Nikki Haley acknowledges Civil War ‘about slavery’ after facing backlash

Explain my hypocrisy?

 

One of these statements is a lie. I am not sure which one.

 

But you are wrong. The Civil War can be discussed dispassionately. No passions are inflamed on my part. Of anything, I believe you are the one whose emotions are getting the best of you.

 

You had earlier accused me of lying when I recounted how a friend had been arrested for not wearing a mask.

With her consent, I invited you to visit her Facebook page to scrutinize videos and documents.

*crickets*

It seems to be a pattern of yours when your bluff is called.

 

Was the reporter who ambushed Haley looking for a dispassionate discussion ?

 

Ambushed? It was a simple question.

 

I don't understand Haley if, as I suspect, she walks on egg shells because she wants to be Trump's vice president. Even if that's not her aim, I don't understand how anyone who accepts the vp position expects to defend Trump during the course of the presidential campaign. Just mimic him by saying over and over he "didn't do anything wrong"? It seems pretty clear to me that the vp candidate is going to have to be just another MAGA POS like Bannon or (wouldn't this be wonderful?) Giuliani. IOW just go full bore with "the base" and hope for the best.

 

But again, or for the fourth or fifth time, why ?

 

She doesn’t want to torpedo her chances to run with the infamous neo-Confederate Trump.

 

Was she asked this before? I’m not aware? I suppose it’s to bring attention to her position on it. If it’s an acceptable position, she should be glad that she’s being given the chance to answer. Politicians are asked the same questions over and over at each appearance, so why is it an issue? It’s an issue because you know, and Haley knows, that her answer is unacceptable.

 

Why ask a child of Indian immigrants her position on events of 163 years prior ? Was she suspected of harboring black slaves in her home ?

In any case, sounds like she allowed herself to being bullied into regurgitating the politically expedient answer.

 

What?

Ok, you lost me. The Indian ancestry part is irrelevant. I am an American born descendant of Haitian immigrants, so she and I are similar in that respect. If I was running for political office and you asked me what started the Civil War, my ancestry does not come into play.

 

Why would I ask you about the Nat Turner rebellion if you were running for office ?

 

The Nat Turner rebellion isn’t presently a controversial topic that indicates a certain view on larger issues.

Why were the Ivy League Presidents asked about their harassment and bullying policies with respect to anti-Semitism recently? It’s because it’s relevant, currently. Civil War denialism is a hot issue now. Let’s not be obtuse.

 

What is Civil War denialism ?

 

I don't think there was really a Civil War. All those famous battles were just demonstrations and protests that got out of hand. There were some fine people on both sides. A lot of people got killed in these protests and counter-protests, but like that violence at Gettsyburg, for example, as it was happening Lincoln, like Trump on January 6, just sat there in the White House and did nothing to stop it, even though he couldn't even watch it on TV. He later used it as an excuse to go there and make an overrated speech, even mentioning four scores, as if his sex life had anything to do with it. I could go on, but I know I'll get a lot of come on mans and disagrees, so I'll leave it at that.

 

To the contrary, it wasn’t a bunch of buffalo horn eccentrics taking selfies with Capitol guards and then going home when told to. It was an actual national tragedy that savaged a generation of men, set the Northern economy back for a decade and the Southern economy back for a century.

 

Denying that slavery was the underlying cause of the Civil War by attempting to generalize the issue as a matter of State’s Rights or Northern aggression. Essentially, it’s mythology of the “Lost Cause of the Confederacy”.

BTW, I see how you jump from one question to the other as a means of distraction. Just keep bringing up new questions and topics.

 

The reason why people like me generalize, as you say, is because of people like Lincoln …

“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgement, will probably forever forbid their living together on the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes necessary that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary.”

— Lincoln debating Douglas in 1858 —

“I have no purpose to, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe that I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

— Lincoln during his inaugural address —

“1861 —

“Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this..We cannot make them equals.”

— Abraham Lincoln in 1863 —

1861 —

“Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this..We cannot make them equals.”

— Abraham Lincoln in 1863 —

 

We are not arguing the sanctity of Lincoln’s personal beliefs on race. We are are talking about the reason why the North and South were at war.

I really don’t see how you earned a history degree from UF. We were expected to perform logical analysis and how to make cohesive arguments in order to graduate. None of my peers were so casual in their approach. By the time you were a junior or senior, you were already a serious historian.