outlets and the “spin” that can create - which while not inherently political, is self serving and becomes political- no matter the side projecting the message.
You know what I really LOVE though when it comes to this shit? Court and legal documents. No need to wait for someone else to read and interpret - I can do so myself and study any legal terms/issues I don’t understand using educational resources on the web.
If my vernacular tends to mirror what you feel you are hearing from propagandists, it is unintentional and is actually born of my own understanding and synthesis of the events/info I’ve read about - going far beyond our national history, which anyone trying to wrap their heads around what is going on today really need to go back further and look at also. This is the same cycle that has permeated human history as soon as we stopped being hunter gatherers.
The haves and have nots. The organization/dominance of Hierarchical Power. The establishment of economic systems that harm many at the benefit of a few.
We can do better.
Your diction, such as using a verb like “bake” to describe racism embedded in legislation and phrases like “system established corruptly”, perfectly mirrors for profit, corporate media outlets who don’t really care about getting their journalism right.
I couldn’t agree more about your point about primary sources, especially court documents and legislation; however, you completely and totally incorrectly described the US Constitution in the same manner I’ve seen left wing propagandists describe it.
What other terms would you use for these compromises made and codified into our society if not “corrupt”? It is inherently corrupt to treat and tell others they are of less/little value based solely on the pigment of their skin, is it not?
I understand your concerns with my terminology, have you felt it has been somewhat clarified via our nuanced conversation?
I agree we are coming from the same place of intent.
I mean, cards on the table you’re talking to someone who would love to see the society of Star Trek: TNG come to fruition, as far as standard of living. However, I’m a realist and right now I’d be happy to settle for a well regulated capitalist system with a strong finical safety net for those who need it, without being exploited or having to jump through hoops and supported by eliminating economic loopholes exploited by the rich to make sure money starts flowing the right direction again and so we are not beholden to our work for needed care. Let’s revise the tax codes while we are at it too.
I just hope, though I really hope it doesn’t happen at all, that if a second civil war starts and free people win again that we don’t follow in the failures of those that came before us and actually punish those perpetrators harshly - that’s why we are where we are, the north was too soft in reconstruction.
I hate to say this, but denying the civil war was about slavery is standard operating procedure for Republicans in the deep south.
This was doubly true in 2010, the year of the Tea Party "revolution," when the racists were all triggered by having a black man in the White House.
So embracing the Lost Cause mythology angers liberals from outside the South, but it never cost Haley any Republican votes in South Carolina, and I doubt it will cost her many votes in the Republican primaries. Remember that the main alternatives are Trump and DeSantis.
Another thing-- remember that in 2015, then-Governor Haley signed a bill removing the Confederate flag from the South Carolina statehouse. This was in response to a white supremacist killing nine black members of Emmanuel African Methodist Church in Charleston:
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/confederate-flag-furor/gov-haley-sign-bill-removing-confederate-flag-n389231
Haley took a lot of flack from the right wing over that bill, and it will definitely cost her some votes in Republican primaries. I'm not sure she'd be a viable primary candidate in southern states if she came out and rejected the "Lost Cause" myth on top of taking down the Confederate flag in Charleston.
Exactly. Everyone is acting like this is some kind of gotcha for Haley. She's probably going to get a 5% bump in the polls of Republican voters from all of this.
Denying history itself to change the very foundation of our county is de rigour for Conservatives.
When I lived in rural SC, people had this really weird view that the American Revolution was about Americans fighting against England for the right to be Christian(?) and have a Christian nation. It's impossible to have a historical discourse with nuance with Conservatives so I usually just say "no that's the one about taxation without representation" and they're usually like "oh yeah" then silence.
It's such a very simple thing for them to check using a primary source as well. Such as looking at the official declarations by the southern states of their joining the confederacy:
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
Here's the one from Mississippi:
> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
I'm Southern. From Alabama. I like to think that I'm at least somewhat intelligent. I love history. I love learning. In high school, I was in the honor classes, and excelled in history.
I never even knew the Articles of Secession **existed** until I was an adult, around 23-24. My mother and uncle are similar to me. You know when they found out? When **I** told them!
This is one of the problems. The South is intentionally kept uneducated, to prime us to accept excuses without thought later.
I weep for my area. If Reconstruction had been done right, how great might we be now?
I grew up in Oklahoma. In second or third grade (I’m 45 for context) we were learning about the civil war. I don’t remember what the textbook said but I remember my teacher saying “people say it was about slavery but it was about money. It wasn’t about slavery.” I had heard enough about it outside of school that even then I thought it was strange to hear her say that but I never understood why until much later in life.
The tradition of enslaving other people. I like how snowflakey they always are about it too. Can't say slavery around the republicans, someone might get upset.
But BUT I was told it was the EVIL democrats who fought to preserve slavery and it was the GREAT republicans who abolished it. Surely if the parties have remained the same over the many years, modern republicans would have no issues celebrating their important victory over slavery, right? They’d be all in on tearing down the treasonous, democrat participation trophies we refer to as statues, right? They’d be fighting the democrats’ attempt to rewrite/ erase history and indoctrinate our school children with Lost Cause propaganda, right? They would be outraged at the sight of the confederate battle flag being flown, celebrated, and paraded at political rallies as it is a symbol of an enemy state that waged a war against America, right? After all, republicans are still the part of Lincoln, right?!
When my extended family crows about Republicans being the party of Lincoln I like to say "You're right and that was really great! Refresh my memory though, what have the Republicans done for Black people in the last 70 years?."
Never gotten an answer.
Tell them that Lincoln and Marx wrote letters to each other. Or how they were the party of big government (hence the federal power of ending slavery) and how the other party was screaming about states' rights. What are Republicans saying *now*?
We need to stop talking about the Civil War as between the Union army and the Confederate army. Lets call it what it was: A war between the US and a slaver army
These days they'd be considered terrorists; using violence to try and effect political change. They didn't like that Lincoln won the election, so they got their guns out and started attacking federal troops.
No, she's an ambitious and self-serving politician in the worst possible way. Haley knows full well what the root cause of the Civil War was, but she doesn't want to alienate her racist voting base by acknowledging reality.
These videos are a perfect example of Nikki's cowardice, but even more so, they are such a damning indictment of the right wing voters and how utterly grotesque and out of control they are.
I don't understand why people are parading around her first name like it's an insult ... it feels like 2008 when Obama's middle name was being treated the same way
According to Wiki, "Nikki" has been her Punjabi nickname since she was born. It's just convenient that it's also a typical American white given name ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ And then she married a white guy and took his surname to erase the rest ¯\\\_/¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯\\\_/¯
It's a shame that she probably can't tout her "successful Sikh immigrant family" backstory to her own voting base though
I still don't like the idea of using what she calls herself as some sort of "gotcha" ammunition. She's got enough faults to kill her candidacy as it is
Does anyone think pointing it out is actually a gotcha or anything like that? I thought we were just pointing out their hypocrisy.
Where’s Nikki’s long form birth certificate?
A 2010 video of Nikki Haley has resurfaced amid fallout from the former South Carolina governor not citing slavery as a cause of the Civil War at a New Hampshire town hall.
Haley has been in cleanup mode all of Thursday, declaring in a New Hampshire radio interview and in another town hall that "of course" the Civil War was about slavery.
She also accused the voter she verbally sparred with on the subject on Wednesday a "Democrat plant." She also noted at her Thursday town hall her decision to remove the Confederate flag from the state capitol while serving as governor in 2015.
Haley was asked the very same question about the cause of the Civil War in 2010. She described the conflict as "tradition versus change."
"I mean, again, as we look at government, as we watch government, you have different sides, and I think that you see passions on different sides, and I don't think anyone does anything out of hate. I think what they do is, they do things out of tradition and their beliefs about what they believe is right," she said. "I think you had one side of the Civil War that was fighting for tradition, and I think you had another side of the Civil War that was fighting for change. At the end of the day, what I think we need to remember is that, you know, everyone is supposed to have their rights, everyone is supposed to be free, everyone's supposed to have the same freedoms as everyone else so I think it was tradition versus change. That's the way I see it."
So many mentions of "freedoms" and "rights" but doesn't mention that the Confederates were killing one group of people to preserve their own ability to strip another group of their "freedoms" and "rights." They fully believed (and still do, apparently) that their own freedoms and rights override those of non-whites/non-Christians.
> I don't think anyone does anything out of hate
Really? How do we explain the KKK even after they lost the war? How do we explain the threats made on judges today? How do we explain the anti-semitism from the right wing?
>At the end of the day, what I think we need to remember is that, you know, everyone is supposed to have their rights, everyone is supposed to be free, everyone's supposed to have the same freedoms as everyone else so I think it was tradition versus change. That's the way I see it."
So when she says "everyone" does she mean white people only (like Conservatives usually do) and Tradition vs Change were equally valuable because whites on both sides should have the right/freedom to do as they please, or does "everyone" include Blacks as well who had no rights or freedom?
Because if everyone is supposed to have rights, be free, and have the same freedom as everyone else then she's saying "Tradition" was de facto immoral.
> She also accused the voter she verbally sparred with on the subject on Wednesday a "Democrat plant."
It's a fairly common question to ask politicians. That isn't a trap question at all. The question is about gauging a basic understanding of history and politics in the US. That's why there's a video of Haley answering the exact same question in 2010.
New Hampshire also has an open primary. So independents and Democrats can vote for Republicans in the primary. It isn't just supposed to be Republicans voting and asking questions.
Louisiana here.
I hate that damn foghorn Leghorn accent he puts on with every fiber of my being.
He's a well-educated man who has good speaking ability and good diction.
But you wouldn't know it cuz he's got to talk to the ribs like he's one of but you wouldn't know it cuz he's got to talk to the rubes like he's one of them.
She's the 2nd frontrunner right now b/c she's seen as pragmatic (abortion).
This is a very unpragmatic position. (Civil War was about making Southerners look bad.)
Looking un pragmatic on the Civil War isn’t a deal breaker for any republican.
And as far as the Maga base goes, it would be more damaging to her campaign to denounce the confederacy than it would be to accurately portray the historical cause of the Civil War.
