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

You are probably on the right track. I don't think we get to determine our own morality; I believe there are moral absolutes. That flies in the face of a lot of the left, that is why I called them out. but the right is probably not much better.

 

So I gather we’ve disabused the notion that slavery was the cause of the Civil War and we’re moving on to more relevant matters ?

 

Who said it does? However, I have the right to convince you that you are wrong, or, failing that, convince everybody else that you are wrong.

 

It was the reason for the Civil War. It was the reason that the states left the Union (according to those states) and leaving the union resulted in the Civil War. Sorry that doesn't make you feel good, but it is the truth.

 

There is one person that has presented the moral relativist point on slavery on this thread. You did not call them out.

 

This is manifestly false even if the preservation of slavery was South Carolina’s impetus for seceding. And I’ve posted a sampling of Lincoln’s quotes that destroy the notion. And it’s not about feeling good. It’s about pushing back on bedtime stories.

 

Technically, 'slavery' is still legal. You'll note that the Constitutional amendment expressly carves out an exception to the prohibition for the State, for criminals. Behold:

AMENDMENT XIII

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
​

Perhaps the next great conflict in the states will be a war over the criminals' incarceration...and a century and a half from now, folks will be decrying the incredibly immoral and primitive notion of daring to incarcerate other human beings, for merely failing to observe the law....and criminals' descendants will be demanding reparations..

Just say'n...

 

My assumption was that you were going to say that your objective or absolute morality comes from the Bible while suggesting the left does not have access to such a source of morality.

In that case, I'd first note that there are many Christians (and folks of other religious traditions) who are considered part of the left; it's not like everybody on the left is atheist.

Second, I'm not sure that the Bible clearly condemns slavery. People can certainly argue that it does, but it's worth noting that Christian nations and peoples went through the vast majority of their history without adopting that interpretation. If morality is purportedly not only absolute but also objectively accessible and available (at least to Christians), why did it take so long for Christians to come to the current viewpoint?

 

So South Carolina (and it wasn't just them) lists slavery as their reason for leaving the union. Lincoln wants to preserve the Union. As such, slavery caused the Civil War, as the threat to preserving the Union was due to South Carolina's position on slavery.

 

I by all means realize and know firsthand left leaning Christians and by no means am saying you can't be left and still be a Christian.
I was not really intending to mean the bible gives us rights and set morals, was more wanting to say that as the constitution says that our rights are granted by the creator not by man. With that, I believe we have moral absolutes. And yes, I believe slavery is immoral, just as I believe murder and stealing is immoral. I don't think that is my judgement to determine, I think it just is absolute.

 

I think anyone trying to argue that the civil war was only about slavery is wrong, just anyone trying to argue that slavery wasn't a large driving force of the civil war is wrong.

 

If not for differences due to slavery, there wouldn't have been a Civil War. The same can't be said for tariff policies or other points of conflict (e.g., how the federal government paid states to fight Native American populations).

 

That is your opinion, and it holds no greater weight than mine.

 

So you think that South Carolina would have seceded based on tariffs alone?

 

Your secessionist sympathies don't change why they seceded, which was slavery. And that secession led to a war. And no, the Revolutionary War was not secession, as they were colonies, not portions of the UK as a whole (i.e., they did not have representation in the Parliament).

 

Overbearing husband: “If you leave me, I swear I’ll shoot you!”

Disgruntled wife: “You see ? It’s that kind of attitude that I can no longer tolerate. I’m leaving you!”

*BAM*

Overbearing husband: “I’m sorry I had to do that. But you caused it!”

 

I knew you were a colonizer.

 

Was South Carolina the only southern state in the Civil War?

 

Funny how you need to reframe the people saying "In theory, we don't think you should get to own people" into abusive husbands. A fascinating glimpse into framing.

 

No. They were the first. But you can also look to the reasons that Texas or Mississippi listed as well. For example, here are the first two paragraphs of Mississippi's Article of Secession: