- cross-posted to:
- politics@kbin.social
- cross-posted to:
- politics@kbin.social
Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley is facing backlash after she was asked on Wednesday what caused the Civil War and failed to include slavery in her answer, instead saying the conflict was about state’s rights. On Thursday, she attempted to walk back the comments, saying that slavery was an “unquestioned” aspect of the Civil War. Her words come just weeks before the first presidential primary. Christina Ruffini reports from Washington, D.C.
I mean no, they’re not wrong it is about states rights in relation to owning people, it can be both and also a interstate b trade dispute which is why they wanted the federal government to step in.
Essentially “we’re losing in trade to x because slaves are running to x so they can be free” and then they asked the federal government to step in and say slaves that escaped to the States should still be seen as property and not granted freedom. The federal government took no stance and are largely at fault by inactivity.
Yes they did fight for the right for slavery to stay legal in their states, but they were totally against state’s rights when it came to other aspects of slavery. The fugitive slave law and other acts by the federal government attempted to impose slavery rights in northern states. It’s not that the southern states had some high minded principle of the autonomy of states or something. Only when it would result in something they wanted, like slavery. Otherwise they were happy to discard “states’ rights.”
Well no again, they saw it as a states rights thing on their end and an encroachment on those rights by neighboring free states. Sure, the feds did indeed make trivial attempts to squash the issue but tried to take a idiotic middle ground of appeasement when it should have been a military march into the slave holding states and an occupation thereof.
It’s a trade dispute, the trade is just morally wrong.
Your statement makes no sense. Think of the classical personal rights metaphor, “Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.” In more abstract terms, your rights should be uninpinged until such point that they impinge on my rights, premised by the agreement that our rights are equal otherwise.
Now let’s look at state’s rights. If state’s are required to allow slavery, that is giving more rights to the states that have slavery than it is to the states that don’t. If slavery are required to not allow slavery, that is giving more rights to the states that don’t have slavery. The stance that best reflects state’s rights as being equal unless they impinge on the other states is to allow those who want slavery to have it and to allow those states that don’t want slavery to abolish it. From a practical standpoint, that also means that bringing your slaves to a state that abolishes slavery frees them, otherwise the laws from your state have greater authority than the laws of the state you are actually operating in, which doesn’t meet the basis of equal unless they impinge. That also means if your slaves escape to a free state, it is your responsibility and not the free state’s to stop them from entering that state, and certainly returning them isn’t an obligation since that would violate their law that no person can be enslaved.
As has been pointed out previously, this was the state of things until a federal law was enacted to reduce the rights of the states who opposed slavery, which wasn’t enforced adequately (in the opinion of the slave-holding states).
So, if you want to use the fig leaf of the Civil War being about state’s rights, then the only way that makes sense is if the seceeding states wanted states to have fewer rights, not more. Of course, there is also the option of denying reality and saying whatever makes you feel best, facts and logic be damned.
I never said racism makes sense nor racists for that matter. What they believe and what is logical to believe clearly don’t match up so why are you trying to make the illogical logical.