The Hitler quotes were the first thing I've seen ding Trump. I think there are a lot of non-racist (insofar as anyone can not be racist) conservatives that are getting sick of how hard it is to argue that they aren't racist by proxy.
So when I moved from NYC to South Carolina and sent my kids to public school, I anticipated a fight over how they taught the history of the Civil War. I was sure that they were going to do the standard whitewash bs about states rights, but was pleasantly surprised when they told the story straight.
Can't stand Nikki Haley, and many here in South Carolina are a lost cause to the red cult, but I'm happy to report that at some level the Charleston School District has its shit together.
A reflection not just of MAGA's unwillingness to comprehend history that makes white people look bad but of South Carolina's inability to come to terms with its slavery past. "Heritage not Hate" the bumper stickers read...but exactly what made the "glory days" of its heritage possible?
Charleston City Market, the “Cultural Center of Charleston” literally has a Daughters of the Confederacy museum on top of it. Descendants of slaves who live in effectively segregated neighborhoods sell sweetgrass baskets below a museum that celebrates the war effort to keep their ancestors in bondage. That sums up the city that’s the pride of SC, and Haley was the successful governor of that state.
Zero shock here.
>I think you had one side of the Civil War that was fighting for tradition, and I think you had another side of the Civil War that was fighting for change.
I'm curious which side she thinks was fighting for tradition and which was fighting for change. The North's motivation was the preservation of the union. The South was attempting to form a new government.
but they were the change, party of Lincoln and all...
it should be easy to take the cake here on the Republican Party having been "on the right side of history" back then.
they just can't seem to offend social conservatives for some reason.
Were there other things that led up to the Civil War and secession? Sure. The fear of a more involved federal government had been growing in the south.
It’s completely ignorant and revisionist to suggest that slavery was not the straw that broke the camels back ***and*** the rallying cry of the south during the Civil War. It is referenced in all of the secession documents as a main reason for secession and rebellion, before Lincoln had even done anything about slavery I might add.
According to Nikki Haley…. Slavery = Tradition.
The politician that won’t denounce slavery because they are afraid of losing votes should never be president.
It's worth noting that according to the 1860 census 703,000 people lived in South Carolina. Of them, only white men, roughly 96,000 people (around 14%), could have been eligible to vote.
Source: [https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/population/1860a-32.pdf](https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/population/1860a-32.pdf)
The North violated our states rights by making the South shoot first! Coincidentally during the same time period the South was politely demanding that they had the right to go into other states and take *property* regardless of state laws 🤡
Her beliefs make no space for the rights of those enslaved. Or their humanity. She sees them as a commodity. The only way she could say what she said is if she believes the slaves and their descendants are sub human.
I guess I'm a little out of the loop; help is appreciated.
Is the new thing for the GOP the denial of slavery in the US? Akin to the Holocaust never happened?
Is she planning on leading the nation into civil war every time there is a change of tradition? What level of change qualifies for civil war?
Does changing the tradition of allowing abortion meet that bar?
I do find it interesting how the media in general is (rightly) raking Nikki Haley across the coals for this, but if that exact answer came from Trump he'd probably be praised for his "diplomatic and nuanced response" or something lol
*Which* change exactly, Nikki? Dodging the important bit once again. How much of Southern Civil War discourse is “if we avoid elaborating we can pretend it wasn’t all about racial supremacy and slavery”, because as an outsider it looks like a good chunk.
Fuck your “tradition”! If it were up to conservatives of the time, we’d still be under the rule of Great Britain. So put your Gadsden flags away, you want to be tread on by an autocrat!
The south wants to pretend that slave owners were all about relaxing and sipping ice tea on the porch. In reality they were ruthless capitalists. There was no tradition about it. All their grandfathers would have been stunned to see how profitable and huge southern cotton would become.
Just look at the number of stories on this news feed about Haley, the press’ must think shes doing pretty well with republicans to be this frothing in their coverage 🤣
The ultimate cause of the American Civil War was a fundamental dispute over the power of the federal government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The "Lost Cause" is an interpretation of the American Civil War viewed by most historians as a myth that attempts to preserve the honour of the South by casting the Confederate defeat in the best possible light. It attributes the loss to the overwhelming Union advantage in manpower and resources, nostalgically celebrates an antebellum South of supposedly benevolent slave owners and contented enslaved people, and downplays or altogether ignores slavery as the cause of war. It became the philosophical foundation for the racial violence and terrorism employed to reverse Reconstruction and for the reimposition of white supremacy in the Jim Crow era.
A film example of the lost cause bullshit is gods and generals. Sweet jumping fuck I have never cringed so hard watching a movie, I think it gave me permanent nerve damage.
[Atun-Shei’s video breaking down why that movie sucks so bad is a comfort watch to me at this point.](https://youtu.be/S3E2FdedPwU?si=ckMQSRFIWwSwySma)
Excellent video, and excellent channel in general, too!
I was raised by a racist, bigot who preached this Lost Cause philosophy. Incidentally, he was also acquainted with the elder Shaara, and, as a Confederate reenactor, appears in Gods and Generals as an extra.
My dad HATES that movie.
Gone With the Wind is fiction
I feel like way too many people learned their history of the Civil War through Gone With the Wind. It’s a work of fiction, like you said, that romanticizes forced labor camps and southern American aristocracy.
Between Antebellum and the Golden Age peoples history has been distored by white supremacists
My dad believes Gone with the Wind is a better representation of slavery than the thousands of diaries, journals, pictures, artwork, and first hand first hand accounts that completely discredit it. He doesn't really believe that, but that's what his racist ass chooses to say out loud because he's too much of a coward to admit he's a racist even though I've heard him go on plenty of racist rants in my lifetime.
The best part is when Sherman burns Atlanta.
MGHA make Georgia howl again
I was taught this growing up in Florida (early 2010s). I remember another big component of this was being taught the southern generals were incredibly intelligent and brilliant strategists, and the northern generals were idiots who only won because of huge unearned advantages. Learning about the lost cause theory in my adult life was WILD to say the least.
To be fair, there were a lot of idiots among the northern generals
Haha true, I think the inaccuracy was overstating how smart the southern generals were.
No, I think they're generally considered to be better generals, doomed to failure by inadequate resources, thank God
There's a lot of idiots everywhere. There's not enough talented people to fill every job, so you work with what you have in the system you have. It was worse back then when you could just buy a commission.
Yeah, as a Californian in a good school district, I'd never been exposed to it until I joined the army and most of those guys had been taught the Lost Cause propaganda.
Genuinly my favorite confederate excuse like yeah the union won because they had more resources that’s how you win a war
Slavery is also literally baked into our Constitution. Until we fix, or scrap that document, this issue will persist.
*The 14th amendment has entered the chat*
One thing that recently dawned on me, think about how much over-representation while the US was being set up the south had for the first 75 years due to the 3/5ths clause.
Just the first 75 years? Blacks were disenfranchised after Reconstruction too but still counted towards the South's population numbers.
Today, prisoners from urban areas that are incarcerated in rural areas count toward the rural areas population for representation, but aren't enfranchised
Good point
That was the whole point. The south wanted them to be slaves but also wanted them to count for population representation. The Northerners, logically, said if they aren’t free people then how can they count for government representation? The north caved and made a bad compromise and the left of the this country has been following the example since.
Adding onto this, when Congress was debating tax obligations under the Articles of Confederation, southern states initially objected to that ratio because it meant that they would have to pay higher taxes. Congress wasn't able to reach a compromise for this issue, but it created a precedent that was brought up again during the Constitutional Convention and representation in Congress.
Kind of like how small, conservative, rural states are over represented in the Senate today.
And even large, conservative rural states with minimal population are over represented too. Looking at you Wyoming, North Dakota, etc.
Great - it was a good first step. Years have passed since that amendment was added. The folks wanting to game the system to figure out a way around the text, as dubious as that “way” may be have succeeded in doing so. Hence why we need to Amend it more, or toss it and start again. It was supposed to be a LIVING document, but then, ya know, greed and power and people happened.
They could also be pointing out that the 14th still allows for forced labor among the convicted.
That’s fair and correct. I just read their comment another way.
No worries, this is a very charged time in our countries history.
Yall it’s the 13th amendment, not the 14th
You don’t know the Constitution very well if you’re saying this. It was ignored intentionally and kicked down the curb until the Reconstruction amendments. Jefferson, a southern slave holder, actually wrote an anti-slavery pronouncement into the original Declaration of Independence in 1776, but the other southern states insisted it be removed. Again, it was omitted in the 1789 ratification of our original Constitution. I am certain you and I are on the same side with these issues, but it doesn’t help when you say things like this which aren’t true. It makes you look like you’re a right winger lol.
The book NO PROPERTY IN MAN discusses this question at length (as in, the entire book): whether the founders were enshrining slavery in our Constitution. I'm with you that it was not their intent to protect it and that the provisions that were ratified were compromises to get slave states on board.
Wanting to Amend a living document to protect those referred to it as “other people’s” is right wing? While the 14th may have repealed the language of Article 1, Section 2 - it still remains an impact hundreds of years down the road and could be easier to negate if we continued to amend that document. Any system that is around long enough can be “gamed” by those with power, money, and intent. Such as another user pointed out in this thread that currently the 13th amendment is circumventing the 14th by using Prisoners for Slave Labor. I’m well aware of the varying stances of our founding father’s on slavery - the deal they made with the Slavers of the South to establish this country was folly even if necessary at the time to fight off the British. We need to correct it, it is a poison that harms ALL of us in perpetuity.
No, not at all. I’m all for amending it logically and appropriately in accordance with the law. I’m saying that the statement “slavery is also literally baked into our Constitution” isn’t factual at all, which is usually something right wing people do.
The current document, even with the current “edits” is still based on a compromise between the powers of the original colonies and that compromise was that “other peoples” do not have the same rights or count as much as the “white” people do. The compromise between the Slavers and Power brokers of the other colonies is this country’s “original sin” and corrupted our “experiment” right out of the gate. Not sure a system established corruptly can ever be recognized as anything but - however, here we are, once again - dealing with this original sin as a society just as we have had to since the founding. We will ever be able to find our way through and rise up to correct these injustices? Your guess is as good as mine.
I’d recommend not using so many terms you got from propaganda outlets. For profit media is only designed to get clicks/views/interactions through sparking outrage. Your diction is a perfect mirror of theirs. The current document doesn’t have slavery “literally baked into it.” Our experiment was tainted from the beginning by ignoring the issue of slavery, but it didn’t bake it into itself. We do keep coming back to these issues over and over again. It’s going to continue to take time, but I think we can get there. It’s important that those of us who are on the side of equality and truth and justice don’t spread misinformation in the same way that slavery sympathizers do.
Propaganda? Can you be more specific as to what phrase(s) you are referring to in my comment(s) that come across this way? I avoid TV news like the plague and read more nuanced, long form articles if reading about these topics. I read from multiple sources - even the batshit crazy ones just to see what the “messaging” is on the other side of the aisle. I’m well aware of the cooperate ownership of our media outlets and the “spin” that can create - which while not inherently political, is self serving and becomes political- no matter the side projecting the message. You know what I really LOVE though when it comes to this shit? Court and legal documents. No need to wait for someone else to read and interpret - I can do so myself and study any legal terms/issues I don’t understand using educational resources on the web. If my vernacular tends to mirror what you feel you are hearing from propagandists, it is unintentional and is actually born of my own understanding and synthesis of the events/info I’ve read about - going far beyond our national history, which anyone trying to wrap their heads around what is going on today really need to go back further and look at also. This is the same cycle that has permeated human history as soon as we stopped being hunter gatherers. The haves and have nots. The organization/dominance of Hierarchical Power. The establishment of economic systems that harm many at the benefit of a few. We can do better.
Your diction, such as using a verb like “bake” to describe racism embedded in legislation and phrases like “system established corruptly”, perfectly mirrors for profit, corporate media outlets who don’t really care about getting their journalism right. I couldn’t agree more about your point about primary sources, especially court documents and legislation; however, you completely and totally incorrectly described the US Constitution in the same manner I’ve seen left wing propagandists describe it.
What other terms would you use for these compromises made and codified into our society if not “corrupt”? It is inherently corrupt to treat and tell others they are of less/little value based solely on the pigment of their skin, is it not? I understand your concerns with my terminology, have you felt it has been somewhat clarified via our nuanced conversation? I agree we are coming from the same place of intent. I mean, cards on the table you’re talking to someone who would love to see the society of Star Trek: TNG come to fruition, as far as standard of living. However, I’m a realist and right now I’d be happy to settle for a well regulated capitalist system with a strong finical safety net for those who need it, without being exploited or having to jump through hoops and supported by eliminating economic loopholes exploited by the rich to make sure money starts flowing the right direction again and so we are not beholden to our work for needed care. Let’s revise the tax codes while we are at it too.
They Lost Cause they were losers
I just hope, though I really hope it doesn’t happen at all, that if a second civil war starts and free people win again that we don’t follow in the failures of those that came before us and actually punish those perpetrators harshly - that’s why we are where we are, the north was too soft in reconstruction.
I hate to say this, but denying the civil war was about slavery is standard operating procedure for Republicans in the deep south. This was doubly true in 2010, the year of the Tea Party "revolution," when the racists were all triggered by having a black man in the White House. So embracing the Lost Cause mythology angers liberals from outside the South, but it never cost Haley any Republican votes in South Carolina, and I doubt it will cost her many votes in the Republican primaries. Remember that the main alternatives are Trump and DeSantis.
Another thing-- remember that in 2015, then-Governor Haley signed a bill removing the Confederate flag from the South Carolina statehouse. This was in response to a white supremacist killing nine black members of Emmanuel African Methodist Church in Charleston: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/confederate-flag-furor/gov-haley-sign-bill-removing-confederate-flag-n389231 Haley took a lot of flack from the right wing over that bill, and it will definitely cost her some votes in Republican primaries. I'm not sure she'd be a viable primary candidate in southern states if she came out and rejected the "Lost Cause" myth on top of taking down the Confederate flag in Charleston.
Exactly. Everyone is acting like this is some kind of gotcha for Haley. She's probably going to get a 5% bump in the polls of Republican voters from all of this.
In the race for Trump’s Running Mate
Denying history itself to change the very foundation of our county is de rigour for Conservatives. When I lived in rural SC, people had this really weird view that the American Revolution was about Americans fighting against England for the right to be Christian(?) and have a Christian nation. It's impossible to have a historical discourse with nuance with Conservatives so I usually just say "no that's the one about taxation without representation" and they're usually like "oh yeah" then silence.
It's such a very simple thing for them to check using a primary source as well. Such as looking at the official declarations by the southern states of their joining the confederacy: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states Here's the one from Mississippi: > Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
I'm Southern. From Alabama. I like to think that I'm at least somewhat intelligent. I love history. I love learning. In high school, I was in the honor classes, and excelled in history. I never even knew the Articles of Secession **existed** until I was an adult, around 23-24. My mother and uncle are similar to me. You know when they found out? When **I** told them! This is one of the problems. The South is intentionally kept uneducated, to prime us to accept excuses without thought later. I weep for my area. If Reconstruction had been done right, how great might we be now?
I grew up in Oklahoma. In second or third grade (I’m 45 for context) we were learning about the civil war. I don’t remember what the textbook said but I remember my teacher saying “people say it was about slavery but it was about money. It wasn’t about slavery.” I had heard enough about it outside of school that even then I thought it was strange to hear her say that but I never understood why until much later in life.
The tradition of enslaving other people. I like how snowflakey they always are about it too. Can't say slavery around the republicans, someone might get upset.
It makes their children feel bad to learn these things in school! boo hoo!
No actual child ever: "I can't handle the fact that in the past people with a skin tone similar to mine did bad things."
Apparently a lot of little caydens and kaleighs in suburban florida and texas can't!
Maybe if we didn't do horrible shit, we wouldn't have to teach anybody about that horrible shit.
But BUT I was told it was the EVIL democrats who fought to preserve slavery and it was the GREAT republicans who abolished it. Surely if the parties have remained the same over the many years, modern republicans would have no issues celebrating their important victory over slavery, right? They’d be all in on tearing down the treasonous, democrat participation trophies we refer to as statues, right? They’d be fighting the democrats’ attempt to rewrite/ erase history and indoctrinate our school children with Lost Cause propaganda, right? They would be outraged at the sight of the confederate battle flag being flown, celebrated, and paraded at political rallies as it is a symbol of an enemy state that waged a war against America, right? After all, republicans are still the part of Lincoln, right?!
When my extended family crows about Republicans being the party of Lincoln I like to say "You're right and that was really great! Refresh my memory though, what have the Republicans done for Black people in the last 70 years?." Never gotten an answer.
Tell them that Lincoln and Marx wrote letters to each other. Or how they were the party of big government (hence the federal power of ending slavery) and how the other party was screaming about states' rights. What are Republicans saying *now*?
>Tell them that Lincoln and Marx wrote letters to each other. Whoa is this true?! Mind. BLOWN.
We need to stop talking about the Civil War as between the Union army and the Confederate army. Lets call it what it was: A war between the US and a slaver army
These days they'd be considered terrorists; using violence to try and effect political change. They didn't like that Lincoln won the election, so they got their guns out and started attacking federal troops.
She is one confused token.
No, she's an ambitious and self-serving politician in the worst possible way. Haley knows full well what the root cause of the Civil War was, but she doesn't want to alienate her racist voting base by acknowledging reality. These videos are a perfect example of Nikki's cowardice, but even more so, they are such a damning indictment of the right wing voters and how utterly grotesque and out of control they are.
>No, she’s an ambitious and self-serving politician in the worst possible way. Worse then Trump? Who might not care about anyone other then himself
“I’m not racist, my son in law is Black!” -Nimarata “Nikki” Haley, probably
I don't understand why people are parading around her first name like it's an insult ... it feels like 2008 when Obama's middle name was being treated the same way
Someone should ask her why she feels the need to hide it.
I think Ted Cruz should ask her that.
Let's check her birth certificate. It's the Republican way!
According to Wiki, "Nikki" has been her Punjabi nickname since she was born. It's just convenient that it's also a typical American white given name ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ And then she married a white guy and took his surname to erase the rest ¯\\\_/¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯\\\_/¯ It's a shame that she probably can't tout her "successful Sikh immigrant family" backstory to her own voting base though I still don't like the idea of using what she calls herself as some sort of "gotcha" ammunition. She's got enough faults to kill her candidacy as it is
Does anyone think pointing it out is actually a gotcha or anything like that? I thought we were just pointing out their hypocrisy. Where’s Nikki’s long form birth certificate?
This
Nimrod Nikki Haley
Trump is confused, she’s not. She’s just telling the shit voter base what they want to hear.
A 2010 video of Nikki Haley has resurfaced amid fallout from the former South Carolina governor not citing slavery as a cause of the Civil War at a New Hampshire town hall. Haley has been in cleanup mode all of Thursday, declaring in a New Hampshire radio interview and in another town hall that "of course" the Civil War was about slavery. She also accused the voter she verbally sparred with on the subject on Wednesday a "Democrat plant." She also noted at her Thursday town hall her decision to remove the Confederate flag from the state capitol while serving as governor in 2015. Haley was asked the very same question about the cause of the Civil War in 2010. She described the conflict as "tradition versus change." "I mean, again, as we look at government, as we watch government, you have different sides, and I think that you see passions on different sides, and I don't think anyone does anything out of hate. I think what they do is, they do things out of tradition and their beliefs about what they believe is right," she said. "I think you had one side of the Civil War that was fighting for tradition, and I think you had another side of the Civil War that was fighting for change. At the end of the day, what I think we need to remember is that, you know, everyone is supposed to have their rights, everyone is supposed to be free, everyone's supposed to have the same freedoms as everyone else so I think it was tradition versus change. That's the way I see it."
So many mentions of "freedoms" and "rights" but doesn't mention that the Confederates were killing one group of people to preserve their own ability to strip another group of their "freedoms" and "rights." They fully believed (and still do, apparently) that their own freedoms and rights override those of non-whites/non-Christians.
It’s like a putt, except she’s *trying* to bounce off the lip of the hole — and back out.
> I don't think anyone does anything out of hate Really? How do we explain the KKK even after they lost the war? How do we explain the threats made on judges today? How do we explain the anti-semitism from the right wing?
That's the best part. You can't argue logic with people who choose illogical positions. This kills the crab.
Democrat myth?
The tradition to do what, Nikki?
This sounds like the way a hostage would talk to their captor if they had hope for surviving the situation.
>At the end of the day, what I think we need to remember is that, you know, everyone is supposed to have their rights, everyone is supposed to be free, everyone's supposed to have the same freedoms as everyone else so I think it was tradition versus change. That's the way I see it." So when she says "everyone" does she mean white people only (like Conservatives usually do) and Tradition vs Change were equally valuable because whites on both sides should have the right/freedom to do as they please, or does "everyone" include Blacks as well who had no rights or freedom? Because if everyone is supposed to have rights, be free, and have the same freedom as everyone else then she's saying "Tradition" was de facto immoral.
Yes, the tradition of slavery and the change of no longer having slavery.
She can't even bring herself to use the word "progress." Tradition is never a valid reason to stop progress.
> She also accused the voter she verbally sparred with on the subject on Wednesday a "Democrat plant." It's a fairly common question to ask politicians. That isn't a trap question at all. The question is about gauging a basic understanding of history and politics in the US. That's why there's a video of Haley answering the exact same question in 2010. New Hampshire also has an open primary. So independents and Democrats can vote for Republicans in the primary. It isn't just supposed to be Republicans voting and asking questions.
Reminds me of when Sarah Palin complained that "what are you reading?" was a "gotcha" question. It's only a trap *for people who don't read.*
She’s not interested in being president of all Americans, just her side.
It wasn't about slavery, it was the tradition of a way of life in a culture of pride in the heritage of an institution of slavery.
She is a White Supremacist or promotes White Supremacy for her own benefit. She is nasty
The 2010 video also showcases her lack of southern accent…
I wouldn't expect someone with the name Nimrata Randhawa to have a southern accent. She probably doesn't even know how to cook her greens or chicken.
Her new accent is quite southern
So like Oxford educated turned Republican John Kennedy?
Lol I didn’t know that, but yes.
Louisiana here. I hate that damn foghorn Leghorn accent he puts on with every fiber of my being. He's a well-educated man who has good speaking ability and good diction. But you wouldn't know it cuz he's got to talk to the ribs like he's one of but you wouldn't know it cuz he's got to talk to the rubes like he's one of them.
I mean she was born in South Carolina lol
Yes, but her parents probably got her a real education
She was born in South Carolina.
She’s a republican. Not a surprise.
Size of oof: substantial
Tradition of what?
Tradition of heritage of course /s
This might actually sink her. I mean, wow.
It absolutely should, but it won't among this Republican base.
Her gender and skin tone will ultimately sink her amongst the republican base.
True statement. Just when you think they can't go lower, "hold my beer".
Why? She said something the base believes and then walked it back so her donors don’t think she’s crazy.
She's the 2nd frontrunner right now b/c she's seen as pragmatic (abortion). This is a very unpragmatic position. (Civil War was about making Southerners look bad.)
Looking un pragmatic on the Civil War isn’t a deal breaker for any republican. And as far as the Maga base goes, it would be more damaging to her campaign to denounce the confederacy than it would be to accurately portray the historical cause of the Civil War.
The Hitler quotes were the first thing I've seen ding Trump. I think there are a lot of non-racist (insofar as anyone can not be racist) conservatives that are getting sick of how hard it is to argue that they aren't racist by proxy.
She was already sunk. Trump will be the nominee.
Good. I was hoping she would be exposed.
The outrage is only on the left
So when I moved from NYC to South Carolina and sent my kids to public school, I anticipated a fight over how they taught the history of the Civil War. I was sure that they were going to do the standard whitewash bs about states rights, but was pleasantly surprised when they told the story straight. Can't stand Nikki Haley, and many here in South Carolina are a lost cause to the red cult, but I'm happy to report that at some level the Charleston School District has its shit together.
lets make Nikkki Haley a thing
Let’s make Nimarata Randhawa a thing.
pretty strong argument against tradition…
NiKKKi Haley.
Fuck this lady, but someone should also ask Trump this question. Does he even take questions anymore?
His whole campaign at this point seems to be dictatorposting on truth social.
A reflection not just of MAGA's unwillingness to comprehend history that makes white people look bad but of South Carolina's inability to come to terms with its slavery past. "Heritage not Hate" the bumper stickers read...but exactly what made the "glory days" of its heritage possible?
The tradition of owning humans as cattle
You're not on the same team, Nimarata. The Republicans would happily enslave you if they could
I always find it hilarious. These people want slavery back so much but refuse to own it when asked. They know exactly why the civil war happened.
Charleston City Market, the “Cultural Center of Charleston” literally has a Daughters of the Confederacy museum on top of it. Descendants of slaves who live in effectively segregated neighborhoods sell sweetgrass baskets below a museum that celebrates the war effort to keep their ancestors in bondage. That sums up the city that’s the pride of SC, and Haley was the successful governor of that state. Zero shock here.
Nimarata Randhawa denies her own name. That should tell everyone all they need to know.
>I think you had one side of the Civil War that was fighting for tradition, and I think you had another side of the Civil War that was fighting for change. I'm curious which side she thinks was fighting for tradition and which was fighting for change. The North's motivation was the preservation of the union. The South was attempting to form a new government.
Leaving this here without comment, it stands on its own merits https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
but they were the change, party of Lincoln and all... it should be easy to take the cake here on the Republican Party having been "on the right side of history" back then. they just can't seem to offend social conservatives for some reason.
Were there other things that led up to the Civil War and secession? Sure. The fear of a more involved federal government had been growing in the south. It’s completely ignorant and revisionist to suggest that slavery was not the straw that broke the camels back ***and*** the rallying cry of the south during the Civil War. It is referenced in all of the secession documents as a main reason for secession and rebellion, before Lincoln had even done anything about slavery I might add.
Based Dark Brandon set the record straight for Nimarata Randhawa https://x.com/joebiden/status/1740221284284256645?s=46&t=ZziqbcLEiv7YE3mEbP34tw
Maybe she supports the Indian caste system and that’s why she won’t say slavery
Gotta realize some people are still sad over the no slaves thing. I mean states rights.
According to Nikki Haley…. Slavery = Tradition. The politician that won’t denounce slavery because they are afraid of losing votes should never be president.
Yeah…the tradition of **SLAVERY**
It's worth noting that according to the 1860 census 703,000 people lived in South Carolina. Of them, only white men, roughly 96,000 people (around 14%), could have been eligible to vote. Source: [https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/population/1860a-32.pdf](https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/population/1860a-32.pdf)
Ah yes, that sweet tradition of keeping slaves at home.
The tradition being the keeping of human beings as slaves.
She’s right- except the tradition was slavery and the change was freedom for slaves.
What tradition were they fighting to save from change Nikki?
The North violated our states rights by making the South shoot first! Coincidentally during the same time period the South was politely demanding that they had the right to go into other states and take *property* regardless of state laws 🤡
Not only was the Civil War about slavery, but the Revolutionary War as well.
conservation vs. progress
Go look at some old Biden videos. They are politicians. They lie, it’s in the job description.
I guess at this point - folks are assuming that she has a pretty good chance of being the republican nominee? Now it's time to turn her into a racist.
She may well not have a racist bone in her body. But she's obviously, cynically, shamelessly, eagerly, and willfully ignorantly courting racists
Yeah, because traditions people have no choice about participating in because of their complexion are *totally* not racism.
Her beliefs make no space for the rights of those enslaved. Or their humanity. She sees them as a commodity. The only way she could say what she said is if she believes the slaves and their descendants are sub human.
FYI, Nikki: "tradition" always loses.
I guess I'm a little out of the loop; help is appreciated. Is the new thing for the GOP the denial of slavery in the US? Akin to the Holocaust never happened?
Don’t try to credit her with knowing anything about the Civil War. Tradition versus change was for anything but the Civil War.
Republican = Racist
Yes, a perfect description of a conservative, resistant to change.
“What caused the second one?” “ 🤷♂️ they wanted a rematch maybe? Either that or they couldn’t handle a black mermaid?”
This implies that she thinks the good guys lost.
Is she planning on leading the nation into civil war every time there is a change of tradition? What level of change qualifies for civil war? Does changing the tradition of allowing abortion meet that bar?
I do find it interesting how the media in general is (rightly) raking Nikki Haley across the coals for this, but if that exact answer came from Trump he'd probably be praised for his "diplomatic and nuanced response" or something lol
The tradition of slavery versus the change of no longer allowing slavery.
One hundred sixty years ago, Ms. Haley would clearly have been part of the confederacy. That’s not presidential timbre.
*Which* change exactly, Nikki? Dodging the important bit once again. How much of Southern Civil War discourse is “if we avoid elaborating we can pretend it wasn’t all about racial supremacy and slavery”, because as an outsider it looks like a good chunk.
Duhh I thought was about her recent attempt at answering that question.
Ramaswamy could have a field day with this one 😂
Fuck your “tradition”! If it were up to conservatives of the time, we’d still be under the rule of Great Britain. So put your Gadsden flags away, you want to be tread on by an autocrat!
The south wants to pretend that slave owners were all about relaxing and sipping ice tea on the porch. In reality they were ruthless capitalists. There was no tradition about it. All their grandfathers would have been stunned to see how profitable and huge southern cotton would become.
Oh, so it was a trick question…
Stupid fnb, eat a turd and expire slowly.
Something, something, there are tapes!
Wretched woman.
Just look at the number of stories on this news feed about Haley, the press’ must think shes doing pretty well with republicans to be this frothing in their coverage 🤣
So? People change their opinion. That’s what I’ve been told about the last few political people
The ultimate cause of the American Civil War was a fundamental dispute over the power of the federal government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states.
Come on Nimratta… you know better.
Which is really what Civil War 2.0 will be about 🙄